PDA

View Full Version : How do we know when a source or a person is a hoaxer



rgray222
11th December 2010, 20:52
This is the first time I have started a conversation on Avalon so go easy! Thanks

For the most part Avalonians seem really good posting source links to their comments or at least explaining how and where they obtained certain information.

My questions is how do we know that a source is a hoaxer or for real. It is my observation on Avalon that many times someone identifies a source or a person as a hoaxer that is the end of the conversation. It is a bit like calling someone a racist, whether it is true or not that person is tainted with that stigma forever. Not many (at least that I have seen) say this source is a known hoaxer and "here is the proof" or this is "how I know this source is not to be taken seriously".

Just because someone tried to debunk a story does not make that source less credible, on occasion it actually makes it more credible (at least to me) and it tells me that the Powers That Be do not want this story to get legs.

I guess what I am saying is that when we condemn a source or a person we should at least tell people why we believe them to be a poor source of information instead of just saying he/she is a known hoaxer.

I hope this is taken in the spirit that it is meant.

shadowstalker
11th December 2010, 21:49
I understand what you are saying, I have been saying it for so long now

Rocky_Shorz
11th December 2010, 21:52
the information discussed in this forum covers the spectrum from black to white, some sources like Sorchal we have all seen a hundred times and the moment that is where a story is traced back to silences all discussion.

but as for figuring out which stories you believe, comes down to instincts...

if someone walked you to the edge of a bridge and said it was ok to step off you wouldn't fall...

you bust out laughing and continue on your way...

take what you read here for enjoyment and keep an eye on Bill...

when he gets worried...

listen...

Bill Ryan
11th December 2010, 21:56
----------

Good post, and an important question.

My personal stance (having been at the receiving end unjustly several times!) is not to call anyone out as a hoaxer unless I'm willing to explain why and have looked at the matter very closely. I never take anyone else's word or opinion on this. It's important not to.

To say casually (as happens on many forums) "I think this guy is a hoaxer" is intellectual laziness - and potentially very damaging to good people.

And having said that, there are hoaxes. It's important to identify them. But like someone being tried for a crime in court, it's important to present evidence correctly and with integrity - and get the verdict right.

To be cavalier, sloppy or just plain vindictive about this can ruin reputations and careers and just does the controllers' work for them.

timerty
11th December 2010, 21:56
Each person has to determine it for himself/herself ultimately.

One has to research as much as possible. Then if the information does not fit into a person's accumulated perceived reality, then it would not seem real but fake.

Dragonfly
11th December 2010, 22:09
We do have to be very careful in terms of categorizing people. Please consider that there is hardly ever only truth - or only lie. Very often information is blurred, and also depending strongly on someones percecption resp. anticipation. Kind regards, Dragonfly

Carmody
11th December 2010, 23:45
This is why I read everything and listen to everything and watch everything. My example is that..I was GOING to bring up an 'example' of a person that I FEEL is a hoaxer,and say that my feeling is that they are a hoaxer or is 'deranged', but that falls into the trap. The trap created by my personal perceptions. My desire to wave this person in front of others as someone I FEEL may be a hoaxer. Which is a wrong thing to do. The wrong way of handling it, at the least - it would have been.

We need to bring our perceptions, our reason, our investigative skills.. and our intuition to the table.... but we must also find balance.

Zillah
12th December 2010, 00:18
with enough supporting evidence, the very same thing in question can be as truthful as it can be a lie. it depends on perception, how good the argument is, and how easily people are swayed.

nothing is final, and no truth is for certain - because ultimately we do not have answer for all things. we try to swim intellectually in a pool of mystery, and we try to turn its water into concrete ...

i've done the endless debate, heated arguments and spent endless nights searching... both into my self and in/with others... but i always come back to this realization: that my truth is what resonates without me having to overthink too hard about it, and im comfortable with it changing constantly. i no longer overconcern myself with whether or not people decide to disagree with me because i know our truths are much like the geometrical snowflakes that sift from the sky - albeit similar in composition, they all remain unique, and none are completely alike - but are all totally relevant in the equation of life.

i enjoy this thread, thank you all for being you :)

sjkted
12th December 2010, 03:40
I would say of the sources I have seen on Camelot/Avalon, very few of them were intentionally misrepresenting themselves for personal gain. In many cases, they are people who have been leaked or come into information, some of which is very far out there and do not or can not validate it. In other words, they're just telling us about an experience they had or what they were told. It's up to us to determine whether their story is plausible and how it fits into the big picture.

--sjkted

thinwhitejimmy
12th December 2010, 10:26
if we are beings of enormous power and reality is all projected from our minds and others why cant we just go on gut feelings and insticts? it seems the safest of all the options. if it dont feel right chances are its not.

sjkted
12th December 2010, 10:33
Because without using our critical thinking faculties, we're as easy to manipulate as insects. Them moths keep flying into the false light (bulbs) and banging into the windows.

--sjkted

Steven
12th December 2010, 14:48
Because without using our critical thinking faculties, we're as easy to manipulate as insects. Them moths keep flying into the false light (bulbs) and banging into the windows.

--sjkted

Critical thinking alone isn't enough. Information is also essential. And that is where two critical thinkers will argue during pages without coming up to a consensus, because they do not share the same information. Take Chris White and David Icke for example. Both use critical thinking, but neither of them share the same source of information.

All of the whislteblowers share some valuable "hidden", otherwise non-available information. All of them makes connections and extrapolate. That is where the opinion comes up and that is where people disagree. But instead of seeing an opinion or a specualtion, some people sees hoaxers and liars, jumping right to conclusions. Discernment ask for a global holistic approach where the mind doesn't take all the place in regard to search for the truth, but balance between knowledge, intellect and intuition. Sometimes, seeing the speakers is enough for me to see if he/she is comfortable with the information that he/she present. There are a lot of tricks and signs to see if someone is actually lying, or not necessarily lying, but unsure of the quantum leap he/she is doing.

The truth is outhere and ask for an open mind. There are a whole bunch of rigorous critical thinkers who were certain, bombarding the people with facts, that the Earth was the center of the Universe. The ones who could make the jump for other possibilities were seen as hoaxers or liars at that time, it is one example among thousands.

Namaste, Steven

Zook
12th December 2010, 15:03
Good morning Bill, the Earth says hello!


----------
Good post, and an important question.
My personal stance (having been at the receiving end unjustly several times!) is not to call anyone out as a hoaxer unless I'm willing to explain why and have looked at the matter very closely. I never take anyone else's word or opinion on this. It's important not to.


Totally agree. The final decision to make the call out (of a hoaxer) should be backed by facts, not what tickles one's fancy.



To say casually (as happens on many forums) "I think this guy is a hoaxer" is intellectual laziness - and potentially very damaging to good people.


That cuts both ways, IMHO. The deification of someone (e.g. "I think this guy is the hero of our times") without proper investigation ... is intellectual laziness (in kind and counterbalance). It is very damaging to truth, and consequently, to all of us.



And having said that, there are hoaxes. It's important to identify them. But like someone being tried for a crime in court, it's important to present evidence correctly and with integrity - and get the verdict right.


Point taken. And there are genuine heroes; and those should be identified. From evidence and integrity to a just verdict ... all elements on the axis of truth.



To be cavalier, sloppy or just plain vindictive about this can ruin reputations and careers and just does the controllers' work for them.

Again, it goes the other way in kind. It can inflate reputations and careers that truth justly condemns to ruin.

:typing:

ps: Finding the fine balance is not for the trepid ... and yet it is. Therein lies the conundrum.

irishspirit
12th December 2010, 15:38
I think this is an excellent question.

For me, I tend not just to look at the source or the person, I spend more time with the idea that they present and with researching that. Information will always get blared and added to in ways that will deform, and at time, destroy the original story. It comes down to picking out the Jewel in what can, at times, become a junk yard. A person can present the information as given to them, without carrying out any real research into this. The information can turn to out be fraud, but that does not make the bearer of the news a fraud. In my view, it just makes them lazy for not researching the information, and backing it up with other sources.

A good heart can at time be fooled.

But we do have the element of people out to make a qucik buck with their amazing stories. Sad, but true! But I like to think that people are more aware and able to think for themselves. I personally accept nothing as truth unless I can confirm it as truth. Research, research, research.

Irish

onawah
12th December 2010, 15:47
This thread is related to what is going on in the thread on Drunvalo.
I don't know why it has been so difficult to explain why I would like for Drunvalo to provide some verification regarding what he says about scientific studies he refers to in his talks. For example, studies done in China on kids with super powers, NASA and other scientists studies on the pole shift, etc.
I understand why there can be no verification about what he and his students experience when they go astral traveling, but I just think that anyone who expects to be taken seriously should provide some facts and figures when it comes to science.
I really like Drunvalo personally, and I don't think he's a hoaxer, but I think he's human and can make mistakes, and can be prone to exaggeration or unintentional misrepresentation.
And I think he could extend more courtesy to those who find his work of interest but are not believing anything and everything on faith.
It's not really a fine line between science and intuition--but we are trying to bridge that gap in these kinds of forums, and so anything that can be done to make that work easier and less time consuming is of value.
I would like very much to be able to know more about Drunvalo's work and to see his work verified and therefore, made more credible. I like where he's going, but I think it would help him get there if he would get on the same page with other people in the field, and help us all to connect more of the dots.

felixq78
12th December 2010, 16:23
We don't know unless they provide documented proof to support their claims. Just ignore the claims unless they give details, if they do then follow the evidence to its natural conclusion. Don't take anyone's word for anything.
We must also be aware that many legitimate investigators can unwittingly pass on false evidence. e.g. Bob Dean's lecture in Barcelona where he showed what he thought was a legitimate picture of a UFO taken by the Apollo 11 people on the Moon. SEE : http://2012changesarenow.blogspot.com/2009/07/bob-dean-barcelona-picture-anomaly.html
He had no idea that it was a hoaxed picture, things can be planted to discredit us or they just slip through.
It was a great looking picture, good solid evidence I thought, and I bet Bob Dean was just as shocked as I when he discovered it was a hoax.
This shows that we must "check everything".:evil:

rgray222
13th December 2010, 13:55
Thanks for your thoughtful replies.