1 of 2 people found the following review helpful
Cook is the key,
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: Hunt For Zero Point (Paperback)
The worth of this whole book rests in one area: Nick Cook's credibility. Without that, this enters Eric Von Danikin territory. The question is, what is Nick Cooks believability rating?
The options are straight forward, as far as I can see:
1) He is a liar, plain and simple
2) He is a manipulator of the stories he has located for his own ends
3) The whole thing is a hoax because Cook is being lied too by others - those capable of massive levels of delusion, miss information and chicanery (as Cook says they are)
4) The whole thing is pretty much as he reports it. The liars are lying to cover up the black operations, Nazi cuckolding and flying saucer shenanigans that they have indulged in for the last 65 odd years to save themselves and big business (or maybe even western civilisation)
5) Nick Cook - as a long term insider with the aviation industry - is 'on the team', as it were: in the 'know' with some other deception that the aviation industry is perpetrating. Whatever that might be...
I think it's probably 2, 3 or 4 from the options I listed above. My money's on 4.
The book is a very entertaining read, which - on some levels - detracts from it: hard science shouldn't be fun to read, right? Except that - if it's a boring read - nobody bothers to finish it, and this isn't a book where you can just skip bits - it reads like a detective novel and has to be read, start to finish (and, in my case, more than once). Sure, it is light on 'proof' but... what proof would be acceptable? I mean, what proof, short of a flying saucer landing in Trafalgar Square (readers from other ares, substitute your own culturaly iconic, central openspace as appropriate...)
In summary, a great read, very, very thought provoking and - with Cook provenance - I can't help but put my bets on solution 4: The whole thing is pretty much as he reports it.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 10 Dec 2011 15:25:11 GMT
D. J. Fisher says:
No. As a physicist who has made a 20-year study of pseudoscience, I can assure you that the correct answer was not '4' but 1+2+3. The usual response to my conclusion is that I am therefore part of a conspiracy. That is always so much easier than learning real science is it not?
In reply to an earlier post on 23 Apr 2014 09:55:24 BDT
J. W. Treadaway says:
I do hope you are right!
‹ Previous 1 Next ›