I have been taken to task at the Xenotech site for not providing the members of this forum with the information given to me by Sir Charles Shults regarding his knightship.

Here is his answer to my post concerning his title:
aichip

Sir Charles III


Joined: 30 Mar 2005
Posts: 67

[Post] Posted: Wed tje Sep 28, 2005 10:43 pm Post subject: Distractions are easier than analysis [Reply with quote]
Okay, this hoary subject is trotted out once again. Let's put this to rest once and for all, shall we?

I was knighted by Dr. Nelson Ying, the Baron of Balquhain. This holding is 100,000 acres in Aberdeenshire, Scotland and includes a castle, although it is little more than a historical ruin at this time. Nevertheless, here is the Burke's Peerage listing for the Baron of Balquhain: http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/...-BALQUHAIN.asp

As you can see, he is recognized officially as the Baron. And here is another verification of this claim: http://www.burkestitles.com/baronage.htm

This should satisfy anyone that Dr. Nelson Ying is in fact a baron. Now, he is a landed baron, and that means that the title comes with a parcel of land. When landed barons were involved in more gruesome times, they often found it necessary to knight persons into their service to provide protection for their lands. This was an honor conferred upon an individual which was accompanied by a parcel of land that could be used to support the knight and any family he might have.

In later times, it was common to award a sum of money rather than a land holding to a knight. In this tradition, Baron Ying awarded me a sum of $250,000 to cover my five years of research.

So unless somebody can come up with a reason that Burke's is unaware of, Baron Ying can and does knight persons, and I am the recipient of that honor.

Some people get angry and cry out "but he bought that title!" Come on, this is nothing more than sour grapes. What does it matter how he acquired a title, as long as it is official and officially recognized? How many heads of state or large corporations "bought" their way in, I would ask. I don't see anyone getting upset about that.

What is most irritating is that this is often used to promote simple dismissal rather than analysis of the data I have presented. This is the worst and most blatant failure of critical thinking- attack the credibility of the messenger when you don't like the message. In none of this is any fragment of analysis. It is an extremely childlike response to something that apparently makes people very uncomfortable.

It would be like deciding that if a message is not printed on a certain type of paper, it is not worth reading. This is silly- the message content, not the medium, is what is important. And, when somebody immediately appeals to authority, I see red flags. After all, authority is not omniscience.

In any event, the issue is now settled.
_________________
Cheers!
Sir Charles W. Shults III
Xenotech Research
aichip
Sir Charles III


Now, the members of this forum can do their own research on this subject and come to their own conclusions.

I am posting this in the conpiracy forum because that is where the original thread has ended up.

If any of the members here are interested in reading the thread (from the Xenotech forum) regarding this subject, here is the thread:

http://xenotechresearch.com/cgi/phpB...?t=28&start=15

Keep in mind, however, that I am a crackpot and have nothing intelligent to say. Having said that, also keep in mind that the person informing me of those facts (my wife tells me the same thing) has been visiting the BAUT forums but has not made an effort to impart any of HIS knowledge.


Regards, tbm

__________________
Paddle faster!! I hear banjo music!!

Ok, so Charles Shults is a knight who sees fossils that aren't there, rather than just a "commoner" who sees fossils that aren't there. I'm not aware that knighting someone makes them an instant paleontologist.

And the point that the Xenotech staff is making over all this, is?

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

No, knighting someone doesn't automatically make them a paleontologist BUT since Charles is a knight I guess that would make anyone who believed otherwise a crackpot, wouldn't it? I am the person tbm is refering to above by the way. I'm a nice guy, usually, but tbm riled me by barging into a place unannounced to ridicule someone who, in my opinion, is a valuable asset to humankind and to the space effort. It was totally groundless and he had to be forced to apologise when he had said previously that if he was proved wrong he would do so freely so I forego being nice to him. I wish no offence to anyone else at this time.

Greetings.

This is the post in which I did (poorly, apparently) try to atone for my doubting Sir Charl's knighthood:


"Greetings.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. Unless proven otherwise, to me you will be SIR Charles.

Regards, tbm"

Peck's "forced" apology from me came in a following post.

tbm

__________________
Paddle faster!! I hear banjo music!!

Welcome aboard Peck. Read the rules about being "nice," there are no exceptions here.

I don't know why something posted on another board has to be an issue here in the first place. This goes for both sides. I personally don't care if Charles is a knight or not myself. If he is, good for him.

If someone wants to make a case for "fossils" or whatever else on Mars, bring it on .. but lets concentrate on the veracity of the claim(s) themselves, not this.

Exactly, the question is, are there fossils on Mars? The only "titles" that would seem to apply here are that of paleontologists and exobiologists (if someone is claiming expertise in the field). The question needs to be addressed by looking at the evidence or lack of evidence, period.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

From the burkes site in his own message:
"Knighthood

A Knighthood is awarded by the state only and is not hereditary. It is not possible to buy a knighthood."

Knighthoods of whatever order are awarded only by the sovereign. So currently if he didnt get a KBE KCB or whatever from the Queen or one of her ancestors he is not a Knight.
It is also my understanding that he is not a commonwealth citizen and hence even if 'knighted' by the soveraign could only be an hounourary Knight and thus not entitled to use the prefix 'Sir'

I suppose that we could argue what denotes "real" knighthood and what is merely contrived. However, Mr. Shults could be the Grand Poo-Bah of Oom-Pah-Doo or a Jedi Master; still wouldn't have any bearing on the veracity of fossils on Mars.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

I just get the feeling that this 'contrived' knighthood is an attempt to inflate Mr Shults standing and also lend a sort of authoritiy to his arguments.
The latter part of your comment is spot on. Even if a jedi master Mr schults was, wrong he can be!

What's he gunna do if we disgree? Strap on his armour and charge us a with a lance? Can I bring my longbow? *snicker*

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

The point: In an earlier BABB discussion some of the British forum members did some research on Shults and apparently couldn't find anything official to confirm this. Since I am an uncultured American, the claim itself didn't concern me, but if he was claiming an honor to which he wasn't entitled, he was being dishonest. And if he wasn't honest about that, then ...

I'll be curious if some of the British BAUT forum members can shed more light on the new material. It doesn't sound impressive at all, but I don't know enough about the subject to say for sure.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Well being one of the british members doesnt make me any more of an authority than anyone else but i think Mr Shults 'knighthood' is not the same thing as an actual knighthood and its use is highly dubious.

From the website of the UK monarchy comes this little snippet:
"Today, as the 'fountain of honour' in the United Kingdom, the Sovereign has the sole right of conferring all titles of honour, including life peerages, knighthoods and gallantry awards."
By his own admission his did not come from the queen so id say his is not the same thing as say Sir Tim Berners-Lees knighthood

In any case, you guys are correct - Knighthood has nothing to do with validity of claims so why the big focus on it? If you asked me I would say this is something akin to an ostrich burying it's head in the sand, the Knighthood being the sand. Nitpicking and hairsplitting really. What about the data? There is ample evidence available, both at Xenotech and other sites, to show that NASA are in actual fact NOT providing us with raw images at all but, rather, pre-processed ones. Anyone with even a limited experience with Photoshop (and the dollars to afford it I suppose) can see this for themselves. How is it that some of the images posted at JPL will be affected by autolevels while most will not? And the same for auto contrast? It is because the algorithims have already been applied, that's why. It (NASA) lies yet some of us still take what it says as gospel. I will reiterate: authority is not omniscience. When are we all gonna realise that NASA, among other institutions, is being more and more influenced by the religious and not by science?

Such as? Evidence please.

According to whom?

This comes across as hand-waving Peck and if you do a search here you'll see that much of this has already been addressed when the Hoagland camp claimed the same thing at the beginning of the Rover missions. If, as you claim, NASA is part of a religious/"authoritarian" cabal, why even publicize these missions, let alone release any data that could be intercepted by those not "in on it?" The irony you and those that believe in such things fail to properly appreciate is that without NASA you wouldn't have a platform to stand on to begin with.

Now, tell me .. what is NASA supposedly hiding? Since you imply NASA can not be trusted, I hope you don't insult my intelligence by continuing to rely on the very agency you tell me not to trust to make your case.

Knighthood has nothing to do with validity of claims so why the big focus on it?

Because part of discussing conspiracy theories is attempting to understand why people propound them, what they hope to gain by it, and how they go about buttressing an objectively poor argument.

It has been proposed that conspiracy theorists create a "universe" -- a psychological construct arising from the conspiracy theory -- in which they can fantasize about being more than they are. We have found that conspiracy theorists are often desperate to be recognized as some kind of expert, and will turn to the pseudoscience of conspiracism as a sort of short-cut to the appearance of erudition.

As part of this construction, the proponent will often inflate credentials he holds legitimately, but also inflate honorary or trivial credentials. Holders of honorary doctorates who desire additional recognition, for example, will list the degrees vaguely so as to suggest they are academically merited, and will insist on the title "doctor". While an honorary or inconsequential knighthood is only tangentially related to scientific inquiry, the manner in which its holder treats it can help us assess his sincerity.

Someone who insists on the title "sir" for a knighthood of questionable recognition clearly wishes to be afforded more respect than those who cannot claim the title at all. A title is to say, "See: I have attained a knighthood and therefore am recognized as an honorable gentleman. See what it is to which I have now turned my attention; I would not risk my considerable reputation on something cheap or false." We are to presume that someone who has so distinguished himself will not waste his time on something that did not have merit.

Normally one's motives wouldn't necessarily be an issue in his ability to report accurately what he has seen, or to reason appropriately. However, when we have evidence of some measure of deception from him -- especially in a manner that suggests he wants attention and respect without earning it -- then we have to raise the question of whether he is discussing his scientific observations in order to push farther the boundaries of knowledge, or simply to get more attention by making outlandish claims.

How is it that some of the images posted at JPL will be affected by autolevels while most will not? And the same for auto contrast? It is because the algorithims have already been applied, that's why.

Hogwash. There's nothing inherent to the "auto" image manipulation algorithms that require them to have a noticeable effect on every image to which they are applied. They only alter images whose dynamic range is considerably narrow and/or off-center by normalizing them to the gamut of the representation. If the photograph is already well normalized (i.e., properly exposed) then no significant change occurs.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Actually that is just one aspect of the issue. We have previously discussed his claims and found them wanting. But let's make it a little more obvious. If I said that I was the rightfully King of England and presented some hand waving to "prove" it, what would that say about me? Don't you think that would be good reason to suspect anything I said?

You're going to have to explain that one. You do realize that every image sent by a spacecraft, not to mention a conventional digital camera, is necessarily "processed" at some level?

The question is if you have any evidence that NASA is hiding data. Do you?

Even ignoring Jay's point, I don't see the relevance. Even ignoring whether you are talking about source images or JPEGS clipped for public consumption, I don't see the relevance.

There seems to be a common theme in the ATM/Conspiracy circles that an astronomical image can always be interpreted just like a photograph. This often is not the case. Of course you can manipulate an image in Photoshop. What difference does that make?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I have no idea who this guy is, but let me tell you something.

if you claim to me that you have a knighthood that wasn't given to you by the sovereign of whatever place you claim a knighthood from, it will make the rest of your claims suspect to me, simply because you're already expecting me to believe something that isn't possible.

in England, only Elizabeth II can currently issue knighthoods. in the Society for Creative Anachronisms, only the current monarch of your kingdom can issue knighthoods. besides, in America, we're not supposed to hold nobility from other countries anyway. I'm pretty sure there's something in the Constitution about it.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

All of this is quite true and when someone does this sort of thing around me, frankly, I become suspect of their motivations as well. I think Jay has hit the nail on the head (as usual!) here.

The reason I keep pointing out stuff like... it matters not, even if a Jedi Master he is (Yoda talk is contagious), is to try and get the focus away from Mr.Shults and his dubious knighthood, to invalidate any attention and respect he's attempting to gain in this manner. The focus needs to be on the evidence, or lack of evidence for fossils on Mars. And from what I can see (from past threads here and a recent trip to Xenotech) he has his work cut out for him.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

Ok, I will attempt to convince you guys. Firstly, yes, I will use NASA and A NASA image (just the one) in order to try and verify what I believe. Second, I am also using images NOT used by Sir Charles. This is MY case.
I refer you all to a Sol 030 Microscopic Image (Here). This is a good image to use because the dimensions are easilly percieved. The RAT is 7cm in diameter and will shave about as deep as 0.5cm so one can easily gain some perpesctive from the image. There is a pasta-like object in the center of frame and the most important thing about it is that it was uncovered by the RAT. It is IN the rock so the first thing we can say for sure is that weather did not carve out this shape. Even if the shape was on the surface - it is too small to be weathered in this spiral-like fashion. Rocks do not form in shapes like this, do they? Can anyone tell me what I am seeing here? I believe it to be a fossil. The remains of something once alive.

I think you got it wrong here. Sir Charles is the one making the claims. It you guys who have your work cut out. It is up to you to prove him wrong and not for him to prove you wrong.

Why would NASA cover up evidence of life on Mars? Because first the religious implications must be investigated. We all know what is going on in Pennsylvania at the moment. I believe this 'rush' to have ID taught in science is a direct result of what has been found on Mars. President Bush is an avid Christian and so are all his buddies. They believe they are doing Gods work on a monumental scale. I cannot prove that religion is playing a hand in all this but I would not be so foolish to discount the possibility. I will attempt to show that NASA has some pretty inexperienced users of photoshop working for it when I return.

No, no, no...Please read about Burden of Proof.

This applies to all types of extraordinary claims, not just fossils on Mars. One can't just present some observations, arrive at the conclusion one desires and then declare, "prove me wrong". Mr. Shults, myself, anyone, assumes the burden of proof and has to support their hypothesis. Science just does not work in the manner you are describing.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

It doesn't matter if the claims are extraordinary or not, he who makes the claims, backs them up. If you want to prove there are fossils on Mars you need to do way more that wave at a rock and say, "That looks ike a...." You have to show that it within reason, it isn't anything else.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

Could you explain what you mean by this?? I'm having trouble understanding what one has to do with the other.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I think the inference is that the government is not only suppressing the fossil evidence of life on Mars, but by supporting the concept of ID they will focus everyone's attention onto the idea that life is exclusively an earthly phenomena.

If I'm mistaken, I'm sure it will be clarified upon Peck's return.

Oh, aside to Peck; I can breathe quite well. There's nothing like a sound application of the scientific method for raising the oxygen level.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

I see no "fossil" here.As has been mentioned, you have it backwards. Welcome to our world Peck. Here the burden of proof is on those that make extraordinary claims.This doesn't even make sense no matter how you try to spin it. If one believes in God, then why not believe Martian fossils are God's handiwork as well? Heck, we all know Mars exists and religion is fine with that so what's a couple dried up bones going to do? Religion survived Galileo, it would survive life on Mars. If this administration is so afraid of these so-called fossils of yours causing a religious crisis, and are so short-sighted that they don't realize that foreign space agencies will eventually blow the lid off this cover-up, why go through the trouble of promoting a watered-down replacement (I.D.) for the very thing they are trying to protect? Why not just simply not show the images?

Whoa! I've always suspected this has been the position of many CTs, but I've never actually seen any of them explicitly confirm it.

How do people get this backwards?

If ID were correct (a view for which the evidence is lacking) then I suspect it would make the existence of life elsewhere more rather than less likely, i.e. where did the "progentator" come from, and would they be crazy enough to just seed life on one planet.

The evidence and logic (or lack of same) are key issues, but the OP of this thread was about a claim from Shults that the Knighthood was valid. Credibility is also a key issue and deserves attention.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

I see rock. I really don't know what you are referring to. Unless ... you aren't talking about artifacts left by the RAT when it was grinding into the rock, are you?

*sigh* I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong? This is a serious question. Please answer it.

(Incidentally, I've mentioned this invisible elf so many times in discussions like this, I'm almost starting to believe in it myself.)

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

heh .. you ought to just make it your new sig.