Guidelines for research

by **wintler** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:40 am

Theres value in DEs list, but I LOVE Iroquois Distributed Contribution model. Is anything similar operating anywhere yet? What would one need to start one, the requirements i can see are time, modest amounts of server, and interested people. If i understand the 'work' flow a customised site would run it best, but do you think could also be done just via email & elist? Collaboration is our edge.

by **biaothanatoi** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 9:10 pm

Hi Willow, > Denial and irrational demands for proof continue to contribute to real injury. I find the demand for evidence online really bizarre. People don’t really think it through when they ask for it. a. What ‘foolproof’ evidence for personal testimony can be provided over the Internet? Even if I was stupid enough to post perp names, phone numbers, license plates – even photos of injuries or home invasions … it still doesn’t verify anything. There is no way to link those names/numbers to a crime, and the photos could be faked. b. What do we get from providing that evidence? We show the perps our hand whilst contaminating the evidence we do have and possibly opening ourselves up to charges of defamation. In return, a complete stranger who lives thousands of kilometers might decide to believe our story. On balance, we lose out big time. > Are you really going to get the answers you want if people are upset by your questioning? And people’s suspicions are misplaced. You aren’t more likely to encounter a liar online then you are offline. I’d argue that you are more likely to encounter personality disorders online. When it comes to disclosures and personal stories, you just tentdto see personality disorders acted out online more then offline. I think it’s just the nature of the Internet as a medium. However, if someone has a personality disorder, you can tease those elements out of narratives. Particularly if somebody is somewhere on the schizotypical spectrum – look at grammar, cognition, the logic used in the story, the manner in which the story has been presented graphically on the webpage. That doesn’t make the author a ‘liar’, but you should be able to pick up disordered thinking and cognitive distortions. The notion of ‘people saying things for attention’ is simplistic and rarely true. An egoist does not invent a story that involves intense shame, pain and humiliation, as RA does.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 11:00 pm

The demand for evidence...for proof, is, in fact, the very definition of rational. But I thought I'd clarify a little. I'm not talking about demanding it from a victim who's come to explain their story. I'm talking about for the larger claims...the "insider's" knowledge of the plan of the illuminati, for example. Bio's own post about his opinion (and I think a wellfounded one) that much of the connection between ra/mc and "illuminati" comes from Deliverance ministries is a valid one. And those accounts, in turn, are based on "witness" testimony of alleged victims. Or, as bio would have it, and, again, likely accurately in my view, alleged details of actual victims. I recall, PW, that in a side conversation, you actually were a little concerned that a particularly well known ra victim was talking about the Illuminati connection and this concerned you. It was a red flag that maybe this woman's story was not entirely factual...or at least the facts were interpreted incorrectly. I felt the same with the introduction of Illuminati angles in the Hamlin case (as in "secret Bavarian cult" as Susan claimed to be a priestess in...or Richard claimed she claimed it or something along those lines.) This case has implications beyond just those of Richard's sentence. If proven factually, it would have been a huge boon for other victims of such things. If discredited, it further reduces credibility of similar reports. IT'S IMPORTANT NOT TO DO THAT, NO? There is so much bullshit on the net about this stuff. And the fact that the memories of actual victims are being manipulated in an attempt to promote this particular spin makes it even worse. As I mentioned, I've matured along these lines, and I would not demand proof from someone on this board about their victimization. But when these "insider" accounts are used to create a theory or story about who is behind these incidents and that story itself is problematic, we owe it to RA research to be "rigorous" and we owe it to the victim to warn them off of those who do the manipulating of these stories. Would you not suggest to someone working with Ted Gunderson, for example, that they might be best served by cutting ties with him? Is it a coincidence that he shows up in all the cases that ultimately "fall flat"? Are you not cautious in accepting evidence that has been gathered in cooperation with him? (And that doesn't mean all the evidence is bad...I first read the entire text of the "McMartin tunnels" report on his site.) I accept that not only is this forum not a place one can really PROVE, much of anything, but please note the title of the original thread: Guidelines for RESEARCH. Now, some research I'd REALLY like to see is similar to what Vallee did with close encounter stories...he wrote them down with no "filters". He kept all the high weirdness in..all the stories that didn't conform to "hardware" explanations. He then looked for throughlines. His ultimate explanation we may or may not buy (the idea of some kind of controllers who use these incidents in some way to manipulate perception...I think that would be a fair summary). But the data is valuable. So, compassion for the individual, yes, but that's not RESEARCH. Comparing victim stories..let's say all the stories in one city from 1980 - 1985 as an example. What buildings, institutions, people and places come up over and over? What details are similar? Perhaps even withholding some of the details and see if they emerge among victims who've not known each other. THAT is research. And it is at THAT time that we must be rather ruthless in picking our own cases apart. Because guess what...if we aren't, there are plenty of people out there who will. And they will NOT have the best interest of the victims in mind. Why, they could even form a foundation of some kind, entirely to discredit these stories. What a wild idea. Should we not make their work more difficult? Even if one doesn't have much time for original research, my little list was also a way of approaching information as we seek to make sense of some very strange goings on.

by **biaothanatoi** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:41 am

Hi DE, > The demand for evidence...for proof, is, in fact, the very definition of rational. Yes, but most people’s understanding of ‘evidence’ has a positivistic bias to the point of reductionism – eg they know that a scar is proof that someone was cut, but they don’t have the expertise to know that traumatic symptoms are proof of trauma. And people demand ‘evidence’ over the net without really thinking about it. Even if I supplied a photo of a torture injury (lets ignore the breach of confidentiality and morality in doing so) it still doesn’t constitute ‘proof’ of anything – it could be anyone’s injury, caused any old way, possibly even faked. Nobody online would be in a position to tell. > So, compassion for the individual, yes, but that's not RESEARCH. Respect for your key informants is an integral part of the research process, and you’ll find it built into any research ethics review. Otherwise, you compromise the rigor and value of your research. >Comparing victim stories..What buildings, institutions, people and places come up over and over? What details are similar? You've just outlined a police investigation, not a research project.

by **blanc** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:11 am

ask yourself who could profit by faking it. then ask yourself who profits by fms bla bla. I spend a certain amount of time, as do some others, in trying to compare testimony, and surprise surprise, links emerge. but i can't put the testimony on the net, only generalities. why do victims and helpers publicise existence of ra on this forum? (it is to try to curb its growth, don't you know.) i am very interested to know what other reasons anyone imagines they could have in doing this.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:48 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>>Comparing victim stories..What buildings, institutions, people and places come up over and over? What details are similar? You've just outlined a police investigation, not a research project.<hr></blockquote> Well, while you are waiting for the police to get on that....(ha)...I'd say that it IS a research project, but only one kind. It's very similar to what Jacques Vallee did in Passport to Magonia. He gathered the stories (most historical, though) and did analysis of features they had in common...not easy given the very high weirdness factor. I think the world of UFO research is almost completely and hopelessly contaminated by spooks and crazies, BUT there are some important lessons in that realm. Another popular approach by "abduction researchers" was to publish SOME information but by consensus keep a few odd details from the public. That way, when someone who is abducted mentions that detail, it shows that the story is not a result of simply having heard someone else's story. The woman who testified with Valeri Wolf to Congress (forgot her name) mentioned places and names. THAT is important. Imagine this...and I would do this if I had the right case in front of me. Imagine a decent author or journalist working with someone who claims RA abuse in their community that extends beyond their own family. The journalist takes the story and begins to document, verify and corroborate the story. Other victims are found. Medical records, independent interviews, and verification of the locations is obtained. THAT is the very essence of journalism...not just police work. Well, back when we had journalism anyway. That's not the role of a therapist, or a friend or significant other necessarily...it's better if it comes from someone unattached to the victim. But it would be powerful. I think the best example is the original work that went into exposing the radiation experiments here in the US. This was done by journalists and was done in EXACTLY this manner. Witnesses were found, records were sought to corroborate their stories. The stories were compared to known research locations, etc. Not only was the story moved from "conspiracy theory" to mainstream journalism (yes...limited hangout..but more on that in a sec), the department of Energy has a whole section on its web page about it now and Congress held hearings. Now, ALSO at those hearings, as you know, was the testimony of (forgetting names here) Valerie Wolfe? who brought therapy clients who claimed some mc activity by some of the same scientists involved in radiation research. They named names. And for what it's worth, got it into the Congressional record. Was there a "limited hangout" in the works? I think the journalists were sincere in their efforts even if the story wasn't the whole picture. It rarely is, but the research required was immense. Finding victims from 40 years before and looking for documentation and corroboration. I did the very same thing on a very small level on more of a "novelty" story in Los Angeles. I was interested in the "Battle of 1942" in which something flew over the city and anti-aircraft guns went off for quite some time, failing to shoot it down. Despite 50 years having passed, I found witnesses, including anti-aircraft gunners and the military records from the day. I'll admit I STILL don't know what they were shooting at, but the point is that this sort of work can be done and done well. I'll repeat my offer. If I can find an RA case that involves any sort of network of non-family members (or if evidence in my wife's case ever moves in that direction ) I will put together such an account. If it's done well, the FSMF won't be able to touch it. And wouldn't I just LOVE to have a little tete a tete with Miss Loftus..... Here's a side note to PW and other RA experts, speaking of my wife's case. Last night, my stepdaughter got a call on her cell phone which her caller ID said was from Chicago though the area code, I think, was New Jersey. (Her grandparents and other relatives on her my wife's Dad's side are in Chicago). The caller asked if he could speak to Sarah, and my stepdaughter said it was a very scary voice, like in the movies (though she can be a little dramatic). She replied that he had the wrong number and then he answered "Are you sure?" Kinda freaked her out. Let me know if that rings any particular alarms. As I've said, with my wife, I follow the evidence and so far, no evidence, including memories suggests anything other than familial abuse. But I do file these sorts of things away.

