Jan 18th - Leo Sprinkle

[mike]

and of course if the secret status has been set by the same guys who can implant screen memorys........

 

[marduk]

I'm sorry, but that is sloppy logic at best. The use of the phrase, "the exception proves the rule" is meant for instances such as a sign that says: "Parking prohibited on Sundays." This 'exception' proves that parking is allowed all other days.

The facts you point out about other instances where 'the government' has been unable to keep a secret in no way disproves the demonstrable fact that it DID keep a very big and complex secret involving tens of thousands of people for a long time. Pointing out the Manhattan Project as a 'successful secret' does not 'prove' the government CANNOT keep a secret; it proves that it CAN. I am suggesting this is not unusual.

I'm not sure the Manhattan project is a good analogue. Sure it involved 130K people but it only lasted 7 years -- mostly during wartime.

We're talking about 60ish years, most of it not during wartime.

I agree the US Military/Govt (is there a difference?) could keep the secret, but it would be difficult. I suggest that's why the subject is treated with humiliation and disdain. It's a very powerful human motivator.

Some whistleblower with no evidence pops up and says that they've been spying on citizens illegally? He's on Fox the next day.

Some whistleblower with some decent evidence pops up and says that they've witnessed military involvement with UFOs? They're laughed at. It doesn't even matter if he's a former hero figure to the nation.

 

[marduk]

and of course if the secret status has been set by the same guys who can implant screen memorys........

My clearest "abduction" memory involves humans not ETs. Maybe there's something there.

 

[Schuyler]

Some whistleblower with some decent evidence pops up and says that they've witnessed military involvement with UFOs? They're laughed at. It doesn't even matter if he's a former hero figure to the nation.

I agree with you. It's a brilliant strategy, really. It takes into consideration human nature and the liklihood of there being a 'real' leak. We know the government has used disinformation to mislead, and that they have put out stories that can then be ridiculed. I'm thinking of people like Bob Lazar and Dan Burisch. Either these guys really are nuts, or they are government-induced nuts who can be discredited. It's kind of like judo when you opponent uses your own energy and inertia against you. Combined with the bona fide nuts like Greer, their work here is done.

 

[Blacknight]

I'm sorry, but that is sloppy logic at best. The use of the phrase, "the exception proves the rule" is meant for instances such as a sign that says: "Parking prohibited on Sundays." This 'exception' proves that parking is allowed all other days.

The facts you point out about other instances where 'the government' has been unable to keep a secret in no way disproves the demonstrable fact that it DID keep a very big and complex secret involving tens of thousands of people for a long time. Pointing out the Manhattan Project as a 'successful secret' does not 'prove' the government CANNOT keep a secret; it proves that it CAN. I am suggesting this is not unusual.

First, the point I attempted to make is that the Manhattan Project is a unique exception to the common "rule" that government secrets are anything but. It was unique in that it was a research project, with a definable, time-driven objective, carried on in compartmentalized and geographically dispersed locations under circumstances which carried a potential penalty of death. Again, I would argue that--absent such a unique set of circumstances (none of which are present in the issue of aerial phenomenon, absent a purely speculative scenario)--one can point to almost-countless examples of very serious government secrets being exposed but very few in which secrets were maintained to their "end". Even under-development aircraft are more often than not "outed" long before the government was prepared to announce.

Second, I can't think of a single "whistleblower" in the area of possible alien objects. People who present simply anecdotes are hardly "whistleblowers". They are purveyors of a tale, the same as any of a million storytellers, from Richard Shaver to Herman Rosenblat's holocaust hoax. To be a whistleblower one would need to expose something, to demonstrate the underlying truth of what they allege. In every case I have cited that was true, from Watergate to Abu Ghraib. There has never been anything analogous to an expose concerning aerial phenomenon by a credible government witness, at least none of which I'm aware.

Third, let's understand that we are talking about a secret of monumental proportions, not simply as to content but as to time and scope. Imagaine if the Manhattan Project had continued for 10 times longer than it did. Could that secret have been maintained from not just the American public but from other governments for fully 60 years, when thousands of employees--almost three generations of employees, in fact--would necessarily be "in on it"? Possible but, given our track record, highly unlikely.

It seems so logically implausible that our government or any government in a society which is notionally open and free could maintain a secret of such enormous proportions for such a long time that I think it's a waste of time and energy to consider "disclosure" a rational approach. I have suggested that doing so is merely a distraction from more likely approaches, such as private sector efforts. Expecting answers from our government, absent compelling evidence that it has ANY answers of consequence, is not, I think, worthwhile. We have not one piece of direct evidence, not even a compelling case of circumstantial evidence, that the government knows any more than, for example, MUFON. So why bother? It's a blind alley.

 

[Schuyler]

So why bother? It's a blind alley.

Not a thing you have said nullifies my argument. Just because you cannot conceive of a government keeping a secret is not evidence that it cannot. You cannot use the Manhattan Project in an 'exception proves the rule' argument. It is a logical fallacy. You cannot point out other governmental failures at keeping something under wraps to 'prove' the government can NEVER keep something under wraps. That is a logical fallacy. You cannot use the lack of a whistleblower coming forward as proof there is nothing to 'blow the whistle on,' if you will. Whistle blowers, statistically, don't do so well after they have done so. Let's just say the incentive is not there--particularly with the ridicule factor in play.

If you don't want to believe that can happen, by all means let that be your guiding light. I maintain that the 'government' (and I know this is a loose term) is very happy for you to do so. Indeed, it is my belief that this has been expertly engineered with disinformation and ridicule to make sure this happens. It is a brilliant judo-like strategy that depends heavily on your attitude being pervasive, which it is.

'Why bother?' indeed. Why don't we just shut down everything? What's the use? Why bother being on Paracast? Why bother listening to the shows? Why not be more productive and eat a pizza or something? You'd probably have better luck than attempting to impeach the testimony of Jesse Marcel, Jr.

Oh, wait....

 

[bobheck]

Not a thing you have said nullifies my argument. Just because you cannot conceive of a government keeping a secret is not evidence that it cannot. You cannot use the Manhattan Project in an 'exception proves the rule' argument. It is a logical fallacy. You cannot point out other governmental failures at keeping something under wraps to 'prove' the government can NEVER keep something under wraps. That is a logical fallacy. You cannot use the lack of a whistleblower coming forward as proof there is nothing to 'blow the whistle on,' if you will. Whistle blowers, statistically, don't do so well after they have done so. Let's just say the incentive is not there--particularly with the ridicule factor in play.

If you don't want to believe that can happen, by all means let that be your guiding light. I maintain that the 'government' (and I know this is a loose term) is very happy for you to do so. Indeed, it is my belief that this has been expertly engineered with disinformation and ridicule to make sure this happens. It is a brilliant judo-like strategy that depends heavily on your attitude being pervasive, which it is.

'Why bother?' indeed. Why don't we just shut down everything? What's the use? Why bother being on Paracast? Why bother listening to the shows? Why not be more productive and eat a pizza or something? You'd probably have better luck than attempting to impeach the testimony of Jesse Marcel, Jr.

Oh, wait....

Your witness, and here is some lubricant to get that out.

 

[marduk]

Expecting answers from our government, absent compelling evidence that it has ANY answers of consequence, is not, I think, worthwhile. We have not one piece of direct evidence, not even a compelling case of circumstantial evidence, that the government knows any more than, for example, MUFON. So why bother? It's a blind alley.

Agreed.

If you look at whatever this phenomenon is, it's obviously disinterested in interacting with us as a society. They haven't as they say landed on the white house lawn.

Instead, they interact usually with small groups of people and appear to be more interested with individuals than nations.

 

[Ron Collins]

i liked the show. Leo has no computer, internet or cell phone. one of the last good old boys.

Apparently to the detriment of his research ability. Perhaps if he were connected he would be better able to read and research the sources he is using to form his opinions. Perhaps the internet is not the root of all evil after all.

 

[skunkape]

Perhaps the internet is not the root of all evil after all.

The series of tubes my internets was being piped through busted in last night's freeze. Now I've got data leaking all over my house.

 

[Ron Collins]

It is a brilliant judo-like strategy that depends heavily on your attitude being pervasive, which it is.

Completely agreed. Nice comparison by the way.

 

[skunkape]

I've also seen the very un-Judo strategy of just punching, kicking, stomping, and throwing one's opponent like a giant pissed-off raccoon work pretty well.

 

[valiens]

My clearest "abduction" memory involves humans not ETs. Maybe there's something there.

Humans just like us or was anything different?

 

[BrandonD]

Just because you cannot conceive of a government keeping a secret is not evidence that it cannot.

Well said. In my opinion, when discussing paranormal topics, this is a theme that people should strive to keep in mind.

Often the fact that something appears impossible is evidence of the narrow scope of one's imagination rather than a reflection of reality.