Crystal Skulls - May 3oth 2011

[trainedobserver]

Been skeptical is fine with me, but Robert is using his Skepticism in a way that only can be viewed by me as being wrong!

I have to tell you. I find that absolutely absurd. This is all about the use of the word "claims?" To say that he was a lying skeptic because he used the word "claims" in relationship to the HP test is a bit too much.

In relationship to the unfounded and unsupportable claims of crystal skull enthusiasts the use of the word claims in that article hardly registers as a manipulation of the truth. Good grief, where is the perspective on this?

 

[trainedobserver]

It isn't often that I'm moved to quote the Bible but it rang in my head like a bell.

You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
Matthew 23:24

 

[Kieran]

I have to tell you. I find that absolutely absurd. This is all about the use of the word "claims?" To say that he was a lying skeptic because he used the word "claims" in relationship to the HP test is a bit too much.

In relationship to the unfounded and unsupportable claims of crystal skull enthusiasts the use of the word claims in that article hardly registers as a manipulation of the truth. Good grief, where is the perspective on this?

Train how is it absurd?

Is this a difference in culture been expressed here or something? How many more postings do I have to post before you will get it?

My absurdity is based on what Robert said! I will post again hopefully this will be third time lucky?

"He claims they had the skull tested at a Hewlett Packard Lab! I will try to break it down for you because that is how i roll!!!

The claim was actually true and factual, but Robert said he claims' which was an untrue statement how can he be claiming something when other sources do prove that given claim to be true. Understand?

So I can assume from this he either lied about it to support his view and argument? Or he never bothered his ass here researching the claim. Either way it can be only one of the two reasons there is no in'between on this.

Knowing a fact in you mind about something and someone and then turning around and then saying He claims' is giving a false impression about that known fact.

Lance calm down, I haven't ignored your evidence I was in agreement with lot of it, the fact Angel and Train don't understand my point, has me slightly confused.

​

 

[trainedobserver]

The claim was actually true and factual, but Robert said he claims' which was untrue other sources prove that claim to be true.Understand?

No I don't. I struggle to understand the sentence. It is as nonsensical as your argument.

For someone to say, "John claimed to see Jane." says nothing about the integrity of the claim. Carrol correctly reported that the fellow claimed to have HP do some testing. Whether that claim was factual or not isn't even referenced in the article but rather he cites someone quoting it uncritically. Your claim that he is lying skeptic based on that is unfounded.

 

[Kieran]

No I don't. I struggle to understand the sentence. It is as nonsensical as your argument.

For someone to say, "John claimed to see Jane." says nothing about the integrity of the claim. Carrol correctly reported that the fellow claimed to have HP do some testing. Whether that claim was factual or not isn't even referenced in the article but rather he cites someone quoting it uncritically. Your claim that he is lying skeptic based on that is unfounded.

Train, be happy that is all I say. People can check out the link I posted on this and can judge for themselves. It sad to see the forum go this way.

 

[Lauren Jones]

Kieran,

Let me know if I'm understanding you. I think you're granting the general context that Crystal Skull research is deservedly characterized by the fabrication/distortion of facts/evidence.

Is your point that the use of "claim" in this specific context is passive aggressive and manipulative, implying doubt (fair in relation to general context)(but unfair in relation to specific context) when the analysis in question has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have occurred?

 

[Kieran]

Kieran,

Let me know if I'm understanding you. I think you're granting the general context that Crystal Skull research is deservedly characterized by the fabrication/distortion of facts/evidence.

Is your point that the use of "claim" in this specific context is passive aggressive and manipulative, implying doubt (fair in relation to general context)(but unfair in relation to specific context) when the analysis in question has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have occurred?

From very start of his article Robert T Carroll clearly shows his disbelieve with the Crystal skull claims. No problem he has a disbelieve, fine.

Now the discussion I had with Lance was after i claimed some of his Skeptic friends had denied and had lied about the HP testing having taken place in 1970.

"Dorland's claims formed the basis of Garvin's book on crystal skulls. '

This was the objective of Carroll doing this piece ridicule the claims of Dorland one then must question obviously the credibility of Garvin's book!

