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 technology. >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 >behaviour. 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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp