posted by RRRGroup at
Friday, September 18, 2015
Poor Nick. So much tireless pandering to the lowest common denominator, yet not invited to the presidential debate! It's unfair.
By Terry the Censor, at Friday, September 18, 2015
WTF are you talking about?
By Nick Redfern, at Friday, September 18, 2015
I saw your other "comment" at my own blog. If you have shit to say to me (or about me) have the guts to use your real name. I have zero time for people who hide behind curtains. A failure to use a real name always comes across as being insecure.
Agreed, I am a bad person. Now that that's settled, what about your pandering?
Actually, it's not just insecure. It also suggests lack of self-esteem, being unsure of character strength (or lack of), and worries bout direct confrontation.
I'm not pandering. I'm sharing with readers stuff that goes down and which is related to me by the people who experience it. Since I know from experience (it's called feedback, by the way) that people find this stuff interesting, I share it with like-minded people. That's not pandering. You say: "I am a bad person." Nope, just to worried/insecure about using your real identity.
Terry:Let me say that Nick is the least pandering person I know.His books, blogs, web-sites, and commentary drive some ufologists crazy because he doesn't give into their nutty. illogical ramblings.His Roswell treatise, Body Snatchers in the Desert and his views on contactees or the Men in Black are prime examples of anti-pandering.RR
By RRRGroup, at Friday, September 18, 2015
Yep, I'm pretty sure aliens did not crash at Roswell, I am certain the MIB are real but have what is broadly known as "supernatural" origins. The MIB are nothing to do with the government. I do believe some of the Contactees had real experiences, but some of a somewhat visionary experience with something almost certainly earth-based and not ET. Much of what I say goes directly against what mainstream Ufology wants to hear. Too bad, and I don't apologize for that. And so I'm not pandering. If Ufology doesn't like my unpopular views, so the fuck what? I certainly don't lose sleep over it. People can accept it or not, and like it or not.Oh, and I almost forgot, I don't hide behind a weird alias!
Same with my writings on Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster etc. I can hardly be accused of pandering because I openly state time and again, I'm sure these thins are paranormal in origin. That annoys the shit out of the cryptozoological field, who cringe when I write about this, lecture on it etc. So many people in Ufology and Cryptozoology are worried about rocking the boat because they worry about not getting booked for gigs again etc. I don't. I say what I want and if people don't like that I have deeply alternative views, that's not my problem, nor is it my worry, nor is it something I will change or modify. And again, this all clearly shows I'm not pandering.
Rich, I agree Nick used to be the guy you describe. Recently, things have changed.Read the first chapter of this book for breathless conspiracy mongering, where the standard ufological view that Maury Island was a hoax (Story, 1980; Clark, 1998; Randle, 2013) is not presented, among other problems of detail. (I had assumed Nick would present a tempered review of these conspiracies, pointing out facts but nixing nonsense. But chapter one was all nonsense and I had to put it down out of disgust. But perhaps that's just my insecurity talking, eh, Dr. Nick?)http://www.amazon.ca/Close-Encounters-The-Fatal-Kind/dp/1601633114/And what about this insane vat of slurry published last month?http://www.amazon.ca/Bloodline-Gods-Unravel-Mystery-Reveal/dp/1601633653/(See this post, and my comment:)http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/the-weirdly-anti-semitic-and-racist-claims-behind-this-clickbait-article-will-shock-youI don't think Nick believes any of this crap.
Why you link to that article that discusses anti-semetic issues, I have no idea. There is nothing - at all - of a racist nature in my book.Yes, the standard view of Maury Island is that it was a hoax. But, I don't think it was. That's precisely why you get conspiracy mongering in that chapter - because I think there WAS a conspiracy! You say: "I don't think Nick believes any of this crap."Yes, I certainly do believe Maury Island was a conspiracy. And do I think there is a direct connection between abductions, etc and the blood factor I talk about? Yes, I do. Granted, it's a theory, but it's a theory with a lot of threads.
Just because I write a chapter suggesting Maury Island was a conspiracy, does not make it pandering. I wrote the chapter from a conspiracy perspective because I don't think it was just a hoax that ended in tragedy for the two military guys. And to demonstrate further that I'm pandering, in that very same book - Close Encounters of the Fatal Kind - I have chapters where I suggest the UFO theories for certain cases were bullshit, and the real cause was something like an MKULtra op. So, the book is hardly all pro-UFO conspiracies. I suggest more than a few had down to earth explanations. I even included the Hickson-Parker case as possibly having down to earth/MKUltra-style links. That case is a classic amongst ugfologists, but in the very same book I supported Maury Island I also did NOT support the Hickson-Parker. Pandering? Nope.
RichThe opening words of second paragraph should be:"And to demonstrate further that I'm NOT pandering, in that very same book..." LOL, my mistake!
> I don't hide behind a weird alias!Do you have a psychiatric opinion of Isaac Koi, Dr. Nick? Is he also of "unsure character strength"?> worries about direct confrontationIt has been my policy the last few years to give my true legal name when emailing people from my Terry the Censor accounts. Therefore, many people in and around ufology know the real name of Terry the Censor, including our estimable host Rich, Regan Lee, Jack Brewer, Robert Sheaffer, John Rimmer, Kevin Randle, Martin Kottmeyer, Jason Colavito, Kitty Mervine, Lance Moody, Paul Kimball, Sharon Hill of Doubtful News, Patrick Huyghe, Ryan Dube of Top Secret Writers, James Oberg, Robert Barrow, Robert Hastings, Dr. David Clarke, Isaac Koi, and Stu Bundy of MUFON Ontario. (I also gave my name to Stan Friedman but he didn't respond to my email, alas, so maybe he doesn't know!)
> Yes, the standard view of Maury Island is that it was a hoax. But, I don't think it was.And did you tell your readers about the standard view?
> I am certain the MIB are real but have what is broadly known as "supernatural" origins. > Same with my writings on Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster etc. I can hardly be accused of pandering because I openly state time and again, I'm sure these things are paranormal in origin.> I certainly do believe Maury Island was a conspiracy.> I have chapters where I suggest the UFO theories for certain cases were bullshit, and the real cause was something like an MKULtra op.So, by your own admission, Nick, errors, hoaxes, undemonstrated claims, unfounded conspiracies and straight up bullshit are rarely labelled as false mysteries by you. Rather, you just re-assign them to different mystery categories, so the paranormal readership never has to give them up.When you willingly ignore the research of others to accomplish this neat feat, that is pandering.
"And do I think there is a direct connection between abductions, etc and the blood factor I talk about?"To Nick,Do you have made a statistical analysis? Asking alleged abductees to have a blood test in order to know their Rh?You take a sample of, let say, 100 abductees TAKEN AT RANDOM (very important) and have their Rh tested.For example, if the frequency of negative Rh is 15% in the general population and 80% in the abductee sample, then you may have discovered something. Here is the link that explains the statistical tests to do proportion comparisons:https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CDkQFjADahUKEwjGt4OczoHIAhULEZIKHTb5CTQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.departments.bucknell.edu%2Fmanagement%2Fcourses%2Fmgmt242%2Fchap10%2Fchap10.ppt&usg=AFQjCNGd8XFOy-wVfM34iMnn8iW6YS6-3wRepeat the test with several abductee samples and if it always confirms the hypothesis, then hurrah! Otherwise, stop here.The next step is to interpret the results if they are statistically significant. Perhaps people with a negative Rh are more subject to altered states of consciousness and sleep paralysis, thus producing more abduction reports (again if the results are significant, ignore that sentence if they are not!).This is how to do proper science. Regards,Jean
By Rare phenomena lover, at Friday, September 18, 2015
Terry:My view on people who use aliases etc is that I simply don't understand the need to use an alias in the first place. That's why I question it, because I don't get why it's important for some people to hide their true identity. What's the big deal about using a real name?
> Yes, the standard view of Maury Island is that it was a hoax. But, I don't think it was.You say: "And did you tell your readers about the standard view?"No. I gave them MY view.
Terry, you say:"So, by your own admission, Nick, errors, hoaxes, undemonstrated claims, unfounded conspiracies and straight up bullshit are rarely labelled as false mysteries by you. Rather, you just re-assign them to different mystery categories, so the paranormal readership never has to give them up."When you willingly ignore the research of others to accomplish this neat feat, that is pandering."I don't "willingly ignore the research of others." If I don't agree with the research, I dismiss it and toss it out and I don't dwell on it. Disagreeing with it and then dumping it - after coming to a conclusion as to why I disagree - is not the same as ignoring it.
If people read my books they are going to get my opinions. If they want the opinion of someone else on a case I've written about, then read a book written on the same subject by someone else!
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile