Courtney Brown, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of political science at Emory University but is better known as a proponent of remote viewing, a form of extra-sensory perception. == Remote Viewing == In the early 90's, Dr. Brown was instructed in Remote Viewing (RV), a psychic technique originally developed for the CIA through Stanford Research Institute. According to proponents, Remote Viewing can be used to access information from any geographic or temporal location; however, it is generally considered a pseudoscience by mainstream scientists. After his training, Dr. Brown then developed a methodology he calls Scientific Remote Viewing (SRV). In 1995, he founded the Farsight Institute, a non-profit organization whose purpose is to conduct and disseminate research of the remote-viewing phenomenon, and to train remote viewers. Dr. Brown wrote two controversial books that he claims came from remote viewing data on the subject of life in the Universe: Cosmic Voyage and Cosmic Explorer. == Claims of Extraterrestrial Life == In his books, Brown describes a coalition of extraterrestrial civilizations and spiritual entities that he calls the Galactic Federation. This group includes the Greys, a race of aliens that Brown says can be categorized by their spiritual development. Also involved with the Federation are terrestrial religious leaders Jesus and Buddha. Also of interest are a race of humanoid Martians living secretly under the surfaces of Mars and Earth due to an eons-old natural disaster on their planet; and an extradimensional race of reptile warriors whose otherworldliness somehow interferes with direct attempts at remote viewing them. == Hale-Bopp == In late 1996, Brown corroborated claims made by amateur astronomer Chuck Shamek that a large object was located behind Comet Hale-Bopp. According to Brown, remote viewers at the Farsight Institute had witnessed the object and confirmed that it was a UFO. In January 1997, Brown provided photographic evidence to radio host Art Bell, claiming to have received the photograph's negatives from an unnamed astronomer at a major university. Against Brown's urgings, Bell released the photo on the Internet. Professors from the University of Hawaii were then able to identify the photo as a forgery that had been made from a comet photo taken at that institution. This seemingly minor occurance evolved into a scandal when, in March of 1997, the cult group Heaven's Gate_(cult) chose the appearance of the comet as a signal for their mass cult suicide. They claimed they were leaving their earthly bodies to travel to the space ship following the comet. Brown suggested that the comet photos sent to him were part of a "wide-scale and highly organized disinformation campaign" with "resources that extend beyond those of any university or professor," and that the Farsight Institute had walked into a trap by publicizing the photo. "Disinformation campaigns," says Brown, "are not unusual in the area of extraterrestrial life." == External Links == *[http://www.courtneybrown.com/ Dr. Courtney Brown's official website] *[http://www.farsight.org/ The Farsight Institute] *[http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/shechinah/cb.html January 1997 Official statement by Dr. Brown about Hale-Bopp photos] == Books on Remote Viewing == *[http://www.courtneybrown.com/publications/cosmic.html Cosmic Voyage] *[http://www.courtneybrown.com/publications/explorers.html Cosmic Explorer]
Um, I think that this page should present a more biographical account of Dr. Brown and save the various theories for another page, with heavy warning that this is considered, by many, as pseudoscience. Maybe a link to some skeptics resources, as well. == Claims of Extraterrestrial Life == :Unfortunately, I disagreed with most of these last changes. Here's why... : I don't think it's appropriate to debate the merits of remote viewing in any detail; remote viewing has its own page, which by the way is mired in all sorts of difficulties that don't even look fixable to me -- if you want to get a detailed defense of remote viewing out there, your attentions are better directed (and more needed) on that page. : As for your other change, I found that it added little -- only a reminder that Brown had received the photo from an outside source and that it was publicized against his will, both of which are already mentioned -- and it subtracted a lot by making the language seem really clunky. So I removed that too. Sorry. : However, I did keep the link in there, because I think it's a good idea to show where we got the info from that last paragraph. :As to your other question: I actually don't think we need to add anything more to this entry. Brown's academic background, and the award he received, are not really important facets of his public persona, nor are they reasons why I suspect people would visit a page like this. (Those details are better suited for Mr. Brown's own webpage or resume.) Actually I think the page looks fantastic as is. It goes into detail about the three things that make Brown most interesting: remote viewing, extraterrestrial life, and Hale-Bopp. Bogging the article down with more detail would just make it dull. Can we keep it like this?--User:Malvolio80 18:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) Hi Malvolio, I did the last edit, I just forgot to sign in. I made some minor changes. 1) it is not accurate to state in this section that there is 'lack of experiential evidence' in regards to remote viewing, because there is, but it seems like you haven't gone to research some of the links, including the one I posted but you took down. So I simply added the simple truth: "According to proponents, RV can be used to access information from any geographic or temporal location; however, it is generally considered a pseudoscience by skeptics." Since you will not allow any references to be posted that provide support for what I am writing. Also, I made a small change in Brown's last section because Brown did not say anywhere that he thought the photos were a forgery, since he had the negatives, he simply states that he doesn't know for sure. I know I am being meticulous, like you are. Because I find this type of information interesting, if I find additional info, I will post it. It is an open ended process and this article or any other on wikipedia should not be limited based on what one or two people decide. Have you seen Clinton's? Will you go take down data from Clinton's page since it has even more details that Brown's page had before you started editing it? This page should have as much notable data as any other page. Why not? Why would you or someone else choose to be self-elected sensor of what someone's page looks like? It should be open to anyone, as long as the data is notable and is profesionally laid out, shouldn't it? And this is an evolving process that people like you and I can cooperate on and add to each other's entries, keeping each other accountable for accuracy. This is the essence of what makes wikipedia an amazingly powerful 'potentially' accurate database platform. P.S. I also added Brown's two book as external links so people can decide for themselves. --User:Pierre2012 01:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) :I'm fine with those changes. I did subtly change that last sentence -- didn't like the structure before, changed it to "Brown suggested that the comet photos were..." which says the same thing really. :As to the rest of your concerns, well...you seem to bring up Clinton's page a lot, but don't you see that Courtney Brown isn't even remotely as significant a figure as Bill Clinton? Someone researching Clinton could be doing so for any number of reasons -- as a prominent politician and world leader, he's made a big impact in a wide variety of areas. Courtney Brown is a relatively obscure college professor who moonlights as a psychic. He doesn't merit a huge, sprawling page, and up to a point if this page keeps increasing in size it'll become completely useless. :As I see it, nobody will come to this page looking for info about Brown's academic career. He's not known for that, and nobody is really interested in that facet. Put a section about it on here, and someone will just have to wade through it to get to the good stuff. :For an example of what I'm talking about, look back to an earlier edit of this page (from before its current incarnation). It's completely bogged down with information about Brown's philosophy. What could be summarized in a few cogent sentences is spread out among multiple sections. When I came here to find research on Dr. Brown, what I found was entirely unusable -- many of the sentences or even whole paragraphs made no sense at all, and certainly didn't pertain to Dr. Brown. And, including his awards and stuff just made this site look like a resume. I really, really think that it would be a detriment to this page to add much more to it. :Also, I don't particularly want to add anything more to this page -- and no offense, but I don't particularly trust you to do it on your own. Can't we just move on to bigger and better things?--User:Malvolio80 02:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Remove NPOV soon == OK, are we ready to remove the NPOV tag? We seem very close. --User:NightMonkey 20:08, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC) :I'm definitely ready to stop editing this thing. I think it's finished.--User:Malvolio80 20:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) :P.S. -- is it normal to have offsite links on book titles, like how we do in the first section? or is that kind of thing frowned upon? I haven't really seen that anywhere else. --User:Malvolio80 02:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::Sigh. No, it is not acceptable, and I'll move the links to the links section. I wish these poeple (or person) would _please_ read the guides on article writing at Wikipedia. And perhaps find some of the better articles to use as examples, other than the hastily cobbled-together New Age/Psuedoscience articles, which are rather poor, not just for their slants, but for their organization and prose. No, I don't claim to have read every guide myself, but I do refer to them when I need to know how Wikipedia is different than other media. :Well, I see the little (but substantive) changes are happening again, so I'm going to wait a bit more before removing the NPOV tag. I don't want to remove it only to put it right back. --User:NightMonkey 04:02, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC) It's been a few days now, and no edits from the NPOV-brigade. Think we're ready to take this article out of dispute? --User:Malvolio80 17:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) :OK, let's go for it. However, if anything resembling the vanity/verbal flood/claims-as-science comes into the article again, I'll slap it right back. --User:NightMonkey 23:54, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC) == and I quote... == "A large collection of free remote-viewing training materials are offered from the Institute's web site." Wha..? Pierre, I'm assuming this last edit wasn't your doing -- you seem to have gotten over the phase of putting in revisions nobody in their right mind would allow. This person turned the "Hale-Bopp" section into an absolute quagmire of conflicting POV statements clearly intended to defend Brown and the Farsight Institute. Ridiculous. Allow me to reiterate: this will not be allowed. Any edit made to this page for the clear purpose of falaciously furthering its subject's career and/or reputation will be immediately reverted. Thank you. --User:Malvolio80 17:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) Malvolio, the anonymous entry was not mine but after reading it, I realize that linking Brown to the suicide is misleading since the only scandal with Brown was the issue of the photograph, not the suicide. Stating otherwise is defamation of character and is an illegal act. It is true that the photograph's scandal discredited Brown and the Faresight's intitute in the public eye. Brown was never linked to the suicide and the article should not lead one to believe that he was, unless one wants to be guilty of defamation of character, an illegal act. --User:Pierre2012 20:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) :I respectfully disagree. Brown attempted to provide forged evidence that there was a UFO behind Comet Hale-Bopp; the Heaven's Gate cultists killed themselves because they believed there was a UFO behind Comet Hale-Bopp. When the Heaven's Gate cultists killed themselves, Brown and his story was brought back into media attention. There is a connection, even if it's an indirect one. :As it stands, the article does not blame Brown. It simply states fact: a seemingly minor occurance became a scandal. --User:Malvolio80 22:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) If you read the Art Bell radio show transcripts, available online or by contacting Coast to Coast, you will see that Brown did not attempt to provide forged evidence, he was asked by Art Bell if he could help provide evidence of Chuck Shamek's photo. It so happened that Brown's websmaster had received a photo from an astronomer. Brown shared this photo in confidence with Art Bell and Whitley Strieber (co-host) but asked them to not make it public. Bell asked Brown to do a show where he asked him about the photos. Brown accepted, as long as the photos would not be made public. Bell and Strieber decided to post a photo, despite their agreement not to do so. Contact Strieber, he admits doing this. An astronomer from Hawaii then contacted Bell saying that it was a hoaxed photo. This created a scandal and discredited Brown and his institute, and Brown never returned on Art Bell. This is where Ed Dames, an independant remote viewer, went on ARt Bell and made claims that Hale Bopp comet's companion was going to create doom on earth. He did several shows on ARt Bell until March 1997, selling a kit to 'save' those who purchased it. Then in March 1997, after Brown had been discredited because of the photo issue, Heaven's Gate members committed suicide. All this can be verified through direct sources. By representing the situation while omiting facts, it important to note that one is potentially guilty of committing defamation of character since one is now aware of the verifiable truth. Such defamation is illegal. This is important to understand, as this has been mentioned earlier. I hope we can agree to state factual data that does not damage the reputation of individuals, otherwise, one is committing an illegal act, not just wikipedia slander. --User:Pierre2012 20:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Stop the Madness == OK, Pierre, so I once again had to revert almost all of your edits. Here's the blow-by-blow... * String theory is generally considered a protoscience. Remote viewing is generally considered a pseudoscience. There is a difference. And, regardless of what you believe, that particular sentence refers to the believes of mainstream scientists. * With minimal online research, you'll find that Brown claimed the object following the comet was "a metallic sphere inhabited by aliens." This certainly qualifies it as a UFO the way the word is used here. (Technically speaking, it's a UFO simply because it's an object, it's unidentified, and it's flying.) * The following sentence is factually correct: "This event discredited Brown and his Institute's claim about Hale-Bopp's companion and Brown never returned on Art Bell's show." However, it's also kinda boring and a bit of a run-on. The first half -- that Brown and the Institute lost face -- goes without saying. The second half might be worth inclusion in this article, but not without a little backstory, and I wouldn't know where to put it. (An acceptable revision would be: "Brown, formerly a frequent guest on Art Bell's show, has never been asked to return as a guest since the incident." Or some such. But like I said, it doesn't really fit anywhere, and it's relatively minor. * Ed Dames clearly has everything to do with Hale-Bopp and nothing to do with Courtney Brown. Make an Ed Dames page if you want to write about him. So there you are. And no, I'm not worried about a defamation of character suit. Everything I put forth in this article is true; Brown's reputation is linked to Heaven's Gate. No getting around it. When those wackos offed themselves, it brought Brown back into the limelight in a bad way. He's famous for it. So it's on his page. I don't see what the problem is here.--User:Malvolio80 20:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) Malvolio, feel free to make small edits online, but please keep in mind that by omiting to put the more complete data about Hale Bopp, and the events that took place after Brown was on Art Bell and the cult suicide, you have been warned that you are misleading readers, and are creating a potential situation of willingly defaming Brown's character by consciously omiting important data that proves he was not linked to the cult. This will be brought to the attention of wikipedia management and others if you willfully create a false picture of reality and change it once again. Defamation through omission will not be tolerated on wikipedia, not after I have independantly confirmed these events. Why not report reality instead of trying to create 'your' reality of how you saw the events. Reading your earlier comments, I sense that you are trying to prove that 'your' version of reality is correct, instead of giving enough data to readers so they can see the larger perspective of this event. Omiting data and willingly creating a false picture of reality cannot be tolerated. The more I research and learn about this case, the more I realize that it requires additional data to explain it to readers, in order to not mislead and to not indirectly defame. Why are you trying so hard to create this link with Brown when data suggests that many events later unfolded months before the cult suicide took place? What is your agenda? If it is to provide non-biased information to wikipedia readers, research the issue directly and do not post rumours that can be seen by some as defamation of character. --User:Pierre2012 23:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Listen, the only "link" I'm suggesting exists between Brown and Heaven's Gate is that Brown provided false evidence for the excuse that Heaven's Gate cultists used to kill themselves. That happens to be absolutely true. Whether the cultists ever even heard of Brown is beyond the point; when they killed themselves, it brought Brown back into the limelight in a negative way. In other words, Brown's seemingly minor events became scandal. :I stand by everything I've written. By all means, bring this to the attention of whomever you please. I'm quite confident they'd side with me. Thus, I'm re-instating the last acceptable version of the page, ''yet again''. I feel like we had almost reached a compromise before you got on this latest kick. :Honestly -- what rumors have I posted? That Brown publicly claimed to have evidence of a UFO behind Hale-Bopp? No, that's fact. That his proof was forged? Nope, that's well-known. That Heaven's Gate killed themselves because they believed there was a UFO behind Hale-Bopp? We have video taped evidence to prove that one. So let me ask you -- by pretending there's no connection between these events, what's your agenda? Not that I don't already know...you're a UFO nut and a remote viewing believer, and you think that if anyone reads anything bad about Courtney Brown, they'll be that much less likely to believe that some people can see Jesus hanging out with spacemen in a UFO in the sky. Well, I don't know what to tell you. It is what it is. I've compromised with you this whole time, probably more than you deserved. If you won't extend the same courtesy, then forget it. I can revert ALL DAY. --User:Malvolio80 06:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) By constantly removing information in regards to the complex story of the unfolding of the Hale Bopp comet event, you are creating a misrepresentation, exposing readers to a very narrow perspective of what took place, in a way that is out of context. Would you be willing to expose readers to this information within a larger context that represents the whole event in order to avoid any misrepresentation? It simply isn't objective to evoke the Hale Bopp tragedy by only stating limited data that frames it in a way that represent your personal subjective view, even if you read this view on someone's personal webpage. Making this public on the wikipedia media could be seen as defamation of character, just like if any mainstream media tried to misrepresent this event. I want to make sure you understand what you are getting involved with here. You cannot elect yourself as the censor of an entire article based on your internal representation of the events that took place. More verified details of this event must be posted and you cannot prevent information from reaching the reader, such as you have attempted to do. See wikipedia rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Neutral_point_of_view --User:Pierre2012 17:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) By constantly removing information in regards to the complex story of the unfolding of the Hale Bopp comet tragic event, you are creating a misrepresentation, exposing readers to a very narrow perspective of what took place; your personal perspective. It is out of context. Would you be willing to expose readers to this information within a larger context that represents the whole event in order to avoid any misrepresentations? One cannot elect themselves as the censor of information of an entire article based on one's internal representation of reality and the events that took place. More details of this event must be posted and you cannot prevent information from reaching the reader, such as you have attempted to do. This is not the 1960's and we are not in the Soviet Union. See wikipedia rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Neutral_point_of_view --User:Pierre2012 18:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) :One can also not add any old specious information that helps their cause. The Hale-Bopp incident isn't so complex at all. (We give it more detail on this page than they give it on the Hale-Bopp page!) The things you wish to add lack substance, relevance, and sometimes accuracy. As a Wikipedia denizen, I won't allow that. --User:Malvolio80 18:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) Seeking external help to resolve this issue with the intent to represent issue in its proper context and avoid misrepresentation from apparent campaign of disinformation through omission of data. --User:Pierre2012 20:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Good. External help is exactly what we need right now. (Campaign of disinformation? Sheesh, if only I was getting paid enough to be part of a conspiracy...) --User:Malvolio80 20:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Not allowing data to be published is disinformation and creates a distorted picture of events that have taken place. My intentions are to bring forth accurate concise data that creates a clear and non-distorted picture of what took place. Why disagree with that intent, with that agenda? --User:Pierre2012 01:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) As I'm sure you're aware, I just don't believe that's your agenda. --User:Malvolio80 03:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) Take a minute and look at my edits; they speak for themselves, they offer the readers a larger perspective of what took place by providing accurate data that is fully relevant to the Hale Bopp section and Brown that you created. I am working on a solution that I hope will create a win-win scenario, if, of course, you support accuracy and verifiable information. All of this is being recorded for later use for outside observers who can help to resolve this issue. I'm sure we are both learning a lot about the Art Bell show and its connection to the Hale Bopp comet which extands beyond Brown, as we both agree. There sure are many nuances to it. My goal here is to avoid disinformation by omission of relevant information. Your goal might not be to misrepresent but would you like to share your goal, to see if our goals are compatible? --User:216.86.124.105 18:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) :If your previous edits are, indeed, any indication, then I highly doubt that our goals are compatible. :If you want to write about Art Bell, do it on Art Bell's page. This one is fine as is. --User:Malvolio80 21:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Pierre2012 == OK, I leave for a few days, and look what happens ;). Pierre2012, what is your agenda? Are you actually Courtney Brown? These edits you are making are not helpful to creating a good Wikipedia article, and your legal threats are hollow. It is a common, but immature, tactic, when faced with the truth, to start shouting something like "I'll sue you for saying that". Please, play nice, and try to pay attention to the guidelines for writing good Wikipedia articles. It's obvious that you haven't read even the basics of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines - please, take some time and do so. You'll have less WikiStress and stop stepping on other people's toes, like you are doing now. --User:NightMonkey 21:55, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC) Added link to article (Hale Bopp comet controversy caused from the Art Bell show) that offers wikipedia reader a more accurate perspective of the complex events that unfolded and involved Dr. Brown. New article is well referenced and corroborated with details. --User:Pierre2012 22:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
#REDIRECT Courtney Brown
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Courtney_Brown:
Courtney_Brown
Courtney_Brown
Courtney_brown
Courtney_Browne
Courtney Brown
Courtney Brown, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of political science at Emory University but is better known as a proponent of remote viewing, a form of extra-sensory perception. == Remote Viewing == In the early 90's, Dr. Brown was instructed in Remote Viewing (RV), a psychic technique originally developed for the CIA through Stanford Research Institute. According to proponents, Remote Viewing can be used to access information from any geographic or temporal location; however, it is generally considered a pseudoscience by mainstream scientists. After his training, Dr. Brown then developed a methodology he calls Scientific Remote Viewing (SRV). In 1995, he founded the Farsight Institute, a non-profit organization whose purpose is to conduct and disseminate research of the remote-viewing phenomenon, and to train remote viewers. Dr. Brown wrote two controversial books that he claims came from remote viewing data on the subject of life in the Universe: Cosmic Voyage and Cosmic Explorer. == Claims of Extraterrestrial Life == In his books, Brown describes a coalition of extraterrestrial civilizations and spiritual entities that he calls the Galactic Federation. This group includes the Greys, a race of aliens that Brown says can be categorized by their spiritual development. Also involved with the Federation are terrestrial religious leaders Jesus and Buddha. Also of interest are a race of humanoid Martians living secretly under the surfaces of Mars and Earth due to an eons-old natural disaster on their planet; and an extradimensional race of reptile warriors whose otherworldliness somehow interferes with direct attempts at remote viewing them. == Hale-Bopp == In late 1996, Brown corroborated claims made by amateur astronomer Chuck Shamek that a large object was located behind Comet Hale-Bopp. According to Brown, remote viewers at the Farsight Institute had witnessed the object and confirmed that it was a UFO. In January 1997, Brown provided photographic evidence to radio host Art Bell, claiming to have received the photograph's negatives from an unnamed astronomer at a major university. Against Brown's urgings, Bell released the photo on the Internet. Professors from the University of Hawaii were then able to identify the photo as a forgery that had been made from a comet photo taken at that institution. This seemingly minor occurance evolved into a scandal when, in March of 1997, the cult group Heaven's Gate_(cult) chose the appearance of the comet as a signal for their mass cult suicide. They claimed they were leaving their earthly bodies to travel to the space ship following the comet. Brown suggested that the comet photos sent to him were part of a "wide-scale and highly organized disinformation campaign" with "resources that extend beyond those of any university or professor," and that the Farsight Institute had walked into a trap by publicizing the photo. "Disinformation campaigns," says Brown, "are not unusual in the area of extraterrestrial life." == External Links == *[http://www.courtneybrown.com/ Dr. Courtney Brown's official website] *[http://www.farsight.org/ The Farsight Institute] *[http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/cometary/shechinah/cb.html January 1997 Official statement by Dr. Brown about Hale-Bopp photos] == Books on Remote Viewing == *[http://www.courtneybrown.com/publications/cosmic.html Cosmic Voyage] *[http://www.courtneybrown.com/publications/explorers.html Cosmic Explorer]
Courtney Brown
Um, I think that this page should present a more biographical account of Dr. Brown and save the various theories for another page, with heavy warning that this is considered, by many, as pseudoscience. Maybe a link to some skeptics resources, as well. == Claims of Extraterrestrial Life == :Unfortunately, I disagreed with most of these last changes. Here's why... : I don't think it's appropriate to debate the merits of remote viewing in any detail; remote viewing has its own page, which by the way is mired in all sorts of difficulties that don't even look fixable to me -- if you want to get a detailed defense of remote viewing out there, your attentions are better directed (and more needed) on that page. : As for your other change, I found that it added little -- only a reminder that Brown had received the photo from an outside source and that it was publicized against his will, both of which are already mentioned -- and it subtracted a lot by making the language seem really clunky. So I removed that too. Sorry. : However, I did keep the link in there, because I think it's a good idea to show where we got the info from that last paragraph. :As to your other question: I actually don't think we need to add anything more to this entry. Brown's academic background, and the award he received, are not really important facets of his public persona, nor are they reasons why I suspect people would visit a page like this. (Those details are better suited for Mr. Brown's own webpage or resume.) Actually I think the page looks fantastic as is. It goes into detail about the three things that make Brown most interesting: remote viewing, extraterrestrial life, and Hale-Bopp. Bogging the article down with more detail would just make it dull. Can we keep it like this?--User:Malvolio80 18:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) Hi Malvolio, I did the last edit, I just forgot to sign in. I made some minor changes. 1) it is not accurate to state in this section that there is 'lack of experiential evidence' in regards to remote viewing, because there is, but it seems like you haven't gone to research some of the links, including the one I posted but you took down. So I simply added the simple truth: "According to proponents, RV can be used to access information from any geographic or temporal location; however, it is generally considered a pseudoscience by skeptics." Since you will not allow any references to be posted that provide support for what I am writing. Also, I made a small change in Brown's last section because Brown did not say anywhere that he thought the photos were a forgery, since he had the negatives, he simply states that he doesn't know for sure. I know I am being meticulous, like you are. Because I find this type of information interesting, if I find additional info, I will post it. It is an open ended process and this article or any other on wikipedia should not be limited based on what one or two people decide. Have you seen Clinton's? Will you go take down data from Clinton's page since it has even more details that Brown's page had before you started editing it? This page should have as much notable data as any other page. Why not? Why would you or someone else choose to be self-elected sensor of what someone's page looks like? It should be open to anyone, as long as the data is notable and is profesionally laid out, shouldn't it? And this is an evolving process that people like you and I can cooperate on and add to each other's entries, keeping each other accountable for accuracy. This is the essence of what makes wikipedia an amazingly powerful 'potentially' accurate database platform. P.S. I also added Brown's two book as external links so people can decide for themselves. --User:Pierre2012 01:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) :I'm fine with those changes. I did subtly change that last sentence -- didn't like the structure before, changed it to "Brown suggested that the comet photos were..." which says the same thing really. :As to the rest of your concerns, well...you seem to bring up Clinton's page a lot, but don't you see that Courtney Brown isn't even remotely as significant a figure as Bill Clinton? Someone researching Clinton could be doing so for any number of reasons -- as a prominent politician and world leader, he's made a big impact in a wide variety of areas. Courtney Brown is a relatively obscure college professor who moonlights as a psychic. He doesn't merit a huge, sprawling page, and up to a point if this page keeps increasing in size it'll become completely useless. :As I see it, nobody will come to this page looking for info about Brown's academic career. He's not known for that, and nobody is really interested in that facet. Put a section about it on here, and someone will just have to wade through it to get to the good stuff. :For an example of what I'm talking about, look back to an earlier edit of this page (from before its current incarnation). It's completely bogged down with information about Brown's philosophy. What could be summarized in a few cogent sentences is spread out among multiple sections. When I came here to find research on Dr. Brown, what I found was entirely unusable -- many of the sentences or even whole paragraphs made no sense at all, and certainly didn't pertain to Dr. Brown. And, including his awards and stuff just made this site look like a resume. I really, really think that it would be a detriment to this page to add much more to it. :Also, I don't particularly want to add anything more to this page -- and no offense, but I don't particularly trust you to do it on your own. Can't we just move on to bigger and better things?--User:Malvolio80 02:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Remove NPOV soon == OK, are we ready to remove the NPOV tag? We seem very close. --User:NightMonkey 20:08, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC) :I'm definitely ready to stop editing this thing. I think it's finished.--User:Malvolio80 20:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) :P.S. -- is it normal to have offsite links on book titles, like how we do in the first section? or is that kind of thing frowned upon? I haven't really seen that anywhere else. --User:Malvolio80 02:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::Sigh. No, it is not acceptable, and I'll move the links to the links section. I wish these poeple (or person) would _please_ read the guides on article writing at Wikipedia. And perhaps find some of the better articles to use as examples, other than the hastily cobbled-together New Age/Psuedoscience articles, which are rather poor, not just for their slants, but for their organization and prose. No, I don't claim to have read every guide myself, but I do refer to them when I need to know how Wikipedia is different than other media. :Well, I see the little (but substantive) changes are happening again, so I'm going to wait a bit more before removing the NPOV tag. I don't want to remove it only to put it right back. --User:NightMonkey 04:02, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC) It's been a few days now, and no edits from the NPOV-brigade. Think we're ready to take this article out of dispute? --User:Malvolio80 17:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) :OK, let's go for it. However, if anything resembling the vanity/verbal flood/claims-as-science comes into the article again, I'll slap it right back. --User:NightMonkey 23:54, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC) == and I quote... == "A large collection of free remote-viewing training materials are offered from the Institute's web site." Wha..? Pierre, I'm assuming this last edit wasn't your doing -- you seem to have gotten over the phase of putting in revisions nobody in their right mind would allow. This person turned the "Hale-Bopp" section into an absolute quagmire of conflicting POV statements clearly intended to defend Brown and the Farsight Institute. Ridiculous. Allow me to reiterate: this will not be allowed. Any edit made to this page for the clear purpose of falaciously furthering its subject's career and/or reputation will be immediately reverted. Thank you. --User:Malvolio80 17:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) Malvolio, the anonymous entry was not mine but after reading it, I realize that linking Brown to the suicide is misleading since the only scandal with Brown was the issue of the photograph, not the suicide. Stating otherwise is defamation of character and is an illegal act. It is true that the photograph's scandal discredited Brown and the Faresight's intitute in the public eye. Brown was never linked to the suicide and the article should not lead one to believe that he was, unless one wants to be guilty of defamation of character, an illegal act. --User:Pierre2012 20:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) :I respectfully disagree. Brown attempted to provide forged evidence that there was a UFO behind Comet Hale-Bopp; the Heaven's Gate cultists killed themselves because they believed there was a UFO behind Comet Hale-Bopp. When the Heaven's Gate cultists killed themselves, Brown and his story was brought back into media attention. There is a connection, even if it's an indirect one. :As it stands, the article does not blame Brown. It simply states fact: a seemingly minor occurance became a scandal. --User:Malvolio80 22:57, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) If you read the Art Bell radio show transcripts, available online or by contacting Coast to Coast, you will see that Brown did not attempt to provide forged evidence, he was asked by Art Bell if he could help provide evidence of Chuck Shamek's photo. It so happened that Brown's websmaster had received a photo from an astronomer. Brown shared this photo in confidence with Art Bell and Whitley Strieber (co-host) but asked them to not make it public. Bell asked Brown to do a show where he asked him about the photos. Brown accepted, as long as the photos would not be made public. Bell and Strieber decided to post a photo, despite their agreement not to do so. Contact Strieber, he admits doing this. An astronomer from Hawaii then contacted Bell saying that it was a hoaxed photo. This created a scandal and discredited Brown and his institute, and Brown never returned on Art Bell. This is where Ed Dames, an independant remote viewer, went on ARt Bell and made claims that Hale Bopp comet's companion was going to create doom on earth. He did several shows on ARt Bell until March 1997, selling a kit to 'save' those who purchased it. Then in March 1997, after Brown had been discredited because of the photo issue, Heaven's Gate members committed suicide. All this can be verified through direct sources. By representing the situation while omiting facts, it important to note that one is potentially guilty of committing defamation of character since one is now aware of the verifiable truth. Such defamation is illegal. This is important to understand, as this has been mentioned earlier. I hope we can agree to state factual data that does not damage the reputation of individuals, otherwise, one is committing an illegal act, not just wikipedia slander. --User:Pierre2012 20:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Stop the Madness == OK, Pierre, so I once again had to revert almost all of your edits. Here's the blow-by-blow... * String theory is generally considered a protoscience. Remote viewing is generally considered a pseudoscience. There is a difference. And, regardless of what you believe, that particular sentence refers to the believes of mainstream scientists. * With minimal online research, you'll find that Brown claimed the object following the comet was "a metallic sphere inhabited by aliens." This certainly qualifies it as a UFO the way the word is used here. (Technically speaking, it's a UFO simply because it's an object, it's unidentified, and it's flying.) * The following sentence is factually correct: "This event discredited Brown and his Institute's claim about Hale-Bopp's companion and Brown never returned on Art Bell's show." However, it's also kinda boring and a bit of a run-on. The first half -- that Brown and the Institute lost face -- goes without saying. The second half might be worth inclusion in this article, but not without a little backstory, and I wouldn't know where to put it. (An acceptable revision would be: "Brown, formerly a frequent guest on Art Bell's show, has never been asked to return as a guest since the incident." Or some such. But like I said, it doesn't really fit anywhere, and it's relatively minor. * Ed Dames clearly has everything to do with Hale-Bopp and nothing to do with Courtney Brown. Make an Ed Dames page if you want to write about him. So there you are. And no, I'm not worried about a defamation of character suit. Everything I put forth in this article is true; Brown's reputation is linked to Heaven's Gate. No getting around it. When those wackos offed themselves, it brought Brown back into the limelight in a bad way. He's famous for it. So it's on his page. I don't see what the problem is here.--User:Malvolio80 20:19, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) Malvolio, feel free to make small edits online, but please keep in mind that by omiting to put the more complete data about Hale Bopp, and the events that took place after Brown was on Art Bell and the cult suicide, you have been warned that you are misleading readers, and are creating a potential situation of willingly defaming Brown's character by consciously omiting important data that proves he was not linked to the cult. This will be brought to the attention of wikipedia management and others if you willfully create a false picture of reality and change it once again. Defamation through omission will not be tolerated on wikipedia, not after I have independantly confirmed these events. Why not report reality instead of trying to create 'your' reality of how you saw the events. Reading your earlier comments, I sense that you are trying to prove that 'your' version of reality is correct, instead of giving enough data to readers so they can see the larger perspective of this event. Omiting data and willingly creating a false picture of reality cannot be tolerated. The more I research and learn about this case, the more I realize that it requires additional data to explain it to readers, in order to not mislead and to not indirectly defame. Why are you trying so hard to create this link with Brown when data suggests that many events later unfolded months before the cult suicide took place? What is your agenda? If it is to provide non-biased information to wikipedia readers, research the issue directly and do not post rumours that can be seen by some as defamation of character. --User:Pierre2012 23:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Listen, the only "link" I'm suggesting exists between Brown and Heaven's Gate is that Brown provided false evidence for the excuse that Heaven's Gate cultists used to kill themselves. That happens to be absolutely true. Whether the cultists ever even heard of Brown is beyond the point; when they killed themselves, it brought Brown back into the limelight in a negative way. In other words, Brown's seemingly minor events became scandal. :I stand by everything I've written. By all means, bring this to the attention of whomever you please. I'm quite confident they'd side with me. Thus, I'm re-instating the last acceptable version of the page, ''yet again''. I feel like we had almost reached a compromise before you got on this latest kick. :Honestly -- what rumors have I posted? That Brown publicly claimed to have evidence of a UFO behind Hale-Bopp? No, that's fact. That his proof was forged? Nope, that's well-known. That Heaven's Gate killed themselves because they believed there was a UFO behind Hale-Bopp? We have video taped evidence to prove that one. So let me ask you -- by pretending there's no connection between these events, what's your agenda? Not that I don't already know...you're a UFO nut and a remote viewing believer, and you think that if anyone reads anything bad about Courtney Brown, they'll be that much less likely to believe that some people can see Jesus hanging out with spacemen in a UFO in the sky. Well, I don't know what to tell you. It is what it is. I've compromised with you this whole time, probably more than you deserved. If you won't extend the same courtesy, then forget it. I can revert ALL DAY. --User:Malvolio80 06:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) By constantly removing information in regards to the complex story of the unfolding of the Hale Bopp comet event, you are creating a misrepresentation, exposing readers to a very narrow perspective of what took place, in a way that is out of context. Would you be willing to expose readers to this information within a larger context that represents the whole event in order to avoid any misrepresentation? It simply isn't objective to evoke the Hale Bopp tragedy by only stating limited data that frames it in a way that represent your personal subjective view, even if you read this view on someone's personal webpage. Making this public on the wikipedia media could be seen as defamation of character, just like if any mainstream media tried to misrepresent this event. I want to make sure you understand what you are getting involved with here. You cannot elect yourself as the censor of an entire article based on your internal representation of the events that took place. More verified details of this event must be posted and you cannot prevent information from reaching the reader, such as you have attempted to do. See wikipedia rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Neutral_point_of_view --User:Pierre2012 17:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) By constantly removing information in regards to the complex story of the unfolding of the Hale Bopp comet tragic event, you are creating a misrepresentation, exposing readers to a very narrow perspective of what took place; your personal perspective. It is out of context. Would you be willing to expose readers to this information within a larger context that represents the whole event in order to avoid any misrepresentations? One cannot elect themselves as the censor of information of an entire article based on one's internal representation of reality and the events that took place. More details of this event must be posted and you cannot prevent information from reaching the reader, such as you have attempted to do. This is not the 1960's and we are not in the Soviet Union. See wikipedia rules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#Neutral_point_of_view --User:Pierre2012 18:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) :One can also not add any old specious information that helps their cause. The Hale-Bopp incident isn't so complex at all. (We give it more detail on this page than they give it on the Hale-Bopp page!) The things you wish to add lack substance, relevance, and sometimes accuracy. As a Wikipedia denizen, I won't allow that. --User:Malvolio80 18:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) Seeking external help to resolve this issue with the intent to represent issue in its proper context and avoid misrepresentation from apparent campaign of disinformation through omission of data. --User:Pierre2012 20:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Good. External help is exactly what we need right now. (Campaign of disinformation? Sheesh, if only I was getting paid enough to be part of a conspiracy...) --User:Malvolio80 20:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Not allowing data to be published is disinformation and creates a distorted picture of events that have taken place. My intentions are to bring forth accurate concise data that creates a clear and non-distorted picture of what took place. Why disagree with that intent, with that agenda? --User:Pierre2012 01:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) As I'm sure you're aware, I just don't believe that's your agenda. --User:Malvolio80 03:06, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) Take a minute and look at my edits; they speak for themselves, they offer the readers a larger perspective of what took place by providing accurate data that is fully relevant to the Hale Bopp section and Brown that you created. I am working on a solution that I hope will create a win-win scenario, if, of course, you support accuracy and verifiable information. All of this is being recorded for later use for outside observers who can help to resolve this issue. I'm sure we are both learning a lot about the Art Bell show and its connection to the Hale Bopp comet which extands beyond Brown, as we both agree. There sure are many nuances to it. My goal here is to avoid disinformation by omission of relevant information. Your goal might not be to misrepresent but would you like to share your goal, to see if our goals are compatible? --User:216.86.124.105 18:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) :If your previous edits are, indeed, any indication, then I highly doubt that our goals are compatible. :If you want to write about Art Bell, do it on Art Bell's page. This one is fine as is. --User:Malvolio80 21:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Pierre2012 == OK, I leave for a few days, and look what happens ;). Pierre2012, what is your agenda? Are you actually Courtney Brown? These edits you are making are not helpful to creating a good Wikipedia article, and your legal threats are hollow. It is a common, but immature, tactic, when faced with the truth, to start shouting something like "I'll sue you for saying that". Please, play nice, and try to pay attention to the guidelines for writing good Wikipedia articles. It's obvious that you haven't read even the basics of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines - please, take some time and do so. You'll have less WikiStress and stop stepping on other people's toes, like you are doing now. --User:NightMonkey 21:55, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC) Added link to article (Hale Bopp comet controversy caused from the Art Bell show) that offers wikipedia reader a more accurate perspective of the complex events that unfolded and involved Dr. Brown. New article is well referenced and corroborated with details. --User:Pierre2012 22:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Courtney brown
#REDIRECT Courtney Brown
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
C
CA | CB | CD | CE | CF | CG | CH | CI | CJ | CK | CL | CM | CN | CO | CP | CR | CS | CT | CU | CW | CX | CY | CZ |Words begining with Courtney_Brown:
Courtney_Brown
Courtney_Brown
Courtney_brown
Courtney_Browne
Sponsored links: praca, nurkowanie.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
