Mysteries, Chemtrails, Aerosols :: Mysterious NZ New Zealand based Discussion Forums The strange & mysterious, archaeological anomalies, modern oddities... Current affairs, health & medical issues, Aerosol Spraying in NZ... ...and general interest: ARCHIVES
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 2:02 am Post Subject: Recent thoughts on the Direction of the Forum...
The Origins of the Mysterious New Zealand website
In late 2002, we were asked to photograph a mysterious artefact. The object, originally found on D'Urville Island, was owned by an acquaintance of Ross Wiseman. Ross is most notably recognised for his theories and books on 'Pre-Tasman explorers' and New Zealand's hidden past. Ross came to our house at the time, introduced us to his friend and the strange black stone-like object we had undertaken to photograph.
Through that chance meeting we agreed to help Ross with the layout of some of his book materials, his having been let down by someone else, and had quite a bit to do with him on and off for the next year or so. Whatever you make of his theories about the possible Spanish discovery of New Zealand or his interpretation of rock markings on Mount Tauhara, Ross is an engaging, creative and incredibly enthusiastic guy with an infectious giggle and an earnest dedication to his chosen fields of interest.
Over the years, Ross has been contacted numerous times by people with stories to tell and experiences to share and he is full of amazing anecdotes. Ross later introduced us to Gary Cook who has an entire filing cabinet devoted to information submitted to him by members of the public – the vast majority of which he has never had time to investigate and probably never will.
The realisation that New Zealand has a rich wealth of hidden history and Ross's keen sense of adventure and utter commitment, together with an existing deep interest in anomalies, inspired us to consider creating Mysterious New Zealand and we set about designing and planning the site. The purpose of this site was originally to collect, document and share some of these accounts and to examine and present New Zealand mysteries. It's interesting that even now, the Kaimanawa Wall consistently features in our top search terms (Bruce Cathie is another).
Watershed Moments
In April of 2003 whilst on photographic assignment in Marlborough, we witnessed events that were inevitably, and perhaps somewhat regrettably, to change the immediate focus of the web site. We have discussed this elsewhere on the site, although we haven't yet presented our full reports of those events or a subsequent event, which for us, represent the three and only genuinely mysterious apparent 'chemtrail' operations we have personally witnessed.
We have since seen many persistent contrails, few in Auckland, many in southern regions, and even followed the passage of some we watched form over the coast at Tangimoana, grow and expand massively as we chased them across the North Island, losing eventual sight of them hundreds of kilometres away over the Coromandel Peninsula. Nothing that compares however, to the operations seen in Marlborough of 2003.
Establishing the Forums
We figured that if we had seen what we had in just a period of three days, others must have seen much more, particularly if they lived in the area. We set up the forums to try to get corroboration for our own observations. We hoped to elicit reports of genuine anomalies and perhaps even attract some scientific person of value, who could offer some truly objective contributions. We have tried to keep the extremists to a minimum and have implemented admin approved registrations to try to limit spammers and known troublemakers.
The year or so spent creating the Flight Vector map was an attempt to create a document for the purposes of trying to distinguish what has become normal from anything truly anomalous. The same with the use of Flight Explorer, as with the Flight altitude video.
Retrospective Flight Explorer Playback Data
In fact, with the help of info4 and at some expense, we were able to purchase retrospective playback data for the three occasions we regarded as our own personally witnessed truly anomalous operations and cross referenced the Flight Explorer activity (or lack of it) with our photographs and their embedded time data. In all three examples, we had photographed aircraft and observed activity not shown on Flight Explorer. In simple terms, planes overhead at times where the Flight Explorer data showed there were none.
This confirmation, very personal to us, has convinced us that our feelings about what we saw on those occasions were sound and borne out by the available evidence. We understand that without explanation from the Civil Aviation Authority for those anomalies, they are nothing more than mystery aircraft without an official reason for being where they were and doing what they were doing – whatever that was.
Quote:
Question: Sometimes a jet or its contrail is visually observed yet is not appearing in Flight Explorer at that time. What is this likely to be, military?
Answer: The FE data delay (NZ tracks 2mins*/ US Tracks 5mins) will explain some of the anomalies you are seeing but any military** or high security flights are also filtered so these will not be visible at all.
Strange high security flights indeed. The historical playback data covered our sightings and photography of two black beams (at different times and in different parts of the sky on the same day) and the time period during which we captured a photograph which includes a large unidentified flying object. As well as the regimented back and forth movements of contrail-producing aircraft seeming to work in tandem to such a degree that we were able to predict their return.
Whatever the official explanation, the sheer cumulative weight of seeing that demonstrated to us on more than one occasion, taken in context with the photographs from those periods and locations, suggests to us that there is indeed something odd going on in the skies of New Zealand, in some locations, some of the time. And that is still about all we can say. There is no way to know if these non flight explorer flights are indeed military or high security flights or something else.
Notes: *Which were taken into account in our studies of the data in combination with our photographic evidence
** Actual observation over years watching Flight Explorer has shown that New Zealand military flights are visible. Filtering of US military aircraft may be the case in the USA, however, here they seem not be. Even visiting US military aircraft are visible in New Zealand airspace.
Aside from the jet fighters in 'mothballs', the RNZAF has only two jets (757s) capable of creating high altitude contrails and both of which are regularly visible on Flight Explorer.
Five Years of Investigation and Research
It is now approaching the fifth anniversary of our original Marlborough sightings, which changed so much of what Mysterious New Zealand so far seems to have become. And five years on, after countless hours of research, thousands of print-outs, and months and months of investigation we still feel that what we witnessed was seriously mysterious and genuinely anomalous. We have been slow to publish detailed accounts of those events for many reasons, time being a significant one, but also timing. Technicalities related to the creation of information management systems for the site and other unavoidable occurrences have meant that we still have not done so. We still intend to do so in time. However, our investigations were not for the purposes of convincing anyone, more importantly, they were attempts to bring more meaning to what we ourselves had witnessed.
Enter Ross 'Hector' Marsden: MetService Meteorologist
hector \HEK-tur\, noun:
A bully.
transitive verb:
To intimidate or harass in a blustering way; to bully.
In Homer, Hector (Hektor) is not a bullying braggart, and in English litereature of the 14th – early 17th centuries, his name stands for 'a gallant warrior': the derogatory conception of his character dates from the latter 17th century, when the Hectors, a gang of disorderly young fellows that fancied themselves as very Hectors, disturbed the streets of London with their hooliganism; popular drama took up this topical cue...
With the registration of Ross 'Hector' Marsden we thought just perhaps, he could present something useful to the forum. His charts were interesting and he has tried at times to encourage people to more accurately report on what they see. However, it was apparent fairly soon that he represented a point view of 'normality at any cost', everything is normal, everything will always be normal. In our opinion, an extreme and very unscientific approach. We were prepared to tolerate his presence here because he represented the status quo, the official viewpoint and we were keen to see the best he could do with the subject.
There has been much speculation from members of this forum as to what Hector's motives are, why he is so prolific on the site, perhaps even, that he is being paid to post here. Ross has taken particular exception to the latter. He has however, put enormous time and resources into his posts on this site, initially signing up with his real MetService email address and making his first and a number of further posts from a MetService IP address. It is our personal opinion that he probably is not being paid anything extra to post here, he had denied he is being paid to participate on Mysterious NZ and he is most likely telling the literal truth with regard to this. We had been informed that MetService were concerned about members of the public questioning them about chemtrails – we figured that Hector's presence was in all likelihood a voluntary response to this.
Extraordinary Levels of interest and Activity
What we also find interesting though is that in the month of March 2007, around the time of the 'thistle seed' subterfuge post, there were 311 unique visits from a user or users at MetService, 135 of them on one single day. Our private comment to Hector that MetService must have a very flexible workplace internet use policy heralded his voluntary, but temporary withdrawal from these forums last year. When he returned it was under his own name, with the apparent sanction of his MetService employers. In fact, when we suggested to him some time earlier that he might consider 'coming out' we were told that he had been considering it but would have to do so after speaking to MetService about it first. It is our opinion that he did so in order to avoid the possibility of being forcibly outed at some stage, perhaps motivated as a result of some private messaging exchanges:
We wrote:
“Don't you think it might be a good time to come clean about your identity and start posting under your real name? Perhaps then, you might receive a bit more respect from your fellow forum posters...
...having said that we don't have any intention at this time of 'outing you' in any way. Naturally, we would prefer that you did this yourself, as you suggest you are considering.”
Since our private discussions about his activity, he has been more careful about his visits to the site, never posting from a MetService IP again and more commonly visiting the site without logging in. We feel that given the pattern of many of his posts some of them must have been constructed in work time and posted later.
His obsession with the Mysterious New Zealand forums does indicate something of an obsessive crusade against 'the infidels' who 'believe' in chemtrails. He certainly puts a lot of time into his own research of the forums, helped, no doubt, by his associate James Guthrie. Despite a rather insignificant count of seven or eight posts, James clocked up over 6000 page hits while under his short lived dual persona zaphod, most of them via some sort of automated process... All in all it hints at a very high level of time and resource. Far more than we ourselves have been able to bring to the site with the commitments we have to running and growing a business which is very often a seven days a week necessity...
Genuine Scepticism
We are not chemtrail believers. We are not chemtrail disbelievers. And we have no desire to make chemtrails a religion. We are not necessarily of the view that chemicals are being routinely 'sprayed' on New Zealanders though they may well be. We have a tendency to walk the middle path, because in our minds that is all we can do in respect of this issue, given our resources and our personal experiences. We have no wish to fabricate, invent or omit in order to prove a point. We feel that we do our best to be of a truly genuinely sceptical point of view in the true sense of the word; ie. of a cautious though genuinely inquiring mind, one who doesn't believe or disbelieve and one that does apply critical investigation to actual experience.
We also trust our own observations and our ability to critically examine an issue, as well as our own feelings and intuition and we are not alone. There are many people in New Zealand who are becoming increasingly mistrusting of authority figures, and are shown time and time again that Government and the Public Service does not necessarily have our best interests at heart when making decisions that affect the lives of citizens. The painted apple moth spraying programme is a resounding example of this. We have personally been contacted by people who often lack the technical ability to fully grasp what is going on, but know on an instinctual level that what they may have observed is not normal and not right. Many of them have never had to study anything in depth since their school days and given the incredibly scientific nature of the research required, it is understandable that they may hold back from entering into discussions on the forum.
The chemtrail issue demands a level of research and study quite unlike other fields of strangeness. There are a number of sciences and disciplines to become familiar with: physics, chemistry, meteorology, atmospheric science, aircraft propulsion systems and their fuel etc... in order to understand the many technical papers associated with the subject, few written to be comprehended by the public.
Since Hector's registration, we believe that the forums have become a more hostile environment for anecdotal reporters and those who perhaps lack confidence to go up against a technically minded 'sceptical' heavyweight like Ross.
Ross Marsden however, is not a genuine sceptic as a thorough investigation into his body of posts will reveal. What is he? To understand and assess the nature of this meteorologist we must examine the possibilities.
"Academic" or "Cartesian" Skeptics: followers of Plato's Academy.
Reason is paramount. We cannot know anything about the future, or anything about the contents of someone else's mind, or anything about the past, or anything at all about the "external world."
"Epistemist" Skeptics
We CAN know about the future, we can know about the contents of someone else's mind, or about the past, or about the "external world."
"Pyrrhonian" Skeptics
Inquiry is paramount, and a skeptic is an inquirer. Our position is not doubt or denial or disbelief, but continual inquiry. For example, We do not believe in the reality of a god, but neither do we deny it. Nor do we say that nobody could ever know for certain one way or the other, as agnostics do. Instead we say of god, "I personally do not know at the moment but I am trying to find out."
Naturally, we equate genuine scepticism with the Pyrrhonian type. Ideally all scientists should be genuine sceptics. We would welcome the presence of some genuine sceptics on Mysterious New Zealand. They would help to create balance and discipline in reportage and discussions. A genuine sceptic would both point out errors of fact and acknowledge genuine mysteries and possibilities within a proposition. No genuine sceptic would make absolute statements or use terms like 'the truth'.
Quote:
Truth. This is a word best avoided entirely in physics except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said 'Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths.' Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths.
“These phenomena you see in the sky are genuine jet exhaust condensation trails. No one is spraying chemicals. The medical symptoms, electric shocks, etc, you may associate with seeing contrails are caused by something else.
hole-punch cloud is a natural phenomenon related to the particular physical properties of water. The only "new" thing is the possible increase in the availablility (sic) and type of crystalisation nuclei for the super-cooled water droplets
Exactly - barely distinguishable from cloud, because that is just what it is; cloud as opposed to chemicals, poison, etc.
And the "grey beams", I've been thinking about them. I think they are shadows from the sun, cast by the contrail itself. (Note: Despite the fact that in order for our observations to be shadows, laws of physics would have to be broken down)
Nobody was "laying down the chems" today. What we saw were jet engine exhaust condensation clouds. There is no "they" to be argued over. Hello-o”
These things, the "beams", are shadows
How does Hector know there are no chemtrails? Or black beams? Did someone tell him? Did he do direct research? How can he and why can he be so absolutely certain? Fact: He doesn't know. He cannot know.
No genuine sceptic would make such remarks. A pseudo-sceptic might though. And he's also not a scientist, based on the Physics and Astronomy description above, which probably applies to all of science.
Perhaps he's a debunker? We certainly thought he was, as demonstrated by this somewhat frustrated outburst in a post from us:
We wrote:
“We do not expect meaningful discussion with Hector. It is our theory that Hector is a debunker. Debunkers, by their very nature, do not engage in meaningful discussion. They tend to avoid even approaching any valid points that 'opponents' (by their terms) may make. Much of the 'discussion' with debunkers involves very prosaic subjects and very prosaic hypotheses and theories. Their tendency is to reduce the great mysteries of life to the ordinary and (God help us) normal.”
What then, is a debunker? As Ross himself said in order for a debunker to exist, there must be 'bunk'. What is bunk? Bunk is 'senseless talk, nonsense, ludicrously false statements, a message that seems to convey no meaning, related to bunkum. So to debunk means to discredit, expose or ridicule the falsehood or exaggerated claims of something. It can be seen that a debunker does not necessarily employ the facts or scientific method in their arguments. They usually employ a bullying, blustering attack, ridicule being their main weapon, though science can be, used selectively, to bolster their case.
By these definitions it could be argued that Ross is not a debunker. When someone reports something they have seen and they have an opinion about it – is that really bunk? Are our observations of Marlborough in 2003 together with the supporting evidence bunk? No of course they are not. If someone has a feeling that something isn't right, how can that be bunk? Debunkery is designed to negate, by any means, anything that a proponent may say or propose. Its use is as a defence, akin to propaganda, against attackers of the satus quo.
There are people in the chemtrail world who are regarded as debunkers are who are quite happy to assume that status. Here is an example:
Jay Reynolds wrote:
"Dear Readers,
We are fast approaching 10,000 page views on this thread. I understand this has been the most popular and longest lasting thread ever at ariannaonline.
For the chemmies, it as (sic) been a terrible defeat witnessed 10,000 times over. For the truth, a great victory all the way. Even the current spam tactics on use to try and kill the thread are futile. They underscore the desperation the chemmie side feels at having their flesh ripped off to reveal nothing but the rubber-kneed chemmie wastrels sent out to fight bulldozers of truth. They never had a chance, not by anyone else's doing, but by choice and consent they came unarmed and were massacred.
To all the chemmies who have participated here, and all who are just voyeurs:
Know this – this thread amounts to a how-to-do-it lesson for all debunkers. It will remain archived for reference and will be touted time and time again for insights into just how weak you are when open debate is allowed. You are all losers, big time, and now it's available for anyone to see, and learn from, suckers.”
Jay Reynolds, Arianna Online (the page incidentally is no longer available)
Phew! Fortunately, our forums have not stooped to this level of 'debunkery'.
What is a Disinformationist?
Disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. It also includes the distortion of true information in order to render it useless. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation which is not deliberate, as in the unwitting passing on of information which is not true. In the context of military intelligence or espionage, it is the deliberate spreading of false information in order to mislead an enemy as to one's position or course of action.
Disinformation is never the launching of one singe unit of information, several and in most cases, many different pieces make up a puzzle of deception. One single message can be called true or false, but only the combination of several and more information units make up a system that has the power to influence opinions.
The person or group presenting a disinformation knows full well what he/it is doing. This implies that the true information is known, it has to be in order for them to be effective.
A common technique is to use true or commonly known information and weave into it the disinformation, the mixture of truth, half truth and non truth is the most effective way to get disinformation into people's minds.
It is important to also realise that disinformation can consist entirely of true information. The disinformation occurring because of what is omitted or not revealed. Consider this (quote from Kenneth Keyes, How to Develop your Thinking Ability - Keyes submits the following description of a famous person at whose identity the reader is asked to guess):
Kenneth Keyes wrote:
“Mr ..................... had an unhappy childhood and little formal education. His ambition to become an artist was bitterly opposed by his father. Although self-educated, he became an author of a book, the sales of which in his country ranked next to the Bible. Obstacles did not discourage him. People would say, “Why, you can' do that!” but he hurdled one barrier after another. He placed a great deal of emphasis on improving the health of young people, and he was known through the world as a dynamic speaker. His closest associates said of him “He accomplishes great deeds out of the greatness of his heart, the passion of his will, and the goodness of his soul.”
“Sounds like a pretty good man, doesn't he?” Keyes continues. “So far as I know, everything in the foregoing description of Adolf Hitler is accurate and verifiable... Notice how we can be woefully misled by an accurate map! Only an adequate, well-rounded, balanced map deserves our trust.”
A graphic example of disinformation by omission. Those of a scientific persuasion may make the same kinds of omissions, thereby avoiding any accusations of telling untruths.
It is our finding that many of of the exponents in the debunkery category, including pseudo-sceptics and those far less rabid than Jay Reynolds, seem to 'sing from the same song sheet'. There is an uncanny commonality, as though they were all trained at the same school or that there is some sort of definitive methodology or guide to the process.
As luck would have it, we have managed to lay our hands on just such a manual, the contents of which are reprinted here :wink: :
Code:
The Debunkers/Pseudo-Sceptic/Disinformationist's Guide
1.) Adopt a condescending and self-assured attitude at all times. Imply that the full force of science backs up your points, the object being to make the believer seem ignorant naive and gullible.
2.) Find a prosaic phenomenon that, to the uninitiated, resembles the claimed phenomenon. Then suggest that the existence of the commonplace look-alike somehow forbids the existence of the genuine article.
3.) Emphasise the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the process of science with the content of science. Insist that the progress of science depends on explaining the unknown in terms of the known.
4.) Reinforce the concept that what is familiar is necessarily rational and that the unfamiliar is therefore irrational and consequently inadmissible as evidence. State categorically that reports of the unconventional may be dismissed as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional or normal.
5.) "Occam's Razor," or the "principle of parsimony," (less is better) says the correct explanation of a mystery will usually involve the simplest fundamental principles. Insist, therefore, that the most familiar and conventional explanation is by definition the simplest! Imply strongly that Occam's Razor is not merely a philosophical rule of thumb but an immutable scientific law.
6.) Keep arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible, deliberately make your pronouncements as complex and inaccessible as you can. Smother them with `science'. The fact that the recipient can't understand what you're on about will reinforce (hopefully in their mind) their ignorance etc.
7.) Ask unanswerable questions about the subject. The type of questions that only a team of scientists with an unlimited budget in equipment could hope to answer. Or such things as "if that is true, why aren't scientists researching it - or why don't we read about it in any newspapers?" Similarly, reinforce the popular fiction that our scientific knowledge is complete and finished.
8.) Find one exaggeration such as ".that travel at lightening speed" Repeat it back at them: "Oooo! "lightening speed" ... that's interesting." Repeating any of their spelling errors. Use their phrase and over in your own replies to emphasise the foolishness of your opponent.
9.) If your opponents catch you out in a mistake, a lie, or misleading statement, simply ignore their comments. If that doesn't work then contemptuously brush it aside or accuse them of being pedantic or of resorting to ad hominem attacks. Distract by introducing some contentious subject to the discussion.
10.) Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."
11.) Characterise your opponents as "uncritical believers." Summarily dismiss the notion that your approach itself betrays uncritical belief, albeit in the status quo.
12.) Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots. Suggest that in order to investigate the existence of something one must first believe in it absolutely. Then demand that all such "true believers" know all the answers to their most puzzling questions in complete detail ahead of time. Convince people of your own sincerity by reassuring them that you yourself would "love to believe in these fantastic phenomena." Carefully avoid the fact that science is not about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out.
13.) Label the believers and witnesses as conspiracy theorists, it's an effective weapon in order to place ridicule upon them. Avoid the word `conspiracy', pretend that it doesn't'' exist in isolation from the term `conspiracy theory'.
14.) Lump all phenomena of an unusual nature in with the category under discussion, and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. If Chemtrails are under discussion, attach New World Order, UFOs, alien visitations, alternative health 'quackery', paranormal etc.
15.) If prior hoaxes have been exposed in any category of unusual phenomenon, use that to attach the probability of 'elaborate hoax' to the issue under discussion - and that your gullible opponents have foolishly been taken in.
16.) With respect to investigations of unconventional phenomena, search out any single flaw or misstep then use it to invalidate the whole. Repeat it over and over back at them. Remember that most people do not have sufficient time or expertise for careful discrimination, and tend to accept or reject the whole of an unfamiliar situation.
17.) Equate the necessary sceptical component of science with all of science. Emphasise the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inspiration, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of having a lack of understanding of the scientific process.
18.) Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery - worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method. Downplay the fact that free inquiry and legitimate disagreement are a normal part of science.
19.) Discourage any study or discussion of scientific history that may expose today's dogma as yesterday's heresy.
20.) Imply that proof precedes evidence. Since the public tends to be unclear about the distinction between evidence and proof, do your best to help maintain this ambiguity. If absolute proof is lacking, state categorically that "there is no evidence at all!" Or if sufficient evidence has been presented to warrant further investigation of an unusual phenomeno,n maintain that evidence alone proves nothing thus eliminating the possibility of initiating any meaningful process of investigation.
21.) No matter the weight of evidence proving the existence of the unusual insist that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence - but taking care not to define where 'ordinary' ends and 'extraordinary' begins. Always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged by a separate, yet ill defined, set of scientific rules
22.) Insist that criteria of proof cannot possibly be established for phenomena that do not exist.
23.) Move the goal posts. If something that has been defined as sufficient or valid evidence happens to be presented, against the odds, then change the rules and demand more or different evidence. Do your utmost to insist on classes of evidence that are impossible to obtain.
24.) Use "smoke and mirrors," i.e., obfuscation and illusion. Never forget that a slippery mixture of fact, opinion, innuendo, out-of-context information and outright lies will fool most of the people most of the time. Cultivate the art of slipping back and forth between fact and fiction so undetectably that the flimsiest foundation of truth will always appear to firmly support your entire edifice of opinion.
25.) If you are unable to attack the facts, attack the individual(s) presenting them. Ad hominem arguments or personality attacks are among the most powerful ways of avoiding the issue and swaying any observers of the discussion. The tactic of "shooting the messenger" to denigrate the message is very effective, and even extends to the practice of claiming that if someone just investigating the subject is blemished, then the whole subject is questionable.
26.) Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule. It is far and away the single most chillingly effective weapon in your war against discovery and innovation. Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling. It fails to sway only those few that are of sufficiently independent mind not to buy into the kind of emotional consensus that ridicule provides. Use in conjunction with your best smug and condescending manner.
27.) By appropriate innuendo and example, imply that ridicule constitutes an essential feature of the scientific method that can raise the level of objectivity and dispassionateness with which any investigation is conducted.
28.) If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there is nothing new here!"
29.) If an investigator, chronicler or website of the unorthodox earns money from activities connected with their research, use this as positive proof of their insincerity and that they are only in it for the money.
30.) If a researcher has laboured to achieve public recognition of their work, then characterise them as publicity seekers.
31.) If all else fails, then fabricate entire research projects, by declaring that such claims have been thoroughly discredited by the "top scientists and experts in the field", whether or not such experts have ever actually studied the claims, or, for that matter, even exist.
32.) Destroy your opponents case with this easy four step process:
a) take one element of a case completely out of context;
b) find something prosaic that hypothetically could explain it;
c) declare that therefore that one element has been explained,
d) declare to one and all that the entire case has been explained!
Actually, as you would have guessed, this is not a long lost secret debunkers handbook, nor is it entirely original. We have compiled some of the list from various sources on the internet, who have generally borrowed their material from someone else, and so on and so on. But it certainly represents some of the best characterisations and good for a quiet smile. :)
Hector may or may not be a disinformationist, other people may have their opinion, we do however, find the following exchanges in this thread quite thought provoking:
Deano wrote:
Sounds like Hector has inside knowledge of a lethal spray day being planned. How many are the powers that be looking to cull Hector?
Hector wrote:
So, Deano, I ask you again, where exactly does it sound like I have inside knowledge of a lethal spray day being planned? The disingenuous use of a smiley icon does not excuse the atrocity suggested by the question following that statement in your post (https://www.mysteriousnewzealand.co.nz/forums/viewtopic.php?p=6080).
I understand how a windup works, and I understand humour. This is neither. Please explain...
...So, we are still waiting for Deano to explain his comments. Well, at least, I am. I strongly object to them, and what they imply. Again, what would lead someone to suggest that?
Why object so strongly to this when he has ignored so many other similar throwaway comments directed at him? Did the comment touch a raw nerve? Could it be that he does have some sort of inside knowledge? Could it be that he is being paid? (the suggestion of which has provoked similarly strong objection) In the spirit of genuine scepticism and open inquiry perhaps it can't and shouldn't be discounted. Perhaps he is a disinformationist...
Where things are Going...
Readers may start to get an idea of where all this heading. Yes, we feel that Hector's time on this forum has come to an end. We have taken steps to ban him from posting here. We do not see any benefit in debate for its own sake and do not derive pleasure from the cut and thrust of futile battle. He has become a bad influence, a distraction and most of all, a time waster. We need to reassess the purposes of the forum and decide its future based upon the value of contributors and what they have to offer. What we've done as far as our own research is not enough. Unless we have corroboration of operations, not individual flights, but an orchestrated pattern of non-Flight Explorer flights associated with other observable and documented information etc the subject will never be taken seriously. It certainly seems that the goal posts have indeed been moved as the following thread, where we try to engage Hector in a discussion about what would constitute sound evidence of suspicious activity, indicates:
And in the end, the final answer may still be Civil Aviation saying 'we can't tell you', 'we don't know' or 'they are high security flights and we can't tell you'.
So, what do we do now? We will see. We have a number of options. We have decided in the mean time to see how the forum goes without Hector. Forum members may disagree with this move, they are welcome to express their opinions here one way or the other.
Joined: 15 May 2007
Posts: 855
Location: north-east victoria
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:49 pm Post Subject:
beautifully written, J&M.
poor Hector!
i agree, he and JG seem to have set out to sabotage this initiative to get to the bottom of chemtrails...... the time wasting and obfuscation is clearly intentional
i don't think he's a bad man; not sure about JG.
I think behind Hector and JG are some bad people / vampires /aliens /pompleturds
it feels good to reboot the whole website, restore some perspective
one thing i feel is that Hector and jaygee have kept the issue topical, and have kept the quality of reporting perhaps higher than it might have been, if we hadn't had them smugly sneering at us from their citadel of science
also, some of the people who have been intimidated at first, have come away stronger.........proof of an ancient eastern hairsplitting theory, that says "without truly conscious and intelligent input, a process will always go off course, from its originally intended direction"
so, i say, as debunkers and disinformationists, H & JG have more than failed, they have helped us heaps
to me, the best proof that they were engaging on this forum under instruction , was the quality and amount of links etc., that they came up with.......i refuse to believe they did all that on their own initiative, on a high-minded mission to lead us out of our dark ignorant state
so, anyway, so long Hector, i still like you, thanks for all the hot tips.......if you want to come and look at chemtrails, i'm not hard to find (by the way, no chem over Easter, same like Christmas)
i have a query about your presentation about Plato and Truth, J & M :
Plato has been used much in the same way as Jesus to give his name to activities that would have horrified him.........his notion of "Ideas" has been given a totally intellectual meaning, whereas his intention was to say that these Ideas or patterns are much richer and more real and perfect than the physical forms that flow from them
Truth...........every human being has a connection with every high value through the conscience
its an established technique of our parasitical masters to lead us to believe that we need an intermediary between high values and ourselves
educators - yes, priests - no
it is our job here on Earth, i propose, to bring high values into the hard cold world that we bump our heads and skin our knees on
we can all do it, even my dog has a feeling for truth.....(he's a deceiver, and thinks it is funny)
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:37 pm Post Subject:
Hi Steve,
"Poor Hector"???
The Hector has his own website, or at least his creator does. And there he may express himself as he wishes (within the bounds of NZ law, of course). We would suggest that he initiate a forum such as this one on his site and there he can indulge in educating the heathen, Chemtrail-believer bashing, whatever. Then if nostalgia gets the better of you Steve, you can join him there for some enjoyable sparring...
Quote:
i have a query about your presentation about Plato and Truth, J & M :
We did not present anything about Plato and truth and at this time have no interest in the subject.
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 99
Location: Wellington
Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 7:24 pm Post Subject:
Hi John and Melody Thank you so much for this post... It really is well thought out. I feel like our best interests are being taken care of.
I think this is the direction that many forums just in the end have to take... The purpose of this site is to create a "safe haven" for like minded people to speak out loud without fear of ridicule... People like me. None of us know exactly what is right or wrong in a mystery but we'll work damned hard to get the truth...
I don't want to spend my time arguing my point with a sceptic.. However it becomes strangely seductive to do so. I don't go on sceptic forums and spend my time trying to debunk some ridiulous claims that sceptics and debunkers make, if that makes sense. They as a bunch of people fascinate me but that is where it ends... They have their point of view and my is different.
As far as Hector is concerned... It must be hard to be in a profession that as a service to the public often falls short. Being in the position where you are constantly accused of "getting it wrong" even though what they do is incredibly complex and has so many variables. I think he just liked that he could come in here and be the "big guy" and bully a bit. He probably has been bullied all his life!
I agree that he has made people on here more ballsy. I am one of those people... I won't miss him though.
Thanks again for spending the time to explain what went down.
Ultimately John and Melody, you can do as you please, mysterious nz is your website. For the record, I never felt offended by anything Hector had to say, however his motives seemed dubious at times. Im guessing its this aspect of his persona you are struggling with.
We are not here to force our views and opinions on others just as you arent. We are here to share our thoughts and ideas, what was witnessed in a real and also intuitive way. This I feel is the most important aspect of good discussion forums or active posting. If you are free to bring your intuition to the table you are bringing your whole being.
As Ross Marsdens company are probably reading some of his posting here he has no freedom to theorise intuitively as his anonymity is comprimised rendering him the equivilent of an automated machine with its own preconceived ideas hardwired in.
Nuff said, rant over...
Quote:
In late 2002, we were asked to photograph a mysterious artefact. The object, originally found on D'Urville Island, was owned by an acquaintance of Ross Wiseman. Ross is most notably recognised for his theories and books on 'Pre-Tasman explorers' and New Zealand's hidden past. Ross came to our house at the time, introduced us to his friend and the strange black stone-like object we had undertaken to photograph.
Through that chance meeting we agreed to help Ross with the layout of some of his book materials, his having been let down by someone else, and had quite a bit to do with him on and off for the next year or so. Whatever you make of his theories about the possible Spanish discovery of New Zealand or his interpretation of rock markings on Mount Tauhara, Ross is an engaging, creative and incredibly enthusiastic guy with an infectious giggle and an earnest dedication to his chosen fields of interest.
Over the years, Ross has been contacted numerous times by people with stories to tell and experiences to share and he is full of amazing anecdotes. Ross later introduced us to Gary Cook who has an entire filing cabinet devoted to information submitted to him by members of the public – the vast majority of which he has never had time to investigate and probably never will.
I am fortunate to have a copy of Ross Wisemans book New Zealands Hidden Past. Wiseman produces compelling evidence of Pheonician and Minoan settlements in New Zealand some 2000 years ago. One of the settlements near Taupo was on Mount Tauhara, which I was lucky enough to climb several years back, a surreal experience. I recomend the walk up to the 'plateau', it took me a couple of hours one way (average fitness required).
I lent my copy of the book to a maori man in his late 50's, a long standing member of the Ratana church and the book made such a deep impression on him that he still asks me about it today.
Is it possible that the maori god of the sea, Tangaroa, was in fact a real figure, a great spiritual leader who lived at the Tauhara settlement just before an eruption in 186AD?
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:06 am Post Subject:
magical1 wrote:
I don't want to spend my time arguing my point with a sceptic.. However it becomes strangely seductive to do so
Very astute point, magical1. There are many things in life that we can derive pleasure from that may not be in our long term best interests. In the end, we have to make decisions about comparative values...
magical1 wrote:
Thanks again for spending the time to explain what went down.
Well, we were thinking of calling it 'what we did in the Easter holidays..." :-) It's one of those posts we've been collectively working on, on and off, for a very long time and contains a lot of things we've been wanting to express for ages.
Thanks for the message of support and we hope that the forums will benefit from it all...
By the way... we don't regard Ross as a sceptic as stated in our main post above. If you research the term sceptic or skeptic, you'll find he doesn't really fit any of the category of sceptics. Unfrotunately it's one of those words that has been so misused in our society its actual meaning is becoming lost - a bit like the word 'conspiracy', which nows seems to be inseparable from 'conspiracy theory'. Pseudo-sceptic or bogus sceptic are probably more fitting in our opinion.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:18 am Post Subject:
Deano wrote:
Ultimately John and Melody, you can do as you please, mysterious nz is your website. For the record, I never felt offended by anything Hector had to say, however his motives seemed dubious at times. I'm guessing its this aspect of his persona you are struggling with.
In our opinion, his motives were always dubious. Our main concern was that Hector was muddying the waters. There was no more positive gain to be made from his presence, things were going around in circles, discussion had degenerated into accusations of conspiracy theory... you understand. The time had come.
We'll have more to say in due course. We've got some work to do this week 8)
Deano wrote:
Is it possible that the Maori god of the sea, Tangaroa, was in fact a real figure
It's entirely possible that figures like Tangaroa were real people and that there was a Tauhara settlement that may or may not have been connected with Phoenicians. Ross certainly gave it credence and believes it utterly. But as with things of this nature, there is no absolute proof, just evidence that could be interpreted many ways. Ross showed us the casts he took on Mount Tauhara and detailed the process by which he constructed his diagrams of the markings. He has been up the mountain countless times.
In fact, Ross told us that he was interviewed on Mount Tauhara by a TVNZ interviewer with camera crew. He showed them the markings and when they asked him who he thought made them, he replied 'the Phoenicians'. They changed suddenly towards him at that point and it turned out to be the kiss of death for his participation in the programme, as they subsequently cut his segment from the eventual programme. They were having none of Phoenicians in New Zealand. It's interesting to note that the Australian authorities feel the same about evidence of Phoenicians in Australia...
A good subject for future articles and discussion on Mysterious NZ wouldn't you say?
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:45 am Post Subject:
Hi Deano,
Quote:
Ultimately John and Melody, you can do as you please, mysterious nz is your website. For the record, I never felt offended by anything Hector had to say, however his motives seemed dubious at times. Im guessing its this aspect of his persona you are struggling with.
I may be wrong but I sort of get the feeling that you are implying that we got p'd off with Hector :x and couldn't handle him, so got rid of him on that basis. ](*,) That is not the actuality, though we did, of course, get somewhat frustrated with him sometimes. Our decision to be without him was a very considered one and based on what is best for Mysterious New Zealand at this time and long term. Any struggle we had was primarily around finding the time to put into refuting the distortions and faulty research in his posts. And when we did, on many occasions, address them with sound research and reason, he would ignore the points we made and head off in some other direction or obfuscate in some way. The Jesuitical wriggle. It seemed that we would be better off in the long run to put our efforts into the articles we will eventually write. Other factors are that even forum good stuff can get deeply buried and Google seems to have something against indexing the forum - though our articles are indexed very well, as we would expect.
On reading my statement above it feels a bit simplistic and somewhat inadequate... For the full unexpurgated version you'll have to wait until the book comes out. :D
Ross Marsden has (mostly indirectly) helped us a great deal by his participation on this site. He is representative of the category of individual that Government ministers turn to for advice and guidance when confronted with questions from the public about issues such as the Chemtrail one. As such, we have learned much on how such individuals portray the issue. No doubt we'll be referring to him and his posts for some time to come...
As an exercise in testing your perceptive powers, take a look at the introduction on the home page of his website and see how many distortions, half-truths, absolutisms etc there are to be found. We might even run a competition based on who can find the most. Not being entirely serious here... but still... :-k
I wanted to say I thought you and Melody put together a professional and solid account of your decision. I trust you to have made a decision based on the best interests of the site and it's posters - thank you from one of those posters.
I must admit wanting to know who the hell this Jay Reynolds thinks he is :lol:
... This thunderstorm complex is well known by scientists interested in tropical meteorology, as it forms on a daily basis at certain times of year over the Tiwi Islands, off the north coast of Australia.
It forms on almost a daily basis during the transitional months of Nov-Dec and Feb-March, which makes it a perfect subject for meteorologists studying the development of Cumulonimbus clouds.
Mighty thunderclouds like this are estimated to harness the power of ten Hiroshima-sized bombs. Stretching up to 20km into the atmosphere, it is clearly visible from Darwin, over 100km away. We are very pleased that such an awe-inspiring and ferocious a monster as this has been christened by the locals with a name like Hector.
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 6:39 pm Post Subject:
Just discovered your post Ruapaka, I don't know how I missed it. Probably because I'd given up on the thread and failed to check for updates... Apologies for not replying sooner.
Quote:
I wanted to say I thought you and Melody put together a professional and solid account of your decision. I trust you to have made a decision based on the best interests of the site and it's posters - thank you from one of those posters.
Thank you Ruapaka. I must say we thought there would be more opposition to our action, even Hector seems to have taken it without rancor. Although he did make the point in an email that his forum name was chosen because of its connection with hectopascal. Perhaps...
I hope the lack of vigorous discussion on this thread isn't due to forum members becoming fearful of participation for some reason. Perhaps because we revealed our ability to keep track of Hectors activity, even when he wasn't logged in and are afraid that these awful powers will be unleashed against them. :devil: Well there was no great technology there, no SIS type surveillance stuff, just a bit of deduction together with careful observation. We take little interest in forum members comings and goings, however we now have a firm policy that new sign-ons must be identifiable to us, through using a personal email address for example, rather than completely anonymous Hotmail type accounts. This enables us to head off potential disruptors (or outright sickos - you would not believe the nature of one guy we just refused membership to...) and hopefully ensure that new members are there for genuine discussion. We're not wishing to keep out honest doubters who are open to learning something new (like we hoped Hector would be) but rather those who would use the Mysterious New Zealand forums to advance some agenda that it would not benefit us, or be to our detriment, to be involved with. There is much more that could be discussed with respect to these matters, but no doubt you get the drift...
There is much potential for serious discussion within some of the aspects of our original post above. Even the body of posts made by Ross 'hectopascal' Marsden offer much to any dedicated forensic analyser. For example, what are the aspects of the Chemtrail debate that he avoided 'like the plague' - what would he not discuss. And the matter of WHY his participation on the forum and huge allocation of time and resources? If it was not part of his job description, then it would have to be as a result of some deeply personal motivation, perhaps because he finds mystery itself abhorant? Whatever, it could be interesting stuff...
The entire Chemtrail issue is a deeply challenging and even threatening one. People come and go on forums such as this (forums themselves come and go), take sides, make a stand, discover opponents and even enemies on the other side and can get very personal about the whole subject. Even sincere researchers can get to a point where they may realise that continuing the investigation will demand more from them than they are prepared to give... And if you do your best to maintain a middle path it can even seem that everyone becomes against you. :shock:
I liked your piece on the Hector thunderstorm and I'm sure that Hector himself would be very comfortable with the metaphor...
There is a sort of implication here that if only the 'Chemtrail Believers' would read such stuff they would realise the error of their ways and drop the entire subject...
Article number 4 refers to Carl Sagan's 'Baloney Detection Kit' from his book: 'The Demon-Haunted World - Science As a Candle in the Dark'
Quote:
"Carl Sagan muses on the current state of scientific thought, which offers him marvelous opportunities to entertain us with his own childhood experiences, the newspaper morgues, UFO stories, and the assorted flotsam and jetsam of pseudoscience. Along the way he debunks alien abduction, faith-healing, and channeling; refutes the arguments that science destroys spirituality, and provides a "baloney detection kit" for thinking through political, social, religious, and other issues."
My opinion of Sagan is that he has done more than any other individual to encourage ordinary people to suppress their own critical thinking faculties and to blindly accept what 'those who know best' dish them out. Well, Sagan himself does not fare too well when 'critical thinking' is applied to his own 'sceptical' endeavours...
Here's an extract from one of my favourite articles on the subject from the Philadelphia Area of Critical Thinking website
Note: The CSICOP referred to in the article, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal is now known as The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI).
Quote:
This addresses one of my favorite groups of all: the professional skeptic crowd. I want to define my terms here. By "professional" I mean those who do it for a living or spend much more time doing it than any healthy hobbyist would. James Randi is a professional skeptic. So was the recently-departed Carl Sagan. Those people literally made money, and lots of it, from their "skeptical" efforts. And then there is a whole population of people who almost without exception work for big power structure organizations, like James Oberg of NASA, or Isaac Asimov, who spent many, many hours of their lives being "skeptical." And while they don’t make money officially for their "skeptical" efforts, there are power structure awards aplenty showered on their heads (Like Randi winning a prestigious physics award for helping debunk an immunologist who apparently found evidence that water had "memory." An effect that is apparently getting more scientific confirmation today.), and I can only wonder how many in their ranks are like Bill the Hit Man, getting quietly paid for their efforts through either the large corporations or the CIA. And I happen to know what I am talking regarding that phenomenon of secret payments for dutiful work on behalf of the CIA or corporate America, and I won’t go further into it here to protect identities. And I have a real problem with the moniker of "skeptic" that those groups have nearly appropriated. Most prominent is the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, abbreviated CSICOP. CSICOP publishes a quarterly magazine called The Skeptical Inquirer. I go into their particular contributions in my science piece a little, and here will be a more thorough job on it. In one of the back issues of The Skeptical Inquirer that I read I saw a little piece that took pains to define the word "skeptic." Well, I wish those people at CSICOP would evidence a little more skepticism where it really counted, like at their own cherished beliefs. I have yet to see one article in their pages that seriously challenges the power structure. And they even bless power structure hatchet jobs, like the one done on Reich, replete with a massive book burning.
Here is my take on skepticism. True skepticism is one of the more important qualities of the human mind. Virtually every breakthrough in thought that has ever occurred has skepticism to thank. Being skeptical is to look at something with no beliefs, with a fresh eye that takes nothing for granted. The greatest skeptical breakthroughs have happened when the founding presumptions of a body of thought were looked at with a skeptical eye and questioned. Einstein’s rejection of Newton’s presumptions of absolute time and absolute space led to the physics we have today. Questioning the infallibility of the Pope and the Bible sparked all sorts of fireworks that led to the scientific establishment that we have today. True skepticism is an invaluable tool of discovery. In many, many cases it bears little or no resemblance to the CSICOP crowd’s efforts. In so many ways what they do is in spirit identical to what the Holy Office of the Inquisition did so many years ago, as it viciously defended its wealth and power. And I had better back some of that up with facts.
The recently departed Carl Sagan was the most famous and active member of the CSICOP crowd. Carl Sagan was a household word and I’m sure the eulogies are pouring in, as he died two days ago as I write this. Carl was the big gun and hero of the CSICOP crowd, being the honored guest at their annual meetings, writing pieces for the Skeptical Inquirer, and lending his huge reputation to their cause. I have been aware of Sagan’s "skeptical" efforts for awhile now, like the past twenty years. In 1974 I took Silva Mind Control and found out that I and every person on the planet was inherently psychic, something the armies of professional skeptics can never take away with their proclamations. While I was exploring the nature of my consciousness, Sagan was forming an inquisition to wipe out any funding to any academic institution for exploring "paranormal" phenomena. My father apprised me of Sagan’s efforts twenty years ago.
Over the last several years I have read quite a bit about Sagan’s debunking efforts. In 1985 I read a piece by Carl Sagan regarding the Face on Mars issue. I write about it in some detail in my revised science section. Sagan’s effort was such a blatant piece of out and out lying on the issue that it eventually inspired Professor Stanley McDaniel to write his McDaniel Report, where he laid Sagan’s lies bare for all to see. McDaniel did it in very conservative language and scholarship, but for anybody who had read Sagan’s piece in Parade magazine in 1985 and McDaniel’s dissection of it, where the reader gets to find out the facts about it, Sagan is exposed as not only a huge liar, but one who used his lies to beat other researchers over the head very unfairly. Sagan abused his position as the nation’s most prominent scientists to savage research being done by other researchers, and he did it in a very mean-spirited and dishonest way. Get the McDaniel report if you don’t believe me, and round up that Parade magazine article of June 2, 1985.
In my science piece I go into the Velikovsky affair, and as I write this I am reading Ginenthal’s book on the Sagan/Velikovsky controversy. Ginenthal’s book is awesome. I cannot overstate how completely Ginenthal dismantles Sagan’s lying and bogus science on the Velikovsky issue. Sagan is completely demolished as a scientist in Ginenthal’s book, and his Grand Inquisitor’s hat is clear for all to see as he led the Inquisition against Velikovsky. And in The Skeptical Inquirer I saw the review on the hatchet job done on Velikovsky in 1974, where the organizer of the event even admitted that it was an attempt to discredit Velikovsky, and not a fair scientific forum. The Skeptical Inquirer didn’t exactly report all the facts.
In fact there was a scandal shortly after CSICOP was formed in the 1970s, when CSICOP debunked research into some validity of astrological theory. CSICOP roundly debunked (By doing their own research) the statistical data that the original researchers came up with, by coming up some of their own. But when it was published, Dennis Rawlins, a CSICOP executive committee member and statistician for that particular debunking effort, could take it no longer and made public that the CSICOP had cooked their own numbers to fudge the data, and he resigned from CSICOP in disgust, and there were other scandals percolating under the CSICOP surface, but apparently covered up before too much damage to CSICOP’s credibility was done. Since then CSICOP does no real research of its own, but issues its proclamations on behalf of the scientific establishment.
More at :
http://www.phact.org/e/z/problem3.htm
I came across Sagans methods some years ago through an interest in the works of the brilliant Emmanual Velikovsky. The manner in which he was attacked by the likes of Sagan was despicable. The above text refers to the book; 'Carl Sagan & Immanuel Velikovsky':
Quote:
Book announcement
Preface
Dr. Carl Sagan, a professor of astronomy from Cornell University, a well known public personality and writer of popular books of science, in 1974 at a symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) delivered a paper, "An Analysis of Worlds in Collision". This paper was later edited and presented in a book, Scientists Confront Velikovsky, published by Cornell University Press. The paper was further edited and presented in Sagan's book Broca's Brain, under the title "Venus and Dr. Velikovsky". Sagan's paper is a critique of Immanuel Velikovsky's book Worlds in Collision.
Having read Velikovsky, I also read Sagan's paper; I thereafter discovered that a group of scientists and scholars had written critiques of Sagan's analysis. After reading these criticisms I began a search of the literature and over a period of time I became convinced that Sagan's critique lacked substance. Most surprising was the number of statements made by Sagan that proved to be clearly untrue. Further reading reinforced this discovery of the glaringly unscientific and unscholarly quality of Sagan's paper. What was much worse, was that it was difficult to imagine that even Sagan was unaware of the misrepresentation of evidence presented as scholarly criticism by him and offered to the public.
Thereafter, I encountered a colleague who, learning that I was interested in the thesis of Dr. Velikovsky, informed me that in Broca's Brain was an essay by Professor Sagan that demolished Velikovsky and his thesis. When he informed me that he had not read any of Velikovsky's books nor any criticisms of Sagan's article I asked, "How can you make a proper judgment if you haven't read both sides of the issue." To my astonishment he replied, "I don't have to read both sides to know which side is right!" His closed-minded attitude made discussion futile and I let the remark pass. Several days later I received a letter in which he presented citations from Sagan's paper and posed, "What possible arguments could be raised on Velikovsky's behalf?"
In response I composed a long letter which dealt with merely one of Sagan's criticisms. This posted I awaited his response-none came. A few weeks later at a monthly conference, we ran into each other. In a very friendly manner he approached me, smiling broadly, he shook my hand. "What did you think of my reply to your letter?" I asked. He admired the scholarship of my reply to Sagan and admitted frankly, "There are two sides to this Velikovsky business." This I followed up by asking if there were any other aspects of Sagan's criticism which he wished to clarify. He shook his head 'no' and I dropped the matter. However, I noted that he seemed shocked by the evidence of the rebuttal presented.
It was at that moment that the realization struck that Carl Sagan's cnticisms had been uncritically read by a wide audience. This was soon discovered to be the case among friends and relatives. Seemingly, they had all read Sagan's side, but not Velikovsky's. With little or no scientific background with which to judge, they had accepted Sagan's word on all matters. It was then that I conceived the idea for this book. It is hoped that reading the other side will permit laymen to clarify the issues.
I must admit that doing the research for this book over about an eight-year period has brought to my attention much more than I had imagined regarding Sagan's critique. It has been a deeply saddening experience to discover again and again the crassness of Sagan's work on Velikovsky. It has also been a deeply shocking experience to learn the political nature of the way science operates. Even if Velikovsky's theories are completely wrong, no one deserves to be maligned as he has been. The deceit exposed in the following pages is an outrage to decency.
Publishing Details
Carl Sagan & Immanuel Velikovsky
by Charles Ginenthal. (C) 1995 New Falcon Publications
448pages. ISBN 1-56184-075-0.
'The Velikovsky Affair' a collection of articles collected into a book and edited by Alfred de Grazia is also a good read on the subject. Both books, plus the vast material available online, offer solid insights as to the methodology used by so-called Sceptics/Skeptics in their crusade against honest inquiry and those who would challenge the status quo...
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 387
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:58 pm Post Subject:
Here's more on Sagan's methodology. The reason I present this is because Sagan has had tremendous influence, not only on the general public, but within the corridors of authority. Even though Sagan has passed on, his works and influence lives on. The likes of Ross Marsden regard the 'great' astronomer as akin to a demigod whose words are sacred and inviolate. And remember that when you approach the Government with your evidence of any type of strangeness in New Zealand skies, disciples of Sagan will be whispering advice in their ears. Goverment ministers do not do their own research, they get advice. And then, of course , there is the matter of influence on the conventional media. Where do you think all this "Conspiracy Theory, Conspiracy Theory, Conspiracy Theory" mantra and ridicule of alternative viewpoints comes from?
Quote:
THE ASTRONOMER WHO ABOLISHED GRAVITY
The normal is what everybody else is and you're not.
-- Star Trek: Generations
My mind is going. I can feel it, Dave.
-- 2001: A Space Odyssey
If anybody possesses all the qualifications necessary for a fully ordained Expert in America today, Carl Sagan certaintly has that dizzying eminence. Through frequent appearances on TV and in Parade (a news magazine circulated through hundreds of newspapers in their jumbo Sunday editions), Dr. Sagan has issued Expert verdicts on every possible controversial issue in science, and in politics, and even in theology, for three decades now. And, like the Experts who authenticated hundreds-to-thousands of Elmyrs, he has never once admitted he ever made a mistake. You may wonder how a man who only has qualifications in astronomy can also function as an Expert on everything in general. Well, I think it requires Sagan to have a lot of raw courage, in the first place, and a strong, well-founded confidence that those who don't believe his dogmas have much less access to the media than he does; if they answer him back, however effective their arguments, very few of his large, gullible audience will ever hear about it. Let us see how Expertese works, by examining Dr. Sagan's long series of polemics against Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky. First of all, in every page Sagan has written about Velikovsky, he never once calls him "Dr. Velikovsky" as I just did. Thus, most people who know Velikovsky only through Sagan's attacks have never learned that Velikovsky had scientific training* . The contest thus seems a struggle between "Dr." Sagan, the learned scientist, and "Mr." Velikovsky, the ignorant layman. Little tricks like that go a long way in deluding the naive, and Sagan never fails to use every dirty trick he knows. In what follows, I reverse this process, just for the hell of it. Sagan I will call Sagan and Dr. Velikovsky I will call Dr. Velikovsky. Sauce for the goose can serve, after all, as sauce for the gander. Sagan continually states bluntly, and falsely, that Dr. Velikovsky intends his cosmic catastrophe theory to revive the old-time religion.: "It is an attempted validation of religion"....." Velikovsky attempts to rescue not only religion but also astrology." (Brocca's Brain, p 126) We can only conclude that Sagan either reads very carelessly or engages in deliberate lying. Any close reading of Dr. Velikovsky shows numerous expressions of skepticism about both religion and astrology. In addition, Dr. Velikovsky's theory of cometary near-collisions offers a naturalistic, scientific explanation for many events or alleged events in ancient history, which the religious prefer to explain supernaturally, as miracles. Nobody who suggests a natural explanation for allegedly supernatural events offfers real support to religion, in either the judgement of the religious themselves or of those of us with agnostic disposition. Only Sagan -- and a few others, who seem to never have read Dr. Velikovsky and obtained their "knowledge" about his works from Sagan -- think of the comet model as "validating" religion, since Dr. Velikovsky uses a hypothetical comet to replace a hypothetical god in explaining huge reported floods, and other catastrophes. Most of us think of Dr. Velikovsky's theory as one which, if proven, would knock one more leg from under the edifice of Bible Fundamentalism. Nobody seems likely to worship Dr. Velikovsky's comet, but millions still worship the Bible's god. In the 30 years or more that Sagan has engaged in diatribes against Dr. Velikovsky, somebody must have pointed out this fundamental confusion to him -- mis-identifying a naturalistic theory with a supernatural theory. Evidently, he has a lot of trouble hearing or remembering such corrections. You become a leading Expert by acting as if everybody else's opinion deserves no attention and never even deserves the courtesy of an answer. For instance, to leave Dr. Velikovsky for a moment, consider Sagan's hilarious theory of "nuclear winter."* Briefly, Sagan's theory holds that nuclear war could result, not just in the horrors we all know, but in a freeze that would probably abolish all life on this planet. (He published this notion in Parade, where his mass audience could see it and gasp.) His refusal to accept valid criticisms of this sci-fi story led to the following summary in Science, official journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, "News and Comments" section, Jan 16, 1987:
Sagan's refusal to acknowledge merit in the NCAR [National Center for Atmospheric Research]'s analysis -- known as "nuclear autumn" -- sends some people up the wall. One wall-climber is George Rathjens, professor of political science at M.I.T...."(Sagan's) claim that the original nuclear winter model is unimpeached [he says]...is the greatest fraud we've seen in a long time"....Russell Seiz, a fellow at the Harvard Center for International Affairs...gibes at [Sagan and his co-authors] for mixing physics and advertising.
Most scientists I have spoken to about Sagan share this dim view of his use of publicity to represent his pet notions as Scientific Truth even when -- or especially when -- a large segment of the scientific community has severe doubts about these notions. (Similarly, in Brocca's Brain, Sagan rejects data on so-called "out of body experiences" among near-dead patients because -- he says -- nobody in that state has reported anything they couldn't have heard while unconscious. But the literature of OOBE has hundreds of cases of such reports, including numerous incidents in which the subjects reported things in rooms far away from the operating room. Once again, we can only wonder if Sagan habitually lies through his teeth or just doesn't read any of the literature on the subjects upon which he claims Expertese.) But returning to Dr. Velikovsky, and Sagan's crusade against his ideas: Sagan likes to quote a "distinguished professor of Semitics" who told him no Semitic scholars take Dr. Velikovsky seriously. Like the "intelligence officer" who told Newt Gingrich about dope in the White House, this "distinguished professor" remains anonymous, and thus Sagan's hearsay about him would get thrown out of any civilized court. Three distinguished professors of Semitic studies, however, have all shown cordial support for Dr. Velikovsky: Prof. Claude F.A. Schaeffer, Prof. Etiene Droiton, and Prof. Robert Pieffer. Look them up in any Who's Who of Semitic studies, archeology and Egyptology. They have a lot more prestige in those fields than Sagan's Prof. Anonymous, who doesn't have a single entry under his name anywhere in the scholarly journals (although elsewhere he receives credit for many olde ballads and almost all bawdy limericks.) Another choice bit of Sagan's Expert testimony: he accuses Dr. Velikovsky of believing that ancient cultures had a calendar of ten months of thirty days each and 360 days in the year. Of course, 10 x 30 = 300, and this gives Sagan a chance to gibe at Dr. Velikovsky's inability to handle simple arithmetic. Very good, wouldn't you say? The only trouble with this brillaint analysis consists of the simple fact that, once again, Sagan has either consciously and deliberately lied or accidentally revealed again that he doesn't read carefully. Dr. Velikovsky says specifically "the month was equal to thirty-six days" (Worlds in Collision, p. 344.) 10 months of 36 days each = 360. See? According to Dr. Velikovsky's model, the year changed to 365 days (plus a few hours) after the cometary near-collision. Whether he has proven that or not, he did not make a crude mistake in arithmetic. Sagan either made a crude mistake in reading, or followed Elmyr's formula for Expert-ness: "sheer bluff." Consider next the high temperature of Venus (4800 C.) As Dr. Roger Wescott and others have pointed out, Dr. Velikovsky predicted a temperature in this range for Venus when astronomical orthodoxy believed that planet much, much colder. Sagan tries to avoid giving Dr. Velikovsky credit for this confirmation of his model by claiming "many" had predicted a high temperature before the Venus flyby. Actually, he only names one other who had made such a prediction, Dr. Rupert Wildt, and Wildt's work did not win general acceptance. (Others try to get around Dr. Velikovsky's correct estimate in this and other instances by describing him as a "lucky guesser." That seems mere cage-rattling to me. One could as well call any scientist who made many correct predictions a "lucky guesser".....) As Harry H. Hess, president of the American Geoligical Society wrote in a published letter to Dr. Velikovsky:
Some of these predictions were said to be impossible when you made them. All of them were made before proof that they were correct came to hand. Conversely, I do not know of any prediction you made that has since been proven to be false.
But the final joker came on page 153 of Brocca's Brain where Sagan writes (and this really deserves caps):
ONE NOW FASHIONABLE SUGGESTION I FIRST PROPOSED IN 1960 IS THAT THE HIGH TEMPERATURES ON THE SURFACE OF VENUS ARE DUE TO A RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT. (all emphasis added, and deserved)
First, Sagan claims that Dr. Velikovsky does not deserve credit for predicting high temperatures on Venus because everybody knew it, although historical fact shows that only Dr. Wildt had made the same prediction before Dr. Velikovsky. Then Sagan either tells a double lie or else suffers an alarming memory lapse that may require neurological consultation, claiming that neither Dr. Wildt nor Dr. Velikovsky had made this prediction (which they had, and he had noted earlier) -- and then he brazenly claims he had originated it himself. Quite a performance, wouldn't you say? Now do you know how to become an Expert? Keep a straight face and make sure the mass media gives you more coverage than it gives those who try to correct your mis-statements. I could go on and on, for hundreds of pages, but instead I refer you to Ginethal's book listed at the end of this chapter. Ginethal does spend hundreds of pages documenting one fallacy after another -- literally dozens and dozens of them -- in Sagan's smear campaign against Dr. Velikosky. I will conclude only with the most dramatic, and funniest, of Sagan's goofs: In several places, Sagan has published a mathematical proof that several near collisions between a comet and a planet have odds against them of "a trillion quadrillion to one." (1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1.) Sounds pretty damned improbable, doesn't it? The problem here lies in the fact that Sagan considers each near-collision as an isolated or haphazard event, thereby ignoring gravity. In fact, any two celestial bodies, once attracted to each other, will tend to contine to approach each other periodically, according to Newtonian laws unmodified by Einstein. This periodicity will continue until some other gravitational force pulls one of the bodies away from the gravitational attraction of the other. Ask any physics or astronomy professor about this, if you think I'm pushing too hard here. As Dr. Robert Jastrow of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies wrote (New York Times 22 Dec 1979)
Professor Sagan's calculations, in effect, ignore the law of gravity. Here, Dr. Velikovsky was the better astronomer.
Robert Bass wrote, even more harshly,
This Sagan assumption [ignoring gravity] is so disingenuous that I do not hesitate to label it a deliberate fraud on the public or else a manifestation of unbelievalbe incompetence or hastiness combined with desperation (cited by Ginenthal.)
Well, I always had doubts about Sagan's ability to pronounce verdicts outside astronomy. When he does calculations inside astronomy and then ignores or forgets gravity, I begin to wonder about his competence in general....
