On 10/27/2011 1:44 PM, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> I.e., by not calling (say) air force investigators who come to the
>> conclusion that those lights are actually russian fighter jets "ufologists",
>> you are of course amplifying how much evidence you think they have.
>
>    The military is biased and has their own agenda, and thus naturally they
> cannot be trusted! If a member of the military denies that a phenomenon is
> an alien spaceship, that's actually convincing evidence that it *was* an
> alien spaceship.
>
>    (Of course if a member of the military claims that it *was* an alien
> spaceship, he is immediately a trustworthy reliable source of inside
> information. Only those members of the military who deny it are unreliable.)
>
Of course, the third, and more likely option, that they are both partly 
lying to you, either the make sure, in case #1, that you don't hit on 
what it actually *was*, and in case #2, that you will ignore what it 
might be, in favor of the totally nuts, isn't even on the radar. The 
best lie is the one where you tell the person the absolute truth, but 
leave out critical details (such as what it really was, or any hint as 
to what it was). The second best is to tell the persons precisely what 
they are *sure* it is already.

Since its not plausible for the same person to claim both, at the same 
time, unless they are a Republican politician, of course, you need two 
different people, to present the apposing fictions. ;)

Post a reply to this message