Exopoliticians reaching out to Presidential candidates.

A study of the political relations between humanity and ET

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby David Griffin » Tue May 22, 2007 11:30 pm

ryguy wrote:The particular points I'm wondering about aren't so much related to the assumption that ET exists and are engaging our species, believe it or not I can entertain that premise - the one I have a harder time with is the assumption that there is an organized global network of above-government cabals. If one is to try to base assumptions on a preponderance of existing evidence - it would appear to me that the cabals, to the extent that they actually exist, would be more of a rag-tag distribution of smaller groups, very, very knowledgable about intel tactics and procedures (using disinformation, etc..) but prone to making occasional mistakes and just as susceptible to internal conflicts and disagreement as any other group of humans who attempt to cooperate and keep secrets....


Hi, firstly I liberated bits of the mission statement from ongoing discussion and debate in the field and added the rest on top myself. I really haven't spent much time on it [as strange as that sounds for a core piece of a site] - took me all of 5 mins. I'm writing a position paper at the moment that is due to go through a kind of peer review process by some of the US exo types. I'll then integrate this into the mission statement.

I'd like to point out that the Uk site's methodologies and outlook could well be fairly different to those of the main exopol field. This is to account for UK differences but mostly because we think that a far broader approach can be applied. This certainly applies to the heavy reliance exopolitics places on "whistle-blowers" from military/Intel structures... the fact we see this approach as a primary key to valid informational transfer and disclosure is perhaps [in some cases] flawed. After we've had very little revealed from this sector that we didn't know already in the "civilian" world - not to mention blatant attempts at inserting disinformational structures into an already confused area of exploration and research.

the one I have a harder time with is the assumption that there is an organized global network of above-government cabals. If one is to try to base assumptions on a preponderance of existing evidence - it would appear to me that the cabals, to the extent that they actually exist, would be more of a rag-tag distribution of smaller groups


Sure - I agree with this. Robert Anton Wilson always maintained that centralised conspiracies were impossible as people ended up fighting turf wars and thus any temporary unity dissolves. We part company on the MJ12 issue and documents. Ignoring their authenticity for a moment what we do have symbolised here *is* some sort of meta-control structure created for the exact purpose of dealing with the human/alien issue. It makes total sense that post 1947 this would have been an operational priority as part of the creation of a UK/US national security framework. The phenomena was so novel at the time that they could not risk this being handled by an isolated intelligence/military body so an oversight framework was created.

Does the exopolitics model exclude anyone who might not be ready to make all of the assumptions below? I mean - is it a closed system where one must accept all of those assumptions to the letter in order to become a part of the community and the cause?


I think here you point to one of the reasons people haven't historically aligned themselves with the U-Fool-ogical movement. The UFO field has forced us into the idea that this data must be transferred and processed through the lens of old scientific values. So UFO sightings used to be passed to physicists to "validate" etc when of course their prime goal is to validate nothing more than other peoples' delusions most of the time. So today we're left with with a kind of UFO hangover - where everyone is too afraid to go out on a limb and embrace the fact that this thing is weird as f*** and to an extent requires the bypassing of contemporary systems of analysis.

The difference with an exopolitical analysis is that it calls for a shift in this approach and in no way is a closed system of exploration or exclusion. This is why you have Salla with his approach, Webre with another and Bassett with another on top. If you notice *none* of them spend time arguing about the legitimacy of a UFO sighting or the authenticity of a whistle-blower. Although this seem contradictory it really isn't and neither in my eyes does it make them or the exo field any less valid. It's simply that exopol has shifted into place by default because UFOlogy has mostly left a vacuum in the 50/60 years that it's been operating.

By listing the assumptions in the mission statement I suppose this is part of that process to move onwards. You can still be active in something you don't fully agree with - we do this every day of our lives do we not? What we need to do is engage the issue on a different level and maybe part of this just needs the minor jump of all agreeing that we are being engaged by a form of intelligence seperate in many respects to how we know ourselves to be as post-monkey humanoids. This isn't a breathtaking or risky premise these days.

Finally - something I feel strongly about is the how their is a sector of people in this field who are attracted to this area of research but are not prepared to take risks. You *have* to be prepared to be ridiculed to an extent due to the nature of the beast itself. Otherwise we should go find something less challenging instead. The big problem of say only taking data from the world of intel insiders is that you never really have to stand up yourself and get your hands dirty - there's always the excuse that you are 'not responsible' if 'misled' because someone from some faceless [perceived] hierarchy simply passed the information to you. Thus there is little progress in an area that we need progress in - certainly in this late stage in the game.

Hope that made some vague sense.. it's been a long day.

davID


-Ry
User avatar
David Griffin
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 4:24 pm
Location: UK Midlands


Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed May 23, 2007 1:13 am

Hi David,
David Griffin wrote:Not really big on being appropriate so we may unfortunately be onto a loser with that one.


I can understand... to each his own. But I would say that any time one is talking about anything involving the word "politics", IMO it is a mistake to not address appropriateness. Because as we see in the political process (at least in the USA), when inappropriate politics is pursued the best kinds of things we end up with are pork-barrel spending projects. The worst kinds of things that inappropriate politics engenders are things like deceit, manipulation, and incorrect actions.

As for being meaningful - well I don't really think endless discussions from intel circles are 'meaningful' either. It kind of becomes a hall of mirrors where everyone is bouncing back their own reflections to each other.


I'd have to say it depends on what sort of meaning you are shooting for. With regard to Information Theory and Information Dynamics, such endless discussions could be meaningful because they can provide data gathering opportunities. And that data can lead to trends, and those trends can provide someone with indication of the ulimtate motives of intel actors. So yes, they may not be meaningful to you in an effort to unearth facts about visitors, but someone could find meaning in them for other reasons.

I don't get this position about verifying the presence of the alien other - not only because it's voluminous


Could you expand on what you mean by "because it is voluminous"? I am not sure I get what you are implying.

but more on the level of why do we all get pulled back to this field endlessly if there is "nothing" going on.


You seem to imply that this question is hard to answer. I would submit that it is exceedingly easy to answer: We keep coming back to this because of the human tendency to hope. For ages man has looked to the heavens and at least speculated (and many have hope upon hope) that we are not the only ones inhabiting this wacky universe. Would you agree? Are there not a LOT of people who think there are ETs just because they WANT there to be ETs? To some they even look to ETs as "saviors" from a mundane life on a mundane planet where wars don't ever seem to end. It is always easier to hope for some other entity to come save us, rather than rolling up our sleeves and doing it for ourselves. Hence why religion is also such a hot topic (and often gets co-mingled with the idea of ETs).

As I said - if you want to wake up and find a piece of off-whirrled saucer at the foot of your bed to then take to a physicist - you're in the wrong area.


But if you would agree that the human tendency to hope is at least a highly viable answer to your question above, then veridical evidence becomes extremely important to move forward. Take the "Face on Mars" for example. Our HOPE that there is life elsewhere in the universe could have easily played upon our emotions such that we "saw" a face there when there was no face there. The state emblem of Vermont is "the old man in the mountain" (which has now fallen apart). However, this was a rock formation that LOOKED LIKE an old, craggly man's face in profile. That does not mean someone actually carved it to be so. A better example is the state of New Jersey. it LOOKS LIKE an old lady laying in bed. I could thus HOPE that someone carved the old man, or some ET formed the state of New Jersey... but to know for certain if these things were done by an intelligent life form, we need real evidence.

but as far as I'm concerned it's a done deal to a certain point. Otherwise we end up in a kind of UFOlogical knitting circle with endless circular debates that go nowhere.


But don't you see this is PRECISELY where science (and the scientific method) comes in? There were plenty of people who thought "F=ma" was a done deal. No one thought it needed to go anywhere, or that anomalies with regard to its correctness needed to be investigated. Thank goodness Mach, Lorenz, Einstein and so many others did not consider physics a "done deal". SCIENCE is what prevents the circular debates, thanks to evidence and validation.

Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby caryn » Wed May 23, 2007 9:53 am

I think what David is referring to when he says “done deal” is that very few are disputing the fact that ‘something’ is going on. Why waste time on trying to establish that fact when it’s already accepted. I agree, and when it comes down to the experiencing of the phenomenon, science, to date, has not been able to provide the definitive answer – the Mystic, the Shaman, the Creative Dreamer et al have long been in a better cognitive position to expound.

But David ‘might’? have misunderstood what a few of us have been trying to put forward here. When it comes to claims of material artefacts and effects, treaties written between alien civilisations and human nations, underground bases etc etc, irrefutable proof of claim is a prerequisite, yet that proof remains more elusive than the personal experience of the phenomenon.

My objection to the Boylan’s, Greer’s and Salla’s is that they have placed theirselves in a position of ‘expertise’ on a subject that in all reality they have little comprehension of – people follow their lead. The likely eventuality of the blind leading the blind is that they’ll ALL fall off the edge of the cliff.
caryn
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2006 6:40 pm
Location: London

Postby ryguy » Wed May 23, 2007 3:33 pm

caryn wrote:I think what David is referring to when he says “done deal” is that very few are disputing the fact that ‘something’ is going on. Why waste time on trying to establish that fact when it’s already accepted.


Actually - my impression here is that the exopolitics crowd goes just a little bit further than accepting as fact that the phenomenon is taking place. I believe most, if not all, of us here could entertain that assumption because I think many of us has had paranormal experiences in some way, in our own lives. However they go further and make the assumption that the phenomenon experienced (lights in the sky, strange craft, entities appearing to people) can furthermore be concluded to be extraterrestrial. And then, they go even further to suggest that we need to develop a political strategy with this off-world culture?

I agree with Ray on the necessity of the scientific/systems method, combined with an acceptance of paranormal phenomenon and that there are things that science has yet to understand (as Ray perfectly described guys like Einstein accepted as well)....however to jump to conclusions about the cause of the phenomenon so quickly is a little premature in my mind. It would be like jumping to the conclusion that mad cow is caused by an alien-created virus, so that we can avoid having to deal with the headache of the scientific process, and move on to examining how to deal with the alien epidemic. While I see that method as useful for coming up with a hypothesis that can be tested - I don't see that it's useful to skip over the testing phase and jump into an active political campaign based on untested hypothesis...?

Unless, of course, the exopolitics crowd is aware of some form of evidence that justifies that leap. I've yet to hear of any such thing - the closest I know of is the remote viewing research...but whether that can be called "evidence" is very controversial and debatable as well...

All of the above said - I do see the exopolitics model as a powerful organizational method to bring people together from all different beliefs - as a way to smooth over all of the disagreements and move forward as a combined and powerful political force (as David described above, quite well I might add). I'm just afraid that making such drastic leaps of faith could be used as a weapon by those who do not favor disclosure of any kind - to discredit the exopolitics cause.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby David Griffin » Wed May 23, 2007 4:39 pm

Evidence takes many forms.

Evidence that were are being visited: 100%
Evidence of crashed alien hardware: 100%
Evidence of ET "bodies": 99%
Evidence of human/alien liaison: 98.99%

...on current western court / legal processes this case is done.
User avatar
David Griffin
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 4:24 pm
Location: UK Midlands

Postby ryguy » Wed May 23, 2007 4:57 pm

David Griffin wrote:Evidence takes many forms.

Evidence that were are being visited: 100%
Evidence of crashed alien hardware: 100%
Evidence of ET "bodies": 99%
Evidence of human/alien liaison: 98.99%

...on current western court / legal processes this case is done.


Excellent! Looks like we've got a lot of catching up to do. I can't wait to dive into the evidence!

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed May 23, 2007 5:37 pm

David Griffin wrote:Evidence takes many forms.

Evidence that were are being visited: 100%
Evidence of crashed alien hardware: 100%
Evidence of ET "bodies": 99%
Evidence of human/alien liaison: 98.99%


Well, I think it is safe to say that one of two things is definitely true: Either RU is on the verge of hosting the most definitive evidence, for the greatest mystery of mankind, and breaking that big story... or... some folks are using numbers in a possibly inappropriate manner (there's that word "appopriate" again) to sensationalize their cause.

As a professional engineer, I have an intimate knowledge of numbers. Especially when dealing with safety-critial flight control systems, I deal with probabilities and percentages all the time. So before I would even endeavor to examine any evidence that would purport to validate the above numbers, I would like to ask a more basic question:

Would you be able to kindly define for me the measurement basis for these percentages? IOW, we all know a percentage is nothing more than a fraction multiplied by 100. And a fraction is a ratio of one thing to another. For example, if we were to say that the US GDP grew by 3% this year, that 3% is measured with respect to treating last year's GDP (whatever the dollar amount was) as equal to 100%.

This is a very important piece of foundational groundwork that should be established if we are to validate (and therefore come to accept) your numbers.

Thanks,
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby Zep Tepi » Wed May 23, 2007 7:52 pm

David Griffin wrote:Evidence takes many forms.

Evidence that were are being visited: 100%
Evidence of crashed alien hardware: 100%
Evidence of ET "bodies": 99%
Evidence of human/alien liaison: 98.99%

...on current western court / legal processes this case is done.


Hi David,
Evidence comes in many different forms and is treated differently dependent upon the field it is being applied to, i.e. scientific evidence, criminal investigation evidence and legal evidence. I see you are choosing the latter in your above claim.

I can only assume you are basing these claims on testimony evidence alone? Where are the exhibits to prove these claims? To confidently state there is evidence that proves 100%, conclusively and without any doubt whatsoever that those above statements are true suggests you must know something we don't.

A little help?

Cheers,
Zep
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Postby Max » Wed May 23, 2007 8:16 pm

Whew! I just got back! I ran out to the grocery store and got a case of popcorn and a bunch of boxes of Raisenettes! Ok, now I'm ready!
View my Blog

You can't photoshop logic.
User avatar
Max
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby ryguy » Wed May 23, 2007 8:21 pm

I was actually being serious above...in an effort to avoid the "nit-picking" label we've been pegged with before...I'd sincerely like to examine the evidence. Even if it's only testimonial, or testimonial combined with some circumstantial...hey - it's all good. Regardless of the numbers - even if David's "100%" would be, for us, 75%....that's still pretty good.

Let's examine it without any pre-existing bias against it - I'd hate to see David (or others) just throw their arms up with frustration because we don't agree with the numbers... Like I said, I'd be happy with something that convinces me anything above 50% certain of any of the items listed above.

Hey Max...how come you didn't bring any snacks to share??

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Zep Tepi » Wed May 23, 2007 9:20 pm

I'm being serious too. 100% means to me that the case for has already been conclusively proven. "Regardless of the numbers" doesn't wash with me I'm afraid. A claim has been made and I would like to see the evidence that backs that up. If that's called nit-picking, then sign me up for the twice-monthly edition of "Tweezer - The Nit Pickers Guide" ;)

I have a slight problem with "It's all good" too.

Serpo was good? MJ-12 was good? Meier was good? You get my point lol

Cheers,
Steve
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Postby Max » Wed May 23, 2007 9:50 pm

Help yourselves! I got a whole case of stuff! Can't wait!
View my Blog

You can't photoshop logic.
User avatar
Max
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby You Can Call Me Ray » Wed May 23, 2007 10:21 pm

Zep Tepi wrote:I'm being serious too. 100% means to me that the case for has already been conclusively proven. "Regardless of the numbers" doesn't wash with me I'm afraid.


I am also being serious, and I couldn't agree more with Zep's words. When you use numbers (and especially when you use 100%), there is no way in hell that anyone should be accused of nitpitcking to ask (first): what is the basis for the calculation of these extreme numbers? and (second): Please show me the evidence that is of such high quality that you can claim these numbers.

This engineer takes numbers VERY seriously! However, what I often find is that people who take science lightly enjoy using numbers as if they are playing cards (I'll see your pi and raise you an e^2). :)
Ray
The Universe is an Integrated System. Operational, Functional, and Physical.
User avatar
You Can Call Me Ray
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:49 pm
Location: Huntington Beach, CA, USA

Postby ryguy » Thu May 24, 2007 1:56 pm

This engineer takes numbers VERY seriously! However, what I often find is that people who take science lightly enjoy using numbers as if they are playing cards (I'll see your pi and raise you an e^2). :)
Ray


Yes - I agree with you guys completely regarding the "100%", and you're right Ray, that value, in science, isn't one that is very easily come by - so for someone to use it flippantly is certainly disconcerting for people like us. However, regardless of how much the evidence convinced him - I'd still like to see it rather than scare him off! lol

Serpo was good? MJ-12 was good? Meier was good? You get my point lol


Doh! Good point... How about - if anyone wants to present what they consider "hard" evidence to us, "it's all good" (do you guys use that phrase in the UK...it's not exactly to be taken literally...). That's not to say the evidence is all good! We haven't even seen it yet! lol

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby David Griffin » Thu May 24, 2007 4:32 pm

Hi all

Thanks for the comments. I'll try and post more later or tomorrow. It's a difficult balance trying to do all this stuff and earn living :o

I just want to say that although I think a lot of posters on this forum have a different view of the phenomena we're discussing, you still seem to be one of the better one's around for taking into account other views. Again - this whole field is bizarre and this is the primary reason for tolerance of views and not assuming we all have a direct conduit to the truth.

Saying that - we've yet to hit [our] theories on the Billy Meier case - developed over several years of long research. If we ever do that one - it'll be a stormer :P

Back soon - interviewing someone on Skype tonite hopefully.

My skype is david.g23 is anyone wants to add. [not for this but generally].

Maybe we can do a kind of OMCAST [most of you know them?] get together at some point. I know jackamo is far more into this than endless typing!
User avatar
David Griffin
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 4:24 pm
Location: UK Midlands

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Exopolitics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron