UFO Watchdog

[Chester]

Everyone has probably heard of the word "watchdog." The MSM is actually supposed to be a watchdog but we all know that if ever it was, it was hijacked long ago.

But I have seen a "Watchdog" site (in fact, sets of sites) work for other industries. Again, though... what is critical to the success of any watchdog site is that it starts out incorruptible and remains so.

And a watchdog site is made by and run by human beings who, if the site operates under the same model of which I can describe next, get their information from the public of which again are... humans.

And so for a watchdog site to work, the staff of the watchdog site must be fair and incorruptible. That alone probably makes the whole idea too idealistic when considering the current batch of humans we have now (myself as one and whose own history is far less than stellar).

How a watchdog site would work is as follows:

The site creates a display which lists each and every "witness/testimony providers" or "whistle blower" or "researcher" or "psychic" or "opinion giver," etc. and likely has a filter so one can sort just "witnesses" for example where the list is alphabetical.

Someone who seeks information about that particular witness then finds that witness on the list, clicks the link and up comes a page of information dedicated all and only to that witness. The first set of information would be identifying the specific genres that witness covers and a brief, high level summary of that witnesses known history, perhaps a picture of the witness and links to the witnesses site (if they have one).

And then there begins a list of reports where each specific report is about something important in relation to the witnesses credibility and this can be positive or negative. Each report would be information ideally (and this will be the case most of the time once the watchdog site has matured)... ideally from the public but in some cases (and likely some that must be done in the early growth of the watchdog site) reports generated by the staff.

The format of these reports is - A description of an event experienced by others (perhaps with proof and perhaps without) or a public posted statement or interview that has been taped or video taped which the watchdog site's audience would perceive as relevant and important to their ability to make their own decision as to the "witnesses" actual degree of truthfulness most of all as this is what the watchdog site is all about... rating who can be believed, believed the most... believed the least or outright exposed as a charlatan.

And so the staff of the watchdog site ends up finding themselves receiving all sorts of reports from the public. They must decide which sites should be pursued first (if pursuable). For those they wish to pursue, they must perform a mini investigation of each report and then write an honest report about the incident which lists as much actual evidence as possible related to the report. In addition and in many cases though not all, the watchdog site may reach out to the individual witness themselves but not to get their side... because this isn't about testimony alone at the report level... it is about actual events where there are either multiple witnesses who are vetted for their own likely or not degree of truthfulness and/or where there are actual artifacts/evidence that prove the report is valid enough to investigate.

As one can see, in time, their could be several pages of several investigated reports covering a single, high profile "player" in this field we point to as "the alternative community."

Also, in time, a rating system could be developed where each report may suggest that the witness was actually proven to be honest or less than honest or mostly not honest or likely fraudulent. And that of course we can see how an overall grade can be assigned to that individual which could be generated by an algorithm that is based on the grade of each report and one other factor, the degree a report is considered reliable.

If the site is successful and gains its own reputation for being an honest, fair, incorruptable information clearinghouse... and this take quite some time of near perfect history making... the site ends up much like a Wikileaks but for the alternative community.

And now for the reality. To do something like this there would be a need for quite a large staff and of course, where would we find dozens of folks who are willing to give the time needed to filter out the frivolous reports, then investigate the reports that should be pursued? If staff or all the staff were compensated in any way... that raises the concern that some could be corrupted. If the site generated revenue from advertising, that also then becomes a concern as to "bias" as who would advertise unless they are in the community? If the site required membership fees, how many folks would balk at that? (I believe quite a lot). Donations might be the only way to go if any revenue were brought in and agin then... that opens up to the same issue facing politics and "campaign donations."

So as folks can see... I have thought much of this through and sadly, though the idea would, if implemented, and in time... would reduce the attention given to the outright frauds and attract attention to the far more credible, though far less sensational witnesses, researchers, whistle blowers, etc.

[Bill Ryan]

Everyone has probably heard of the word "watchdog." The MSM is actually supposed to be a watchdog but we all know that if ever it was, it was hijacked long ago.

But I have seen a "Watchdog" site (in fact, sets of sites) work for other industries. Again, though... what is critical to the success of any watchdog site is that it starts out incorruptible and remains so.


http://UFOwatchdog.com

I'm in touch with Royce Myers, who runs the site. I'm writing up a bunch more detailed and documented information for him, and I've told him that I agree with almost all (but not every one) of his categorizations. He wants to listen — kudos to him.

[Chester]

Everyone has probably heard of the word "watchdog." The MSM is actually supposed to be a watchdog but we all know that if ever it was, it was hijacked long ago.

But I have seen a "Watchdog" site (in fact, sets of sites) work for other industries. Again, though... what is critical to the success of any watchdog site is that it starts out incorruptible and remains so.


http://UFOwatchdog.com

I'm in touch with Royce Myers, who runs the site. I'm writing up a bunch more detailed and documented information for him, and I've told him that I agree with almost all (but not every one) of his categorizations. He wants to listen — kudos to him.

Hi Bill, I did not know of this site or Royce Myers. It is (at least partially) what I described above. It is also limited to the UFO genre yet gosh... that's huge anyways and certainly a Corey Goode "could" be covered here although I would not be surprised that a Corey Goode would be considered so obviously fake that to do so would be considered a waste of his time. I wonder if he has folks who assist him with this work. I cannot imagine doing this well and properly and not devote a great deal of time which to me would seem to be far more needed than a normal human being could provide (normal implying 'having a life outside of just the Watchdog Work').

Yet all in all... this appears quite impressive - Thanks!

EDIT ADDED: I just discovered a section called "The Paracast" and appears to cover all areas of the paranormal which goes beyond just UFO stuff -


The Paracast is a paranormal radio show that takes you on a journey to a world beyond science, where UFOs, poltergeists and strange phenomena of all kinds have been reported by millions. The Paracast seeks to shed light on the mysteries and complexities of our Universe and the secrets that surround us in our everyday lives.

[7alon]

Everyone has probably heard of the word "watchdog." The MSM is actually supposed to be a watchdog but we all know that if ever it was, it was hijacked long ago.

But I have seen a "Watchdog" site (in fact, sets of sites) work for other industries. Again, though... what is critical to the success of any watchdog site is that it starts out incorruptible and remains so.


http://UFOwatchdog.com

I'm in touch with Royce Myers, who runs the site. I'm writing up a bunch more detailed and documented information for him, and I've told him that I agree with almost all (but not every one) of his categorizations. He wants to listen — kudos to him.

I would imagine this to be the case, since last time I checked, he put Linda Moulton Howe on his wall of shame. :confused:

[RunningDeer]

I would imagine this to be the case, since last time I checked, he put Linda Moulton Howe on his wall of shame. :confused:

Here's the direct link to Linda Moulton Howe (http://www.ufowatchdog.com/linda_moulton_howe.htm).

[Kristin]

One of the main reasons that Bill is talking to UFO Watchdog at this time is to clarify his position on great researchers like Linda Moulton Howe. Just wanted to let you all know that he is actually in the process of discussing this directly with Royce Myers and FYI is aware that Linda was included (as well as others) in being negatively observed on Royce's site.

To quote Bill directly from a few moments ago, "You could say that what we're all trying to do here is to share good info... including where Royce may have something or someone quite wrong."

[Bill Ryan]

One of the main reasons that Bill is talking to UFO Watchdog at this time is to clarify his position on great researchers like Linda Moulton Howe. Just wanted to let you all know that he is actually in the process of discussing this directly with Royce Myers and FYI is aware that Linda was included (as well as others) in being negatively observed on Royce's site.

To quote Bill directly from a few moments ago, "You could say that what we're all trying to do here is to share good info... including where Royce may have something or someone quite wrong."

Thanks. Kristin posted on my behalf just now... I'd been out all afternoon. Though I almost always show as online, sometimes the lights are on but there's no-one at home. :)

Yes, UFO Watchdog is wrong about Linda Howe, and also about Stephen Bassett: and also (in my strong opinion), Bob Lazar.

There's a problem here, at least sometimes, with any kind of black-and-white categorization — i.e. 'Fame' or Shame'.

Some cases are clear, for sure, like when someone is a proven hoaxer, or has been proved to have hoaxed the community several times. But other instances (e.g. Lazar) are hotly debated even now, and recently evidence has surfaced to show very strongly that Bob Lazar was telling the truth about his education all along.

I mention this because some of the site hasn't been updated for quite some years. For instance, in his interesting UFO Quiz (http://www.ufowatchdog.com/The%20Official%20UFO%20Quiz.pdf) (I did not get 100%!), Royce mentions, in the answers to questions, that Richard Dolan's second volume of his encyclopedic UFOs and the National Security State "is expected in early 2009".

One wonders if the rest of his information, and personal evaluation, is similarly out of date. He keeps in touch with some events (like the rather tragic saga of Sean and Melissa Morton (http://ufowatchdog.blogspot.com)), but it would seem, not with all others.

So, I might suggest that the black-and-white Fame/Shame categorization (which is very dramatic and headline-catching, of course), should really be a spectrum. Some, like Richard Dolan, might be at 100%. (I would put him there: in all I have heard, seen or read from him in many years now, I am not aware of one thing that in my opinion he has reported or stated incorrectly or unfairly.)

Linda Howe, in the mountain of work she's done for an entire generation, may (or may not!) have made a couple of mistakes. If so, that means her rating might be 95%. Or maybe 98%. Not 0%. :)

And so on.

Another problem is the mixing up of researchers (e.g. Dolan, Howe), witnesses (e.g. Lazar), experiencers (e.g. Travis Walton, Jonathan Reed, Billy Meier) and agents (e.g. Richard Doty). Wow. They each need their own spectrum, based on different criteria. You can't bundle them up all together simply because they seem to be familiar names.

[Mod note] If this specific discussion is interesting to members, then I may well move it all to a different thread. :thumbsup:

[Chester]

One of the main reasons that Bill is talking to UFO Watchdog at this time is to clarify his position on great researchers like Linda Moulton Howe. Just wanted to let you all know that he is actually in the process of discussing this directly with Royce Myers and FYI is aware that Linda was included (as well as others) in being negatively observed on Royce's site.

To quote Bill directly from a few moments ago, "You could say that what we're all trying to do here is to share good info... including where Royce may have something or someone quite wrong."

Here are the questions I have regarding an effort to "watchdog."

How is someone singles out to "make it" onto one of the two lists?

What is the process involved in evaluating all relevant information that would decide which list someone made?

Is there a panel that looks at all this information?

What are all the various acceptable information sources for information that is considered solid enough and informative enough to be weighed?


Opinion: what would be better IMO is to use the standard grading system of A through F where you have three levels for grades A through D (as in A+, A and A-)

I would make book that Corey Goode would come in at an F and that, say, Richard Dolan would come in at an A, but then there are folks like Whitley Strieber who I would not be surprised he would come in somewhere around a C+ and Simon Parkes... (as the experiencer, Simon Parkes and nothing else) might come in around a B- and this lesser known Elisa E might come in around a B+ and the current version of Michael Salla who I would have bet would have come in at a B+ and maybe even an A- before Corey Goode would now probably come in around a B-. David Wilcock's rating today would be much like Ben Fulfords... a D+ at best.

These are just my own opinions as to what "grade" I might think they deserve.

But a serious watchdog site made up of a panel of serious, incorruptable, uncompromisable, unbiased and unagenda'd (other than to do the very most fair and thorough job of investigating individuals and legitimate reports brought to them by us, the public) that then lists all the information as they come upon it on a page dedicated to each "target" individual where the info is in reverse date order (newest report at the top) and where there is another small section which shows historical ratings changes and why the ratings were changed would over time... become the single best resource this entire community ever had, I have no doubt of this.

The problem is getting it off the ground and then reaching that point where the site achieves the needed critical mass (exposure) that it becomes the resource folks can go to and rely on when it comes to UFO and paranormal related "actors" who gain public notoriety enough to merit covering.

[we-R-one]

I would imagine this to be the case, since last time I checked, he put Linda Moulton Howe on his wall of shame.

I have concerns about Linda myself. She either has poor judgment or is supporting some hidden agenda. Her enthusiasm is welcomed and her work does appear to be researched and presented in a professional manner, however I can understand why someone might raise red flags in regards to her work.

During one of her coast to coast appearances she was discussing the ‘Zika’ virus. ‘Oh brother’ and ‘what on Earth’ is ‘investigative journalist' Linda doing promoting the Zika scare agenda? Hilarious how she quotes a ‘Rockefeller’ study...LMAO....is she truly serious?? Isn’t it Rockefeller who created the Zika virus in the first place, so why even source a study from one of its foundations? To catch you up on the so called Zika scare, Mike Adams seems to have researched and written about the topic:
http://www.naturalnews.com/055122_DEET_insecticide_Disney_World_Zika_mosquitoes.html

Maybe Linda should be exploring this angle of the story instead? So ya this one doesn’t past the ‘smell test’ imo making me question her motives.

In 2016 she seemed to be supporting the Tom Delonge scenario and I wondered for as long as she’s been in the field, why she couldn’t sniff that one out? For those who saw my comments in the Tom Delonge thread here on Avalon you will understand better why I feel the way I do about Tom after reading my post. For the sake of being brief I’ll leave it at that as it's too long to get into here.

The other topic would be her cattle mutilation coverage. This I’m not so sure about as I have not studied her every word in regards to her viewpoint, but maybe as a comparison, looking at Christopher O’Brien’s work might help, who after one interview I felt was drawing a strong conclusion that I’ve suspected for a long time but haven’t really seen Linda ‘go there’ as strongly.

“We’re really moving forward on the human perpetrating aspect of this…”- Christopher O’Brien On a Coast to Coast interview May 15, 2017

Some added info to consider with the whole U.F.O/cattle mutilation phenomenon....
Alamosa(a well known area for these occurrences) is just under 3 hours away from Colorado Springs, Co, the location of Mt. Cheyenne Complex and Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station and home to NORAD which stands for North American Aerospace Defense Command and God knows what else.......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_...efense_Command

North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD, /ˈnɔːræd/), known until March 1981 as the North American Air Defense Command, is a combined organization of the United States and Canada that provides aerospace warning, air sovereignty, and defense for Northern America.[4] Headquarters for NORAD and the NORAD/United States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) center are located at Peterson Air Force Base in El Paso County, near Colorado Springs, Colorado. The nearby Cheyenne Mountain Complex has the Alternate Command Center. The NORAD commander and deputy commander (CINCNORAD) are, respectively, a United States four-star general or equivalent and a Canadian three-star general or equivalent.

Consider what was said in a John B. Wells interview in the first few months of him opening shop a few years ago. He was interviewing Major Bill Donahue, Marine Corp, who was a NORAD employee a mile deep inside Cheyenne Mountain. According to Major Donahue who worked in command center, he was 1 of 5 officers who determined if we were under nuclear attack or not.

“We saw everything that entered the atmosphere because everything that enters the atmosphere, that I’m aware of, creates a heat signature as it enters the atmosphere, and I never saw any UFO’s or anything we couldn’t identify. So, uh, while I would love to believe in UFO’s, I never saw any evidence of it while I worked at NORAD.” - Major Bill Donahue
Stated around the 1:57:00 mark FEB 2014

Additionally he commented at the time he was working there, they were able to track up to 18,000 items in orbit such as bolts and space gloves and various other space junks.

So here we have less than 3 hours away the most sophisticated military ‘aerospace warning’ and defense in North America and we’re suppose to believe that we can’t figure out who’s causing all the cattle mutilations....uh....ya...ok"

I have no doubt our government is responsible for these mutilations. Like I’ve said, NORAD, is right in the back yard of where many of these mutilations are taking place, and they know exactly what's going on, they're not stupid,....The point being to scare the crap out of people. Likely it's tied to the now being created...'aliens are going to attack agenda'.

It was just a common sense approach based on what I knew about NORAD's capabilities and a lucky opportunity to catch the quote of Major Bill Donahue. Maybe O'Brien has considered the same and just isn't coming out and saying it to prevent future potential harassment. Interesting enough, he did say there was a case where a cow was dumped right at NORAD's front door...how convenient, lol. And how could it be with the most 'sophisticated military ‘aerospace warning’ and defense in North America', they would have no idea who the perpetrator might be? :noidea:Talk about Captain Obvious….

I could be wrong about this as I haven't followed cattle mutilation stories in great detail like Linda Moulton Howe and I'm wondering why she's never drawn this same definitive conclusion? I realize it’s not a one size fits all and that’s not what I’m saying just to be clear, but for many of the cases within close proximity of NORAD it doesn’t look good.

[Chester]

Let me give you an example of something that could be a single report that could then be considered amongst dozens of reports where the group suggests a likely overall rating...

Perhaps someone in the community reports to the watchdog that "experiencer A" has attempted to defame "experiencer B." And obviously if this is the case, then testimonies may not be enough for the watchdog to become involved. But if transcripts or recordings were involved where sharing these with the watchdog would be legal... and these transcripts and/or recordings could be further verified by interviweing several of the participants... and the end effect is that either a.) experiencer A's accusations may actually turn out to be provably true or quite plausibly true, then perhaps experiencer A may not be damaged by his actions whereas if it turns out that experiencer A has made false, slanderous, defamatory accusations and the watchdog provided a thruthful report as to what their investigation turned up, then not only might experiencer B be exonerated, but folks would have to wonder why experiencer A would have done this in the first place. Could it be too much a leap that experiencer A might be trying to knock down the competition? (unless both have joined the mutual verification club... one of the tactics used by the frauds).

Another possible outcome is that experiencer A had some information correct but them embellished the information to the degree that what experiencer B is accused of is not just something we all might look down upon (but might not be a crime) to where what experiencer B is being accused of is in fact a crime. And so what if experiencer A exposed actions of experiencer B which could harm the public perception of experiencer B but not land experiencer B in jail... but that the embellishment suddenly accuses experiencer B of what we all would agree is a truly terrible crime (and suggestions it is of a serial nature) where the reality is that experiencer B is in no way guilty of any of these criminal accusations...

An investigation by a bona fide, recognised, experienced, integrity based "watchdog site" might serve to get the story right and make sure the truth is known and out there.

And of course to do this would require a very good lawyer available to review what can be stated and what not and with all applicable legal jurisdictions in mind.

And yes folks... the above example was actually a very real case where I am unsure as to what the real truth is regarding the whole matter but which I and several others have very real artifactual evidence and testimonies where a true watchdog could get to the bottom of the matter and believe me... many many folks would benefit from getting to the truth of just this one particular matter. In addition, it is also quite likely that risks would be reduced to vulnerables going forward.

[Debra]

There's a problem here, at least sometimes, with any kind of black-and-white categorization — i.e. 'Fame' or Shame'.

.....

[Mod note] If this specific discussion is interesting to members, then I may well move it all to a different thread. :thumbsup:

I think this is critical, to keep everyone on track and to find a measurable system that we can all feed into and begin to utilise in respect to different sources. Excellent idea. Could be called something like The Avalon Metre/Meter?

[Bill Ryan]

A further suggestion I'd make to Royce Myers is the value of adding another section devoted to YouTube channels, and also websites and blogs.

[Chester]

Categories

The individual subjects within each category (can be an individuak human, a website, a youtube channel, a forum, a "media outlet," a repeatable "conference," etc.)

A page dedicated to each individual subject

Dor each specific dedicated page a reverse order history of reports, investigative findings and... if done right, carefully and respectfully worded opinion.

A current rating based on a "spectrum ranged rating system"

and a history of ratings ratings (also reverse ordered) where folks can see ratings changes, when and why...


Opinion: This should be a website unto itself.

ohhh and I have dozens of fact based, artifact supported reports to provide... by the way. Why I am saying this is because I have no doubt I am far from alone.

[Chester]

Here is a site that essentially follows the model I have suggested... and nothing demonstrates something better than an example. Note: there are some cons I have about this site too... and I will point those out which will easily clarify these cons - but just check this out.

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/

Now then follow me...

look on the top left just below the SBR logo where you see 5 links. The key link to now click is the Rating Guide

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/betting-sites/

Uncheck any countries that are checked to see the full list.

Now what you see the list is sortable by most of the Column Headers

Now unless you have changed the sort order you see Bookmaker" at the top of the list. You can click on the site name and it takes you to their site.

But here's the best part... on the right you see a link that says "Bookmaker Profile"

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/betting-sites/bookmaker/

This shows a brief profile and then below that a series of reports associated with this sportsbook and the dates of the reports - note these are in reverse order. In addition you see the ratings history of changes also in reverse order on the right.

Now go back to the Ratings Guide and search for BetRoyal and then click on its profile

https://www.sportsbookreview.com/betting-sites/betroyal/

This is probably a better profile to look at as this is a sportsbook that has a pretty poor rating. D-

You can see example of example of reports where you can also see that sportsbookreview.com investigated a claim and then reported on its findings.


Now the negative I mentioned above is not a negative for this site as this site is designed to receive revenue from advertisers and other means which also means they might have bias in favoring certain sportsbooks over others.

IMO - This type of "appearance of a potential conflict of interest" is something a true, comprehensive watchdog site that focused on the vast categories that would be considered under the umbrella of "The Alternative Community"... and then all the individuals and/or entities that would be placed under each category and scrutinized... would have to do their very best to avoid.

Its not just money that is at stake... it is the truth that is at stake. And if it were only about the truth... as hard as it may be for us humans to get to, when it is truth related to much of the subject matter of this community... the lengths that various third parties might go to to manipulate or stymie these truths getting out might very well be taken quite seriously.

[Chester]

wow, did I kill this thread? hope not