Can You Trust Them?

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Can You Trust Them?

Postby James Carlson » Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:53 am

Something has been bothering me for sometime now, and I've been wanting to bring it up, but I wasn't certain how to go about doing it. James Carrion's recent article seems as good a reason as anything else; it's at: http://www.theufochronicles.com/2011/02 ... james.html

It never used to bother me a whole lot if someone was really into UFOs -- I thought it was just an odd affectation, and I didn't make any judgments as a result. It certainly didn't have an effect on whether or not I considered such a person to be trustworthy. Now it does, and that bothers me.

I used to deal with the folks involved in this UFOlogy thing on a one-to-one basis, and my trust in them was determined in the same way. For that reason, I used to trust Frank Warren -- but not any more. I used to at least believe that people like Stanton Friedman or Richard Dolan were at least honest enough to weigh issues and ideas equally on the characteristics that are displayed or proven to have some validity -- but I don't anymore. Even Leslie Kean has proven that she can't be trusted to print the truth, only the truth she's trying to sell -- and then when the truth suddently falls in on her, she tells the world that the truth she's selling wasn't written by her. Whatever her excuses, she certainly can't be trusted anymore.

I never had a problem with the people who have involved themselves with NICAP or MUFON, but I do now. The more I learn about these people, the less I find myself able to trust any of them. Independent contractors like Robert Hastings and Robert Salas, James Klotz and Dale Goudie -- they were always typical of the people I refused to trust when certain claims they made were at loggerheads with what I already knew, because they seemed to be in it, at least to some degree, for the money and the fame accrued. That's always a good reason not to trust someone -- they're essentially being paid to convince you that they are, indeed, honest; it's always appropriate to determine before you decide to trust someone or not: are they being paid to convince you? But I never held that rule while reflecting upon the honesty of NICAP or MUFON, or individual members thereof.

I do now. Some of the things I've watched them do behind the scenes are deplorable. They way they've acted even when completely ignorant of the details that they were professing knowledge of deserves scorn. And this new article by Carrion suggests that MUFON, at least, may very well be considered an asset of the aerospace industry, which is a pretty good reason not to trust them.

So I ask you: do you trust them? Do they deserve your trust? And now apply that answer to EVERYBODY who is trying to substantiate a UFO presence, and demanding disclosure on the way to reaching their goals. Can you trust them? If everything they believe in was spoon fed to them by people who can't be trusted, can you trust them? And just saying, well, some folks aren't as bright as others isn't a good enough answer. Because that's where I was sitting two years ago, and it's not sufficient.

Can you trust them?
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM


Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby RICH-ENGLAND » Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:20 am

Hi James.

good post, ive made a few similar points myself on different threads and different sites but i'll make them again here as they are more relevant.

years ago all i had was magazines, books and documentaries to go on, and it was the same old faces in most of them with the same old claims, but as i never had the internet at the time i was only seeing the pro ufo side and pretty much had to take it at face value as it was always structured to be believable without any sceptical analysis.

at the time people like friedman, greer, maussan etc seemed believable because their evidence was presented to be believable and i had no way to research and see the opposite side of the coin.

but since i got a permanent internet connection i have seen that every one of these people have a self serving agenda and not one of them can be trusted.

i recently watched that episode of larry king featuring friedman, aldrin, scherner etc, and it was painfully obvious that the pro ufo guys just didn't want to hear and didn't want others to hear the other side of the story and were constantly talking over michael scherner every time he tried to make a point.

and worst of all, friedman just spent the entire show holding up and shamelessly promoting his book, and james fox just kept promoting his out of the blue documentary with the challenge "i dare anybody to watch this and not come away thinking its real", well mr fox, ive watched it and although i found it interesting, i came away none the wiser of anything being proven one way or the other.

every day a new claim, but not one that really has anything substantial, and all the stories that bring in the money for these people (roswell etc) are just so confused with added rubbish thats it gets harder and harder to take any of them seriously.

thanks

rich
ATS HAS TURNED INTO A "BALLOONATIC" ASYLUM
User avatar
RICH-ENGLAND
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:06 am

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby Buckwild » Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:02 am

Hi James,

they were always typical of the people I refused to trust when certain claims they made were at loggerheads with what I already knew, because they seemed to be in it, at least to some degree, for the money and the fame accrued. That's always a good reason not to trust someone --


If you use this form of reasoning (UFO related money making people cannot be trusted), then why wouldn't it be true for both sides ? (pro-ETHers & ufo-skeptics)

I think that one might be relatively naive & credulous if one think that your reasoning does not work both ways. Ego is probably even more important than money in the little pound of ufology if you ask me.

A good rule of thumb is to trust no one in this field and check everything by yourself when possible. This is what comes out of my little experience hanging out with both sides and a good way to minimize groupthinking*.

* : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

You might not have as many friends but you might be a better christian [-X :mrgreen: :arrow: skeptic sort of speak. Cannot have both, can you ?

Cheers,
Buck
User avatar
Buckwild
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 1:01 am

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby James Carlson » Thu Feb 03, 2011 8:28 am

Buckwild wrote:If you use this form of reasoning (UFO related money making people cannot be trusted), then why wouldn't it be true for both sides ? (pro-ETHers & ufo-skeptics)

At the very least, there's a subconscious aspect to my personality that believes you are correct. This is partially why I've made my writings on this subject available for free. I want people to trust me. For the moment, I think that people generally do, and part of that, I'm certain, is because I have made some rather exceptional efforts not to profit from it.

At the same time, however, making the leap of trust that belief generally demands of a person is much easier when you're talking about flying saucers being an imaginary affectation of the human mind than it does if you're talking about flying saucers being a huge secret that every government in the world is aware of, but refuses to discuss, simply because they come from another planet, dimension, or time period. Whether the added component of profit is present or not, the investment required of trust is nonetheless appreciably more when we're talking about groups and individuals advocating the reality of UFOs. I haven't seen anything that suggests they are real structures, and being forced to swallow all of the crap I hear from supposed eye-witnesses who continue to insist that "I know what I saw" when I know for a fact that innocent people are imprisoned every year by people who insist "I know what I saw" is a little disheartening when you take into account the provable lies and hoaxes forced upon us by these UFO-sucking morons like Robert Hastings and Robert Salas.

I don't see a whole lot of hoaxes being created for the benefit of or by skeptics. For the most part, skeptics seem to stay out of it. I certainly could be wrong -- after all, I'm not omniscient; but I don't think I'm wrong. But you've got James Klotz and Dale Goudie of CUFON not only aware of, but also helping to plan a UFO hoax intended to entrap the USAF and the meninblack who work for the U.S. government, and even though they never actually attempted to pull it off, they did keep it a secret for a good ten years while they tried to tune it up a little for public use and consumption. Add that to Carrion's revelations that MUFON is essentially funded by the aerospace industry, I just don't see anything worth grasping at, or trusting. Skeptics, however, whether they make money at it or not, seem to be saying "no", and adopting an outlook or response that's a lot more evenhanded in its approach to belief.

For the record, I think the only reason Klotz and Goudie ever came clean on Project Mask is because they had just started to enact another hoax entirely, one they planned with Robert Salas involving his take on the Echo Flight Incident. The intention was two fold: to convince actual military witnesses to UFO events to come forward; after all, if Captain Salas was never prosecuted for outing the USAF cover-up at Echo Flight, it's probable that nobody else would be arrested and prosecuted either. He was supposed to serve as an example to any real witnesses sitting on the fence. Of course, they failed for the same reason the Disclosure Project failed: no friggin' UFOs. I said it was two-fold, though, didn't I? Yes, the second fold: they wanted to associate a UFO event with an actual, highly classifed USAF incident, one they could point at and say, "see? this actually happened and the USAF has still refused to come clean on it." Their goal has always been to exhibit proof that the USAF was lying when it claimed that UFOs posed no security risk for the United States, a conviction that they very likely believe; their belief is centered around the duplicity of the USAF, which gives them all of the justification they need to create a hoax intended to prove this duplicity. The ends justify the means.

They were probably convinced by someone like Raymond Fowler that UFOs were actually involved at Echo Flight, but not being there, they didn't actually know for certain. By forcing the issue as resolved by an apparent eyewitness, i.e., Robert Salas, they hoped to force the USAF into coming clean. There were no grounds to prevent Salas from making the claims he's made, because he wasn't a real witness. But they hoped to use the millions of people they expected to believe such claims to put pressure on the USAF and the government to come clean on the issue. They can say whatever they want, because they aren't breaking any laws, not being actual witnesses to any such event, and never having signed any actual agreement to stay quiet on the issue. That's also the reason he got involved with the Disclosure Project five years later. They can say whatever they want, and nobody can legally touch them. As a result of all of the above, this incident was considered for 15 years to be one of the best supported, most trustworthy vehicles for the UFO believer to catch a quick ride in. And it was all crap, every bit of it. It was also a failure, because they didn't meet the goals they intended, and they didn't meet the goals they intended for one very good reason, a reason that Robert Salas at least should have expected from the very beginning: the USAF didn't give a damn, because the entire incident and all of the documents they used to substantiate their case was automatically declassified in 1979. That's always been the biggest failure of these UFO proponents: they constantly discuss classified materials, but they don't know crap about classified materials protocol. Apparently, they also refuse to learn.

Taking all of this into account, I still have yet to even hear of anything similar being planned and executed by skeptics. But I am willing to listen if you know of any, and I'm more than willing to be convinced otherwise. I just haven't yet seen any of the blooming piles of horses**t that the UFO guys have shown me coming from skeptics as well. Being a skeptic, however, means that if I learn of such incidents, and they can be established as having some factual basis, than I'll certainly incorporate them into my own private mythos. So lay it on me!! I'm willing to be convinced.
Last edited by James Carlson on Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby James Carlson » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:07 am

RICH-ENGLAND wrote:but since i got a permanent internet connection i have seen that every one of these people have a self serving agenda and not one of them can be trusted.

You're right that the internet does seem to be a great "equalizer" when the determination of individual agendas seems to have some bearing on the case. Unfortunately, the internet has also made it easier for someone with such agendas to pursue them without a whole lot of notice from those in a position to actually do something about it. Before the internet, people wishing to establish an agenda had to do so by authoring books, magazine and newspaper articles, or by making movies and television spots. And that meant people who wanted to interrupt their agendas could only do so in the form of reviews, critical approaches through various publications, or by investigative journalism. This made the process substantially less complicated and, to an extent, easier. These days, everybody with a laptop can establish their own agendas, and the resolution of such could be accomplished to at least some extent by simply narrowing one's focus to local groups, losing themselves in the mix of popular notions and ubiquitous blogs.

Of course, it's still preferable, at least to me, because there's so much more access to actual facts, repositories of human opinion, and databases of otherwise impossible to study information, associated knowledge, and outlooks. But there are a few unfortunate tag-alongs to it as well, the most annoying in my opinion being the easy proliferation of hoaxes, and the fact that you can't depend on anybody to fact-check their arguments and assertions. You never know what's true, and everything has to be double or triple-checked and confirmed. You can never know for certain whether you're reading fiction or non-fiction until you do a whole lot of somewhat in-depth research.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby nablator » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:47 am

Buckwild wrote:A good rule of thumb is to trust no one in this field and check everything by yourself when possible.

Yes. And especially don't trust yourself too much.

"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby nablator » Thu Feb 03, 2011 10:33 am

James Carlson wrote:Can you trust them?

I see a lot of assessments in terms of good/bad, trustworthy/untrustworthy. Ufologists can't be categorized in two or three homogeneous groups. Delusional thinking, agenda driven rhetoric, biases and logical fallacies are everywhere. Skeptics and critical thinkers are not immune. Epistemological values vary. Nothing is simple.
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby nablator » Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:01 am

James Carlson wrote:I just haven't yet seen any of the blooming piles of horses**t that the UFO guys have shown me coming from skeptics as well.

It's easy to find terribly bad analysis and conclusions from skeptics. Swamp gas, plasmoids, and mirages of Venus come to mind, or the flat-out refusal to investigate or even entertain the idea that ball lightning or other atmospheric phenomena may actually exist. I don't blame disbelievers for disbelieving any more than I blame believers for believing.
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby Tim Hebert » Thu Feb 03, 2011 6:09 pm

Going back to James' comment on Carrion's article, Carrion raises good points. It DOES appear that there are those individuals that claim to be in the know by way of "secret" government sources that dangle the disclosure hook to their individual followers. What ever "knowledge" that these people possess tends to be allusive and never comes to anything, yet books are published and spots on Coast to Coast are eagerly obtained for purely self interest reasons.

nablator wrote:I see a lot of assessments in terms of good/bad, trustworthy/untrustworthy. Ufologists can't be categorized in two or three homogeneous groups. Delusional thinking, agenda driven rhetoric, biases and logical fallacies are everywhere. Skeptics and critical thinkers are not immune. Epistemological values vary. Nothing is simple


Nab, good statement. When looking at some of the sampling of sightings for my research, and admittedly it is a small sample, I find that it boils down to the simple fact that someone has seen something, thus seeking answers. Its how we evaluate and assess the actual facts associated with a sighting that determines how the rest of the ufology crowd reacts. Simply labling someone as delusional or psychotic should never be the baseline of anyone's research even though there are those that definitely fit the afore mentioned catagories and thus may be a legit part of one's final investigation conclusion. I see more confabulatory thinking in some of the older cases where the witnesses are 40 plus years removed from the event, but remember, a confabulation is a kernel of truth wrapped around years of embellisment and those layers of time need to be gently peeled away to get at that kernel.

Tim
Tim Hebert
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 11:29 pm

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby James Carlson » Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:46 am

nablator wrote:
James Carlson wrote:I just haven't yet seen any of the blooming piles of horses**t that the UFO guys have shown me coming from skeptics as well.

It's easy to find terribly bad analysis and conclusions from skeptics. Swamp gas, plasmoids, and mirages of Venus come to mind, or the flat-out refusal to investigate or even entertain the idea that ball lightning or other atmospheric phenomena may actually exist. I don't blame disbelievers for disbelieving any more than I blame believers for believing.

You're right -- absolutely, so I guess I should be more specific: I haven't seen any of of the intentional lies and hoaxes carried out by the UFO crowd also being authored by skeptics; we're talking about intent, here. Stupidity, carelessness, reaching conclusions on the basis of insufficient data -- that's all universal, so I agree with you completely. Mistakes are made by everybody, and everybody eventually relies on really silly conclusions in order to confirm their own personal beliefs. At one time or another, everybody does it it -- that's just part of being human. We make mistakes, we look for "facts" to support our already well-grounded beliefs, and sooner or later we all end up looking like idiots over one thing or another. But I differentiate that from intentionally creating a system that has only one conclusion, and the only people I see consciously making that choice are those screaming for full disclosure on the basis of that system. You might (and probably will) find examples of skeptics who might be aware of evidence that makes their own theories far less likely, and for that reason they don't mention them, or bring attention to such evidence, but I don't know of any instances where a skeptic has manufactured evidence to make his claims seem more likely. You see folks on the NICAP and MUFON side of the playground doing that all the time. Hoaxes and lies are prevalent; You-tube videos alone are responsible for so much UFO garbage being claimed as real, that I don't even glance at the headlines anymore! Go over to UFOCHRONICLES' front page and just take a sharp look at the piles of trash that are being proclaimed worthy of study, and you just want to stick your finger down your throat in some meaningless attempt to cleanse your body of the bile it creates in response.

When I first read about Project Mask, I wasn't surprised at all that the folks at CUFON would help to plan something like that; I was surprised that they held on to it for ten years trying to tune it up for eventual use. And when they did finally mention it, they seemed to be patting themselves on the back for even bringing it up in public, as if they had made an ethical choice that people should admire! If they want to be admired as honorable men, they should have publically outed the guys who came up with the idea ten years earlier, instead of keeping it a secret and making recommendations on how best to turn it into a more likely success story. It's their treatment of Project Mask that makes me more certain than ever that they only made it public in order to convince people that they would never go along with a hoax of that magnitude, doing so at the same time as they were introducing the whole Echo Flight hoax through Robert Salas -- a hoax that had exactly the same goals as Project Mask: establish the duplicity of the USAF in order to force a retraction of the national security claims associated with UFOs. You just don't see skeptics intentionally doing anything at all at a similar level of deceit. Skeptics may not discuss a subject, but you don't see them attempting to create one either.

You do, however, "find terribly bad analysis and conclusions from skeptics"; I agree with you completely there. And skeptics may well be as consciously deceitful, and therefore as undeserving of trust as MUFON, but I'm not aware of it, if it's true. I haven't seen any indications of such conscious, and intentional duplicity as I've seen coming from the other side. If it's true, it's just as disgusting as any other form of deceit, and should be publicized, so if you know of any such instances, please tell me. That's the sort of thing that should be and needs to be discussed.

I should add, however, that Robert Hastings' very public insistence that James Oberg's employment is a true measurement of the man's deceit is not something I'll go along with. And whether or not a skeptic is also a lobbyist for NASA, is something else that I don't believe is very relevant. Now if someone presented evidence that CSICOP, for instance, was funded by the USAF, that would certainly be relevant -- at least as relevant as MUFON being funded by aerospace interests. But the fact that James Oberg is employed by NASA doesn't make me suspicious at all -- no more so than the fact that Robert Salas was once in the USAF. Very often a man's employment puts him in a position where he can learn things that affect his beliefs. If he tries to publicize that information in order to persuade others to believe the things that he believes, then he's providing an educational service, and shouldn't be suspected of trying to do so on the orders of those who sign his paycheck every week. Denigrating him for being employed is sickening , and Hastings should be ashamed of himself for doing so. I'm not surprised though -- everything I learn about that man tells me he's developed into a truly sickening and self-absorbed individual who will say anything to convince people that the impossible is possible; that's how he measures his self-worth, I'm sure.

As for the point you've made, I can only say (for the third time, I think -- I keep losing myself in tangents) that I agree. But if you add intent into the mix, you tend to see a lot more conscious deceit originating from one side than from the other. At least, in my estimation.
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby astrophotographer » Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:38 am

Carrion just posted an interesting entry on his blog to follow up on last bit of information:

http://followthemagicthread.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-to-take-down-ufo-organization-101.html

Do I read this correctly? Is he really suggesting that the US government is interested in the downfall of MUFON? Based on its past history, MUFON and other UFO organizations have always been on the verge of self-destruction simply because they represent groups of people with different agendas. Robert Sheaffer referred to it as the UFOlogical version of the Hatfields and McCoys. I think Carrion is being a bit naive and can not accept the idea that certain people just torpedoed him and others to get ahead.
User avatar
astrophotographer
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby nablator » Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:43 am

James Carlson wrote:As for the point you've made, I can only say (for the third time, I think -- I keep losing myself in tangents) that I agree. But if you add intent into the mix, you tend to see a lot more conscious deceit originating from one side than from the other. At least, in my estimation.

I agree, of course. But, as skeptics, we might be slightly biased. :)

I was trying to play devil's advocate, quite badly, because the situation is not symmetrical. Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence, after all. And self-manufactured evidence is the easiest to get. :mrgreen:
User avatar
nablator
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 9:44 am

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby Access Denied » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:27 am

Buckwild wrote:A good rule of thumb is to trust no one in this field and check everything by yourself when possible. This is what comes out of my little experience hanging out with both sides and a good way to minimize groupthinking*.

Can you give us some examples of your experience with the “other side” that led you to not trust them?

astrophotographer wrote:Do I read this correctly? Is he really suggesting that the US government is interested in the downfall of MUFON?

Evidently logic has escaped him for some time now…

astrophotographer wrote:I think Carrion is being a bit naive and can not accept the idea that certain people just torpedoed him and others to get ahead.

I think you’re right.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby James Carlson » Fri Feb 04, 2011 6:34 am

astrophotographer wrote:Carrion just posted an interesting entry on his blog to follow up on last bit of information:

http://followthemagicthread.blogspot.com/2011/02/how-to-take-down-ufo-organization-101.html

Do I read this correctly? Is he really suggesting that the US government is interested in the downfall of MUFON? Based on its past history, MUFON and other UFO organizations have always been on the verge of self-destruction simply because they represent groups of people with different agendas. Robert Sheaffer referred to it as the UFOlogical version of the Hatfields and McCoys. I think Carrion is being a bit naive and can not accept the idea that certain people just torpedoed him and others to get ahead.

I haven't read his article yet, but I certainly will. Your comment, however, reminds me of a similar point of view expressed by Dr. Roy Craig in his 1995 book. He mentioned that the different UFO groups around at the time seemed to be more interested in other UFO groups then the U.S. government was interested in either. One guy told him that they had a "plant" or a spy in their group who was also part of one of the other groups, and mentioned something to the effect of "you don't have to worry about those lunatics screwing up any actual investigation, because we're keeping an eye on them." A year or so ago (maybe a year-and-a-half), you recommended reading a book called "Watch the Skies!" by Curtis Peebles. If I remember correctly, even Peebles, one of the most fair minded authors I've ever read, touches on this propensity for suspicions directed at other groups, as if there's some kind of competition among all of the UFO groups to determine which one has the best information and the most reliable resources. There's no doubt in my mind at all that local level MUFON affiliates compete for attention -- it's almost like the more outrageous the behavior, the more relentless they are at refusing to accept any explanation other than alien spacecraft for whatever it is that they're investigating at any given time, the more "pure-blooded" they can claim to be -- and they're arguing about stuff they don't even have enough data to properly measure in the first place; it's stunning!

I think these groups are openly suspicious of everybody, other groups included, and I think one reason for that is the fact that such groups tend to attract a very paranoid membership. It's kind of like a situation that might be illustrated by the saying "power corrupts" being explained as "power doesn't necessarily corrupt, but it does tend to attract easily corruptible people." So I'm not going to say that being involved with any of these UFO groups makes a person paranoid, but I would, however, agree that a lot of paranoid people are attracted to the membership of these groups, because they aren't looking to explain UFOs -- they're looking for a validation of their general distrust and the numerous suspicions they have that already exist. If that seems overly unfair, I apologize, but I can't get past it. Some of these people are very simply clinically paranoid, and while they very well may tend to get along fairly well with other individuals, this only lasts as long as they don't have some reason to feel suspicious about them. Toss a few unrelated agendas into the mix, as you suggest, and they self-destruct, like a wounded animal eating its own brain. And people looking to validate their own fears and suspicions are only very rarely convinced of anything by argument alone. They've pretty much already reached all of the conclusions they need to reach, and they're just looking for someone to pat them on the back and say, "y'know somethin'? You're right!"

Just do me a favor: don't respond to this commentary by saying, "y'know somethin'? You're right!" I may not be able to get past it all at the moment, but I'm certainly willing to be convinced. I don't particularly like not being able to trust large groups of people -- that's why I started the subject. Right now, I don't trust them at all, but I'm not looking for that belief to be validated, I'm hoping to be convinced eventually that I'm wrong. Unfortunately, at the moment I just don't see that happening. There are way too many paranoid whackoes out there, and I don't trust them, because they openly lie about every little thing, and they're perfectly willing to manufacture evidence if doing so will either convince another person still on the fence that UFOs are piloted by aliens from the other side of the galaxy or force the USAF to initiate some version of disclosure, as if this admission of a national security threat will somehow redeem their souls for all time in the sanctity of St. Luke Skywalker of Tatooine. And in a world like that, it just makes more sense to keep them at arms's length, in front of you, and your own hand on your own wallet at all times!
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Re: Can You Trust Them?

Postby James Carlson » Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:28 am

RE: Carrion's new article, it would probably throw a little light on the subject if he were to differentiate between the "intelligence" that groups like MUFON gather together and attempt to analyze, and the "intelligence" collected and exploited by foreign enemies. I hardly think China is going to use MUFON-collected data to improve their armed forces, and I doubt very seriously that AFOSI is very concerned about putting the clampdown on MUFON et al to prevent China from doing so. Frankly, it's a laughable conclusion to reach, one that seems to result more from that paranoia we've discussed above than anything else. Oh, yeah ... China wants that intelligence from MUFON soooo badly! It's obvious the government has to shut MUFON down! They're an intellegence risk! I'm certain that U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates' warning regarding the unanticipated advances in Chinese stealth technology that led to the development of the J-20 stealth fighter is an intended warning about the importance of MUFON on the intelligence spectrum. We gotta take them down!

"If an intelligence source cannot be contained, then the next logical action is to terminate it, the same way NICAP was, once it outlived its usefulness to those in the know and in control." Someone should point out to Carrion that the New York Times, the Saturday Evening Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post are also considered to be intelligence sources by every government in the world -- including ours. I guess they're probably all "contained" though, huh? Although when the New York Times published the "Pentagon Papers", I'll bet nobody in the Department of Defense considered them "contained" then, did they? And I'll bet Nixon didn't consider the Washington Post to be very well "contained". Good God, some of these guys seriously need to grow up.

I got to the point where he started talking about "Agent Provocateurs", realized he was talking about exactly the same thing I was talking about above, and just turned it off. Maybe I'll finish reading it later, but right now he's really not saying anything that can't be discounted completely and immediately, so I'll just have to try again later.

Agent Provocateurs ... Jeez!!
User avatar
James Carlson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 7:11 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Next

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 16 guests

cron