The idea of a government cover-up.

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by garbonzo, Oct 17, 2015.

  1. garbonzo Registered Senior Member

    There's plenty work done on crash retrievals etc by many researchers. There's one case before Roswell that's really considered even more as facts than Roswell by the researcher Richard Dolan. It kind of depends of what understanding you have of the events being facts and fiction. Which has nothing to do with aliens or such per say.

    So for over 70 years there's been a structural coverup of either the retreivals of crash ships or unknown objects in very strict airapace, this is done by the so called "cabal". The reason is because it's such delicate technology either retrived or in our airspace that the absolute silence will "fool" the public and other nations to not dive into the subject. It's obvious that these object does not use our conventional means of travel or fuel. To release any data leading to the Disclosure of the coverup would collapse our social, industrial and political structure.

    This is not some villain who sits in his lair pushing buttons. It's a group of people with close to infinite amount of money who will do anything to get their way.

    Most people cannot take it all in unless you've had some experience with the subject. So if you're not experienced I suggest you to listen to some of the very renowned researchers like Timothy Good, George Knapp, Stanton Friedman, Richard Dolan etc.

    Have fun thanks for reading.
    krash661 likes this.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Just because someone is touted as a "renowned researcher" doesn't make them correct.
    Good, for example, is a credulous loon with next to zero critical faculties. Oh, and he also tends to inflate his own capabilities.
    Knapp too lacks critical facilities, the fact that he's largely responsible for Bob Lazar's fame speaks volumes as to his "research" credentials.
    Stanton Friedman has a record of cherry-picking data to suit his preconceptions.
    And... there's also some doubt about Dolan's "credentials" - Dolan doesn't do a good job at verifying the veracity of sources. That is, he presents the material as he finds it and does not check validity. (Although, not having read anything of his, as yet, I couldn't say for definite).

    So, essentially, what you're saying is: Unless you've "retrieved a UFO from a crash site" yourself forget everyone else and just accept what the gullible cranks say. Got it.

    Um, would this be the "disclosure" that's been promised just about every years for the last 15 years and hasn't arrived?
    Why would it cause this "collapse"?
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Grow up Dy. Your ridiculous arguments are just that; ridiculous.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Because you say so?
    Because you can show why they're ridiculous?
    Go ahead.
  8. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Would this group of people with almost infinite resources be the "Illuminati" by any chance?

    I only ask as it might give my 12yr old son a laugh........
  9. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    If governments around the world really were convinced that ufos were alien spaceships, one would expect to see some evidence of it in their behavior.

    Every ufo report would attract hordes of government researchers and tremendous resources would be directed into things like Seti and space defenses. The history of manned pace travel wouldn't be the history of almost total disinterest that we've seen since 1970.

    The lack of any visible government interest in ufos, which the conspiracy theorists take to be evidence of a cover-up, is more likely evidence of lack of interest in ufos.

    The thing to notice about these cover-up conspiracy theories is that they aren't really about ufos and space-aliens at all. Aliens and ufos just provide an occasion for expressions of popular distrust of ruling elites here on Earth. That kind of post-60's politico-cultural alienation is where a large part of the contemporary ufo-myth directs its attention these days.
    Russ_Watters likes this.
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Yazata, doesn't our lack of government funding for such programs merely act as (conclusive) evidence of just how high our alien overlords have infiltrated our societies, either through direct involvement (shapeshifters etc) or through some mind-controlling technique, that they can so easily limit our research and progress in such fundamental areas and keep us always on the back foot, ripe for the inevitable invasion force?

    Just saying.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Russ_Watters and exchemist like this.
  11. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    While it is not entirely impossible to conceal the existence of a huge amount of money, it is impossible to spend it without people noticing.
    You didn't provide any references to their work, for us to evaluate.
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    river has never, and will never, offer any more than "one liner" comments and remarks supporting any ratbag claim made by any conspiracy nut.
    He is incapable of anything else.
  13. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Unless it avails governments, being the people-protecting entities they are, to not admit there are flying craft out there they can't identify. It's a matter of job security. How long would you keep your job if you told the world you have found evidence of alien craft in our airspace? Craft that eludes our speediest jet fighters and makes a mockery of our most advanced technology. The very thought is unthinkable to the status quo keepers and would make a laughing stock of the U.S. military. Secrecy is always the best policy when it comes to panic-inducing news of space invaders. "Business as usual" and "plausible deniability" rotated thru 2-3 day newscycles is the opiate of the people.
    Last edited: Oct 19, 2015
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    It is neither. For a good view of what it is:

    The Psychology of Conspiracy and Cover-Ups
    Why do people believe in conspiracy theories?
    Posted Apr 29, 2015
    Psychology Today

    A relatively new area of research that has attracted a good deal of attention is that of the Psychology and Sociology of Conspiracy Theories. One definition of a conspiracy theory is a false belief that major events are caused by multiple actors working together in secret as part of an evil, cruel, omnipresent group. The movies have a lot to answer for, peddling conspiracy theories.

    Conspiracy theories are beliefs that attribute the ultimate cause of an event, or the concealment of an event from public knowledge, to a secret, unlawful, and malevolent plot by groups of individuals from governments, the military, corporations or religious groups.

    Beliefs in conspiracy theories are widespread across the globe, although they appear to be particularly prominent in the West. In the United States, for instance, national opinion polls regularly show that up to 90% of Americans believe Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in killing John F. Kennedy. Perhaps more surprising is the relatively prevalent belief, particularly among African American and gay communities, that the HIV/AIDS epidemic is a form of genocide perpetuated by government officials.

    There are theories about how advertising works (i.e. that there is a lot of very successful subliminal advertising) and how governments and big pharmaceutical companies work together. There are also theories about flying saucers (the Roswell Crash Cover up).

    There has been a phenomenal growth and dissemination of conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11 (9/11), 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon. Although 9/11 conspiracy theories are very varied and, they share a disbelief of mainstream accounts of those events. Typically they suggest that the US (and other) governments either had foreknowledge of, or planned and perpetrated, the 9/11 attacks, for the furtherance of domestic (clamping down on civil liberties) and foreign (wars in Afghanistan and Iraq) aims.

    Although repeatedly disputed in the mainstream press and empirical research, 9/11 conspiracist beliefs continue to find relatively widespread appeal, both in the US and elsewhere. The dissemination of such beliefs has been aided, in part, by the following attracted by groups such as the 9/11 Truth Movement, whose members convene through online media, and national and international conferences. From an empirical point of view, however, it is notable that no prior research has examined predictors in 9/11 conspiracist beliefs, mirroring the general dearth of research in conspiracy theories. . . .

    There are, of course, those who respond to the cynicism and scepticism of those who write about conspiracy theories. They maintain that it is very naïve to believe the official version of events. They argue that there is plenty of evidence that governments are Machiavellian manipulators of information and propaganda whose role it is to keep people in ignorance.

    They claim the Anti-Conspiracists are close minded. Indeed the Conspiracy Theorists say it is they (only) who really hold those in power to account and reclaim history and it is the mockers and scoffers of the theories who are the stupid ones.

    Conspiracy theories usually claim that there are three groups of censors who try to keep us all ignorant: The Government and particularly the secret services; the Military, and big Corporations particularly banks, oil companies and pharmaceutical companies.

    The question psychologists are interested in is who and when and why people believe in conspiracy theories both well-known and obscure. There are conspiracies about the murder of Kennedy and Princess Diana; whether we got to the moon and who was responsible for the 9/11 bombings.

    The script goes like this: “there is a geo-political agency which is behind the schedule — we are in a time of crisis — so which authorities do you trust anyway?”

    Psychological researcher have tried to ask the questions: “Are people who believe in conspiracy theories irrational, naive, insane, paranoid or wise sceptics? Most psychologists are sceptical about such theories though they do recognize that there are real “cover ups” by governments and other bodies.

    Conspiracy theories can be psychologically functional. For many, they make sense of a confusing and uncertain world. They make clear who the forces of darkness are and also forces of light, and endow them with the feeling that they are privy to secret knowledge. They also may help people define which group they belong to

    Are we in danger of pathologizing those who believe in real cover-ups? After all, there are real cover-ups, and all families have conspiracies of silence. Are conspiracy theories better informed and wiser than those who swallow the “government/corporation” line?

    Conspiracy theories often intersect with politics. Within two months George W. Bush was railing against 9/11 conspiracy theories and urging Americans to not be sidetracked from the truth of what happened. Ironically, this last part is exactly what the conspiracy theorists themselves were saying.

    Bale (2007) in a paper (“Political paranoia v. political realism: On distinguishing between bogus conspiracy theories and genuine conspiratorial politics. Patterns of Prejudice, 41, 45-60). has suggested a set of four key characteristics that distinguish conspiracy theorists from real conspiratorial politics. These are that:

    1. Conspiracy theorists “consider the alleged conspirators to be Evil Incarnate”. That is, the conspirators are not simply actors with differing political points-of-view, but are rather “inhuman, superhuman, and/or anti-human beings who regularly commit abominable acts and are implacably attempting to subvert and destroy everything that is decent and worth preserving in the existing world."

    2. Conspiracy theorists “perceive the conspiratorial group as both monolithic and unerring in the pursuit of its goals”. In order words, conspiracy theorists believe that there is a single conspiratorial hub, which plans and coordinates its activities, and which possesses a high degree of internal solidarity, cohesiveness, and single-mindedness.

    3. Conspiracy theorists “believe that the conspiratorial group is omnipresent”. That is, most conspiracy theories postulate the existence of a group of conspirators that is “international in its spatial dimensions and continuous in its temporal dimensions”. In this view, the conspiratorial group is believed to be capable of operating anywhere, which in turn allows for any negative outcome even remotely associated with the aims of the conspiratorial group to be attributed to them.

    4. Conspiracy theorists believe that the conspiratorial group is “virtually omnipotent”. In short, the conspiratorial group is considered to have been the force behind events of historical importance and continue to use nefarious and subversive means to maintain their domination over society. The one means of subverting their influence is to heed the warning of conspiracy theorists, although that is by no means a guarantee of success.

    . . .

    Clearly a very interesting area for researchers and much to be done.
  15. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Ofcourse if there is a real conspiracy otoh then all that quaint psychological reductionism becomes irrelevant. Imagine someone calling the reporters of the Washington Post "psycho conspiracy nuts" when they were trying to expose Watergate. They'd certainly fit the bill. But they also turned out to be right.
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Characteristically harsh, but, in this case......entirely fair

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  17. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Surely there's a difference between professional journalists and a bunch of goobers on the Internet.
  18. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    It just depends on who gets their facts right. It can be a loner in a shack with laptop, or a highpaid reporter. Truth is no respecter of persons.
  19. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    I'm sure many people did refer to them as that, or similar.
    The difference, though, is that they did ultimately provide proof. Incontrovertible proof. And I'm sure the people who referred to them as "psycho conspiracy nuts" (or similar) felt rather small when they did.

    Further, just because one conspiracy theory turns out to be correct does not give any credence to other theories. That is an argument from association... the "well, they were right so I might ultimately be" argument. Next it'll be a case of "well, you can't prove it wrong!"

    For any conspiracy theories you, or indeed anyone else, care to offer on these forums, I look forward to reviewing your incontrovertible proof.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  20. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    I have incontrovertible proof that I'm about to take a sip o' my beer. My body conspired against me to make that happen.
  21. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    As is saying because a theory posits a conspiracy, it is necessarily wrong. As always the facts establish the validity of the theory, not the mere fact that other theories that have posited conspiracies have turned out to be wrong or even were just "conspiracy theories".

    Here's 10 conspiracy theories that turned out to be true:
    Last edited: Oct 20, 2015
  22. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Noone is saying, or has said, nor implied, that they are necessarily wrong just because a theory posits a conspiracy.
    But that doesn't mean they all have to be taken seriously just because some have turned out to be true, or that any of them have to be given any credence just because it is a theory. As ever, one should go with what one considers rational. And the more extraordinary the theory the more extraordinary the evidence required.

    Further, surely there is a difference between what is often being tagged as a "conspiracy theory" and something like a military secret - such as item 4 in that list.
    Item 7 also isn't a "conspiracy theory" - it's a fairly standard tactic used by intelligence services.
    Item 8 likewise isn't a conspiracy theory. It was merely a criminal act that the FBI eventually uncovered. Where was the conspiracy in that example?
    Item 9 is also no "conspiracy theory" - just governments at work - albeit in secret. Is it a "conspiracy" that they hold secret meetings, away from the public eye? No. That's almost certainly been happening since the birth of kings and governments.

    Or is the tag of "conspiracy theory" (in such discussions as these) to be so broad as to be awarded any time someone thinks there might be a secret being held?

Share This Page