'No evidence' for extraterrestrials, says White House,....

joepistole

11-09-11, 10:53 AM

Sorry, but you sound a little naive,... governments need to keep secrets. It's known there have been secret aircraft developed and deployed, from the U2, the SR71, the B-2, and more recently, that the precursor to the Shuttle, the 'Dynasoar' doesn't appear to have been cancelled, the project just went black, with the govt recently admitting to the existence of the Hypersonic Test Vehicle, which appears to be derivative.

EXCUSE ME, where did I say that governments do not have a need to lie? Oh that is right, I didn't. I merely said that they do lie and gave evidence of same which was contrary to the assertions to which you were a party.

The govt aren't going to make a press statement every time a secret aircraft is tested, or flies, in case some UFO nutters sees it and freaks out. I've seen a couple of aerial oddities, but as it was near a 'disused' missile testing site, have the inclination to think it was probably something advanced, cool, and military.

Is this some how relevant to the discussion or contrary to anything I wrote? No it isn't.

But this highlights the problem with the term UFO. Many things reported as UFOs aren't even flying. If we acknowledge the existence of secret military aircraft could be the cause of UFO sightings, it all becomes a bit 'meh'. It's only worth further investigation if we have the opinion it could be more than that, and the craft of extra-terrestrial origin, and really, there's no evidence for that. We have various types of telescope, working at many different wave lengths, looking up and down, and we don't capture anything. We have more people carrying more cameras than ever before, in their cellphones, and their digital cameras have decent optical zoom, far better than we had 20 years ago, but the quantity nor quality of images has improved.

With this kind of thinking we would still believe in the the four elements, earth, water, fire and air and living as hunter gathers at best. Anomalies have been the source of all major scientific advancments. So to assert as you have that we should only investigate those incidents for which we know the answer is rather backward.

When you have anomolies, events for which you cannot explain, there is something wrong with your model. And to simply dismiss it as you have is to go back to that animalistic thinking - reverting to our congative biases and that is bad science any way you look at it.

We had a woman come here, claiming to have been serially abducted, and in possession of pictures and videos of UFOs,... went by the name of 'Orions Stargirl' and in real life, Paula Thorneycroft. All of her images were of appalling quality, and a couple of SF members offered to take better quality equipment and go visit her, and see if they could capture better images. Initially, she agreed. but of course, it never came to fruition. Of course, Paula had a book for sale.

Then we had another guy 'Chris Beacham' who posted his 'UFO' pictures here (he's since deleted them all). After talking to him, it became clear he took photographs of sky, and then applied various filters in image manipulation software, until he created an anomaly, and them reckoned he's uncovered a UFO. He also sold these pictures.

No one is saying, certianly not I, that there are a lot of kooks out there. But that should not be reason to ignore or summarily dismiss those incidents for which science can offer no reasonable explanation. Even Project Blue Book (per previous post) could not explain all UFO events. Your solution, to ignore events that you cannot explain, is not good science. It is using your cognative bias as a subsitute for scientific method. And that is just as bad as the kook runnning around making absurd claims for which there is not a shred of evidence. A good scientist does not dismiss credible evidence from credible sources (J. Hynek) per previous post just because it does not agree with his/her preconceived notions.

Notice I have never once speculated on what credible UFO's might be other that to say that the US government has been known to expolit UFOs to cover clandestine operations.

You know skeptism is a good thing and it works both ways. One should be skeptical of everything - inclulding commonly held beliefs. There is no substitute for fact, reason and evidence.

Boris2

11-09-11, 05:24 PM

....they aren't going to be flying around with their underpants on their heads, pencils up their olfactory outlets, and saying 'wibble', are they?

i'll be seriously disappointed if they do.

;)

Arioch

11-09-11, 06:29 PM

@Joe --

Anomalies have been the source of all major scientific advancments.

Yes they have been, but there are many explanations which fit the data better than "aliens are here". In fact just about any other explanation is more parsimonious than that.

phlogistician

11-10-11, 03:05 AM

So let me get this straight. You don't believe there are Alien craft.

That's not quite what I said. There are probably alien craft,... just that they aren't visiting Earth.

But you're quite sure you could predict the reasons behind their actions if you did believe there were Alien craft,

That's not quite what I said. I said their actions would not be unpredictable, or make no sense. Any race that can construct craft to travel across the vastness of space is highly intelligent, that much we can predict.

That's pretty absurd considering we're still studying and learning about the behavior of animals that we've studied for hundreds of years.

It's pretty absurd to equate an advanced alien race with a terrestrial animal. Learning about animals would be much quicker if they were sentient, and able to talk, after all.

phlogistician

11-10-11, 03:11 AM

@Joe --

Yes they have been, but there are many explanations which fit the data better than "aliens are here". In fact just about any other explanation is more parsimonious than that.

I agree completely. Joe hasn't made the distinction between UFO, UAP, and ETI. Until he does, he's rather dodging and weaving amongst the ambiguity between these terms.

Joe also hasn't ruled out the human element, but decries my science. Science should be devoid of human bias.

phlogistician

11-10-11, 03:16 AM

But that should not be reason to ignore or summarily dismiss those incidents for which science can offer no reasonable explanation.

And I have not done that. I'm saying that we can't go shouting 'The aliens are coming' because someone sees something in the sky they can't explain.

The whole 'UFO' thing says far more about human perception than it does about the Universe. But anyway, first you need to get your terms straight, and I really find UFO to ambiguous. Do you mean Extra Terrestrial Craft, or Unexplained Aerial Phenomenon? And like I said already, we know there are secret military craft up there, so really, the only mystery is the former, especially given that people report Venus as a UFO, and it doesn't exhibit the qualities of flight.

joepistole

11-10-11, 05:25 AM

And I have not done that. I'm saying that we can't go shouting 'The aliens are coming' because someone sees something in the sky they can't explain.

I think you have. But be that as it may, no one is yelling the aliens are coming - merely questioning the credibility of US government statements on aliens.

The whole 'UFO' thing says far more about human perception than it does about the Universe.

Now this is a supposition on your part for which you have no evidence. Is it about human perception or more about human biases and other human behavioral issues?

But anyway, first you need to get your terms straight, and I really find UFO to ambiguous. Do you mean Extra Terrestrial Craft, or Unexplained Aerial Phenomenon? And like I said already, we know there are secret military craft up there, so really, the only mystery is the former, especially given that people report Venus as a UFO, and it doesn't exhibit the qualities of flight.

Terms straight? Where have I misued a single term? I haven't. That is you creating an error in logic - ad hominem. UFO means unidentified flying object - look it up. If you find the term too ambigious, well that is your issue. The term describes a phenomena and does not ascribe a cause for the phenomena. Because a cause cannot be determined.

You want to jump from observation to cause with out any intervening logic or evidence, just as the UFO kooks do. There is not enough information/evidence to make that jump between observation and cause in some observations. That is why those observations are called UFO's.

And you keep going back to known misidentifications as if that explained all known observations. As perviously pointed out and proven, the misidentification excuse does not explain all UFO observations (e.g. J. Allen Hynek).

phlogistician

11-10-11, 10:53 AM

And you keep going back to known misidentifications as if that explained all known observations. As perviously pointed out and proven, the misidentification excuse does not explain all UFO observations (e.g. J. Allen Hynek).

Hynek, who sold a book on the subject? Who contradicted himself?

Oh, and you can't say "the misidentification excuse does not explain all UFO observations" until you identify what it was that was allegedly seen, can you?

clusteringflux

11-10-11, 11:01 AM

That's not quite what I said. I said their actions would not be unpredictable, or make no sense. Any race that can construct craft to travel across the vastness of space is highly intelligent, that much we can predict.

High intelligence would only compound the difficulties in studying them especially if they were unwilling and elusive.
To the other, if we're the subjects of research one wouldn't expect much explanation. Jane Goodall (when making herself visible )wouldn't try and explain the social science or the automobile to Gorillas even though she can communicate with them on a basic level. Even if they could understand the basic concepts it wouldn't make sense to introduce it into the experiment.

Learning about animals would be much quicker if they were sentient, and able to talk, after all.

Indeed.
But again if we're the "animals" being observed "highly intelligent space travelers" would likely know how receptive we would be to attempts at communication.. We wouldn't be. We have a recorded history of war and violence to prove it.

Edit

Bah! now you have me doing it..Pretending to know what non-existant beings think!

LOL

joepistole

11-10-11, 11:14 AM

Hynek, who sold a book on the subject? Who contradicted himself?

Oh, and you can't say "the misidentification excuse does not explain all UFO observations" until you identify what it was that was allegedly seen, can you?

You have not been paying attention. Hynek started out as a professional UFO debunker working for the government. He could not debunk all reported incidents. And unlike you he did not simply dismiss those incidents. And as a result of his studies and work for the government he reversed his opinion on UFOs.

I am not using the misidentification excuse. You are. What I have said consistently is that there are well documented observations by very credible observers, including the military, for which there are no credible explanations. If you don't have an explanation, you shouldn't invent one as you have done and continue to do or simply dismiss the observation.

This is a non sequitur, ""Oh, and you can't say "the misidentification excuse does not explain all UFO observations" until you identify what it was that was allegedly seen, can you?"".

It is a proven fact, not all UFO observations can be adequately explained. Even Project Blue Book, the government's attempt to debunk UFOs, came to that conclusion. So you cannot say with any degree of credibility that all UFO observations are just misidentifications of something else. They are unidentified, hence that is why they are referred to as Unidentifed Flying Objects (UFOs).

Me-Ki-Gal

11-10-11, 11:17 AM

The US government has formally denied that it has any knowledge of contact with extraterrestrial life.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15635612

But conspiracy theorists will just say 'of course they deny it', so what's the point making this statement?

It is a ghost phlo. I don't mean like a supernatural spooky spooky. Like the war on terrorism or the war on drugs . Like that it is a ghost. Chasing water falls . Netting butterflies .

You know fun , work , business , play, sleep

Aliens come into the planet all day every day from my understanding of science anyway . Terrestrial objects penetrate the atmosphere don't they?
Do you understand every little quark about all that ?

Arioch

11-10-11, 12:22 PM

@joe --

It is a proven fact, not all UFO observations can be adequately explained.

No it's not. It's a fact that we can't explain all UFO observations as physical events, but if we treat them as altered mental states and other psychological experiences we can. Not only does this have the benefit of explaining what people like you claim can't be explained, but it doesn't require a huge number of unsupported assumptions. It's a win win.

joepistole

11-10-11, 12:35 PM

@joe --

No it's not. It's a fact that we can't explain all UFO observations as physical events, but if we treat them as altered mental states and other psychological experiences we can. Not only does this have the benefit of explaining what people like you claim can't be explained, but it doesn't require a huge number of unsupported assumptions. It's a win win.

So you are telling me ground deformation, burnt objects, radar tracking, are the result of altered mental states? And just what would cause this altered mental state?

Where is your proof that the unexplained events are from an altered mental state? If you had some proof, you might be on to something. But the bottom line here is that we can speculate all day. What we need is evidence. And that is something we are woefully short of in this arena.

I think what is needed is more research and more evidence.

Arioch

11-10-11, 12:45 PM

Me-Ki-Gal

11-10-11, 01:12 PM

The U.2 reconnaissance missions over the poles caused much top secret information because of the sensitivity of the spy operations. The rumors abound because of it . The ground controls were not even aware of the mission purpose. They would be told one thing while another was being done . Spy business is like that . If there is a leak it is disinformation and the cover becomes better .

The U.2 was top secret . High flying alternates unheard of in the day and not admitted to because of the sensitivity of the missions . Course we found out about it soon enough . What rumors still bounce around from the covert actions in the beginnings? The cover up

joepistole

11-10-11, 07:00 PM

@joe --

Who's to say that those events don't have a perfectly normal, physical explanation. Perhaps vandalism or some crashed military craft(they like to keep those secret). There are hundreds of possible explanations out there and not a single one that requires aliens breaking the known laws of physics to visit us when they have literally no reason to do so.

Ok, so where is the evidence? There isn't any and that is the point. :)

We know that some of them are altered mental states because an unbelievably large number of eyewitness accounts match stories of "abduction" by demons, faeries, angels, and numerous other imaginary beings over the course of history(these sorts of reports have been happening for pretty much all of human history).

Great, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about those events that cannot be explained by swamp gas or altered mental states.

@
Now, there are two possible explanations for this, one that's plausible and one that's not. Explanation number one is that all of these other reports are misidentified aliens and they've been with us all along, this is completely implausible and we have literally no supporting evidence for it. The other explanation is that it's all, or almost all, in our brains, this is very plausible as we know for a fact that the human brain is more than capable of creating entire imaginary, populated worlds.

So which seems more likely to you?

You see, now here is crux of the problem. You have two sides here. One the pro alien crowd and the anti alien crowd move along here, nothing to see crowd. And each is just as bad as the other in my book. To believe the alien visitation crowd you have to believe facts not in evidence. To believe the anti-alien crowd you have to ignore facts in evidence.

I am in neither camp. There is a phenomena that we cannot explain. And until we have credible evidence it should be recognized as an enigma and studied until it can be explained with reason and evidence.

If some of these events are from altered mental states you would think that governments should be interested. Because some of those people supposedly in "altered mental states" carry guns and are guarding nuclear arms depots others are flying large passenger airliners and still others are policemen. So regardless of what was actually observed, given the responsibility entrusted with these folks, their observations should be taken seriously instead of ignored. I certianly don't want military folks with nuclear weapons walking around in altered mental states while on duty. Nor do I want on duty policemen or aircraft pilots including astronauts on duty in altered mental states.

Aqueous Id

11-10-11, 09:11 PM

I'm still miffed about having to be alien spawn.

Arioch

11-11-11, 02:12 AM

@Joe --

Well perhaps you could cite some of these accounts that can't be explained. I'd be willing to bet money that I'll have no trouble finding an explanation for you.

Robittybob1

11-11-11, 02:15 AM

@Joe --

Well perhaps you could cite some of these accounts that can't be explained. I'd be willing to bet money that I'll have no trouble finding an explanation for you.
They give you an explanation but is it right!:shrug:

Arioch

11-11-11, 02:38 AM

@Rob --

Well I am a bio major with a minor in journalism, I think that I know how to check my sources.

Robittybob1

11-11-11, 02:52 AM

@Rob --

Well I am a bio major with a minor in journalism, I think that I know how to check my sources.
Well I remember the Kaikoura Incident and they have never explained that scientifically. Have you looked into that incident? Probably 30 years ago but still documented on the internet.

Tell me what you think of that one?

joepistole

11-11-11, 09:23 AM

@Joe --

Well perhaps you could cite some of these accounts that can't be explained. I'd be willing to bet money that I'll have no trouble finding an explanation for you.

As previously mentioned, read Project Blue Book. The United States government with all of its resources and hell bent intent to discredit the UFO phenomena could not explain them, I am sure you can.

phlogistician

11-11-11, 09:49 AM

Well I remember the Kaikoura Incident and they have never explained that scientifically. Have you looked into that incident? Probably 30 years ago but still documented on the internet.

Tell me what you think of that one?

This one:

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/11668/The_Kaikoura_Lights__New_Zealand_UFO_Footage__1978/

The usual blurry footage and camera shake, making the whole film useless? The loop shown was because of camera shake, the shape shown because it was out of focus,.. schoolboy camera stuff, really.

Do you have any links to more compelling footage?

phlogistician

11-11-11, 09:50 AM

As previously mentioned, read Project Blue Book. The United States government with all of its resources and hell bent intent to discredit the UFO phenomena could not explain them, I am sure you can.

If there was anything interesting going on, why was Blue Book abandoned?

joepistole

11-11-11, 09:56 AM

If there was anything interesting going on, why was Blue Book abandoned?

A good question, what did Dr. J. Allen Hynek have to say about that? He was the chief scientist behind Project Blue Book.

GeoffP

11-11-11, 12:23 PM

Arioch

11-11-11, 12:30 PM

Robittybob1

11-11-11, 12:41 PM

This one:

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/11668/The_Kaikoura_Lights__New_Zealand_UFO_Footage__1978/

The usual blurry footage and camera shake, making the whole film useless? The loop shown was because of camera shake, the shape shown because it was out of focus,.. schoolboy camera stuff, really.

Do you have any links to more compelling footage?No but the Ohakea airbase picked up the UFO signal and we saw the footage and reports on TV I think it was the day after. The journalist went on the plane because of the repetitive nature of the UFO sightings.
There has been no real satisfactory explanation for it, in the opinion of thousands of NZ'ders.

Arioch

11-11-11, 01:15 PM

@Rob --

So they picked something up on radar? What a shock! Call the Whitehouse immediately!

I kid of course, this means nothing. Unidentified objects are picked up on radar all the time, from weather balloons to flocks of birds(yeah, the can register as one object on radar), aliens aren't needed to explain that. Ockham's razor slices your argument to ribbons.

As for the footage, it's worthless. Such poor quality footage could be showing a bear break dancing for all we know. It could just be lens flare or insects flying around right in front of the camera, again there's absolutely no need to assume "aliens" for this.

joepistole

11-11-11, 01:19 PM

@joe --

Damn. I didn't even need to do any work with that one. Got any others that "can't" be explained, or are you just pinning your hopes on the shotgun approach, saying "oh they're out there, just look" and hoping that someone more capable will find your evidence for you?

LOL, correction, you chickened out. What's the matter? Are you afraid to do a little reading? Are you chicken? Are you afraid of a little book or are you afraid of what you might learn? Like I said before, if the US government with mega resouces and an expressed intent to discredit UFO's cannot explain them, what makes you think you can explain them? If you have the guts and intellectual honesty, why don't you pick up a copy of Project Blue Book and read it?

Arioch

11-11-11, 01:33 PM

joepistole

11-11-11, 01:39 PM

@joe --

Because I have much better things to do with my time than to read a bunch of UFO nonsense. I could pick up the latest Quarterly Review of Biology and read that, or maybe I could spend the time having drinks with some of my cosmologist friends(they're always fun when they're drunk, you don't even need to keep them away from the power tools like you do for engineers). Or I could spend the time gouging my eyes out with rusty nails, all I'm saying is that pretty much anything is a more productive use of my time than that.

If you have any specifics you'd like to ask me about then go ahead, that won't take much time.

I think you are chicken. I gave you a very specific and credible reference. And you refuse to put the time in to do the work. And yet somehow you think you are going to explain something that the US government with all of its resources and experts were not able to explain and not put any work into it? That my friend is at best arrogance, at worst lazy and intellectually dishonest.

Robittybob1

11-11-11, 01:40 PM

Arioch

11-11-11, 02:00 PM

@joe --

I gave you a very specific and credible reference.

What, "Blue Book"? Oh yeah that's specific. Thousands of claims, thousands of investigations(all done halfassed because we were in the middle of a cold war and the government had much better things to worry about). Not exactly what you're claiming here is it. I asked for specifics and you give me the whole damn book saying "it's somewhere in there". Pardon me for having a life and not wanting to waste my time when I'm already more than 99% sure of what I'll find.

And you refuse to put the time in to do the work.

Like I said, there are infinitely more productive ways for me to spend my time. Hell, reading the Quarterly Review could grant me an insight into curing AIDS or cancer or some shit like that. All reading Blue Book will do is give me a headache and confirm my words.

And yet somehow you think you are going to explain something that the US government with all of its resources and experts were not able to explain and not put any work into it?

What resources and experts were put on this? Oh that's right, next to none because we were in the middle of the Cold War and we had other sinks to throw our money and time into that concerned themselves with staying ahead of the Soviets. Does it ever bother you that all of this "UFO" business started just after the Soviets launched Sputnik and picked up after the Apollo missions to the moon?

And many times the government did find an explanation, just not one that they put into words(Blue Book was a rather lackluster project). They didn't "find" an explanation for the event because there wasn't an event at all, just people lying and making shit up. Humans have been doing this throughout our entire history. How is this any different from some little girl in Europe somewhere seeing an image of the Virgin Mary because she's desperate for attention? Oh that's right, it isn't any different.

Oh, and many scientists have been over the Blue Book and found nothing in there that they couldn't explain(who knows, maybe they missed it). Carl Sagan was one of them, he even wrote a book on this very subject. Perhaps you should pick it up and give it a read, you might actually learn something.

That my friend is at best arrogance, at worst lazy and intellectually dishonest.

Lazy? Yes, most definitely. I could do the work but I'd rather spend my time doing other work that might actually be of benefit to humanity someday.

Arrogant? No, not at all. Arrogance would require that my high opinion of myself is undeserved, and it is most certainly not that.

Intellectually dishonest? Not a chance. Point out where I've been intellectually dishonest and I'll gladly admit it(links are preferable), but you won't find any instances where that's the case.

Arioch

11-11-11, 02:01 PM

@Rob --

but all I know is that no satisfactory explanation for it. All the explanations you have given seem totally bizarre as well sorry.

What, shitty camera work and a malfunctioning radar dish is bizarre? What are you smoking and where can I get some?

Robittybob1

11-11-11, 02:07 PM

@Rob --

What, shitty camera work and a malfunctioning radar dish is bizarre? What are you smoking and where can I get some?
Military base with a malfunctioning radar dish. I'm on the same weed as you are on!
Those guys that went up in the plane hoping to catch a glimpse of the UFO were terrified when it buzzed the aircraft, OK some of their nerves might have been a bit on edge! Wouldn't you be the same?

joepistole

11-11-11, 02:13 PM

@joe --

What, "Blue Book"? Oh yeah that's specific. Thousands of claims, thousands of investigations(all done halfassed because we were in the middle of a cold war and the government had much better things to worry about). Not exactly what you're claiming here is it. I asked for specifics and you give me the whole damn book saying "it's somewhere in there". Pardon me for having a life and not wanting to waste my time when I'm already more than 99% sure of what I'll find.

You have any proof Project Blue Book was "half assed"? No, of course you don't - just like all of your other claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book

@
Like I said, there are infinitely more productive ways for me to spend my time. Hell, reading the Quarterly Review could grant me an insight into curing AIDS or cancer or some shit like that. All reading Blue Book will do is give me a headache and confirm my words.

Not really my problem, but it you are not willing to do the work, then you should not be making claims that you cannot support.

@
What resources and experts were put on this? Oh that's right, next to none because we were in the middle of the Cold War and we had other sinks to throw our money and time into that concerned themselves with staying ahead of the Soviets. Does it ever bother you that all of this "UFO" business started just after the Soviets launched Sputnik and picked up after the Apollo missions to the moon?

Repetition gets you no where here. :)

@
And many times the government did find an explanation, just not one that they put into words(Blue Book was a rather lackluster project). They didn't "find" an explanation for the event because there wasn't an event at all, just people lying and making shit up. Humans have been doing this throughout our entire history. How is this any different from some little girl in Europe somewhere seeing an image of the Virgin Mary because she's desperate for attention? Oh that's right, it isn't any different.

A lot of serious allegations, so where is your proof? Oh that is right, you have none.

@
Oh, and many scientists have been over the Blue Book and found nothing in there that they couldn't explain(who knows, maybe they missed it). Carl Sagan was one of them, he even wrote a book on this very subject. Perhaps you should pick it up and give it a read, you might actually learn something.

Yes scientists have reviewed it. And in the scientific community, opinions are mixed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object#No_scientific_consensus

Some scientistist didn't believe in relativity. So what? History is full of scientists not seeing the forrest for the trees and becoming the victim of their congnative biases. So what does that prove?

@
Lazy? Yes, most definitely. I could do the work but I'd rather spend my time doing other work that might actually be of benefit to humanity someday.

Arrogant? No, not at all. Arrogance would require that my high opinion of myself is undeserved, and it is most certainly not that.

Intellectually dishonest? Not a chance. Point out where I've been intellectually dishonest and I'll gladly admit it(links are preferable), but you won't find any instances where that's the case.

LOL, I think I called it correctly. :) Why am I not suprised by any of this?

clusteringflux

11-11-11, 03:04 PM

Weeellll...admittedly Hynek did kind of convert, there.

Actually, weird story to relate here: I'm at a conference a few weeks back, right? Anyway, I does my bit, give my presentation, all that, and then at the end lots of groupies crowd around. So one of them is an older prof, MD/PhD from Northern Cali and he tells me that his brother-in-law was an actual rocket scientist who then got but on one of these UFO projects. So I'm kind of a buff, I ask him "Project Sign? Grudge? Blue Book?" and he doesn't know, but it's one of those, and apparently his brother-in-law tells him flat out one day "You know, UFOs are real."

Strange encounter. Didn't seem crazy, at least. Very odd.

hmm. How about one good reason why he should believe his brother-in-law?
I have to wonder if he even has a brother-in-law?
In fact, why the hell should we believe YOU? You spend your time giving speeches to insane people that spread lies.

That said, it was a very interesting story, geoffp..Thanks for sharing it.

Arioch

11-11-11, 04:28 PM

@joe --

You have any proof Project Blue Book was "half assed"? No, of course you don't - just like all of your other claims.

How about the fact that Project Blue Book was a military operation who's stated goal was the investigation, not of whether or not Aliens were visiting, but of whether or not something was a threat to our national security. They went into each and every investigation with the assumption that it was the Soviets and went from there. They weren't really trying to explain anything, just to ascertain if it was a threat. If that's not a half assed approach to an investigation(and it's demonstrably not a scientific approach) then nothing is.

If you need more evidence that Project Blue Book was half assed then just look in your own link(where my other evidence comes from as well) at Hynek's criticism. They obviously weren't following standard scientific procedure when it comes to investigations, which means that their findings are useless as evidence.

Not really my problem, but it you are not willing to do the work, then you should not be making claims that you cannot support.

Wait, it's not your problem that you refuse to give me specific examples that you find to be unexplainable, instead demanding that I search through all reports ever made? How the hell does that work. You said that some of the events were unexplainable, I said that if you gave me specifics that I could almost certainly explain them, you then told me "read Blue Book" which is about as far from specific as you can get. How is this not your fault again? Perhaps you, with your obviously superior brain can dumb it down enough for a foolish individual such as myself to understand. Or you could keep avoiding your burden of proof like you cranks always do, it's really up to you.

A lot of serious allegations, so where is your proof? Oh that is right, you have none.

My proof is contained in Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World, pick it up and read it(not very nice having a taste of your own medicine is it?).

Yes scientists have reviewed it. And in the scientific community, opinions are mixed.

Among scientists opinions are not really mixed, they pretty much agree that it's bunk, with physicists and cosmologists leading the way. You can't use a few outliers to establish a trend like this. Among psychiatrists opinions may be mixed, but most of psychiatry is pure bullshit anyways. So I really have no reason to accept what they say on the matter, especially when their argument is based on the strong emotions found within abductee accounts.

As for your link, it doesn't prove your point. All it really says is "there might be more observational data than we know", which is about the same as saying "it's in Blue Book, you just have to look.

Some scientistist didn't believe in relativity.

Faulty comparison. There aren't enough points of commonality between the two for a valid comparison to be made. You could contrast them, but I don't think that would do well for your argument here.

History is full of scientists not seeing the forrest for the trees and becoming the victim of their congnative biases. So what does that prove?

Because they were working from incomplete data sets and seriously hampered by religious intrusion. Can you give us any indication(that isn't just saying "read Blue Book") that we're working from an incomplete data set, or are you just going to keep pulling shit out of your ass?

Now, are you ever going to do the work to support your conclusion and give me some specific examples? Or are you going to leave your burden of proof unfulfilled?

Arioch

11-11-11, 04:29 PM

@Rob --

Military base with a malfunctioning radar dish. I'm on the same weed as you are on!

Hey, it happens.

GeoffP

11-11-11, 04:35 PM

hmm. How about one good reason why he should believe his brother-in-law?

:shrug: Seemed sincere? The brother-in-law could be crazed, mind. This is one of those instances where my gut tells me to believe the messenger.

I have to wonder if he even has a brother-in-law?

Well, again I cite his apparent sincerity. I'm not sure what he'd gain from making it up.

In fact, why the hell should we believe YOU? You spend your time giving speeches to insane people that spread lies.

:eek: How dare you, Sir? I'll have you know that I only give speeches to insane people that make up lies on retainer. I don't just run around doing it for free, you know.

That said, it was a very interesting story, geoffp..Thanks for sharing it.

Money. Now.

Boris2

11-11-11, 04:47 PM

http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/sec-i.htm

We believe that the existing record and the results of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects of the University of Colorado, which are presented in detail in subsequent sections of this report, support the conclusions and recommendations which follow.

As indicated by its title, the emphasis of this study has been on attempting to learn from UFO reports anything that could be considered as adding to scientific knowledge. Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.

It has been argued that this lack of contribution to science is due to the fact that very little scientific effort has been put on the subject. We do not agree. We feel that the reason that there has been very little scientific study of the subject is that those scientists who are most directly concerned, astronomers, atmospheric physicists, chemists, and psychologists, having had ample opportunity to look into the matter, have individually decided that UFO phenomena do not offer a fruitful field in which to look for major scientific discoveries.

This conclusion is so important, and the public seems in general to have so little understanding of how scientists work, that some more comment on it seems desirable. Each person who sets out to make a career of scientific research, chooses a general field of broad specialization in which to acquire proficiency. Within that field he looks for specific fields in which to work. To do this he keeps abreast of the published scientific literature, attends scientific meetings, where reports on current progress are given, and energetically discusses his interests and those of his colleagues both face-to-face and by

correspondence with them. He is motivated by an active curiosity about nature and by a personal desire to make a contribution to science. He is constantly probing for error and incompleteness in the efforts that have been made in his fields of interest, and looking for new ideas about new ways to attack new problems. From this effort he arrives at personal decisions as to where his own effort can be most fruitful. These decisions are personal in the sense that he must estimate his own intellectual limitations, and the limitations inherent in the working situation in which he finds himself, including limits on the support of his work, or his involvement with other pre-existing scientific commitments. While individual errors of judgment may arise, it is generally not true that all of the scientists who are actively cultivating a given field of science are wrong for very long.

more at link.

joepistole

11-11-11, 06:18 PM

@joe --

How about the fact that Project Blue Book was a military operation who's stated goal was the investigation, not of whether or not Aliens were visiting, but of whether or not something was a threat to our national security. They went into each and every investigation with the assumption that it was the Soviets and went from there. They weren't really trying to explain anything, just to ascertain if it was a threat. If that's not a half assed approach to an investigation(and it's demonstrably not a scientific approach) then nothing is.

If you need more evidence that Project Blue Book was half assed then just look in your own link(where my other evidence comes from as well) at Hynek's criticism. They obviously weren't following standard scientific procedure when it comes to investigations, which means that their findings are useless as evidence.

I just love your charming knack of ignoring evidence and creating evidence to back your biases. If you are pursuing a career in science, it will be pretty lack luster. Because your cognative biases are interfering with your thinking.

This was previously provided to you and previously ignored:

"Project Blue Book was one of a series of systematic studies of unidentified flying objects (UFOs) conducted by the United States Air Force. Started in 1952, it was the second revival of such a study (the first two of its kind being Projects Sign and Grudge). A termination order was given for the study in December 1969, and all activity under its auspices ceased in January 1970.

Project Blue Book had two goals:
1.to determine if UFOs were a threat to national security, and
2.to scientifically analyze UFO-related data.

Thousands of UFO reports were collected, analyzed and filed. As the result of the Condon Report, which concluded there was nothing anomalous about UFOs, Project Blue Book was ordered shut down in December 1969 and the Air Force continues to provide the following summary of its investigations:

1.No UFO reported, investigated and evaluated by the Air Force was ever an indication of threat to our national security;
2.There was no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represented technological developments or principles beyond the range of modern scientific knowledge; and
3.There was no evidence indicating that sightings categorized as "unidentified" were extraterrestrial vehicles.[1]

By the time Project Blue Book ended, it had collected 12,618 UFO reports, and concluded that most of them were misidentifications of natural phenomena (clouds, stars, etc.) or conventional aircraft. According to the National Reconnaissance Office a number of the reports could be explained by flights of the formerly secret reconnaissance planes U-2 and A-12.[2] A small percentage of UFO reports were classified as unexplained, even after stringent analysis. The UFO reports were archived and are available under the Freedom of Information Act, but names and other personal information of all witnesses have been changed." - Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book

Kinda of goes against your premise doesn't it. :) You still have not proven your claim.

@
Wait, it's not your problem that you refuse to give me specific examples that you find to be unexplainable, instead demanding that I search through all reports ever made? How the hell does that work. You said that some of the events were unexplainable, I said that if you gave me specifics that I could almost certainly explain them, you then told me "read Blue Book" which is about as far from specific as you can get. How is this not your fault again? Perhaps you, with your obviously superior brain can dumb it down enough for a foolish individual such as myself to understand. Or you could keep avoiding your burden of proof like you cranks always do, it's really up to you.

Nice example of illogical thinking - creating a straw man. Your unwillingess to do the work necessary to back up your claims is not my issue. It is your issue. You were given very credible and specific examples. Your refusal to use that information is not my problem.

And if you are not willing to read Project Blue Book, the source material, then you really are not serious and letting your biases control your decision making.

@
My proof is contained in Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World, pick it up and read it(not very nice having a taste of your own medicine is it?).

Been there done that, I agree with Sagan's thesis advocating critical thinking which was the point of his book. The book was not about UFO's although he did use the phenomena as an example. My point is that skeptical thinking should not have a one way sign on it. It should be applied to every side. It should not be applied selectively.

@
Among scientists opinions are not really mixed, they pretty much agree that it's bunk, with physicists and cosmologists leading the way. You can't use a few outliers to establish a trend like this. Among psychiatrists opinions may be mixed, but most of psychiatry is pure bullshit anyways. So I really have no reason to accept what they say on the matter, especially when their argument is based on the strong emotions found within abductee accounts.

Oh so you are speaking for all scientists now? Where is your proof. You seem to like living in a world with out proofs and full of biases. It is obvious you have a bias against psychiatrists. A rather dangerous bias at that. Science is getting pretty good at understanding and manipulating human behavior. I make a very good living exploiting human biases in the financial markets every day.

@
As for your link, it doesn't prove your point. All it really says is "there might be more observational data than we know", which is about the same as saying "it's in Blue Book, you just have to look.

Oh, and just what is my point?

@
Faulty comparison. There aren't enough points of commonality between the two for a valid comparison to be made. You could contrast them, but I don't think that would do well for your argument here.

No it is not a faulty comparison. It is a fact, that time and time again "scientists" have been victims of their biases. The topic is different, but the decision making is very much the same. And you my young friend are missing the forrest for the trees.

@
Because they were working from incomplete data sets and seriously hampered by religious intrusion. Can you give us any indication(that isn't just saying "read Blue Book") that we're working from an incomplete data set, or are you just going to keep pulling shit out of your ass?

Excuses. We live in an incomplete data set. I don't really understand your point, if you have any. And what is religion, but just another bias. Here is a fact my young friend, you are human. And you are very biased. The fact that you are unable or unwilling to accept this aspect of your humanity puts you in peril.

We have data and then we have decision making. The two are very different, you seem not be able to see the difference.

@
Now, are you ever going to do the work to support your conclusion and give me some specific examples? Or are you going to leave your burden of proof unfulfilled?

I have given you examples. Your unwillingess to do the required homework is not my problem. If you are not willing to do the homework as appears to be the case, then what makes you think you can solve something the US government with all of its resources was unable to do?

Arioch

11-11-11, 06:39 PM

joepistole

11-11-11, 07:23 PM

It is exactly your fault. I asked for specific examples and you throw the entirety of Project Blue Book at me, like that means anything. If you're not going to provide me with specifics, like you claimed you did when you asked me to review thousands of individual cases(which is demonstrably not specific) then at least have the integrity to admit it.

With regards to your claims about my character, it's time to put up or shut up. Either show, with links, where I've been intellectually dishonest or drop it. I've already addressed all of your criticisms in this thread so either source up or STFU.

No you have not addressed my criticisms. You have responded with a series of illogical arguements (straw men).

Alright, I will give you some help. But you need to be serious and give some thought to this and not just pop off the first thing that come into your head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Zamora

Pineal

11-11-11, 07:34 PM

Pineal

11-11-11, 07:37 PM

Plus, as I've been saying for years, their dreary boring lives which leaves them yearning for something exciting!Well, there's a hypothesis....
people who believe that (at least some) UFOs are alien technology believe this because their lives are boring and yearn for something exciting. And it is a potentially falsifiable hypothesis and I can even think of ways to begin doing the research. But note, here we have a belief in advance of any such research. Or this person is a psychic and can just 'tell' what these people have as lives and the causal pattern in their brains related to this.

Pineal

11-11-11, 07:39 PM

@Joey --

Why the hell would they want our DNA? yes, if we went to another planet where there was life, we wouldn't collect their genetic chemicals.

clusteringflux

11-11-11, 08:03 PM

:shrug: Seemed sincere? The brother-in-law could be crazed, mind. This is one of those instances where my gut tells me to believe the messenger.

This is really just a waste of my time..Which is exactly what I told two friends that got laser scanned by a giant flying pyramid ..Ya know, quit blubbering and produce a body already.

:eek: How dare you, Sir? I'll have you know that I only give speeches to insane people that make up lies on retainer. I don't just run around doing it for free, you know.

Money. Now.

Sounds real horror show. Never an empty seat. Imagine what you could charge if you could arrive in an black anti-gravity pyramid with sweet rims.

Anyway I read through this old thing and noticed that Condon in all six pages never asserts that there is "NO EVIDENCE" as the White House is now quoted saying.
Rather it states that IOW, the resources are better spent elsewhere.Course I'm sure one could feel a bit outwitted chasing shadows for years.

hmm.I just thought of a great reality TV show idea. A one off that no one would forget. It ends with the host in either Guantanamo or a straight jacket..Where did that Pincho fella get off to?..I need cast members.

http://files.ncas.org/condon/text/sec-i.htm

We believe that the existing record and the results of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects of the University of Colorado, which are presented in detail in subsequent sections of this report, support the conclusions and recommendations which follow.

As indicated by its title, the emphasis of this study has been on attempting to learn from UFO reports anything that could be considered as adding to scientific knowledge. Our general conclusion is that nothing has come from the study of UFOs in the past 21 years that has added to scientific knowledge. Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.

It has been argued that this lack of contribution to science is due to the fact that very little scientific effort has been put on the subject. We do not agree. We feel that the reason that there has been very little scientific study of the subject is that those scientists who are most directly concerned, astronomers, atmospheric physicists, chemists, and psychologists, having had ample opportunity to look into the matter, have individually decided that UFO phenomena do not offer a fruitful field in which to look for major scientific discoveries.

This conclusion is so important, and the public seems in general to have so little understanding of how scientists work, that some more comment on it seems desirable. Each person who sets out to make a career of scientific research, chooses a general field of broad specialization in which to acquire proficiency. Within that field he looks for specific fields in which to work. To do this he keeps abreast of the published scientific literature, attends scientific meetings, where reports on current progress are given, and energetically discusses his interests and those of his colleagues both face-to-face and by

correspondence with them. He is motivated by an active curiosity about nature and by a personal desire to make a contribution to science. He is constantly probing for error and incompleteness in the efforts that have been made in his fields of interest, and looking for new ideas about new ways to attack new problems. From this effort he arrives at personal decisions as to where his own effort can be most fruitful. These decisions are personal in the sense that he must estimate his own intellectual limitations, and the limitations inherent in the working situation in which he finds himself, including limits on the support of his work, or his involvement with other pre-existing scientific commitments. While individual errors of judgment may arise, it is generally not true that all of the scientists who are actively cultivating a given field of science are wrong for very long.

more at link.

Gustav

11-12-11, 02:33 AM

gee joe
you sure did dispatch the woo woos with ease

/impressed

Arioch

11-12-11, 03:28 AM

@joe --

Well from the account listed in the link I suspect a hoax(there have been thousands of confirmed hoaxes including nearly all crop circles). The only anomaly in that explanation is the apparent speed, but given Zamora's obvious state of shock that's easily put down to human error. The apparent lack of sound can be accredited to shock as well(I know first hand that a state of shock can cause temporary deafness, from first hand experience).

Hell, I could probably build something that would produce an almost identical effect, the only thing I would have real difficulty replicating would be the supposed speed of the object, other than that it sounds like something a first year engineering student could build in his garage(I should know, my friend built a nuke in his first year).

While this may have "truly boggled" people at Project Blue Book(though I doubt it did), who were admittedly mostly interested in whether or not something was a threat to national security, and who were(in Hynek's own words) not pursuing investigations in a scientific manner, there really isn't anything that's difficult to explain here.

I thought that you were going to give me a hard one.

PS: I haven't caricatured any of your arguments, not once. So there have been no straw man arguments. Kindly either demonstrate this claim to be true or retract it as a lie.

phlogistician

11-12-11, 08:18 AM

and apparently his brother-in-law tells him flat out one day "You know, UFOs are real."

Strange encounter. Didn't seem crazy, at least. Very odd.

Conversely, I worked with a bunch of Astronomers, and down the hall was the Earth Observation Department. Also, as part of my job, I maintained some tracking software that had formerly been classified, and eventually, through an unrelated avenue, met one of the guys that developed it.

Nobody at any of these places had ever detected a UFO.

Oh, and I'm an Air Force brat, and none of the pilots I ever met had seen one either.

But it falls back down on what people classify as a UFO. Some people see Venus, which isn't flying, and it gets called a UFO. Some people see stars, or clouds, which don't fly either. I really don't like the term UFO.

Gustav

11-12-11, 12:59 PM

mmm
i have never seen a black swan
nor have my friends

/suitably dumbed down and disingenuous

Arioch

11-12-11, 03:11 PM

@Gustav --

I'd be willing to bet that they've never seen a fairy or the Loch Ness Monster either, do you just blindly accept their existence too?

GeoffP

11-12-11, 03:27 PM

Conversely, I worked with a bunch of Astronomers, and down the hall was the Earth Observation Department. Also, as part of my job, I maintained some tracking software that had formerly been classified, and eventually, through an unrelated avenue, met one of the guys that developed it.

Nobody at any of these places had ever detected a UFO.

Oh, and I'm an Air Force brat, and none of the pilots I ever met had seen one either.

But it falls back down on what people classify as a UFO. Some people see Venus, which isn't flying, and it gets called a UFO. Some people see stars, or clouds, which don't fly either. I really don't like the term UFO.

True: personal experience is personal experience. It lends a religious quality to the discussion, sometimes. Nonetheless, it's hard to deny, in a weird way: the guy wasn't a crackpot so near as I could tell (scientific meeting) and seems to be well-respected. He could still just be wrong, of course.

Arioch

11-12-11, 04:51 PM

@GeoffP --

Everyone is subject to delusions and hallucinations.

joepistole

11-12-11, 04:54 PM

@joe --

Well from the account listed in the link I suspect a hoax(there have been thousands of confirmed hoaxes including nearly all crop circles).

Suspect all you want, but that is not proof. And now you are back to illogical arguements. So what does a confirmed unrelated hoax have to do with this incident? Nothing.

@
The only anomaly in that explanation is the apparent speed, but given Zamora's obvious state of shock that's easily put down to human error. The apparent lack of sound can be accredited to shock as well(I know first hand that a state of shock can cause temporary deafness, from first hand experience).

And just exactly what induced this shock? Did the shock occur before the observed event or after it? Then there is the small matter of other observers. You are desperately grasping.

@
Hell, I could probably build something that would produce an almost identical effect, the only thing I would have real difficulty replicating would be the supposed speed of the object, other than that it sounds like something a first year engineering student could build in his garage(I should know, my friend built a nuke in his first year).

So you are saying that the Air Force personnel involved in the event, didn't know what they were talking about? And you are telling me that you could build a supersonic verticle takeoff aircraft - without wings. Now if that were true, you would be a very rich individual. Because that technology does not yet exist. And governments spent decades and billions of dollars developing winged vertical takeoff aircraft beginging in the 80's. The facts are Ramora, a credible wittness by all accounts, observed an event that cannot be explained away by the technology of the time and even now.

In order to believe your account for which you have zero evidence, Zamora would have had to be in a state of shock before he observed the event. And your claims about being able to build something similar in your garage is just arrrogance and ignorance speaking.

I don't think you are going to have to worry about taking extra classes because no matter how much you know, you are not going to be able to effectively use the information. You will not be able to innovate and connect the dots, because your biases are obviously impeding your ability to reason.

Group think never innovated anything.

@
While this may have "truly boggled" people at Project Blue Book(though I doubt it did), who were admittedly mostly interested in whether or not something was a threat to national security, and who were(in Hynek's own words) not pursuing investigations in a scientific manner, there really isn't anything that's difficult to explain here.

I thought that you were going to give me a hard one.

PS: I haven't caricatured any of your arguments, not once. So there have been no straw man arguments. Kindly either demonstrate this claim to be true or retract it as a lie.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of a straw man my young friend. And a course in logic might be of some assistance as well as you keep making illogical arguements (e.g. your first paragraph, there have been other unrelated hoaxes, crop circles, so this UFO observation must be also regardless of the facts).

If you doubt that this case truely boggled the people at Project Blue Book, then where is your supporting evidence? Oh that's right, you don't have any - just as in each of your previous posts. So let's looking at what you are doing. You are ignoring evidence and replacing it with your personal biases and supposition. You have zero facts and even less reason.

You are never going to get anywhere in science doing the the group think thing -ignoring evidence and reason in preference for an emotional bias.

Arioch

11-12-11, 05:38 PM

@joe --

A straw man argument is a deliberate caricature of an opposing argument set up with the intention of being easy to win against. I have not done that once.

As for the evidence you want, give me a few days to turn some shit up. You seem to be willing to give your guys decades to find evidence(seeing as they haven't found any yet).

joepistole

11-12-11, 07:15 PM

@joe --

A straw man argument is a deliberate caricature of an opposing argument set up with the intention of being easy to win against. I have not done that once.

LOL, yeah. I sure hope you sign up for a class in logic. No that is not the definition of a straw man. And you have used the straw man along with other fallacies many times in this thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2] Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated[citation needed] or over-simplified version of the opponent's original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent's actual statement." - Wikipedia

@
As for the evidence you want, give me a few days to turn some shit up. You seem to be willing to give your guys decades to find evidence(seeing as they haven't found any yet).

I gave you a specific Project Blue Book incident that could not be explained by The United States government and has not been solved by anyone in the subsequent 40 plus years. And you pull a bunch of preposterous stuff out of the aether and claim to solve it with zero evidence and even less reasoning. That is not how science works my friend.

I await your evidence and a better story. :)

phlogistician

11-13-11, 04:24 AM

mmm
i have never seen a black swan
nor have my friends

/suitably dumbed down and disingenuous

http://www.gfilotto.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Black_Swan.jpg

I looked for one that was blurry and out of focus to make it more convincing to a woo woo, but couldn't find one! ROFL!

Gustav

11-13-11, 04:30 AM

obviously photoshopped

ROFL+LMAO

Arioch

11-13-11, 05:32 AM

joepistole

11-13-11, 02:41 PM

@joe --

When did I claim I solved it? I offered up a very plausible explanation. Nothing in that report other than the reported speed were outside of the ability of the technology of the time to produce, and the speed can be accounted for due to the state of shock that Zamora admitted he was in(hence the stumbling around he described himself doing).

Oh yes you did, you went further and said gee that was easy. And no you did not offer up a plausible explanation. The US government admitted that it could not offer a plausible explanation. What you did is what you have consistently done throughout this thread - do a turd dump and ignore the facts of the case.

So you are now saying, in 1964 the US government had a verticle take off craft that flew at supersonic speeds with out wings? Hell we don't even have that today. And as previously pointed out to you, it was not until the late 80's and 90's that the British and US governments introduced winged verticle take off aircraft. You had previously claimed you could do this in your garage. A claim that ignores current reality not to mention the technology of almost 50 years ago when pocket calculators didn't exist.

Your theory is that Zamora was in a state of shock, but you have yet to prove it. And I asked you previously, and which you have not answered, what cause this shock you are advocating? Your explanation flies in the face of the known physical laws of this universe. In our universe cause preceeds effect. In your explanation, effect preceeds cause.

@
As for what caused the state of shock, could it have been seeing the thing itself? People merely hearing about the attacks on 9/11 went into shock, any truly unexpected event can cause one to enter a state of shock. It doesn't matter whether it happened before, during, or after(altering the memory, another thing which has been proven to happen in the human brain).

Did any of those folks you reference see the things Zamora reported? Did any of those people reinvent history? I was shocked as I think the world was when I saw what happened on 9/11 but here is the thing, I didn't nor did anyone else go around and start hallucinating. In order for your idea to be correct and comparison relevant, we would have all had to go around hallucinating for a period of time. That is not what happened. And your idea, just does not hold up even in a light breeze.

@
A hoax plus shock explains everything, even the other observers(none of whom noted the speed). Do I have physical evidence that shock is what caused the sensory distortion? No, I can't. However it is the best explanation that fits the evidence, it's certainly a lot better than aliens, hell, positing that god did it would be just as bad as saying aliens did it. Given the available explanations, this one is the best.

You don't have any evidence that seeing what Zamora did would cause hallucinations and memory defects. If you could put together a coherent logical story that would explain the Zamora incident, then I would agree. But you have not, nor has anyone since the incident occured in 1964. And is there evidence of a hoax? Did Project Blue Book (which had a distinct anti-UFO bias) find any evidence of a hoax? NO. So there you are again, with out a shred of evidence to support any of your claims. Do you have proof Zamora reinvented history? No you don't. Project Blue Book found him to be a very credible wittness. Did Project Blue Book say it was proof positive of an alien encounter? Did I say that? No I didn't. That is you creating another straw man. And if you took the time to do you homework, you would have known that other people saw the object Zamora wittnessed.

The best explanation is that this remains unexplained. Just because you cannot explain something, it does not mean you have to invent something and distort and ignore reality in the process. Two no one is saying that aliens were involved here - that is you creating another straw man. The arguement is that this incident has not been explained and remains unsolved. You yield to your biases rather than look at the incident objectively.

--------

@
I notice that you like to skirt your burden of proof as well. Saying "oh there are unexplained accounts" doesn't prove your argument, it's mere semantics. Why don't you provide some evidence.

And if you're going to accuse me of making straw man arguments then at least have the decency to point out where I did so. Please include the post number when you do so. If you don't then I'll have no choice but to report you for character assassination.

LOL, just where I failed to provide proof? I gave you an example of a UFO incident that has not been explained. I proved my point. You have not proven yours. Go ahead and report me for "character assassination". Because I have done no such thing (not to mention I don't think there is any such rule here at Sciforums), and I think that is very clear. I have just pointed out your use of illogical arguements and that your claims are short on facts and evidence. I have even given you the definitation of a straw man arguement. I suggest you look at your posts and go back and tell me were you used illogical arguements. I have previously pointed out those arguements as you made them - no need to do it again.

You have proven what I have been saying all along. People like you, the anti-alien nothing to see here crowd, have to ignore evidence in order for them to come to their conclusions regarding the UFO phenomena. The pro-alien crowd need to create facts not in evidence in order to sustain their position on the matter - something you have done in an attempt to discredit a credible observation. A realistic, an objective position on the issue of UFO's is to say that it is a phenomena that cannot yet be fully and adequately explained. There may be aliens visiting us. And aliens may not be visiting us. At best, the evidence is inconclusive. And there is little doubt that the UFO field is vexed with a bunch of kooks predominately on the pro-alien side of the fence.

Sometimes the right answer is, I/we don't know. Sometimes the evidence is inconclusive as it is with UFO's. And that is ok. One of the points that I have been trying repeatedly to get through to you on, is that you should not become a victim of your biases. It is not easy. But if you can manage your biases rather than they managing you, your life will be much more productive. And if you can manage your biases, you just may be the person who solves world hunger. But you will never solve world hunger if you are going to summarily dismiss things you don't understand or do not want to understand (e.g. psychology, UFO's).

Listen grasshopper and learn:

"Master Po: Close your eyes. What do you hear?
Young Caine: I hear the water, I hear the birds.
Po: Do you hear your own heartbeat?
Caine: No.
Po: Do you hear the grasshopper which is at your feet?
Caine: Old man, how is it that you hear these things?
Po: Young man, how is it that you do not?[4]" - Wikipedia, Kung Fu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_(TV_series)

Boris2

11-13-11, 04:00 PM

i have never seen a black swan

you should come to australia, it's all we've bloody got here.

Gustav

11-13-11, 04:25 PM

bah
it was intended as a metaphor (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/books/chapters/0422-1st-tale.html)

GeoffP

11-13-11, 05:11 PM

@GeoffP --

Everyone is subject to delusions and hallucinations.

Does everyone have them?

The Esotericist

11-14-11, 01:25 PM

http://www.segnidalcielo.it/segnal1.jpg
click to listen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9PAxFzxx9M)

http://thelivingmoon.com/46_mike_singh/04images/Saturn/SaturnRingobject.gif

Really want the truth? Like, the truth from a NASA scientist?
Norman Bergrun (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/688988.Norman_R_Bergrun)
This is the real truth here. This is the stuff the establishment doesn't want you to know about. You can't find this guy mentioned on Wikipedia, even though he is relatively famous in a certain community. For a while, his site was plagued with Trojan horses and viruses. I won't go there, I'll go to other sites to get the information. His book is out of print, and sells for an astronomical amount of $$$.

http://www.amazon.com/Ring-makers-Saturn-Norman-R-Bergrun/dp/0946270333

http://www.ringmakersofsaturn.com/

http://www.segnidalcielo.it/astronavi%20saturno5.jpg
Pictures taken by the Hubble Space Telescope in 1996

http://cydoniaestates.com/images/stories/astronavi%20saturno4.jpg
Norman Bergrun had undertaken a detailed study of images from NASA's space probes Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 related images of Saturn's rings. He discovered how the rings are formed by electromagnetic radiation emerging from gigantic vehicles (EMV) and that these are controlled by a form of extraterrestrial intelligence.

One of these mysterious spaceships appear to have a diameter close to that of the Earth and another has more than fifty thousand kilometers in length! In his book "Ringmakers of Saturn" Dr. Norman R. Bergrun, in collaboration with Walter Vincenti, professor emeritus of aeronautics and astronautics at Stanford University, described the rings of Saturn and in fact are not entirely natural, but artificially constructed from gigantic cylindrical spaceship ET - vehicles operating in the vicinity of Saturn . Who is doing by creating these rings and other artificial devices in our solar system? What is the reason for all this? Do not forget that Col. Philip Corso in 1947 had an encounter with a being ET. In this meeting Corso asked which planet they came, and what were their purposes. The answer was: we are the creators, "We are also called IGIGI. They are therefore the creators of the world? If we read the ancient Sumerian texts (Enuma Elish) the famous Nephilim were described as creators and the Guardians of the Worlds.

That's all I know. IMO it's obtuse to believe there isn't more going on than we can see. Someone buy this book by these scholars and tell me what's going on. For some reason, my library doesn't have it, and I can't get it via inter-electronic library loan.

Gustav

11-14-11, 02:17 PM

you can have the pdf (http://www.box.net/s/menjtjpuxrm8rvcz6hq3) for......your first born

Arioch

11-14-11, 02:28 PM

@GeoffP --

Does everyone have them?

Usually at some point in their life, yes. Occasionally someone will sneak by and die without having a hallucination, but those are outliers in the data set now that infant mortality is down to historic lows(hopefully dropping to zero at some point in the future), unless we weren't counting those. Some people are more prone to such experiences than others are, and circumstance has a large role to play as well(I'm not overly prone to hallucination but I've experience many in my life due to trauma and shock), but the human brain is always subject to both hallucination and memory revision.

In fact the latter is something that each of us do unconsciously every day of our lives. Hence why I don't exactly take eyewitness testimony at face value, I actually understand why and how it's flawed.

The Esotericist

11-14-11, 02:37 PM

you can have the pdf (http://www.box.net/s/menjtjpuxrm8rvcz6hq3) for......your first born

Thanks, you're a good friend. :p

Gustav

11-14-11, 03:14 PM

Does everyone have them?

visual and auditory hallucinations are fairly common during the onset of sleep cycles. at other times, auditory is more common ("did you call me?") than visuals but both are rare

mass hallucinations are bullshit, barring a shared vector (ergot poisoning) it is the power of suggestion that is at play.

always take apa stats with a grain of salt. as far as they are concerned, we all are neurotic schizoids that have to be medicated for our own good

GeoffP

11-14-11, 09:11 PM

@GeoffP --

Usually at some point in their life, yes.

I appreciate that people do have hallucinations, but citing them to reject UFO observations is speculative. If unexplained before hallucinations are invoked, they remain so afterwards, barring evidence of comorbid mental symptoms.

visual and auditory hallucinations are fairly common during the onset of sleep cycles. at other times, auditory is more common ("did you call me?") than visuals but both are rare

mass hallucinations are bullshit, barring a shared vector (ergot poisoning) it is the power of suggestion that is at play.

always take apa stats with a grain of salt. as far as they are concerned, we all are neurotic schizoids that have to be medicated for our own good

Well, there's something to be said for this.

Arioch

11-14-11, 10:36 PM

@Gustav --

You're wrong again. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun)

Gustav

11-15-11, 01:35 AM

a non sequiter par excellence

The Esotericist

11-15-11, 11:05 PM

It doesn't matter. . . that cat is already out of the bag. Most people that have done the research can't be bullshitted anymore. We have something called the FOIA.

Official ET Disclosure? --> "NSA Document Admits ET Contact" By Kevin W. Smith (http://www.ufodigest.com/article/official-et-disclosure-nsa-document-admits-et-contact-kevin-w-smith)

http://www.ufodigest.com/sites/default/files/Sputnik.jpg
"On October 21, 2004, the NSA approved for release to the public a portion of their NSA Journal Vol. XIV No. 1. This is a report of a presentation given to the NSA by Dr. Howard Campaigne regarding the decoding of extraterrestrial messages that had been received �from outer space�. Apparently, these messages had actually been received via the Sputnik satellite, but no one had any idea how to decode them at the time."

Here is the link to the now unclassified NSA report if anyone is interested. . . it really isn't that interesting, and it's pretty hard to read b/c it is so old. I don't know if it is the police state we live in, my server, or what. . . but some of these documents I have a real hard time with, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't.

Here's the NSA site I found it at. . .
http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/ufo/index.shtml
And here is the document. . .
Key to the Extraterrestrial Messages by H. Campaigne (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/key_to_et_messages.pdf)

There are some other interesting documents in there I would like to read. . . but for some reason, the NSA won't let me have all the data in them. . . . :scratchin:
-----------------------------
Anyway, my server won't allow me to access these following articles. . . if anyone has any luck, more power to ya! :p

UK Guardian: FBI Destroyed Many UFO Reports
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/11/fbi-destroys-ufo-reports

Yahoo News UK: FBI Documents Indicate UFO Landings
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/38/20110411/tod-fbi-documents-indicate-ufo-landings-045b8e8.html

Washington Post: FBI Releases Roswell Memo About Three Bodies of Human Shape
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/fbi-releases-roswell-memo-about-three-bodies-of-human-shape/2011/04/11/AF58CTKD_blog.html?fb_ref=NetworkNews

AlexG

11-15-11, 11:33 PM

When you google Dr. Howard Campaigne, all you get are conspiracy and UFO web sites.

Gustav

11-15-11, 11:37 PM

maybe the ww2 veteran died before geocities started offering websites for all and sundry?

The Esotericist

11-15-11, 11:37 PM

http://vault.fbi.gov/hottel_guy/Guy%20Hottel%20Part%201%20of%201/view

The Esotericist

11-15-11, 11:38 PM

When you google Dr. Howard Campaigne, all you get are conspiracy and UFO web sites.

Yeah, well, he worked for the NSA. . . .

That's a Red herring. Nice Appeal to ridicule. Totally irrelevant.

river

11-18-11, 11:15 PM

whats interesting is that most of the world is opening up to the reality of UFO and extraterrestrials but the US doesn't

why is this ?

Repo Man

11-18-11, 11:31 PM

whats interesting is that most of the world is opening up to the reality of UFO and extraterrestrials but the US doesn't

why is this ?

Appeal to popularity fallacy. Thus far there has been no credible evidence that any UFO was of extra terrestrial origin.

river

11-18-11, 11:48 PM

� Originally Posted by river
whats interesting is that most of the world is opening up to the reality of UFO and extraterrestrials but the US doesn't

why is this ?

Appeal to popularity fallacy. Thus far there has been no credible evidence that any UFO was of extra terrestrial origin.

ahh... I see

so hence the US doesn't open the books on UFO's and extra-terrestrials because " thus far there is no credible evidence that any UFO was of extra-terrestrial origin "

well then any evidence they have , should be open to the public then , whats the problem

The Esotericist

11-19-11, 09:40 AM

Appeal to popularity fallacy. Thus far there has been no credible evidence that any UFO was of extra terrestrial origin.

Did you not read the NSA reports? The FBI memo? The book by the NASA scientist? Or look over the Hubble space telescope images that reconfirmed his findings? Are you purposefully being obtuse?

The onus to disprove disclosure is on you now.

Here's the Bibliography for Dr. Norman Bergrun's research for his book (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2856117&postcount=94), that Gustav was so kind to provide the link for us. Perhaps you would like to "debunk" this seminal work for us? :confused:

Bibliography*
Books
David Morrison, Voyages to Saturn (NASA SP-451, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C. 1982).
The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Astronomy, Simon Mitton, Editor-in-Chief (Crown
Publishers Inc., New York, 1981).
Louis Bell, The Telescope (Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1981).
David Morrison, Voyage to Jupiter (NASA SP-439, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C, 1980).
Carl Sagan, Cosmos (Random House, New York, 1980).
William J. Kaufman III, Galaxies and Quasars (W. J. Freeman and Company, San
Francisco, 1979).
Bevan M. French, The Moon Book (Penguin Books, New York, 1978).
Lloyd Motz and Annetta Duveen, Essentials of Astronomy (Columbia University
Press, New York, 1977).
John Baxter and Thomas Atkins, The Fire Came By - The Riddle of the Great Siberian
Explosion (Warner Books, New York, 1976).
S. V. Dresvin, Physics and Technology of Low-Temperature Plasma (Moscow, USSR
1972. English translation published by Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA,
1977).
Norman R. Bergrun, Tomorrow's Technology Today (Academy Press, Cupertino, CA,
1972).
Robert L. Johnson, The Story of the Moon (Meredith Corporation, Chicago, 1969).
Franklin Miller, Jr., College Physics (Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York,
1967).
Peter van de Kamp, Elements of Astro-mechanics (W. H. Freeman and Company, San
Francisco, 1964).
A. F. O'D. Alexander, The Planet Saturn - A History of Observations, Theory and
Discovery (Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1962).
Arthur I. Berman, Astronautics - Fundamentals of Dynamical Astronomy and Space
Flight (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1961).
George P. Sutton, Rocket Propulsion Elements (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
1956).
Samuel Glasstone, Sourcebook on Atomic Energy (D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.,
New York, 1950).
H. Glauert, The Elements of Aerofoil and Airscrew Theory (Cambridge at the
University Press, 1947).
Sir Horace Lamb, Hydrodynamics (Dover Publications, New York, 1945).
Elliot G. Reid, Applied Wing Theory (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York,
107
RINGMAKERS OF SATURN
Reference Books
Information Please Almanac, Atlas and Yearbook, Edited by Ann Golenpaul (Information
Please Almanac, New York, 1977).
Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, Edited by Joseph L. Morse and William H.
Hedelson. Vol. 8, Electricity, pp 423-439 (Funk and Wagnalls, Inc., New York,
1972).
The World Almanac and Book of Facts, Edited by Luman H. Long (New York World-
Telegram, New York, 1966).
Handbook of Fluid Dynamics, Victor L. Streeter, Editor-in-Chief (McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., New York, 1961).
Mechanical Engineers Handbook, 4th edition, Edited by Lionel S. Marks (McGraw-
Hill Book Company Inc., 1941).
Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers, 7th edition, Archer E. Knowlton, Editorin-
Chief (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1941).
Periodicals
Science (The American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, Washington
D.C.).
D. R. Davis et al., 'Saturn Ring Particles as Dynamic Ephemeral Bodies' (Vol.
224, No. 4650, 18 May 1984) pp 744-746.
H. A. Zebher and G. Leonard Tyler, 'Thickness of Saturn's Rings Inferred from
Voyager 1 Observations of Microwave Scatter' (Vol. 223, No. 4634, 27 January
1984) pp 396 and 397.
Eugene M. Rasmusson and John M. Wallace, 'Meteorological Aspects of the El
Nino Southern Oscillation' (Vol. 222, No. 4629, 16 December 1983) pp 1195-
1202.
Richard A. Kerr, 'Neptune Ring Fades Again' (Vol. 222, No. 4621, 21 October
1983) p 311.
Richard A. Kerr, 'Where Was the Moon Eons Ago?' (Vol. 221, No. 4616, 16
September 1983) p 1166.
Roger Lewin, 'What Killed the Giant Mammals?' (Vol. 221, No. 4615, 9
September 1983) pp 1036-1037.
D. D. Bogard and P. Johnson, 'Martian Gases in an Antarctic Meteorite?' (Vol.
221, No. 4611, 12 August 1983) pp 651-654.
Philip H. Abelson, 'Large-Scale Extinctions' Vol. 220, No. 4592, 1 April 1983)
P9.
Richard A. Kerr, 'Orbital Variation - Ice Age Link Strengthened' (Vol. 219, No.
4582, 21 January 1983) pp 272-274.
Jack J. Lissauer, 'Saturn's Rings' (Vol. 218, No. 4572, 5 November 1982) p 521.
Carl Sagan, 'Extraterrestrial Intelligence: An International Petition' (Vol. 218,
No. 4571, 29 October 1982) p 426.
Richard A. Kerr, 'Planetary Rings Briefing: New Outer Rings for Saturn?: The F
Ring Becomes a Little Less Baffling; Spokes, SKR and SED - A Connection.;
The Uranian Rings Get Stranger and Stranger' (Vol. 218, No. 4569, 15 October
1982) pp 276-277.
108
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Richard A. Kerr, 'Planetary Rings Explained and Unexplained' (Vol. 218, No.
4568, 8 October 1982) pp 141-143.
R. S. Westrum, 'Explaining Meteorites' (Vol. 217, No. 4563, 3 September 1982)
p 884.
Richard A. Kerr, 'Saturn Briefing: Caged Argon: A Clue to the Birth of Titan;
Rings, Rings, What Makes the Rings? Lightning on Saturn or Ring
Discharges? What Battered the Satellites of Saturn?' (Vol. 216, No. 4551, 11
June 1982) pp 1210-1211.
R. Ganapathy, 'Evidence for a Major Meteor Impact on the Earth 34 Million
Years Ago: Implications for Eocene Extinctions' (Vol. 216, No. 4548, 21 May
1982) pp 885-886.
P. G. Kamoun et al., 'Comet Enke: Radar Detection of Nucleus' (Vol. 216, No.
4543, 16 April 1982) pp 293-295.
P. J. Michaels et al., 'Observations of a Comet on Collision Course with the Sun'
(Vol. 215, No. 4536, 26 February 1982) Cover photograph and pp 1097-1102.
Reports on Voyager 2 Flyby of Saturn (Vol. 215, No. 4532, 29 January 1982).
(1) E. C. Stone and F. D. Miner, 'Voyager 2 Encounter with the Saturnian
System', pp 499-504.
(2) B. A. Smith et al., 'A New Look at the Saturnian System: The Voyager 2
Images', pp 504-537.
(3) A. L. Larse et al., 'Photopolarimetry from Voyager 2: Preliminary Results
on Saturn, Titan and the Rings', pp 537-543.
(4) R. Hanel et al., 'Infrared Observations of the Saturnian System from
Voyager 2', pp 544-548.
(5) B. R. Sandel et al., 'Extreme Ultraviolet Observations from the Voyager 2
Encounter with Saturn', pp 548-553.
(6) G. L. Tyler et al., 'Radio Science with Voyager 2 at Saturn: Atmosphere
and Ionosphere and the Masses of Mimas, Tethys and Iapetus', pp 583-
558.
(7) N. F. Ness et al., 'Magnetic Field Studies by Voyager 2: Preliminary
Results at Saturn', pp 558-563.
(8) H. S. Bridge et al., 'Plasma Observations Near Saturn: Initial Results from
Voyager 2\ pp 563-570.
(9) S. M. Krimigis et al., 'Low-Energy Hot Plasma and Particles in Saturn's
Magnetosphere', pp 571-577.
(10) R. E. Vogt et al., Energetic Charged Particles in Saturn's Magnetosphere:
Voyager 2 Results', pp 577-582.
(11) J. W. Warwick et al., 'Planetary Radio Astronomy Observations from
Voyager 2 Near Saturn', pp 582-587.
(12) F. L. Scarf et al., 'Voyager 2 Plasma Wave Observations at Saturn',
pp 587-594.
M. Mitchell Waldrop, 'The Puzzle That Is Saturn' (Vol. 213, No. 4514, 18
September 1981) pp 1347-1351.
M. Mitchell Waldrop, 'Saturn Redux: The Voyager 2 Mission' (Vol. 213, No.
4513, 11 September 1981) pp 1236, 1237 and 1240.
Phillip H. Abelson, 'Voyager Mission to Saturn' (Vol. 212, No. 4491, 10 April
1981) p 125.
Reports on Voyager 1 Flyby of Saturn (Vol. 212, No. 4491. 10 April 1981).
(1) E. D. Miner, 'Voyager 1 Encounter with the Saturnian System', pp 159-
162.
109
RINGMAKERS OF SATURN
(2) B. A. Smith et al., 'Encounter with Saturn: Voyager 1 Imaging Science
Results, pp 163-191.
(3) S. P. Synnott et al., 'Orbits of the Small Satellites of Saturn', pp. 191-
192.
(4) R. Hanel et al., 'Infrared Observations of the Saturnian System from
Voyager 1', pp 192-200.
(5) G. L. Tyler et al., 'Radio Science Investigations of the Saturn System with
Voyager 1: Preliminary Results', pp 201-206.
(6) A. L. Broadfoot et al., 'Extreme Ultraviolet Observations from Voyager 1
Encounter with Saturn', pp 206-211.
(7) N. F. Ness et al., 'Magnetic Field Studies by Voyager 1: Preliminary
Results at Saturn', pp 211-217.
(8) H. S. Bridge et al., 'Plasma Observations Near Saturn: Initial Results from
Voyager 1', pp 217-224.
(9) S. M. Krimigis et al., 'Low-Energy Charged Particles in Saturn's
Magnetosphere: Results from Voyager 1', pp 225-231.
(10) R. E. Vogt et al., 'Energetic Charged Particles in Saturn's Magnetosphere:
Voyager 1 Results', pp 231-234.
(11) D. A. Gurnett et al., 'Plasma Waves Near Saturn: Initial Results from
Voyager 1', pp 235-239.
(12) J. S. Warwick et al., 'Planetary Radio Astronomy Observations from
Voyager 1 Near Saturn', pp 239-243.
Eliot Marshall, 'Navy Lab Concludes the Vela (Satellite) Saw a (Nuclear) Bomb'
(Vol. 209, No. 4460, 29 August 1980) pp 996-997.
Reports on Pioneer Flyby of Saturn (Vol. 207, No. 4429, 25 January 1980).
(1) J. W. Dyer, 'Pioneer Saturn', pp 400-401.
(2) A. G Opp, 'Scientific Results from the Pioneer Saturn Encounter:
Summary', pp 401-403.
(3) J. H. Wolfe et al., 'Preliminary Results on the Plasma Environment
of Saturn from the Pioneer 11 Plasma Analyzer Experiment', pp 403-
407.
(4) E. J. Smith et al., 'Saturn's Magnetic Field and Magnetosphere', pp 407-
410.
(5) J. A. Simpson et al., 'Saturnian Trapped Radiation and Its Absorption
by Satellites and Rings: The First Results from Pioneer 11, pp. 411-
415.
(6) J. A. Van Allen et al., 'Saturn's Magnetosphere, Rings and Inner
Satellites', pp 415-421.
(7) J. H. Trainer et al., 'Observations of Energetic Ions and Electrons in
Saturn's Magnetosphere', pp 421-425.
(8) W. Fillins et al., 'Trapped Radiation Belts of Saturn: First Look', pp 425-
431.
(9) D. L. Judge et al., 'Ultraviolet Photometer Observations of the Saturnian
System', pp 431-434.
(10) T. Gehrels et al., 'Imaging Photopolarimeter on Pioneer Saturn', pp 434-
439.
(11) A. P. Ingersoll et al., 'Pioneer Saturn Infrared Radiometer: Preliminary
Results', pp 439-443.
(12) D. H. Humes et al., 'Impact of Saturn Ring Particles on Pioneer 11*.
pp 443-444.
110
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(13) M. H. Acuna and N. F. Ness, 'The Magnetic Field of Saturn: Pioneer 11
Observations', pp 444-446.
(14) A. J. Kliore et al., 'Vertical Structure of the Ionosphere and Upper Neutral
Atmosphere of Saturn from Pioneer Radio Occulation', pp 446-449.
(15) J. D. Anderson et al., 'Pioneer Saturn Celestial Mechanics Experiment',
pp 449-453.
Richard A. Kerr, 'Rings Around the Solar System' (Vol. 206, No. 4414, 5 October
1979) pp 38-40.
R. H. Thomas, 'West Antarctic Ice Sheet: Present-Day Thinning and Holocene
Retreat of the Margins' (Vol. 205, No. 4412, 21 September 1979) pp 1257-
1258.
Astronomy (Astromedia, Kalmbach Publishing Co., Milwaukee, WI)
Richard Berry, 'Uranus: The Voyage Continues' (Vol. 14, No. 4, April 1986)
p 10.
Edward J. Ciaccio, 'Atmospheres' (Vol. 12, No. 5, May 1984) pp 6-22.
Michael A. Sposito, 'A Conversation with Astronaut Joseph Allen' (Vol. 12, No.
4, April 1984) p 24.
Robert Burnham, 'IRAS and the Infrared Universe' (Vol. 12, No. 3, March 1984)
pp 6-22.
Jeffrey K. Wagner, 'The Sources of Meteorites' (Vol. 12, No. 2, February 1984)
pp 6-16.
Michael Carrol, 'A New Mission to Saturn' (Vol. 11, No. 12, December 1983)
pp 6-15.
David Morrison, 'Return to the Planets: A Blueprint for the Future' (Vol. 11, No.
9, September 1983) pp 6-15.
Donald F. Robertson, 'Mystery Gap' (Vol. 11, No. 6, June 1983) pp 60-61.
David Swift, 'Voyager: Technological Totem' (Vol. 11, No. 1, January 1983)
pp 24-26.
Jack R. Schendel, 'Looking Inside Quasars' (Vol. 10, No. 11, November 1982)
pp 6-22.
Francis Reddy, 'Backtracking the Comets' (Vol. 10, No. 8, August 1982) pp 6-17.
Edward J. Ciaccio, 'Landscapes of the Solar System' (Vol. 10, No. 7, July 1982)
pp 6-23.
Van Kane, 'The Little Big Missions' (Vol. 10, No. 5, May 1982) pp 16-17.
The Planetary Report (The Planetary Society, Pasadena, CA.)
Jeffrey Taylor, 'Moon Rocks' (Vol. 4, No. 2, March/April 1984) pp 4-6.
Thomas R. McDonough, 'The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI)'
(Vol. 3, No. 2, March/April 1983) p 3.
Paul Horwitz, 'Searching for Signals from Extraterrestrial Civilizations' (Vol. 3,
No. 2, March/April 1983) pp 4-5.
Samuel Gulkis and John H. Wolfe, 'The NASA SETI Program' (Vol. 3, No. 2,
March/April 1983) pp 6-7.
John Spencer, 'The Viking Legacy' (Vol. 11, No. 5, September/October 1982)
pp 12-14.
Richard J. Terrille, 'Return to the Rings' (Vol. 1, No. 6, October/November 1981)
pp 4-5.
111
RINGMAKERS OF SATURN
Von R. Eshleman and G. L. Taylor, 'Radio Science at Saturn' (Vol. 1, No. 6
October/November 1981) pp 6-7.
Michael C. Malin, Ice Worlds' (Vol. 1, No. 4, June/July 1981) pp 8-10.
Dennis Matson, 'Gallery of the Moons' (Vol. 1, No. 2, February/March 1981)
pp 6-7.
Jeffry Cuzzi, 'Saturn's Rings; A Voyager Update' (Vol. 1, No. 2, February/March
1981) pp 8-10.
David Morrison, 'The Mysteries of Saturn' (Vol. 1, No. 1, December 1980/
January 1981) p 4.
Sky and Telescope (Vol. 59, No. 4, April 1980).
'Pioneer Saturn Pictorial', pp 292-293.
'Saturn Sightings', p 296.
Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA (Vol. 7, No. 1, January 1969).
Homer J. Stewart, 'Lunar Exploration-The First Decade Raises More Questions
Than It Answers', pp 32-36.
Harold C. Urey, 'The Contending Moons', pp 37-41.
Harold Masursky, 'Lunar-Exploration Targets', pp 42-49.
Albert Hibbs, 'Surveyor Results', pp 50-63.
J. E. Conel, 'What the Rangers Revealed about Lunar Geology', pp 64-68.
Lectures
Center for Space Science and Astrophysics
Peter Goldreich, 'The Dynamics of Planetary Rings' (7 November 1983), Physics
Lecture Hall, Stanford University, California.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, (AIAA)
Astronaut Rusty Swiekert, 'Experiences in Orbital Flight' (10 May 1984), San
Francisco Section, Sunnyvale, AIAA, California.
News Presentations
Campus Report
Diana Diamond, 'Scientists Discover Saturn Rings To Be Amazingly Thin
(Stanford University, California, 25 January 1984) p 1.
Joel Shurkin, 'Saturn's Rings Are Made of Red Ice, Says Latest Study' (Stanford
University, California, 25 August 1982) p 7.
The Stanford Daily
'"El Nino" -The Century's Unequaled Natural Catastrophe' by the Los Angeles
Times. (Stanford University, California, 19 August 1982) p 2.
112
BIBLIOGRAPHY
San Jose Mercury News
John Noble, New York Times, 'Scientists Baffled by Earth's Cycle of Extinction
Every 26 Million Years' (San Jose, California, 12 December 1983) p 8A.
KQED-TV Channel 9 San Francisco
'Voyager 2 at Saturn', 26 August 1981 (closest approach).
'Voyager 1 at Saturn', 12 November 1980 (closest approach).
*This bibliography has been compiled in accordance with 'Hart's Rules for Compositors and
Readers at the University Press, Oxford', thirty-eighth edition, completely revised 1978 at the
Oxford University Press.
113

The Esotericist

11-19-11, 09:41 AM

well then any evidence they have , should be open to the public then , whats the problem
It is open to the public, the public doesn't look, and the controlled media doesn't show them. It's there, believe me, it's there all right.

http://vault.fbi.gov/hottel_guy/Guy%20Hottel%20Part%201%20of%201/view
http://www.ufohastings.com/files/image/2011-04-18/hottel_memo_3-22-1950.jpg

Rhaedas

11-19-11, 12:43 PM

whats interesting is that most of the world is opening up to the reality of UFO and extraterrestrials but the US doesn't

If this is true then the rest of the world should have much better evidence of said reality.

You can say it's out there. Doesn't make it true. Extra-ordinary claims require...you know the rest. There's plenty of websites and Youtube videos and all that...they definitely emphasis the U in UFOs. The good ones, anyway. Some are plain sad in claiming they are the final proof of extraterrestrials, having just as much credibility as blurs on a night camera means there's ghosts.

Reiku

11-20-11, 01:08 PM

Did you not read the NSA reports? The FBI memo? The book by the NASA scientist? Or look over the Hubble space telescope images that reconfirmed his findings? Are you purposefully being obtuse?

The onus to disprove disclosure is on you now.

Here's the Bibliography for Dr. Norman Bergrun's research for his book (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2856117&postcount=94), that Gustav was so kind to provide the link for us. Perhaps you would like to "debunk" this seminal work for us? :confused:

Bibliography*
Books
David Morrison, Voyages to Saturn (NASA SP-451, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C. 1982).
The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Astronomy, Simon Mitton, Editor-in-Chief (Crown
Publishers Inc., New York, 1981).
Louis Bell, The Telescope (Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1981).
David Morrison, Voyage to Jupiter (NASA SP-439, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C, 1980).
Carl Sagan, Cosmos (Random House, New York, 1980).
William J. Kaufman III, Galaxies and Quasars (W. J. Freeman and Company, San
Francisco, 1979).
Bevan M. French, The Moon Book (Penguin Books, New York, 1978).
Lloyd Motz and Annetta Duveen, Essentials of Astronomy (Columbia University
Press, New York, 1977).
John Baxter and Thomas Atkins, The Fire Came By - The Riddle of the Great Siberian
Explosion (Warner Books, New York, 1976).
S. V. Dresvin, Physics and Technology of Low-Temperature Plasma (Moscow, USSR
1972. English translation published by Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA,
1977).
Norman R. Bergrun, Tomorrow's Technology Today (Academy Press, Cupertino, CA,
1972).
Robert L. Johnson, The Story of the Moon (Meredith Corporation, Chicago, 1969).
Franklin Miller, Jr., College Physics (Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York,
1967).
Peter van de Kamp, Elements of Astro-mechanics (W. H. Freeman and Company, San
Francisco, 1964).
A. F. O'D. Alexander, The Planet Saturn - A History of Observations, Theory and
Discovery (Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1962).
Arthur I. Berman, Astronautics - Fundamentals of Dynamical Astronomy and Space
Flight (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1961).
George P. Sutton, Rocket Propulsion Elements (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York,
1956).
Samuel Glasstone, Sourcebook on Atomic Energy (D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.,
New York, 1950).
H. Glauert, The Elements of Aerofoil and Airscrew Theory (Cambridge at the
University Press, 1947).
Sir Horace Lamb, Hydrodynamics (Dover Publications, New York, 1945).
Elliot G. Reid, Applied Wing Theory (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York,
107
RINGMAKERS OF SATURN
Reference Books
Information Please Almanac, Atlas and Yearbook, Edited by Ann Golenpaul (Information
Please Almanac, New York, 1977).
Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, Edited by Joseph L. Morse and William H.
Hedelson. Vol. 8, Electricity, pp 423-439 (Funk and Wagnalls, Inc., New York,
1972).
The World Almanac and Book of Facts, Edited by Luman H. Long (New York World-
Telegram, New York, 1966).
Handbook of Fluid Dynamics, Victor L. Streeter, Editor-in-Chief (McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., New York, 1961).
Mechanical Engineers Handbook, 4th edition, Edited by Lionel S. Marks (McGraw-
Hill Book Company Inc., 1941).
Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers, 7th edition, Archer E. Knowlton, Editorin-
Chief (McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1941).
Periodicals
Science (The American Association for the Advancement of Sciences, Washington
D.C.).
D. R. Davis et al., 'Saturn Ring Particles as Dynamic Ephemeral Bodies' (Vol.
224, No. 4650, 18 May 1984) pp 744-746.
H. A. Zebher and G. Leonard Tyler, 'Thickness of Saturn's Rings Inferred from
Voyager 1 Observations of Microwave Scatter' (Vol. 223, No. 4634, 27 January
1984) pp 396 and 397.
Eugene M. Rasmusson and John M. Wallace, 'Meteorological Aspects of the El
Nino Southern Oscillation' (Vol. 222, No. 4629, 16 December 1983) pp 1195-
1202.
Richard A. Kerr, 'Neptune Ring Fades Again' (Vol. 222, No. 4621, 21 October
1983) p 311.
Richard A. Kerr, 'Where Was the Moon Eons Ago?' (Vol. 221, No. 4616, 16
September 1983) p 1166.
Roger Lewin, 'What Killed the Giant Mammals?' (Vol. 221, No. 4615, 9
September 1983) pp 1036-1037.
D. D. Bogard and P. Johnson, 'Martian Gases in an Antarctic Meteorite?' (Vol.
221, No. 4611, 12 August 1983) pp 651-654.
Philip H. Abelson, 'Large-Scale Extinctions' Vol. 220, No. 4592, 1 April 1983)
P9.
Richard A. Kerr, 'Orbital Variation - Ice Age Link Strengthened' (Vol. 219, No.
4582, 21 January 1983) pp 272-274.
Jack J. Lissauer, 'Saturn's Rings' (Vol. 218, No. 4572, 5 November 1982) p 521.
Carl Sagan, 'Extraterrestrial Intelligence: An International Petition' (Vol. 218,
No. 4571, 29 October 1982) p 426.
Richard A. Kerr, 'Planetary Rings Briefing: New Outer Rings for Saturn?: The F
Ring Becomes a Little Less Baffling; Spokes, SKR and SED - A Connection.;
The Uranian Rings Get Stranger and Stranger' (Vol. 218, No. 4569, 15 October
1982) pp 276-277.
108
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Richard A. Kerr, 'Planetary Rings Explained and Unexplained' (Vol. 218, No.
4568, 8 October 1982) pp 141-143.
R. S. Westrum, 'Explaining Meteorites' (Vol. 217, No. 4563, 3 September 1982)
p 884.
Richard A. Kerr, 'Saturn Briefing: Caged Argon: A Clue to the Birth of Titan;
Rings, Rings, What Makes the Rings? Lightning on Saturn or Ring
Discharges? What Battered the Satellites of Saturn?' (Vol. 216, No. 4551, 11
June 1982) pp 1210-1211.
R. Ganapathy, 'Evidence for a Major Meteor Impact on the Earth 34 Million
Years Ago: Implications for Eocene Extinctions' (Vol. 216, No. 4548, 21 May
1982) pp 885-886.
P. G. Kamoun et al., 'Comet Enke: Radar Detection of Nucleus' (Vol. 216, No.
4543, 16 April 1982) pp 293-295.
P. J. Michaels et al., 'Observations of a Comet on Collision Course with the Sun'
(Vol. 215, No. 4536, 26 February 1982) Cover photograph and pp 1097-1102.
Reports on Voyager 2 Flyby of Saturn (Vol. 215, No. 4532, 29 January 1982).
(1) E. C. Stone and F. D. Miner, 'Voyager 2 Encounter with the Saturnian
System', pp 499-504.
(2) B. A. Smith et al., 'A New Look at the Saturnian System: The Voyager 2
Images', pp 504-537.
(3) A. L. Larse et al., 'Photopolarimetry from Voyager 2: Preliminary Results
on Saturn, Titan and the Rings', pp 537-543.
(4) R. Hanel et al., 'Infrared Observations of the Saturnian System from
Voyager 2', pp 544-548.
(5) B. R. Sandel et al., 'Extreme Ultraviolet Observations from the Voyager 2
Encounter with Saturn', pp 548-553.
(6) G. L. Tyler et al., 'Radio Science with Voyager 2 at Saturn: Atmosphere
and Ionosphere and the Masses of Mimas, Tethys and Iapetus', pp 583-
558.
(7) N. F. Ness et al., 'Magnetic Field Studies by Voyager 2: Preliminary
Results at Saturn', pp 558-563.
(8) H. S. Bridge et al., 'Plasma Observations Near Saturn: Initial Results from
Voyager 2\ pp 563-570.
(9) S. M. Krimigis et al., 'Low-Energy Hot Plasma and Particles in Saturn's
Magnetosphere', pp 571-577.
(10) R. E. Vogt et al., Energetic Charged Particles in Saturn's Magnetosphere:
Voyager 2 Results', pp 577-582.
(11) J. W. Warwick et al., 'Planetary Radio Astronomy Observations from
Voyager 2 Near Saturn', pp 582-587.
(12) F. L. Scarf et al., 'Voyager 2 Plasma Wave Observations at Saturn',
pp 587-594.
M. Mitchell Waldrop, 'The Puzzle That Is Saturn' (Vol. 213, No. 4514, 18
September 1981) pp 1347-1351.
M. Mitchell Waldrop, 'Saturn Redux: The Voyager 2 Mission' (Vol. 213, No.
4513, 11 September 1981) pp 1236, 1237 and 1240.
Phillip H. Abelson, 'Voyager Mission to Saturn' (Vol. 212, No. 4491, 10 April
1981) p 125.
Reports on Voyager 1 Flyby of Saturn (Vol. 212, No. 4491. 10 April 1981).
(1) E. D. Miner, 'Voyager 1 Encounter with the Saturnian System', pp 159-
162.
109
RINGMAKERS OF SATURN
(2) B. A. Smith et al., 'Encounter with Saturn: Voyager 1 Imaging Science
Results, pp 163-191.
(3) S. P. Synnott et al., 'Orbits of the Small Satellites of Saturn', pp. 191-
192.
(4) R. Hanel et al., 'Infrared Observations of the Saturnian System from
Voyager 1', pp 192-200.
(5) G. L. Tyler et al., 'Radio Science Investigations of the Saturn System with
Voyager 1: Preliminary Results', pp 201-206.
(6) A. L. Broadfoot et al., 'Extreme Ultraviolet Observations from Voyager 1
Encounter with Saturn', pp 206-211.
(7) N. F. Ness et al., 'Magnetic Field Studies by Voyager 1: Preliminary
Results at Saturn', pp 211-217.
(8) H. S. Bridge et al., 'Plasma Observations Near Saturn: Initial Results from
Voyager 1', pp 217-224.
(9) S. M. Krimigis et al., 'Low-Energy Charged Particles in Saturn's
Magnetosphere: Results from Voyager 1', pp 225-231.
(10) R. E. Vogt et al., 'Energetic Charged Particles in Saturn's Magnetosphere:
Voyager 1 Results', pp 231-234.
(11) D. A. Gurnett et al., 'Plasma Waves Near Saturn: Initial Results from
Voyager 1', pp 235-239.
(12) J. S. Warwick et al., 'Planetary Radio Astronomy Observations from
Voyager 1 Near Saturn', pp 239-243.
Eliot Marshall, 'Navy Lab Concludes the Vela (Satellite) Saw a (Nuclear) Bomb'
(Vol. 209, No. 4460, 29 August 1980) pp 996-997.
Reports on Pioneer Flyby of Saturn (Vol. 207, No. 4429, 25 January 1980).
(1) J. W. Dyer, 'Pioneer Saturn', pp 400-401.
(2) A. G Opp, 'Scientific Results from the Pioneer Saturn Encounter:
Summary', pp 401-403.
(3) J. H. Wolfe et al., 'Preliminary Results on the Plasma Environment
of Saturn from the Pioneer 11 Plasma Analyzer Experiment', pp 403-
407.
(4) E. J. Smith et al., 'Saturn's Magnetic Field and Magnetosphere', pp 407-
410.
(5) J. A. Simpson et al., 'Saturnian Trapped Radiation and Its Absorption
by Satellites and Rings: The First Results from Pioneer 11, pp. 411-
415.
(6) J. A. Van Allen et al., 'Saturn's Magnetosphere, Rings and Inner
Satellites', pp 415-421.
(7) J. H. Trainer et al., 'Observations of Energetic Ions and Electrons in
Saturn's Magnetosphere', pp 421-425.
(8) W. Fillins et al., 'Trapped Radiation Belts of Saturn: First Look', pp 425-
431.
(9) D. L. Judge et al., 'Ultraviolet Photometer Observations of the Saturnian
System', pp 431-434.
(10) T. Gehrels et al., 'Imaging Photopolarimeter on Pioneer Saturn', pp 434-
439.
(11) A. P. Ingersoll et al., 'Pioneer Saturn Infrared Radiometer: Preliminary
Results', pp 439-443.
(12) D. H. Humes et al., 'Impact of Saturn Ring Particles on Pioneer 11*.
pp 443-444.
110
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(13) M. H. Acuna and N. F. Ness, 'The Magnetic Field of Saturn: Pioneer 11
Observations', pp 444-446.
(14) A. J. Kliore et al., 'Vertical Structure of the Ionosphere and Upper Neutral
Atmosphere of Saturn from Pioneer Radio Occulation', pp 446-449.
(15) J. D. Anderson et al., 'Pioneer Saturn Celestial Mechanics Experiment',
pp 449-453.
Richard A. Kerr, 'Rings Around the Solar System' (Vol. 206, No. 4414, 5 October
1979) pp 38-40.
R. H. Thomas, 'West Antarctic Ice Sheet: Present-Day Thinning and Holocene
Retreat of the Margins' (Vol. 205, No. 4412, 21 September 1979) pp 1257-
1258.
Astronomy (Astromedia, Kalmbach Publishing Co., Milwaukee, WI)
Richard Berry, 'Uranus: The Voyage Continues' (Vol. 14, No. 4, April 1986)
p 10.
Edward J. Ciaccio, 'Atmospheres' (Vol. 12, No. 5, May 1984) pp 6-22.
Michael A. Sposito, 'A Conversation with Astronaut Joseph Allen' (Vol. 12, No.
4, April 1984) p 24.
Robert Burnham, 'IRAS and the Infrared Universe' (Vol. 12, No. 3, March 1984)
pp 6-22.
Jeffrey K. Wagner, 'The Sources of Meteorites' (Vol. 12, No. 2, February 1984)
pp 6-16.
Michael Carrol, 'A New Mission to Saturn' (Vol. 11, No. 12, December 1983)
pp 6-15.
David Morrison, 'Return to the Planets: A Blueprint for the Future' (Vol. 11, No.
9, September 1983) pp 6-15.
Donald F. Robertson, 'Mystery Gap' (Vol. 11, No. 6, June 1983) pp 60-61.
David Swift, 'Voyager: Technological Totem' (Vol. 11, No. 1, January 1983)
pp 24-26.
Jack R. Schendel, 'Looking Inside Quasars' (Vol. 10, No. 11, November 1982)
pp 6-22.
Francis Reddy, 'Backtracking the Comets' (Vol. 10, No. 8, August 1982) pp 6-17.
Edward J. Ciaccio, 'Landscapes of the Solar System' (Vol. 10, No. 7, July 1982)
pp 6-23.
Van Kane, 'The Little Big Missions' (Vol. 10, No. 5, May 1982) pp 16-17.
The Planetary Report (The Planetary Society, Pasadena, CA.)
Jeffrey Taylor, 'Moon Rocks' (Vol. 4, No. 2, March/April 1984) pp 4-6.
Thomas R. McDonough, 'The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI)'
(Vol. 3, No. 2, March/April 1983) p 3.
Paul Horwitz, 'Searching for Signals from Extraterrestrial Civilizations' (Vol. 3,
No. 2, March/April 1983) pp 4-5.
Samuel Gulkis and John H. Wolfe, 'The NASA SETI Program' (Vol. 3, No. 2,
March/April 1983) pp 6-7.
John Spencer, 'The Viking Legacy' (Vol. 11, No. 5, September/October 1982)
pp 12-14.
Richard J. Terrille, 'Return to the Rings' (Vol. 1, No. 6, October/November 1981)
pp 4-5.
111
RINGMAKERS OF SATURN
Von R. Eshleman and G. L. Taylor, 'Radio Science at Saturn' (Vol. 1, No. 6
October/November 1981) pp 6-7.
Michael C. Malin, Ice Worlds' (Vol. 1, No. 4, June/July 1981) pp 8-10.
Dennis Matson, 'Gallery of the Moons' (Vol. 1, No. 2, February/March 1981)
pp 6-7.
Jeffry Cuzzi, 'Saturn's Rings; A Voyager Update' (Vol. 1, No. 2, February/March
1981) pp 8-10.
David Morrison, 'The Mysteries of Saturn' (Vol. 1, No. 1, December 1980/
January 1981) p 4.
Sky and Telescope (Vol. 59, No. 4, April 1980).
'Pioneer Saturn Pictorial', pp 292-293.
'Saturn Sightings', p 296.
Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA (Vol. 7, No. 1, January 1969).
Homer J. Stewart, 'Lunar Exploration-The First Decade Raises More Questions
Than It Answers', pp 32-36.
Harold C. Urey, 'The Contending Moons', pp 37-41.
Harold Masursky, 'Lunar-Exploration Targets', pp 42-49.
Albert Hibbs, 'Surveyor Results', pp 50-63.
J. E. Conel, 'What the Rangers Revealed about Lunar Geology', pp 64-68.
Lectures
Center for Space Science and Astrophysics
Peter Goldreich, 'The Dynamics of Planetary Rings' (7 November 1983), Physics
Lecture Hall, Stanford University, California.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, (AIAA)
Astronaut Rusty Swiekert, 'Experiences in Orbital Flight' (10 May 1984), San
Francisco Section, Sunnyvale, AIAA, California.
News Presentations
Campus Report
Diana Diamond, 'Scientists Discover Saturn Rings To Be Amazingly Thin
(Stanford University, California, 25 January 1984) p 1.
Joel Shurkin, 'Saturn's Rings Are Made of Red Ice, Says Latest Study' (Stanford
University, California, 25 August 1982) p 7.
The Stanford Daily
'"El Nino" -The Century's Unequaled Natural Catastrophe' by the Los Angeles
Times. (Stanford University, California, 19 August 1982) p 2.
112
BIBLIOGRAPHY
San Jose Mercury News
John Noble, New York Times, 'Scientists Baffled by Earth's Cycle of Extinction
Every 26 Million Years' (San Jose, California, 12 December 1983) p 8A.
KQED-TV Channel 9 San Francisco
'Voyager 2 at Saturn', 26 August 1981 (closest approach).
'Voyager 1 at Saturn', 12 November 1980 (closest approach).
*This bibliography has been compiled in accordance with 'Hart's Rules for Compositors and
Readers at the University Press, Oxford', thirty-eighth edition, completely revised 1978 at the
Oxford University Press.
113

Indeed, if one wants to take Guy Hottels informant at face value, or even many more declassified memorandums, there seems to be a contradiction with the White House statement.

I think the White House should have stated, ''There was no tangible proof of aliens visiting Earth.''

The Esotericist

11-20-11, 01:39 PM

Indeed, if one wants to take Guy Hottels informant at face value, or even many more declassified memorandums, there seems to be a contradiction with the White House statement.

I think the White House should have stated, ''There was no tangible proof of aliens visiting Earth.''

lol. :rolleyes:

I think all the documented evidence proves they have had "tangible proof," they a liars, and they are unwillingly to produce what they have for public inspection.

On why they would do this? There are literally scores of papers, documentaries, and whistle blowers explaining why they would do this. Usually it comes down to money, control, and power.

Reiku

11-20-11, 03:50 PM

lol. :rolleyes:

I think all the documented evidence proves they have had "tangible proof," they a liars, and they are unwillingly to produce what they have for public inspection.

On why they would do this? There are literally scores of papers, documentaries, and whistle blowers explaining why they would do this. Usually it comes down to money, control, and power.

What makes you think the Whitehouse was aware of this tangible proof?

I am aware there is a very large possibility that alien life could have visited this planet. But I am also under the impression, from my own investigations, that the shadow governement which actually runs this operation is not your standard group of professionals. In fact, I doubt the US governement in many of its channels are even aware of the UFO phenomenon, or how much ''evidence'' is really there. Those who have the ''tangible proof'' maybe few and far between, acting illegally within their own powers.

I doubt the president is aware of this :rolleyes: You just need to see the efforts of past presidents to try and make the valuable information avaliable under the freedom acts.

Reiku

11-20-11, 03:55 PM

Well, no one needs to convince me any way. I have dozens of memorandums which contradict the White House Statement.

phlogistician

11-21-11, 07:07 AM

well then any evidence they have , should be open to the public then , whats the problem

The 'problem' could be one Government faculty (the Air Force) having data about another faculties (NSA) secret missile launches/spacecraft.

That data is not for public consumption, but it doesn't mean the Govt are covering up extra-terrestrial visitation at all.

Reiku

11-22-11, 04:55 PM

The 'problem' could be one Government faculty (the Air Force) having data about another faculties (NSA) secret missile launches/spacecraft.

That data is not for public consumption, but it doesn't mean the Govt are covering up extra-terrestrial visitation at all.

Not directly. Indirectly there is plenty of evidence to suggest ET has been here visiting Earth. There are numerous statements from officials one could qoute, numerous memorandums from top officials who state things completely out of the ordinary and by no means able to be washed away with conventional explanations, like missile launches.

Arioch

11-22-11, 05:00 PM

@Mister --

Indirectly there is plenty of evidence to suggest ET has been here visiting Earth.

Such as what, exactly?

Reiku

11-22-11, 10:00 PM

@Mister --

Such as what, exactly?

Oh there is loads. I can type many up for you if you want.

There are countless memorandums from previously top secret classified documents purporting to ''alien visitors'' there are also statements from top secret officials who working in the Government channels throughout the last 60 years who have testified to the existence of either UFO's as a technology more advanced than our own, or directly testifying to the existence of aliens.

I could type plenty up for you, if you wanted. You'd save me a great deal of time however if you could just take my word for it.

Arioch

11-22-11, 10:07 PM

@Mister --

Oh there is loads. I can type many up for you if you want.

Yes, links would be lovely.

There are countless memorandums from previously top secret classified documents purporting to ''alien visitors'' there are also statements from top secret officials who working in the Government channels throughout the last 60 years who have testified to the existence of either UFO's as a technology more advanced than our own, or directly testifying to the existence of aliens.

And these "memorandums" and "documents" are verified to be genuine, right? Because I'd like to see that documentation too.

You'd save me a great deal of time however if you could just take my word for it.

Shoot, one thing I can't do. Links please.

Reiku

11-22-11, 10:13 PM

@Mister --

Yes, links would be lovely.

And these "memorandums" and "documents" are verified to be genuine, right? Because I'd like to see that documentation too.

Shoot, one thing I can't do. Links please.

I don't need to give you links. I can recite plain old history for you and if at any time you feel the need to look it up, you can. You won't find a flaw anywhere.

Also, Memorandums are very difficult to ''fake''. Some memorandums are given security codes which authenticate their reality. Of course, it can be argued that the person writing the memorandum was ''faking it'' but in all due respect, most of the people who write their memorandums could not have their integrity questioned because they are such high official ranking officers. Faking such things would have warranted their expulsion from their jobs. And most of these men are in very reputable jobs.

Stryder

11-22-11, 10:35 PM

I just always see superstring saying it would be improbable for aliens to exist.

That would definitely have been me.

It's based upon an entire philosophical synopsis which identifies certain evident traits about ourselves, our sciences and our anthropological direction which all conclude the universe itself is our own creation.

I've posed points about the future of any sufficiently advanced civilisation is the control over their environment (And this doesn't mean limiting it to turning up the aircon or even terraforming)

I also posed the point that our sciences would not be replicated the same by any other civilisation elsewhere in the universe, the only way it would be possible is if they observed our sciences and that would require them to become sufficiently advanced to begin with.

Aliens never had Archimedes, Galileo, Newton, Einstein and the other Philosophers, philanthropists, Scientists, Inventors and the like. Which means aliens sciences would be completely different from ours, which also likely would suggest their observations of the universe would also cause differences, like making them "Non-tangible" to our universe. In essence even if they did exist, they wouldn't here.

I also stated that there are a myriad of ethical and philosophical points in regards to "If a civilization built a universe, would they allow other civilisations to exist?". The fact remains we would never introduce a potential threat and it would be unethical to produce a civilisation "beneath us" just to satisfy "believers". (After all we wouldn't want to start another bout of slavery, we've only just started to make progress at eradicating those chains of bondage or the stigma that surrounds it)

As for having aliens "make us"... well in all honesty do you think the human species is going to let some alien attempt to stick us in bondage by claiming they made everything. I think you'd see what resistance would occur.

I also pointed out that to express the likelihood that the theory that the universe is part of a giant recursive emulation is greatly enhanced by taking into consideration the giant "accumulator" that life spontaneously coming into existence actually is.

It required:

Space to exist
Energy to magically appear
Energy to fluctuate enough to establish matter (gravity, fields, particles)
Those composites created to create established stable atomic systems
Those atoms to "bond" with other atoms to form molecules
Those molecules to form substances that created "the building blocks of life".
Those building blocks to not just be arranged but placed into a "homeostasis" where they could continue to act as "Life" and "reproduce"
Those life forms to evolve
Evolution to involve enough intelligence to develop Sciences (which could only occur after the blossoming of civilisation)

If back on day zero I could have placed $5 on the bookies that this would happen (and without their foreknowledge that these events would coincide so evidentially), I'm pretty sure I would be a gazillionaire.

The fact remains that it's such an outside long shot that it would never come in (although observantly it has) would imply pretty much a rethink of an Einstein quote.

"God doesn't play dice with the universe"

I'm not implying there is a god, however I will imply that if you are going to make a universe, you aren't going to leave room for chance, after all you are technically the house and the house always wins. So you'd load the dice.

Reiku

11-22-11, 10:42 PM

The ''official statement'' from the FBI for instance, in October 1973, by FBI director Clarence M. Kelly explained to an enquirer that ''the investigation into unidenified flying objects is not and has never been within the jurisdiction of the FBI.''

It was only years later, in 1976 the FBI released some 1,100 documents and memorandums on UFO-related incidents, some being classified as ''beyond top secret''.

Now why did the FBI hide it to begin with? You only hide something when there is something to hide. If people within the circles of the FBI where so aware of how much the UFO culture was ''a load of hoolah,'' then why all the need for secrecy... they obviously knew more than what they were telling.

On a similar investigation into cover-up tactics and denial, comes from a statement made by NASA in an information sheet, serial number 78-1, prepared by the LFF-3/Public services branch, office of external relations, NASA headquarters in washington, that ''NASA is not engaged in any type of research program involving UFO activity.''

However, contradictory to this rather straightforward statement, two pages from a NASA instruction kit: issued originally by Kurt Debus , Director of John F. Kennedy Space Center in June 1967, explains that UFO's are to be reported immediately to control, and that the outcome of the investigation wiLL not be discussed with the caller.

Again, why did they cover up that they investigated UFO's? This is not the only case. Well, one NASA test pilot called Joseph Walker who test flew the rocket-powered X-15 planes revealed it was one of his duties to look for UFO's and even take pictures of them. So if the phenomenon is one which is not real, which NASA would have you believe, why have someone under you represent the dedication of looking into such objects?

There is an obvious symmetry between the two cases. Of course, with that said, the FBI's case is much more startling. 1,100-odd documented cases of UFO activity is a far cry from being ''outside their jurisdiction.''

Of course, the most famous case of denial was the Roswell Incident; Originally Military Personnel reported that they had in their possession a saucer-shaped craft. This statement was later denied by higher ranking officials. I think competent Military Personnel would know the difference between a weather balloon and a saucer shaped craft, no?

Well, we have evidence that something almost certainly happened at Roswell according to a previously top-secret memorandum. It was an office memorandum, dated march 22 1950, from Special Agent Guy Hottel to J. Edgar Hoover the FBI Director, which seemed to admit the existence of disks which where retrieved in new mexico during that momentous day. However, this memorandum was released recently (again) causing a great hype in the UFO community, though no true skeptic aware of the facts denies that the memorandum was real. Such detail that is put into the memorandum, as short as it is, it is quite a startling peice and arguably the ''smoking gun'' according to Nick Pope, who was an investigator for the Ministry of Defense into the UFO phenomenon.

There are also STS-videos (filmed by NASA into the deep of space) and even looking into the Earth's atmosphere (where the integrity of the video cannot be refuted) and real objects are in view which takes in all conventional pictures of UFO's (saucer-shaped and metallic)?

NASA washes every case (more than several cases of UFO's that have been filmed) as identifiable objects. But many professionals outside of NASA have came forward and expressed views that their explanation don't wash half the time. Of course, taking into consideration that they have already lied about their involvement in UFO activity, who'd really believe their explanations anyway?

Scott Carpenter, a former US Navy test pilot, intelligence officer and astronaut claims he had seen UFO's on the Mercury 7 flight on may 24th 1962. It is said that Carpenter later denied this, but in a transcript of Lovell's Flight on Gemini 7, an object was in fact encountered.

Maurice Chatelain, a former NASA communications specialist who says that all Apollo and Gemini flights had been closely monitered by UFO's, but the mission was sworn to absolute secrecy.

Wilbert Smith a senior radio engineer who worked in secret defense projects, and who corrolated with Dr. Vannevar Bush who was the presidential scientific advisor in 1947, was elected head of a top-secret investigative panel of scientists, a project by the name of ''project magnet'' - his team was to investigate the possibility of advancing propulsion systems based on magnetic principles. Smith is reported as saying:

''Whether the phenomenae be due to Natural Magnetic Causes, or Alien Vehicles, there would probably be associated with some sighting some magnetic or radio noise disturbance. Also there is a possibility of gamma radiation being associated.''

Not to mention, UFO's have been caught on radar, so refuting their physical corporeal existences can be easily disproven. In an interim on project magnet, Smith Concluded:

''If it appears evident, the flying saucers are emissaries from some other civilization, and actually do operate on magnetic principles, we have us before the fact that we have missed something in magnetic theory.''

Smith was a very prominent investigator into the UFO phenomenon, and in 1960 reported that he and his scientists had came into posession of what was alleged a peice of a flying saucer:

''We have done a tremendous amount of detective work on this metal... we have something which was not brought here by plane, nor by boat, nor by helocopter... we are speculating that we are in posession of a portion of a much larger device which came into this solar system - we don't know when, but it has been in space for a long time. We can tell this by the micrometeorites embedded in the surface.''

The documents however which can prove Wilbert Smiths claims, are unfortunately still calssified under the department of transport, most likely.

Let us not forget the 1952 UFO mass-sighting over Washington. Here a link is provided of this rather extraordinary event which has similar overtones to the Pheonix Incident which is also linked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington_D.C._UFO_incident

(go to youtube for original footage)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

As I said, remarkable overtones. Especially when you see original footage of both incidents.

Now for some more preciously classified top secret goverment memorandum and articles and similar documents.

A US Air Force Security Service article about the encounter by Pilots of the Imperial Iranian Air Force in Sep. 1976 published in the Miji Quarterly testified to UFO's being encountered.

Air Cheif Marshall Lord Dowding, Commander-in-Cheif of the RAF fighter has been reported to state that over 10,000 sightings have been observed concerning UFO's and that most of them denied any credible explanation (in 1954).

An existing Memorandum from Colonel Charles Halt testifies to sensational events in Woodbridge in dec 1980.

Lord Mountbatten testified to observing the landing of an unknown craft at his estate in Hampshire in 1955.

A previously top-secret Dep. of State memorandum testifies to the Ghost Rocket phenomenon in 1946.

General Nathan Twining, who as Commanding General of Air Materiel Command in sep 1947 testified and signed in front of witnesses that the UFO phenomenon was a reality.

I have plenty more where that came from. I will let you sink your teeth into this first.

The Esotericist

11-22-11, 10:59 PM

I doubt the president is aware of this :rolleyes: You just need to see the efforts of past presidents to try and make the valuable information avaliable under the freedom acts.
I completely agree with this. I am pretty sure Carter tried. And point of fact, I'm probably sure he suspected, and worked for people that knew, but they probably just told him not to ask. So he probably just did the best he could to loosen up the system and protect those who would come forward and speak up.

But yeah, there can be not official disclosure until the people in the shadow government that's behind the US and EU governments say there will be a disclosure.

Some of the reading I have been doing indicates that if they don't do it. . . eventually China might become powerful enough to do it. . . What ever that means. I would have thought the shadow government controls all of earths civilizations. http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/02/07/01353.html huh :shrug:

What journalists in India have dug up. . .

Secret Moon and Mars missions in collaboration with extraterrestrial UFOs using much advanced technologies
(http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/2476.asp)

Major space agencies of the world cooperating to reveal the truth about UFOs in 2012 � why in 2012?
(http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/15472.asp)

Reiku

11-22-11, 11:08 PM

Some of the reading I have been doing indicates that if they don't do it. . . eventually China might become powerful enough to do it. . . What ever that means. I would have thought the shadow government controls all of earths civilizations.

Neh... I doubt it very strongly. The reason why is because of one fact: It has been reported from officials that one reason why the UFO phenomenon is secret and more secret than the H-Bomb is because it will lead to a new technology.

Now, if the reports can be taken at face value, Military Personnel have even reported that these objects have been shot at, but have failed to bring them down. There was an account during the war that a UFO had been seen in the sky slowly truncating the clouds. Explosive ammo was shot at the object after warning signals had been issued, but the object failed to be brought down. There is also reports from people within the Military that these objects have even disarmed nuclear warhead :eek:

So if this technology is as great as many think it is, the last thing the US shadow government would want to do is share it with the likes of China. No doubt, the US have came into contact with these ships and tried reverse engineering on them, but that is like expecting a 10th century civilization to conduct a reverse engineering on a clock watch. The information they would get from it, would be limited.

So I doubt the Shadow Government has any interests in America to expand their horizons to anyone outside their own country, for sake of any country coming to the ultimate grips behind these dynamics, they would literally, rule the world.

But I like your thinking.

Reiku

11-22-11, 11:22 PM

That would definitely have been me.

It's based upon an entire philosophical synopsis which identifies certain evident traits about ourselves, our sciences and our anthropological direction which all conclude the universe itself is our own creation.

I've posed points about the future of any sufficiently advanced civilisation is the control over their environment (And this doesn't mean limiting it to turning up the aircon or even terraforming)

I also posed the point that our sciences would not be replicated the same by any other civilisation elsewhere in the universe, the only way it would be possible is if they observed our sciences and that would require them to become sufficiently advanced to begin with.

Aliens never had Archimedes, Galileo, Newton, Einstein and the other Philosophers, philanthropists, Scientists, Inventors and the like. Which means aliens sciences would be completely different from ours, which also likely would suggest their observations of the universe would also cause differences, like making them "Non-tangible" to our universe. In essence even if they did exist, they wouldn't here.

I am sorry, but I disagree with everything you have said.

How would they be so outside quantum mechanics, that they are incorporeal? I don't even know what this means.

Aliens will be subject to the same laws of physics as we would be. It doesn't mean however they will use the same technologies as we do... but in light of this, competent scientists today are attempting scientific breakthrough's in propulsion systems which will become a reality of the future, whether near or far. No scientist denies this.

All you need is one civilization, evolved a bit earlier than us so that they have had enough time to develope whatever technology which will allow them to travel the vast of spacetime.

We will reach that day too, assuming we don't blow ourselves up.

Repo Man

11-22-11, 11:26 PM

The X Files was only a TV show folks.

Reiku

11-22-11, 11:28 PM

The X Files was only a TV show folks.

Yes.. we are not talking about Dana Scully (Gillian) and Fox Mulder (David) who are actors :rolleyes:

Arioch

11-23-11, 12:11 AM

@Mister --

I don't need to give you links. I can recite plain old history for you and if at any time you feel the need to look it up, you can. You won't find a flaw anywhere.

I prefer the links, it allows me to independently verify what I'm being told. It would be highly remiss of me to just accept something because someone told it to me, especially since I give people a lot of flak when they do the same for other things(such as the existence of god). While I appreciate that you have a good memory, the ability to fact check a thing myself is something that I'm not willing to give up in any debate, let alone a debate about a topic where frauds and hoaxes abound.

Also, Memorandums are very difficult to ''fake''.

Not true, they're easy to fake, however whether or not they'll stand up to rigid scrutiny is another matter all together.

Some memorandums are given security codes which authenticate their reality.

This is exactly the kind of information I was talking about. I want to see the documents and I want to see that this sort of thing has been verified and that they're genuine. Anyone can type up something that looks official(hell, I know a dozen people who have old typewriters that I could use to turn out a document that looks official), I want to know for a fact that they are official.

Of course, it can be argued that the person writing the memorandum was ''faking it'' but in all due respect, most of the people who write their memorandums could not have their integrity questioned because they are such high official ranking officers.

That's not an argument that I would make unless the officer in question had a documented history of perpetrating fraud. And for me no one is above having their integrity questioned. I don't care how unlikely it may be for a high ranking officer to fake such documents, it's still a possibility that must be looked into, if only to account for as many variables as possible.

Faking such things would have warranted their expulsion from their jobs. And most of these men are in very reputable jobs.

I'm a Navy brat, I get that. But I also know that no system is foolproof(they're so damn ingenious) and there's no way to completely prevent fraud and counterfeiting. Hence why I want that data.

-----

There's an underlying problem in your evidence, but I'll get to that later, for now let's review the two links individually.

In your first link the entire argument appears to be nothing but the Nirvana Fallacy, where because the explanation offered isn't perfect it is rejected and another is substituted. Even though the USAF explanation is not perfect, it is at least workable in that unusual presentations of common phenomena could cause all of the things reported(including the radar contacts). Every single criticism of the USAF explanation is along the lines of "but that doesn't normally do that", which doesn't rule it out as an explanation. Sure, it makes it less likely, but the USAF explanation fits the facts and is still more likely than alien visitation is given the hurdles involved(which I've already talked about plenty).

In your second link the explanations given are that the first event was caused by a formation of aircraft(according to the only eyewitness with actual observation equipment, a telescope) and that the second event was caused by flares dropped by military planes during a training sortie. The first explanation is from an eyewitness and the only eyewitness who had equipment for observing, he claimed that he saw planes when he looked at the lights through his telescope. Given that a later event(in 2007) was also caused by a formation of aircraft this seems like a plausible explanation. That the Air Force denied having any aircraft in the air is easily explained by typical military secrecy(hiding a new aircraft design or the testing new a new type of missile, that sort of thing). Given what we know this is a very plausible explanation. The second explanation was confirmed by one of the pilots taking place in the training exercise, so I fail to see what's left to explain here.

Now, on to the major flaw I mentioned earlier. The entire argument for ETs seems to be just like the argument for the existence of ghosts or other paranormal activity. The argument goes something like this, "I don't know what's causing that so it must be aliens/ghosts/god/leprechauns/etc." It's also an internally inconsistent argument because what you're basically saying is that because you can't explain something you can explain it. Such arguments just don't cut it, especially in the face of what appear to be virtually insurmountable obstacles to aliens getting here in the first place(let alone even wanting to come here in the first place).

A lack of an explanation is never going to be evidence for alien visitation, that's not the way it works.

Reiku

11-23-11, 12:32 AM

@Mister --

I prefer the links, it allows me to independently verify what I'm being told. It would be highly remiss of me to just accept something because someone told it to me, especially since I give people a lot of flak when they do the same for other things(such as the existence of god). While I appreciate that you have a good memory, the ability to fact check a thing myself is something that I'm not willing to give up in any debate, let alone a debate about a topic where frauds and hoaxes abound.

Not true, they're easy to fake, however whether or not they'll stand up to rigid scrutiny is another matter all together.

This is exactly the kind of information I was talking about. I want to see the documents and I want to see that this sort of thing has been verified and that they're genuine. Anyone can type up something that looks official(hell, I know a dozen people who have old typewriters that I could use to turn out a document that looks official), I want to know for a fact that they are official.

That's not an argument that I would make unless the officer in question had a documented history of perpetrating fraud. And for me no one is above having their integrity questioned. I don't care how unlikely it may be for a high ranking officer to fake such documents, it's still a possibility that must be looked into, if only to account for as many variables as possible.

I'm a Navy brat, I get that. But I also know that no system is foolproof(they're so damn ingenious) and there's no way to completely prevent fraud and counterfeiting. Hence why I want that data.

-----

There's an underlying problem in your evidence, but I'll get to that later, for now let's review the two links individually.

In your first link the entire argument appears to be nothing but the Nirvana Fallacy, where because the explanation offered isn't perfect it is rejected and another is substituted. Even though the USAF explanation is not perfect, it is at least workable in that unusual presentations of common phenomena could cause all of the things reported(including the radar contacts). Every single criticism of the USAF explanation is along the lines of "but that doesn't normally do that", which doesn't rule it out as an explanation. Sure, it makes it less likely, but the USAF explanation fits the facts and is still more likely than alien visitation is given the hurdles involved(which I've already talked about plenty).

In your second link the explanations given are that the first event was caused by a formation of aircraft(according to the only eyewitness with actual observation equipment, a telescope) and that the second event was caused by flares dropped by military planes during a training sortie. The first explanation is from an eyewitness and the only eyewitness who had equipment for observing, he claimed that he saw planes when he looked at the lights through his telescope. Given that a later event(in 2007) was also caused by a formation of aircraft this seems like a plausible explanation. That the Air Force denied having any aircraft in the air is easily explained by typical military secrecy(hiding a new aircraft design or the testing new a new type of missile, that sort of thing). Given what we know this is a very plausible explanation. The second explanation was confirmed by one of the pilots taking place in the training exercise, so I fail to see what's left to explain here.

Now, on to the major flaw I mentioned earlier. The entire argument for ETs seems to be just like the argument for the existence of ghosts or other paranormal activity. The argument goes something like this, "I don't know what's causing that so it must be aliens/ghosts/god/leprechauns/etc." It's also an internally inconsistent argument because what you're basically saying is that because you can't explain something you can explain it. Such arguments just don't cut it, especially in the face of what appear to be virtually insurmountable obstacles to aliens getting here in the first place(let alone even wanting to come here in the first place).

A lack of an explanation is never going to be evidence for alien visitation, that's not the way it works.

No. I will not post links.

I have exhausted quite a lot at this forum today, even writing a humble reply to you. If you want to put the information to the test, please, be my guest. I think I've earned enough today to say ''do some work for yourself.''

Reiku

11-23-11, 12:33 AM

Also, I cannot post the memorandum copies I have which have the security numbers. But I assure you, each memorandum, I think by the law of system, has these. Go study some of them on the FBI website. They should have an array of them displayed for the public.

Reiku

11-23-11, 12:36 AM

''and that the second event was caused by flares dropped by military planes during a training sortie.''

I can't resist this however. Considering the low altitude of the light observed, flares would have been seen falling through the horizon. I actually predicted this would be a response from you.

Check the video evidence for yourself. Judge for yourself. Don't take a Military's word for it. You just need to look at their deception of Roswell to question it fully.

Arioch

11-23-11, 02:01 AM

@Mister --

No. I will not post links.

No, I will not take your statements on faith.

See how fun this is?<voice drips with sarcasm>

I have exhausted quite a lot at this forum today, even writing a humble reply to you. If you want to put the information to the test, please, be my guest. I think I've earned enough today to say ''do some work for yourself.''

I didn't say that I need the links now, they can come at your convenience(like, say, the next time you feel like posting on this thread), however the "do some work yourself" comment made me wince. That's not the way this works, you made the statement so it's on you to support it, not on me to disprove it. This is what's called the burden of proof.

Also, going through the links and fact checking them is work. It's actually more work than just posting the link in the first place because I need to go through and check sources as well as look for flaws in the accounts.

I've been courteous until now, but this sort of response tends to set off my sarcasm and reductio ad absurdum functions. It's incredibly defensive and just bad form in a debate.

Also, I cannot post the memorandum copies I have which have the security numbers.

Then you can't use them as evidence in these debates. Surely copies of them exist online already, all you'd have to do is find the copies and post a link. But unless I can see them and check them for myself I have no way of knowing whether or not they're genuine.

But I assure you, each memorandum, I think by the law of system, has these.

And if I were to assure you that I'd sell you the Golden Gate Bridge for one hundred grand would you believe it? I have no reason to take your assurance seriously. Also, anyone can add a string of numbers, and even letters, to the bottom of a document, I would need to check to see that the security numbers match those of actual documents(fortunately I have friends with the necessary access).

Unfortunately for you your refusal to submit these leads me to conclude that you are either unwilling to do so, which would suggest that they're not genuine, or that you're unable to do so, which would suggest that you don't actually have them. So either pony up or retract the claim in accordance with Sciforum rules.

Go study some of them on the FBI website. They should have an array of them displayed for the public.

And this helps me verify that the documents are genuine how?

I can't resist this however. Considering the low altitude of the light observed, flares would have been seen falling through the horizon. I actually predicted this would be a response from you.

You must have missed the part in your link where it said this:

"Cognitech, an independent video laboratory, superimposed video imagery taken of the Phoenix Lights onto video imagery it shot during daytime from the same location. In the composite image, the lights are seen to extinguish at the moment they reach the Estrella mountain range, which is visible in the daytime, but invisible in the footage shot at night. A broadcast by local Fox Broadcasting affiliate KSAZ-TV claimed to have performed a similar test that showed the lights were in front of the mountain range and suggested that the Cognitech data might have been altered. Dr. Paul Scowen, visiting professor of Astronomy at Arizona State University, performed a third analysis using daytime imagery overlaid with video shot of the lights and his findings were consistent with Cognitech."

And whether you predicted the response or not is irrelevant, the explanation works and fits the facts.

Check the video evidence for yourself.

I did and I saw nothing that couldn't be explained. Now, if the lights had suddenly darted upward at supersonic speeds(complete with sonic boom) that would have been something, but this is actually kind of boring. Hit me with something interesting.

Judge for yourself.

I did. That I came to the same conclusion as other skeptics doesn't mean I'm "blindly following the crowd like a sheeple". All it means is that I looked, saw what happened, looked at the explanation and saw that it fit the events, and reached the same conclusion. Multiple people reaching the same conclusion while looking at the same evidence isn't proof of a conspiracy to hold down your pet theory, it's a sign that the conclusion is valid, that it follows logically from the data.

Don't take a Military's word for it.

Funny, and just a little while ago you were telling me to take your word for something. Now why should I take your word that the documents you speak of are genuine but not "a military's" word that this isn't ETs?

Of course, this is a rhetorical question designed to highlight a logical inconsistency in your posts. First taking things on faith is good(when it agrees with you or means that you don't have to do as much work to fulfill your burden of proof) and then it's bad(when it disagrees with you). Inconsistencies like this don't help your cause, they hurt it.

You just need to look at their deception of Roswell to question it fully.

OH SWEET EVIL JESUS!!!

It was a fucking weather balloon! Oh come on, you can't expect me to take this seriously. The reason for all of the secrecy was that our government were putting recording equipment on weather balloons and using them to spy on the Soviets(much cheaper than high altitude aircraft and they don't put pilots at risk, it's a win win), but they couldn't publicize that fact because then the Russians would have known and it could have meant an all out war(which would have killed everyone). You can't seriously be ignorant of this, I'm almost tempted to call you a Poe here.

Sapientivore

11-23-11, 02:22 AM

I don't need to give you links. I can recite plain old history for you and if at any time you feel the need to look it up, you can. You won't find a flaw anywhere.

Also, Memorandums are very difficult to ''fake''. Some memorandums are given security codes which authenticate their reality. Of course, it can be argued that the person writing the memorandum was ''faking it'' but in all due respect, most of the people who write their memorandums could not have their integrity questioned because they are such high official ranking officers. Faking such things would have warranted their expulsion from their jobs. And most of these men are in very reputable jobs.

You know, you're very defensive for someone who supposedly believes what they're spewing. If you don't care enough about your topic to back it up, exactly why did you decide to talk about it in the first place?

phlogistician

11-23-11, 03:49 AM

[b] You just need to look at their deception of Roswell to question it fully.

Dude, Roswell was a balloon. It was recognised that there's a clear air channel high up, that sound travels though cleanly, around the globe. The USA were listening for nuclear detonation sound signatures, so they could spy on the Soviet nuclear program.

If the USSR knew the USA were doing this, they'd have taken steps to hide their tests (like subterranean detonations), so it was vitally important for the USA to not show their hand.

And now onto your credibility. If you cling onto events like Roswell, which have prosaic explanations, nobody is going to take you seriously. You need to be more discerning. A mass of blurry out of focus photographs, and urban myths, retold time upon time do not add up to being evidence, and certainly do not reinforce a single viewpoint or explanation.

Here's a question for you. Right now, there are more cameras in the hands of the populace than ever before, thanks to mobile phones, and digital photography in general, making photography instantly rewarding and more affordable. So why are we not seeing more, better quality UFO pictures? My (old) digital camera has a 10x optical zoom, and 4mp sensor. My Partner's, is half the size, 10x Optical zoom, and 7mp. We both have 5mp cameras in our cellphones, but without optical zoom. We have never snapped ET. There are telescopes pointing up at the sky, and satellites looking down, and in fact, I used to work in a Physics department with Astronomers that analysed Satellite and Telescope data, and down the corridor was the Earth Observation department. We looked up, they looked down, and nobody ever saw ET. There are more flights in the air than ever before, air travel is cheap, and popular. How come passengers don't see ET?

Show me a decent picture. Some video, that's in focus, that shows something truly inexplicable. That's all we want, _some evidence_.

Stryder

11-23-11, 08:57 AM

I am sorry, but I disagree with everything you have said.

How would they be so outside quantum mechanics, that they are incorporeal? I don't even know what this means.

Definition: without body or substance; intangible.

Aliens will be subject to the same laws of physics as we would be.

You are using your very human observations to govern the universe just by stating this, which again proves my point.

Let me put it within something you might be able to understand. There is a condition in the world called Synaesthesia, it's where a persons neurons didn't gain the disconnections from one another during infancy and where a person has a composition of difference senses relaying information from one sensory input. In other words where you hear music, they might see, taste, feel or even smell it too.

If I was to place an Orange in front of you and them, both of you would state "It's an orange" likely because of what you have been taught, however when it comes to "can you describe to me what it is you see in front of you with as much detail as possible", your explanation might be of the fruit that people come to expect to hear, where as those with Synaesthesia will describe the fruit differently because of how their observation is different to your own.

Obviously you'll imply "But the fruit is still bound by the same physics" but please remember this example is based upon a Human with a life altering condition that is still existent within a world where they have learnt potentially exactly the same as you from shared observations.

It doesn't mean however they will use the same technologies as we do... but in light of this, competent scientists today are attempting scientific breakthrough's in propulsion systems which will become a reality of the future, whether near or far. No scientist denies this.

Aslong as people need jobs and are competing in areas to try and find some niche that isn't overwhelmed by already renowned gross market share holders, they will attempt to enter into fields of science and make their mark. In other words, your competent scientists are just trying to find their niche.

All you need is one civilization, evolved a bit earlier than us so that they have had enough time to develope whatever technology which will allow them to travel the vast of spacetime.

We will reach that day too, assuming we don't blow ourselves up.

Why learn to transverse something you don't have full control over? I mean imagine you design an engine to go super quick, you've then got to have sensor systems linked to a super quick computer to make course alterations when you are approaching stars, planets or astral bodies (asteroids etc) to make sure that their gravity doesn't effect your trajectory or that you'll plough into them.

Also when you enter a gravitational field and then decide to alter course it's going to apply G-Force to any occupants, so this too could have a limiting effect on any speed achieved.

Alternatively it's just understanding that the universe is likely something that has been created within an Emulator and realising the rules to the universe can be changed by the emulator itself, this could mean negating the problems of attempting to travel distances at speed or work out where bodies are placed. I guess you could say it's a work around for Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. (Of course only possible with Human Science)

Reiku

11-23-11, 12:31 PM

@Mister --

No, I will not take your statements on faith.

See how fun this is?<voice drips with sarcasm>

I didn't say that I need the links now, they can come at your convenience(like, say, the next time you feel like posting on this thread), however the "do some work yourself" comment made me wince. That's not the way this works, you made the statement so it's on you to support it, not on me to disprove it. This is what's called the burden of proof.

Also, going through the links and fact checking them is work. It's actually more work than just posting the link in the first place because I need to go through and check sources as well as look for flaws in the accounts.

I've been courteous until now, but this sort of response tends to set off my sarcasm and reductio ad absurdum functions. It's incredibly defensive and just bad form in a debate.

You've been corteous until now? Lol.... You're the one who asked for information of ''this evidence'' - I was corteous enough to sit down and write all that out for you. I didn't need to you know.

I am that confident in all my assertions and historical notes that I don't even think about needing to post links. Are you confident enough to find the appropriate information and realize it was all truth? Whatever that means?

Reiku

11-23-11, 12:33 PM

Dude, Roswell was a balloon.

Is that right?

So why did competent military personnel originally say they had in their possession a flying saucer?

If you can come up with a credible explanation for why this happened, I will bow down. Even the special agent Guy Hottel Memorandum offers tangible evidence towards something really happening that day.

Reiku

11-23-11, 12:37 PM

Definition: without body or substance; intangible.

You are using your very human observations to govern the universe just by stating this, which again proves my point.

No I am not... well... Yes I am human, but that is beside the point. I am using a well known principle of quantum mechanics, that being the laws of physics do not change anywhere for anyone. Do you understand this principle?

It would mean aliens would be subject to the same physical laws. This is so close to the truth, I don't know where you extracted your belief from.

Arioch

11-23-11, 01:08 PM

@Mister --

You've been corteous until now? Lol....

Yes, I have, up until my last post that is. One might even say that I've been polite.

You're the one who asked for information of ''this evidence'' -

You mean the evidence you were obliged by Sciforum rules to produce? Next time should I just immediately report you for not supporting your statements of truth rather than giving you a chance to defend yourself?

I was corteous enough to sit down and write all that out for you. I didn't need to you know.

No, you didn't, but you did need to support your assertions under Sciforums rules. However other than the two links you gave me, both of which already have adequate explanations and thus don't count as evidence of ETs, you haven't provided me with shit.

You've made some claims and that's it. I can make claims too you know, in fact, so can anyone. So why should I take your claims any more seriously than Deepak Chopra's or Kent Hovind's?

I am that confident in all my assertions and historical notes that I don't even think about needing to post links.

Whether you think about it or not doesn't change the fact that you need to support your assertion with evidence, that's how science works. You need to do the work to support your claims and fulfill your burden of proof. End of discussion.

Either provide the evidence or admit that you can't support your claims and that they're merely your opinion. There is a third option, you can continue on this path and I can report you, but those are really your only options.

Are you confident enough to find the appropriate information and realize it was all truth? Whatever that means?

Wait, you still want me to do your damn work for you? Are you the laziest SOB on the face of the planet?!? It's your claim, you back it up.

So why did competent military personnel originally say they had in their possession a flying saucer?

If you can come up with a credible explanation for why this happened, I will bow down.

Well that's simple enough. It was a practical joke. Humans do this sort of thing all the time.

Even the special agent Guy Hottel Memorandum offers tangible evidence towards something really happening that day.

So show us this fucking evidence already. You claim you have the evidence? Well I'm calling your bluff.

Reiku

11-23-11, 01:19 PM

@Mister --

Yes, I have, up until my last post that is. One might even say that I've been polite.

You mean the evidence you were obliged by Sciforum rules to produce? Next time should I just immediately report you for not supporting your statements of truth rather than giving you a chance to defend yourself?

No, you didn't, but you did need to support your assertions under Sciforums rules. However other than the two links you gave me, both of which already have adequate explanations and thus don't count as evidence of ETs, you haven't provided me with shit.

You've made some claims and that's it. I can make claims too you know, in fact, so can anyone. So why should I take your claims any more seriously than Deepak Chopra's or Kent Hovind's?

Whether you think about it or not doesn't change the fact that you need to support your assertion with evidence, that's how science works. You need to do the work to support your claims and fulfill your burden of proof. End of discussion.

Either provide the evidence or admit that you can't support your claims and that they're merely your opinion. There is a third option, you can continue on this path and I can report you, but those are really your only options.

Wait, you still want me to do your damn work for you? Are you the laziest SOB on the face of the planet?!? It's your claim, you back it up.

Well that's simple enough. It was a practical joke. Humans do this sort of thing all the time.

So show us this fucking evidence already. You claim you have the evidence? Well I'm calling your bluff.

Do you really not understand, I am not obliged to say anything on the subject? Do you really think anyone really cares if I did or not? In light of how much the UFO culture is shunned upon, I doubt anyone apart from yourself would have really cared.

Honestly-speaking, you are simply wanting to waste more of my time. And not only that, come out with elaborate stories on why certain events took place in the UFO history. For instance, I find this a real gem:

''Well that's simple enough. It was a practical joke. Humans do this sort of thing all the time.''

Do you even realize the consequences of such an action? For their jobs? For their livelihoods? In fact, let us not even go down that road. You seem to have completely ignored my statement on the special agent Guy Hottel's informant who was in the Military Circle that there really was UFO's recovered that day.

This kind of behaviour you are displaying and like so many do, is similar to simply burrying your head in the sand and ignoring all the evidence. What about eye-witness statement of a saucer-like shaped craft crashing just outside the New Mexico ranch? Do they not have any say in the matter? These where honest, hard-working men no doubt who witnessed this event - there is essentially a big difference between a weather balloon and a saucer shaped craft.

''No, you didn't, but you did need to support your assertions under Sciforums rules. ''

There are many cases above which are pretty well known to the community.

''Wait, you still want me to do your damn work for you? ''

What work? I said if you disagreed with anything I said, you could cross-reference it yourself. It's a quick google search. Surely not all the cases above will warrant a google search----- are you saying you are completely in the dark with each and every case mentioned? There are some famous cases in there and if you have never heard of them, I'd advise you to go investigate the UFO culture so you may in the future, have a better grasp of any conversation on said subject.

Reiku

11-23-11, 01:25 PM

''So show us this fucking evidence already. You claim you have the evidence? Well I'm calling your bluff. ''

You've never seen the Guy Hottel Memorandum??? You should check back on the posts here. Some one was kind enough to scan it on sciforums. I don't bluff.

Reiku

11-23-11, 01:57 PM

You know, you're very defensive for someone who supposedly believes what they're spewing. If you don't care enough about your topic to back it up, exactly why did you decide to talk about it in the first place?

Actually, I feel no need to back something up with references simply because I am so confident in my statements. So confident, that I leave it to the competent viewer to investigate these facts.

It does not help me doing absolutely all the work. I want to see readers make their own revelations on their own investigation concerning the matters I have brought forth. Believe it or not, but it is for the better sake of the reader that I am so defensive.

Stryder

11-23-11, 08:48 PM

No I am not... well... Yes I am human, but that is beside the point. I am using a well known principle of quantum mechanics, that being the laws of physics do not change anywhere for anyone. Do you understand this principle?

It would mean aliens would be subject to the same physical laws. This is so close to the truth, I don't know where you extracted your belief from.

Please note the principle you refer to is based upon "our observations", as the old adage states:

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I mean you might rush to some unknown quadrant of the universe, break out a slide ruler and state "The physics here is the same as it is over there", however at the end of the day you are the same observer that compared these two points of the universe, not two different ones with no method of communicating the observations between one another.

How do you think you could make a double-blind experiment to prove physics is the same, considering you would require an observer that is beyond our observational field to aid in conducting it.

Reiku

11-23-11, 09:41 PM

Please note the principle you refer to is based upon "our observations", as the old adage states:

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I mean you might rush to some unknown quadrant of the universe, break out a slide ruler and state "The physics here is the same as it is over there", however at the end of the day you are the same observer that compared these two points of the universe, not two different ones with no method of communicating the observations between one another.

How do you think you could make a double-blind experiment to prove physics is the same, considering you would require an observer that is beyond our observational field to aid in conducting it.

Maybe you don't trust humanities ability to measure science. But you cannot question that quantum mechanics will not be the same for aliens. That creates a poor understanding of the subject itself.

Reiku

11-23-11, 10:05 PM

For aliens, an electron is still an electron, albeit no doubt they have another name for it. It will still run through wires. They will be aware of the gravitational force, electomagnetic, strong and weak forces. They will still measure the same the laws in their corner of the universe. No doubt, they would be likely way ahead of us with many concepts, but the primitive science for them would be the stuff we are making breakthrough's on.

Stryder

11-23-11, 11:17 PM

Maybe you don't trust humanities ability to measure science. But you cannot question that quantum mechanics will not be the same for aliens. That creates a poor understanding of the subject itself.

Actually no, the argument I am implying is that for aliens to exist it would require the observation that physics can be different.
Stating that physics is the same everywhere in the universe implies a system that is built from the same composites under the same rules, which actually points more to emulation theory being accurate.

As I've stated if Emulation theory is accurate, then that means it's all built by one civilisation which rules out others.

(Just to broaden on this, Our Civilisation wouldn't produce another lesser civilisation to become potential slaves or be seen as lessers, nor would it produce an equal or greater civilisation due to the basis of Darwinistic Survival and making sure that we aren't in competition with a potential dominant species.)

Reiku

11-24-11, 12:11 AM

Actually no, the argument I am implying is that for aliens to exist it would require the observation that physics can be different.
Stating that physics is the same everywhere in the universe implies a system that is built from the same composites under the same rules, which actually points more to emulation theory being accurate.

As I've stated if Emulation theory is accurate, then that means it's all built by one civilisation which rules out others.

(Just to broaden on this, Our Civilisation wouldn't produce another lesser civilisation to become potential slaves or be seen as lessers, nor would it produce an equal or greater civilisation due to the basis of Darwinistic Survival and making sure that we aren't in competition with a potential dominant species.)

And aliens would have had to begin with the same primitive laws we began dealing with. Sure, I understand they will have different principles and most likely a different interpretation of the science we call ''physics'' - but the bottom line is that the dynamics will need to be the same. No doubt they have moved on sufficiently from the day that we call present knowledge on physics.

The Esotericist

11-24-11, 12:23 AM

(Just to broaden on this, Our Civilisation wouldn't produce another lesser civilisation to become potential slaves or be seen as lessers, nor would it produce an equal or greater civilisation due to the basis of Darwinistic Survival and making sure that we aren't in competition with a potential dominant species.)

Why not? :shrug: All your points have led me to conclude that your narrow minded boxed in view of the cosmos only mean that humanity lacks wisdom, and cannot even fathom the motivation of a supremely wise and advanced civilization. IMO your ignorance is only superseded by your arrogance.

Why wouldn't we create life, in the hopes that it would evolve to a state of consciousness equal to or greater than our own? Restricting it when it looks like it is becoming dangerous, and giving it freedom to grow and develop when it looks like it is blossoming in a beneficial and fruitful way? And should things grow and go totally wrong? Well, perhaps we would just wipe the whole planet out with. . .say, a great flood and start all over. What do you say about that? :eek:

Reiku

11-24-11, 12:36 AM

Why not? :shrug: All your points have led me to conclude that your narrow minded boxed in view of the cosmos only mean that humanity lacks wisdom, and cannot even fathom the motivation of a supremely wise and advanced civilization. IMO your ignorance is only superseded by your arrogance.

Why wouldn't we create life, in the hopes that it would evolve to a state of consciousness equal to or greater than our own? Restricting it when it looks like it is becoming dangerous, and giving it freedom to grow and develop when it looks like it is blossoming in a beneficial and fruitful way? And should things grow and go totally wrong? Well, perhaps we would just wipe the whole planet out with. . .say, a great flood and start all over. What do you say about that? :eek:

He's obviously never seen ''I Robot'' ;)

I think it is definately one of the tasts of bioscientists to create life in the lab. Of course, we are god and we will have the ability to destroy it at any time, but for the sake of scientific discourse, I very much believe we will be intent on watching this life grow and evolve.

It is afterall the pinnacle of modern understanding of evolution, proving this absolutely would be very important.

Reiku

11-24-11, 02:15 AM

I just deleted my post by accident... thank god I made a copy of it below in response to Phlog

Reiku

11-24-11, 02:24 AM

Also, speaking about the Pheonix lights, if anyone has actually studied the available video evidence of the event, one can clearly see that the lights are not decending on the horizon. They are pretty much even throughout the whole hour and a half.

It is quite clear the Military fabricated that story, hoping that uneducated American's would not question their word.

phlogistician

11-24-11, 04:07 AM

Hey Phlog, there are serious problems on the methodologies of such a theory. Though it can be noted that the CIA officially stated that the Military embraced the UFO phenomenon to keep under wraps the secret air technologies they had been developing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wLQvQ9mFck&feature=related

Oh dear. I mentioned credibility, and you linked to a video that features Bob Lazar.

Really dude, you need to work on your discernment. That vid declares Lazar to be an MIT graduate. There's no record of him attending MIT, let alone graduating. He can't provide his degree certificate, name one fellow student, show a picture in a yearbook, listing in a phone book, or even recall the name of a lecturer (He gave the name Hohsfield as an MIT lecturer, but that turned out to be a guy from the college Lazar attended, not an MIT lecturer.).

So, Lazar is full of shit, and you need to find something credible to offer.

Reiku

11-24-11, 04:36 AM

Reiku

11-24-11, 04:38 AM

Oh dear. I mentioned credibility, and you linked to a video that features Bob Lazar.

Really dude, you need to work on your discernment. That vid declares Lazar to be an MIT graduate. There's no record of him attending MIT, let alone graduating. He can't provide his degree certificate, name one fellow student, show a picture in a yearbook, listing in a phone book, or even recall the name of a lecturer (He gave the name Hohsfield as an MIT lecturer, but that turned out to be a guy from the college Lazar attended, not an MIT lecturer.).

So, Lazar is full of shit, and you need to find something credible to offer.

I was talking about the official CIA statement on UFO's which is mentioned in this documentary. Not only that, but you've ignored the better part of my post, let me highlight it for you:

Now, without even mentioning the Guy Hottel Memorandum, or other witness accounts that momentous day, could you explain to me if the Military was going to use a UFO ''explanation'' to account for the crash, why did they retract the statement almost immediately? Surely if they were going to use a UFO explanation to wash away their activities, they would have held onto this lie for much longer?

This doesn't make sense. So many people today are taking the CIA statement as them ''back-tracking'' again on the existence of alien technology. Many people simply don't believe that the Military would go originally to such extreems as to say it was a ''UFO'' that was possibly from another planet.

Here is another thing to consider, if indeed the UFO's are their own technologies, why are they displaying them often in view of hundreds of witnesses? This isn't keeping it low key at all and would seem to destroy the initial purpose that they seem to be saying they initiated in the first place. So many cases don't match up, such as the Pheonix Lights; why would the military shoot flares (at a remarkably low altitude) right above the town of Pheonix? Why would they have several orbs flying low over washington? These aren't products of their technologies... lol... they'd love to have you believe that but this is not the case.

The fact these objects are seen directly by hundreds of people, just defeats any secretive purposes. They might as well have a big arrow pointing at them saying ''here we are''.

Reiku

11-24-11, 05:06 AM

I just deleted by accident the original post in response to Phlog, but I copied it thankfully above. Concerning the pheonix lights:

So many cases don't match up, such as the Pheonix Lights; why would the military shoot flares (at a remarkably low altitude) right above the town of Pheonix?

The pheonix lights could not have been flares. Study the video evidence for yourself through this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5KtsZ5rIjo

The lights do not decend on the horizon. Flares are subject to falling due to gravity. This would be noticable as well considering how low the altitude was. The medical doctor also caught a picture of orbs two years preceeding the Pheonix light case with remarkable overtones.

Reiku

11-24-11, 05:38 AM

Along the same lines, testimony it couldn't have been flares

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb3pTOv886Y&feature=related

phlogistician

11-24-11, 05:59 AM

I wasn't talking about Bob Lazar. :bugeye: I don't even believe in his claims, so stop evading my questions and posing this as something else. Can you answer my questions?

I stopped watching the vid when they introduced Lazar. If that's their level of fact checking the rest is probably bullshit and not worth wasting my time on.

You need credible sources.

phlogistician

11-24-11, 06:23 AM

Along the same lines, testimony it couldn't have been flares

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb3pTOv886Y&feature=related

A documentary made by the woman that wrote (and profited) from a book?

Quote:

"it seemed an intelligent presence was staring back"

when eye witnesses come out with crap like that, you know they are delusional.

Sounds to me like she saw a formation of chinese lanterns. Here's a vid I took of chinese lanterns:

http://youtu.be/h_Djd8kJ6n8

Please, you need some discernment.

Stryder

11-24-11, 12:49 PM

He's obviously never seen ''I Robot'' ;)

I think it is definately one of the tasts of bioscientists to create life in the lab. Of course, we are god and we will have the ability to destroy it at any time, but for the sake of scientific discourse, I very much believe we will be intent on watching this life grow and evolve.

It is afterall the pinnacle of modern understanding of evolution, proving this absolutely would be very important.

Reflcetion on the BBC article: Could a robot be conscious? (http://blog.stryderunknown.co.uk/2011/09/13/reflection-on-could-a-robot-be-conscious/)

That entry pretty much covers a position on life evolving as "How to make an inanimate object animate".

Reiku

11-24-11, 02:08 PM

A documentary made by the woman that wrote (and profited) from a book?

Quote:

"it seemed an intelligent presence was staring back"

when eye witnesses come out with crap like that, you know they are delusional.

Sounds to me like she saw a formation of chinese lanterns. Here's a vid I took of chinese lanterns:

http://youtu.be/h_Djd8kJ6n8

Please, you need some discernment.

Stop attacking the people and please evaluate the evidence. It is quite clearly not flares. Some experts in their fields show you what flares look like and how they decend. The pheonix lights do NONE OF THIS.

Attack the evidence please, not the people.

Reiku

11-24-11, 02:10 PM

I stopped watching the vid when they introduced Lazar. If that's their level of fact checking the rest is probably bullshit and not worth wasting my time on.

You need credible sources.

They make a mention of the CIA's statement on UFO's. I am sure the credibility of this cannot be questioned.

You tell me please, how many documentaries nowadays make a mention of Bob lazar? He's become as famous as any part of the UFO culture. Doesn't mean I believe in him. I still find it disingenuous that you would not watch the video to compare the information I spoke about and instead trying to make it out that this was in reference to Bob Lazar. He's a crank. Period.

Reiku

11-24-11, 02:12 PM

In fact, I am going to make a thread on the Pheonix lights in reference to the Military Statement they were their own flares and uncover their lies.

Reiku

11-24-11, 02:21 PM

A documentary made by the woman that wrote (and profited) from a book?

Quote:

"it seemed an intelligent presence was staring back"

when eye witnesses come out with crap like that, you know they are delusional.

Sounds to me like she saw a formation of chinese lanterns. Here's a vid I took of chinese lanterns:

http://youtu.be/h_Djd8kJ6n8

Please, you need some discernment.

Also, I can't help notice but you've ignored my questions for a second time phlog. If you are going to present theory on why the military embrace UFO sightings, you should be able to explain away my questions.... I can't help but feel my questions have stumped you.

Reiku

11-24-11, 02:37 PM

http://youtu.be/h_Djd8kJ6n8

Please, you need some discernment.

Well I now I know you are a typical skeptic.

Can I also state that the objects in your video do not remain equally equidistant from each other. The space between them changes drastically in the matter of seconds.

The distance of the lights in the Pheonix case remain properly even throughout the entire hour and a half. Of course, if you had actually watched the video, this was actually a point made by the professionals in the video. That it could not have been flares (and in your case as you have demonstrated) chinese lanterns because the space between the lights never vary. I gave your video 20 seconds and I could see them vary almost immediately.

I don't need discernment. You need proper scientific measure.

Reiku

11-24-11, 05:24 PM

I know! It's almost as if UFO conspiracy theorists have some kind of ... secret knowledge. What are they holding back from us?

How about a better understanding of the facts? Or perhaps, not disillusioned by any explanations that will be made to fit the bill, just because they are conventional? In other words, just because a bunch of lights are seen in the sky, I won't naturally assume it must be chinese lanterns for instance, without evaluating how plausible that explanation might be. If the evidence shows it cannot be that, then of course I am willing to explore more unconventional explanations.

Of course, in many instances, the UFO conspiracy theorists don't even need to have a secret knowlegde on the subject, though many have had their own experiences of maybe viewing a UFO which may defy all current technological abilities. All we need to do, is sit back half the time. The fact the Military, the Government and agents under the governement have denied their involvement in UFO activity just tells me and of course tells a lot of UFO nuts that there is more to the truth than which meets the eye.

The pheonix lights are an amazing example of this. The Military made no statement on it for a while after that event. It wasn't until they realized it was making major headlines all over the world that they decided to falsely state that it was flares shot from their own planes. Of course, there is no evidence suggesting they had and close analysis of video evidence quite clearly shows that they weren't flares. Even a school child who is shown two different video's, one of real flares and the other of the pheonix lights would be able to discern major differences.

They weren't even chinese lanterns and you can evaluate my evidence on that too above.

I am UFO believer (that is to say) I believe that UFO's are real and that they may be civilizations from another planet. I think it would be fair to say of me, that I don't obviously call all UFO cases to be evidence of this, nor do I simply take a UFO account at face value and be naive and cite it. I actually study the phenomenon first then make a proper judgement on it.

Reiku

11-24-11, 05:33 PM

Possibly. :D But the main thing they are trying to keep hidden (but actually revealing VERY obviously) is their stupidity, ignorance and gullibility. Plus, as I've been saying for years, their dreary boring lives which leaves them yearning for something exciting!

We've had numerous people here who fit those conditions perfectly - and they are just a part of a group who WANTS to believe in aliens, bigfoot, Nessie, the 9-11 conspiracy, etc., etc. Oh... and don't forget those who believe in Rossi and his stupid e-cat! ;)

What an ugly post.

A UFO believer does not make them gullible or niave. A true believers and true to the facts avoids being gullible and naive by evaluating all the evidence. The only gullibility and naive behaviour often comes from those who will try and apply the conventional means of explanations to an event in a desperate attempt to wash the sighting away. It serves only the causes of those who are in control of the evidence and proof.

There are many intelligible believers out there. Much more intelligent than yourself, I would presume.

Reiku

11-24-11, 05:38 PM

But, but, but... didn't the US government openly admit that it had been dealing with various races of extra-terrestrials, reverse-engineering their technology, breeding human-alien hybrids and also admitted to being complicit in a secret world-takeover plan engineered by these aliens?
I'm sure they did so in the promised (by the pro-UFO lobby) disclosure of 2001, the one that was put back to 2002, um, 2005, er... when exactly did the disclosure happen, I forget.

The government has never admitted to such a thing. There has been a lot of denial - from the FBI to NASA to even the Government involving their involvement in investigations involving UFO's.

The FBI later released 1,100 documents of UFO investigations. NASA had also been caught out lying... and let us not even begin on the deceptive nature of the government. In light of your post, you just sound like you are being sarcastic.

Read-Only

11-24-11, 07:03 PM

What an ugly post.

A UFO believer does not make them gullible or niave. A true believers and true to the facts avoids being gullible and naive by evaluating all the evidence. The only gullibility and naive behaviour often comes from those who will try and apply the conventional means of explanations to an event in a desperate attempt to wash the sighting away. It serves only the causes of those who are in control of the evidence and proof.

There are many intelligible believers out there. Much more intelligent than yourself, I would presume.

Your whole problem lies in your last three words above - you presume FAR too much.

You talk about "facts and evidence" and yet have neither. You and your ilk are actually nothing more than a religion - blind faith based on hearsay, anecdotes and fuzzy, out of focus pictures and videos. :shrug:

Reiku

11-24-11, 07:15 PM

Your whole problem lies in your last three words above - you presume FAR too much.

You talk about "facts and evidence" and yet have neither. You and your ilk are actually nothing more than a religion - blind faith based on hearsay, anecdotes and fuzzy, out of focus pictures and videos. :shrug:

Rubbish. I know what evidence you are looking for. Absolute disclosure. In the meanwhile, UFOlogists need to evaluate the evidence (and there is a difference between evidence and proof) so that skeptics are confronted with accurate debates.

Take my Pheonix Lights case. Phlog above stated that it seemed very likely that what they saw was Chinese Lanterns. But with a proper evaluation of the evidence, you can rule out Chinese Lanterns. You can also rule out demonstratably and conclusively they weren't flares either.

So believers like myself are actually conducting this investigation more rigourously than the skeptics. The reason why I believe, is because the skeptics already believe by default that a conventional explanation can be applied to each and every case. The very idea it could constitute an explanation outside the conventional means doesn't even cross the skeptics mind. And we are the one's being called ''nuts'' because of it.

Reiku

11-24-11, 07:19 PM

The governor of Arizona originally washed the claims away with his team as being a load of hoolah and made a mockery of the UFO nuts concerning what happened in Pheonix. The Governor actually witnessed the event first hand and became quite ashamed of his actions. He then started to admit there was something otherworldly about the lights, and even states at the end of this documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08NudZZCH90&feature=related that the lights could not have flares. I have shown they couldn't have been chinese lantern.

The only nuts I really see are the skeptics, who believe in such childish explanations. They should all be stuck in a play pen, with sand and rattles.

phlogistician

11-25-11, 03:33 AM

Attack the evidence please, not the people.

The woman the wrote the book is a flake. She looked at some lights in the sky and claimed she could feel an intelligence looking back at her.

That is complete and utter fabrication. I do not trust ANYTHING ELSE she has to say.

Oh, on evidence, a guy with a telescope looked at the Phoenix lights and saw aeroplanes. How's that for evidence?

phlogistician

11-25-11, 03:38 AM

I can't help but feel my questions have stumped you.

Simply the organisations that need secrecy use misinformation. Little green en visiting Earth was just such a smokescreen. I'd like to think people aren't gullible enough to entertain that any longer.

Reiku

11-25-11, 03:39 AM

Simply the organisations that need secrecy use misinformation. Little green en visiting Earth was just such a smokescreen. I'd like to think people aren't gullible enough to entertain that any longer.

That is not answering my questions. That is you simply reinstating your last beliefs. Comon phlog, if you are going to play, atleast play fair. Answer my questions properly.

Reiku

11-25-11, 03:42 AM

The woman the wrote the book is a flake. She looked at some lights in the sky and claimed she could feel an intelligence looking back at her.

That is complete and utter fabrication. I do not trust ANYTHING ELSE she has to say.

Oh, on evidence, a guy with a telescope looked at the Phoenix lights and saw aeroplanes. How's that for evidence?

I get it that you are a skeptic. You don't need to be a jerk about it. The video's in the documentary speak for themselves. The professionals who analyse the lights and rule out flares are completely independant of her own beliefs.

Besides, her own opinions on ''how she felt'' is hardly convincing evidence. You are the one who made a thread to discredit UFO nuts... atleast show you have the intelligence to hold up a proper arguement against a believer. All I see are some very weak counterarguements and attack people, not the evidence, which is a no-no in anyone's book.

phlogistician

11-25-11, 03:43 AM

Well I now I know you are a typical skeptic.

Can I also state that the objects in your video do not remain equally equidistant from each other. The space between them changes drastically in the matter of seconds.

And I posted that video in reference to the three lights the MD said looked back at her with some intelligence, NOT the Phoenix lights video.

The MD described the lights keeping a defined form, just like the paper of a chinese lantern does, and the lights dimming and winking out, just like chinese lanterns do, so I posted a vid of chinese lanterns,....

I don't need discernment. You need proper scientific measure.

Ha, that's funny, considering I studied physics at University and then worked in a Physics department with Postgrads for four years. But to bring the scientific method to bear, requires there's something we can measure. There isn't anything we can get quantitative data on wrt UFOs, is there?

And yes, you need discernment. That MD is a flake and Bob Lazar is a liar. You need to avoid material that incorporates these people. It's pop trash for retards who watch the SiFi channel. It is not real.

Reiku

11-25-11, 03:46 AM

''Oh, on evidence, a guy with a telescope looked at the Phoenix lights and saw aeroplanes. How's that for evidence? ''

Proof please.

Reiku

11-25-11, 03:46 AM

And if it was planes, why did you say it was chinese lanterns... sounds like your full of shit.

Reiku

11-25-11, 03:49 AM

And I posted that video in reference to the three lights the MD said looked back at her with some intelligence, NOT the Phoenix lights video.

The MD described the lights keeping a defined form, just like the paper of a chinese lantern does, and the lights dimming and winking out, just like chinese lanterns do, so I posted a vid of chinese lanterns,....

Ha, that's funny, considering I studied physics at University and then worked in a Physics department with Postgrads for four years. But to bring the scientific method to bear, requires there's something we can measure. There isn't anything we can get quantitative data on wrt UFOs, is there?

And yes, you need discernment. That MD is a flake and Bob Lazar is a liar. You need to avoid material that incorporates these people. It's pop trash for retards who watch the SiFi channel. It is not real.

The intelligence ''is related to the pheonix lights'' --- but stop holding onto that. I don't see why you are holding onto this. Assume with the facts of the evidence. Attack like evidence, not the people! What part of this do you not understand???

And just because you have ''studied physics at university'' does not make your claim any more strengthed or not. Stanton Friedman is a nuclear physicist and a UFO proponent. How do you say to that one?

Reiku

11-25-11, 03:50 AM

And I also made a point of saying Bob lazar was a crank. Why you bringing him back into the subject? He was never really part of this talk anyway.

phlogistician

11-25-11, 03:50 AM

The Military made no statement on it for a while after that event. It wasn't until they realized it was making major headlines all over the world that they decided to falsely state

Falsely state? Oh boy. You want it to be something else so much you'll discard evidence you don't like.

The fact 'The Military' didn't make a statement was probably because they were engaging in what they thought was mundane actions, and then had to explain once they saw the fuss.

Also, the mistake you make is convolving all the different elements people reported into one event; these things were quite possibly separate events witnessed by different people.

Reiku

11-25-11, 03:52 AM

Yeah, look back on my most recent comments to your most recent posts. Also, don't evade my original questions. You are just going to make more work for yourself, because I will go back and refresh it all here and now for you.

phlogistician

11-25-11, 03:54 AM

Take my Pheonix Lights case. Phlog above stated that it seemed very likely that what they saw was Chinese Lanterns.

Nope. You need to watch the material you link to, and comprehend what people write. Your vid had an interview with the MD who got started on the whole Phoenix Lights investigation, after she saw three lights in the sky some years previously. It was that event I was comparing to chinese lanterns. I didn't watch any more of the vid after she claimed the light had looked back at her with intelligence. Life is too short to spend time listening to flakes and their BS.

Reiku

11-25-11, 03:57 AM

phlogistician

11-25-11, 03:57 AM

''Oh, on evidence, a guy with a telescope looked at the Phoenix lights and saw aeroplanes. How's that for evidence? ''

Proof please.

His name is detailed on the Wikipedia page for the Phoenix lights.

"Mitch Stanley, an amateur astronomer, observed the lights using a Dobsonian telescope giving 43x magnification. After observing the lights, he told his mother, who was present at the time, that the lights were aircraft.[17] According to Stanley, the lights were quite clearly individual airplanes; a companion who was with him recalled asking Stanley at the time what the lights were, and he said, "Planes". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights)

phlogistician

11-25-11, 03:58 AM

Right, you keep avoiding all the shit you cannot answer. You are no scientist. You can't even conduct a proper talk on the subject. I'll just gather everything up and keep reposting it until you answer my suffiently.

Ask your questions clearly and concisely then, and I'll answer them if they are fair questions.

Reiku

11-25-11, 03:59 AM

His name is detailed on the Wikipedia page for the Phoenix lights.

"Mitch Stanley, an amateur astronomer, observed the lights using a Dobsonian telescope giving 43x magnification. After observing the lights, he told his mother, who was present at the time, that the lights were aircraft.[17] According to Stanley, the lights were quite clearly individual airplanes; a companion who was with him recalled asking Stanley at the time what the lights were, and he said, "Planes". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights)

Rubbish. I can discount his claim easily. You should have known IMMEDIATELY, if you have taken courses in physics, planes cannot stay in one location at any time for any long periods of time. GEEEEZZEEE... who am I talking too???:bugeye:

Not only that, but tons of witnesses reported no sound from these objects. But even if there was sound, it certainly wasn't planes. That is a physical, scientific impossibility.

You are starting to make that dear woman in the documentary look like Einstein :bugeye:

Reiku

11-25-11, 04:04 AM

Phlog, we have went from military flares. Discredited. Then we went to chinese Lanterns. Discredited. Now you are clutching onto straws with planes...

What next... birds with lights attached?

phlogistician

11-25-11, 04:06 AM

Rubbish. I can discount his claim easily. You should have known IMMEDIATELY, if you have taken courses in physics, planes cannot stay in one location at any time for any long periods of time. GEEEEZZEEE... who am I talking too???:bugeye:

You are assuming that what the objects actually did, not just what they appeared to do. Also, some witnesses reported 'the formation' to have 'flown overhead' so it was not stationary, according to some. You need to re-read your research bub.

Not only that, but tons of witnesses reported no sound from these objects. But even if there was sound, it certainly wasn't planes. That is a physical, scientific impossibility.

I live near the busiest freight airport in the UK. I see lots of planes, especially at night, with their running lights. I seldom hear any. That doesn't mean they aren't making any noise, just that I can't hear it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

And again you discount the eye witness testimony that said at least one phenomena WAS planes.

You are starting to make that dear woman in the documentary look like Einstein :bugeye:

Oh please, that woman is a flake. She made a dumbass statement that ruined her credibiity. I on the other hand have been researching UFO and ETI visitation for a long time, and you know why? BECAUSE I'D LOVE IT TO BE TRUE! But so far, I have not seen a single convincing shred of evidence. Not one. Do you understand, I WANT TO BELIEVE.

Reiku

11-25-11, 04:10 AM

You are assuming that what the objects actually did, not just what they appeared to do. Also, some witnesses reported 'the formation' to have 'flown overhead' so it was not stationary, according to some. You need to re-read your research bub.

I live near the busiest freight airport in the UK. I see lots of planes, especially at night, with their running lights. I seldom hear any. That doesn't mean they aren't making any noise, just that I can't hear it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

And again you discount the eye witness testimony that said at least one phenomena WAS planes.

Oh please, that woman is a flake. She made a dumbass statement that ruined her credibiity. I on the other hand have been researching UFO and ETI visitation for a long time, and you know why? BECAUSE I'D LOVE IT TO BE TRUE! But so far, I have not seen a single convincing shred of evidence. Not one. Do you understand, I WANT TO BELIEVE.

Yes... they did move ahead for a while, before coming to a stationary point for a while before dimming. You can see this in the video!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is not what ''it appears to be''...... and considering there were 8 or 7 of these lights at an increadibly low altitude (very low) in the middle of the night (so sound is travelling much better in the absence of the buisy background) you are now claiming there would be no noise heard, by anyone??? Get a grip.

I live next to a naval base and we can hear helicopters which make a considerably less noise than even planes in the distance as it traverses the water, which is about seven miles away and a good distance into the sky.

get a grip. Seriously.

Reiku

11-25-11, 04:10 AM

Sounds like Stanely is a bit of a freak --- a total jackass skeptic who just wanted to add to tales to debunk the claims as best he could.

phlogistician

11-25-11, 04:11 AM

Phlog, we have went from military flares. Discredited. Then we went to chinese Lanterns. Discredited. Now you are clutching onto straws with planes...

What next... birds with lights attached?

I never claimed the Phoenix lights were chinese lanterns. Read, comprehend, become CREDIBLE.

Reiku

11-25-11, 04:13 AM

I also get the impression you are not young any more. You are an older man, so I would understand if you can't hear helicopters or planes like you used to.

Your claims are wickedly weird!

Reiku

11-25-11, 04:13 AM

I never claimed the Phoenix lights were chinese lanterns. Read, comprehend, become CREDIBLE.

Yes you did. You said ''sounds like to me that they might have seen chinese lanterns''

WHICH WAS YOUR CLAIM.

And if I see you have even modified that post, I will from now on call you a flat out liar!

Reiku

11-25-11, 04:15 AM

Post 159

A documentary made by the woman that wrote (and profited) from a book?

Quote:

"it seemed an intelligent presence was staring back"

when eye witnesses come out with crap like that, you know they are delusional.

Sounds to me like she saw a formation of chinese lanterns. Here's a vid I took of chinese lanterns:

http://youtu.be/h_Djd8kJ6n8

Please, you need some discernment.

Still claiming you never said that Phlog?????

Reiku

11-25-11, 04:15 AM

You can't even remember what you said, how can you expect anyone to believe you have a valid mind on any of these things we discuss?

phlogistician

11-25-11, 04:18 AM

Sounds like Stanely is a bit of a freak --- a total jackass skeptic who just wanted to add to tales to debunk the claims as best he could.

You discount this eye witness testimony simply because it doesn't fit with your preconceived ideas. That's unscientific.

Riddle me this, why are there no decent photographs of this 'object'. All of the people that looked up, and not one of them got a photo with a long lens?

Just how is that possible?

phlogistician

11-25-11, 04:20 AM

Post 159

Still claiming you never said that Phlog?????

Yes I said that, and if you watched the video, that was her talking about a formation of three lights she'd witnessed some years before the phoenix lights, she wasn't talking about the Phoenix lights, so neither was I!

Read, COMPREHEND.

Reiku

11-25-11, 04:20 AM

You discount this eye witness testimony simply because it doesn't fit with your preconceived ideas. That's unscientific.

Riddle me this, why are there no decent photographs of this 'object'. All of the people that looked up, and not one of them got a photo with a long lens?

Just how is that possible?

No, I discount his ''evidence'' because it is one man out of possibly hundreds of witnesses who disagree with it. One man even against two does not work in a court of law Phlog.

Again, get a grip. Your arguements are weakening and weakening as we speak.

Reiku

11-25-11, 04:21 AM

Yes I said that, and if you watched the video, that was her talking about a formation of three lights she'd witnessed some years before the phoenix lights, she wasn't talking about the Phoenix lights, so neither was I!

Read, COMPREHEND.

Oh sorry... a MINUTE ago you said you never claimed that. Now please, are we sure this is what you meant? You don't need to get a cup of tea and a biscuit and think it over again?

Reiku

11-25-11, 04:22 AM

The Pheonix lights and the lights observed two years before this are related. She would not deny this. Indeed, this is why it was even in the documentary to begin with!!! And even if that was not what you were referring to, how come you didn't realize this is what was being meant when I qouted you for what you said????

phlogistician

11-25-11, 04:23 AM

Oh sorry... a MINUTE ago you said you never claimed that. Now please, are we sure this is what you meant? You don't need to get a cup of tea and a biscuit and think it over again?

You said I claimed the Phoenix lights were chinese lanterns. I never said that. I was referring to the lights the MD stated 'looked back at her with intelligence'. These were a separate event. Please, try to remember the content of the stuff you link to, because it makes you look a bit vapid else.

Reiku

11-25-11, 04:27 AM

You said I claimed the Phoenix lights were chinese lanterns. I never said that. I was referring to the lights the MD stated 'looked back at her with intelligence'. These were a separate event. Please, try to remember the content of the stuff you link to, because it makes you look a bit vapid else.

Well sounds like you were mistaken all along, because when I have been primarily been speaking about the lights, I have more times than often spoke about the main event. Only once I think I mentioned that there was a sighting 2 years before this.

And it was a very very very brief account which I mentioned this. So either you are backtracking or an extraordinarily precise individual.

The Pheonix lights and the lights observed two years before this are related. She would not deny this. Indeed, this is why it was even in the documentary to begin with!!! And even if that was not what you were referring to, how come you didn't realize this is what was being meant when I qouted you for what you said????

phlogistician

11-25-11, 04:27 AM

The Pheonix lights and the lights observed two years before this are related.

How do you infer that?

She would not deny this.

She's a flake.

Indeed, this is why it was even in the documentary to begin with!!! And even if that was not what you were referring to, how come you didn't realize this is what was being meant when I qouted you for what you said????

Dude. I never said the Phoenix lights were chinese lanterns. Never.

I was referring to the UNRELATED events she witnessed years earlier. End of story, let it go, you are flogging a dead horse.

Reiku

11-25-11, 04:30 AM

I mean Phlog seriously, you said it was a plane. This is your third attempt at debunking this. You have failed three attempts now.

I realize you possibly have hearing difficulties, making the statements you have on noiseless aerodynamics.... and obviously a slight memory loss about making the statement about chinese lanterns being the cause (in which case, I might let it slide)... but you are beginning to clutch on at straws in any case!!! You are also taking any account, any conventional account to explain otherwise completely unconventional events.

You still haven't answered my main questions, do I need to go back and repost it for you... saying that, I might need to. You might have forgotten what questions they were now ;)

Reiku

11-25-11, 04:31 AM

How do you infer that?

She's a flake.

Dude. I never said the Phoenix lights were chinese lanterns. Never.

I was referring to the UNRELATED events she witnessed years earlier. End of story, let it go, you are flogging a dead horse.

Me flogging a dead horse??? That is cheap coming from a skeptic holding onto artificial explanations that don't wash.

Reiku

11-25-11, 04:32 AM

Answer these questions, adiquately please! For the fifth time!

Now, without even mentioning the Guy Hottel Memorandum, or other witness accounts that momentous day, could you explain to me if the Military was going to use a UFO ''explanation'' to account for the crash, why did they retract the statement almost immediately? Surely if they were going to use a UFO explanation to wash away their activities, they would have held onto this lie for much longer?

This doesn't make sense. So many people today are taking the CIA statement as them ''back-tracking'' again on the existence of alien technology. Many people simply don't believe that the Military would go originally to such extreems as to say it was a ''UFO'' that was possibly from another planet.

Here is another thing to consider, if indeed the UFO's are their own technologies, why are they displaying them often in view of hundreds of witnesses? This isn't keeping it low key at all and would seem to destroy the initial purpose that they seem to be saying they initiated in the first place. So many cases don't match up, such as the Pheonix Lights; why would the military shoot flares (at a remarkably low altitude) right above the town of Pheonix? Why would they have several orbs flying low over washington? These aren't products of their technologies... lol... they'd love to have you believe that but this is not the case.

The fact these objects are seen directly by hundreds of people, just defeats any secretive purposes. They might as well have a big arrow pointing at them saying ''here we are''.

phlogistician

11-25-11, 04:37 AM

I mean Phlog seriously, you said it was a plane.

No I didn't. I said an eye witness said it was planes, after he looked through a telescope with 43x magnification. You on the other hand can't summon a single eyewitness that states the contrary, that had access to such equipment. Which means you lose that round.

I realize you possibly have hearing difficulties, making the statements you have on noiseless aerodynamics....

Again, you are stuffing a straw man. I never said anything was noiseless. I said, quite clearly, that not being any to hear any noise does not imply there is no noise. Pay attention.

and obviously a slight memory loss about making the statement about chinese lanterns being the cause (in which case, I might let it slide)...

Go watch the video again. You'll realise the quote I was referring to was not pertaining to the Phoenix lights. I never claimed the Phoenix lights were chinese lanterns. Pay attention.

but you are beginning to clutch on at straws in any case!!! You are also taking any account, any conventional account to explain otherwise completely unconventional events.

I'[m clutching at straws? When you convolve separate events and discard testimony you don't like? Priceless.

You still haven't answered my main questions, do I need to go back and repost it for you... saying that, I might need to. You might have forgotten what questions they were now ;)

I asked you to repost your questions already. Pay attention.

Reiku

11-25-11, 04:46 AM

No I didn't. I said an eye witness said it was planes, after he looked through a telescope with 43x magnification. You on the other hand can't summon a single eyewitness that states the contrary, that had access to such equipment. Which means you lose that round.

Again, you are stuffing a straw man. I never said anything was noiseless. I said, quite clearly, that not being any to hear any noise does not imply there is no noise. Pay attention.

Go watch the video again. You'll realise the quote I was referring to was not pertaining to the Phoenix lights. I never claimed the Phoenix lights were chinese lanterns. Pay attention.

I'[m clutching at straws? When you convolve separate events and discard testimony you don't like? Priceless.

I asked you to repost your questions already. Pay attention.

Why in Gods name are you bringing forth planes as an explanation if you are not willing to state this is your corner??? That's like me saying I heard a couple of guys saying it was birds with torchlights attached to them, but in the meanwhile, that isn't my ground....

:bugeye:

Don't worry, I'll drop that part about the lights at the mo. There are much more pressing issues with your dissilusioned perspective on the facts of the case.

''Again, you are stuffing a straw man. I never said anything was noiseless. I said, quite clearly, that not being any to hear any noise does not imply there is no noise. Pay attention.''

Along the same lines... Dude, why even mention then you lived next to an airport when I said to you that the plane theory was bunk??? You then continued to say you couldn't hear much of them....??? I don't get it... my statements might look like strawmen to you, but your statements to me sound like backtracking.

''I'[m clutching at straws? When you convolve separate events and discard testimony you don't like? Priceless.''

Listen to your arguement first. You want me to accept what testimony again? One man out of how many people? The whole point of me discarding his information was because his statement did not hold up to the facts. I stated this did not make sense, considering how low the lights were, and no one heard a sound, not even a blip? Not only that, but the lights remained stationary for good amounts of time to disregard the plane theory. So yea, I think I am within good rights to make the judgement I have on it. As I said, in a court of law, two men are enough to convict another. But in my case, I have over a hundred witnesses who can easily contradict the one claim of a man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

''I asked you to repost your questions already. Pay attention.''

The irony... you tell me to pay attention, you really should start taking your own advice. I posted it already, above!!!!!! :bugeye:

So you're not only hard of hearing, possibly got a bit of a bad memory, but your sight seems to be failing as well.

phlogistician

11-25-11, 04:52 AM

Answer these questions, adiquately please! For the fifth time!

Now, without even mentioning the Guy Hottel Memorandum, or other witness accounts that momentous day, could you explain to me if the Military was going to use a UFO ''explanation'' to account for the crash, why did they retract the statement almost immediately? Surely if they were going to use a UFO explanation to wash away their activities, they would have held onto this lie for much longer?

OK, so you are referring to Roswell. You really need to think about what you want to write, and be precise, because you are asking me a question about Roswell, without even mentioning Roswell.

OK, so why was the statement about UFOs retracted almost immediately? Because someone without the authority the make press releases blurted out that phrase without thinking about the ramifications, and this was quickly realised to be a mistake?

But anyway, talking about Roswell is pointess. It was a balloon, carrying equipment to eavesdrop on Soviet Nuclear tests. Case closed.

Here is another thing to consider, if indeed the UFO's are their own technologies, why are they displaying them often in view of hundreds of witnesses?

You aren't really being very clear here. UFO ≠ ETI. You need to state more clearly what you are talking about. I presume you mean ETI, but you don't actually state that, just like you didn't actually state Roswell.

So, you are asking if ETI visits, why do they keep secret, but give their presence away? Well I think that implies it isn't ETI you are looking at. This is a rather circular avenue you are going down, trying to make an observation fit a theory it doesn't fit,... can't you see that?

why would the military shoot flares (at a remarkably low altitude) right above the town of Pheonix?

What altitude measurements do you have to back up these things were at 'low altitude'? The military say they dropped flares, why don't you believe them?

Why would they have several orbs flying low over washington?

What are you asking about now? Again you haven't stated what you are talking about.

Reiku

11-25-11, 04:58 AM

OK, so you are referring to Roswell. You really need to think about what you want to write, and be precise, because you are asking me a question about Roswell, without even mentioning Roswell.

OK, so why was the statement about UFOs retracted almost immediately? Because someone without the authority the make press releases blurted out that phrase without thinking about the ramifications, and this was quickly realised to be a mistake?

But anyway, talking about Roswell is pointess. It was a balloon, carrying equipment to eavesdrop on Soviet Nuclear tests. Case closed.

You aren't really being very clear here. UFO ≠ ETI. You need to state more clearly what you are talking about. I presume you mean ETI, but you don't actually state that, just like you didn't actually state Roswell.

So, you are asking if ETI visits, why do they keep secret, but give their presence away? Well I think that implies it isn't ETI you are looking at. This is a rather circular avenue you are going down, trying to make an observation fit a theory it doesn't fit,... can't you see that?

What altitude measurements do you have to back up these things were at 'low altitude'? The military say they dropped flares, why don't you believe them?

What are you asking about now? Again you haven't stated what you are talking about.

No Phlog. Get with the program. You where the one who made the radical claims that the UFO's or a large amount of them we see are products of government technology. In the statement of Roswell, we got onto a debate of the nature of them, in which you stated that the coverup uses UFO's to hide their activities, more or less.

I am now asking how and why would this be the case, when most of these objects are seen in full sight of hundreds or more of wittnesses? Why would the government for instance, in regards to Roswell, use a UFO explanation to begin with, but then retract that statement almost immediately?

It doesn't make sense that these are ''their techologies''. They are not keeping it low key at all!!! Defeats any purpose of that theory. Through and through. Even in the Pheonix Case, the Military would not have elaborately made a lighting scene directly above Pheonix for fear of exactly the type of secrecy you'd expect them to want to maintain.

Reiku

11-25-11, 05:00 AM

(and the several orbs, if your history on UFOlogy is not as good as I was hoping it was) is the 1952 washington case. Indeed, if you believe half these things are produced by the Military then you need to ask why they would fly it overhead washington's White House. But then again, why would they send fighter pilots on their own men? If you are at all interested in this case, go to the nieghbouring thread. Not even a half-competent skeptic like you could even cut that down to size!!!!!

phlogistician

11-25-11, 05:03 AM

Why in Gods name are you bringing forth planes as an explanation if you are not willing to state this is your corner???

Because being an ex-scientist, I'm not jumping to any conclusion!

I am saying an eye witness reported seeing a formation of planes. Also, the military say they dropped flares, and that different people saw different things, and they may have been separate events convolved into one story.

That's like me saying I heard a couple of guys saying it was birds with torchlights attached to them, but in the meanwhile, that isn't my ground....

:bugeye:

Don't worry, I'll drop that part about the lights at the mo. There are much more pressing issues with your dissilusioned perspective on the facts of the case.

Along the same lines... Dude, why even mention then you lived next to an airport when I said to you that the plane theory was bunk???

Because you stated the Phoenix lights made no sound, I corrected you and made the point that just because people didn't hear a sound, doesn't mean there wasn't one. I mam making no statement wrt noise at the actual event, but about people's perception. Got that?

my statements might look like strawmen to you, but your statements to me sound like backtracking.

It's called clarification. You make a statement that is false, I clear it up. I'm not making a point myself, just pointing out that your reasoning is false, and therefore conclusions based upon false reasoning less sound. Got that?

''I'[m clutching at straws? When you convolve separate events and discard testimony you don't like? Priceless.''

Listen to your arguement first. You want me to accept what testimony again? One man out of how many people?

One man with a telescope, and you can't drum up one single close up picture of the supposed event, nor a witness with the telescope that says the formation was a solid object. Not one. You need to go look for that.

The whole point of me discarding his information was because his statement did not hold up to the facts.

His statement IS FACT. You don't like it because it doesn't fit into your THEORY.

I stated this did not make sense, considering how low the lights were,

What measurement do you have of their altitude?

and no one heard a sound, not even a blip?

Which does not imply there was no sound. Got that?

Not only that, but the lights remained stationary for good amounts of time to disregard the plane theory.

APPEARED TO REMAIN STATIONARY. Doesn't mean they were, got that?

So yea, I think I am within good rights to make the judgement I have on it. As I said, in a court of law, two men are enough to convict another. But in my case, I have over a hundred witnesses who can easily contradict the one claim of a man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But not one of your guys had a telescope,.... or took a decent photo. IE, has nothing to counter the claims of the guy that actually looked properly.

The irony... you tell me to pay attention, you really should start taking your own advice. I posted it already, above!!!!!! :bugeye:

Er dude, I was writing that, while you were reposting. Got that?

Reiku

11-25-11, 05:03 AM

phlogistician

11-25-11, 05:05 AM

No Phlog. Get with the program. You where the one who made the radical claims that the UFO's or a large amount of them we see are products of government technology. ...

I also said I don't like the term UFO.

If you want to talk about secret military technology, let's talk about those cases. If you want to talk about misidentified natural phenomena, let's talk about those. If you want to talk about misidentified astronomical bodies, we can talk about those. But let's not refer to any as UFOs. Got that?

The term UFO is not helpful.

phlogistician

11-25-11, 05:15 AM

And guys, you can see the stationary positions of the lights here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnumyxy5Ino&feature=related

In regards to the Pheonix lights. They aint planes. I know how planes move and these are hardly even moving at this point. Planes can't do that.

I can't tell that from that video. There was too much camera shake and camera motion to discern the actual motion of the objects. The way they popped into view certainly looks like a plane ejecting a string of flares.

Reiku

11-25-11, 05:16 AM

Because being an ex-scientist, I'm not jumping to any conclusion!

I am saying an eye witness reported seeing a formation of planes. Also, the military say they dropped flares, and that different people saw different things, and they may have been separate events convolved into one story.

That's like me saying I heard a couple of guys saying it was birds with torchlights attached to them, but in the meanwhile, that isn't my ground....

:bugeye:

Don't worry, I'll drop that part about the lights at the mo. There are much more pressing issues with your dissilusioned perspective on the facts of the case.

Because you stated the Phoenix lights made no sound, I corrected you and made the point that just because people didn't hear a sound, doesn't mean there wasn't one. I mam making no statement wrt noise at the actual event, but about people's perception. Got that?

It's called clarification. You make a statement that is false, I clear it up. I'm not making a point myself, just pointing out that your reasoning is false, and therefore conclusions based upon false reasoning less sound. Got that?

One man with a telescope, and you can't drum up one single close up picture of the supposed event, nor a witness with the telescope that says the formation was a solid object. Not one. You need to go look for that.

His statement IS FACT. You don't like it because it doesn't fit into your THEORY.

What measurement do you have of their altitude?

Which does not imply there was no sound. Got that?

APPEARED TO REMAIN STATIONARY. Doesn't mean they were, got that?

But not one of your guys had a telescope,.... or took a decent photo. IE, has nothing to counter the claims of the guy that actually looked properly.

Er dude, I was writing that, while you were reposting. Got that?

You're not jumping to any conclusion, but you are ready to jump in and call everyone cranks and toilers because what... they don't use your conventional means to wash away an event? Plus, if you are going to use an arguement, you should do after you have evaluated the evidence for yourself, otherwise you look lazy and incapable of doing it for yourself.

''Because you stated the Phoenix lights made no sound, I corrected you and made the point that just because people didn't hear a sound, doesn't mean there wasn't one.''

Rubbish. Out of hundred or more people, you seriously believe that no one would have heard sounds??? Your logic is ... damaged my friend! Not only that, but the lights are stationary for large amounts of time as well. You NEED TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE, and not only that, if you are going to cite evidence, make sure it is credible after you have evaluated it, otherwise you look like you are desperately just trying to find some excuse.

''It's called clarification. You make a statement that is false, I clear it up. I'm not making a point myself, just pointing out that your reasoning is false, and therefore conclusions based upon false reasoning less sound. Got that?''

I've seen nothing written by your old fingers which has made me convinced otherwise, do you have that?

''One man with a telescope, and you can't drum up one single close up picture of the supposed event, nor a witness with the telescope that says the formation was a solid object. Not one. You need to go look for that.''

The fact not one of my hundred or odd witnesses heard any noise and taking into consideration that the lights are clearly stationary for large amounts of time states to me that the plane theory does not hold, which makes his statement less likely to be believed. Again, one man. How do we know he wasn't just looking for a bit of fame? Maybe he thought in some twisted way he could contradict the claims of many, it might serve him well in famehood?

''His statement IS FACT. You don't like it because it doesn't fit into your THEORY.''

Doesn't sound like you consider every possibility at all, as a scientist. If anything, I'd say you are quite a lousy one at that.

His statement is not FACT, just because you say it is. You need to show me credible reason why this one mans statement outweighs a great many more! One minute you say you don't stand by the plane theory, next you say it is FACT; You are just a bunch of contradictory statements.

''Which does not imply there was no sound. Got that?''[./b]

So there was sound, but no one heard it? Look, just because you have difficulty of hearing doesn't mean the rest of the world is. Sheesh!

[b]''APPEARED TO REMAIN STATIONARY. Doesn't mean they were, got that?''

A hundred people looking at it from different angles would surely disagree with your narrow angled point of view. They did remain stationary. You can measure this for your own eyes, if your eyesight is good enough, by meauring there positioning in space, next to the mountain and the lights on the city. Take a washable ink pen, draw it on your computer screen and see if it displaces much. Simple.

''But not one of your guys had a telescope''

I don't care. I don't trust this guy for one moment. His claims seem bogus. For sure. My spider sense is tingling! lol

''Er dude, I was writing that, while you were reposting. Got that?''

Got it old timer.