The Disclosure Project

[Light]

I REALLY REALLY REALLY want to know what qualifies him to make the overconfident, self-assured, misleading, and quite uninformed declarations that he did, while throwing out insults towards people like myself who "believe such garbage", not bothering to respond further, and then lamenting the "idiots" who frequent this part of the forum.

It is clear that Light is a hypocrite.

His unrestrained epithets towards people who believe there very well may be something in crop circles and elsewhere that science can't readily account for, and his simultaneous ignorance about that subject really gets my goat and leaves mysterious puncture wounds.

I never "whined" at all. And the answer to all your confusion about me and my attitude is clear to anyone who actually bothers to use his mind. I deal in facts and only facts while the "idiots", as I rightly call, them deal in fantasies. There's certainly no hypocrisy involved in that.

Openly admitting, as you do, that crop circles and the like are the result of "other-worldly" forces smacks of mysticism, superstition, etc. Hardly science at all. And science is what interests me, not fiction.

 

[Gustav]

Actually, I did feel kind of guilty. See, I've never known much about the Disclosure Project, so I haven't much to say about it one way or the other.

haha
i have not read it either. hey! i just went on the site for the first time. neat!

 

[Giambattista]

Well, well, well!!! Finally, The Scholar sends me his reply!

I never "whined" at all. And the answer to all your confusion about me and my attitude is clear to anyone who actually bothers to use his mind. I deal in facts and only facts while the "idiots", as I rightly call, them deal in fantasies. There's certainly no hypocrisy involved in that.

What facts are those? I am referring here to the crop circle phenomenon, and your out-of-hand dismissal of physical characteristics. You stated emphatically several "facts" about crop circle research and findings which were false, the most glaring being that these biological changes have never been observed.
You call your mere proclamations fact? By what authority? Are you some kind of god?

This isn't so much directed at you, Giambattista, as it is the people who have written the kinds of things you've read and repeated here.

This is what happens all too often when people with just a bare minimum of scientific knowledge (and the right impressive words) take it upon themselves to talk about things of which they really know nothing at all!

Who has the bare minimum of scientific knowledge here? Referring to me? Referring to the people who have written the kinds of things I've read and repeated here? Who is this you speak of?

As far as crop circle research goes, the bulk of the tests have been performed by biophysicist William C. Levengood, who works at Pinelandia Biophysical Laboratory in Michigan, with occasional assistance from other disciplines along the way.

You, however, seem to be implying that he has produced nothing of scientific value. In fact, you appear to be completely unaware of his work, which is WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO IN THE FIRST PLACE, which you proceeded to ridicule as an idiot passing on mere hearsay! And you CLAIM to be dealing in facts?
I hope you know better than to group me with these "idiots" you keep referring to.

Openly admitting, as you do, that crop circles and the like are the result of "other-worldly" forces smacks of mysticism, superstition, etc. Hardly science at all. And science is what interests me, not fiction.

Other-worldly? Are you putting words in my mouth?

very well may be something in crop circles and elsewhere that science can't readily account for

"Readily account for" does NOT necessarily translate into other-worldly.

Science interests you? You called very real scientific investigation into crop circles fiction, and you continue to ignore the fact that you stated something that was demonstrably false.

Can you do any better than that?

 

[Giambattista]

haha
i have not read it either. hey! i just went on the site for the first time. neat!

It is interesting. Did you get the video link that moementum posted? I watched the first half hour last night. It's kind of slow going.

Or are you talking about an official site run by Greer? Egads, I've never looked at THAT! It would behoove me, I suppose, to do so...

 

[Giambattista]

In fact, you appear to be completely unaware of his work, which is WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO IN THE FIRST PLACE, which you proceeded to ridicule as an idiot passing on mere hearsay! And you CLAIM to be dealing in facts?

Also funny that you failed to acknowledge Levengood et al.'s work after declaring that such stuff was fictional.

 

[Light]

Who has the bare minimum of scientific knowledge here? Referring to me? Referring to the people who have written the kinds of things I've read and repeated here? Who is this you speak of?

If you'll bother to read the actual quote you are refering to here, you'll clearly see that I was talking about people who produced the things "you have reproduced here."

As far as crop circle research goes, the bulk of the tests have been performed by biophysicist William C. Levengood, who works at Pinelandia Biophysical Laboratory in Michigan, with occasional assistance from other disciplines along the way.

I'm going to stop at this point in order to make something VERY clear to you. Leavengood was once considered a "maverick" in the world of biophysics but after his so-called work on crop circles, he became the laughing-stock of the field. It's also sort of worth noting that his two partners in BLT Research are a businessman (Burke) and a musical producer (Talbott). Nothing wrong with their choices of business but they hardly lend any credibility to field of science!!

Levengood's "work" is pure poppycock and recognized as such by the scientific community. You'd best find a different champion for your cause.

 

[Agitprop]

If you'll bother to read the actual quote you are refering to here, you'll clearly see that I was talking about people who produced the things "you have reproduced here."



I'm going to stop at this point in order to make something VERY clear to you. Leavengood was once considered a "maverick" in the world of biophysics but after his so-called work on crop circles, he became the laughing-stock of the field. It's also sort of worth noting that his two partners in BLT Research are a businessman (Burke) and a musical producer (Talbott). Nothing wrong with their choices of business but they hardly lend any credibility to field of science!!

Levengood's "work" is pure poppycock and recognized as such by the scientific community. You'd best find a different champion for your cause.

Light, to criticize someone's work is one thing, to criticize their social standing, which is more about form than substance, is another. It matters not one bit how HE is viewed but how his work is viewed when and if it is vetted by establishment science, minus the blinkers of social embarrassment. Please don't play this card. It's so old.

 

[Gustav]

strange
i havent seen anyone here actually criticize his work. you know, dispute his findings, point out specific errors and then provide an alternate theory.

perhaps i missed it. link?

 

[Gustav]

Leavengood was once considered a "maverick" in the world of biophysics but after his so-called work on crop circles, he became the laughing-stock of the field.

so? what is your point? is this where i am forced to play the galileo gambit? i refuse. i'll do schopenhauer instead

all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident.

/cackle

It's also sort of worth noting that his two partners in BLT Research are a businessman (Burke) and a musical producer (Talbott). Nothing wrong with their choices of business but they hardly lend any credibility to field of science!!

you prefer that this non-profit and tax-exempt company be staffed entirely by biologists? i did not know that associating with mba's can taint the field of science. in any case what are their roles in this company? are they doing research and writing papers? what info can you offer on the relationships?

perhaps an example....wozniack focused on code, jobs on marketing. apple is now quite respected. would you like to comment on the status of "credibility" and "field of science" with regards to these two?

i can drag out lots of biotech firms that have mba's patnering with scientists for mutual benefit and an advancement of both science and society. perhaps profit is the problem?

 

[Gustav]

battista

Who has the bare minimum of scientific knowledge here? Referring to me? Referring to the people who have written the kinds of things I've read and repeated here? Who is this you speak of?

now! pay attention!

This isn't so much directed at you, Giambattista, as it is the people who have written the kinds of things you've read and repeated here.

think primary and secondary directions. the writers come first and you second. you are however, definitely a target.

If you'll bother to read the actual quote you are refering to here, you'll clearly see that I was talking about people who produced the things "you have reproduced here."

now go tell light he is guilty of the sin of ommission and selective...something

/cackle

 

[Gustav]

*I deal in facts and only facts........

*Openly admitting, as you do, that crop circles and the like are the result of "other-worldly" forces smacks of mysticism, superstition, etc.

i need to see this particular "fact"
do oblige or do the gentlemanly thing

i know you can either way

 

[Light]

Light, to criticize someone's work is one thing, to criticize their social standing, which is more about form than substance, is another. It matters not one bit how HE is viewed but how his work is viewed when and if it is vetted by establishment science, minus the blinkers of social embarrassment. Please don't play this card. It's so old.

I never once criticized his social standing, rather his scientific (professional) standing. And it didn't begin with me. Also, it is because of his "work" and nothing personal at all.

I'm sure you are aware that in the scientific community, there is little that is more important to a researcher than his/her reputation. By his very on hand he destroyed his. (Not me, I wasn't involved one bit and all I've done here is report how his peers view him.)

