NASA, Sky & Telescope, J. Kelly Beatty, and Criminal Negligence

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Thought I would mention that since Vincent Bridges faded from view (what's up with that?) and GLP decided to play nice, we have a new level of defamers...

Have a look at my blogpost here:
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2011/04/nasa-sky-telescope-j-kelly-beatty-and.html
 
Laura said:
Thought I would mention that since Vincent Bridges faded from view (what's up with that?)

Drug rehab?

Laura said:
we have a new level of defamers...

They may possibly be easier to counter than the loons. Their academic conventional wisdom is so crystallized into a rigid belief system that they do not consider new findings or interpretations of extant evidence of relevance. Allan and Delair's work is a classic example of making mincemeat of hoary scientific dogma. Your blog's presentation of the recent DC article does much the same to J. Kelly Beatty's factless ad hominem attack. Have you responded personally to him? It would be interesting to see how he responds, face to face, with the object of his scorn.
 
Good Lord where do they come from? Its like a Wave in and of itself over and over it comes yet i feel this time its so much weaker and so much more see through. The ideas and principals are lame to say the least. As it becomes more of a problem for them it seems to be less of a problem for 'us'. Lame so very very lame. :rolleyes:
 
They may possibly be easier to counter than the loons. Their academic conventional wisdom is so crystallized into a rigid belief system that they do not consider new findings or interpretations of extant evidence of relevance.

The problem is that these people are not interrested in proof or facts. They just use the authority trick to impress the average reader, and they have a lot of readers.
 
NOTE: I do not belong to some cult where I would drink poison just because someones tells me to. I think for myself.

You publish heavily referenced theories Laura, and I have not seen where you've ever stated that what you say is the "gospel" truth. From what I've see, you publish historical observations and theories of future probability. Not to mention observational theories of why this current world seems so crazy. I think you have the best theories around.!.!.!

What I think I see is an establishment that DOES NOT want people to think of possibilities. With all that I have seen, read, and experienced, They/Someone/Something APPEARS, to me, are hiding something. And... people who diligently work to seek knowledge, who can critically think for themselves, are difficult to control, if there is something to hide.

Therefor I can not accept all statements of the absolute from those that look into the skies working for NASA. To me, "they" either are ignorant, controlled, or players in the control game.

For all that negative attention you receive, there must be a reason? Perhaps They/Someone/Something must be uncomfortable or are hiding something?
 
[quote author=Laura's blog]
Now, I want to ask you: have you ever learned anything equal to the above information - backed up by sources and evidence - from Mr. J. Kelly Beatty of "Sky & Telescope"? Backed by that benevolent organization we all know and love, NASA? Owned and operated by the Global Elite that have brought this planet to the edge of the abyss?

The fact that you haven't is, in my opinion, Criminal Negligence.
[/quote]

Back when I wrote the article Pole Shift? Look to the Skies, I received a bit of 'feedback', you could say, from a friend (actually an old aquantance from high-school), who supposedly teaches a science literacy course at a major university. He was very disturbed that I would quote and feature the work of J.M. McCanney that he considered blatant pseudo-science. Here's part of what he wrote to me at the end of one of his diatribes, which I thought was really telling about the mindset of these people:

[quote author=Benjamin Paulson]
There is a lot more that I can say, but your article is based mostly on the writings of a discredited scientist whose “science” you’ve propped up under the guise of some sort of flaws within “mainstream” science. There is no empirical evidence and its nothing more than ideas loosely tied together conjecture.

I don’t mean to rag on you, but one of the things I teach my students is scientific literacy and the role of science in society. There is a constant attack at the credibility of science and articles like the one you wrote plays into that game. If we sit idly by and allow for these attacks on science to continue, then very few of us will be able to recognize the difference between science and pseudoscience, and I am sorry to say, your article is the latter.
[/quote]

Emphasis mine.


He's right, there is a problem with people not being able to recognize science from pseudo-science (not in the way he sees it, however), but it goes way beyond that. Like Laura says, it is criminal negligence that we have this army of indoctrinated scientists pushing these dated and flawed theories with evangelistic zeal. And in some ways this is worse than pushing any sort of political ideology. It's keeping real scientists from studying the problems that may determine the fate of humanity in years ahead. That's what I find so nerve-racking about people like this J. Kelly Beatty and his ilk.

I don't know what it is, but astronomers seem to be some of the worst when it comes to this... Not to harp on all astronomers, but it seems like some of the most vocal 'defenders' of the Establishment's views are astronomers.
 
Laura said:
Thought I would mention that since Vincent Bridges faded from view (what's up with that?) and GLP decided to play nice, we have a new level of defamers...

Nature abhors a void...and so does 4D STS :rolleyes:

I don't know how you feel about it Laura, but to me detractors like Beatty are somewhat of a relief? It feels like he's just attacking your work to garner attention for himself...I don't get the sense he actually wants to HURT you personally. He's using an age old (and disgusting) tactic to attract supporters for his viewpoint, but I think if he saw you broke down in the road, he'd still help push your car out of traffic.

In short ...he's your average "scientist" and to me, "science" is just another political party with an agenda.

Have a look at my blogpost here:
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2011/04/nasa-sky-telescope-j-kelly-beatty-and.html

Great article! It's absolutely impossible to offer a non-mainstream opinion about ANYTHING without getting a Beatty like response from some well programed schmuck....that's a given. You do a most excellent job of shredding comfy fantasies. :D
 
RyanX said:
I don't know what it is, but astronomers seem to be some of the worst when it comes to this... Not to harp on all astronomers, but it seems like some of the most vocal 'defenders' of the Establishment's views are astronomers.
This is very true. In fact it is the most conservative field, and it carries a lot of ideological background. I would say evolutionism and determinism, a mechanical universe where everything is predictable, like a huge clock. The youngest ones are even more conservative because of the worldview they have been programmed to through these kind of popular magazines (where everything is known about astronomy, nothing to worry, and all that has to be known is about ghosts (dark energy, dark matter, black holes, white fountains...)).
 
To me, "they" either are ignorant, controlled, or players in the control game.

What about all three wrapped into one?

For all that negative attention you receive, there must be a reason?

Apart from plain jealousy, the real threat lies in demonstrating time and again that you don't need neither permission nor funding to do your own thinking and researching - to reach original results and groundbraking hypotheses. All you need is dedication, perseverance, ability for thinking out-of-the-box of the allowed boundaries, a clear aim, a few hints here and there, some luck and a network that functions both as a sounding board and as a corrective alike.

Think of it! That some people can do this, is really scary to all those mediocre figures with their big budgets with severe constraints attached, who can pretend to be 'in-the-know' but are not allowed to freely dispense their knowledge. Self censorship, knowing your boundaries and knee-jerk reactions to authorities make those people complicit in maintaining the status quo of which they appear to be principal beneficiaries but who are the biggest losers in the long run. At least, this is how it appears to me. fwiw.
 
And for the record, when a real scientist, aka Ark, points out a factual error, I don't see any apologies yet. :mad: Perhaps it will come but I'm not holding my breath!
 
Vulcan59 said:
And for the record, when a real scientist, aka Ark, points out a factual error, I don't see any apologies yet. :mad: Perhaps it will come but I'm not holding my breath!

They are always the "victim". And why should a "victim" need to apologize when they are "right"?
 
The gauntlet is thrown, the objective evidence is given
(by Laura, Ark, & Team), let us watch the worm squirm,
leading to possible exposure of the men behind the curtain,
with our eyes and ears open, that we might become aware.
So, get out your lawn chairs, sit back, and watch the show!
 
Back
Top Bottom