Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

11011Re: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd = [SO] Corso's claims

Expand Messages
  • Roger Anderton
    Nov 12, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Joe

      >>>History is riddled with acknowledged scientific theories that have
      been 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 caused
      by 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 a
      given scientific premise was wrong. If someone made such a discovery,
      but continued to promote an incorrect version, then it would become
      conscious.

      Yes
      >>>>>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 the
      facts, 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
      theory.
      Brian Greene in The Elegant Universe p 380 while talking about Superstring
      theory says:

      "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 are
      probably 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 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.

      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-by
      date.

      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.

      Cheers
      Roger

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Joe McGonagle" <joe@...>
      To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
      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),
      > except:
      > >
      > >
      > > >>>>>>>>I would expect that irrefutable evidence of any Government
      > covering
      > > 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"
      > science
      > > to
      > > have been exposed (in verifiable terms) by now.
      > >
      > > But what about a Cover Up that has gone on for far long than 50
      > years?
      > >
      > > 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
      > would
      > > 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
      > conscious.
      >
      > 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
      > that
      > > Cover Ups are solely conscious activities. However, not all our
      > activities
      > > are controlled by our conscious minds. Have you considered a way to
      > debunk
      > > 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
      > date.
      >
      > > Roger
      > >
      >
      > Cheers, Joe
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic