SUNlite

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: SUNlite

Postby Frank Stalter » Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:06 pm

astrophotographer wrote:However, when research is shown to be prone with errors and based on questionable sources, one has to wonder how good the researcher is. Of course, in UFOlogy, such research is easily forgiven. While Randle et al. have blindly accepted what they have been told and failed to even question their "reliable sources" (remember Randle felt Kaufmann was reliable for over a decade and continuously tried to sell the idea that Kaufmann was telling the truth), Clarke seems to be more critical of what he is willing to accept. You don't see him describing wild stories based on rumor and speculation.

Hmmm...he gave credit to Pope for his input, which is what most writers do even though they may not agree with them. Stating he is into "character assassination" is not being accurate and appears to be an effort for you to do the same. Character assassination involves presenting exaggeration,rumors, and misrepresentations as facts in order to tarnish a person's reputation. Clarke has simply asked why Pope wants to conceal documents that relate to his UFO work at the MOD. He wants the pertinent facts to be released. All Pope has to do is authorize the release of these documents and that is the end of the story. Pope is the one creating the story by not allowing those documents to be revealed.


You're not doing any better than the worst in Ufology here. Using loaded language "prone with errors," "questionable sources," "blindly accepted," "sell the idea," you slam Randle. I can find examples in science, like Francis Crick's support of directed panspermia, often touted in the UFO world, which he later pulled back from when more information became available about RNA, or the astronomical establishment at large's belief that the Milky Way was the full extent of the universe prior to Hubble's discovery of its' expansion and other galaxies, that demonstrate that "experts" are sometimes wrong. It happens. Does this make Crick or astronomers prior to the mid-1920s bad researchers? Bad people trying to sell an idea?

As far as Clarke, I don't think he has any character at all so there's nothing to assassinate. Your own blind support for such sleazy tactics calls your own credibility into question. Personnel records are nobody's damn business, Pope worked on UFOs for the MOD. There is no story other than Clarke demonstrating that he's a scumbag and who supports him.
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am


Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Fri Nov 05, 2010 2:46 pm

Frank Stalter wrote:You're not doing any better than the worst in Ufology here. Using loaded language "prone with errors," "questionable sources," "blindly accepted," "sell the idea," you slam Randle. I can find examples in science, like Francis Crick's support of directed panspermia, often touted in the UFO world, which he later pulled back from when more information became available about RNA, or the astronomical establishment at large's belief that the Milky Way was the full extent of the universe prior to Hubble's discovery of its' expansion and other galaxies, that demonstrate that "experts" are sometimes wrong. It happens. Does this make Crick or astronomers prior to the mid-1920s bad researchers? Bad people trying to sell an idea?


Well, they are "prone with errors". Do you want me to list them for you? How can Stanton Friedman honestly accept the MJ-12 documents? How can he publish a book with the fake schulgen memo in it? What is the excuse for leaving out pertinent sections of documents that demonstrate your speculations are incorrect? I could go on for hours but you probably are uninterested. One can only assume it is because of sloppy research and blindly accepting things that you want while rejecting items that do not agree with your conclusions. How do you explain such things?

Demonstrating that "experts"/science are sometimes wrong is not applicable. Science changes itself when better information becomes available. This is not about being wrong but what is done after you discover the error. UFOlogy tends to entrench itself when it discovers evidence that their cherished UFO case is shown to be wrong. It assumes the new evidence is tainted or planted by the grand conspiracy. There is no desire for self correction. That is a belief based system and not scientific.

Frank Stalter wrote:As far as Clarke, I don't think he has any character at all so there's nothing to assassinate. Your own blind support for such sleazy tactics calls your own credibility into question. Personnel records are nobody's damn business, Pope worked on UFOs for the MOD. There is no story other than Clarke demonstrating that he's a scumbag and who supports him.


Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion. However, I think your opinion is biased by your beliefs and not any careful examination of the facts. BTW, these are not "personal records" like medical exams and such. These are exchanges between officials that contain information regarding Pope's performance at the MOD. This is the same position that Pope uses to present himself as an expert. This is the issue here and you seem uninterested in discovering what Pope really did and his performance at MOD other than what he wants to tell you.
Last edited by astrophotographer on Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby DrDil » Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:09 pm

Frank Stalter wrote:
DrDil wrote:I’m not sure I follow your logic, the Sun is little more than a comic and is recognized as such. It’s famous for it’s “page 3 beauties” (http://www.page3.com/) which adorn every paper and is not a fair representation of journalism in the UK but even if it is then how does that affect the validity of Clarke’s academic qualifications?


His doctorate is in folklore. He lectures on journalism. Those are his credentials. His work, or lack thereof, is what I judge. . .

<snip>

Hi again Frank,

M’kay, but that wasn’t really the statement or sentiment I was referring to, but I guess either way it’s just a (wildly) differing opinion as I still can’t fathom what relevance a webpage showing topless images of a reality television star from the UK’s gutter-press (I use the term 'star' very loosely) has to do with defining the credentials and/or work of a university lecturer in journalism.

Frank Stalter wrote:<snip>

Journalism in England, which Clarke is a professor of, makes the dung heap that passes for journalism here in the States smell like a bouquet of roses.

STUNNING Sam Faiers — who claims to be the hottest Essex girl — today fulfills her dream of posing topless for The Sun.
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3210693/The-Only-Way-Essex-Sam-Faiers-goes-topless-on-The-Suns-website.html#ixzz14L8NJPDh
Now, that's some hard hitting investigating right there . . . and yes, I do know Pope is a contributor at The Sun.

And neither do I accept or recognise that the above article (or anything published in the Sun) is representative of “Journalism in England” -and especially not as taught at university standard- any more than I recognise anything published by American Media, Inc., as being representative of “Journalism in America.”

However, if you could direct me to where you learned Clarke is a professor of “Journalism in England” I would be grateful and would also concede that if this is the case then you may have a valid point. Unless of course as I originally thought & questioned you are merely using the sensationalist content published in the Sun as a sweeping generalisation in order to reduce ALL Journalism in England” to a similarly low standard then suggesting that this low standard is applicable to the journalism courses offered at the university where Clarke lectures, because if that is the case so then surely it’s exactly the same as the perceived character assassination which you so readily lambast Clarke for?
User avatar
DrDil
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:55 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby ryguy » Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:52 pm

Frank Stalter wrote:I can find examples in science, like Francis Crick's support of directed panspermia, often touted in the UFO world, which he later pulled back from when more information became available about RNA, or the astronomical establishment at large's belief that the Milky Way was the full extent of the universe prior to Hubble's discovery of its' expansion and other galaxies, that demonstrate that "experts" are sometimes wrong. It happens.
Does this make Crick or astronomers prior to the mid-1920s bad researchers? Bad people trying to sell an idea?


Well we better HOPE it happens. If it doesn't, then the scientific process isn't working. The whole point of the scientific process is for one scientist to present a finding which peers then attempt to thoroughly test and either completely disprove, partially prove, or validate. Nine times out of ten, science shows that follow-up work only partially proves the first finding, then tests are modified with a new hypothesis and those are tested all over again. Essentially - the work of the first scientist isn't "wrong". Every finding is a building block to the next finding - those early scientists, however loopy some theories may seem today in hindsight, were pioneers.

On the flip side - Ufologists present their ideas and then immediately get defensive about anyone that wants to validate or test their findings. They attack ad-hominem and cling to their "findings" as a religion rather than as a first rung on a ladder toward the truth.

Personnel records are nobody's damn business, Pope worked on UFOs for the MOD. There is no story other than Clarke demonstrating that he's a scumbag and who supports him.


Incorrect - personnel records are a critical part of validating someone's credibility and expertise in the field. Particularly when that "someone" is making elaborate claims. Checking on those records is the sign of a thorough and GOOD researcher. If only there were more folks like this in Ufology...

