Secret Soviet UFO studies revealed

[bison]

The best argument offered against this report of a former Soviet intelligence officer, seems to be that he may be lying. He may be telling the truth, too. I fail to see how the first response has any better standing than the second. Belittling people on the basis of which of the two responses they select is inappropriate.

Lots of improbable things that later turned out to be true were called lies at one time or another, even by some highly informed persons.

There is nothing inherently incredible about the responsiveness of flying saucers to the gestures and activities of persons on the ground. Such responses have been reported very many times in case after case, over many years.

One might tend to put some credence in the report of a person who held a very responsible position, as a Major General, especially now that there is so much more candor in Russia than there once was. What reason is there for a retired intelligence officer to make up lies like this? The disincentives for doing so are rather obvious. They include the questioning of his honor and veracity, perhaps even his sanity.

Edited April 16, 2013 by bison

[JimOberg]

The best argument offered against this report of a former Soviet intelligence officer, seems to be that he may be lying. He may be telling the truth, too. I fail to see how the first response has any better standing than the second. Belittling people on the basis of which of the two responses they select is inappropriate.

Lots of improbable things that later turned out to be true were called lies at one time or another, even by some highly informed persons.

There is nothing inherently incredible about the responsiveness of flying saucers to the gestures and activities of persons on the ground. Such responses have been reported very many times in case after case, over many years.

Your imagination is too limited. There's no need for him to be deliberately presenting known-to-be-false stories, and there's no need to believe that whatever HE may sincerely think to be true, really WAS true. Lots of very intelligent, perceptive, experienced, and flexibly-minded people have rationally concluded that the stories were best explained by alien visitors. They just didn't have all the facts and insights that have accumulated over the decades.

But your imagination is also biased. Sure, some stuff once mocked, or thought to be silly, turned out to be true, as more evidence accumulated. But the vast majority of 'new ideas' and theories turned out to be as nonsensical as the critics originally claimed. We've just forgotten them and remembered only the success stories, which has led to the false notion that ideas that were once laughed at always ultimately triumphed. At least you moderated that myth by saying 'a lot' -- which even then, may still be an exaggeration.

That myth is enshrined in the fairy tale about Columbus taught to every kid in school for hundreds of years -- that his proposal to reach Asia by sailing westwards was rejected by superstitious closed-minded geezers who insisted the earth was flat. The moral of this myth: "Old ideas - bad. New ideas - good."

The sad truth is that the queen's "Talavera Commission" knew the true shape/scale of the Earth, and Columbus was the one who was mistaken. He would have died in mid-ocean when his water ran out, if he'd done what he intended. He was just lucky -- and a truly great navigator for actually being able to visit and then revisit something he accidentally stumbled over, halfway to Asia.

[JimOberg]

If there is nothing to this subject, why are so many former officials talking about it? They are human like you and I. They obviously saw things that impress them. I don't ask people who haven't seen it to believe in this kind of thing, everyone know how difficult it is. We all have thing we don't believe in, right? But I don't believe for a second that everyone who has seen something were misidentifying rockets in flight or some secrete airplanes.

There are some basic characteristics to man made flying objects. They either have wings or are filled with air. They are also very noisy. Things filled with air don't fly very fast. When we see something flying very, very fast without any noise and no visible wings, what could it be? Misidentified rockets or airplanes?....Most likely not!

Have you dared read some of my research results that provide overwhelmingly persuasive correlations of Soviet missile/space events with the major 'UFO events' of the 1960s and later?

Most likely not. Prove differently.

And where did you read that anybody claimed ALL Soviet-era stories were caused this way, that EVERYONE reporting a UFO was fooled by a secret rocket or satellite? Aren't you resorting to a deceptive trick called 'straw man'? Using such a gimmick, such a reasoning fallacy, is a strong indicator of intent to mislead. Do you have any evidence to support your put-down?

Most likely not. Prove differently.

As to your catalog of characteristics of ALL man-made flying objects, it sure looks like you've never seen a rocket in flight. Or realized that the hundreds of youtube videos of clouds and spirals and trails in the sky are showing normal visual effects of rocket launchings. Have you personally ever seen a rocket in flight?

