boomerang
Paranormal Adept
There are numerous such true stories. Even more poignant, I think, is the American Civil War when siblings might literally slaughter each other from opposing sides of the battlefield. Humans are a strange species.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Ten Year Anniversary Of the Disclosure Project
- Thread starter maxwell
- Start date
Free episodes:
There are numerous such true stories. Even more poignant, I think, is the American Civil War when siblings might literally slaughter each other from opposing sides of the battlefield. Humans are a strange species.
PararealitySaint
An Open Minded Skeptic
That might be the case for those you mentioned here, but the Americans who fought and died in the great wars are definitely not in that class and should be remembered EXACTLY as I had mentioned.They were not "victims" in any way, and did what they did so you could have an opinion and not be hung for it.
Definitely a difference.
There is a difference between having an opinion and imposing that opinion on others.
The quote above doesnt say this is how i prefer to remember them, it dictates how we should do so........
Personally i think those who made the ultimate sacrifice did so in support of the former, and absolute rejection of the latter.
maxwell
for entertainment purposes only
this is real stuff.
i basically suggested in the original post that republicans were Nazis,
betrayers of america in secret.
which implies that people would have to VEHEMENTLY OBJECT to keep the secret
and to imply that anyone saying so were insane.
i don't follow the 'no flames' rule of nettiquette.
it keeps things robotic and impersonal, and insincere.
To all p4c members, I have just had to delete two posts in the moderation folder due to debunking. It's therefore useful to repost the notice below that is in the files section concerning debunking on this forum. Basically, debunkers want to shut down debate, and steer dialogue into a nasty set of exchanges concerning whose kosher or not, or worth listening to or not. In contrast, we want to open debate in all areas so we can generate a wide ranging and respectful dialogue. As the old saying goes, the mind is like a parachute, it only works when its open.
Aloha
Michael Salla
***
Aloha all, it has become increasingly obvious that there is some friction between the forum goals of preparing for extraterrestrial contact and having an open forum based on free speech. The success of the former requires the sharing of information from those who have conducted research on, and/or experienced extraterrestrial contact. In that way, we can prepare ourselves for that day when ET contact becomes a reality for the majority of humanity. Having an open forum means that we encourage free speech as a vital ingredient in the post-contact society we are moving towards. In a way, the prepare4contact forum is a microcosm of a future society where extraterrestrials can openly interact/communicate with humanity, and where we have freedom to state our opinion. It is becoming clear that part of the tension between these two goals is that of 'experiencers' who are subjected to debunking tactics on the forum. After consultation with the other forum moderators, we have decided to proscribe debunking from the prepare4contact forum. So let me clarify what exactly debunking is, and how it differs from other forms of criticism/skepticism that will continue to play an important role on the forum.
A debunker uses a variety of strategies to undermine, insult, distract, annoy, etc., from what may be valid claims by those who have had experiences concerning extraterrestrials or UFOs. An article by William Beaty, a research engineer on staff at the University of Washington in Seattle, analyses debunking or what he calls 'pathological skepticism'. He nicely summarizes the debunking strategies used by the pathological skeptic here: http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt .
There are others who have written articles distinguishing between "healthy skepticism" and "pathological skepticism" though they use different terms. Marcello Truzzi distinguishes between skeptic and the pseudo-skeptic at: http://www.ufoskeptic.org/<wbr>truzzi.html . Dr Bernard Haish also distinguishes between true skepticism and pseudo-skepticism at: http://www.ufoskeptic.org/. I distinguish between the "objective critic" and the "debunker' in my two part article examining Col Philip Corso's critics at:
http://www.<wbr>exopoliticsinstitute.org/<wbr>Journal-vol-1-2-Salla.pdf
The difference between the two forms of skepticism is basically that a "true skeptic" asks for evidence to substantiate the claim. This is important to prevent the acceptance of claims that might be disinformation or delusional in nature. If insufficient evidence is given, then s/he withholds judgment and calls the claim unsubstantiated. A genuine skeptic will explore alternative explanations such as the evidence has been withdrawn/tampered with by third parties, etc. Essentially, true skeptics are critical but open minded. They won't accept unsubstantiated claims, and will consider alternatives. They often take an agnostic position on unverified claims. The 'genuine skeptic' tends to be respectful of the claims by experiencers that are personal and therefore deeply emotional. Genuine skeptics tend to have a scholarly background as in the case of Dr Haisch.
A debunker (pseudo-or pathological skeptic) on the other hand, will say that the absence of sufficient evidence means that the person is a fraud, liar, delusional, etc. Alternative explanations such as the evidence has been withdrawn/tampered with by third parties is dismissed as hogwash. Debunkers take up extreme positions on the claims of experiencers/whistleblowers who are dismissively regarded as 'true believers', 'delusional' or 'disinformation agents'. Debunkers tend to have non-academic backgrounds and develop strong prejudices through questionable research methods. Their position closely resembles that of the atheist, rather than the agnostic. They can be very disrespectful towards experiencers or whistleblowers.
Debunking is the tactic used by many UFO researchers who claim to use the scientific method. However, it's not science to call someone a fraud/liar/delusional if insufficient evidence is given. Nor is it science to dismiss alternative explanations such as a "hard cover up" by national security agencies when evidence is removed/tampered with, or witnesses silenced. This is especially the case with experiencers/whistleblowers, of 'benevolent' extraterrestrial contact, who have a real problem with intimidation/intervention by various government agencies. Such agencies regularly intervene to prevent such information from coming out into the open. I have written an article that examines government repression of evidence concerning benevolent extraterrestrials living among us at: http://exopoliticsjournal.com/<wbr>vol-1/1-4-Salla.htm .
Debunking is damaging because it distracts researchers, insults experiencers/whistleblowers, leads to frayed emotions, ignores alternative possibilities, results in possibly valid experiencer claims being dismissed, and undermines more objective forms of criticism. While there will continue to be a need to distinguish between genuine claims of extraterrestrial contact versus claims based on delusion or disinformation, this investigation needs to be free from the tactics used by debunkers. In all, the debunker contributes to the delay, rather than the preparation for contact with extraterrestrials. So debunking is antithetical to the forum's chief goal of preparing for contact.
To conclude, objective criticism or 'healthy skepticism' concerning the claims made by experiencers/whistleblowers or members will continue to be supported in the prepare4contact forum. In contrast, debunking or 'pathological/pseduo skepticism' will lead to moderation, and rejection of posts deemed to use debunking tactics. I will henceforth change the forum guidelines to proscribe debunking, and will also add this post to the files that are automatically sent to new members.
In peace
Michael E. Salla, PhD.
Listowner
January 27, 2007
---------- Post added at 08:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 PM ----------
i think that Operation Paperclip's connection to the Roswell info by manner of how many years apart the two events were
ARE SO IMPORTANT that people who are quibbling about angry WORDS
lack the maturity to pursue enquiries worth being involved with.
that's neither vehement nor vulgar. hey,
good luck in your individual quests to understand truth -- and to defend free will and free enquiry.
we all live on the same planet and for now, use the same internet.
i basically suggested in the original post that republicans were Nazis,
betrayers of america in secret.
which implies that people would have to VEHEMENTLY OBJECT to keep the secret
and to imply that anyone saying so were insane.
i don't follow the 'no flames' rule of nettiquette.
it keeps things robotic and impersonal, and insincere.
To all p4c members, I have just had to delete two posts in the moderation folder due to debunking. It's therefore useful to repost the notice below that is in the files section concerning debunking on this forum. Basically, debunkers want to shut down debate, and steer dialogue into a nasty set of exchanges concerning whose kosher or not, or worth listening to or not. In contrast, we want to open debate in all areas so we can generate a wide ranging and respectful dialogue. As the old saying goes, the mind is like a parachute, it only works when its open.
Aloha
Michael Salla
***
Aloha all, it has become increasingly obvious that there is some friction between the forum goals of preparing for extraterrestrial contact and having an open forum based on free speech. The success of the former requires the sharing of information from those who have conducted research on, and/or experienced extraterrestrial contact. In that way, we can prepare ourselves for that day when ET contact becomes a reality for the majority of humanity. Having an open forum means that we encourage free speech as a vital ingredient in the post-contact society we are moving towards. In a way, the prepare4contact forum is a microcosm of a future society where extraterrestrials can openly interact/communicate with humanity, and where we have freedom to state our opinion. It is becoming clear that part of the tension between these two goals is that of 'experiencers' who are subjected to debunking tactics on the forum. After consultation with the other forum moderators, we have decided to proscribe debunking from the prepare4contact forum. So let me clarify what exactly debunking is, and how it differs from other forms of criticism/skepticism that will continue to play an important role on the forum.
A debunker uses a variety of strategies to undermine, insult, distract, annoy, etc., from what may be valid claims by those who have had experiences concerning extraterrestrials or UFOs. An article by William Beaty, a research engineer on staff at the University of Washington in Seattle, analyses debunking or what he calls 'pathological skepticism'. He nicely summarizes the debunking strategies used by the pathological skeptic here: http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt .
There are others who have written articles distinguishing between "healthy skepticism" and "pathological skepticism" though they use different terms. Marcello Truzzi distinguishes between skeptic and the pseudo-skeptic at: http://www.ufoskeptic.org/<wbr>truzzi.html . Dr Bernard Haish also distinguishes between true skepticism and pseudo-skepticism at: http://www.ufoskeptic.org/. I distinguish between the "objective critic" and the "debunker' in my two part article examining Col Philip Corso's critics at:
http://www.<wbr>exopoliticsinstitute.org/<wbr>Journal-vol-1-2-Salla.pdf
The difference between the two forms of skepticism is basically that a "true skeptic" asks for evidence to substantiate the claim. This is important to prevent the acceptance of claims that might be disinformation or delusional in nature. If insufficient evidence is given, then s/he withholds judgment and calls the claim unsubstantiated. A genuine skeptic will explore alternative explanations such as the evidence has been withdrawn/tampered with by third parties, etc. Essentially, true skeptics are critical but open minded. They won't accept unsubstantiated claims, and will consider alternatives. They often take an agnostic position on unverified claims. The 'genuine skeptic' tends to be respectful of the claims by experiencers that are personal and therefore deeply emotional. Genuine skeptics tend to have a scholarly background as in the case of Dr Haisch.
A debunker (pseudo-or pathological skeptic) on the other hand, will say that the absence of sufficient evidence means that the person is a fraud, liar, delusional, etc. Alternative explanations such as the evidence has been withdrawn/tampered with by third parties is dismissed as hogwash. Debunkers take up extreme positions on the claims of experiencers/whistleblowers who are dismissively regarded as 'true believers', 'delusional' or 'disinformation agents'. Debunkers tend to have non-academic backgrounds and develop strong prejudices through questionable research methods. Their position closely resembles that of the atheist, rather than the agnostic. They can be very disrespectful towards experiencers or whistleblowers.
Debunking is the tactic used by many UFO researchers who claim to use the scientific method. However, it's not science to call someone a fraud/liar/delusional if insufficient evidence is given. Nor is it science to dismiss alternative explanations such as a "hard cover up" by national security agencies when evidence is removed/tampered with, or witnesses silenced. This is especially the case with experiencers/whistleblowers, of 'benevolent' extraterrestrial contact, who have a real problem with intimidation/intervention by various government agencies. Such agencies regularly intervene to prevent such information from coming out into the open. I have written an article that examines government repression of evidence concerning benevolent extraterrestrials living among us at: http://exopoliticsjournal.com/<wbr>vol-1/1-4-Salla.htm .
Debunking is damaging because it distracts researchers, insults experiencers/whistleblowers, leads to frayed emotions, ignores alternative possibilities, results in possibly valid experiencer claims being dismissed, and undermines more objective forms of criticism. While there will continue to be a need to distinguish between genuine claims of extraterrestrial contact versus claims based on delusion or disinformation, this investigation needs to be free from the tactics used by debunkers. In all, the debunker contributes to the delay, rather than the preparation for contact with extraterrestrials. So debunking is antithetical to the forum's chief goal of preparing for contact.
To conclude, objective criticism or 'healthy skepticism' concerning the claims made by experiencers/whistleblowers or members will continue to be supported in the prepare4contact forum. In contrast, debunking or 'pathological/pseduo skepticism' will lead to moderation, and rejection of posts deemed to use debunking tactics. I will henceforth change the forum guidelines to proscribe debunking, and will also add this post to the files that are automatically sent to new members.
In peace
Michael E. Salla, PhD.
Listowner
January 27, 2007
---------- Post added at 08:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 PM ----------
i think that Operation Paperclip's connection to the Roswell info by manner of how many years apart the two events were
ARE SO IMPORTANT that people who are quibbling about angry WORDS
lack the maturity to pursue enquiries worth being involved with.
that's neither vehement nor vulgar. hey,
good luck in your individual quests to understand truth -- and to defend free will and free enquiry.
we all live on the same planet and for now, use the same internet.