But the fact remains Robert Carroll nowhere is his Article corrects himself oh by the way that HP testing and study claim is factual, he makes it out that this is a claim made by Dorland only. I can't believe some people are ignoring this fact, amazing.

 

[trainedobserver]

But the fact remains Robert Carroll nowhere is his Article corrects himself oh by the way that HP testing and study claim is factual, he makes it out that this is a claim made by Dorland only. I can't believe some people are ignoring this fact, amazing.

I see what you are saying K. However, your characterization of him as a liar is hardly fair. If you are tying to argue he was trying fool people into thinking the HP analysis never occurred, well it just seems like such a stretch to me. Maybe someone should forward him the link to the original article and ask him to clarify what he meant and to update the page. And again, in respect to the amount of distortion, exaggeration, and fabrication about crystal skulls themselves, it seems like an incredible over reaction to call the fellow a liar for wording it the way he did. He may be a poor researcher and a bad writer but I don't think that makes him a liar.*

*I do not mean to insinuate that I think Carroll is either. The point is, if he were it would not make him a liar.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I can understand Kieran's frustration.
While there has been some good research done by Lance and others it is let down by the poor attitude of these researchers characterised by the condescending and belittling tone that is
inherent in Lance's first post in this thread and many of his posts in general. Maybe this type of attitude is what Kieran is reacting to in the Robert Carrol article.
While the disbelievers are quite entitled to their opinion of the skulls, or any other subject that they decide is bunk, some seem to find it necessary to throw in the snide remarks, the belittling comments, the unmistakable and relentless attacks on Christopher O'Brien and generate an aura of nastiness and mean spiirited schoolyard bullying. As Angelo once said (and i paraphrase) "It's all right to be sceptical, but you don't have to be a dick about it!" Please correct me if i'm wrong, Angelo, or have wrongly attributed the quote to you
Having more info re: the skulls and their vintage (or lack of it) is great and i thank Lance for his time and effort there. As to the question of feeling "energies" or such, well the jury is out on that one. Plenty have said that they do feel some kind of energy from the skulls they have come in contact with, including Christopher.
All in all i don't think that many, if any, minds have been changed here. Some maybe. But those who were doubtful of any of the claims will still be doubtful and most of those who believe in some or all of the claims, will still believe.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

As Angelo once said (and i paraphrase) "It's all right to be sceptical, but you don't have to be a dick about it!" Please correct me if i'm wrong, Angelo, or have wrongly attributed the quote to you

I wish I would have been the one to say it, but Phil Plait gave a speech about it at TAM (James Randi's skeptical conference) last year and Rebecca Watson also has a similar presentation I believe. I try to follow his lead though.
I think it's important to be as objective as possible without being an asshole. A lot of people here are guilty of having been dicks sometimes, but as internet forums go, this place is a paradise. I've said this before, but go to NeoGaf, a videogame forum, and you will see some true believe BS. Although in videogames, those people are called fanboys.

I've tried to stay out of this argument because I've felt it's been quite amicable, and I also don't feel like being called biased because I agree with one person over another. I'm tired of that.

 

[Kieran]

"Frank Dorland had the Mitchell Skull Crystal Skull Tested at HP crystal lab at Santa Clara Division in 1970" FACT!!!

This therefore can no longer be considered a claim by Frank Dorland!!!!! Spectaculary wrong am I really, oh Lance.

Robert T Carroll Quote "He claims 'They" had the skull examined at the Hewlett-Packard Lab.D!!!

Why would Robert put it as he claims instead of been truthful about what actually happened? Anyway I am done discussing this any further.

 

[trainedobserver]

Incidentally, Kieran, using the common term "false claim" above is how you say someone is wrong or lying. The term "claim" had no judgement on it one way or the other.

That is a good point and after reading the article again it occurs to me that if Dorland did not provide a reference to either a formal lab report or the Measure article itself, the use of the word claims is perfectly understandable. It was not actually up to Carroll to research and find the reference to the Measure article. If neither Dorland or Garvin provided a reference to a published article or lab report then Carroll's use of the word claims is more than proper. Does anyone have a book by Dorland or Garvin where they talk about the HP test? Do they provide references to that issue of Measure or a formal lab report issued by HP? If they do not then I think that explains it. I think that is more likely than Carroll using his skepticism in a some sinister passive aggressive ploy to mislead people about an HP lab looking at a crystal skull.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Phil is quite right in much of the above. I constantly fight a tendency to sneer at what I see as poor critical thinking skills. I also have been too hard on Chris many times. Chris has a an excellent knowledge of the field but I almost always disagree with his conclusions.

I have no problem being reminded of my sometimes poor manners and I will try to correct myself in flight if they are pointed out.

I am certainly hoping that Phil doesn't see himself (or many other posters) as blameless in this situation. I often face the same kind of bad attitude and I can guarantee that I will give as good as I get.

In my exchanges with Kieran above, for instance, I don't see how I was any more rude than he was. He had the additional problem of being spectacularly wrong, actually insisting on changing the meaning of the language to support something that is insupportable. Anyone else could have stepped in and gently pointed this out to Kieran but his continuously repeated false claim had to addressed.

Incidentally, Kieran, using the common term "false claim" above is how you say someone is wrong or lying. The term "claim" had no judgement on it one way or the other.

Anyway, I am happy to discuss this issue and I do appreciate Phil's remarks above.

Lance

Lance. When it comes to research on a subject, you do a yeoman's job. No doubt.I thank you for your efforts on the crystal skulls and take on board your findings re: the age of some and authenticity of others.

When it comes to the snideness aspect, you are not the only one guilty, that's for sure. It seems to be common to some sceptics, especially the ones leaning towards debunking. Seemingly they have a hard time accepting that there are other trains of thought on matters paranormal. Sometimes far removed from their own.

So then you get the snideness, the derision, the scoffing and, sometimes, the uncalled for belittling of the opinions of believers or experiencers. To me this attiude devalues the good work and research that they do. I just don't see the need for presenting well researched and well thought out material in a condescending and belittling way. Especially when there is no precedent for it within a thread.
If on the other hand someone has attacked you unfairly then by all means, have at it. The gloves are off in that case and you would be justified in responding in kind.

You're right Lance. I have had to have a good look at my own behavior on these forums as well. At times i have been unnecessarily harsh on yourself, Angelo and Rick (trained) and others. All of your opinions, even if they are contrary to mine, are valuable contributions and, if i am really honest, opinions that i always learn from. Although there is at least one foumarian (name witheld) who does not have any of my respect whatsoever.

I can't speak for Kieran but maybe he is also frustrated with the same things. I'm sure he will answer in good time.

All in all "The Paracast" forums, to me works like a kind of family. At times highly dysfunctional and at times supportive and sharing. A great mix of characters and individuals.

 

[trainedobserver]

All of those sites copied each other and repeated false claims about what was in the report, including false quotes, false tests, and false conclusions.

It is also notable that it is not an actual lab report by any means. It is written as a human interest story and not as a presentation of scientific data. I think that a really important point. If someone paid for that test they got a formal report produced by that lab. That is where the real information would be and not in a filler article in Measure.

 

[Lauren Jones]

I agree with Lance throughout the thread and I think Kieran has gone too far, but is there a nuanced truth in Kieran's core point from a linguistics perspective?

I think Lance said:

"The term "claim" had no judgement on it one way or the other."

"Claim" is a term that's often tactically employed to imply doubt in communications where facts are in dispute. Its' meaning can't be interpreted literally in all cases because the term's meaning can change in subtle ways depending on the context of a given issue and the communicator's relation to that context. His contextual relationship typically dictates his intent or how he wishes the statement to be interpreted. It's obviously a lot easier to interpret intent when we have verbal clues such as sarcasm to go on.

If Alex Jones says, "Obama claims to be born in Hawaii."

The use of "claim" here implies doubt, does it not, given the context of Alex Jones known beliefs on the subject?

Would a straight reporter like Brian Williams even use the term "claim" or would he more likely use the term "state" in the same situation---the context being that there is no doubt about this fact?

If Brian Williams did use the term "claim", which I find unlikely, it would be in a totally different context than Alex Jones, who would be using the term tactically in a loaded way.

Given the context that Carroll's known belief is that Crystal Skulls are nonsense and the HP testing fact has been established, is it reasonable to say that his use of the word "claim" was tactical and does imply doubt and perhaps judgement?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I agree with Lance throughout the thread and I think Kieran has gone too far, but is there a nuanced truth in Kieran's core point from a linguistics perspective?

I think Lance said:

"The term "claim" had no judgement on it one way or the other."

"Claim" is a term that's often tactically employed to imply doubt in communications where facts are in dispute. Its' meaning can't be interpreted literally in all cases because the term's meaning can change in subtle ways depending on the context of a given issue and the communicator's relation to that context. His contextual relationship typically dictates his intent or how he wishes the statement to be interpreted. It's obviously a lot easier to interpret intent when we have verbal clues such as sarcasm to go on.

If Alex Jones says, "Obama claims to be born in Hawaii."

The use of "claim" here implies doubt, does it not, given the context of Alex Jones known beliefs on the subject?

Would a straight reporter like Brian Williams even use the term "claim" or would he more likely use the term "state" in the same situation---the context being that there is no doubt about this fact?

If Brian Williams did use the term "claim", which I find unlikely, it would be in a totally different context than Alex Jones, who would be using the term tactically in a loaded way.

Given the context that Carroll's known belief is that Crystal Skulls are nonsense and the HP testing fact has been established, is it reasonable to say that his use of the word "claim" was tactical and does imply doubt and perhaps judgment?

You bring up some really good points.

 

[bitfiend]

My big problem with topics like these is that it comes down to "feelings".

I have a friend who says that he gets a creepy evil feeling from his minty NAZI marked Walther PPK. I don't. It's a nice collector's piece. I've offered to lock the evil away from him in my gun safe several times, but he never takes me up on it.

I'll bet I could hand it to people and let them look at it without them getting any feeling one way or the other on it outside of their appreciation (or lack thereof) for the design and finish of it. But if I mention that it's NAZI made & marked, and pistols like this were carried by SS officers and Gestapo, some of them will project their feelings about the horrors of the era onto the object and attribute their feelings to the object itself. It's a psychological phenomenon.

Same thing with the skulls as far as I'm concerned.

I'm slightly agoraphobic. I get creeped out by flat open spaces with nothing on the horizon in any direction, like Kansas, or the open ocean. Everybody is probably OK with that, right?

But what if I started saying that Lawrence, Kansas is a place of terrible power because I can feel the dark energy coming from it when I'm there. Most people would either tell me to prove it, (I can't, because it's a feeling *I* get) or think I was nuts. (Some would just believe me, unfortunately.)

If you are going to use the word "energy", there needs to be some odd level of measurable energy coming from the object, and then we need to demonstrate that you can somehow sense that energy with repeatable results. Otherwise just say "feeling" and nobody is confused or irritated.

But paranormal radio shows about feelings are still boring. Feelings are just normal.

 

[tyder001]

Just a quick note and y'all can slam it or tell me to stick it. I don't care. Yeah, I don't have to read it so mayby I should just hush. Buuutt, this has become a MAJOR bore! Sheesh! He, said, she said, he meant , she meant, yea team ain't we great? OK, I'll back out and off now. Have at it and pardon the interruption.

 

[trainedobserver]

this has become a MAJOR bore!

That is unfortunate because this sort of discussion is important. Realizing that a claim requires some support to be taken as a fact and that it is required of the person making the claim and not those hearing it to supply that support, is central to all the back and forth here. The onus was never on Carroll to search for some lab report that may or may not exist or an obscure edition of an in-house publication like Measure to verify something someone else may have claimed. The fact that he did not do so does not make him a liar by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[tyder001]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ! Oh, sorry. I'm awake now.

I'll hush. Have at it.

---------- Post added at 09:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 PM ----------

I'm sorry TO. Your a good guy and I enjoy our talks. It's just my eyes glazed over about 10 pages back. But, that doesn't mean everybody else shares my opinion. So, I'll keep my word this time. I'm outta here.