Quote:
Originally Posted by Majorion
Nor do I claim to be an expert on these things either.
However I doubt that kind of complex knowledge is required in order for one to discern a genuine individual from a possible fraud. Because I was under the impression that this is the issue expressed in this thread, correct? About some or 'all' of the PC whistleblowers? - this has nothing to do with religion, languages, astronomy, etc. And Zecharia Sitchen is a moot point... if you consider yourself inadequately capable of discerning Sitchen's work using your own common sense, then that's your problem, not everyone else's.
When you say: "Yes, we can all do our own analysis, but it will obviously be heavily biased"
I ask you, and this wouldn't be the case with Cliff High as well?
So you're basically saying that we should depend on the views of Cliff High for discerning genuine honest individuals from outright liars? His opinion isn't biased, only ours?
|
Of course not. I say be your own guru. Discern for yourself. Having other people's research to view is very helpful, but it's no substitute for fact checking and figuring it out yourself.
Of course, Cliff's opinion is biased. I mentioned earlier that he is a little imbalanced (too much intellectual and not too much spiritual).
The point I've been making here and trying to bring out is that B&K ought to be focused on a balanced message. I'm not saying don't interview Bill Deagle. I'm suggesting they act like responsible journalists ought to be and interview a number of different sources with different information and diverse areas of expertise. Facts should be checked and scrutinized.
With B&K, no facts are checked and Bill defends the whistleblower's views based on loyalty. They act as though they are building upon this "knowledge" with subsequent interviews, when in reality they are just building a house of cards with some really good, entertaining, wild stories that in many cases happen to be untrue and misleading.
If they were really looking for the truth, when they had an honest challenge from someone like Cliff on a whistleblower (Deagle's) testimony, they would be at the very least open to researching further, as opposed to just accepting Deagle's word on blind faith.
--sjkted