Questions for David Hatcher Childress

[Angel of Ioren]

FINALLY! I have known for sometime that the jimmy randi brigade is out in force. But, when I have mentioned it there was no answer or it was ignored. I have said before I don't go on jimmy randi dot com or richiedawkinsisgawd.cum. Reason? I'm honest. I don't think atheism is correct and I would add nothing to a discussion of it except to be a constant thorn or troll. I have seen this crap for quite a while here and it gets sickening. There was (at one time) several posters who would discuss the paranormal but most have fled the scene. Why not? Everytime you try to discuss something some "evangelical" skeptic jumps in. Now should there be skeptics? Hell Yeah! But a "skeptic" is somebody like Paul Kimball (who I disagree with on certain topics.) But he actually looks from an "agnostic" point of view and can at least "consider" things such as spirits and ESP and even aliens from space. But, when you get your marching orders from a "skeptical" (should read athiestic not skeptic) authority then you are not being honest. I kind of trace it back to a show where Gene and David fried the crap out of a "skeptic." I think the show and the forum got the "attention" of the jimmy randi brigade around that time.

Are you insinuating that the few skeptics (such as myself) are here as a plant to disrupt the forum?
I really doubt that Gene would have allowed me to be a moderator here if he thought I had an agenda like that.

Christopher, I know that you don't agree with Lance on much, but digging into his past to try and discredit him is pretty unfair, and I do think you're above resorting to tactics like that. Yeah, he can be barbed at times, but he has gone out of his way to investigate cases like the Kelly Johnson one. Just because his conclusions don't fit into your view of the topic doesn't invalidate them. He's trying his best to come up with real evidence. There are a lot of things discussed here that lack that but they are still accepted.

Thanks

---------- Post added at 01:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:41 PM ----------

I hope you guys are happy. I just dropped 2 ranks in the Skeptic Corps! There goes the yacht.

But Tyder is correct. I was assigned here (Sector 8.2-234) after a disastrous showing by a skeptic on the program. My task was to shore up our disinfo campaign.

I had to hack in and change my Join date to years before that program--that was tough!
I also had to create dozens of false posts during the Michael Horn period to make it look like I had been here all along.
I also had to convince my good friend Jim Moseley that it was he who first told me about the program when he was on the very 1st one.

Was it worth it? I'll tell you after the court martial.

Lance

That was wonderfully funny and sarcastic.

 

[tyder001]

Are you insinuating that the few skeptics (such as myself) are here as a plant to disrupt the forum?


Angel, you are one of the most "civil" folks on here. But, (and I hope I don't burn all bridges with you) you remind me of certain "church" folks I've known. You say you "Beleive" in the atheistic (see skeptical) creed. But, you get so defensive and noivous in the souvice when somebody "doubts" the reality of your world view that you pounce on every thread to make sure you get the "gospel" out there. Now, that's just how it seems to me.

Lance on the other hand (while not as nice at times) is more of the kind of athiest I would expect. He is sure of himself. Passive/aggressive (imo) at times but I don't think he ever truly "doubts" himself. Which in my buisness ain't always a sign of sanity but at least he "knows" what he believes and isn't interested in truly "searching" he's gonna show ya with "science" and "reason" (what passes for that in y'all world anyway.)

So, I hope ya don't get to offended but that's how I see it. Right or wrong.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Are you insinuating that the few skeptics (such as myself) are here as a plant to disrupt the forum?
I really doubt that Gene would have allowed me to be a moderator here if he thought I had an agenda like that.

I have nothing against skeptics. Believe-it-or-not, I'M A SKEPTIC! The further along I go in this field the more jaded and skeptical I become. But I am open-minded and willing to go out/stay in and DO THE WORK.

Christopher, I know that you don't agree with Lance on much, but digging into his past to try and discredit him is pretty unfair, and I do think you're above resorting to tactics like that. SNIP He's trying his best to come up with real evidence. There are a lot of things discussed here that lack that but they are still accepted.

I'm an investigator. When something comes up, I look into it. When someone calls my credibility and POV into question, I find out about that person. The fact that Lance helped design a rapid media response debunking campaign should be revealed to Paracast posters. I stand by my record and resume--I expect others to stand by theirs. They (and you) deserve to know who we are dealing with--especially when they wield passive/aggressive techniques designed to sow discord and negativity. As far as Lance's opinions and mine? I actually agree with more than a few of his comments. I disagree with his tone and innuendo. So what? I also question his apparent agenda and his REAL reason for spending so much time here. [/QUOTE]

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I have nothing against skeptics. Believe-it-or-not, I'M A SKEPTIC! The further along I go in this field the more jaded and skeptical I become. But I am open-minded and willing to go out/stay in and DO THE WORK.

I'm an investigator. When something comes up, I look into it. When someone calls my credibility and POV into question, I find out about that person. The fact that Lance helped design a rapid media response debunking campaign should be revealed to Paracast posters. I stand by my record and resume--I expect others to stand by theirs. They (and you) deserve to know who we are dealing with--especially when they wield passive/aggressive techniques designed to sow discord and negativity. As far as Lance's opinions and mine? I actually agree with more than a few of his comments. I disagree with his tone and innuendo. So what? I also question his apparent agenda and his REAL reason for spending so much time here.

I can see your point Christopher, but I don't think that he's here to disrupt the forums. He did take a shot at your credibility, I see that. I still like Lance though and I want him to stick around.
I'm not sure if you watched it, but Phil Plait's video has given me something to think about, and I hope Lance has watched it too.

 

[tyder001]

Fyffe, Aladambama? My hat is off to you sir. Now if you want an actual "weird spot" I would reccommend Altoona or Walnut Grove Alabama.

As for beleiving I have been there (with religion) and I have the T-Shirt. I honestly do think we are more than "meatbots" but I can't hang with the religious dogma. Dogma, I loved that movie. If I remember correctly there is a scene where somebody ask God (bad paraphrase follows) What is the meaning of everything? She "taps" him on the nose and dances off. That seems about right to me. I ask and I get little "intimations" of imortality but then the universe kind of "boops" me and dances on. I remain on the journey.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Fyffe, Aladambama? My hat is off to you sir. Now if you want an actual "weird spot" I would reccommend Altoona or Walnut Grove Alabama.

As for beleiving I have been there (with religion) and I have the T-Shirt. I honestly do think we are more than "meatbots" but I can't hang with the religious dogma. Dogma, I loved that movie. If I remember correctly there is a scene where somebody ask God (bad paraphrase follows) What is the meaning of everything? She "taps" him on the nose and dances off. That seems about right to me. I ask and I get little "intimations" of imortality but then the universe kind of "boops" me and dances on. I remain on the journey.

Although off topic - I've always been a big Alanis Morissette fan, ever since her Canadian teen pop sensation days. It was fun to see her play God.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

By the way, are we saying that I called Christopher's credibility into question by directly quoting him? Or did I get the quotes wrong?

I was unclear on that.

Lance

I was referring to the time you called him lazy with the whole trickster thing, although i think you apologized for that - something that a lot of people don't do in internet forums.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

It is hilarious to see Christopher pull up the info that I was in the local skeptics group 10 years ago!

Heh-heh, I thought that you were a card-carrying member was pretty funny myself Funny how you joined a skeptics group after striking out in AL. Takes a whole lot more time, effort and energy to dig out the truth, Lance. Perhaps the no beer thang was too off-putting to stick around? Or maybe you don't have what it takes to do the heavy lifting field-work (?) Whatever...

I think that people like Childress and Phillips do little other than uselessly talk about imaginary things and unsupported conclusions.

Spoken like the true debunker you are. Have you read even one of DHC's books? Are you familiar with the excellent scientific work by engineer Christopher Dunn who DHC has worked extensively with? Have you ever watched any of DHC's excellent DVDs on Ancient Technologies? Until you do, I'm personally not interested in your uninformed opinion about his work, or Ted's, or anyones for that matter. The fact that Ted was trained by J. Allen Hynek doesn't count for much in your book, does it? Or the fact that Ted also has worked extensively with Jacques Vallee doesn't mean much either, I suppose. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water, feed it and tell it a joke, but you ain't gonna make it take a dump!

 

[tyder001]

I was referring to the time you called him lazy with the whole trickster thing, although i think you apologized for that - something that a lot of people don't do in internet forums.

It's easy to "insult" in an internet forum. Nobody can reach through the computer and choke ya. I try to watch my "tone" and there are times when I post something and think "I can't belive I posted that" Or I should have said it "another way." But, once I hit "post" I own it. I do think it's all scientific/paranormal but that's because I've become "holistic" as I've gotten older. I am sympathtic to a few things such as "reincarnation" and "faith" and "hope beyond this short furious wonderful life." But, believe? No, believe it or not I don't "believe" I just have my own inner life and I think I'm on the path I'm supposed to be on. I don't (although it might seem that way from some of my post to some people)hate science. I beleive in evolution and I have a "liberal arts" education from a liberal university in Hawaii. I'm just one of those 'wierd" folks who have no problem with my inner life and my spirit and my aknowledgment of the rational sticks and stones world.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Several. Although many of them are essentially lifted from earlier works (by other authors). The one I bought that was about Otis Carr (and Free Energy) was almost completely lifted from Margaret Storm's "Return of the Dove" And I mean word for word.

Is that so? According to David he never wrote or even published a book about Otis Carr.

And of course I have Flying Saucers over Los Angeles. You know that one, right?
It's the one that Childress published and apparently tried to benefit from without the author's permission (he thought the author was dead)--there was a court settlement.

Yeah, author Kenn Thomas found an obscure, uncopywritten, unpublished public domain academic paper (written in 1950) and used part of it w/o permission. When David found out about the original authors complaint, on his own, without hesitation, he immediately took the book out of print and gave the "bitter old man" every single copy, free of charge! His daughter is still selling it and making all the money. Enough integrity for you?

There was another case of the same type but that one went nowhere (perhaps because the author really was dead).

Actually, Mr Moody, it was a reference to roommate of Lee Harvey Oswald (in another Kenn Thomas book) who sued because his name was mentioned. He sued a number of JFK book authors, and lost btw. The case was thrown out of court and stamped by the judge "unappealable" because of his history of frivolous law suits.

Don't relay on Wikipedia for your unassailable facts, dude. Also, (this is my last response to your feeble debunking attempts--YOU are the one that makes this too easy, btw) I have known David for years and he has a high degree of integrity. When I told him about you, he had a good laugh and suggested I ignore you and not waste my time responding to you.

BTW, as we all know, ill-conceived attempts at character assassination by anyone on this forum is grounds for banishment. That includes me.

Having said all this, and spent to much time on this thread already, by all means Lance: enjoy your romps through the myopic world of "hard-core" skepticism and debunkery, but IMO your passive/aggressive approach would probably be better appreciated on a debunker's board rather than the Paracast. You should have been a logger, they also like to see big trees get chopped down. Too bad your chainsaw doesn't work sometimes.
I'm done here...

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

I really do have Flying Saucers over Los Angeles I'll leave it to other folks to decide what to think about the idea of taking the work of someone else, publishing it and then calling the original author "a bitter old man" when he objects.

Lance: for the last time: David did NOT write the book, Kenn Thomas did. DHC has published over 350 books. He can't fact check every single citation or fact. He did the right thing by giving all copies to the man whose uncopywritten, unpublished work was cited w/ acknowledgement by Thomas. You are pushing this whole thing too far even though I asked you nicely, in private, to chill out.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

This thread has gone way off the track. The mere request to ask questions of David Hatcher Childress has grown into a cesspool of personal attacks, where he's even being criticized not just for the books he wrote, but which he published. Clearly Adventures Unlimited Press has titles on a lot of subjects, and they certainly cannot be expected to agree with the contents of all, and that certainly holds true for David as the publisher.

So I'm closing this thread, and if it picks up again in the same attack dog spirit elsewhere, members are subject to being banned.

Can't we just get along?