Alexis Brooks, The Intersection of Consciousness and UFO Journalism |416|
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
But there is a difference between an insistence to modus praesens (the presence of something), and an insistence to modus absens (the absense of something). The latter person is untrustworthy - while the former may simply be a goofball. I will take the former over the latter any day.
And of course James Randi had to retire quickly because of this very principle....
And of course James Randi had to retire quickly because of this very principle....
It can later be taken to character yes - but that does not mean therefore we cannot point out lies... cuz ad hominem. That would be disingenuous.
Call it prevarication, or misrepresentation or cultivation of ignorance, whatever you want - it is still a method and is subject to scrutiny 100%.
Call it prevarication, or misrepresentation or cultivation of ignorance, whatever you want - it is still a method and is subject to scrutiny 100%.
Last edited:
But this was 30% truthful. Nowhere in the relevant range discussion of '100% honesty' - that would be a red herring.
Cultivated Ignorance/Cultivation of Ignorance – If one desires to deceive, yet also fathoms the innate spiritual decline incumbent with such activity – then one must abstract a portion of the truth, such that it serves and cultivates ignorance – a dismissal of the necessity to seek what is unknown. The purposeful spread and promotion or enforcement of Nelsonian knowledge and inference.
Official knowledge or Omega Hypothesis which is employed to displace/squelch both embargoed knowledge and the entities who research such topics. Often the product of a combination of pluralistic ignorance and the Lindy Effect, its purpose is to socially minimize the number of true experts within a given field of study. This in order to ensure that an embargoed topic is never seriously researched by more members of the body of science than Michael Shermer’s ‘dismissible margin’ of researchers.
By acting as the Malcolm Gladwell connectors, and under the moniker of ‘skeptics’, Social Skeptics can then leverage the popular mutual ignorance of the members and begin to spin misconceptions as to what expert scientists think. Moreover, then cultivate these falsehoods among scientists and the media at large. True experts who dissent are then intimidated and must remain quiet so as not to seem anathema, nor risk possibly being declared fringe by the patrolling Cabal of fake skeptics.
Last edited:
I bolded each lie in my OP... 
I disagree that those are lies per se. Or, more accurately, I cannot assess whether or not those are lies.
Reasonable, objective people, each with an equal high degree of expertise, can, in pursuing the truth, disagree up to 180 degrees on a particular topic. Happens all of the time in academia, court rooms, medical settings, military decision making, engineering, etc. People without the expertise should not just pick the expert opinion that satisfies their preconceived notions.
Unfortunately, that means that most of us should have to settle on a lack of definitive conclusion because none of us are experts on everything - and even if we were in some hypothetical world, other experts would disagree with us. I'm ok with that, but most people aren't. That need for certainty, based on almost random selection of expert opinion, in turn leads to all manner of problems and opportunities for propaganda.
It's all psychology at the end of the day.
I can assess that these are lies. Were I opposing counsel in a US Court of Law, I would eat him alive on all five of these lies and then ask the court that he be dismissed as an expert witness - for hostile expert testimony.
Let's put it this way - if he were on the witness stand in a court of law he would violate three things
1. Duty of Candor
2. Duty of Objectivity
3. Duty of the Whole Truth
And he would be placed in contempt of court if he persisted in spinning the garbage from this podcast.
This is not a simple matter of professional disagreement.
Let's put it this way - if he were on the witness stand in a court of law he would violate three things
1. Duty of Candor
2. Duty of Objectivity
3. Duty of the Whole Truth
And he would be placed in contempt of court if he persisted in spinning the garbage from this podcast.
This is not a simple matter of professional disagreement.
Last edited:
Its a lovely post Eric.You ask questions we all should ask. You are right! How many anal probes are necessary for folk who should be able to get it after a few 100? I can think maybe medical over servicing? Maybe aliens are socialists )) with clunky tech?
I suspect the answer is more likely that all these accounts are metaphors and what is really going on is something very different. Years ago I read an account that left me thinking that ET really doesn't understand material existence at all - has no sense of fear or pain. Then I figured that ET has no evident sense of culture (no sense of design) - and a few other things hinted that maybe the UFO was also a metaphor. I am old enough to remember then original Doctor Who and the clunky sets from the BBC (and I remember Blake 7 as well). So why did so many accounts seem to take place in a BBC workshop - my own apparent 'abduction' experience as well?
Your questions tear at the veil that covers our eyes. Keep at it.
)) with clunky tech?I suspect the answer is more likely that all these accounts are metaphors and what is really going on is something very different. Years ago I read an account that left me thinking that ET really doesn't understand material existence at all - has no sense of fear or pain. Then I figured that ET has no evident sense of culture (no sense of design) - and a few other things hinted that maybe the UFO was also a metaphor. I am old enough to remember then original Doctor Who and the clunky sets from the BBC (and I remember Blake 7 as well). So why did so many accounts seem to take place in a BBC workshop - my own apparent 'abduction' experience as well?
Your questions tear at the veil that covers our eyes. Keep at it.
Its a lovely post Eric.You ask questions we all should ask. You are right! How many anal probes are necessary for folk who should be able to get it after a few 100? I can think maybe medical over servicing? Maybe aliens are socialists )) with clunky tech?
I suspect the answer is more likely that all these accounts are metaphors and what is really going on is something very different. Years ago I read an account that left me thinking that ET really doesn't understand material existence at all - has no sense of fear or pain. Then I figured that ET has no evident sense of culture (no sense of design) - and a few other things hinted that maybe the UFO was also a metaphor. I am old enough to remember then original Doctor Who and the clunky sets from the BBC (and I remember Blake 7 as well). So why did so many accounts seem to take place in a BBC workshop - my own apparent 'abduction' experience as well?
Your questions tear at the veil that covers our eyes. Keep at it.
)) with clunky tech?I suspect the answer is more likely that all these accounts are metaphors and what is really going on is something very different. Years ago I read an account that left me thinking that ET really doesn't understand material existence at all - has no sense of fear or pain. Then I figured that ET has no evident sense of culture (no sense of design) - and a few other things hinted that maybe the UFO was also a metaphor. I am old enough to remember then original Doctor Who and the clunky sets from the BBC (and I remember Blake 7 as well). So why did so many accounts seem to take place in a BBC workshop - my own apparent 'abduction' experience as well?
Your questions tear at the veil that covers our eyes. Keep at it.
nice... and why do all the ones he contacted seem to be strangely aligned with one dorky little political faction within one country? is ET voting blue in 2020?
legit questions. but not sure we should assume this somehow discredits these accounts. as I just mentioned in the preview I'm still processing bob lazar movie. the bottom line for me maybe looking at a technology that's not that far beyond our own.
legit questions. but not sure we should assume this somehow discredits these accounts. as I just mentioned in the preview I'm still processing bob lazar movie. the bottom line for me maybe looking at a technology that's not that far beyond our own.
did the new movie change yr mind:
Bob Lazar: Area 51 & Flying Saucers (2018) - IMDb
it kind of did mine. I think stan friedman was right to fact-checking Lazar, but I thought the movie gave me a fresh perspective on how that the questions about his academic background. I I also seem to remember that softened his position slightly in the last few yrs ( but can't put my fingers on the exact quote).
Bottom line for me -- the movie along with the other evidence that's been piling up lately (e.g. American Cosmic, Kevin Day) shifts the burden of proof in favor of bob lazar. I accept his story as legit until proven otherwise.
Bob Lazar: Area 51 & Flying Saucers (2018) - IMDb
it kind of did mine. I think stan friedman was right to fact-checking Lazar, but I thought the movie gave me a fresh perspective on how that the questions about his academic background. I I also seem to remember that softened his position slightly in the last few yrs ( but can't put my fingers on the exact quote).
Bottom line for me -- the movie along with the other evidence that's been piling up lately (e.g. American Cosmic, Kevin Day) shifts the burden of proof in favor of bob lazar. I accept his story as legit until proven otherwise.
He is a closet Sorwert V Sociopathic Cynic. He blew up with me in a tweet and snarked "Where did you get your PhD and who was your Adviser?" I did not respond to that, and he calmed down.
The problem arch cynics face, is that they are already well past the threshold of need to attract attention to themselves - they got a PhD and they want to beat the shit out of some Woo believers and gain a following of celebrity worshippers. Yet they realize that many of the things which they are tempted to do, or have done in the past to those who they find as the scientifically unwashed, these things are not socially acceptable and tend to detract from their celebrity.
So they tuck these foibles away and hide them. These motivations only come out in a moment of anger.
Once a skeptic gets to this Grade V level - they are part of the cultivation of ignorance which plagues mankind. We are stupid as a species; and the fault for this falls right on the shoulders of these people. They are worse than the Woo peddlers by far.
The problem arch cynics face, is that they are already well past the threshold of need to attract attention to themselves - they got a PhD and they want to beat the shit out of some Woo believers and gain a following of celebrity worshippers. Yet they realize that many of the things which they are tempted to do, or have done in the past to those who they find as the scientifically unwashed, these things are not socially acceptable and tend to detract from their celebrity.
So they tuck these foibles away and hide them. These motivations only come out in a moment of anger.
Once a skeptic gets to this Grade V level - they are part of the cultivation of ignorance which plagues mankind. We are stupid as a species; and the fault for this falls right on the shoulders of these people. They are worse than the Woo peddlers by far.
OK interesting. I will watch it and keep my mind open.
I have sensed agency in Bob in the past. Using various martial art techniques to deflect answering questions, offering up a correct 10% of information and then claiming security clearances and proprietary info and 'really don't want to go into that' stuff to avoid the needed ethical 90% - and finally then feigning tiredness over the subject, as a way to fast close the discussion. If one is bound by a non-disclosure or security clearance - there are ways to substantiate your involvement without violating those agreements.
My suspicion was that, during his less mature years, and in his desire to impress his fickle and departing fiance - he did some things with the media, which he now regrets he ever initiated. Love can do that to you. This is the read I get from him. He wishes it would just all go away.
An intelligent man prevaricates differently than does a common man. He is smart enough to see the entire tangled web, so a lie becomes a monkey on his back, which he must flee for the rest of his days.
I have sensed agency in Bob in the past. Using various martial art techniques to deflect answering questions, offering up a correct 10% of information and then claiming security clearances and proprietary info and 'really don't want to go into that' stuff to avoid the needed ethical 90% - and finally then feigning tiredness over the subject, as a way to fast close the discussion. If one is bound by a non-disclosure or security clearance - there are ways to substantiate your involvement without violating those agreements.
My suspicion was that, during his less mature years, and in his desire to impress his fickle and departing fiance - he did some things with the media, which he now regrets he ever initiated. Love can do that to you. This is the read I get from him. He wishes it would just all go away.
An intelligent man prevaricates differently than does a common man. He is smart enough to see the entire tangled web, so a lie becomes a monkey on his back, which he must flee for the rest of his days.
Last edited:
Come on Alex! A response to the question 'How did ET identify who to contact..' isn't a problem if ET is metaphysical rather than nuts and bolts. We can construct all the straw man arguments we like, but the reality is we haven't a bloody clue about means or capacity.
Is ET voting Blue in 2020? You'd hope so. This isn't politics. It is values and philosophy. Spiritual values, as defined in the essential creeds globally, tend not to support the POVs of what are laughably called 'conservatives'. Despite the hype that conservatism seeks to protect traditional values it tends to protect only those 'traditional' values that favour self interest, greed and the perpetuation of a privileged power elite. It is a poor understanding of history that sustains this lie.
If you attend to the themes articulated by ET contacts, there is a significant reflection of the core Christian message, a strong animistic sensibility and a commitment to environmental stewardship. In US terms, Blue is closer to that general sensibility. But it is by no means sufficient. So, yeah, ET would vote Democrat - as the least worst of a poor set of options. There is, I think, no doubt among those sufficiently informed as to the magnitude of Trump's catastrophic influence, that Clinton, for all her sins, may have been a far better choice. True that may have meant that the status quo was maintained, but that is way better than what has happened.
I am not saying ET is a democrat, just that some democrat values are closer to the wider theme of the deeper philosophy. Of course some Republican values are also consistent - but they also let the wreckers and exploiters in, because those values can be misinterpreted and misrepresented in ways that allow predators to win control.
Jonathan Haidt (who may or may not agree with me) has written some compelling books on this theme - The Righteous Mind, Why do They VoteThis Way and Can't We All Disagree More Constructively? Haidt is an accomplished psychologist we aught to read before we form our own less informed opinions.
Is ET voting Blue in 2020? You'd hope so. This isn't politics. It is values and philosophy. Spiritual values, as defined in the essential creeds globally, tend not to support the POVs of what are laughably called 'conservatives'. Despite the hype that conservatism seeks to protect traditional values it tends to protect only those 'traditional' values that favour self interest, greed and the perpetuation of a privileged power elite. It is a poor understanding of history that sustains this lie.
If you attend to the themes articulated by ET contacts, there is a significant reflection of the core Christian message, a strong animistic sensibility and a commitment to environmental stewardship. In US terms, Blue is closer to that general sensibility. But it is by no means sufficient. So, yeah, ET would vote Democrat - as the least worst of a poor set of options. There is, I think, no doubt among those sufficiently informed as to the magnitude of Trump's catastrophic influence, that Clinton, for all her sins, may have been a far better choice. True that may have meant that the status quo was maintained, but that is way better than what has happened.
I am not saying ET is a democrat, just that some democrat values are closer to the wider theme of the deeper philosophy. Of course some Republican values are also consistent - but they also let the wreckers and exploiters in, because those values can be misinterpreted and misrepresented in ways that allow predators to win control.
Jonathan Haidt (who may or may not agree with me) has written some compelling books on this theme - The Righteous Mind, Why do They VoteThis Way and Can't We All Disagree More Constructively? Haidt is an accomplished psychologist we aught to read before we form our own less informed opinions.
I think you might have misunderstood my point. I'm saying tom delong's political connections / agenda are undoubtedly a part of this story... but not a part that his group wants to be very upfront about. I don't give a crap about blue versus red. I think it's all bureaucratic, mid-management-level nonsense.