Full Interview - Lance Corporal Jonathan Weygandt (1997)

[RUSSO]

I don't know or care what political side he is on, what I meant was that politicians are known for manipulating everything to gain an advantage, specially in the US, so why should we trust some of those now?

I don't trust most of the politicians too. But i want to, at least hear what the politicians "triggers" have to say or show.

[ArMaP]

Or what they do not say.

Sometimes we learn more from what is unsaid.

[RUSSO]

Or what they do not say.

Sometimes we learn more from what is unsaid.

The rush is real. Why now? Well... Let's learn a bit more next wednesday.

[RUSSO]

Do you think they will ask the right questions? Such as, did someone was murder to keep secrets? Some people say it is possible right? example:

YOU ARE NOT A WISTLEBLOWER, YOU ARE A TRAITOR.

What I mean is you wouldn't be alive if they didn't want you to say anything.

So ArMaP, Do you think they will ask the right questions?

[ArMaP]

Do you think they will ask the right questions? Such as, did someone was murder to keep secrets? Some people say it is possible right? example:

So ArMaP, Do you think they will ask the right questions?

"Right" is subjective when asking questions.

The "right" questions are the ones that make the person being asked give the answers to what we want to know, but what "we" want to know may not be what the person asking the questions wants to know, so although they may ask the right (from their point of view) questions, they are not the questions we would ask, like the example you gave, "did someone was murder to keep secrets"

Reading it in a different way, I suppose your question can be converted into:
Do you think they will ask the questions we would ask?

My answer is: maybe some, but I think they will ask questions more related to politics than anything else.

[RUSSO]

"Right" is subjective when asking questions.

"Right"

The "right" questions are the ones that make the person being asked give the answers to what we want to know

I think this is the objective.

but what "we" want to know may not be what the person asking the questions wants to know

As far as i know, "we" want the truth right? The persons that will ask the questions seem committed; They even asked for questions from the peasants. What would you ask?

so although they may ask the right (from their point of view) questions, they are not the questions we would ask, like the example you gave, "did someone was murder to keep secrets"

You think that, at some point , this question will not be ask?

Reading it in a different way, I suppose your question can be converted into:

Do you think they will ask the questions we would ask?

My answer is: maybe some, but I think they will ask questions more related to politics than anything else.

They are politicians so its inevitable.

But, this seems different. Are not your skeptic mind wondering why?

Let's speculate? What do you think this is all about? 

[ArMaP]

As usual, I'm sceptic about everything. 

I'm sceptical about the whistleblowers, I' sceptical about the politicians intentions, I'm sceptical about the intentions of those that may be behind all this and keep incognito.

As for what questions I would ask I'm not really in a position to know, as I don't know the people being questioned and what kind of information they may have.

[RUSSO]

As usual, I'm sceptic about everything. 

I'm sceptical about the whistleblowers, I' sceptical about the politicians intentions, I'm sceptical about the intentions of those that may be behind all this and keep incognito.

As for what questions I would ask I'm not really in a position to know, as I don't know the people being questioned and what kind of information they may have.

Are you also a skeptic about mainstream media allegedly colluding with governments regarding what they really know about UFOs?

[RUSSO]

As usual, I'm sceptic about everything. 

A funny joke imo:

A Portuguese and a Brazilian are sitting in a bar, discussing various topics. The Brazilian says, "You know, being open-minded and skeptical can be quite helpful. It allows us to question things and find the truth."

The Portuguese nods and replies, "I understand, but skepticism can be a double-edged sword. Let me give you an example: A Portuguese scientist was once conducting a study on the health benefits of a new type of fruit."

The Brazilian leans in, intrigued, "And what happened?"

The Portuguese continues, "Well, the scientist was very skeptical of the fruit's potential benefits, so he decided to test it on himself first. He ate five of these fruits every day for a month."

"And?" the Brazilian asks eagerly.

The Portuguese smiles and says, "After a month of eating those fruits, the scientist felt healthier and more energetic than ever before. He was convinced they were a miracle fruit!"

The Brazilian chuckles, "That's great! So, skepticism led him to discover something amazing."

The Portuguese nods, "Indeed, but here's the funny part: The scientist was so skeptical of his own results that he repeated the experiment for another month, eating five fruits every day. And guess what?"

The Brazilian raises an eyebrow, "What happened this time?"

The Portuguese grins, "He felt just as healthy and energetic as before! But now, he was skeptical of his skepticism!"

The Brazilian bursts into laughter, "I see what you mean! Sometimes, being too skeptical can prevent us from embracing the truth, even when it's right in front of us!"

[ArMaP]

Are you also a skeptic about mainstream media allegedly colluding with governments regarding what they really know about UFOs?

I'm sceptic about everything, I only apply different levels of scepticism.

[ArMaP]

A funny joke imo:

Not to me.

The scientist in the story did things the wrong way, one of the first rules is not to be the target of the experiment, as it may create a bias and, if things turn out for the worst and the target of the experiment dies there is nobody to know what happened.

Also, there's why they use peer review, because of self-scepticism and to be sure of the reproducibility of the experiments and results.

But yes, I'm also sceptical about my own conclusions, that's why I'm never fully sure of anything, but that doesn't prevent me of finding the truth, it only prevents me of accepting blindly any thing that is presented to me as the truth.

[RUSSO]

Not to me.

Well, not every joke lands

The scientist in the story did things the wrong way, one of the first rules is not to be the target of the experiment, as it may create a bias and, if things turn out for the worst and the target of the experiment dies there is nobody to know what happened.

Personal involvement in experiments can be vital for relevant data and technological safeguards exist.

Also, there's why they use peer review, because of self-scepticism and to be sure of the reproducibility of the experiments and results.

You put a lot of emphasis on peer review, touting it as the holy grail of scientific validation. But let's be real, peer review has its flaws. Pioneering ideas often face stubborn resistance from the establishment, stifling progress.

While self-skepticism is important, relying solely on peer review can turn science into a slow and conservative playground.

We need a healthier balance between review and embracing innovative thinking to push boundaries.

But yes, I'm also sceptical about my own conclusions, that's why I'm never fully sure of anything, but that doesn't prevent me of finding the truth, it only prevents me of accepting blindly any thing that is presented to me as the truth.

Embrace evidence, be skeptical, but don't block progress.

[ArMaP]

You put a lot of emphasis on peer review, touting it as the holy grail of scientific validation. But let's be real, peer review has its flaws. Pioneering ideas often face stubborn resistance from the establishment, stifling progress.

I didn't "put a lot of emphasis on peer review", much less touted it "as the holy grail of scientific validation", I only mentioned it.

And peer review has its faults, like anything else, but if we make an experiment and get some results we should provide all the data to allow other people to replicate the experiment. If nobody picks up that information and replicates the experiment is something the original experimenter can't control.

For example, when Deuem showed his images I was sceptical about his claims of what the images showed, and asked a lot of questions to which he answered. With those answers and some test images he gave me I was able to create my "Poor Man's Version" of the Deuem Process.
I posted all the steps I had done to create my PMV system (and, as usual, I did everything with free software), but, as far as I know, nobody tried to repeated the experiment, so there was no confirmation or opposition to my results.

It's true that opposition to review some experiment (or whatever) puts a block to the process, but it doesn't really stop it, specially today, when it's extremely easy (compared to some 20 years ago) to publish scientific works.

To make things known publication is more important than peer reviews.

Also, I doubt scepticism is the reason behind most of the non peer reviewed works, I think personal interests are more directly responsible for that.

While self-skepticism is important, relying solely on peer review can turn science into a slow and conservative playground.

We need a healthier balance between review and embracing innovative thinking to push boundaries.

Now we also have "open science"

Embrace evidence, be skeptical, but don't block progress.

Personally, I never block any thing, I just give them a mental (because I'm too lazy to write ) classification of more or less likely to be true.

PS: although I like science and talk a lot about it I only finished high-school, and only on the third attempt. 

[RUSSO]

Personally, I never block any thing, I just give them a mental (because I'm too lazy to write ) classification of more or less likely to be true.

PS: although I like science and talk a lot about it I only finished high-school, and only on the third attempt. 

Im not lazy, just have not that much time anymore.

Your mindset block. You may not be that important tho.

[ArMaP]

Your mindset block.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by this.