standards of evidence

by **Dreams End** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:22 pm

Thought I'd post a few thoughts on what constitutes credible evidence when wading through the massive amounts of bullshit on the internet. This is not meant to be exhaustive..just some thoughts. 1. Any fool can get a web page. Case in point...I have a blog. 2. Just because something is on a web page doesn't make it true, just like just because something is in the mainstream media doesn't make it true. 3. When evaluating the relative worth of information you need to ask yourselves lots o' questions. 4. One question is: what sources does this person have for his information? Can I check them myself to see if they say what this person says they say? 5. Let me back up. The first question is: does this site even HAVE any sources of information or does it consist of unsupported assertions? I'm amazed at how people will link to a site that is simply some guy asserting things with no evidence whatsoever. 6. If the site relies on "inside information" I don't dismiss it outright, but I'm very cautious. I ask: What is the track record of other such claims. Do they usually pan out? 7. Always look at the agenda of the author/website. Always. Information, even true information can be cherry picked and distorted. Having an idea of the background and context is important. Looking at old posts is one way. I find another way is to look at links. Many sites have a huge number of links...so I don't worry as much (but still worry) when questionable links are there. However, I'll use Skolnick as an example. One of three "associate sites" right at the top of his links is to Eustace Mullens. You can google Mullens and I've written about him elsewhere. If you want to argue that Mullens isn't racist and anti-Semitic, start another thread please. I'll deal with that there. The point is, these links give context to the site and ffer hints into a worldview. 8. The fact that there may be some truth in a site is not an argument concerning the truthfulness of other items on the site. Of COURSE, there's some true information on the site. Otherwise nobody would even be tempted to believe any of it. And, as I said, true facts can be cherry picked and manipulated. 9. Bad info gets recirculated over and over again, sometimes on good sites. Go to the original link and go thru the above steps to discern if the information is good or not. I've seen quasi-legit sites quote Judicial-Inc.biz, for example. This is the site, of course, that claims Jews are killing children and using their blood for Matzoh. I mean that literally, not as hyperbole. If you want to debate about Judicial-Inc, take your meds and then start another thread. I don't want to debate particular sources here, but it IS a worthwhile thing to do. I think that particular coffin got nailed shut some time ago, though. 10. We know the mainstream media lies, but they are often useful. Obviously, beware of spin and disinfo, but I think mainstream accounts are most useful when they seem to contradict the official version of events. 11. You've done some research and believe a certain theory has merit. Be very careful not to accept a website merely because it agrees with your point of view. That's the time to be MORE careful, not less. 12. Here's the tough one. Offensive ideas are often disguised. Code words are used sometimes. For example, in mainstream terms, often when politicians use the term "welfare mothers" we know they mean African-American women. Yes, there are white mothers on welfare as well, and this gives the politician the "out" if he's called on such a statement. I hate to say it, but conspiracies that center on Jews, "but not all Jews" are similar. And here's an even harder point for some to grasp. While it is NOT true that all who believe there is a literal "Illuminati" behind various conspiracies are anti-Semitic, it IS true that many sites use "Illuminati" as a code for Jews. How do you know the difference? Usually, it just take a very little bit of digging. Sites that talk about the "Luciferians", for example, will often also have information that suggests Jews are, in fact, Luciferians. Read Makow for an example. 13. What about "intuition"? Glad you asked. For your personal beliefs, intuition can be valuable in guiding you. However, people's intuitions differ, so your intuition is not proof of anything. Nothing to be ashamed of...I have a feeling that some of the truths we seek simply are not proveable at present. Nevertheless, your intuition still doesn't count as proof. However, sometimes your intuition can spur yourself or others to dig deeper and you might actually encounter some proof. 14. Personal testimony, I'm afraid, in a forum such as this, isn't "proof." We'll develop online relationships and have online friends whom we trust...but it's our history with them that allows this trust. Don't be surprised if you come on this site and your strange story is met with disbelief. Hopefully, it will be respectful disbelief or gentle questioning. But this is an anonymous forum, and there's simply no way to verify someone's personal experience. I've read enough alien abduction accounts, for example, that I could write a convincing firsthand account, though I've never been abducted. For whatever reason, people do this sort of thing. I'm not sure why. 15. Bullshit can be very well developed. I read Fritz Springmeier's "illuminati bloodlines" recently. It's highly detailed. Not one iota of proof or one source of any of his information, of course. And I've seen him quoted on this very site. Ask yourself, why do I believe this guy? Oh, and of course the most POWERFUL illuminati family are Jews. 16. Disinformation efforts are sophisticated. We'll all fall for some. They put out the info and then rush to put in place a website or organization that refutes the very information they, themselves, put out. Maybe they add some extreme stuff to discredit the opposition. Maybe they just want to control the opposition. Sometimes I honestly feel that some disinfo efforts are just exercises of some Yale graduate students' spycraft PhD. (Kidding...I think.) How much interest would they have in a site like RI? I don't know. The IP addresses Jeff has logged show they do read this site. To be honest, I worry more about contamination by fascist fringe groups looking to recruit or simply open people to their perspective on events. Some of these fringe groups are surely intel ops, but I can't say for sure which ones are and which ones have a...less formal relationship. This site now has so many "blame the Jews" types that I fear any credibility it had is lost. However, sophisticated readers will notice this is a very loosely moderated board and take that into account, I hope. 17. I'd familiarize yourself with the history of fascist/anti-Semitic conspiracy theory because it keeps popping up in different guises. Learn about the centuries old "blood libel" against the Jews. Much of the "meta-analysis" of RA is simply a recycling of these stories. What I mean is not that there is no RA, but that people are interpreting (and some intentionally spinning) RA accounts in a larger context that is simply a retelling of the blood libel but the word "Jews" replaced with Illuminati or Luciferians. You'll then be forced to make a choice. You'll be forced to either a. believe the old blood libel stories and, by extension, that there is a Jewish conspiracy to bring evil into the world, destroy Christianity and enslave the goyim or b. become better able to discern wheat from chaff when sorting through modern conspiracy theories. I hate to say it, and I say this as someone who believes very much that conspiracy is simply the way the powerful operate, but much of the conspiracy theory I've come across is simply unsupported retellings of these same anti-Semitic conspiracy theories from Nazi times and even much earlier. 18. Be very suspicious of current and "former" intelligence agents. Some of them really do turn against the system, I'm sure, but it's simply too hard to tell what their agenda might be. I don't know how to tell the difference. 19. Speaking of, we are in an interesting time when elements of the intelligence agencies and other "insiders" are leaking information...probably true information...to discredit other insiders, i.e. the Bush administration. What a maze that gets to be. The info is real, but is maybe a "limited hangout"...that is, enough info to discredit the president but not the whole intelligence apparatus. I think we simply have to have the caution flag up about all of this stuff, as even the true stuff is serving an agenda. Note that this does not mean you cannot sit back and enjoy the implosion of the Bush administration. In fact, I recommend it. I guess I'll stop this rambling on a prime number just 'cos. Other hints welcome...but I hope people will respect my desire to keep this thread about the process of weighing the merits of information sources and will, if they feel they need to, start debates about particular sources in another thread. If you want to that badly, just post something here like "You are an idiot...Makow is great and I'm posting another thread to prove it." and those interested can meet you over there.

by **marykmusic** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:23 pm

...It just depends. Some people I know are such high-degree-of-accuracy psychics that I'll accept just about anything from them. Not, however, everything. Nobody's 100% And of course, there's my own intuition. I do try to be rigorous; some things just "feel" right to me, and some things do not. I'm also liable to change my mind over a period of time, with or without new information. BYOD-- Bring Your Own Discernment. --MaryK

by **robertdreed** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 7:16 pm

Dream's End, as an impromptu guide to how to assess information claims on the Internet, that's an excellent set of guidelines. I especially like this one: "Bullshit can be very well developed. I read Fritz Springmeier's "illuminati bloodlines" recently. It's highly detailed. Not one iota of proof or one source of any of his information, of course." Consider that every fiction book ever written describes an alternate world that typically bears many resemblances to the local realm of space-time conditions that get chronicled by non-fiction works like history books, which are supposed to be intended to provide accurate accounts of actual occurences in the reader's purview of manifested events. Speculative fictional narratives can go on for hundreds of pages, in great detail. Their constructions and conventions often sound quite plausuble and believable, and they may provide enough of a plausible rationalization of phenomena like "future technologies" to encourage suspension of skepticism. But they describe imaginary worlds. I think it's especially important to consider that elaborate narratives purporting to describe extraordinary events or "secret knowledge" can often be alternatively explained by something quite prosaic. For instance, consider the legends that have grown up around the so-called "Priory of Sion." Yo, did you ever consider that the documents that supposedly underpin the "mystery" are simply forgeries? Ever forge- excuse me, imitate- another person's signature? I have. I'm not bad at it. I could even do Jean Cocteau's signature, maybe. And it's quite conceivable to me that technology has advanced to the point where a robot device could provide a perfect facsimile of another's signature, simply based on a photo scan. Right down to the pen pressure indentations on the paper...effectively foolproof. (I don't know that such a machine exists. Nor would I believe anyone in the spy business making that claim, I'd need to see it in action. So for now, it's best to consider my fantasizing about the existence of such an invention as a snippet of "speculative fiction.") How many centuries did it take to figure out that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery? Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/13/05 5:34 pm

by **Dreams End** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>For instance, consider the legends that have grown up around the so-called "Priory of Sion." Yo, did you ever consider that the documents that supposedly underpin the "mystery" are simply forgeries?<hr></blockquote> Thought that had been proven, actually. Don't remember for sure.

by **antiaristo** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:31 pm

DreamsEnd, Seems to me you are doing two things right now. On the one hand you are encouraging members to leave this site. On the other you are telling those of us who remain what it is we may and may not say. Of special note is 7) anti-Semitic 9) Jews killing children 12) Jew pseudonyms (and African-American pseudonyms) 15) Jews 16) "Blame the Jews" types 17) "Blood Libel" against the Jews Now in the old days this site would receive compliments for the courtesy and manners on display. New posters were welcomed. And the posting guidelines amounted to two lines designed by Jeff Wells. I really miss that site.

by **Dreams End** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:35 pm

anti, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I have no power to prevent any kind of discussion. If those topics are dear to your heart, you discuss till your hearts content. I've encouraged no one to leave and Qutb to stay. And i have no idea what "12" even means. When did I say anything about pseudonyms? My larger point was not what you are allowed to discuss but in evaluating evidence found on the internet. If you don't find "jew child killer" conspiracy theories to automatically disqualify them as reliable, we have different standards.

by **ZeroHaven** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:47 pm

"I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about" ...right. <img src="http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a239/ZeroHaven/tinhat.gif"/>

by **slimmouse** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 8:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>anti, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I have no power to prevent any kind of discussion. If those topics are dear to your heart, you discuss till your hearts content.<hr></blockquote> Well, Im sorry to have to say that I know exactly what he's talking about. I had rather hoped that a board such as this wouldnt be subjected to such censure by stealth. If you dont know how that works, then you should listen to a few of my friends who know exactly what I mean. Yes, a few of my personal friends post here. No matter how compelling the evidence, it would appear that some subjects are simply off topic, lest the wailing and accusations really begin in earnest. Whereas other "witch-hunts" appear to be perfectly acceptable. Bottom line. Evil is evil. Wrong is wrong. I dont care who's doing it or saying it, or orchestrating it.

by **Dreams End** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:09 pm

Slimmouse said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Yes, a few of my personal friends post here.<hr></blockquote> There's a news flash.

by **robertdreed** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:11 pm

Dream's End has the better of the argument on this one, I think. He's offering suggestions for how to winnow information, not dictating what people can and can't read and link. I'd like to add another suggestion on how to suss out information. I'm not the sort of person to judge the content of a given article based on the character of the website that carries it or links it. But it's always a good idea to become familiar with the nature and character of a given website. If it's unsavory or untrustworthy, but you still find information on there that sounds valid and valuable- try to find the story somewhere else, and look up the important search terms to find other takes on the same subject. It's also important to credit the original researchers for the sources for information. I've seen entirely too many websites who would be worthless without their selection of re-printed material. Then there are the more sly sites like the ones associated with LaRouche, who use good research to do their own re-writes, adding in little seeds of patented LaRouchean dementia while posing as independent-minded researchers and investigative journalists with the inside edge on muckraking truth-telling. I'd also include David Icke as employing pretty much exactly the same modus operandi. The fact is, anyone who's impressed by on-line scandal-mongering investigative journalism ought to consider the big leagues, and actually get to the library and READ BOOKS. You know, detailed narrative accounts with endnotes and bibliographies, not merely screeds. Case in point: the Gelli-Banco Ambrosiano-P2 scandal. If you don't have any background on it and you come across David Icke, he includes huge chunks of that material to pad out his absurdist fantasizing. And it looks really impressive, to the beginner. In fact, the incredible details surrounding that scandal are impressive, and not widely known, at least compared to something like Lewinskygate. Rest assured, most of the material he includes on that topic is factual. It's also available in much greater detail in books like The Calvi Affair by Gurwin and Truett, In Banks We Trust by Lernoux, and Puppetmasters, by Philip Willan. Don't be misled by cheap imitations, is what I'm trying to say. Furthermore, if I were you, I wouldn't consider myself a serious researcher unless I had not only read those three books, but done enough legwork to run down at least some of the references found in the bibliographies and end notes. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/13/05 7:31 pm

by **slimmouse** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:18 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Dream's End has the better of the argument on this one, I think.<hr></blockquote> I wouldnt disagree that DE makes some perfectly good points. My argument is, that it should be reasonable to expect that everyone adhere to these standards, assuming they can find the time or are knowledgeable enough. Which is one of the reasons I actually like posting here, since it allows the opportunity for a natural intellectual filter to weed out some of the failings in any given argument.

