David, ENOUGH ALREADY!

[David Biedny]

It's extremely frustrating and queitly depressing to now have to listen to Biedny's new proposals on how, (paraphrasing) "well what if the scientific method is just missing something" and "the egos of scientists get in the way" bullshit. This is beginning to sound like typical non-critical appeals to ignorance arguments that won't get anyone anywhere, except of course to keep gullible listeners coming each week. Very disappointing. Might as well listen to c2c, only I have a fear of the moustache (parental thing, should see a shrink about that).

Look down at the computer you're typing on. Look at the power cord coming out of it and the power supply it's attached to. Look at how the whole shebang plugs into the wall.

The fact that you have AC electricity in your life is due to the fact that a single person worked beyond the scientific method, utilized insight, intuition and sheer will of mind to create something that never existed before, that no one had ever been able to arrive at via deductive reasoning, logic or anything even close to the standard scientific method. I'm not trying to say that the scientific method is not crucial - Jeez, folks, leave some room for nuance and subtlety - but the fact is that sometimes, major leaps in understanding require us to look beyond the limitations of existing methodologies. Is this a replacement for the scientific method? Of course not. It adds to the arsenal of tools used to figure our the complexity of the Universe.

Conventional wisdom is often aided by unconventional insights, and there's always value in breaking away from the herd and trying something completely unexpected, or looking at things in a different light. This is something I came to appreciate in guerilla media production, trying to meet insane deadlines with minimal budgets and manpower. The "standard" approach to problem solving is really a fantasy, it's kinda like street fighting, where form and style is useless, the goal is to put down your opponent as quickly as possible, the "norms" of fighting be damned.

So I'm sorry that some of you want me to fit my thoughts within a comfortable little box, to follow the rules of engagement and limit my methods to those that are approved by the faceless masses. I've never had use for the herd mentality, and as I get older, I'm more open to certain possibilities and less open to others. It's not just the egos of scientists I have issues with, it's the entire concept of human vanity. In trying out some new ideas, I'm not asking that anyone turn to ignorance, I'm just making the point that sometimes it's useful to try out new things. Certainly, given the stagnation in the realm of paranormal research, it simply can't hurt to consider alternatives to conventional wisdom. Expansion of possibilities and mind is a good thing, especially in light of how our brains tend to atrophy somewhat over time, especially as we age and get set in our ways. And I'm not talking about opening the mind to the point that the brain falls out, I'm simply suggesting that we humans actually see and understand a minority of what makes up the complexity of reality, and the only way we're going to make some major leaps forward is to break some rules and break away from some of the limitations imposed by our crude instrumentation and technologies. The real answer, IMO, is a reintegration of science and spirit, the two realms that are more related than any of us remember.

Anyway, I realize that in today's world, anything beyond a one or two sentence shot of pithiness is considered ranting, but some of us are simply not comfortable with the limitations imposed by concision. Thanks for reading this whole post, assuming you got this far.

 

[Rob]

You’ve hit the nail on the head in evoking the stagnation of paranormal research, and doesn’t that prove that with the tools we have at the moment to analyze any claims of paranormal/supernatural activity, we just don’t have anything that we can 100% for sure say that this or that is a genuine paranormal phenomenon, or something extra terrestrial/crypto terrestrial or whatever? Of course the tools we have at our disposal evolve and methods change when sufficient knowledge is gained and techniques become refined – but only if they are considered to be of value in advancing science. It’s an ongoing process, but that’s all we’ve got right now, and to me it has got nothing to do with human vanity or keeping thought limited - quite the opposite (look at how neuroscience is doing some really interesting experiments about consciousness and the perception of reality, beliefs and so on). So what exactly did you have in mind when suggesting trying out new things, what new methods do you suggest? Doesn’t science do this constantly, but only keeping those that actually work? (Like Tesla, but for every Tesla, there are probably thousands of anonymous individuals that fail). If you have something novel to propose why don’t you submit it and see what happens? Maybe the real answer is an integration of science and spirit like you suggest, but how can you define this when talking about the paranormal (and not sound irrational)? In general, science doesn’t go out actively looking for abnormalities to explain away, so if you genuinely think that you have something that could add to the arsenal of tools, have at it!

If not and it’s just a rant on how frustrated you feel about stuff, then ok, that’s cool, it’s your forum and your podcast.

That was a genuine question about Dr Leir and his objects, any news?

 

[auntiegrav]

I found this quote and think it applies to what David was trying to say:

“It was such a sweet discovery,” says Gabelli. “It’s scientific discovery the old-fashioned way, finding something we weren’t looking for.”

It is from this story: http://www.physorg.com/news107012849.html

The scientific establishment keeps pushing the peer review process in theory, while a large amount of their work is limited by the accountants that tell them to work for corporations in development of "commercially viable" ideas. That mindset has permeated our universities and schools to the point that pure research has to have a goal in mind, and specialization limits how many events will be noticed outside of the normal venue of one's research. We used to measure data points with rulers and thermometers and write down the data on a clipboard. Now, extreme amounts of data are collected by automated systems, programmed for signature analysis and stress measurement of points that were predetermined by computer finite element analysis. The key word here is "finite". That means a limited range of detection, no matter how you slice it, you are still slicing, rather than allowing your eyes and ears and the occasional child to wander by and point things out.

It's the same reason our food is so crappy. No more farmers; just tractor drivers and milk production biologicals in a factory, run by a banker.

Peer review should not only be used to weed out obvious problems, but to add wisdom and complexity so that the odd occurrance is noted and investigated, not just filtered from the least squares best fit graph.

 

[ondafritz]

I found this quote and think it applies to what David was trying to say:

“It was such a sweet discovery,” says Gabelli. “It’s scientific discovery the old-fashioned way, finding something we weren’t looking for.”

It is from this story: http://www.physorg.com/news107012849.html

That type of discovery comes in handy when you find where one of the cats pooped behind the sofa.

 

[auntiegrav]

I found this quote and think it applies to what David was trying to say:

“It was such a sweet discovery,” says Gabelli. “It’s scientific discovery the old-fashioned way, finding something we weren’t looking for.”

That type of discovery comes in handy when you find where one of the cats pooped behind the sofa.

HA!! That is the kind of discovery that my coprophagic (a new word I just learned) border collie LOVES to find.....ewwwwwwwwww!! Talk about Para-AB-normal!!

 

[auntiegrav]

Auntiegrav, add to your list of books, the rather excellent A Crude Wakening documentary.
More later...

Got it in my hot little phalanges right now. Waiting to trade it with a local activist for "Crude Impact".

Dan

 

[DBTrek]

Anyway, I've already apologized for my Stanton snidery, so next I'll be moving onto someone else. Like DBTrek. I'll make fun of him on the show, but only forum folk will get the joke.

It's all fun and games until I expose you in my upcoming 800 book deal (soon to be announced). There will a special episode of my reality TV show dedicated to shaming you and Gene.

-DBTrek

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Anyway, I've already apologized for my Stanton snidery, so next I'll be moving onto someone else. Like DBTrek. I'll make fun of him on the show, but only forum folk will get the joke.

It's all fun and games until I expose you in my upcoming 800 book deal (soon to be announced). There will a special episode of my reality TV show dedicated to shaming you and Gene.

-DBTrek

800 books?

That's pathetic.

What about 1,000, 2,000, a million?

Can't you find a decent publisher?

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Anyway, I've already apologized for my Stanton snidery, so next I'll be moving onto someone else. Like DBTrek. I'll make fun of him on the show, but only forum folk will get the joke.

It's all fun and games until I expose you in my upcoming 800 book deal (soon to be announced). There will a special episode of my reality TV show dedicated to shaming you and Gene.

-DBTrek

800 books?

That's pathetic.

What about 1,000, 2,000, a million?

Can't you find a decent publisher?

 

[BrandonD]

I think you're missing the point. You began by questioning me about when I had last gone to Iraq, stating that since I have not been there first hand I don't know what's really going on. From there you pointed out that news organizations have agendas and are second hand information. The implication is that since I haven't set foot in Iraq, and news organizations have agendas, I don't really know anything about what's going on there.

The reasoning is faulty though, because it requires all news organizations to present 'versions' of the truth similar enough to eachother that the entire globe will be fooled. It also requires that everyone blogging in Iraq be part of the conspiracy effort to put forth this false image.

The problem is . . . news organizations have different agendas. FOX News and Al Jazeera both have their take on what's going on, but their agendas are not the same. Because of this, I reject the simplistic notion that since news agencies have agendas, we can't believe anything that comes out of them.

Rather we need to take in to account for the bias of the information source and if possible balance it with the same information for competing sources. If Fox News, Al Jazeera, The Los Angeles Times, and Xinhua News Agency all say a car bomb killed seven bystanders in a Bahgdad market, we can be relatively confident that it happened. That certainly makes more sense than all those news agencies getting together to concoct a fictional bombing so they can write a story about it.

Well, I do think that we shouldn't "believe" anything that comes out of news agencies, but maybe some of our disagreements are just technicalities, because I don't disagree with much of what you're saying here.

Something I'll mention as food for thought: The popular notion that news agencies are composed of reporters out there in the field "ferreting out the truth" is just not true. And regarding international news this is doubly true. International news for american consumption is given from only a very few prime sources (Reuters, NYT, etc) and those sources are fed directly from the military. You should watch one of the many documentaries which illustrates how americans are informed of international news. From these few sources, it trickles down verbatim to the smaller agencies. Essentially it is all coming from one place!

So from that point of view, it's not surprising at all to see thousands of news reports saying exactly same thing.

This is another example that supports the idea that just because lots of people tell you the same thing does not necessarily make it true. That's why I still stand by my statement that one should not just believe what is told to you by the news. This definitely doesn't mean that you should disregard it, just not believe it.

In fact, if a person does indeed "believe" what the news tells him, I think it's reasonable to assume that he's either highly suggestible, or he's simply believing what he wants to believe and looking for outside support of this.

 

[auntiegrav]

The implication is that since I haven't set foot in Iraq, and news organizations have agendas, I don't really know anything about what's going on there.

Actually, having been in the military, I can say that 'being there' doesn't inform you of much at all, except that it's hot, it sucks, and you want to kill something and go home to Kmart and sex and beer. The average age of the people we send to do these 'professional' jobs is around 19 or 20 (higher if you count the reserves as regular active duty, which they are being treated as now), and most are not very well educated except to learn how to do their specialty. The best way to understand what is going on is to look for the motives behind what is happening, not the actual day to day killing spree or the sand being cleaned out of air filters. Unlike on TV, if there are deceptions going on (false flag ops, psyops, illicit drug trades, weapons deals, etc.), the crimes are not going to be ferreted out and avenged by some sparky young Ninja blonde in a wetsuit. They will mostly happen unquestioned and exactly as planned except for the occasional equipment failure falling out of the sky. There are few, if any, checks and balances to keep people with authority from conducting their own private wars and operations because the rest believe in the missions they are doing. They have to or they go insane or die.
It's the same reason why you can't get past the circle of security at Area 51: they believe hard and the only thing that needs to be done to maintain their system of hard belief is to simply confuse the belief of the rest of us.
If any significant part of America actually believed hard that we were hoodwinked into a war for corporate oil, there would be riots in the streets. But we don't. We are kept questioning and arguing about little details (Did the CIA fly drugs through Mena, or use submarines to get cocaine to the Hells Angels?) and political agendas that keep us with just a little bit of doubt of our theories. That's all it takes to keep us outside the fences, going to jobs to feed the Empire its daily dose of our labors and taxes and 'discretionary spending'.

I pretty much agree with the rest of what you said about knowing the biases of the news, with the exception that you have to realize that the main bias of every news corporation is to sell cars (and other products). The main agenda of the National Security State is to sell America, and America is Business. If they have to use fear to sell America, they are no different than the deodorant salesmen.

 

[DBTrek]

Dude, this thread is already over. I won, ya'll lost.
Move along.



-DBTrek

 

[auntiegrav]

I won, ya'll lost.

