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

[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"

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

Thank you so much....