The Men In Black(OPs) The Aviary & UFOs

reply to post by The GUT


I finally found your other thread which fills a lot of gaps in this thread

So discussion of Persinger in detail.

Links to Adam Gorightly, Mac Tonnies, lots of Philip Coppens, etc.

Electric Ufos: Fireballs, Electromagnetics and Abnormal States [Paperback] Albert Budden (Author)

Total new one for me -- maybe referenced by Nick Redfern and I missed it.

So a person does a field investigation of a big black triangle craft sighting and he ends up harrassed and put in jail

This happens to be the same year I saw the equilateral triangle flying craft up close also 1997.

I could have hit the craft with a rock!

Wow the bit by bit allegations of lying re: witness interviews by other ufologists, etc. -- yeah this is too bad but probably inevitable considering the nebulous nature of the evidence -- personal testimonies.

I mean if someone truly believes and has evidence that other ufology researchers are not honest, etc. then by all means they should be able to present their case.

But on the other hand if the whole field of "ufology" - the term is oxymoronic in my opinion like "military intelligence" -- and so does ufology just decay into postmodernist cultural studies b.s. Like the earlier comment about anthropologists running out of cultures to study and so they do subcultures -- and how would this apply to the Aviary?

Is this just descriptive information? The problem is that rational discourse does not "convince" or let's say -- deprogram those who believe in this e.t. alien disinformation.

So notice how your two threads don't have any "true believers" trying to convince you that John Alexander and Kit Green are real legitimate well meaning ufologists? Unless, of course, you consider Springer, the ATS mod/owner or whatever, stating that Kit Green had good intentions or whatever. In other words is this your goal -- to get ATS as a website to finally admit that this UFO disinfo is real and that e.t. aliens are not flying nuts and bolts crafts, etc.?

Consider the Steven Greer thread where there is a supposed "balanced" debate between the true believers in the Greer cult and those presenting the overwhelming rational evidence that Greer does run a e.t. alien cult.

I think this has been mentioned already -- the irony being that Greer claims he is a victim of the military mind control tactics, etc. even to the extent that a top CIA director got murdered because he was accepting Greer's information.

So it seems impossible for people to extract themselves from this psychic ideological glue of the lie/truth dichotomy of ufology.

It's too late -- ufology is already a religion with true believers. It's like arguing against any other religion.

You said you're a "believer" but that already puts a foot in the door for the alien e.t. nuts and bolts true believers because it leaves it as a possibility included within your belief system. At that point it's just a difference of protestant versus catholic, etc. The catholics are like the "nuts and bolts" believing in physical transubstantiation while the Episcopals kind of believe in "transubstantiation" - and so there is a spectrum all within the range of believers.

My point is why believe in anything? Instead radical logical inference (not deduction nor induction) just infers something that can not be based on evidence at all. It's just pure logical inference as the source of reality.

You seem to be just coming into this perspective -- so now I'm starting to understand where you're coming from -- you say you used to like Stan Friedman more and you used to not like Jim Moseley but now your positions have changed.

OH yeah my mention of postmodernism would be the "strange loop" reference in the other thread.

So anyway Greg Bishop in his recent interview with Nick Redfern -- which I highly recommend if you haven't listened to it -- here

So Greg Bishop says he thinks that there needs to be a focus on quantum physics to really get at the origin of the UFO anomalies. Nick Redfern then says he thinks the spiritual sound acoustic levitation was probably real in ancient civilizations. These are both angles that I have actually combined -- and again rely on logical inference -- I have a 725 scholarly footnote free download book on it. But I don't want to overwhelm people with information so that it's too confusing, etc. But I do think there is a way out of the "strange loop" self-referential morass of ufology.

Originally posted by fulllotusqigong

I finally found your other thread which fills a lot of gaps in this thread

True there is some info there that relates peripherally & sometimes directly to this thread.

Electric Ufos: Fireballs, Electromagnetics and Abnormal States [Paperback] Albert Budden (Author)

Total new one for me -- maybe referenced by Nick Redfern and I missed it.

Interesting book. I haven't given it the full attention it deserves as I've slowed-down and pondered it at times, but have also done a lot of speed-reading in it. May relate to the hallucinatory "golden ring" of mind-control seekers. May also relate to why some witnesses report different details after witnessing the same event. The author provides some very fascinating and well-researched work.

Where he falls down in my opinion, is by basically trying to cram all the phenomenon into hallucinatory phenomenon brought on by electromagnetic trash. I'd be glad to send you my copy after I have a little more time with it.

This happens to be the same year I saw the equilateral triangle flying craft up close also 1997.

I could have hit the craft with a rock!

Col. John B. Alexander and the rest of the now defunct NIDS team did a study and came to the conclusion they were military craft.

What do you think it was?

So notice how your two threads don't have any "true believers" trying to convince you that John Alexander and Kit Green are real legitimate well meaning ufologists? Unless, of course, you consider Springer, the ATS mod/owner or whatever, stating that Kit Green had good intentions or whatever. In other words is this your goal -- to get ATS as a website to finally admit that this UFO disinfo is real and that e.t. aliens are not flying nuts and bolts crafts, etc.?

Firstly, although I doubt they'll ever tell us ALL of what they believe, it's very possible that they are actually quite good at ufology. Maybe even two of the best. They have experience and data that go far beyond what we see and read in popular literature I imagine.

Secondly, as far as what I'm on about is, regardless of what the real answer to the question may be, there have been attempts to manipulate the "community" with faked documents. I've thus far offered one thesis as to why.

I also suggest both Drs Green & Alexander have leanings towards the mystic explanations as has been evidenced by their work, associates, and past-times and that might be a clue as to what they personally believe in regards the phenomenon. Actually, Col. Alexander does briefly give a point of view in his new book that is worded very closely along the lines of Jacques Valle's theory. I lean that way myself.

So Greg Bishop says he thinks that there needs to be a focus on quantum physics to really get at the origin of the UFO anomalies.

I'd say that I bet Dr. Green and Col. Alexander have tendencies in that direction as well. I like Greg's work, btw. Good thinker, good read. Nick Redfern too.


Col. Alexander's Book: UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities

reply to post by Eidolon23

But. If the GUT is accurate with his (pretty airtight) connect-the-dots act here, then you guys intentionally inoculated a group of vulnerable civilians with a pathogenic (by your own definition) meme for experimental purposes. Dr. Green? That's not OK.

Hello Eidolon23 and thread,

I just wanted to respond to and support your post here. I have found that if your posts are read carefully they digest some of the most important themes uncovered in this thread.

Yes, that is what they are trying to do, make people that they have identified as being psychiatrically ill sicker, so that they may observe the result and the effect on society.

And that really isn't OK.

I think The Aviary might be more appropriately named, Team Mengele.

You know, if Mr. Mask were around, he could totally draw that.

X.

reply to post by The GUT


Right. So I think the big black equilateral triangle aircraft with no fuselage is definitely a military craft. When I saw it I had already investigated ufos a bit but from the Fortean angle. I saw the craft in 1997 and it was a full on sighting first with green, red and yellow-orange lights on the horizon doing strange manuevers. I stood there rationally excluding all explanations I could think of -- helicopters, car head lights, planes, tower lights. Then I realized the lights were attached to a craft that was flying towards our land -- the craft low, slow, going over the forest of the neighbors. The craft then flew over our hill and our big oak tree on the north end of our yard. So I didn't dare take my eyes off the craft because I didn't want to have "missing time" or get abducted or something. So the craft made a humming noise and had lights on each corner. The craft slowly moved right over the trees and continued on across the valley that is the St. Croix river valley between MN and WI -- so it heading east.

O.K. I am repeating myself as I've typed the above many times.

Later a local journalist gave me articles424 from the previous ufo flap in our area in 1978 which accompanied cattle mutilation, causing an afraid rancher to move out, and one lady, after she underwent hypnosis, claimed to have been abducted in the ufo craft. The journalist told me that we live in a military flight test corridor. This makes sense since I've regularly seen military jets flying in our area. I looked on the MN MUFON database and there had been similar big black triangle sightings in my area around the same time – in the late 1990s. One sighting saw the craft take off at tremendous speed. I saw the three lights on each corner of the craft – a perfect equilateral triangle with no fuselage – and then a light in the center of the craft. The triangle made a humming noise but I knew it wasn’t a blimp.

Now check out the previous UFO flap we had:

Cliff Buchan, “Seen By More Than 50: UFO reports capture Scandia Area,” Forest Lake Times, March 30, 1978. “Witnesses described the object as a hovering ‘shadowy mass,’ 100 to 300 feet off the ground, as big as a ‘battleship or a 747 aircraft.” Jim Broede, “Copter pilot denies UFO sightings link to flight,” St. Paul Pioneer Press. “There were supposed to be red orbs of lights in a horizontal, V-shaped formation,”…”There were some reports of a humming noise…” “I have investigated at least 12 sightings there in the past three years, “… “Some of the cases were pretty bizarre. A housewife told us under hypnotic regression that while driving through the Carlos Avery Wildlife Refuge in January 1976, she was abducted by ‘a presence’ and remained in a UFO for about an hour.” Jim Broede, “UFO reports investigated” St. Paul Pioneer Press. “Council: UFO wasn’t helicopters,” by Jim Nagel, St. Paul Dispatch, April 25, 1978: “It had 14 or 16 yellow lights, about equal distance on either side of a center red light….The red light would dim and then get brighter, but it never went out completely…The object, whatever it was, made no noise, Werdouschegg said. It moved too slowly for a jet….” And “Sometimes they said it appeared to be almost still, then it moved jerkily and bobbed around, moving instantly from one spot to another.”

So that hypnotic regression was done by Brad from CUFOS -- Hynek's organization out of Chicago or Evanston. Personally I don't trust hypnosis for ufo investigations especially with all the recent scandals about it.

So my take on the Aviary is that as per Greg Bishop's Project Beta book - I do think there is secret military technology and I think it is based on Tesla type electrogravitics -- which I'm sure most have looked into - like Edgar Fouche's claims about the triangle craft technology. I think www.alienscientist.com... has some excellent speculations and information on this secret military technology.

I think there is a CIA disinfo campaign along with the other intelligence agencies to use the E.T. alien meme as a cover for military craft.

I think this cover up also includes mind control technology.

I think this mind control and Tesla aircraft technology delves into "occult" technology. Nick Redfern has reported on the various satanic channelling by Crowley, Parsons, and of course the Nazi scientists. But I take this farther based on Professor David F. Noble's book "The Religion of Technology"

If the Freemasons were among the earliest advocates of industrialization, perhaps their most lasting and important, and heretofore unexamined, role was as midwives in the birth of the latest incarnation of spiritual men, the engineer. For engineering emerged as much out of Masonry as it did out of the military (indeed, the military itself was rife with Masonry).

I document mass ritual sacrifice in action.

Originally posted by Xoanon
Yes, that is what they are trying to do, make people that they have identified as being psychiatrically ill sicker, so that they may observe the result and the effect on society.

And that really isn't OK.

I think The Aviary might be more appropriately named, Team Mengele.

You know, if Mr. Mask were around, he could totally draw that.

X.

X knows more about this aspect of the subject than I, but here are my thoughts:

Aleister Crowley defined magic as, "the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will" and wrote that, "it is theoretically possible to cause in any object any change of which that object is capable by nature"

And it's nothing more than that really. Or doesn't have to be anyway. For example, it's not DO a spell and having a Porsche appear from thin air, as much as doing a spell that conjures the will, whiles, and ways to achieve the Porsche.

Yes, it can be more complicated than that--Jungian archetypes and the summoning of visions of spirits and entities. The etheric body. Those issues are more abstract, more experiential, and more difficult to discuss.

We're dealing, here, with magic in the Crowleyian sense I proffer. Memes, as has been mentioned, are Majick encapsulated. The particular "magical meme" we are speaking of here relates to UFOs.

Now suppose a group wanted to inculcate society with a meme that contained within it a personal philosophy. A group that had the power and finances of the government behind them as long as they could sell an experiment that had benefits to the intelligence apparatus. One that contained within the larger meme, the more personal meme.

So, which came first the Experiment or the Agenda?

Jacques Vallee, Hal Puthoff, and Kit Green have had a long fascination with these subjects. In Vallee's book/diary Forbidden Science II on page 211 we get a picture of some of the thinking held by the Hermetic.

Vallee is taking a walk with Hal Puthoff and muses of his 1961 science fiction novel in which he wrote of "luminous spheres" passing thru walls and that he published another novel the next year in which a young scientist watched his spoon bending in front of his eyes.

He noted that after the publication of those novels, along comes Uri Geller bending spoons and speaking of luminous spheres that defy matter. These observations led to more coherent philosophies that have become germane to the topic here I think.

Dr. Jacques Vallee

It's been said elsewhere that:

The only developments with any importance to come of that shift has been our science, technology, and art, all of which seem destined to work together to enable increased replications of benignant memes.

books.google.com...=onep age&q=memes%20magick&f=false

I would also highly recommend Forbidden Science II by Jacques Vallee. The main reason being that I believe that he hints about hints that he's left behind for future researchers as they attempt to untangle the backroads of modern phenomenology. He's a white magician methinks, but he hangs, or used to hang, with some who seem to lean more towards the darker side and as such it's hard to say.

The Majic of Meme Mutation

Off Topic: Cool that you mention Mr. Mask, X!!

Mr. Mask: Conspiracy Savant

Somewhat on Topic: Can anyone help me with the following question:

Who Was/Is Blue Resonant Human AKA Professor Blue?

He had an interest in and has authored material as relates to the Aviary. Brilliant Cat. I've wondered where he has flown to.

Brother Blue also had some nice things to say about Dr. Christopher "Kit" Green at times:

Acting on gut instinct and an educated guess, we did some additional research (cf: "CIA-Initiated Remote Viewing Program at Stanford Research Institute" by Dr. Hal Puthoff, SSE's Journal, Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 72) and were able to confirm to our satisfaction that the primary subject of these excerpts - the mysterious and elusive "Richard Kennett" - is none other than our Aviarian friend Blue Jay, Dr. Christopher "Kit" Green, MD, Ph.D; Chief, Biomedical Sciences Department, General Motors, former head of the CIA's UFO files at the "Weird Desk."

To guard against any conceivable interpretive dissonance, our Martian Brethren have advised us to colour the name "Kennett" green to insure that our readers do not forget that Dr. Green is the one being referred to via the pseudonym "Richard Kennett."

We thought it was a pretty cool idea too. And in case there is any doubt, though we may disagree with much of what goes on in the halls of the building where Dr. Green used to show up for work, we nevertheless maintain a high degreeø of respect for him and salute his courage here in breaking free of the narrow-minded and antiquated constraints of Club Science© to present us with these intriguing and vastly insightful interstitially-aware perspectives.

Couple all this with the fact that there remains, in our carefully considered opinion, little difference between the occult exploits of today's military/intelligence community for the short-sighted purpose of gaining military superiority and the previous workings of the English scholar Dr. John Dee - a mathematician, cartographer, astronomer, astrologer and espionage agent of Queen Elizabeth I, ca. 1582-1589, who conducted a series of ritual communications with a set of discarnate entities which eventually came to be known as the Enochian angels - who intended to advance the expansionist policies of his sovereign Queen, hoping to control the hostile potentates of Europe by commanding the tutelary spirits of it's various nations.

Then as now, it appears quite evident that there is an immense albeit tactically camouflaged war in process where the forces of light struggle,

"not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."

edit on 10-9-2012 by The GUT because: (no reason given)

reply to post by The GUT


I miss Mr. Mask. I have tried to summon him from his fortress of solitude on more threads than this one, but I don't seem to have the correct cantrip.

You know it crossed my mind,

You've read plenty of Vallee interviews, I am sure, doesn't he at times come across as exasperated?

So I got to thinking, here are this group of guys that all get along really well together, probably just because they understand one another due to how all of their bizarre interests intersect. And they know that they are the best thinkers out there. remember, no internet, they just had themselves in their little network.

You know, just like all of us that like to contribute to ATS, we look at the boards and think, "I wanna talk about this", and we make a thread and the most compelling ideas that garner the most interest are what gets talked about.

Well, maybe these guys collectively realized that since they were the biggest thinkers, and had already garnered attention individually from 'governments' interested in their work, that they could gang up, since they were all interested in the same stuff, and make the funding and attention come to them.

In other words, don't allow anyone to suggest what they must study, but by sheer force of collective brain power dictate what will be studied. Kind of like, "We are doing this, if you want to find out what it is, give us a call".

Maybe it started like that, who knows how it got where it is today.

Just speculating,

X.

Originally posted by Xoanon
In other words, don't allow anyone to suggest what they must study, but by sheer force of collective brain power dictate what will be studied. Kind of like, "We are doing this, if you want to find out what it is, give us a call".

Maybe it started like that, who knows how it got where it is today.

Dr. Vallee did help invent the internet and usher it into existence. He also wrote and delivered many papers/philosophies in it's early days and as such has a very keen insight into it's power and uses. As do his friends from that era.

Those facts have direct and profound implication here it seems.

Good stuff and keen thinking, X. You are a treasure.

Stay tuned, y'all. We'll be bringing this puppy home soon now. Almost there.

As an atheist who believes in an afterlife, I am about to complain about myself.

It seems to me we are mixing our metaphors here. On the one hand we have practical issues. Who are these Aviary people? Are they really related in any meaningful way, or have they been assigned to this bucket by outsiders fond of naming people after birds? Wasn’t it Moore who started this for HIS convenience? The Aviary is not a CIA plot; it’s a journalistic convenience.

And just what do we mean when we say someone “has ties” to someone else or some place or project? I have ties to Tacoma, Washington and further “ties” to the Winthrop Hotel where my father worked the front desk. The Winthrop was where Kenneth Arnold stayed when he was investigating the Maury Island incident. His hotel room was arranged for him without his knowledge and the phone was bugged. My father, a co-conspirator, most likely met Kenneth Arnold and checked him into his room. Ergo, I have ties to Kenneth Arnold because I was there and can more or less prove it. Plus, my father was a member of “The Greeters,” a hotel group which had many Masons among that body, so we have obvious ties back to the Illuminati.

You can weave a conspiracy out of anything, or even out of nothing, and that’s where we need to take a step back and ask, what are we really trying to accomplish here? I believe we live in a practical Universe where, although it doesn’t, science CAN explain everything given enough time and circumstance, including the more paranormal aspects. These areas aren’t really that mysterious; we’re just ignorant.

So from a practical standpoint I believe it is reasonable to conclude that we have some secret triangle craft whose pilots don’t really care whether or not they are seen by the public. It would seem reasonable that the military would encourage “UFO reports” just so they didn’t have to acknowledge something that would raise questions.

Beyond this we are really groping about in the dark and, I think, making up stories like the Shadow Government. Whether you take Richard Dolan’s pseudo-scholarly “practical” approach or Steven Greer’s loved-one “woo-woo” approach, both say essentially the same thing, but is their story credible? See my review of Dolan here. Needless to say, Dolan doesn’t like me. But the fact is, his research isn’t really that good. Yet it is the epitome of what we have. People look up to him because they don’t know any better. Interestingly, one well-known UFO researcher told me privately that he agreed with me, but in public he still fawns over Dolan, a political expediency on his part to maintain the façade. They are happy for me to stick my neck out so they don’t have to.

Now add in the religious stuff, “ties” to Scientology, ties to the Masons, the Vatican, the Secret Brotherhood, the Illuminati, Crowley, the CIA, NSA, DIA, NIS, AFOSI, and (Ta Da!) The United States Navy! and we have huge buffet of initials from which to pick and choose. And once you throw a belief system in the mix, “ties” to God, Jesus, or the Holy Ark, you may as well pack up shop and go home.

I think this is a real problem. We’re not proceeding systematically, certifying our “ties” as ironclad and, very importantly, actually relevant to the issue. Instead, like Luther, we’re nailing our theses to the wall to see what might stick.

So what is it we are trying to accomplish here? What would be deemed a satisfactory end result?

Speaking of which, who is this GUT fellow, anyway? That’s a strange moniker. Is it religiously significant on his home planet, do you think? Now we all have “ties” to him. Is this thread a honey pot? Are we all now on the visitation list?

I surely hope so.

Since rv is a part of this thread, I thought I'd dig up an old link.

Hal Puthoff on the early days of remote viewing research. A funny part is where the CIA sent an agent to uncover the scam. Another interesting part is the reaction of various factions within intelligence, the funnymentalists, the scientific types, the pragmatists.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOAfH1utUSM

reply to post by schuyler

Are they really related in any meaningful way, or have they been assigned to this bucket by outsiders fond of naming people after birds? Wasn’t it Moore who started this for HIS convenience? The Aviary is not a CIA plot; it’s a journalistic convenience.

That is a really good point schuyler,

I woke up from a power nap realizing that the entire thing is just a pile of writing. Including this thread.

Considering the light that has been shed in this thread concerning the potential for the weaponization of narrative and story telling and the possible applications to which it has been put, I find that to be very ironic.

And I want to talk about some stuff concerning Crowley and literature but I have to go to la escuela.

BRB.

X.

reply to post by schuyler


The "Illuminati" have never and still don't exist as any sort of cohesive organisation at all. The bastard offspring of the Illumanti, then again, it's probably more proper to call it the parthenogenetic offspring of the Illuminati is alive well and doing its' own thing as it always has done. It has no creed, no official membership and yet, it resides on-line and has it places where those who really do feel the need to "hook up" with like minded individuals can do so. Its' non members are some of the brightest lights in computing meaning its' domains are often hidden in plain site and constantly frustrate the likes of the CIA, either to crack them, or having done provide them with the slightest inkling as to what it's all actually about.

The CIA et al hate it's seeming totally anarcho syndicalist nature and they have tried time and again to copy it and yet again, they fail understand the simplest non tenet of its' non existence. It has no agenda save, knowledge, be it "fact" or "disinformation". The rest is for the reader to make of they will for themselves.

The modern media is littered with its' non symbols, to the extent youth culture uses it's non symbols repeatedly with absolutely no knowledge of what they mean save, they've been told its somehow "cool/sick", choose your own vernacular to suit.

It's fore-runner the Illuminati is "blamed" for... The overthrow of feudalism in France and a democratic republic being set up in its' place, the setting up of a republic with no place for organised religion within the executive and legal structure, in the New World. It's blamed for pushing for female emancipation, the practise of religious tolerance and they are meant to be the "baddies"?

Try reading Walter Scott's "Ivanhoe" and see if you can spot the "illuminati agenda",

If you want to talk about memes then you should ask any Brit, who was a child in the 1960s early 1970s about the whole rake a "children's programming" and about who they were penned by and the meme that left ingrained deep in our psyche. America's loss was Britain's gain in that particular field, although, I'm sure our friends at the CIA would say exactly the opposite.

The whole "New Age" thing is known in Britain as being a "Yoghurt Weaver" and most see it for what it often is, a conservative philosophy that comes with hummus, a Mongolian birthing blanket and a free subscription to Birkenstocks quarterly.

Majick is essentially, in our quantum world, the manipulation of chance to one's own ends and with that, one has to expect it to bite both ways.

I suspect many of these memes are nothing more than jingoistic willy waving by the USA in a desperate attempt to convince people they are a lot more "advanced" than they are really are. It's deep ingrained in parts of American society, particularly the military that, the USA is best, despite the evidence to suggest it's anything but the truth in any number of fields. Merely throwing money at a subject does not equate to success, as Voltaire would say

God is not on the side of the big battalions rather, the best shots.

Originally posted by schuyler
It seems to me we are mixing our metaphors here. On the one hand we have practical issues. Who are these Aviary people? Are they really related in any meaningful way, or have they been assigned to this bucket by outsiders fond of naming people after birds?

Yeah, I've had to address this more than once here, but I understand why. I use the name Aviary as a touchstone, for those that have run into these conundrums before and, like me, have wondered what the heck is going on?

It's easy to get caught up in peripheral players who were/are most likely dead-ends and that, imo, can throw the seeker off. I've found that by keeping my eye on just a few certain players as the story winds through the years, provides a valuable focus.

That's my take and I'm very comfortable with it. Keep your eye on Dr. Green and not the "misdirection" and one just might find where the rabbit really comes from. It's not the hat, btw.

And just what do we mean when we say someone “has ties” to someone else or some place or project?...Plus, my father was a member of “The Greeters,” a hotel group which had many Masons among that body, so we have obvious ties back to the Illuminati.

You might be a Manchurian Candidate and the clue to the whole UFO mystery with ties like that!

But let's talk about ties. Ties, or evidentiary items, are an important part of both science/technological break-throughs, and investigative work. They always encode information, either positive or negative, for a hypothesis. For example, in your case, when can see, casually, that they really don't lead towards your fictitious hypothesis about the Illuminati.

On the other hand, the guy that tied the rolling motion of a rock to mobility has led to a further series of ties that have given us modern transportation. Woodward & Bernstein followed ties and made extrapolations and in turn investigated those ties and eventually unraveled Watergate. That, of course, is just an example--there's still some strings dangling there, too, imo.

You can weave a conspiracy out of anything, or even out of nothing, and that’s where we need to take a step back and ask, what are we really trying to accomplish here?…

…Beyond this we are really groping about in the dark and, I think, making up stories like the Shadow Government.

Some folk are good at following leads and vetting them against concatenate information. Some are not. And some fear it. I see you have a lot of questions and critiques, schuyler, and that's okay, but if you find nothing here of substance and have no counter-research other than skepticism, then we differ on the question of whether we've learned anything here or not. I love ya man, no matter what you feel about my thesis, and I hope that shows in my personal communications and support of you elsewhere on these boards, so no harm-no foul I hope from either of our positions.

Now add in the religious stuff, “ties” to Scientology, ties to the Masons, the Vatican, the Secret Brotherhood, the Illuminati, Crowley, the CIA, NSA, DIA, NIS, AFOSI, and (Ta Da!) The United States Navy! and we have huge buffet of initials from which to pick and choose. And once you throw a belief system in the mix, “ties” to God, Jesus, or the Holy Ark, you may as well pack up shop and go home.

Yes, there are some interesting ties and to ignore and/or dismiss them might make you a very good bureaucrat and bean-counter but, a detective, imo, not so much.

I quoted Crowley, btw, I didn't tie him to the enigma here. Nor the Vatican. And a few other things you mention. Somebunny else said, "Illuminati" not me.

I think this is a real problem. We’re not proceeding systematically, certifying our “ties” as ironclad and, very importantly, actually relevant to the issue. Instead, like Luther, we’re nailing our theses to the wall to see what might stick.

Ironclad? It ain't gonna happen, I admit. Personal conclusions of "high probability?" Certainly…but only for those who aren't afraid to come to "personal' conclusions. I've answered my main questions about it all and only offer my line of thinking for others to consider.

Speaking of which, who is this GUT fellow, anyway? That’s a strange moniker. Is it religiously significant on his home planet, do you think? Now we all have “ties” to him. Is this thread a honey pot? Are we all now on the visitation list?

I surely hope so.

GUT is no one special. He does care about his brothers and sisters, however. And, he does have some investigative background & he's the guy that took the time to make a thread that was, hopefully more than, "Hey, Check Out This UFO Vid!" Then again, who is anyone here?

While I find you brilliant, exceptionally so, in some areas, I find your facility for "ties" and for people somewhat missing an edge. If you don't know me by now, you most likely never will. Peace.

Well, I guess I'm just frustrated with "ties" that don't bind. They're too nebulous. Despite claims otherwise, you can't pin them down. It's like Greer saying a "top official" told him "X" and he wishes he could tell us who, but he just can't. He talked with the Head of State of a G8 country. Sorry, can't say who.

I feel the same way when someone claims "The CIA does this." Oh, really? The CIA is not a single entity and further, how do you know? How are you in a position to know? What is your level of expertise? Are you saying "X" is true because you "believe" it, because you read it somewhere else, or because you "know" for certain that it is true? What degree of confidence should we have that what you say is valid at all? And how do we make that judgement?

That's why I used the term "ironclad," not that I think we could ever get there, but I think we need more than thus and such is true because I said it's true. In my little farce I "know," for certain, where the Winthrop is. I've been inside it numerous times. I "know," for certain, that my father was a desk clerk there at the time Arnold stayed there. I'm taking a leap of faith from this certain knowledge that my father very likely checked him in. It is not impossible he did not, but because I am familiar with procedures and schedules, I'm making a good case that he did. After that, it all falls apart, of course, as anyone can see. My claim here is not that my farce isn't one; it is. It's that most of the stories of "ties" presented here as real fall into the same category as my farce. I have an autographed picture of President Bush to me, personally. Does that mean I have "ties" to Bush? It's easy to make stuff up.

If you are going to make a case for ties, then, to be seen as valid, you have to make a reasonable attempt to document it. What is a "tie" exactly? Did you share an office? Work in the same building? Work in the same agency miles apart? Did you share the same girl friend? Were you in the same class at Eton or West Point? Were you roommates? Were you in the Navy at the same rank at the same time and the same rate (occupation), but never met each other? Were you both 32nd degree Masons in the same Lodge for 30 years? Some of these ties make sense; some of them aren't even real. If you can't document then, in terms of evidentiary solidarity, you absolutely must throw them out. They are not solid enough to count. They are rumor material.

The difference here is between scholarship and common opinion. It's where Dolan gets into trouble because his footnotes lead up blind alleys. It LOOKS scholarly until you examine it. Then you discover it's just so much opinion and BS. You can absolutely prove this by pointing out the problems. And that's part of the issue. If there is no way to prove your "ties" are wrong, how can you claim they are real?

Here's an example of historiography. As you know, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, Galloping Gertie, fell down a few months after it was opened to traffic in 1940. It was because of an engineering design flaw. Some parts of the bridge are still down there in the Narrows. I've seen some of the old pieces myself. But that was a lot of steel and much if it was salvaged. I have a friend who has an M.A. in History who heard a story that some of the salvaged pieces were moved to Canada and used to build a bridge there, and IT fell down! She wanted to use the story in a juried article, but she could not even approach it. Why? Because she couldn't prove it. If she had witnesses, bills of sale, and other documentation, it would have been a great story and a solid contribution to the historical record. As it stands, it's a rumor that cannot be confirmed. A lot of stuff here is rumor and belief presented as fact.

I know very little about this world, truly. I have a couple of narrow areas where I expect to be believed because, dammit, I do know the subject better than most and can show my work. But most areas? Not so much. The one difference I profess is that I know that I don't know much, and, frankly, I don't see that kind of humility much on ATS, with so many people proclaiming their latest paranoid delusion as absolute truth. I want to know this truth as much as anyone, and if it turns out to be different than what I suspect, oh, well! The real question is, is it even possible to get to the truth from here?

I'm thinking it may not be impossible, just unlikely.