When debunking = lies & defamatory statements

When debunking = lies & defamatory statements

Postby Buckwild » Fri Apr 22, 2011 10:02 pm

Hi folks,

As you know, I said that I trust no one within the ufology field, not even ufo-skeptics and here is the perfect example !

JMA aka Venom is someone I know pretty well. Regardless of this fact, let me introduce you to one of the most famous french ufo cases : Trans-en-Provence (named after the town)

Here in English : http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2011/0 ... ident.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-en-Provence_Case

Now JMA's version of the story : http://365daysofastronomy.org/2011/04/2 ... -ufo-case/

JMA : Anyway, some analysis were made by a man called Michel Bounias and at that time (still now) in France there is a big fashion in UFO circles to consider that UFOs are propelled with magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). He finds some anomalies in the sample and says that those anomalies have been caused by the UFO landing, and by the MHD propelling the UFO.


This is not true, at no time MB (RIP since 2003) stated (without a doubt) that his analysis and the anomalies found have been caused by an hypothetical MHD propulsion system. Here is some of his work regarding this case for the GEPAN/SEPRA when he worked for the INRA* :

It was not the aim of the author to identify the exact nature of the phenomenon observed on the 8th of January 1981 at Trans-en-Provence. But it can reasonably be concluded that something unusual did occur that might be consistent, for instance, with an electromagnetic source of stress. The most striking coincidence is that at the same time the French physicist J.P. Petit was plotting the equations that led, a few years later (Petit,1986), to the evidence that flying objects could be propelled at very high speeds without turbulences nor shock waves using the magnetohydrodynamic effects of Laplace force action! It should now be most interesting to determine a catalog of the biochemical effects of electromagnetic waves, particularly the spectra of the continuous effects of varying em parameters, such as frequencies, intensities modulation and pulses. A number of experimental data found in the literature (Bounias, 1984) and in theoretical studies (Veve & Bounias, 1987) suggest that such a program would be of wide importance not only for UFO studies, but also, for instance, in medicine (Douss et al., 1985; Somjen et al., 1982) and related areas.

Source : http://www.scientificexploration.org/jo ... ounias.pdf


* http://www.inra.fr/

Now, regarding the GEPAN/SEPRA :

JMA : Because of course in their report they say that it’s a rock solid case, that it shows that really an alien spaceship landed in France.


This is not true, at no point the GEPAN/SEPRA said such a thing, here is the case that I'll let you translate and it's related documents & analysis done by several labs : http://www.cnes-geipan.fr/geipan/region ... 00849.html

Just translate the conclusion in the "Note techn 16.pdf" to verify by yourself :
http://www.ldi5.com/ovni/sepra/nt16.php

But there's worse, JMA used defamatory statements regarding this well respected* scientist :

JMA : And of course, those analysis made by Michel Bounias, who was a fringe researcher in ufology and other similar subjects, are not valid. Those traces were just made by cars or trucks parking in the garden.


* http://www.cicpprecaution.com/Hommage%2 ... OUNIAS.doc
Bounias, M. C.: "Biochemical traumatology as a potent tool for identifying actual stresses elicited by unidentified sources: Evidence for plant metabolic disorders in correlation with a UFO landing", JSE, 4, 1, 1, 1990
Bounias, M. C.: La Création de la Vie: de la Matière l’Esprit (Editions du Rocher, Paris, 1990).
Bounias, M. C.: (1993) & A. Bonaly. A Topological Model for Fundamental Structures, Ultra Scientist of Physical Sciences 5, n° 2, pp. 175-184.
Bounias, M. C.: (1994) avec A. Bonaly. On Mathematical Links Between Physical Existence, Observability and Information: Towards a ”Theorem of Something, Ultra Scientist of Physical Sciences 6, n° 2, pp. 252-259.
Bounias, M. C.: (1995) avec A. Bonaly. The trace of Time in Poincare Sections of a Topological Space, Physics Essays 8, no. 2, 236-244.
Bounias, M. C.: (1996) avec A. Bonaly. Timeless Space is Provided by the Empty Set, Ultra Scientist of Physical Sciences 8, n° 1, pp. 66-71.
Bounias, M. C.: (1996) avec A. Bonaly. On Metrics and Scaling: Physical Coordinates in Topological Spaces, Indian Journal of Theoretical Physics 44, no. 4, 303-321.
Bounias, M. C.: (1997) avec A. Bonaly. Some Theorems on the Empty Set as Necessary and Sufficient For the Primary Topological Axioms of Physical Existence, Physics Essays 10, no. 4, 633-643.
Bounias, M. C.: (1999), The future of life on Earth : ecosystems as topological spaces, World Scientific.
Bounias, M. C.: (2000) Traité de Toxicologie Générale, Springer-Verlag, 799 pages.
Bounias, M. C.: (2000), J. Environ. Biology, 21(4), pp. 275-285.
Bounias, M. C.: (2000) A Theorem Proving the Irreversibility of the Biological Arrow of Time, Based on Fixed Points in the Brain as a Compact, ¢-Complete Topological Space, American Institute of Physics’ Conference Proceeding, Symposium 8, pp. 20-24.
Bounias, M. C.: (2000) The Theory of Something: A Theorem Supporting the Conditions for Existence of a Physical Universe, from the Empty Set to the Biological Self, International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems 5-6, pp. 1-14.
Bounias, M. C.: (2002) On Spacetime Differential Elements and the Distribution of Biohamiltonian Components, Spacetime & Substance 3, n° 1, pp. 15-19.
Bounias, M. C.: (2003) avec V. Krasnoholovets, Scanning the Structure of Ill-known Spaces. Kybernetes: The International Journal of Systems and Cybernetics, 32, n° 7/8 : Founding Principles About Mathematical Constitution of Space, 945-975 ; Principles of Construction of Physical Space, 976-1004 ; Distribution of Topological Structures at Elementary and Cosmic Scales, 1005-1020.
Bounias, M. C. & V. Krasnoholovets, "The Universe from Nothing: A Mathematical Lattice of Empty Sets", International Journal of Anticipatory Computing Systems (2004), ed. D. Dubois, in press.
(2003) Petit, J.-P.: Michel Bounias est mort
(2004) Krasnoholovets, Volodymyr. Michel Bounias et son rôle dans le développement d'une connaissance plus approfondie de l'espace réel

I won't talk about the conclusion made by the french ufo-skeptics because it would be off topic but even Nablator wondered why JMA aka Venom called him a fringe scientist and now I know why, because of his book named :

If God created the world : http://www.amazon.fr/Si-Dieu-avait-cr%C ... 104&sr=8-1

Source : http://sceptic-ovni.forumactif.com/t212 ... nomy#32719

Since JMA does not even know for sure if MB wrote it, I presume that he did not read it and that he called him a fringe scientist just for this reason (the title of his book). Now, if you want to give skepticism a bad name, just act like JMA did...

Now, since Nablator is a member here, hopefully JMA will know about this thread and he will show up because I do have a few questions for him, one of them is to prove everything he stated, specially that MB was a fringe researcher in Ufology ! :shock:


Cheers,
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am


Re: When debunking = lies & defamatory statements

Postby Buckwild » Sat Apr 23, 2011 2:23 pm

JMA reacted to this thread, basically, he is saying that I would attack him no matter what he said and that I have an emotional need to discuss with him and that he refuses to do so because he does not respect me. What a lame argument/backdoor escape !

He also said that I vomit on ufo-skeptics. Yeah right and how could he explain that I've been "promoting*" the work of some of them like Tim Printy or WVU and even Eric Maillot and Patrice Seray ?

* again, I can prove all that

Regarding the list of scientifical publications that I gave you, JMA says that it's not a big list. Well, first of all, I do not even know if the list I gave is you is an exhaustiv one or not :arrow: (I know now that it was not). Then, you do not judge a scientist only by his number of publications but by the quality when it has been peer reviewed. JMA does not think that MB was a well respected scientist but I do and there are two reasons for that :

First of all, he received the Honors of Philippe Jean COULOMB, Doyen Honoraire des Universités (Honorary Dean of Universities). JMA reacted to this by saying that this person was a friend of him and that it happens quiet often with other scientists.

Second of all, just read this :

MICHEL BOUNIAS AND HIS ROLE IN DEVELOPING
A DEEPER KNOWLEDGE ABOUT REAL SPACE
Volodymyr Krasnoholovets1

Institute of Physics, National Academy of Sciences, Prospect Nauky 46, UA-03028 Ky¨ıv, Ukraine
http://www.inerton.kiev.ua

Received January 17, 2004

A brief story about late Professor Michel Bounias, a member of Advisory Board of Spacetime & Substance, is stated
in the present note. His remarkable studies aimed at the understanding the constitution of the real space allow
us to consider his findings as an actual breakthrough in the fundamental science
. Bounias’ studies shed light on
the organization of space arranged as a mathematical lattice of topological balls – founding elements of the real
space. He investigated the space structure and the substructure of balls, fractality of the real space derived from
first (submicroscopic!) principles and specified origins of matter, charge and fields and disclosed the way of their
manifestation in the space tessellattice...

