Isn't it funny how, when you boil everything else away, the real fear people have is about maybe, possibly, having to take responsibility for something?
I think we need to learn from things and then get over it. There are bigger things to think about than whether or not we are personally to blame for dreaming the Star Trek dream. --We might instead ponder such things as getting flash frozen when the gulf stream quits out on us. (Though that almost sounds better than starving while all the crops rot in the cold, cold mud.)
# January 3rd, 2007 David Harris decided to pull the plug out of Pegasus Mail and Mercury, since his final message to the beta team, his e-mail service is (temporary) shut down.
Here is that message:
I have just updated the pmail.com web site with my last announcement. I have terminated both products with immediate effect.
I do this with sadness - the knot in my stomach is so large at the moment that I can barely type - but I suspect that once the emotional trauma wears off, it will be replaced by a kind of weary relief. I will probably never be able to describe just how horrible it has been to be me for the last three or four years, and I certainly will not insult you now by attempting to do so; suffice it to say that anything must be better than this dubious existence.
I want to thank you all for your assistance, support and friendship over many years - I have appreciated it in ways that I am sure you will understand at an emotional level.
After I post this message, I will be shutting persephone down for an indeterminite period while I try to work out whether I have a future. I wish you all the very best, my friends, in whatever life offers you.
Adieu,
-- David --
Here's the thing.
Sometimes life requires you to change tunes. It will force changes from within and from without, and this is done so that you can embrace new lessons and new challenges. The more people cling to old, known and comfortable patterns, the harder the Universe kicks you to move; the more staying in one spot turns into an exercise in suffering.
To David: I know how hard this can be, and I offer you my respect and love, but I think you will find that you will be much happier when you settle your mind and focus on new challenges. The way is open and promising, opportunity doesn't just knock once at the door; it is pounding loud every day. So ask yourself; "What do I REALLY want to do? What idea excites me?"
Don't let ego or preconceptions about yourself get in the way. Even if your heart's desire is to become a grocery store clerk, people will support you and love you for your choice if it is truly what excites you. You can do ANYTHING. We all can.
So does loaded language in the OP such as "that seek to confuse the public on global warming science" and "Would a 'global warming controversy' exist..." bother you as well?
No, because the article went on to illustrate deliberate intent to inject falsely represented data into the discussion. ie., To "Confuse" the issue. Thus it is easy enough to see that the claim was not so much emotional as it was simply accurate.
"Would a 'global warming controversy' exist..."
This phrase has no emotional content whatsoever. There is a controversy. It's subject is global warming. How is that problematic or leading? --Compare that to, "Whining".
The little bit of the article that I read sounded more like whining to me.
I find it ironic when a conservative poster simply cannot restrain him/herself from using emotional terminology like, "Whine".
That is, anything which doesn't agree with the conservative ideology is automatically subjected to ridicule even at the basic level of word choice.
The only other subset of society which does this on a regular basis is that of the grade-school kid. The ironic part? --Where the poster tells the "Dirty" hippies to grow up.
It might seem a weird magazine to pick to disseminate lame 'debunkings' (re, their many-holed 9-11 article), and propaganda, until one considers who it is aimed at.
I have always said that tech geeks are the lynch-pins and keyholders of perceived reality in this world. Engineers and scientists and smart people who have a vested interest in the use of critical thinking and analysis, are the ones who determine what we believe in as a culture, they determine our technology and therefore the very shape of our reality. As such, ENORMOUS amounts of mind-programming are aimed at the scientifically inclined. (They already have the religious bagged up for delivery.)
It starts in school, where the paradigm is set up to make sure that geeks are inhibited through social punishment. This makes them seek love from teachers and to define themselves by their accomplishments in knowledge. The problem with seeking approval from the gate keepers of knowledge, (teachers), is that teachers have state-implemented curriculums to teach, filled with lies and various bits of twisted and highly limiting 'knowledge'.
Thus, with the geek's sense of self-worth tied almost inextricably to the little gold stars they received for agreeing with authority, huge blind spots are hard-wired into their awareness from a young age. It is thus possible to direct the path, not just of technology, but of the science and research which are the underpinnings of our whole reality.
If you don't want people to be aware of the spirit or of energy or of UFO's or of our ancient history, (do you feel that jolt of internal revulsion which accompanies the reading of each of those terms? That's your programming talking.), then you implement a social engineering system to lock down the very people who could take that knowledge and study it properly according to the tenets of science. Because if you do not, the knowledge uncovered gives the power to become aware of our hidden oppressors and to resist them; not with cool laser guns, but with the simple awareness of higher realms of existence and the ability to choose our daily actions with knowledge and thus make decisions which benefit humanity and not those who farm humanity, sowing suffering. Because in the end, it's all about the soul, and they do not want you to even believe you have one, let alone realize that to work on strengthening it is the way to oppose them.
So Popular Mechanics is a logical choice for propaganda. Everybody else in our culture is far easier to lie to and lead into war and general stupidity. So they use a magazine which us geeks loved as kids, (who didn't want their own personal submarine or flying car or pocket computer?), to feed us the critical lies at the critical times.
Fortunately, the population isn't so dumb these days, but the imbeciles over at Popular Mechanics can be counted on to use the most retarded and easily refuted logic. Bad guys are selfish, they always take the route of least resistance, which means they don't push themselves to become smart enough to fool people who do push themselves to learn. Funny that.
-FL
Re: Truthiness already rendered facts
on
UFOs In the News
·
· Score: 1
At some point you will have to realize I AM mocking you.
Mocking implies copying behavior in order to ridicule. You are miles from copying my behavior. At no point have you answered a single question with anything even remotely resembling a rational answer, nor have you it seems, understood anything I have written by way of response to your statements.
UFO's are NOT flying saucers inhabited by creatures from another star system, dimension, beneath the sea, or our future.
Nothing you have said or offered suggests any reason to believe this statement. Indeed, everything you have offered by way of 'reason' I have responded to with proper arguments and examples. Since you have not managed, (or even tried), to answer even one of my arguments with a counter argument, I must assume that either you don't want to for some reason, or that my reasoning is superior and you have nothing to respond with except further, unrelated statements of equal silliness. Indeed, your latest attempt at argument is simply to say that just because something I have said sounds logical to you doesn't mean it is true. I would agree, but before you can use this to think that you have at all defended your points, you must also provide a substantial reason for why you think my logic is faulty. You have not done this. Not once.
Your increasingly long response are only further evidence that you have clung to a particular belief and like creationists look for evidence to support it, however tenuous it may be.
You were simply asking more interesting questions which required more work on my part to respond to. If I had known you only wanted to trade content-less banter, I would have complied. (Well, actually, I wouldn't have. I don't actually think your mind is the sort which is ready to accept this kind of information, but your points are worth de-constructing for the benefit of anybody else who may be reading. It also allows me the exercise of further exploring exactly why and how such arguments as yours are faulty. It is an opportunity for me to learn, and as I have stated already, I am primarily interested in both my own growth of awareness and in sharing any insights or data I may have with others, who I also welcome insights and data from. It doesn't actually matter to me, however, if you decide to walk away as ignorant as you started. That is your choice and I will certainly respect it.
You seem immune to critical thinking and rationality.
You wouldn't know this, because you have not offered a single example of critical thinking OR rational thought. You have offered insults, silly and easily refuted arguments, and highly resistant behavior consistent with somebody who has solidly chosen to hide in ignorance.
It is clear that you will continue to believe pseudoscience and nothing I can say will dissuade you. Hence the mocking.
Given that you have said nothing of substance whatsoever, I would have to agree, except, of course, for the word 'pseudoscience'. I would suggest that you are the one following poor science and poor critical thinking. Your posts are certainly evidence of your preference for that mode of thought. --And your crude personal attacks and attempts at ridicule are typical of the one who has nothing else to work with.
I wish you all the best. Goodbye now.
-FL
Judgment already rendered = No Seeking
on
UFOs In the News
·
· Score: 1
Talk about pot calling the kettle black.
??? All I've done is point out that you said something which didn't make any sense. ..
What I don't understand is this: how is it possible with the advances in film and video photography over the past forty years we still have fuzzy video and fuzzy pictures of flying saucers? You'd think the flying saucer proponents would learn how to use a goddamn camera properly by now. God, what a bunch of gullible morons and fakers!
I answered your question, and you did nothing to contest my explanation other than to say that professional astronomers have never reported a UFO, which is both irrelevant and false.
And now you're telling me that I am "Calling the kettle black." All I have called you is "Rude", whereas I don't think I have been anything but civil in return. So that can't be what you mean. Perhaps you mean that I am suggesting you do better research before making false statements and that you think I should do the same. The only problem with this being that I've not made any false statements, (nor even anything which you have quoted and claimed as false), so again. . , what are you talking about?
I suggest you read what reasonable people like Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Richard Feynman, or the folks at The Skeptic have to say. Mustn't forget to include Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy take on UFO nuttiness.
I have.
Let's start with Carl Sagan.
His main issue is simply that of data collection and review procedure; he has no doubt that alien life exists, but he doesn't find the anecdotes available to be scientifically worthy. Fair enough, though I suspect he has not actually looked closely at all the available data. The U.S. military, for instance, has admitted to having had hundreds of multiple witness UFO encounters involving their aircraft and personnel, all of it documented and available for public viewing via the Freedom of Information Act. That's far better than just the civilian anecdotal evidence I believe he is referring to.
Also, his understanding of crop circles is painfully limited. He actually appears to believe that two pranksters have been able to produce hundreds of crop circles (in several countries) all by themselves. He ignores the fact that there are biological factors involved, including such noteworthy items as stems bursting at all the bend points from super-heated steam, as well as seeds from some circles being rendered magnetic, weird anomalies in the growth of seeds taken from inside circle formations as compared to control groups. Among other items, all of which would be impossible to produce with rope and boards.) I find it absolutely amazing that somebody of such a respected position and supposedly analytical mind can in one paragraph complain that "anybody can make up a story, so why should we believe it," and then only a few paragraphs later say that he believes the story provided by two guys in England who claim they are responsible for crop circles. Clearly, Carl Sagan is only human.
Issac Asimov. -The link you provided doesn't say anything more than he headed the AHA which opposed the idea of UFOs and Aliens. I don't know what his arguments were, but again I suspect that he was similarly using out-dated information and out-dated thinking.
All that Richard Feynman offers us is, "I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the result of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence rather than the unknown rational efforts of extraterrestrial intelligence."
This is little more than an opinion from a famous, very smart nuclear physicist, and also made rather a long time ago. We know a great deal more today. --So I'm afraid I need more than Richard Feynman's one-line opinion before I can stop thinking. Carl Sagan is also Famous and very smart, but he is clearly under-informed. In fact, I've met a LOT of very smart people who are also remarkably under
Fluorescent bulbs strobe just outside the range of visual perception. But that doesn't mean there is no effect.
CRT screens also strobe, and it has been shown that watching television quickly lulls a viewer into a highly suggestible state where the brain activity drops very low, into something called an 'alpha state'. It even happens with a static image on the screen. When in a highly suggestible state, audio signals can reach the core of your mind and stick there. This is by design.
Why on earth would I want to install that kind of lighting all over my home? Yuck!
Why do they put that kind of lighting in malls, offices, schools and public buildings? Oh, because it's so much cheaper. Oh, okay. That's a very convenient reason. I'll stop thinking about it then. --Even though if I were planning to affect the minds of an entire population, I'd probably come up with a tactic exactly like that. . .
I have had my fair share of working experience with both Air Force personnel and police officers. Please, look elsewhere for sanity and soundness.
Are you saying that they give multi-million dollar fighter jets to people with bad eye-sight, low IQ's, poor judgment and no training whatsoever in spatial and visual recognition of airborne objects?
Police may not score as highly a fighter pilots, but they do fill out reports and are able to communicate encounters as they are happening, which makes their testimony in such cases far more useful than that of the average citizen. I'm not sure how much better you can hope to find, but to stop looking because perfect witnesses are unavailable is hardly rational.
Nevermind. You have obviously set the bar for sanity at an all-time new low. However, if you are interested, for a one time donation of $1000, I will sit and channel anything you feel like hearing!