by **antiaristo** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:20 pm

Robert, It may well be that you and I have different criteria. I understand you want to write books. You are interested in the craft of compiling the written work. You see this site as a source of material first and foremost. (Nothing wrong with that, but correct me if I am wrong.) I on the other hand believe we are at a very special point in time. I have faced the Beast, lost everything (including two daughters) but escaped with my life. I see that Beast coming after all of us, and I want to use this site to fight back. I sometimes think Americans are so brainwashed they would rather give up their country than be labelled “anti-Semitic”. The most important evidence of all is personal experience grounded in primary sources. Citizen Spook is a case in point. “What is your source?”, cried Democratic Underground. “My source is 18 USC 793/4 and USSC Morrison” “Sorry, no good”. Slam. Fortunately there were sites like Rigorous Intuition. And during the months of July and August we championed the cause of Citizen Spook. And we were right. If we’d been where we are going, into conformity, that never would have happened. We’ve been informed elsewhere by DreamsEnd that “neocon” is a pseudonym for “Jew”. We know that Citizen Spook railed against the neocons that are ruining his country. Who knows. People inside large organizations might not have rebelled. And the world might be a different place. But you wouldn’t have to worry about being labelled as “anti-Semitic”, would you?

by **Homeless Halo** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:28 pm

The suggestions by DE aren't ridiculous, and it should be, honestly, that when one takes time to make arguments towards something that CAN have posted evidence that, indeed, one should post that evidence whenever possible under whatever constraints those individuals work under. (for me, these are mostly time constraints, but I don't post on a lot of the topics here, just the ones that pique my interest) Personally, I do a lot of trolling here, and I have no problem with admitting as much. For the same reason I buy new ageish books that I can tell are bullshit. Because they fascinate me as ideas, as do the people who come up with those ideas. I often reap lots of ideas from NA and conspiracy books to aid in developing my own SF writings. I'd encountered this site some weeks before I began posting here, and took the time to read the blog (or at least all of it I can find) in its entireity. I'm amazed at Jeff's ability to wade through all this much and retain both his sanity and his lunch. Its something to be proud of. Beyond that, I really don't care about people spreading lies or disinformation, as I don't trust anything I read on the internet, or anywhere else, without experiencing it firsthand, and often, not even then. I'm fairly certain my library checkouts got me on an NSA watchlist a long time ago, and they haven't killed me yet. Of course, I also have no intention of ever doing anything illegal, so it'd probably be a wasted magic bullet.

by **chiggerbit** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:45 pm

What Dreamsend is offering are tools. If people prefer to use a stone ax as opposed to a chainsaw, that's their perogative. I don't think he is putting his tools forward as rules. Use them or not, as you wish. A couple of the red flags that always hit me in the face are melodrama and self-promotion. I won't rule out information from people exhibiting these characteristic, it just makes me look harder at their work. One that puts me off is Mitch Brattos(?) of the sun spot theory. I happen to find the sun spot theory interesting, so I keep reading his updates. But his melodramatic self-promotion upsets my digestion, so I can only take so much. Flocco and Skolnick are of the same stripe. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=chiggerbit@rigorousintuition>chiggerbit</A> at: 10/13/05 8:53 pm

by **Col Quisp** » Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:46 pm

I have also marveled at Jeff's ability to maintain sanity while probing these subjects. I also echo the comment on the Phantom Clown blog entry (I forget who said it) about requesting that Jeff publish the best topics in book form. I've been to other sites, and there's simply nothing comparable to RI. The mix of people here does not exist anywhere else. We've been through a lot together, and there is so much more to come. It feels like the calm (or clam) before the storm in the past few days. We're a ragtag lot, but damn it, this is HOME! OK, I'll stop gushing now and go back to watching Oliver Stone's Nixon! The best preparation for what's to come!

standards of evidence

standards of evidence

About intuition...

bullshit detection

Re: bullshit detection

Re: Impertinence

Re: Impertinence

Belligerence

Re: Impertinence

Re: Impertinence

...

Re: ...

Re: standards of evidence

H

Re: H

Re: H

Who is online