How long before we see Palestinians dancing and singing in the streets on CNN?
How about, 'never'? Get your countries straight.
Though, I notice you tripped over the ever-so-innocently planted seed word in the CNN story. Nice job. Twitch a synapse or two and let the viewer think they are making their own connections. (Not too tough, thanks to the inch-diameter dots C-freeking-NN provided us with to connect. "Ramon, 48, took part in the 1981 bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq." Gee. Thanks guys. What RESPONSIBLE reporting. Not leading in any way. Could they be any more blatant? Jerks.)
But there will be time for all of that garbage later. Right now, one ought to respectfully hold one's hat and wish the innocent and the brave a fond farewell.
How long before we see Palestinians dancing and singing in the streets on CNN?
How about, 'never'? Get your countries straight.
Though, I notice you tripped over the word planted in the CNN story. Nice job. --But you weren't supposed to actually think, "Palestine". It was intended rather, to ever-so-innocently plant a seed in the ever-fertile brains of CNN's consumers. Twitch a synapse or two and let the viewer think they are making their own connections.
But there will be time for all of that garbage debate later. Right now, It's time to respectfully hold your hat and wish those brave scientists a fond farewell.
I follow your thinking and wholeheartedly sympathize with it.
The problem is that Dan Rather is never going to interview an alien. Won't happen.
Now it is true that my belief structure is unconventional, to say the least. In order for it to exist and function, there are certain premises which had to be built first. There are two basic rules of conduct in my head. ..
1. It is a fairly straight forward affair to affect behavioral responses using the tools provided by the media.
2. There are people who have a great deal of interest and desire in affecting the behavior of the populace, and who can and will use all the means at their disposal to do so.
I have spent a great deal of time studying the hows and wherefores of those two simple points. I've even run my own adverts and measured the responses. I have learned that it is frighteningly easy to manipulate thought. In any case, as a result of this, I have come to a position in life where I not only don't trust most forms of the media, (and can easily see the manipulations in progress), but have concluded that a vast quantity of very deep, very effective behavior modification has already been achieved quite some time ago.
For instance. ..
The position you describe where have not yet seen proof, where you would like to believe in things existing beyond the 'normal' sphere, and the locked state you are currently in, is not at all uncommon. In fact, I tend to think that it is a psychological position which a huge number of people have been successfully led into without their realizing.
Let's examine the following. ..
"Guilty until proven innocent." "The Burden of proof." "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."
We have heard these sayings so many, many times that they have become, both consciously and perhaps more importantly, subconsciously, defacto law. But let's examine them a little more closely. ..
"The Burden of proof." --Burden? Who's burden? Why, obviously, as we have been shown, the burden is placed squarely upon the people making the claim. The Jury, we have been told, must be unbiased and skeptical of all claims, and must only be moved to a conclusion when enough solid, cross examined evidence has been presented to them. --Indeed, the sequestered Jury sits in a Jury Box and does not move; they are not allowed to accept any information from the outside world which might influence their decision. And so the Jury sits and watches the performance being played out in front of them, and on that and that alone, ("the Jury is instructed"), to make their final conclusion as to what they will believe.
The Jury sits and watches. The Jury does no work on its own. It is not allowed.
And therein lies the problem. If we, as our subconscious automatically does, extend the court room metaphor to the real world of claims and evidence, we can see that society behaves in exactly the same manner as we have seen in countless television legal dramas. We expect the people making the claim to dance before us in the various arenas, and we believe that we are not active participants. That we are sitting in a box, watching the show.
The problem is that the court room we spend most of our attention on; television and news papers primarily are all under the thumbs of people who, I firmly believe, do not have our best interest at heart.
Dan Rather is NEVER going to interview an alien. It just won't happen. --In the history of UFOs and supernatural phenomenon, there have been several documented instances where key investigators were invited to appear on popular expose television programs of the "Unexplained Mysteries" variety with which we are all familiar. --Behind the scenes, fights ensued, scripts were written and re-written, producers cut footage and broke promises to guests as to what material and demonstrations would be allowed to air. And in one notable instance, when a guest in great frustration, deviated from the script, his microphone was cut and his lips moved without sound for about two minutes, after which the camera was cut off altogether. In short, the Trial is Fixed, and the prosecution (a negative word, btw), is never allowed to bring their case to court, or those allowed are only the ones who will make a poor presentation which supports the status quo.
This stuff really does happen, but then people forget it happens. People have short lives, and the very structures we have been taught to depend on to mind our stores of knowledge are owned by the very people who force last minute script changes and who cut the audio. The only way to find information like this is to dig for it yourself. And that's the key. --Because if you stay in your jury box and only look straight ahead at the pre-designated show, you will NEVER NEVER NEVER be deliberately shown a true picture of reality. The people who own the courts have a vested interest in keeping you within very narrow parameters.
And that is the grand manipulation. (Well, one piece of it, at any rate.) Proof is not actually that far away. But seekers cannot be passive. The Burden of Proof is NOT on the person who brings an idea to forum.
And let's think about that.
What is the purpose of data? --To increase knowledge. Indeed, the increasing of knowledge and awareness is the only true prize in these matters. Knowledge is the treasure! And the people making the unusual claims, while they may not always be right, are the ones who are growing and groping towards knowledge. And some of them are actually quite far along the path. So how are they burdened? How is struggling to increase one's awareness in any way a bad thing? (Of course, it can be a difficult thing, but only in the context that it can make life hard to live when you realize that you are within an ignorant system and must perform tasks which seem insane and unnatural to nobody but yourself who is alone aware. But that's not what I'm talking about here.) What I am saying is that people seeking knowledge are actually relieving themselves of burden! They are making themselves lighter and more aware.
The Jury has been taught to protect and value its ignorance; to value its static state. --To think of knowledge as something which should be, at best, unassisted in its collection, and at worst, actively resisted!
I like to sum it up in this manner:
"Your level of awareness is YOUR problem. There is NO value in maintaining your own ignorance. Any hints or bits of information which others offer to help you in your own quest for knowledge are in every way, gifts which you do not automatically deserve."
But this is certainly not the message we are sent as a populace!
Now I have seen my own wonders. I have made the effort; I have traveled and I have found very powerful people in a number of different fields, from politics to spirituality. I won't bother telling my stories, 'witness testimony' being what it is; of whole value to nobody but the witness.
For your benefit, though, I will say that the wonders are much closer to hand than you might realize, but it is up to you to seek them out.
And it snowballs. When you discover one thing, then other bits of information become easier to evaluate. Knowledge grows geometrically.
Remember; study everything. You mentioned speaking in tongues. From what I have learned, it is indeed a nothing phenomenon with little or no value or meaning. You mentioned religious miracles; weeping statues of Mary and such. Again, from what all I have learned, most things associated with large religions are simply more manipulations; more ways to limit thinking; to encourage blind belief rather than critical thought and growth. --A general rule of thumb: "If a system of thinking affects a large number of people, then you can bet it was almost certainly been targeted long ago and turned into a vector of behavioral control." Religion is just such a thing.
The truth lies in the cracks of the stage production version of reality which has been sold to us since birth. But those cracks can be pulled open by those who wise up to the fact that they have been duped and controlled thus far. And when they do, they will find to their amazement that the entire Universe lies beyond. ..
-Fantastic Lad
Okay then. . . Into the breach again. . .
on
Top of the Crops 2002
·
· Score: 4, Funny
First off, Kudos to the Slashdot editors for allowing this story through the newspage stupid-filters. Cool! --And on the tail of the SOHO story, no less. (Which I am still out with the jury on, BTW. Too little info, too much hype, and not enough distance from the subject yet. Better brains than mine must mull over SOHO before I can raise two cents to chip in with.)
In any case. . . Crop circles. ..
There are, to my knowledge, four entirely different parties making circles. I'll start from the lowest and work my way up.
1. Pranksters. There's quite a scene actually, of circle makers with an internal social protocol similar in ways to graffiti artists who spray paint buildings and boxcars. --Often, artists will leave their 'tag' on a crop glyph, or even tag other glyphs to claim ownership. In any case, it has been conclusively demonstrated that with a slat of wood, a length of twin, a tape measure, (and a policebox full of eager engineering students), one can construct very convincing circles of the most remarkable geometric complexity. --Some circle makers even leave weird objects at the centers, up to and including radioactive residues, etc. Humans are smart, and they are good at playing tricks, and many crop circle researchers are entirely willing to be fooled. A happy and kind of infernal madness.
2. Non-pranksters. Ooh, those pesky military dudes! (Or whoever. Blackops or somebody.) Always trying to obfuscate and mislead. The same types are responsible for replicating cattle mutilations in an effort to mislead and misdirect. (Getting more done before 6 A.M. and all. There's no life like it!) --Though probably not with $400 military slats of wood and $500 military tape measures; there has been a great deal of fast advancement recently in our realm by way of technology. Alien assisted, in some cases. --The crop glyph with the Alien head and the CD thingy was one of these. The garbled word, "BELIEvE" was just that; a garbled word. (Way to go, guys! Wishful thinking, the identity stamp of the greedy & the self-obsessed, will getcha every time. Bush drools for a reason kids, debauchery will do that to you. A rule of thumb: Bad-guys use coke.)
The psychology behind the alien head & CD glyph: To the susceptible: "Trust the 'good and friendly' greys." To the regular folks: "Crop Circles are scary and weird. Don't trust them."
3. The Scary Bad Aliens Themselves! Sometimes called 'fourth density' aliens, depending on what sources you look at. They inhabit the level of reality directly one step above ours, where time is a direction which can be navigated backwards and forth. They eat negative emotions when in their corner of reality, and absorb cow and (east-indian human child) plasma when in ours pulling the Men in Black thing. "The Vats are Real." They have set set us up to live in eternal misery, and when the big day comes, it's harvest feast time to the tune of 6 billion very unhappy humans clinging to bibles filled with wrong-headed messages which got garbled way back in the dark ages. Mmm. Yummy fear.
Anyway, there are supposedly not too many circles directly made by this bunch, but you can identify the ones which have been; The plants in such circles are microwaved and sort of fried and grow funny after the event.
And last but certainly not least. ..
4. The good and all knowing entities. --From a another two levels up, called 'Sixth density' (Or 6th harmonic, or vibrational frequency, or whatever depending on your preferred source and level of service.) "We are you in the future. . !"
Proper circles made by this Yoda-like bunch are supposedly messages documenting the nature of reality in these end-of-times. --Not that I've been able to make head or tail of them. Math isn't my strong suit. (Though, weirdly, precious few are even making the attempt.) "Your media resists. Why?"
Oh yeah. How to tell a 'real' circle from a fake one, (aside from the perfectly bent stalks and no foot prints, versus the wake-of-carnage system preferred by the slat of wood and ball of string kids). ..
"One thing to look for would be growth disruptions to the area. Real circles do not disrupt the creative principle."
A quick side-note to all those who are on guard here: The creepy Scientologists and Moonies, etc., I figure, were set up in order to obfuscate and sound a eerie and somewhat similar, (although selfish and thoroughly dispicable), message. --And to be generally creepy and culty and all that. Ignore those ass-wipes. Travolta and Cruise are royal dinks and should be considered as such. The real story is far less stupid, though still startling. Essentially. ..
The world is going bye-bye within the next decade or so; global war, economic depression, rich New World Order jerks scrambling over the duped hoards as the ship goes down under the weight of hungry aliens, comet impacts, ice-ages, famine, cats & dogs living together; mass hysteria. (I believe Bill Murry may even be hosting.) Anyway, it's already underway, led by George, "See the Bad Nurse Make Disease" Bush. --Deny it if you will, but everybody can feel it on a gut level. All the little subconsciouses are chattering away. --And it's going to get much, much worse. So buckle up!)
Have no fear though. When time is circular, (as I am assured it is), all ends are also beginnings. If you don't get smeared by a comet or shot in the head by a Nazi reincarnated as an Israeli, beam-weaponed by an invading alien giant, or just ass-fucked by an American zombie, then you're going to witness some really neat stuff when the Big Shift comes. So get your closets cleaned out, and your heads and your hearts in order. It's all about awareness, baby!
Thank you for an even-handed response. (I do find that many internet conversations tend to start off in flames and go down in reason. It's an odd set of protocols to say the least.)
In any case. ..
Faith IS a major factor here. You are quite correct. Unless you have bourn witness to something, then realistically, (and even then), there is always, always doubt. --I happen to know several witnesses myself, who describe spectacular events, one of which seen by twenty or more people; an enormous light stopping, hovering, lighting a whole valley and then shooting away with laser beam speed. Another sighting involved a big black tea-pot shaped object rising from the horizon, moving and hovering over the house, and then flashing away. But as you say. . . Faith. I wasn't there, and trusted friends or not, witness accounts are just that.
Which is why I tend to prefer military and commercial air traffic accounts where multiple radar systems record the same event and where military or commercial pilots are the witnesses. The very best accounts are those which also include confirmation from ground witnesses, and where the official investigating bodies take the matters very seriously. --In the U.S., there are laws in effect, (or which at least were in effect during the sixties and seventies; I don't know what their status is today), which threatened any member of the military with heavy fines and jail sentences for speaking publicly about UFO sightings. That in itself, I find intriguing.
Now, perhaps such accounts are all based on lies; perhaps the authors in question are liars and fools. This is indeed possible. But some of these figures would not otherwise be regarded as dimwits. Retired Major Donald Keyhoe, using his influence and inside connections, wrote extensively regarding UFOs. Another, Captain Edward Ruppelt, who headed Blue Book during the fifties, wrote a book regarding his experiences. --A book, as you may know, which under suspected military pressure, he later re-published with a heavily revised conclusion which debunked his earlier position, and then died less than a year after having done so. James McDonnald, a highly regarded atmospheric physicist involved with the US government, was another such figure who was quickly convinced by the data he was exposed to, and moreover outraged by the many blatant cover-up attempts he observed. (He was another, incidentally, who died under questionable circumstances after a time when it was quite clear that he would become an increasing pain to the status quo.)
Aside from the many multiple radar, pilot sightings, the apparently massive chasm between public and internal government policy and behavior regarding UFOs and the endlessly stupid logical inconsistencies in the Blue Book explanations, (Hundreds upon hundreds of sightings, some of the utterly spectacular Spielberg variety, which Blue Book claimed to be Venus or Saturn or birds, etc. Blue Book appears clearly to have been purely a P.R. body under the primary order to absolutely explain everything away at all cost, regardless of what a sighting might really have been of.) This kind of behavior of the official bodies raises its own questions. --Clear cases of reliable witnesses, airline pilots and such, dramatically reversing their stories; Jobs and wives being more important than speaking out. --This kind of thing I find simply too much to ignore.
But as you say, faith is required.
Now, you describe your experiences and reading as having led you to conclude that there is nothing of interest in our skies. Fair enough. Indeed! Fair enough. Faith is what it is, and everybody must make their own choices. However, given the kind of material I have been reading and the kinds of witnesses I have spoken with, I have more difficulty in persuading myself that there is nothing going on. As such, my faith has its definite leaning at the moment. Now, perhaps you know something about these writers and this kind of information which would alter my faith. If you do, as I have said, I would be very, very pleased to hear it.
So you've read dozens of books, none of which you have now because you got rid of them in the late Eighties; so long ago that you couldn't possibly be asked to remember enough from them for any kind of discussion. But even so, you really are knowledgeable enough to make broad and unqualified declarations like, "UFOs are all Bullshit". --We know this, because you are a thoughtful and well-read person who, as it happens, was just a short while ago down at the library, 'dipping' into the very subject under discussion; (despite the fact that it happens to be a subject you dislike so much that you got rid of all your books regarding, and which you rudely bash people on the web for bringing up.)
Now what the heck am I supposed to do with that?
Look. I'm still trying to work out whether or not you're full of shit, and you're really not helping me out.
I'm still out on that limb. --I'm not saying that I wouldn't come back in, or that I wouldn't even apologize for making quick assumptions. But assumptions are all I have to work with at the moment. I'd be happy to have something more solid!
Why do I care? Because my primary argument and point is that people who have done no proper reading or research beyond watching television, have no responsible basis upon which to declare anything regarding UFOs, let alone declare that the whole subject is bunk. (Or by the same token, that they are real!)
I think that's a pretty solid place for me to stand.
But then you come along and pitch in with your two cents, beginning with the charming, "Oh, fuck, not another one", --that you have an extensive research background, based on which you know more than enough to judge the whole issue of UFOs to be nonsense and that people should "Get over it" (and that Santa isn't real either). Flip, cocky and mean.
And all I'm asking is that you back some of it up.
If you really have that much knowledge, and if that knowledge has led you to conclude that the whole issue is bunk, then I absolutely want to know how you got there and what information you were working with. --Because, believe it or not, I am by no means closed minded; as a rule, I let everything in, form theories based on it, and then subject my ideas to rigorous testing, and then form new theories as the bad information burns away. --Which, incidentally, is exactly what I am doing now. The internet is an amazing place to test ideas; you have access to thousands of people with massively varied areas of knowledge, and who are willing to correct me when I air crap. It's wonderful! I am first and foremost in the pursuit of knowledge, and the crucible of the internet has been a great tool in this quest.
See, I came from a background where such things as UFOs were simply beneath consideration, and what consideration one gave them always proceeded from a subconscious prerogotive to 'debunk'. Then one day I realized to my horror that I had been basing this behavior entirely on dogma and programming. So I decided to start actually honestly looking at and testing some of the material I had been deriding. Much is crap. But some, I discovered, is not. From there, things got interesting.
The problem is that I only very rarely meet people in the disbeliever camp who aren't also riddled with fears, dogma, preconceptions, denial, blind faith in what we were taught as kids, and outright, 'Fuck You,' hostility toward anybody who would suggest anything outside those narrow parameters. Now, if you happen to be among those few who is clear of all that stuff and who actually has something worth sharing, then I would be VERY happy to learn from you.
But I've got to say that you haven't impressed me at all so far. Indeed, you haven't offered anything other than some nasty barbs and what, essentially, could be boiled down to, "I'm right, you're an idiot, and I don't have to prove it."
Fair enough. Which brings us to everybody's favorite part of the broadcast. ..
Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is!
If you can do that, then I'll apologize in grand style for making assumptions, and perhaps I'll learn something from you in the process. We'll see.
(I notice you've managed to stop swearing and making dismissive cracks about Santa Claus, so perhaps there is some hope. But like I said; we'll see.)
Let's begin, shall we?
You say it's all, 'bullshit'. I'd be very interested to hear some of the case examples from your readings and your thoughts at to why you are certain they were 'bullshit'. Let's start with a couple of the better known cases, and let's stay within the bounds of military sightings during the period of Blue Book. I'll let you pick.
And don't worry about looking silly. This thread is dead, old, and it's been modded into the ground (as per usual when I touch on subjects like this). It's just you and me.
Let me just state that I work with an FFRDC and I have had some contact with the kind of people who you would consider "the key people".
And frankly, they don't give a shit. They like to talk mostly about RADAR and RADAR avoidance. Which governments have access to which kinds of sensors, etc. They get hard-ons talking and speculating about that.
I don't doubt you in the slightest!
The thing which should be kept in mind, however, is that you are talking about the state of affairs today. It has taken sixty years of hard work to get the Status Quo to look the way it does. Sixty years ago the story read very differently. The key figures I was talking about were the ones making policy back in the forties and fifties, where all the balls started rolling and the dominoes started falling which gave us the picture we have today.
Further, the 'key' people today are no longer in control of the same things that they were fifty years ago, and while I am sure you may have association with some powerful people, I think it is unlikely, (I certainly hope), that you know anybody who has a direct hand in Shadow Government works, or if you do, that they have discussed with you anything of significance. --You certainly wouldn't be in a position to discuss the subject in a public forum such as this one were you truly connected. It's a good way to get yourself and others hurt.
A small statistic. ..
In 1969, the NSA had a 2 billion dollar budget. That's 2 billion late-60's dollars. And that's just the cash we know about. It is no secret that illegal activities have provided other sources of income for similar agencies. The CIA is infamous for its drug running activities. Nobody knows exactly what the secret organizations were doing with all of their resources. And that's just the NSA and CIA, over neither of which the President at the time had any real control. (Or, depending on the president, any actual desire to tackle those powers in the public's best interest.)
The public version of Government does its own thing, behaving in a stage front manner, while the behind-the-scenes agencies remain in charge of the real game, and have done since the hats were handed out fifty years ago. The whole Bush 'election' was an example of one of those times when the stage-direction got a little shakey.
No matter how hard you try to sound intellectual, you'll still be an idiot. Just stop now while you're behind.
Sound, 'intellectual'?
You bozo. What the hell does that mean?
Oh, right. Silly me. You want me to function on your level; without thought, deduction or rational inquiry. Right. I keep forgetting. It's just more of the same; The endless media scream, "DO NOT THINK!!! THINKING IS NOT COOL!!!"
You sad, sad little shit.
Please. Grow up. --Or failing that, try responding, (horrors!), to one or more of the actual points I made in the post which so offended you, rather than just toss out some one-line, poor-ass attempt at name-calling. (WHY do I waste my energies on you one-liner gumbies?)
Oh, fuck, not another one. Listen, I've read dozens of these "books". I've watched the fake movies, I read the magazines and I've been to the UFO conventions and listened to the "eye-witnesses".
Oh really? Dozens, you say? As in at least 24 books?
I am going to go out on a limb here and call you a liar.
--Not in the worst sense, mind you. The internet is rife with people who just can't help but exaggerate their claims (or invent them outright), with such wordings. In either case, I am willing to bet you are a great, great deal less informed than you claim. And further, going to a UFO convention, if indeed you have even done that, (it's just SO easy to make false claims and raise reasonable doubt here in cyberspace, isn't it?), then I would suggest that simply having had contact with a lunatic fringe, (I have met some crazies, too), should not have anything to do with determining what is real and not real. Think of the power! If I can make you ignore something simply by enlisting an obsessive-compulsive to talk at you for a while, then that gives me a great deal of control over who and what you are, don't you think?
