First of all, an honor and happy to be part of the writing team here.
I have to say that blogging never was my forte, when joining POM almost a year to the day ago, the first comments were my first blog posts ever. I have been at forums since 2000, so there lies my expertise. But the “blogosphere” was virgin terrain.
As with most of us, I found POM via Miles Mathis and although I praise Kevin Starr for his excellent boomerang deconstruction of MM’s family history, I don’t really think he is “a committee”. I may be wrong and stay open to that possibility, but I rather think he went on a rabbit trail (publishing books even) and his ego doesn’t allow him to review his earlier assumptions (especially about “Space Travel”). He has the intelligence level to be able to do it, but he doesn’t. To some that may stink of “spookiness”, to me it more looks like “too proud to swallow earlier words”.
Still I like the fact I discovered him (and via him POM), because of a major difference with many other researchers; looking into stories of the past. Things other people don’t look into. We all know the “easily accessible” 9/11, Sandy Hook and other stories, but the historical framework is what puts everything in place.
That modus operandi here has been shown with the first posts I read; Maarten Rossaert’s Mackinac Machinations and I WAS Fake News, Tyrone McCloskey’s JKF epos and the deconstruction of the Hitler actor’s guild and Mark’s John Denver analysis; excellent stuff. Not to say the other articles are bad, not at all, but those are among my favorites.
I have been hanging around at Fakeologist for a while, but those people are at a minor level compared to here.
I see two levels to be recognized in the deconstruction of narratives-fed-to-us-to-swallow [or rather not]; the basic level is recognizing that the narrative is wrong. But, it would be childish to stay at that level, especially because we have data. The second, higher level is, to explain that data in a more coherent fashion; to provide answers and not only questions. Those possible answers are our tools to talk to our real life peers who may question us for doubting these stories.
The recent Jonestown deconstruction is a perfect example of how that is done well. It may be “just” speculation, but the hows and whys are just as important as the how-nots.
If we consider this “walk on the ledge”, that truth seeking imho is, there are two big ravines/chasms next to us; paranoia and nihilism. I have seen numerous examples of people falling into either or both of these easy traps and try my best to stay away from them, keeping the balance.
What I think is important is to realize what are our limitations; in the end we can never know “The Truth”. The truth is an ideal, only approachable asymptotically; the complete sequence of events leading up to a published story is and always will be unknown, even to the perpetraitors [no typo] themselves.
And that relates back to a question put forward to us, truth seekers, I am sure we know it all from our social circles: “‘how can so many people keep such a ‘conspiracy’ secret?”
Easy analogue; movies. How many people work on a film together? 1000s to 10,000s of people. Cameramen, audio, visual, storyline, actor, make-up, marketing, location selection departments, all work on top of the core units of actors, directors and producers. How many storylines of movies get released to us before the movie comes out? Virtually none. But “how can all those people be quiet about something that big?” It’s their job. Just like it’s the job of the “military-industrial-media complex” (for lack of a better term) to keep quiet about just that area they know of, the fragmentation doesn’t allow them to know more anyway.
And with that said, let’s dive into the first story, or “plot” as it’s called in movies.
Funnily enough, a “plot” means two things; a “conspiracy” and a “narrative”. I think “plot” is a good word to use in what we do here; analyzing crazy stories fed to us and trying to make more sense of them, as the plots themselves are intrinsically non-sensical.
I love quotes, one of my favorites would be a good close to this introduction:
What is the first business of one who practices philosophy? To get rid of self-conceit. For it is impossible for anyone to begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows. – Epictetus (~55-135 AD)