Catherine Austin Fitts--interesting

Skinwalker, Please reread the article. Fitt's isn't "desparately clinging" to the "aliens among us" theory, though she holds it up as a possibilty. I think she is quite clear on that issue.

She was actually curious as to whether this meeting to discuss this issue was going to be used as a device to discredit her in a smear campaign.

I didn't post the article to be viewed exclusively through the narrow angle lens of the dubunkers, but for people interested in the use of scientific/political controversies in clandestine operations and as propaganda devices.

I note, with interest, that you are not arguing that the event took place.

As far as Peterson's track record--Maybe he's part carnival barker, part political analyst, (part magician for all I know) A little grandstanding and exaggeration can jog people's attention and help drive a point home. They are public speaking devices, not meant to be taken terribly seriously. Aren't people like James Randi skilled at this? Should this undermine his entire body of work? And further to that, should it undermine the credibility of an intellectual asked to join him in a meeting, that isn't even tangentially related to his scientific resume?

You are categorizing too widely based purely on the "appearance" of associaton rather than real association. This is over interpretation of the most disquieting sort--something that unreliable eyewitnesses with mental problems are accused of.

You should be the first one to be able to spot this, much as you are the first ones to point out when someone categorizes too widely and gets streetlights confused with alien spacecraft.

.



Squeek 22, ---Thank you for your comments. They are an antiquated epistemological curiosity and can be appreciated on that basis. I will archive them with other historical artifacts. At present, I prefer to deal with more sophisticated critique of the compelling information I have taken the time, for your sake, to provide.
 
Agitprop said:
Skinwalker, Please reread the article. Fitt's isn't "desparately clinging" to the "aliens among us" theory, though she holds it up as a possibilty. I think she is quite clear on that issue.
Click to expand...

I say "clinging" because it pops up in several, if not many, of her written works that are available on the internet. Perhaps "clinging" is hyperbole but I think it's pretty close to the accurate truth.

Agitprop said:
I didn't post the article to be viewed exclusively through the narrow angle lens of the dubunkers, but for people interested in the use of scientific/political controversies in clandestine operations and as propaganda devices.
Click to expand...

First, I could care less what your intention is when posting random articles from the internet. I'll post based on what I infer or think others might infer from them.

Second, you didn't say what you found significant in her article or why you were posting it.

Third, the "use of scientific/political controversies in clandestine operations and as propaganda devices" is an interesting topic, but I should think it would be more effectively discussed if you would offer an introduction to your opinion and perhaps some questions for others.

Agitprop said:
I note, with interest, that you are not arguing that the event took place.
Click to expand...

People meet each other all the time. Often the meetings are more significance for one person than another. Who cares if it took place?

Agitprop said:
As far as Peterson's track record--Maybe he's part carnival barker, part political analyst, (part magician for all I know) A little grandstanding and exaggeration can jog people's attention and help drive a point home. They are public speaking devices, not meant to be taken terribly seriously. Aren't people like James Randi skilled at this? Should this undermine his entire body of work? And further to that, should it undermine the credibility of an intellectual asked to join him in a meeting, that isn't even tangentially related to his scientific resume?
Click to expand...

I posted this because somebody implied that they wanted a 'first-hand source' for the information about Y2K, WAIS, etc.
 
You state that you will post according to what you "infer" from my post, or you will post based on what you infer other people might infer from my posts.....

Let's not go down that trail. If you can reply based on an inferance of what others might infer from my posts, can I read your responses and post BACK to you based on an inferance of your inferance of what people might infer from my posts?

This might be entertaining for game theorists--but scientific? I think not.

Also, the use of the word "clinging" in Fitt's other works does nothing to imply she is "clinging" by it's absense, in this article, regardless of your "feeling" about the subject. But thank you for admitting that you "might" exaggerate. I have you on record, as a potential hyperbolist. ;)

BTW, Thanks for the info on John Peterson.
 
Your response was probably genuine and heartfelt, but I'm afraid it didn't meet the minimum criteria for me to consider for further discussion....

I'm just kidding. :cool:

You're welcome for the info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top