Responding to Criticism

As an information junky, I have developed regular sources for acquiring data. In addition, I keep my eyes and ears open for anything outside of these sources that may provide me with interesting intelligence.

CriticismMore often than not, the best data comes from sources that are the most criticized. I’ve learned that the more someone is criticized, the more I should pay attention to what they are saying because, apparently, they are a threat to someone.

In some cases, this criticism seems to be well-planned, as if someone was attempting to accomplish a specific agenda. In fact, I actually know people who set up Google Alerts to email them whenever a certain topic appears in a new blog post so they can go to the site and discredit that topic.

Therefore, when Terry commented on last Friday’s article, I assumed he was a Judy Wood debunker. Of course, it is sometimes difficult to determine if someone is a debunker or a genuine searcher.

In an effort to determine a person’s perspective, my standard reply when someone appears to be debunking is to point to the facts. This allows me to sort out the professional debunkers from those genuinely looking for answers.

My intention is to uncover what is really going on with a situation rather than argue about opinions. I know that if someone will take the time to look at the facts and get back to me, then we can have an intelligent discussion in which we both learn something.

I was pleasantly surprised when Terry commented on yesterday’s article and told me that was exactly what he did. In fact, I suggest you click on this link and read Terry’s well-written comment.

I’m thrilled that he did the research, drew his own conclusions, and raised his own questions. I believe these questions need a deeper look.

As a result, I’ve decided to answer those questions before writing the additional information I promised in yesterday’s article.

The first question Terry raises is, “Why won’t Dr. Wood call the results of her research a “theory”?”

I have several clients who are professional scientists and science educators. They love to discuss puzzling information. However, they often correct me when I use the words “theory” and “proof.”

Apparently, these are borderline sacred words in the scientific community. Therefore, for a theory to exist there must be proof to support it. My scientist friends patronizingly explain to me that, “Evidence is not proof because evidence can be circumstantial and circumstantial evidence is not necessarily proof.”

Based on this, my clients have explained that it is “bad science” to compile evidence into a theory if there is no proof for it. At first this seemed like semantics to me. However, I think I now almost understand what they are saying.

For example, in Dr. Wood’s work, there is lots of evidence to support the fact that fire, thermite, or bombs did not cause the towers to disappear. However, she has no direct knowledge (proof) of what could have caused so much material to turn to dust. This information is classified and “if someone told her, they would have to kill her.”

Based on her body language during presentations, I suspect she has been threatened. I wouldn’t be surprised if someone had said to her, “Listen, you are really close to the truth. However, we are not going to let you ever tell the truth. Here are the guidelines you must stay within if you want to stay alive.”

This message, combined with her scientific training, motivates her to make less than definitive statements about her data. Therefore, she doesn’t present proof to support a theory. She presents evidence.

This also partially explains the answer to Terry’s second question: “Why don’t we have genuine debate towards resolving the mystery of the disappearance of the towers?”

The discussion would reveal information that could result in tremendous outcry from the general public.

For example, consider the public’s response if mainstream media suddenly reported that, as a result of thorough investigation, it had been discovered that a secret energy weapon, developed through United States funding, was used upon American buildings on 9/11 or something similar.

(WOW! Can you imagine?!?!)

Of course, alternative media is already saying these things.

And, it has been written in numerous, well-documented books.

I’ll consider one of those often criticized books tomorrow.