...French Professor Michel Bounias was a high-level scientist whose researches were wide known among
many mathematicians all over the words. He published hundreds of papers in about a hundred of different journals
, e.g. Comptes-Rendus de l’Academy des Sciences (Paris), J. of Mathemat. Analysis and
Appl. (USA), Nature (UK), Int. J. Comput. Anticipatory Systems (Liege, Belgiue), Indian J. Theor. Phys.
(Calcutta), Ultra Scientist of Physical Sciences (India), Physics Essays (Canada), Spacetime & Substance
(Kharkiv, Ukraine), Chimie Analitique (Paris), Biochemistry Journal (USA), Biochemistry Intern. (Aus-
tralia), Canadian J. of Forest Research, Brazilian J. of Medical and Biological Research, Science of the Total
Environment (Italy), Zeitschrift fuer Naturforschung (Germany), and etc. He published about ten books
at such Publishers as Springer-Verlag (Berlin), Masson (Paris) and others.

Source : http://www.inerton.kiev.ua/Bounias.pdf


You can translate everything JMA said here : http://sceptic-ovni.forumactif.com/t212 ... nomy#32769

JMA, I know you are reading this, so come over here to prove what you stated. I promess, I won't get emotional. :mrgreen:


Cheers,
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: When debunking = lies & defamatory statements

Postby Gilles F. » Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:26 pm

Greetings Buckwild,
Out your "Rufus" or "Buckwild" monologues,
What is your own version, explanation, of the French UFO case of Trans-En-Provence ?
Thanks,
Gilles Fernandez
Gilles F.
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: When debunking = lies & defamatory statements

Postby Buckwild » Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:34 am

Hi Gilles,

My own version ?

I've got none, I am not a "wizard" (i.e : someone with extraordinary lie detection skills). Flipping a coin to decide if he lied or not is probably just as good if you ask "me"*.

*
- The average total accuracy rate (i.e., accuracy scores for detecting truths and detecting lies combined) was
rather low, 55%, and very similar to the total accuracy rate (57%) found with laypersons, such as college students, as observers (Vrij, 2000a). Also, although professional lie catchers don't seem to be better lie detectors than laypersons, they often feel more confident in their ability to detect truths and lies

Source : http://eprints.libr.port.ac.uk/archive/ ... GALINV.pdf


I have never investigated this case and I am not a self-proclaimed investigator/all-terrain ufologist to start with, so my take on it would be useless. The thing I know for sure is that neither I trust J.J.Vélasco (head of GEPAN back then) or the french ufo-skeptics who investigated this case. (since I know all of them and their work, professions & education & skills & agendas)

One of the things I would have done if I "investigated" this case, is to ask Renato to tell his story (while filming him) in reverse while keeping eye contact with me at all times. Narrating backward increases cognitive load because it runs counter to the natural forward sequencing of events. It also disrupts the normal reconstruction of past events using mental schemas, which give coherence to isolated events and because keeping eye contact is distracting, it makes narration more difficult, specially when a Desert Eagle (.50 AE) is pointed at your face at the same time ! :mrgreen:


Cheers,
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: When debunking = lies & defamatory statements

Postby Gilles F. » Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:43 am

Greetings Buckwild,
Yes it is a "well known" memory technic to validate testimonies or to detect or to minimize "false memories" or other "contaminations" in criminology or in psychology fields, among 4 main mnemonic technics in fact.
By the way, I'm writting a short article concerning the "cognitive interview" (entretien cognitif, in french) as used then in criminology (in USA, Quebec, France ie.) in order maybe to "adapt" such well documented technics (validated by scientific papers and empiric researches) to "ufology" when interviewing UFO witnesses.
It is a pity ( a mess?) imho that the cognitive interview have not been used by ufologists in several cases or by the organizations,official or not, studying "UFOs" ... :evil: The UFO interviewers generaly do not control several variables often contaminating testimonies, as it is well known and highly documented in psychology or in criminology. But well, Ufology is sometimes (not always fortunatly) a very special field with special derogations!
Gilles.
Gilles F.
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: When debunking = lies & defamatory statements

Postby Buckwild » Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:21 pm

I totally agree with you Gilles ! This explains why I used the words "self-proclaimed investigators" as opposed to "professional investigators". I just hope that you'll translate your article for our cousins who don't speak & read french.

One question*, will you include psychometric methods & techniques used as data gathering tools to obtain informations regarding psychological traits ?

* I am asking because it seems that it still is a controversial field of study

Cheers,
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: When debunking = lies & defamatory statements

Postby Gilles F. » Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:51 pm

Buckwild wrote:One question*, will you include psychometric methods & techniques used as data gathering tools to obtain informations regarding psychological traits ?


Well, I think to summerize and/or to present the cognitive interview would be a good thing and a good step (?). In english, dunno, because my english level is too bad.
By the past, I was interrested to construct a tests battery in order to "measure" several personality traits, as tool or "allied" for UFO investigators. It was a project during my post-doctorat in Paris V University with 2 other persons.
But I didn't realize this project for several personal reasons (mainly because the credibility of a testimony and what it is described in a testimony are two different matters - ie the credibility of a witness does not avoid optical illusions!). In short words, I realized that some people wanted to use the credibility of a witness as measured by a cognitive tests battery to validate their extraordinary claims, even if it is not the purpose and the goal of the tool we wanted to elaborate... Dunno if I'm clear.
I exchanged some words about this project in the start of my interview in JMA podcast (in french) if you are interrested.

Frankly, as psychometrician in real life, I can say that the construction of such a battery would be a very hard and very long task: the construction of a test in cognitive psychology is realy complex! I mean that It is impossible to realize it in the field of an "hobby" (ufology). It is a "professionnal" job needing many resources and times I have not.
So no, I have only as project to present the cognitive interview. To create such a battery needs too much resources for the self-proclamed UFO skeptic I'm!
Gilles F.
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: When debunking = lies & defamatory statements

Postby Buckwild » Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:24 am

Hi Folks,

JMA admitted in his own blog that he did not do a good job with his interview but nothing has changed on the Astronomy website ! That's too bad because Michel Bounias was a respected scientist, not a fringe scientist and the least he could have done is to modify the transcript.

JMA's blog : http://scepticismescientifique.blogspot.com/

Cheers,
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: When debunking = lies & defamatory statements

Postby Access Denied » Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:09 am

Buckwild wrote:...you do not judge a scientist only by his number of publications but by the quality when it has been peer reviewed. JMA does not think that MB was a well respected scientist...

I agree with JMA, MB appears to have succumbed to cracked pottery...

The JSE, seriously? Sorry but where I come from, it doesn't get much more pseudoscientific than that.

Buckwild wrote:This is not true, at no time MB (RIP since 2003) stated (without a doubt) that his analysis and the anomalies found have been caused by an hypothetical MHD propulsion system.

Irregardless of your “without a doubt” straw man, clearly he endorsed the evidentially unsubstantiated MHD “hypothesis”… :roll:

Unfortunately it appears the only “lies” here are from you so far. As noted in the “Can You Trust Them?” thread, this kind of stuff belongs in the Latrine but I think I’ll leave it here as an example for others.

Why are you so obsessed with skeptics anyway, did somebody rain on your parade or what?

AD
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: When debunking = lies & defamatory statements

Postby Buckwild » Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:26 am

JMA : Anyway, some analysis were made by a man called Michel Bounias and at that time (still now) in France there is a big fashion in UFO circles to consider that UFOs are propelled with magnetohydrodynamics (MHD). He finds some anomalies in the sample and says that those anomalies have been caused by the UFO landing, and by the MHD propelling the UFO.


MB never ever said that. Is english really your first language ?

Read again :

MB : It was not the aim of the author to identify the exact nature of the phenomenon observed on the 8th of January 1981 at Trans-en-Provence. But it can reasonably be concluded that something unusual did occur that might be consistent, for instance, with an electromagnetic source of stress.


This is where his analysis of the samples lead him to. If you want to write a rebuttal, go ahead, his work his available here if you follow the links I gave. Like Nablator said, note that "have been caused by" :arrow: (in JMA's version) is not equal to "that might be consistent, for instance with" :arrow: (in MB's version). Even Marius aka Patrice Seray (a ufo-skeptic) said that I was right and he investigated this case in situ :

Mais d'après google traduction, sur ce soup Buck à raison.

But after using google translator, this time Buck is right

Source : http://sceptic-ovni.forumactif.com/t212 ... -astronomy


MB : The most striking coincidence is that at the same time the French physicist J.P. Petit was plotting the equations that led, a few years later (Petit,1986), to the evidence that flying objects could be propelled at very high speeds without turbulences nor shock waves using the magnetohydrodynamic effects of Laplace force action! It should now be most interesting to determine a catalog of the biochemical effects of electromagnetic waves, particularly the spectra of the continuous effects of varying em parameters, such as frequencies, intensities modulation and pulses. A number of experimental data found in the literature (Bounias, 1984) and in theoretical studies (Veve & Bounias, 1987) suggest that such a program would be of wide importance not only for UFO studies, but also, for instance, in medicine (Douss et al., 1985; Somjen et al., 1982) and related areas.


Again, MB never said that MHD was the propulsion system used by the ufo. J.J Vélasco said it and who admitted it ? JMA himself :

"He (Michel Bounias) finds some anomalies in the sample and says that those anomalies have been caused by the UFO landing, and by the MHD propelling the UFO."

En voulant simplifier le cas, j'ai été amené à trop simplifier. En effet, si effectivement Michel Bounias trouve des anomalies, c'est Jean-Jacques Velsaco qui en tire les conclusions les plus extravagantes. Pour limiter la durée de l'épisode à moins de 10 minutes, je ne voulais pas discuter du rôle de Jean-Jacques Velasco lorsqu'il était directeur du service ovni du CNES et du type de propos qu'il tenait dans les médias. Mal m'en a pris. Si aujourd'hui l'épisode était à refaire, je distinguerais bien les conclusions de Michel Bounias de celles de Jean-Jacques Velasco. Je cite (Velasco, J.-J., Montigiani, N. (2004). L'OVNIS: L'évidence. Carnot, p. 83-84):

Source : http://scepticismescientifique.blogspot ... plier.html


Just use a translator...JMA even admitted that he should not have called him a fringe researcher !

AD : Unfortunately it appears the only “lies” here are from you so far. As noted in the “Can You Trust Them?” thread, this kind of stuff belongs in the Latrine but I think I’ll leave it here as an example for others.


An example of your total misunderstanding and defamatory statements by calling me a liar !

Why are you so obsessed with skeptics anyway, did somebody rain on your parade or what?


I am obsessed with the truth and I only criticize what I think is worth criticizing, do you have a problem with that ?

Because I think that you do have a problem, skeptics just like pro-ETHers can lie and distort facts, that's all I am saying and if you don't like it, well, it is your problem, not mine and this stuff does not belong in the latrine because we are talking about ufology in case you haven't noticed.

You can cancel my account as this was my last message because I will not use the latrine if I ever want to criticize or debunk some ufo-skeptics in the futur, so I'd rather leave. This topic will show others who you really are AD ! Good job ! =D>
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: When debunking = lies & defamatory statements

Postby Access Denied » Thu Apr 28, 2011 9:02 am

Buckwild wrote:Like Nablator said, note that "have been caused by" :arrow: (in JMA's version) is not equal to "that might be consistent, for instance with" :arrow: (in MB's version).

So THAT is your justification for calling someone a liar?

Are you familiar with the meaning of the phrase “splitting hairs”?

If, as you claim, MB isn’t claiming (or even implying) it was “caused by” a UFO using MHD propulsion then what else pray tell is MB claiming (regardless of who’s “theory” it was) it “might be consistent” with being “caused by”?

Faeries perhaps?

You must have a different definition of “lie” than I do…

lie verb

intransitive verb

1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2: to create a false or misleading impression

I agree something may have been lost in translation so to speak and JMA could have worded that better but a lie?

By the way, do you have any idea what kind of thrust to weight ratio one could reasonably expect from a hypothetical MHD drive and would it be a practical (or plausible if you prefer) means of propulsion for landing on, taking off from, or flying around Earth?

Just wondering…
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: When debunking = lies & defamatory statements

Postby nablator » Thu Apr 28, 2011 10:57 am

Dear AD,

Dear Gilles,

Dear Buckwild, you lying bastard, [I identified your other persona, Rufus, on the zetetic observatory forum, long ago, as Gilles can confirm]

I think I can speak for all of us Frenchies, and say that we appreciate very much RU's no-nonsense attitude and zero tolerance for lies. Any type of lies. Otherwise where is the limit between the whole truth, part of the truth, twisting the truth a bit, and little "white" lies?

In this case several instances of misquoting X, "X said Y" cannot be backed up with real quotes because X actually said Z. Discussing the difference between Y and Z may be nothing more than a case of splitting hairs, but knowing how skeptic bashing is a sport practiced by many I thought it would be better to attract the attention of JMA on the issues immediately, so he could attempt some damage control.

Were these lies or honest mistakes? Errors happen, I wouldn't have done a better job from memory, but for a podcast I would have been more careful, and checked the facts, as it only takes a few minutes.

However JMA did not seem to get the point until others, I'm sure, told him the same in private, which is the real cause for concern: it should be obvious to him as it is to us that twisting the facts, intentionally or not, is not an acceptable modus operandi, ever, no matter what the excuses are. The whole point of being a skeptic is to adhere to principles of truthfulness, rationality and critical thinking. His attempts on the SCEPTIC-OVNI forum to wiggle out and sidetrack the issue infuriated me.

Yesterday, JMA made a nice post on his blog, which I appreciate a lot. A lesson learned for both of us. I will not be discussing anything with him (or Buckwild) ever again, as I already decided a long time ago but forgot.
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: When debunking = lies & defamatory statements

Postby Buckwild » Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:28 pm

Yes I lied, I said it was going to be my last message, this is the last one !

@ Nablator, insulting me is not a valid argument, you can do better than that ! I used a different name (Rufus) in the other forum as part of an "experiment", by pretending I was a newcomer within the ufo-field, I gotta see a few different things. One of them, is that people like you think they know everything, you know exactly what I am talking about ! I learned quiet a few things by doing this and I do not regret it at all !

Nablator, now let's see if you are a liar or not ? I received a private message from you a couple of months ago in the Canadian forum where you stated that ufo-skeptics you where hanging out with on Sceptic Ovni forum (where you are a moderator) where pseudo-scientists (and much more, remember ?). I cannot prove it since I am not a member anymore and I never saved that pm (that wouldn't prove anything anyway and it's part of a private conversation, you could sue me If I showed it). But hey, answer my question (I won't respond but answer it) Am I lying ?

-If you say yes, good for you, I'll be the only one to know you lied but at least I'll know for sure what kind of hypocrite you are ! (like if I did not already know it)
-If you do not answer this question, then we will all know this is true
-If you use evasive maneuvers to get around it, I'll be the only one to notice it, but hey, that's better than nothing. This is what you are going to do, I know it...


To all :

Distorting statements, distorting facts, distorting history, distorting reality = lies

Did I distort anything in this thread ? I do not think so ! I quoted and backed up everything I stated !

Using defamatory statements against someone who passed away and who was a well respected scientist is very wrong, it is even worse than lying. JMA even admitted he was wrong but only in his own blog ! People who will read or listen to his interview do not know that and will think that MB was a fringe scientist. You guys (some of you) do not even realize how bad that is but you could careless since JMA is a ufo-skeptic !

Shame on you then ! :evil:

ps : AD, maybe you should rename "your" forum : Distorted Reality
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: When debunking = lies & defamatory statements

Postby Gilles F. » Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:18 pm

Buckwild wrote
I used a different name (Rufus) in the other forum as part of an "experiment", by pretending I was a newcomer within the ufo-field, I gotta see a few different things. One of them, is that people like you think they know everything, you know exactly what I am talking about ! I learned quiet a few things by doing this and I do not regret it at all !

Ah OK, I better understand now! It makes perfect sens... #-o When you use a different nick and you are demasked because your stealth is proportional to your good faith (closed to zero the 2), you explain (ad hoc) it was for the purpose of a personal experiment! To dare a such explanation is awesome! But you did it here.
And the height of it all is that you are explaining this in 2 topics titled "When debunking = lies & defamatory statements" or "Can You trust them"! :P Funny and what cheek!..
I asked me face my mirror if your coming here in R.U. was, or not, simply drived in order to export your personal hatred against some french UFO-skeptics and then to (re)create the boring polemics again and again you have the secret. Well, I'm less hesitating now regarding my "dilemma"!
For the anecdote (if it is an anecdote!), April the 9th, you claimed in another forum (where there is no one UFO Skeptic but many insults against them) to not be Rufus and how the Skeptic claiming it in the OZ forum were "stupid" to think it or in a wrong anf fallacious way! (I suppose it was not a lie you did, but part of your experiment too? Ridiculous) ;
As you "menaced" JMA (Venom) in BOLD by "Venom maintenant, je vais te traquer jusqu'au bout et sans relâche, tu vas regretter tes mensonges.... (Now Venom, I'll hunt you all the way and hard, you'll regret your lies ....) as you used ad hominem against JMA (not member of this french forum) as a "plump" (grassouillet) and you are now explaining us here, in your previous reply how insults serves nothing in an argumentation. Sources : http://www.rationalisme.org/forum_athei ... 009#p37009.
In other words and in essence, first you teach to others what you dont apply to yourself. Secondly, you are "hatred drived", over-reacting, hyper-critic as usual, cause dunno what against UFO-skeptics. In no way you are here to be "constructive". It is a pity imho cause you have many qualities too, of course, but your stupid and childish warfare is your "only" leitmotiv now ...I believe R.U. team will step by step or have already discovered/realized it by their own, despite no one collusion to call here.
Cheers,
Gilles Fernandez

PS. It is the FIRST and the LAST time I post something in RU regarding your "personal vandetta" and boring/bored "warfare" you are drived by and exporting here.I will not be discussing anything with you ever again about it, as I already decided and explained you previously in french.
Gilles F.
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: When debunking = lies & defamatory statements

Postby Buckwild » Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:03 am

I lied again, because I have to react to your message Gilles (moderator in Sceptic Ovni just like Nablator)) aka Kristinne, a woman's name when you presented yourself :

Après l'obtention d'un doctorat en psychologie cognitive, mention psychologie différentielle (psychométrie), j'étais enseignante chercheuse à l'Université René Descartes (Paris V) toujours dans le domaine de la psychométrie (mesure de l'intelligence, créativité, personnalité).

Source : http://sceptic-ovni.forumactif.com/t458 ... ation#8303


Male teacher = enseignant
Male researcher = chercheur

You see, nobody's perfect !

Buckwild : wrote I used a different name (Rufus) in the other forum as part of an "experiment", by pretending I was a newcomer within the ufo-field, I gotta see a few different things. One of them, is that people like you think they know everything, you know exactly what I am talking about ! I learned quiet a few things by doing this and I do not regret it at all !

Gilles : Ah OK, I better understand now! It makes perfect sens...


Yes it does make sens to me and your argument of incredulity is worth 0. I can even prove that it made sens to me ! The only thing I regret is that I had to lie about my occupation to pretend I was somebody else. But even there, I did it to remain undetected as well. I was not very brilliant I admit it and that's probably because I am not used to lie. People like Patrice Seray called me a liar recently but he cannot back up his claim. Can he ? (I've never seen any demonstration coming from him) He probably even used a reverse strategy because I was the one calling him a liar.

Now, I want to make myself cristal clear, I do not vomit on ufo-skeptics, I only criticize some of them, just like I criticized some of Brumac's work or anybody else for that matter, self-proclaimed people and "titles" are worth 0 in this field. I know the difference between Tim Printy who I admire and you know it (I can prove it) and JMA who lied about me very recently by saying that I have been "ejected" from a Canadian forum when I only asked the staff to cancel my account. I even told AD to contact their staff to verify my claim and see who is a lying. I think he did not do it, probably* because AD hates it when a ufo-skeptic is debunked.

* : or just because he does not care at all and have better things to do

You guys have an agenda (some of you) and part of my "hobby" is to debunk pseudo-skeptics and their fallacious if not false claims. This is probably why they hate me, because they do hate me and you know it. You probably hate me as well, I can tell by the way you try to make me look like a fool in some of your messages before erasing them. You've done that more than once with me, remember ? An example here :

Post #22314 : http://www.zetetique.fr/index.php/forum ... =130#22314

Now, I exposed some facts here in this thread, everything can be verified by clicking on the links I gave and by using a cheap ass translator.

So, Ok I am not perfect, I pulled a stealthy move on you guys but nearly everything I said here can be verified and that's all that matters. If I was a liar, I would have never admitted that Rufus = Buckwild ! Why, because you've got no proof, a screen capture is not a proof ! This is why I cannot prove that Nablator talked s^~t about you guys but I can swear he did and he knows it ! Why did he do that ? Because he is smart and he knows that you guys can say a lot of s^~t too.


So now, go for it, vomit on me, all that matters to me is that people can verify my claims !
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Next

Google

Return to The Latrine - Anything Else

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron