Itsa:
Itsaputon, what did i miss about Santorum? i hate that scumbag, did he make comments about Barrett or 9/11?
Chris | 07.11.06 - 3:49 pm | #

i can understand avoiding the UFO subject as a matter of STRATEGY.

but if you are intellectually honest and care about free inquiry into important matters and have a distaste for the kinds of smear tactics with which 9/11 Truth is so often dismissed, then:

don't practice it on the UFO subject!!!

be consistent, at least. you can avoid the subject respectfully, as a matter of strategy.

Tucker started by calling Barrett a "creep".

take notes from this guy:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5995041467370074988&q=data+rs

MSNBC RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!

i should have known he would be all over it.rightwing tool. i hope it backfires on him like it did with Hannity.

of course, the lead story on Tucker Carlson is the new "al qaeda" attack. not exactly a good lead-in for Kevins defender, whomever it turns out to be.

interesting.

and if you shy away from the UFO subject without first giving it a serious, open-minded and in-depth study... you will be missing a very big and weird part of the reality that 9/11 is but one subset of.

this is a very, very deep rabbit hole, folks.

the UFO subject is the only one considered kookier than 9/11, by the mainstream, and as such it gets kicked and beaten by many 9/11 Truthers in a misguided attempt to assign themselves more credibility.

don't fall into that trap.

give it the same respect you wish to receive vis a vis 9/11.

at the very least, if you are ignorant about it, don't be an asshole and presume to be qualified to have an opinion without giving the matter serious study.

start with the best book ever on the subject: UFO's and the National Security State, by Richard M. Dolan: http://www.keyholepublishing.com. Lots of bells will go off if you know anything about the history of the OSS, CIA, DIA, NSA, FBI, Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.

no matter their origins or intentions, whether terrestrial or non-terrestrial... *some UFO's definitely are craft utilizing propulsion systems that defy accepted physics. i have witnessed it myself, close-up. completely silent, hovering, and then moving so quickly that any normal craft would have been atomized by inertia.

check it out: www.disclosureproject.com

and yes, the subject is full of fraud, wackos, and most of all covert disinformation and psy-ops.

but it is also much weirder and more complex than you might assume.

Children get angry. Adults get inspired. Good parenting is rewarding children for the good that they do. I suggest we reward Tucker Carlson for bringing attention to our cause. There's no such thing as bad publicity. Do you get it? Let's change the attitude from anger to good parenting skills. Anger polarizes!

No offense, but don't junk down this board with fucking UFO stuff. Go to a Mork and Mindy board or something.

"it can sometimes take time to find out whether or not someone refuses to listen to reason, especially if they start out with an assumtion that what you are talking about is un-reasonable."

If you sense resistance to your views arguing your case will only compound the problem. You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. Tell the person when they are ready to listen to come find you and you'll present your case.

GW... I think you opened up a can o' worms that doesn't belong here...

My two cents.

And... I love talking about whether or not life exists "out there", but it's only in fun.

Go to a Mork and Mindy board or something.
Anonymous | 07.11.06 - 4:50 pm | #

line of the day :-)

Jon, you might very well be right. Please help me understand what I can do better next time.

2 questions:

(1) Do you think the 2-star general's statement is newsworthy?

(2) Do you think I should have mentioned his UFO/psychic beliefs?

"Jon. You have got to be kidding me. Fucker Carlson is back on 9/11?"

We should encourage their attacks. It only helps the cause. We need to reward children for bringing attention to the cause. The first one to anger loses the argument.

Why don't you guys have some fun with that woman who dogged out Barrett:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/07/uw-911-denialist-appears-on-hannity...

Greg: "If 9/11 truth gets too much media coverage, Bush might well play the "Roswell card" - they have some info hidden about it, whatever it is."

huh. well, we'd only get some new bullshit official version of it, no matter how exotic they made it. i really doubt such a thing would happen.

the UFO subject opens up a Pandora's box that threatens the elite powers much, much more than 9/11, imnsho. but that's because i believe the technologies involved threaten the resource scarcity paaradigm that is fundamental to hierarchical systems of control.

Jon, I re-wrote the article a little. Whaddya think?

Mon., July 10, 2006

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Stadt/0607/20060710...Stadtmiller.m3u

John Stadtmiller and Christopher Bollyn discuss Sam Danner's first hand account at the Pentagon.

Funny that there is soooo much UFO talk on this board because buy the very definition, that is exactly what hit the Pentagon (A Unidentified Flying Object.)

Can anyone really identify what the hell is in the video that the Pentagon released?

Itsaputon: "If you sense resistance to your views arguing your case will only compound the problem."

that's just not strictly true, or there would be no point in arguing anything ;)

that presumes that people never change or open their minds.

your point is well taken with regards to people who'd like to act as censors by smearing the subject with references to mork & mindy, though.

but i respect the need for focus and strategy, so i'll leave the UFO subject alone (and maybe go search for a mork & mindy group after all! ;)

"that's just not strictly true, or there would be no point in arguing anything"

Arguing among friends works. Arguing with your enemies is fruitless. A jar of honey catches more bees than a jar of vinegar.
You've got to entice the enemies of truth to look at the evidence. You've got to put some sugar on it. Let them know that you have some juicy information and if they want it they will come looking for you.

I would strongly caution against promoting this man and conflating 911 truth with ufology.

Ask yourself a question: why is the “UFO phenomena” the ONE “conspiracy” that network news not only covers but covers lavishly – a day seldom goes by when there isn’t some special on the subject, from little grey men to abductions to Roswell.

One explanation is that the subject does not pose a threat to power interests; rather, it lends them a welcome mystique as "protectors" of the population from sinister forces.

Sound familiar?

Now consider ReaganÂ’s comment:

"But I've often wondered, what if all of us in the world discovered that we were threatened by an outer - a power from outer space, from another planet."

§ Ronald Reagan, US President, May 5, 1988.

"Wouldn't we all of a sudden find that we didn't have any differences between us at all, we were all human beings, citizens of the world, and wouldn't we come together to fight that particular threat?"

Sounds like an excellent contingency plan for “uniting the world” under a global government.

Outlandish? I cannot think of a better way to strengthen the state apparatus, short of a viral outbreak. “Protect us from the aliens!” Check out the “Revolution in Military Affairs”, an official document outlining strikingly similar strategies as a means of controlling the populace.

I also recommend Martin Canon’s study on the subject: “The Controllers”.

HereÂ’s the link:

http://home.earthlink.net/~silent_no_more99/id15.html

HereÂ’s a few passages:

“In the course of many hours of listening to the subject, I discovered that she has had close personal contact over a long period of time with several individuals who have federal intelligence connections. She was hypnotized many years ago as part of a TV program devoted to hypnosis. Her abductions began shortly after she attended several long sessions at a laboratory where, ostensibly, she was being tested for ESP abilities. Two other people who were "tested" at this same laboratory have also had abductions. All three were told by the lab to join a local UFO group. During her abductions, the principal alien spoke to the subject in the English language in a normal manner, not via telepathy. She recognized the voice, which was at one time that of her very close friend of yesteryear who was then and is now employed by the CIA. The other voice was that of an individual who works in Washington, has what I will call very strong federal connections as well as a finger in every ufological pie, and who just happened to bump into her at the aforementioned laboratory. He also anticipated, in the course of telephone conversations, her abductions. When the subject confronted him about this and the voice, he claimed to be psychic. (!)[176]

“I submit that this surreal incident is incomprehensible as either an example of alien incursion or of "Klass-ical" confabulation. The scenario described here EXACTLY parallels numerous experiments in the hypnotic induction of anti-social action as revealed both in the standard hypnosis literature and in declassified ARTICHOKE/MKULTRA documents…”

“The "ESP" connection is suggestive; the MKULTRA documents betray an astonishing interest on the part of the intelligence agencies in matters parapsychological.”

We know that MKULTRA did not end in the 70’s. Why? Because declassified documents clearly show that the program was not, as is commonly believed, a “failure”; rather it was a smashing success.

After disclosure it was no doubt “privatized” – moved out of prisons and mental institutions and into cults. Jonestown is the most bizarre case, with intelligence connections coming out the yin yang, all the way up to Jones himself (see Jim Jones: a parapolitical fugue).

I don’t question the many sensible people who have seen UFO’s. No doubt there is something there – the question is what and by whom.

Mixing up Ufology, “psychic phenomena” etc. with 911 truth is a recipe for disaster. Pretty soon they’ll have a string of UFO buffs and psychics on television promoting 911 truth, with predictable results.

One final warning: the National Enquirer – which has made an art of mixing truth with fiction, in order to conflate real conspiracies with “alien babies” and “sasquatches” and the like (also known as smear by association), was founded by Gene Pope, an “ex”- CIA agent who worked in – what else – psyops.

"Arguing among friends works. Arguing with your enemies is fruitless."

the world is rarely that black and white.

but hmm... i should consider how your advice could apply to the subject i've been talking about... what sort of honey might entice an honestly skeptical 9/11 Truther?

:D

"Jon, you might very well be right. Please help me understand what I can do better next time.

2 questions:

(1) Do you think the 2-star general's statement is newsworthy?

(2) Do you think I should have mentioned his UFO/psychic beliefs?"

I haven't heard it yet, I'm at work. I think he should have possibly been avoided for his UFO/psychic beliefs, and I only say that because it wouldn't take much for someone to use that against us.

It's really no different than the Holocaust deniers, and the moon landing deniers, etc...

Who was on Tucker Carlson defending Barrett: name, position, and how was the performance?
Jeff111 | 07.11.06 - 4:30 pm | #
i forget his name, he also teaches at the same University as Barrett. he made it clear he didnt agree with Barrett, but defended his right to still teach there. it was a completely one sided smear job,with Carlson slandering Barrett the whole time. no issues regarding 9/11 itself were discussed,only if he had the right to teach.

still here: excellent post! the subject is vast, bizarre, and the lements you touched on make it impossible to discern what the "ultimate truth" is.

but there have been credible reports of strange phenomena that predate MKULTRA, etc.

i don't know what that means. i don't subscribe to any particular theory.

i just think that dismissing the whole subject as purely the product of psy-ops and disinfo may be just as big of a mistake as refusing to acknowledge those aspects and believing purely in some fantasy of benevolent space brothers who will rescue us from ourselves.

by the way, as to one major reason why the UFO subject is so heavily covered in the media (never mind the quality as opposed to quantity of coverage), check out the CIA's Robertson Panel and their conclusions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertson_Panel

" was a committee commissioned by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1952 in response to widespread Unidentified Flying Object reports, especially in the Washington DC area. The panel was briefed on U.S. military activities and intelligence, hence the report was originally classified Secret.

Later declassified, the Robertson Panel's report concluded that UFOs were not a direct threat to national security, but could pose an indirect threat by overwhelming standard military communications due to public interest in the subject. Most UFO reports, they concluded, could be explained as misidentification of mundane aerial objects, and the remaining minority could, in all likelihood, be similarly explained with further study.

The Robertson Panel concluded that a public relations campaign should be undertaken in order to "debunk" UFOs, and reduce public interest in the subject, and that civilian UFO groups should be monitored. There is evidence this was carried out more than two decades after the Panel's conclusion.

Critics (including a few panel members) would later lament the Robertson Panel's role in making UFO's a somewhat disreputable field of study."

Okay, Jon. Please watch the clip then tell me what you think.

Remember this 9/11 hit piece in the Washington Post a few years back? They used "guilt-by-association" tactics to lump legitimate researchers like David Ray Griffin together with bizarro freaks like some woman with a mystical website (yep, aliens and parapsychology and all that).

If you missed the Wash.Post article, one that really angered me at the time, check it out now. It's so ridiculously laughable, and the reason is because the 9/11 truth movement has made TREMENDOUS STRIDES since this hit piece was written.

"Conspiracy Theories Flourish on the Internet" - October 7, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13059-2004Oct6.html

So, yeah, I concur with those who want to keep their distance from UFOs and psychic theories, etc. It's just way TOO EASY to discredit people in the 9/11 truth movement if they're also connected with those issues.

Another example, Eric Hufschmidt -- he was a big believer in the fake-moon-landing conspiracy. Now I haven't done any research into that, and I try to keep an open mind, but imagine Hufschmidt going on Hannity and Colmes or Tucker Carlson or *insert bad-ass right wing fascist name here*. You catch my drift -- he wouldn't have a chance in hell regardless of how much truth he spoke about 9/11.

"but hmm... i should consider how your advice could apply to the subject i've been talking about... what sort of honey might entice an honestly skeptical 9/11 Truther?"

At my last job a friend of mine and I would talk all the time about 9/11 and their was a ditto head sitting next to us. He listened to our conversations. He wouldn't admit it, but the quieter we talked the harder he listened.

new video clip for those that think the speed of the jet so low to the ground should have flipped over cars:
http://www.break.com/index/really_low_harrier_fly_over.html

china demolishes 16 buildings at the same time:
http://www.break.com/index/china_demos_16_buildings_at_same_time.html

Sure, I can see people using interest or belief in UFOs and paranormal to discredit someone.

However, if one takes the time, there is plenty of standard laboratory double-blind research that proves the existance of paranormal phenomenon, particularly in the field of medicine http://www.issseem.org/ but of course, conventional wisdom um.... I mean conventional dumdum wouldn't know of such proof.

As for UFOs, right here in Denver Colorado, we have had incidents of multiple video evidence taken by multiple witnesses on the same date of objects that have absolutely no explanation- your standard UFO, not anything we can define. There is no end of reliable, professional, credible witnesses to UFOs, contrary to the conventional dumdum.

So in my mind, I don't see any problem of credibility and belief in UFOs and paranormal, and the obvious fact that the official 9/11 Lie is not the truth.

new video clip for those that think the speed of the jet so low to the ground should have flipped over cars:
http://www.break.com/index/ reall...r_fly_over.html
anonymous | Homepage | 07.11.06 - 5:52 pm | #

a few things:

1) the plane just took off and was not going anywhere near 500MPH (I would guess a little over 100)

2) It was also about 30 feet in the air, not 2 feet above the ground

3) It's not a boeing 757

Anonymous this isn´t a 757 going full throttle at 530 mph. This is a Harrier.

Since the Pentagon is about a 757 we should use examples involving that plane at the stated height and the stated speed.

The Harrier is a midget compared to a 757. Max takeoff weight 36,000 lbs. vs. 255,000 lbs.

Thrust about 23,000 lbf vs. just over 40,000 lbf.

I just can´t recommend this often enough if you believe the official pentagon story: Just go to an airport and try to get close to a 757 revving its engines. You won´t experience full thrust like the so called witnesses at the Pentagon but have fun. :)

Hey Neil, that was an excellent letter you sent in, let us know if you get a response...

1. You all forgot the US millitary paid a lot of money for their remote viewing project in the 70's and 80's.

2. I've sadly found a lot of UFOlogists think WE'RE the nuts with our 9/11 beliefs. I mean Art Bell, nuff said.

3. UFO's are WIDELY CONSIDERED a safe, legitimate topic that most Americans consider...9/11 Truth, rooted way more in reality scares people off and makes people angry.

And well, if a UFO ever lands on the white house lawn, Im sure talking about "9/11" will be the least of our concerns.

But of course nobody is dumb enough to put their belief in a 757, whizzing right over people at 530 mph. without ruffling them or their cars one bit, to a real world test. Nor would they buy stock in a company who promised to corner the demolition market by collapsing steel skyscrapers with fire.

Their belief is not real. It is by official decree only and without any realistic base and they know it. This is the awful truth.

GW - Thanks for posting the full information on the general.

Most of the no-plane sites will feature the headline and story and never include any such context.

I think it was a good choice to post that here because people have to learn that the headline that websites are featuring to attract readers is often not the whole story on the situation.

Also, the issue of mixing issues with 9/11 is important - mixing moon landings, UFOs, Chemtrails, politics and other stuff with 9/11 only weakens the 9/11 info.

No matter what any of us believes about UFOs, if we're going to get 9/11 truth out there we have to see things through the lens of the US public -- UFOs are a verboten topic to average people unless you are selling X-Files DVDs or are at a UFO convention. When a supposed 9/11 spokesperson is also heavily promoting UFOs, they don't help the 9/11 truth movement, but are likely to undermine it.

Mixing bogus stuff (or whatever the MSM has spun hard enough to be defined as bogus) with the strong evidence of a cover-up is one the classic tactics to discredit in the eyes of the public.

mixing politics with 9/11 is not a mistake. its sometimes essential in understanding 9/11.this isnt about the left/right paradigm,or "republicans are evil". politics does indeed play a role sometimes though.for starters,PNAC is a political think tank.and the fact that there is a rightwing congress right now made it possible for 9/11 to be pushed under the rug.among other things........

Agree, this is not right vs. left. This is right vs. wrong. Republican and Democratic incumbants and the mainstream media are all complicit in this. This is a symptom of systemic widespread corruption through and through.