Hey James;

I was wondering if you had anything to add? Or do you agree with what I
just asserted? In any case, thanks. The feedback was interesting.

The Odd Emperor
http://www.oddempire.org

ODD EMPEROR:

Here's my response to your response.  Sorry for the mess.  I'm still
not very good at this message board thing.  I tried to put your
response in between *****.
*********************************************************************
> OK, no problem. Most of what I'm doing on the Odd Empire is
> criticism from a skeptical viewpoint. I seldom resort to Ad Hominem
> unless onebelieves that criticism um *is* ad-hom. The reason it
looks
> that way is because most believers seem unable to take any criticism
> of their beliefs objectively. This is not surprising for beliefs and
> belief systems are as personal to one as their right arm. So them
even
> a gentle assault on a belief is by definition a personal attack. The
> interesting thing about this is, very few people can fault what
> I'm saying even a little. A few have tried but time and time again
> they prove that what I'm saying on the Odd Empire is true and
> correct,
> insulting or no I feel It's important to tell the truth and not
> stay silent in the face of deception.

> Don't you agree?
**********************************************************************

I guess I'd have to read much more of your website and/or writings to
decide to how much you use ad hominems.

I will concede believers do tend to get angry when their beliefs are
challenged.  That may be due to human nature to some extent, but
also, I find I'm irritated by skeptical arguments, as I've already
said, that are condescendingly simplistic---"Oh, you just saw venus,
Oh we all see strange things when we're excited, etc. etc."
Sometimes these responses may be true, at others maybe not.  The
attitude is insulting, and so why shouldn't people be annoyed with it?

Of course you should tell the truth as you sincerely see it.  What
you see as "deception" may be an open question in my mind.

*********************************************************************
> Well that's regrettable to be sure but I've tried being nice
> about it. Many believers just get snide and unbelievably rude if you
> even attempt to assert an opinion that may run counter to theirs. If
> you don't believe that you can try it out for yourself.
>
> It may interest you to know that I'm not a big fan of James
> Randi. I respect what he's doing (which BTW is mostly being
> outraged
> at people who play his magic game but call it real, not trickery.)
**********************************************************************

I know next to nothing about magic, or I guess a better word might
be "illusionism".  For all I know Randi may actually have occult
powers and what he does is real magic, and he just doesn't want
people to know.  Maybe he's really a sorcerer and the reason he's mad
and trying to ridicule claims of the paranormal is to safeguard his
esoteric knowledge, which he believes should be kept secret.   Just a
theory.  In any case if I were to believe James Randi that all or
almost all paranormal feats were just slight-of-hand, then it would
be largely on faith, if not entirely.

**********************************************************************
> What I think is really threadbare is irrational-unconditional
belief.
> That stuff is tens of thousands of years old, so is rabid-irrational
> defense of such belief.
**********************************************************************

It isn't apparent to me that many of the things you debunk
ARE "irrational-unconditional" belief.  Many scientists have what
they believe is evidence of sasquatch, ESP, UFO's, etc., etc.  You
may disagree with the validity of the evidence they cite and/or it's
interpretation, but to call their belief "irrational"
and "unconditional" is a gross exaggeration.  From their point of
view their belief is a scientifically-based and educated one.  You
may find flaws in their reasoning process, but to say
they're "irrational" in my judgement, overstates the situation.

> >
> > Regarding the seances with Marilyn and Andy---Boy you come to
> >judgement quickly about something you've never seen.  How do you
know
> >that personal things were not revealed by the medium that only the
> >friends present probably would have known?  Why are you in a better
> >position to know than the close personal friends themselves?

>********************************************************************
> Because it's mind bogglingly that they spoke to famous people at
> all even if their séance actually worked. With what; five or six
> billion people already dead, why would they be able to casually pick
> out certain ones?  Why is it that no one has yet been able to get
any
> proprietary information that only the dead person would know. What
> about the historical aspect? Think about how someone who was
actually
> present in the court of Henry VIII could enlighten us about event
that
> we only have sketchy information.
>
> Additionally; are you not being just as judgmental by *accepting*
the
> word of people you've never met and events that you were not
> present
> at either?
>*********************************************************************

I didn't "accept" the word of these friends of the alleged spirits.
Maybe they were manipulated.  Maybe they weren't.  I don't know
them.  Neither do you.

To accept the POSSIBILITY that some sort of interesting and non-
understood phenomena is going on in this seance does not NECESSARILY
mean we have to accept a Spiritualist theory/explanation of it:
I.E.  "People have souls and when they die they go to another world
and still have their original personality/identity."  Some form of
subconsious telepathy might explain it.  Fundamentalist Christians
believe these entities are deceptive spirits, masquerading as the
departed.  Even non-Christians might believe in a variation of this
explanation.  I honestly don't claim to know QUITE what may be going
on.  I'm still mulling it over.  But I'm not frantically just trying
explain it away by scoffing at and ridiculing it.  I know this has
become a bit of a cliche, but when you're trying to understand these
wierd phenomena you may have try to THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX just a
little.


> > I know about "cold readings" so you needn't go into a spiel about
> >them.  It wouldn't answer the question of why this was or was not
> >probably a cold reading.  Was this "fake".  Maybe.  Maybe not.  It
> >was interesting and I'm curious about it.  You're apparently put
off
> >by it.

*********************************************************************
> I'm not put off by it and now, *who* is being judgmental about
> another. I don't believe in it and I think people who do that
> sort of thing are deceiving others. That's all.
*********************************************************************

Okay.  Maybe I am pre-judging you.  I HAVE seen many other debunkers
with you same general message---Joe Nichols, Randi, etc.---who do
look and sound pretty plaintive and disgusted when they talk about
these things, although in recent appearances on TV have seemed to be
practicing a calmer delivery.  Frankly, whatever side one is on,
these issues seem to bring out strong emotions in all of us.
>
> > Maybe it was neither "real" or a "fake".  Maybe the medium was
> >sincere, truly believed in what he was doing, but it was a
> >"construct" from his subconscious.

*********************************************************************
> Much much worse!
*********************************************************************

I don't understand.  What is worse, my theory or the possibility that
it was a subconscious construct.

> > Maybe it was another entity transferring a
> >construct ("fantasy") to his mind.  Any number of possibilities
> >exist. I know about occam's razor, theoretical parsimony, and all
> >that. I don't consider them the magic bullet you might.
> >  In theory and application they're problematical.  A good rule of
> thumb, but not a precise determinant of a good versus a bad theory.
> >
*********************************************************************
> I believe Occam to be a magic bullet now? Do tell! What else do I
> believe o' oracle of the Odd Emperor. ; )
*********************************************************************

Many debunkers invoke Occam when they argue against the unexplained.
If you don't, my apologies.  I guess I have much to learn about your
methodology.

**********************************************************************
> Anyway, one does not use Occam to tell a theory from say a
hypothesis
> or a conclusion. A theory must be provable and *refutable.* Occam
> simply stated that simpler ideas are more likely correct. In science
> this is often expressed as *reduction* I.E. an attempt to make
> problems simpler so that they can be more easily solved.
> ********************************************************************

Yes, I'm aware of all this.  It's interesting.  I wonder if science,
particularly in its early stages, followed these neat little rules as
closely as debunkers think they should today, and if they had, it
would have gotten very far.  We're on a frontier.  We've barely
scratched the surface of these things, if they are more than
delusion, as you seem to think they are.  Maybe there always has to
be a vague, broad period of speculation, of brainstorming, of trial
and error, of groping, before one even gets to "hypothesis, theory
and occam".

The problem with occam's "simplicity" requirement, is that it compels
the theorist to ignore or filter out observed phenomena that "reduce"
his theory to the elegance he deems "correct".  Witness Kepler and
his beautifully simple system of circular planetary orbits.  Turns
out the elliptical models, not to mention wobbling planets, are far
more complex and "messy"---but they're considered by just about all
astronomer today to be "correct".

> > I did the ouija board one summer when I was in my early teens.
> >That's all we ever got---Joe Schmoos from Sheboygban.  I was
> >practically addicted to this and from the experience I've come away
> >with the belief that there is an actual unexplained phenomenon
going
> >on with it.  I don't accept simplistic answers.  These mysteries
are
> >deep, and I'm still, very gradually, exploring them. (I'm skeptical
> >of the Spiritualist explanation, though might consider it partially
> >valid).  I was pretty much a nonbeliever before that (though not a
> >skoffer, or mocker).  There are indeed mysteries out there, and
they
> >fascinate me.
> >
*********************************************************************
> I too am fascinated by mysteries, probably more than you can
believe.
> However I usually attempt to *solve* mysteries and seldom just go
away
> believing one thing or another. I enjoy understanding which put me
at
> loggerheads with people who frankly, don't wish to understand.
>
> Regarding Ouija Boards and stuff of that ilk, the principles are
well
> understood and not at all mysterious.
**********************************************************************

I've heard some of the *skeptical* explanations for how the Ouija
board works.  I'm skeptical of these skeptical explanations, but
openmindedly so.  They might have some validity, but they haven't
explained my experiences completely to my satisfaction.

>
>
> > I will agree that many believers are very uncritical, fantasy-
prone
> >and have a tendency to over-interpret.  But skeptical "scientists"
> >are usually patronizing and condescending, and I maintain have a
> >"know-it-all" attitude, even though they try, in the interest of
> >"sensitivity", to tone it down.  A few scientists and CSICOP-types
> >are openly contempuous and sarcastic.  (I don't use the word
> >"believer" pejoratively. Everyone believes in some model of the
> >universe, and if they say they don't, they're intellectually
> >dishonest.  They don't "know" in the final analysis, as they may>
> >claim, as this would imply infallibility, nor are they totally
> >noncommittal as some strict Forteans claim to be).
> >
> ********************************************************************
> I don't agree. I work with people like you describe, skeptical
> scientific types. Few of them seem overbearing, patronizing or
> condescending. (Most of them anyway, we have a few…) But, if you
> come to one of them with a crazy sounding idea they might point out
> that your idea is crazy sounding and why. Is that wrong?  I think
> it's
> unfair to characterize *all* scientists (skepticism being a
> pre-requisite for science) as patronizing et-al. That seems *very*
> judgmental and not a little bit unfair, at least to me.
**********************************************************************

It would be hard, if not impossible, for me to "prove" that these
scientists are patronizing or condescending, so why bother.  Suffice
it to say that many of us "believers" (a word I think debunkers use
to slight us) FIND THEM SO.

The very fact that you call an idea "crazy sounding" reveals a gut-
level prejudice against it, which lends credence to my perception
that scientists really do have a negative and insulting response to
people who even consider them as possibilities.


> > Thanks for the offer of instructions to download the seance, but
I'm
> >still on dial-up and downloading even a 2 minute song used to take
> >hours and often aborted, back when I used to bother with
downloading.

**********************************************************************
> Get cable or DSL!
**********************************************************************

Maybe I can't afford it. But I'm thinking about the cost/benefit
ratios involved.

ALL:  Back in the mid-nineties I debated with Erwin S. Strauss, a
Ph.D. physicist, in his APA, The (formerly Libertarian) Connection.
I didn't even finish college, so Dr. Strauss (a.k.a. Filthy Pierre)
was a formidable opponent.  Anyway, we both got into some rather
lengthy discussions.  In the end, I was no match for him, though I
don't concede he one the argument.  At best, he got me on a
technicality, namely, "formal methodological criteria" which I'm
still mulling over.

Anyway, I still have these for anybody who might be reading this
who'd like to seem some really intelligent and good discussion on the
whole "skeptic-believer debate".

This was back before I had a computer or was on the net, so it's not
in electronic format.  Send me $3 bucks and I'll send you what I have
of it:  James N. Dawson, P.O. Box 613, Redwood Valley, CA  95470.

This is not to dis The Unexplained.  I find it fascinating.  But I've
got mountains and mountains of important projects I have to attend to
and I regret that this forum must take a back, back seat for the
foreseeable future.  I'd like to, but I don't have time for long
protracted debates.  I will try to drop in from now and then as
opportunity allows.

Take care, all.

James

James writes;
**************
Here's my response to your response. Sorry for the mess.
***************

Don't worry about it. I really can't stand the way
Yahoogroups
reformats everything,--yuck! It's almost impossible to read!

You write;
**************
I guess I'd have to read much more of your website and/or writings to
decide to how much you use ad hominems.
**************

..or not. You might wish to approach the thing with an open mind and
not go into it looking for this or that mistake. Ad hominem is a
logical fallacy and I try to avoid those when I can. This is not to
say that I'm always successful.

BTW, if you or anyone else has any specific comment to make on any of
my statements, please let me know.

You write;
***************
I find I'm irritated by skeptical arguments, as I've already
said, that are condescendingly simplistic---"Oh, you just saw venus,
Oh we all see strange things when we're excited, etc. etc."
Sometimes these responses may be true, at others maybe not. The
attitude is insulting, and so why shouldn't people be annoyed with it?
****************

People who say stuff like that are not being skeptical, objective or
anything else. They are (in my opinion) being prejudicial. It's
not
simplistic, it's stupid.

Anyway, *who* says stuff like that? I never do.

You write;
***************
Of course you should tell the truth as you sincerely see it. What
you see as "deception" may be an open question in my mind.
****************

Fair enough; my judgment regarding deceptive behavior is my own. For
example, I know this fellow who runs around telling folks that he has
books published when in fact, he is merely self-published. Either
that or he simply lies about it. Should I nod my head and say (as
many others do) "oh congratulations on getting your wonderful
book
published") or should I tell him the truth? Who's in the
wrong here?

You write;
****************
I know next to nothing about magic, or I guess a better word might
be "illusionism". For all I know Randi may actually have occult
powers and what he does is real magic, and he just doesn't want
people to know. Maybe he's really a sorcerer and the reason he's mad
and trying to ridicule claims of the paranormal is to safeguard his
esoteric knowledge, which he believes should be kept secret. Just a
theory. In any case if I were to believe James Randi that all or
almost all paranormal feats were just slight-of-hand, then it would
be largely on faith, if not entirely.
****************

That's a very interesting way to look at it. You know that any
stage
magician will tell you up front that *all* their tricks are
illusions. *Stage magic* (which is all I'm talking about here) is
nothing more than applied social engineering. There is nothing
paranormal about it. If you believe otherwise you have (in my
opinion) never completely researched the field or you have been
fibbed by people who are not stage magicians. Those are the facts.
There is no faith or belief required here except in the incredulity
of the audience which is how the stage magician gets a payoff for
their skill.

You Write;
****************
It isn't apparent to me that many of the things you debunk
ARE "irrational-unconditional" belief. Many scientists have what
they believe is evidence of sasquatch, ESP, UFO's, etc., etc. You
may disagree with the validity of the evidence they cite and/or it's
interpretation, but to call their belief "irrational"
and "unconditional" is a gross exaggeration. From their point of
view their belief is a scientifically-based and educated one. You
may find flaws in their reasoning process, but to say
they're "irrational" in my judgement, overstates the situation
****************

Ok, no problem there. When have I called any of those *subjects*
irrational? UFOs (for example) are not at all irrational in
themselves. I've seem my share of unknown or unidentifiable
aircraft.
I think there is something to it, same with Cryptology, ESP et-al.

I take issue *people* who make wild unsubstantiated claims and refuse
to support themselves. If I say something I can either support it
with examples and/or documentation or, I state up front that
"this is
an opinion." Many in this "biz" can't seem to do
that. I find it
intellectually lazy and I tell them.

Besides; *who's* point of view is scientific? For example,
I've been
reading Richard Hoagland's weblog recently and never have I seen
a
more fetid mishmash of opinion couched as fact and pseudo-science
asserted as science. (other than from his books, what did I expect? ?)


