Debunkers may be closet whistleblowers, leading us to truth the only way they legally can.

I was replying in another thread when this came to me. Maybe it's because I'm over tired. I do get a little goofy at this time of night.

Sometimes I think some of the debunkers on here aren't debunkers at all. For whatever reason, I think they are making people discover the truth for themselves. That's just an impression I've been getting. Perhaps they are people in the know and they would truly like to come clean, but to do so would put them in breach of contract, so they push people to truth using the stick instead of the carrot.

Make of that what you will, but it's not that crazy, is it?

Basically what you are saying is that some debunkers actually debunk to get others to think through the debate that will more than likely end up getting to the truth.

It is basically the same principle a book uses that I'm reading called "Majestic". An ex-CIA agent wanted to come clean, but could not publish his works outright. He dangles a carrot infront of a reporter/writer who takes the bait. The reporter actually does actual research, and found out it was true. His boss fires him for not taking the article in the "this man is crazy" direction. The reporter/writer actually writes the book which is basically the CIA agents life who was one of the original people to investigate and cover up what happened at Rosswell.

The writer can not make it a factual book, since he doesn't want to get "busted" for leaking top secert information. He therefore writes the book as fiction.

I'm already half way throught it. It describes the inside of the ship, and a sometype of inter-demenshional time/plane divice in the ship that will make you think only minutes have passed eventhough hours have passed. Some very interesting things that have happened. It matches up pretty well what some others have said about their encounters. It also gives a little more.

Whether it is actual a story or real, I guess that is left up to each reader.

Otherwise, how else to get the information out to the public without bringing attention to yourself, and to get others to dig in deeper into the issue? I have found out one thing with these fourms. When a debunker comes in, some people love to go on a fact finding mission to prove the debunkers wrong. Sometimes debunkers open up new questions that lead to the truth whether that was their intention or not.

Edited to add: That sometimes the truth is hard for some people, so they really have to be introduced to it alittle bit at a time without getting overwhelmed without having a complete mental breakdown because the knowledge could very well break them mentally and revamp their beliefs.

[edit on 1-4-2007 by Mystery_Lady]

[edit on 1-4-2007 by Mystery_Lady]

Debunkers may be closet whistleblowers, leading us to truth the only way they legally can. Priceless.

You are not tired or goofy. You are a genius. I've come across several today, April 1st. Tired geniuses... Now I "see" why. It makes perfect linear sense of a circular concept. Totally toroidal. Deductively daring. A nice symetry of asymptotic assumption. How could we have missed it. I almost feel ashamed.

I use to think whistleblowers were mere closet debunkers... AAAAArgh. How could I not see that. I've been debunking ancillary and extraneous debunking when I should have been blowing the whistle on whistleblowers which in itself is the act of debunking. Got it. No need for that CAT-scan now.

Thanks for straightening me out... uh, hey wait, so the truth is still the truth right? Oh I get it. Sorry.

[edit on 1-4-2007 by V Kaminski]

Originally posted by V Kaminski
Debunkers may be closet whistleblowers, leading us to truth the only way they legally can. Priceless.

You are not tired or goofy. You are a genius. I've come across several today, April 1st. Tired geniuses... Now I "see" why. It makes perfect linear sense of a circular concept. Totally toroidal. Deductively daring. A nice symetry of asymptotic assumption. How could we have missed it. I almost feel ashamed.

I use to think whistleblowers were mere closet debunkers... AAAAArgh. How could I not see that. I've been debunking ancillary and extraneous debunking when I should have been blowing the whistle on whistleblowers which in itself is the act of debunking. Got it. No need for that CAT-scan now.

Thanks for straightening me out... uh, hey wait, so the truth is still the truth right? Oh I get it. Sorry.

[edit on 1-4-2007 by V Kaminski]

made me laugh... but now im left confused lol

Originally posted by Mystery_Lady
It is basically the same principle a book uses that I'm reading called "Majestic".

Who's the author? I'm sure that other members as well as myself might be interested in getting this book, or at least borrowing it from the library.

And hoo boy, I think like a stoner when I'm tired.


Ohh, looky looky, it's april 1st. I hear that Mayor Manino of Boston died in a car crash...

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn

Sometimes I think some of the debunkers on here aren't debunkers at all. For whatever reason, I think they are making people discover the truth for themselves.

Thank you.

You get my first WATS of the month.

Lex

Edit to add : You have voted Sunsetspawn for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

[edit on 1-4-2007 by Lexion]

The author is Whitley Strieber. The copy I'm reading is from my local library.