One way to determine the level of reliability of a source is by looking at how much money is being asked for. While you can certainly buy paper-based copies of the material in question, the download is entirely free. Interestingly, it is also far more rational-sounding than you.
There are thousands and thousands of trained observers all around the world called amateur and professional astronomers. And they have yet to report any flying saucers, any little green men from outer space.
Well, I don't know about "little green men", but I do know you are mistaken about astronomers not reporting UFO's. I would suggest that you might do better research before making any more such bold and misleading statements, (like your previous comments regarding photography).
As for giving you proof. . . Why? You seem both rude and very resistant to thinking about these ideas. And in the end, what you believe at the close of the day is rather less important to others than you might wish. The people who are researching the UFO phenomenon are curious and do not search for your benefit, but to enlighten themselves and to enjoy the sharing of knowledge with other people who are interested. They have discovered that learning new things beyond their comfortable patterns is fun!
Those who wish to not seek are entirely free to do so, and their choice must be respected. Falsehoods, however, should be given what they call for; truth.
Actually I was willing to take you seriously until you threw in the link to the "channeling". Most of the stuff on that page seems incoherent or without any basis in a consistent framework of facts..o.
You stopped taking me seriously when you saw the link? That suggests to me that you were suffering from bias before you even clicked through to the page beyond it. Did you give the page more than a few seconds-long skim? It took me about half an hour to read and absorb the introductory notes on that page; they were written by a physicist with a solid CV and twenty years worth of time employed at respected institutions, which is partly why I thought it might be appropriate for Slashdot. He took the time to give critical analysis to a subject usually ignored. Isn't that what people want with regard to such subjects? To expose them to the rigors of scientific analysis and see what comes up?
I would advise that taking the time to lower walls of bias and to properly read a page is the best way to find the coherency, consistency and facts you say were missing in this case.
What I don't understand is this: how is it possible with the advances in film and video photography over the past forty years we still have fuzzy video and fuzzy pictures of flying saucers? You'd think the flying saucer proponents would learn how to use a goddamn camera properly by now. God, what a bunch of gullible morons and fakers!
Flying saucer proponents don't get any more opportunities than regular people caught unawares to see a UFO. As such, it is regular people who are the ones taking the pictures, usually with little to no warning before hand.
But set that aside for a moment.
Please pick an airline, then pick a regular flight which travels over your house. Then pick a bright, clear day and stand outside with your camera and try photographing an airplane. I can tell you right now that it'll look small and fuzzy and that you could have easily Photoshopped it into the frame.
And yet despite this reality of photography, there have been some quite good shots of UFO's. More than once, professional television crews have even chanced to get some good footage. The best footage, however, comes from military gun cameras mounted to aircraft which actually have a chance to get close enough to get better pictures. We know this, because documents made available by the FOIA talk about images which were taken. Of course, the public is not allowed to see such images.
As camera technology becomes better, with higher resolutions and vibration-compensators, etc., I imagine the photographs will get better as well. But if you don't want to believe, then it doesn't matter what evidence is presented no matter how high a grade it happens to be.
One of the best researchers in the field of UFO's is Richard Dolan.
UFOs are not fun and games, they are not delusions. They are real. The phenomenon has involved real technology, doing real things that are not supposed to be possible. This technology, since at least World War Two, has engaged in a confrontational and provocative manner with U.S. military forces on many occasions. It has involved both air space violations and alarmed responses, and has elicited the concern of some of the highest ranking military and intelligence officers in the country.
We know this because, for a relatively brief period in America's history (primarily the late 1970s and into some of the 1980s), the Freedom of Information Act enabled researchers to obtain official documents from government agencies which clearly demonstrated this. Not that FOIA is officially dead today, but it has had its ups and downs over the years. As far as obtaining UFO-related information, FOIA's moment of glory was long ago, in the post-Watergate and post-Vietnam era.
Thus, agencies such as the CIA, DIA, FBI, and pick your alphabet-soup agency, which for years had steadfastly denied having anything to do with UFOs, suddenly released thousands of pages of documentation proving the opposite. It is true that, among these officially released documents, there is no absolute smoking gun - e.g. a memo from the President stating "Okay, what do we do about these pesky aliens, anyhoo?" There are, however, quite a few documents that are one cut below this. That is, documents that describe utterly awesome military encounters with the unexplainable.
Taken individually, such FOIA documents do not prove the existence of UFOs as something "not us." After all, people, even military witnesses, can make mistakes. Radar can be faulty or misinterpreted. But, taken as a whole, the released FOIA documents provide a large body of evidence relating to serious military encounters with UFOs. After you read the first fifty of these, you start to wonder.
Let's review a couple of these documents. ..
You can read the whole of his essay, (in twoparts).
The quote from above comes from the second part. The first part is, what I thought, a fascinating historical review of how the world works with regard to secrets.
Or you can read his book. It comes highly recommended. --This is not your average "Woo woo, Leonard Nimoy looks at UFO's!" book. It only looks at cases reported by multiple airforce/military/police witnesses, (due to their typically being selected for being sane and sound individuals as well as the procedural documentation recorded in each case as a requirement of their jobs). Even though civilian accounts are left out, the book still manages to cover a couple hundred cases from the 40's to the 70's. It also deals in depth with the military and political side of the issue, and easily refutes many of the common misnomers about UFO's, (of which several are represented on this site).
He doesn't, however, get into what UFO's are here to do. That's a whole other can of worms.
Here is some channeled work which attempts to shed light on that subject, among others. (Beware, with a group like the one this particular material comes from, a lot of creepy people also come out of the woodwork to spread fear and confusion and lies, etc., in order to stop people from looking. So take everything, including this, with a grain of salt. This is the kind of material and subject matter which makes people want to play a lot of video games and shut out eve
So we've invented Clone Cows which can eat other cows. Charming.
Here's a question. . ,
Why not instead of this Frankenstein Science, just stop feeding garbage to animals, raise them kindly, and kill them with respect? This would solve the prion problem. And the super-bug problem. And the hormone laced milk problem. Among others.
After all, the lives of these animals are being taken so that we can live. Surely they deserve a bit of love. --Also, nobody needs to eat the amount of meat many people do. If our diets were regulated correctly, and if we treated our livestock with affection rather than using them with such coldness, life would be better for a whole lot of creatures as well as humanity. It is true; everything must take life in order to live, and we all must die. Why not try to infuse the process with compassion?
Of course, if you believe in a digital universe where souls do not exist, then what reason does anybody have to respect life and not adopt the behavior patterns of the psychopath?
Welcome to Mordor and the Sith's vision of Empire.
I find it strange that the very subset of the population who love such stories the most are more inclined than anybody to fall into the very paths those stories warn against.
You can still choose these days how and what you eat. It just takes attention and work. I moved out of a city to a small town in part to be able to get to know my food producers, but even in a city, you can find ways to eat clean.
I do eat meat. I tried vegetarianism for a while and began to waste away. My doctor told me my blood type wouldn't allow for it. No matter. I was only doing it because I lived in a vegetarian household for a while and wanted to see what it was like. In the end, I see the life of an animal the same way I see the life of a plant; Alive. Thus "Free Range and Killed with Respect," has been my personal solution. --That in this reality, to live is to enter into a contract whereby life feeds life and everything must die eventually, including us.
might offer an indication of how well an aging actor can fit an old formula.
Indy 4 might work. --If they write a story about a guy in his sixties dealing with the amazing. He'd be living in the Kennedy/Nixon era if Indy reflects Ford's age. The world had taken on a whole different energy by then and magical archaeology could be an interesting thing. Might even be UFO stuff. Though, I'd really like to see the crazy fist fights left behind. Old guys learn to be crafty and clever rather than brute-force types. It could be a really great film if done right.
I hope we don't get any Zionist/Christian propaganda. That's the last thing the world needs today, powder-keg that it is. It'll be interesting to see whose vision is represented better; Lucas' last films, despite their failings, carried a very smart, anti-government message. Spielberg. . , not so much. His late offerings have included things like, "Catch me if you Can," and "Terminal," which seemed to carry a message which told us, "The state is too powerful to fight. Better to follow the laws and take solace in whatever pathetic little victories you can muster." Hm.
If Lucas' comment about the new film being a "Character Piece", means what I hope it means, then it might not stink. I didn't like the last one very much; thought it was poorly written, and the whole Grail thing to be silly.
We'll have to wait and see. I wonder if the next Die Hard will offer any indications.
Absolutely. Unfortunately, many people live in an environment developed in the late middle ages known as a "city". Except for a few places in the US, there are few farmers, cows or other livestock in these "cities".
Cities are death traps in tough times for a reason. But you take your risks with the advantages. I prefer small towns with a large agricultural base and as few factory farms as possible. Knowing your farmer is definitely a good idea.
The Chinese had a few more people to deal with over the last millennium, and they seem to have figured out how to manage their resources and diet effectively.
People in the West haven't invested much thought or energy into sustainable resource management, and the result is Mad Cow and equally horrifying solutions. I can't even look at a McBurger these days. The smell all by itself is sickening after you've been eating clean for a while.
re-organized the ubiquitous "Food Pyramid" so that instead of putting grains and meats at the top, (small portions) and greens and fruit at the bottom, as was recommended by the panel of health scientists who were charged with coming up with the pyramid, so that instead the Pyramid was turned upside down in order to please the cattle and grain industry? You know, selling out the health of the American public for the almighty dollar?
And gee, look! We have lots and lots of fat people today with heart problems. Go figure. --Not that I'm suggesting that the Food Pyramid now playing on a school library wall near you is the cause of all those hamburgers, but it sure doesn't help, nor does it cast the FDA in a favorable light.
Anybody who trusts the FDA in any matter at all is asking to get sick. They serve big business, not the people. I don't know if a cloned chicken is going to kill me or not, and I don't care. I made the choice and went to the trouble to get to know personally the organic farmers who raise and care for the living things that I eat.
It's a contract with life you make when you are born. You will take life in order to live. Since that's the only viable option, other than death, it's important to treat the lives you are taking with love and respect.
So basically. . . you are talking about pretending as a way of life in order to manipulate people into serving you more and better. How charming. I find it interesting to note that this is the mode of behavior used by sociopaths and psychopaths, except they do it because they don't have any other way to function within the human race. They wear the, "mask of sanity".
As long as you're trolling. . , here's another freebie you might want to include in your dossier: If you deliberately disconnect yourself from the human race, you will not be connected when it comes time to share your thoughts as a writer. Being a writer means getting on the same wavelength as your audience and you cannot do this from the sociopath's perspective.
To say that in another way; If you want to be a writer, you will need to have decent communication skills. Your post was difficult to understand, and that's not because the ideas themselves are particularly complex. Humans are very good at connecting dis-connected ideas, but only when they are dis-connected in a way Humans are good at connecting; that is, some types of random taste better than others. You can only know which is which by going native.
Yes, there is an advantage to stepping outside the automatia of the average human head-space. Heck, everybody should strive to step beyond the automatic behavior they run around using 95% of the time. But to do this simply by becoming another type of machine is, in my opinion, A Bad Idea. Pretend to be something long enough and that's what you become. Be careful. Love is the key, not coldness.
Very Zen of you, son. However, drifting aimlessly through life is no healthier for projects than it is for people.
Who's drifting, pops? (Though, I suspect I'm probably your senior.)
You can make a project a success, but you needn't make it into a war zone to do so. Market share isn't the point, (especially with something which is not profit-motivated!) --The goal is to make something which satisfies real needs. It is important to invest healthy intent into a work.
Merry Christmas, btw! It just turned midnight. --And while it is a silly enough holiday, if you use the right intent, it can bring warmth and love into many lives. Cheers!
In the course of your life....has anyone ever told you to fucking grow up?
Yes, but they tend largely to be confused, unhappy, and uncomfortable in their own skins, so I think my way is preferable. For me, at any rate.
--There's nothing wrong with setting goals and achieving them, but the intent behind such work is very important.
Happy holidays, btw! It just turned midnight, and Christmas is here. --A silly holiday, but with the right intent and the right people, it can be made into a wonderful time. Best wishes to you and yours!
The journey is the important thing. If you follow the path with passion and genuine fascination, then the end goal will take care of itself. However, if you make the goal the goal, if you make winning your priority, then you might as well run a dark-side Windows box. You'll gain power fast, but it will corrupt you in the process.
Look at just one incident. Abu Ghrab (or however it's spelled). When this was published, the culprits had already been identified, removed from the prison and were facing charges. The fact that this information was published accomplished nothing as far as policy change goes because the policy change was already made.
It's "Abu Ghraib." And actually, you are incorrect in your dates. --While the first report on the Ghraib was report was created in January 2004, the subsequent re-opening of the investigation didn't happen until after the public learned of the crime. Arrests, charges and sentencing of the criminals, as well as policy changes, also didn't happen until after the public had learned the truth of the matter. Those interviewed in the subsequent investigations alleged that the military was trying to cover the incident up after the first report was made. It is pretty clear that while there were definitely some good people and good intentions in the intelligence structure, it took leaks (probably deliberate), and the resulting public pressure to make a difference.
All of this can be learned by reading through the Abu Ghraib reports, (which actually make it quite difficult to nail down the exact dates when the various reports happened, no doubt on purpose. Read, "Butt-Covering". Still, it can be pieced together.)
I agree that during times of legitimate war, there are certain things you don't want to have published in the media; troop movements, the names of spies, etc., but in this case, neither the war nor the example you picked out are appropriate in illustrating this.
Also, that being said, the NYT is a joke. The story had already gone public through other sources before they touched it; the controlers and military editors assigned to the NYT did their jobs, it seems.
I am just astonished this hasn't happened. I mean - couldn't our friend and champion of democracy George W. include this in his initiative against terrorism? He would probably have more luck tackling this problem then he is having in Iraq. What if he put that on his agenda - and set loose all his military might along with the help of some coalition of the willing? Perhaps he could salvage what's left of his image? Are you listening Mister Bush?
Hell, Shrub and the old Nixon crowd are just waiting for somebody like you to talk loud enough. You think they like people being able to use the web to network information and grow beyond their ignorance? --That's how the world learned of all those U.S. secret prison camps, (oh, sorry, wrong century), detention facilities dotted all over the globe. (More specifically, the secret flights which service them. Discovering that was an internet job. We wouldn't know about it today if that story hadn't been broken by the people for the people, without the media.)
Knowledge about the Diebold voting scandal was also entirely thanks to the internet. (The last election was won by the Democrats, buy there were still about 3,000,000 votes which went snafu, which only means that they won because the number of people pissed off by Bush was greater than the number of planned votes to be stolen. And that only happens when people are informed!
The U.S. admin would positively orgasm if they could find an excuse to impose massive controls over the internet!
Can you imagine trying to learn something real about the world if we went back to the bullshit paper and television media? Man, we'd be like a bunch of ignorant twits living in the Eighties all over again.
Whose direction are those spammers working under, exactly?
Slashdot Mirror
Ahhhh.... better.
Zealots: Please disprove.
Isn't it funny how, when you boil everything else away, the real fear people have is about maybe, possibly, having to take responsibility for something?
I think we need to learn from things and then get over it. There are bigger things to think about than whether or not we are personally to blame for dreaming the Star Trek dream. --We might instead ponder such things as getting flash frozen when the gulf stream quits out on us. (Though that almost sounds better than starving while all the crops rot in the cold, cold mud.)
-FL
Here's the thing.
Sometimes life requires you to change tunes. It will force changes from within and from without, and this is done so that you can embrace new lessons and new challenges. The more people cling to old, known and comfortable patterns, the harder the Universe kicks you to move; the more staying in one spot turns into an exercise in suffering.
To David: I know how hard this can be, and I offer you my respect and love, but I think you will find that you will be much happier when you settle your mind and focus on new challenges. The way is open and promising, opportunity doesn't just knock once at the door; it is pounding loud every day. So ask yourself; "What do I REALLY want to do? What idea excites me?"
Don't let ego or preconceptions about yourself get in the way. Even if your heart's desire is to become a grocery store clerk, people will support you and love you for your choice if it is truly what excites you. You can do ANYTHING. We all can.
Good luck! You wont need it.
-FL
No, because the article went on to illustrate deliberate intent to inject falsely represented data into the discussion. ie., To "Confuse" the issue. Thus it is easy enough to see that the claim was not so much emotional as it was simply accurate.
"Would a 'global warming controversy' exist..."
This phrase has no emotional content whatsoever. There is a controversy. It's subject is global warming. How is that problematic or leading? --Compare that to, "Whining".
-FL
I find it ironic when a conservative poster simply cannot restrain him/herself from using emotional terminology like, "Whine".
That is, anything which doesn't agree with the conservative ideology is automatically subjected to ridicule even at the basic level of word choice.
The only other subset of society which does this on a regular basis is that of the grade-school kid. The ironic part? --Where the poster tells the "Dirty" hippies to grow up.
-FL
I have always said that tech geeks are the lynch-pins and keyholders of perceived reality in this world. Engineers and scientists and smart people who have a vested interest in the use of critical thinking and analysis, are the ones who determine what we believe in as a culture, they determine our technology and therefore the very shape of our reality. As such, ENORMOUS amounts of mind-programming are aimed at the scientifically inclined. (They already have the religious bagged up for delivery.)
It starts in school, where the paradigm is set up to make sure that geeks are inhibited through social punishment. This makes them seek love from teachers and to define themselves by their accomplishments in knowledge. The problem with seeking approval from the gate keepers of knowledge, (teachers), is that teachers have state-implemented curriculums to teach, filled with lies and various bits of twisted and highly limiting 'knowledge'.
Thus, with the geek's sense of self-worth tied almost inextricably to the little gold stars they received for agreeing with authority, huge blind spots are hard-wired into their awareness from a young age. It is thus possible to direct the path, not just of technology, but of the science and research which are the underpinnings of our whole reality.
If you don't want people to be aware of the spirit or of energy or of UFO's or of our ancient history, (do you feel that jolt of internal revulsion which accompanies the reading of each of those terms? That's your programming talking.), then you implement a social engineering system to lock down the very people who could take that knowledge and study it properly according to the tenets of science. Because if you do not, the knowledge uncovered gives the power to become aware of our hidden oppressors and to resist them; not with cool laser guns, but with the simple awareness of higher realms of existence and the ability to choose our daily actions with knowledge and thus make decisions which benefit humanity and not those who farm humanity, sowing suffering. Because in the end, it's all about the soul, and they do not want you to even believe you have one, let alone realize that to work on strengthening it is the way to oppose them.
So Popular Mechanics is a logical choice for propaganda. Everybody else in our culture is far easier to lie to and lead into war and general stupidity. So they use a magazine which us geeks loved as kids, (who didn't want their own personal submarine or flying car or pocket computer?), to feed us the critical lies at the critical times.
Fortunately, the population isn't so dumb these days, but the imbeciles over at Popular Mechanics can be counted on to use the most retarded and easily refuted logic. Bad guys are selfish, they always take the route of least resistance, which means they don't push themselves to become smart enough to fool people who do push themselves to learn. Funny that.
-FL
Mocking implies copying behavior in order to ridicule. You are miles from copying my behavior. At no point have you answered a single question with anything even remotely resembling a rational answer, nor have you it seems, understood anything I have written by way of response to your statements.
UFO's are NOT flying saucers inhabited by creatures from another star system, dimension, beneath the sea, or our future.
Nothing you have said or offered suggests any reason to believe this statement. Indeed, everything you have offered by way of 'reason' I have responded to with proper arguments and examples. Since you have not managed, (or even tried), to answer even one of my arguments with a counter argument, I must assume that either you don't want to for some reason, or that my reasoning is superior and you have nothing to respond with except further, unrelated statements of equal silliness. Indeed, your latest attempt at argument is simply to say that just because something I have said sounds logical to you doesn't mean it is true. I would agree, but before you can use this to think that you have at all defended your points, you must also provide a substantial reason for why you think my logic is faulty. You have not done this. Not once.
Your increasingly long response are only further evidence that you have clung to a particular belief and like creationists look for evidence to support it, however tenuous it may be.
You were simply asking more interesting questions which required more work on my part to respond to. If I had known you only wanted to trade content-less banter, I would have complied. (Well, actually, I wouldn't have. I don't actually think your mind is the sort which is ready to accept this kind of information, but your points are worth de-constructing for the benefit of anybody else who may be reading. It also allows me the exercise of further exploring exactly why and how such arguments as yours are faulty. It is an opportunity for me to learn, and as I have stated already, I am primarily interested in both my own growth of awareness and in sharing any insights or data I may have with others, who I also welcome insights and data from. It doesn't actually matter to me, however, if you decide to walk away as ignorant as you started. That is your choice and I will certainly respect it.
You seem immune to critical thinking and rationality.
You wouldn't know this, because you have not offered a single example of critical thinking OR rational thought. You have offered insults, silly and easily refuted arguments, and highly resistant behavior consistent with somebody who has solidly chosen to hide in ignorance.
It is clear that you will continue to believe pseudoscience and nothing I can say will dissuade you. Hence the mocking.
Given that you have said nothing of substance whatsoever, I would have to agree, except, of course, for the word 'pseudoscience'. I would suggest that you are the one following poor science and poor critical thinking. Your posts are certainly evidence of your preference for that mode of thought. --And your crude personal attacks and attempts at ridicule are typical of the one who has nothing else to work with.
I wish you all the best. Goodbye now.
-FL
??? All I've done is point out that you said something which didn't make any sense. .
I answered your question, and you did nothing to contest my explanation other than to say that professional astronomers have never reported a UFO, which is both irrelevant and false.
And now you're telling me that I am "Calling the kettle black." All I have called you is "Rude", whereas I don't think I have been anything but civil in return. So that can't be what you mean. Perhaps you mean that I am suggesting you do better research before making false statements and that you think I should do the same. The only problem with this being that I've not made any false statements, (nor even anything which you have quoted and claimed as false), so again. . , what are you talking about?
I suggest you read what reasonable people like Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Richard Feynman, or the folks at The Skeptic have to say. Mustn't forget to include Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy take on UFO nuttiness.
I have.
Let's start with Carl Sagan.
His main issue is simply that of data collection and review procedure; he has no doubt that alien life exists, but he doesn't find the anecdotes available to be scientifically worthy. Fair enough, though I suspect he has not actually looked closely at all the available data. The U.S. military, for instance, has admitted to having had hundreds of multiple witness UFO encounters involving their aircraft and personnel, all of it documented and available for public viewing via the Freedom of Information Act. That's far better than just the civilian anecdotal evidence I believe he is referring to.
Also, his understanding of crop circles is painfully limited. He actually appears to believe that two pranksters have been able to produce hundreds of crop circles (in several countries) all by themselves. He ignores the fact that there are biological factors involved, including such noteworthy items as stems bursting at all the bend points from super-heated steam, as well as seeds from some circles being rendered magnetic, weird anomalies in the growth of seeds taken from inside circle formations as compared to control groups. Among other items, all of which would be impossible to produce with rope and boards.) I find it absolutely amazing that somebody of such a respected position and supposedly analytical mind can in one paragraph complain that "anybody can make up a story, so why should we believe it," and then only a few paragraphs later say that he believes the story provided by two guys in England who claim they are responsible for crop circles. Clearly, Carl Sagan is only human.
Issac Asimov. -The link you provided doesn't say anything more than he headed the AHA which opposed the idea of UFOs and Aliens. I don't know what his arguments were, but again I suspect that he was similarly using out-dated information and out-dated thinking.
All that Richard Feynman offers us is, "I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the result of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence rather than the unknown rational efforts of extraterrestrial intelligence."
This is little more than an opinion from a famous, very smart nuclear physicist, and also made rather a long time ago. We know a great deal more today. --So I'm afraid I need more than Richard Feynman's one-line opinion before I can stop thinking. Carl Sagan is also Famous and very smart, but he is clearly under-informed. In fact, I've met a LOT of very smart people who are also remarkably under
CRT screens also strobe, and it has been shown that watching television quickly lulls a viewer into a highly suggestible state where the brain activity drops very low, into something called an 'alpha state'. It even happens with a static image on the screen. When in a highly suggestible state, audio signals can reach the core of your mind and stick there. This is by design.
Why on earth would I want to install that kind of lighting all over my home? Yuck!
Why do they put that kind of lighting in malls, offices, schools and public buildings? Oh, because it's so much cheaper. Oh, okay. That's a very convenient reason. I'll stop thinking about it then. --Even though if I were planning to affect the minds of an entire population, I'd probably come up with a tactic exactly like that. . .
-FL
Are you saying that they give multi-million dollar fighter jets to people with bad eye-sight, low IQ's, poor judgment and no training whatsoever in spatial and visual recognition of airborne objects?
Police may not score as highly a fighter pilots, but they do fill out reports and are able to communicate encounters as they are happening, which makes their testimony in such cases far more useful than that of the average citizen. I'm not sure how much better you can hope to find, but to stop looking because perfect witnesses are unavailable is hardly rational.
Nevermind. You have obviously set the bar for sanity at an all-time new low. However, if you are interested, for a one time donation of $1000, I will sit and channel anything you feel like hearing!
One way to determine the level of reliability of a source is by looking at how much money is being asked for. While you can certainly buy paper-based copies of the material in question, the download is entirely free. Interestingly, it is also far more rational-sounding than you.
-FL
Well, I don't know about "little green men", but I do know you are mistaken about astronomers not reporting UFO's. I would suggest that you might do better research before making any more such bold and misleading statements, (like your previous comments regarding photography).
As for giving you proof. . . Why? You seem both rude and very resistant to thinking about these ideas. And in the end, what you believe at the close of the day is rather less important to others than you might wish. The people who are researching the UFO phenomenon are curious and do not search for your benefit, but to enlighten themselves and to enjoy the sharing of knowledge with other people who are interested. They have discovered that learning new things beyond their comfortable patterns is fun!
Those who wish to not seek are entirely free to do so, and their choice must be respected. Falsehoods, however, should be given what they call for; truth.
-FL
You stopped taking me seriously when you saw the link? That suggests to me that you were suffering from bias before you even clicked through to the page beyond it. Did you give the page more than a few seconds-long skim? It took me about half an hour to read and absorb the introductory notes on that page; they were written by a physicist with a solid CV and twenty years worth of time employed at respected institutions, which is partly why I thought it might be appropriate for Slashdot. He took the time to give critical analysis to a subject usually ignored. Isn't that what people want with regard to such subjects? To expose them to the rigors of scientific analysis and see what comes up?
I would advise that taking the time to lower walls of bias and to properly read a page is the best way to find the coherency, consistency and facts you say were missing in this case.
-FL
Flying saucer proponents don't get any more opportunities than regular people caught unawares to see a UFO. As such, it is regular people who are the ones taking the pictures, usually with little to no warning before hand.
But set that aside for a moment.
Please pick an airline, then pick a regular flight which travels over your house. Then pick a bright, clear day and stand outside with your camera and try photographing an airplane. I can tell you right now that it'll look small and fuzzy and that you could have easily Photoshopped it into the frame.
And yet despite this reality of photography, there have been some quite good shots of UFO's. More than once, professional television crews have even chanced to get some good footage. The best footage, however, comes from military gun cameras mounted to aircraft which actually have a chance to get close enough to get better pictures. We know this, because documents made available by the FOIA talk about images which were taken. Of course, the public is not allowed to see such images.
As camera technology becomes better, with higher resolutions and vibration-compensators, etc., I imagine the photographs will get better as well. But if you don't want to believe, then it doesn't matter what evidence is presented no matter how high a grade it happens to be.
-FL
You can read the whole of his essay, (in two parts).
The quote from above comes from the second part. The first part is, what I thought, a fascinating historical review of how the world works with regard to secrets.
Or you can read his book. It comes highly recommended. --This is not your average "Woo woo, Leonard Nimoy looks at UFO's!" book. It only looks at cases reported by multiple airforce/military/police witnesses, (due to their typically being selected for being sane and sound individuals as well as the procedural documentation recorded in each case as a requirement of their jobs). Even though civilian accounts are left out, the book still manages to cover a couple hundred cases from the 40's to the 70's. It also deals in depth with the military and political side of the issue, and easily refutes many of the common misnomers about UFO's, (of which several are represented on this site).
He doesn't, however, get into what UFO's are here to do. That's a whole other can of worms.
Here is some channeled work which attempts to shed light on that subject, among others. (Beware, with a group like the one this particular material comes from, a lot of creepy people also come out of the woodwork to spread fear and confusion and lies, etc., in order to stop people from looking. So take everything, including this, with a grain of salt. This is the kind of material and subject matter which makes people want to play a lot of video games and shut out eve
Try googling around a bit. The info is all out there. Start with "Deforestation" and work your way forward. "Double-Size Me" is also worth a look.
-FL
Here's a question. . ,
Why not instead of this Frankenstein Science, just stop feeding garbage to animals, raise them kindly, and kill them with respect? This would solve the prion problem. And the super-bug problem. And the hormone laced milk problem. Among others.
After all, the lives of these animals are being taken so that we can live. Surely they deserve a bit of love. --Also, nobody needs to eat the amount of meat many people do. If our diets were regulated correctly, and if we treated our livestock with affection rather than using them with such coldness, life would be better for a whole lot of creatures as well as humanity. It is true; everything must take life in order to live, and we all must die. Why not try to infuse the process with compassion?
Of course, if you believe in a digital universe where souls do not exist, then what reason does anybody have to respect life and not adopt the behavior patterns of the psychopath?
Welcome to Mordor and the Sith's vision of Empire.
I find it strange that the very subset of the population who love such stories the most are more inclined than anybody to fall into the very paths those stories warn against.
-FL
I do eat meat. I tried vegetarianism for a while and began to waste away. My doctor told me my blood type wouldn't allow for it. No matter. I was only doing it because I lived in a vegetarian household for a while and wanted to see what it was like. In the end, I see the life of an animal the same way I see the life of a plant; Alive. Thus "Free Range and Killed with Respect," has been my personal solution. --That in this reality, to live is to enter into a contract whereby life feeds life and everything must die eventually, including us.
-FL
Indy 4 might work. --If they write a story about a guy in his sixties dealing with the amazing. He'd be living in the Kennedy/Nixon era if Indy reflects Ford's age. The world had taken on a whole different energy by then and magical archaeology could be an interesting thing. Might even be UFO stuff. Though, I'd really like to see the crazy fist fights left behind. Old guys learn to be crafty and clever rather than brute-force types. It could be a really great film if done right.
