bee Posted April 17, 2013 #51 Share Posted April 17, 2013 And it makes you wonder......did Burroughs know something the rest of us didn't? What do you think? My first thought was.....'is there a Masonic connection to Burroughs? Because I am of the opinion that the higher degrees of the Masonic Organization could be a repository for some ancient knowledge and secrets... that they have guarded and passed on for hundreds of years...and it could be to do with Extraterrestrials..? So I had a little look and there is a Masonic connection. Don't know if Burroughs himself was a Mason but it is said that his Dad was...(I wouldn't be surprised if Burroughs was as well) http://www.erbzine.com/mag11/1133.html Edgar Rice Burroughs' father was a Freemason. There is likely an autobiographical touch to the words the author puts into the mouth of his fictional character, James Blake: "my father is a thirty second degree Mason and a Knight Templar." Faithful practitioners of "The Craft" are under a nominal obligation to raise their children according the moral guidance of the "Great Architect of the Universe." So maybe he was privy to some 'Insider' Info....? Just a thought... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted April 17, 2013 #52 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Conspiracies, sometimes "grand" and I guess sometimes less grand, as well as the notorious closed-mindedness of scientists to listen to anything outside their paradigm are two good clues that you are being peddled snake-oil. There is just enough plausibility to make it succeed if the individual hearing it is already gullible. The problem is that sometimes there are conspiracies and cover-ups, and sometimes scientists are closed-minded (they view themselves as the experts and you as the amateur). The thing is, don't assume conspiracy; don't assume cover-up, don't assume closed minds. These are the exceptions, not the rule. Assume the authorities are telling the truth to the best of their knowledge and within the law. Assume the scientist actually is an expert. You will do much better forming informed opinions that way. thats a few too many assumptions 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 17, 2013 #53 Share Posted April 17, 2013 thats a few too many assumptions Yea -- that's why I say don't make them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted April 17, 2013 #54 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Yea -- that's why I say don't make them. ? Assume the authorities are telling the truth to the best of their knowledge and within the law. Assume the scientist actually is an expert. You will do much better forming informed opinions that way. was this meant to read 'dont' assume? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 17, 2013 #55 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Ok, what I meant is what I said. You are far more likely to be right if you assume the authority is right than if you assume he is stubborn or stupid or covering up. No guarantee, but that is where you should put your money: those who play long odds have to get a good spread or they will generally lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBunker Posted April 17, 2013 #56 Share Posted April 17, 2013 All these "alien artifacts/structires" is a clear cut case of pareidolia..... especially Hoaglands nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted April 17, 2013 #57 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Ok, what I meant is what I said. You are far more likely to be right if you assume the authority is right than if you assume he is stubborn or stupid or covering up. No guarantee, but that is where you should put your money: those who play long odds have to get a good spread or they will generally lose. or you could just not bet (i.e. not assume anything) then you can never lose..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted April 17, 2013 #58 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Conspiracies, sometimes "grand" and I guess sometimes less grand, as well as the notorious closed-mindedness of scientists to listen to anything outside their paradigm are two good clues that you are being peddled snake-oil. There is just enough plausibility to make it succeed if the individual hearing it is already gullible. when a poster starts using emotive words like 'peddled snake oil' and 'gullible'...you just KNOW they are on a mission...lol And determined to misrepresent anyone who dares to question anything...and dares to give consideration to any non-mainstream stuff... The problem is that sometimes there are conspiracies and cover-ups, and sometimes scientists are closed-minded (they view themselves as the experts and you as the amateur). The thing is, don't assume conspiracy; don't assume cover-up, don't assume closed minds. These are the exceptions, not the rule. Assume the authorities are telling the truth to the best of their knowledge and within the law. Assume the scientist actually is an expert. You will do much better forming informed opinions that way. everyone has their own way of doing things. You stick to what you have said above if it makes you happy.... . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 17, 2013 #59 Share Posted April 17, 2013 You don't always have the choice of not placing any bets, and even if you do have the choice, why not let the fools place their money where their foolishness leads them and take your profits. Science has a habit of paying good dividends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted April 17, 2013 #60 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Yea -- that's why I say don't make them. just believe what you're told.....and we'll all live happily ever after.... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 17, 2013 #61 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I guess I am on something of a mission; I would hate to see another Dark Age come the way the victories of Christianity and Islam brought one to the ancient Mediterranean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 17, 2013 #62 Share Posted April 17, 2013 And I suppose you never believe anything you are told. My doctor tells me I'm pre-diabetic and have to lay off cokes and pepsis. This is of course just his foolish opinion; you would do what you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted April 17, 2013 #63 Share Posted April 17, 2013 or you could just not bet (i.e. not assume anything) then you can never lose..... LOL....well said ALL BETS ARE OFF.... . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted April 17, 2013 #64 Share Posted April 17, 2013 You don't always have the choice of not placing any bets, and even if you do have the choice, why not let the fools place their money where their foolishness leads them and take your profits. Science has a habit of paying good dividends. and if I do not have a choice then I look for the value not the smallest 'perceived' odds. why should I not study the form on all prior to betting and seeing which odds are incorrect IMO? you are asking me to trust a bookie that tells me this is the one you should bet on! I would rather not trust the bookie, nor the tipping expert (claimed to be) nor the selcetions in the local paper nor to the tipster that says the race is a fix......I question them all..... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bee Posted April 17, 2013 #65 Share Posted April 17, 2013 And I suppose you never believe anything you are told. My doctor tells me I'm pre-diabetic and have to lay off cokes and pepsis. This is of course just his foolish opinion; you would do what you want. you are continuing with 'misrepresentation'......it is quite an effective TACTIC...but not truly honest. If you think your doctor has a point and you trust him.....go ahead...take his advice... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted April 17, 2013 #66 Share Posted April 17, 2013 And I suppose you never believe anything you are told. My doctor tells me I'm pre-diabetic and have to lay off cokes and pepsis. This is of course just his foolish opinion; you would do what you want. what if you knew the Doctors salary was paid by the Coke/Pepsi corporation? still trust him? would he have mentioned coke or pepsi? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 17, 2013 #67 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Remember he's telling me to lay off the stuff. I just don't see where you people are coming from, unless it is from living in a society where the government routinely lies. When people have a financial interest, that does not necessarily impugn their honesty. Generally, in fact, it has the opposite effect of making them more careful so as to avoid legal problems. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted April 17, 2013 #68 Share Posted April 17, 2013 By the way, what is this "not truly honest" business and what misrepresentation? Back up your allegations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted April 17, 2013 #69 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Remember he's telling me to lay off the stuff. I just don't see where you people are coming from, unless it is from living in a society where the government routinely lies. When people have a financial interest, that does not necessarily impugn their honesty. Generally, in fact, it has the opposite effect of making them more careful so as to avoid legal problems. yet we attack every claim of the ETH if there is even a sniff of financial gain....... and you suggest we can 'assume' but only when it is in favour. I say financial gain should always be questioned but not used as a deciding factor and as for the assume...I guess I must ask does Science 'assume'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esoteric Toad Posted April 17, 2013 #70 Share Posted April 17, 2013 And if there IS a Grand Conspiracy? We are expected to take it on faith that we are being told everything... Can't remember the name of the report at the moment...but there was that one that warned about the potential consequences on society and religions if ancient artefacts etc were found by modern space travellers on the Moon, Mars or Venus... and what effect that would have if the public were told about it .... We wouldn't really know if we were being officially kept out of the loop.... And that's where the 'whistleblowers' and alternative researchers come into the picture... . Bee please do not take this the wrong way but I have noticed that you have, errrrr, a very open mind. It seems you would argue the sky is not blue on a cloudless day if it were presented by a skeptic. Just because Mars is about 35 million miles away and some people, through lack of decent equipment, believed wacky things does not make it even remotely feasible. If this were the case then we would still be wondering what the wrinkled, grey lump was in our heads. After all, EVERYONE knows it is our hearts that control everything. Conspiracies are perpetuated, in part, by people who want to feel important. "I must be important, the gummint is hiding things from me!". Mars is a dead planet. There may be microbes underground but that is it. I would love for NASA or one of the other agencies to find fossil evidence of ANYTHING but I think we can rest assured there are no buildings, skeletons lying about and certainly no giant asteroid space ships. It is amazing what some are willing to believe. Imagine how goofy the world would be if we took the assumptions from a 100 years ago and ran with them. No thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted April 17, 2013 #71 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Bee please do not take this the wrong way but I have noticed that you have, errrrr, a very open mind. It seems you would argue the sky is not blue on a cloudless day if it were presented by a skeptic. I didnt think it was blue but just appeared that way PlusI dont think its a bad approach questioning all....... how else can you avoid the blind leading the blind? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esoteric Toad Posted April 17, 2013 #72 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I didnt think it was blue but just appeared that way PlusI dont think its a bad approach questioning all....... how else can you avoid the blind leading the blind? Questioning is fine but if it is just for the sake of playing devil's advocate then it becomes silly. Conspiracies are just that, conspiracies. EVERYTHING can be questioned pointlessly since conspiracies cannot be dis-proven. what is the point in that? If there is a duck sitting in front of two people what good is it for one to argue that it is not a duck? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quillius Posted April 17, 2013 #73 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Questioning is fine but if it is just for the sake of playing devil's advocate then it becomes silly. Conspiracies are just that, conspiracies. EVERYTHING can be questioned pointlessly since conspiracies cannot be dis-proven. what is the point in that? If there is a duck sitting in front of two people what good is it for one to argue that it is not a duck? not sure I follow, I dont think anyone has suggested anything like your theoretical with the duck. I thought we could prove we went to the moon? does this 'positive' proof not instantly disprove the 'conspiracy' theory that we havent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flbrnt Posted April 17, 2013 #74 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Edgar Rice Burroughs (I am a fan) based his Mars on the ideas of Percival Lowell. The Black Pirates of Barsoom did not come from a Martian Moon at all. That was a myth current among their victims. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2F Posted April 17, 2013 #75 Share Posted April 17, 2013 (edited) I thought we could prove we went to the moon? does this 'positive' proof not instantly disprove the 'conspiracy' theory that we havent? Only to people who are rational with an honest intent of altering their position based on new or contrary evidence. It's the 'conclusion first, then I'll look at the evidence' kind of people who have a problem with such things. Edited April 17, 2013 by Slave2Fate 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now