You're welcome Fox 22! :)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by UncleManifestor
Thanks for the link Deusdrum! It was interesting viewing.
One thing I gather from it is that communication with other worldly beings does not give you technological knowledge. She really needs to learn how to work her laptop...
It did throw up some interesting points, along with a lot of 'buy my book' moments. I would have liked there to have been more recent evidence, rather than clips from days of old that were not investigated further.
I guess there is only so much info you can put into a single lecture though.
I would be also interested to see a true sceptic's interpretation of her findings, as she seemed more like Fox Mulder than Dana Scully.
|
Yeah the technical difficulties def. stymied the flow of her presentation, remind me of my mother trying to figure out the internet, lol.
As to a true skeptic, (and how would you define a 'true' skeptic?) wouldn't it be even better to interpret the findings yourself? The "Friendship" case for instance has quite a bit or material on it if you dig around online, if those relaying the information are to be believed.
B/c essentially any other person, skeptic, "debunker", believer, relatively impartial journalist, etc. will all come with their own perspectives, disposition and subjectivity as well, it would be a case of choosing who you think or want to believe as being the most accurate or reliable.
Of course if you put more stock into what some have to say than others based on past history, prominence, reputation, perceived integrity & honesty in the field, then it would be more or less believable or not in part or in whole based on what they think, and i def. hold some researchers in higher esteem in this regard than others myself.
Really the only way to vet her sources or the cases she references is to look at the more prominent ones for yourself to determine whether they are established enough to at least say enough people believed something odd was happening- meaning multiple witnesses, police reports, news articles, etc. etc.
The other thing is, I think you can do something of a comparative analysis on linguistics in the usual cross-cultural, scholarly scientific way with material available without knowing whether all or to what degree the cases can be said to have validity, so long as a wide enough net is cast, and a big enough sample size is taken.
I have lied for my own amusement to people who've phoned take a survey. It was childish, yes; and was a marketing company not the govt. or anything, point being that if they surveyed 10,000 other people that day and only 3 other people and myself lied out of that number then it is likely they still ended up with some useful information to their purposes.
Of course there is no way to know if
any of it is true, short of personal experience, but such is the state of things in ufology. Even the people I put the most faith in when it comes to this subject have got it wrong before. Maybe the disinformation some think is prevalent is sophisticated enough and has been refined to a point where the public perception of what is going on is exactly where they want it to be. Researchers, investigative journalists with the highest principles and intentions may themselves be fed what those in the know (alien or human or nature spirit or time-travelers or whoever, whatever "they" are, maybe all the above and more or none at all) wish them and others to know or publicize/publish just that which they want to get out there. Unwittingly, in other words, OR purposeful, true or not or any combination thereof.
This on top of just plain attention seeking, money grubbing, pandering to govt. authority or whichever other egotistical reasons people might easily tend towards should they become lazy or less diligent in their pursuits. Add to this delusion, overeager imagination, or an as of yet unknown, undiscovered psychological complexes or conditions that may not be established as existing but at this point in human understanding are misunderstood, misinterpreted or unacknowledged.
Certainly I hope no-one assumes I post this (the Nancy Du Tertre link) or anything else b/c i outright believe it or wish to promote it, yes some people/things strike me more favorably or believable than others, but i've been duped myself before so belief at this point in anything is reserved for what I see with my own eyes (even then prob. have my doubts!) but this i found interesting b/c of the examples of (alleged) alien writing/symbols, speech. The spoken language in particular was quite bizarre. I figure actual linguists of earth based language would be better able to gauge whether Ms. Du Tertre is onto something and interpreting the data correctly or not. Also the fact she's a psychic may make it harder to verify.
............
Linear Mode
