UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2004 > Feb > Feb 1

Re: Michael J. Woods On NASA's Motives - Woods

From: Mike Woods <mike.woods.nul>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 15:35:45 -0500
Fwd Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 16:23:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Michael J. Woods On NASA's Motives - Woods

>From: Eleanor White <eleanor.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:05:24 -0500
>Subject: Michael J. Woods On NASA's Motives

Hey All,

I'll stand by my comments.

>Michael stated that NASA could not be covering up artifacts
>because nothing would spur generous budget allocations like
>finding artificial structures and implements on Mars.

I said I don't believe NASA would cover up.... Of course they
could be covering up artifacts on Mars. The U-S bombed Cambodia
in the 1960 for months and only the Cambodians and the pilots
knew about it.

>Both UFO abductees and mind control targets (bad term, but the
>most popular unfortunately) have been reporting extremely
>advanced technology being used on them for decades.

Still wanting for a solid, reliable analysis of an implant from
either camp. Most AA experiencer reports that I've read
(admitedly, not all) have NOT described beyond-tomorrow

>The MKULTRA era mind control programs, the COINTELPRO crimes,
>the broadcast revelations that unexploded bombs were planted
>inside the Oklahoma City federal building on video tape (?), the
>proving in public court by Virginia lawyer that the Virginia
>Supreme Court was altering transcripts, and quite a few other
>incidents, show that conspiracies happen.

I don't recall say there are no such thing as conspiracies. I
just said I question the mindset that sees a conspiracy in
everything. Sometimes, the cat gets pregnant without government
intrevention. I also question whether the size of the cover-up
needed within NASA could stay covered up. Why not? Look at the
examples Eleanor is citing. If true, they show cover-ups fail;
just ask the ghost of Richard Nixon. Contra-wise, if untrue,
they do show our willingness to believe in conspiracies,
especially involving governments.

>There is no logical reason to presume NASA is somehow immune
>from conspiracies, or that anyone who speaks about conspiratorial
>activity is crazy. Anyone who has lived through going to school
>knows that cliques and conspiracies are natural and normal.

Didn't say people who believe in conspiracies are crazy or NASA
was immune, I don't need anyone putting words in my mouth. And
there is one helluva difference between not inviting Bobby and
Jill to the party at your house when you're in high school and
hiding alien artifacts on images that are being beamed-in live
in front of the world media.

>NASA's actions make it plain to all who reject arbitrary
>application of the standard "conspiracy theory" labelling that
>some reason other than budget size is motivating their

Huh? I reject the arbitrary application of the standard
conspiracy theory behind the Mars color controversy. First, it's
far from proven they are altering images/colors on data from
Mars. Second, it sure as hell is _not_ plain that some reason
other than budget size is motivating them and there's no hint of
evidence to support it.

Having said that, my only other response is.....

Well said, Eleanor. Always food for thought. Truth is a shifty
and changing thing these days, and the further we are away from
the truth - about 60 million miles these days, in the case of
Mars - the harder it is to nail down. Some days it feels like
we're trying to nail Jello to a wall.

Regards all,

Mike W.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com