"There are only 3 words you need to know to have a happy marriage; "Yeah, you're right.' Every once in a while, just to keep her on her toes, I throw in, "I'm sorry.'"
--Blake Clark

DB--'Yeah, you're right..... I'm sorry.'

-AG
P.S. NYAH NYAH

God was my copilot, but we crashed in the mountains, and I traded Him to some aliens for a ride to Roswell...but then they were laughing at his jokes so hard that THEY crashed. The rest of the story gets kinda fuzzy with party balloons and helium and rubber masks....

 

[Goody]

Is it just me or did anyone else catch onto what happened earlier on in this thread; as in, David dropped the 'F*CK' word & all of a sudden everyone let loose, like it was all of a sudden okay to do because the master hath spoken.

Goody.

 

[auntiegrav]

Is it just me or did anyone else catch onto what happened earlier on in this thread; as in, David dropped the 'F*CK' word & all of a sudden everyone let loose, like it was all of a sudden okay to do because the master hath spoken.

Goody.

That's kinda ironic to me, since my second language is profanity, but when a thread starts getting all hot at each other, I stop swearing. When I'm just sick and fuckin' tired of the government lying to me, I start swearing.

go figure

 

[Goody]

That's kinda ironic to me, since my second language is profanity, but when a thread starts getting all hot at each other, I stop swearing. When I'm just sick and fuckin' tired of the government lying to me, I start swearing.

go figure

I must agree with the irony of it all, I do not prefere to swear on these forums out of simple bad taste or frustration, however I do speak fluent 'sewer talk'.

Where are you from Auntiegrav? I'm from Australia .

Goody.

 

[derekcbart]

Of course, we might also blame Ted Turner and CNN for first showing that news could be profitable. Fox News just does it right of center to achieve the same result. But they'd probably go the other way if there was money in it for ole Rupert.

Hi there.

I'm only 2 or 3 pages into this thread, but I just read this comment of Gene's and wanted to point out that it was "60 Minutes" that was the first profitable news program and that every other terrestrial network, and then later the cable networks, tried to emulate and figure out a way to make their news programs profitable. Right now the only profitable news programs in the industry are the morning news programs.

-Derek

 

[The Pair of Cats]

This thread has traveled way off course from its original subject, sort of indicative of the UFO subject in general.
Also funny is that someone wanted it locked about 8 pages ago.

 

[auntiegrav]

Hi there.
I'm only 2 or 3 pages into this thread, but I just read this comment of Gene's and wanted to point out that it was "60 Minutes" that was the first profitable news program and that every other terrestrial network, and then later the cable networks, tried to emulate and figure out a way to make their news programs profitable. Right now the only profitable news programs in the industry are the morning news programs.
-Derek

So what if it's OT, right? Important stuff takes you other places sometimes.

"profitable" is relative to how the profits are measured. For example, when Fox pulled the Monsanto BGH story, it wasn't because they were afraid of losing advertising on the news 1/2 hour, but because Monsanto threatened to pull its advertising on EVERY FOX station on every program. By burying the story, the news department 'saved' Fox millions of dollars in lost advertising.
That's how the news works. It's more about what you don't see than what you do. If you want to spend 1/2 hour watching car dealer commercials, that's up to you. If you want to know what is going on in the world, get your news elsewhere.
Our local paper today had a story on the front page of the business section about how the local price of resale homes actually is rising, so there is nothing to worry about. Buried inside was the story about how home resales are down in number.
Do I think everything is a conspiracy? Yes. Ever since there has been a way to make money by selling the distribution of information. At least in Russia they used to be outright about their propaganda and who owned it, and everyone knew it was propaganda. They didn't call it 'free press', or 'free market ownership' or some other such nonsense.

 

[BrandonD]

Do I think everything is a conspiracy? Yes. Ever since there has been a way to make money by selling the distribution of information. At least in Russia they used to be outright about their propaganda and who owned it, and everyone knew it was propaganda. They didn't call it 'free press', or 'free market ownership' or some other such nonsense.

Bravo on that last paragraph. Well said.