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

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

Expand Messages
  • Roger Anderton
    UFO Cover Up started long before 1947. ... technology did not play a role in the development of the transistor or the integrated circuit, or if it did, it was
    Message 1 of 9 , Nov 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      UFO Cover Up started long before 1947.

      >>>>>Based on the available evidence, it appears that either alien
      technology did
      not play a role in the development of the transistor or the integrated
      circuit, or if it did, it was to a very minor
      degree that would be virtually impossible to verify. In either case, unless
      the information and dates provided in his book are incorrect, Corso most
      likely was in no way directly involved.

      The 'available evidence' probably means ignoring Tesla - who claimed to be
      using radio to contact ET s before the official date that radio was
      invented, and had plans for an unconventional air craft. Nazis were
      developing unconventional craft. The object that crashed in 1947 could have
      been an unconventional craft from some unknown group of peoples' development
      of alien ideas, with the US already aware of this and trying to develop
      along those lines.

      >>>>............several
      other researchers (the Horovitz group at Prudue, Salisbury at
      the Naval Research Laboratory) were close to inventing the transistor at the
      time it was invented at Bell Labs,

      Several groups means: 'They' knew what the sort of thing 'they' were looking
      for.

      Roots of that 'idea' would probably go back to Tesla. And Tesla's roots :
      Boscovich.

      >>>>>>>>"Corso claims that starting in 1961 he worked in the Army's Foreign
      Technology division and was responsible for disseminating the wreckage of an
      alien craft to various laboratories with government contracts such as Bell
      Labs in order to accelerate their research through a process known as
      reverse engineering.

      Key word is 'accelerate' NOT 'initialise' . The idea was being worked on
      already, and did someone think that information from the 1947 crash would
      aid that research?

      This report seems to be based on the assumption that the '1947 crash
      initiated the transistor research' and then sets out to debunk that clearly
      false premise. While ignoring the deeper roots.

      >>>>>>In either case, unless the information and dates provided in his book
      are incorrect, Corso most likely was in no way directly involved.

      Or the other information and dates that it is being compared against are
      false?

      Cover Up is easy.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Frits Westra" <fwestra@...>
      To: <UFOnet@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 12:32 PM
      Subject: [UFOnet] Fwd = [SO] Corso's claims


      >
      > Forwarded by: fwestra@... (Frits Westra)
      > Originally from: Skyopen@yahoogroups.com
      > Original Subject: [SO] Digest Number 816
      > Original Date: 1 Nov 2001 00:56:55 -0000
      >
      > ========================== Forwarded message begins ======================
      >
      > SKYWATCH INTERNATIONAL, INC. (A Non-Profit Organization)
      >
      > Visit the Skywatch International Inc. website! http://www.skywatch-
      > international.org
      > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
      -----
      >
      > Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:39:11
      > From: "Bill Hamilton" <skywatcher22@...>
      > Subject: Corso's claims
      >
      > The fact is I do not have solid, convincing evidence that
      > the Roswell craft or any other flying saucer has been reverse-engineered.
      I
      > do have many statements along that line from ex-
      > military and some engineers.
      >
      > Col. Corso was someone I met personally and had the opportunity
      > to talk with for many hours over the dinner table. I do not think
      > he fabricated the story so much as distorted it to a large degree
      > as engineers and techs see no supporting evidence that the transistor,
      > under development in 1946, owes its practical existence to reverse
      > engineering of a craft that crashed in 1947. It is doubtful that
      > anyone rushed in and said: "forget what you have under development,
      > we just figured this out in zip time and came up with the answer so
      > we could have a finished product". Right!
      >
      > Just today a new document analyzing Corso's reverse-engineering claims has
      > been posted and the conclusion is reproduced here:
      >
      > from: http://www.nidsci.org/whatsnew.html
      >
      > "Corso claims that starting in 1961 he worked in the Army's Foreign
      > Technology division and was responsible for disseminating the wreckage of
      an
      > alien craft to various laboratories with government contracts such as Bell
      > Labs in order to accelerate their research through a process known as
      > reverse engineering.
      >
      > Based on the 1961 date Corso provides, it seems unlikely that he could
      have
      > had any direct impact on the development of the integrated circuit.
      Whether
      > alien technology had been provided to companies such as Bell Labs at an
      > earlier date remains open to speculation.
      > However, the alleged Roswell crash in July 1947 probably could not have
      had
      > any direct impact on the development of the transistor, which had a long
      > history and was completed less than six months later. In addition, several
      > other researchers (the Horovitz group at Prudue, Salisbury at
      > the Naval Research Laboratory) were close to inventing the transistor at
      the
      > time it was invented at Bell Labs, Julius E. Lilienfeld had patents on
      > devices similar to those leading to the invention
      > of the transistor going back 20 years, and a close match between alien
      > technology and current Earth technology is highly unlikely.
      > It is also unlikely that the integrated circuit was based on alien
      > technology recovered at Roswell because Corso's position in Foreign
      > Technology began two years after its invention.
      >
      > More importantly, the integrated circuit was based on combining other
      ideas
      > that had recently been discovered. It was the next logical step.
      > Furthermore, two different groups invented the integrated circuit nearly
      > simultaneously: Kilby at Texas Instruments and Noyce and Moore at
      > Fairchild Semiconductor. Researchers at several other labs such as RCA and
      > Westinghouse were working on the same idea. As in the case of the
      > transistor, a close match between alien technology and current Earth
      > technology is highly unlikely.
      >
      > Based on the available evidence, it appears that either alien technology
      did
      > not play a role in the development of the transistor or the integrated
      > circuit, or if it did, it was to a very minor
      > degree that would be virtually impossible to verify. In either case,
      unless
      > the information and dates provided in his book are incorrect, Corso most
      > likely was in no way directly involved.
      >
      >
      > References
      > Alexander, J. (1998). A Review of Corso's The Day After Roswell.
      Unpublished
      > manuscript.
      > Bernstein, J. (1984). Three Degrees Above Zero: Bell Labs In The
      Information
      > Age. New York:
      > Charles Scribner's Sons.
      > Campbell, G. (1998). Phone call from Jack Shulman.
      > www.ufomind.com/misc/1998/mar/d13-
      > 001.shtml
      > Corso, P. J. & Birnes, W. J. (1997). The Day After Roswell. Pocket Books.
      > Berliner, D. & Friedman, S. (1992). Crash at Corona: The U.S. Military
      > Retrieval and Cover-Up
      > of a UFO. Marlowe & Co.
      > Bryant, L. (2000). "The Love-Hate Relationship Between Whistleblower
      Philip
      > J. Corso and the
      > FBI." www.ufocity.com.
      > Dolan, R. (2000). UFOs and the National Security State. Keyhole Publishing
      > Company.
      > Friedman, S. (1997). "A Review of Col. Corso's Book The Day After
      Roswell."
      > Stanton
      > Friedman's Website. www.v-j-enterprises.com/sfcorso.html.
      > Friedman, S. (1997). Top Secret/MAJIC. Marlowe & Co
      > Good, T. (1989). Above Top Secret: The Worldwide UFO Cover-Up. Acacia
      Press..
      > Ingle, K. (1994). Reverse Engineering. McGraw Hill.
      > Kaku, M. (1997). Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21 st
      Century.
      > Bantam Books.
      > Kilby, J. S. (1976). "Invention of the Integrated Circuit." IEEE
      > Transactions and Electronic
      > Devices. 23: 648.
      > Kiver, M. S. (1972). Transistor and Integrated Electronics. New York:
      > McGraw-Hill, Inc.
      > Lilienfeld, J. E. (1926). "Method and Apparatus for Controlling Electric
      > Currents," U.S. Patent
      > No. 1,745,175, filed 8 October 1926, patented 28 January 1930. Washington:
      > U.S. Patent Office.
      >
      > I pretty much now agree with those conclusions. As to Corso's
      > testimony of involvement, that will have to wait further disclosure
      > of documents.
      >
      > Bill Hamilton
      >
      > Bill Hamilton
      > Executive Director
      > Skywatch International, Inc.
      > websites:
      > http://home.earthlink.net/~skywatcher22
      > http://home.earthlink.net/~skywatcher12
      > http://home.earthlink.net/~xplorerx
      > http://home.earthlink.net/~xplorerx2
      >
      > ========================== Forwarded message ends ========================
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > UFOnet is an open, international, free news and discussion list dedicated
      to:
      > UFOs, Anomalous Phenomena, Astronomy, Skywatching, SETI, the Latest on
      > Aerospace Research and Space Flight, Free & New Energy, Exoscience, etc.
      > To subscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
      > ufonet-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
      > ufonet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Website (Dutch only): http://www.ufonet.nl/
      > Messages to the list-owner: jkumeling@...
      >
      > Word voor fl 20,- lid van de UFOnieuwsbrief. Zes maal per jaar in de echte
      brievenbus het laatste nieuws uit de ufologie, astronomie, ruimtevaart en
      aanverwante onderwerpen. Kijk op www.ufonet.nl!
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Joe McGonagle
      ... [snip ... Accusations of cover-ups are easier still! Deny it, and you are covering that fact up! ;-) Joe
      Message 2 of 9 , Nov 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In ufonet@y..., "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...> wrote:
        > UFO Cover Up started long before 1947.
        >
        [snip
        > Cover Up is easy.
        >

        Accusations of cover-ups are easier still! Deny it, and you are
        covering that fact up!

        ;-)
        Joe
      • Roger Anderton
        And even before that. The debunking of Corso assumes that the Cover Up started from 1947, hence manages to maintain the Cover Up. Cheers Roger ... From: CUN
        Message 3 of 9 , Nov 5, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          And even before that. The debunking of Corso assumes that the Cover Up
          started from 1947, hence manages to maintain the Cover Up.

          Cheers Roger

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "CUN" <retecun@...>
          To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 10:19 PM
          Subject: R: [UFOnet] Fwd = [SO] Corso's claims


          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Roger Anderton <R.J.Anderton@...>
          > To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 9:00 PM
          > Subject: Re: [UFOnet] Fwd = [SO] Corso's claims
          >
          >
          > > UFO Cover Up started long before 1947.
          > >
          >
          > Oh, yes, f.e. in Italy in 1933, during Fascism, with secret commission
          > Cabinet RS/33.
          > Best wishes
          > Alfredo Lissoni
          >
          >
          > UFOnet is an open, international, free news and discussion list dedicated
          to:
          > UFOs, Anomalous Phenomena, Astronomy, Skywatching, SETI, the Latest on
          > Aerospace Research and Space Flight, Free & New Energy, Exoscience, etc.
          > To subscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
          > ufonet-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          > To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
          > ufonet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Website (Dutch only): http://www.ufonet.nl/
          > Messages to the list-owner: jkumeling@...
          >
          > Word voor fl 20,- lid van de UFOnieuwsbrief. Zes maal per jaar in de echte
          brievenbus het laatste nieuws uit de ufologie, astronomie, ruimtevaart en
          aanverwante onderwerpen. Kijk op www.ufonet.nl!
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
        • Roger Anderton
          Hi Joe ... covering that fact up! An interesting statement, presumably you believe that it cannot be proved false, so I have a question: do you believe that a
          Message 4 of 9 , Nov 5, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Joe

            >>>>>>Accusations of cover-ups are easier still! Deny it, and you are
            covering that fact up!

            An interesting statement, presumably you believe that it cannot be proved
            false, so I have a question: do you believe that a statement which cannot be
            proved false must then be true?

            Roger

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Joe McGonagle" <joe@...>
            To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2001 8:15 PM
            Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd = [SO] Corso's claims


            > --- In ufonet@y..., "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...> wrote:
            > > UFO Cover Up started long before 1947.
            > >
            > [snip
            > > Cover Up is easy.
            > >
            >
            > Accusations of cover-ups are easier still! Deny it, and you are
            > covering that fact up!
            >
            > ;-)
            > Joe
            >
            >
          • Joe McGonagle
            ... Hi, Roger, ... are ... proved ... cannot be ... No, that is exactly my point: that is the whole premise of the cover- up protagonists, that they can t
            Message 5 of 9 , Nov 5, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In ufonet@y..., "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...> wrote:
              > Hi Joe

              Hi, Roger,

              >
              > >>>>>>Accusations of cover-ups are easier still! Deny it, and you
              are
              > covering that fact up!
              >
              > An interesting statement, presumably you believe that it cannot be
              proved
              > false, so I have a question: do you believe that a statement which
              cannot be
              > proved false must then be true?
              >

              No, that is exactly my point: that is the whole premise of the cover-
              up protagonists, that they can't prove the cover-up because the
              evidence is covered up.....this is used to support their case of a
              cover-up, and cannot be disproved.

              My personal opinion is that some things do get covered up, but
              eventually, they are exposed. Of the cover-ups that have been
              exposed, they are generally covered up in order to hide embarrassing
              personal and official details, eg the ineffectiveness of the UK radar
              coverage post WWII, the sexual excesses of members of the royal
              family, etc.

              Secrets that have a personal bearing on politicians and other public
              figures seem to be more closely protected than military secrets.

              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.

              Cheers, Joe
            • Roger Anderton
              Hi Joe ... up evidence of alien contact or captured alien technology more than 50 years ago would have been exposed by now. ... to have been exposed (in
              Message 6 of 9 , Nov 6, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Joe

                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?

                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.

                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?

                Roger

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Joe McGonagle" <joe@...>
                To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 7:55 PM
                Subject: [UFOnet] Re: Fwd = [SO] Corso's claims


                > --- In ufonet@y..., "Roger Anderton" <R.J.Anderton@b...> wrote:
                > > Hi Joe
                >
                > Hi, Roger,
                >
                > >
                > > >>>>>>Accusations of cover-ups are easier still! Deny it, and you
                > are
                > > covering that fact up!
                > >
                > > An interesting statement, presumably you believe that it cannot be
                > proved
                > > false, so I have a question: do you believe that a statement which
                > cannot be
                > > proved false must then be true?
                > >
                >
                > No, that is exactly my point: that is the whole premise of the cover-
                > up protagonists, that they can't prove the cover-up because the
                > evidence is covered up.....this is used to support their case of a
                > cover-up, and cannot be disproved.
                >
                > My personal opinion is that some things do get covered up, but
                > eventually, they are exposed. Of the cover-ups that have been
                > exposed, they are generally covered up in order to hide embarrassing
                > personal and official details, eg the ineffectiveness of the UK radar
                > coverage post WWII, the sexual excesses of members of the royal
                > family, etc.
                >
                > Secrets that have a personal bearing on politicians and other public
                > figures seem to be more closely protected than military secrets.
                >
                > 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.
                >
                > Cheers, Joe
                >
                >
                >
                > UFOnet is an open, international, free news and discussion list dedicated
                to:
                > UFOs, Anomalous Phenomena, Astronomy, Skywatching, SETI, the Latest on
                > Aerospace Research and Space Flight, Free & New Energy, Exoscience, etc.
                > To subscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
                > ufonet-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                > To unsubscribe, send a blank e-mail message to:
                > ufonet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > Website (Dutch only): http://www.ufonet.nl/
                > Messages to the list-owner: jkumeling@...
                >
                > Word voor fl 20,- lid van de UFOnieuwsbrief. Zes maal per jaar in de echte
                brievenbus het laatste nieuws uit de ufologie, astronomie, ruimtevaart en
                aanverwante onderwerpen. Kijk op www.ufonet.nl!
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
              • Joe McGonagle
                ... Hi, Roger, ... covering ... science ... years? ... History is riddled with acknowledged scientific theories that have been proved wrong, you have quoted
                Message 7 of 9 , Nov 9, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- 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
                • Roger Anderton
                  Hi Joe ... been proved wrong, you have quoted many of them yourself. Not always. Some theories are thought wrong, and then later reinstated again. For example
                  Message 8 of 9 , 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
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.