I didn't see one so... March 1st 2009 show - S. Bassett.

[BrandonD]

It's possible, but I differ in that opinion. The war/occupation of Iraq will probably cost more than $2 trillion dollars. That's almost two years of the GDP of Canada.

Yea that's my point. That $2 trillion dollars isn't just vanishing, it's going into someone's pockets. And you can guarantee that these same people instigated and are prolonging this war. And if they are not the ones with the supposed advanced tech, then they are in some sort of a business relationship with those people.

...in my opinion.

 

[marduk]

Yea that's my point. That $2 trillion dollars isn't just vanishing, it's going into someone's pockets. And you can guarantee that these same people instigated and are prolonging this war. And if they are not the ones with the supposed advanced tech, then they are in some sort of a business relationship with those people.

...in my opinion.

Ah... I get it now. The people that have the tech are also war profiteering. Guys like Halliburten, Cheney, etc...

Possible.

A counter argument might be: wouldn't it be simpler to patent the tech and license it to the highest bidder? Let the free market take it's course?

 

[BrandonD]

No, you wouldn't. Your ideas are motivated by how you see the military-industrial complex, 'legitimacy,' the profit motive, etc. You'll notice I clearly underlined the idea of avoiding political issues above and you're putting them back in. If you don't happen to believe what I have sketched out in terms of strategic motives, fine. I stand by what I said. I think it is clearly provable, but it is also beside the point and will take us astray.

The bottom line here is that it makes no sense from either a tactical, strategic, or intelligence perspective to expose a secret technology to view when you don't need to do it, especially when less expensive, non-secret assets everyone knows about can be effectively deployed to do the job.

I get your point. The military advantages may not outweigh the risks.

But I'm not injecting politics. I'm injecting common sense. There are people making TONS of money from this war. It's a fact. I could give a damn what political affiliation they hold. It's naive to think that they are too idealistic and moral to exploit their situation.

 

[BrandonD]

A counter argument might be: wouldn't it be simpler to patent the tech and license it to the highest bidder? Let the free market take it's course?

Yea there's still so many pieces in this scenario that are obscure for me also.

But I would stand by the general idea that things are the way they are, not because it can't be helped and not because of chance, but because someone up top is profiting.

 

[Schuyler]

IBut I'm not injecting politics. I'm injecting common sense. There are people making TONS of money from this war.

Okay, but that's beside the point. People made money off the B-1; if a triangle exists, they made money off that, too. 'Common sense' must be the most richly endowed substance in the Universe. Everyone thinks they have plenty of it and they are always willing to gove some to someone else.

 

[BrandonD]

Okay, but that's beside the point. People made money off the B-1; if a triangle exists, they made money off that, too. 'Common sense' must be the most richly endowed substance in the Universe. Everyone thinks they have plenty of it and they are always willing to gove some to someone else.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, what you're referring to above appears to have nothing to do with what I was originally saying. Please go back and read what I've said from the beginning. My point is not anymore controversial than yours is.

To sum up my earlier stuff:

We ARE using advanced technologies right now on the battlefield. I'm not referring to "alien" stuff, just regular human-developed advanced technologies. I have a friend who works on unmanned aerial vehicles, for example. So if we have some sort of advanced technology that we aren't using, then there has to be some good motivation behind this.

It seems to me, one of the most likely reasons for people in power to make a decision which seems at first blush to be irrational or against our better judgement, is that someone upstairs is profiting financially from that decision.

So if this alien tech exists, then I would guess that the motivation for not using it on the battlefield is that someone upstairs is profiting from this decision. That was the general gist.

It's really not that different in essence from your point, I think. If the benefits do not outweigh the risks, then it is more profitable to abstain from using them.

By the way, there's no need for condescending comments. I never claimed to be "offering" you common sense. I was only defending myself when you claimed that I'm injecting controversial politics into what was ALREADY a controversial topic.

It's interesting how you rave against being "brow-beaten" in one thread and then play those same "debate games" in another. Why can't people just act decently to one another?

 

[Schuyler]

So if we have some sort of advanced technology that we aren't using, then there has to be some good motivation behind this.

It seems to me, one of the most likely reasons for people in power to make a decision which seems at first blush to be irrational or against our better judgement, is that someone upstairs is profiting financially from that decision

My original point was basically that we are not using advanced technology (in the alien sense) because it is not the smartest decision to make under the circumstances and is not really necessary. You disagreed and said we would DEFINITELY see it if it were available. I re-iterated my position of why I believe that is not true. Your point now appears to be that all decisions are profit-related. Although I'm perfectly willing to concede profit is a motive, I'm not seeing how your point is NOT politically-related and I'm not seeing how that relates to the issue of alien technology. It seems to me profit is a common element here, so it cancels out. It's on both sides of the equation. All you've stated here is a belief that profit drives decisions. OK. I concede that you believe that. Now, what about that alien technology?

It's interesting how you rave against being "brow-beaten" in one thread and then play those same "debate games" in another. Why can't people just act decently to one another?

Ooooohhhh! Personal attack, huh? (Note to self: Look up argumentum ad hominem in logic book. Answer: Illogical.) I don't believe I did the same to you. At least I don't see that I did. If you think I did, then I apologize. However, I don't apologize for making a point and backing it with evidence. I prefer that method of 'debate games' rather than simply stating a belief with no evidence presented at all to back it up and expecting it to be accepted.

I also don't apologize for discussing 'common sense' nor do I think it is condescending to do so. 'Common sense' means whatever you think it does to support your world view, but it's not evidence. I heard Bill Birnes describe debate this way (paraphrased): "If the evidence is on your side, pound on the evidence. If the evidence is not on your side but the law is, pound on the law. If neither the evidence nor the law is on your side, pound on the table." Invoking 'common sense' to 'prove' a point is pounding on the table. I don't think it is condescending to point that out. I think it would be unfair not to.

 

[tommyball]

I just finished listening to this episode... and it is not at all what I expected.

After hearing David speak about the discussion he'd had with Bassett at the Culture of Contact, I was hoping for some sort of continuation along the level of rapport that I had assumed developed out of said discussion. This episode really took a turn when the credibility issue came up.

I was at the X-Conference in April of 2007 and to me the biggest detriment to the event was the small group of individuals who lacked the credibility of the top tier researchers and writers that were also there. You're only as strong as your weakest link and this is especially true in this field.

Bassett stands firmly behind the historical evidence that he feels leads to the conclusion of an extraterrestrial presence on earth kept secret by the US government. Well there's the history of the phenomena itself and the history of the repsonse to that phenomena. The Robertson Panel and The Condon Report marginalized ufology and led to the giggle factor that continues to this day. You can't be naïve and ignore that. Allowing Webre or Peckman to stand alongside Pope and Dolan is inviting ridicule.

What's more surprising is that I believe in the past on this show or on others (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm going on memory here), when asked about why he lets certain questionable individuals partcipate in his conferences, Bassett's defense was basically one of strength in numbers, not the defensiveness he showed during this episode. The validity and aims of Disclosure are surely up for debate but for example let's say the goal was simply affirmation/confirmation of past/current government interest, declassification and investigation by an independent academic panel. The new administration (that Bassett has been eagerly awaiting and lobbying, with its significant connections to past Disclosure activities (Podesta)), is not going to bat an eye at the people put together for this conference.

I've listened to the Paracast for 3 years now and the one thing I've learned is that there is such a strong signal of reports and cases from reliable people underneath all the noise. You don't need the noise. And there's plenty of water left in the pool once you get all the pee out.

Until more people like Gene & David start self-policing this field to weed out the noise, no one is going to get too far. This obviously plays into the inherent optimism of Disclosure, but just imagine the potential the X-Conference would have if you coupled Bassett's enthusiasm with the integrity and diligence of Kean & Fox.

Thanks Gene & David for saving me a trip to DC next month.

-todd

 

[thefoundryman]

Letter to Steve Basset:

Steve Basset, if you are reading this, then all the power to ya buddy.
Even though I would hedge my bets against you, I still would like to see you achieve success in your endeavor. At the end of the day, you will ultimately raise awareness about the topic and that is a pretty noble cause when considering the mass of ignorance towards this subject, in the mainstream paradigm.
Sincerely, The Foundryman.

 

[Astroboy]

As long as people like Steven Bassett treat the UFO subject like a Freakshow by including noncredible fools people like me would never, ever, ever go to a UFO convention.

Why should I? Why shouldn't information be provided on the Internet? For free. Isn't it scientific knowledge? If it is entertainment then I'll just pass on it. I'm not giving a cent to people claiming to be for disclosure when you've got to charge people for information that can be more effectively distributed through the Internet.

As long as people treat this subject as a hobby and not use scientific methodologies or even the most basic forensic investigative techniques this field will always be a joke. Just look at some of the shoddy work done on UFO Hunters.

There are aspects of this field that are universally embarrassing such as the marketing. It seems like everyone is so deep in it they can't see what a lousy image they present to the average person who has some curiosity about UFOs. Naming a convention "Culture of Contact"? C'mon, really. When I hear that title it makes me think of some cult like Heaven's Gate. And that New Age music and B-movie synthesized Tractor Pull voice announcer thing. How do you expect anyone to take it seriously?

Many of the shows out there and to a lesser degree the Paracast sometimes lower themselves to sophomoric humor that is only funny to those in a small circle of friends and insiders. I could do without the bad voice impressions and the Made in the Basement type of unprofessionalism.

I'll probably get a lot of heat from saying this but it's a point of view from someone who considers himself an outsider looking in but still is a big fan of the Paracast.

 

[Ally]

Astroboy,
I started to attend conferences because I am an experiencer. It didn't take too long to figure out that there was quite a bit of BS and nuts at these events There was also a few great speakers and people I connected with.

I met Dr Mack at a conference as well has Michael Horn at the same conference BTW. I did eventually get tired of the entire conference scene and stayed away from UFO conferences since 2004.

Even though I have not attended the Culture of Contact conferences I think what Jeremy is trying to achieve with these conferences is not only difficult to achieve but should be encouraged. I would love to attend his type of conference someday.

I actually am attending another conference in the near future to meet a couple of people in the field and hopefully meet some good connections with attendees. Also there are some things that can only be discussed in person.

 

[Astroboy]

Astroboy,
I started to attend conferences because I am an experiencer. It didn't take too long to figure out that there was quite a bit of BS and nuts at these events There was also a few great speakers and people I connected with.

I met Dr Mack at a conference as well has Michael Horn at the same conference BTW. I did eventually get tired of the entire conference scene and stayed away from UFO conferences since 2004.

Even though I have not attended the Culture of Contact conferences I think what Jeremy is trying to achieve with these conferences is not only difficult to achieve but should be encouraged. I would love to attend his type of conference someday.

I actually am attending another conference in the near future to meet a couple of people in the field and hopefully meet some good connections with attendees. Also there are some things that can only be discussed in person.

I am glad you are able to get something out of conventions despite the BS. But, conventions should not be only for believers and experiencers only. It eventually becomes pointless. Any movement or cause needs to appeal to a broader segment of society if it hopes to grow and sustain itself. Otherwise it becomes an inbred, infighting small circle of people that only does itself harm. That is where UFOlogy is at.

Even among the most credible of UFO researchers they seemingly are just one wacko conspiracy theory away from the average person rolling their eyes and tuning out.

You need to eliminate the ridicule and credibility issues to have anybody take the subject matter seriously. Just take a look at DBs reluctance to come forth with his latest mention of a UFO experience. It is understandable but unfortunate.

 

[Ally]

I agree with your last post 100%. I am not at all optimistic about that though. If the field cleaned up it's act and conferences were primarily composed of sane and honest informed people it would be sooooo much better. We can only wish for such a day and maybe the paracast will start a revolution.

 

[Invading the fridge]

I go to youtube and watch clips of a CNN panel talking about Obama's inauguration(sic) when I want to research the US government's involvement with ufo's.

My whole issue is that Bassett and his cronies will only be happy if a super secret shadow Government, stands up and says yes you are right all along everything you say is right. They are not interested in the truth.

 

[BrandonD]

It seems to me profit is a common element here, so it cancels out. It's on both sides of the equation. All you've stated here is a belief that profit drives decisions. OK. I concede that you believe that. Now, what about that alien technology?

I was making an assumption by saying that tech would CERTAINLY be used by the military. I appreciate being called out on my assumptions.

Now about alien technology. First, you laid out (and I quote) "the real reasons" we went into Iraq. After this I stated that I only partially agree, because I think there are additional reasons we went into Iraq, and one in particular that is pertinent to the present discussion.

There are financial institutions that profit from wars. They are large and influential. From the perspective of a these institutions, the ideal war is a perpetual war with no goal and no foreseeable end. As I see it, these are the characteristics of the Iraq war, and so I think it is plausible that this war was instigated to a large degree by financial institutions with no intention of ever "winning" it.

And if these financial institutions have any relation whatever to the "ufo" secret, then that is a perfectly good reason not to use advanced tech that could easily win a war. Because the war not intended to be quickly won.

That was my main point from the beginning (I just went back and checked to make sure I'm not exaggerating here, and yes this was my point in response to you). I was not contradicting YOUR reasons for the war, but I was adding what I thought was an additional reason for the war, and a reason which would contribute to the explanation of why special tech wasn't being used.

 

[Astroboy]

There are financial institutions that profit from wars. They are large and influential. From the perspective of a these institutions, the ideal war is a perpetual war with no goal and no foreseeable end. As I see it, these are the characteristics of the Iraq war, and so I think it is plausible that this war was instigated to a large degree by financial institutions with no intention of ever "winning" it.

Wars are only profitable beyond the short term if the aggressor completely conquers another country and takes all its resources, otherwise wartime is bad for profits.

This is true for gangsters and criminal organizations like the Mafia. Wars are bad for business unless you take the other guy's territory. Peace time is generally when stability encourages trade and economies tend to boom. These things have been true since the Roman Empire and throughout history.

Now if you think of financial institutions like criminal organizations then it is against their interests for an endless war. It saps the resources of the government and the general population. Anyone who has lived in a country which has seen war come to its doorstep would tell you that this is true.

Just look at the stock value of all the financial institutions and you'll see that they've plummeted dramatically or completely gone out of business. If they are the nefarious controllers of UFO technology and want perpetual war it hasn't worked out for them at all.

If you look at the wealthiest people in the world the vast majority of them made money from just about everything else except oil and the defense industry. Just check the Forbes list of billionaires. You would think that having three major wars in the last 20 years this would have fattened the people would should have profited from war but, in fact, very few of them dominate.

I do not disagree with you that there may be very rich powerful people manipulating things behind the UFO enigma but I disagree that they use prolonged wars to benefit themselves.

 

[BrandonD]

Wars are only profitable beyond the short term if the aggressor completely conquers another country and takes all its resources, otherwise wartime is bad for profits.

I do not disagree with you that there may be very rich powerful people manipulating things behind the UFO enigma but I disagree that they use prolonged wars to benefit themselves.

That may be true, I'm talking about a subject that I'm certainly not an expert on.

But would you say that a company like Lockheed would not profit from an endless war on someone else's land?

I'm not being facetious, I'd really like to know your opinion.

 

[Astroboy]

But would you say that a company like Lockheed would not profit from an endless war on someone else's land?

I'm not being facetious, I'd really like to know your opinion.

Had you said Haliburton I would totally agree with you. They have and would benefit from a prolonged war. And you certainly could have made a sound case with the connection between Dick Cheney, one of the main Architects of the war, and Haliburton.

But in a prolonged war in Afganistan and Iraq we are fighting an asymmetric type of warfare not the traditional kind that benefits from the large scale expensive pieces of hardware like fighters, heavy bombers, tanks, and artillery. In this case a defense company like Lockheed does not benefit because a fancy expensive system like the F-22 Rapter, which are the most profitable systems and the major strength of Lockheed, doesn't do you any good. In addition there is a scale back of large expensive systems because of the crappy economy. We can no longer afford these systems. As a result programs like the F-22 are being drastically reduced.

The companies that profit are the ones that provide basic noncombat services like Haliburton and smaller defense companies that provide Hummers, body armor, clothing, and small arms. But besides Haliburton and a few other similar firms most companies don't employ that many people.

I think there could have being a better argument made to concoct something more like the nuclear missile threat from Iran. A Lockeed would benefit from building a very expensive missile defense system. You'd play on the basic fear of a terrorist state armed with nukes although in reality a missile launch from Iran would be an act of suicide. Either the US or Israel would wipe out Iran in a nuclear retaliatory strike. If Iran wanted to give a nuke to terrorists and put it in a boat to sail into NY Harbor a missile defense system would be totally useless...except to make Lockheed more money.

 

[Schuyler]

That may be true, I'm talking about a subject that I'm certainly not an expert on.

Look, Brandon, I'm not your Drill Instructor and I can't tell you what to do. I'm not your Professor in a course you're taking for credit, so I can't grade your performance in class and influence your degree. If I were in that position, I'd give you a "D". You keep arguing back at me with your profit motive thing saying it's common sense. You're not making a logical argument; you're just stating your opinion. That's fine as far as it goes, and on forums like these maybe that is as far as it goes. I like to think the Paracast is a cut above places like ATS, but perhaps I'm just delusional.

If you are going to make a claim about the state of the world, I think you ought to back it up with something other than opinion. As you stated above, you have not established that you have any particular knowledge about the subject or any reason why we should take your word for what you say. You quote no numbers, give no examples, post no links. In other words, what you claim cannot be verified. It's the same old leftist anti-capitalist whine we've heard for years. For a good read on the screed, take a look at "Liberal Fascism; the secret history of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning," by Jonah Goldberg. New York: Doubleday, 2007, 489pp. ISBN: 978-0-385-51184-1. You won't, of course, but others might, and that's the point.

The other issue here is that 'consensus' does not prove anything. You can get as many people as you want to say the world is flat, and that doesn't mean it's true. For a really good article on this issue, see Michael Crichton's Aliens Cause Global Warming article, which is right here: http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html. This is a fascinating account of the problems with 'consensus science.' And if you want some additional insight into Iraq and the American position there, visit http://www.stratfor.com. These guys are independent and, as far as I can tell, dispassionate in their analyses of world politics and power. You're not going to be able to get to all of it without an expensive subscription, but there's enough free stuff there to give you an idea of what's going on. And for a very good account of what happened in Iraq, Michael Yon's "Moment of Truth in Iraq" here: http://www.michaelyon-online.com/moment-of-truth-reader-s-corner/, is an excellent 'on-the-ground' account of the issues there from an embedded reporter's point of view.

There is a case to be made for what you are saying, Brandon, but you are not making it. What I give you is analyses along wth links to further information so you can take a look yourself. What you give me back is simply opinion. There is no comparison. Are you allowed your opinion? Of course; that's not the issue here.

 

[BrandonD]

Look, Brandon, I'm not your Drill Instructor and I can't tell you what to do. I'm not your Professor in a course you're taking for credit, so I can't grade your performance in class and influence your degree. If I were in that position, I'd give you a "D". You keep arguing back at me with your profit motive thing saying it's common sense. You're not making a logical argument; you're just stating your opinion. That's fine as far as it goes, and on forums like these maybe that is as far as it goes. I like to think the Paracast is a cut above places like ATS, but perhaps I'm just delusional.

There is a case to be made for what you are saying, Brandon, but you are not making it. What I give you is analyses along wth links to further information so you can take a look yourself. What you give me back is simply opinion. There is no comparison. Are you allowed your opinion? Of course; that's not the issue here.

Listen, I am actually informed on the subject, despite your quote of mine. Sometimes I make an attempt not to be cocky, so that I can engage in a constructive dialogue. That sort of behavior may be unfamiliar in the debate arena, where "intellectuals" battle it out to see their point of view reign supreme. That is not what I'm interested in.

I am informed in a very lopsided manner, admittedly. For example, I've read nearly every Chomsky book on politics and I've listened to every lecture of his that is available anywhere online. I own about 30 of them, which I can provide to anyone who would like them.

And yet I've never watched a single episode of fox news. So yea, perhaps I'm informed in an "unfair and unbalanced" manner.

Now perhaps I'm just as illogical as you claim I am, and I'm certainly open to a lesson in clear thinking. But instead of talking about ME and my flawed thinking process, and citing books about consensus which have absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying, let's stick to specifically *what I wrote*.

First I'll break my last post down, so that you can tell me EXACTLY where we disagree, because I honestly have no idea why you are still "debating" with me:

"There are financial institutions that profit from wars. They are large and influential."

This is a very general fact, and I think it is obvious. If you disagree, please provide me with evidence why this is not the case.

"From the perspective of a these institutions, the ideal war is a perpetual war with no goal and no foreseeable end."

This is a logical extension of the previous fact. If someone profits from providing a finite resource for a particular event (such as hot dogs for a baseball game), the longer this event lasts the more money can be made.

"As I see it, these are the characteristics of the Iraq war, and so I think it is plausible that this war was instigated to a large degree by financial institutions with no intention of ever "winning" it."

There are many examples of how the Iraq war has the characteristics of an endless war, a quick example being Dick Cheney's quote that this war "will not end in our lifetime."

Now... if this war fits the characteristics of an "ideal war" from the point of view of institutions who profit from wars, and if these institutions have political power and influence (which was established earlier), then it is certainly plausible that these institutions played a part in the instigation of this war.

"And if these financial institutions have any relation whatever to the "ufo" secret, then that is a perfectly good reason not to use advanced tech that could easily win a war. Because the war not intended to be quickly won."

This is another logical extension of the previous statements.

Though you say I'm not making a logical argument, as I see it each of the paragraphs is a logical extension of the previous paragraph, all tying back to the beginning paragraph which stated very general factual information.

My entire response was very general, which *generally* doesn't require all of the fluff of names and dates that you feel are lacking from my post.

If I say, "Man A went and beat up Man B because he claims that Man B is immoral. But then police discovered that Man A robbed Man B's house. I think it's plausible that Man A did not beat up Man B for the reasons he stated."

For the above example, my opinion makes logical sense. This is because it is general enough that it doesn't require citing "The Psychology of Crime" by Joseph Citron, pages 112-115.

Instead of trying to wow me with your links and book titles and stuff, please be specific: What exactly is your problem with the words that I wrote?