Motivations//Re: Planet X Sighting Efforts 1

In Article <f0b30c00.0112232014.50e5fb20@posting.google.com> Jeff Root wrote:
> 
>>> Would you expand on your reply to "Idon't" in the following,
>>>  
>>>  SB> Anybody with a PC, an internet connection and a decent search
>>>  SB> engine (or an encyclopedia for that sake), can come up with
>>>  SB> such fiction story.
>>>  
>>>  I> HUH? How could she find her "fiction" in an encyclopedia? By
>>>  I> definition,it does not exist there. You say she plagiarized it
>>>  I> from internet sources? OK, run YOUR search engine and find it.
>>>  I> If she were trying to "pass for someone with knowledge in
>>>  I> science", she would not MAKE claims which differ with accepted
>>>  I> science. That is clearly NOT her goal.
>>>  
>>> so that he can understand what role an encylcopedia could play
>>> in writing science fiction, or this particular fiction?
> 
> "Idon't" replied:
> 
>>  Ummm, sorry Jeff, but you might begin with the assumption that I am
>>  NOT stupid- it might help you here. I am not dense to the role a
>>  factual source might play in writing fiction. That is NOT the point.
> 
> Okay, I can accept that.
> 
>>  The question is not where did she get FILLER of generally accepted
>>  facts or get the stuff that has obviously been written about before.
>>  I am well aware of those elements. The question is: where did all of
>>  the NEW content come from? And where is it coming from as we speak?...
>>  and the organizational intellect which pulls it all together?
> 
> My understanding is that it comes from Nancy Lieder.  I've seen
> only a very small sample of her work, so I can't comment on the
> breadth and depth of it or its overall organization.
> 
> I would appreciate pointers to a few web pages or other sources
> which could give me a representative sample of the content you
> are trying to explain.  Please keep it concise.
> 
>> You think she is just a master science fiction writer?
> 
> What I've seen so far does not support the idea of "master"
> at all.  "Mediocre" would seem to be a more apt term.  But I
> may be unfairly comparing her writing with that of the very
> best science fiction writers.  I tend to read those stories
> and authors who have already been recognized as outstanding.
> 
>>  I don't think so. Stig thinks she runs off to a secret team of
>>  advisors who pull an all-nighter and concoct her answers for her,
> 
> I believe I've read everything in the threads in sci.astro
> where Stig has posted on this, and I don't recall him making
> that particular suggestion.  I think you incorrectly read that
> into what he wrote.
> 
>> or that she gets it from banks of books or the net.
> 
> It is obvious that, as Stig said, some of it comes from or is
> based on ideas espoused by Velikovsky.  I'm not familiar with
> the second author he named, Sitchin, so can't say anything about
> that, and I haven't seen enough of Lieder's work to say whether
> any of it is derived from von Daniken.
> 
> Saying that Lieder takes much of her material from others is
> not necessarily a criticism, nor is the practice necessarily
> plagerism.  All art is built on the work of those who came
> before.  Most of Shakespeare's plays were re-workings of
> existing stories.  That didn't keep them from being original
> nd wonderful.
> 
>> Easy out- TOO easy. I think that, without certain
>> presuppositions about what is "impossible", those answers are
>> shallow and not logical.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by 'presuppositions about what
> is "impossible"'.  Maybe what you say in the next sentences
> explains it, but that isn't clear to me.
> 
>>  Stig, and perhaps you, envision some vast network of
>>  conspirators or hours of research needed before answering
>>  his "probing" questions. NOT.
> 
> I certainly have no reason to think that.  I've read nothing
> by Stig in any of these threads which indicates that he does.
> He HAS complained that questions posed to Lieder in the chat
> session had to be submitted ahead of time, in order for her to
> have time to prepare a response.  Even having just three or
> four minutes to think about how I will respond to a question
> can make a big difference.  At first, I may be completely at a
> loss as to what to say, but after a few minutes thought, I may
> come up with something pretty good.  But I'm not very good at
> speaking and writing quickly, in general.  A lot of people are
> far better at it than I am.  I expect that Lieder is.  Having
> some time to prepare would still be very helpful to her.
> 
>>  I have heard her interviewed live and there is no such delay
>>  or backup required.
> 
> I accept this.  The few radio talk shows I've participated in
> had no delay.  The caller screening was rather superficial.
> 
>>  Everyone thinks that if THEY could just ask her direct questions,
>>  that they could GET her because she is just a stupid, lying old
>>  lady. Guess again.
> 
> I am not immune to that fantasy.  It appears to be endemic to
> discussion groups.  Maybe endemic to humans.  It's happening
> right now in another thread in sci.astro.  One person posts an
> absolutely unassailable argument, and it is totally destroyed
> by the next poster -- only to be restored in the next message,
> and thoroughly refuted again in the one after that.
> 
>>  Calling her crazy or devious makes for an easy explanation for
>>  those who cannot entertain broader concepts, or are not capable
>>  of objective research in this matter. I think it is more
>>  interesting and deeper than that.
> 
> I have not read enough of her writings to make judgements of
> that kind.  However, I'll say more about this in a moment.
> 
> Stig indicated that he thinks she is mentally ill, which is a
> general term covering a wide range of possible conditions.
> You re-cast that as "crazy", which immediately struck me as a
> bad move.  I didn't have to wait for Stig's reply to guess that
> you had seriously misinterpreted what he said.  The two terms
> are obviously related, but very different in character.
> 
> "Mental illness" is a very general term, but describes
> something which could, in principle, be determined objectively.
> "Crazy" is extremely subjective.  It can only mean what the
> writer wants it to mean, and it can't be pinned down.  It tells
> much more about how the writer feels about the subject than it
> tells about the subject.  If I hear that someone says they get
> messages from aliens from another planet or another dimension
> in their mind, my reaction is, naturally, "That's crazy!"  But
> determining whether those messages are caused by mental illness
> is something else entirely.
> 
> By "devious", I think you mean, "for profit".  Some people who
> espouse crazy ideas are able to market them successfully and
> make an excellent profit from them.  L. Ron Hubbard is a good
> example.  Many thousands of people have earned good livings as
> spiritualists, mind-readers, magicians, soothsayers, and patent
> medicine salesmen.  They all depended on telling unbelievable
> stories, and getting people to believe them.
> 
> Many other people try to profit from their ideas, but do not
> succeed.  And some just like to espouse crazy ideas, for the
> pleasure it gives them.  I don't know what Nancy Lieder wants
>t o do, is trying to do, or is doing, with regard to making
> money from her stories.  But money can be an awfully powerful
> motivator.
> 
> I once spoke with a street person who told me that he received
> messages from the Starship Enterprise.  He was entirely serious
> about it.  I surmise that some kind of mental illness was a
> cause of his "messages", but it's also possible that profit
> motivated the discussion, since I was easily persuaded to make
> a couple of sandwiches for him a few days later.
> 
>  Jeff, in Minneapolis

I just wanted to remark that the position that Nancy Lieder is
lying (that is: she is a "negative source"), implies that the known
organizations who distribute "truth" (universities, TV, research
laboratories like NASA, governments), are a "positive information
source", or at least they are positive/correct with regard to the
subjects Nancy claims about.

Example:
Nancy Lieder: P-X is coming on this/that trajectory
Establishment: P-X is not coming at all.

To say that Nancy is a negative here, is to indicate that
establishment are a positive in these matters (unless you want
to maintain she can be right by accident, which is a fairly small
chance IMHO).  And this means for any argument to have weight on the
side of Nancy being negative, it must NOT carry this same weight for
the argument esthablishment are negative.

Example:
Argument: Nancy is doing this for money.
For this to have any logical weight, it should be shown also that:
the establishment would have little/less reason to cover this up
for money.

The same for all other arguments, like illness, attention, control,
capability, etc.

Bye,
Jos

PS
To show that Nancy is crazy, you will have to show that you are not
yourself crazy. To use the money argument against Nancy, you could
say "but I am not doing this for money", but this is ignoring the
fact that all "acknowledged" information is coming not from you,
but from where you have learned it: universities, media, government,
organizations like NASA (unless you work on any of these matters
ofcourse), so you have to show that this alternative source is NOT
doing this for money (since you are in effect a speaker on behalf
of that source of information, which most if not all have no ability
to account for on any level save the most basic things). To use the
control/cult argument against Nancy, you need to do the same for
the establishment, and show that they are NOT in it for control,
money, etc, and in fact a reliable source of information. Since it
is well known the establishment is only reliable in the fact that
it lies a lot, there really is no counter-argument against Nancy on
any of these fronts, and the money/control/illness argument fails
both ways. There is even a positive weight direction Nancy because
of the amount of money she is making is so little for so much effort
compared to the money the elite is making, and the fact that Nancy has
so little control over anybody, and the elite is having control over
life and death of millions/thousands (see wars etc). On the other
hand, the way cults/scam-jobs work is fairly well known, and what
Nancy is doing could be argued to follow a similar pattern, however,
there are certain deviations of this line of reasoning: she is not
assuming the all-important possition that the information would allow
(that being she was an incarnated “star-child'' (sorry, but that's
what the information would allow for)); she has been running this thing
since the mid-nineties that seems a long wait for establishing a close
"group" around her to do her bidding (when her date comes nearer, this
argument becomes progressively stronger, unless she will establish
such a group ofcourse); and she has posted all information without
restrictions on her website, thus eliminating any chance of using
"more" information as a lure for potential cult-victims. One could
say that she stimulates survival groups and that she later wants
to take command of these distributed groups, however, all theory
presented within ZT virtually prohibits this "taking command", as
1. true democracy is promoted as the way to make decisions, 2. there
is no way she could "promote" herself to become a higher entity that
is supposed to "rule" within the information of ZT.  So, for her to be
a cult-leader, she will have to chance ZT-information/ break with her
former theory, she will need to get ppl around her fast (the date is
drawing near), she will have to make herself disappear with this group.

This all presumes you are capable of taking the unoccupied zone
between both views (Nancy, Establishment), at least that's how I
meant the arguments.

I guess where a person’s position will go is largely dependant upon
his loyalty to the establishment (science and politics), because
the person loyal to the esthablishment is unlikely to distrust
NASA/TV,media/government and universities, and will be highly
suspicious of ZT (after all, these sources present information oposing
it 180 degrees), and the other way around: a person who distrusts
the establishment will be more open to the posibility that Nancy is
not lying/crazy/in-it-for-the-money.

Summary:
To show Nancy is unlikely right because of likely motives regarding
money/cult, it would be wise to also show that the oposing viewpoint
is unlikely distributed for these same goals. If this is the case, the
argument can carry some weight, if not, the argument becomes void, if
it turns out the other way around, the argument can carry some weight
in the other direction. It is ofcourse possible that both Nancy and
the establishment are lying/crazy/in-it-for-the-money, but in practise 
I think this argument can have some value because both sources are tied 
into each other rather tight, and when the one is lying, the motivations
for the other become more aparent and make more sense.

Note I say "some weight", I do not say "is conclusive evidence". This
all is a matter of /motive/, and the likelyness of that motive being
the actual motivator. Even if a motive can be esthablished with some
likelyhood, that in itself does not proof it, examining the past history
of the concerned party could however strengthen/weaken the argument, so
it's a good thing to do this as well.

Regards.
(Sorry for writing such a long post)