(Blogger’s Note: There are those who have asked about the logistics of the Citizen
Hearing. Steve Bassett has supplied some of that information in an email sent
to a great many people. For those who might have missed it, and who have an
interest in this sort of thing, I reprint that email below. Questions about it
should be addressed to Bassett. While I did participate in the Hearing, I had
no role in creating, organizing, selecting witnesses, or any other aspect of
the Hearing.)
Citizen Hearing on
Disclosure (CHD)
(Main site) www.citizenhearing.org
By the numbers: The CHD brought 40 witnesses from 10 countries to the National Press Club in Washington, DC to testify for 30 hours over 5 days before 6 former members of the U. S. Congress. The price tag was $600,000 provided by a film production deal and not a grant. There were six strategic goals for the CHD: 1) undermine the White House OSTP statement of November 4, 2011 regarding the complete absence of evidence for an extraterrestrial presence or the withholding of relevant information by the government; 2) prompt the U. S. Congress to hold its first hearings on the subject since1968; 3) motivate the mainstream political media to begin appropriate investigative coverage of the subject; 4) inform the executive branch it risks not being the first nation to Disclose an ET presence; 5) increase awareness of the Disclosure movement around the world; and 6) add a UN initiative to the advocacy matrix.
All of these goals were advanced and the stage is set for more truth advocacy, the primary goal of which is nothing less than Disclosure this year.
CHD Media Coverage
www.citizenhearing.org/press.html
Media engagement of the CHD was significantly impacted by the tragic events in Boston. Nevertheless, there was extensive print and video coverage which is being chronicled on the website. The live and archived webcasts will help ensure more coverage going forward.
Citizen Hearing Webcast
www.citizenhearing.org/webcast_archive.html
The CHD was webcast and archived in English and Spanish. Additional languages will be archived later this year. Webcasting is a developing technology. It is not like television. With so many types of computers, operating systems and Internet access, the spectrum of user satisfaction is broad. And then there are the pay portals.
Many of the user issues were caused by two factors: 1) subscribers received two emails: one from PayPal with the receipt and one from CHD with the access password, and 2) often one or both of these emails were diverted to the subscriber's "spam" or "junk" email boxes.
Additional language has been added to the webcast pages alerting subscribers to these issues.
Citizen Hearing Foundation
Washington Communique
www.citizenhearing.org/foundation.html
The CHD Committee met on Thursday, May 2 to discuss an approach to the United Nations. The result was the May 3, 2013 Washington Communique that states the following:
(Main site) www.citizenhearing.org
By the numbers: The CHD brought 40 witnesses from 10 countries to the National Press Club in Washington, DC to testify for 30 hours over 5 days before 6 former members of the U. S. Congress. The price tag was $600,000 provided by a film production deal and not a grant. There were six strategic goals for the CHD: 1) undermine the White House OSTP statement of November 4, 2011 regarding the complete absence of evidence for an extraterrestrial presence or the withholding of relevant information by the government; 2) prompt the U. S. Congress to hold its first hearings on the subject since1968; 3) motivate the mainstream political media to begin appropriate investigative coverage of the subject; 4) inform the executive branch it risks not being the first nation to Disclose an ET presence; 5) increase awareness of the Disclosure movement around the world; and 6) add a UN initiative to the advocacy matrix.
All of these goals were advanced and the stage is set for more truth advocacy, the primary goal of which is nothing less than Disclosure this year.
CHD Media Coverage
www.citizenhearing.org/press.html
Media engagement of the CHD was significantly impacted by the tragic events in Boston. Nevertheless, there was extensive print and video coverage which is being chronicled on the website. The live and archived webcasts will help ensure more coverage going forward.
Citizen Hearing Webcast
www.citizenhearing.org/webcast_archive.html
The CHD was webcast and archived in English and Spanish. Additional languages will be archived later this year. Webcasting is a developing technology. It is not like television. With so many types of computers, operating systems and Internet access, the spectrum of user satisfaction is broad. And then there are the pay portals.
Many of the user issues were caused by two factors: 1) subscribers received two emails: one from PayPal with the receipt and one from CHD with the access password, and 2) often one or both of these emails were diverted to the subscriber's "spam" or "junk" email boxes.
Additional language has been added to the webcast pages alerting subscribers to these issues.
Citizen Hearing Foundation
Washington Communique
www.citizenhearing.org/foundation.html
The CHD Committee met on Thursday, May 2 to discuss an approach to the United Nations. The result was the May 3, 2013 Washington Communique that states the following:
Whereas: given the unfolding scientific
understanding of the number of potentially life supporting planets within
Earth's home galaxy, it would be the height of arrogance to assert that humans
are the only sentient beings within that galaxy;
Whereas: given that credible witnesses have
brought forth overwhelming scientific evidence documenting the current presence
of unidentified and unexplained aerial craft that many believe to reflect an
extraterrestrial intelligence;
And Whereas: given the enormous global
implications if these craft are, indeed, of extraterrestrial origin, such an
issue is a matter for the General Assembly of the United Nations;
Therefore, we the undersigned request the
Citizen Hearing Foundation use its offices to organize interested parties and
raise the funds necessary to pursue a global campaign to convince one or more
nations to propose a resolution within the General Assembly calling for United
Nations sponsorship of a world conference addressing the possible evidence for
an extraterrestrial presence engaging this planet.
The
Citizen Hearing Foundation will begin raising funds immediately to implement
this mandate to seek a world conference sponsored by the United Nations.
Part 1 of 2:
ReplyDelete"The price tag [for the CHD presentation costs] was $600,000 provided by a film production deal and not a grant."
Hmmmm.... very interesting. I had thought Bassett had put out info that the funds for sponsoring the CHD has come from an "anonymous" donor originally, who did not wish to be publicly identified. And that the upfront funding was in the neighborhood of around $1 million.**
[If so, what remains of the balance of $400K, if that initial sponsorship funding was actually in the $1 million dollar range. Where does all the money go, and will/does PRG provide or plan to release any kind of public audit data about that?]
**[Perhaps that was in error, or a rumor floated by someone other than Bassett. Does anyone else know the details of that source or initial amount of funding? I ask since any more major efforts by PRG, it would seem, might be better served by being more open and transparent in terms of at least funding and expense accounting. Is PRG a section 3 or 4 non-profit status corporation, with the related tax benefits?]
And, if a "film production deal" was actually involved, who might the film production company be, and what might be their plans for use and distribution of the filmed or video content one may presume allowed them by their funding to gain copyright and/or distribution rights to any subsequent film production made of the CHB presentation content?
"The Citizen Hearing Foundation will begin raising funds immediately to implement this mandate to seek a world conference sponsored by the United Nations."
Well, that certainly seems to indicate Bassett/Paradigm Research Group plan to go big time, but the underlying concern I have is just how productive or "legit" such an effort would be seen as by those intended to be the audience and whether it would be genuinely convincing or not, given the fact that Bassett does not think, apparently, that he need vet his witness info/sources to what it would seem to me at least should be done, to separate the "wheat from the chaff," as it were. Hopefully, such efforts will not result in another of what I would term a kind of "GreerFest" of less than reliable or balanced presentation in any proposed or eventual "world conference."
I'd also venture it's more than a bit presumptuous for PRG/Bassett to think any such conference or major effort (given the known "exopolitical" orientation and prior efforts, presentations, and/or petitions previously sponsored by Bassett/PRG, like the somewhat amateurish and rather less than truly objective previous "X Conferences" have been) to expect or receive actual United Nations support or co-sponsorship.
Part 2 of 2:
ReplyDeleteIn various ways, I feel, this all may be a "bridge too far" for PRG, et al (as presently constituted) to likely achieve, in terms of such an effort to either actually gain United Nations support, sponsorship, or actual endorsement, and while I don't like being "overly cynical," there are a number of practical questions which will raise issues of what the actual intent, effect, and legitimacy of such prospective plans and efforts will actually bring forth, in terms of mainstream media coverage, political influence, and general public perception.
(And, how does one calibrate or pragmatically determine or gauge such intended or actual purpose and results on the "non-advocate" audience?)
[While I myself am not fond of or enthused by the history and some personalities within what could be termed the "exopolitical movement," like Steven Greer or Michael Salla for example, and even though I do wish PRG/Bassett "luck" (they're going to need it, and much more), a whole host of pragmatic issues and further, more professional development will have to occur for them to be at all "successful," however that might be defined in this esoteric realm.]
I also think Bassett, as the "only UFO lobbyist" on Capitol Hill, is most likely quite sincere and persuaded to his cause, but that there remain several "holes" in such efforts, and the nature of why and particularly how they are being promoted and implemented that concern me, and I'm just hoping that they do not subsequently "backfire" and produce a variety of negative consequences with the public and political "influence brokers" in the domestic (and international) governmental and political sphere or domains.
That would potentially be a terrible legacy and setback for "ufology" and its already "mixed" reputation and future prospects to gain legitimacy and make real progress.
That might be worse than PRG doing nothing at all, if you think about it, or the potential long-term effects and influence on the "mainstream" non-advocate public if these kinds of plans are either mishandled, less than genuinely empirical or objective, or that the content and presenters are not much more thoroughly vetted and screened properly.
It just takes one or a few "bad apples" to spoil the bunch, or impugn such hypothetically "noble" or honest efforts to begin to better establish or truly move forward on what I believe Bassett/PRG and related others honestly do or would want, which is greater public awareness of the issues regarding the UFO phenomenon, and potentially some form of "disclosure" and/or Congressional (or U.N.) hearings and related actions at this time.
While some here may think my worries about all this are misplaced or misbegotten, I'm mainly just going by the prior history and content of previous PRG sponsored activities, which to put it kindly, have been less than wholly effective, productive, or objective, IMHO. They really need to "up their game," in other words.
Two phrases, in fact, come to mind:
"Trust but verify," and caveat emptor.
But, we shall see. I think one thing Bassett could and should do is to broaden his circle of advisors and/or consultants, and that they be of a more professional and experienced kind, in order to broaden and balance his organization and related proposals or future planned events to be more effective than prior events, such as the CHB was. I just hope Bassett and company can overcome their apparent confirmation biases to the degree required to make all that work, and to "do the right thing," for the genuine benefit of ufology, such as it is.
@KR/All:
ReplyDelete"Questions about it should be addressed to Bassett..."
Yup, agreed. Just thought, however, I'd voice some concerns about issues others here, including KR, may or may not wish to address or respond to, as I think they are central as to the impact and future progress the PRG might provide, if they "do their job" right.
I wonder if Bassett reads this blog occassionally, or since the recent series of posts about the CHD (not the "CHB" as I incorrectly noted above) and the Huerta incident?
Eh! If so, maybe he can reply here if so moved to. I won't hold my breath waiting, though. 8^}
Regarding the six strategic goals for the CHD - if you look at them, they are reminiscent of the goals of NICAP in the late 50s and 60s. In fact these 'goals' of Bassett sound very much like those of Keyhoe, although worded differently. So, in essence, we have made zero progress in this respect in 50 years. And the White House response of November 2011 is more or less exactly what the USAF gave out in its various press releases on UFOs during the 1954 to 1969 period. Some progress!
ReplyDeleteOne 'goal' that caught my eye is no. 4 about the US risking some other country getting in first with Disclosure (about ET presence on earth). The disclosure group seem concerned that the US would be failing in its duty to the public if some other nation beat them to the great 'disclosure'.
Does this not powerfully indicate that the US has NO such evidence, and never has had (e.g. from Roswell, Aztec or any other prominent UFO case). The Disclosure Group surely realise that their own government would hardly cover up such important scientific evidence for 65+ years and risk another nation like China , India or Russia getting in first with the great news.
I doubt any other nation will disclose before the US, simply because the US is probably the only nation with real proof. (The "Russian Roswell" was phony.) Talk about some other nation beating us to it doesn't indicate the US has no proof--it has much better than anyone else--only that it chooses to keep it concealed. Unfortunately, the "great news" is quite unlike other scientific discoveries in that it may cause panic or other disruption. As I once tried to tell Bletchman, who was gung ho about getting disclosure, it is naive for lay people, who don't know the full truth, to assume society can "take it."
ReplyDeleteIn a sense, yes, there has been "zero progress." I'm willing to bet anybody any amount there won't be disclosure on account of CHD. But it has increased public awareness of UFOlogy, including key cases unknown in the '50s.
@CDA:
ReplyDelete"The disclosure group seem concerned that the US would be failing in its duty to the public if some other nation beat them to the great 'disclosure'.
