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

Re: [UFOnet] Fwd: Re: John Lear's comments on Area 51

Expand Messages
  • Geoff Richardson
    Joe, It depends on what you define as a New World Order . And if you use it, you should at least be prepared to define it. Don t forget that it was Henry
    Message 1 of 30 , Dec 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Joe,
      It depends on what you define as a "New World Order". And if you use it, you should at least be prepared to define it. Don't forget that it was Henry Kissinger who coined the phrase in the early 70s.
      Kissinger was certainly convinced that there was a long term military/economical/political plan which smacked of the philosophies that some would later relate to the concept of a shadow-type government which has little regard for normal or accepted morals and ethics. Why was Kissinger convinced? Because not only did he originate the term "New World Order", he was at least partly responsible for the aforesaid philosophies.
      "New World Order" is perfectly acceptable and accurate terminology and it does indicate "hidden government" - to use the phrase to promote some extremely bizarre concepts is, to say the least, inaccurate but to use it in the way you have, in this posting, is quite definitely just as inaccurate.
      Geoff Richardson
      www.thewhyfiles.net

      > >Joe wrote:
      > > You clearly missed my point then, which was that a
      > large
      > > proportion of bizarre stories, particularly those
      > involving
      > > cover-ups (including the "New World Order") are
      > based on
      > > nothing more substantial than what I used to
      > speculate that the
      > > moon is made of cheese, yet people are willing to
      > "have faith"
      > > in such rubbish.
      > >
      > .
      > >
      > > UFOnet is an international news and discussion
      > list dedicated to:
      > > UFOs, UAP, Anomalous Phenomena in general and the
      > Paranormal.
      > >
      > > 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:
      > ufonet-admin@...
      > >
      > > Caution, many reports of unidentified phenomena
      > posted to this list
      > > require
      > > further investigation.
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --
      > > No virus found in this incoming message.
      > > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
      > > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.10/189 -
      > Release Date:
      > > 11/30/2005
      > >
      > >
      >
      >




      __________________________________________
      Yahoo! DSL - Something to write home about.
      Just $16.99/mo. or less.
      dsl.yahoo.com



      UFOnet is an international news and discussion list dedicated to:
      UFOs, UAP, Anomalous Phenomena in general and the Paranormal.

      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: ufonet-admin@...

      Caution, many reports of unidentified phenomena posted to this list require
      further investigation.







      SPONSORED LINKS Extraterrestrial life Paranormal phenomena


      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

      a.. Visit your group "ufonet" on the web.

      b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      ufonet-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

      c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Joe (uk-ufo) McGonagle
      Hello Michael, List, It s impractical to maintain all of the original text in a form that would be easy to read, so I am addressing the points which I think
      Message 2 of 30 , Dec 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello Michael, List,

        It's impractical to maintain all of the original text in a form
        that would be easy to read, so I am addressing the points which I
        think require a response.

        In relation to whether or not Michael has examined the
        possibility that his "meditative" communications are internally
        generated or misrepresented by another agency, he wrote:

        >MM:
        >This assumption, that I've never asked myself over 41
        >years is quite amazing.

        It is not so amazing, since you dodge the question when it
        raised. If indeed you have evaluated the possibilities, how have
        you eliminated the alternative possibilities?

        In response to my suggestion that Michael did not in fact know
        the origin of the messages, but rather took a guess as to their
        authenticity, he wrote:

        >I don't know why you would suspect that, but it's your
        >prerogative. You claim that I'm guessing, but it
        >seems to me, that you're the one guessing.

        In the absence of any direct answer from you to a direct question
        from me, what alternative do I have but to guess? You leave me no
        choice.

        In response to an example whereby alternative explanations [to
        the literal acceptance] of a witness report existed, Michael
        wrote:

        >There doesn't have to be proof, to make something
        >true. It could be truth, but with no evidence
        >available. This would apply to my own UFO sighting.

        Absence of proof (or even supporting evidence) does not confer
        "truth" either. All that can be said is that it may or may not be
        a literal description of what actually took place. No conclusion
        either way can be drawn from such a scenario, which is exactly my
        point.

        In response to (negative) examples of the effect of faith on the
        actions of people, Michael wrote:

        >I think you're going off on a bit of a tangent. You
        >pick the negative aspects of events to discuss. Why
        >don't you pick out some positive events. Most of the
        >world is going on faith, faith in Jesus, Muhammad,
        >Buddha, Guru Nanak. Frits doesn't want us to discuss
        >religion, but there seems a need to balance your
        >pessimistic offering with something positive. Faith
        >has resulted in a lot of good, too.

        Some of those which you cite include the worst examples of
        faith-led atrocities.

        In response to my question relating to rationale for people's
        opinions, Michael wrote:

        >You're still wanting proof. That's your prerogative.
        >Most of the world is making use of faith. I don't
        >think I should think someone is nutty, deceiving,
        >etc., just because he can't prove something. I'm
        >willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. You
        >seem to be unwilling to do that, even in the face of
        >thousands of sightings, all over the world.

        Actually all I require is some tangible evidence, not proof.
        Society works on such evidence, viz. science and law. If it
        worked primarily from spiritual concerns, the defence "God told
        me to do it" would work every time, and the prisons would be
        empty. Such a society would descend into chaos very quickly.

        Responding to my example of what, under other circumstances might
        have resulted in another animal mutilation case, Michael wrote:

        >MM:
        >This is no match with the surgical precision, which
        >has been found in some mutilations. You should read
        >the story of the human mutilation at Brazil. Here it
        >is:
        >
        >http://www.think-aboutit.com/mutilations/Human_Mutilations.htm

        A singularly unconvincing case if ever I saw one. Working from
        second-generation images of an un-named corpse, the
        sheep-diviners conclude that the body was mutilated by aliens.
        Quite typical of the other material in the so-called "cattle
        mutilation" business-venture.

        Regarding my remark relating to the evidence of a hoax concerning
        the MJ-12 fiasco, Michael wrote:

        >Even you mention "some elements of fakery." Are you
        >open to the idea, that there might be "some elements
        >of truth," to it?
        >
        >I still see a tendency that you would throw out the
        >baby with the bathwater, possibly?

        The evidence is at the very least tainted. Why waste time on it?
        The entire circumstances of the MJ-12 saga points towards a hoax,
        the discovery of document tampering just confirms it.

        In response to clarification of my "Cheesy moon" article, Michael
        wrote:

        >Sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction. For
        >example, if Leonardo da Vinci had explained that he
        >saw visions of airplanes, machines flying through the
        >air, back in the sixteenth century, people would have
        >thought that he was playing with one or two cards
        >short of a full deck. Now, we know the truth about
        >airplanes, don't we?

        And do you recall how Da Vinci was treated by the religious
        authorities at the time? You make my point for me.

        I am sure that this thread is tedious for many of the
        list-members, and I don't have the time to waste on trying to
        convert the devout, so I shan't be prolonging it after I respond
        to Geoff Richardson.

        Regards,
        Joe
      • Joe (uk-ufo) McGonagle
        Hi Geoff, ... From: Geoff Richardson To: Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 7:23 PM Subject: Re:
        Message 3 of 30 , Dec 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Geoff,

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Geoff Richardson" <Geoffrich@...>
          To: <ufonet@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 7:23 PM
          Subject: Re: [UFOnet] Fwd: Re: John Lear's comments on Area 51


          > Joe,
          > It depends on what you define as a "New World Order".
          And if you use it, you should at least be prepared to define it.
          Don't forget that it was Henry Kissinger who coined the phrase in
          the early 70s.

          Kissinger's comments have been taken out of context by the
          conspiracy-mongers. His vision of a "New World Order" was that
          the UN would take on the mantle of a world-government, working to
          enable the citizenship of the world, not subdue them.

          This has been distorted by people like Bill Cooper and David Icke
          into something completely different, and this is the context in
          which I was writing. To define interpretations such as Cooper's
          and Icke would be confusing, since although there are parallels
          within them, they also have differences. There are also a number
          of different variations on the same theme by others which I don't
          have the time to cover.

          Regards,
          Joe
        • Michael Martin
          MM: Dear Joe and Members, ... MM: It takes some unmitigated gall to even ask such a personal question, IMHO. ... MM: This is also personal. As I said, in the
          Message 4 of 30 , Dec 5, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            MM:
            Dear Joe and Members,
            My reply will be below:

            --- "Joe (uk-ufo) McGonagle" <joe@...> wrote:

            > Hello Michael, List,
            >
            > It's impractical to maintain all of the original
            > text in a form
            > that would be easy to read, so I am addressing the
            > points which I
            > think require a response.
            >
            > In relation to whether or not Michael has examined
            > the
            > possibility that his "meditative" communications are
            > internally
            > generated or misrepresented by another agency, he
            > wrote:
            >
            > >MM:
            > >This assumption, that I've never asked myself over
            > 41
            > >years is quite amazing.
            >
            > It is not so amazing, since you dodge the question
            > when it
            > raised.

            MM:
            It takes some unmitigated gall to even ask such a
            personal question, IMHO.

            > If indeed you have evaluated the
            > possibilities, how have
            > you eliminated the alternative possibilities?

            MM:
            This is also personal. As I said, in the beginning,
            my testimony can be taken or left behind.

            I could easily reverse this question, and pose it to
            you. You have, apparently, dismissed all the
            sightings of thousands of people, as no more reliable
            than a theory that the moon is made of cheese. Very
            funny. How did you eliminate all the other
            alternative possibilities, most importantly, that what
            they saw was real?

            > In response to my suggestion that Michael did not in
            > fact know
            > the origin of the messages, but rather took a guess
            > as to their
            > authenticity, he wrote:
            >
            > >I don't know why you would suspect that, but it's
            > your
            > >prerogative. You claim that I'm guessing, but it
            > >seems to me, that you're the one guessing.

            MM:
            Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say anything
            about ME GUESSING. My question is, if you are
            guessing, in case you didn't notice?

            > In the absence of any direct answer from you to a
            > direct question
            > from me, what alternative do I have but to guess?
            > You leave me no
            > choice.

            MM:
            I'd say to be open-minded to the truth. You appear to
            be rather closed-minded to it, IMHO.

            > In response to an example whereby alternative
            > explanations [to
            > the literal acceptance] of a witness report existed,
            > Michael
            > wrote:
            >
            > >There doesn't have to be proof, to make something
            > >true. It could be truth, but with no evidence
            > >available. This would apply to my own UFO
            > sighting.
            >
            > Absence of proof (or even supporting evidence) does
            > not confer
            > "truth" either.

            MM:
            I didn't say it did.


            > All that can be said is that it may
            > or may not be
            > a literal description of what actually took place.
            > No conclusion
            > either way can be drawn from such a scenario, which
            > is exactly my
            > point.

            MM:
            I detect a softening of your position, from
            closed-minded to a more open-minded position.
            Congratulations.

            > In response to (negative) examples of the effect of
            > faith on the
            > actions of people, Michael wrote:
            >
            > >I think you're going off on a bit of a tangent.
            > You
            > >pick the negative aspects of events to discuss.
            > Why
            > >don't you pick out some positive events. Most of
            > the
            > >world is going on faith, faith in Jesus, Muhammad,
            > >Buddha, Guru Nanak. Frits doesn't want us to
            > discuss
            > >religion, but there seems a need to balance your
            > >pessimistic offering with something positive.
            > Faith
            > >has resulted in a lot of good, too.
            >
            > Some of those which you cite include the worst
            > examples of
            > faith-led atrocities.

            MM:
            Again, you're focusing ONLY on the negative. Why?
            How many people have obeyed such moral teachings, as
            the ten commandments? Every religion has moral
            teachings. People would have committed many more
            crimes, without these teachings.

            > In response to my question relating to rationale for
            > people's
            > opinions, Michael wrote:
            >
            > >You're still wanting proof. That's your
            > prerogative.
            > >Most of the world is making use of faith. I don't
            > >think I should think someone is nutty, deceiving,
            > >etc., just because he can't prove something. I'm
            > >willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. You
            > >seem to be unwilling to do that, even in the face
            > of
            > >thousands of sightings, all over the world.
            >
            > Actually all I require is some tangible evidence,
            > not proof.

            MM:
            It's pretty close to the same thing, I'd say.

            > Society works on such evidence, viz. science and
            > law. If it
            > worked primarily from spiritual concerns, the
            > defence "God told
            > me to do it" would work every time, and the prisons
            > would be
            > empty. Such a society would descend into chaos very
            > quickly.

            MM:
            Again, you're talking only from the negative POV.
            Some people have done a lot of good, by the same
            justification, that "God told me to do it." Maybe
            that can't be proven, either, but a lot of good has
            been done, regardless.

            > Responding to my example of what, under other
            > circumstances might
            > have resulted in another animal mutilation case,
            > Michael wrote:
            >
            > >MM:
            > >This is no match with the surgical precision, which
            > >has been found in some mutilations. You should
            > read
            > >the story of the human mutilation at Brazil. Here
            > it
            > >is:
            > >
            >
            >http://www.think-aboutit.com/mutilations/Human_Mutilations.htm
            >
            > A singularly unconvincing case if ever I saw one.
            > Working from
            > second-generation images of an un-named corpse,

            MM:
            I read the guy's name. It's on the internet. I don't
            remember the exact name, however.

            > the
            > sheep-diviners conclude that the body was mutilated
            > by aliens.

            MM:
            Sheep-Diviners?

            > Quite typical of the other material in the so-called
            > "cattle
            > mutilation" business-venture.

            MM:
            Well, since you haven't replied to my case regarding
            the precision of it, it seems that you're just
            tiptoeing through the tulips. Remember the precision
            removal of the belly button, the rectum, etc.. Do you
            think animals are that precise?

            I'm thinking you might not have much of a case,
            regarding attributing it to animals, otherwise you
            would have posted it here.

            > Regarding my remark relating to the evidence of a
            > hoax concerning
            > the MJ-12 fiasco, Michael wrote:
            >
            > >Even you mention "some elements of fakery." Are
            > you
            > >open to the idea, that there might be "some
            > elements
            > >of truth," to it?
            > >
            > >I still see a tendency that you would throw out the
            > >baby with the bathwater, possibly?
            >
            > The evidence is at the very least tainted. Why waste
            > time on it?

            MM:
            To refresh your memory, I mentioned that my
            meditation, regarding the aliens and the enzymes was
            the same as some alleged accounts of the MJ-12. I'd
            suggest that we could, at least, try to be open-minded
            to the MJ-12 theories, and not to dismiss them without
            a thorough investigation. You seem to want to throw
            out the baby with the bathwater on this. I'm simply
            saying to separate the wheat from the chaff. There
            are some points regarding the MJ-12 theories, that I
            don't accept, either.

            > The entire circumstances of the MJ-12 saga points
            > towards a hoax,
            > the discovery of document tampering just confirms
            > it.

            MM:
            How much hoax is it? Is it partially true? Do we
            want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, like
            you? I'll leave that issue to the sagacity of the
            readers. I think we should separate the wheat from
            the chaff on this.

            > In response to clarification of my "Cheesy moon"
            > article, Michael
            > wrote:
            >
            > >Sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction. For
            > >example, if Leonardo da Vinci had explained that he
            > >saw visions of airplanes, machines flying through
            > the
            > >air, back in the sixteenth century, people would
            > have
            > >thought that he was playing with one or two cards
            > >short of a full deck. Now, we know the truth about
            > >airplanes, don't we?
            >
            > And do you recall how Da Vinci was treated by the
            > religious
            > authorities at the time? You make my point for me.

            MM:
            This is immaterial and irrelevant.

            > I am sure that this thread is tedious for many of
            > the
            > list-members, and I don't have the time to waste on
            > trying to
            > convert the devout, so I shan't be prolonging it
            > after I respond
            > to Geoff Richardson.
            >
            > Regards,
            > Joe

            MM:
            It seems that Joe is unwilling to continue this
            dialogue. I'll leave that cut and run tactic to the
            sagacity of the readers. :-)

            Michael Martin
            >
            >




            __________________________________
            Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
            http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.