 

[Giambattista]

I'm going to stop at this point in order to make something VERY clear to you. Leavengood was once considered a "maverick" in the world of biophysics but after his so-called work on crop circles, he became the laughing-stock of the field. It's also sort of worth noting that his two partners in BLT Research are a businessman (Burke) and a musical producer (Talbott). Nothing wrong with their choices of business but they hardly lend any credibility to field of science!!

Levengood's "work" is pure poppycock and recognized as such by the scientific community. You'd best find a different champion for your cause.

Champion? My cause?

One of my very first posts in that thread:

I believe that certainly many of them are done by humanoids. Homo sapiens. I'm not so sure about all of them though.

I believe that's a very fair position to hold.

From my response to your tirade in the Crop Circle thread:

I'm not a "specialist" on the topic of crop circles in any manner. I have a passing interest, nothing more. I saw the thread, thought I would say a few things.

I am very aware of questions people have about Levengood's findings. I didn't quote them because I necessarily believed them, but your little speech gave the impression that NO ONE had even DONE such examinations. If that was not your intention, then assuredly, it wasn't readily discernible.

As for being a maverick or even an outcast, I have no idea about that, but I can imagine. I have done a fair amount of reading on the subject, and Levengood himself, and have not seen anything controversial about his career other than of course, criticisms of his findings on crop circle formations.

Where did you get the idea about his "maverick" status in the biology field?

 

[Light]

Champion? My cause?

One of my very first posts in that thread:



I believe that's a very fair position to hold.

From my response to your tirade in the Crop Circle thread:



I am very aware of questions people have about Levengood's findings. I didn't quote them because I necessarily believed them, but your little speech gave the impression that NO ONE had even DONE such examinations. If that was not your intention, then assuredly, it wasn't readily discernible.

As for being a maverick or even an outcast, I have no idea about that, but I can imagine. I have done a fair amount of reading on the subject, and Levengood himself, and have not seen anything controversial about his career other than of course, criticisms of his findings on crop circle formations.

Where did you get the idea about his "maverick" status in the biology field?

Very sorry and I apologize for labeling it "your cause." One thing is that I very infrequently visit this particular forum. It's only when things tend to slow down to a stop in the ones I visit regularly. As a result of that, I tend to forget who is a true believer - to the extent of claiming other-worldly causes - and who has just a passing interest in the subject. Again, I sincerely apologize that I mistakenly place you in the wrong crowd.

I've never met the man but his name came up in a seminar I attended years ago and a slight chuckle ran through the whole crowd. That was well before his involvement with the crop circles and I knew nothing of him at that time. I inquired about the joke of the people sitting near me and they all nodded in agreement with each other about what I relayed to you here. He had already gained a reputation then for dabbling on the fringes where no reputable researcher would go. That earned him the label "maverick."

 

[Agitprop]

I never once criticized his social standing, rather his scientific (professional) standing. And it didn't begin with me. Also, it is because of his "work" and nothing personal at all.

I'm sure you are aware that in the scientific community, there is little that is more important to a researcher than his/her reputation. By his very on hand he destroyed his. (Not me, I wasn't involved one bit and all I've done here is report how his peers view him.)

A "laughing stock" is not a description peer review journals regularly use when analyzing a scientist's work. Radioactive descriptors like that are generally used to socially embarass not only the person described but anyone who would even peruse his work. The fall-out occurs in the professional realm, but it begins in the social, not professional sphere.

I am not interested in whether people find this man amusing, I'm concerned with his work. Social embarassment is like a contagion that keeps the socially conscious away from subjects that deserve clear scrutiny. Your attempts to spread the virus of "awkward feeling" on the board are amusing to one who has studied propaganda. If you have this particular virus yourself and want to immunize yourself from future social embarrassments, may I suggest attending a stranger's church wedding and farting as loud as humanly possible during the exchanging of vows? The bean dip helps.

If you survive this you are ready to take on another disease, the sclerotic effects of scientific dogma, and it's cohabiting parasite, scientism.

 

[Giambattista]

battista

now! pay attention!

I did.

think primary and secondary directions. the writers come first and you second. you are however, definitely a target.

Yes. I was aware from the start that there were two parties being addressed.
I wanted to know who exactly had bare minimum scientific knowledge. Regardless of W.C. Levengood's conclusions, one can't accuse him of being a kindergartner when it comes to knowledge of science, particularly biological science.
It was nice that he finally addressed Levengood and his studies. It is also fair to critique his studies, methods, and findings, and if that leads one to throw them out as inconclusive or even fraudulent, so be it.
I personally feel that his studies are interesting, even if they are inconclusive. He is, as I already stated, not quite a champion of "my cause", as Light suggested. We must also remember that while the subject of this thread is about UFOs ( nein, the Disclosure Projekt!!!), in everything I have read, Levengood's theory of crop circle formation revolves around a mysterious "plasma vortex".

At the very least, he should be applauded for being one of the very few persons to undertake such in-depth analyses of the physical materials from crop circles. And that may be one of the problems; he seems to be one of a handful of people willing to examine the phenomenon up close.

now go tell light he is guilty of the sin of ommission and selective...something

/cackle

Eh? :bugeye:

 

[Light]

A "laughing stock" is not a description peer review journals regularly use when analyzing a scientist's work. Radioactive descriptors like that are generally used to socially embarass not only the person described but anyone who would even peruse his work. The fall-out occurs in the professional realm, but it begins in the social, not professional sphere.

I am not interested in whether people find this man amusing, I'm concerned with his work. Social embarassment is like a contagion that keeps the socially conscious away from subjects that deserve clear scrutiny. Your attempts to spread the virus of "awkward feeling" on the board are amusing to one who has studied propaganda. If you have this particular virus yourself and want to immunize yourself from future social embarrassments, may I suggest attending a stranger's church wedding and farting as loud as humanly possible during the exchanging of vows? The bean dip helps.

If you survive this you are ready to take on another disease, the sclerotic effects of scientific dogma, and it's cohabiting parasite, scientism.

Quite, the contrary, I'm afraid you'll find if you talk with these people. A professional's first response to 'very questionable' research is to question it. The second is to demand the researcher in question offer better proof on his position. Failing that, the next level is outright ridicule.

I'm sorry that you disapprove of that and sometimes I feel it's a little overly harsh myself. But that's life and that's the way it is. These people take their business (science) deathly serious. Three solid strikes and the 'offender' is very much out .

 

[Giambattista]

Very sorry and I apologize for labeling it "your cause." One thing is that I very infrequently visit this particular forum. It's only when things tend to slow down to a stop in the ones I visit regularly. As a result of that, I tend to forget who is a true believer - to the extent of claiming other-worldly causes - and who has just a passing interest in the subject. Again, I sincerely apologize that I mistakenly place you in the wrong crowd.

Fair enough. I think also the blanket name-calling should be kept to a minimum.

I've never met the man but his name came up in a seminar I attended years ago and a slight chuckle ran through the whole crowd. That was well before his involvement with the crop circles and I knew nothing of him at that time. I inquired about the joke of the people sitting near me and they all nodded in agreement with each other about what I relayed to you here. He had already gained a reputation then for dabbling on the fringes where no reputable researcher would go. That earned him the label "maverick."

A bunch of people chuckling at someone else isn't quite enough to be a deciding factor in whether I accept or reject Levengood's findings. It is duly noted, however.

What was the seminar about, exactly, that his name would come up?

 

[Light]

Fair enough. I think also the blanket name-calling should be kept to a minimum.



A bunch of people chuckling at someone else isn't quite enough to be a deciding factor in whether I accept or reject Levengood's findings. It is duly noted, however.

What was the seminar about, exactly, that his name would come up?

"The Future of Genetic Engineering." Sponsored by the National Science Foundation and held in Trenton, N.J. Something like 1,500 attended.

 

[Agitprop]

Quite, the contrary, I'm afraid you'll find if you talk with these people. A professional's first response to 'very questionable' research is to question it. The second is to demand the researcher in question offer better proof on his position. Failing that, the next level is outright ridicule.

I'm sorry that you disapprove of that and sometimes I feel it's a little overly harsh myself. But that's life and that's the way it is. These people take their business (science) deathly serious. Three solid strikes and the 'offender' is very much out .

A professional's first response to "very questionable" research is often to ridicule it. And bare in mind we're talking case by case here, so if you're going to cast aspersions on someone's work, by suggesting scientists of a high caliber don't support it, and you can't produce documentation of any kind to support these statements that's not only unscientific, it doesn't meet the meager requirements of yellow journalism.