Bara's "Ken Johnston Jet Pilot" Claim

[TSS]

I hasn't cost me a penny..... Enterprise Mission site. Project Camelot. YouTube. Google Videos.

No-one HAS to spend any money. Unless they choose to.

We didn't have the internet in 1990 when I first started to be interested in alternative theories.

.....and I never said anybody has to spend money, I was talking to Eieam Wun about my own situation.

[TSS]

You are absolultely right SkYscanner, you have my full apologies, That was Silver Thong that made that remark, and I should have looked closer....

No need to apologise mate, I've done the same thing myself in the past, it's easy done.

[bee]

.....and I never said anybody has to spend money, I was talking to Eieam Wun about my own situation.

Ok...sorry I butted in....

[The Silver Thong]

...i'm not sure where u live that kids run around telling people about planet X, maybe that is the fault of the parents, but the only place I see that at is on line (internet) and in books in the new age sections of book stores. Which to me is what really intrigues me, anyone going to this section anyone going to a section which almost always has the words "SPECULATION" even if no one reads them has to know even on a subconscious level that what is present there is something other then what is commonly accepted. So exactly why people feel the need to use the same tactics as "fringe" works and individuals, or even lightly use such tactics to me is something I find interestingly ironical. I like how ya worded that there, "there is no real harm..." unless I being 'ignorant of the fact' is acceptable....nice....you can't be sane and deluded at the same time, you can act deluded but that is by choice meaning people want to believe, and telling them other wise won't make one iota of a difference, it is only when they choose to do other wise...

Do kids even play outside anymore lol not so much they are on the internet as you said almost as much as they play video games. I am aware that new age is the new thing however Hoagland doesn't care about truth and talks complete nonsense. To say there is no ill effect well, your in the right place. How many kids come here and say they are a werewolf or vampire playing out fantasies from silly books or people thinking aliens built the pyramids ext.

Is false logic and it can be harmful how and what children learn.

If you feel that an individual needs to grasp onto pseudo science ideologies than fine thats you, I however prefer to have some sort of checks and balances in place. Thats me though, if pseudoscience is acceptable to you and that profiting of lies is ok, then by all means keep at it. Since you mentioned choice why do some ignore the facts and cling to falsehoods ? it seems illogical to try and perpetuate flawed science.

I was a kid to and I thought that if I concentrated enough I could learn the Force lol I believed in Santa once to. There has to come a time in someones life were they go huh and start asking the right questions and stop accepting flawed answers. I think Hoagland has done a fantastic job at what he does, I will not take that away from him. However much he is in the wrong. Yup people's choice stay ignorant of the facts or not to, simple.

[Eieam Wun]

If you feel that an individual needs to grasp onto pseudo science ideologies than fine thats you, I however prefer to have some sort of checks and balances in place. Thats me though, if pseudoscience is acceptable to you and that profiting of lies is ok, then by all means keep at it.

...listen ST, I'm not sure why you keep baiting me with "if I accept" this that or the other, this is beside the point. Me beef has nothing to do with what hoagland says, as I said before he's entertainment, or what James says. What I see here is the condeming of someone who utilizes propaganda 'hoagland', propaganda being a word that isn't often used with good news if at all or something beneficial, take that same tactic James in an attempt to disprove this same individual. Kinda like in order to destroy evil one has to become evil...unecessary, one doesnt need to destroy evil to defeat it, just don't join it! It to me seems pretty much like propaganda, clear cut that's my rift, in fact that is my rift with supposed individuals who like on this board claim they are skeptics aka guardians of the truth so to speak, have to sink to the level of said opponents by coming to a fringe forum. In the same way James appears to be sinking to the level of hoagland to get his message of truth out.

Since you mentioned choice why do some ignore the facts and cling to falsehoods ? it seems illogical to try and perpetuate flawed science.

...First question, you would have to ask them, maybe they are looking for guidance and the falsehoods as you say, seem to make more sense then science, lets not forget science has it's only language very hard to penetrate if you are a laymen and aren't abreat on any such topics dealing with science.

Second, no it doesn't seem logical, besides the obvious giving people hope and or comfort, more so with new age/ufo ancient mysteries type deal stimulates ones imagination, and that can actually be a good thing...

There has to come a time in someones life were they go huh and start asking the right questions and stop accepting flawed answers.

like I said a person can't be sane and deluded at the same time, and the point I am getting at the long way, LOL, is that it is pointless and unecessary to use propaganda, or become guardians of truth, when a person such as yourself wish to start asking "well if this side says this, what does the other side say" then that is a eureka moment, but you can't force it, people have to choose, and simply because one feels they know the truth or facts and can dish it out when it's "needed" does little to cause others to change their opinion, quite the contrary, they cling even tighter, only they keep it to themselves and away from openly discussing it, to me there is a harm in that...that is, ending discussions of course, especially if both parties retain their previously held beliefs...

[Esoteric Toad]

While it might be an extreme example, unchecked ignorance can lead to things such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(cult)

Wouldn't it be more productive to educate people about frauds so that they can find comfort in factual information?

If the people who believe Hoagland (innocently) gravitate towards forums aimed at unexplained mysteries wouldn't that be the best place to educate them to be wary of frauds?

Or should we let people believe in the frauds and let the frauds profit from them? There are real mysteries in the world, seems to me to be a hell of a waste to believe in blatant falsehoods.

Not trying to change anyones opinion..just stating my own.

[Czero 101]

Wouldn't it be more productive to educate people about frauds so that they can find comfort in factual information?

If the people who believe Hoagland (innocently) gravitate towards forums aimed at unexplained mysteries wouldn't that be the best place to educate them to be wary of frauds?

Or should we let people believe in the frauds and let the frauds profit from them? There are real mysteries in the world, seems to me to be a hell of a waste to believe in blatant falsehoods.

Amen to all of the above...

Cz

[The Silver Thong]

Holy crap I'm way over my head here. I give, I give, sheesh. I will leave this to the ummm experts lol.

You have a book you want to promote don't you LOL I kid really

Edited February 19, 2009 by The Silver Thong

[Eieam Wun]

While it might be an extreme example, unchecked ignorance can lead to things such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(cult)

Wouldn't it be more productive to educate people about frauds so that they can find comfort in factual information?

If the people who believe Hoagland (innocently) gravitate towards forums aimed at unexplained mysteries wouldn't that be the best place to educate them to be wary of frauds?

Or should we let people believe in the frauds and let the frauds profit from them? There are real mysteries in the world, seems to me to be a hell of a waste to believe in blatant falsehoods.

Not trying to change anyones opinion..just stating my own.

Whether it would be more productive or not is up to the individual to figure out on their own, and me personally no I don't think going to such a place as this where "education" is the last thing they will receive here, and more importantly who are you, not you persay, but figuratively speaking to say what should be educated and who is "in need" to be educated? This is what I mean, this notion of "we must lead those in the dark to the light", is unsettling and it is more evident on boards such as this.

For me, I got my intellectual protection, but I think alot of people with out said self belief simply look on and rarely post or do so in or on a safe topic. Hey if that is the way then so be it, but now that we are discussing it albeit because of James, I'm just pointing out that going to extremes like what I believe he is doing I think is unecessary.

I just watched a short clip of The root of evil, and found that dawkin is on this mission to "educate" people about the delusion they live, you can't rush puberty, and you sure as hell can't rush intellectual maturity, and each one of us has to reach it in our own way at our own pace, and it will be different for each of us. Someone could read hoagland see it for what it is, but via such theories come up with a theory that makes sense at least to mainstream that seems to work, but I just don't see some efforts such as propaganda as a moral tool to use. If your skeptical and some learns from your skeptisim that's good, but let it not be your mission to seek them out because right off the bat that involves assumptions about said individuals and their ability to formulate their own opinion and thought.

No one can say what is or isn't educative material, something can be learned from every thing even frauds if that is what your opinion of hoagland and the like are... I'm not dismissing skeptics, cause I don't get alot of what hoagland says or sees (I just don't see it) but am dismissing the notion that some feel it is their duty to be skeptical. Heck if you're skeptical cause its fun, or even if you think its logical in certain situations or a better stance in a debate or what have you, that's cool, but if you do so because you feel or believe you owe it to the "less" educated as if you are doing them a "service" to be skeptical, then I think you are taking it a bit too serious and may end up doing the exact opposite of what you set out to do...

[Eieam Wun]

Holy crap I'm way over my head here. I give, I give, sheesh. I will leave this to the ummm experts lol.

You have a book you want to promote don't you LOL I kid really

Lol, yeah it's called how to stop people from responding... Don't leave, its fun when there are alot of people replying...

[bee]

Wouldn't it be more productive to educate people about frauds so that they can find comfort in factual information?

If the people who believe Hoagland (innocently) gravitate towards forums aimed at unexplained mysteries wouldn't that be the best place to educate them to be wary of frauds?

Or should we let people believe in the frauds and let the frauds profit from them? There are real mysteries in the world, seems to me to be a hell of a waste to believe in blatant falsehoods.

This is you and other Hoagland-bashers presuming that you are somehow more clever

and sussed than other people. Who need your help to see what you want them to see.

That you are on educational mission......to save the unwitting and not-so-clever-as-you

members of UM.....

I say.....people aren't stupid. They can look at it all and make their OWN minds up.

Present your own opinion and thoughts on the matter, by all means. We all have the freedom

to do this. But you don't have the monopoly on truth. And scaveging around for any tiny chink

in Hoaglands armour.....kind-of makes it look like a mission to discredit, not to educate.

And regarding the allegation of 'blatant falsehoods'.....Hoagland works with data

sometimes I have heard, waiting years for the data he needs to support his ideas/arguments.

[TSS]

This is you and other Hoagland-bashers presuming that you are somehow more clever

and sussed than other people. Who need your help to see what you want them to see.

That you are on educational mission......to save the unwitting and not-so-clever-as-you

members of UM.....

I say.....people aren't stupid. They can look at it all and make their OWN minds up.

Present your own opinion and thoughts on the matter, by all means. We all have the freedom

to do this. But you don't have the monopoly on truth. And scaveging around for any tiny chink

in Hoaglands armour.....kind-of makes it look like a mission to discredit, not to educate.

And regarding the allegation of 'blatant falsehoods'.....Hoagland works with data

sometimes I have heard, waiting years for the data he needs to support his ideas/arguments.

* Bolding mine

Your not still trying to push that angle are you Bee. You were wrong before and your wrong again.

Alot of people's interest in these topics when they first start out are from the conspiracy angle, they see a book or video or whatever and their interset in sparked from there. That's how I started out. Without people who are educated in the relevant subjects correcting many of the errors in these conspiracies then nobody would learn anything.

You trying to make out that anybody who provides facts against conspicay fantasy is somehow trying to belittle the opposing view is a poor show on your part.

[Czero 101]

This is you and other Hoagland-bashers presuming that you are somehow more clever

and sussed than other people. Who need your help to see what you want them to see.

That you are on educational mission......to save the unwitting and not-so-clever-as-you

members of UM.....

Oh, gods, yes... we should be SO ashamed for exposing this man for the fraud and liar he is...

I say.....people aren't stupid. They can look at it all and make their OWN minds up.

Some are extremely gullible, however, apparently willing to put their blind faith in someone who misrepresents his educational background, qualifications and work history.

Present your own opinion and thoughts on the matter, by all means. We all have the freedom

to do this. But you don't have the monopoly on truth. And scaveging around for any tiny chink

in Hoaglands armour.....kind-of makes it look like a mission to discredit, not to educate.

Yet you seem to have no problems constantly trying to discredit people who have actual scientific educations and qualifications, simply because they present facts that are contrary to Hoagland's fairy tales...

And regarding the allegation of 'blatant falsehoods'.....Hoagland works with data

sometimes I have heard, waiting years for the data he needs to support his ideas/arguments.

And as was told to you the last time you brought this nugget up, it has been proven that he constantly MISINTERPRETS the data he works with. Hardly surprising since he is in no way, shape or form qualified to interpret that data.

Your sad devotion to this liar is... well.... sad....

Cz

Edited February 19, 2009 by Czero 101

[badeskov]

This is you and other Hoagland-bashers presuming that you are somehow more clever

and sussed than other people.

All you need is critical thinking to bash Hoagland, a trait you sorely miss. So, yes, Eso and others are more clever in that sense. Period.

Who need your help to see what you want them to see.

Apparently some people need that help, which is rather sad.

That you are on educational mission......to save the unwitting and not-so-clever-as-you

members of UM.....

Call it whatever you like, but willful ignorance is to be countered anytime it raises it's ugly head, as otherwise we will return to the dark ages of science and pseudo-scientists like Hoagland will roam freely and innovation will be crushed. That computer you are typing on right now is the result of sound scientific practices. If all scientists were working like Hoagland we'd still be using flint axes and our wheels would be square and not round.

I say.....people aren't stupid. They can look at it all and make their OWN minds up.

Most people can, yes. However, a few select stubbornly refuse to accept facts and solely rely on belief in their observations and descriptions of the world around us.

Present your own opinion and thoughts on the matter, by all means. We all have the freedom

to do this. But you don't have the monopoly on truth. And scaveging around for any tiny chink

in Hoaglands armour.....kind-of makes it look like a mission to discredit, not to educate.

He already did, but I guess you elegantly overlooked it. You also conveniently left out the sentence where he stated:

Not trying to change anyones opinion..just stating my own.

In any case, Jim made a very good case on why this Ken Johnston Jet Pilot issue is totally bogus and that is just another nail in the coffin of Hoagland. Eso stated as much in his post. Now you are the one coming to Hoagland's rescue, mainly by accusing others of Hoagland bashing. You need to do a lot better than that. Hoagland is a fraud and provably so. Now, can you show me a single example of where he is correct? I have shown you a couple of examples of where he is wrong, one was in his interpretation of data and the other in the inflation of his ego. Very conveniently you forgot to dwell at it and elegantly ignored to dig deeper into that. I guess it hurts when one's system of belief is poked at, especially when the facts is undermining one's position.

And regarding the allegation of 'blatant falsehoods'.....Hoagland works with data

sometimes I have heard, waiting years for the data he needs to support his ideas/arguments.

So what if he works with data?! One shouldn't think so, but he does of course. However, his interpretations are plain out wrong and are blatant falsehoods, especially when seen in connection with his feeble attempts of inflating his credibility by all means necessary, even to the point of outright lying.

He is a fraud. And provably so.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited for typos.

Edited February 19, 2009 by badeskov

[bee]

He is a fraud. And provably so.

We've been down this road before....more than once.

You didn't/couldn't prove him to be a fraud then. And I doubt that you can now.

[badeskov]

We've been down this road before....more than once.

You didn't/couldn't prove him to be a fraud then. And I doubt that you can now.

But I did. You just refused to recognize it. And still do. Definition of fraud.

1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.

2. A piece of trickery; a trick.

3.

a.

One that defrauds; a cheat.

b.

One who assumes a false pose; an impostor.

He basically fits all the above. Lets start with the impostor part, shall we?!

1. He claimed to be the originator of the idea of water and possible life on Europa. This is provably wrong (I showed you this the last time we touched on this matter and you had no comments). That he still refuses to acknowledge this makes him a fraud, deliberately.

2. He claimed to have received the Angstrom medal, however, what he got was not the Angstrom medal. What he got was rather meaningless. This is a fact. He still fails to acknowledge this.

3. He claims to have been the originator of the idea for the plaque sent with the pioneer spacecraft. It turns out he was merely present when the idea was presented by others. He still fails to acknowledge this.

All of the above is imposting. And he does that to bolster his credentials to perpetuate his "theories". That makes him a fraud. Provably so.

And what exactly has he said regarding the face on Mars, of which we now have detailed 3D imagery showing it with almost certainty as a natural geological formation?! Has he retracted his claims?! No, he has not. That also makes him a fraud. Provably so.

Anything to add?!

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited for typo and missing word.

Edited February 19, 2009 by badeskov

[The Silver Thong]

We've been down this road before....more than once.

You didn't/couldn't prove him to be a fraud then. And I doubt that you can now.

Bee

Badeskov and Mid and quit a few others have really taken care of the "is Hoagland a fraud or not issue" enjoy his work for what it is, a very acctive imagination and a flare for over the top dramatics in his proposals. I and a lot of others enjoy reading Haogland but one has to step back and look at his work with a certin amount of reserve. Lots of interesting strang things out there and some yes can't fully answer but to say Hoaglands explenation is in anyway accurate is very inaccurate.

[Esoteric Toad]

Whether it would be more productive or not is up to the individual to figure out on their own, and me personally no I don't think going to such a place as this where "education" is the last thing they will receive here, and more importantly who are you, not you persay, but figuratively speaking to say what should be educated and who is "in need" to be educated? This is what I mean, this notion of "we must lead those in the dark to the light", is unsettling and it is more evident on boards such as this.

For me, I got my intellectual protection, but I think alot of people with out said self belief simply look on and rarely post or do so in or on a safe topic. Hey if that is the way then so be it, but now that we are discussing it albeit because of James, I'm just pointing out that going to extremes like what I believe he is doing I think is unecessary.

I just watched a short clip of The root of evil, and found that dawkin is on this mission to "educate" people about the delusion they live, you can't rush puberty, and you sure as hell can't rush intellectual maturity, and each one of us has to reach it in our own way at our own pace, and it will be different for each of us. Someone could read hoagland see it for what it is, but via such theories come up with a theory that makes sense at least to mainstream that seems to work, but I just don't see some efforts such as propaganda as a moral tool to use. If your skeptical and some learns from your skeptisim that's good, but let it not be your mission to seek them out because right off the bat that involves assumptions about said individuals and their ability to formulate their own opinion and thought.

No one can say what is or isn't educative material, something can be learned from every thing even frauds if that is what your opinion of hoagland and the like are... I'm not dismissing skeptics, cause I don't get alot of what hoagland says or sees (I just don't see it) but am dismissing the notion that some feel it is their duty to be skeptical. Heck if you're skeptical cause its fun, or even if you think its logical in certain situations or a better stance in a debate or what have you, that's cool, but if you do so because you feel or believe you owe it to the "less" educated as if you are doing them a "service" to be skeptical, then I think you are taking it a bit too serious and may end up doing the exact opposite of what you set out to do...

Call me dense, but what exactly should we be doing on a forum discussing unexplained mysteries? If we are not here to discuss every aspects of said mysteries, including whether or not someone peddling bogus information, what is it we should be doing? If you are not attempting to educate (by stating your belief backed by what you consider facts) someone about whatever subject is being discussed what is it exactly we should be doing??? Very confusing - would the same logic apply if someone posted known scientific data? Being skeptical has nothing to do with it, something is either factual or not, something is either opinion or not (in the sense of ones perceptual reality.....). As I said, I may be dense, but based on what you have written there shouldn't even be a discussion, just random chattering on a forum, no one should expose truth, belief, lies, facts, fairy tales, fiction, non-fiction or just plain anything. Someone might learn something....someone might change their opinion, and someone might actually learn something (gasp!). What you are saying seems sort of wishy-washy - you can learn something from anything. While that is very true, why make someone learn something the hard way??? Why is it better to let someone make a mistake and learn but not ok to give them something to work with so that if they make the mistake at least they are a bit better equpped to deal with the potential fall out.

I may have it wrong, but it seems to me that following your logic it would be better to let a child burn their hand on a stove than try and explain to them why they shouldn't touch it in the first place.

Again, my opinion for what is it worth.

Incindentally - you can learn quite a bit about quite a few things through these forums if you take it upon yourself to look into what you read. Only a fool takes what is written by anyone at face value. I get the feeling though that no matter what data is present to support any statement wouldn't be enough in some peoples mind.

[Eieam Wun]

Call me dense, but what exactly should we be doing on a forum discussing unexplained mysteries?

...I won't and having dicussions what else, usually what forum discussion boards are about.

If we are not here to discuss every aspects of said mysteries, including whether or not someone peddling bogus information, what is it we should be doing?

I have no objection to this, that would be presenting evidence, so far so good...and quote me if I said other wise.

If you are not attempting to educate (by stating your belief backed by what you consider facts) someone about whatever subject is being discussed what is it exactly we should be doing???

...well that isn't what it means to educate and before I can respond I read this...

Very confusing - would the same logic apply if someone posted known scientific data? Being skeptical has nothing to do with it,

...now where did I say being skeptical had anything to do with it, you quoted my entire passage I'm sure you read this: "who are you, not you persay, but figuratively speaking to say what should be educated and who is "in need" to be educated? This is what I mean, this notion of "we must lead those in the dark to the light", is unsettling and it is more evident on boards such as this."

Your only educating not because you are stating ur belief back by facts, but if the person is reciprocal... other wise it's a waste of time, why I think what James is doing is a waste of time, I'm sure bee saw what James posted, yet still believes as Bee believes. To make this a bit clearer... You are taking the term skeptic a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual, and are making it synonymus with educator a person or thing that educates, esp. a teacher, principal, or other person involved in planning or directing education.

educate:1. to develop the faculties and powers of (a person) by teaching, instruction, or schooling.

2. to qualify by instruction or training for a particular calling, practice, etc.; train: to educate someone for law.

3. to provide schooling or training for; send to school.

4. to develop or train (the ear, taste, etc.): to educate one's palate to appreciate fine food.

5. to inform: to educate oneself about the best course of action.

–verb (used without object)

6. to educate a person or group: A television program that educates can also entertain.

perhaps your dictionary is different from this one here, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/educate , but you defintion is self created, and this is what I see as a problem. Question all ya like of anyone on this board, just don't assume you are educating them especially when they aren't even reciprocal of the information you are giving them. Maybe when that occurs and such party is reciprocal, if it does occur, then you can right fully say that you helped them at the very least, other wise you are just a skeptic not an educator.

something is either factual or not, something is either opinion or not (in the sense of ones perceptual reality.....). As I said, I may be dense, but based on what you have written there shouldn't even be a discussion, just random chattering on a forum, no one should expose truth, belief, lies, facts, fairy tales, fiction, non-fiction or just plain anything.

...one I don't think your dense, I think you are highly intelligent person like the majority of people here and the confusion I see is you think I am advocating skeptics need to hit the road, far from it, just individuals that think they are "attempting to educate"! Be skeptical, question it all, just remember that a skeptic isn't an educator, they are doubters by the very nature of the word, and not necessarily in a negative way, but that is what a skeptic is synonomus with, to doubt, I am skeptical of hoaglands work, and skeptical of obergs intentions going to different discussion areas pushing the same idea, free to do so, but it does seem to spell out what propaganda is.

Someone might learn something....someone might change their opinion, and someone might actually learn something (gasp!).

there's alot of "mights" there, tell me Esoteric, honestly, how many people have you educated or helped to educate that believed or thought other wise prior to you conversing with them...that is here on this board?

What you are saying seems sort of wishy-washy - you can learn something from anything. While that is very true, why make someone learn something the hard way???

...lol wishy washy, I have hope and I try to stay clean...hope=wishy/clean=washy- Again "make" someone learn the hard way, perhaps it's just the way you word things(?) but I don't make anyone do anything, I have a hard time trying to make myself do things here in the house and my wife would most certainly agree. But the hard way, my opinion, thats the best way to actually learn and understand some thing, first hand experience. It is easy to do what one is told, quite another thing to be responsible for what one should be doing and that comes from first hand experience...alone.

Why is it better to let someone make a mistake and learn but not ok to give them something to work with so that if they make the mistake at least they are a bit better equpped to deal with the potential fall out.

excellent question, I don't know if its better because it depends on the circumstances, each circumstance is different so while I wouldn't let my son touch the oven while its on to learn that it is hot and he shouldn't touch it, I would not say anything if he wanted to stay up late the night before going to school so he could understand how hard/difficult it may or may not be getting up the next day.

Again, my opinion for what is it worth.

your opinion to me and others thoughts are worth alot, it helps illustrate the thinking of people who post here and their motives.

Incindentally - you can learn quite a bit about quite a few things through these forums if you take it upon yourself to look into what you read. Only a fool takes what is written by anyone at face value.

Now to me this here is interesting. How can one look into things presented on a forum yet keep in mind anything written can't be taken at face value. I doubt many on this board actually partake in experiments to show the validity of such things. Some use mainstream as their crutch and others use alternative as their crutch, but how can anything be "blantant falshood" when at the same time noting " anything written shouldn't be taken by anyone at face value" if few or any of us here are actual scientist and or doing the actual experiement to verify? Again doubt, but this notion of I'm correct, or I'm right enough to assert claims such as "blatant falsehoods," or say an individual is a "fool" if they take anything written at face value, is demeaning and pointless. be sketical with uncertainty, not skeptical with emperical knowledge when it does not apply!

I get the feeling though that no matter what data is present to support any statement wouldn't be enough in some peoples mind.

...funny, I said the same thing in two post prior to this one, which is why I think propaganda and skeptics who think they are educating a pointless endeavor...

If your skeptical and some learns from your skeptisim that's good, but let it not be your mission to seek them out because right off the bat that involves assumptions about said individuals and their ability to formulate their own opinion and thought

I'm not dismissing skeptics, cause I don't get alot of what hoagland says or sees (I just don't see it) but am dismissing the notion that some feel it is their duty to be skeptical

from wiki:Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience.

[Esoteric Toad]

You know, not to sound like some old fogey, but I have met people throughout my life that like to argue for arguments sake. It took me some time to recognize those sorts of people; perhaps I am naive about people’s motivations. I find what Jim Oberg does admirable. I believe that what he presents is useful and hopefully it will prevent someone from making poor decisions with regards to supporting frauds (IMO). I think I have learned quite a bit by reading some of the posters on here, I use them as a stepping stone (no matter what they are referring too, skeptic or not)...not as my only source for information and I believe that most of the posters on these forums do the same.

This is what I mean, this notion of "we must lead those in the dark to the light", is unsettling and it is more evident on boards such as this."

I haven't seen any draconian methods used to enforce the above statement. Folks on this forum seem to believe all sorts of ideas. Unsettling? Why would Jim Oberg's posting be unsettling? Why would my opinion that hopefully someone will not be taken advantage of by known frauds be unsettling? Look, it is one thing to have a belief based in faith, something improvable, IF the purveyors are who they say they are....even if it is fictional; it is another thing to sell you based on lies. Example, I can claim that I am a medium channeling the spirit of Zimulack and can tell you your future...if you are into that sort of thing then whoopie do for you. BUT if I tell you I have a PHD (with a bogus certificate to go along with it) and you follow my advice, my bad destructive advice, then there is an obvious problem there. If someone makes it apparent that the PHD is bogus then I can avoid that and find a truly qualified person to seek advice from.

Based on your response I assume you have children, I hope you would steer them in the right direction when it came to their sources of information. I did state in my original post that while extreme, some of these Hoagland types turn into cult leaders. We know where that can head.

I think you are taking the 'educate' think a bit too literally as well. What word should we use? Inform, illustrate, and point out?

there's alot of "mights" there, tell me Esoteric, honestly, how many people have you educated or helped to educate that believed or thought other wise prior to you conversing with them...that is here on this board?

I haven't a clue, I'd like to think someone has taken something positive (and expanded on it themselves) from what I have said on here, but I also do not take myself too seriously. Personally I do find that some of the more obvious 'frauds' are frightening, damaging and insulting - but maybe I worry too much.

Now to me this here is interesting. How can one look into things presented on a forum yet keep in mind anything written can't be taken at face value. I doubt many on this board actually partake in experiments to show the validity of such things. Some use mainstream as their crutch and others use alternative as their crutch, but how can anything be "blantant falshood" when at the same time noting " anything written shouldn't be taken by anyone at face value" if few or any of us here are actual scientist and or doing the actual experiement to verify? Again doubt, but this notion of I'm correct, or I'm right enough to assert claims such as "blatant falsehoods," or say an individual is a "fool" if they take anything written at face value, is demeaning and pointless. be sketical with uncertainty, not skeptical with emperical knowledge when it does not apply!

Perhaps I am not eloquent enough. If you tell me the sky is blue I might agree with you but I will still try and verify that for myself. Not taking anything for face value was meant to illustrate that even if I agree or disagree I try to find out more information from other sources.

ed•u•cate 3. to teach (someone) about a particular matter: a campaign to educate people to the dangers of smoking [Latin educare to rear, educate]

There are many definitions to educate as well.

[Eieam Wun]

...so you are saying what James is doing is NOT propaganda?

[Esoteric Toad]

...so you are saying what James is doing is NOT propaganda?

Nope. I am sure you can fit it into a definition...as most things can be.

What do you call someone who lies about their qualification and sells fabricated infromation under the guise of truth? What do you call someone who allows them to do so and does nothing to prevent it? Remember, it is one thing to sell fiction as fiction, it is another to sell fiction as fact. Hell, it's ok to sell fiction as faith....

But as I said....arguing for arguments sake isn't something I want to do. You believe it is propaganda and some people on here are misguided psuedo educators.....I see things differently.

Edited February 20, 2009 by Esoteric Toad

[Eieam Wun]

Nope. I am sure you can fit it into a definition...as most things can be.

What do you call someone who lies about there qualification and sells fabricated infromation under the guise of truth? What do you call someone who allows them to do so and does nothing to prevent it? Remember, it is one thing to sell fiction as fiction, it is another to sell fiction as fact. Hell, it's ok to sell fiction as faith....

But as I said....arguing for arguments sake isn't something I want to do. You believe it is propaganda and some people on here are misguided psuedo educators.....I see things differently.

...lol, yeah I definitely like to argue for the sake of argument, seriously, sometimes I like to discuss things, but at this moment let me get this striaght, cause this is more interesting then the last thing I quoted from you, by definition what james is doing is propaganda, you your self said: "Wouldn't it be more productive to educate people about frauds so that they can find comfort in factual information? " then somehow seem to miss/ignore that this is my beef with skeptics who think their educators

....perhaps didn't get what it was I was writing assumed I wanted skeptics out, because they are providing facts, then say I am being TOO literal with what educate means when I provided facts, showing your definition really isn't what education is and what propaganda actually is, wow, this almost seems like I'm you and your the psuedo believer....I present consensus definitions that clearly apply, it isn't accepted, I take the time to explain what I mean, but your response (each time) isn't in relation to what I wrote...wow, the only thing, I never intended to be commenting this far, and actually wanted to see what James would say...isn't this ironic...

what is more interesting is apparently you still don't see what I am getting at, what Jim posted isn't unsettling, its factual from what I can tell, it is the method he is using to dissemenate that. You see when one creates their own definition or hears and or reads what they choose to read, the original meaning gets lost, that's why we have a dictionary, thats why anyone can quote anyone else....but ok, I don't want to keep beating the dead horse here, I'll wait and see if James does respond...

[Lilly]

So, here's the next burning question: Is propaganda always a bad thing?

Just so we're all clear on exactly what 'propaganda' actually is:

2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person

3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause ; also : a public action having such an effect.

link to Websters

I think that when the propaganda is based nothing more than rumour and innuendo, it's not a very good/accurate activity. However, to base one's propaganda on sound factual information, then it's not always a negative activity. Example, if I put forth propaganda designed to warn people about the dangers of disreputable financial institutions (pointing out actions like that of Ponzi and Madoff) how can this be a bad thing?

[JimOberg]

Isn't calling something 'propaganda' just a gimmick to excuse ourselves from having to decide if it's true, and if true, what it means to our existing beliefs? And if so, isn't calling something propaganda, itself 'propaganda'?

How about calling it 'research results'... and let the implications sort themselves out.

But consider this -- there are people who do not want themselves, or others, to think that what I'm writing about my research results even exists. They want it covered up, they want people to close their eyes and minds to it, through name-calling and obfuscation. Who is doing the distortions here, who the deceptions?