The Real World > COINTELPRO and Disinformation

Joseph P. Farrell and the Giza Death Star

<< < (3/3)

scrutinizer:
1)What do you mean by saying „disinfo“? Disinformation is intentional misleading by wrong information. On what grounds – concrete and undisputable – are you stating that  the group of the persons aforementioned by you intentionally lead us astray?
2) The system of argumentation based on they-belong-to-that group  or  if –that- was-written/said/performed/sung/painted-by-these-nerds-then-it‘s-all--shite- principle is totally fallacious, because it presupposes dominance not of facts and its analysis but that of ideological labels and clichés that have nothing common with scientific discussion and searching the truth and resembles the system of drawing up the line of arguments and counterarguments used by Nazi and Communist ideologists where everything was determined by are-you-with-us-or-with-them position.
3) Any author‘s work, dedicated to certain scientific subject aside of lots of valuable, new and helpful knowledge contains in a great or minor extent  some sort of  misleadings, errors and inaccuracy. Therefore, one shouldn‘t make one‘s conclusions about the WHOLE from the PART that has errors and inaccuracy: careful treatment of the WHOLE piece is needed. It can’t be that EVERYTHING is totally bad or EVERYTHING is totally good. Sitchin, Childress, Hancock, Cremo and others have produced THOUSANDS of typed text pages altogether. To conclude if it‘s junk or not is possible only when you read it ALL. Have you really read it ALL?
Whatever your attitude towards these researches might be, it‘s impossible to avoid recognition that they have put into circulation thousands of facts, never known before.  Some of them turned out incorrect, however a plenty were simply undeniable. Many of the latters were and still continues to be ignored by the mainstream science for years – that can’t be denied either. Along with many missings and misinterpretations there numerous achievements and unexpected discoveries happened. Who could reproach them when the academic science itself has experienced a number of mistakes, misleadings and even hoaxes no less if not more. And speaking of historical events of such deep antiquity who‘s able to boast of having exact knowledge of EVERYTHING that happened  „a long time ago“? It‘s hardly possible to have that knowledge. The official historical science in the major part dwells on hypotheses too, still it requires that only ITS hypotheses were taken into serious consideration unreservedly. For that reason both „academic“ and „alternative“ sciences are on equal terms.
4) As for J. Farrell‘s „Giza Death Star“ series (and the rest of his books), your pretensions make an impression, sounding as if his ideas would be a kind of a clerical dogm that is stuck to by the Church Patters and needs „disputing“. It seems, you have read the book inattentively, which caused your misinterpretation  of the main message of the author. In the preface Farrell notes for his readers that „the conception presented in this book is merely hypothesis. It has not been worked out to the level of the theory and was not supported by the means of experimentation“.  A hypothetical character is kept up through all the course of the book in a prevailing way, therefore your statement that „he substantiates his hypothesis with someone‘s else hypothesis and makes conclusion of the fact being establishes“ makes no sense at all, for it‘s yours interpretation, not author‘s.
Speaking of his writing style Farrell himself emphasizes that he doesn’t adhere to his hypothesis dogmatically, that other interpretations are possible: his method is to build a logical theory as he sees it upon either direct or indirect evidences that supported directly or indirectly more or less. He avoids making final conclusion, leaving his hypothesis open both for corroboration and disproof and what is most important for the inquisitive reader, thus stimulating an interest in the subject forcing to think and to do the search. And isn’t that the true way for the genuine scientist is to draw up his theory without a fear, to look for its corroboration or disproof, not to be afraid of discussion and risk?
You pretension that he cites either his own books or the ones by mentioned authors (disliked by you) sounds strange and leads to counter-question: if the mainstream scientists are often cross-referring to each other’s researches (and the same names appear constantly), why do alternative scientists can’t do the same? Ironically, alternative researchers usually refer to academicians no less often that there the latters among themselves. Besides, as we don’t have something like the faculty of atlantology at a present time and the circle of authors and problems that unfortunately haven’t got scrupulous treatment and proper elucidation as well is quite narrow, to what sources else, discussing THAT kind of problems, they should refer?
5) As in a number of analogical cases, the discussion, alas, often begins with finding out credentials of a discussed author. I’m not well-informed of the US education system nuances as well as by what criteria an educational institution is considered to be better, I have to refer to that kind of discussion characterized by the style I mentioned earlier – the one of ideological nature, in the latter case ‘accredited – non-accredited’ (interesting to note, though, that you are using the word ‘trust’: “is it normal TO TRUST a person who got his education in non-accredited Christian school”, well, c’mon, the scientific thinking is alien to the very faith paradigm and is not supposed to be the subject of it, so it’s wholly the matter of your preferences whether you decide ‘to trust or not to trust’: one’s believes have nothing common with establishing facts, nor it does bring any change). Are you assured that this is a decisive factor to speak of quality? But that applied to the school in your talk. However you were not able to apply that sort of pretensions to the Oral Robert University (is it ‘accredited’ :D?) therefore you’re calling value of education there in question thus attempting to call Farrell’s competence in question. Again, on what real grounds?
But if you really want to clear up whether Mr. Farrell studied at Oxford, why not send a request there and be curious about his studying (in what years), credentials (if he received them), dissertations (if he defended them) instead of doing so in a roundabout way by questioning some Vinny Bridge, who allegedly used to study there some time ago? You copy-pasted a fragment from Wikipedia, containing some details of Farrell’s bio, including the list of his early works from the field of patristics also but it seems you’ve not valued it in a proper way. Shouldn’t it be clear that the very fact of its existence bears witness of it being the fruits of some university activity as a student? Consider that he was unknown for the wider audiences at that time and your Vinny Bridge cold simply unnotice him. If you’d like to expose Farrell as a liar, you should in addition to the previous scrutinize the bio of his fellow co-author Dr. Scott de Haart that both he and Farrell claim to be in the same years of their studies in Oxford. How do you feel, would it bring more or less indications of “the fabrication”?
To summarize, all your arguments lacked concrecity and were of too general a character that disabled them to get much sense.
LBQ, your story about some Inventor that you seem to be friend with together with a depiction both of his invention and scalar effects were of great interest for me. Also, as it goes from THAT part, you don’t have much to mention of what Farrell should be criticized for. However, it’s obvious that you can’t leave him without your criticism blade (that’s ok, it should have place!), so to sharpen it you wrote: „I find it interesting that he sees an "engineerable" unified physics in the pyramid, and yet relies on Bearden who has not produced anything "engineerable" as far as I know“. This is a clear distortion: are you really ignorant of the whole field of the modern physics called “theoretic physics” that is closely tied up with the experimental one which it interacts with? So many discoveries were made in theory and realized in practice later! And what “engineerable” gadgets Einstein, Bohr, Plank and some others have constructed with their own hands? Ironically, the honor of formation of the modern physics’ cost of mind felt on these persons. Others did “the dirty job” which to do the first were simply not able to and what they had not any belief to be realized to: it’s said that Einstein himself held the construction of  the devices would be capable of using the nucleus energy impossible. And his theory of Relativity are acknowledged without a question. Why then do you believe it (if you REALLY do) when it hasn’t even be proved! As far as I understood by now from what I’ve read on the controversy, considering T.Bearden and his claimed “MGE” anybode of those have criticized harshly his approach have NOT seen it from the close-up! Or have they and I’m missing something?  Besides Bearden, Farrell bases his narrative on experiments hold by E. Dollard, T.T.Brown, on known results of experiments by N.Tesla, on research by M.King, who collected all information on both theoretical and experimental researches by scientists working in the field from all over the world, including experimentations by V. Schauberger, De Palma and participants of the Philadelphia experiment etc. It’s very likely that T. Bearden relied on these experiments as well as on those, held by scientists at the end of 19 and the beginning of 20 c. and what he was doing was either construction or SUMMARIZING of these numerous researches with a goal of building up a theory. In addition, Farrell had accustomed to his own research and used widely the results of that by Chris Dunn, AN ENGINEER, who personally made an investigation of the Great Pyramid (and other ancient Egyptian artifacts). Plus he used the well-known facts of scientific expedition to the Great Pyramid from 17 to 20c. in the latter case carried by acknowledged atomic- and geo –physicists and other high class specialists.   In other words, there’s a plentitude of materials and sources. Is it not enough? If you’re raising pretensions to the amount of used sources then you should show us that the sources already used to support author’s hypothesis were insufficient. However, I’d like to remind once again: Farrell has built up a HYPOTHESIS, even not a formal scientific theory, to say nothing of experimental support. His hypothesis, according to his own words, is OPEN FOR ANY POSSIBLE corroboration and disproof and is not a refined scientific truth either. Learn how to read attentively what an author argues himself.
And the last one: LBQ, it would be smart to know who is that Inventor (or is it you, really?), what is your own donation to the development of the scalar physics theory and practice, maybe you have your own webcite? Why don’t you write to Farrell himself (to GizaDeathStar.com) to discuss the problems, he’s not hiding, you know, besides, he holds vid-chats with his readers regularly, so it’s good akin for you to join them :)                                                                             

venusian:
Hello scrutinizer,

Welcome to our forum.  :)

We recommend all new members to post an introduction in the Newbies section telling us a bit about themselves, how they found the cass material, and how much of the work here they have read.

You can have a look through that board to see how others have done it.

It would also be considerate and helpful to others if you could organize your posts into paragraphs to make it easier to read and follow.  ;)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page