Beware Of The ‘League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen’. The Con Artists!

Originally posted by boredsilly
Stanton Friedman should not be on that list. I've always found him to be an excellent researcher.

I don't think Nick Pope should be on there either, I find them both very interesting.

reply to post by OrionHunterX


Con Artists imply they are making money off of this, while that applies to many you listed, it doesn't to all.

There are two on your list that I would not have placed there.

Stanton Freidman- He seems to be a rather thoughtful researcher, doesn't get caught up in the really wacky stuff.

John Lear. Say what you will about the man, you can't dismiss his credentials and he does seem to have access to things an ordinary UFO expert wouldn't be able to obtain. I think some of his info is Legit, other parts he leaves you wondering.... I tend to think he isn't conning anyone, just handing out tidbits of truth along with a bunch of chaff.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Aliensun
Carl Sagan would get the prize award for best con.

I agree

He also made that plaque on Pioneer sending a message to the stars showing that white blond people inhabited the Earth



Yup Public Enemy #1

Let us not forget that on the plauque the man was plainly dangling as la Leonardo-style, but the woman was devoid of her receiving part. He and Ann Drufel (sp?) were following the classic Greek stype he said. Now, that really was a gigantic con to put out there to confuse any passing aliens!

reply to post by OrionHunterX

Yes, lots of it is propaganda to make you go insane.
You do something then you regret it, it's how it is and then you get owned.

I wish that one of these days, someone would make a REAL thread that separates the hoaxers from the honest ones. In fact, what I think needs to be done, is a massive catalogue of each prominent member of the UFO/ET/Black Ops investigative community.


To offer some constructive criticism, it seems your criteria in making the list involved personal feelings - such as, "I believe this guy is leading us astray" - opposed to actual evidence that that person is doing so. It's a GREAT project to undertake, I just wish you had spent more time and actually gone into detail for each person mentioned.

And there HAS to be a middle ground labeled "unknown motive", for people like Greer. From one point of view, Greer appears like a horribly corrupt business man. But his pivotal involvement with such noble efforts as The Disclosure Project perhaps should not be marginalized and offer a counterweight to such notions.

That's the big problem here - only a few people on that list have been conclusively shown to be out of their minds or hoaxers. Several of them I agree appear to be completely untrustworthy - but it requires careful scrutiny before labeling them conclusively as a hoaxer.

My 2 cents, fwiw.

reply to post by Turiddu


You present the typical view on Sagan which will, as you say, will live far longer than any of us. I expect no less.

Still, Sagan was a social gad-fly scientist, absolutely hated by many scientists in the several fields that he jumped among.

Without a doubt, he did more to stall the public's acceptance of UFOs a a viable phenomena than any scientist or government report ever published.

The only question is, was he working entirely via his own ego or was it supplemented with a nice, undercover check?

But ;you know what? The truth is as I stated it. He was dishonest, and I dare say, a lier

Those attributes DO diminish his standing in my view..

reply to post by Turiddu


In Sagan's Cosmic Connection he relates how he labored very hard without success to get nightlights put on the Viking Landers to illuminate any nocturnal visitors that maybe would came by to inspect the crafts. The plan was turned down for space/weight considerations.

He DID serve an important role, and undoubtedly had help in that role he played, but he was not the near-god rationalist that some would make him out to be.

Foremost, he was a strong and adament UFO denier once he stepped across the fence into the governmental policy area. That is the way he will be remembered by those that know the reality of UFOs and his history. However, the general public, as you, will hold him up for high adoration.

In what ways did he "stall" disclosure or whatever you want to call it? He had an open mind and was willing to accept the idea of extraterrestrial life, but he wanted the claim to be backed by real and credible evidence.

reply to post by OrionHunterX


On the flip side, who within the UFO field do you trust?

Timothy Good maybe?

Aliens are fake. Get over it.

That one really got me floored.
Thanks for the laughs.
That was 'cute'.

ET, not alien.
Show some respect.....
for 'your' elders.

They're real.
They're here.
.....and you can't get 'over' it.
It's over you.

Ahhhh, you'll see soon enough.
Hang in there wild man.

lOl

I say more power to you and your own opinion. I don't fully agree with the OP and the list at all.

I think David Wilcox is a very mentally unstable young man with real emotional issues and believes everything he says. Stanton Friedman is an individual I have found to be a very credible researcher but I am no expert on the man but I know people like him gain enemies quickly because he is good at debunking and calling it like he sees it from my observations. He is blatantly and brutally honest. David Greer in my opinion is a scam-artist in regards to his money making schemes but I think he has noble intentions and has brought about many others in the alternative community together to try and gain some insight to improving things.

I like David Ike and many others do as well. He shares what he believes and leaves it up to us to decide for ourselves and he actually makes a living doing lectures and writing books. I have yet to ever believe any of his far fetched stuff personally but when he talks about agendas and propaganda and human conditioning etc in rel life terms I can relate and many educated people respect the man. He just shares his observations and doesn't deem anything a fact from what I have seen.

Opinions are like anything else. They are subject to perception. Accusations on the other hand without evidence to back it up is another issue in itself. I try to be objective and open minded and I accept very little anyone has to say as fact without real evidence that can be proven with science and data but one thing I never do is condemn anyone or judge them for what they believe. I may disagree and sometimes even think some people are absolutely insane but then I could be in the same boat myself on some issues but that doesn't mean I am a con-artist. People have a right to share what they believe to be true and to express it however they desire and if they are falsely taking money based on things they claim as fact without real evidence then it's up to consumers to do there homework.

Thanks for the post though. Not much of a con-artist list but more of conjecture in my humble opinion.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by OrionHunterX
- "Dan Burisch", a hoaxster who pretends to have worked at Area 51.

