Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, Jul 24, 2018.
How are you judging the height?
I disagree. Determining that the "97% of Scientists Agree" canard is fraudulent takes about 15 minutes.
The fact that this clown Jason Louv hasn't even bothered to investigate that figure tells me all I need to know about him.
I think you yourself could write a little more clearly. Charlie Primero (above) obviously seems to think you were referring to to the 97% fraud, I must admit I'm not sure!
Oh Dear! Chemtrails are such a nutty subject. I have no doubt that there are genuine instances of of people doing stuff from planes that should raise alarms, and I wish there could be a clear position one way or the other. But there are so many videos on YouTube that are completely bonkers or patently manipulative and dishonest. Are we dealing with innocents who really can't think through fairly rudimentary errors of thought or deliberate acts of misinformation? Probably both.
I completely accept that Mishelle may have valid points about what she experiences and sees. I am not about to argue the case here. I mean no disrespect when I say I am completely over the whole subject after so many fruitless and stupid arguments with people who think every contrail is a chemtrail. I have had long running and totally dispiriting arguments on this matter with people manipulated and flattered into believing they know enough 'science' to make a determination. I know they don't know enough science, and I can't persuade them otherwise. I am not saying I know the science ( I certainly do not). I am saying that I know they do not - and if they don't they can't evaluate the propositions put to them.
I have watched videos where the speaker has made a statement and said to the audience that if anybody disagrees with this statement they are government shills trying to mislead you. Really?
I don't know enough about the subject to evaluate Mishelle's claims. I really wish somebody who does could offer a calm and rational opinion. I have no doubt soever that there are lunatic minions of the deep state spraying crap into our atmosphere. But that's just a pessimistic guess based on what I can watch and read. But there my claim to knowing anything ends abruptly. I know there are contrails too.
I do not think I have ever come across a subject so monumentally distorted and misrepresented, so full of flagrant bs and blatant manipulation of audiences. In allowing that there are real chemtrails somewhere I have almost exceeded my capacity to give a damn. This is one of those areas where I am content to wait until a credible and competent investigator does the hard work of sorting through the crap and coming up with a genuine data driven fact based report.
That question is irrelevant b/c no matter what the height water vapor does not spread across the sky to form a haze.
Luckily there are many such reports! Here's one good site to consider: I know plenty more.
How does one know such an investigator is credible and competent? As Mishelle points out, she sees many such reports.
Ok. You brought the height up though.
A question: are there professional and academic people - scientists, mathematicians, scholars, philosophers, engineers, technicians, pilots etc. - within the Chemtrails / Contrails movement? The heretical professionals and academicians are people who are open-minded enough to consider the fringe observations and notions yet are also knowledgeable enough to sort weed from chaff. They are crucial for the credible fringe movement and form its intellectual core, helping to cleanse it from outright nonsense and concentrate on the observations and notions that are valid (or, at least, promising).
And - what I wrote above does not contradict my anti-authoritarian objectivity. I do not say that people who are neither professionals nor academicians cannot defend valid or promising fringe stuff. They can (for example, look at me... ). Yet, if their stuff is indeed valid, there are always at least a few academicians and professionals willing to risk their status, career and reputation to tell the truth and support it. And, if there are almost none such people in a particular fringe movement, it raises a big red flag for me.
For example: there are large and strong professional-academic cores in parapsychology, cold fusion / LENR, 9/11 Truth or AGW criticism... Yet there are almost none among Flat Earthers or Reptilian-seekers.
To clarify: existence of such professional-academic core is not as and in itself a sign of a movement validity - Young Earth Creationists can always brag the PhDs in their ranks. Yet its absence is a very, very bad sign.
P.S. A quick way to differentiate a "far out" publication from a "fringe" one is to look at its list of sources. In "fringe" publications, it is usually quite long and rich - and always include a notable portion of mainstream sources. In "far out" ones it is usually either short or absent, and most of the sources are as "far out" as publication itself (for an experiment, try to compare source lists of books by Dean Radin, David Ray Griffin or Graham Hancock with ones of David Icke).
P.P.S. To formulate it short - "fringe" stuff, despite its currently marginalised status, always conflates and interacts with the "mainstream" stuff to a good extent (even if staunch defenders of the "mainstream", such as "professional skeptics", furiously deny it). "Far out" is completely out of touch with it.
Spot on! The problem is that once you realise that we are constantly persuaded to accept a rather false view of reality, it is so very easy to see deviousness everywhere. Indeed, the far out edge of the fringe actually helps to consolidate the materialist status quo - 'flat earth' is a byword for nuttiness..
Maybe we should all adopt the Vortex test when considering ideas like this.
I make a judgement call. I call on a pretty decent background of research, investigation and analysis. That's all I have got. Even so I have been wrong before, and no doubt I will be wrong again. I am so over this whole damned subject I have nothing left I want to offer - other than sincere critical consideration of what seem to me to be reasoned and rational commentary.
Given we are, as you say, subjected to endless spin intended to dissuade from see things as they are I cannot imagine anything more appropriate than a counter spin Vortex Test. Can we neatly and succinctly define it so it can go on a t-shirt?
I found this to be one of the most eye opening and enlightening interviews I have ever heard.
I have listened to Jason Louv on Rune Soup, Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio and Higherside Chats. In all three I was majorly impressed.
I downloaded a kindle copy of his book "The Angelic Reformation" and enjoyed reading it, though I felt that some of the assertions about John Dee were presented through the eyes of a fan and apologist, rather than an objective truth seeker.
Why this interview was so incredibly eye opening to me is that I really thought I understood Jason's position and had developed a level of trust and admiration for him and his work.
That totally vanished as a result of his intolerance, narrow mindset and naivety (ignorance?) in this interview.
I realised that the picture I had built up of Jason and his work through the one to one interviews, and reading his well written book was entirely false. I had little reason to place as much faith and trust as I did in Jason and his work, and I probably make this mistake all the time.
Alex due to some quirk of fate or alignment of the planets, happened to press a set of buttons which unraveled Jason's weak facade in minutes. WOW.
This was a deep lesson for me. I realise that I need to proceed with caution when swallowing information from unknown sources, especially if I find the information palatable and supportive of my own world view.
So sad but so enlightening was this interview.
Now, what do I do with all the info about John Dee Jason has provided? Do I discard it? Hang on to it tentatively? ? ?
Great but painful interview Alex, very revelatory and instructive,
Thanks for posting it (I'm sure you debated whether to just bin it).
The last couple of years have been unlike any other time for uncovering revelations such as these, in my opinion. I wonder what’s going on? Is it really the great consciousness leap we’re aware of?
Well one thing is to look at the response of the rest of the field when someone with acknowledged competence challenges their position. Probably the best example I can think of is this guy:
If he was invited to a global warming conference to debate the issues involved, I haven't heard of it - the response is to hope he goes away. Similarly, the response to Halton Arp's devastating study regarding red shifts in cosmology, was to try to remove his access to telescope time! Behaviour like that just speaks volumes.
Wait. Isn't the "field" part of the conspiracy that keeps us from seeing the real truth about all these conspiracies?
I'm being tongue in cheek on purpose here. It seems clear to me that folks who believe in these conspiracies have chosen either a) to rely on their own technical ability to evaluate the matter whether justified or not; or b) have chosen to put their faith in the alternative "experts" extolling these conspiracies.
For me - as well as, I suppose, for most others - it is a mixture of a) and b). And the initial step to acceptance of both was the examination of the public activities of many self-proclaimed "defenders of science", that were are a mixture of...
a) Oversimplifed and exxagerated (at best) or openly distorted and misrepresented (usually) caricatures of the science heretics' views.
b) Insultive, hysterical, hateful personal attacks, name-calling and defamation, often accompanied by unproven accusations.
c) Institutional repression of heretics themselves, suppression of their positions, oppression of any heretical activity.
In many cases, even a) was claimed to be too much - "these crackpots do not deserve debate" - and all force was put into b) and c).
After being shocked by these behavoirs of the "fighters against pseudoscience", one naturally start to acquaint oneself with their positions - as well as, importantly, with the research of the weaknesses and perils of the modern academia.
And, soon one finds that the aforementioned unethical behavoir is actually a norm of a modern academic dealing with contrarian positions. And that the roots of this unethical-behaviour-turned-normality are:
a) Systemic commercialisation, structural bureaucratisation and pervasive ideologisation of the modern academia, that made it into a hybrid of corporate enterprise, hierarchic power-structure and propaganda outlet - rather than a free community of truth-seekers it was supposed to be in the start.
b) Vested interests, stubborn dogmas and personal ambitions of the members of the academic elite, that are encouraged by incentives produced by the aforementioned structural degradation. And, because of this very degradation, they are also provided with many opportunities to be enacted in an openly unethical way.
с) Near-religious worship of capital-S Science by the "mainstream" sectors of society makes the corrupt academia largely immune to "respectable" criticism - any criticism of it immediately branded as "conspiracy theory" and dismissed without examination - and allows it to turn itself into the power-institution along with govermental and corporate organisations.
One also finds that:
a) The actual positions of heretics are far from the twisted caricatures provided by the mainstream - in fact, they are often consistent with the evidence, intellectually coherent, socially plausible and persuasive.
b) The heretics themselves are far from being insane fiends painted by the mainstream - in reality, many of them are knowledgeable, reasonable, tolerant and polite people.
c) The informal organisations created by the heretics appear to respect the original - this is, drawn from its pre-corporate, pre-bureaucratic, pre-propagandist era - ethical norms and demands of science. Much unlike the official academic institutions that have given up on classic ethical principles of science and are proud of it.
So, in the end one loses one's institutional trust in the academia and develop selective personal and communal trust instead of it. And one also learns how to evaluate persons and communities, so to choose the ones that deserve of one's trust. In the same time, one can learn some specific areas of the heretical science and scholarship deep enough and long enough to develop one's own strong, well-informed positions about them.
So, this is me - I do not trust institutions of the academia (well, being an anarchist, I distrust other insititutions as well), yet I carefully examine people and communities to choose whom I can trust after all. I examine their positions as well. And these two examinations are naturally entwined and interconnected - to take one's argumentation and observation as worth detailed examination, I have to examine one's personal and professional integrity as well.
These complex examinations - and evaluations I made based on them - are neither perfect nor infallible. I may turn out to be wrong in the end. But the decisions I made are the best that I, imperfect and fallible as I am, could make. And I stand by them.
Here are a few more symptoms of corrupt science, to add to Vortex's list.
1) An over-use of phrases such as 'might be a sign', 'would be consistent with', 'up to', 'suggestive', 'has the fingerprints of'. These are very vague expressions that didn't see much use in past scientific discussions, but they are ideal for saying nothing while seeming to say something. My favourite is the explanation that while X isn't a sign of climate change, but is an example of the kind of thing that might happen more frequently in the future due to climate change!
2) The existence of obvious questions that never get answered. For example, I would love to know how all sorts of tragic events are supposed to be happening because of climate change, when the official rise in average global temperature since 1880 is a mere 0.8C.
3) Predictions that were made and turned out utterly wrong, and are never discussed again.
(We have had several snowy winters including the one just past).
After reading Soulatman's post I recalled that I had listened to the Rune Soup show, but I couldn't now recall the content. So I listened to it again. Louv seems like a competent enough researcher and writer. But even so he brings a set of biases to his work - as do others. Unless you have read the other material on Dee and have a decent background in the Western occult it is impossible to evaluate Louv's work on the subject. This applies to any historical research actually. What we have mostly are maybe interesting and entertaining accounts of what happened with interpretations that may or may not be true or useful.
Personally in the Rune Soup interview I thought Louv''s accounts of the "Angels" was inconsistent and problematic, and the overall discussion on the impact of Dee's work on later Magic raised more questions than it answered. This time I listened much more closely. I find these kinds of historical reviews not very helpful for general consumption. Gordon White said that he believed that without Dee's contact with the "Angels" there would be no space program - now there was maybe a disturbing line of logic in light of contemporary claims about the deep state and the secret space program. History is a continuity and not a collection of boxes. So called 'Angels' stimulating the creation of the rapacious British Empire are the 'good guys' - their comments about demons notwithstanding? Are they around now? Louv's explanation of the "Angels" was unconvincing in any case. The word has layers of meaning and application - and leaving the question pretty well ducked is no use to anybody.
Louv strikes me as a pretty smart bloke with a crap theory born of a lack of experience. Two decades isn't much at all, really, but he thinks its something. He misses the point that it is not science per se, but the philosophical underpinnings that shape its products and consequences. He observes that people from what are essentially animistic cultures are bemused by westerners (under the influence of materialism) and still the penny does not drop.
Alex pulled out another side to Louv - immature and egotistical. That is how some very good writers and researchers are - and it is why we can be stimulated and inspired by their works to think more deeply, but also why we must be very wary of relying on them as sources of reliable insight and truth. There are a lot of smart people writing books they shouldn't. They are too early in their careers to have developed a useful and mature capacity for insight and interpretation.
I hadn't thought about the deep state's claimed esoteric links going back to Dee, but courtesy of Louv's research that has become an idea I will now think on.
Separate names with a comma.