That's because the reptilians closed all the coal pits in the 80'sOriginally Posted by John Revolting
Sorry couldn't find Karl Marx emoticon, so Groucho will have to do.
Exactly my point. Am I supposed to accept that an entire race of alien beings are all into shit like Magret Thatcher, Tesco, war, ruthless capitalism & anything deemed to be destructive or evil.That's because the reptilians closed all the coal pits in the 80's
Sorry couldn't find Karl Marx emoticon, so Groucho will have to do.
Where are all the hippy aliens these days?
It makes no sense.
They were so busy getting stoned that they missed the flying saucer to Earth?
Actually the human loving imaginary aliens are out there too: http://www.zetatalk.com/
They seem nice and friendly. They look like the sort of naive, gullible aliens who would get suckered by a cold-call selling double-glazing. So why haven't they popped in for a cuppa?
The Jehova's Witnesses are running a better PR campaign and they are arguably weirder.
They've signed an exclusive deal to only save mankind from the impending apocalypse by channeling through Nancy Lieder (that's a great surname she has there, contains a clue as to the honestly of her claims). Why would an alien race travel all this way to save us and then communicate in a clear way, like by appearing on TV or something? That would allow us all to hear the message, when they could alternatively do it by speaking telepathically to one nutter who then sets up a website that 99% of the world's population never even hear about.
Your problem John, is that you have a brain. Stop using it and you will find that the reptiloids, Zetans, etc, all start to make much more sense.
Well just when you thought I had p*ssed off for good here I am again - a catastrophic hard drive crash and a truly toasted PC notwithstanding...
I have read Matt's posts with great interest and I doff my cap to his researching skills. There is certainly a great deal of information out there to counter the theory that Hollie was abused by powerful figures in the Scottish establishment, and he has very diligently brought this to our attention.
I do have to say though that I am rather intrigued by the epistemological issues that arise from situations such as this one. At the risk of repeating myself, I ask the question; how can it be viable to rely purely on such hard evidence as remains when there is a distinct possibility that there has been a concerted attempt to remove or discredit it?
Let me ask you another question. A rumour had been circulating on the internet, some years before this issue had become mainstream news, to the effect that there was a group of vulnerable children who were being routinely and systematically abused by a cabal of well known and respected parish priests. Given that, at the time, there would have been no 'hard evidence', and, for this reason, the media wouldn't have been involved and the Police may not have deemed it necessary to instigate an investigation, and on the basis of most of the comments on this thread, I think it fair to say that most of you would have sat on your hands, quite glibly stating that there must be some 'loony David Icke fan' out there stirring up a lot of 'nonsense' (a word that has cropped up again and again on this thread) or worse, that the story has been propogated by, and I quote, "a sicko who fantasises about child abuse."
With the benefit of hindsight we can all surely see that this narrow minded and dogmatic approach to the investigation of subjects that fall under the banner of 'conspiracy theories' does have some potentially fatal flaws.
I notice that Matt is rather fond of citing the conundrum of Russel's Pisspot (or something of that nature) to demonstrate the fallibility of believing in something that we cannot see and for the existence of which there could be no empirical evidence. I have another quote from the great Bert himself which I would like to propose as a challenge to those Skeptics who appear to cleave to the notion that a reliance upon the dogma that the establishment of empirical fact is the only dependable path to the establishment of the existence of a crime (or shall we say 'conspiracy'), notwithstanding the fact that, in all probability, all of the supporting evidence for these facts, and all of the witnesses too, would have been systematically undermined or destroyed by the perpetrators.
He said "‘‘If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.’’
Could it not also be argued that a wilful disregard of common sense when it comes to the plausibility of 'uncomfortable truths', has its origin in the same mindset?
You really can't grasp this point can you?
It has been explained to you several times but you just keep coming back with the same daft argument!
Can't you see that this quote actually describes you?
Think about how much evidence you actually have and how easily you accept it as proof of guilt.
Russell is describing what's known as Confirmation Bias- something you display in droves!
.
Look, you ******* *****, you cannot believe anything to be true without SOME sort of evidence. Removing or obscuring evidence from any record leaves it's own trail and makes it HARDER to achieve the object.
REALITY CHECK: No substantive evidence = no case to answer under the law of the land.
Frankly, with no evidence, I get the impression that this poster, or should I say poseur, is talking bs when they say computer problems. It looks like a deliberately thought out retort to the usual uskskeps wisdom (special respect to Matt).
I reckon there is a sriou srebuttal effort here. Good thig is, since do not believe in conspiracy theory without evidence, we do not live in China. This means that teh official rebuttal units are pathetic and slow here.
Here's my response to the response. Do stop talking such pure and unrefined anal output!
If a rumour was founded in reality, there'd ultimately have to be people prepared to give evidence to the police in order for it to advance beyond a rumour.
In fact, there'd have to be someone prepared to talk to someone in order to justify a rumour being more than just an invention.
If such people exist, the extent to which a rumour is blieved or not by random people seems pretty unimportant, since whether you, I, or any other random citizen wonders if a rumour is true makes sod-all difference to what actually happens.
Were there actually an investigation and then a media report based on an actual criminal case, that seemes far more likely to encourage people to come forward than some vague rumour about unnamed individuals and priests.
There are some people who get pleasure out of having been one of the first people to believe a rumour if that rumour actually turns out to be true.
There are some people who get pleasure out of believing a rumour even before the time when they know whether it's true, since they have a need to look down on other people which they can't actually satisfy by being a particularly worthwhile person in real life.
Personally, I don't see that there's a great deal of credit in believing in rumours before evidence is available. To the extent I wonder about things, it's more a matter of keeping options open rather than closing them down.
But then, I suppose I don't feel a burning need to demonstrate my genius by how quickly I can jump to conclusions in advance of evidence, since doing that doesn't actually require any kind of skill, merely recklessness and (frequently) a lack of concern for the effects of one's actions on other people.
If I want validation, I get it from doing something useful that actually requires intelligence or skill, rather than competing to see how quickly I can think the worst of people in the hope I'll be proved right.
If there were rumours around about abuse by clergy, and then a police investigation started, even if the investigation had started due to a couple of people going to the police for personal reasons (like their child getting to a particular age), or because they'd seen news reports on court cases abroad, or due to a general atmosphere where abuse was discussed more in the media, I don't doubt that many of the people quick to believe rumours would try to claim credit for the power of rumour, since the kind of person eager to jump to conclusions is often going to be the kind of person who isn't exactly objective or pessimistic when it comes to assessing their own significance.
Since you appreciate my researching skills I'll happily share my techniques. What I was interesteded in was the quality of sources. A basic reading of this thread tells us that the source for most of this is Robert Green. It's quite standard to check on the quality of sources so I googled his name. Unfortunately he shares his name with a supposedly professional international footballer. So I narrowed the search a little: Robert Green Hollie Grieg.
If you do the search right now you'll see the page I found, first in the list. Unfortunately it's now just a holding page but click on cached and you'll see.
It's just basic checking of sources.
What we have to consider is the quantity of evidence available vs the quality of evidence we should expect.I do have to say though that I am rather intrigued by the epistemological issues that arise from situations such as this one. At the risk of repeating myself, I ask the question; how can it be viable to rely purely on such hard evidence as remains when there is a distinct possibility that there has been a concerted attempt to remove or discredit it?
It's all very well to say that we wouldn't expect any evidence at all but that's not quite what we see.
We have Hollie's reported testimony. Now I have no right to walk into a police station and ask to see the case file. However Hollie and Anne do have the right to see their own statement. They do have the right to copy that to anyone who they think should see it. For example Mark Daly the respected BBC Journalist. (Now Mark says he dropped the investigation because there wasn't enough evidence to make a case. But then again If he had been threatened or coerced to drop the case that's what he would say wouldn't he. You just have to decide if the journalist behind this is easily intimidated by corrupt authorities.)
Then there's the medical evidence. We're told one thing and again we have no right to access the medical records ourselves. However Hollie and Anne can. And they can reveal that to whoever they like. What Lance Greg Watkins says was revealed actually flat out contradicts what we're told.
What else might we expect?
Sadly you're not narrowing this down. There have been many such stories. In most of them we actually have more than a roumour. We have multiple corroberating statement from independent witnesses.Let me ask you another question. A rumour had been circulating on the internet, some years before this issue had become mainstream news, to the effect that there was a group of vulnerable children who were being routinely and systematically abused by a cabal of well known and respected parish priests.
No I don't think so. I think we would have examined the evidence and reached our own conclusions. If there was indeed corroborating evidence you can see that this is far more persuasive than a single witness.Given that, at the time, there would have been no 'hard evidence', and, for this reason, the media wouldn't have been involved and the Police may not have deemed it necessary to instigate an investigation, and on the basis of most of the comments on this thread, I think it fair to say that most of you would have sat on your hands, quite glibly stating that there must be some 'loony David Icke fan' out there stirring up a lot of 'nonsense' (a word that has cropped up again and again on this thread) or worse, that the story has been propogated by, and I quote, "a sicko who fantasises about child abuse."
So should we expect corroborating witnesses from such a wide ranging conspiracy?
With the benefit of hindsight we can all surely see that this narrow minded and dogmatic approach to the investigation of subjects that fall under the banner of 'conspiracy theories' does have some potentially fatal flaws.
Yes your straw man is fatally flawed. NOt however the argument of assessing evidence on it's merrits or placng the burden of proof where it belongs.
Haha pisspot very good. Russel's argument may yet crumbles against the force of your scatological sarcasm if you just keep at it. Not yet however. Keep trying though it shows your class.I notice that Matt is rather fond of citing the conundrum of Russel's Pisspot (or something of that nature) to demonstrate the fallibility of believing in something that we cannot see and for the existence of which there could be no empirical evidence.
Not only, just a tested and reliable way. If you have another methodoly just as good I'll listen.I have another quote from the great Bert himself which I would like to propose as a challenge to those Skeptics who appear to cleave to the notion that a reliance upon the dogma that the establishment of empirical fact is the only dependable path to the establishment of the existence of a crime (or shall we say 'conspiracy'),
Sounds like a lot of effort to go to just to sleep with children. How much is a ticket to Thailand these days?notwithstanding the fact that, in all probability, all of the supporting evidence for these facts, and all of the witnesses too, would have been systematically undermined or destroyed by the perpetrators.
I agree entirely. I'm familiar with that and similar warnings against confirmation bias. However you might have fallen into the trap of assuming what is in my instincts. I have no problem with the idea that institutions may be corrupt, or that pedophiles rings exist. The problem I have is with large pervasive organisations that are perfectly proficient at eliminating all evidence for their existence and activities. It's not even that I insist that all such groups are necessarily fictional. Bletchley Park did a damn good job of covering up operation ultra for three decades whilst employing a staff of thousands and involoving hundreds of ancillaries into the conspiracy.He said "‘‘If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.’’
NO the problem I have is that once such an organisation has been posited it allow people free reign to propose anything, unencumbered by a complete lack of evidence.
It's not that I demand hard evidence. It's that I demand at least some credible evidence and will only infer from the evidence provided what is actually implied rather than the rest of a story which may well be manufactured.
Since there are literally infinitely more manufactured stories possible than there can be true conspiracies whilst I recognise that this approach may occasionally be wrong the odds are that it's far more accurate than simply accepting any self consistent story which waves away the need for evidence with tall tales of long shadows.
As for this story. I'm afraid it no longer even looks self consistent.
You're still asserting that we reject this story because it's uncomfortable, rather than because the evidence that supports it is of a lower quality then we'd expect to see even with the most competent of conspiracies working to obscure the facts.Could it not also be argued that a wilful disregard of common sense when it comes to the plausibility of 'uncomfortable truths', has its origin in the same mindset?
Errm my point is that it may also describe people like you, or didn't you get that?
In fact, what this quote describes is anyone who can't allow for any alternative viewpoints to those that they hold to be true, because they are so utterly entrenched in their own belief systems.
IN my view, Skeptics are just as fallible as all the rest of us, in fact all the more so, because so many of them appear to have a rather self serving belief that the way that they look at the world is the only correct and viable one...
Are you drunk?
You're missing the point. It's not about how many people are 'prepared to talk' it's about how many people are prepared to listen, and how many are willing to give some credence to something that may be uncomfortable to countenance, or may 'go against the grain' in some way
SO you are quite happy to allow the 'Powers that be' (i.e. Police, Politicians, Media etc.) to be your arbiters of what is a 'cause for concern' and rest assured that if it doesn't appear on the 10 o' clock news there's nothing going on and nothing to worry about? How credulous is that?
Pure conjecture - sorry, I thought Skeptics were supposed to be a bit more intellectually rigorous that this
more conjecture
yawn
You do realise, I take it, that children were being systematically and horrifically abused by Catholic priests over decades and decades and this was perpetuated because, although the victims, and others who were aware of what was going on were 'prepared to talk' people who didn't want to 'think the worst' were not prepared to listen; in fact they were employing exactly the same lazy and complacent 'reasoning' as you are in this post?
If we're talking about Skeptics being capable of 'confirmation bias' then I rest my case....
In the case where something actually has happened, and there are one or more victims:
If no-one is going to talk to the police, my rushing to believe rumours seems unlikely to make a difference.
If people are going to talk to the police, my rushing to believe rumours also seems unlikely to make a difference.
It doesn't seem likely that my believing a rumour or not is likely to affect the chances of a victim talking to the police or other agencies.
I'm happy to let the people who have actually experienced crime be responsible for reporting it, rather than hoping that nth-hand rumours will somehow magically kick the authorities into action.
Especially in the cases of things like sexual abuse, it seems likely that the authorities will do a better job than gossips, especially given the number of people out there with a burning desire to think badly of and look down on other people, and retarded attitudes such as 'no smoke without fire'.
I take it that you realise that the people who weren't prepared to listen were in the first instance, family who assumed priests could do no wrong, coupled with a general attitude in society that didn't realise the extent of abuse that happened?
That's rather different from people hearing some n'th-hand rumour.
If someone comes to me and said they'd personally been abused, I think advising them to report it would be more valuable than starting a rumour.
If I heard an n'th hand rumour that someone I didn't know had been abused, I'd have no basis for working out even very roughly how likely it was to be true unless there was good accompanying evidence, which would make it rather more than a rumour, and also render my belief in it likely rather unimportant, since evidence sufficient to convince me should be able to convince others without needing the support of my Mighty Opinion.
I'm not aware that rumour and gossip was actually the thing that caused things to change in the child abuse area, more the realisation among professionals of what could happen, general media publicity and growing awareness of abuse making it easier for more people to come forward.
After all, when it comes to growing awareness of child abuse, we are rather talking about the time before the masses accessed the internet.
My point is that I don't see the particular value of rumour in most situations.
I don't see rumour as some kind of sport, where I can get a nice warm glow if it turns out that I've been quicker to jump to negative conclusions about someone than the average person was.
I don't have such a high opinion of myself that I think that my believing something or not is likely to influence whether someone I've never met goes to the police to report a crime.
I also don't have such a high opinion of myself that I trust myself to reliably jump to conclusions based on evidence rather weaker than might cause proper media to be interested in a story.
A large part of being a skeptic is not having an excessive confidence in one's own judgements.
As for any particular case of an alleged crime, if there isn't sufficient evidence to sustain a criminal investigation, let alone have a trial, and there isn't likely to be, or to justify media coverage, what's the point in my making guesses about the guilt of individuals I'm never likely to meet?
What do I gain, and/or what does anyone else gain?
Assuming it's not just entertainment, or a quest for feelings of outrage and superiority, of course.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks