11011Re: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd = [SO] Corso's claims
- Nov 12, 2001Hi Joe
>>>History is riddled with acknowledged scientific theories that havebeen proved wrong, you have quoted many of them yourself.
Not always. Some theories are thought wrong, and then later reinstated
again. For example Newton's corpuscle (particle) theory was thought wrong
and replaced by Huygen's wave theory. Then Planck and Einstein brought back
the particle idea renamed as quanta.
It is not always clear cut to disprove a theory, and often a theory is
assumed wrong without proof, and makes a come back later. The theories I am
backing, have been unfairly treated in this way.
>>>>>>... we are now aware, the craters are causedby impacting meteors.
Some craters are caused by meteors, it is too much to assume that all
craters are formed by meteors. Though in the case of the moon, without
anything extra to go on, it seems reasonable to assume for now that all
craters on the moon are caused by meteors.
>>>>They could only be unconscious if someone didn't discover that agiven scientific premise was wrong. If someone made such a discovery,
but continued to promote an incorrect version, then it would become
>>>>>Unconscious cover-ups are common, and are generally called ignorance,Yes
>>>>>(though some could be considered negligence, e.g. BSE and Thalidomide)which is perfectly normal and acceptable, so long as efforts are made
to verify or dispel existing theories.
Some people think such accidents are deliberate for some hidden agenda.
>>>>>>>If a theory appears to fit thefacts, there is no reason to deny it's validity unless a new theory
or experimentation shows it to be incorrect.
Yes, ideally. But I have found that this has not been adhered to. For
instance: A theory that was not disproved was replaced by Quantum
Mechanics. It is either then unconscious cover up or conscious cover up. The
theory was 18th century Boscovich's.
I have recently found another interesting item in connection with said
Brian Greene in The Elegant Universe p 380 while talking about Superstring
"The mathematical formalism describing string theory begins with equations
that describe the motion of a tiny, infinitely thin piece of classical
thread - equations that, to a large extent, Newton could have written down
some three hundred years ago. These equations are then quantised."
String theory could have been discovered if someone had foresight, three
hundred years ago. Boscovich was that man.
So, a theory more than two hundred years old and being like Modern
Superstring theory is not too unreasonable. But it is not quite the same as
the modern version, because as Greene says what happens for the modern
version is that 'these equations are then quantised.'
I say the quantisation is wrong, as per Einstein's claim. And Einstein was
never disproved in this, merely "debunked." If the answer is 'yes' to the
question of Cover Up, then it means that UFO Physics has been covered up
for a very long time, and a lot of things that Conventional wisdom teaches
us is wrong, has been unfairly debunked instead of disproved. The perception
of the world then turns upside -down.
>>>>Both of the latter areprobably a daily occurence in highly specialised fields.
One would hope so, but they are not.
>>>>It's not a case of debunking-there is always the possibility thatconscious cover-ups exist, and it is a certainty that unconscious
cover-ups exist (through ignorance/negligence), but I think the
statistical odds are that both types of cover-up will ultimately be
Statistical odds can only be formulated if factors are known. How can a
calculation be made on 'unknowns'. How many conscious and unconscious
conspiracies are there, and what is the mean time to their exposure?
I have many examples of historical cover ups. Who was behind the Piltdown
man? For a long time it was believed genuine. The Roman Catholic Church got
its authority from a hoaxed document, when it was discovered to be hoaxed it
was too late to change the authority hierarchy. Scientists have hoaxed their
experiments, even the great Newton and Galileo.
How often are these coverups? And when they are revealed, no one seems to
care too much and instead pass on to the next mystery. And these are only
the cover ups that are known about. There are cases which are in dispute
such as : JFK which a lot of people think cover up. How do you count these?
Then what number of cover ups manage to get by undetected?
On a recent TV programme there was about the Tutanakhamun Conspiracy. An
archaeologist is making the claim that Howard Crater found the tomb many
years before the official date he gave for finding it. His arguments on the
surface seem convincing. And if true, then Carter got away with a robbery
and con job. How many cases are there like this of possible successful cover
ups? The exposed cover ups could be the mere tip of an iceberg.
Cover up, confidence tricks, hoaxing and the like have been a part of human
behaviour for a very long time.
>>>>>>>>......... I think _that_ conspiracy is past it's sell-bydate.
How so? Admittedly talking about conspiracies, a lot of people find
boring. (But is this because they are responding to the advertising that
tells them its boring? - then it would be another part of the cover up, by
those doing the cover up. ) Being bored with conspiracies does not change
the fact that there is a lot of it about, and it does not seem like it going
to abate. Humans like the activity too much, to want to stop. As Barnum says
"there's a sucker born every minute." And so long as there are, there will
be predators to take advantage of the 'suckers'.
Conspiracies are everywhere. The world is not as I would wish it to be. May
be you have the same wish, that things were not as bad as they really are.
Anyway it is has been mathematically proven that Conspiracies are a
consequence of Democracy. The two go together. Being 'past it's sell by
date' does not stop the commodity being sold.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe McGonagle" <joe@...>
Sent: Saturday, November 10, 2001 1:08 AM
Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd = [SO] Corso's claims
> --- In ufonet@y..., "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...> wrote:
> > Hi Joe
> Hi, Roger,
> > Most of that seems reasonable (but I wouldn't put it that way),
> > >>>>>>>>I would expect that irrefutable evidence of any Government
> > up evidence of alien contact or captured alien technology more than
> > 50 years ago would have been exposed by now.
> > >>>>>>>>Likewise, I would expect any conspiracy to suppress "real"
> > to
> > have been exposed (in verifiable terms) by now.
> > But what about a Cover Up that has gone on for far long than 50
> > And a Cover Up that nearly everyone unconsciously engages in?
> History is riddled with acknowledged scientific theories that have
> been proved wrong, you have quoted many of them yourself. A
> particular example which I like is a science book from 1912 which I
> have in my posession, which ascertains that the craters on the moon
> are caused by extinct volcanic activity-that theory was accepted less
> than a century ago, but as we are now aware, the craters are caused
> by impacting meteors.
> > If all people were unconsciously engaging in cover up, then no one
> > know that it was consciously happening and thus be unable to
> expose it.
> They could only be unconscious if someone didn't discover that a
> given scientific premise was wrong. If someone made such a discovery,
> but continued to promote an incorrect version, then it would become
> Unconscious cover-ups are common, and are generally called ignorance,
> (though some could be considered negligence, eg BSE and Thalidomide)
> which is perfectly normal and acceptable, so long as efforts are made
> to verify or dispel existing theories. If a theory appears to fit the
> facts, there is no reason to deny it's validity unless a new theory
> or experimentation shows it to be incorrect. Both of the latter are
> probably a daily occurence in highly specialised fields.
> > The type of Cover Up you assume when you say what you have said, is
> > Cover Ups are solely conscious activities. However, not all our
> > are controlled by our conscious minds. Have you considered a way to
> > that possibility?
> It's not a case of debunking-there is always the possibility that
> conscious cover-ups exist, and it is a certainty that unconscious
> cover-ups exist (through ignorance/negligence), but I think the
> statistical odds are that both types of cover-up will ultimately be
> exposed. Particularly in respect of claims of alien contact dating
> back 50 years or more, I think _that_ conspiracy is past it's sell-by
> > Roger
> Cheers, Joe
- << Previous post in topic