How should anyone rate the validity of anyone's unprovable, other-worldy experiences?

[Chester]

Can we create a bona-fide legitimate and generally agreed upon criteria in rating the likely (or not) validity of anyone's publicly presented non-provable, other worldly experiences? Clearly, it is difficult to expect proof... so then how can we assess the potential veracity (or not) of someone's stories?

If so - Here is my starter list.

1.) Maintaining consistency over time about key details of the story.

2.) Is there financial benefit gained from sharing the story publicly.

3.) Is the story teller gaining a spotlight from which they might achieve a sense of relevancy that it appears they are unable to get in "the real world."

4.) Does the experiencer project through their actions (words written and spoken as well as their deeds) that they actually "get" the core message which they often push upon others?

5.) To what degree does the experiencer use psychological tricks to ensnare the vulnerable?

6.) To what degree does the experiencer get defensive when ever a question as to the veracity of their stories arises?

There's a starter list.

And then... I feel it might be wise we consider the following -

What factors of the paradigm(s) suggested by the experiences can be drawn forth and measured as to attractiveness or not?

What underlying dynamics can be seen at play within the paradigm(s) suggested by the experiencer?

[Chester]

Note for example, regarding the synchronicities I experience, I do all I can to document them and obtain artifacts that back up the experience. Many times I have others with me while the synchronicity arises, so I have third party testimony. But still... there are elements of synchronicities which I may never be able to prove such as "the thought that was crossing my mind at the moment the synchronicity arose." In cases such as that... there should still be criteria which may be explored by some one who might read my "story" about a synchronicity experience. I would believe that anyone's legitimately obtained criteria list should be considered as valid.

[Chester]

Sooo... What do others use for criteria when using their intellect as part of their full arsenal of discernment tools?

[The One]

Sooo. what do others use for criteria when using their intellect as part of their full arsenal of discernment tools?

For me i don't use any.I don't try to disprove what anyone wants to believe that's why this place is great.We can all post stuff on here and not get ridiculed for it.Errrrrrrrrrrr well maybe not lol.

For what its worth about 98% of what we are told is probably false and maybe that percentage could be a slight higher.At the end of the day its how you follow something that's of meaning to you and i think that's whats most important.I started to stop trying to discredit xyz because it was sending me mad lol.I once tried to say something about David Ickle once and omg it was like how dare you.

We are all very special in our own ways and all of us have something great to contribute.I have always said lol forums are better than reality TV

[bsbray]

2.) Is there financial benefit gained from sharing the story publicly.

It may be true that someone is more interested in the money than on a quality product, but I've also seen this used many, many times by self-proclaimed "debunkers" to dismiss various authors out of hand. It's as if someone has written a book, therefore they are a fraud. At least it can go that far in some cases.

I try to take everything into consideration, including the content of the message and why I feel this message is important for me to hear, or why someone would want me to hear this message. You can't always make a determination either, and a lot of things are filed in the back of my mind as "interesting but not yet proven."

[Chester]

For me i don't use any.I don't try to disprove what anyone wants to believe that's why this place is great.We can all post stuff on here and not get ridiculed for it.Errrrrrrrrrrr well maybe not lol.

For what its worth about 98% of what we are told is probably false and maybe that percentage could be a slight higher.At the end of the day its how you follow something that's of meaning to you and i think that's whats most important.I started to stop trying to discredit xyz because it was sending me mad lol.

We are all very special in our own ways and all of us have something great to contribute.I have always said lol forums are better than reality TV

Thanks for this post.

Now let me ask this... with regards to our children, do we not step in sometimes? I did and do. And I always get asked, "Why Dad." I feel its my responsibility to have a valid response. I recall when I was a kid, I asked "why" all the time. I appreciated it when I had a valid response.

So then... that's our own kids, yet some of us are compelled to feel some responsibility with regards to the vulnerable.

So then... is the inner call that some of us hear to point out when others may be falling for something which almost any sane, caring person would agree will lead them into unnecessary to experience trouble... that inner call - should we ignore it?

And here's why I ask this to you The One.

Because if your view is that yes... we should mind our own business in this regard... and the fact that this is your forum and you want it to be run this way that reflects this view, then I accept this as of this moment and I won't challenge another thing here. There it is in writing and I will stand by it.

[The One]

Because if your view is that yes

I never said that :fpalm:

Once i tried to discredit David Ickel for his beliefs and it was like omg i could not believe the barrage of insults i got from disagreeing with his beliefs because he had such a huge following.So i took a step back and thought whats the point.You are always going to have a group of people who will stick up for who they believe is true and that's our human instinct.I wish as a species we were all one buts that never going to happen for millennium unless divine intervention or whatever you want to call it happens.We are the only species on the planet who get pleasure from killing each other mmmm what does that tell you.

All i try to do is not discredit anyone and draw a balance.By the way i am Jesus

:chrs:

[Chester]

I never said that :fpalm:

Once I tried to discredit David Ickel for his beliefs and it was like omg i could not believe the barage of insults i got from disagreeing with his beliefs.So i took a step back and thought whats the point.You are always going to have a group of people who will stick up for who they believe is true


All i try to do is not discredit anyone and draw a balance.By the way i am Jesus

:chrs:

Hahaha ok ok We are cool. I also have some issues with David Icke. At the same time I am sure David Icke may have a few issues about me.

I do have to give David Icke credit for waking me up though. But I would never jump on you or anyone for criticizing him either especially when you provide examples.

[The One]

Hahaha ok ok We are cool. I also have some issues with David Icke but I imagine he would have some with me. At the same time I am sure David Icke may have a few issues about me. I do have to give Icke credit for waking me up though. But I would never jump on you or anyone for criticizing him either especially when you provide examples.

Hi Sam i am going to bed now but will talk about this more at some time and i apologise for all the DI followers, but when he mentioned his Turquoise period and writes that he had been channelling for some time, and had received a message through automatic writing that he was a Son of the Godhead then my alarm bells went off.He then began to wear only turquoise.He actually held a press conference to announce that hecwas a son of the Godhead. He said the world would end in 1997 :fpalm:

And on that note goodnight :yawn:

[bstuart]

I have a huge issue with the latest positions taken by the "truth without proof" brigade that has recently cropped up. When someone, whether they are part of the disclosure movement or not, asks their audience to simply have blind faith regarding their statements, my inner alarms bells start ringing loudly. The amount of abuse that's possible with this kind of presentation can easily be found in cult groups. The "prophets" for blind faith always start by categorizing this idea as a moral imperative; that proof cannot be given because it is the "right thing."

In the most recent "publishings," the way this is being done is we're told that the goal for disclosure is not to convert anyone who doesn't already believe everything the messenger says, and that it's being done to "soften the blow" for full disclosure. In a way, this kind of statement attempts to elevate those, in their own minds, the people who believe the message as a "chosen" group who follow in their faith, while those who do not believe are not part of this "chosen" group. The result is a divided community of "believers" and "non-believers." Through division there is manipulation and control.

The second reason that's being given is that the benevolent outside groups simply cannot assist with "evidence" because it breaks some kind of "prime directive." This is a hard pill to swallow because it's supposedly linked to the idea that presenting evidence is associated with an ambiguous amount of "calling" from humanity (I suppose they mean in meditation/prayer/etc), which would otherwise be in violation of our free will. This is convenient for the "prophet" because it sets up a prerequisite for evidence that can never be independently verified. Those who question this are told that they just need to pray harder or meditate more, and then maybe, just maybe, evidence will come; but it never does.

The recent disclosure work found on these forums and others is starting to look more and more like the beginning of a religion. I do not plan to cast aside all information without first considering it's implications, but anyone who takes what these "informants" say without a grain a salt are opening themselves up to be manipulated.

[SmokeyJoe1952]

Extremely very well said Bstuart

[Rebel&Rocket]

It does seem unfair that proof is reserved for putting those doing harm away, but not in getting the info to put them away. I'm having trouble figuring out how that works. There is an International Tribunal being set up to try those who have committed crimes against humanity. There have been millions of US government records stolen for proof to put these people away. I don't understand how anyone can be forced to pay for their actions without proof. Can we get a guilty verdict for attempted zombie apocalypse based on a researcher's word?

[Daozen]

The short answer is "actionable strategic wisdom and provable results." But you've compiled an excellent list Sam. Much better than anything I've written so far. I challenge anyone to make an online spreadsheet or wiki laying out various researchers in the field and document them according to the above criteria, then assign a percentage 'score' to them. They could keep it accurate but light hearted, and avoid any urge to make commentary. Researchers need to be rigorously tested like Dyson vacuum cleaners.

Our track record is available on request. I'm currently compiling it but busy now... searches for "The Evil Agartha Network" will bring a partial list. If that quote is against TOT policy, mods are welcome to remove it, no worries.

Any human has the right to screw up, go down blind alleys, make huge mistakes, but readers have the right to know someone's track record.

[Chester]

I have a huge issue with the latest positions taken by the "truth without proof" brigade that has recently cropped up. When someone, whether they are part of the disclosure movement or not, asks their audience to simply have blind faith regarding their statements, my inner alarms bells start ringing loudly. The amount of abuse that's possible with this kind of presentation can easily be found in cult groups. The "prophets" for blind faith always start by categorizing this idea as a moral imperative; that proof cannot be given because it is the "right thing."

In the most recent "publishings," the way this is being done is we're told that the goal for disclosure is not to convert anyone who doesn't already believe everything the messenger says, and that it's being done to "soften the blow" for full disclosure. In a way, this kind of statement attempts to elevate those, in their own minds, the people who believe the message as a "chosen" group who follow in their faith, while those who do not believe are not part of this "chosen" group. The result is a divided community of "believers" and "non-believers." Through division there is manipulation and control.

The second reason that's being given is that the benevolent outside groups simply cannot assist with "evidence" because it breaks some kind of "prime directive." This is a hard pill to swallow because it's supposedly linked to the idea that presenting evidence is associated with an ambiguous amount of "calling" from humanity (I suppose they mean in meditation/prayer/etc), which would otherwise be in violation of our free will. This is convenient for the "prophet" because it sets up a prerequisite for evidence that can never be independently verified. Those who question this are told that they just need to pray harder or meditate more, and then maybe, just maybe, evidence will come; but it never does.

The recent disclosure work found on these forums and others is starting to look more and more like the beginning of a religion. I do not plan to cast aside all information without first considering it's implications, but anyone who takes what these "informants" say without a grain a salt are opening themselves up to be manipulated.

Great Post - great points... look at this -

http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/1180-ssp-revealed?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DavidWilcockBlog+%28David+Wil cock+Newsletter%29


I UNDERSTAND MOST PEOPLE PROBABLY THINK THIS IS B.S.

A fundamental part of the "Prime Directive" is truth without proof.

The higher-level beings cannot simply reveal themselves to us. There must be a calling, where a sufficient number of people request their help, before intervention can occur.

We are truly blessed to have ongoing "Divine Intervention" taking place. This is the only thing that has stopped the Cabal from destroying most of our lives.

So we have this "disclosure guy" telling us there is something out of Star Trek that is actually real called the Prime Directive and that a "fundamental part of" it is (and I now translate what he said) -

"Whatever we tell you is the truth and you have no choice but to accept it and we don't have to provide any validity to what we are saying because we are (insert any current high profile Alt Community celebrity) and that's all you need to know to fully integrate this truth into your whole entire being!"

And just after that he tells us -


THE ZOMBIE PROGRAM

The Cabal has been very innovative in coming up with a multitude of different ways to try to kill the majority of people on earth.

One of the more upsetting and shocking ones I learned about, from three different credible insiders, is actually called "The Zombie Program."

Using advanced cloning techniques, 150 million humans were manufactured in the US, all held in underground bases west of the Rockies, and another 100 million in Europe.

They would look more or less like ordinary people -- not what you see in the movies. The men might typically be wearing a plaid shirt and blue jeans.

I won't quote the rest just in case anyone still has retained "their lunch."

[Chester]

The short answer is "strategic wisdom and provable results." But you've compiled an excellent list Sam. Much better than anything I've written so far. I challenge anyone to make an online spreadsheet or wiki laying out various researchers in the field and document them according to the above criteria, then assign a percentage 'score' to them. They could keep it accurate but light hearted, and avoid any urge to make commentary. Researchers need to be rigorously tested like Dyson vacuum cleaners.

Our track record is available on request. I'm currently compiling it but busy now... searches for "The Evil Agartha Network" will bring a partial list. If that quote is against TOT policy, mods are welcome to remove it, no worries.

Any human has the right to screw up, go down blind alleys, make huge mistakes, but readers have the right to know someone's track record.

I just thought of another criteria point -

7.) The degree of desperation shown when the heat gets turned up.

[bsbray]

Contact Point,

Maybe a second way of rating sources can be based on how accurate they were in past predictions they had made. For example if someone says x will happen in or by 2017, but it doesn't, then that's 0 for 1.

To judge the criteria Sam lists on the OP would require subjective rating and so is not really objective by rigorous standards. How can you give a rating for the amount of defensiveness or manipulative language? Something more straightforward would have to be rated in order to be more objective.

[Daozen]

I just thought of another criteria point -

7.) The degree of desperation shown when the heat gets turned up.

Well said. They are flailing... There's another subtle issue/method they use, I call it the Chicken Feed Rear-Guard tactic. Or "Riding the line"...

-From my perspective- I thought Wilcock's last article was 60-65 per cent "true", fairly high in this field. We are in touch with both his sources right here. The Loosh farming info was interesting.

[Daozen]

Maybe a second way of rating sources can be based on how accurate they were in past predictions they had made. For example if someone says x will happen in or by 2017, but it doesn't, then that's 0 for 1.

One day I will release all our predictions. If people had listened to us, we'd be partying with Lemurians by now.


To judge the criteria Sam lists on the OP would require subjective rating and so is not really objective by rigorous standards. How can you give a rating for the amount of defensiveness or manipulative language? Something more straightforward would have to be rated in order to be more objective.

Maybe we could analyse them first for predictions, second for spin language, third from another angle... If someone set up a wiki it would take 10-15 man hours (split among 10?-30? people) to put 10 researchers through the mill.

We could use this thread to take swipes at popular researchers (always good fun but unproductive), or use it to springboard into something really objective and concrete. Call it the Hunter/Bray Scoring system if you like. We can never achieve true objectivity, but we can shoot for it, and refine the system as we go along.

Challenge set.

[bsbray]

If you had a rating system that could be solved by a piece of software just by punching in a few pieces of input data that anyone could agree on, then it'd be objective enough for something like this. That's the level things would have to be broken down to, to not be what would amount to a propaganda piece itself.

These are the only things I can think of that can be easily and objectively quantified (though even these can potentially be disputed):

1. Ratio of accurate predictions to total number of predictions.
2. Number of references to independently verifiable facts, versus claims with no outside corroboration at all.
...

And I'm already running out of gas.


I was putting together notes to compare and contrast different languages and I ran into a similar problem. My solution was this: the first half of the analysis was made to fit into a mold: grammar structures laid side-by-side with English, or analyzed using English conventions (the "objective" part). The second half of the analysis is totally observational and allowed to explore the more ineffable and unquantifiable aspects of the material, in a way more in keeping with the way the humanities are taught (the subjective part).

[Chester]

This is it!!!!

A Watchdog Site!!!

Every other industry has em.

Here's an example of a watchdog site that happens to monitor online sports gambling sites -

http://theonlinewire.com/

TOT folks should consider making a sister site that does this. I would be happy to provide ratings - backed up with proof.

[Daozen]

I was always taught to put together workable, rough systems before refining them over a course of weeks and months.

Researchers could be encouraged to submit their own body of work, why not? Then we couldn't be accused of spinning. There could be a formal submission form with dates, years and other boxes.

Let each researcher submit a 500 word statement on their body of work.

I think you are aiming at an interesting end point, but a rough beta version could come up.

1) Start with predictions before looking at language, it's ten times easier and faster.
2) Manipulative language has been fairly well laid out and documented in many articles.
3) The prediction score sheet should be enough to make anyone's eyes pop once people see the stark data in bar charts, and percentages.
4) Have a section for "actionable intel"- i.e. solutions that can be applied by the public.


*

Do it quick and dirty, and encourage open public debate about how to refine the system. Be open, flexible, humble and accountable. Resist any colored language or the urge to use the study as a platform to attack one person or another. Let the numbers speak.

[Daozen]

TOT folks should consider making a sister site that does this. I would be happy to provide ratings - backed up with proof.

You could start with a blog. A wiki would save everyone a lot of time. You would have to get the criteria down way before you gave any numbers. The numbers would be disputed anyway, by apologists and nitpickers.

For a first pass, it might be better just to list the predictions year on year without any commentary or fancy number games. That would speak volumes in itself.

I've been turning over a project like this for 6 months, but I am busy with other things. I reckon you could do most of it yourself Sam...

[bsbray]

Right, so there are two more quantifiable values: number of actionable solutions that the general public can participate in, and the number of contradictions apparent in the given material. If someone admits to getting information wrong then that shouldn't count as a contradiction, but, for example in the case of Ben Fulford, he has given information in the past that he himself has admitted was wrong. So maybe number of times they've admitted to bad info can be a 5th quantifiable value.

I'd like to see the research on manipulative language. I've studied NLP myself and I think it can be used for both good and evil, and a lot of people use it on a daily basis without realizing it, instinctually. So that area seems as though it could get pretty hairy too.

I like the general idea here. If no one could argue that the system was biased then it'd be a very valuable tool.

[Daozen]

I agree with what you say bsbray... I think a first version could go like this.

*

PREDICTION:

Researcher: Dear ones, we bring you exciting news: The oblong trapezoids from Betelgeuse will land in Spring 2011 and roll out a series of governmental changes beginning late fall 2011. After a series of devastating Earthquakes along the New Madrid Fault, a new financial system headed up by General Ham will begin disbursals of SDR notes to the good people of Earth.

Be in joy!

DID IT HAPPEN?

NO.

DID THEY ADMIT/APOLOGISE? HOW DID THEY BACKTRACK?

It was communicated to us that the trapezoids...

WHAT WAS THEIR COMMENTARY AFTER BEING CONTACTED BY FLAKEWATCH?

(Copy paste their back down info with no commentary) No comment or a silence can be noted. It speaks volumes. Remind them that the group is looking for open commentary, and emails will be made public.

i) PREDICTION
ii) RESULT
iii) BACKTRACK
iv) ADMISSION

*

The winner gets presented with a Gatekeeper of the Year trophy...

You are right to point out that people who admit and apologize for their mistakes should get a 'point' or an acknowledgement, or whatever.

[mojo]

Lots of good suggestions. Looking from the other side of the coin, never really tried to persuade others to believe. For myself knowing that by sharing it helps others that want to be a part can be through what is researched and presented. It was the naysayers that helped to stay objective and to try and present the best evidence...

[Dreamtimer]

"Oblong trapezoids" :ttr:

I was really thinking about this on a personal level, in terms of using my own judgement. I'm impressed that you have already nearly designed a new system to ferret out the shammers.

Action requires judgement. Personally, I use knowledge, experience, instincts, emotions, logic and analysis, I may be leaving something out. As I've said before, my instincts carry heavy weight and can trump some or all of the other parts of judgement.

Obviously there's no way for me to offer up instincts as any kind of proof. Some things just can't be proven. I can't prove I had a particular dream but it may change my life for good.

A meta-analysis of disclosers or predictors could give a kind of template to do a quick assessment of the latest insider. Like being able to make a quick profile.

[SmokeyJoe1952]

Excellent thread, great posts guys. If I dared to post something along the lines of the theme here I would be branded a disinfo agent as a certain researcher warned would be in our midst should anyone disagree with their claims openly. Thats the state of disclosure today, people waltz in with all manner of very fantastic claims and everyone is expected to accept every word, this you can check for from awhile back, perhaps the advent of youtube and social media are simply coincidences in the flood of individuals coming forward with ever increasingly far out claims. I was, perhaps rightly so as some of you will say, put thru the mill once my disclosures began 21 years ago. I faced direct heat and once the internet grew the ridicule, threats, abuse and more came my way but I stood firm with my claims which have remained solid and unchanged in all those years. So yes I was questioned, grilled, given the third degree so its only right that all these others should go thru the same. Its not a case of picking holes just for the sake of it, people need to question without fear of being called a troll, a threadkiller or deliberately derailing a thread and facing a forum ban. Its still a free World for most of us, freedom of speech and thought will prevail.

[Daozen]

I was, perhaps rightly so as some of you will say, put thru the mill once my disclosures began 21 years ago. I faced direct heat and once the internet grew the ridicule, threats, abuse and more came my way but I stood firm with my claims which have remained solid and unchanged in all those years. So yes I was questioned, grilled, given the third degree so its only right that all these others should go thru the same. Its not a case of picking holes just for the sake of it, people need to question without fear of being called a troll, a threadkiller or deliberately derailing a thread and facing a forum ban.

Good points. There needs to be a disclaimer on the site that shows that researchers involved in the project are not looking to ridicule or belittle anyone, just give people a fair, balanced view. There are newcomers awakening every day, and they are being herded into various dragnets that have been deliberately set up long in advance.

So the names Flake-watch and the Gatekeeper award are too inflammatory. IMO, a site would need to be very dry and clinical.

BTW, there is room for more than one site in the field. I don't want to change anyone else vision. There needs to be more than one watchdog. If a decent site doesn't get set up from this thread, I will do it myself one day...

[Chester]

Lots of good suggestions. Looking from the other side of the coin, never really tried to persuade others to believe. For myself knowing that by sharing it helps others that want to be a part can be through what is researched and presented. It was the naysayers that helped to stay objective and to try and present the best evidence...

Based on my almost three years of experience of your posts and videos...based on my own list of criteria, I rate your stuff a 10 in every sub rating category. Thanks for being an example of what an experiencer can be. Meant from the gut, heart and mind... Sam.

[mojo]

awww Sam :smiley hug:

Thank you so much....

[Daozen]

"Oblong trapezoids"

I was really thinking about this on a personal level, in terms of using my own judgement. I'm impressed that you have already nearly designed a new system to ferret out the shammers.

Action requires judgement. Personally, I use knowledge, experience, instincts, emotions, logic and analysis, I may be leaving something out. As I've said before, my instincts carry heavy weight and can trump some or all of the other parts of judgement.

Obviously there's no way for me to offer up instincts as any kind of proof. Some things just can't be proven. I can't prove I had a particular dream but it may change my life for good.

A meta-analysis of disclosers or predictors could give a kind of template to do a quick assessment of the latest insider. Like being able to make a quick profile.

When I go to "Night School", (which, BTW, is open to every human on Earth) I never look for intel or predictions. I always try and come back with strategic wisdom. You can argue with intel, it's harder to argue with wisdom. I will see a vague idea form like a thought/emotion form, and get an idea for google search terms. Next day I check, and there's normally something on google.

Plus, they never lecture you, it's more like a co-creation or heart-mind to heart-mind where they help you access you inner self or ideas.

Who knows where my ideas come from?

Maybe my subconscious, or the heart of humanity. I just call it "pulling ideas out of the ether." Dreamers, artists and inventors have been doing it for centuries. In the next meditation, you can ask for help executing the idea, or there is assistance in avoiding disagreements with the team, or unblocking emotionally. Last, you don't need to astral project up, as there can be trap layer there. It is easier to go deep inside the brain, heart, or other chakra.

In Indonesia, they call this place "The Other Heaven", my teacher went there and started to learn French. You don't have to remember anything, and there probably aren't lecture rooms and chairs, not on the 5th dimension and above anyway. It's more about writing the first idea that comes when you wake up, and writing it quick before doubts, anxiety and murky emotions creep in.

As the etheric plane disintegrates, this process will get easier and easier.

We are being helped, and the door is open...

[lcam88]

Hello Mr Sam Hunter:

I would like to suggest another possibility to rate someone's unprovable, possibly other world, experiences... for your amusement only of course:

— Regardless of truthiness, believability or even evaluations based on rationalizations, I would be inclined to rate more favorably stories that realistically or at least metaphorically contain messages that are empowering and/or unifying to _humanity_ in general.

Unverifiable stories that separate or isolate humans by race, culture creed or otherwise divide human followers based on fact, beliefs or the likes of academia do _not_ make this cut; such stories cause a divide between groups and thus metaphorically feed discrimination of sorts.

It may be the case that an empowering story is beyond believability for people who are knowledgable or driven by verifiable information, but these stories shouldn't be demerited too quickly simply because truth is subjective by its very nature. Nobody can claim a throne to absolute truth or righteousness.

Over some time, I've examined propositions like "the grid", stories shared by Simon Parks, religious stories, cosmic wars and the destruction of planets: They are poorly rated by me because they degrade humans to under-achiever, petre-dishesk spirit containers, feeble intellect or spiritual conditioned to inferiority of other more privileged or advanced group, if not simply damned as a born sinner or for some other aspect of a random unlucky or shunned pre-condition even while the story teller may make affirmations to the contrary.

Sessions of Bashar, testimonies of consumption of monoatomic elements, Myth of the Devine Sophia as told my Mr Lash, LeadBeater's Occult Chemistry, and even Green Eggs and Ham fair by far better by me because of a quality that strives to enhance the human condition and the human mind by whatever means.

Bottom line, better parents prefer to reason with children rather than spank them in any and every measure taken to educating them; I think the stories that cannot be proven need not deviate from that pure rational of empowerment and growth.

[modwiz]

For me the criteria of any information is its utility in our lives. Does it make the world a better place for you? Can others benefits from it. I cannot tell you how much new age muck I have to wade through to get to a kernel of utility with some people in conversations. Even some questions asked of the Ambassador make me go into a facepalm.:fpalm: One of the reasons I often have my avatar up in gatherings. So no one can see my groan face. I used to always be visible but, caught myself reacting, on camera, to things people say. Since it's just my opinion, no one should have to see my personal judgements regarding theirs. It has worked well for me. I also have had to mute my mic as groans and slapping my forehead could be heard.

My own personal story about how I got here has never been told and probably never will. My history is private, not to mention fantastical so, I just give people my persona to deal with and figure out, without "my truth". It has served me well and I fit in more easily. No need to be any more unique than is of utility.

[Dreamtimer]

"truthiness"...Ah Stephen...I miss the Report I had with you...(pronounce w/frenchiness)

Contact Point, I would call your Night School the Dreamworld or the Dreamtime. Not my names, of course. Some call it the hypnagogic state. It can be induced with the use of a drum. And other ways.

My understanding is that the Dreamworld is all the possibilities that have been, are, and are yet to come. Additionally, you can create your own dream space to do work, as you perhaps have. There are stories of athletes who practice difficult or dangerous moves in dreams before tackling them in physical reality. It's so amazing.

Writing the first words that come to you upon waking is stellar advice. I'd recommend that to everyone. That and dreams.

"No need to be any more unique than is of utility". That's a great statement. I can so relate. Modwiz, I'd like to thank you for all the laughs you've provided. I'm sure I'm at least a minute younger already.

[Chester]

Hello Mr Sam Hunter:

I would like to suggest another possibility to rate someone's unprovable, possibly other world, experiences... for your amusement only of course:

— Regardless of truthiness, believability or even evaluations based on rationalizations, I would be inclined to rate more favorably stories that realistically or at least metaphorically contain messages that are empowering and/or unifying to _humanity_ in general.

Unverifiable stories that separate or isolate humans by race, culture creed or otherwise divide human followers based on fact, beliefs or the likes of academia do _not_ make this cut; such stories cause a divide between groups and thus metaphorically feed discrimination of sorts.

It may be the case that an empowering story is beyond believability for people who are knowledgable or driven by verifiable information, but these stories shouldn't be demerited too quickly simply because truth is subjective by its very nature. Nobody can claim a throne to absolute truth or righteousness.

Over some time, I've examined propositions like "the grid", stories shared by Simon Parks, religious stories, cosmic wars and the destruction of planets: They are poorly rated by me because they degrade humans to under-achiever, petre-dishesk spirit containers, feeble intellect or spiritual conditioned to inferiority of other more privileged or advanced group, if not simply damned as a born sinner or for some other aspect of a random unlucky or shunned pre-condition even while the story teller may make affirmations to the contrary.

Sessions of Bashar, testimonies of consumption of monoatomic elements, Myth of the Devine Sophia as told my Mr Lash, LeadBeater's Occult Chemistry, and even Green Eggs and Ham fair by far better by me because of a quality that strives to enhance the human condition and the human mind by whatever means.

Bottom line, better parents prefer to reason with children rather than spank them in any and every measure taken to educating them; I think the stories that cannot be proven need not deviate from that pure rational of empowerment and growth.

Great Post - and some would suggest some of my posts "spank" indeed. In my experience with my own three sons, not once did I ever spank them. I wonder why? The reason is that we always were able to talk it out. That doesn't imply I always "won" either. Sometimes they heard my view but then I stepped aside and watched them follow their own heart. In many of those cases it turned out that though their chosen path was bumpy... that they were able to follow it was important as then later they were able to see that perhaps Dad had a point after all. Sometimes, they showed me they were right after all. So what's my point?

That we were able to freely discuss it. And so your post above suggests a way this can be done. I actually mentioned what you are suggesting in the OP -



What factors of the paradigm(s) suggested by the experiences can be drawn forth and measured as to attractiveness or not?

What underlying dynamics can be seen at play within the paradigm(s) suggested by the experiencer?

Now, a few months back I attempted to have this very discussion. At that time tensions were high. I asked if I could make a thread that discussed the various paradigms suggested by the stories of specific story tellers. I did not at all want to say a single word about the story teller. Only point out "the specific story" and then, with participation of the forum membership we could examine what paradigms are suggested by these stories. I was told no, I could not do this. I was told no I could not do this in a members only area. I was offered to be able to make a group where this could be discussed yet that would not serve the purpose of putting the information in front of the eyes of everyone so that they might become aware of thoughts and ideas they had previously not been aware of. This is how we all grow. This is how we all learn.

So I absolutely love your idea. I imagine I might open my eyes further as well. Who knows, I might even shift a view I appear pretty well set on (as I have been known to do).

Thanks for this very good post.

[Daozen]

I also have had to mute my mic as groans and slapping my forehead could be heard.

That's why I stick to emails.


My own personal story about how I got here has never been told and probably never will. My history is private, not to mention fantastical so, I just give people my persona to deal with and figure out, without "my truth". It has served me well and I fit in more easily. No need to be any more unique than is of utility.

Right, it's about how useful someone can be.

[Daozen]

After thinking about this, I decided that it might be best to trial a project with a track-record history on David Wilcock and maybe one other researcher.

David is being positioned to be a leader in the future. While I do not have any personal problem with him -he comes off as easygoing in interviews- I don't consent to any timeline in which he's dominating the media. I think there are other people that can do a better job. He would be welcome to comment on what we are doing, as it's in everyone's best interest that things are as fair, friendly and impartial as possible.

If anyone is interested, I can write a research template for organizing his history, but only if other people would give some time to the project. Otherwise it wouldn't be a good use of my time.

I don't want to muscle in on Sam's specific vision. IMO, we need more than one watchdog. I will do things my own way, if people want to help, they can. If two people say they would help research on a wiki, I will write the list. If not, I will do it in my own time in a few weeks.

[Tanta]

Can we create a bona-fide legitimate and generally agreed upon criteria in rating the likely (or not) validity of anyone's publicly presented non-provable, other worldly experiences? Clearly, it is difficult to expect proof... so then how can we assess the potential veracity (or not) of someone's stories?

If so - Here is my starter list.

1.) Maintaining consistency over time about key details of the story.

2.) Is there financial benefit gained from sharing the story publicly.

3.) Is the story teller gaining a spotlight from which they might achieve a sense of relevancy that it appears they are unable to get in "the real world."

4.) Does the experiencer project through their actions (words written and spoken as well as their deeds) that they actually "get" the core message which they often push upon others?

5.) To what degree does the experiencer use psychological tricks to ensnare the vulnerable?

6.) To what degree does the experiencer get defensive when ever a question as to the veracity of their stories arises?

There's a starter list.

And then... I feel it might be wise we consider the following -

What factors of the paradigm(s) suggested by the experiences can be drawn forth and measured as to attractiveness or not?

What underlying dynamics can be seen at play within the paradigm(s) suggested by the experiencer?


Is the info channeled?

YES - exit
NO - proceed to A

A - determine relevancy of claimed information when superimposed on the populous
B - check for perception management
B1 - determine reimposed conditions and limitations
B2 - compare B1 findings with A, see how (if) relevancy changes
B3 - if B2 findings greatly differentiate from claimed information - exit, if not, go to C
C - see about methods of dissemination, check for discrepancies given A and B2
C1 - major discrepancies found - exit, if withing acceptable tolerance, go to D
D - are claimed information verifiable and to what extent, yes/yes to some extent go to E, if not - exit
E - can presenters research be verified, yes go to E1, if not - exit
E1 - has presenter mixed eggs and potatoes, cows and goats, if yes - exit, if not go to F
F - apply SM7 method (Sam Hunter 1 to 7)


Maybe number 8 - are claimed information backed up by TV series such as Fringe and Star Gate as in, do we have a "closed loop of/for validity" (see it is just like i said, they show it to you on TV....omg my top source just said what was in that last episode is EXACTLY like it is for real)


In regard to all this information and proof....i am not even sure how to word it all...this will got a bit "all over the place"...

I recall back in 2008/2009 i was gently! ranting on Avalon 1 (the original Avalon forum, before it was dismantled by its legal owners) about how these different whistle blowers that Kerry Cassidy and Bill Ryan were interviewing contradict each other and how something should be done about it... That was roughly 7 to 8 years ago. NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN on the side of information providers. Many stories have come and gone in that time. They are still coming and going. I was a donor at that time, i regularly gave what i could to PC. That soon stopped when i "figured out" Bill Ryan has a messiah complex and well Kerry, using the words of one of the mods at that time, was just barking orders.

Btw this forum is not the first Avalon offshoot. Some of you might have heard about "The Mists". On old Avalon, once Billy and at the time his right hand Admin came out in full colors, some people got "misted" (unable to post). So part of them left, creating a new forum. Again on Avalon 2 part of them left...history repeating itself.

The audience ( this means YOU people), be it theirs or anyone elses...some came, some left, but have they matured? Have they learned? No.

I tried to defend such points as you made not as exact but still...to no avail. Got myself voluntarily mixed into another parallel story. What i might compare to taking a drug just to study its effects. It helped me. Before i thought of myself to be too small in comparison to some forum member doing "remote healing" or wording the posts using all that new age and channeling lingo... After i saw same posts and it was something like in movie They Live.

Shortly after what followed was the 1st accusation of me being a reptilian. One fanatic branded me the galactic federation of light agent and other such things.

Sam, you want to go up against the endless human stupidity, commendable. Lets do the "impossible"? But...should we? Are we responsible to? Watching the watchers?

In one of my other posts i tried to show how people are much more full of themselves and excuses than being manipulated and controlled. How solving many bad things need no super hi tech or ET landings but just people being less "themselves". Some are being mislead, most aren't.

But to be "constructive"... I call out to "insiders" to "blow the whistle" on alternative media figure heads. On radio talk show hosts, TV presenters, project leaders, truth tellers, chanelers, witnesses

[Daozen]

The higher-level beings cannot simply reveal themselves to us. There must be a calling, where a sufficient number of people request their help, before intervention can occur.

This is when things start to get very dangerous. That sentence goes beyond intel treadmill saviorism. Reading that, I think he could be fronting for covetous ET groups. He might not realize that he's doing it, but it's dangerous.

I only have so much spare time. I hope someone out there realizes that somethings needs to be done. I hope they can get past the bickering and circular discussion and actually get something accomplished.

[mojo]

The balloon summoner comes to mind when I first read the op. And the guy from Las Vegas that films lights on the Mt road above Las Vegas. In the balloon case he was introduced to the world by thirdphaseofmoon, a channel of much notoriety, and still not sure if the main reason is fame or money. Only that it does disclosure a disservice. Also, there must be a large ego attachment when calling one's self a summoner. Please understand that I believe in ce5 protocols just not calling ufos at ones command. The man from Vegas, is different, not sure of the motive? And ignorance does not seem to be the case either, as the person does not allow comments and is not receptive to others opinions or suggestions. Maybe we can call it the lone-ranger syndrome. (I know what I see and what you see is wrong.) Also music over the video is a clue in most uploads after starting with narration it was dropped in favor of music.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVC24NwTf88


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3i4Vf4TMmc

[Chester]

Is the info channeled?

YES - exit
NO - proceed to A

A - determine relevancy of claimed information when superimposed on the populous
B - check for perception management
B1 - determine reimposed conditions and limitations
B2 - compare B1 findings with A, see how (if) relevancy changes
B3 - if B2 findings greatly differentiate from claimed information - exit, if not, go to C
C - see about methods of dissemination, check for discrepancies given A and B2
C1 - major discrepancies found - exit, if withing acceptable tolerance, go to D
D - are claimed information verifiable and to what extent, yes/yes to some extent go to E, if not - exit
E - can presenters research be verified, yes go to E1, if not - exit
E1 - has presenter mixed eggs and potatoes, cows and goats, if yes - exit, if not go to F
F - apply SM7 method (Sam Hunter 1 to 7)


Maybe number 8 - are claimed information backed up by TV series such as Fringe and Star Gate as in, do we have a "closed loop of/for validity" (see it is just like i said, they show it to you on TV....omg my top source just said what was in that last episode is EXACTLY like it is for real)


In regard to all this information and proof....i am not even sure how to word it all...this will got a bit "all over the place"...

I recall back in 2008/2009 i was gently! ranting on Avalon 1 (the original Avalon forum, before it was dismantled by its legal owners) about how these different whistle blowers that Kerry Cassidy and Bill Ryan were interviewing contradict each other and how something should be done about it... That was roughly 7 to 8 years ago. NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED SINCE THEN on the side of information providers. Many stories have come and gone in that time. They are still coming and going. I was a donor at that time, i regularly gave what i could to PC. That soon stopped when i "figured out" Bill Ryan has a messiah complex and well Kerry, using the words of one of the mods at that time, was just barking orders.

Btw this forum is not the first Avalon offshoot. Some of you might have heard about "The Mists". On old Avalon, once Billy and at the time his right hand Admin came out in full colors, some people got "misted" (unable to post). So part of them left, creating a new forum. Again on Avalon 2 part of them left...history repeating itself.

The audience ( this means YOU people), be it theirs or anyone elses...some came, some left, but have they matured? Have they learned? No.

I tried to defend such points as you made not as exact but still...to no avail. Got myself voluntarily mixed into another parallel story. What i might compare to taking a drug just to study its effects. It helped me. Before i thought of myself to be too small in comparison to some forum member doing "remote healing" or wording the posts using all that new age and channeling lingo... After i saw same posts and it was something like in movie They Live.

Shortly after what followed was the 1st accusation of me being a reptilian. One fanatic branded me the galactic federation of light agent and other such things.

Sam, you want to go up against the endless human stupidity, commendable. Lets do the "impossible"? But...should we? Are we responsible to? Watching the watchers?

In one of my other posts i tried to show how people are much more full of themselves and excuses than being manipulated and controlled. How solving many bad things need no super hi tech or ET landings but just people being less "themselves". Some are being mislead, most aren't.

But to be "constructive"... I call out to "insiders" to "blow the whistle" on alternative media figure heads. On radio talk show hosts, TV presenters, project leaders, truth tellers, chanelers, witnesses

Often the very best posts go with few or no thanks - this is right up there with one of the best posts I ever read. Thank You.

[The One]

The thing is i don't want this to be a forum where we just have a set of core members that vet whoever they feel is not telling the truth.Its like having to pass some sort of test and if i am reading this wrong i apologise.This is not what we are about.There are so many wonderful threads and posts on here and this does not have to be a vetting procedure forum.

We was looking at doing interviews and even asking these people below to participate in Q&A AT tot

Randy Cramer
David Hatcher Childress
Stan Gordon
Ben Fulford
Richard Hoagland
Paola Harris (one of her books is "How Does One Speak To A Ball Of Light?" -- think of the possibilities here )
Linda Moulton Howe
Melba Ketchum
L.A. Marzulli
Graham Hancock
Michael Tellinger
Michael Tsarion
Joshua P. Warren
Roan Winterhawk

But if all we are going to do is have a set core of members trying to ridicule them then i do not think it would be in their best interest to come and that ashame.The last thing i would want is a guest in my house being ridiculed.

[Daozen]

It's your forum, and you can set whatever rules you want. I can set up a Reddit/Wiki and do everything on emails... But does that go against one of your rules? If I linked to the Reddit, or told people about it, would you think I was stealing members? I wouldn't bug anyone on PM's, that's not my style. Most PM exchanges here have been started by the other person. I need to find 3-4 people to help out. I can do it here, on on any other forum. It makes no difference.

If you read my posts, I said that:


[David Wilcock] would be welcome to comment on what we are doing, as it's in everyone's best interest that things are as fair, friendly and impartial as possible.

It's not fair of you to mischaracterize objective research and data collection as ridicule.

As Modwiz said, once a new type of finance gets rolling, most of these people will fade away, as people build their dreams.

*

Please talk with your mods and set clear guidelines, then people are free to decide if they want to post under those terms or not.

[The One]

It's not fair of you to mischaracterize objective research and data collection as ridicule

I never said that and it can be a good resource of information.If you read my sentence correctly i said i did not want any of my future guests ridiculed as clearly sated on my mission statement on home page here http://jandeane81.com/index.php?

I am not having a vetting procedure for future guests.As always we would welcome healthy debate and as long as we can behave responsibly and treat one another with respect.

Our updated guidelines are perfectly clear and can be found here http://jandeane81.com/announcement.php?f=2&a=1

[Daozen]

Short version: If anyone wants to work on a research project chronicling David Wilcock + others track record, please PM me. As this thread is making the mods uncomfortable, I won't say anything else.

[Dreamtimer]

I for one would welcome interviews with them. I like to listen to interviews. It's communication in action (hopefully) and gives opportunity for questions and expansion of ideas. It's dialogue. And as you've said, ad infinitum, there's no requirement to listen. Please continue to consider this idea.

Besides, The One, if it's you doing them, even better. I like your voice.

[Daozen]

If you read my sentence correctly i said i did not want any of my future guests ridiculed as clearly sated on my mission statement on home page here http://jandeane81.com/index.php?

I am not having a vetting procedure for future guests.As always we would welcome healthy debate and as long as we can behave responsibly and treat one another with respect.

Our updated guidelines are perfectly clear and can be found here http://jandeane81.com/announcement.php?f=2&a=1

I'm not vetting anyone. This is your forum. I want to do a private research project on a different site.

This thread was started by another member and I responded. No one said they would tell you what to do. It might help the forum atmosphere if you weren't so overbearing and patriarchal with your decisions. You bill this site as a fresh alternative to Avalon, but the rules are heavy handed and strict. Threads get locked, and members banned way too easily.

[The One]

I'm not vetting anyone. This is your forum. I want to do a private research project on a different site

Great stuff


It might help the forum atmosphere if you weren't so overbearing and patriarchal with your decisions

I think we are more than fair with the flow of things here now.Its actually been quite for a while which is good as i don't like headaches or drama lol.


but the rules are heavy handed and strict.

I will have to disagree the rules have been rewritten are are very fair in my opinion.


and members banned way too easily

The last member that was banned was Freebird back 25th May 2015 for impersonating who was actually member Healthy sceptic. The.The one before that was on the 29th April 2015 for the same.In total from when this forum started over nearly 4 years ago there have been a total of 24 members banned.I think we should be commended for that.We do not ban members straight away,we will always try and defuse a situation before it gets out of hand

cheers

[Daozen]

OK, thanks for the reply. I have no time for forum dramas or multi-post discussions. None of us do. This is your living room and you can talk to people however you want. If you could tell me how to archive my posts that might help.

EDIT: I enjoyed your post on bamboo houses the other day. So we can move on and do something productive... I have to go, will be back in about 12 hours.

Cheers.

[The One]

OK, thanks for the reply. I have no time for forum dramas or multi-post discussions. None of us do. This is your living room and you can talk to people however you want. If you could tell me how to archive my posts that might help.

I don't and you wont believe this but i am not sure how to archive post i am being honest.I hope one day as a species we will all be able to take constitutive criticism but i think its in our nature to bite back

Maybe we all need to evolve a bit more before we can move forward.

p.s for the record i like your posts

[Daozen]

I hope one day as a species we learn how to archive posts.

This is a stressful/exciting time and everyone misunderstands things sometimes. Focusing on new housing and healing is one of the most useful things anyone can do.

[The One]

I hope one day as a species we learn how to archive posts.

lol :ha:

I would end up deleting them lol if i find out i will pm you i have already taken this thread off topic and apologise

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/H1LXdYtArXQ/maxresdefault.jpg

:back to topic:

[lcam88]

Great Post - and some would suggest some of my posts "spank" indeed.

I think I was unclear about the context I was trying to refer to with my "better parents" comment. Indeed thinking about empowering humanity and joining our forces even while being from diverse cultures, values etc. An unproven story in context that is empowerment, metaphorically or otherwise, is meant to be an equivalent to reasoning with our children in an educative way. Other unproven stories that I would be inclined to see as not empowering is equivalent to encouraging or motivating humanity as a horse might be motivated by a whip.


What factors of the paradigm(s) suggested by the experiences can be drawn forth and measured as to attractiveness or not?

What underlying dynamics can be seen at play within the paradigm(s) suggested by the experiencer?

Indeed I would say the first is more congruent to the criteria I put forth, except perhaps I define a more specific criteria by which to measure attractiveness and I specify the factor(s) to be considered.

The second option would incline one to try and understand and evaluate the story-teller along with his/her story, rather than just the content of the story. But perhaps my understanding of that inclination is an introduction of my understanding only.

I'm quite happy my suggestion has entertained you, and thank you for the most thoughtful reply. I must confess that I read over your criteria without reading as much meaning into the details as I could have.

[Chester]

I'm not vetting anyone. This is your forum. I want to do a private research project on a different site.

This thread was started by another member and I responded. No one said they would tell you what to do. It might help the forum atmosphere if you weren't so overbearing and patriarchal with your decisions. You bill this site as a fresh alternative to Avalon, but the rules are heavy handed and strict. Threads get locked, and members banned way too easily.

Note: I also recommended this be done on a different site - perhaps as many other industries have... a watchdog site. In fact, it is so obviously clear this industry of "alternative media" absolutely needs one. It would need to be as fair and unbiased as humanly possible.

I also want to make it clear I understand TOT is not the place for this and would not be compatible with the environment wanted for TOT. I earlier suggested a sister site but its clear that would be still too close to home.

[Daozen]

Note: I also recommended this be done on a different site - perhaps as many other industries have... a watchdog site. In fact, it is so obviously clear this industry of "alternative media" absolutely needs one. It would need to be as fair and unbiased as humanly possible.

I also want to make it clear I understand TOT is not the place for this and would not be compatible with the environment wanted for TOT. I earlier suggested a sister site but its clear that would be still too close to home.

Thanks for your PM, I'll get back to you in a few days. I already set up the site...

It would help a lot if:

1) The staff set up a suggestions and comments thread so we could interact with them openly, instead of PMs and on multiple threads.
2) TOT had a clear "other forums" policy. Can we link to another Reddit openly here? Linking to other forums is considered out of order on some boards. I understand why. For now I'll just say that I recommend Malc + co open up a sister/mirror site on Reddit, because Reddit is a lot of fun. We could all interconnect our various subreddits. Just an idea. Reddit brings a much larger audience. It's an amazing site, and cuts your bandwidth bills to zero. It also has a downvote feature which cuts out 80 per cent of "moderation issues." - There could even be TOT subreddits focused on specialist subjects like bamboo housing etc. I know that I'm going to be setting up something like that soon, when I get time. I think the disclosure world is big enough for all of us and we all have a specific role to play. Posts on Bamboo housing have an immense effect on the timeline. More than anyone could imagine. You are literally sending out a vote into the universe and asking it to help you weave that line.... I have limited time in a day, so there's no way I could cover a subject like that in depth. Just an idea.

*

In general, we will keep the watchdog links out of here as I don't want to keep making staff uncomfortable. There's a huge disclosure world out there.

[Aragorn]

It would help a lot if:

1) The staff set up a suggestions and comments thread so we could interact with them openly, instead of PMs and on multiple threads.

We already have a place for that, here (http://jandeane81.com/forums/25-Site-Suggestions). ;)


[...]
For now I'll just say that I recommend Malc + co open up a sister/mirror site on Reddit, because Reddit is a lot of fun. We could all interconnect our various subreddits. Just an idea. Reddit brings a much larger audience. It's an amazing site, and cuts your bandwidth bills to zero. It also has a downvote feature which cuts out 80 per cent of "moderation issues." - There could even be TOT subreddits focused on specialist subjects like bamboo housing etc. I know that I'm going to be setting up something like that soon, when I get time. I think the disclosure world is big enough for all of us and we all have a specific role to play. Posts on Bamboo housing have an immense effect on the timeline. More than anyone could imagine. You are literally sending out a vote into the universe and asking it to help you weave that line.... I have limited time in a day, so there's no way I could cover a subject like that in depth. Just an idea.

After careful consideration of the above suggestion, the staff of The One Truth feels that the image here-below best represents our consensus.

https://blog.equinix.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Yes-No-blog.jpg

:p :ht: ;)

[Daozen]

OK, thanks for the answer, Aragorn... People PM'd me, so we will just do things on emails. I just wanted to be upfront with you about my plans...

[lcam88]

Short version: If anyone wants to work on a research project chronicling David Wilcock + others track record, please PM me. As this thread is making the mods uncomfortable, I won't say anything else.

I am specifically interested in Dr Pete Peterson. Do you know if Mr David Wilcock still has contact, if there is more information about the good doctor?

[Chester]

Contact Point,

Maybe a second way of rating sources can be based on how accurate they were in past predictions they had made. For example if someone says x will happen in or by 2017, but it doesn't, then that's 0 for 1.

To judge the criteria Sam lists on the OP would require subjective rating and so is not really objective by rigorous standards. How can you give a rating for the amount of defensiveness or manipulative language? Something more straightforward would have to be rated in order to be more objective.

I thought about the subjectivity aspect and here's my opinion.

If a "watchdog sight" provided both objectively achieved ratings (with backup)along with subjective assessments... and in time those subjective assessments proved largely accurate, then the watchdog could be more and more trusted and everyone would win but the frauds who's relevancy lifespans are dramatically reduced.

In addition... regarding the category "experiencers," it should be pointed out that just about all the content produced by "experiencers" (and I mean like over 99%) is all subjective. So certainly if the experiencer is expecting folks to "buy" what they are "selling" then the public should be able to hear subjective opinions about the "experiencer" - especially if the one providing the subjective opinion develops a reputation for accuracy and for remaining unbiased.

[Chester]

Well said. They are flailing... There's another subtle issue/method they use, I call it the Chicken Feed Rear-Guard tactic. Or "Riding the line"...


Is that like when one of the circular vetted/verifiers has a conflicting opinion as to another within "the club" and that finally one of the club members "gives in" by say things like..."I finally allowed myself to be convinced that alien group A is actually alien group B?" I saw that one a day or so ago and realized another aspect to "the game." One finally "gives in" to another's story so that they close the discrepancy gap so that their circular activities tighten like a fortress... well, a prison for the vulnerable.

[Chester]

I also have had to mute my mic as groans and slapping my forehead could be heard.



That's why I stick to emails.


Yet we give away the greatest gift we receive by being Human and that is direct interaction with other expressions of life.


My own personal story about how I got here has never been told and probably never will. My history is private, not to mention fantastical so, I just give people my persona to deal with and figure out, without "my truth". It has served me well and I fit in more easily. No need to be any more unique than is of utility.

My experience brought me through AA that when i heard peoples stories... what they called, "sharing their experience, strength and hope," my ego began to step aside as I saw some of myself in them... through their story.

Don't take this to mean I am pushing you to share your story... I am just sharing my own experience where hearing the stories of others helped me and I suspect may help others.