Originally posted by Consequence
Wouldn't the killing of popes and presidents contradict with the "people with high positions are from a certain family and they are chosen by people in even higher positions"?
How about they got killed because of political hatred? "Like normal".

When playing chess do you not sometimes sacrifice a knight in order to take out a queen or trap the king?

Originally posted by wmd_2008
The story of King Arthur is folklore ,stories no real proof he really existed

So how can family trees be traced back to him

They can't, but it makes a good story, therefore it's posted here.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
When playing chess do you not sometimes sacrifice a knight in order to take out a queen or trap the king?

Of course. Political hatred can come from one's own side as well.

Originally posted by Consequence

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
When playing chess do you not sometimes sacrifice a knight in order to take out a queen or trap the king?

Of course. Political hatred can come from one's own side as well.

It's not hatred when it's strategy and the knight goes willingly because "it understands" the bigger game at play.

Originally posted by ErgoTheConclusion
The point is the "public" did not know about and were not versed in understanding what an atomic bomb was much less the implications until *after* they had already been created and used on living people.

I don't know in how many more ways I can say this. The scientific community IS public. Scientists are mere mortals, you can walk into any university and talk to professors, you can contact scientists, talk to them.
It's not my problem if the "public" isn't interested. The people who are interested (mostly scientists) do take part of the information that is shared.
I ask you again, who makes sure that the satellites orbiting around the moon are censored, regardless of the origin of the named satellites? Who are the photo-shoppers?

Originally posted by Consequence
I don't know in how many more ways I can say this. The scientific community IS public. Scientists are mere mortals, you can walk into any university and talk to professors, you can contact scientists, talk to them.
It's not my problem if the "public" isn't interested. The people who are interested (mostly scientists) do take part of the information that is shared.
I ask you again, who makes sure that the satellites orbiting around the moon are censored, regardless of the origin of the named satellites? Who are the photo-shoppers?

Who were the ones preventing every university in the US and the world from knowing about the development of nuclear bombs?

Come... on... you have right in front of you one of the most powerful scientific developments of the 20th century being more or less BRAGGED about how it was developed in secrecy and out of the eye of the public.

I can't give you the information on the modern concealment, I can only point to past concealment and ask if you really think the same thing isn't still going on.

Who hid the Tuskagee motives and data from the public, including the scientific public?

"For the most part, doctors and civil servants simply did their jobs. Some merely followed orders, others worked for the glory of science." -- Dr John Heller, Director of the Public Health Service's Division of Venereal Diseases

The glory of science... it's seductive. Bringing us back to the core issue in the OP if you think deeply enough about it.

You can try to pretend like there aren't people lying to you about what is really going on and possible NOW... but that is no different from a kid trying to reconcile the truth that their parents lied to them about Santa Claus. Eventually one stance has to give.

Though it is a small point, Desmond Leslie was a bit vague in the interview, he mentions Captain Mantell but the incident sounds more like the Kenneth Arnold sighting of flying 'discs' which there again were not really discs, but do describe as more like flying wings, and of those, there really were experimental flying wings. The flying flapjack was also real and was disc shaped, but did have a tailplane attached where the tailplane should be. At a given angle, a flapjack could just look like a disc with an antenna sticking out the top, as could a conventional jet give the same illusion at certain angles.

As for scientists lying, and even lying for their own research, that is done all the time. AGW is an example, when AGW was at its height, natural scientists who wanted funding for their research, would need to include some allusionary effect to AGW to get that funding, say for birds or bees, ants, squirrels blah blah, otherwise they would get Feck nothing, but ultimately adding clout to the reality of AGW in the debate, of which they had no interest in the first place.

Flagged for later.........thanks.