19 Nov 2009, 09:52
19 Nov 2009, 10:31
19 Nov 2009, 15:47
20 Nov 2009, 04:18
RarelyImpressed wrote:You will probably be labeled a conspiracy theorist and the word will be used in the wrong context. I always wondered why there has to be a group of "skeptics" instead of being skeptical to begin with. Why does there need to be a movement? Why not take the path down the middle? being agnostic about everything, questioning everything? People are weird from both the believers and skeptics side....lets make some progress on this website and stop bickering like we are arguing about two different sport teams
20 Nov 2009, 04:24
accidentsinspace wrote:[b] Of course, he was silenced by BIG PHARMA and all his work buried.
20 Nov 2009, 05:42
20 Nov 2009, 05:49
Nostradamus wrote:This was just another in a long list of tried and unsuccessful techniques. He wasn't silenced. That is poppycock.
20 Nov 2009, 06:22
20 Nov 2009, 13:28
20 Nov 2009, 14:21
20 Nov 2009, 15:07
accidentsinspace wrote:And what were your sources? This is a blank bullshit shill JREF sister site. Dirty scum.
20 Nov 2009, 15:14
20 Nov 2009, 15:38
20 Nov 2009, 19:50
ETEPONGE wrote:Sorry, but rather than gullibly and idiotically blindly accepting everything I see on YouTube without question (the doe-eyed true believer syndrome where everything that sounds good is automatically true), I try to logically research and investigate all sides of the argument, going back and forth, back and forth, checking the arguments and counter-arguments of both sides, actually trying to check and verify stuff rather than just seeing a video on YouTube and going, "Oh my god, oh my god, it said it on YouTube, therefore it's automatically true, and you're dirty JREF scum if you have a brain and don't accept it at face value!"
With the true woos, if you don't gullibly lap up everything without thinking, you are "JREF Dirty Scum" apparently, that is, you possess an IQ above the single digits.
The JREF Debunkers I generally find to be the opposite yet equal brother in stupidity of this, what Stanton Friedman calls "Rather than investigating the unexplained, they attempt to explain the uninvestigated". Where they will only read and trust and consider skeptic articles and skeptic sources (just like the true believers do with their materials), already believe it's all BS from the get go (just like how the true believer already believes it's true from the get go), so any convincing sounding skeptical article is auto-accepted without comparing it's claims with the actual data and opposing sources (just like true believers do with their sources). Automatically dismissing everything classified as paranormal or anomalous without seriously researching it (the "greater skeptics than I have looked at it and said it's hogwash, therefore it is, therefore there is no need for me to press further" argument), and using clever doubt throwing / conspiracy weaving tactics to dumb down anything veridical that might be there worth considering.
I'm part of the excluded middle ground, I'm not a woo, and I'm not a debunker. I examine data, and if it's convincing, I go, "I feel this is worth further investigation" or "this highly suggests this may be a real phenomenon and begs further research", rather than, "good gosh golly guys, a youtube video says this guy cured cancer! Let's blindly accept it because it feels good too, so it must be true! Dirty JREF scum bags are those who disagree with my hasty conclusions!"
If you have any evidence this guy's research was replicated by others, and his claims were verified, and evidence he was "silenced", and counter-arguments to the skeptics' arguments concerning him, let's hear them. Name calling just shows you've got nothing of substance.
20 Nov 2009, 21:38
This is the best thing that I have ever read. You nailed it!