The Intuitive Who Cried Wolf

JohnnyBGoode · 10-13-2008, 11:18 PM

Hello everyone,

Here we are on the eve of another astounding prediction. I must admit that it would be the thrill of my life if these events were to take place. Unfortunately, disappointment most always results and I am no longer willing to accept the explanation that everyone's "positive vibes" changed the timeline. (or some variation on that theme)

I am willing, however, to continue to listen to ALL whistle blower testimony that comes forth and, like Bill and Kerry, am willing to take the initial conversation at face value. I think this is absolutely critical to encouraging and emboldening future whistle blowers.

What I believe is missing is the next step. How does one assess the claims? Are there a set of factors that one should consider when making an evaluation?

I am looking for some fellow Ground Crew members who are interested in, at a minimum, having a deep discussion about evaluating claims. My initial thought is that this should take place off of the boards. I'd like to consider creating a guide or white paper that would offer some guidance (not rules) about how one might approach evaluating a claim. (to be posted here for free of course)

Two of the most obvious examples of simple criteria are:

1. Does the person making the claim present reasonable proof that he/she was in a position or place in time to actually acquire the information? e.g. Worked for NASA. Worked for the "Skunk Works", etc.

2. Does the person making the claim have a book or other product for sale on their personal site?

So...anyone interested? There is some good "wheat" here on Avalon but a whole lot of "chaff". How are we going to begin separating the two?

Take care everyone,
Johnny

ps. Politely and respectfully questioning a claim is not negativity. It is reason.

10-13-2008, 11:18 PM	#1
JohnnyBGoode Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 4	The Intuitive Who Cried Wolf Hello everyone, Here we are on the eve of another astounding prediction. I must admit that it would be the thrill of my life if these events were to take place. Unfortunately, disappointment most always results and I am no longer willing to accept the explanation that everyone's "positive vibes" changed the timeline. (or some variation on that theme) I am willing, however, to continue to listen to ALL whistle blower testimony that comes forth and, like Bill and Kerry, am willing to take the initial conversation at face value. I think this is absolutely critical to encouraging and emboldening future whistle blowers. What I believe is missing is the next step. How does one assess the claims? Are there a set of factors that one should consider when making an evaluation? I am looking for some fellow Ground Crew members who are interested in, at a minimum, having a deep discussion about evaluating claims. My initial thought is that this should take place off of the boards. I'd like to consider creating a guide or white paper that would offer some guidance (not rules) about how one might approach evaluating a claim. (to be posted here for free of course) Two of the most obvious examples of simple criteria are: 1. Does the person making the claim present reasonable proof that he/she was in a position or place in time to actually acquire the information? e.g. Worked for NASA. Worked for the "Skunk Works", etc. 2. Does the person making the claim have a book or other product for sale on their personal site? So...anyone interested? There is some good "wheat" here on Avalon but a whole lot of "chaff". How are we going to begin separating the two? Take care everyone, Johnny ps. Politely and respectfully questioning a claim is not negativity. It is reason. Last edited by JohnnyBGoode; 10-13-2008 at 11:24 PM.