Posted by Zebra
(here)
Hi Raf, I am fine thanks. Wondering what easter will bring me .. chocolate I hope
I understand what youīre saying, especially when researchers begin making predictions .. then again in research, when one comes to evaluation, there is always some statement made about īwhere this all seems to be leadingī
I do think though, Richard Dolan is a fine example of a researcher who makes it clear that this is just his evaluation .. he uses words such as: if you were to ask me what I think? Well ... blah blah. And I think this is fine myself. If someone has gone down the rabbit hole of researching a particular topic, covering and comparing as much available data as is possible, then I like to hear what they have to say, as a result of their enquiry. In academia, particularly in postgraduate research, we have a committee of people to question us on our findings before a research is handed down (or rather published), and it is there that one is asked to elaborate further.
This process can open up a new direction, that can be included in a final paper, but it also keeps knowledge infinite. Hoagland, I think would have benefited from such a process, especially prior to presenting his research last year at the Awake and Aware conference. That epic presentation became self indulgent. He just lost his boundaries, I thought. I donīt know if he consulted with others in his field to get their opinion on what he was presenting - but even if had, they were either not competent enough to critique his research and help him fine tune it, or they were overwhelmed by his personality and his sheer drive to deliver what he thought was groundbreaking. However, you canīt fault the man for that.
The sciences are not my discipline, so I cannot comment further on intricacies of Hoaglandīs evidence to match his hypothesis. Actually, thatīs where I thought he was moving off the rails, trying to bring ideas together to satisfy his hypothesis.
But anyway, back to Wilcock, I do not have the grounding to discuss his discourse in detail - regarding the sourcefield investigation - but I do respect how he has presented his research as a journey of enquiry, and that is important, that for me is transparent. He has taken the time - to seriously understand a discerning field of theories relevant to his research and deep mined every aspect of evidence as well. And I believe that he moves into theoretical paradigms that mainstream science is .. well, frankly not up to speed with. Maybe in the so called black projects, but not mainstream science. From my reading, his research moves into territory that is still forming and he know this, and I think he acknowledges this fact.
Where I think Wilcock comes onto wobbly ground is when he embarks on bringing evidence together to expose and bring down the status quo. And this all being done at lightening speed, which is pretty amazing but also very uncertain as well, because this enquiry is not about understanding and expanding on scientific theories, it is trying to peel an onion to find the truth and perhaps frying it prematurely, at times.
But I detect a reason for this. On the surface, it looks like research on the run, rushed, stressful, releasing bulletins all of the time to keep people interested in the effort he is undertaking. But within this particular enquiry, I think he is exercising as much transparency as possible in his process. If some sources cannot be named at this time, perhaps it is for their safety that this confidence is maintained. Is it disinformation? This is still to be known, but at least this is an investigation that we are able to follow along with him - around corners, up stairs and sometimes into dead ends. But Wilcock has chosen to expose the process, and I think one of the reasons might be, that he understands that information - however it looks - needs to be available so we can all benefit and help to make sense of. That is the nature or methodology, as I see it, of this enquiry. He is not bottling it all up to be released only after he has spent months or years to understand. No, he is sharing, which I think is also generous. And besides, let us not forget, he is the one doing the hard work here. Not you, not me.
So I think we need to cut some slack here because I think one of the core reasons that Wilcock and others like him are working like bats out of hell right now, is because time is so important. That it is critical to bring a solid case together and forward as quickly as possible, to help realise the changes that we all want to see.
Hereīs hoping that they will come soon.
Raf, I hope you have a nice easter mate!
Cheers, Zebra
Posted by RMorgan
(here)
Hi Zebra, how are you?
Well, to be honest I donīt really fully trust anyone thatīs in any kind of media, alternative or not.
I try not to be too paranoid about it, but I donīt think we would even have the internet if TPTB didnīt want us to have it. Theyīre the ones who have money, who own every major internet/telecom companies and probably the whole internet infrastructure.
Trusting is a strong word for me. I trust people who I know personally, with whom Iīm emotionally connected, who have experienced life by my side.
So, allow me to change your question to who I consider a legitimate source of information, right?
For me, for any source of information/researcher to be considered legitimate, I must have access to the research data as a whole, including all sources and bibliography.
...
Raf.
Re: Hoagland on Coast to Coast last night
Bookmarks