by **blanc** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 12:04 pm

hope you've got a big cheque book DE. have been part of the research process for several journalists working for respected papers and broadcasters interested in one or more cases . none can get sufficient funding for sustained investigation necessary, or their efforts get blasted away by the legal dept. or a more immediately grabbable story comes along. to get printable stuff on any of the perp groups you might need a few undercover helpers, with the time and money to stake out venues and follow individual perps. venues are systematically changed whenever anyone 'leaves'. most witnesses are scared some crazy with fear.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:05 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>have been part of the research process for several journalists working for respected papers and broadcasters interested in one or more cases .<hr></blockquote> Love to hear more about that. Whatever you can talk about without getting anyone in trouble.

by **professorpan** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 1:34 pm

DE, <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'll repeat my offer. If I can find an RA case that involves any sort of network of non-family members (or if evidence in my wife's case ever moves in that direction ) I will put together such an account. If it's done well, the FSMF won't be able to touch it. <hr></blockquote> When my novel is finished, and my personal life quiets down a bit, I'm considering putting together a book proposal to follow the Hosanna Church trial in Ponchatoula, Louisiana. It fits the criteria you've suggested. In fact, it's possible the case is the "white crow" that proves all crows are not black -- a smoking gun.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 4:21 pm

Not exactly walking distance but if you wanted some help...I think that is one of the smokiest guns I've seen in awhile.

by **bamabecky** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 4:39 pm

and trying to keep this as a guideline in the spirit of DE's original post..............world view or filters.....come to my mind We are all different because we have all been exposed to different educational experiences. Some dig deeper than others. Some are time limited for various reasons. I don't know why most of you come here, or what motivates you, but I come to learn and get information. And more to the point, we each have a world view (filters) based on those individual educational experiences. NOW, you take that world view/filter (you cherished ideas) of yours to your trusted source, book, library, video documentary, or web site and guess what? You run right smack kadab into somebody else's cherished ideas/filters/world views. You will either reject it out of hand or accept it, based on your experiences and your cherished ideas. An open mind is a good thing. There is no darkness like ignorance - Egyptian Proverb. A wise graduate professor taught me that there is no right or wrong only your perspective. I was surprised the first time I heard that, but have fallen back on it many times since as a truth. Some of you here, give me knowledge by sharing your wisdom. I'm grateful to you for that. Some of you make me want to scream and I'm sure my posts make some people feel the same way. I appreciate tolerance of all ideas/concepts/opinions/questions within reason. Ridicule sounds like fingernails scraping on a chalkboard to me. Bama Be the Media! Write a personal essay to your friends and family, telling them what's going on and tell them how and where to find more info.

by **havanagila** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 5:45 pm

I wonder if there is any publisher interested in Israeli RA research, some of them connected to the USA ? I also think that any research done re a group that has international aspects (most do) could benefit from a collection of data from several countries, if not continents. Certainly one case we mentioned here has victims/perps in Israel; as for churches, many evangelical dubious groups are very active here as well, with connections to their countries of origin. Collecting data from several countries has pros and cons, it is more costly but it might bypass some of the evasion tactics by the perps. I see the attempts in other criminal issues, money laundering, drug traficking, sex slavery and porn/pedophile porn - police forces are now realizing they have to work together. (of course it is far from perfect, but its a start). Certainly this is true for MC (and even radiation) issues, with regards to US/Israel division of labor. The research on Kabala Center started, I believe, in UK, by BBC, then cooperated with Rick Ross in the US, and later it involved Israeli journalists. As I see now Scientology is also an issue that would benefit from int'l cooperation .i know the German gov't banned the cult, and in Israel, until this week, when Haaretz had two features against them, they were flourishing under the auspices of the ministry of education...of all bureaus. the ministry of education under Likkud encouraged the operation of two scientology elementary schools and preschools. and so forth.

by **Project Willow** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:48 pm

Don't have much time to focus on this now... but want to say a couple of things. First Baio, thank you for your well written and reasonable replies. You expanded and defined so well what I felt but did not have the specific knowledge to put into words. DE, I want to respond to a few other things you've said... <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I recall, PW, that in a side conversation, you actually were a little concerned that a particularly well known ra victim was talking about the Illuminati connection and this concerned you. It was a red flag that maybe this woman's story was not entirely factual...or at least the facts were interpreted incorrectly.<hr></blockquote> It's a red flag in the sense that I didn't know the context of the origins of the term in survivor accounts. I'm still working on that. However, for me it does not cast doubt on her story. I don't doubt it because I know her, respect her, and my own experience validates a great deal of hers, but that doesn't help an outsider. Yes, I would caution people away from a Gunderson type, but I wouldn't throw out a case simply because he had been involved. I don't think this is what you're advocating, I'm just making a point. I think it was Prof who talked about a process of letting the data pile up, letting it settle, being comfortable living without a determination for a long time. I like that, I have to do it with a lot of my memories too. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Imagine this...and I would do this if I had the right case in front of me. Imagine a decent author or journalist working with someone who claims RA abuse in their community that extends beyond their own family. The journalist takes the story and begins to document, verify and corroborate the story. Other victims are found. Medical records, independent interviews, and verification of the locations is obtained.<hr></blockquote> We need that desperately! I have no doubt that if such an investigation were launched and well supported, we could amass a great deal of evidence. It's not like there weren't ancillary witnesses. The trouble has been finding people willing and able to do the work. There have been a couple of attempts, but I can't share about them here. It's very odd the phone call you mentioned. I returned a call to an unfamiliar number from a text message a year and a half ago. It was my handler, he asked for Sarah, his contact alter. I'm not saying your call means anything like that, it's just a very strange coincidence.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 10:54 pm

A final reply on this...doubting one part of a story does not mean throwing out the entire story. Didn't mean to imply that. Bio's whole post about the Deliverance Ministry makes that point very clearly. So when one of these guys gets ahold of a victim the story gets confused. PW, you KNOW who your handler is? Or you just know his voice? And when that happens, can you now resist orders/suggestions/commands? Do you stay aware of the conversation? That part confused me...and still hoping to get more info from Blanco about other media attempts at this story. Finally, see Pan's reply about maybe doing a story on Ponchatoula. I completely and freely offer assistance. Slam dunk in most ways...only question is how high up any of this goes there as the one's who got arrested were not really high status types. BUT, for the coverup to have happened as it did...I assume some higher ups are trying to keep the lid on for some reason that implicates them, even if not involved directly. I've heard whispers about "Sarah" being a common alter name in programming..though it's also a common name. I'll keep watching that.

by **biaothanatoi** » Wed Feb 08, 2006 11:35 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'd say that it IS a research project, but only one kind.<hr></blockquote> Sure, it's research in the broadest sense of the word, but we'd previously been discussing the importance of *rigorous* research. In that discussion, you seemed to prioritised the stripmining of data from people's stories as being "real" research, whilst actually listening to the context of that story - people's lives - you called that "compassion" as though it was purely a moral exercise with no intellectual/academic merit. If we are talking about *rigorous* research - well, frankly, it sounds to be like you are suggesting a qualitative approach (RA narrative) and then trying to compact it into quantitative results (RA stats, figures) - which is not in the least bit rigorous. Nor is it methodologically rigorous to decontextualise any form of data. And the data you would end up with, in your approach - a few congruences in places, names, buildings - would not be sound enough to act upon, use in a court of law, or lobby for change. So I don't really see the point - in fact, I can see it being fairly destructive. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>THAT is the very essence of journalism...not just police work.<hr></blockquote> Can't say that I look to journalists as being paragons of reseach, but I work in a social research centre, and it is a constant struggle trying to get journalists to comprehend the research process and report findings fairly and accurately.

Guidelines for research

Anthony Fedanzo

Re: On personal testimony

Re: On personal testimony

Re: On personal testimony

ra

Re: ra

journos

Re: ra

Re: ra

Re: ra

When looking at or for Information

Re: ra

Re: Personal Testimony

Re: ra

Re: ra

Who is online