> One person's investigative reporter is another persons 'conspiracy theorist' depending on your beliefs and views. You are promoting your beliefs and views on

> One person's investigative reporter is another persons 'conspiracy theorist' depending on your beliefs and views. You are promoting your beliefs and views on this thread, and attempting to argue about the credibility of a writer you don't agree with or believe. This is what the broader thread is about, you're proving my point again. And some people think ancient aliens and UFOs are serious areas of study, but most reasonable people think it's nonsense. That disagreement on this kind of thing is possible doesn't make every perspective equally credible or vital. I actually agree with your point: >>>>> To presume to know anything about what goes on in the rarified power struggles at an intercontinental/global levels requires free speech and giving serious researchers/writers a viewable voice. Where I disagree is that people like Whitney Webb can shed any more light on those power struggles than Bob Lazar. If the article of hers that I read is a good representation of her oeuvre, she offers tendentious and misleading interpretations of already public information. I think the best that can do is offer a false sense of deeper understanding. A real deeper understanding needs someone to take serious risk, like Edward Snowden did, to bring secret things into the light.