"Does this not powerfully indicate that the US has NO such evidence, and never has had (e.g. from Roswell, Aztec or any other prominent UFO case). The Disclosure Group surely realise that their own government would hardly cover up such important scientific evidence for 65+ years and risk another nation like China , India or Russia getting in first with the great news."
Answers: No, no, and uhm... ah, no.
If you're interested in a more complete explication as to why the answers to your queries/comments above are essentially "no," then you can note your email address here (or refer me elsewhere, where it may already be online or a url through which I might contact you), and I can send you my take on the questions/points you note above in far more detail and on a rational basis than it would be appropriate to detail or post here.
Your trying, once again, to "prove a negative," as I've noted previously without response from you, or that "absence of public evidence is 'proven' evidence of absence" arguments can be fairly readily refuted, if you'd care to know more.
But, that's up to you, if you'd care to take the time to consider alternate viewpoints I can provide.
Cheers, "old bean!" Hup, hup! 8^}
For Steve Sawyer or other interested parties... Billy Cox reported in December of 2012 that “with an assist from a benefactor whose name he declines to reveal, Bassett says he has a clean ledger and $1.1 million for his next project, which he's calling a Citizen Hearing on Disclosure.”:
ReplyDeletehttp://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/13447/they-might-be-windmills/
ABC News later reported, May 2, 2013, “According to organizer Stephen Bassett, who founded Paradigm in 1996 as a political-advocacy and lobbying group to pressure the government to release information on UFOs, the whole event will wind up costing $600,000. Funding was supplied by a wealthy Canadian donor named Thomas Clearwater, Bassett told ABC News.”:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/truth-lawmakers-piqued-skeptical-ets/story?id=19086646&page=2
According to the website of Paradigm Research Group, it “has acted as a non-profit,” but “it is not set up as a non-profit in order to maximize its range of political advocacy options and diminish its vulnerability.”:
http://www.paradigmresearchgroup.org/contribute.htm
As suggested in the email posted by KR, Bassett recently announced via email and on a CH website intentions to incorporate a nonprofit organization, stating, “The Citizen Hearing Foundation is a pending 501(c)3 non-profit, which will launch its website later this month and immediately begin raising funds to pursue nation sponsors for a resolution to the UN General Assembly.”:
http://www.citizenshearing.org/press_release.html
Thanks very much, Jack. Good information.
ReplyDeleteI knew I'd heard or read about Bassett getting "$1+ million" or so from an "anonymous donor," but couldn't recall where, or the details. Must have been the "De Void" column.
And Bassett has applied for 501(c)(3) non-profit, tax-exempt status...? That seems kind of weird, since 501(c)(3) non-profits are "...organizations [that] are absolutely prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying, whereas 501(c)(4)incorporated "non-profits" since the "Citizens United" SCOTUS decision ("corporations are 'people,' too!") are, in turn, "organizations [that] may inform the public on controversial subjects and attempt to influence legislation relevant to its program and, unlike 501(c)(3) organizations, they may also participate in political campaigns and elections, as long as its primary activity is the promotion of social welfare," or other scientific or educational purposes.
I'll bet PRG becomes a (c)4, not a (c)3, given the differences in what is authorized under the two different IRS 501(c) provisions.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)_organization
[Hopefully, PRG won't get caught up in having its application delayed or caught up in the current IRS controversy regarding Tea Party and other conservative groups that were targeted by the main Cincinnati, Ohio non-profit applications office!]
See: http://nyti.ms/Zoz8MP
And, who is "wealthy Canadian donor Thomas Clearwater"? He has an interesting twitter feed under "rumiheart," but I couldn't find out much else about him online.
Can't help but be a little curious about someone who would donated over a million dollars to Bassett's PRG. Clearwater's twitter feed seems somewhat "new-agey." Intriguing.
@Steve Sawyer:
ReplyDeleteI'm interested in your "more complete explication" even if cda isn't. Maybe via my little blog.
Steve:
ReplyDelete"Your trying, once again, to 'prove a negative,' "
Oh no I am not. I simply said that the repeated official denials from NICAP's day to the present White House announcement "powerfully indicate that the US has NO such evidence..."
The Disclosure Group and yourself do not accept these denials. Fair enough. I never claimed these denials were absolute proof of such non-existence.
I presume that you, along with the Stanton Friedmans of the world, will still insist that because 'absence of evidence' is not the same as 'evidence of absence', there is a slight (exceedingly slight) chance that the authorities DO possess such evidence, and hence that the great truth lies hidden from the public, even after 65+ years.
It is up to you, Friedman and people like Bassett & Greer to find it.
And no, I am positive the UN won't help you either. Even this idea is 50 years old at least.
@starman:
ReplyDeleteWell, I checked out your website and Google profile, but didn't see any email address. I think it best, for now, to email you a draft of what I offered CDA, for your consideration, so I'll need your email address to do so.
"Maybe via my little blog."
Are you referring to a possible "guest blog" article?
@CDA:
My offer still stands. As a "Magonian," I thought you might be interested. Let me know if so, with an email address to contact you.
I'll respond to your last comment here in some greater detail later -- right now I have to take care of some other business.
And, as KR would remind us, this is really not the place to get too expansive about what I'm referring to, as it would be somewhat off-topic, and I've been putting far too many lengthy comments in the threads of Kevin's posts recently already. I have to "curb my enthusiasm" for the time being. Others here should make further comment, beforehand, on the subject topic, not I. What I refer is far too complex and involved to make a succinct blog thread comment about here.
I've said too much! I'm trying to "keep my powder dry," or at least less "diffuse" or prolix.
I guess I really should start my own blog for these kinds of "off-topic topics," eh? I'm working on it. Hmmmm... maybe I've now "painted myself into a corner"? 8^}
@Steve
ReplyDeleteIf you like you could just post your views as a comment to the latest post, however OT.
Steve says: || Your trying, once again, to "prove a negative," as I've noted previously without response from you, or that "absence of public evidence is 'proven' evidence of absence" arguments can be fairly readily refuted, if you'd care to know more.||
ReplyDeleteRepeating for Steve's benefit:
In logic and probabilty, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It's not just a general principle, it's a law of probability: The absence of evidence [of "unicorns from outer space"] is evidence of their absence in the world. It's a positive proof.
|| You've heard...the logical fallacy of attempting to prove a negative, haven't you?||
That is itself completely fallacious folk "logic." Like the very idea "UFO," it's a myth--a widely held false belief. And when a myth persists, it's known as a social delusion.
"The folk maxim 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is used by people to hang on to their beliefs even when faced with a lack of evidence for them. However, this is technically an incorrect maxim; if evidence is lacking when we expect it to be abundant, then it very much allows us to dismiss a hypothesis, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
People attempt to defend absurd positions and popular pseudoscientific delusions with appeals to the negative ["Real NOT-identifieds exist and the government could have evidence of their existence"] with ignorant folk rationalizations ["Can-NOT prove a negative"] and other nonsense without critical thinking, so do not realize how contradictory their negative-dependent "UFO" myth-and-delusion beliefs are.
Neither the world or Popperian falsification demand negative proof, they demand evidence. And absence of evidence is one of several logical and practical positive proofs, the Null and Psychosocial hypotheses being two more determinations that "unicorns from outer space" are not haunting the stratosphere or hollow Earth.
The always absurd and anonymous Zoam Chomsky wrote:
ReplyDeleteIn logic and probabilty, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It's not just a general principle, it's a law of probability: The absence of evidence [of "unicorns from outer space"] is evidence of their absence in the world. It's a positive proof.
Thank you oh-so-clever-one for demonstrating that all research is a waste of time since, if it isn't known already to exist by Zoam, it can't possibly be discovered in the future. This is truly an astounding revelation.
Since nothing new can ever be found or discovered or confirmed, we can therefore shut down all research facilities world-wide and save ourselves hundreds of billions of dollars every year. No need for medical research, physics research, space exploration, SETI, you name it--Zoam has proven through pure logic it is all pointless and unnecessary.
This money can be better spent on such things as smart phones, flat-screen TVs, jet plane getaways, gorilla safaris, beer and pizza, recreational drugs--you name it-- which have always existed back to the beginning of time.
Thank you for yet another wonderful example of how DebunkerLogic works.
Oh, no, thank you DR for another completely typical example of how Believer hyperbolic straw-man false comparison works. As if the long dead and fossilized pseudoscience of ufoolery in any way compared to real-world "medical research, physics research, space exploration, SETI" and as if your pareidolic fantasies of "victims" of the "crashed disk" somehow compared to real scientific research. It doesn't and yours isn't!
ReplyDeleteufoolery is history already; make belief in the myth and delusion history as well.
Zoam:
ReplyDeleteDo you think that you and me will be quaking in our boots when the Dream Team finally release their smoking gun evidence?
The scientific world is agog with excitement. Aren't you?
The ever-disingenuous and hypocritical Zoam Chomsky wrote:
ReplyDelete"Oh, no, thank you DR for another completely typical example of how Believer hyperbolic straw-man false comparison works"
You mean like your hyperbolic straw-man false argument of absence of evidence of "unicorns from outer space"?
Is SETI, or NASA, or "ufoolgists" claiming there is evidence or they are looking for evidence of "unicorns from outer space?" Or are they claiming there is evidence or looking for evidence of other intelligence from outer space? Why bother? Zoam already knows with 100% certainty they will never find anything.
Why is NASA spending billions of dollars of taxpayer money looking for evidence of life on Mars, or life that used to be on Mars? Since they haven't found "unicorns on Mars", I guess that "proves" life never existed on Mars.
Mountain gorillas were "myths" and rumors to the Europeans for hundreds of years, since they, with their superior white ZoamChomskiesk "critical thinking" skills knew that anything the inferior black natives told them of seeing with their own eyes couldn't be true. The occasional European who might confirm their existence couldn't be believed either--obviously drunk or delirious from jungle fever.
Zoam reminds me of some nit who thinks that if you dip a hundred buckets in the ocean and they have no fish, this proves there are no fish in the ocean. It doesn't occur to him fish have some intelligence and survival instincts and maybe dipping a bucket in the water isn't the best way to catch evasive fish. Or maybe you're fishing in the wrong area. So it's a sampling and technique problem. Same with the mountain gorilla, not exactly easy to find and capture for a physical specimen if you refuse to accept eyewitness testimony, which in the case of the gorilla, was all they had to go on. I doubt Zoam would have accepted a photograph of one, if photography had existed then, since he would know it must be a hoax by somebody with a gorilla suit.
With the Zoam Chomsky's of the world, only an alien on ice for their personal inspection will do, and probably even that they would dismiss. (In the case of the mountain gorilla, it was only in the mid-1800s with very-hard-to-obtain skulls, that the physical evidence made it clear that they did indeed exist.)
Getting down to "hard" science, modern physics theory absolutely predicts the existence of magnetic monopoles, yet after 60 years of searching, nobody has found a "skull" of one. Some modern theories also predict other universes, which, of course, no one can show clear, unambiguous evidence of existing. Since in Zoam's world, absence of evidence is "positive" evidence of absence, physicists can stop searching. Theory must be wrong.
Well maybe, or it might be another case of trying to catch fish with a bucket. Try casting a net instead.
"quaking in our boots?" (LOL)
ReplyDeleteI doubt it very much, Chris, as much as is possible, since they're confirmed conspiramyth-loving ETHers, that they'll produce anything to cause fright in rational people or even interest to the world, much less the scientific world.
They're all over the place. In his last two posts here, DR exposes himself as a utter fantasist who can't distinguish between his belief in imaginary "unicorns from outer space" and real SETI, spinning wild false analogy after another to pretend straw-man ad hominems make his irrational pulp-fiction fantasies of crashed saucers and alien bodies seem somehow credible by comparison.
___________________________
Sorry, DR, that's worthless ranting, when what the world requires is evidence. And in the absence of veracious evidence, the world long ago dismissed the ETH.
And on topic: Steven Bassett's "UFO" carnival of flying ghost stories is not evidence.
zoam,
ReplyDeleteI do not understand the way you make your points. In my way of thinking anyone can produce something that is of "interest to the world", so why you state that ETHers can't do this is beyond me. They have already done this; but, so what? As for interest to "the scientific world", there have been scientists interested in UFO reports and "ETH" - do you seek to pretend that they weren't part of "the scientific world"? Isn't it silly to deny the interest of a small minority (perhaps, only) of scientists, by exaggerating to there being no interest at all from "the scientific world." You don't gain anything by exaggeration.
And why "irrational pulp-fiction fantasies of crashed saucers and alien bodies"? Are there such things as "rational" pulp-fiction fantasies of any sort?
Is it not the case that there is good and bad evidence? True and false evidence? If so, why state that Steven Bassett's "UFO" carnival.. "is not evidence"? Why can't it just be bad or false evidence, if you consider it as such? Why the need to nullify it in such a quasi-robotic way?
How depressing.
ReplyDeleteIf there are any young scientists out there wondering if there might be anything to all this UFO business, as I was 20 years ago, this hearing, from the admittedly limited amount of it that I've looked at, is quite likely to persuade them that it's nothing of substance.
But then we must expect such a wide range of participants in a field that has not reached the paradigm stage yet.
Yes, Daniel, there are "rational" pulp-fiction fantasies. Robots, cloning, space travel, personal (including hand-held) computers, and many, many other real-world developments in science and technology were predicted in science-fiction "pulp" stories. I doubt you would want to call these predictive fantasies "irrational."
ReplyDeleteYes, Daniel, there are "rational" pulp-fiction fantasies. Robots, cloning, space travel, personal (including hand-held) computers, and many, many other real-world developments in science and technology were predicted in science-fiction "pulp" stories. I doubt you would want to call these predictive fantasies "irrational."
ReplyDeletekevin, don't be shy, what's going on?
ReplyDeletehttp://ufocon.blogspot.it/2013/05/the-aztecroswell-aliens-and-new-evidence.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSteve, didn't you say you were going to post your "more complete explication" here?
ReplyDeletehello, I have a problm: I was thinking I've posted a comment on Kevin Randle blog, then I've just discover that this is Steve Sayer's blog!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI was thinking I was posting and reading an ufology blog, but, wait! this is a law enforcement web site where I have to explain my nickname!
kevin, did you noticed that your blog was hijacked by this "big eye" steven sayer?
good evening mr. sawyer, nobody told me that I have to request your authorization to post on this blog. sorry for this.
and sorry for my nickname, il fakiro which stand for "fakir", not faker. please mr sawyer, don't be insulting: you cannot affirm that my post was "somewhat scurrilous"; I don't know you, and you don't know me.
If you think that my link doesn't meet your taste, ok don't read it at all, but don't forget that this link contains a very interesting theory which links aztec to roswell. this thoery is based on "rumors" very intriguing about new proofs on roswell/aztec. tony bragaglia, nick redfern and others were cited by Ufo iconoclast blog.
considering that kevin randle was defined as one of the peoples who knows the exact nature of this new proof, why don't ask?
kevin, a comment from you is very important at this point.
thank you very much.
Why are we talking about Aztec/Roswell?
ReplyDeleteThe topic is (or was) about the CHD and the attempt to enlist the help of the United Nations, as per their statement:
"The Citizen Hearing Foundation will begin raising funds immediately to implement this mandate to seek a world conference sponsored by the United Nations."
So there you have it. We want a "world conference" sponsored by the UN, which presumably needs funds from people like ourselves.
I urge everyone to donate a substantial sum to Bassett and his organisation to get these important UN hearings started.
If we poor citizens are short of funds, perhaps we could approach the IMF, stressing upon them the urgency of the situation.
Repost of excerpted comment, deleted above:
ReplyDeletePostscript Note:
Where I thought "Thomas Clearwater," in my comment # 8, above, might be tweeting under the pseud of "rumiheart," as previously reported online elsewhere did claim, and suggest, I now do _not_ think the wealthy Canadian donor to PRG, "Thomas C.," is the same as the, oddly, other "Thomas Clearwater," also Canadian, and a resident of Vancouver -- he is not the same guy -- the "rumiheart" twitter account, it seems, is actually owned and used by a different Canadian "T.C.," who appears to be a University student or post-grad, and likely much younger, and who's into somewhat "new-agey" stuff (that I sort of doubt very much the T.C. who donated $1.1+ million to PRG would be interested in).
Sorry for the mix-up, folks, now corrected.
I enjoy to enter this blog and see again how Doctor Rudiak teach es real logic to some skeptics. Zoam seems to be one king of irrationals.
ReplyDelete