with apologies to Randall Munroe of xkcd
James Concannon writes...
There, I fixed up a famous internet cartoon, to bring it up to date.
Appearing on blogtalkradio, 20 January, Robert Morningstar the "civilian intelligence analyst" and Regents Scholar of Fordham University was mostly rapping on about the Kennedy assassination, but he took a little time to drop one of his famous misunder-standings. On the subject of disclosure (of the presence of ETs) he said this:
"The question was decided by the Brookings Institution a year before Apollo 8. It said we shouldn't tell the world because it would be too disruptive.... etc."On the Book of Farces, I pointed out, first, that the Brookings Report was submitted to congress eight years before Apollo 8, and more importantly, that it didn't say what AM* thinks it said. I wrote:
"Morningstar grossly mischaracterizes what the report said. It recommended that the question of disclosure SHOULD BE STUDIED but did not itself express any opinion on the matter. In fact, no such study was ever carried out so the idea that Brookings somehow muzzled NASA is completely wrong."...and I cited an article from Rational Wiki in support.
After some banter, in the course of which AM* called me "a persnickity nit-picker, who loves to snipe with a little snicker" (which I took in good part), he came up with this beauty:
"The fact is that the Brookings Report began to issue recommendations in 1960, but it was revised regularly through 1967. I use the 1967 Editon of the Brookings Report, not the 1960 edition. Is that clear to you yet, or do I have draw you a pictuRe? ->M*"THE 1967 EDITION?????? If that exists I'll eat my hat. It appears that what Mr. Morningstar mostly learned at Fordham was how to wriggle out of admitting one's boners.
Wow, really odd claim. It defies mainstream conspiracy circles. Even RCH has the original 1960 one on his site!
The big mystery is here: why 1967?
My theory: he quickly Googled and found a version from 1961: a reprint from the U.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics (87th Congress) here. But he has a bad eyesight and confused the last 1 with a 7 while glossing over main pages like The Advice Brookings Gave NASA about the Space Program in 1960 from Brookings themselves, outlining the history of it.
Bottom line, citing from memory and glancing with bad fitting prescription glasses over an old copy or dim screen trumps any fact or quotation. The sheer force of will calls the fact into being after all..
My theory: He's a goddam liar.
No, even worse, a bad one! Shame on the broadcasters and publishers too. Although bloktalkradio is often just a personal platform of course. Can be managed with a few clicks.
besides the rights and wrongs of RM's talk...
" ....no such study was ever carried out...."
and you know this exactly how? just a question.
if a report mentions certain disclosure issues and recommends further study......
I know...completely not related but interesting none the less with regard to previous blogs
Climate change alarmists have been likened to a fanatical 'cult' by an MIT professor of meteorology.
Dr Richard Lindzen told a Massachusetts-based radio station that people who believe in global warming are becoming more hysterical in their arguments.
'As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical,' he said.
>>and you know this exactly how?<<
I was citing the Rational Wiki article, which I suppose is not exactly a reliable source. Nevertheless I'm fairly confident that we'd have heard about it if it had happened. Hoagland would have been all over it.
Adrian: "if a report mentions certain disclosure issues and recommends further study...... and you know this [that no further study was ever carried out] exactly how? "
The whole report was even titled: Proposed Studies on the Implications of Peaceful Space Activities for Human Affairs..
Only a few of all proposed studies in the report have been actually done (or in some similar form) so it's quite likely for any randomly chosen subtopic from the report to have not been continued in any form or fashion.
That doesn't mean it's impossible that some secret program did continue the research. But luckily one doesn't have to prove negatives or rule out all possible scenarios. No work would ever get done that way! It's up to others to come up with some evidence of such program and not ignoring the possibility and attraction of hoaxes like MJ12 which might have poisoned the well (which might have been "intended that way" of course so the game can be continued for ever by all fanatics with introducing so much ambiguity :)
I agree..although there is always a slight possibility that such a program or study was conducted without the scrutiny of the public eye i.e. secret
Yes Adrian indeed.
But the main thing here is that nobody and least of all Robert Morningstar, Richard Hoagland or even Stanley V. McDaniel has ever mentioned the existence of any addition, secret or not. Although Morningstar appears to extension, which nobody ever heard of and he provides no detail for. This is mind-boggling dishonesty and/or incompetence no matter what one thinks of alien visitation or cover-ups in general.
"But the main thing here is that nobody and least of all Robert Morningstar, Richard Hoagland or even Stanley V. McDaniel has ever mentioned the existence of any addition, secret or not. Although Morningstar appears to extension, which nobody ever heard of and he provides no detail for"
emphasis on "....ever mentioned the existence of any addition, secret or not"
Well...may be the fact that they didn't mention such a possibility says something about their intelligence and honesty or more to the point...lack thereof :-)
So yes...point well made
Post a Comment