You write;
*****************
  I didn't "accept" the word of these friends of the alleged spirits.
Maybe they were manipulated. Maybe they weren't. I don't know
them. Neither do you.

******************

Quite true, I also didn't see the piece you cited, did they at
any
point assert that these were real spirits of Elvis or whomever? If so
I would suggest that they are probably that they are either mistaken
or deliberately lying.

You write
******************
Okay. Maybe I am pre-judging you. I HAVE seen many other debunkers
with you same general message---Joe Nichols, Randi, etc.---who do
look and sound pretty plaintive and disgusted when they talk about
these things, although in recent appearances on TV have seemed to be
practicing a calmer delivery. Frankly, whatever side one is on,
these issues seem to bring out strong emotions in all of us.
*******************

Randi sounds disgusted with it because he *is* disgusted. Look, say
you set up a used car dealership, you run it for ten or fifteen
years, people trust you for your honesty. One day someone sets up a
car lot next door and begins to systematically rip people off. He
manages to bring in more customers than you because of his huge
signs, lots of balloons and performing elephants. That would piss me
off, it's exactly what stage magicians feel when they see people
like
John Edwards and all those other mentalist and psychics saying that
they are really doing something paranormal. He's gotten so
disgusted
that he put up a million dollars for *anyone* if they can prove a
paranormal claim to be real.  No one to this date has.

You write;
********************
The problem with occam's "simplicity" requirement, is that it compels
the theorist to ignore or filter out observed phenomena that "reduce"
his theory to the elegance he deems "correct". Witness Kepler and
his beautifully simple system of circular planetary orbits. Turns
out the elliptical models, not to mention wobbling planets, are far
more complex and "messy"---but they're considered by just about all
astronomer today to be "correct".
*********************

Very correct! Occam's razor is not a law, it's more like a
guideline. ;) It's simply a way of looking at things and a rule
of
thumb method to reduce noise in a system. But in the long view it
holds up amazingly well.

BTW, Kepler is thought by all real astronomers to be incorrect. They
still respect him though, why? Because he reached logical conclusions
based on *available* data. Just like we know that Newtonian physics
are incorrect. But few people would hesitate to call Newton a non-
scientist.


  You write;
*********************
I've heard some of the *skeptical* explanations for how the Ouija
board works. I'm skeptical of these skeptical explanations, but
openmindedly so. They might have some validity, but they haven't
explained my experiences completely to my satisfaction.
*********************

If you ever become interested in knowing how they work, simply do the
research. It's fascinating stuff.

You write;
**********************
It would be hard, if not impossible, for me to "prove" that these
scientists are patronizing or condescending, so why bother. Suffice
it to say that many of us "believers" (a word I think debunkers use
to slight us) FIND THEM SO.
***********************

I've heard that argument from a number of people. It goes like
this; "you know that debunking my beliefs upsets me so just stop
it!"

My response to that is "grow up and own your own feelings. I
can't
make you feel bad about yourself, only you can do that. Take some
responsibility for what you are feeling. If you have a beef with
someone, for pete's sake TELL THEM. Don't whine about it,
don't
expect other people to automatically validate all your petty beliefs
(because that's what most of the argument come down to.) If you
confront people, don't demand that they believe you

Also, what should I call a believer then? "An individual with the
propensity to take issues on faith, with little critical review or
research?" "A person who is habitually pre-judgmental?" A
woo-woo?
Those are very derogatory descriptions I think. Just as derogatory
as "skeptibunky" "Skepti-bunny" Randi-bot"
"psycho-
skeptic," "debunker", "pathological skeptic,"
*"sKeptic,"* "jerk," "idiot," "smug
twit," "moron," "pelicanist" "troll,"
"troll-bee,"  and about a
hundred other things a few believers spew around in an attempt to
insult skeptics.

The term "believer" is pretty mild in comparison. What would
you
suggest?


You write
*********************
The very fact that you call an idea "crazy sounding" reveals a gut-
level prejudice against it, which lends credence to my perception
that scientists really do have a negative and insulting response to
people who even consider them as possibilities.
*********************

I don't see how, first off I never call myself a scientist so I
find
it strange that you would lump me with them. I said that I work with
skeptical science types. Much of my activity is in a field where
intuition, experience and logic are all essential tools.

Secondly, do you think that *no* idea is crazy sounding? Don't
you
judge each idea with the colored lenses of your own beliefs and
experience? If not some folks in Nigeria have recently emailed you
a "serious proposal." You should take them up on it. ?

You write
**********************
This is not to dis The Unexplained. I find it fascinating. But I've
got mountains and mountains of important projects I have to attend to
and I regret that this forum must take a back, back seat for the
foreseeable future. I'd like to, but I don't have time for long
protracted debates. I will try to drop in from now and then as
opportunity allows.
************************

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Please come back when you have
the time! BTW, if anyone wants to comment, I for one would be happy
to hear from them. This is a list that's all about debunking
debunkers and I am a debunker…..

Take care! (All!)

The Odd Emperor
http://www/oddempire.org

James writes;
**************
Here's my response to your response. Sorry for the mess.
***************

Don't worry about it. I really can't stand the way
Yahoogroups
reformats everything,--yuck! It's almost impossible to read!

You write;
**************
I guess I'd have to read much more of your website and/or writings to
decide to how much you use ad hominems.
**************

..or not. You might wish to approach the thing with an open mind and
not go into it looking for this or that mistake. Ad hominem is a
logical fallacy and I try to avoid those when I can. This is not to
say that I'm always successful.

BTW, if you or anyone else has any specific comment to make on any of
my statements, please let me know.

You write;
***************
I find I'm irritated by skeptical arguments, as I've already
said, that are condescendingly simplistic---"Oh, you just saw venus,
Oh we all see strange things when we're excited, etc. etc."
Sometimes these responses may be true, at others maybe not. The
attitude is insulting, and so why shouldn't people be annoyed with it?
****************

People who say stuff like that are not being skeptical, objective or
anything else. They are (in my opinion) being prejudicial. It's
not
simplistic, it's stupid.

Anyway, *who* says stuff like that? I never do.

You write;
***************
Of course you should tell the truth as you sincerely see it. What
you see as "deception" may be an open question in my mind.
****************

Fair enough; my judgment regarding deceptive behavior is my own. For
example, I know this fellow who runs around telling folks that he has
books published when in fact, he is merely self-published. Either
that or he simply lies about it. Should I nod my head and say (as
many others do) "oh congratulations on getting your wonderful
book
published") or should I tell him the truth? Who's in the
wrong here?

You write;
****************
I know next to nothing about magic, or I guess a better word might
be "illusionism". For all I know Randi may actually have occult
powers and what he does is real magic, and he just doesn't want
people to know. Maybe he's really a sorcerer and the reason he's mad
and trying to ridicule claims of the paranormal is to safeguard his
esoteric knowledge, which he believes should be kept secret. Just a
theory. In any case if I were to believe James Randi that all or
almost all paranormal feats were just slight-of-hand, then it would
be largely on faith, if not entirely.
****************

That's a very interesting way to look at it. You know that any
stage
magician will tell you up front that *all* their tricks are
illusions. *Stage magic* (which is all I'm talking about here) is
nothing more than applied social engineering. There is nothing
paranormal about it. If you believe otherwise you have (in my
opinion) never completely researched the field or you have been
fibbed by people who are not stage magicians. Those are the facts.
There is no faith or belief required here except in the incredulity
of the audience which is how the stage magician gets a payoff for
their skill.

You Write;
****************
It isn't apparent to me that many of the things you debunk
ARE "irrational-unconditional" belief. Many scientists have what
they believe is evidence of sasquatch, ESP, UFO's, etc., etc. You
may disagree with the validity of the evidence they cite and/or it's
interpretation, but to call their belief "irrational"
and "unconditional" is a gross exaggeration. From their point of
view their belief is a scientifically-based and educated one. You
may find flaws in their reasoning process, but to say
they're "irrational" in my judgement, overstates the situation
****************

Ok, no problem there. When have I called any of those *subjects*
irrational? UFOs (for example) are not at all irrational in
themselves. I've seem my share of unknown or unidentifiable
aircraft.
I think there is something to it, same with Cryptology, ESP et-al.

I take issue *people* who make wild unsubstantiated claims and refuse
to support themselves. If I say something I can either support it
with examples and/or documentation or, I state up front that
"this is
an opinion." Many in this "biz" can't seem to do
that. I find it
intellectually lazy and I tell them.

Besides; *who's* point of view is scientific? For example,
I've been
reading Richard Hoagland's weblog recently and never have I seen
a
more fetid mishmash of opinion couched as fact and pseudo-science
asserted as science. (other than from his books, what did I expect? ?)


You write;
*****************
  I didn't "accept" the word of these friends of the alleged spirits.
Maybe they were manipulated. Maybe they weren't. I don't know
them. Neither do you.

******************

Quite true, I also didn't see the piece you cited, did they at
any
point assert that these were real spirits of Elvis or whomever? If so
I would suggest that they are probably that they are either mistaken
or deliberately lying.

You write
******************
Okay. Maybe I am pre-judging you. I HAVE seen many other debunkers
with you same general message---Joe Nichols, Randi, etc.---who do
look and sound pretty plaintive and disgusted when they talk about
these things, although in recent appearances on TV have seemed to be
practicing a calmer delivery. Frankly, whatever side one is on,
these issues seem to bring out strong emotions in all of us.
*******************

Randi sounds disgusted with it because he *is* disgusted. Look, say
you set up a used car dealership, you run it for ten or fifteen
years, people trust you for your honesty. One day someone sets up a
car lot next door and begins to systematically rip people off. He
manages to bring in more customers than you because of his huge
signs, lots of balloons and performing elephants. That would piss me
off, it's exactly what stage magicians feel when they see people
like
John Edwards and all those other mentalist and psychics saying that
they are really doing something paranormal. He's gotten so
disgusted
that he put up a million dollars for *anyone* if they can prove a
paranormal claim to be real.  No one to this date has.

You write;
********************
The problem with occam's "simplicity" requirement, is that it compels
the theorist to ignore or filter out observed phenomena that "reduce"
his theory to the elegance he deems "correct". Witness Kepler and
his beautifully simple system of circular planetary orbits. Turns
out the elliptical models, not to mention wobbling planets, are far
more complex and "messy"---but they're considered by just about all
astronomer today to be "correct".
*********************

Very correct! Occam's razor is not a law, it's more like a
guideline. ;) It's simply a way of looking at things and a rule
of
thumb method to reduce noise in a system. But in the long view it
holds up amazingly well.

BTW, Kepler is thought by all real astronomers to be incorrect. They
still respect him though, why? Because he reached logical conclusions
based on *available* data. Just like we know that Newtonian physics
are incorrect. But few people would hesitate to call Newton a non-
scientist.


  You write;
*********************
I've heard some of the *skeptical* explanations for how the Ouija
board works. I'm skeptical of these skeptical explanations, but
openmindedly so. They might have some validity, but they haven't
explained my experiences completely to my satisfaction.
*********************

If you ever become interested in knowing how they work, simply do the
research. It's fascinating stuff.

You write;
**********************
It would be hard, if not impossible, for me to "prove" that these
scientists are patronizing or condescending, so why bother. Suffice
it to say that many of us "believers" (a word I think debunkers use
to slight us) FIND THEM SO.
***********************

I've heard that argument from a number of people. It goes like
this; "you know that debunking my beliefs upsets me so just stop
it!"

My response to that is "grow up and own your own feelings. I
can't
make you feel bad about yourself, only you can do that. Take some
responsibility for what you are feeling. If you have a beef with
someone, for pete's sake TELL THEM. Don't whine about it,
don't
expect other people to automatically validate all your petty beliefs
(because that's what most of the argument come down to.) If you
confront people, don't demand that they believe you

Also, what should I call a believer then? "An individual with the
propensity to take issues on faith, with little critical review or
research?" "A person who is habitually pre-judgmental?" A
woo-woo?
Those are very derogatory descriptions I think. Just as derogatory
as "skeptibunky" "Skepti-bunny" Randi-bot"
"psycho-
skeptic," "debunker", "pathological skeptic,"
*"sKeptic,"* "jerk," "idiot," "smug
twit," "moron," "pelicanist" "troll,"
"troll-bee,"  and about a
hundred other things a few believers spew around in an attempt to
insult skeptics.

The term "believer" is pretty mild in comparison. What would
you
suggest?


You write
*********************
The very fact that you call an idea "crazy sounding" reveals a gut-
level prejudice against it, which lends credence to my perception
that scientists really do have a negative and insulting response to
people who even consider them as possibilities.
*********************

I don't see how, first off I never call myself a scientist so I
find
it strange that you would lump me with them. I said that I work with
skeptical science types. Much of my activity is in a field where
intuition, experience and logic are all essential tools.

Secondly, do you think that *no* idea is crazy sounding? Don't
you
judge each idea with the colored lenses of your own beliefs and
experience? If not some folks in Nigeria have recently emailed you
a "serious proposal." You should take them up on it. ?

You write
**********************
This is not to dis The Unexplained. I find it fascinating. But I've
got mountains and mountains of important projects I have to attend to
and I regret that this forum must take a back, back seat for the
foreseeable future. I'd like to, but I don't have time for long
protracted debates. I will try to drop in from now and then as
opportunity allows.
************************

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Please come back when you have
the time! BTW, if anyone wants to comment, I for one would be happy
to hear from them. This is a list that's all about debunking
debunkers and I am a debunker…..

Take care! (All!)

The Odd Emperor
http://www/oddempire.org

Sheeze! It's much too quiet. Can't anyone find a debunker to
dubunk?

I've got a couple of good ones. One on the madness of depleted
uranium and Stanton Freidman's opinion on the SETI program. :0

http://www.oddempire.org
http://www.oddempire.org/weblog

A very nice piece from the Harvard Gazette, "Alien abduction
claims explained Sleep paralysis, false memories involved" By
William
J. Cromie

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/09.22/11-alien.html

It reads in part;
     "Many of the people who believe they have been abducted by aliens
are bombarding Susan Clancy with hate e-mails and phone calls. The
Harvard researcher, who has spent five years listening to the stories
of some 50 abductees, has described her (and their) experiences in a
new book to be published in October. Clancy, 36, likes most of these
people. "They are definitely not crazy," she says. But they
do have "a tendency to fantasize and to hold unusual beliefs and
ideas. They believe not only in alien abductions, but also in things
like UFOs, ESP, astrology, tarot, channeling, auras, and crystal
therapy. They also have in common a rash of disturbing experiences for
which they are seeking an explanation. For them, alien abduction is
the best fit."


     "Boy, was I naïve," she says in retrospect. "You
can't disprove alien abductions. All you can do is show that
evidence is insufficient to justify the belief, and try to understand
why people have those beliefs."


Of course the usual suspects are going to be screeching and hollering
about this. I mean, how dare someone do a study and get results that
go against the cannon of abduction believers? "Your science crap
has no business reaching conclusions that counter my closely held
forgone conclusions" they will probably shout. "Unless it
validates my belief system it's just closed minded, skeptical,
canted, worker-bee,idiotic, debunkie, crap! "Isn't it
time,"
(they might say) "that we just chuck all this stupid research and
let the gurus of the UFO field just tell everyone how things
work?"
Why; we can spend endless happy hours arguing what kind of toothpaste
aliens use once we stop trying to prove that they exist at all."

It's so much easier to just belive, isn't it?

The Odd Emperor
http://www.oddempire.org
http://www.oddempire.org/weblog

Howdy ho! Hadn't been around in awhile, so I thought I'd join and say hi.

~~ Paul

Hey-there Mr. Paul!

Pretty quiet around these parts.  One fellow got into a small
conversation with Odd Emperor but he couldn't stick around.

Anyway, it might be off topic anyway, I'm not sure that I consider
myself a debunker, a critic sure, skeptic for sure but debunker? I
don't know.

But speaking of debunkers (or skeptics.) Anyone catch Aaron
Sakulich's interview with David Jacobs? It's kind of subtle
in its own way. In other ways it slams the point home with
considerable force and vigor.
   …And he does this by letting Jacobs ramble, for
sixteen pages!

The Odd Emperor


--- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, "paulcanagnostopoulos"
<yahoo@w...> wrote:
> Howdy ho! Hadn't been around in awhile, so I thought I'd join and
say hi.
>
> ~~ Paul

Alien Disclosure For The Holidays
Hi Group,
If you are looking for the perfect holiday gift for the person who
wants to know the real story about UFOs and aliens, order the book
that reveals the whole truth.  As I am the author and a member of this
group, I am available to answer any questions you may have. My
publisher emailed me the following ordering information:
==========================================
To insure delivery by Christmas, please place your regular
book orders by Friday, December 2nd.
REGULAR ORDERS - Place orders by FRIDAY - DECEMBER 2, 2005

RUSH ORDERS - Place orders by FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2005
BookLocker.com strives to process orders as
quickly as possible. However, everyone, including the
shipping companies, experience a flood of business this time
of year. Please orders as early as possible to avoid
delays...and to avoid more holiday stress! ;)
We wish you all a very happy and prosperous holiday season!
Big hugs!
Richard and Angela
Booklocker.com
=================================
The above applies to the paperback version. If you order the E-book
version, you get it immediately downloaded onto your computer.
I wrote my book to expose what the alien abduction program and the
human harvesting program is all about, and to show what needs to be
done to change things to bring about a mutually beneficial solution to
the problem. In my book I cite historical, biblical, and
archaeological evidence establishing the events making up the timeline
of the alien's continuous interaction with humanity. I present facts
and evidence from many fields in order to draw a conclusion. In my
book I'm functioning like a prosecuting attorney presenting all types
of evidence. Attorneys use scientific forensic evidence, eyewitness
testimony, expert testimony, circumstantial evidence, historical
evidence, and photographic evidence to prove their case to the jury. I
do the same.
If you have any questions please ask.
Art Greenfield
Here is the information about my book.
The publisher's website to order my book is at:

http://www.booklocker.com/books/1417.html

Synopsis
WARNING reveals a frightening alien agenda, a long-term program of
social domination and periodic controlled genocide. Mankind is now in
great danger. We have a terrible problem to overcome. Resolution
requires international solidarity, then forcible negotiation with the
aliens.

Copy of Book Cover:

http://www.booksamillion.com/bam/covers/1/59/113/358/1591133580.jpg

"Warning" by Art Greenfield
ISBN: 1-59113-358-0
Copyright © 2005 by Art Greenfield
All rights reserved

Orders placed through the major book stores may take longer-

Barnes & Noble:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=warning+by+art+green\
field&userid=2ZUPHEORHH&cds2Pid=946

Booksamillion:

http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?id=2782892733325&pid=1591133580

Amazon.com Germany:

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591133580/qid%3D1133397193/302-2360769-87\
92040

The paperback version is also available through
these UK bookstores in England:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591133580/qid%3D1078292624/026-2248010\
-4133249

http://www.pickabook.com/cgi/author.php?type=isbn&query=1591133580&Go.x=20&Go.y=\
21

Ah, hah.  What physical evidence do you have of any
extraterrestrial presence?  Where and when can it be
tested?  What benchmarks do you use to define it?

>... real story about UFOs and aliens,
> order the book
> that reveals the whole truth.  As I am the author
> and a member of this
> group, I am available to answer any questions you
> may have.

_________________________________
John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
AMCIVWAR.COM/AMCIVWAR.NET
"History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, antigray@c... wrote:

> > Ah, hah.  What physical evidence do you have of any
> > extraterrestrial presence?  Where and when can it be
> > tested?  What benchmarks do you use to define it?
>
> Hi John,
> In case you didn't know, any crashed alien craft are retrieved by
rapidly
> deployed military recovery teams. They are examined and tested in
Air Force labs.
> No private citizen would be allowed to keep advanced alien
technology. If one
> crashed in a populated area the Air Force would say one of their
planes went
> down and cordon off the area. Anyone trying to take souvenirs would
face
> serious Federal felony charges. If you will remember when the
shuttle crashed, a
> sheriff in Texas was arrested and prosecuted on Fed felony charges
for keeping
> part of the shuttle. That's why in my book I present only legal
evidence. You
> trying to get me busted? Hahaha.

You didn't answer his question, Antigray. Nor did you answer it during
your time at the JREF forum.

~~ Paul

>In case you didn't know, any crashed alien craft are
retrieved by
rapidly deployed military recovery teams.

How many former members of these "teams" have sold
their stories to the media?  Why not?  There have to
be hundreds of former members somewhere, and at least
one would have been tempted by the money.  They would
have to have records, orders, SOPs, and other
documents that could at least put some validity to
your claim.  Where are they?

I wouldn't try the "secret" excuse.  I spent 26 years
in uniform, most of it in security and intelligence.
An operation of the size required would leave a trail,
a footprint.  There are none.

>They are examined and tested in Air Force labs.

Where?

> No private citizen would be allowed to keep advanced
alien
technology.

How convenient for you.  No one can refute your claim
simply because "they" don't let you.

>Anyone trying to take souvenirs would face serious
Federal felony charges.

What charge?

>If you will remember when the shuttle crashed, a
sheriff in Texas was arrested and prosecuted on Fed
felony charges
for keeping part of the shuttle.

Cite the case and the law.

>That's why in my book I present only legal evidence.
You
trying to get me busted?

I'm trying to get you to participate in the miltitary
historical, legal and scientific process by providing
your evidence for analysis by others.  You say you
"can't" have any physical evidence by law.  I reply by
asking what your evidence is for this allegation, what
law, cases and historical information can be found.
You getting "busted" for providing information in this
matter is unlikely.

However, I also regard a reasoned or realistic
response as unlikely.



_________________________________
John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
AMCIVWAR.COM/AMCIVWAR.NET
"History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"



__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com

I think it would be hilarious if someone actually got indicted and
went to trial for possession of alien technology.

"What? You're charging me with WHAT? I say it's just scrap metal.
Comon! Prove me wrong!"

The judge would throw it out so fast it would make your head spin.



--- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, antigray@c... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/2/2005 6:40:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com writes:
> >   Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 04:06:20 -0800 (PST)
> >    From: John Beatty <jdbeatty.geo@y...>
> > Subject: Re: Alien Disclosure For The Holidays
> >
> > Ah, hah.  What physical evidence do you have of any
> > extraterrestrial presence?  Where and when can it be
> > tested?  What benchmarks do you use to define it?
>
> Hi John,
> In case you didn't know, any crashed alien craft are retrieved by
rapidly
> deployed military recovery teams. They are examined and tested in
Air Force labs.
> No private citizen would be allowed to keep advanced alien
technology. If one
> crashed in a populated area the Air Force would say one of their
planes went
> down and cordon off the area. Anyone trying to take souvenirs would
face
> serious Federal felony charges. If you will remember when the
shuttle crashed, a
> sheriff in Texas was arrested and prosecuted on Fed felony charges
for keeping
> part of the shuttle. That's why in my book I present only legal
evidence. You
> trying to get me busted? Hahaha.
> Art
> http://www.booklocker.com/books/1417.html
>
> >
> > >... real story about UFOs and aliens,
> > >order the book
> > >that reveals the whole truth.  As I am the author
> > >and a member of this
> > >group, I am available to answer any questions you
> > >may have.
> >
> > _________________________________
> > John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
> > AMCIVWAR.COM/AMCIVWAR.NET
> > "History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"
> >
>

Hey!

I was wondering if any of you skeptics (or non skeptics) have actually
read Susan Clancy's book 'Alien Abduction'. If so, What do you think of
it?

  Coincidentally (or not) many people have been weighing in on both
sides of the issue. Clancy is uniformly hated by the believer community
and most skeptics seem ambivalent. After reading the book I think I've
found out why.

The Odd Emperor

I've read of it, reviews are generally favorable in
the evidence-based community.  No one has defied what
science there is to it, and that is not a lot.

Psycology dosen't have a lot of testable evidence to
support its claims as a science, and that might
explain the lukewarm reception.

--- odd_empire <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Hey!
>
> I was wondering if any of you skeptics (or non
> skeptics) have actually
> read Susan Clancy's book 'Alien Abduction'. If so,
> What do you think of
> it?
>
>  Coincidentally (or not) many people have been
> weighing in on both
> sides of the issue. Clancy is uniformly hated by the
> believer community
> and most skeptics seem ambivalent. After reading the
> book I think I've
> found out why.
>
> The Odd Emperor
>
>
>
>
>


_________________________________
John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
AMCIVWAR.COM/AMCIVWAR.NET
"History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

>A law enforcement officer accused of pilfering debris
from space shuttle Columbia has been charged with
stealing government property.

Very good.  NOTHING to do with "advanced alien
technology," however.  You DO recognize that?

Very clearly, "stealing government property" is NOT
the same as "posessing advanced alien technology."
Are you clear on the distinction?  If not, I'm certain
any first year law student can make it crystal clear.

> As I said, the govt. would claim that what crashed
> was their military craft
> and you would be prosecuted if you took pieces.

When has this ever happened?  Are you now claiming
that the shuttle was actually a crashed alien craft?

>They
> already did this with the government of South Africa
and forced them to turn over an alien craft that had
crashed there,

When did the US government violate South African
soveregnty and recover unknown artifacts from a
freindly power?  Using what law, court or other means
of coercion?  How did they hide all this from the mass
media?

> ...even though the bodies were
> obviously alien.

And your proof for this is...?

>They even made
> the S. Africans fly it on one of their military
> cargo planes to the US because
> the S. African Air Force had shot it down.

How "advanced" would this spaceship be if it was shot
down by a third-rate air force? Why would they shoot
it down?   How was it established that the artifact
was "alien?"

Now, what else have you got?  Where's the former
members of the collection teams?  What law prevents
you from keeping "alien" materials that the government
does not know about?  Or are you saying that "they"
know where the ALL are?

Need you to think about this real hard:  Knowing what
a sieve the government is, how and WHY would they keep
all this "alien" activity a secret for so long?

_________________________________
John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
AMCIVWAR.COM/AMCIVWAR.NET
"History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"



__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com

She wrote a popular book vs a journal article, I notice that she
tends to grandstand her views a bit. I found some of her opinions to
be a little biased. It's not a long book and doesn't really break any
new ground.

  It's true that Psychology is not a hard science however it is
considered a *science* (as apposed to an art or a pseudo-science.)

I think it's important to focus on witnesses to abduction type events
for no other reason than, that's all the evidence we seem to have.

Clancy points out that the stories are not at all uniform but seem to
be within the witnesses frame of reference, that's very suggestive
that the prime force of the stories are coming from within a witness
and not from an outside agency.

Her book is not perfect by any stretch but I think it's a step in the
right direction, only if people are really interested in finding the
truth. Those that believe will not be happy with Clancy but, they are
seldom happy with any systematic approach to the problem which might
invalidate their claims.

The Odd Emperor



--- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, John Beatty
<jdbeatty.geo@y...> wrote:
>
> I've read of it, reviews are generally favorable in
> the evidence-based community.  No one has defied what
> science there is to it, and that is not a lot.
>
> Psycology dosen't have a lot of testable evidence to
> support its claims as a science, and that might
> explain the lukewarm reception.
>
> --- odd_empire <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey!
> >
> > I was wondering if any of you skeptics (or non
> > skeptics) have actually
> > read Susan Clancy's book 'Alien Abduction'. If so,
> > What do you think of
> > it?
> >
> >  Coincidentally (or not) many people have been
> > weighing in on both
> > sides of the issue. Clancy is uniformly hated by the
> > believer community
> > and most skeptics seem ambivalent. After reading the
> > book I think I've
> > found out why.
> >
> > The Odd Emperor
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _________________________________
> John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
> AMCIVWAR.COM/AMCIVWAR.NET
> "History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

John:

The issue is whether government has the power and ABILITY to CLAIM
whatever objects, artefacts, etc. they CHOOSE to,  of ANY event or
occurrence, whether it's an alleged alien space craft, bullet from an
assasination, etc., etc.  Whether it's in the name of preserving a
crime scene, national security, or just brute force and intimidation,
I fail to see why it can't.

That doesn't resolve the philosophical question of the
unfalsifiability of the claim UFO believers (no pejorative intended)
have:  "The evidence was/is there but the government confiscated
it".  But I fail to see why that claim isn't plausible.

A certain podiatrist, whose name I forget at the moment, claims to
have extracted bits of metal from people that have very anomolous
properties.  Is it all hype?  How would I know?  I'm not qualified to
say.  Who am I to question his knowledge and expertise, or to judge
whether a CSICOPist has validly done so.  If you and others don't
think this evidence is credible, the ball is in your court to say why.

Bruce Macabbee, Stanton Friedman, and plenty of others I can't recall
at the moment are physicists or trained in advanced technological
analysis have examined footage of alleged UFO's and claim the
analysis proves (or maybe just highly suggests) many films and
videotapes of UFO's are not fake.  Who am I to dispute them?  But
those who do dispute them, as least as far as I've read, listened to
radio, or watched on TV, have done little that convinced me that
Macabee, et al's reasoning or conclusions about the evidence is
flawed.

I have a high degree of agnosticism about the matter.  But I don't
understand the rush to dismiss it all as fantasy as do
the "conventionalists" (I'd like to avoid pejoratives like "debunker,
scoftic, etc., but I can't concede that you're a "skeptic", because
it appears to me your very selective in your skepticism.  I consider
myself a skeptic, both to the over-interpreters in the UFO-believer
community and the dismissers and shoddy-explainers-away like Randi,
Nichols, and CSICOP.

With all I've read, there's just enough for me that rings true that
something anomolous is going on.  People do misinterpret and mis-
remember, but not to the degree the CSICOPist and similar types claim.

James N. Dawson

(Here I am again, spending time on a subject I really don't have the
time to!)


--- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, John Beatty
<jdbeatty.geo@y...> wrote:
>
> >A law enforcement officer accused of pilfering debris
> from space shuttle Columbia has been charged with
> stealing government property.
>
> Very good.  NOTHING to do with "advanced alien
> technology," however.  You DO recognize that?
>
> Very clearly, "stealing government property" is NOT
> the same as "posessing advanced alien technology."
> Are you clear on the distinction?  If not, I'm certain
> any first year law student can make it crystal clear.
>
> > As I said, the govt. would claim that what crashed
> > was their military craft
> > and you would be prosecuted if you took pieces.
>
> When has this ever happened?  Are you now claiming
> that the shuttle was actually a crashed alien craft?
>
> >They
> > already did this with the government of South Africa
> and forced them to turn over an alien craft that had
> crashed there,
>
> When did the US government violate South African
> soveregnty and recover unknown artifacts from a
> freindly power?  Using what law, court or other means
> of coercion?  How did they hide all this from the mass
> media?
>
> > ...even though the bodies were
> > obviously alien.
>
> And your proof for this is...?
>
> >They even made
> > the S. Africans fly it on one of their military
> > cargo planes to the US because
> > the S. African Air Force had shot it down.
>
> How "advanced" would this spaceship be if it was shot
> down by a third-rate air force? Why would they shoot
> it down?   How was it established that the artifact
> was "alien?"
>
> Now, what else have you got?  Where's the former
> members of the collection teams?  What law prevents
> you from keeping "alien" materials that the government
> does not know about?  Or are you saying that "they"
> know where the ALL are?
>
> Need you to think about this real hard:  Knowing what
> a sieve the government is, how and WHY would they keep
> all this "alien" activity a secret for so long?
>
> _________________________________
> John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
> AMCIVWAR.COM/AMCIVWAR.NET
> "History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"
>
>
>
> __________________________________________
> Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about.
> Just $16.99/mo. or less.
> dsl.yahoo.com
>

OK, more hearsay over hearsay, with no attributable
sources.

Got anything original?

Got any ideas as to why this is being kept so secret?
Got any real answers for any other questions?

Come back when you can provide something like real
answers, not just something someone made up and cannot
verify.

By the way, South Africa's frigates didn't join the
fleet until 1996.  Between 1971 and 1996 the largest
vessels they possessed were missile patrol boats.


_________________________________
John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
AMCIVWAR.COM/AMCIVWAR.NET
"History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

I think you may be wasting your time with this guy. He did the same
thing over on JREF. Every time someone asked him a question he pasted
a bunch of tripe. Then acted indignant that people refused to sit
around for day s and analyze his piles of junk. No matter how many
layers you peel from this stuff it just gets deeper and sillier.

Did you see the place he got that text-wad? There's a lifetime of
silly crap in there!

www.textfiles.com/ufo

The Odd Emperor
http://www.oddempire.org



--- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, John Beatty
<jdbeatty.geo@y...> wrote:
>
> OK, more hearsay over hearsay, with no attributable
> sources.
>
> Got anything original?
>
> Got any ideas as to why this is being kept so secret?
> Got any real answers for any other questions?
>
> Come back when you can provide something like real
> answers, not just something someone made up and cannot
> verify.
>
> By the way, South Africa's frigates didn't join the
> fleet until 1996.  Between 1971 and 1996 the largest
> vessels they possessed were missile patrol boats.
>
>
> _________________________________
> John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
> AMCIVWAR.COM/AMCIVWAR.NET
> "History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

> Hi Odd,

Hey Art!

> If you had read what I posted at jref you would know that I was
posting the
> proof that the members there were asking for. From my experience at
jref I came
> to the conclusion that some people there were close-minded and did
not want
> to read the truth


That's extremely prejudicial. You never really discussed anything at
JREF. As I recall, all you did was (as I already mentioned) post wads
and wads of text files you got from god knows where and pleaded with
people to purchase your book.  People at JREF are not interested in
some self-proclaimed "proof." They want to discuss evidence and
listen to opinions. You can't go in there saying "this is a fact"
without some evidence to back you up. Those people would eat you for
lunch and as a matter of fact, they did!

(so they did not read my posts), others were unable to read
> more than a few sentences due to acute attention span disorders
(they would say
> give only short answers, they couldn't handle long ones), and
others that had
> reading comprehension problems.

No, you did something that's referred to as scatter-shot debate.
Instead of answering a question you raised ten others. Your apparent
stratagem was to confuse the issue not clarify your own position
(which is what people at JREF were asking you to do.)



  They would read what I wrote and say, "How
> could "X and Y" be true be true as you say?" I had been really
referring to "A
> and B" but they either were not able to grasp the subject, or
wanted to be able
> to shoot holes in it by pretending I had said something else.
>

Then you may not understand what was going on there. Most of the
people at JREF can grasp far more than you might believe. There are
some exceptions to be sure but for the most part, it's a rather sober—
well moderated place.


  Many of the subjects in the articles, and persons that are on
that "text
> file" site list, I have debunked myself. I have never used any text
from that
> site. I never saw it before till you posted the URL. Once again you
have
> suffered the shame of premature evaluation.  LOL
> Art
>


Well I must take issue with you here.

  Is this not you?

From antigray@... Thu Dec 08 18:25:39 2005
Return-Path: <ANTIGRAY@...>
X-Sender: ANTIGRAY@...
X-Apparently-To: debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com
Received: (qmail 53447 invoked from network); 9 Dec 2005 02:25:36 -
0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172)
by m27.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Dec 2005 02:25:36 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m24.mx.aol.com) (64.12.137.5)
by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2005 02:25:36 -0000
Received: from ANTIGRAY@...
by imo-m24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r6.3.) id r.13c.212fd4db (48552)
for <debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:25:27 -
0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <13c.212fd4db.30ca4516@...>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:25:26 EST

And is this not what you posted? The URL is plainly on the top of
your pasted text. Did you not post this?


www.textfiles.com/ufo/ossette.ufo
SPEECH FOR OSSETTE CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER, 1989. -----------------------
----------------------- Start speech with the quotes from the MOD re
UFO not coming under the Official Secrets Act. Then quote the
American document. (Slide 1) The fact that we are such close allies.
Also if UFO
<<snip>>


So, question; how is it you say

  <i>"I have never used any text from that site. I never saw it before
till you posted the URL. Once again you have suffered the shame of
premature evaluation.  LOL
Art " </i>

When you clearly cut and pasted a large chunk of text from that page?
Are you mistaken? Are you deliberately lying? Is someone else using
your Yahoo account?

Inquiring minds want to know!


The Odd Emperor
http://www.oddempire.org

>If you had read what I posted at jref you would know
that I was posting the proof that the members there
were asking for.

Here you have posted nothing but hearsay.  Give us
something original, a source that can be chased down.

>From my experience at jref I came to the conclusion
that some people there were close-minded and did not
want to read the truth (so they did not read my
posts), others were unable to read more than a few
sentences due to acute attention span disorders (they
would say give only short answers, they couldn't
handle long ones), and others that had reading
comprehension problems.

This is fairly typical of the scam artist, to proclaim
that their audience has something wrong with them....

>They would read what I wrote and say, "How could "X
and Y" be true be true as you say?" I had been really
referring to "A and B" but they either were not able
to grasp the subject, or wanted to be able to shoot
holes in it by pretending I had said something else.

And again.

You have proven nothing.  You have made a lot of
claims and backed them up with hearsay.  You have no
proof of any of your assertions.  Your entire book is
more than likely the same.

_________________________________
John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
AMCIVWAR.COM/AMCIVWAR.NET
"History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Forgive my ignorance, but what's this JREF place?

--- odd_empire <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
> > Hi Odd,
>
> Hey Art!
>
> > If you had read what I posted at jref you would
> know that I was
> posting the
> > proof that the members there were asking for. From
> my experience at
> jref I came
> > to the conclusion that some people there were
> close-minded and did
> not want
> > to read the truth
>
>
> That's extremely prejudicial. You never really
> discussed anything at
> JREF. As I recall, all you did was (as I already
> mentioned) post wads
> and wads of text files you got from god knows where
> and pleaded with
> people to purchase your book.  People at JREF are
> not interested in
> some self-proclaimed "proof." They want to discuss
> evidence and
> listen to opinions. You can't go in there saying
> "this is a fact"
> without some evidence to back you up. Those people
> would eat you for
> lunch and as a matter of fact, they did!
>
> (so they did not read my posts), others were unable
> to read
> > more than a few sentences due to acute attention
> span disorders
> (they would say
> > give only short answers, they couldn't handle long
> ones), and
> others that had
> > reading comprehension problems.
>
> No, you did something that's referred to as
> scatter-shot debate.
> Instead of answering a question you raised ten
> others. Your apparent
> stratagem was to confuse the issue not clarify your
> own position
> (which is what people at JREF were asking you to
> do.)
>
>
>
>  They would read what I wrote and say, "How
> > could "X and Y" be true be true as you say?" I had
> been really
> referring to "A
> > and B" but they either were not able to grasp the
> subject, or
> wanted to be able
> > to shoot holes in it by pretending I had said
> something else.
> >
>
> Then you may not understand what was going on there.
> Most of the
> people at JREF can grasp far more than you might
> believe. There are
> some exceptions to be sure but for the most part,
> it's a rather sober—
> well moderated place.
>
>
>  Many of the subjects in the articles, and persons
> that are on
> that "text
> > file" site list, I have debunked myself. I have
> never used any text
> from that
> > site. I never saw it before till you posted the
> URL. Once again you
> have
> > suffered the shame of premature evaluation.  LOL
> > Art
> >
>
>
> Well I must take issue with you here.
>
>  Is this not you?
>
> From antigray@... Thu Dec 08 18:25:39 2005
> Return-Path: <ANTIGRAY@...>
> X-Sender: ANTIGRAY@...
> X-Apparently-To: debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com
> Received: (qmail 53447 invoked from network); 9 Dec
> 2005 02:25:36 -
> 0000
> Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172)
> by m27.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Dec 2005
> 02:25:36 -0000
> Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m24.mx.aol.com)
> (64.12.137.5)
> by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2005
> 02:25:36 -0000
> Received: from ANTIGRAY@...
> by imo-m24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r6.3.) id
> r.13c.212fd4db (48552)
> for <debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 8 Dec
> 2005 21:25:27 -
> 0500 (EST)
> Message-ID: <13c.212fd4db.30ca4516@...>
> Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:25:26 EST
>
> And is this not what you posted? The URL is plainly
> on the top of
> your pasted text. Did you not post this?
>
>
> www.textfiles.com/ufo/ossette.ufo
> SPEECH FOR OSSETTE CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER, 1989.
> -----------------------
> ----------------------- Start speech with the quotes
> from the MOD re
> UFO not coming under the Official Secrets Act. Then
> quote the
> American document. (Slide 1) The fact that we are
> such close allies.
> Also if UFO
> <<snip>>
>
>
> So, question; how is it you say
>
>  <i>"I have never used any text from that site. I
> never saw it before
> till you posted the URL. Once again you have
> suffered the shame of
> premature evaluation.  LOL
> Art " </i>
>
> When you clearly cut and pasted a large chunk of
> text from that page?
> Are you mistaken? Are you deliberately lying? Is
> someone else using
> your Yahoo account?
>
> Inquiring minds want to know!
>
>
> The Odd Emperor
> http://www.oddempire.org
>
>
>
>


_________________________________
John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
AMCIVWAR.COM/AMCIVWAR.NET
"History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Oh no problem. The James Randi Educational Foundation. A kind of
skeptics hangout. Uniformly despised by believers everywhere.

http://www.randi.org/

The Odd Emperor
http://www.odempire.org




--- In debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com, John Beatty
<jdbeatty.geo@y...> wrote:
>
> Forgive my ignorance, but what's this JREF place?
>
> --- odd_empire <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Hi Odd,
> >
> > Hey Art!
> >
> > > If you had read what I posted at jref you would
> > know that I was
> > posting the
> > > proof that the members there were asking for. From
> > my experience at
> > jref I came
> > > to the conclusion that some people there were
> > close-minded and did
> > not want
> > > to read the truth
> >
> >
> > That's extremely prejudicial. You never really
> > discussed anything at
> > JREF. As I recall, all you did was (as I already
> > mentioned) post wads
> > and wads of text files you got from god knows where
> > and pleaded with
> > people to purchase your book.  People at JREF are
> > not interested in
> > some self-proclaimed "proof." They want to discuss
> > evidence and
> > listen to opinions. You can't go in there saying
> > "this is a fact"
> > without some evidence to back you up. Those people
> > would eat you for
> > lunch and as a matter of fact, they did!
> >
> > (so they did not read my posts), others were unable
> > to read
> > > more than a few sentences due to acute attention
> > span disorders
> > (they would say
> > > give only short answers, they couldn't handle long
> > ones), and
> > others that had
> > > reading comprehension problems.
> >
> > No, you did something that's referred to as
> > scatter-shot debate.
> > Instead of answering a question you raised ten
> > others. Your apparent
> > stratagem was to confuse the issue not clarify your
> > own position
> > (which is what people at JREF were asking you to
> > do.)
> >
> >
> >
> >  They would read what I wrote and say, "How
> > > could "X and Y" be true be true as you say?" I had
> > been really
> > referring to "A
> > > and B" but they either were not able to grasp the
> > subject, or
> > wanted to be able
> > > to shoot holes in it by pretending I had said
> > something else.
> > >
> >
> > Then you may not understand what was going on there.
> > Most of the
> > people at JREF can grasp far more than you might
> > believe. There are
> > some exceptions to be sure but for the most part,
> > it's a rather sober—
> > well moderated place.
> >
> >
> >  Many of the subjects in the articles, and persons
> > that are on
> > that "text
> > > file" site list, I have debunked myself. I have
> > never used any text
> > from that
> > > site. I never saw it before till you posted the
> > URL. Once again you
> > have
> > > suffered the shame of premature evaluation.  LOL
> > > Art
> > >
> >
> >
> > Well I must take issue with you here.
> >
> >  Is this not you?
> >
> > From antigray@ Thu Dec 08 18:25:39 2005
> > Return-Path: <ANTIGRAY@>
> > X-Sender: ANTIGRAY@
> > X-Apparently-To: debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com
> > Received: (qmail 53447 invoked from network); 9 Dec
> > 2005 02:25:36 -
> > 0000
> > Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172)
> > by m27.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Dec 2005
> > 02:25:36 -0000
> > Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m24.mx.aol.com)
> > (64.12.137.5)
> > by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Dec 2005
> > 02:25:36 -0000
> > Received: from ANTIGRAY@
> > by imo-m24.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r6.3.) id
> > r.13c.212fd4db (48552)
> > for <debunkingdebunkers@yahoogroups.com>; Thu, 8 Dec
> > 2005 21:25:27 -
> > 0500 (EST)
> > Message-ID: <13c.212fd4db.30ca4516@>
> > Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 21:25:26 EST
> >
> > And is this not what you posted? The URL is plainly
> > on the top of
> > your pasted text. Did you not post this?
> >
> >
> > www.textfiles.com/ufo/ossette.ufo
> > SPEECH FOR OSSETTE CONFERENCE SEPTEMBER, 1989.
> > -----------------------
> > ----------------------- Start speech with the quotes
> > from the MOD re
> > UFO not coming under the Official Secrets Act. Then
> > quote the
> > American document. (Slide 1) The fact that we are
> > such close allies.
> > Also if UFO
> > <<snip>>
> >
> >
> > So, question; how is it you say
> >
> >  <i>"I have never used any text from that site. I
> > never saw it before
> > till you posted the URL. Once again you have
> > suffered the shame of
> > premature evaluation.  LOL
> > Art " </i>
> >
> > When you clearly cut and pasted a large chunk of
> > text from that page?
> > Are you mistaken? Are you deliberately lying? Is
> > someone else using
> > your Yahoo account?
> >
> > Inquiring minds want to know!
> >
> >
> > The Odd Emperor
> > http://www.oddempire.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> _________________________________
> John D. Beatty, Milwaukee Wisconsin
> AMCIVWAR.COM/AMCIVWAR.NET
> "History is the only test for the consequences of ideas"
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

> Hi Odd,
> The South African information came from files sent to me by an
abductee I
> know in South Africa who is a UFO researcher. He has sent me a few
dozen things
> over the last few years and I saved them. The only site I actually
visited on
> anything he sent me was the SAUFOR site.  www.geocities.com/saufor/
  SAUFOR -
> SOUTH AFRICA'S UFO RESOURCE. I save stuff that I have use for, like in
> answering posts, because I've had the experience that just saving a
URL could take you
> back to a site that is no longer there.
>   In jref I used a lot of my stored files to provide relevent
information in
> answer to questions there. I seldom answer a question with a question.
> Art
>


OK but, you must know that this is not evidence. By you're own
statements you are acknowledging that you really don't know where this
information comes from. So why even bother sending this stuff? I can
download and print phone-books of this crap any time I like. There are
web pages out there with millions of words of this exact same stuff.
Every one else on the Internet can do the same so why do you think
just sending more of this stuff out is going to convince anyone of
anything?

The best posts on JREF are short, punchy and have some support behind
them. Like a reference to some accredited person or text. Not reams of
unsupportable speculation -couched-as-fact. That's why the people on
JREF could not take you seriously, because you are simply not very
convincing.

Be convincing and you can change the world.


The Odd Emperor
http://www.oddempire.org