Jim Marrs latest stuff. Is there a consensus?

[Seamus Coogan]

Sorry, but this thread bugs the hell out of me.

It's not that Jim Marrs is above criticism. But there are deeper issues to deal with here.

We ultimately are self-destructive in the extreme when we contribute to the public perception that internecine warfare is tearing apart the "research community" (once an oxymoron, always an oxymoron).

So too when we allow the argument to migrate from the facts to the folk.

This shouldn't be about Jim Marrs or anyone or anything else but TRUTH and JUSTICE.

In most but not all cases, this MUST BE about the evidence -- NOT the evidence presenters.

Unless, of course, you are prepared to defend an argument that a presenter is an enemy agent -- witting or otherwise.

Don't play the enemy's game. Don't go hunting for your own. Stick to the evidence.

If you've got the goods on a mole in our midst, go for the jugular. But you damn well better be prepared to make your case.

Don't let the enemy deflect attention from the facts.

One more thing: Robert Morningstar is my dear friend. He is George Michael Evica's dear friend. I have no reason to suspect his motives. And while we do not see eye to eye on a number of issues, we do stand as allies on many others.

Have at Robert's arguments. They are fair game.

But be certain that, if you do, you can demonstrate a comprehensive familiarity with and understanding of those arguments.

Very interesting take on it. I'm a bit of a critic of Morningstar as you know. But cheers for getting your feedback. I don't think it's neccessarily going down that track and I am not 'hunting' for Marrs. I'm just interested in what he evokes. I really like him myself. Not in the BS Dave Perry 'I'm his friend' sort of thing. I really do think he's a good guy and contributed a lot like what Phil says. I'm just interested in his 'new direction'. I also think he was a bit silly for going along with the MJ-12 stuff. But I'm here nor there. Whats concerned me is that Dave Perry really carried the whole 'he's lost it with UFO's' line in 2000.

That piece was a terrible load of shit. But what concerned me is the dialectic used. Since Perry made the first big public criticism. What it did was get in the way of legitimate researchers at the time (much like you CD) voicing concerns about Marrs content. Well people need too take stock. Dave Perry's criticisms were for completely the wrong reasons with regard to Marrs. They were to confuse and obfuscate and also too make people think 'hmmmm siding with Dave Perry' not a good look and dare I say it's not. What need's to happen is that the power of critique and review needs to be taken back by us. If we let the John McAdams and Perry's of the world pass comment and not engage in critique ourselves who is? Hell I didn't see those guys go after John Hankey lol.

In saying that Marrs was excellent on Ventura's show and came along just at the right time.