Project Camelot

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Project Camelot

Postby Rintendo » Fri Apr 30, 2010 1:34 am

ryguy wrote:
murnut wrote:What are the popular Scientific study of the phenomena sites that are more popular than what I've listed?

Top 5 Websites to Research Weird Science Claims

Written by yours truly...lol.

Those sites are far more popular than the little idiotic, brainless sites like Project Camelot. Enjoy.

What is wrong with the people at Project Camelot? They all seem like very nice people who are trying to allow disenfranchised people to have a voice. Yes, some of the people they give voices to are as mad as a hatter, but at least they are trying to bring an alternative viewpoint to the forefront.
Last edited by Access Denied on Sun May 02, 2010 2:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: topic split from another thread
Rintendo
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:07 pm


Re: Project Camelot

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:23 am

Rintendo wrote:What is wrong with the people at Project Camelot?


Where to start? OK, let's just say this: Absolutely no invocation or even acknowledgment of the scientific method!

They all seem like very nice people who are trying to allow disenfranchised people to have a voice. Yes, some of the people they give voices to are as mad as a hatter, but at least they are trying to bring an alternative viewpoint to the forefront.


Why is that relevant to a phenomenon that has, as yet, defied all attempts to quantify it? Let's say I have an "alternative viewpoint" that Jesus, Mohammad, Moses, and Buddha all come over to my place every Friday and we shoot pool, play poker, and drink way too much while discussing how to solve the world's problems. Sure does sound like an interesting viewpoint, doesn't it? And I must say, that if I were to push this viewpoint that I would become "disenfranchised" as a result. Why should I be given a platform to spew such nonsense where no one is ever going to push me to provide any sort of proof?

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: Project Camelot

Postby gunter » Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:43 am

I don't have any problem with Camelot for what it is. The reason for their lack of deference to scientific method is that they don't claim to be doing scientific enquiry. What they purport to dispense is informed speculation. To that extent their interviews are best seen as provocative entertainment. Nothing wrong with that. Bill and Kerry (are they still an item?) never claimed anything more for that project.

Nice to see you here Rin.
consider everything/ believe nothing
Image
User avatar
gunter
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Project Camelot

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:05 am

Oh please! Toon, stop covering for them with nonsense.

gunter wrote: What they purport to dispense is informed speculation.


Their "Mission Statement" on their site would seem to disagree with you:

• To provide researchers, activists and ‘whistleblowers’ with access to all forms of media in order to get the truth out.


The truth?

• To establish ‘safety in numbers’ and unite these disparate factions under an umbrella of protection for activists and ‘whistleblowers’ who may have concerns for the safety of themselves and their loved ones.


Whistleblowers also implies truth, otherwise it is slander.

• To provide a tribute to all activists in paradigm-challenging fields who have worked for the benefit of humanity... and who have suffered or been silenced for speaking the truth.
(snip)
• We are dedicated to getting the truth out.


They seem to be claiming what they are putting out is truth. That is where the scientific method has to step in, whether they purport to it or not. :evil:

To that extent their interviews are best seen as provocative entertainment. Nothing wrong with that.


If that was all they claimed it was, there would be nothing wrong with that. But as shown above, their website does not agree with your assessment, Toon. So why are you covering up for scammers?

And oh, BTW, you lauded the debunking of the Serpo scam, and Bill Ryan was part of that. So why the dichotomy?
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: Project Camelot

Postby gunter » Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:22 am

They may believe that the speculation he enables (and that's what it is) contains some truth. As far as Serpo is concerned I think Bill originally had a degree of faith in the subject but was eventually convinced otherwise as the examination here proceeded- and he ultimately backed away from it. I think he was duped by Rick Doty into being involved as a conduit for the 'releases.' People make mistakes, have failures of judgment- especially when dealing with highly strange material. I think he's a decent guy.
consider everything/ believe nothing
Image
User avatar
gunter
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Project Camelot

Postby ryguy » Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:28 pm

The fact that they claim to want to distribute the "truth" holds then scientifically accountable for proving that it's the truth...plain and simple. If Camelot was just entertainment/speculation, the word "truth" should not appear anywhere on their website.

Something is true when it's proven true, not when someone simply claims that it is. At least anywhere other than Bill Ryan's scientology-based perception of "reality." There's no truth there - only a distribution of scams and the contents of the garbage bin of Ufology. Camelot stands for everything I hate about the field of Ufology - the windtunnel mind, the baseless speculation, and the obtuse-yet-arrogant disregard for evidence - the only entity I dislike more (although it's pretty close) is OM. At least places like ATS or even Jerry Pippen don't claim to be anything more than entertainment.

But entities like OM or Camelot try to mutate that entertainment into "truth"...and it only makes them look insanely stupid despite their arrogance.

-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

Re: Project Camelot

Postby gunter » Fri Apr 30, 2010 2:34 pm

The fact that they claim to want to distribute the "truth" holds then scientifically accountable for proving that it's the truth...plain and simple.
Shall we apply that standard to the Catholic Church? Or Ray's pontifications on Cabala? To my mind it's all e.n.t.e.r.t.a.i.n.m.e.n.t.
consider everything/ believe nothing
Image
User avatar
gunter
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Project Camelot

Postby Rintendo » Fri Apr 30, 2010 5:41 pm

The scientific method can only be applied to reproducible/repeatable phenomena. As not all phenomena exists "on demand" or within a particular time frame. Moreover, it requires enough observable data or incidents to even formulate a hypothesis, and tools/technology to test or reproduce it. We have neither in either the field of UFOlogy or esoterica. Groups like "ghosthunters" for example are out there collecting data, some are better at the data collection than others, but because these studies are considered "fringe" you will not find nearly enough data to formulate a single protocol.

Therefore, asking them to utilize the scientific method is bogus. The utilization thereof requires more data than you have and different technology--if there is even technology that could "find" a hyperspeed UFO or pick up interdimensional beings.

Look at how long ago CERN started and they are just now seeing SOME proof that they were correct and this was funded with billions of dollars, as opposed to what is essentially hobby enthusiasts with equipment they pick up at Wal-mart.

They are providing a service which is that of allowing people to listen and speculate. Nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes science is just pondering and theorizing. If it had to produce immediate results then the ancients with no tools to prove their suspicions about our solar system would have given up. They didn't. They carved it in stone. Why? They believed in themselves.
Rintendo
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:07 pm

Re: Project Camelot

Postby gunter » Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:14 pm

The following has been stolen whole cloth from the comments section of the RU blog from a few weeks ago. This comment belongs here.

The ‘what the f*ck was that?’ question is the operative general question. Three question follow by logical extension and form the impetus for the entire field of speculation.

1. Where do they come from?
2. How did they get here? and-
3. What do they want?

The entirety of the vast body of Ufer literature is devoted- depending on the relative ambition of the author- to answering one or more of those three questions. It’s interesting that those very same queries also form the basis of all Philosophical, Metaphysical and Scientific investigation regarding the nature of existence per se.

Drake’s Equation and Fermi’s paradox are typical of the concomitant blending of the fields. Both beg the largest of questions and demonstrate the futility of scientific method regarding a cohesive theory- the answer to the questions they pose. And why? Because both are based in presuppositions that are themselves unproven. It’s the nature of presuppositions to be assumptions derived from anecdotal data. That’s actually the contradiction that lies at the heart of all Ontological hypothesis and it necessarily substitutes ‘belief’ for ‘proof’ as the foundation of Theory. Such is the nature of human endeavor to provide a proof of any existents beyond the brackets of Logic and is the reason that rationalists insist that logic does not apply to the ‘real world’ except by the (tenuous) extrapolation of analogy.

So this is the Epistemological dilemma in a nutshell: Every speculation concerning existence is ultimately founded in nothing more ‘proven’ than a leap of faith. Why should the study of Ufology escape conformity to this universal conundrum?

Does all of this mean that, despite the contradictions and the futility, that the questions ought not be even asked in the first place? Certainly there are those who would say precisely that- that adherence to rational skepticism precludes flights of imaginative speculation. I’m not among them for one simple reason- a simple choice, really- a choice to be curious about the mind of God.

consider everything/ believe nothing
Image
User avatar
gunter
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Project Camelot

Postby Rintendo » Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:36 pm

Exactly. Had the ancients felt the same religious devotion to what they perceive is the "scientific method", if they had take Carl Sagan's advice (extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof) they might never have attempted to cross the Atlantic or build the Great Pyramids.

Every act of love is a leap of faith. Why should a love of knowledge be any different?
Rintendo
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:07 pm

Re: Project Camelot

Postby gunter » Fri Apr 30, 2010 6:53 pm

And the reverse is also true- Every leap of faith is an act of love.
consider everything/ believe nothing
Image
User avatar
gunter
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Project Camelot

Postby Access Denied » Sat May 01, 2010 4:19 pm

Rintendo wrote:The scientific method can only be applied to reproducible/repeatable phenomena. As not all phenomena exists "on demand" or within a particular time frame.

That’s no excuse… if the phenomena is real, it can be quantified if one performs the experiment long enough. Absence of evidence is indistinguishable from actual absence.

Rintendo wrote:Therefore, asking them to utilize the scientific method is bogus. The utilization thereof requires more data than you have and different technology--if there is even technology that could "find" a hyperspeed UFO or pick up interdimensional beings.

If you can sense it, there’s an instrument that can sense it better. If an instrument can’t sense it when you can, it only exists in your mind.

Rintendo wrote:They are providing a service which is that of allowing people to listen and speculate. Nothing more, nothing less.

So, in other words, no effort has been, or will be, made to ensure the validity of the claims that are being presented… in which case the only thing that matters is whether or not it’s what they want to hear.

Seems to me Project Camelot is indistinguishable from pure fiction… or worse, a religious cult.

Rintendo wrote:Every act of love is a leap of faith. Why should a love of knowledge be any different?

So you're worshipping ET based on faith alone... why? What “knowledge” have “they” given you or do you hope to gain by simply believing in “them”?

Personally, I’d like to get my hands on a hard copy of the blueprints for their spaceship… perhaps all I need to do is say is the magic word or eat my vegetables?
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: Project Camelot

Postby gunter » Sat May 01, 2010 4:32 pm

So you're worshipping ET based on faith alone
I don't recall the guy saying he worships ET. Did you?
consider everything/ believe nothing
Image
User avatar
gunter
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:14 pm

Re: Project Camelot

Postby Access Denied » Sat May 01, 2010 4:48 pm

gunter wrote:I don't recall the guy saying he worships ET. Did you?

Is there a better way to describe belief (faith) without evidence?

worship
1 : chiefly British : a person of importance —used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
2 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
3 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
4 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

You may have point, for all I know he could hate ET...
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: Project Camelot

Postby Rintendo » Sat May 01, 2010 5:17 pm

Access Denied wrote:That’s no excuse… if the phenomena is real, it can be quantified if one performs the experiment long enough. Absence of evidence is indistinguishable from actual absence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence on this we agree. However, your words: if one performs the experiment long enough is absolutely correct. Long enough could be three hundred years. What do we do until then?

We do not have enough data collected to even understand how an experiment to "prove" the existence of extra-terrestrial visitors could be performed, nor do we have the tools to perform it yet. I highly doubt we could lure or chase entities whose motivations and technology are not known. Then this "experiment" of which you refer cannot happen yet and will be decades off from even a single protocol being written unless they, if they exist, choose to manifest themselves differently.

At this point we are in the "observational" phase of the scientific method, a phase where people look at data, discriminate the data, and hypothesize.

That is all part of the scientific method. How long we stay in this phase depends upon data collection.

Access Denied wrote:If you can sense it, there’s an instrument that can sense it better. If an instrument can’t sense it when you can, it only exists in your mind.

Galileo was correct before he had the technology to prove himself 100%. Some of our theories may be correct, but our technology has not yet caught up with our minds ability to conceive it.

There is no way that anyone could prove to skeptics that UFOs are extra-terrestrial in origin without them landing and an actual news stations covering it live as it happened.

OR

We can man a shuttle or craft to their possible home world. Nothing short of it is "proof".

Access Denied wrote:So, in other words, no effort has been, or will be, made to ensure the validity of the claims that are being presented… in which case the only thing that matters is whether or not it’s what they want to hear.

Seems to me Project Camelot is indistinguishable from pure fiction… or worse, a religious cult.

Why? Because they are non-discriminatory in who they allow to speak? Is it their responsibility to make up your mind for you what is b.s. and what is real? As if you won't know it yourself when you listen to people talk?

Access Denied wrote:So you're worshipping ET based on faith alone... why? What “knowledge” have “they” given you or do you hope to gain by simply believing in “them”?

No, I don't believe in them, actually. I just believe in giving others the opportunity to. I am more along the lines of CERN scientists. They are from another dimension.
Last edited by Access Denied on Sun May 02, 2010 2:41 am, edited 3 times in total.
Reason: fixed and trimmed quotes
Rintendo
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:07 pm

Next

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

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

cron