Definition of conspiracy

For any sane person, it becomes obvious that most people here don't even know what that word means, yet they continue to bash people who think differently. For this thread, I'll just paste some definitions given by google:

1. a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act
2. a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)
3. a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)

Is covering up existence of ufo's an unlawful act? no.

Is ... harmful? no, for most sane persons effects of disclosure are harmful, not the coverup.

Is .. illegal? Again, no. Its not illegal to not tell something like this to the public. There are no laws covering that.

So, if no harm is done to people, its not illegal to cover up such existence and its done lawfully, there is NO conspiracy. You'll have to figure out some other word. Sorry, folks, but most of you are speaking of something else than a conspiracy and don't even realize it.

(added an edit

If Diana was murdered by an indivudual without any agreement with others, there's no conspiracy. If she was murdered by two or more people who agreed to do it, it is a conpiracy. What's so difficult about it?


[edit on 9/1/08 by rawsom]

Depends on what the UFOs are doing.

If you think on it, the soldiers of the aliens (assuming the UFOs are "military") kidnapping and performing tests on US citizens without their consent could be considered an act of war.

Thus covering it up and aiding them is an act of treason.

reply to post by merka


Wow, great answer. I agree with both of you, if that makes sense. It all depends and all the evidence is sketchy at best. But if there is, then the next question is what/how?

reply to post by SantaClaus

Indeed it depends, that's the problem. But it really applies to anything.

What would the Prez do if the Iranian goverment simply flew in with heavily armed helicopters and landed personal in the US.

It wouldnt really matter WHAT they do, would it? Covering it up would still be considered an act of treason. Maybe the Prez have a secret agreement with them? Then the congress would consider it an act of treason (and the opposite also apply). If both are keeping it secret, the people of the US wouldnt like it very much I would think... In fact I wouldnt want to be the Prez or anyone in congress if that got out since it would no doubt be considered illegal by the people.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by merka]

You're talking in terms of places/things that REALLY exist. It is easier to apply your theory to something that isn't questioned, rather than apply it to ideas/evidence that could be pure fantasy.

It doesn't apply, because we can interview people on both sides of your argument. All we have in the case of ET's is speculation, no harm done on a large level.

You've got a great point, and I think you have something, but what if meeting a new civilization means turning our entire perception of the world upside-down?

Theories, that's all they are. Meeting interstellar beings is not quite like flying across the atlantic.

It takes a person who will admit their reality isn't quite "reality" to believe in this stuff.

Originally posted by SantaClaus
It doesn't apply, because we can interview people on both sides of your argument. All we have in the case of ET's is speculation, no harm done on a large level.

Sides are irrelevant. Even if there are flower power aliens that preach peace, sex and rock'n'roll to all humans, evidence indicate otherwise. Its not "theories" or speculation as much as it is reports.

But granted my argument doesnt quite hold ground. The government is already covering their arses by saying again and again that UFOs pose no national threat. That's so that when the #s hit the fan, they cant be charged with treason

[edit on 9-1-2008 by merka]

Originally posted by rawsom
Is ... harmful? no, for most sane persons effects of disclosure are harmful, not the coverup.

I disagree. It is harmful, since the technology used by UFOs could free us form using fossil fuel to fulfill our energy requirements.

This is a point Steven Greer and other ufologists keep making. IMO, a good one.

reply to post by ConspiracyNut23

I'm not so sure I can agree with that. Having technology doesnt mean its automatically in effect, the world today proves us that.

In the case of fossil fuel, we've got technology of our own that could go very, very far in "freeing" us from its use. If everyone switched to electric cars (we can make them at least as good as petrol cars today) and replaced every single light with LEDs, we'd cut our fossil fuel consumption by a very sizable percentage. And that's just your average person, modernization of factories is a whole other matter.

So while it is a point, I dont think its a very good one.

There are obvious other effects caused by disclosure besides technology. Also, even when there are technology that could help us in some way, it will stay within military-industrial complex as long as it takes for them to develop something better. After that, when a competing technology takes its place, such technology is realeased to the public. You could go on an on by arguing about positive effects, and there certainly are some. I have a firm belief, though, that most effects would be harmful, and religion is not in any small role at that.

What's most important however is that IF these things are covered up, most politicans do not know about it. When such is the case, aliens could very well be doing something that is illegal by our laws, but conspiracy definitely doesn't exist in minds of politicans who don't even know about it.

And, again, doing something harmful (by aliens) while here is speculation only. It is also speculation only that they are doing something good. Also, it is speculation that national security is in danger.

This brings to my main point. We cannot prove that there is a conspiracy. We cannot do that even if we believe aliens exist and no goverment tells about it.

Originally posted by merka
So while it is a point, I dont think its a very good one.

We are talking about zero point energy. Meaning that energy can be pulled from the vaccum of space. Electric cars and LED lights won't do anything for third world nations and remote villages. Zero point energy would.

As far as religion is concerned, I'm not sure how that would be a problem. Who says EBEs themselves don't have any gods?

reply to post by ConspiracyNut23

I fail to see how a new power source would magically benefit third world nations and remote villages. We consider fusion power to be the "future" too, but its not expected to yeild gains for another 40+ years. Would ZPE magically come to us pre-packaged in power plant format? Or are we talking 10 years, 20 years or more to get it commercial if it was unveiled right now? In comparison, we got technology that could help RIGHT NOW. Solar power for your "remote villages" perhaps?

The only reason UFOlogists would bring it up is that this would of course go far beyond a simple "conspiracy". If the US goverment is hiding such things as "free energy", then they are committing a crime against humanity unparalleled in human history. And that's what UFOlogists like to hear.

[edit on 10-1-2008 by merka]

Originally posted by merka
Would ZPE magically come to us pre-packaged in power plant format?

Apparently, yes.

The costs involved is the reason it would benefit the world, since the poorer nations of the world could afford its implementation. I don't think solar power is presently cheap enough. (at least to the average Zimbabwean)

see:
www.disclosureproject.org...

If the US goverment is hiding such things as "free energy",

I admit, personally, it's the only reason I consider ufology so important.


[edit on 10/1/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by rawsom
Is ... harmful? no, for most sane persons effects of disclosure are harmful, not the coverup.

Could you elaborate on how the effect of disclosure are harmful? And why would it be harmful to only "sane" people?

Are you referring to this report?

Also, it is speculation that national security is in danger.

It isn't. Perhaps you need to review the incidents at Malmstrom in 1967 and at Big Sur in 1964.

[edit on 10/1/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Ok what is it with all you people praising free energy? Do you people really think that such a device would be cheap to build, say, maybe a million dollars a piece? Or perhaps it requires materials that cannot be created or found on earth in large enough quantities, thus requiring a ship to travel, say, into asteroid belt to mine some? Take another one hundred billion dollars when such material hits the stock market.

Yes, it may very well require cheap materials only, and it may even work with just mots basic electronics, but to say that even devices are free.. thats insane. Of course price would go down in time, but for time being, we have patents and copyrights that are not going to go away anytime soon.

You cannot build a single device to power up earth either, you'll have to build power lines with high enough capacity to carry that elctricity, and there won't be a magical solution of transferring energy via air. Its not efficient,and a missfire will burn anything it touches. Think about beams of energy from space going haywire.

We can create gold. It can be done, but it is so damn expensive that it takes a billion dollars for a gram of gold. We can create diamonds, which isn't expensive, and will eventually crash diamond market, but we may have a material in zero-point energy that simply costs too much to create.

Current materials just don't have charasteristics that would allow such energy to be extracted.

Originally posted by rawsom
but to say that even devices are free.. thats insane.

Did someone say the device itself would be free? The energy source itself would be free,(since there's lots of space!) not the processor. If you read the disclosure project link I posted above, Greer explains how we are currently working on such devices.

The price of the device is hardly relevant to this conversation, the crux of your argument is that there is no conspiracy because there are no harmful effects to a cover-up. Obviously if UFOs exist, they have more advanced technology and more efficient propulsion/energy systems. If some factions of the government are not sharing this technology, then they are harming us. By your own definition, this constitutes a conspiracy.

Mind replying to my post above your last one?


[edit on 10/1/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Another harmful effect of a government cover-up, (if true) is that eye witnesses or abductees are subjected to a tremendous amount of unnecessary ridicule. (even in this very forum)

Careers are destroyed, lives are destroyed. :dw:

Again, it fits the description of a conspiracy.

[edit on 11/1/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by rawsom
For any sane person,...

Is ... harmful? no, for most sane persons effects of disclosure are harmful, not the coverup...

there is NO conspiracy.

Care to recant your statements?

You've question the sanity of everyone who uses the word "conspiracy" in regards to a UFO cover-up.

I've giving you 2 examples that demonstrate its harmful effects therefore proving its conspiratorial nature, and yet you seem to be ignoring your own thread. (bouche bée?)

Unless you can demonstrate some of the positive effects of a cover-up to counterbalance my examples, your OP's conclusion is flawed. You should probably also apologize to members who you've labeled as insane.

reply to post by ConspiracyNut23


It was not my intention to insult anybody, and I believe I wrote it that way party accidentally, as english really isn't my native language. However, some of it came up that way because of some frustration considering the way threads evolve around here. I used word sane because I thought it is a good word to use. Such words are meant differently in my native language, we have other words for insulting. Its just that I do know lots of english words, but I don't know the entire culture of using them.

What comes to harmful effects, I wrote a little about it on this thread.

What comes to disclosure, I support it but all things considered, even national security and threats don't neccessarily make something a conspiracy.

By saying "for most sane persons, effects are harmful" I meant that for reasonable people, it is easy to understand how such a thing would be harmful. I know there would be positive effects along with it, too, but those harmful effects won't go away with that.

Originally posted by rawsom
However, some of it came up that way because of some frustration considering the way threads evolve around here.

I totally understand your frustration! I admit, I felt a tad insulted by the use of the word "sane". I'm sorry if I was a bit harsh in my last post.

Thanks for pointing me to your thread, I will definitely check it out.


[edit on 12/1/08 by ConspiracyNut23]