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

Re: Fwd = [SO] Corso's claims

Expand Messages
  • Joe McGonagle
    ... [snip ... Accusations of cover-ups are easier still! Deny it, and you are covering that fact up! ;-) Joe
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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.