Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.
I will be most interested in watching this too. Arouet, what is for "Kicks" and not for Kicks? I can honestly say that the Hollywood film "MIB," not withstanding the documentary, has a lot of meat in there provided one can divine its meaning.
Well, I will admit that when I see as the teaser: "the second goal is to control and adjust the evolution of the humanity on earth" I fully expect to see unverified fantasy.
I predict an absence of hard evidence and a stringing together of otherwise unrelated and cherry picked facts to construct a narrative. I'll be pleasantly surprised if that is not the case.
I've actually recently finished watching all three MIB movies with my kids. 1 and 2 were as fun as I remembered. I enjoyed 3 which I hadn't seen before.
Arouet, what do you consider "hard evidence" as it relates to extraterrestrials? This question may be broad in scope, however, you can define it if you wish. I'll watch the documentary sometime this week.
Hard evidence equals.
Government documents disclosing MIB's.
Anything short of the listed is fantasy.
Or, "anything short of this is" that one does not hold the necessary clearance[s].
Sorry - didn't notice the last line. i would use speculation rather than fantasy. It is low confidence evidence. I'm not saying that circumstancial evidence can never be convicing, but on this issue I would treat it with high skepticism and demand high reliabiility.
It may be that evidence has been hidden. It may be that there is a consipiracy to do so. It may be that there are a bunch of people who do have hard evidence, but they aren't talking. It may be that the suspicions of the conspiracy theorists are entirely justified. All of that notwithstanding, without the actual evidence we are not justified in drawing firm conclusions. It may be a catch-22 but until the evidence is reliable we should withhold belief.
Misha, if you have something you'd like us to look at, that is available online I'm willing to go through the effort of analysing it. But only if it is going to result in an actual back and forth conversation. I must admit to being a little frustrated at the response to my radiation thread- or the lack of response actually.
Meant to post this earlier:
Basically on the lines that really said. But generally let's say something that we can attach a high confidence level to.
The problem with the et conspiracy theories is that they rely almost exclusively on circumstancial evidence- from what I can see. I haven't delved much into it though, so I stand to be corrected.
From what i've seen though, I've only seen low confidence evidence.
Agreed. There is a lot of garbage out there on ET phenomena. However, there is a preponderance of evidence to suggest the reality depending on one's research and investigation. Moreover, I agree that "hard evidence" is lacking when it comes to the public. If that hard evidence is to come forth then it will only happen when the National Security CONFIRMS the reality. Even then we may not see the hard evidence. We will have to take on faith that what we are being told is the truth. Here's a short list of books you might want to read to help ground you the phenomena:
1) The UFO Experience by Dr. J. Allen Hynek
2) Firestorm by Ann Druffel. (Excellent book on Dr. James E. McDonald
3) UFO Controversy in America by Dr. Michael Jacobs
4) UFOs and the National Security State by Richard Dolan
5) Above Top Secret by Timothy Good
There are others such as Keyhoe's books which gives one a good idea of the coverup. Arouet, I do appreciate that you started the Radiation thread, however, I believe I made myself clear that I was reticent about getting into this. No slight to you.
I'm not going to just go out and buy a bunch of full books. Anything online that you consider convincing that you would want to dissect together?
What I'm not sure, with you or Syd for example, is how far you go in questioning these sources. When you go through these books, for example, to you go fact check in a similar manner to what I did in the radiation thread? Or do you just read the book, consider it credible, and therefore become convinced? Do you dissect their arguments, breaking them down to see if they hold water? Or really analyse if the conclusions are warranted by the premises? Do you check if facts are presented in the propper context.
I'm not suggesting that you don't do those things, by the way. We just haven't had a detailed enough discussion for me to figure out if that's something you or Syd do. Which is why I'm asking.
That's a fair question, Arouet. For starters I am without question a book reader. I am somewhat dubious when it comes to Internet information. This does not mean that I ignore the Internet. I just want to understand the author's thesis unabridged. I also make notes in the margins when I see differences of opinion compared to some author's interpretation. If I find something at odds with my perception or interpretation I will seek out another author to clarify the substance or argument. I tend to read established people in the field I am delving into. Yes, I am referring to the academics. I also will query some of my fellow researchers or authors about books which they consider viable. Here are the last few books I have read:
1) Hiroshima In America by Lifton and Mitchell (Currently reading)
2) Through Our Enemies Eyes by Michael Scheuer
3) All Fall Down by Gary Sick
4) October Surprise by Barbara Honneger
5) JFK And The Unspeakable by Jim Douglass
6) Brothers by Michael Talbott
7) Inside the ARRB by Douglas P. Horne
8) The Most Dangerous Book In the World by K.S. Bain
9) Fair Game by Valerie Plame Wilson
10) Osama Bin Laden, Dead or Alive by David Ray Griffin
11) Parallel Worlds by Michio Kaku
12) Physics of the Future by Michio Kaku
13) The Unauthorized Biography of George H.W. Bush by Webster Tarpley
14) Nazi International by Joseph Farrell
15) Black Sun (I think that's the title) by Joseph Farrell
16) Extreme Prejudice by Susan Lindauer
These are the books I have recently read within the last year or so. There's more, but I can't seem to remember them for the moment. I tend to pick up books on intelligence and have read many over the years, i.e. Bamford, Rhodri-Jeffery Jones, Wise, Prouty Marks, Kwitney, Lane, Dale Scott and so forth. I do not read much fiction, but once in awhile I'll pick up a book just to get away. Clancy, Forseyth, LeCarre and such....
And, yes. I do watch CSPAN (I love the hillbilly call ins on Washington Journal). Actually, I have gotten on the line on three occasions. And, yes. Greta is a hottie. I will watch a lot of You-Tube too. Recently I watched William Styron talk about the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Now please do not pigeon-hole me with this short list as strictly my interest. Not all of these authors would be considered academic to some of our forum members. However, I have read many in the past.
Oh, before I forget. I read the NY Times and the NY Post in the morning. Once in awhile I will read NatGeo, Harper's, Vanity Fair and Foreign Affairs to round out my magazine interest.
Last edited by Misha on 09 Jan 2013, 17:24, edited 1 time in total.
That's a long list. But what do those books have to do with aliens in general and MIB's specifically.
But do you ever take a particularly significant conclusion of one of these authors and try to back it up on your own? How are you evaluating the reliability of the conclusions? It doesn't necessarily mean doing it all yourself. It can involve looking up critiques of the work - views from the other side.
I'm not really looking at this stage to read a bunch of books. I'd rather have something available online, that I can cut and paste from, etc. There must be something on this topic that would meet that. Any published reports? (not newspaper, I mean academic papers and the like). Could do youtube I guess, though print is better.
Or pick another topic that you'd like to discuss that way. Doesn't have to be this way. I think it would be interesting for us to take particular aspects of certain conspiracy theories, and really delve into it. But please no 9/11 stuff. That's just a pile of muck that I really don't have an interest in wading through!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests