by Mentalgongfu » Sat May 20, 2006 3:58 pm
I had never heard of SERPO before, but in browsing the introduction section of the site, I noticed this, in regards to the Anonymous source who is said to be the main contributor of their information.<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>Logically there are four possibilities:<br><br>1) Anonymous is a prankster and the reported data is either all invented or culled from other sources and added to a wild novelistic story.<br><br>2) Anonymous is operating to a planned agenda and the information is deliberately distorted, but contains a core of extraordinary truth.<br><br>3) Anonymous is doing his best to report data from an indirect source (personal notes, his own short or long term memory, or another person), but accidental errors, omissions and additions have occurred.<br><br>4) Anonymous is reporting everything faithfully and accurately as best as he can present it.<br><br>Only possibility (1) means everything should be rejected. The other three necessarily mean that the reports deserve close attention. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I'm not sure if the author is being deliberately obtuse, but it occurs to me there are more than four possiblities.<br><br>Such as a combination of 2 and 1:<br>Anonymous is operating to a planned agenda and the information is deliberately distorted and the reported data is either all invented or culled from other sources and added to a wild novelistic story.<br><br>OR<br><br>Anonymous is a prankster and the information is deliberately distorted, but contains a core of extraordinary truth.<br><br>I'm sure other possiblities can be imagined.<br><br>Also, this statement gets my attention:<br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr><br>3) Anonymous is doing his best to report data from an indirect source (personal notes, his own short or long term memory, or another person), but <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>accidental </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->errors, omissions and <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>additions </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->have occurred.<br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Accidental additions? Perhaps he "accidentally added" a military lawn mower to his recollection?<br><br>The website's attempt to legitimize its claims by presenting this 'logic' seems like an over-simplification meant to obscure. <br><br>Why not just say "We have no means of verifying these claims and we are not able to determine the motives of the anonymous source but we feel they should be seriously considered because of their potential gravity."<br><br>That is essentially what is stated, yet it is done in a roundabout way, as if to add intellectual weight. <br><br>The website author also asks us to "suspend disbelief pending the ongoing release of further data."<br><br>Ahhh. The promise of proof - but later. Just wait. <br><br>I can't speak for the thought process of anyone else, but IF I had classified evidence 12 humans visited an Alien planet, I don't think I'd trickle it out in dibs and dabs, if I thought it was so important to make public. Plus, communicating it electronically over a long period of time would create a lot of potential exposure from the nefarious sources surely out to silence Anonymous. <br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