Most likely not.

Seems to me your hard-held beliefs are based on very soft and squishy misunderstandings, loosely connected at best, with reality.

[bison]

Your imagination is too limited. There's no need for him to be deliberately presenting known-to-be-false stories, and there's no need to believe that whatever HE may sincerely think to be true, really WAS true. Lots of very intelligent, perceptive, experienced, and flexibly-minded people have rationally concluded that the stories were best explained by alien visitors. They just didn't have all the facts and insights that have accumulated over the decades.

But your imagination is also biased. Sure, some stuff once mocked, or thought to be silly, turned out to be true, as more evidence accumulated. But the vast majority of 'new ideas' and theories turned out to be as nonsensical as the critics originally claimed. We've just forgotten them and remembered only the success stories, which has led to the false notion that ideas that were once laughed at always ultimately triumphed. At least you moderated that myth by saying 'a lot' -- which even then, may still be an exaggeration.

That myth is enshrined in the fairy tale about Columbus taught to every kid in school for hundreds of years -- that his proposal to reach Asia by sailing westwards was rejected by superstitious closed-minded geezers who insisted the earth was flat. The moral of this myth: "Old ideas - bad. New ideas - good."

The sad truth is that the queen's "Talavera Commission" knew the true shape/scale of the Earth, and Columbus was the one who was mistaken. He would have died in mid-ocean when his water ran out, if he'd done what he intended. He was just lucky -- and a truly great navigator for actually being able to visit and then revisit something he accidentally stumbled over, halfway to Asia.

I respectfully disagree. Those who accept the idea of extraterrestrial visitors are not necessarily deficient in some body of facts and insights that would convince them otherwise. It is possible for two equally intelligent, equally well informed persons to look at the same evidence, and come to very different conclusions about it.

Major General Yeremenko's convictions about what happened may stand on just as firm an evidentiary basis, and be as valid as any differing point of view. He may even be essentially correct and factual in what he reports. Is there any actual evidence in this matter, that calls his conclusions into question?

Edited April 16, 2013 by bison

[JimOberg]

Major General Yeremenko's convictions about what happened may stand on just as firm an evidentiary basis, and be as valid as any differing point of view. He may even be essentially correct and factual in what he reports. Is there any actual evidence in this matter, that calls his conclusions into question?

Yes, I've made a specialty of Soviet space.missile technology and history, since Sputnik [when I was 12], and I've done pioneering research into the overwhelming correlations of missile/space activity with many, if not most, of the most sensational UFO reports from Russia.

You are welcome to examine it at my home page and describe why you disagree with the conclusions.

Heck, you can ignore it, and just say it can't be so [many folks do], but then at least you would not be welcome to pose as a rational, open-minded truth-seeker.

[bison]

Yes, I've made a specialty of Soviet space.missile technology and history, since Sputnik [when I was 12], and I've done pioneering research into the overwhelming correlations of missile/space activity with many, if not most, of the most sensational UFO reports from Russia.

You are welcome to examine it at my home page and describe why you disagree with the conclusions.

Heck, you can ignore it, and just say it can't be so [many folks do], but then at least you would not be welcome to pose as a rational, open-minded truth-seeker.

I am familiar with the fact that some UFO reports from Russia, and elsewhere, can be correctly attributed to sightings of rockets. Is there any known connection here, to the specific incidents described by Major General Yeremenko? It isn't clear that the appearance of the objects he described was 'sensational', it seemed to be that it was their responsiveness to human activity that set them apart as something noteworthy. It is already common knowledge that most UFO sightings are misidentifications of prosaic phenomena. It is that 10 or 15 percent that can not be reasonably explained that are of particular interest. Edited April 16, 2013 by bison

[Esoteric Toad]

yes but how many real photo's of the phenomenon were there really?

granted sightings (or at least claimed sightings) have dropped of and seemed to peak for the 20-30 year period, however, even though I have not done so, I feel there may be some link to be found with Nuclear weapons and such advances in technology....maybe they thought they needed a closer look at what we were doing...they then saw what we had and didnt feel the need for further high vigilance...