No, I don't suppose you do. (Think, that is.) --You really ought to try it sometime. Thinking outside your conditioning only hurts if you allow the ignorant sheep, (like yourself), to inflict their silly, nasty words upon you with any effect. It's actually very, very easy to ignore once you begin to see exactly how social cotrol mechanisms work. You may understand one day.
--But don't worry. Even if you never learn, you can take refuge in the fact that, Yes. You are a good little boy, holding the party line and entrenching your own ignorance like so. Many gold stickers for you, son. --Your laziness and fear are exemplary!
And please, don't bother doing a Google search to build a list of at least 24 titles which you haven't read, (and probably shouldn't BTW, considering the general quality of most information available on this most abused of subjects), but can pretend to have read in order to make-believe that you know something which you do not. --And to make people like me stop talking so much and bothering your cozy little falsehood of a reality, (which you paid good money for!).
You there at the back. Sit down, please and put your cell phones away. You can talk after class. Now I hope everybody did the reading. . ?
No. . ?
Well, I suppose that doesn't surprise me. --Even though one would think this is perhaps one of the most fascinating subjects offered in the entire curriculum. No, you don't have to ask to go to the washroom. Just let yourself out quietly. --And that's a big part of the problem, do you see? --And thank you for offering an excellent example with which to launch today's discussion.
Why did he ask me if he could go to the washroom? When did you all learn that, 'rule'? He didn't even think; he just put up his hand hoping that I would grant permission to void his bowls. --One of the most personal and essential human functions we each must experience daily, and yet he automatically sought my permission. Why is that? I'm just a guy in a tweed jacket standing behind a podium. Why should I suddenly have the authority over whether or not one of you is allowed to engage in one of nature's most essential acts? I hear some of you laughing. That's also curious. --I see our young man is turning a little red around the jowls, so your laughter is having some effect. --Yes, yes, you don't need to stand there with your legs crossed. It's just down the hall on your left. Go on.
Now why do you laugh? Why did he turn red? Why did he ask permission at all? Why, why, why?
I want you all to keep these questions in mind as we carry on. ..
Where was I. . ? Ah yes. It is common these days for the general public to know virtually nothing about UFO's, and yet nearly every person you come across will jump at the opportunity to ridicule and dismiss, or say things like, "Well, I'd like to believe, but there just isn't enough evidence."
Typically, those who react in this way. .,
1) Have done only the most cursory level of research into the subject. They know virtually nothing, with more than 95% of their working knowledge having been derived from television, which as we all know, is not affected in the slightest by those who recognize that television holds almost limitless power in the field of molding public perception, thought and behavior. Yes, I am speaking in hyperbole. Yes, even the 'Learning Channel'. That's actually one of the more effective vectors of thought manipulation. All those tweed jackets, you know. ..
2) --Or they are people who have seen compelling evidence of UFOs and have done the research, but who have also been so bent into the societal mold that they are incapable of overcoming the built-in level of embarrassment and fear which comes hard-wired into the subject matter. (And where did that hard-wiring come from?) As we have all been taught, it is easier to go with the rest of the herd, even right over a clif top, than it is to stop and risk forming any individually arrived at opinions.
3) Or they are liars. --And there are more of those than you might think.
Now before I carry on with this lesson, I would like each of you to go home and please do the assigned reading. The book you have been assigned, I believe, is Richard M. Dolan's "UFOs and the National Security State." --There is a great deal of clap-trap out there regarding this subject, so I have taken pains to direct you to one of the more reliable sources of data. There are others, but this is one of the more complete, responsibly written and easier to digest. Don't waste this opportunity.
Now I don't want to hear any dissent until you have read that book from cover to cover and can give me a detailed history beginning with the Foo Fighter, the reactions of the various governments around the world to the tens of thousands of collected UFO reports from the early forties onward, and the roles of the various U.S. governmental key people in the political, military and intelligence communities.
--What's that? No. Reading an internet review of the book and forming your opinion entirely that way is certainly not good enough. In this disposable society of ours, canned opinions are far too available, and particularly where television is concerned, far too misleading. You won't realize just how misleading until you have done some proper research where snack-food and remote controls are not part of the process. Obtain a copy, read it yourself and then form your own opinion. Until then, I'm going to cut this class short. Don't come back until you know what you're talking about. Then we can begin our discussion.
Did they fail because they didn't get ordered by the stores/distributors, or did they fail because after making it to the display racks they did not sell enough copies?
That is, would Joe Average have had a chance to have seen copies during a visit to the local computer store? I've always been curiuos about this. I wonder if there are great works which never even had a chance to compete in the light of day. Is this the case?
Just curious. A list of "failed great" titles would be cool. The chance that there are hidden bits of gold glittering out there someplace is enticing!
No system I build includes it, and I advise whoever I build a system for that the program will cause problems if they try to install it.
Now I did once have a neat piece of hackware which played and recorded streamed.rm's and which was made by some fellow who had picked apart realplayer's bullshit code and made his own implementation. I thought that was really cool. Unfortunately, I lost track of my copy and never really bothered looking for another. Them's the breaks, but there is at least one version floating around out there someplace.
With only a few exceptions, (a couple of Zim Episodes. ..), anybody with anything worth sharing will almost never waste their time with Realplayer. Anybody with a brain knows that DIVX is the way to go. So when it comes to content, there's no good reason to have Realplayer around at all.
It's a turkey system on its way out because it's makers are greedy and manipulative. Good riddance.
Oh, and the best part, is that some twit exec may well be reading through this very thread. (Slashdot holds power this way.) To him/it: The lousy streak of luck in your life? That's there because everybody is directing their disrespect and ire at you on a global scale. That tight, sick sort of feeling in your gut? (If you're not just another boring sociopath, that is. .,) People who are not jackasses don't have to live with that feeling.
Yes, try to laugh it off. But when the end of the day rolls around, the rest of us get to look at our accomplishments and feel good about our lives. Your accomplishments can only lead you into bitterness and denial.
Well, gosh-durn it, Son! Was it the Iraq analogy, a perceived slur against inbreeding, or is it simply that you are generally in favor of computer worms?
Speak up, Son! Don't leave me in suspense. I gotta know how to refine my routine. If I know what gets under your skin, then I can purify it and hopefully make you break out in hives some day! Stupidity-specific pathogens; that's the goal here, Son. --Seeing as how you're obviously not quite dumb enough for Darwin to have taken care of himself. (Where Darwin fails, the rest of us have to roll up our sleeves.)
Goodness! I do declare that I am actually proud of my fellow Slashdotters this morning!
With overwhelming opinion stacked against a *B*A*D* idea, (in this case, the use of gratuitous, crotch-hardening force to solve a problem which has been proven in the past to be fixable through any number of other effective options), is refreshing to say the least!
I don't even have to use the analogy I was brewing up while reading the headline, (but will offer here anyway just as a point of interest and cuz I don't like to let even a half-assed brain-wave to go to waste.).
Quoth he: "We should go an' git them suckers afore they come an' git us again!"
Quoth me: "Yeah, them suckers in Iraq is dangerous! --Even though they ain't really done nuthin' to us yit. A'corse the presidint sez theyz fixin' to! An' if we change the law tah make it leegil to start blastin' away without due and open process, (or any rationality whatsoever), then all's I gots tah say is, Yeeh haw! With a ticket like that, it's open season on everybody so long as we can claim de-fence 'gainst a foriegn threat, (which of course we wouldn't even have to prove seeing as how properly demonstrating that a threat exists would make the situation easy to solve through a non-violent and publicly acceptable means!) I bin fixin' fer this ever since that day I got a hard-on when we waz blowin' up frogs with fire-crackers!"
Quoth he: "No, ya inbred hick! I ain't talkin' 'bout Iraq. I'm talkin 'bout them worm-wranglers on the nixt com-pewter over! Ainchoo listnin to a dang thing? Now gitcher dang 12 gauge an rev up the 4-wheeler! It's open season on everybody so long as we can claim de-fence 'gainst a foriegn threat, (which of course we wouldn't even have to prove seeing as how properly demonstrating that a threat exists would make the situation easy to solve through a non-violent and publicly acceptable means!)"
Quoth me: "Yee-haww! Lord praize these post 9-11 daze!"
"300 dollars a week. That's the news, for 300 lousy dollars a week. --'Why?' I ask myself. 'Why have I put up with you?' I can't imagine. But I know. It's Fear. Yellow Freakin' Fear. I've been too chicken shit afraid to live my life, so I sold it to you for 300 dollars a week! You're lucky I don't kill you!"
--Joe, "Joe v.s. the Volcano"
Except this way, people are actually paying. But that's the way, isn't it? Corporate evil is nothing if not efficient, (in all the 'right' places, at any rate). Render them impotent, trick them into living in bullshit misery and debt-ridden servitude, then sell them a subscription to some lame version of 'escape'.
"Oh, and Smithers, tell our engineers to make it highly addictive."
"Yes sir. The people will know what hit them, but they won't care."
After patching the stupid game, it was possible for the opponent to strike first. Yay.
So. ..
I maintained three types of ships in my fleets; Death Stars in the rear, billions of tiny, nothing ships to waste the enemy time/target resources on in the fore, and a heavy division of what I somewhat unimaginatively dubbed, 'Ghost Ships.'
Ghost Ships were equipped with cloaking, time-warping (for the extra moves), all the extra distance modifiers I could give them, as well as the wonderful, 'Stasis Field' generator (for freezeing enemy vessels). Ghost Ships had nothing else; no weapons or armor to speak of.
And so. . , even if the aggressor went first, they used up most of their firepower on my ranks of clay pigeons, (which I liked to imagine were remote controled). Mass destruction, etc. But when my move came along, it was game over; The Ghost Ships would immediately slip across the game board undetected and snuggle up to the target vessels. --They'd then decloak and put EVERY ship in the enemy fleet into stasis. Twenty or so Ghost Ships could usually do the job.
Then, one by one, you pull a target vessel out of stasis, and concentrate all your Death Star power on it, and efficiently win the battle.
So long as you had enough Ghost ships and at least one major weapons platform remaining by the time it was your turn, the aggressor was done for.
And if you got to go first. . . Well. Having zero casualties in massive space space combat? Not a bad system. I easily trounced races with far superior fire-power and technology.
Another tactic which I used now and again, was to equip fifty or so tiny ships with really big self destruct units. It was like entering battle with a fleet of precision controled missiles which by-passed that annoying bullshit where the computer could tell me that I 'missed'. Very simply, you'd fly them up to a target and detonate them. Fairly effective, so long as the enemy didn't really rank up in the armor. When technologies were reaching their peeks for all races, Ghost Ships were the final answer.
I also found it distasteful to genocide a race. --I'd let them do whatever they wanted on their planet surface. Didn't want to interferr with anything in their culture. I just wouldn't allow them to go building up wrathful armadas and such. I found it frustrating that they'd keep sending ships at me to destroy. Depressing.
I think the game would have been improved had there been an option whereby Starfleet Federation style organizations could have arisen, rather than the law of 'All Races Must Kill All Other Races,' bullshit.
Actually, I kinda hated that game. I liked to build, but the finished structures were always ugly, evil things. --That such must be the reality is a total lie. I gave MOO-2 a 5 out of 10 for this reason. Cool beginnings, sucky follow through.
And just who are these secret scientists who figured out everything there is to know?
Try asking the guys who build and service those spy planes which the public aren't told about for the decade or more during which they are in use. (You ARE capable of accepting even that limited exposure, aren't you? That poor-ass stuff is on the cover or your favorite propaganda paper, I believe.) But of course, in your limited version of reality, that sort of thing only happens in the Airforce. --Because, you know, nobody else has ever discovered the tactical advantage of, horrors, *keeping secrets*.
It's hard to believe the parent was modded +5... so it goes amongst the super-Libertarian masses of/.
The interesting part is still, for me, to watch how people like you deal with the world when it drops stuff info into your lap. --Not that I'm suggesting that you have anything in your lap right now, (least of all a set of balls), but nonetheless, watching people in denial is. ..
-2 parts bluster which is either performed in total confidence, (because all those textbooks and educational films were just sooo convincing), or served with dollops of false bravado thinly veiling that stuff we call, 'Yellow Freaking Fear' as the programming breaks down around the edges.
-3 parts ridicule as taught and reinforced on the school yard, where minds are so young and impressionable. Little do the robot people know that the ridicule button no longer connects to the same parts of the brain in those who understand how the game is played. Doesn't stop the twits from punching at it endlessly however, precisely because in their little pre-fab bubble realities, the button is not just connected, but so hardwired into their core thinking processes that they actually cannot conceive of a headspace where fear of ridicule is no longer relevant. Where it is seen largely as just another piece of programming designed to make people shut the fuck up.
Dissenting, questioning voices are horribly inconvenient when one is trying to live a lie. To wake up, sadly, is to admit that one has been a fucking moron most of one's life. Truth hurts, and so it is preferable to many to defend the tyrant than to face the fact that one is being raped. Stockholm Syndrome, anyone? Maybe if you're good, they won't shred you. --Not too bad, anyway. I'll be good, I promise! Just don't make me feel that horrible, embarrassing, palm-sweaty, almost crippling feeling which accompanies the consideration of any subject not safely couched in state sanctioned 'science' (I hate to dirty such a fine word as science, but there it is.)
Consider such terms and others on a deep level and actually look into the subjects? Psh. Not bloody likely. You'd get sweaty palms. And, after all, they make films about such things, which, of course invalidates any such line of query from the list of rational possibilities. A clever trick, if you ask me.
Guys like you are a dime a dozen, (and I dump cult of science twits in with the bloody Christians because the end result is the same; a pile of self-deluding people chasing their tails, limiting their scope of awareness, who refuse to look at where the rabbit is really being hidden).
People shy away because their brains have been fucking hijacked by others who really, really don't want people to consider such things. In understanding such matters is power. And power is the grand obsession. So long as you don't have it; so long as you cling to the vapid bullshit you've been fed, you are not a threat. You are nothing but a commodity.
A Coward, you post as? Hmm. There's a shocker.
And finally, when push comes to shove. .,
-1 part, that expressionless blinking thing people do when their brains re-boot in the face of magic and the unexplained.
I always find that one kind of upsetting. It looks a bit like a seizure; I forget sometimes, (thanks to all that bluster), just how fragile people's psyches really are; how riddled, not just with low-self esteem and confidence issues, but by the brainwashing our dumb-ass 'culture' provides, to the point of their nearly drooling and beeping when the walls of this pip-squeak, 'Nike-McDonnald's-Microsoft-Hollywood' reality shift and crack. This happens more and more often these days as things heat up and the sheep, bless them, try their damndest to keep Winamp running.
people were asked to imagine they were nominated as White House science adviser and the President asked them what are some important issues in science and what we should do about them
What a dreamy way to spend the day.
Imagining that some Questionaire Answerer actually knows anything of value which wasn't discovered 50 years ago and subsequently locked away for gradual public release, (or not at all), and better yet, that the power behind the government actually gives the slightest fig about what his/her opinion might be.
Yes. I'd like to live in that world, too. --You know, the one they still teach to all little kids, where everybody is happy, healthy, wise and caring, we all wear 'vault 13' type outfits, (without the overtones of holocaust, 'natch), we all carry tri-corders and our delicious meat products come from designer plants.
In my view it's not an application of Occam's razor until you've at least agreed on the observations. "There is obviously sound coming out of the other end of the telephone". Then you can start and build theories as to why that is happening. And given competing theories Occam can help you chose.
Precisely my point. The problem is that Occam's Razor is not always used correctly, or with the level of responsibility you describe.
The problem with people standing on the shoulders of giants is that eroneous nonsense can find endorsement in at best, foolish ways, and at worst, dangerous ways. --Though twisted, (like the Bell example), such paths of logic might sound reasonable enough to the lay person.
It bothers me to see Occam quoted so frequently, largely, I think, thanks to the film, 'Contact'. --Which, incidentally, even touched on this very issue. Jodi Foster's character used it to help deal with the question of whether or not it was reasonable to expect the existence of alien life in the cosmos. But, as demonstrated, that very thinking was easily and convincingly used in the other direction. "Is it more likely that a fantastic thing has happened, or that somebody perpetrated a hoax?" Occam's Razor, because it is so interpretive, opens itself up to annoying circles of semantic debate. This is why I remain wary of the lay person who uses it as their primary line of argument. When used properly, it is a powerful tool. But so is a chainsaw. Powerful tools should be treated with care.
-Fantastic Lad
Occam's Razor. . .
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Thanks for a good post. --I offer the following not as a criticism in any way, but just as a thought which has been bouncing around in my mind looking for an excuse to be expressed.
First off, I'm not a creationist. Indeed, I find that whole debate to be entirely infernal, as both sides seem to me quite flawed in their own ways. That being said. ..
Occam's Razor bugs me. As a deductive tool, it is a pretty good one; it works for the most part. What I find unsettling, however, is that it seems to have become, thanks to its presentation and treatment in popular media, understood and accepted by many as a de facto scientific law when it is not.
It is a rule of thumb, and only a rule of thumb. --It is only a rule of thumb, because it is not always right. Every time something unexpectedly complex turns out to be the reality behind a phenomenon which might otherwise have been explained through simple means, Occam's Razor is blunted.
Example:
When Alexandre Graham Bell first announced to the world that he had discovered a way to send a voice signal over a wire, the world erupted with both excitement and disbelief. One major newspaper even ran a story written by experts which attempted to debunk Bell's claim. They used diagrams demonstrating that sound waves sent down thin metal tubes of the diameter Bell was using for wires, could not possibly travel the kinds of distances he claimed. The experts were engineers well versed in the science and dynamics of sound as employed in the kinds of voice communication pipe systems once used large ocean going vessels. To the writers of the article, they were being entirely reasonable.
"Which is more likely?" they must have asked themselves, "That Bell has created some magical new invention to send sound along miles of very thin tubes? Or that he is lying?"
Occam's Razor is deeply rooted in how one perceives, how much information there is available to work with, and what has been previously accepted by culture as normal and/or outlandish.
-Now Bell was, of course, proven to be right. When words crackled out from crude speakers for all to hear, the enthusiastic debunkers, (and there is never any shortage of enthusiastic debunkers or respected, conservative media outlets to give them a voice and print their diagrams), had to quietly go mum and withdraw their objections. But that was in part due to large forces which wanted and allowed Bell to be proven right. If you don't advertise a fact or discovery, facts and discoveries can easily vanish. People have short memories. People have short lives. Without active perseverance, knowledge is a self-burying commodity until it becomes large enough to self-sustain, and even then, it is not so very difficult to forget important turns of history after only a few fickle generations have passed.
Science as a concept, is a pure, wonderful thing, but it does not know everything. Indeed, many institutions are not so pure as the science which they employ; it is well known that individuals with weak morals, and corrupt institution will suppress data, twist data and even make up data on a basis regular enough that the public pool of knowledge has been polluted to the point that the employment of Occam's Razor is by no means reliable in today's arena of public thought.
Just something to consider next time you feel the need to slam a new idea. Remember that Occam gave us a deductive tool, not an irrefutable law.
First, your $20 becoming worth $5 prediction means you are calling for 300% inflation over the next decade... that's a tall order.
Well, I don't know the specifics, and with any luck, I'll be very wrong and things will actully improve. We'll have to wait and see.
Second, assuming that situation does play out, what's to say gold would continue to maintain its value? Who would be willing to buy gold in such a situation?
Well, I'm not sure people will be after a certain point, but we're not at that bridge yet. Right now, I'm using the model of the Great Depression, and gold in that period retained value.
Historically, Gold has always proven reliable so long as there has remained a semblence of organized culture where people aren't entirely starving. (So that having weapons, fortresses and food stocks are more valuable than token metals) And even then, people covet the stuff. So long as things aren't completely screwed up, you can count on the power of greed. --That is, evil will always want to hold power over others, and for this to happen, everybody needs to agree where power resides so that Evil can make a big pile of it for themselves and sit atop it. --Gold is a pretty safe bet, since there is so little of it on the planet, you can't reproduce it, and it never decays, and well, I dunno actually. It's so nice and shiney? Greed baffles me.
Greed is a disease with locomotive-like power, but it is also predictable. When you can predict the behavior of a locomotive-like power, you can hitch your cart to it; use it to drive other engines. --This is what the economy is all about really, and why some misguided individual coined the phrase, "Greed is Good!"
I know it seems a little hypocritical to use greed when it is the source of all the problems in the world, but things are far, far beyond repair at this point. Right now, and for the next ten years or so, the name of the game is going to be one of basic survival.
Maybe I'm wrong; I don't think so, but I sure would be happy to eat that crow!
Actually, I did understand your point the first time. I just wanted to remind people of what they get themselves into before they leap. Don't think I hadn't thought of it as well before (several times), but I can't sacrifice certain ideals to the benefit such an odious system. I say it well knowing that so much stuff we have on the shelf was made in shitty and murky circumstances but people have to be reminded of certain things from time to time.
Yeah, okay. I can get behind that.
You might want to work on your delivery, though. You were coming off like one of those leftist-guerrillas who bend absolutely every topic of conversation into, not just a soap box, but an excuse to criminalize and blame everybody around them for all the dead trees.
Been there, lived that. When I was 18. I remain one of the most socially and environmentally conscious people I know. I've lived in your shoes, (or at least the pair you were running in just then), and I have become even more aware and careful in my personal actions over time, but I've also learned to better target my attacks because it doesn't pay to look like an un-discerning twit. More people listen when you use a finer brush.
In any case, take care and keep up the good fight!
You're only looking at conspiracy theory the way people are being directed to regard it.
But the fact of the matter is that Bush and his thugs are getting away with murder. Everybody knows, so it's not really a conspiracy. I like the word, 'corruption'. Seems to fit better.
You might serve yourself well by doing some reading about how the economy really works. The controls Mr. Greenspan has influence over, while certainly logical enough to keep nearly everybody happily fooled, are nonetheless part of an elaborate stage performance.
The economy is being de-stabalized using some of the following ways.
1. Media perception. If everybody can be made to simultaneously believe that the economy is fucked, then six months later, the economy will be fucked. Enron 'went off' to set up nervousness in people. Concepts like, "3 Trillion dollars just vanished from the stock market," now freely float around.
2. Corporate disintegration As a direct response to the Enron scandal, there are now currently 17 massive corportations which have over-stated earnings or are being investigated for similar fraud. --Seven of which are energy companies, (which adds more imperative for Congress to force the White House to compel full disclosure from Vice President Cheney's 2001 energy task force. Only problem is, one of the companies under investigation is Halliburton. Cheney was its CEO until taking office, and the fraudulent accounting occurred while he was the boss.) The hammer hasn't finished falling yet, but it seems pretty clear that things are only going to get worse in this area.
3. Civic Debt New York's city budget has been devastated, as we know. And California announced recently that they are in a lot of trouble as well. To quote . ..
With its huge economy stalled and state revenues plunging, California has descended into its worst budget crisis in a decade and is now facing an excruciating round of budget cuts and possible tax increases.
State officials are proposing deep reductions in education, health services and other programs to deal with a budget shortfall that could total $25 billion in the next 18 months.
"That's a hole so deep and so vast that even if we fired every single person on the state payroll -- every park ranger, every college professor and every Highway Patrol officer -- we would still be more than $6 billion short," said the Assembly speaker, Herb J. Wesson Jr., a Democrat.
Further, according to this article, I think it is reasonable to assume that similar situations will hit many more states when it comes to budget and tax time in 2003. Again, though, the media will be needed to spread the appropriate levels of fear and anxiety. (Note that both articles originated from the New York Times.)
And those are just the vectors of attack which are clearly visible. There are other, more complicated items. But in short, from consumer confidence, to corporate accounting, to the dollar, to gold, to foreign capital flight, to pension fund wipe outs, to the derivative bubble, to national and personal debt; there is not a single economic indicator which is not flashing red.
Also, you might be well served to discover the actual mechanics of where money comes from in the U.S.; which corporation prints it and sells it to the government(!!!), who owns the banks, who owns and directs the people in power. It's quite a revealing little journey, to say the least.
Can Bush and his gang direct this? No. Bush is just a tool serving much larger interests. Who are they? That's a subject for a different post.
Slashdot Mirror
How about, 'never'? Get your countries straight.
Though, I notice you tripped over the ever-so-innocently planted seed word in the CNN story. Nice job. Twitch a synapse or two and let the viewer think they are making their own connections. (Not too tough, thanks to the inch-diameter dots C-freeking-NN provided us with to connect. "Ramon, 48, took part in the 1981 bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq." Gee. Thanks guys. What RESPONSIBLE reporting. Not leading in any way. Could they be any more blatant? Jerks.)
But there will be time for all of that garbage later. Right now, one ought to respectfully hold one's hat and wish the innocent and the brave a fond farewell.
-Fantastic Lad
How about, 'never'? Get your countries straight.
Though, I notice you tripped over the word planted in the CNN story. Nice job. --But you weren't supposed to actually think, "Palestine". It was intended rather, to ever-so-innocently plant a seed in the ever-fertile brains of CNN's consumers. Twitch a synapse or two and let the viewer think they are making their own connections.
But there will be time for all of that garbage debate later. Right now, It's time to respectfully hold your hat and wish those brave scientists a fond farewell.
-Fantastic Lad
The problem is that Dan Rather is never going to interview an alien. Won't happen.
Now it is true that my belief structure is unconventional, to say the least. In order for it to exist and function, there are certain premises which had to be built first. There are two basic rules of conduct in my head. .
I have spent a great deal of time studying the hows and wherefores of those two simple points. I've even run my own adverts and measured the responses. I have learned that it is frighteningly easy to manipulate thought. In any case, as a result of this, I have come to a position in life where I not only don't trust most forms of the media, (and can easily see the manipulations in progress), but have concluded that a vast quantity of very deep, very effective behavior modification has already been achieved quite some time ago.
For instance. .
The position you describe where have not yet seen proof, where you would like to believe in things existing beyond the 'normal' sphere, and the locked state you are currently in, is not at all uncommon. In fact, I tend to think that it is a psychological position which a huge number of people have been successfully led into without their realizing.
Let's examine the following. .
"Guilty until proven innocent."
"The Burden of proof."
"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."
We have heard these sayings so many, many times that they have become, both consciously and perhaps more importantly, subconsciously, defacto law. But let's examine them a little more closely. .
"The Burden of proof." --Burden? Who's burden? Why, obviously, as we have been shown, the burden is placed squarely upon the people making the claim. The Jury, we have been told, must be unbiased and skeptical of all claims, and must only be moved to a conclusion when enough solid, cross examined evidence has been presented to them. --Indeed, the sequestered Jury sits in a Jury Box and does not move; they are not allowed to accept any information from the outside world which might influence their decision. And so the Jury sits and watches the performance being played out in front of them, and on that and that alone, ("the Jury is instructed"), to make their final conclusion as to what they will believe.
The Jury sits and watches. The Jury does no work on its own. It is not allowed.
And therein lies the problem. If we, as our subconscious automatically does, extend the court room metaphor to the real world of claims and evidence, we can see that society behaves in exactly the same manner as we have seen in countless television legal dramas. We expect the people making the claim to dance before us in the various arenas, and we believe that we are not active participants. That we are sitting in a box, watching the show.
The problem is that the court room we spend most of our attention on; television and news papers primarily are all under the thumbs of people who, I firmly believe, do not have our best interest at heart.
Dan Rather is NEVER going to interview an alien. It just won't happen. --In the history of UFOs and supernatural phenomenon, there have been several documented instances where key investigators were invited to appear on popular expose television programs of the "Unexplained Mysteries" variety with which we are all familiar. --Behind the scenes, fights ensued, scripts were written and re-written, producers cut footage and broke promises to guests as to what material and demonstrations would be allowed to air. And in one notable instance, when a guest in great frustration, deviated from the script, his microphone was cut and his lips moved without sound for about two minutes, after which the camera was cut off altogether. In short, the Trial is Fixed, and the prosecution (a negative word, btw), is never allowed to bring their case to court, or those allowed are only the ones who will make a poor presentation which supports the status quo.
This stuff really does happen, but then people forget it happens. People have short lives, and the very structures we have been taught to depend on to mind our stores of knowledge are owned by the very people who force last minute script changes and who cut the audio. The only way to find information like this is to dig for it yourself. And that's the key. --Because if you stay in your jury box and only look straight ahead at the pre-designated show, you will NEVER NEVER NEVER be deliberately shown a true picture of reality. The people who own the courts have a vested interest in keeping you within very narrow parameters.
And that is the grand manipulation. (Well, one piece of it, at any rate.) Proof is not actually that far away. But seekers cannot be passive. The Burden of Proof is NOT on the person who brings an idea to forum.
And let's think about that.
What is the purpose of data? --To increase knowledge. Indeed, the increasing of knowledge and awareness is the only true prize in these matters. Knowledge is the treasure! And the people making the unusual claims, while they may not always be right, are the ones who are growing and groping towards knowledge. And some of them are actually quite far along the path. So how are they burdened? How is struggling to increase one's awareness in any way a bad thing? (Of course, it can be a difficult thing, but only in the context that it can make life hard to live when you realize that you are within an ignorant system and must perform tasks which seem insane and unnatural to nobody but yourself who is alone aware. But that's not what I'm talking about here.) What I am saying is that people seeking knowledge are actually relieving themselves of burden! They are making themselves lighter and more aware.
The Jury has been taught to protect and value its ignorance; to value its static state. --To think of knowledge as something which should be, at best, unassisted in its collection, and at worst, actively resisted!
I like to sum it up in this manner:
"Your level of awareness is YOUR problem. There is NO value in maintaining your own ignorance. Any hints or bits of information which others offer to help you in your own quest for knowledge are in every way, gifts which you do not automatically deserve."
But this is certainly not the message we are sent as a populace!
Now I have seen my own wonders. I have made the effort; I have traveled and I have found very powerful people in a number of different fields, from politics to spirituality. I won't bother telling my stories, 'witness testimony' being what it is; of whole value to nobody but the witness.
For your benefit, though, I will say that the wonders are much closer to hand than you might realize, but it is up to you to seek them out.
And it snowballs. When you discover one thing, then other bits of information become easier to evaluate. Knowledge grows geometrically.
Remember; study everything. You mentioned speaking in tongues. From what I have learned, it is indeed a nothing phenomenon with little or no value or meaning. You mentioned religious miracles; weeping statues of Mary and such. Again, from what all I have learned, most things associated with large religions are simply more manipulations; more ways to limit thinking; to encourage blind belief rather than critical thought and growth. --A general rule of thumb: "If a system of thinking affects a large number of people, then you can bet it was almost certainly been targeted long ago and turned into a vector of behavioral control." Religion is just such a thing.
The truth lies in the cracks of the stage production version of reality which has been sold to us since birth. But those cracks can be pulled open by those who wise up to the fact that they have been duped and controlled thus far. And when they do, they will find to their amazement that the entire Universe lies beyond. .
-Fantastic Lad
In any case. . . Crop circles. .
There are, to my knowledge, four entirely different parties making circles. I'll start from the lowest and work my way up.
1. Pranksters. There's quite a scene actually, of circle makers with an internal social protocol similar in ways to graffiti artists who spray paint buildings and boxcars. --Often, artists will leave their 'tag' on a crop glyph, or even tag other glyphs to claim ownership. In any case, it has been conclusively demonstrated that with a slat of wood, a length of twin, a tape measure, (and a policebox full of eager engineering students), one can construct very convincing circles of the most remarkable geometric complexity. --Some circle makers even leave weird objects at the centers, up to and including radioactive residues, etc. Humans are smart, and they are good at playing tricks, and many crop circle researchers are entirely willing to be fooled. A happy and kind of infernal madness.
2. Non-pranksters. Ooh, those pesky military dudes! (Or whoever. Blackops or somebody.) Always trying to obfuscate and mislead. The same types are responsible for replicating cattle mutilations in an effort to mislead and misdirect. (Getting more done before 6 A.M. and all. There's no life like it!) --Though probably not with $400 military slats of wood and $500 military tape measures; there has been a great deal of fast advancement recently in our realm by way of technology. Alien assisted, in some cases. --The crop glyph with the Alien head and the CD thingy was one of these. The garbled word, "BELIEvE" was just that; a garbled word. (Way to go, guys! Wishful thinking, the identity stamp of the greedy & the self-obsessed, will getcha every time. Bush drools for a reason kids, debauchery will do that to you. A rule of thumb: Bad-guys use coke.)
The psychology behind the alien head & CD glyph: To the susceptible: "Trust the 'good and friendly' greys." To the regular folks: "Crop Circles are scary and weird. Don't trust them."
3. The Scary Bad Aliens Themselves! Sometimes called 'fourth density' aliens, depending on what sources you look at. They inhabit the level of reality directly one step above ours, where time is a direction which can be navigated backwards and forth. They eat negative emotions when in their corner of reality, and absorb cow and (east-indian human child) plasma when in ours pulling the Men in Black thing. "The Vats are Real." They have set set us up to live in eternal misery, and when the big day comes, it's harvest feast time to the tune of 6 billion very unhappy humans clinging to bibles filled with wrong-headed messages which got garbled way back in the dark ages. Mmm. Yummy fear.
Anyway, there are supposedly not too many circles directly made by this bunch, but you can identify the ones which have been; The plants in such circles are microwaved and sort of fried and grow funny after the event.
And last but certainly not least. .
4. The good and all knowing entities. --From a another two levels up, called 'Sixth density' (Or 6th harmonic, or vibrational frequency, or whatever depending on your preferred source and level of service.) "We are you in the future. . !"
Proper circles made by this Yoda-like bunch are supposedly messages documenting the nature of reality in these end-of-times. --Not that I've been able to make head or tail of them. Math isn't my strong suit. (Though, weirdly, precious few are even making the attempt.) "Your media resists. Why?"
Oh yeah. How to tell a 'real' circle from a fake one, (aside from the perfectly bent stalks and no foot prints, versus the wake-of-carnage system preferred by the slat of wood and ball of string kids). .
"One thing to look for would be growth disruptions to the area. Real circles do not disrupt the creative principle."
A quick side-note to all those who are on guard here: The creepy Scientologists and Moonies, etc., I figure, were set up in order to obfuscate and sound a eerie and somewhat similar, (although selfish and thoroughly dispicable), message. --And to be generally creepy and culty and all that. Ignore those ass-wipes. Travolta and Cruise are royal dinks and should be considered as such. The real story is far less stupid, though still startling. Essentially. .
The world is going bye-bye within the next decade or so; global war, economic depression, rich New World Order jerks scrambling over the duped hoards as the ship goes down under the weight of hungry aliens, comet impacts, ice-ages, famine, cats & dogs living together; mass hysteria. (I believe Bill Murry may even be hosting.) Anyway, it's already underway, led by George, "See the Bad Nurse Make Disease" Bush. --Deny it if you will, but everybody can feel it on a gut level. All the little subconsciouses are chattering away. --And it's going to get much, much worse. So buckle up!)
Have no fear though. When time is circular, (as I am assured it is), all ends are also beginnings. If you don't get smeared by a comet or shot in the head by a Nazi reincarnated as an Israeli, beam-weaponed by an invading alien giant, or just ass-fucked by an American zombie, then you're going to witness some really neat stuff when the Big Shift comes. So get your closets cleaned out, and your heads and your hearts in order. It's all about awareness, baby!
-Fantastic Lad --mod THAT!
In any case. .
Faith IS a major factor here. You are quite correct. Unless you have bourn witness to something, then realistically, (and even then), there is always, always doubt. --I happen to know several witnesses myself, who describe spectacular events, one of which seen by twenty or more people; an enormous light stopping, hovering, lighting a whole valley and then shooting away with laser beam speed. Another sighting involved a big black tea-pot shaped object rising from the horizon, moving and hovering over the house, and then flashing away. But as you say. . . Faith. I wasn't there, and trusted friends or not, witness accounts are just that.
Which is why I tend to prefer military and commercial air traffic accounts where multiple radar systems record the same event and where military or commercial pilots are the witnesses. The very best accounts are those which also include confirmation from ground witnesses, and where the official investigating bodies take the matters very seriously. --In the U.S., there are laws in effect, (or which at least were in effect during the sixties and seventies; I don't know what their status is today), which threatened any member of the military with heavy fines and jail sentences for speaking publicly about UFO sightings. That in itself, I find intriguing.
Now, perhaps such accounts are all based on lies; perhaps the authors in question are liars and fools. This is indeed possible. But some of these figures would not otherwise be regarded as dimwits. Retired Major Donald Keyhoe, using his influence and inside connections, wrote extensively regarding UFOs. Another, Captain Edward Ruppelt, who headed Blue Book during the fifties, wrote a book regarding his experiences. --A book, as you may know, which under suspected military pressure, he later re-published with a heavily revised conclusion which debunked his earlier position, and then died less than a year after having done so. James McDonnald, a highly regarded atmospheric physicist involved with the US government, was another such figure who was quickly convinced by the data he was exposed to, and moreover outraged by the many blatant cover-up attempts he observed. (He was another, incidentally, who died under questionable circumstances after a time when it was quite clear that he would become an increasing pain to the status quo.)
Aside from the many multiple radar, pilot sightings, the apparently massive chasm between public and internal government policy and behavior regarding UFOs and the endlessly stupid logical inconsistencies in the Blue Book explanations, (Hundreds upon hundreds of sightings, some of the utterly spectacular Spielberg variety, which Blue Book claimed to be Venus or Saturn or birds, etc. Blue Book appears clearly to have been purely a P.R. body under the primary order to absolutely explain everything away at all cost, regardless of what a sighting might really have been of.) This kind of behavior of the official bodies raises its own questions. --Clear cases of reliable witnesses, airline pilots and such, dramatically reversing their stories; Jobs and wives being more important than speaking out. --This kind of thing I find simply too much to ignore.
But as you say, faith is required.
Now, you describe your experiences and reading as having led you to conclude that there is nothing of interest in our skies. Fair enough. Indeed! Fair enough. Faith is what it is, and everybody must make their own choices. However, given the kind of material I have been reading and the kinds of witnesses I have spoken with, I have more difficulty in persuading myself that there is nothing going on. As such, my faith has its definite leaning at the moment. Now, perhaps you know something about these writers and this kind of information which would alter my faith. If you do, as I have said, I would be very, very pleased to hear it.
Anyway, thanks again for speaking reasonably!
-Fantastic Lad
Now what the heck am I supposed to do with that?
Look. I'm still trying to work out whether or not you're full of shit, and you're really not helping me out.
I'm still out on that limb. --I'm not saying that I wouldn't come back in, or that I wouldn't even apologize for making quick assumptions. But assumptions are all I have to work with at the moment. I'd be happy to have something more solid!
Why do I care? Because my primary argument and point is that people who have done no proper reading or research beyond watching television, have no responsible basis upon which to declare anything regarding UFOs, let alone declare that the whole subject is bunk. (Or by the same token, that they are real!)
I think that's a pretty solid place for me to stand.
But then you come along and pitch in with your two cents, beginning with the charming, "Oh, fuck, not another one", --that you have an extensive research background, based on which you know more than enough to judge the whole issue of UFOs to be nonsense and that people should "Get over it" (and that Santa isn't real either). Flip, cocky and mean.
And all I'm asking is that you back some of it up.
If you really have that much knowledge, and if that knowledge has led you to conclude that the whole issue is bunk, then I absolutely want to know how you got there and what information you were working with. --Because, believe it or not, I am by no means closed minded; as a rule, I let everything in, form theories based on it, and then subject my ideas to rigorous testing, and then form new theories as the bad information burns away. --Which, incidentally, is exactly what I am doing now. The internet is an amazing place to test ideas; you have access to thousands of people with massively varied areas of knowledge, and who are willing to correct me when I air crap. It's wonderful! I am first and foremost in the pursuit of knowledge, and the crucible of the internet has been a great tool in this quest.
See, I came from a background where such things as UFOs were simply beneath consideration, and what consideration one gave them always proceeded from a subconscious prerogotive to 'debunk'. Then one day I realized to my horror that I had been basing this behavior entirely on dogma and programming. So I decided to start actually honestly looking at and testing some of the material I had been deriding. Much is crap. But some, I discovered, is not. From there, things got interesting.
The problem is that I only very rarely meet people in the disbeliever camp who aren't also riddled with fears, dogma, preconceptions, denial, blind faith in what we were taught as kids, and outright, 'Fuck You,' hostility toward anybody who would suggest anything outside those narrow parameters. Now, if you happen to be among those few who is clear of all that stuff and who actually has something worth sharing, then I would be VERY happy to learn from you.
But I've got to say that you haven't impressed me at all so far. Indeed, you haven't offered anything other than some nasty barbs and what, essentially, could be boiled down to, "I'm right, you're an idiot, and I don't have to prove it."
So give me something, or stop wasting my time.
-Fantastic Lad
Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is!
If you can do that, then I'll apologize in grand style for making assumptions, and perhaps I'll learn something from you in the process. We'll see.
(I notice you've managed to stop swearing and making dismissive cracks about Santa Claus, so perhaps there is some hope. But like I said; we'll see.)
Let's begin, shall we?
You say it's all, 'bullshit'. I'd be very interested to hear some of the case examples from your readings and your thoughts at to why you are certain they were 'bullshit'. Let's start with a couple of the better known cases, and let's stay within the bounds of military sightings during the period of Blue Book. I'll let you pick.
And don't worry about looking silly. This thread is dead, old, and it's been modded into the ground (as per usual when I touch on subjects like this). It's just you and me.
-Fantastic Lad
And frankly, they don't give a shit. They like to talk mostly about RADAR and RADAR avoidance. Which governments have access to which kinds of sensors, etc. They get hard-ons talking and speculating about that.
I don't doubt you in the slightest!
The thing which should be kept in mind, however, is that you are talking about the state of affairs today. It has taken sixty years of hard work to get the Status Quo to look the way it does. Sixty years ago the story read very differently. The key figures I was talking about were the ones making policy back in the forties and fifties, where all the balls started rolling and the dominoes started falling which gave us the picture we have today.
Further, the 'key' people today are no longer in control of the same things that they were fifty years ago, and while I am sure you may have association with some powerful people, I think it is unlikely, (I certainly hope), that you know anybody who has a direct hand in Shadow Government works, or if you do, that they have discussed with you anything of significance. --You certainly wouldn't be in a position to discuss the subject in a public forum such as this one were you truly connected. It's a good way to get yourself and others hurt.
A small statistic. .
In 1969, the NSA had a 2 billion dollar budget. That's 2 billion late-60's dollars. And that's just the cash we know about. It is no secret that illegal activities have provided other sources of income for similar agencies. The CIA is infamous for its drug running activities. Nobody knows exactly what the secret organizations were doing with all of their resources. And that's just the NSA and CIA, over neither of which the President at the time had any real control. (Or, depending on the president, any actual desire to tackle those powers in the public's best interest.)
The public version of Government does its own thing, behaving in a stage front manner, while the behind-the-scenes agencies remain in charge of the real game, and have done since the hats were handed out fifty years ago. The whole Bush 'election' was an example of one of those times when the stage-direction got a little shakey.
-Fantastic Lad
Sound, 'intellectual'?
You bozo. What the hell does that mean?
Oh, right. Silly me. You want me to function on your level; without thought, deduction or rational inquiry. Right. I keep forgetting. It's just more of the same; The endless media scream, "DO NOT THINK!!! THINKING IS NOT COOL!!!"
You sad, sad little shit.
Please. Grow up. --Or failing that, try responding, (horrors!), to one or more of the actual points I made in the post which so offended you, rather than just toss out some one-line, poor-ass attempt at name-calling. (WHY do I waste my energies on you one-liner gumbies?)
Why indeed? 'Nuff said.
-Fantastic Lad
Oh really? Dozens, you say? As in at least 24 books?
I am going to go out on a limb here and call you a liar.
--Not in the worst sense, mind you. The internet is rife with people who just can't help but exaggerate their claims (or invent them outright), with such wordings. In either case, I am willing to bet you are a great, great deal less informed than you claim. And further, going to a UFO convention, if indeed you have even done that, (it's just SO easy to make false claims and raise reasonable doubt here in cyberspace, isn't it?), then I would suggest that simply having had contact with a lunatic fringe, (I have met some crazies, too), should not have anything to do with determining what is real and not real. Think of the power! If I can make you ignore something simply by enlisting an obsessive-compulsive to talk at you for a while, then that gives me a great deal of control over who and what you are, don't you think?
No, I don't suppose you do. (Think, that is.) --You really ought to try it sometime. Thinking outside your conditioning only hurts if you allow the ignorant sheep, (like yourself), to inflict their silly, nasty words upon you with any effect. It's actually very, very easy to ignore once you begin to see exactly how social cotrol mechanisms work. You may understand one day.
--But don't worry. Even if you never learn, you can take refuge in the fact that, Yes. You are a good little boy, holding the party line and entrenching your own ignorance like so. Many gold stickers for you, son. --Your laziness and fear are exemplary!
And please, don't bother doing a Google search to build a list of at least 24 titles which you haven't read, (and probably shouldn't BTW, considering the general quality of most information available on this most abused of subjects), but can pretend to have read in order to make-believe that you know something which you do not. --And to make people like me stop talking so much and bothering your cozy little falsehood of a reality, (which you paid good money for!).
The exit is at the rear.
Next.
-Fantastic Lad
You there at the back. Sit down, please and put your cell phones away. You can talk after class. Now I hope everybody did the reading. . ?
No. . ?
Well, I suppose that doesn't surprise me. --Even though one would think this is perhaps one of the most fascinating subjects offered in the entire curriculum. No, you don't have to ask to go to the washroom. Just let yourself out quietly. --And that's a big part of the problem, do you see? --And thank you for offering an excellent example with which to launch today's discussion.
Why did he ask me if he could go to the washroom? When did you all learn that, 'rule'? He didn't even think; he just put up his hand hoping that I would grant permission to void his bowls. --One of the most personal and essential human functions we each must experience daily, and yet he automatically sought my permission. Why is that? I'm just a guy in a tweed jacket standing behind a podium. Why should I suddenly have the authority over whether or not one of you is allowed to engage in one of nature's most essential acts? I hear some of you laughing. That's also curious. --I see our young man is turning a little red around the jowls, so your laughter is having some effect. --Yes, yes, you don't need to stand there with your legs crossed. It's just down the hall on your left. Go on.
Now why do you laugh? Why did he turn red? Why did he ask permission at all? Why, why, why?
I want you all to keep these questions in mind as we carry on. .
Where was I. . ? Ah yes. It is common these days for the general public to know virtually nothing about UFO's, and yet nearly every person you come across will jump at the opportunity to ridicule and dismiss, or say things like, "Well, I'd like to believe, but there just isn't enough evidence."
Typically, those who react in this way. .
Now before I carry on with this lesson, I would like each of you to go home and please do the assigned reading. The book you have been assigned, I believe, is Richard M. Dolan's "UFOs and the National Security State." --There is a great deal of clap-trap out there regarding this subject, so I have taken pains to direct you to one of the more reliable sources of data. There are others, but this is one of the more complete, responsibly written and easier to digest. Don't waste this opportunity.
Now I don't want to hear any dissent until you have read that book from cover to cover and can give me a detailed history beginning with the Foo Fighter, the reactions of the various governments around the world to the tens of thousands of collected UFO reports from the early forties onward, and the roles of the various U.S. governmental key people in the political, military and intelligence communities.
--What's that? No. Reading an internet review of the book and forming your opinion entirely that way is certainly not good enough. In this disposable society of ours, canned opinions are far too available, and particularly where television is concerned, far too misleading. You won't realize just how misleading until you have done some proper research where snack-food and remote controls are not part of the process. Obtain a copy, read it yourself and then form your own opinion. Until then, I'm going to cut this class short. Don't come back until you know what you're talking about. Then we can begin our discussion.
-Fantastic Lad
Did they fail because they didn't get ordered by the stores/distributors, or did they fail because after making it to the display racks they did not sell enough copies?
That is, would Joe Average have had a chance to have seen copies during a visit to the local computer store? I've always been curiuos about this. I wonder if there are great works which never even had a chance to compete in the light of day. Is this the case?
Just curious. A list of "failed great" titles would be cool. The chance that there are hidden bits of gold glittering out there someplace is enticing!
-Fantastic Lad
No system I build includes it, and I advise whoever I build a system for that the program will cause problems if they try to install it.
Now I did once have a neat piece of hackware which played and recorded streamed
With only a few exceptions, (a couple of Zim Episodes. .
It's a turkey system on its way out because it's makers are greedy and manipulative. Good riddance.
Oh, and the best part, is that some twit exec may well be reading through this very thread. (Slashdot holds power this way.) To him/it: The lousy streak of luck in your life? That's there because everybody is directing their disrespect and ire at you on a global scale. That tight, sick sort of feeling in your gut? (If you're not just another boring sociopath, that is. .
Yes, try to laugh it off. But when the end of the day rolls around, the rest of us get to look at our accomplishments and feel good about our lives. Your accomplishments can only lead you into bitterness and denial.
Eating you, slowly, slowly. .
-Fantastic Lad
Well, gosh-durn it, Son! Was it the Iraq analogy, a perceived slur against inbreeding, or is it simply that you are generally in favor of computer worms?
Speak up, Son! Don't leave me in suspense. I gotta know how to refine my routine. If I know what gets under your skin, then I can purify it and hopefully make you break out in hives some day! Stupidity-specific pathogens; that's the goal here, Son. --Seeing as how you're obviously not quite dumb enough for Darwin to have taken care of himself. (Where Darwin fails, the rest of us have to roll up our sleeves.)
-Fantastic Lad
With overwhelming opinion stacked against a *B*A*D* idea, (in this case, the use of gratuitous, crotch-hardening force to solve a problem which has been proven in the past to be fixable through any number of other effective options), is refreshing to say the least!
I don't even have to use the analogy I was brewing up while reading the headline, (but will offer here anyway just as a point of interest and cuz I don't like to let even a half-assed brain-wave to go to waste.).
-Fantastic Lad
--Joe, "Joe v.s. the Volcano"
Except this way, people are actually paying. But that's the way, isn't it? Corporate evil is nothing if not efficient, (in all the 'right' places, at any rate). Render them impotent, trick them into living in bullshit misery and debt-ridden servitude, then sell them a subscription to some lame version of 'escape'.
"Oh, and Smithers, tell our engineers to make it highly addictive."
"Yes sir. The people will know what hit them, but they won't care."
-Fantastic Lad
So. .
I maintained three types of ships in my fleets; Death Stars in the rear, billions of tiny, nothing ships to waste the enemy time/target resources on in the fore, and a heavy division of what I somewhat unimaginatively dubbed, 'Ghost Ships.'
Ghost Ships were equipped with cloaking, time-warping (for the extra moves), all the extra distance modifiers I could give them, as well as the wonderful, 'Stasis Field' generator (for freezeing enemy vessels). Ghost Ships had nothing else; no weapons or armor to speak of.
And so. . , even if the aggressor went first, they used up most of their firepower on my ranks of clay pigeons, (which I liked to imagine were remote controled). Mass destruction, etc. But when my move came along, it was game over; The Ghost Ships would immediately slip across the game board undetected and snuggle up to the target vessels. --They'd then decloak and put EVERY ship in the enemy fleet into stasis. Twenty or so Ghost Ships could usually do the job.
Then, one by one, you pull a target vessel out of stasis, and concentrate all your Death Star power on it, and efficiently win the battle.
So long as you had enough Ghost ships and at least one major weapons platform remaining by the time it was your turn, the aggressor was done for.
And if you got to go first. . . Well. Having zero casualties in massive space space combat? Not a bad system. I easily trounced races with far superior fire-power and technology.
Another tactic which I used now and again, was to equip fifty or so tiny ships with really big self destruct units. It was like entering battle with a fleet of precision controled missiles which by-passed that annoying bullshit where the computer could tell me that I 'missed'. Very simply, you'd fly them up to a target and detonate them. Fairly effective, so long as the enemy didn't really rank up in the armor. When technologies were reaching their peeks for all races, Ghost Ships were the final answer.
-Fantastic Lad --Tactics. It's what's for dinner.
I also found it distasteful to genocide a race. --I'd let them do whatever they wanted on their planet surface. Didn't want to interferr with anything in their culture. I just wouldn't allow them to go building up wrathful armadas and such. I found it frustrating that they'd keep sending ships at me to destroy. Depressing.
I think the game would have been improved had there been an option whereby Starfleet Federation style organizations could have arisen, rather than the law of 'All Races Must Kill All Other Races,' bullshit.
Actually, I kinda hated that game. I liked to build, but the finished structures were always ugly, evil things. --That such must be the reality is a total lie. I gave MOO-2 a 5 out of 10 for this reason. Cool beginnings, sucky follow through.
-Fantastic Lad
Try asking the guys who build and service those spy planes which the public aren't told about for the decade or more during which they are in use. (You ARE capable of accepting even that limited exposure, aren't you? That poor-ass stuff is on the cover or your favorite propaganda paper, I believe.) But of course, in your limited version of reality, that sort of thing only happens in the Airforce. --Because, you know, nobody else has ever discovered the tactical advantage of, horrors, *keeping secrets*.
It's hard to believe the parent was modded +5... so it goes amongst the super-Libertarian masses of
The interesting part is still, for me, to watch how people like you deal with the world when it drops stuff info into your lap. --Not that I'm suggesting that you have anything in your lap right now, (least of all a set of balls), but nonetheless, watching people in denial is. .
-2 parts bluster which is either performed in total confidence, (because all those textbooks and educational films were just sooo convincing), or served with dollops of false bravado thinly veiling that stuff we call, 'Yellow Freaking Fear' as the programming breaks down around the edges.
-3 parts ridicule as taught and reinforced on the school yard, where minds are so young and impressionable. Little do the robot people know that the ridicule button no longer connects to the same parts of the brain in those who understand how the game is played. Doesn't stop the twits from punching at it endlessly however, precisely because in their little pre-fab bubble realities, the button is not just connected, but so hardwired into their core thinking processes that they actually cannot conceive of a headspace where fear of ridicule is no longer relevant. Where it is seen largely as just another piece of programming designed to make people shut the fuck up.
Dissenting, questioning voices are horribly inconvenient when one is trying to live a lie. To wake up, sadly, is to admit that one has been a fucking moron most of one's life. Truth hurts, and so it is preferable to many to defend the tyrant than to face the fact that one is being raped. Stockholm Syndrome, anyone? Maybe if you're good, they won't shred you. --Not too bad, anyway. I'll be good, I promise! Just don't make me feel that horrible, embarrassing, palm-sweaty, almost crippling feeling which accompanies the consideration of any subject not safely couched in state sanctioned 'science' (I hate to dirty such a fine word as science, but there it is.)
"Soul." "Magic." "Malevolent Aliens." "Infinite energy." "Conspiracy."
Consider such terms and others on a deep level and actually look into the subjects? Psh. Not bloody likely. You'd get sweaty palms. And, after all, they make films about such things, which, of course invalidates any such line of query from the list of rational possibilities. A clever trick, if you ask me.
Guys like you are a dime a dozen, (and I dump cult of science twits in with the bloody Christians because the end result is the same; a pile of self-deluding people chasing their tails, limiting their scope of awareness, who refuse to look at where the rabbit is really being hidden).
People shy away because their brains have been fucking hijacked by others who really, really don't want people to consider such things. In understanding such matters is power. And power is the grand obsession. So long as you don't have it; so long as you cling to the vapid bullshit you've been fed, you are not a threat. You are nothing but a commodity.
A Coward, you post as? Hmm. There's a shocker.
And finally, when push comes to shove. .
-1 part, that expressionless blinking thing people do when their brains re-boot in the face of magic and the unexplained.
I always find that one kind of upsetting. It looks a bit like a seizure; I forget sometimes, (thanks to all that bluster), just how fragile people's psyches really are; how riddled, not just with low-self esteem and confidence issues, but by the brainwashing our dumb-ass 'culture' provides, to the point of their nearly drooling and beeping when the walls of this pip-squeak, 'Nike-McDonnald's-Microsoft-Hollywood' reality shift and crack. This happens more and more often these days as things heat up and the sheep, bless them, try their damndest to keep Winamp running.
Oh yeah. Rinse and repeat.
-Fantastic Lad
What a dreamy way to spend the day.
Imagining that some Questionaire Answerer actually knows anything of value which wasn't discovered 50 years ago and subsequently locked away for gradual public release, (or not at all), and better yet, that the power behind the government actually gives the slightest fig about what his/her opinion might be.
Yes. I'd like to live in that world, too. --You know, the one they still teach to all little kids, where everybody is happy, healthy, wise and caring, we all wear 'vault 13' type outfits, (without the overtones of holocaust, 'natch), we all carry tri-corders and our delicious meat products come from designer plants.
Sigh.
-Fantastic Lad
Precisely my point. The problem is that Occam's Razor is not always used correctly, or with the level of responsibility you describe.
The problem with people standing on the shoulders of giants is that eroneous nonsense can find endorsement in at best, foolish ways, and at worst, dangerous ways. --Though twisted, (like the Bell example), such paths of logic might sound reasonable enough to the lay person.
It bothers me to see Occam quoted so frequently, largely, I think, thanks to the film, 'Contact'. --Which, incidentally, even touched on this very issue. Jodi Foster's character used it to help deal with the question of whether or not it was reasonable to expect the existence of alien life in the cosmos. But, as demonstrated, that very thinking was easily and convincingly used in the other direction. "Is it more likely that a fantastic thing has happened, or that somebody perpetrated a hoax?" Occam's Razor, because it is so interpretive, opens itself up to annoying circles of semantic debate. This is why I remain wary of the lay person who uses it as their primary line of argument. When used properly, it is a powerful tool. But so is a chainsaw. Powerful tools should be treated with care.
-Fantastic Lad
First off, I'm not a creationist. Indeed, I find that whole debate to be entirely infernal, as both sides seem to me quite flawed in their own ways. That being said. .
Occam's Razor bugs me. As a deductive tool, it is a pretty good one; it works for the most part. What I find unsettling, however, is that it seems to have become, thanks to its presentation and treatment in popular media, understood and accepted by many as a de facto scientific law when it is not.
It is a rule of thumb, and only a rule of thumb. --It is only a rule of thumb, because it is not always right. Every time something unexpectedly complex turns out to be the reality behind a phenomenon which might otherwise have been explained through simple means, Occam's Razor is blunted.
Example:
When Alexandre Graham Bell first announced to the world that he had discovered a way to send a voice signal over a wire, the world erupted with both excitement and disbelief. One major newspaper even ran a story written by experts which attempted to debunk Bell's claim. They used diagrams demonstrating that sound waves sent down thin metal tubes of the diameter Bell was using for wires, could not possibly travel the kinds of distances he claimed. The experts were engineers well versed in the science and dynamics of sound as employed in the kinds of voice communication pipe systems once used large ocean going vessels. To the writers of the article, they were being entirely reasonable.
"Which is more likely?" they must have asked themselves, "That Bell has created some magical new invention to send sound along miles of very thin tubes? Or that he is lying?"
Occam's Razor is deeply rooted in how one perceives, how much information there is available to work with, and what has been previously accepted by culture as normal and/or outlandish.
-Now Bell was, of course, proven to be right. When words crackled out from crude speakers for all to hear, the enthusiastic debunkers, (and there is never any shortage of enthusiastic debunkers or respected, conservative media outlets to give them a voice and print their diagrams), had to quietly go mum and withdraw their objections. But that was in part due to large forces which wanted and allowed Bell to be proven right. If you don't advertise a fact or discovery, facts and discoveries can easily vanish. People have short memories. People have short lives. Without active perseverance, knowledge is a self-burying commodity until it becomes large enough to self-sustain, and even then, it is not so very difficult to forget important turns of history after only a few fickle generations have passed.
Science as a concept, is a pure, wonderful thing, but it does not know everything. Indeed, many institutions are not so pure as the science which they employ; it is well known that individuals with weak morals, and corrupt institution will suppress data, twist data and even make up data on a basis regular enough that the public pool of knowledge has been polluted to the point that the employment of Occam's Razor is by no means reliable in today's arena of public thought.
Just something to consider next time you feel the need to slam a new idea. Remember that Occam gave us a deductive tool, not an irrefutable law.
-Fantastic Lad
Well, I don't know the specifics, and with any luck, I'll be very wrong and things will actully improve. We'll have to wait and see.
Second, assuming that situation does play out, what's to say gold would continue to maintain its value? Who would be willing to buy gold in such a situation?
Well, I'm not sure people will be after a certain point, but we're not at that bridge yet. Right now, I'm using the model of the Great Depression, and gold in that period retained value.
Historically, Gold has always proven reliable so long as there has remained a semblence of organized culture where people aren't entirely starving. (So that having weapons, fortresses and food stocks are more valuable than token metals) And even then, people covet the stuff. So long as things aren't completely screwed up, you can count on the power of greed. --That is, evil will always want to hold power over others, and for this to happen, everybody needs to agree where power resides so that Evil can make a big pile of it for themselves and sit atop it. --Gold is a pretty safe bet, since there is so little of it on the planet, you can't reproduce it, and it never decays, and well, I dunno actually. It's so nice and shiney? Greed baffles me.
Greed is a disease with locomotive-like power, but it is also predictable. When you can predict the behavior of a locomotive-like power, you can hitch your cart to it; use it to drive other engines. --This is what the economy is all about really, and why some misguided individual coined the phrase, "Greed is Good!"
I know it seems a little hypocritical to use greed when it is the source of all the problems in the world, but things are far, far beyond repair at this point. Right now, and for the next ten years or so, the name of the game is going to be one of basic survival.
Maybe I'm wrong; I don't think so, but I sure would be happy to eat that crow!
-Fantastic Lad
Yeah, okay. I can get behind that.
You might want to work on your delivery, though. You were coming off like one of those leftist-guerrillas who bend absolutely every topic of conversation into, not just a soap box, but an excuse to criminalize and blame everybody around them for all the dead trees.
Been there, lived that. When I was 18. I remain one of the most socially and environmentally conscious people I know. I've lived in your shoes, (or at least the pair you were running in just then), and I have become even more aware and careful in my personal actions over time, but I've also learned to better target my attacks because it doesn't pay to look like an un-discerning twit. More people listen when you use a finer brush.
In any case, take care and keep up the good fight!
-Fantastic Lad
But the fact of the matter is that Bush and his thugs are getting away with murder. Everybody knows, so it's not really a conspiracy. I like the word, 'corruption'. Seems to fit better.
You might serve yourself well by doing some reading about how the economy really works. The controls Mr. Greenspan has influence over, while certainly logical enough to keep nearly everybody happily fooled, are nonetheless part of an elaborate stage performance.
The economy is being de-stabalized using some of the following ways.
1. Media perception. If everybody can be made to simultaneously believe that the economy is fucked, then six months later, the economy will be fucked. Enron 'went off' to set up nervousness in people. Concepts like, "3 Trillion dollars just vanished from the stock market," now freely float around.
2. Corporate disintegration As a direct response to the Enron scandal, there are now currently 17 massive corportations which have over-stated earnings or are being investigated for similar fraud. --Seven of which are energy companies, (which adds more imperative for Congress to force the White House to compel full disclosure from Vice President Cheney's 2001 energy task force. Only problem is, one of the companies under investigation is Halliburton. Cheney was its CEO until taking office, and the fraudulent accounting occurred while he was the boss.) The hammer hasn't finished falling yet, but it seems pretty clear that things are only going to get worse in this area.
3. Civic Debt New York's city budget has been devastated, as we know. And California announced recently that they are in a lot of trouble as well. To quote . .
Further, according to this article, I think it is reasonable to assume that similar situations will hit many more states when it comes to budget and tax time in 2003. Again, though, the media will be needed to spread the appropriate levels of fear and anxiety. (Note that both articles originated from the New York Times.)
And those are just the vectors of attack which are clearly visible. There are other, more complicated items. But in short, from consumer confidence, to corporate accounting, to the dollar, to gold, to foreign capital flight, to pension fund wipe outs, to the derivative bubble, to national and personal debt; there is not a single economic indicator which is not flashing red.
Also, you might be well served to discover the actual mechanics of where money comes from in the U.S.; which corporation prints it and sells it to the government(!!!), who owns the banks, who owns and directs the people in power. It's quite a revealing little journey, to say the least.
Can Bush and his gang direct this? No. Bush is just a tool serving much larger interests. Who are they? That's a subject for a different post.
-Fantastic Lad