Project Camelot views and opinions

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby Chorlton » Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:10 pm

An Interview with Roy Lake of LUFOS - AOL VideoRoy Lake is chairman of London UFO Studies and a ufologist for over 50 years. ...This interview is an introduction to his website: www.crowdedskies.com ...
video.aol.com/video-detail/an-interview-with-roy-lake-of-lufos/795450783 - 69k -

Roy also intimated it was his site at a paranormal meeting in East London in 2005 Though maybe he meant it was 'Our' site meaning Lufora
I have become that which I always despised and feared........Old !

My greatest wish, would be to own my own scrapyard.
User avatar
Chorlton
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:02 pm


Postby dazdude » Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:49 pm

So in essence, you want someone to prove a negative for you..


No did I ask for this. You are asking me to take down matrial because you guys feel you have findings and evidence that proves against it - im saying Ive read this and I dont think it proves 100% that the claims are false - so they will stay up and the consumer can make up their own minds. If any of the claims are 100% proved beyond all doubt to be fantasy then I would probably put up the content side by side to shwo this to the consumer - but still keep both versions online.

I not asking anyone to do anything - your asking me to take your words for it being the real truth - i cnat do this.
I would estimate that, given the amount of SHEER Bull**it that is "out there" on UFOs right now, that the signal-to-noise ratio is well UNDER unity... just as the US Air Force (and other gov agencies with something to hide) would want! Shocked

I cant and wouldn't argue with this - but what is and is not 100% proved disinformation? Yes the past a5years has seen the b.s. level completely go off the scale - but this doesnt invalidate ALL ufo cases and content.

Here we go again... it seems we constantly talk about the futile attempts to prove a negative


No its not - im more than happy to show a counter claim to any information - but im not prepared to take down and throw away any information just on a say so - I say give me data that contradicts and details why some of the content is fake, false and I will present it side by side - but I will not censor and delete it just on the say so of some dudes form an internet forum.

OK firstly, your Dulce 'update' is very old and couldnt be classed as an update at all, especially when you consider that John Lear has claimed many time that he drew the drawings which you show and also wrote the text.


OK let me state this AGAIN for those of you like Chorlton who as I have said over and over reads one thing and interprets it a another - the site other than the homepage and videos does not get updated anymore and this is pretty much the site form 1997 with verys small updates - i do NOT have the time to update it anymore.

On your website you are simply listed as 'Webmaster' yet on an earlier post here you state:
"I personally own and run a large ufo website that has been online since about 1997 "
And indeed on a Whois look up it is registered to you

Yet on various sites around and about, Roy claims it is HIS website.

Also Whats the connection between Barry King and Roy Lake


Ohh my god its a conspiracy - im a MIB...lol
I own , designed and run the site - I gave LUFOS and roy a part/forum on the site as they didnt have one, i also gave Tony Dodd and others an area where they could share their articles/writings.

In the fact that its the only site that has LUFOS information - it is his site - but we have been friends many years - its what friends do Chorlton one day you might find this out ;)

Roy Lake and Barry King - I cant comment as I dont know.
You said Barry King had shown you a Wackenhut ID, yet on OM he denied he worked for Wackenhut and stated it was actually suggested by someone else.


Well hes lying then I met Barry once in london where i appeared on stage at a conference with him in the 90's. Before the event we had time to chat and he pulled out his wallet and showed me a wackenhut pass - real or not I dont know. At this time he was involved with this crazy, lunatic ufo mag called the voice which kinda publicially outed jenny randles as being a man.

"Firstly and most importantly, Barry never did say he was working for Wackenhut, that was assumed by others, in the files it does not quote that employer." So thats proven that King is happy to lie to defend his hoaxes. Thanks for that at least.


Well its going back a few years but im sure he told me he worked for a wakenhut security firm of some kind.


Roy also intimated it was his site at a paranormal meeting in East London in 2005 Though maybe he meant it was 'Our' site meaning Lufora


I dont have a problem with this - why should you - what's the problem - I built the site, I own the site, the domain names and I decided what foes on the site - roy uses it as a website for lufos as hes getting on and doent have the help he used to so I allow them a forum - these comments are mine alone and nothing to do with Roy or LUFOS.

I own and run a business building websites so whats the problem?


Domain name: CROWDEDSKIES.COM

Administrative Contact:
smith, darryl darryl@net-hed.co.uk
147 the oval
bath, ba2 2hf
GB
01225 400087


I also own:

Domain name: LUFOS.COM

Administrative Contact:
smith, darryl darryl@net-hed.co.uk
147 the oval
bath, ba2 2hf
GB
01225 400087


but then again I own hundreds of domain names and many sites including:
psihacking.com
psychichacker.com
psychcihackers.com
remoteviewingtv.com
and so on...

there is NO conspiracy....

lol

daz
User avatar
dazdude
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:23 am
Location: UK

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:23 am

dazdude wrote:
I would estimate that, given the amount of SHEER Bull**it that is "out there" on UFOs right now, that the signal-to-noise ratio is well UNDER unity... just as the US Air Force (and other gov agencies with something to hide) would want! Shocked

I cant and wouldn't argue with this - but what is and is not 100% proved disinformation? Yes the past a5years has seen the b.s. level completely go off the scale - but this doesnt invalidate ALL ufo cases and content.


Then it is quite clear you have no technical understanding of what signal-to-noise ratio is, nor its implications to finding the truth. EACH TIME you repeat a signal (information) you AMPLIFY it. There is no getting around this fact. Therefore, if you (and by that I do mean you, personally) indiscriminately "repeat" information, without regard for its veracity, that makes you necessarily complicit in lowering the signal to noise ratio (by increasing noise).

The ONLY way you can sucessfully increase the signal-to-noise ratio it by rejecting (and refusing to amplify) ANY information that might be noise. Hence, you do NOT improve signal-to-noise by indiscriminantly amplifying and hoping the "real" signal gets sorted out later. Rather, you REJECT information that is questionable (UNTIL PROVEN, NOT when the reverse, its negative, is disproven), and thereby eliminate at least the noise contained therein from propagating.

And here we see precisely why a person who is not trained in science should not be PRETENDING to be doing something scientific. For in your own ignorance of information theory, you are willfully making it harder to get to the truth. Argue all you want, but I can give you defacto examples from electrical engineering that show your approach is tarnished. It accomplishes the exact opposite of what you think you are doing. If we did real science and engineering your way, airplanes would be crashing all the time and we would be saying "the airplane continue to fly until you prove to me that the algorithms are wrong."

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby dazdude » Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:38 am

And here we see precisely why a person who is not trained in science should not be PRETENDING to be doing something scientific. For in your own ignorance of information theory, you are willfully making it harder to get to the truth. Argue all you want, but I can give you defacto examples from electrical engineering that show your approach is tarnished. It accomplishes the exact opposite of what you think you are doing. "


firstly from your post you claim I am doing something or have an explicit aim from having crowdedskies online - its just a website where people can get some fun, very basic and interesting content about ufos and the subject collected from the public domain true or not is not what crowdedskies is about - its NOT for me to say this is true, oh and this bit isn't - its up to the consumer to look around, investigate and decide. However much you guys THINK you know - you cannot claim to have the truth about this subject - no one does its just one big smorgasbord board of mainly personal opinions and ways to make money from both sides of the real or not argument.

I and the site has NEVER claimed to be trained in anything, I don't call myself a ufologist or a ufo researcher (since 97) and LOL I would NOT expect any place I called home of the grey dudes - to have or indicate a professional and scientific place in any way. I am not pretending to do anything scientific - if you think this you are sorely mistaken ,naive or just plain stupid.

For in your own ignorance of information theory, you are willfully making it harder to get to the truth.


Information theory - shmermy... I know very little about electrical engineering - but i know enough to know that my life doesn't need electrical engineering theory to construct the universe. (sorry but i never claimed to be a scientist or an elctrical engineer - but if you want to know about web design...im cooking :))

You don't know what the truth is - none us do - so how can it be harder to get to something that cant be proven and no one really know what is and is not the truth? You're assuming that your opinions are the truth and that the opinions and docs on my website aren't. Its a stalemate - so let the readers decided what they think is real and want to believe.

Its like the god debate - it cant YET be proved - but some people get comfort from believing in god - why not let the same happen for ufos and aliens.

Until we have the definitive scientific proof for each then each side of the existence non-existence argument should get a forum and the consumer should be allowed to choose their proffered path.

daz
User avatar
dazdude
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:23 am
Location: UK

Postby ryguy » Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:44 pm

dazdude wrote:Until we have the definitive scientific proof for each then each side of the existence non-existence argument should get a forum and the consumer should be allowed to choose their proffered path.

daz


I can understand your point of view - and I can respect and appreciate your desire to welcome all points of view and hypothesis in an open and welcoming way, here's the problem Ray is trying to point out:

An Analogy

Picture a conference room where 10 scientists are sitting around a long table trying to solve a complicated problem. In this analogy we'll say the problem is to determine why the oxygen level on the space shuttle is slowly dropping during a moon mission.

During the first part of the session comes the brainstorming. Some scientists hypothesize that a valve or manifold at some point along the system between the source and the outlets must be leaking. Another scientist offers the hypothesis that possibly a pice of space debris struck a particular part of the shuttle body where the oxygen system was vulnerably placed too close to the outer shell of the shuttle. Other hypothesis offered range from errant solar radiation causing disturbances to the oxygen control system all the way to possible alien psychic disturbances intentionally interfering with the shuttle's control system.

Then comes the probability phase where the scientists agree on which hypothesis holds the strongest possibility based on all of the existing limited evidence in the form of sensor readings, reports from the shuttle crew, etc...

Most scientists present who have reviewed the available data all agree that it's most likely a valve or manifold along the oxygen distribution lines have sprung a leak. They can't prove it - but sensors in one particular area of the shuttle wall reflect elevated oxygen levels that don't match the normal cabin levels.

One or two of the scientists insist that alien psychic disturbances are intentionally causing the shuttle computers to reroute oxygen to that area. And that the immediate and emergency solution should be to have the crew sit in a circle, holding hands in order to get into "psychic phase" with the alien psychic presense, and as a group "block" the psychic energies of the intrusive alien presense.

A couple of the other scientists point out that the hypothesis offered is silly and one of the least probable solutions based on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that points to a leak. But the alien-scientist insists that none of the available evidence disproves his alien psychic hypothesis, therefore his hypothesis should not be dismissed so easily.

After spending three hours of arguing about the rediculous nature and low probabily of the alien hypothesis, several of the "real" scientists realize that the presence of, and focus on, the low-probability "garbage" theories severely hamper their ability to get to to truth, because they are wasting all of their time explaining why those "junk" hypothesis need to be thrown out.

Adding to the "Signal to Noise" Problem

There comes a point where the phenomenon Ray describes, the signal-to-noise ratio, becomes terrible obstruction to the process of discerning the truth behind a real phenomenon.

In fact, long-time UFO Scammers depend on this high noise problem so that members of the general public have significant difficulty pulling the accurate and true data from the erroneous and ridiculous. The true data not only helps to reveal some of the truth behind the actual phenomenon, but it also reveals the shenanigans of individuals who've taken advantage of this terrible signal-to-noise ratio for their own greedy purposes. Using noise to hamper progress of legitimate researchers is even more efficient when the "true data" is already borderline rediculous to begin with.

The only reason I suggested you toss the erroneous and low-probability data on your website is because from your previous posts in here, about Project Camelot, I was getting the impression that you were starting to appreciate the difficulties that legitimate researchers face because of troublesome websites, like Camelot, that continue to attempt to present the legitimacy of hypothesis surrounding the UFO phenomenon that are largely improbable and unlikely in light of all of the existing available data.

However there will always be folks who confuse and mix their deeply-held religous-based beliefs with the scientific study that seeks to uncover the true source of a phenomenon.

There comes a point when a person's beliefs begin to hamper their ability to discern the truth in science. It takes a great deal of discipline to seperate the two, and it isn't easy. Even those skeptics who believe they are immune to this problem are not - it's an inherent part of human nature to want to believe a hypothesis so badly that they begin to ignore the available evidence that runs contrary to their beliefs.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:12 pm

Thank you, Ryan.

Daz, I don't expect you to "get it" right off the bat. But I would caution you to not simply throw it away as if it is not real. Why not LEARN how important signal-to-noise is? (lots of RV proponents talk about it...but how many truly understand it?) Because what I am telling you is fact: If you abhor the US Intel community littering the "phenomological" fields of inquiry with disinformation, by repeating ANYTHING that you do not know to be true in this area, YOU ARE DOING MORE DAMAGE AND HELPING THE PEOPLE YOU DEPLORE.

It is that simple. You don't have to be AWARE that you are doing it. But rest assured, you ARE doing it.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Special Illuminati Alert!!

Postby Inconceivable » Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:45 pm

This just in! The National Enquirer, I mean Project Camelot, now reports shocking proof that the Illuminati control the world via the testimony of an extraordinary person, Svali.

http://projectcamelot.net/whats_new.html

Unfortunately, Svali has "disappeared" and therefore Project Camelot cannot validate the shocking claims of horrific events such as Vatican child sacrifice.

Why trust this source? To quote the site:

"I also trust Svali's testimony because it confirms my intuition and intensive research. Everything fits: from the dead hand that seems to suppress humanity to why Clinton gave secret technology to the Chinese, to persistent reports of concentration camps in the US. It explains why people I know behave in a conspiratorial way."

It doesn't get any more compelling than that. It really doesn't.
Ufology today is a minefield of con-artists, hoaxsters, disinformers, the disinformed, the gullible and even the mentally ill. But you have to admit, it's great entertainment!
Inconceivable
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:24 am

Postby Inconceivable » Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:48 pm

Special Alert Update on the Illuminati:

"These people are not happy."

Developing...
Ufology today is a minefield of con-artists, hoaxsters, disinformers, the disinformed, the gullible and even the mentally ill. But you have to admit, it's great entertainment!
Inconceivable
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:24 am

Postby Inconceivable » Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:17 pm

Special Project Camelot Illuminati Update 2:

Illuminati child-rearing techniques revealed:

[1] When the child is 2 years old, place them in a metal cage with electrodes attached. Shock the child severely.

[2] Take the child out, and place a kitten in its hands. Tell the child to wring the kitten's neck. The child will cry and refuse.

[3] Put the child into the cage, and shock them until they are dazed and cannot scream any more.

[4] Take the child out, and tell them again to wring the kitten's neck. This time the child will shake all over, cry, but do it, afraid of the torture. The child will then go into the corner and vomit afterwards, while the adult praises them for "doing such a good job".

As a wild guess, I would say this method of being raised might explain some of the unhappiness among the Illuminatis.
Ufology today is a minefield of con-artists, hoaxsters, disinformers, the disinformed, the gullible and even the mentally ill. But you have to admit, it's great entertainment!
Inconceivable
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:24 am

Postby uberarcanist » Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:28 pm

My philosophy on Project Camelot-ignore it, and it will continue to be grossy inconsequential and pathetic.
867-5309
User avatar
uberarcanist
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:03 pm

Postby alantree » Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:31 pm

Said Ryguy:
There comes a point when a person's beliefs begin to hamper their ability to discern the truth

Says the Gospels:
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.


Said Ryan: Even those skeptics who believe they are immune to this problem are not - it's an inherent part of human nature to want to believe a hypothesis so badly that they begin to ignore the available evidence that runs contrary to their beliefs.


I agree. We, as a conscious species,
want to believe


But what of the skeptics (such as Chorlton) who say; "Consider everything but believe nothing?" Should he, perhaps, be banned and sentenced to the Hemlock cure?
alantree
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:22 pm

Postby uberarcanist » Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:41 pm

Ban, why do that? Although Chorlton is no fool, he can make foolish assertions like we all can, and what fun would this forum be without foolish assertions?
867-5309
User avatar
uberarcanist
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:03 pm

Postby alantree » Tue Apr 08, 2008 7:50 pm

uberarcanist wrote:Ban, why do that? Although Chorlton is no fool, he can make foolish assertions like we all can, and what fun would this forum be without foolish assertions?


Foolish assertions? Please elaborate
alantree
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 8:22 pm

Postby uberarcanist » Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:16 pm

You can read the old posts for yourself...I'm not going to take the fun out of it for ya. 8)
867-5309
User avatar
uberarcanist
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:03 pm

Postby ryguy » Tue Apr 08, 2008 8:20 pm

alantree wrote:Said Ryguy:
There comes a point when a person's beliefs begin to hamper their ability to discern the truth

Says the Gospels:
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.



A hypocrite is one who claims that he is the "ideal". Please point to anywhere that I've ever said I have perfected the art of seperating my religious beliefs from my research. In fact I've often said that I fail in that respect - but the difference is that I accept it and can recognize it when I have failed to remain unbiased because of those beliefs.

Can you accept that weakness in yourself?

It's something we strive for, and that's the best we can do.

I love your tone though... great start. I get the feeling we're going to get along just great.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 13 guests

cron