UFO wind turbine prang site: Exclusive photos

[Nostalgia]

What really went down in Lincolnshire

The recent Conisholme wind farm incident - in which one turbine shed a blade in highly mysterious circumstances - provoked a level of black helicopter activity not seen since NASA faked the 1969 Moon landing, with many suggesting extraterrestrial involvement.

Well, we at El Reg have spent some time analysing a satellite image of the site on the morning following the prang, with remarkable results. Here's the original picture:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/19/ufo_crash_site/

Excellent!

Those aliens are crap, eh? I mean they travel 100,000,000,000 light years without mishap and smack into a bloody wind turbine.

[Nostalgia]

Originally Posted by paul w

Excellent!

Those aliens are crap, eh? I mean they travel 100,000,000,000 light years without mishap and smack into a bloody wind turbine.

ET might be a shit pilot Paul, but we still don't know what hit the damn thing.........a flock of starlings maybe?

Fair enough, but first of all, is there any proof that something HIT the thing?
Second, is there proof the blades disintegrated due to a fault, etc?

As for flocks of birds, well, they do bring down jet planes, eh?

[Nostalgia]

Originally Posted by paul w

Fair enough, but first of all, is there any proof that something HIT the thing?
Second, is there proof the blades disintegrated due to a fault, etc?

There were witnesses (according to news reports) of lights within the vicinity of the turbines, were the lights UFO's or were the lights something to do with the military?
Whatever they were, it does seem to be a bit of a coincidence that the turbines ended up damaged at around about the same time.
Someone in this

video claims that they saw tentacles hanging down, were the tentacles in fact the props hanging down and the lights a short out of the turbine....who knows but the media sure seems to be making a meal of all these UFO stories.

Tentacles? Oh, dear god, it's getting worse...

You're right though; the media will ALWAYS be making a meal of it, as they do with everything else. Why? It sells newspapers. I'm always amazed at how many people seem to think the media is there to give accurate, detailed info. It's not. It has to sell newspapers (or keep eyes glued to the tube) so we have UFOs, tentacles and whatever else they use to keep the story alive.

I've been involved with about four incidents that involved the media (one a promotion and the others a rescue), and in every single one they got the whole thing cocked up, and in the promotion, used outright sensationalism.

I mean, imagine if this 'UFO' story involved a buxom blonde...now THAT would get the front page!

[Nostalgia]

Hi Paul,
Because so many of these stories are appearing in the Sun newspaper, I am tending to think that there is a little more to this than just selling newspapers.
Newspapers, especially those like the Sun don't just hand out bunk to the masses, they also influence the masses in a big way, and the Sun probably has the largest tabloid readership in the UK.
For years the Sun gave the Conservative party it's backing, and whenever the conservatives needed the backing for some policy or another, the Sun was right behind them giving support.
Take the miners strike for instance.

The newspaper's coverage of the miners' strike of 1984-85 was slanted towards the government and there were incidents where staff threatened to resign over what they saw as deliberate misinformation. To this day, the paper's circulation in the old mining areas of Britain remains much smaller than in the country as a whole.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Sun-(newspaper)

Not long before the 1997 general election when New Labour swept to power, the Sun changed it's allegiance to New Labour.

Tony Blair was a guest of honour at a huge News Corp corporate meeting in Australia, before the 1997 election when The Sun newspaper switched sides to support the Labour Party. Gordon Brown gave a speech at the next of these News Corp meetings at the Sun Valley ski resort in Idaho in 1998. After the 1997 election it was alleged that Blair had phoned the Italian Premier Romano Prodi to assist the expansion of Murdoch's media empire in Europe.
http://www.red-star-research.org.uk/murdoch.html

So Paul, forgive me for sounding a little bit suspicious, but when the Sun goes overboard with it's reporting of UFO's, I don't just think they are trying to sell newspapers, but rather they are attempting to manipulate the masses.
Talking about manipulation, it is interesting to see that the husband of Elizabeth Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch's daughter, is Matthew Freud, the great grandson of none other "Sigmund Freud," the founder of psychoanalysis, now that is a turn up for the books.
Matthew Freud also just happens to own Freud Communications an international public relations firm. (I bet if I was to dig further with this things could get real juicy, why does Peter Mandleson spring to mind)
Well what do you know, what a happy combination, talk about keeping it in the family, I'm pretty sure that lot together they will be able to influence just about anybody!
So, having said all of that Paul, why the fuck do they keep pushing the UFO agenda?
(the swearing is not directed toward you btw)

Nostalgia

I totally agree, media outlets try (and do) manipulate the thoughts and actions of readers, as in the two examples you mentioned.

But note that both examples were support for a particular political party. As such, one has a strong argument that it was about creating good relations with the new government. I mean, one has to know what happened AFTER the party was elected regarding the communications industry. Did the new government favor print takeovers, for example, or a more 'relaxed' attitude towards media owners having more than one newspaper title? Also, and vitally important to know, is what was the line taken by the outgoing government. Did it favor less media ownership, etc. And what were the tax policies of either? Or attitude to unions, work relations, foreign ownership, government support, etc?

It's not just a case of ignoring these issues and simply suggesting that because they Can, they DO...and especially so that governments/media are manipulating public awareness of UFOs.

That may be your belief, and you are free to think that, but I reckon you're stretching a very, very long bow (if that's the term).

"So Paul, forgive me for sounding a little bit suspicious, but when the Sun goes overboard with it's reporting of UFO's, I don't just think they are trying to sell newspapers, but rather they are attempting to manipulate the masses."

No forgiveness required, Nostalgia; you are right to be suspicious. I just believe the first, and overwhelming, argument is that they ARE just trying to sell newspapers (read: make as much money as possible) and make sure the people keep on doing the same.

I think the issue here is this para:
"Talking about manipulation, it is interesting to see that the husband of Elizabeth Murdoch, Rupert Murdoch's daughter, is Matthew Freud, the great grandson of none other "Sigmund Freud," the founder of psychoanalysis, now that is a turn up for the books."

This is a common theme in many of the threads here...joining dots and finishing with a 'hmmmm....'

I mean, you have gone back what, four generations (100 years?) to find a dot that can be connected, and even that connection is one based on a maybe, or what if, or 'isn't that interesting'?

I'm not dissing you here, Nostalgia, just making an argument. Just how far back would you go to find a 'hmmmm' and then use that to suggest it's not a coincidence? That doesn't mean such things do not occur, but just because they do, does not mean it does in this case.

"I'm pretty sure that lot together they will be able to influence just about anybody!"

There you go again. This is not even a 'hmmm', it's almost a statement of fact. And based on what? That generations ago, someone in a wealthy family married someone else wealthy? Maybe they just loved each other?

Gotta watch that connecting the dots, Nostalgia, it can lead you down some pretty torturous paths. Reality does that enough as it is, without adding more of our own.

[Nostalgia]

Originally Posted by paul wd

Nostalgia

"I'm pretty sure that lot together they will be able to influence just about anybody!"

There you go again. This is not even a 'hmmm', it's almost a statement of fact. And based on what? That generations ago, someone in a wealthy family married someone else wealthy? Maybe they just loved each other?

Gotta watch that connecting the dots, Nostalgia, it can lead you down some pretty torturous paths. Reality does that enough as it is, without adding more of our own.

It is late for me paul so I am just going to be quick with this reply.
I wasn't pointing to the fact that Matthew Freud came from a wealthy family, but rather that he was the head of a public relations firm, what is the purpose of public relations, let's see.

Public relations (PR) is the practice of managing the flow of information between an organization and its publics.

Now if you connect his knowledge, the knowledge of his great grandfather and then connect that up with Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, then you have one pretty powerful institution for influencing public opinion.
By the way, did you know that Sigmund Freud worked with the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations?

The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations is a British charity concerned with group behaviour and organisational behaviour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tavistock_Institute

Sigmund Freud was also the uncle of Edward Bernays.

Edward Louis Bernays (November 22, 1891 – March 9, 1995) is considered one of the fathers of the field of public relations along with Ivy Lee. Combining the ideas of Gustave Le Bon and Wilfred Trotter on crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical ideas of his uncle, Sigmund Freud, Bernays was one of the first to attempt to manipulate public opinion using the subconscious.

He felt this manipulation was necessary in society, which he regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the 'herd instinct' that Trotter had described. Adam Curtis's award-winning 2002 documentary for the BBC, The Century of the Self, pinpoints Bernays as the originator of modern public relations, and Bernays was named one of the 100 most influential Americans of the 20th century by Life magazine.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

Connecting dots.....Moi?

If you would like to learn more about Edward Bernays and his work Paul you might want to check out the documentary "Century of the Self" here,
http://www.rinf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=426 it is very interesting.

Nostalgia

I'm aware of Edward Bernays, a fascinating man. Awful, but fascinating.

And Rupert Murdoch does not need anyone to tell him how to sell newspapers. His first was my home town, Adelaide, Australia (he was also a bit of a leftie then) and learned first-hand what 'the masses' want most of all: entertainment.

The 'masses' wanted entertainment in their media, and Rupert, as he grew older, wanted more and more success. The combination offers a fairly obvious result.

And by the way, Nostalgia, when you have time, I'd like to hear your thoughts re my comments about the two examples you gave earlier; that newspapers support political parties to curry flavor for their own ends, and sensationalism sells newspapers.