Comments by "A.J. Hart" (@cobbler88) on "Joe Scott"
channel.
-
If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say that it might have been part of the deal that he would only have to interpret things that were actually put in front of him. It still calls into question the ghosting incident(s), but it's possible that he can maintain plausible deniability.
Also, how many of us were sitting here during the first couple of episodes (before deleting it from the queue) thinking, "These really do seem like fairly easy-to-explain things if we had the right experts involved."
And that's kind of a thing here. He's got credentials, but they're not often expertise in the field they would need to be for him to speak from authority on the things they actually document encountering. In fact, they're kind of worthless in most cases. All he can really offer of tangible value are one, maybe two, of his engineering degrees because of the physics involved and how they help him explain certain things regarding radiation, electricity, etc. Most of the advanced engineering stuff, astronomy, etc., aren't really worth much here, where most could be explained by undergrad study with a little specialization.
Did anyone think about putting a couple of top-notch geologists on the contacts list, specializing in the properties of stone/sediment in that region, and how things like magnetism, radiation, etc., work with stone? Or do we bring in the guy with the aerospace engineering degree to tell us about an updraft coming from a hole on the ground located on a chunk of rock and grass in Utah?
If they had the right geologist (or maybe there's a more specific specialist) on the show, how many questions do you think would still be there after the first couple of episodes?
Take care.
6
-
6
-
5
-
3
-
I gave up on Oak Island more than a decade ago. It's just a contrived con job like a few other alleged archaeological excavations, with the usual tropes (experts not quite being able to explain things, equipment breaking/powering down/being used incorrectly even though it should also require experts for use, nonsensical limits on the time or level of intrusion given for the media project).
I watched a doc or series on it long before History Channel got hold of it and it started me on the way to forming my vetting process for these things.
1) Did they find what they were looking for? Obviously no, or we would have heard about it on a legitimate news source. I kind of know what I'm in for when I watch something on the search for the Ark of the Covenant.
2) Should experts be having so much trouble? Again, it's almost always no. The equipment should be handled by people who know how to handle it and what good is an expert if he is so constantly befuddled in his area of expertise? Yet, there are always equipment problems - with real experts at home recognizing the use of the wrong equipment - and these academics just can't seem to explain anything. And most of these sites aren't anything that would rewrite how we view the settling or conquest of an area. If an academic is an expert on Norse conquest in Greenland - and they're excavating a Scandinavian settlement in Greenland - he should be able to make very good assumptions about just about everything.
3) Is it REALLY impossible to tell? Sadly, this is kind of a clincher. That Oak Island doc/series I watched ran into one easily fixable situation after another. But they would either claim they had no idea how to fix it, or lean on the oddly short and limited excavation they were allowed. "Sure, we COULD do that thing that would take only 2 hours, get to the bottom and answer all questions, but that piece of equipment won't arrive until tomorrow, and we're only allowed to work until about an hour before it would be able to arrive." always followed by, "I guess we'll have to pick up where we left off NEXT spring." And do ya think they ever show up next spring with that piece of equipment? 🤣
I'm rambling. Take care.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think you would probably need more technical expertise to actually "expose the fraud" of Skinwalker Ranch. Then again, had they had a couple of geology specialists involved, they likely would have explained almost everything in one lunch and we wouldn't have this series. We can speculate about the Shermans and come up with some fairly likely scenarios.
But as far as this show, it's a fraud - in the modern sense. I'll explain.
You remember how the media kept all of that COVID information from you for months while everything got locked down and the pharma and other kind of cherry-picked industries thrived? We (I've been in media for a few decades) did it without lying. We threw a few seeds out there, knowing people would go the wrong route in filling in the blanks, and various false narratives became the only ones allowed on various media.
When C19 was pretty much exclusively killing the elderly, we didn't report the average age of a deceased victim. When deaths were small, we only cited percentages. When percentages were small, we cited the number of positive tests. When it went from two to six deaths over a two-week period in a county in Florida, we told you, "The number has TRIPLED over the last 14 days." What we made sure to not point out was that if you were not elderly or in possession of multiple potential co-morbidities, your chance of getting it and dying from it were north of microscopic, but south of the point where you need to actually worry about it (as long as the at-risk groups were kept in mind).
For this series, you (the general "you") put all of its credibility in the hands of a guy with an impressive resume and list of degrees, about half of which are basically irrelevant to the work he'll be doing. How useful were those space-related degrees when it came to identifying the nature of an updraft from a hole in the ground during the first episode? Hell, for an optics guy I wasn't really impressed with him not recognizing ghosting from a camera, but to be fair I don't know if any of his optics work would have helped with the kind of equipment they were using. So, was he blundering or was this another example of an almost irrelevant degree?
But, we can't have him lie. It wouldn't be good for his career after this show. So what I'D do if I was looking for a work-around is to have him only comment as an expert on things actually presented to him, and/or only comment when directly asked to.
The fact that he's not qualified to answer most of the questions that arise is his first intellectual escape. He can honestly say he can't come to a conclusion. Likewise, the degrees that ARE half-useful give him the option of being able to comment intelligently about some of what's going on with something like the various electrical meters they have, while answering honestly that he doesn't ultimately know what that indicates because it's not really his field. That's his second intellectually sound escape. And the rest of the stuff that should fall under his area of expertise? You just don't actually ask him those questions unless you're throwing a few small bones to the public to keep it watching, claiming a revelatory experience. The fact of the matter is that there are enough of the first two scenarios going on in this series that you rarely even get to the third. Basically, everyone's working together with an understanding that we're basically trying to manufacture plausible deniability to swap for a quantum of integrity.
Or maybe I'm full of shit. 🤣
1