Apologies to Nereid...

[davesmith_au]

Giday all, many may have noticed that Nereid is now gracing us with her (his?) presence on our forum. She has found a number of posts on our forum which mention her by name, and at least some of them are undoubtedly directed at her erroneously.

Quite simply, Nereid is NOT DeiRenDopa from the JREF forums, and in fact she has no posts on that forum at all. See: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 279#p42279 and the post above it.

I, like many others here (and elsewhere if I recall correctly, but don't quote me on it...) have been under the mistaken impression that the two were one and the same. Under the circumstances, I offer my unreserved apologies to Nereid for any instance where I have written unfavorable things in error, and on behalf of the Thunderbolts Forum and thunderbolts.info I also offer the same apologies for such transgressions.

Dave Smith.
Forum Administrator.

[mharratsc]

Likewise. Amazing coincidence- sorry I jumped to conclusions.

Welcome to Thunderbolts.

[Siggy_G]

Odd. There's Nereid, DeiRenDopa (apoDneRieD in reverse) and APODNereid. The latter two are especially of very similar phrasing and reasoning pattern - from JREF forum and Tom Bridgeman's blog site - and generally involved with plasma cosmology / electric universe forum discussions. Also, a couple of relatively unique expressions are used by all three nicks. Now, even if Nereid is not DeiRenDopa / APODNereid, perhaps the latter two are the same...? At least, there are some justice reasons for the mix-up.

Then again, except from the eyebrow-lifting coincidence, I don't care - and fair enough, let's distinguish the nicks from eachother and let the respective content speak for itself. It's interesting to have more people on board (or out there) discussing and challenging the cosmological theories.

[Jarvamundo]

Wow... just when it couldn't get weirder...
There are seriously not many people (physical persons) who:
* Comment on tom bridgman's blog
* and.. Are aware of Crothers, Don Scott and Dave Smith
* and.. Have synonyms of 'NEREID'
* and.. An interest in astronomy & refuting plasma cosmology and electric universe theory
* and.. believe in blackholes

Although the In Real Life Identities have not been ruled out as common, we must make the distinction online personas of Nereid, DeiRenDopa (apoDneRieD in reverse) and APODNereid, who are all interested in refuting PC and EU (not that true skepticism does not help us all explore). wow. just spooky wow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-gfNkyqG18

I also apologies to you 'Nereid' for anything that maybe should've been directed to 'APODNereid' or 'DeiRenDopa' or any other online persona that may share the above points. I will try make distinctions between these in future, as now has been made apparent and should be directed to the correct synonym of Nereid.

Welcome, i hope you enjoy exploring EU.

I wonder if the other 2 will join us here?

[Jarvamundo]

Hi Nereid,

I'd like to withdraw my above apology, as my statement earlier of:

Unfortunately since the exchanges its hard to bother exploring skeptical works of Bridgman & Nereid, as the obvious suspicions of motive are raised, further made bleedingly apparent by this article. In this regard i agreed with mharra, it's an obstacle to true scientific exchange.

I would like to leave stand...

Consider the following.

Nereid2009-03
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... sents.html
* No posts from APODNereid

APODNereid 2009-04
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... model.html
* No posts from Nereid

Nereid 2009-05
"Not sure if this will get published, or even if you can see it, but I wanted to let you know that I've provided
links to your blog in some of my comments on various UT stories (Universe Today), as a place where disinterested
readers can find detailed demolishion of Scott's EU ideas ... Nereid"
Tom B: "To Nereid,
Thanks. Nice to know things are getting some circulation."
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... verse.html
* No comments from APODNereid

Nereid 2009-06
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... model.html
* No comments from APODNereid

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... thers.html
* No commetns from APODNereid

Nereid 2009-07
"And Thornhill claims to have a degree in physics!"
"W.T."Tom" Bridgman said...
Quite a battle going on there. Nereid, could you please contact me via e-mail?
"
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... short.html
* No comments from APODNereid

Nereid 2009-08
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... onism.html
"and Dave Smith's and Anaconda's distortions (for example about the commentary on Crothers' work and explanations of galaxy rotation curves)... In my next comment I'll say a few words about one, very common, feature I've noticed in discussions with EU proponents in internet fora, a curious reluctance to examine EU proposals in a manner consistent with how science is done (or even how EU proponents themselves say it should be done).
Nereid"
* No comments from APODNereid

Nereid 2009-09
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... ering.html
"And still no responses from EU fans.
Why?
Nereid"
* No comments from APODNereid

"The remarkable bottom line is that a single hypothesis (or theory) - CDM - can apparently account for such a diverse range of observations, of so many different kinds of objects. Of the competing hypotheses, only some relativistic version of MOND comes close in terms of its explanatory and predictive power.
Nereid"
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... nt-ii.html
* No comments from APODNereid

Nereid 2009-12
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... thers.html
"Crothers pals around with the EU crowd for much the same reason that the EU crowd are big fans of Arp et al.; namely, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. In this sense, the EU is a very broad church.
Nereid"
* No comment from APODNereid

APODNereid 2010-06
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... ge-ii.html
Siggy_g Said: "Flux ropes" of electric currents were also detected just a few years ago by the THEMIS satelites, as expected by EU/PC."
apodNereid: "You're joking, right? Can you point to publications which support this claim? And by support, I mean scientifically, with equations, numerical predictions, and so on."
* After a 14 month hiatus APODNereid returns, but Nereid makes no comments and never returns?


APODNereid 2010-07
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... eeded.html
"Oh, I forgot: you do know, don't you Siggy_G, that wrt comets, Thornhill's major opus is an academic fraud?
If you don't, I'll gladly point you to sources which demonstrate the fraud beyond reasonable doubt ...
APODNereid"
* No comment from Nereid

APODNereid 2010-07
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... ng-eu.html
* No comment from Nereid

APODNereid 2010-08
"What's particularly odd is that these proponents see no contradiction in their rejection of essentially all of physics since at least the time of Newton and their praise for Birkeland, Alfvén, and Peratt. You pointed this out to Dave Smith, in a recent comment on another blog entry, but he didn't respond (non-response, a cessation of dialog, seems quite a common feature of discussions that the seemingly best read of the EU proponents engage in, when they are faced with clearly framed major contradictions)."
"Siggy_G: How about we continue discussion of Peratt's models and simulations in the relevant JREF forum thread, per Tom's request?
APODNeried"
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... asmas.html
* No comment from Nereid

APODNereid 2010-08
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... lasma.html
* No comment from Nereid


APODNereid 2010-09
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... my-as.html
"That there are a large number of acute internal contradictions in the EU (e.g. acceptance of Arp's ideas on redshift makes most of Peratt's published work on astrophysics - and even plasma physics - meaningless) is well-known; that few EU proponents even acknowledge these, much less state that they are highly problematic, is a pretty good sign that whatever the EU is, it is not science-based.
APODNereid"
"Maybe there is more than one Anonymous?
APODNereid"
* No comment from Nereid

APODNereid 2010-09
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... s-for.html
"Starship Asterisk*, the forum attached to APOD (Astronomy Picture of the Day), has an entire section devoted to astronomical/astrophysical codes!
Here it is: The Engineering Deck: Computer Codes (http://bb.nightskylive.net/asterisk/viewforum.php?f=35).
APODNereid"
* No comment from Nereid

APODNereid 2010-10
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... c-sun.html
"Finally, don't you feel a little, um, strange putting so much emphasis on science, given the near total lack of any science-based challenges to EU/ES ideas (on your forum, and the TB website in general), and the lack of any science-based responses to the numerous challenges to EU/ES ideas, both here and in many internet discussion fora (such as JREF)?
APODNereid"
* No comment from Nereid

APODNereid 2010-10
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... ng-vs.html
"So there seems to be disagreement between EU proponents, and sometimes even within one person - is that merely inconsistency, or schizoph

renia?
APODNereid"
"ND, as Tom said, in a key sense it doesn't matter that no EU proponent has shown evidence of understanding even the basics of, say, plasma physics (despite what some may claim).
APODNereid"
* No comment from Nereid

Nereid: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=73276
"What you see from folks such as Thornhill and Scott is (in my view) a deliberate, cynical misrepresentation of how science works, and a mishmash of excellent research (both observation and theory), speculation, vitriol, sloppy thinking, ... Nereid"

and so... now we have many senior members and admins here spending time to accommodate this? Would this not be better "sorted out" via PM or email with the site admins, who from their immediate involvement seem rather keen to extend hands and clarify any confusion? (apologies if this has been done).

The casual reader also has the above 2 of my posts fully sourced, combined with the "Thornhill is academic fraud" of both APODNereid (above) and DeiRenDopa (apoDneRieD in reverse) of Dave Smith's psuedo-skepticism thread to draw their own conclusions.

All of your TB posts Nereid, have been to date have shown no interest in exploring the EU hypothesis. Infact you state you do not even 'know it', yet the above rebuke's display nothing short of the type of psuedo-skepticism described in Daves article, which seemed to time your arrival.

Please PM me if you would like to discuss my posts, as i would gladly withdraw publicly if convinced.

DAVE SMITH: "But when I see people on our forum banging on about the reptilians, I must admit it raises my hackles a bit."
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... &start=660

NEREID: I was one of the first to welcome the embrace of the Lizard Overlords
http://www.bautforum.com/archive/index.php/t-93242.html"

[davesmith_au]

Just to be clear Jarvamundo, I made the apology specifically in regard to the comments I attributed to Nereid under the mistanken impression she was also DeiRenDopa from the JREF forum. I can only take her at her word and offer her the benefit of any remaining doubt once she cleared that particular issue up.

Now that I see from your post that APODNereid also accused Wal Thornhill of academic fraud, it is obviously in Nereid's best interests to clarify her position regarding the posts under that name also.

Nereid, do you or do you not, post under the name of APODNereid as well as Nereid? Or put simply, are the quoted words Jarvamundo has taken (predominately from Bridgman's site) under the name of APODNereid written by yourself?

Cheers, Dave Smith.

[Jarvamundo]

Most certainly Dave, posts are my own and in no way representative of or related to; any official capacity of this forum or of Dave Smith.

There might just be some that remain skeptical of the cryptic testimonies offered, and the statistical significance of the 2 majority comment makers of an obscure ultra low traffic website (TBridgman) never colliding posts or posting periods, whilst also containing a mere prefix-adjustment to the name 'Nereid', AND with "Nereid" not commenting on TBridgmans site since Dec-2009 finds her/his way here as soon as you publish a blog referring to TBridgmans site in 2010-11 near 11 months after Nereid 'going missing' from regular contributions, whilst at the same time APODNereid is obviously active on the TBridgman site, and both Nereid and APODNereid making direct reference to the name of the author (Dave Smith) of the Tblog article to be written over a year later.

Whilst the language may be direct, it is a thorough submission of query, I stand humble, and ready to be convinced by a story which seems beyond my immediate imagination.

[D_Archer]

Dealing with Pseudoskepticism in Astronomy...=....dealing with dishonesty.

Nereid = a character
APODNereid = a character
DeiRenDopa = a character

Al these characters are a persona, that persona (in real life) is one and the same.

Nereid sees things differently, it thinks that anything said with a specific internet name (character) can only be held accountable for what that character says. Nereid believes an internet identity can be considered as an internet citizen with its own rules. With this background in mind it can deny to have said things under a different character or even deny that it is not that character, it would technically not be lying.

Apologyzing is something you do to real human beings not some unknown entity on the internet, Nereid is a genderless contraption.

Regards,
Daniel

[Nereid]

I'll comment, briefly, in this post, on the recent posts (in this thread) by Jarvamundo and D_Archer/Daniel; at a later time I'll write a more lengthy post.

First, as I said in one of my first posts here - in response to Dave (who was acting as an ordinary Thunderbolts Forum member, not an admin, but at the time I did not know that) - "In any case, what was (is) my main purpose in registering, and posting, here? A few seconds' with Google turns up at least a dozen references to "Nereid" in this forum; several, possibly most, refer to me (or so it seems). I would like to understand what those who referred to me, in many of those posts, meant. Once that's clear, where there are misunderstandings etc I'd like the opportunity to clarify and address them."

In a later post of mine, in that same thread, I spent a few paragraphs explaining who Nereid is, what my original intent was (for the online persona 'Nereid'), rules forums have concerning sock puppets and their requirements for revealing one's IRL identity, and so on. My main point - which Dave (and Dave Smith, the admin) accepted - is that here I can, and should, be judged on the basis of what I, Nereid, have written.

Also in that thread, in answer to a question by Lucas, I said a few words about my experience with the discussion forum associated with APOD (now called Starship Asterisk*). Perhaps because of the APOD association - and the fact that APOD gets a million or so hits a day (I can dig up a source for this if anyone is interested) - that discussion forum was simply flooded with spam. In my (entirely voluntary) work of cleaning it up I was frequently amazed at the astonishing creativity of some spamsters, in the huge number of tricks they used to avoid being identified as such. One such trick was to create member names that very closely resembled current members, my own included ('Neried' was, IIRC, a common one); another was to copy the style (and to some extent the content) of a well-established member, at least for a dozen or so posts (presumably to establish some credibility as a genuine poster). My point being that it seems that it is not, in fact, all that difficult to create an online persona similar to an existing one (and for there to be no connection whatsoever between the two IRL persons)!

Now this works in reverse too, as you might expect: everyone reading my posts is totally free to conclude, on any basis whatsoever (including none whatsoever) that I am, IRL, the same person as DeiRenDopa, or Tim Thompson, or John Key, or the ghost of James Clerk Maxwell. Or no one else. For myself, Nereid, I cannot complain about any such conclusions; it's not only nothing I can do anything about, but as I exist entirely online, and as the internet is what it is, the forming of such conclusions is common.

Finally, as you can see by several of my posts here (example, example), I am happy to answer at least some questions on physics and astronomy, and engage in discussion of them.

[Jarvamundo]

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... 8668416245
Nereid: July 31, 2009 10:39 AM
There's a link to this blog entry in a digg comment, on "Telescope captures image of planetary nebula"
(http://digg.com/space/Telescope_capture ... ary_nebula).

Very active Electric Universe proponent pln2bz introduced "the glow discharge model for the Sun" into that thread ...
Nereid

apodnereidJul 31, 2009
Hi CosmicSombrero (or should I just call you M104?),Tom Bridgman has tried mightily to get proponents of electric star models (well, Scott's anyway) to say what the model actually *is*, in a form that can be studied and tested. He has had essentially zero success; here's a link to his latest blog on this: http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... short.html

So on the same day you seem to link to each others article comments?
But you never ever collide posts or even posting periods *on the same site only*?

This also seems to confuse Tom Bridgman:

http://dealingwithcreationisminastronom ... 8668416245
W.T."Tom" Bridgman said...
Quite a battle going on there [Where APODNereid posted]. Nereid, could you please contact me via e-mail?

[emphasis mine]

and...

DeiRenDopa: "Thornhill, and as he is a well-known academic fraud"
APODNereid: "Thornhill's major opus is an academic fraud"
Nereid: "Maybe, Tom, you could write some words on Thornhill's own scientific clangers?....And Thornhill claims to have a degree in physics!"

And given the amount in common you have, don't contribute or reply to each others posts, ever? But you are clearly aware, even on the same day, of each-others commented sites?

whoops?

"If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck……."

[Aardwolf]

...as I exist entirely online...

This tells you all you need to know.

[Nitai]

It sounds like we have a Schizophrenic here possibly!

[Nereid]

[...]

All of your TB posts Nereid, have been to date have shown no interest in exploring the EU hypothesis. Infact you state you do not even 'know it', yet the above rebuke's display nothing short of the type of psuedo-skepticism described in Daves article, which seemed to time your arrival.

[...]

"All of your TB posts Nereid, have been to date have shown no interest in exploring the EU hypothesis. Infact you state you do not even 'know it'"

Actually, Jarvamundo, what I wrote (in response to a question by Mr Amsterdam: "I would like to know if you consider the EU theory as creationism") is this: "I'm afraid I can't answer your second question, in part because I do not really know what EU theory is."

The differences may seem subtle (though your summary may resemble an [S] to some), but an hypothesis is not a theory. Further, I invite you to read the many hundreds of posts I wrote, in BAUT, where I tried very hard to understand 'the EU theory', how it differs from Alfven's Plasma Cosmology (and Peratt's and Lerner's), whether there are separate Electric Sun, Electric Comet, Iron Sun, etc theories, and so on.

Would you like to join at least one of the threads in which I am now actively involved, in discussing content?

[Nereid]

Continuing my comments, in response to the posts by Jarvamundo and D_Archer/Daniel.

I had intended to post this last time, but I couldn't find the reference.

In a 2006 BAUT post in part I wrote this (links omitted): "BTW, it's Nereid (but not nereid). Of course, I don't mind. But maybe it might help if Nereid were the (grand-) daughter of Nicolas Bourbaki? Living in the 21st century, however; perhaps we're a family? (nuclear? extended? alternative?? you choose!)."

Bridgman's blog runs on Google's Blogger, and where comments are permitted (i.e. if a blog entry is not closed) you are offered four choices re an identity; Google Account, OpenID, Name/URL, and Anonymous. It seems that in every example Jarvamundo cited, the identity is Anonymous, with "Nereid" or "APODNereid" appearing as the last line of each comment. Pretty obviously anyone can write a comment on Bridgman's blog (or any Blogger-based blog) as Anonymous, and sign the comment "Nereid", or "APODNereid", or "DeiRenDopa", or "Jarvamundo", or "Dave Smith", or "Aardwolf", etc (or any combination of these).

As an aside, I must say I've been rather amused, and somewhat dismayed, over the years, to read so many people responding to what I wrote and calling me 'he'. Sure, Nereid isn't as obvious as Susan for example, nor is it as ambiguous as Pat or Sal (how many of you have a Patrick as a friend or acquaintance and also a Patricia; a Sally and also a Salvador?); however, it's a lot more within the cultural history of native speakers of English in countries like the US or UK than is Kasturba (Mohandas Gandhi's wife) or Qimei (Mao Zedong's mother), to take just two examples.

[Jarvamundo]

Bravo; Thankyou for highlighting many of the challenges faced by online security firms. Now, some may not be aware that It is a common online security technique to compare time signatures of single individuals posting under different online names, when online persona's encounter a particular idea or motivation these persona's will often remain on their own task and never remember to, or know of continuing to post as would be expected from regular random-persona's of differing IRL-identities. Upon running rather simple algorithms, it is revealed with statistical significance you have isolated common IRL to online persona relationships.

In this technique, we have a fusion of both human psychology and lightning fast statistical analysis, probably not covered in forum architecture 101 or "intermernet how-to's". Some of these techniques may also not be as apparent to the casual reader, or casual contributor participating in such exchanges, when they are, it is best to distract from them and never address them. Ironically whilst some of the other raised points may not be apparent to the 'old', it is usually these points which are not apparent to the 'young'.

It is also note worthy that the technique works very well even without common content similarities. I'll leave it ones own to be mindful of the addition of content similarities and other points raised above.

Maybe this tip will help ones future endeavors, the rest of us may rather utilize our capacities on far more enlightening activities.

I am done with this thread, i'm glad it's all in one place.