So much for DISCLOSURE! Citizens Hearing on Disclosure demands takedown of youtube videos.

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by signalfire
So, OP, next time you write a song, produce a video or do anything else that takes mental ability, time and effort, we can expect you to post it for free on the internet and make it available to anyone, anywhere including sites that also post porn, etc?


You clearly missed the point. It takes great skill, intellectual ability, time and effort to break into a bank, steal our money and then get out of it without being arrested. That does not make it right.


And you won't mind your intellectual property being used by other people to make money, and cheating you out of your due?


Again: they did NOT present this as theatre. This is not their 'business' (or so they say, I believe otherwise). Also, it has become quite common to let go of 'intellectual property' and give away the fruits of your mental ability to the community that supports you. I run Linux. My phone runs Android, as do most nowadays. Then there are indeed thousands of writers that give away their books, songs, poems, artwork - for free. Google 'GPL' or 'Creative Commons'.


Good to know. Get cracking and make something of value. We'll be all over it...


Actually, that says more about your ethics than it does about his. Also, many people that give away their work - volunteers, Open Source writers, artist etc. - do not expect anything in return. They do this as a service to their community. Free. Both as in 'beer' and 'speech'. Basset could have chosen to publish the hearings under the CC, for example. That would still give him the right to take it down from sites that he felt were inappropriate and still would have given the world the chance to see and hear all about the alien presence. Which, IFFF there is something to it (which, in as far as I have seen, read and heard there is not, but anyway) would really have helped 'disclosure' (sigh) more than anything else.

As it is now, it is clear to all - and face it: even to you - that this was a moneymaking scam.
And a shame, because IFF (again a big IFF) there were people in there that really had a story to tell that might have helped us to discover what is going on, their evidence now effectively has been rendered useless because it was tainted by the likes of Basset and Greer. BTW: you refer to pornsites and that the vids were brought down there - if Basset had put these vids under the CC they would probably not even been uploaded there. I can hardly imagine people to get sexually aroused whilst seeing Sheehan.. well.. come to think about it .. oh, let's not go there



And by the way, the evening's 'extra' lectures were well worth the four bucks. Lots of stuff I'd never heard before, especially the Richard Dolan talk, I believe it was Tuesday night.


They may have been. Though one evening they were just a shameless plug for the movie 'Sirius'. Anyway, I don't mind at all if people want to spent money on trash. But you don't go around and create the illusion that you are doing serious work (a hearing) meant to discuss a very controversial subject (aliens visiting us), when all in fact you do is recant the same stuff that has been out there for years. As one of the posters in here said: the same turd, wrapped in a shiny foil, with a bow.




posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by fedeykin
 

So while I understand it's tempting to lump the lot of them together. There are credible cases with real field data that deserve serious study. Painting them all with the same brush eliminates that possibility.


Agreed. Careful analysis of those cases might help us solve the puzzle. But they are now tainted by the charade that was put on. Conspiracy theorists might even think it was done intentionally, to discredit the witnesses. I don't think so. Greed seems to be the more logical explanation.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Lots of fumes over nothing.

They disclosed. You've been all discussing it here for some time. For free.

They have a right to enforce their copyrights. You can bitch and moan about it, but it's their choice and right.

You have a right to bitch and moan. That's ok too.

They have a right to turn this into a money making venture and disclose more.

What went wrong? Who was killed? Who's the murderer?

If you think about it, there's no crime here, just personal, non-universal moral sensibilities and egos being hurt.

Tha'ts all.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pathaka
Lots of fumes over nothing.

They disclosed. You've been all discussing it here for some time. For free.



No, they did not. They simply repeated what others have said for decades. And sold that as 'disclosure'. There was no new 'evidence' (if any at all) presented. Disclosure would have gotten mainstream attention comparable and probably exceeding the attention 9/11 got. It did not happen.


They have a right to enforce their copyrights. You can bitch and moan about it, but it's their choice and right.


I'm not bitchin nor moaning about it. They have a right to do that. But ask yourself the question: if you had solid proof that somebody would murder somebody else, would you then go to the police and say "I want cash, or else I don't disclose to you what I know?" - well, if you did, it would be a cold day in hell before they let you get away with that. Now, that's just a murder. If you had evidence that aliens were doing the same, on a massive scale (abductions, mutilations) - wouldn't the first thing you would do is simply report it to the police and present your evidence? And if they did not listen, wouldn't you contact the press, and give them all the details you had?


They have a right to turn this into a money making venture and disclose more.


I can't recall anybody in here saying it is ILLEGAL what they did. It's unethical. It's business, no disclosure.


What went wrong? Who was killed? Who's the murderer?


Again: a number of people report abductions, people going missing, being found with their behinds cut out or their genitals lasered out (dead as a doornail). Don't ask me why any alien would do that, but nevertheless, it is being told it happens. People are being abused. Cattle is being abused and killed. People are being scared out of their wits and kidnapped. What more do you need to go to the police and report this, presenting the evidence?


If you think about it, there's no crime here, just personal, non-universal moral sensibilities and egos being hurt. Tha'ts all.


Yep. That's one way to put it. Well, I don't know about the others, but can assure you me ego is fine, thank you
. But yes, my 'moral sensibilities' have been hurt a bit. See, I simply don't like it much when potential victims of a crime (abduction, mutilation, kidnapping, scaring children) are being used to make money.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pathaka

They disclosed. You've been all discussing it here for some time. For free.



But no one has been discussing the content of the show, just the ethics of the event. The debate is about the morality of the organisers.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by torsion
 


For the record, the necklace being worn by Daniel Sheehan IS NOT MADE BY DAVID SEREDA. They are not even the same design, not even close. Daniel Sheehan is wearing a necklace. Besides, the picture you showed is way too small and blurry to even tell, but if you have absolute proof that it is Sereda's show it. It has nothing to do with remote viewing or any of the other things you mentioned. You just made a move to try to suggest that it absolutely was, as an empirical fact, made by David Sereda and cost $400. Where is your proof? 13 other ignorant people starred your post as if you just shared some scoop. Wherein you actually totally fabricated the entire post and misconstrued the facts. Whether or not Sheehan and Sereda meditate and are interested in Eastern mysticism or expanded consciousness is totally irrelevant. It's a diversion tactic created by an atheist skeptic with what seems like an agenda at debunking anyone associated with the so-called "disclosure" and/or New Age movement. Either way, you are totally wrong, you made it up, you embellished it and purposely went out of your way to make it sound ridiculous and like a scam. Hypocrite much? Clearly ATS is the hub for people like you and I do not appreciate what you are doing. What you just did there should be considered a violation, but instead I got silenced for explaining to you exactly what you are.

Why didn't you say anything about the fact that Daniel Sheehan is actually an attorney who graduated from Harvard and was instrumental in releasing the Pentagon Papers, was involved in exposing the Iran Contra conspiracy as well as the Karen Silkwood case? Chances are you haven't heard of any of those things, but you will likely spend 5 minutes Googling it to try to find information that debunks it. I don't intend on spending any large amount of time trying to educate somebody such as yourself, who by all indications has an ulterior agenda here, but I will share part of Sheehan's legal history from Wikipedia for other people to be aware of.


The Christic Institute was a public interest law firm founded in 1980 by Daniel Sheehan, his wife, Sara Nelson and their partner, William J. Davis, who was a Jesuit priest. Its headquarters were based in Washington, D.C. with several offices in other major United States cities, such as San Francisco, California. The Institute received some of its funding from the New World Foundation.

The institute first gained national prominence in a successful lawsuit against the Kerr-McGee Nuclear Power Company, representing Karen Silkwood, a battle that was later made into the motion picture, Silkwood. The firm also won a civil verdict against members of the Ku Klux Klan, the American Nazi Party, and the Greensboro, North Carolina Police Department for the 1979 murder of five anti-Klan demonstrators.

The law firm's most high-profile case was Avirgan v. Hull, filed on behalf of journalists Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey against more than two dozen individuals, some of whom were to emerge as figures in the Iran-Contra scandals. Avirgan was present at the La Penca bombing of a press conference being held by Nicaraguan Contra leader Edén Pastora. Three journalists were killed and Pastora and Avirgan were among the wounded. In 1985, Avirgan and Honey charged a reputed CIA contract employee, John Floyd Hull, of being involved in the La Penca bombing. Hull unsuccessfully sued the reporters for defamation, who had retained the Institute's Sheehan as counsel. Shortly afterward, Sheehan and the Institute brought a massive Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) suit, charging that the La Penca bombing was a result of a conspiracy carried out by a "secret team" that had operated since the 1950s outside the control of government oversight.
edit on 17-5-2013 by corsair00 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by torsion

Originally posted by Pathaka

They disclosed. You've been all discussing it here for some time. For free.



But no one has been discussing the content of the show, just the ethics of the event. The debate is about the morality of the organisers.


Indeed. And maybe Pathaka, my friend, you now realise the power of voluntary work and giving away services to others for free. ATS is also a business of sorts, but I don't think they will ever ask us for money to run it.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by torsion
 


Nobody is going to spend any length of time doing a write-up and review of the Citizen Hearing for people like you to trash. You are going to do that no matter what somebody says. ATS seems to only contain people from the polar opposite sides on the UFO issue. Lunatic fringe believers whose minds are so open their brains are falling out, and totally irrational skeptics who absolutely refuse to genuinely look into specific issues with an open mind because their minds are so rigid and made up, that they just enact a relentless attack on ALL of the information.

ATS. I am totally disappointed in this forum. I no longer think it's even relevant - and certainly it is a waste of MY time as of late...



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by corsair00
reply to post by torsion
 

It's a diversion tactic created by an atheist skeptic


I'm not sure if the member you are refering to is an atheist, but the way you use the term at least strongly suggests that you dislike atheists. And the sentence also suggests that atheists might, by default, be wrong about everything simply because they are atheists. I don't want to offend, merely point out that the way you connect atheism to skepticism and 'diversion tactics' suggests that you think that having a religion and being a believer in UFO's is a guarantee for not trying to use diversion tactics. That's absurd.


with what seems like an agenda at debunking anyone associated with the so-called "disclosure" and/or New Age movement.


I must say the do a very good job of discrediting themselves without our help. Which, as has been pointed out here many times, is a shame, because there are elements in their stories that may well be true, need to be investigated, but nobody does, because they don't want to be associated with the clowns that surround these fields.


Why didn't you say anything about the fact that Daniel Sheehan is actually an attorney who graduated from Harvard and was instrumental in releasing the Pentagon Papers, was involved in exposing the Iran Contra conspiracy as well as the Karen Silkwood case?


Being good at one thing does not mean that you are good at something else. Nor does having had an education and be able to make a living off it is a guarantee for correct behaviour. Ever heard of a guy called Richard Nixon? Or that other president, who had a very good education too but lied about the places where he'd put his cigars? .. Does the name 'Enron' ring a bell to you? Anderson, perhaps? Well, you'll undoubtedly agree with me then that these fine folks ALL had a tremendous education and you can't get much higher than being the President (at least not in America, I believe).




The Christic Institute was a public interest law firm founded in 1980 by Daniel Sheehan, his wife, Sara Nelson and their partner, William J. Davis, who was a Jesuit priest. Its headquarters were based in Washington, D.C. with several offices in other major United States cities, such as San Francisco, California. The Institute received some of its funding from the New World Foundation.



There .. you did it
- A 'christic' institute? Founded by a JESUIT priest? Whoaaaaa... tread carefully here, as the conspiracy theorists in here will tear you apart..

Now on a more serious note: Sheehan and his firm have done excellent work. As has Nixon. Or Clinton. But that does not give us a guarantee that they will continue to do excellent work, nor that if they tread outside their field of knowledge, they are specialists there too. A lawyer is not a psychologist, field reseracher, cop, forensic specialist or historian - to name but a few specialists we need to analyse the 'evidence'. If we could see it for free, that is, as - again - paying for evidence is simply not done in a civilised country.
edit on 17-5-2013 by ForteanOrg because: I forgot to include a tag ..



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by corsair00

For the record, the necklace being worn by Daniel Sheehan IS NOT MADE BY DAVID SEREDA. They are not even the same design, not even close. Daniel Sheehan is wearing a necklace. Besides, the picture you showed is way too small and blurry to even tell, but if you have absolute proof that it is Sereda's show it. It has nothing to do with remote viewing or any of the other things you mentioned. You just made a move to try to suggest that it absolutely was, as an empirical fact, made by David Sereda and cost $400. Where is your proof?


I suggest you go back and re-read my post. You will see I pose a question - "Is he wearing one of David Sereda's Galactic Transformer Harmonic Code Universal Balance Pendants?" Note the word "is" and the question mark at the end.

Now you have seemingly answered the question but can you tell us how you know for certain it isn't a Sereda pendant?


Whether or not Sheehan and Sereda meditate and are interested in Eastern mysticism or expanded consciousness is totally irrelevant.


If it's irrelevant why have you brought it up? No one else has mentioned "Eastern mysticism or expanded consciousness".


It's a diversion tactic created by an atheist skeptic with what seems like an agenda at debunking anyone associated with the so-called "disclosure" and/or New Age movement.


All those who are peddling bunk should be debunked.


Either way, you are totally wrong, you made it up, you embellished it and purposely went out of your way to make it sound ridiculous and like a scam.


Regardless of whether Sheehan is actually wearing a genuine Sereda pendant, from Sereda's catalogue we read


At Light Stream Technologies, we not only design quantum jewelry to these shapes, we charge them with the forces of the zero point field or God energy. When you wear these pieces, you are allowing the zero point energy to move through your body and mind in the designs of the creative forces of the universe.

The idea of wearing the L.S.T. pendants is to improve your subtle energy levels for theoretically better thinking, faster action, better balance, and ultimately improved mental powers. These powers can go all the way to broadcasting a more powerful signal to apply to your own insights into the laws of attraction. You may find people get your telepathic messages more clearly and you may also receive them more clearly.


And other users of the same type of pendant report -


"This kind of technology really shows the progress mankind should be making. I can imagine the people of Atlantis and other ancients using this same kind of technology to better themselves and understand the Universe."

"I sleep through the night. When I did not have it, I would wake needing to use the toilet".


Does it need anyone else to make it sound ridiculous and like a scam?


Hypocrite much? Clearly ATS is the hub for people like you and I do not appreciate what you are doing. What you just did there should be considered a violation, but instead I got silenced for explaining to you exactly what you are.


You got "silenced" because you violated ATS T&Cs - hypocrite much?


Why didn't you say anything about the fact that Daniel Sheehan is actually an attorney who graduated from Harvard and was instrumental in releasing the Pentagon Papers, was involved in exposing the Iran Contra conspiracy as well as the Karen Silkwood case?


Because it is irrelevant to the discussion. Kind of like saying Steven Greer is a qualified doctor so his invisible flying saucers must be real!



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


If its real evidence, he should make it available on the internet. Upload it and let anyone have access to it, this way people with the correct training will get their chance at it.

The fact that he is withholding till he finds someone with the "right training" is very suspicious and not acceptable in the internet age.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by fedeykin
 



Originally posted by fedeykin
reply to post by Xtraeme
 


If its real evidence, he should make it available on the internet. Upload it and let anyone have access to it, this way people with the correct training will get their chance at it.

The fact that he is withholding till he finds someone with the "right training" is very suspicious and not acceptable in the internet age.


The printouts are from the 80s. I am not sure if you listened to the whole session, but if you had you would have heard that the originals were given to Reagan's scientific study team. Callahan has a physical copy. It's not digital. In its current state only one person can have it in their possession at a time. He is not withholding anything.

As far as I am aware only 377 pages were made available from the FAA FOIA/press pack. There may be restrictions on the material Callahan has in his possession (e.g. the FAA report, VHS tape, audio cassette, and radar printouts). If there aren't, though, for posterity, it would be nice to see it digitized. However a man of his years is probably unfamiliar with the process to do so. I'll shoot over an email to PRG to see if they can figure out how to help secure the data.
edit on 17-5-2013 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by fedeykin
 

it would be nice to see it digitized. However a man of his years is probably unfamiliar with the process to do so. I'll shoot over an email to PRG to see if they can figure out how to help secure the data.


I applaude the effort you make.

Now, back to the problem: what IS proof? Maybe you could ask him what training a person should have had in his opinion to be able to analyse these papers?

In my opinion, if he is willing to have these papers analysed, a forensic expert (preferably one that specializes in analysis of older documents) should make analysis of the paper, the ink used, the typewriter used, if any written comments, stamps etc. to see if the documents could indeed be as old as he says they are. If there are stamps on it, or hand written comments, it should be determined if they are real and if the stamps were in use on the date the document is said to be created. If the document is classified, at least we should investigate if the classifications were actually in use on the date the document was produced (and can be assumed correct for documents of that era). Also, the contents should be studied: are the words used indeed words that were used in that era? Is it a standard text that we might find in a standard manual of that era (maybe enhanced a bit), or an original text, and if so, is it written in the style you'd expect from such documents (written in that era)? Are there indcations of the mental health of the writer (texts often give indications of that, clear to see for linguistical experts / psychologists)? Can we find any of the names in the document in registers, yearbooks etc. so we can verify these people existed and worked where the document says they did? Are logo's and other marks correct, unaltered and of the correct era (for that type of document)? And there is more to analyse, but you get the point, I guess.

So, simply making a copy of a document is not sufficient to prove anything, it's way too easy to forge such documents. But I think it is a good idea to try to get digital copies anyway, because if it is an obvious fraud, that might even be determined from a copy. And it might make interesting reading.

Taking a notary with you when you go visit the man to make the copies and have the notary sign an affidavit that he has seen the originals and has verified that the copies are genuine copies of the originals might help too.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme

The printouts are from the 80s. I am not sure if you listened to the whole session, but if you had you would have heard that the originals were given to Reagan's scientific study team. Callahan has a physical copy. It's not digital. In its current state only one person can have it in their possession at a time. He is not withholding anything.

As far as I am aware only 377 pages were made available from the FAA FOIA/press pack. There may be restrictions on the material Callahan has in his possession (e.g. the FAA report, VHS tape, audio cassette, and radar printouts). If there aren't, though, for posterity, it would be nice to see it digitized. However a man of his years is probably unfamiliar with the process to do so. I'll shoot over an email to PRG to see if they can figure out how to help secure the data.
edit on 17-5-2013 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



There is no excuse to not make it available. Claiming ignorance of technology doesn't work either, I'm sure this person has some grand children, or maybe some young neighbors with a digital camera and a scanner.

Where there is a will there is a way. It is much more convenient to just say you have something, than to actually show what you have...

"Yes I have undeniable proof of UFOs and Aliens, but I don't know how to get these radar printouts and FAA Reports onto my computer. So you'll have to take my word for it." That doesn't cut it.
edit on 17-5-2013 by fedeykin because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-5-2013 by fedeykin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ForteanOrg
 



I applaude the effort you make.


Thank you for that.


Now, back to the problem: what IS proof?


This might help ...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



reply to post by fedeykin
 



There is no excuse to not make it available.


I am sure Bradley Manning would disagree.


It is much more convenient to just say you have something, than to actually show what you have...


Bits and pieces of data were released by the FAA. I already linked to 377 pages of documentation. Did you look at it? It includes several beacon target reports (see pages 146-159). As for the rest of it, go ahead. Try writing the FAA a strongly worded letter describing how you are entitled to the remainder of the radar printouts (which only a handful of remote sensing engineers are going to know what to do with in the first place) and how you want it for free. Lets see how far you get with that. Callahan's data is available and has been available.

As for the video cassette, transcoding a VHS tape with any degree of fidelity to an AVI requires a decent capture card (that costs money) and slightly above average technical know how. I am willing to help make the resources available to get it into the public domain (maybe we could start a pool on ATS or through kickstarter?). The same is true with old audio cassettes. Though the chatter between the radar controllers and the pilot was already transcribed. So I am not sure how much value that would add, but if you want to hear it for yourself you can watch Blackbox UFOs (@2:46).


"Yes I have undeniable proof of UFOs and Aliens..."


The word UFO does not imply alien spacecraft. It represents an unknown. (e.g. 4 * x = 12, solve for x). ATS would be vastly more enjoyable if people appreciated that distinction.
edit on 17-5-2013 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by ForteanOrg
 

This might help ...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Excellent piece, starred it. However, subjective-objective proof (as in: you were abducted by some greys, say, and tell others about it) will not convince me unless either I had the same (type of) experience, in which case I already was convinced, of course. Scientific proof may also be quite difficult to obtain, as these darned aliens always seem to succeed to escape the 'reproducibilty' required. Even if 1000 people all saw it, but it can't be reproduced (never happens again) it's uncertain in the eyes of scientists (unless to those that were present, of course). And authorities - well, I am aware of the concept, but fail to believe anybody because he wears a nice uniform or hat, holds some position etc. - so it does not work for me either.

Anyway, hope you will succeed in making the documents etc. available on-line. BTW: in as far as I understand the documents ARE copies already, not originals, is that correct? If so, it may prove to be difficult to adequately determine if the paper, ink etc. are indeed authentic..



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ForteanOrg
 



If so, it may prove to be difficult to adequately determine if the paper, ink etc. are indeed authentic..


I think you may be a little confused about the nature of the documents. Radar printouts are just rows and rows, and reams and reams of numbers
. To give you an idea of what it looks like. Here's an example: youtube.com....

I doubt anyone's going to manually sit down and punch in millions of coordinates to print out on an old dot matrix printer to fake the position details. It's not feasible. This is especially true when you consider, that at the time, Callahan was the head of the FAA's accidents and investigations division. There is no question about this. It is simply a matter of record.


1. However, subjective-objective proof ... will not convince me unless either I had the same (type of) experience. ...

2. Even if 1000 people all saw it, but it can't be reproduced (never happens again) it's uncertain in the eyes of scientists ...

3.And authorities - well, I am aware of the concept, but fail to believe anybody because he wears a nice uniform or hat, holds some position


  1. The idea of "subjective-objectivity" is personal proof. It's not meant to convince anyone else. Personally encountering something doesn't require anyone else to tell you that your eyes are working.


  2. Even if something isn't repeatable (take for example SCP 06F6) it's still considered real so long as we gather the data through a trusted channel.

  3. Academicians operate on the principle that those who have published in the past have done so honestly. So we treat historical peer-reviewed articles as being trustworthy despite knowing there are (and continue to be) cases of scientific misconduct, fraud, and malfeasance.

    If other scientists don't know the difference? How should the public? So it's a bit amusing when a layman trumpets a peer-reviewed paper as though it were manna from god. This is "appeal to authority" plain and simple.

    Similarly, if the President of the United States released a joint message through NASA confirming the existence of life visiting our planet. The majority of people on earth would accept the statement as factual, even without evidence, simply because it has the imprimatur of authority.
edit on 18-5-2013 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtraeme
reply to post by ForteanOrg
 

  1. The idea of "subjective-objectivity" is personal proof. It's not meant to convince anyone else. Personally encountering something doesn't require anyone else to tell you that your eyes are working.



I understand. I should have expressed myself better: I meant to say that person X's subjective-objective proof does not convince me. That's what I meant to say.



  • Even if something isn't repeatable (take for example SCP 06F6) it's still considered real so long as we gather the data through a trusted channel.


  • Which brings us to the questions what trust is, why we trust X and not Y. What is such a trusted channel? And whom are the ones trusting, whom are the ones distrusting (and blimey, why..??). There are plenty of people (including me) that permanently or occasionally doubt if we had any moonlandings at all - but wait, I witnessed these landings. Oh but - stop - no, I did not witness them at all, I saw flickering black and white images on my old dog-house TV set in 1969.. and believed that that were actual images of the moon-landings. So, what is a 'trusted channel' then, and if we question authority, how can we ever trust anything..

    But, let's not do a philosophy 101 here. I digress.



  • Academicians operate on the principle that those who have published in the past have done so honestly. So we treat historical peer-reviewed articles as being trustworthy despite knowing there are (and continue to be) cases of scientific misconduct, fraud, and malfeasance.


  • Well, I know a bit about Academia and the problems we're facing when it comes to 'trust' in Academic papers. Hence I fully realize the problems to 'prove' anything to anybody.. what would be required, then, to prove to the 'general public' that - say - extraterrestrials visit Earth.. the so-called disclosure? I wonder.



    If other scientists don't know the difference? How should the public? So it's a bit amusing when a layman from the public trumpets a peer-reviewed paper as though it were manna from god. This is "appeal to authority" plain and simple.


    Agreed. As a popular saying goes: Don't rely on authority. They don't know either.



    Similarly, if the President of the United States released a joint message through NASA confirming the existence of life visiting our planet. The majority of people on earth would accept the statement as factual, even without evidence, simply because it has the imprimatur of authority.


    Correct. Well, maybe we should create a shortlist of what would be considered proof by the public - and what would be considered proof by scientists.

    And maybe we can simply use that list to see if proof has been offered yet to anybody but believers. Who do not require it anyway.



    posted on May, 18 2013 @ 01:42 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by ForteanOrg
    Well, maybe we should create a shortlist of what would be considered proof by the public - and what would be considered proof by scientists.


    There's a way to put this on a scientific footing. It's not going to be easy (and I doubt anyone's going to contribute), but here's a rundown of what's needed... www.abovetopsecret.com...



    posted on May, 18 2013 @ 06:19 PM
    link   
    OMG! It turns out Greer is really a reptilian!!!


    via Imgflip GIF Maker





    new topics

    top topics



     
    21
    << 1  2  3    5 >>

    log in

    join