posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 12:08 AM
Sorry, I have to stick up for Nick Redfern. He spent years collating the information for his first book and unearthed a shed load of information from
the records office that had previously been passed over and ignored. I know this because I know Nick and met him around the period he was still
working on his début tome.
As for your pondering on the media, here's the truth. You don't buy advertising space, sponsor a programme, you rarely receive much airtime,
headline reviews etc etc, whatever branch of the media you work in. Read any Bram Stoker books apart from Dracula? I'd hazard a guess I'm one of a
select few on here who have, despite him being a world wide best selling author for over a century. P K Dick was , in my opinion, a genius, he also
wrote a few stinkers and pot boilers that were quite obviously fulfilling contractual obligations. The list of bands and artists who have released 3
or more albums with no filler on them, is a pretty damned small one. People pay silly money for sketches Picasso knocked out in minutes to pay a
restaurant bill, that devalue everything else he did?
Food has to be eaten, bills have to be paid, to become a "professional" in this field means there are inevitable compromises and it's hardly likely
to ever make you even remotely wealthy. I studied politics and history and a huge number of text books are little more than retreads of old
information, most of which you can now find online, so what? Are you saying that, all disciplines should just quit publishing new books because you
can almost certainly find the same information online?
As for Amazon reviews..... well, the fact you give them an ounce of credence suggest more about your critical faculties than anything else you say.
You do realise a huge number of reviews are simply trolls who , for their own reasons, seem to derive a kick from just a being "a bit of a spanner"
for the sake of it?
Did you know that, under the Broadcasting act here in Britain, it is an offence to portray anything to do with the paranormal in a "wholly serious
light"? Nicky Campbell was hauled over the carpet for his programmes featuring Timothy Good back in the early 90s.. His offence was that he allowed
"too much credence" to Good's work, even though, much of what Good was saying was factually correct. In other words, one of the world's only
broadcasters not set up to sell products first and make programmes second, is not allowed to "get serious" about the subject.
So to ATS..... the UFO forum, at times, could be renamed "Here we go round the mulberry bush!". There's a welter of utter drivel about the same old
"incidents" and a shed load of people, often feted on here and quoted as gospel all over the net, on both sides of the debate who are about 20% as
savvy as they think they are. However, that's not really the point, it's about mostly about opinions and like the old saying , opinions are like
rectums, everyone has one. The egalitarian nature of the net, is both its' strength and its' weakness. There are numerous "incidents" dredged up
that, anyone with a decent background knows has been "put to bed", often decades ago. By the same token, there are also numerous incidents that are
the very opposite and the sceptics are being as "scientifically stupid" and simply believing what they want to believe, not what the facts actually
are, as much as the most avid "believer" is about those incidents with known prosaic explanations.
It's worth asking yourself the following question. What the chuff would a rocket engineer know about propulsion systems that could make stellar
travel a reality? See, the answer is simple, not a great deal really because, logic dictates that, if they had the slightest clue, they wouldn't be
wasting huge amounts of time and money building rockets would they? That begs the question, as to why you'd give a rocket engineer/scientist, any
more credence than anyone else when discussing stellar propulsion drives, when all they can tell you is what they can't do?
The "paranormal" is called the "paranormal" because it, by its' very definition means that, it doesn't conform to known "laws". Sometimes
it's worth stepping out of the straight jacket of the, now failed concept of the "clockwork universe" and looking at it from another perspective.
Try the Universe as a "performance" and then it becomes pure logic based on 1000s of years of human experience that. You can play the same notes,
read the same lines an infinite number of times, they will never sound quite the same twice. Once you realise that, then it becomes patently apparent
that everyone has a right to an opinion and their take on a subject, after all, there isn't an ounce of objective scientific proof to back existence
as being, anything more than solipsist in nature. Ergo, all books, webcasts etc etc, in reality sic, give you little more than a insight into a
person's psyche or, are merely an argument you are conducting within your own mind.