December 29, 2011

By their works shall ye know them… [Part 4]


This is the fourth and final part of James Carlson’s epic exploration into the many and varied ramifications of the F.E. Warren AFB hoax and Ufology in general. A little later than promised, we are sure you will agree it was worth the wait!


 

Disclosure imageThe fascinating point that needs to be recognized here is not the fact that Robert Hastings and his like-minded fellow conspirators have concluded that their goals cannot be reliably established as an unrealized yet historical presence, an all-encompassing worldview, without the use of dishonest and false and abrasive, socially regressive tools developed for that singular purpose.  It is the fact that they are very clearly and insistently using as their starting point the assumption of full disclosure as already accomplished history – a history that the USAF, the Department of Defense, and the government of the United States very effectively dismissed and buried in 1969.  Taking into consideration the fact that the character of their mission is essentially one of westernized religious impulse, it becomes very clear that their goals necessitate the redefinition of Washington, DC as the New Rome, with the Pentagon representing the Colosseum, the Amphitheatrum Flavium, an inaugural symbol of Christian martyrdom, and the celebrated birthplace of Christianity’s own eventually triumphant worldview.  Not even this aspect of the foundations of belief that are being forged upon the emotive consciousness of a social psyche being manipulated by the strategic planting of lies is a very original concept, however.  Washington, DC as the New Rome is a powerful theme stressed within the same complex dynamics of social engineering in the numerous works of science fiction author Philip K. Dick.  The ascension of religious symbology and its subsequent influence on human belief is a common tool with historical relevance for those desiring to harness the commitment and energy of aggressive faith in order to make real their own desires.  More importantly, if the effects of religious impulse have taught the world anything, it is that idealists are most dangerous to those around them when they make the decision to forsake morality in order to ensure that their vision of history is the only one addressed to future generations.  In direct contrast to Hastings and his professional cohorts, most men of ethics simply find it abhorrent to withhold sufficient information to reach valid conclusions, and then tell you what you should believe and demand of others on the basis of that purposely instituted ignorance.  At its most primal level, it is this compulsion to control the opinions and motivations of others that drives men like Robert Hastings to assert such malignant hostility in pursuit of their own goals.

Paranoia imageThe true nature of their compulsion is obvious:  Hastings and his paranoid interests are trying to ignite a common, fearful demand for full disclosure; they have consciously elected to fill the minds of as many individuals as possible with fear and paranoia in regard to the unknown.  They are doing this for political reasons, having convinced themselves that full disclosure is an absolute necessity.  It is not.  It is merely an arbitrary goal born of religious impulse with the same type of emotive conviction behind it.  Although their faith that the results of this disclosure will make clear and establish for all time the existence of extraterrestrial interference on this planet we inhabit may be a conviction they refuse to discard, it is nonetheless misplaced.  It has failed to justify the single and restless burst of anger that followed the United States Air Force’s very general dismissal of UFO claims in 1969, just as it has failed to justify their self-serving belief that full disclosure will eventually negate all of their exhibited impotence and their inability to make concrete the willful, blanketed collusion of that belief and their faith.  They cannot establish the fruits of their claims by their own efforts and have convinced themselves that this failure is the fault of others; they are not to blame for their weaknesses, because the USAF and the Department of Defense have effectively hidden the truth from them, establishing thereby an occultic authority.  It isn’t even relevant that their failures are the result of their own acts and their inability to establish anything more substantial than rumor and innuendo and consistent failure to realize any genuine goals.  When examined from an objective point of view, they have nothing in the absence of conviction, and it is for that reason alone that they rely on subjective viewpoints based entirely on conviction, and nothing else.

The only other socially relevant human experience that can be described in this way is our very human reliance on religious impulse.  The aggressive instincts commonly raised by these issues are due to the mistaken yet resolute conviction that this is a discussion best suited for scientific assessment.  It is not.  There is no scientific assessment capable of resolving this issue for the same reason that there is no scientific assessment capable of resolving the issues raised in regard to beliefs establishing life after death or how best to approach the concept of immortality in a finite universe.  These UFO true believers have created from nothing an issue that relies almost entirely on antiauthoritarian developments and expressions raised throughout the 1960s and early 1970s and washed in the explosive anger, selfishness, and fiscal irresponsibility of the 1980s and 1990s.  It is a social movement that they have failed completely to validate or otherwise objectify for the rest of the world, and they are now reacting in the only way possible that will still enable them to believe in some measure of personal, scientific accomplishment.

They demand of the world validation of their assessments, their faith, their belief, and the importance of their struggle.  Their intent is to achieve this goal by forcing the government of the United States to cow before mass insistence and public pressure, thereby admitting that Hynek, Ruppelt, Fowler, McDonald, Tombaugh, Keyhoe, Vallée, Gene-freaking Roddenberry and, by association, Robert Salas and Robert Hastings, were all fully justified in their painstaking concern and oft expressed desire for the release of classified, documented proof of their commitment, whether that proof exists or not.  They have retired to a position that leaves only one option:  convince the world or accept the grievous judgment inherent to all wasted efforts.  To avoid the latter infliction, the willingness to invent what cannot be reasonably established by more honest means has become for them the only way to validate their faith.  The scope of their inflexibility as measured in their “group-think” response to recent pronouncements by the White House that “The U.S. government has no evidence that any life exists outside our planet, or that an extraterrestrial presence has contacted or engaged any member of the human race,” fundamentally represents a wholesale rejection of any explanation whatsoever excepting the one they have promoted for decades, an explanation that essentially allows them to announce in full confidence, “See?  I told you so…” (see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45176460/ns/technology_and_science-space for further details regarding the White House’s pronouncements).

Office of Science and Technology Policy

More significantly, at least in regard to the paranoid assertions of Robert Hastings, Robert Salas and that whole little coterie of conspirators they associate with, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy insisted as well that “there is no credible information to suggest that any evidence is being hidden from the public’s eye.”  It is their sullen and dismissive reaction to this particular assertion that shows best their conscious attempts to lay waste the numerous contributions at every level of American society that members of the military have selflessly exhibited, in the hopes, one supposes, of deflating with their anabolic corruption the open contempt the great majority of these veterans have for such self-centered interests as those Hastings and his ilk currently espouse.

Unfortunately, given that various polls conducted within the past few years seem to indicate that upwards of 50 percent of the United States population nonetheless believe that the government is covering up information regarding UFOs, the conclusion that there has been some notable success regarding what is essentially a public relations program in search of political clout, influence, and public confidence is a little difficult to dismiss.  The fact that there is no threat is simply not relevant to their cause.  It is, however, relevant to the nation.  After all, if there is no threat, only belief in the threat, which is essentially the end result of this group’s reliance on conspiratorial and dishonest connivance, the result will always be the same:  to some degree, their machinations will engender doubt in elected leaders, doubt in their ability to govern, doubt in the nation’s military leadership and abilities to conduct itself honorably, doubt in the assigned caretakers of our nuclear arsenal and facilities, doubt in the nation’s ability to defend itself from both open insurrection and open contempt for the sovereignty of our nation, doubt in the desire the government has for open and national conversations with the citizens it represents involving all of the above in recognition of the due contract a government naturally and necessarily binds itself to with the nation’s citizenry in accordance with beliefs held and honored since its original conception, and doubt in the very process of democracy by highlighting its inability to resolve such “important” issues.  These self-serving ideologues will and have encouraged the growth of unjustified fear and paranoia and all of the happy little singularities that follow such impulses around like a brothel follows an army on the move.  Nothing about the ultimate effect of their aggression is good; it produces dissatisfaction, an overwhelming sense of failure, and an ultimate reliance on self-justified anarchy and crime, all resulting from dishonest attempts to secure national policy goals, victimizing associated security issues while justifying the necessity to make a target of military administration and protocol, and very obviously and obscenely using the internet as a tool for emotional terrorism.  Frankly, it’s sickening to see the process in action.

While it’s difficult to deny the ultimate chaos and social divisions establishing the destructive character of the strategies these men and women have adopted, they are nonetheless not alone; there are enough of them actively at work, communicating with each other, publishing at the same venues, and actively conspiring to provide support both moral and overt, to establish, at the very least, the primary differences between them.  Their specific contributions to this destructive cause, for instance, tend to separate them into two detached classes united by similar goals and the desire to create change within the structures of group dynamics and social conditioning:  witnesses and chroniclers, or collectors, one group to provide the flame and one group to fan it.

For the most part, the proposed “witnesses” and “chroniclers, or collectors” who are affiliated with this loosely organized cabal share some common characteristics:

1.         They change their stories significantly over time; the incidents they’ve elected to describe tend to evolve through the years.

Those individuals who honestly attempt to describe actual events that they have witnessed will only rarely change the basic facts and the character behind their claims; the members of this coalition of claimants, however, do so consistently.  This is true even for those individuals who have submitted affidavits attesting to the “honest” character of their affirmations.  They merely submit new affidavits when the changes they’ve made demand it.  For the most part, these changes are necessitated by the valid criticism of the events they’ve described.  When it becomes impossible to continue telling the same ridiculous little folktale as a result of critical assessments that prove robust elements they’ve depicted as integral to their claims could not possibly have occurred as they were described, they merely change the description.

Consider the questioning of a suspect for burglary:  the offender insists loudly and repeatedly that he did not burglarize the residence in question, because he was at home watching “C.S.I.” at the same time the crime allegedly took place.  He couldn’t possibly have committed the offense in question.  Every attempt to accuse the suspect of burglary is met with the same refrain:  “I was at home watching ‘C.S.I.’  I remember it very well, because it was the first episode in which Laurence Fishburne appeared – great show, great episode!”

After hours of these withering yet senseless claims that fail utterly to provide the alibi or some form of confirmation that the suspect desperately needs, the questioning officer presents to the suspect a copy of T.V. Guide for the week in question:  “‘C.S.I.’ wasn’t even aired on the date of the burglary; you’re clearly lying, and you’re doing so with the same absence of shame any child would have.  Do you have an alibi for the night in question or not?”

“Did I say ‘C.S.I.’?  I meant to say an old rerun of ‘Green Acres’ on Nickelodeon.  I remember it well, because it was the episode in which Arnold the Piggy ran away from home – great show, great episode!  Sorry about that, I get the two shows mixed up all the time…”

“They’re not even remotely similar!  How is it possible to get them mixed up?”

“Did I say the two shows?  I meant the characters, the actors – I got them mixed up.”

“Laurence Fishburne and Arnold the Piggy?  You got them mixed up?”

“Yeah…”  And still, the suspect presents nothing that smells like proof.  He just tells more stories, changing them repeatedly until people stop asking silly questions, like “are you sure you’re telling the truth and not just making this up as you go along?”

2.         In order to convince those skeptical of their claims that they are indeed telling the truth, they pepper their claims with dramatic effects intended to evince the deeply personal aspect of their claims, as if their tales represent a psychological and evaluative, yet remarkably inconsistent, revelation.

For instance, they might insist that upon first confronting this new revelation that they were skeptical, but were nonetheless forced to accept the truth of what they were witnessing due to the transformative and unique qualities inherent to the incident.  The reality of the event has nothing to do with the “witness”; it is as separate from him as it is from any possible interpretation that he (or anyone critical of his claims) might otherwise adopt.  His impressions are irrelevant, just as the impressions of anyone critical of his claims are irrelevant.  An actual witness to any event, however, does not separate his impressions of the incident from the incident itself, and that “deeply personal aspect of their claims” does not change every time the witness is forced to reconsider those claims.  For instance, a witness does not insist that a revelatory event he failed to discuss for thirty years, because he “just never gave it much thought” until one day, he did, must now be discussed ad infinitum as an important element of national policy because the effects of that incident, not only on him, but on those around him as well, was so striking and difficult for him to get past thirty years ago when it originally occurred.  The inconsistent focus of his impressions, as much as the inconsistent content of his claims, indicates the falsity he’s trying to hide every single time he smiles at the audience and raises the issue one more time:  “If you want to truly understand the deceit that our government engages in, the damage it causes to its own citizenry, and the explosive revelations that it refuses to openly affirm, you have to buy my book.”

3.         Only very rarely are the most explosive revelations of testimony based on personal observation.

For the most part, these individuals discuss only second-hand testimony and poorly-defined rumors to establish their claims, none of which can be definitively associated with the primary element of this testimony:  UFO interference with nuclear weapons and facilities.  In many cases, they aren’t even familiar enough with the arguments they’ve chosen to discuss to simply present in a public way the incidents selected in a neutral, non-judgmental and fact-based manner.  It’s apparently the absolute and primary character of this charade to never make oneself the legal originator of the most ridiculous elements involved, especially if someone with less intelligence and self-respect is willing to do so.  It’s almost as if they were concerned that there might be legal constrictions involved, although even the most cursory examination of their claims almost instantly reveals that legal complaints would be a waste of time to even file.  Not that it matters, of course.  The targets of their false claims have very clearly disclosed an inclination to believe, so I hardly think legal measures will ever be examined, let alone pursued.  In any case, it’s just as profitable for them to say, “Well, it was this other guy who told me, and he was being completely honest, and I trust him implicitly, but for the life of me, I just can’t remember his name.  Maybe someday, with a little luck and some spare testosterone, that guy will grow some cojones like mine, and come forward…”

4.         When documented evidence is presented, it’s either poorly understood by those attempting to use it as a resource, or it’s incomplete.

 This aspect of their conspiracy to deceive is particularly problematic.  If the evidence presented is poorly understood, as is often the case when military documentation is involved, the conclusions reached are far more likely to be unsupportable.  Not everybody understands classified materials protocol or military procedures, however, so this is an understandable error that doesn’t necessarily reflect poorly on the education, the applicable knowledge, or the morality of those attempting to interpret the evidence for the public.  On the other hand, there are many “witnesses” and “chroniclers, or collectors” who present interpretations that are so egregiously wrong that the only conclusion to be reached insists that these individuals were merely creating a reason from nothing, allowing them to dismiss with prejudice skeptical issues or accounts, whether they could be properly justified or not, or are forcing their interpretation to encompass the possibility of UFO interference where it plainly does not belong, both of which are most definitely moral issues.

This same dichotomy applies if the documented accounts are incomplete.  If this is due to the failure to reveal in full the remainder of such accounts as a result of poor research or the incomplete declassification of the documents being used, no blame can be attached.  On the other hand, if documented evidence has been recovered, and those presenting such evidence purposely neglected to examine it, whether it detracts from the conclusions they are most eager to establish or not, a moral issue is once again raised.  Men like Robert Hastings, Robert Salas, and many of their like-minded co-conspirators tend to embrace the lie; we are well aware of the documents they’ve examined, and what pages of those documents they’ve used to press their case, and what pages they’ve chosen not to present.  When the pages they’ve chosen not to present are heavily indicative of the falsity of their claims, there’s a big problem with the case they’ve presented, and once again, it raises the issue of personal responsibility and morality.  They’re pushing the lie, fully conscious that the position they’ve adopted is a lie.  It doesn’t get much more unquestionably moral an issue than that.

5.         They prefer to lecture, exhibiting a general reluctance to answer in-depth questions, to debate, or to properly defend their own claims.

This gives such individuals reason to ignore opposing arguments refuting the evidence they’ve discussed.  Lectures without questions are merely one-way conversations defined entirely by those presenting them.  In many cases, these individuals refuse to even acknowledge opposing arguments or criticism of this nature, a manipulative strategy that puts them in complete control of the message while protecting their audience from exposure to competing accounts and explanations.

6.         The primary strategy adopted by these people for answering the assertions of those critical of their conclusions and the cases they’ve tried to establish is to attack the credibility or the intent of anyone disputing their claims, while stepping away from the issues raised and the facts established.

This type of defensive response gives them the opportunity to establish claims and discuss them in whatever detail they decide without being forced to counter opposing yet effective arguments.  Once again, the conversation is one-way, thereby establishing complete control of the message while attempting to damage opposing claims and those making them.

7.         Their reliance on complete objectivity is assumed but never asserted, thereby allowing persuasive influence based on emotional factors to take the place of well-reasoned arguments that are, at times, never even presented.

These faith-mongers regularly contend that their conclusions are consistent with logical assessment, but they fail to establish this in any acceptable, objective way, offering instead emotional arguments intended to sustain political self-righteousness at the cost of true impartiality.  This is an attempt to gain emotional support for aspirations separate and oftentimes only loosely related to their initial assertions.  The expression of their claims will always be secondary to greater goals, an implication that their personal assertions are ultimately irrelevant, while the higher goals and the need to finalize them successfully are predominant.  The story isn’t the issue, because ultimately their higher purpose must be established through persuasion.  Objectivity will never be enough to realize that intent, so it isn’t the primary means to effect the success desired.  What they say and what they do cannot be reconciled.

8.         They very loudly insist that public trust in their integrity is well deserved, because they are merely presenting the basic facts and validated, truthful claims inherent to their cause; meanwhile, they pick and choose what “facts” need interpretation and what that interpretation should consist of – all at the high cost of ignoring most of the “facts” actually available to them.

They outwardly insist that no sensible arguments can possibly be promoted by those who are critical of their claims, because their own assertions represent mere facts, and there is nothing left to discuss when only facts are presented.  The classic example of this type of hypocrisy and burying of the issue by dismissing without cause 95-percent of the opposing argument is author Jim Marrs’ contention that “The controversy over the existence of UFOs is over. … UFOs are real.”  Unfortunately, they neglect to actually examine these “facts” they’ve presented, and they refuse to apply any relevant discussion that might mistakenly distort the audience’s interpretation – as defined by them alone – of those “facts”.

Flying SaucersFor instance, they might assert that, according to one particular witness, thirty people “saw” the UFO in question, neglecting to mention that only two people thought it represented anything at all out of the ordinary, and only one of those referred to it as a “UFO”.  Elements that only they insist are worthy of interpretation are thereby presented, while numerous counter-arguments are effectively ignored, essentially addressing the issues from a sole point of view that dismisses entirely the evidence disputing that point of view.  This is generally how the planet Venus at times magically turns into a flying saucer.  Using the same example as above, we can see that the effect is one that is essentially deceitful:  “Bob told me that thirty people saw the UFO at the very same time he saw it.  He personally told me, and I quote, ‘it was a flying saucer, and we all saw it.'”  This would ensure that their audience would absorb the “fact” that thirty witnesses saw the UFO, but would never learn that that only two of them thought it represented anything out of the ordinary, while only one of those would later actually call it a “UFO”.  This is a normal practice for the individual members of the little UFO-oriented coalition under discussion – a group typified by their adoption of all of the above qualities and ill-reasoned strategies.

The primary result of the adoption of the above qualities by those desiring to stake their claims in public in association with Robert Hastings and the cabal currently under examination that he has staked his reputation on is an oppressive one:  anyone critical of the claims being established for any case being argued by these people is forced to reinvestigate that case in its entirety, including reinterviewing all of the witnesses, reestablishing any requests for FOIA documentation, reinterpreting those documents, and then researching once again all of the issues that these individuals have merely dictated without application of the appropriate background discussions establishing their importance.  Not many people have the patience or the desire to surround themselves with such a high level of ultimately trivial matters, arguments and individuals, but it is necessary for those wanting to address this primary issue of dishonesty and profiteering that these men and women apply so liberally to the UFOlogical field of study.

In the weeks ahead, I intend to discuss and focus on the other members of this loose coalition of UFOlogists, analyzing the extent of their reliance on the above traits and qualities, while detailing in the process exactly why their claims cannot be accepted as “facts”, and why they should not be trusted in regard to these issues.  Until then, those who believe that UFOs were sighted in conjunction with the missile failures at F.E. Warren AFB as proposed by Robert Hastings would be serving both themselves and their cause well if they simply examined such claims on the basis of credibility, rejecting anonymous sources that have little or nothing to recommend them.  UFOlogy-based investigations should not begin and end on Robert Hastings’ use of absolutely nothing to plant paranoia and fear in the hopes of eventually harvesting full disclosure.  A good rule of thumb would apply here:  if you’ve found reason to question his honesty in relation to past claims, than it would behoove you to question his honesty in relation to future claims.  It doesn’t get much simpler than that.

Those who fail to see how Hastings and his like-minded co-conspirators are destroying any viable reasons to examine UFO phenomena will eventually measure the cost of it in wasted time and personal disgust, so good luck with that.  I for one can’t see how UFOlogy will ever be accorded anything beyond disrespect, disgust, and dismissal as a result of the very recklessness exhibited by Robert Hastings and his paranoid interests.

Maybe you can do better…







6 Comments

  1. avatar

    http://devoid.blogs.heraldtribune.com/12660/standing-up-to-the-past/

    Comment by Jack Sarfatti — December 30, 2011 @ 3:48 am

  2. avatar

    Minot 1968 is just more of the same. It’s pretty sad that DeVoid has to hearken back to 1968 in an article that begins “As we close out another year and hope for the best in 2012 …” Those guys are always looking backwards, because they lack the ability to establish anything definitive today. Have you heard about NASA’s invite to amateur astrologers in regard to searching the evidence related to the moon for possible indicators of alien life? Why did that proposal have to come from NASA? Why hasn’t anybody set up a simple cam network to search for evidence of UFOs? People with belief and very little else inevitably lack the will to examine their beliefs. Nobody wants to see God brought down to the level of petty philosophy and tawdry little dreams …

    Comment by James Carlson — December 30, 2011 @ 11:08 am

  3. avatar

    Minot 1968 was analyzed by Blue Book. Statements were taken by all who reportedly saw something. As far as I know, no careers were ruined because of this. In short, Minot’s 1968 sightings are/were well known by the public and the USAF. BTW, my sources that are very familiar with Minot’s history were not even aware that UFO’s were sighted around Minot…these individuals were assigned to Minot’s missile wing from 1970-1974. Only two years after the “event” and its memory was already flushed down the memory hole…go figure…supports my crew cognitive theory?

    Tim

    Comment by Tim Hebert — December 30, 2011 @ 6:42 pm

  4. avatar

    I think it certainly should be reevaluated, and your discussion at http://timhebert.blogspot.com/2011/12/interpersonal-transfer-of-experiences.html is most definitely an applicable resource for doing so. Your new essay in regard to the A-05 haunting kind of forces us to wonder why there’s such longevity with some accounts, and a sort of prominent dismissal with others. Personally, I think embarrassment might have something to do with it. People tend not to repeat stories that they know have nothing but emptiness behind them. Those stories that morph into legends with some staying power and long life are ultimately tales that have an essence of plausibility about them. That tends to come about, as I see it, when the originators of the stories generated communicate such tales with conviction. Conviction is a little hard to produce when the author is aware of the great “miscalcualtion” that he’s initiating or pressing forward. The result of this type of “birth”, I expect, would be exactly what we see here with Minot ’68: the story is carried forth by secondary sources such as Hyneck, et al, and pretty much forgotten by most of those in a position to know the falsity of the claims. No conviction with the actual originator, and no story in the originator’s environment — only in the environment of the secondary sources who took an unlikely story and ran with it towards nothing.

    Comment by James Carlson — December 30, 2011 @ 7:32 pm

  5. avatar

    Another interesting fact about Minot 1968, the initial reports from the missile wing filtered into the Wing Command Post. This would have been a “combined” command post supporting both missile and bomb wing (Similar to my experience at Grand Forks AFB). I have a working theory that most of the initial “sketchy” reports/facts were due to a bomb wing command post controller writing the initial reports that would have been up channeled eventually reaching the Blue Book team. Minot apparently did not have a UFO officer on site as did Malmstrom. This would support Fowler’s CUFON/NICAP write up with very suspect observations from those individuals who were out in the field, ie, poor missile terminology and protocols, not to mention unfamiliarity with an LF site security arrangement back in the late 1960s.

    Tim

    Comment by Tim Hebert — December 30, 2011 @ 9:05 pm

  6. avatar

    The assertion attacked by Robert Hastings (James Carlson Gets It Wrong Again: Reuters Was NOT Paid to Publicize Robert Hastings’ Investigation of UFO Activity at F.E. Warren AFB in October 2010) in response to my work holds true. Robert Hastings paid to have his article distributed, just as we established in the forum at RU, days before he published his meaningless and incorrect assessment, here: http://www.realityuncovered.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=37341#p37341

    “Absolutely, yes — that’s exactly what he did; he didn’t pay Reuters outright, however, just as Steve and Ryan have indicated. The distribution that included Reuters Newswire as the primary release manager, was handled by PR Newswire, United Business Media, which has been established on Hastings’ article (see Steve’s commentary above: http://www.prnewswire.com/).”

    So, how did I “get it wrong again”?

    Answer: I didn’t – again!

    (Thanks to Stephen Broadbent for the original comments in response to Hastings’ inability to assess meaning within the english language, a failure that applies as well to his interview with Col. Meiwald, in which Meiwald insists that he knows nothing about a UFO at Oscar Flight — a denial that Hastings characterizes as a full confirmation of his and Salas’ depiction of that alleged incident; perhaps he should be more diligent in his gathering of information — he embarrases himself like this repeatedly by refusing to examine in full the evidence arrayed against him, a habit that indicates either his delusional outlook, his arrogant laziness, or his dishonest character — pick one; they all fit.)

    Comment by James Carlson — January 8, 2012 @ 1:15 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.



Reality Uncovered Social Networking
Visit us on Facebook! Follow us on Twitter! Reality Uncovered on You Tube




RU Custom Search

Help support the continued growth of Reality Uncovered