Hmmm well Dan Burisch led me to Los Alamos documents on Project Looking Glass... the real deal...

Oh! So you're talking about the LANL archives? These are just documents, though I must say that most are peer reviewed. But these are just theoretical in nature and we would perhaps not ever know how much contained in those documents have been operationalized!

In other words, Dan pointing you to those documents is no big deal! I can show you more esoteric stuff there but then it would be impossible to know whether such theories have been put into practice!

Originally posted by Aliensun
reply to post by Turiddu

 

In Sagan's Cosmic Connection he relates how he labored very hard without success to get nightlights put on the Viking Landers to illuminate any nocturnal visitors that maybe would came by to inspect the crafts. The plan was turned down for space/weight considerations.

He DID serve an important role, and undoubtedly had help in that role he played, but he was not the near-god rationalist that some would make him out to be.

Foremost, he was a strong and adament UFO denier once he stepped across the fence into the governmental policy area. That is the way he will be remembered by those that know the reality of UFOs and his history. However, the general public, as you, will hold him up for high adoration.

I don't admire the man, I admire the achievements he made. From a scientific stance he showed the potential to research such things was okay. That was a step forward.

Originally posted by PJAmerica
reply to post by Turiddu

 

I don't admire the man, I admire the achievements he made. From a scientific stance he showed the potential to research such things was okay. That was a step forward.

That makes no sense.

He wasn't a trailbalazer as you claim.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by PJAmerica
reply to post by Turiddu

 

I don't admire the man, I admire the achievements he made. From a scientific stance he showed the potential to research such things was okay. That was a step forward.

That makes no sense.

He wasn't a trailbalazer as you claim.

Where did I use the term trailblazer or regard him as one and what part of my statement did you not understand that it makes no sense? It's simply my view in regards to his achievements as a scientist like some before him and after him. He was a person like the rest of us. It's not him I admire but things he brought about through science and those of his peers who felt the same way. Someone is always trying to pick apart another over a peaceful statement.

Originally posted by Romekje
So you are actually telling me that you just debunked Sitchin, his lifetime research, and his gala of books written about a history written by people over 6000 years ago in a language you can't even dream of starting to understand, a language only 200 people on this planet can read?

Could you give me even ONE SOLID reason why you would doubt his research?

Nobody even TRIED to debunk him because nobody CAN

Uh Oh! You need to put some coolant into your radiator!! Ok, just joking!

Now here are your answers and I would like to quote Michael S. Heiser, Ph.D., Hebrew and Semitic Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison:

The work of Zecharia Sitchin was brought to my attention in 2001, shortly after I completed my book, The Facade. As a trained scholar in ancient Semitic languages with a lifelong interest in UFOs and paranormal phenomena, I was naturally enthused about Mr. Sitchin's studies, particularly since I had also heard he was a Sumerian scholar. I thought I had found a kindred spirit. Unfortunately, I was wrong. Zecharia Sitchin is not a scholar of ancient languages. What he has written in his books could neither pass peer review nor is it informed by factual data from the primary sources. I have yet to find anyone with credentials or demonstrable expertise in Sumerian, Akkadian, or any of the other ancient Semitic languages who has positively assessed Mr. Sitchin's academic work.

He goes on to further ask ZS:

Can you produce a single text that says the Anunnaki come from the planet Nibiru - or that Nibiru is a planet beyond Pluto? I assert that there are no such texts, and challenge you and readers to study the occurrences of "Anunnaki" right here on this website. Please show me any evidence from the Sumerian texts themselves that the Anunnaki have any connection to Nibiru or a 12th planet (or any planet).

No reply, no nothing! Zilch!

So you see? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Friend ZS hasn't even bothered to reply to those simple questions put forth by Dr Michael S. Heiser. And there are other questions too that have evinced no response from ZS. He won't because he doesn't have the answers! He's a good sci-fi writer though. No doubt about that!



www.sitchiniswrong.com...

reply to post by PJAmerica


You're dancing around, pretending you are unable to understand my post's meaning, etc.

Oh well.

Whatever you think, Sagan did not from a scientific stance "show the potential to research such things was okay".

Maybe you believe that but it is not true. Sagan was not a trailblazer in that regard.

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by PJAmerica

 

You're dancing around, pretending you are unable to understand my post's meaning, etc.

Oh well.

Whatever you think, Sagan did not from a scientific stance "show the potential to research such things was okay".

Maybe you believe that but it is not true. Sagan was not a trailblazer in that regard.

edit on 13-9-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)

Not dancing around anything. Seems you are just looking to pick a fight and I won't bite. You have a wonderful day and assume whatever you like.

This ought to be simple. If they make predictions using methods having nothing to do with science, they are frauds. If they make claims based on bad science, they are idiots and frauds.
When the top eight scientists make claims based on extrapolated data, they only make them tenuously, because they know that the world, nay the universe in which they work is an amazing place, constantly reinventing its self, and as a reflection of that, man is constantly updating its knowlege base, meaning that all theory is morphic, and even scientific "laws" are fluid in terms of their descriptions and even thier accuracy.
The real deal people in the world who think in terms of aliens and UFO do not make claims of any kind. They collect , liberate, and compile data. Nothing more. They do not use that data to predict the weather, disclosure , or any other damn thing. They dont speak at conventions, they dont disperse lies and twaddle to the alternative media. What they do , they do for thier own peace of mind, not for the attention of droves of drooling lackwits with bulging pocket books .
Frauds want money, and the real deal works for free is the bottom line. I heard a fabulous line from someone a while back went something like, "you cant be a good ufologist, if you want paying for the work...thats the wrong ethos."