-Ryan
---
"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

Re: SUNlite

Postby murnut » Fri Nov 05, 2010 6:23 pm

astrophotographer wrote:Demonstrating that "experts"/science are sometimes wrong is not applicable. Science changes itself when better information becomes available. This is not about being wrong but what is done after you discover the error. UFOlogy tends to entrench itself when it discovers evidence that their cherished UFO case is shown to be wrong. It assumes the new evidence is tainted or planted by the grand conspiracy. There is no desire for self correction. That is a belief based system and not scientific.



Ain't that the truth
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby Frank Stalter » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:02 pm

astrophotographer wrote:Well, they are "prone with errors". Do you want me to list them for you? How can Stanton Friedman honestly accept the MJ-12 documents? How can he publish a book with the fake schulgen memo in it? What is the excuse for leaving out pertinent sections of documents that demonstrate your speculations are incorrect? I could go on for hours but you probably are uninterested. One can only assume it is because of sloppy research and blindly accepting things that you want while rejecting items that do not agree with your conclusions. Hpw do you explain such things?


Friedman is Friedman. More showman than researcher, but he never runs away from a debate like Clarke and he's good at slapping down debunkers who overplay their hands like you're doing. Oh, and why all the assumptions about what I'm interested in or not and what my conclusions are? The only conclusion I've made here is that Clarke is cowardly, dishonest and hypocritical . . . . and I've proved it . . . even though you blindly accept him as an authority.

astrophotographer wrote:Demonstrating that "experts"/science are sometimes wrong is not applicable. Science changes itself when better information becomes available. This is not about being wrong but what is done after you discover the error.


You're just repeating what I already wrote about Randle. Of course it's applicable. Thanks for driving my point home for me. :P

astrophotographer wrote:Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion. However, I think your opinion is biased by your beliefs and not any careful examination of the facts. BTW, these are not "personal records" like medical exams and such. These are exchanges between officials that contain information regarding Pope's performance at the MOD. This is the same position that Pope uses to present himself as an expert. This is the issue here and you seem uninterested in discovering what Pope really did and his performance at MOD other than what he wants to tell you.


Personnel files are personal. I don't know what part of that you don't understand. Pope worked at the MOD and was involved in UFO work. No one questions that, not even Clarke. You seem to take the same delight in semantic hair splitting as the MOD as evidenced by these quotes from:

Linda Unwin, Desk Officer in Directorate of Air Staff (DAS) responsible for dealing with enquiries about UFOs and for implementing Freedom of Information within DAS: wrote:The first point to make is that there is no 'UFO Project.' The policy is quite simple: we only look at these reports to establish whether there might be anything of defence significance, such as an unauthorised or hostile aircraft in UK airspace. This work is ongoing and we are keen to continue releasing information into the public domain.


http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... derFoi.htm

Simple policy . . . look at reports . . .work is ongoing . . . but it isn't a project . . .
I'd call it a project. Any rational person would call it a project. What would you call it?

DrDil wrote:However, if you could direct me to where you learned Clarke is a professor of “Journalism in England” I would be grateful and would also concede that if this is the case then you may have a valid point. Unless of course as I originally thought & questioned you are merely using the sensationalist content published in the Sun as a sweeping generalisation in order to reduce ALL “Journalism in England” to a similarly low standard then suggesting that this low standard is applicable to the journalism courses offered at the university where Clarke lectures, because if that is the case so then surely it’s exactly the same as the perceived character assassination which you so readily lambast Clarke for?


I gave Clarke a little more credit than he deserved by calling him a professor. People can get very hung up on titles. Credentials fetishists. Apparently, they're handed out differently in academic circles in the UK than in the States. He is a lecturer, which is two steps beneath professor. My bad. Clarke employs low standards. Comparing his work to The Sun was an insult to The Sun. Also my bad.

ryguy wrote:Incorrect - personnel records are a critical part of validating someone's credibility and expertise in the field. Particularly when that "someone" is making elaborate claims.


You forgot something . . . personnel records aren't for public consumption. You have to go through legal steps to get access to them and the public's need to know has to overcome the right to privacy. See the recent case in Alaska where personnel records did get released. A US Senate race is a little different then a scumbag like Clarke playing games and there was some on-the-job wrongdoing involved. :roll:
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:46 pm

Frank Stalter wrote:The only conclusion I've made here is that Clarke is cowardly, dishonest and hypocritical . . . . and I've proved it . . . even though you blindly accept him as an authority.


Let me get this straight. Dr. Clarke is "yellow", " a punk", "sleazy", "a rat", " a scumbag" etc. You seem to have gotten all the language down. However, name-calling is not what this is about. Now we have you stating that you have "proven" that he is:

1. Cowardly. Cowardice is a tough thing to define. Exactly how do you define it and how have you proven it?
2. Dishonest. That implies lying. Have you demonstrated he lied about anything? Not that I have seen.
3. Hypocritical. I haven't seen you prove that either. As best I can tell, Dr. Clarke has been open with me when I talked to him and did not refuse to answer any questions.

If you are going to state that you have proven something, I suggest you provide evidence for that claim.

I have actually communicated with Dr. Clarke about all of this so I did not "blindly accept him as an authority". However, considering his experience with the MOD files, one could certainly consider him an authority on the subject of those files.


Frank Stalter wrote:Personnel files are personal. I don't know what part of that you don't understand. Pope worked at the MOD and was involved in UFO work. No one questions that, not even Clarke.


Really? Do you think the President of the US can hide behind things like "personal files"? When somebody claims to be one thing and those files show that not to be quite accurate, the files are pertinent. You stated you proved Clarke's cowardice. Hiding behind privacy concerns to prevent the release of these documents implies a certain degree of cowardice don't you think? After all, what is SO important in those files that he does not want them revealed? Could they demonstrate he is dishonest? If so, wouldn't you want to know or don't you care?
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby Access Denied » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:05 pm

Frank, please take a moment to look at our board rules again, specifically rules 4 & 5 before you reply and consider this your first warning.

On a more personal note, I would suggest you’re not doing Ufology any favors by simply attacking the messenger. Seems to me it would better served if you offered up a particular case that you find compelling for discussion and defend that.


P.S. I will be away for the next couple of days…
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: SUNlite

Postby Frank Stalter » Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:31 pm

astrophotographer wrote:Let me get this straight. Dr. Clarke is "yellow", " a punk", "sleazy", "a rat", " a scumbag" etc. You seem to have gotten all the language down. However, name-calling is not what this is about. Now we have you stating that you have "proven" that he is:


I don't toss such uncompromising language around lightly. I'm generally quite the online diplomat, but if the shoe fits . . . .

astrophotographer wrote:1. Cowardly. Cowardice is a tough thing to define. Exactly how do you define it and how have you proven it?


I posted this at Clarke's blog. Let's see if he mans up and responds this time. The first time I called him on this he ran, like he always does, and didn't post it.

http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/2010/ ... files.html

Me wrote:“if you don’t want this to emerge…this will imply you have something to hide.”
Pope's personnel files are nobody's business. An implied threat and a smear. Is that how you teach your journalism students to operate? And if Pope's veracity is such an issue for you, why would you use him as a source?
http://drdavidclarke.blogspot.com/p/ren ... files.html
Your sleazy tactics don't impress me and neither does your running from the debate with Robert Hastings.


Runs from Hastings . . .

Sunlite wrote:"Eventually, David had enough and stat­ed he wasn’t going to waste any more time with Hastings comments."


. . . runs from me. The definition of a coward. You helped prove that point in your latest newsletter . . . see above.

astrophotographer wrote:2. Dishonest. That implies lying. Have you demonstrated he lied about anything? Not that I have seen.


David Clarke wrote:This decision by the Information Commissioner effectively means the public will never get to read what Nick Pope’s bosses at the MoD really thought about his effectiveness as ‘head of' the MoD’s [non-existent] 'UFO Project.’


It does exist based on the above description provided by Unwin. They don't call it a project but in describing its' activites, she described what any rational person would call a project. It's lying through obfuscating language and Clarke knows it and passes it along as truth.

astrophotographer wrote:3. Hypocritical. I haven't seen you prove that either. As best I can tell, Dr. Clarke has been open with me when I talked to him and did not refuse to answer any questions.


See above . . . questions Pope's veracity and uses him as a source. Can't have it both ways. Already proved this point. See earlier.

astrophotographer wrote:If you are going to state that you have proven something, I suggest you provide evidence for that claim.


That you aren't understanding my points, which I've made clearly and unambiguously, is your problem, not mine.

astrophotographer wrote:Really? Do you think the President of the US can hide behind things like "personal files"?


You're comparing Nick Pope's position at MOD with the Presidency of the United States? Pardon me while I fall on the floor laughing. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby astrophotographer » Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:02 am

Frank Stalter wrote:I don't toss such uncompromising language around lightly. I'm generally quite the online diplomat, but if the shoe fits . . . .


Well, if you feel a need to throw names and slurs about, feel free to do so. However, I think they reflect poorly on you. It indicates your argument is flawed and you have to resort to this sort of thing.

Frank Stalter wrote:I posted this at Clarke's blog. Let's see if he mans up and responds this time. The first time I called him on this he ran, like he always does, and didn't post it.


People can chose what they want in their blogs and what they don't want in their blogs. Perhaps your language may have been a bit harsh. I know Frank Warren does not post anything that James Carlson writes either. I guess that makes him a coward too. I have seen various people banned from forums because of what they had to say. Does that make the forum moderators cowards as well?

Frank Stalter wrote:Runs from Hastings . . .


Actually, he did not "run" from Hastings. Like this current discussion, it was going nowhere and Hastings, like your present course, resorted to the same kind of personal attacks in his argument. All you get is a case of "rinse, lather, and repeat" with all the nastiness that Mr. Hastings can muster. I see it as Dr. Clarke choosing not to waste any more of his time. You view it as "cowardice". That is your opinion but be very careful how you throw that word around and attempt to prove it. Because I could easily call quite a few people in UFOlogy "cowards" using that broad brush.

Frank Stalter wrote:
David Clarke wrote:This decision by the Information Commissioner effectively means the public will never get to read what Nick Pope’s bosses at the MoD really thought about his effectiveness as ‘head of' the MoD’s [non-existent] 'UFO Project.’


It does exist based on the above description provided by Unwin. They don't call it a project but in describing its' activites, she described what any rational person would call a project. It's lying through obfuscating language and Clarke knows it and passes it along as truth.


So, you are calling it a project but the MOD didn't call it that. How can you interpret it as a "project" then? Have you even looked at the MOD files or attempted to figure out what transpired there? You are using your own personal interpretation to try and call Dr. Clarke a liar. Doesn't that make you somewhat dishonest as well?

Frank Stalter wrote:See above . . . questions Pope's veracity and uses him as a source. Can't have it both ways. Already proved this point. See earlier.


I have quoted numerous people that I would not consider a reliable source just so I could make sure that I did not misrepresent what they stated. Additionally, giving credit to people, even though you disagree with them is standard practice. It is called GOOD journalism. To have talked to Pope on the subject and received some form of input from him and not give him credit for that contribution would have been dishonest. You really are trying to push the envelope here.


Frank Stalter wrote:That you aren't understanding my points, which I've made clearly and unambiguously, is your problem, not mine.


Oh, I understand you quite well. Because you don't like the message, you are trying to shoot the messenger through the use of name-calling. Your "evidence" is weak.

Frank Stalter wrote:You're comparing Nick Pope's position at MOD with the Presidency of the United States? Pardon me while I fall on the floor laughing.


You obviously missed the point. Nick Pope was a public servant and has become a public figure just like a politician (such as the president). He has used his time at the MOD as a tool for personal gain. Now he does not want anyone to discover the details of that time at the MOD. If I were using your standards, I would say Mr. Pope is a coward, dishonest, and hypocrticial.

1. Coward - Hides behind personal privacy so damaging information about him is not revealed.
2. Dishonest - Withholds information that reveals what he has stated may or may not be true.
3. Hypocritical - Wants all UFO files revealed EXCEPT those that pertain to his performance at MOD.

The knife can cut both ways. I suggest you put it back in its sheath.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby DrDil » Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:21 am

Frank Stalter wrote:
DrDil wrote:However, if you could direct me to where you learned Clarke is a professor of “Journalism in England” I would be grateful and would also concede that if this is the case then you may have a valid point. Unless of course as I originally thought & questioned you are merely using the sensationalist content published in the Sun as a sweeping generalisation in order to reduce ALL “Journalism in England” to a similarly low standard then suggesting that this low standard is applicable to the journalism courses offered at the university where Clarke lectures, because if that is the case so then surely it’s exactly the same as the perceived character assassination which you so readily lambast Clarke for?


I gave Clarke a little more credit than he deserved by calling him a professor. People can get very hung up on titles. Credentials fetishists. Apparently, they're handed out differently in academic circles in the UK than in the States. He is a lecturer, which is two steps beneath professor. My bad. Clarke employs low standards. Comparing his work to The Sun was an insult to The Sun. Also my bad.

Whatever, so you’re standing by your nonsensical assertion that the Sun is somehow representative of “Journalism in England”?

Purely because it suited your purpose this is the absurd & lacklustre benchmark you selectively apply to generalise, gauge and ultimately denigrate all journalism in the UK?

Are you really that shallow that its just because someone you don’t like teaches it or do you really base your opinion of all UK journalism exclusively on the vacuous and disposable reporting style exhibited daily in the Sun?

It’s the only paper you can wipe your arse with and more s^~t comes off the paper……

And this is the moral high ground you occupy while casting aspersions regarding the integrity of another?!
User avatar
DrDil
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:55 pm

Re: SUNlite

Postby Frank Stalter » Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:40 am

astrophotographer wrote:Actually, he did not "run" from Hastings. Like this current discussion, it was going nowhere and Hastings, like your present course, resorted to the same kind of personal attacks in his argument. All you get is a case of "rinse, lather, and repeat" with all the nastiness that Mr. Hastings can muster. I see it as Dr. Clarke choosing not to waste any more of his time. You view it as "cowardice". That is your opinion but be very careful how you throw that word around and attempt to prove it. Because I could easily call quite a few people in UFOlogy "cowards" using that broad brush.


I did prove it. You don't like the truth of it. And there's another example of Clarke's hypocrisy. He wants to be a public figure too. Where's his personnel file? He wants to jump into the public arena, do softball interviews, be called an "expert," but won't defend against legitimate criticism of his outrageous behavior. :cry: :cry: :cry:

astrophotographer wrote:So, you are calling it a project but the MOD didn't call it that. How can you interpret it as a "project" then? Have you even looked at the MOD files or attempted to figure out what transpired there? You are using your own personal interpretation to try and call Dr. Clarke a liar. Doesn't that make you somewhat dishonest as well?


I stand by my statement. Clarke passed along an obvious MOD lie, admittedly not an especially grievous one, as fact and then tried to turn it into a smoking gun and smear Pope with it. It was the only "evidence" that Clarke provided that Pope has been dishonest: the MOD officer saying there is not a "UFO project" when there clearly is when she went on to describe their UFO related activities. I posted the link to the article. It's an accurate quote. I'll ask again, since you didn't answer the first time . . . if it isn't a project, what would you call it :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: A duck? Because it looks like one and quacks like one. It was a UFO project. To say otherwise is nothing more than dishonest semantic hair splitting. It's creating a discrepancy without a difference.

astrophotographer wrote: I have quoted numerous people that I would not consider a reliable source just so I could make sure that I did not misrepresent what they stated. Additionally, giving credit to people, even though you disagree with them is standard practice. It is called GOOD journalism. To have talked to Pope on the subject and received some form of input from him and not give him credit for that contribution would have been dishonest. You really are trying to push the envelope here.


If he's so dishonest about his resume, how can he be trusted? Why use anything from him at all? He wasn't quoted in the piece, so there couldn't possibly have been any misquoting.

astrophotographer wrote:You obviously missed the point. Nick Pope was a public servant and has become a public figure just like a politician (such as the president). He has used his time at the MOD as a tool for personal gain. Now he does not want anyone to discover the details of that time at the MOD. If I were using your standards, I would say Mr. Pope is a coward, dishonest, and hypocrticial.
1. Coward - Hides behind personal privacy so damaging information about him is not revealed.
2. Dishonest - Withholds information that reveals what he has stated may or may not be true.
3. Hypocritical - Wants all UFO files revealed EXCEPT those that pertain to his performance at MOD.


Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about in this regard. It's called a right to privacy. It is a right. You don't give it up because you are a public figure. It may be more limited, but that limit clearly stops at personnel files in most every instance and the exceptions are just that. Clarke italicaized it! The demand that Pope waive that right came with a threat. I wouldn't have caved under those circumstances either. That you think it's fine and dandy puts you in a very bad light. Where it puts Clarke, I've already made clear. :wink:

astrophotographer wrote:The knife can cut both ways. I suggest you put it back in its sheath.


You have a ways to go before you cut me. I've been knocking you around the ring for two days now, but I respect your willingness to take such a public beatdown. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Last edited by Frank Stalter on Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby Frank Stalter » Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:45 am

DrDil wrote:Whatever, so you’re standing by your nonsensical assertion that the Sun is somehow representative of “Journalism in England”?

Purely because it suited your purpose this is the absurd & lacklustre benchmark you selectively apply to generalise, gauge and ultimately denigrate all journalism in the UK?

Are you really that shallow that its just because someone you don’t like teaches it or do you really base your opinion of all UK journalism exclusively on the vacuous and disposable reporting style exhibited daily in the Sun?

It’s the only paper you can wipe your arse with and more s^~t comes off the paper……

And this is the moral high ground you occupy while casting aspersions regarding the integrity of another?!


I hold myself to a higher standard than Clarke, but admittedly that's a very low bar. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am

Re: SUNlite

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:09 am

Frank Stalter wrote: I've been knocking you around the ring for two days now, but I respect your willingness to take such a public beatdown. :lol: :lol: :lol:


I have a feeling that a large number of people who frequent this forum would not agree with that opinion of yours. I know I don't. It seems more to me that Mr. Printy is laying out the case for your own bias in this matter for all to see. You have proven nothing, but the fact that you seem to believe your evidence is beyond reproach when it is about as solid as Swiss cheese tells me you will stoop very low to grind that axe of yours.

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

Re: SUNlite

Postby Frank Stalter » Sat Nov 06, 2010 3:35 am

You Can Call Me Ray wrote:
Frank Stalter wrote: I've been knocking you around the ring for two days now, but I respect your willingness to take such a public beatdown. :lol: :lol: :lol:


I have a feeling that a large number of people who frequent this forum would not agree with that opinion of yours. I know I don't. It seems more to me that Mr. Printy is laying out the case for your own bias in this matter for all to see. You have proven nothing, but the fact that you seem to believe your evidence is beyond reproach when it is about as solid as Swiss cheese tells me you will stoop very low to grind that axe of yours.

Ray


You're just proving yourselves to be everything you criticize in Ufology. Printy lays out no case at all, pontificates on a field he knows nothing about and refuses to answer simple questions. If that impresses you, more power to ya'. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Frank Stalter
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 12:37 am

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 17 guests

cron