Oh how boring I am become. I am sure Starman and Sly1 that goverments lie from time to time. That has nothing to do with the fact that Starman's object is a small hill. Starman, please tell me you plan to visit the site soon so we can all move on.
Well they sure build alot of roads around this little hill. Why did they not build alot of roads around the other little hills? I have made attempts to visit the site but have not been granted access as of yet. So if you think you can get there to prove I am wrong well more power to you.
Whoops! Actually, you have to try harder to get in to prove you are right! As the claimant the burden is, of course, yours. :m: Peace.
Starman Lets just hypothesis. Lets say a government finds a nice deposit of radioactive material, they aren't exactly going to want tourists running around getting radiation poisoning are they? If you want to prove that there is anything special in that region, why don't you look for geological surveys, or even better find a Geophysicist that is aquainted with the area. As for "Lights in the air", I have to be very skeptical, I once lived not too far from a beach resort, on one of the arcades there they got permission to put up a lazer system that would shoot light up into the sky and bounce it off clouds. When it first went up the number of UFO's reported in the area trebbled (notibly alot of people stumbling back from a night out drinking seeing blurry lights in the sky), so to me I don't immediately conclude aliens. Not to forget that Satellites have solar panel arrays to convert light to energy, it's possible that the reflection from a satellite in orbit from the sun could be seen through out atmosphere. Since not all satellites are geosyncronous, it would even give movement to them, especially if thrusters are used to correct their orbit.
This is a great Idea I will investigate. I think that I will need to go to the site whith a video camara and interview people who work at the site. I also have talked to some people that were working on paving the road from the site to NASA and I need to visit them again also. I am planning to request access to the site from the base commander for I am no fan of jail. Stryder Skepticism is the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain. I would expect you to be skeptical for I have little evidence to support my sensational claims. I can only tell you that the two objects I saw at WSMR that early morning were like the ones in my photos but they were real close to the ground and sthe HWY 70 that is what made them so strange. All I saw was two white light's to me they were just light the only thing I knew for sure was the two F-16's that came screaming just over our heads. And that is all I can say about that. Skepticism is healthy and it helps to radify an investigation and I do appreciate any input.
There’s a starman waiting in the sky He’d like to come and meet us But he thinks he’d blow our minds There’s a starman waiting in the sky He’s told us not to blow it Cause he knows it’s all worthwhile He told me: Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
Very good I would of never known. Although I listened to David Bowie I do not recall many of his songs.
This is the e-mail I sent to Bruce Maccabee along with the immage. And his response. Bruce Thank you for taking the time to respond to my message. My name is John Quest and I can be reached at 210 499-5649 if you have any questions for me. I also sent a photograph of this to Stanton Freedman and he said he would give it to you to analyse he has never called me back. Also I have included a photograph that I took of the front side of the site from HWY 70. Is this what I think it is? It looks like a crashed disk. My name is John Quest can you help analyse this immage. What I do know is that there is an antena at the site and an underground facality. Also the object is located on the back side of a hill and there is a road going up the front side of the hill and it meets with a road that follows the ridge on the hill top. Also it is located just north of White Sands Reaserch facility in New Mexico. I used to live in Alamogordo for 10 years. This immage is from the USGS. The objects exact location is. Lat 32.4647709 Long -106.50210 You can see an area were it hit the ground and scraped up alot of Earth and still it apears to be mostly intact. Anything we have that flys would surly be in little pieces after an impact like that. Can you please look at this and tell me what you think it is? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Maccabee Wrote. I looked at the pix you sent. Doesn't look like a crashed disc to me. Don't know what makes the ground look dark. Maybe that's the area where they dump refuse. Maybe dense growth of small bushes at an area where water is near the surface. Not surprised that a guarded installation has an antenna.
speaking of "crashed disks" http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/chapters/9-SecretsofUFOs.html first i have heard this version of roswell.
Not that anyone would care but I did visit the site on 1/3/2005 and the entrance to the site was under heavy construction so I did not attempt to explore. I will try again as soon as I am able.
Actually, I care. Bring a camera, but hide it. Take some NON-FUZZY picture's so the skeptical debunker's can claim it's fake. Don't let the arguments on these pages get to you. Many of these pseudoskeptic's will NEVER accept any UFO/ETI testimony, video or picture. It's their JOB to discount, disprove and finally debunk the veracity of them. No matter what the story is. A good example is the need to dismiss testimony, because, it does not support their debunking. This is a last ditch effort, usually, when they have no other option than to claim the witness is "wrong". Let us, well let me know if you ever get into the site and see an craft embedded into the ground.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Many of these pseudoskeptic's will NEVER accept any UFO/ETI testimony How do you differentiate between a pseudoskeptic and a skeptic? A good example is the need to dismiss testimony, because, it does not support their debunking. This is a last ditch effort Actually, this is usually the first thing that is dismissed, since people are naturally fallible: they lie, embellish, fantasize, hallucinate, and are subject to delusions of grandeur. Anecdotal accounts simply aren't evidence without context or corroboration of physical trace. I'm sure I could cite several non-UFO examples that we could agree on as dismissable anecdotes.
An individual I have known very well for several years has acquainted me with several incidents he has experienced first hand. Now the ones I wish to address here are not UFO related, but are pertinent to a discussion of debunking and eye witness testimony. The individual has creative skills, but is also level headed and pragmatic. I am also certain that in matters such as this he is scrupulously honest. Each of these events took place when he was sober and in good health. On two occasions, separated by about four years, he saw a ghost in his bedroom. Each apparition was clear, identifiable and remained visible for a period of at least thirty seconds. In one case the room was moonlit, in the other case ceiling hung filament bulbs were in use. Some years previously he and three members of his family heard scratching at their appartment door that matched the pattern of a neighgbour's dog which used to call, but had recently died. The scratching continued to the point when the door handle was touched to open the door. Nothing was there and there was no conceivable way any dog could have fled the hallway in the time between the last scratch and the door opening. The same event occured at least another three times over about two months. Based on my knowledge of this individual and my belief in his integrity should I take these experiences as solid evidence for ghosts? Or should I, as I am inclined to do, wearing my skeptic's hat, reject it as hallucination or some other more plausible explanation? btsimah, this may seem contrived, but the facts set out above are real. I will go further. I do reject these incidents as evidence for ghosts. Do you think I am wrong to do so? And if so, why? .
When dealing with eye-witness testimony reporting extraordinary events, the debunker tries to prove what they saw was not extraordinary. If they can't, they then claim the extraordinary part of the claim is wrong, because it's extraordinary. Basically what debunker's try to do is pretend nothing extraordinary happens, thus "every case has been debunked". Because, anything is more plausible than ETI. It's a typical game that's played on these boards ad-naseum... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Although I do believe Ghost's are a very real phenomon that science cannot explain (without debunking it). A scratching at the door is more easily explanable than some UFO giving off radiation poisening and ton's of army helicopter's chasing it. I have no idea if the guy really heard a ghost or not. Since he actually saw nothing, then probably not. If he actually saw something and had a photo of it along with several other witnesses then were getting somewhere. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
