What is NASA Hiding?

[zenmaster]

How many conspiracy theorists contribute to actual progress in the areas which they think information suppression occurs?

Well I can think of 2, right off the top of my head. That is, 2 controversial topics commonly referred to as 'conspiracy theories.'

http://ae911truth.org/ (911 'conspiracy theory' reputable research site - one of many actually!)

http://pesn.com/ (reputable site for researchers of alternative energy devices, many of which have been suppressed)

Was a rhetorical question based on the proportion of those claiming cover-up and those that had done their own research to back up their finger pointing. The answer, is of course, a million to one.

I'm not sure 'reputable' is an appropriate word for pesn.com. If you've been following it for a while, that site pretty much covers everything, regardless of actual veracity of claims. They are bound to find a successful invention at some point.

They typically do nothing themselves to advance real scientific or investigative knowledge the areas they demand be 'revealed' - such as free energy inventions or E.T. contact, for example.

That's a bit of a blanket statement. Let's not toss out the legitimate researchers just because there are some nuts in there (in any given 'conspiracy theory').

It is intended to characterize the vast majority of distorted and wishful-thinking info on the subject that we read on the internet. Of course there is a small amount of researchers, who deserve credit for their efforts.

I have witnessed suppression by our mainstream media, firsthand. I saw the proof. It was irrefutable. Suppression by the media exists. It's also rampant in the medical industry. Follow the money trail. Ask, "Who benefits?"

Not worth it.

Ultimately, how can there be real merit or virtue when the completely unnecessary charge of disservice can be false? After all, suspicion like that breeds mistrust which necessarily promotes a distorted view of society offered to everyone. Opportunistic framing of perceived 'lacunae', for the purpose of social change, is the consequentialist's agenda.

I totally didn't understand that statement. Can you translate, please?

---

Sure. Guy on internet accuses organization of lying, merely because it serves to reinforce his suspicion and bias. Not because it is true. Sort of akin to the mindless, lynch-mob mentality.

I can only question the degree of congruency a decision maker - a 'sub-sub-logos' - must have with themselves when the tactic is an unnecessary appeal to suspicion and doubt.

If suspicion came first and was baseless, and the person goes looking for something, anything, to back up the suspicion, then yeah, that's not cool.

But in many cases, suspicion arose as a result of observing something 'not right' ie. evidence. As in the case of 911. Contrary to popular myth, 911 researchers noticed glaring flaws in the 'official' story, and irrefutable physics impossibilities. THEN came the suspicion, for good reason! The evidence could not be denied.

It can work both ways. Sometimes people are so skeptical, that they ignore the obvious evidence just because it is a volatile topic. But not all volatile conspiracy theories are bogus. Some are real and the activists working to expose the lies are courageous.

Sure, the actual researchers can be considered courageous. 99.999% of the lazy followers that merely have an axe to grind, no.

After all, more prudent options are usually available.

Sometimes, yes. I don't know if I'd agree that they are usually available.

I don't want to turn this into a discussion about 911, but since Peregrinus mentioned it, I will use it again, since it is such an obvious example. In this case, the 'official' story is so much more fantastical than the truth, that it's really mind-blowing that the public believed it. This is a good example of how sometimes, the 'official' story is the one that is preposterous, not the 'conspiracy' theory.

IMHO, there are problems with the official story, and some engineers have done a good job revealing them. However, we still see what we want to see. There was a suspiciously biased Q'uo channeling on the subject some years past.