only 2 of them allegedly[..if you trust twitter, which i don't] have his name tag. And only 1 of them is possibly offensive to women. unless the 'feminist' 'she' is Allen, then also possibly offensive to trans.
I imagine if the comments were real someone would have archived them. (and maybe they did, but you need to find the archives)
only 2 of them allegedly[..if you trust twitter, which i don't] have his name tag. And only 1 of them is possibly offensive to women. unless the 'feminist' 'she' is Allen, then also possibly offensive to trans.
I imagine if the comments were real someone would have archived them. (and maybe they did, but you need to find the archives)
We have only your word for it that the posts were "verified" as being from him. You've given a guilty verdict without citing the evidence. Show your work.
If he's responsible for the Reddit posts, maybe @Stryer's opinion is understandable;
they're not the most enlightened of comments.
It's potentially one of those moral quandaries isn't it: whether we reject a (hypothetical) person's work, even if it's good, because of their shortcomings (or offences) in another area.
If their job is telling the truth (being a journalist or whatever) I figure not liking them means nothing except I wont hear they said it until it gets around, if it's truth they told it will.
Ideally, if it's not I never hear about them in the first place.
Ross Coultheart seems like a genuine fella, but I know lots of genuine fellas that believe in nonsense.
When Rupert Murdoch swallowed it up in 1976, the tabloid famous for sensationalism ("Headless Body in Topless Bar") added Fox News-style political bias to it's lack of credibility.
Greenstreet was caught out with some old Reddit posts. Verified as him but he refuses to deal with them. As regards his journalism he comes to conclusions from a purely personal bias, he doesn't even seem to use sources. He also writes for a tabloid, so certainly not on the same level as Ross Coutlhart.
Being (allegedly or formerly) racist shouldn't influence our ability to assess a presented argument and its evidence. Greenstreet's main aim right now seems to be presenting the connections and histories of the big names in ufology (Mellon, Stratton, Elizondo, Grusch etc), specifically with the nonsense at Skinwalker Ranch. He is making claims and backing them up.
Coulthart is making claims and not backing them up.
Regarding attitudes that many of us might consider anti-minority: some very important research was recently done to expose the Trinity UFO hoax, with all the receipts, by someone who is stridently anti-women's rights. That doesn't make his work in ufology any less valid.
Being (allegedly or formerly) racist shouldn't influence our ability to assess a presented argument and its evidence. Greenstreet's main aim right now seems to be presenting the connections and histories of the big names in ufology (Mellon, Stratton, Elizondo, Grusch etc), specifically with the nonsense at Skinwalker Ranch. He is making claims and backing them up.
Coulthart is making claims and not backing them up.
Regarding attitudes that many of us might consider anti-minority: some very important research was recently done to expose the Trinity UFO hoax, with all the receipts, by someone who is stridently anti-women's rights. That doesn't make his work in ufology any less valid.
Greenstreet is a tabloid journalist. He uses words like crazy, grifter or believer in attempt to stigmatise the proponents of UFOs. He even refers to Alex Dietrich as a "UFO activist", clearly wanting to elicit an emotional response. She's one of the more rational people in this debate. I hate this type of language. Both sides are guilty of it. Some aim it at debunkers and some aim it at UFO proponents.
So he aims to ridicule one side by accusing them of associating with people who have weird beliefs. Despite the fact that Greenstreet seems to have some weird beliefs about race and QAnon conspiracies. So it's not even a matter of moral offence, it's the fact that Greenstreet appears to have absolutely crazy beliefs himself, while simultaneously painting others as such. He's more a professional troll than journalist.
If he's responsible for the Reddit posts, maybe @Stryer's opinion is understandable;
they're not the most enlightened of comments.
It's potentially one of those moral quandaries isn't it: whether we reject a (hypothetical) person's work, even if it's good, because of their shortcomings (or offences) in another area.
As opposed to Coulthart, whose work we reject because of its shortcomings.
If you want to talk about Greenstreet, I suggest making a new thread. Given the evidrnce at hand, I find the claims of racism and QAnon support to be overstated.
I don't think "activist" is particularly emotional?
And since she's on the leadership council of American For Safe Aerospace, the description is accurate.
As opposed to Coulthart, whose work we reject because of its shortcomings.
If you want to talk about Greenstreet, I suggest making a new thread. Given the evidrnce at hand, I find the claims of racism and QAnon support to be overstated.
My use of Greenstreet's weird beliefs was to illustrate that fact that there's a different standard being applied to him vs Ross Coulthart. All because Greenstreet aligns more with you in terms of thinking styles.
to be fair, except for his issues with women*, from what you presented (and the screenshots you didnt present) he really is just speaking out about "woke culture"..the BLM riots, cancel culture, the new rule that you cant win an oscar unless you have x amount of "minorities" on your film and staff. etc.
Don't really think they qualify as 'weird beliefs'. He is a die hard right winger.
He's a conservative activist. <which yes is a bit weird for his age, but the beliefs arent weird.
I cant comment on whether people are just believing Greenstreet with no evidence, i never really listened to any of his youtube videos on Skinwalker Ranch or any of his other alleged debunks.
*Hard to tell if his girlfriend allegedly cheated on him because OF his attitudes towards women, or he got those attitudes BECAUSE his gf cheated on him. Being pissed and bitter is understandable. Provided those screenshots are true, which i still doubt without archive links.
to be fair, except for his issues with women*, from what you presented (and the screenshots you didnt present) he really is just speaking out about "woke culture"..the BLM riots, cancel culture, the new rule that you cant win an oscar unless you have x amount of "minorities" on your film and staff. etc.
Don't really think they qualify as 'weird beliefs'. He is a die hard right winger.
Since your examples have all been weaponized and fantasized by the right wing to the point that there is very little truth remaining in them, then yes, they qualify as weird beliefs. It's especially weird to see people on a site filled with skeptics who still espouse them and haven't yet seen fit to ask "is this true?"
it's weirder still that people on a skeptic site try so hard to deny what many left wingers openly advocate for. probably why people designate Bill Maher as right wing now
it's weirder still that people on a skeptic site try so hard to deny what many left wingers openly advocate for. probably why people designate Bill Marr as right wing now
Don't get me wrong, I genuinely hadn't heard of Greenstreet
(still not sure if the Wikipedia article I linked to is about the same guy, can someone say, please?)
I think you're right Mendel; from what very little I've read about Ross Coulthart, after establishing a profile investigating "mainstream" public interest stories, from around 2008 on he tunnelled under the rabbit-proof fence and set up home in a burrow big enough for a mob of kangaroos.
His "material" about UFOs is sensationalist and unreliable, at the very least.
If Greenstreet investigates anomalous claims, and in doing so is honest and accurate, then I think his work in that field is valid.
But if someone in that position also shows a prejudicial dislike of some people, or support for conspiracy theories, maybe it's something that we should be aware of, if only so we can exercise a little caution and avoid being tarred with the same brush should that person make other problematic statements.
There are several examples of scientists/ engineers whose work has been invaluable, but whose personal beliefs, conduct or past history are questionable (or reprehensible, e.g. Wernher von Braun).
(Edited to add: But yes, this should be a thread for discussing Rob Coulthart's work. Issues relating to other people not relating to Coulthart might not be relevant. But @Stryer reminds us that "skeptics vs. believers" should not be conflated with "good vs. bad" in a moral sense across the board).
It's been pointed out but I've been away.
Intriguing claim from someone who appears to value the literal over the figurative; a tabloid newspaper is half the size of a broadsheet newspaper
"Many broadsheets measure roughly 28 by 22+3⁄4 in (711 by 578 mm) per full broadsheet spread, twice the size of a standard tabloid." Wikipedia 'broadsheet'
The figurative sense of tabloid results from R Murdoch's repurposing of certain preexisting tabloid-format titles he purchased in UK.
So therefore anywhere but. All sweet, I don't need to know, not arksing.
BTW Franger doesn't mean what you may guess, it's a quasi-portmanteau of some German rocket jargon.
[ "than a US civil war taking place"]
I would classify possibility and impossibility as absolutes, which is why I made a distinction between possibility and likelihood.
Do you believe a second US civil war to be impossible (not possible)? If so say so.
(or don't, these are opinions and more importantly OT)
Greenstreet is a tabloid journalist. He uses words like crazy, grifter or believer in attempt to stigmatise the proponents of UFOs. He even refers to Alex Dietrich as a "UFO activist", clearly wanting to elicit an emotional response. She's one of the more rational people in this debate. I hate this type of language. Both sides are guilty of it. Some aim it at debunkers and some aim it at UFO proponents.
So he aims to ridicule one side by accusing them of associating with people who have weird beliefs. Despite the fact that Greenstreet seems to have some weird beliefs about race and QAnon conspiracies. So it's not even a matter of moral offence, it's the fact that Greenstreet appears to have absolutely crazy beliefs himself, while simultaneously painting others as such. He's more a professional troll than journalist.
I was addressing your assertion that Greenstreet is "not on the same level as Ross Coulthart". He certainly does cite sources in his work for the NY Post (whether or not you draw the same conclusions). He hasn't won comparative awards, but then who does for UFO reporting? I'm guessing Coulthart never will.
Regarding Greenstreet's past unsavory comments, my understanding is that he was down the rabbit hole at the time. That's not to excuse them, only to offer a possible reason and suggest he's changed his tune. Since seeing the light (as I'd describe it) on UFO conspiracies, I haven't seen him promote Q-Anon, for example.
My use of Greenstreet's weird beliefs was to illustrate that fact that there's a different standard being applied to him vs Ross Coulthart. All because Greenstreet aligns more with you in terms of thinking styles.
Well, you do apply different standards.
You go ad hominem on Greenstreet, we looked at his work for Coulthart.
Coulthart defending RBS wasn't bad because RBS is right-wing and allegedly beat a woman, it's bad because Coulthart again used claims of witnesses that support an upcoming story that then failed to materialize.
I think @sgreenstreet can defend himself if he wishes, but his work on Skinwalker Ranch seems well-founded enough.
It's been pointed out but I've been away.
Intriguing claim from someone who appears to value the literal over the figurative; a tabloid newspaper is half the size of a broadsheet newspaper
"Many broadsheets measure roughly 28 by 22+3⁄4 in (711 by 578 mm) per full broadsheet spread, twice the size of a standard tabloid." Wikipedia 'broadsheet'
The figurative sense of tabloid results from R Murdoch's repurposing of certain preexisting tabloid-format titles he purchased in UK.
So, the NY Post is a tabloid both figuratively and literally (since 1942). From 1968:
Article:
Dorothy Schiff, owner and publisher of the New York Post [....]: " I suppose the Post is my life. I’d like it to be a combination of a tabloid and a literary magazine. Perhaps that’s what it is.”
My use of Greenstreet's weird beliefs was to illustrate that fact that there's a different standard being applied to him vs Ross Coulthart. All because Greenstreet aligns more with you in terms of thinking styles.
You use Greenstreet's beliefs from many years ago to criticise him now in unrelated fields. We use Coulthart's beliefs from right now to criticise him right now on those specific beliefs. There are different standards because these are very different situations.
It's been pointed out but I've been away.
Intriguing claim from someone who appears to value the literal over the figurative; a tabloid newspaper is half the size of a broadsheet newspaper
"Many broadsheets measure roughly 28 by 22+3⁄4 in (711 by 578 mm) per full broadsheet spread, twice the size of a standard tabloid." Wikipedia 'broadsheet'
The figurative sense of tabloid results from R Murdoch's repurposing of certain preexisting tabloid-format titles he purchased in UK.
I was addressing your assertion that Greenstreet is "not on the same level as Ross Coulthart". He certainly does cite sources in his work for the NY Post (whether or not you draw the same conclusions). He hasn't won comparative awards, but then who does for UFO reporting? I'm guessing Coulthart never will.
Regarding Greenstreet's past unsavory comments, my understanding is that he was down the rabbit hole at the time. That's not to excuse them, only to offer a possible reason and suggest he's changed his tune. Since seeing the light (as I'd describe it) on UFO conspiracies, I haven't seen him promote Q-Anon, for example.
Evidence that he doesn't say those things any more? You want us to prove a negative? Why don't you provide evidence that he IS still behaving like that?
(1) I thought we were here to debunk, not to disparage.
(2) Does saying things because you think they're funnier mean that we can assume you're not saying things because they're true?
I shouldn't have to push a point like this at all but here's some more examples of skeptics presenting opinions as facts in the face of overwhelming evidence. Obviously we can also list the UFO proponents too! But that's not the claim here.
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax." - Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883
“When the Paris Exhibition [of 1878] closes, electric light will close with it and no more will be heard of it.” - Oxford professor Erasmus Wilson
A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.” — New York Times, 1936
There is little hope of discovering new species of large quadrupeds.- Cuvier - 1812
I was wondering whre @Mendel got his "x-rays" reference from, I'd missed this post before. But there's no way I can let it pass.
These are clearly examples of sceptics presenting opinions as opinions. Strike 1.
However, not just that - they are without exception forward-looking statements, predictions - and, as it had not happened at the point they were made, there is absolutely no possibility for there to be any evidence of what the future is, let alone overwhelming evidence. Strike 2.
Your examples categorically do not support the argument you are trying to make.
Yes, you can. You've decided you don't want to.
Tell me, what's the endgame going to be? How is this conversation going to end? Realistically? and then, is it worth it?
Yes, you can. You've decided you don't want to.
Tell me, what's the endgame going to be? How is this conversation going to end? Realistically? and then, is it worth it?
Are you making a prediction about the future, or do you magically have overwhelming evidence about the future? Sufficiently sloppy thinking by anyone will be noticed by someone, and almost certainly corrected, that's my only prediction, and is obviously just an opinion.
I shouldn't have to push a point like this at all but here's some more examples of skeptics presenting opinions as facts in the face of overwhelming evidence. Obviously we can also list the UFO proponents too! But that's not the claim here.
"X-rays will prove to be a hoax." - Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883
“When the Paris Exhibition [of 1878] closes, electric light will close with it and no more will be heard of it.” - Oxford professor Erasmus Wilson
A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.” — New York Times, 1936
There is little hope of discovering new species of large quadrupeds.- Cuvier - 1812
I wasn't going to comment on this, or at least not be the first to revive it, but the mention of rockets is my catnip. But it kinda sorta relates to Coulthart I think.
I disagree with what I take to be Stryer's definition of 'skeptic' in these examples. A useful (brief) definition for Metabunk purposes is someone who insists on testing a claim by weighing the evidence.
Stryer's examples are something different, examples of an attitude I could find twenty more examples of from the history of science before teatime (evolution of species, continental drift, etc). Stryer's examples are the voices of a conservative establishment buttressing an orthodoxy, in the face of revolutionary change. In each of these and similar cases, it is necessary for the establishment voices to deny, ignore or misunderstand the evidence for the novel new theory.
So while Stryer rightly points out that his/her quotes were from sources who were skeptical of claims that were ultimately proven, it is not useful to call the speakers 'skeptical' because their claims were not evidence-based, maybe willfuly non-evidence-based.
So to close the circle, Coulthart is doing something similar but in reverse; he is proposing a revolutionary alternative to the orthodoxy, but in his case the orthodoxy is evidence-based but the revolutionary change is not.
Going off-topic, but I'm not convinced that the above four sources are "skeptics" in the modern sense, or even would have been considered the equivalent of sceptics in their own day.
Presumably both Lord Kelvin (William Thompson) and Georges Cuvier attempted to base their work on empirical evidence, but they were men of their times.
Kelvin, a devout Christian, believed the Earth was too young for Darwinian evolution to be an explanation of humanity's origins. He believed in a form of theistically-guided evolution.
Cuvier (who pre-dates Darwin) didn't believe in evolution (or any other mechanism of a species' characteristics changing over time) at all:
The harshness of his criticism and the strength of his reputation, however, continued to discourage naturalists from speculating about the gradual transmutation of species, until Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species more than two decades after Cuvier's death
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Cuvier
Cuvier was the vice-president of the Paris Bible Society, and believed all humans were descended from the Biblical Adam;
Adam and Eve were Caucasians (of course).
Erasmus Wilson (William James Erasmus Wilson) was a surgeon who founded the Hunterian Museum of medical specimens.
He also studied dermatology, and advocated the building of wash-houses and public baths in Britain.
Arguably he over-estimated the efficacy of bathing, becoming an advocate for "hydropathy", a sort of pseudo-scientific precursor to hydrotherapy which made great claims for the curative powers of water treatments and vapour "baths".
Why his opinions about electric lighting were recorded, I don't know.
I don't know enough about The New York Times to comment other than I've not heard of it mentioned as a "skeptical" journal.
