tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post2787814484548280734..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: UN Meeting on UFOs?KRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-46608067119581921752009-02-23T18:43:00.000-08:002009-02-23T18:43:00.000-08:00Those that actually believe such a meeting took pl...Those that actually believe such a meeting took place are simply not well educated. The UN is an open agency and its members can not be sanctioned in any way, therefore such an important topic wouldn't stay secret for long. Moreover, most nations are far more open about their activities than the US, especially European nations. And more importantly, the US is not as well-respected as most Americans think. Any arm-twisting on a matter of such importance would simply not be tolerated by the likes of France, Scandinavian countries, Italy or whoever else supposedly attended this meeting.rockingyoucuzicanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03601290957139841696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-31035133194611028712008-04-03T05:52:00.000-07:002008-04-03T05:52:00.000-07:00Hardly a "black eye" for ufology, unless you consi...Hardly a "black eye" for ufology, unless you consider ufology is generally free from black eyes. It reminds me of the numerous occasions when certain individuals bring football, cricket, baseball, athletics etc "into disrepute". They have done it so often that by now each of these sports has become disreputable. So how do you bring a disreputable sport into disrepute? Similarly how do you bring a by now disreputable subject (ufology) into disrepute?<BR/><BR/>Michael Salla is not bringing ufology into disrepute. He doesn't need to! <BR/><BR/>It is already disreputable because on each and every occasion when someone claims to have secret information from on high that this or that government, or some big organisation like the UN, EU, NASA, etc knows the great "truth" about ufos it turns out to be baseless. A truly reputable subject would never have these continual dotty pronouncements (and even conferences based on them).<BR/><BR/>I should remark that the same applies to Roswell. It has been brought into disrepute so often (Gerald Anderson, Kaufmann, MJ-12 and other documents, alien autopsy film, phony witnesses, phony investigators, junk physical debris, Haut's revised affidavit, etc) that ultimately it leaves the subject so tainted that the case is in a 'disreputable' state. By this I mean the chances of it ever approaching scientific acceptance gets nearer to zero every passing day, despite the noble efforts of a few individuals like yourself. <BR/><BR/>For every step you take forwards someone (or something) else is forcing it 1.01 steps backwards. <BR/><BR/>Me a negativist? Perhaps.<BR/>Maybe even a "noisy" one like STF refers to. (He's very noisy too, but in the opposite direction!)<BR/> <BR/>By the way, have you heard about the Bilderberg Commission? They allegedly meet in secret every year, somewhere in Europe. What do they discuss? Does Michael Salla know? Does anyone else?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-36714083436837671392008-03-19T12:43:00.000-07:002008-03-19T12:43:00.000-07:00Exactly, “a black eye for Ufology”. The flip side...Exactly, “a black eye for Ufology”. <BR/><BR/>The flip side is though that Salla has little to no credence now, whereas before he did have at least ‘some’ with certain people. <BR/><BR/>In a big way I’m somewhat glad this happened. <BR/><BR/>I can’t peg it and I don’t know why exactly, but that high horse thing that a few too many Exo's have, always bothered me.Atrueoriginallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17754487232993372983noreply@blogger.com