27-10-2009, 12:41 AM
A couple of random thoughts:
There's been a long history of black technologies in the US toolkit. Putting out the word that your side has one has been a trick of military deception for millennia. Using something of that nature, whether real or not, as a secondary psy-op tool, becomes useful.
Some of those technologies have come out of Area 51 and whatever the US has gleaned, from whatever source, about high-speed flight, 'stealth' flight, composite materials, etc., it is suggested that it comes in part from its hidden files about aliens from some distant star system. All of this in Paragraph #2 also fuels what is in Paragraph #1.
It has been suggested -- in re: 9/11 -- that keeping people's attention on what is up there prevents them from focusing on what is down there. This also goes toward Paragraphs #2 and #1.
Speculation (absent fact and strict examination) doesn't get us anywhere.
Keep things factual and evidence-based.
We have seen many examples where "the pool of available information and evidence" has been poisoned or polluted.
Let whatever analysis is ongoing continue within some simple sense of priority or specialty for it.
Some extensive system of taxonomy and Learning Environment Organizer or concept map can bring us back to the question accurately and coherently when and if necessary.
There's been a long history of black technologies in the US toolkit. Putting out the word that your side has one has been a trick of military deception for millennia. Using something of that nature, whether real or not, as a secondary psy-op tool, becomes useful.
Some of those technologies have come out of Area 51 and whatever the US has gleaned, from whatever source, about high-speed flight, 'stealth' flight, composite materials, etc., it is suggested that it comes in part from its hidden files about aliens from some distant star system. All of this in Paragraph #2 also fuels what is in Paragraph #1.
It has been suggested -- in re: 9/11 -- that keeping people's attention on what is up there prevents them from focusing on what is down there. This also goes toward Paragraphs #2 and #1.
Speculation (absent fact and strict examination) doesn't get us anywhere.
Keep things factual and evidence-based.
We have seen many examples where "the pool of available information and evidence" has been poisoned or polluted.
Let whatever analysis is ongoing continue within some simple sense of priority or specialty for it.
Some extensive system of taxonomy and Learning Environment Organizer or concept map can bring us back to the question accurately and coherently when and if necessary.
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"