I guess they looked at our weapons and as crocodile dundee said...'you call that a knife? that aint no knife..this is a knife'

I believe the sightings occurred because of the cold war and the tech that was being developed. Then there was a sort of mass hysteria as people started paying attention to the sky where as in the past it was just a background to everything. Even today I'll bet not many people really bother to truly LOOK at the sky except when weather threatens or a plane/helicopter is buzzing around. So many things in the sky to be observed and so many people back then itching to see aliens (prosaic things). Sounds like an environment ripe for misinterpretation. Then the close encounter stories could simply be overactive imaginations which later fueled the dubious to make some money.

Since, to the best of my humble knowledge, there is nothing concrete to prove ships are visiting or ever have I'll keep waiting for solid verifiable evidence.

Edited for thinking I needed to edit it but I didn't although it probably needs to be edited in some fashion.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Esoteric Toad

[CelestialStar]

I often wonder about these sightings, the possibility or whether or not somebody staged it, even with MY belief in the paranormal i have to have some degree of skepticism.

[Kludge808]

Since, to the best of my humble knowledge, there is nothing concrete to prove ships are visiting or ever have I'll keep waiting for solid verifiable evidence.

There being no solid evidence doesn't stop the FTBs et al from claiming all kinds of amusing things. Some of my favorites involve Groom Lake with its dozens of subterranean levels and bunches of different alien groups all working in cooperation with da evil lyin' gummint for any number of sinister reasons. And,. of course, there's no evidence of that because of any of many assorted conspiracies intended to keep us poor peons in the dark. The fact that the stories conflict with one another as to the conspiracy theories doesn't seem to bother anyone in particular among the FTBs.

Edited for thinking I needed to edit it but I didn't although it probably needs to be edited in some fashion.

This is scary. Somehow all that made sense.

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

Have you dared read some of my research results that provide overwhelmingly persuasive correlations of Soviet missile/space events with the major 'UFO events' of the 1960s and later?

Most likely not. Prove differently.

And where did you read that anybody claimed ALL Soviet-era stories were caused this way, that EVERYONE reporting a UFO was fooled by a secret rocket or satellite? Aren't you resorting to a deceptive trick called 'straw man'? Using such a gimmick, such a reasoning fallacy, is a strong indicator of intent to mislead. Do you have any evidence to support your put-down?

Most likely not. Prove differently.

As to your catalog of characteristics of ALL man-made flying objects, it sure looks like you've never seen a rocket in flight. Or realized that the hundreds of youtube videos of clouds and spirals and trails in the sky are showing normal visual effects of rocket launchings. Have you personally ever seen a rocket in flight?

Most likely not.

Seems to me your hard-held beliefs are based on very soft and squishy misunderstandings, loosely connected at best, with reality.

Jim, I had no doubt that a rocket in flight can be spectacular and many has mistaken it for UFO, especially from far away. This can indeed explain many instances of reported UFOs, but there are many situation that are too close for people to make such a mistake. Some people can mistake spirals and trails caused by rockets as given off by UFOs, but to somehow think that everyone who've seen UFOs are making similar mistake is just plain wrong. I am not accusing you of doing this nor anyone in particular. I am just trying to say that not everyone who has seen UFOs are mistaken. Not all UFO witnesses are equal. No doubt there are nuts out there in all walk of life. Just because some were proven to be nuts and some to be mistaken, it's doesn't mean we all are.

My claim of characteristics of man made objects(as far as we know) still stand, though. All rockets have noisy engines and most, if not all, have some form of wings on it, big or small. I am sure that when it's too far away, people cannot see the wings and hear the noise and are easily in awe by it. I don't share the same sentiment, though. I am only impressed by thing that can make 90 degree turn.

Edited April 17, 2013 by SwampgasBalloonBoy

[Kludge808]

I am only impressed by thing that can make 90 degree turn.

Helicopters impress you?

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

I would suggest you list them. UFO sites list anyone they can think of, some even say Buzz Aldrin saw a UFO on Apollo 11, yet even Buzz says that's horse hockey.

With regards to UFO sightings, indeed there is a common denominator of man, however, taking the equation further, man has a common denominator too - human error. Like how I call it "man" but spread the blame with error? That should give Bee a rise LOL.

Look at Hellyer. He is mad as a cut snake and I doubt anyone can prove otherwise. Have you read his nonsense? He even claims human and alien pilots have chats about flight manoeuvres. I mean fair go. Canadian Pollie, so he gets a wrap as trustworthy, so do all these officials, but when they say "no UFO" they are not to be trusted at all, and are automatically assumed to be lying! Talk about having a cake and eating it too! A UFO positive Pollie is salt of the earth, a UFO negative Pollie is a liar and in on the cover up. Seems a bridge to far to me.

Yeah, I know what the hell good is cake if you can't eat it, but you know what I mean.

Some say so, some admit not, but that - the people who say NO to aliens - is not a bother. The news sources tell us Edgar Mitchell has inside information, but he does not. Haut claims he did not see a craft at Roswell, then he says he did see one, and the description he gave makes no sense. These people are all over the shop, in any other instance, such conflicting information would just be binned. It is only not so here because of the ET component and the woo woo websites.

Whether Buzz saw it or not, whether Edgar Mitchell has inside info or not is irrelevant to people who've seen it. People that want to believe but haven't got the chance to see it obviously want to hear from prominent men such as Buzz, Mitchell and others. Can you blame them? it's human nature to seek people that can reinforce their belief. That's why "believers" like to hear from each others and skeptics like to hear from each others. We all know damn well we will go to our grave without knowing the truth, but it's entertaining to see the back and forth, doesn't it?

You know I have had a sighting, and I expect ET to exist, and I think we can cross space, given time, yet still the nonsense that passes as the ETH is really nothing short of embarrassing to the species for the most part.

Well, i don't know about embarrassing, but it's certainly entertaining. Hatred, wars, oppression, starvation, exploitation should be the cause for embarrassment to our species.

It could also be

Parallax Error

Distance (sound haas to travel)

Wind sheer

Local conditions

Atmospheric conditions

to name a few.But I think it is crazy to think the UFO phenomena has merely but one answer. If ET is any part of that, with all the possibilites out there, the proof must be tangible. All we see is evidence that is very, very loose.

I think we all can agree that ET is not the only answer. Not all UFOs are equal. A flying ball of plasma could very well be of different origin than a flying ball of steel. Well all want tangible evidence. I think that believers want this more than anyone. Can you imagine the frustration of people that know what they saw but have no evidence to back it up? I am sure they get p*** off at being called liar or dummy or "are prone to make believe". I certainly don't blame the believers for the lack of tangible evidence.

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

Helicopters impress you?

Nah, it's too noisy and have blades. And some even have little wings. I don't get impress by the long tail either. Please, If rockets aren't impressive to me, how can helicopter?

[Kludge808]

Nah, it's too noisy and have blades. And some even have little wings. I don't get impress by the long tail either. Please, If rockets aren't impressive to me, how can helicopter?

Just curious since the only qualifier was the ability to make a right angle turn.

[SwampgasBalloonBoy]

Just curious since the only qualifier was the ability to make a right angle turn.

I take it back. Now that I think about it, helicopter actually impress me more than rockets. How can two small blades spinning like a fan can lift such heavy load. It's quite impressive. But not as impressive as a silent ball of metal making 90 degree turn at breakneck speed, though

[Kludge808]

I take it back. Now that I think about it, helicopter actually impress me more than rockets. How can two small blades spinning like a fan can lift such heavy load. It's quite impressive. But not as impressive as a silent ball of metal making 90 degree turn at breakneck speed, though

Good point. I've never seen the latter, although I have seen things I couldn't identify in the air.

BTW, as a fixed wing pilot, I have a natural distrust of anything where the wings aren't solidly attached to the aircraft but rather go dancing about overhead.

[S2F]

Good point. I've never seen the latter, although I have seen things I couldn't identify in the air.

BTW, as a fixed wing pilot, I have a natural distrust of anything where the wings aren't solidly attached to the aircraft but rather go dancing about overhead.

What about the unholy b****** child that is the V-22?

[quillius]

I believe the sightings occurred because of the cold war and the tech that was being developed. Then there was a sort of mass hysteria as people started paying attention to the sky where as in the past it was just a background to everything. Even today I'll bet not many people really bother to truly LOOK at the sky except when weather threatens or a plane/helicopter is buzzing around. So many things in the sky to be observed and so many people back then itching to see aliens (prosaic things). Sounds like an environment ripe for misinterpretation. Then the close encounter stories could simply be overactive imaginations which later fueled the dubious to make some money.

Since, to the best of my humble knowledge, there is nothing concrete to prove ships are visiting or ever have I'll keep waiting for solid verifiable evidence.

Edited for thinking I needed to edit it but I didn't although it probably needs to be edited in some fashion.

I agree that they spike in sightings certainly were because of the cold war and new tech/weaponary. However this could simply mean the spike occured because of 'misinterpretations' that were far more possible OR its the reason the curiosity of our ET friends peaked again resulting in increase in sightings.....maybe a combination of both

as for the following comment 'Then the close encounter stories could simply be overactive imaginations which later fueled the dubious to make some money'

I dont know about that, I think we have a few cases that suggest it cannot be an over active imagination.. ..at least not without the aid of an induced hallucination.

oh and the editing....I agree with Kludge in that it did somehow make sense and it made me smile for some strange reason..

[quillius]

I take it back. Now that I think about it, helicopter actually impress me more than rockets. How can two small blades spinning like a fan can lift such heavy load. It's quite impressive. But not as impressive as a silent ball of metal making 90 degree turn at breakneck speed, though

Hey SGB, have you ever spoken with Sweetpumper about your sighting?.....He too seemed to have an identical experience to yourself......

also excuse me but I dont recall, have you ever spoken in detail about your sighting here at UM?

[psyche101]

Whether Buzz saw it or not, whether Edgar Mitchell has inside info or not is irrelevant to people who've seen it.

But did you not say that prominent people would not be wrong about seeing such? I was just pointing that they have not seen such, but the papers say they have.

People that want to believe but haven't got the chance to see it obviously want to hear from prominent men such as Buzz, Mitchell and others. Can you blame them? it's human nature to seek people that can reinforce their belief.

Exactly, an appeal to authority, which illustrates there is little if anything to these public claims from prominent people.

That's why "believers" like to hear from each others and skeptics like to hear from each others. We all know damn well we will go to our grave without knowing the truth, but it's entertaining to see the back and forth, doesn't it?

I do not care if one is a believer or skeptic. One of my favourite posters is a believer. I only want to know the facts. If the facts ever say an Alien spaceship landed here, I will be suitably impressed.

Sometimes it is entertaining, sometimes frustrating, sometimes dead boring and sometimes plain stupid. Have you read the rock thread? It's claims illustrate as dumb as one can get.

Well, i don't know about embarrassing, but it's certainly entertaining. Hatred, wars, oppression, starvation, exploitation should be the cause for embarrassment to our species.

Read the rock thread on that one. The consider Zecheriah Stitichin, George Adamski, Bob Lazar, Greer Hoagland................... and then do you still hold the same opinion?

I would call such bad management of the human species shame not embarrassment. But that is a multi faceted conversation.

I think we all can agree that ET is not the only answer. Not all UFOs are equal. A flying ball of plasma could very well be of different origin than a flying ball of steel. Well all want tangible evidence. I think that believers want this more than anyone. Can you imagine the frustration of people that know what they saw but have no evidence to back it up? I am sure they get p*** off at being called liar or dummy or "are prone to make believe". I certainly don't blame the believers for the lack of tangible evidence.

Indeed, but that does not make it alien either, it makes it a mystery. Alien is not the default answer for "I do not know"

People who get called a liar and a dummy often deserve to be, and ruin it for everyone. Look at this very forum. One thread might be filled with fascinating facts and very good information, whilst another plods along asking the same damne question for 800 pages. The credulous borrow form the sensible, and they borrow too much. It tips the scales, and UFO research tends to get burdened with this weight. That is why I always say there are 2 types of believer, one is quite credible and well respected, the other ................................ not so much. AKA FTB's.

One will not get called a lair or a dummy for a benign description, and they say "I do not know, but I cannot identify this" as opposed to people who claim to have been taken to other systems and back in sporty little sports spaceships in a night, or that Aliens came here to have sex with them. Any person in their right mind can see these outrageous claims are rubbish.

It is indeed hard to find that personal line, and that is why I tend to leave personal cases alone for the larger part, you wont see me going into abductee threads or the like and calling people liars. I tend to just avoid them, and mostly only tear down larger official claims that some pretend they can evidence, when they can not, and having walked this path for some decades now, I often know immediately if the case is genuine, in doubt or a complete mystery. If I have not heard of the instance, then I have something to investigate, and I like that.

Edited April 17, 2013 by psyche101

[S2F]

I do not care if one is a believer or skeptic. One of my favourite posters is a believer.

Hmmm, I guess I'm a believer now, I had no idea...

[topsecretresearch]

Whether Buzz saw it or not, whether Edgar Mitchell has inside info or not is irrelevant to people who've seen it. People that want to believe but haven't got the chance to see it obviously want to hear from prominent men such as Buzz, Mitchell and others. Can you blame them? it's human nature to seek people that can reinforce their belief. That's why "believers" like to hear from each others and skeptics like to hear from each others. We all know damn well we will go to our grave without knowing the truth, but it's entertaining to see the back and forth, doesn't it?

Disagree with this. Gordon Cooper's testimony for example reflects what others have observed. You can try and shoot the messenger being a cover-up type like James/Jim Oberg but there are still UFO commonalities. People are reporting similar things.

Do people especially these days really idolize astronauts and want to believe their every word? I don't think so. Space for the most part is very uninteresting and boring. It's a very uninhabitale environment. You have to be really into space to find the ISS or some astronaut interetsing these days. It's about as interesting as a sicence fair project to most young people. It's more like UFO testimony from astronauts fits a bigger picture of UFO sightings, what people are seeing, and that we are being visited and there is also a cover-up. The government is not being very truthful. That how most people see astronaut UFO testimony.

I think we all can agree that ET is not the only answer. Not all UFOs are equal. A flying ball of plasma could very well be of different origin than a flying ball of steel. Well all want tangible evidence. I think that believers want this more than anyone. Can you imagine the frustration of people that know what they saw but have no evidence to back it up? I am sure they get p*** off at being called liar or dummy or "are prone to make believe". I certainly don't blame the believers for the lack of tangible evidence.

The No Evidence Fallacy Argument

The lack of proof argument is often used by those who seem to have a lack of knowledge about what is being reported. If you look at UFO cases there are ET indicators pointing to a space faring species. Ted Phillips for example has investigated many landing trace cases. In some of these cases the soil appears to be dehydrated. There have also been many UFO related injuries. Radiation sickness type symptoms, burns, eye injuries from close exposure to the craft. People report a glow or plasma effect. EM effects. All of this can give a person a strong indicator as to where these craft may be coming from especially if the occupants do not appear to be very human and the craft shoots straight up in the sky like a bullet.

Look at Charles Darwin's prediction of the Xanthopan morgani. Charles Darwin accurately predicted the existance of moth with a very long tongue from looking at an orchids.

From his observations and experiments with pushing a probe into the spur of the flower, Darwin surmised in his 1862 book Fertilisation of Orchids that there must be a pollinator moth with a proboscis long enough to reach the nectar at the end of the spur. In its attempt to get the nectar at the end of the spur the moth would get pollen rubbed off on its head. The next orchid it visited would then be pollinated in the same manner.

In 1903, such a moth was discovered in Madagascar. It was described as a sub-species of the African hawk moth and named Xanthopan morganii praedicta. The subspecific epithet "praedicta" was given in honor of the fact that Darwin had predicted its existence,

So there may be a lot of indicators pointing to ET. This could be reflected in observation and physical trace evidece. Just because an actual alien object is not made available to the public, instead kept under wraps as top secret foreign technology, doesn't mean aliens are not coming here. There may be enough indicators that it is most likely the case.

Edited April 17, 2013 by topsecretresearch

[S2F]

The No Evidence Fallacy Argument

The lack of proof argument is often used by those who seem to have a lack of knowledge about what is being reported. If you look at UFO cases there are ET indicators pointing to a space faring species. Ted Phillips for example has investigated many landing trace cases. In some of these cases the soil appears to be dehydrated. There have also been many UFO related injuries. Radiation sickness type symptoms, burns, eye injuries from close exposure to the craft. People report a glow or plasma effect. EM effects. All of this can give a person a strong indicator as to where these craft may be coming from especially if the occupants do not appear very human and the craft shoot straight up in the sky like a bullet.

It sounds like someone tried to take the intellectual high road and came out bass ackwards. According to this so called logic I can argue that the moon most definitely IS made out of cheese and the lack of evidence to support that claim is of no consequence which renders the claim legitimate.

[psyche101]

Hmmm, I guess I'm a believer now, I had no idea...

Well, I did say one of, not the best one of all

You not only get to keep your badge

But lets upgrade it

Edited April 18, 2013 by psyche101

[Kludge808]

Disagree with this. Gordon Cooper's testimony for example reflects what others have observed. You can try and shoot the messenger being a cover-up type like James/Jim Oberg but there are still UFO commonalities. People are reporting similar things.

People report sightings of Bigfoot, Santa Claus, Elvis and even Jesus too. Your point being?

Do people especially these days really idolize astronauts and want to believe their every word? I don't think so. Space for the most part is very uninteresting and boring. It's a very uninhabitale environment. You have to be really into space to find the ISS or some astronaut interetsing these days. It's about as interesting as a sicence fair project to most young people.

And you have definite statistics to prove all this statement, right? See, your second sentence says it all, that this is all in your opinion rather than based in provable facts. It's you who finds space boring and are projecting your feelings on everyone else.

It's more like UFO testimony from astronauts fits a bigger picture of UFO sightings, what people are seeing, and that we are being visited and there is also a cover-up. The government is not being very truthful. That how most people see astronaut UFO testimony.

Again, "most people"? Even astronaut testimony consists of extraordinary claims that requires extraordinary proof. Oh, wait. There's a cover up, a conspiracy - or a lot of them, more like. We can't provide proof because it's all under wraps ... of which we also don't have proof so we just have to take you FTBs' word for it.

The lack of proof argument is often used by those who seem to have a lack of knowledge about what is being reported.

The lack of proof argument is being used by folks who demand that aforementioned extraordinary proof, none of which is forthcoming. Your claim that we don't review the reports is a fallacy that comes from ignorance of anything beyond your very narrow point of view. Of course, that you have woo woo sites in your sig says a lot too, ones with a name that suggests that what's presented is some order of secret or another. It sounds good, though, doesn't it. It makes the FTBs think you actually have something no one else knows - or even cares about. If it were all that secret, do you think da ebil lyin' gummint would let you keep it up? It's all about as secret as my recipe for ketchup and significantly less tasty.

If you look at UFO cases there are ET indicators pointing to a space faring species.

Have you ever gone out and done any investigation your self - boots on the ground at various sites? Nah, didn't think so. You should try it some time. It's quite educational. This is especially true if you're with people who actually know what they're looking at and have no vested interest in whether or not it had anything to do with UFOs, aliens or their great aunt Minny.

Anyway, the only people that see these "indicators" are FTBs. No one else. And they're pointed out by other FTBs. Get a real hardline investigator like Quillius, who is a believer just not one who accepts things as easily as you do, involved and they suddenly poof away.

Look at Charles Darwin's prediction of the Xanthopan morgani. Charles Darwin accurately predicted the existance of moth with a very long tongue from looking at an orchids.

Okay, and your point is?

So there may be a lot of indicators pointing to ET. This could be reflected in observation and physical trace evidece. Just because an actual alien object is not made available to the public, instead kept under wraps as top secret foreign technology, doesn't mean aliens are not coming here. There may be enough indicators that it is most likely the case.

Oh, so maybe you're not so certain after all. Look at all the waffles that say you really don't have anything except speculation. And, again, you have no real proof because of da ebil lyin' gummint hiding stuff ... of which you have absolutely no evidence let alone proof. All you have is belief which makes it come on like a religion since religions don't need proof, just belief. Darwin had hard facts & evidence. You don't. Oh, I forgot. All your "hard facts & evidence" is under wraps by da ebil lyin' gummint. How convenient.