Old Project Avalon Forum (ARCHIVE) - View Single Post

Hiram · 02-16-2010, 09:01 PM

I'd like to express my two cents here:

Its patently obvious that the Heather.PDF was not written by anyone with an MD or PHD. Perhaps it was transcribed, by someone with a grade-school level of education. Thats possible.

How do I know this? I work in one of the worlds leading research Institutions (Genetics, Bio-Physics, Medical Science etc) and handle materials and papers written by MD, PHDs, MPH's EVERY DAY. Who better to evaluate this? And no, I'm sorry the material is not consistent with someone writing in a 2nd language either. Language facility is not really the issue with the PDF, rather thought, idea structure and presentation, and utter LACK of some basic verbage and "industry" terminology that anyone who has an education (as claimed by the author) would have.

So does this mean that there aren't "supersoldiers" being genteically altered and equiped with nano-technology? Of course not. Its very possible/Probable. I think it's a real issue and I have nothing but the utmost sympathy for those folks (Duncan O'finoin etc)

But as I've stated before on this forum...there is such a thing as being a free an open forum of ideas....and on the other hand allowing people to willfully stray into self-indulgence (by allowing them to drone on an on before a captive audience) and actively mis-leading people.

When you run a forum you have to strike an intelligent balance. Does the fact that your site is about Whistleblowers mean that you have to present EVERY STORY and EVERY PERSON that approaches you equally?

Is one not allowed to evaluate the veracity and value of information at all before presenting it?

Should one who is presenting a story, have to provide some very basic substantiating data? If the party can't provide ANY info, then shouldn't the next step be for Bill/Kerry to look at the info an ask themselves if it adds/contributes value to their mission?

Is their mission to provide a mouthpiece/soapbox for anyone who has any strange story or claim? ----without putting their personal opinion as site/project founders in at all?

I think these are fair questions.

IMO as a scientist, I see nothing wrong with being discerning about what you present. I think the "risk" of losing a really good whistleblower is minimal...basically because the really good ones will have some substantiating info. They will. Plain and simple.

But I don't believe I should just be able to make-up any story and just blather all over here in the name of "free expression of ideas". No one here would like it if I did that....and I can assure you I could make my PDF sound VERY convincing! I would expect someone to contact me to ask some follow-up questions. I hope that is what happens here.

02-16-2010, 09:01 PM	#57
Hiram Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: San Francisco Posts: 119	Re: The Heather Material I'd like to express my two cents here: Its patently obvious that the Heather.PDF was not written by anyone with an MD or PHD. Perhaps it was transcribed, by someone with a grade-school level of education. Thats possible. How do I know this? I work in one of the worlds leading research Institutions (Genetics, Bio-Physics, Medical Science etc) and handle materials and papers written by MD, PHDs, MPH's EVERY DAY. Who better to evaluate this? And no, I'm sorry the material is not consistent with someone writing in a 2nd language either. Language facility is not really the issue with the PDF, rather thought, idea structure and presentation, and utter LACK of some basic verbage and "industry" terminology that anyone who has an education (as claimed by the author) would have. So does this mean that there aren't "supersoldiers" being genteically altered and equiped with nano-technology? Of course not. Its very possible/Probable. I think it's a real issue and I have nothing but the utmost sympathy for those folks (Duncan O'finoin etc) But as I've stated before on this forum...there is such a thing as being a free an open forum of ideas....and on the other hand allowing people to willfully stray into self-indulgence (by allowing them to drone on an on before a captive audience) and actively mis-leading people. When you run a forum you have to strike an intelligent balance. Does the fact that your site is about Whistleblowers mean that you have to present EVERY STORY and EVERY PERSON that approaches you equally? Is one not allowed to evaluate the veracity and value of information at all before presenting it? Should one who is presenting a story, have to provide some very basic substantiating data? If the party can't provide ANY info, then shouldn't the next step be for Bill/Kerry to look at the info an ask themselves if it adds/contributes value to their mission? Is their mission to provide a mouthpiece/soapbox for anyone who has any strange story or claim? ----without putting their personal opinion as site/project founders in at all? I think these are fair questions. IMO as a scientist, I see nothing wrong with being discerning about what you present. I think the "risk" of losing a really good whistleblower is minimal...basically because the really good ones will have some substantiating info. They will. Plain and simple. But I don't believe I should just be able to make-up any story and just blather all over here in the name of "free expression of ideas". No one here would like it if I did that....and I can assure you I could make my PDF sound VERY convincing! I would expect someone to contact me to ask some follow-up questions. I hope that is what happens here.