I hope we don't get any Zionist/Christian propaganda. That's the last thing the world needs today, powder-keg that it is. It'll be interesting to see whose vision is represented better; Lucas' last films, despite their failings, carried a very smart, anti-government message. Spielberg. . , not so much. His late offerings have included things like, "Catch me if you Can," and "Terminal," which seemed to carry a message which told us, "The state is too powerful to fight. Better to follow the laws and take solace in whatever pathetic little victories you can muster." Hm.
If Lucas' comment about the new film being a "Character Piece", means what I hope it means, then it might not stink. I didn't like the last one very much; thought it was poorly written, and the whole Grail thing to be silly.
We'll have to wait and see. I wonder if the next Die Hard will offer any indications.
-FL
Cities are death traps in tough times for a reason. But you take your risks with the advantages. I prefer small towns with a large agricultural base and as few factory farms as possible. Knowing your farmer is definitely a good idea.
The Chinese had a few more people to deal with over the last millennium, and they seem to have figured out how to manage their resources and diet effectively.
People in the West haven't invested much thought or energy into sustainable resource management, and the result is Mad Cow and equally horrifying solutions. I can't even look at a McBurger these days. The smell all by itself is sickening after you've been eating clean for a while.
-FL
And gee, look! We have lots and lots of fat people today with heart problems. Go figure. --Not that I'm suggesting that the Food Pyramid now playing on a school library wall near you is the cause of all those hamburgers, but it sure doesn't help, nor does it cast the FDA in a favorable light.
Anybody who trusts the FDA in any matter at all is asking to get sick. They serve big business, not the people. I don't know if a cloned chicken is going to kill me or not, and I don't care. I made the choice and went to the trouble to get to know personally the organic farmers who raise and care for the living things that I eat.
It's a contract with life you make when you are born. You will take life in order to live. Since that's the only viable option, other than death, it's important to treat the lives you are taking with love and respect.
-FL
As long as you're trolling. . , here's another freebie you might want to include in your dossier: If you deliberately disconnect yourself from the human race, you will not be connected when it comes time to share your thoughts as a writer. Being a writer means getting on the same wavelength as your audience and you cannot do this from the sociopath's perspective.
To say that in another way; If you want to be a writer, you will need to have decent communication skills. Your post was difficult to understand, and that's not because the ideas themselves are particularly complex. Humans are very good at connecting dis-connected ideas, but only when they are dis-connected in a way Humans are good at connecting; that is, some types of random taste better than others. You can only know which is which by going native.
Yes, there is an advantage to stepping outside the automatia of the average human head-space. Heck, everybody should strive to step beyond the automatic behavior they run around using 95% of the time. But to do this simply by becoming another type of machine is, in my opinion, A Bad Idea. Pretend to be something long enough and that's what you become. Be careful. Love is the key, not coldness.
-FL
Who's drifting, pops? (Though, I suspect I'm probably your senior.)
You can make a project a success, but you needn't make it into a war zone to do so. Market share isn't the point, (especially with something which is not profit-motivated!) --The goal is to make something which satisfies real needs. It is important to invest healthy intent into a work.
Merry Christmas, btw! It just turned midnight. --And while it is a silly enough holiday, if you use the right intent, it can bring warmth and love into many lives. Cheers!
-FL
Yes, but they tend largely to be confused, unhappy, and uncomfortable in their own skins, so I think my way is preferable. For me, at any rate.
--There's nothing wrong with setting goals and achieving them, but the intent behind such work is very important.
Happy holidays, btw! It just turned midnight, and Christmas is here. --A silly holiday, but with the right intent and the right people, it can be made into a wonderful time. Best wishes to you and yours!
-FL
Some people just don't get it, do they?
The journey is the important thing. If you follow the path with passion and genuine fascination, then the end goal will take care of itself. However, if you make the goal the goal, if you make winning your priority, then you might as well run a dark-side Windows box. You'll gain power fast, but it will corrupt you in the process.
-FL
It's "Abu Ghraib." And actually, you are incorrect in your dates. --While the first report on the Ghraib was report was created in January 2004, the subsequent re-opening of the investigation didn't happen until after the public learned of the crime. Arrests, charges and sentencing of the criminals, as well as policy changes, also didn't happen until after the public had learned the truth of the matter. Those interviewed in the subsequent investigations alleged that the military was trying to cover the incident up after the first report was made. It is pretty clear that while there were definitely some good people and good intentions in the intelligence structure, it took leaks (probably deliberate), and the resulting public pressure to make a difference.
All of this can be learned by reading through the Abu Ghraib reports, (which actually make it quite difficult to nail down the exact dates when the various reports happened, no doubt on purpose. Read, "Butt-Covering". Still, it can be pieced together.)
I agree that during times of legitimate war, there are certain things you don't want to have published in the media; troop movements, the names of spies, etc., but in this case, neither the war nor the example you picked out are appropriate in illustrating this.
Also, that being said, the NYT is a joke. The story had already gone public through other sources before they touched it; the controlers and military editors assigned to the NYT did their jobs, it seems.
-FL
Hell, Shrub and the old Nixon crowd are just waiting for somebody like you to talk loud enough. You think they like people being able to use the web to network information and grow beyond their ignorance? --That's how the world learned of all those U.S. secret prison camps, (oh, sorry, wrong century), detention facilities dotted all over the globe. (More specifically, the secret flights which service them. Discovering that was an internet job. We wouldn't know about it today if that story hadn't been broken by the people for the people, without the media.)
Knowledge about the Diebold voting scandal was also entirely thanks to the internet. (The last election was won by the Democrats, buy there were still about 3,000,000 votes which went snafu, which only means that they won because the number of people pissed off by Bush was greater than the number of planned votes to be stolen. And that only happens when people are informed!
The U.S. admin would positively orgasm if they could find an excuse to impose massive controls over the internet!
Can you imagine trying to learn something real about the world if we went back to the bullshit paper and television media? Man, we'd be like a bunch of ignorant twits living in the Eighties all over again.
Whose direction are those spammers working under, exactly?
-FL