Military activity...... beneath the surface - DUMB: deep underground military bases -

My point is this- if one conducts a scientific experiment (or investigation), and then observe the results(and these results are repeatable), then conclusions can be made. It is bad science to come up with conclusions first, and then try to work backwards to confirm the result. Conclusions should be based on evidence, not "well I don't trust anybody, so whatever is currently accepted must be wrong, and anybody who does trust anyone else, is obviously not credible themselves."

When science proved that the Earth was in fact round, it was because that was where the evidence pointed to, not because someone didn't trust the dogma.

Using the standard that you used, nothing could ever be proven or disproven, because your conclusions are based on what your opinion is of the results. Good science requires you to go where the evidence points, not what you'd like for the result to be.

"Sound based on who's opinion? What kind of nonsense statement is this? The 'soundness' of any statement is entirely based on prior perception hence the Earth was flat even thought it NEVER WAS. Don't tell me about 'soundness' otherwise you will have to explain why we did not have jet aircraft a thousand years ago. Do you really think their theories were not in their opinion internally consistent at the time? BAH! "

Don't confuse technological development, with disproof of formally unaccepted theories. One can't compare Earth flat vs. Earth round, with jet aircraft vs. no jet aircraft. The way technology developed was because there were sound ideas that prevailed over ones that weren't. And it wasn't just the perception of reality of the designers/inventors that brought these things to be.

Disinfo always includes a small piece of the truth...
usually the part that they are trying to distract from (bearing the evidence).
The way to do this is to ascribe the logical and factual finds, to crazyness, or far fetched conclusions that will surely ring the skeptics bell...

I.E: In the case of the OKC bombing...
the PTB did know, and several people are still alive that know they knew...
The PTB have to dissolve any credence of this, by ascribing the explosion to false causes, and confusing data regarding amounts needed...

The amount needed was a truckload (plus whatever explosives the ATF had in the building)... simple...
the idea was concieved in PTB minds, and givin as a setup to the targets...
which was instead used by another unwatched patsy...

the DUMBS disinfo is probably very similiar...
the tech is there to build significant sized bases
the money needed is available from numerous sources...
the people needed to contract for the jobs are the only loose end...

so any evidence presented by them is quickly deigned "crazy" because now it is associated with aliens, and city sized bases, and vacuum tunnels (which siesmic disturbances would ruin almost immediatly).

DUMBS... are so smart... and if we didn't have them, then i would say that they aren't using the black budget effectivley...

someone has to survive the coming age of confusion...


[edit on 28-12-2006 by LazarusTheLong]

Originally posted by GT100FV
My point is this- if one conducts a scientific experiment (or investigation), and then observe the results(and these results are repeatable), then conclusions can be made.

Conclusions as to the useful can be made for sure but how much more can we learn according to the historic record? Why do they so consistently and persistently pretend that they had finally arrived at truths that could be defended for decades on end reality not withstanding?

It is bad science to come up with conclusions first, and then try to work backwards to confirm the result.

'Bad' or 'good' science is not required to arrived at objective truth as it exists entirely independently. If want wants to maintain credibility in a hopelessly biased ( to convention and established norms) community then you must pretend all these things despite the bias everyone knows exists. Science is about testing ideas and without ideas ( basically theories about how things could be explained) we would end up with thousands of otherwise educated people randomly doing 'experiments' to check ideas they did not have. I have no idea how anyone can pretend that scientist proceeds to do experiments without expecting a certain result based on prior perception.

Conclusions should be based on evidence, not "well I don't trust anybody, so whatever is currently accepted must be wrong,

That's not what i have said and while distrust of certain groups, agenda's and people are wise it's useless if you can not actually support such beliefs with verifiable information. All conclusions are based on evidence but evidence does not have to have much to do with objective reality hence all the problems people experience. Conclusions are normally reached ( and it should as our survival used to depend on the ability to promptly react based on prior experience; instinct) long before the information for a proper analysis has been established or gained thus a true scientist is not someone who does not have ideas, theories or conclusions but someone who can not only promptly disregard them when he discovers them to be at fault but also someone who acknowledges in his daily actions that even the most fundamental beliefs, he employs in his investigation of reality, might be flawed or fundamentally wrong.

and anybody who does trust anyone else, is obviously not credible themselves."

I don't see the logic involved but i have no problem trusting in certain ideas and certain people.

When science proved that the Earth was in fact round, it was because that was where the evidence pointed to,

So as long as the learned people can't figure it out ( with their so called 'evidence') it is not real and no one else should bother? Proving that the Earth was in fact round really was no coup however large the propaganda effort.

not because someone didn't trust the dogma.

Like there were no evidence pointing to the Earth being round before they finally decided it was? Are you being serious here?

Using the standard that you used, nothing could ever be proven or disproven,

Why on Earth would you say that? Why should we have to 'prove' anything? What is the POINT of 'proving' anything? In my world we would come up with theories that best describes what we observe and is most useful towards understanding and predicting what is happening in related phenomenon. In my world there would be no ultimate truths and just a general free for all where the aim is to make practical devices and technologies that serves humanities expansion into the universe at large and perpetually raises living standards and the possibility of freedom of choice and action. Our current science establish act against progress and has consistently and persistently done so and whatever progress took place happened despite their best efforts;not because of it.

because your conclusions are based on what your opinion is of the results.

If it 'works' or describes a certain thing in more elementary terms it's more useful and that's all that counts. I don't care about 'truth' or 'evidence' or such nonsense if it does not serve to develop out understand without restrictions.

Good science requires you to go where the evidence points, not what you'd like for the result to be.

And that is why i believe our current science establishments does very bad science and why i want them to be changed. If you do not understand that this is in fact how it works you need to educate yourself.

Originally posted by GT100FV
Don't confuse technological development, with disproof of formally unaccepted theories.

I am sure that might have made sense when you first typed it but i can assure you it never did.

One can't compare Earth flat vs. Earth round, with jet aircraft vs. no jet aircraft.

Yes you can if you assume as you did that science has always been internally sound. You have pretended so far that science always does it's best despite overwhelming evidence that the truth( objective reality; the Earth is round, the effects of gravity) is always in evidence for centuries or decades before it's widely admitted by the so called science establishment? What use is scientist that only agrees with what is objectively true after it becomes so obvious that generally lay and formally uneducated people discovers it and forces the establishment to accept the elegant truth?

You have so far simply argued that we must 'trust' the scientist the establishments considers to be credible to tell us what is objectively true instead of insisting that we should each go out and try determine such for ourselves taking asking for help as we go along doing so . I refuse to believe that we should give up our independence once again simply so that a few old men can decide what is acceptable real at this time.

The way technology developed was because there were sound ideas that prevailed over ones that weren't.

And sound ideas are normally apparent by experiment ( Edison did say that he tried almost everything else before he hit on what worked) long before we have the scientific understanding to describe what we have managed to do in terms of creating devices that aids us in our daily lives. If it were not for inventors going about making things that actually worked one wonders what scientist would have to explain? Does it really matter if we understand how it works and why on Earth should a lack of understanding of how it was in fact managed prevent us from employing it in our general benefit? Cold fusion works and so does energy extraction from the vacuum but because or so called scientist refuses to accept that possibility to say it's fraudulent and we are stuck burning fossil fuels a hundred years after the objective truth was laid bare.

And it wasn't just the perception of reality of the designers/inventors that brought these things to be.

Their perceptions and ideas led them to consider the possibility and without consideration of the possibility one wonders how progress would transpire at all. One's perception of reality is quite irrelevant if the device works and it does not matter if everyone else questions the possibility of something being true if it's observed to do what the inventor said it would.
Objective reality is not determined by council, consensus, the smartest minds, the most credible, the oldest as it is simple is as it always were waiting to be discovered or explained or employed by whoever manages to do so first. There is no greater genius than the products of the inventor who constructs something that aids us in a given task as no ammount of reasoning or consensus can in the long run deny observation.

Stellar

I never said scientists and inventors got everything right their first time. The point is that conclusions may be made after experimentation shows results that are repeatable, otherwise one is just using the SWAG methodology. One can have all sorts of theories about any subject, but conclusive evidence can only result from testing the theory. Whether one likes the results should play no role in the conclusion, as science isn't about proving what one would like the answer to be. As for scientists catching up with the layman with regards to the shape of the earth, I beg to differ. Modern western science started during the age of enlightenment, and prior to that it wasn't widely accepted or respected as it's practitioners were mainly alchemists, etc...
The average peasant wasn't asking questions about this sort of thing, and sailors for the most part hadn't ventured out very far in their explorations yet. Jet airplanes were invented, through technological advancement. The earth was always round. It wasn't till the means to calculate the radius, based on geometry, etc... where it started to gain acceptance(again a technological advance).
My main issue with a lot of the theories you pose, is that they leave more questions than answers, and you don't offer any explanation other than that it's your opinion, and discount info from subject matter experts because it doesn't fit in your paradigm. The government along with private companies isn't the Borg, with some monolithic operation occurring.
It is made up of a lot of individuals, with all sorts of different backgrounds, opinions, world views. To say the "government" does this or that like everyone is in lockstep is simply ridiculous. I distrust governments too, but because I feel them to be beauracratic nightmares, that do simple tasks inefficiently(and many times ineptly), not because I think that every employ is in on a conspiracy to do me and the country wrong. The only way to keep things secret is to keep the info known to the minimal amount of people. For large events to take place, a lot of people have to be involved(not just the Chiefs, but the Indians). Many times the Indians don't really like the Chiefs, so this blind allegiance notion is BS. That's why large scale operations couldn't occur without the knowledge of a lot of people(and if something screwed up is going on, and they can make a buck telling about it, they will). This is why I'm skeptical of many of the notions put forth. The Indians swore allegiance to their country, not to their bosses. I trust the private sector and free market far more, as things that are inefficient or unprofitable typically fade away due to competition for market share.

Originally posted by GT100FV
I never said scientists and inventors got everything right their first time.
The point is that conclusions may be made after experimentation shows results that are repeatable, otherwise one is just using the SWAG methodology.

And i have no problem if every scientist waited to make conclusions until after experimentation has shown the phenomenon to the replicable. My problem lies with the defense of 'established' theories to explain what is observed when there are alternatives which explain it just as well without standing in direction contradiction to other known and observed phenomenon. Good science should never ever contradict the reality of what is observed and repeatable and that is what major parts of the science establishments indulges in various fields.

One can have all sorts of theories about any subject, but conclusive evidence can only result from testing the theory.

Agreed and when in the future other observations contradict the original theory or the explanations proposed it MUST be reconsidered as soon as possible.

Whether one likes the results should play no role in the conclusion, as science isn't about proving what one would like the answer to be.

And this is the crux of my argument as it is exactly what major parts of the western science establishments indulges in.

As for scientists catching up with the layman with regards to the shape of the earth, I beg to differ. Modern western science started during the age of enlightenment, and prior to that it wasn't widely accepted or respected as it's practitioners were mainly alchemists, etc...

What's wrong with alchemy as plants and animals seem to manage it just fine? You do realize that some of the most enlightened western 'scientist' spent more time on alchemy and other 'unenlightened' ( which i retrospect proved to enlightened) areas of investigation?

The average peasant wasn't asking questions about this sort of thing, and sailors for the most part hadn't ventured out very far in their explorations yet.

We have maps showing that the whole were explored in great detail thousands of years before people supposedly suddenly got frightened of the 'edge of the Earth'. There are Roman 'cruise liners' ( best description really) that blows the coast hugging myth clear out to deep sea. There are devices such as the Antikythera mechanism that clearly show a very early capability to not only navigate by the stars but a understanding of how to mechanize the knowledge...

Jet airplanes were invented, through technological advancement.

And my question is how much faster could it have all taken place if the scientific establishments of the day did not so consistently suppress any new knowledge?

The earth was always round. It wasn't till the means to calculate the radius, based on geometry, etc... where it started to gain acceptance(again a technological advance).

Why do you have to know the radius to believe in the reality that something is round? The two issues are not connected but this is the type of nonsense true innovators and scientist had to put up with for as long as established 'authorities' have existed being supported by government and royally to ensure their 'credibility' despite their persistent failure to advance science as quickly as possible.

My main issue with a lot of the theories you pose, is that they leave more questions than answers,

That's what knowledge results in; more questions. If you dislike ( feeling uncomfortable is just fine as acknowledging one's ignorance should never lead to feelings of comfort ) the discovery of ever complex questions you should not waste time trying to pretend you are investigating reality as you are not.

and you don't offer any explanation other than that it's your opinion,

Then you should ask me what i base my claims on as i can assure you that in all those instances i would be willing to indulge you in the details i am aware of. Don't believe it's just opinion based on nothing however comfortable that might make you feel.

and discount info from subject matter experts because it doesn't fit in your paradigm.

Subject matter experts? Your kidding me right? The so called experts hardly ever are and that is relatively obvious by the contradictory nature of many of the 'facts' they seem to assume as basis but refuse to discuss in public. Any person who calls himself a expert is only disserving of scorn as he is at best less ignorant on that matter than most of the rest of humanity.

The government along with private companies isn't the Borg, with some monolithic operation occurring.

You would be surprise how monolithic it is but since your not here to actually investigate such possibilities we can just disagree.

It is made up of a lot of individuals, with all sorts of different backgrounds, opinions, world views.

Then how come there is prevailing notions that are so set in stone that despite them being proved inaccurate or wrong, for decades,, that is not publicly admitted? If you can explain how the science establishments can be so persistently wrong over so many centuries then we could start discussing some more interesting matters but right now your just showing that your looking for excuses to keep on believing what you already do.

To say the "government" does this or that like everyone is in lockstep is simply ridiculous.

It is a bit silly as most people in government just do their jobs and defend their interest and are not actively engaged in some kind of huge conspiracy. It is however true that policies are set by a few individuals at the top and that they by millennia of practice they have established ways and means to ensure that their interest always correspond to the interest of the people they allow into their organizations hence the monolithic type of institutions we end up with. This can all be investigated as it's well documented if not discovered without asking the right types of questions...

I distrust governments too, but because I feel them to be beauracratic nightmares, that do simple tasks inefficiently(and many times ineptly), not because I think that every employ is in on a conspiracy to do me and the country wrong.

That is the comfortable assumption to make as it's easy on the mind to assume that government is just a collection of bumbling fools. It is certainly easier to assume that than to consider the fact that the same 'mistakes' and policies could not possible be made or chosen by so many governments spanning so many continents and cultures. Why this globalization when it's bad for almost everyone involved? How can so many governments accidentally, or by mismanagement, be fooled into taking part despite every economist worth his salt being able to point out the likely and historic results of such open trading and interaction?

It's real easy to assume that everyone else is stupid and that the things you do not like are all happening by accident thus robbing you of the ability to affect change. If you want to assume such a fatalistic approach to life, it's what the media and every other government institution will probably encourage, your not going to be able to help spread this very important message. When does coincidence stop being coincidence and for how long with you suspend all disbelief? Do you think denying reality will change it?


[edit on 1-1-2007 by StellarX]

The only way to keep things secret is to keep the info known to the minimal amount of people.

Well that is normally the best way to keep things for not slowly becoming public knowledge but if your willing to use all the means at the state's disposal thousands may not and remain silent as they have been indoctrinated ( capitalism and playing on basic self interested human instincts) since birth and trough all the levels of public and higher education to fit it or be weeded out. Why do you think so many of our world leaders and important government officials were part of the same 'youth' groups in high school or at university? Do you think it's all coincidence that democracy and public voting has not changed this to any great degreed? How many coincidences will you put up with or just avoid considering?

For large events to take place, a lot of people have to be involved(not just the Chiefs, but the Indians). Many times the Indians don't really like the Chiefs, so this blind allegiance notion is BS.

That's why i made no mention of blind allegiance. You control people best when they have no objective realization that they are behaving in easily predicted manners which can be played on to further interest they do not even understand. There are vast conspiracies in recent history that shows that people and secrecy can be managed very effectively when you know which emotions and interest to play on. It can be appeals to patriotism, financial reward, family or blood related interest , creating conditions where acting in self interested ways corresponds with what you want or just use the big old stick that can be wielded with such great efficiency by large governmental organizations. The dropping of half a million tons of bombs on Laos was hidden from civilian oversight ( senators as i recall) and thus the American public and that is basically the same amount of bombs as dropped on Germany in the second world war. The infrastructure did shrink and far less people were involved but how do you explain the fact that such things is still possible in this century when considering how many organizations had to play along? How does such things still happen when assuming the things you have?

That's why large scale operations couldn't occur without the knowledge of a lot of people(and if something screwed up is going on, and they can make a buck telling about it, they will).

As i said above history , and even recent history, shows your assumptions to be inaccurate as these events and conspiracies still take place in the media age. One may even argue that the distractions modern living offers makes such conspiracies in a way easier to stage.

This is why I'm skeptical of many of the notions put forth.

Skepticism used to be a term employed by those who questioned the reality as put forward by those who wielded power and the fact it's now employed as tool to attack those who question power is a conspiracy in itself.

The Indians swore allegiance to their country, not to their bosses. I trust the private sector and free market far more, as things that are inefficient or unprofitable typically fade away due to competition for market share.

Then you know about as much about the so called free markets as about history or the nature of the people who currently wield power over the course of humanities destiny.

Luckily your condition can be cured by research and investigation but you won't like what you find and if that is the basis of your skepticism ( question only what does not suit you) you will not be successful.

Stellar

It would seem many of your questions are also of things that don't suit you.

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


Exactly. The very ones who will make the earth unlivable for us "morons" will live safe and sound 2 miles or so below the ground