-
17th November 2011 22:28
Link to Post #1
Con artists
Dear Avalonians,
I posted something on a recent thread about Bob Dean, and let vent my frustration with one or two things. It wasn't the best place to do it, so I'm creating this thread.
The gist is this: most of the video interviews I watch from 'whistle-blowers', 'contactees' and the like strike me as palpable cons. I say this because it's what I see. I don't have any cause, so to speak. Not in this department. I am not a Dawkins type, intent on debunking and discrediting every unusual claim I run into. On the contrary.
I, like you, am interested in the truth behind the lie, otherness, a solution to the miserable dross with which we are presented and told it's reality. It isn't, and I want to see the wiring under the board. If aliens or extra-dimensionals or whoever else are here - I want to know all about it. If we are being kept from our true heritage and fed lies to keep us subdued and powerless, then I want to know about it. Frankly, if the Queen is a blood-drinking lizard, I definitely want to know about it.
However, the vast majority of the interviews I have watched seem to be the spiel of con-men. They have speaking engagements, the lecture circuit, a book to sell. There's always more, amazing, explosive information 'coming soon'. There's always directness about that which cannot be proven or disproven ... and a misty haze about anything that could.
These super-soldiers, for instance; these psychics; these contactees who can summon aliens. Do it then! Show us all on film!
As I mentioned in the aforementioned thread, I know quite a bit about the psychology of liars and con men. Why is irrelevant. You don't need me to tell you how to spot a liar either - just use your intelligence. Why are these people allowed to live after they divulge above top secret information? Why do they never have anything solid and laboratory test-worthy to show us? Why is there always a new book, some more information that will blow your mind, a new speaking tour?
Think.
It's really very, very simple. It's really a very, very simple logical problem.
There are other means at your disposal too. You can learn about body language and the characteristics of liars. When you do, you see a veil lifted, and a world full of adults who operate on an emotionally child-like level. Many people live in dark little inner idylls where the truth is merely a tool. The truth - I believe - should be paramount if the species is to elevate itself from the darkness of its condition.
There's a certain amount of intuition involved in spotting a liar, but intuition should not be confused with a desire to believe or disbelieve something. Your intuition is amazing when you get out of its way and let it do its thing. It can 'compute' minutiae and discrepancy that you simply cannot with the conscious process of reasoning. When reasoning meets obstacles and imponderables it tends to become circular and untrustworthy.
This is just one facet of something I believe very strongly in - that we are all being wilfully, systematically disempowered. We are like a man using a super computer as a door-stop while he tackles a sum with pen and paper.
When you understand how a liar's mind operates - the justifications, or lack thereof if they are a psychopath ... it all becomes rather embarrassingly obvious. Psychopaths are far harder to spot. It's usually a person's subconscious feeling about the lie they are telling that gives them away.
I said I wouldn't name names, but I don't think there's any harm in mentioning people I deem to not be liars, but genuine seekers and researchers of the truth. This is based on watching them speak, not their information. Klaus Dona, Graham Hancock, to name two. I think those guys have integrity.
There is someone who spews an articulate, eloquent spiel that he has clearly concocted and studied very hard in order to maintain his charade. But I'm not naming names. I will say that if they ever made a movie about this guy and Paul Giamatti didn't get the part I'd be disappointed and amazed. Now there's a clever liar. But he's too neurotic, and he's too much of an actor. You can't convince the wary and intelligent if you are clearly putting so much into your performance.
And in fact, that's probably the crucial thing to remember. The more effort that has gone into the act of kindly grand-father, neurotic scientist, scared whistle-blower, etc, etc, etc ... the likelier it is that the person is lying. People who are telling the truth do not invest effort into telling the truth. This is a simple thing to remember.
How would you feel if you were in their shoes? How would you talk about what you knew? If you approach the subject in this way then you may find that you see blatant liars where before there was doubt.
The reason I got angry yesterday and added some fairly angry posts to that thread about Dean, was the same reason I get angry with so called mediums. Disgusting con-men who are abusing the most cherished and most painful feelings a human being has. It is a scam, a circuit, a gravy train. The subjects in this forum are the same. We need to understand that.
When 'Charles' was all the talk here I made some comment about how I didn't believe him and we should have more discernment. I got accused of being a disinformation agent and God knows what. I just didn't believe him, that's all. But I had a trepidation about saying I didn't believe him. You know why? Because Bill Ryan clearly did. Well, we can't let that hold us back. I like Bill's interviewing technique, and I think he has integrity. That doesn't mean I think he's always right. I think we should be extremely wary of that kind of loyalty, because it isn't loyalty. If your best friend was being suckered you'd want to tell him wouldn't you?
Not that Bill Ryan saw my posts or gave two hoots about what I think ... but you see my point, I hope. We can't be cowed in this forum because a respected member feels differently than we do. That would defeat the point of it all, wouldn't it?
So. I see mostly liars and con-men. It disappoints and depresses me. I don't have an agenda to expose ALL who talk about the things we're interested in as con-men. Just those who are. Which is most of them.
If we can raise this game and not fall for the con-men, then we are closer to understanding the things we are really interested in. We could make this infertile ground for liars, by being strong in our minds and unwilling to accept the rubbish that we are so often presented with. It makes me sad, and it's very frustrating.
I'd appreciate any comments on this subject, though I realise some people may want to blast me for not believing in the people they do, but that's okay. People seemed to want to hear more and possibly had some questions for me, so if you do, please ask away.
Borden
-
The Following 104 Users Say Thank You to Borden For This Post:
58andfixed (18th November 2011), Andrew (17th November 2011), Annacarl (28th December 2011), aranuk (18th November 2011), Arc (25th November 2011), Art (18th November 2011), Aurelius (24th December 2011), BestLion (30th December 2011), buckminster fuller (18th November 2011), Cartomancer (25th November 2011), Castaneda (18th November 2011), CdnSirian (18th November 2011), conk (29th November 2011), Corncrake (18th November 2011), crosby (18th November 2011), Curt (17th November 2011), D-Day (18th November 2011), Daft Ada (19th November 2011), dAkapacity (28th December 2011), dan i el (18th November 2011), Dawn (18th November 2011), DoubleHelix (28th December 2011), dourpil (18th November 2011), Eagle (17th November 2011), Enquiring1 (26th November 2011), Equalitor (19th November 2011), eric charles (24th November 2011), Fire Dragon (18th November 2011), Flash (18th November 2011), Fred Steeves (17th November 2011), Fred259 (24th December 2011), greybeard (17th November 2011), guayabal (20th November 2011), Healthy Skeptic (19th November 2011), Heart-2-Heart (18th November 2011), Herbert (23rd November 2011), Holly Lindin (31st December 2011), Hughe (25th November 2011), HURRITT ENYETO (18th November 2011), Intranuclear (18th November 2011), jagman (23rd November 2011), karelia (17th November 2011), kersley (24th December 2011), Khaleesi (28th December 2011), kizzey (18th November 2011), Kristin (22nd December 2011), ktlight (18th November 2011), Kumonitori (18th November 2011), Laura Elina (24th December 2011), Lily de Cuir (18th November 2011), Loveisall21 (17th November 2011), Mad Hatter (20th November 2011), Marin (22nd November 2011), math330 (18th November 2011), meeradas (18th November 2011), Menkaure (2nd December 2011), Mike Gorman (28th December 2011), Miller (22nd November 2011), MMA_Fan (23rd November 2011), mosquito (18th November 2011), motherlove (24th December 2011), Muzz (18th November 2011), NancyV (18th November 2011), NeverMind (25th November 2011), NewFounderHome (18th November 2011), nomadguy (18th November 2011), noxon medem (25th December 2011), Pagan (15th February 2012), Pamela (18th November 2011), Precog (23rd November 2011), prometheus (3rd December 2011), RMorgan (17th November 2011), ROMANWKT (18th November 2011), Ron Mauer Sr (23rd November 2011), Russ1959 (19th November 2011), S-L (27th December 2011), sandy (18th November 2011), Sebastion (18th November 2011), shadowstalker (17th November 2011), shamanseeker (26th December 2011), SHAPE (22nd November 2011), Simone (18th November 2011), smiller113 (23rd December 2011), Snowbird (24th November 2011), SomaSmith (18th November 2011), spiritguide (17th November 2011), Star1111 (18th November 2011), StephenW11UK (24th December 2011), Swanette (20th November 2011), Tarka the Duck (17th November 2011), Tethys13 (28th December 2011), ThePythonicCow (18th November 2011), tonton (20th November 2011), Tony (17th November 2011), toothpick (18th November 2011), undertheradar (22nd December 2011), Unified Serenity (18th November 2011), vasquez (3rd December 2011), Watching from Cyprus (22nd November 2011), westhill (18th November 2011), WhiteFeather (17th November 2011), write4change (28th December 2011), xeon (22nd November 2011)
-
17th November 2011 22:36
Link to Post #2