Hello All,
With the rapid emergence of new information, discoveries, claims, prophecies, theories,etc that we are being bombarded with. I wanted to ask if "WE" can begin to establsih a standard vetting process/cross referencing thread for all to access to validate sources providing such information, discoveries, claims, prophecies, and theories, etc. I'm in the process of accessing and building a website that will serve this particular function. In the meantime, I would like your feedback and well get something started in the interim.
For example, if we see somone being interviewed or releasing some form of video, channeling, whatever. We then vet them by determining what their background is, if they are registered (Doctor, Scientist, Archaeologists, etc), tenure, references, previous efforts, involvements, complaints, resume, etc. Once we have this information we can then add it to the thread (Stickied Topic, link, website) for other to use as a reference point in helping determine who is credible and who is another walk in the park, or speaking theorectically. Once these standards are established, we should then pass them on to every whistle blowing radio talk show, website, webshow, conferences, etc and establish the expectation of such standards before introducing us to any new informant, WB, etc.
I feel there's enough of us in the aware community who have the ability, resources, time and know how to implement such a standard to hold these outlets accountable. Thus weeding out those whom are proven or leaning towards fraudulence.
I've always looked for such information on whistle blowers, but recently decided to research Klaus Dona. Nice and genuine enough gentlemen, but what does that prove? Klaus is described as a Austrian Artifacts Researcher, but when you cross reference Artifacts Research, Researchers, Austrian Researchers, you get much of nothing archeaological or artifacts research, except Klaus Dona. I've also tried checking to see if he's registered with the Austrian Archaeology Assoc, Register of Professional Archaeologists, etc and found nothing. It's not an attempt to debunk, but to better know who it is that it talking to us or telling/showing us these profound things.
For starters let's know what our criteria will be. Please review and add, subutract, edit the list below. Once this thread has enough input, I will create a separate thread and eventually a website to provide the information for all and any to access.
Name:
Area of Focus/Expertise:
Title:
Profession:
Name of Colleges Attended
Degree/Degress completed:
Registered Associations:
Known work:
Tenure in field:
Awards, recognition:
Certifications:
Previous employment, employers:
Peer Review Submissions:
Affiliations:
Authored books:
Lawsuits/Pending Lawsuits:
Revocations:
Website/Radio/Webcast/Blogs:
Dates of origin:
With the rapid emergence of new information, discoveries, claims, prophecies, theories,etc that we are being bombarded with. I wanted to ask if "WE" can begin to establsih a standard vetting process/cross referencing thread for all to access to validate sources providing such information, discoveries, claims, prophecies, and theories, etc. I'm in the process of accessing and building a website that will serve this particular function. In the meantime, I would like your feedback and well get something started in the interim.
For example, if we see somone being interviewed or releasing some form of video, channeling, whatever. We then vet them by determining what their background is, if they are registered (Doctor, Scientist, Archaeologists, etc), tenure, references, previous efforts, involvements, complaints, resume, etc. Once we have this information we can then add it to the thread (Stickied Topic, link, website) for other to use as a reference point in helping determine who is credible and who is another walk in the park, or speaking theorectically. Once these standards are established, we should then pass them on to every whistle blowing radio talk show, website, webshow, conferences, etc and establish the expectation of such standards before introducing us to any new informant, WB, etc.
I feel there's enough of us in the aware community who have the ability, resources, time and know how to implement such a standard to hold these outlets accountable. Thus weeding out those whom are proven or leaning towards fraudulence.
I've always looked for such information on whistle blowers, but recently decided to research Klaus Dona. Nice and genuine enough gentlemen, but what does that prove? Klaus is described as a Austrian Artifacts Researcher, but when you cross reference Artifacts Research, Researchers, Austrian Researchers, you get much of nothing archeaological or artifacts research, except Klaus Dona. I've also tried checking to see if he's registered with the Austrian Archaeology Assoc, Register of Professional Archaeologists, etc and found nothing. It's not an attempt to debunk, but to better know who it is that it talking to us or telling/showing us these profound things.
For starters let's know what our criteria will be. Please review and add, subutract, edit the list below. Once this thread has enough input, I will create a separate thread and eventually a website to provide the information for all and any to access.
Name:
Area of Focus/Expertise:
Title:
Profession:
Name of Colleges Attended
Degree/Degress completed:
Registered Associations:
Known work:
Tenure in field:
Awards, recognition:
Certifications:
Previous employment, employers:
Peer Review Submissions:
Affiliations:
Authored books:
Lawsuits/Pending Lawsuits:
Revocations:
Website/Radio/Webcast/Blogs:
Dates of origin:
