From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:24:45 -0500 Archived: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 05:02:45 -0400 Subject: Re: Conspiracy Theories >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 13:06:30 -0400 >Subject: Re: Conspiracy Theories >>From: Nick Pope <nick.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:50:16 +0200 (CEST) >>Subject: Conspiracy Theories >>Though ufology hardly gets a mention, this major new article on >>conspiracy theories may be of interest to list members, as >>theories concerning government cover-ups are inextricably linked >>with ufology: >>http://tinyurl.com/9hdgs6w >>The article was first published in the summer 2012 issue of The >>Skeptic Magazine (UK), but I've kept things even-handed and >>stress the positive aspects of conspiracy theories, as well as >>some negative ones. The feature is an overview of the genre, and >>while there's brief mention of several individual conspiracy >>theories, I focus on the wider issues raised. >This article is ironic given Nick's own recent foray into >propagating a conspiracy theory concerning an alien invasion >during the recent olympic games. His motivation for doing so, >stated after-the-fact, is irrelevant here, since most people >were not aware of that at the time. So I don't see Nick as an >unbiased critic of conspiracy theories. >Nick accepts the role of science in debunking conspiracy >theories such as in the spraying of chemtrails; i.e., spraying >from 35,000 ft would have low accuracy and have negligible >effects on the ground. But he neglects to mention that >scientific principles can also show that the official >explanation of controversial events are wrong. This is the case >for the events of 911, for example. In that case, the Official >Conspiracy Theory is demonstrably magical in that it does not >explain the rapid disappearance of the buildings, the paucity of >building material on the ground afterwards, and the fact, as >shown in photos taken from high in the sky, that much of the >building material blew away rather than falling to the ground in >large chunks on or near the building site. When the mainstream >media studiously ignore such issues, what rational person would >look to them for unbiased reporting in general? <snip> And it goes on, of course, doesn't it always? Cures for this particular intellectual disorder can be found here: http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/refute.htm http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842 and elsewhere. The point is not to argue this hogwash, which having a life I refuse to do, but it is to lament how some individuals really do fall into the stereotype of the "UFO believer" that so many of us reject and resent. The stereotype holds that "UFO believers" are paranoid and susceptible to even the most outlandish conspiracy theories. Any effort to point out that this does not accurately characterize UFO proponents generally is undercut by the sort of brain-cell demolition exposed in the posting above. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would suspect that our correspondent is a CIA disinformation agent tasked to discredit ufology. Come to think of it, can he prove that he isn't? Didn't think so. Jerry Clark Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp