Re: sci space policy targeted by disinformation experts?

On 26 Mar, 00:36, "Martha Adams" <mh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ian Parker" <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:04b8d2ad-eaec-45a3-aa9b-ec2848cdb0fc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 24 Mar, 08:17, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:





The long-standing policy of the United States with respect to control
of missile proliferation (several missile proliferation treaties from
1940s onward)

along with this nation's long-standing policy of the United States
with respect to discrediting public enthusiasm for space travel
(several executive directives of Eisenhower following Sputnik, and one
from Nixon, and one from Johnson)

and debunking of UFO reports (since the UFO flap of 1953 and Project
Blue Book)

have caused me to wonder whether or not these news groups are the
subject of negative attention from disinformation experts

the free and open format of discussion in these groups reminds me very
much of the Speaker's Corner at Hyde Park in London.

Back in the day, it was not politic for the King to have a person
arrested and put in irons for what he might say at Speaker's Corner.
Anyone had a right to stand up and say whatever the hell they wanted
unopposed. Was the King's negative attention thwarted by the custom
of Speaker's Corner?

Not in the least.

That's because the King could hire losers to stand around and do a
number of things that would by their very nature, discredit and
demoralize any speaker. This could range from something as simple as
shouting obsenities or placing offensive and agressive advertisers in
the crowd, or personally threatening the speaker all acts unopposed by
the local constablary. Responses could be as sophisticated as
engaging the speaker in detailed argument,based on what was being said
and creating debates over highly technical issues that in the end
portray a speaker as foolish. Or have other speakers all in the hire
of the King always nearby that 'bird-dog' the targeted speaker item
for item. .

So, as I see this as a 21st Century Speaker's Corner, I see too the
possibility of the same control paradigms being used to thwart,
derail, diminish, and otherwise control possible avenues where missile
information may be transmitted, and where public enthusiasm and
excitement over space travel and ETI could be inflamed - all in direct
opposition to US public policy.

I mention this in response to the highly offensive advertisements and
postings this news group has been subject to recently - along with
pointing out that these poses have not been removed despite their
abusive nature.

Are you saying that the debunkers have an official position in the US
Govt? I don't really think there is any evidence for this. I think
people in this group follow their own agendas.

<snip out some good stuff>

  - Ian Parker

As I read what he says, I believe he is in fact
saying that "...the debunkers have an official
position in the US Govt".  And of course they
are covert; look at this as a practical problem
to kill public discourse without getting
fingered for it?  Because what you're doing is
contrary to American principles; but that has to
date not been known to concern certain parties
in Washington.  Over several years I've been
watching to see how the Chinese government, not
a friend of free speech, would deal with the
internet coming in, since pretty obviously,
some people over here would be watching them to
pick up practical pointers.  Occam's razor!  So
if not Washington, then who?  ??

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Mar 25]- Hide quoted text -

They do have an official position, but their remit is limited. On UFOs
we know a certain amount about Philip Klass

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_J._Klass

In the 1970s, Klass heaped praise on astronomer and UFO investigator Allan Hendry's The UFO Handbook, but >Hendry[17] objected strongly to Klass's modus operandi, which Hendry argued was based on suppressed and >distorted evidence, unscientific reasoning, ad hominem attacks, smear campaigns, character assassination, >scientific bait and switch tactics, and seemingly refusing to evaluate evidence that conflicted with his >preconceptions.

Now whatever you might or might not believe about UFOs that is NOT a
scientific way to carry on. Klass once accused a pilot of drug
smuggling. Out of the blue. Whether he was or wasn't it is still not a
scientific way to carry on.

Klass was in fact an academic but I suspect that the military dangled
contracts his way. Professional debunkers have the remit, and the sole
remit, of protecting classified information. Unlike scientific
debunkers, like myself, their loyalty is to classified information and
the military, not to objective scientific truth. In the case of UFOs
(alien) objective scientific truth and debunking coincide. Well not
completely, debunkers are there to debunk ALL UFOs. UFOs exist, the
aconym is simply UNIDENTIFIED Flying Object. The mission is to protect
black flight, not aliens.

You say that people in the group are mostly a law unto themselves. To
a large extent this is true. However in a group of this type there
will be monitoring to make sure that classified information is not
divulged, or if it is to debunk anyone who discusses it. As I have
explained the debunking techniques can be unpleasant.

Let us look at one topic - low cost spaceflight and a 2STO. There has
been at least one classified program "Blackstar" to do just that. It
has been abandoned. On what grounds I don't know. This puts the
debunkers in a bit of a quandry. In many cases they are advocating
something which they themselves know will never work. If it had worked
large numbers of military astronauts would be taking quick looks at
Iran and N Korea from orbit.


- Ian Parker
.