372 replies to this topic

[quillius]

psyche101, on 01 February 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

'

Gidday Mate

Cheers, that is very much a 2 way street.

psyche101, on 01 February 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

Indeed, there are enough conspiracy ideals out there to make one consider that the Government might be involved in someone, and I cannot blame someone for wanting to look at that angle, as I did myself. However, we have been running around this very bush since 1947. I think it seems rather obvious that if an answer exists in that haystack, that we are going to have to start again, by ourselves. If there really is something, and some amazing group has managed to keep this a secret for so many decades, then I think that more protest will achieve the same result - naught. I think that if we continue to try and prove the Government has, and is hiding cases, that nobody is going to get to that information in any case. It seems a waste of time to try.

I agree, its usually only by starting again that you find different paths that people before may not have explored.

psyche101, on 01 February 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

Speaking historically, everyone expected Mars to be inhabited and people too be living there. In a time of war, it was just another conflict to people already in a grip of fear. I have no doubt at all that the prevalent mindset is indeed the inspiration for many, if not most of the claims from the day, which is why as time wore on, stories got less spectacular. In such a mindset, many visual aspects could well be seen as objects to fear. Death rained from the skies, this was just higher up. I am not sure if anything is based on anything "alone" I think that people being individual, have varying degrees of credibility or skepticism as a result from upbringing. Surely that is a major factor? Unless something as bizzare as the Pacagoula case happened personally to such a person, it strikes me that their position is likely to be predetermined, at least to an extent. A YEC is less likely to describe a light in the sky as ET, but as an Angel.

do we not see what we fear though? If so how do aliens enter our thought process? i.e. during war we are fearful of the enemy (whatever country that may be)....not spacecraft piloted by ET. Although I do see and agree with your point, this example does make me think its not so cut and dry.

psyche101, on 01 February 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

Indeed! But I would consider it merely a defence mechanism. We do need to respect that which we are not familiar with.

hmm, does this partly answer the previous question regarding fear, i.e. if we fear the unknown then most of what we create we can fear. The enemy is the 'unknown' rather than the 'enemy country'  

psyche101, on 01 February 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

Sorry my bad, and in what you say above I do agree. The problem lies when an open testimony, such as Father Gills is taken, and interpreted by UFOlogists. He said he saw Human Beings, which is not at all remarkable. But because he also said, they were on a craft that hovered, and took off at great speed, we say, this cannot be human. That to me is a massive leap, and not listening to Father Gill. I find it bizarre that someone would promote the case as ET, an then say the Humans were Aliens. the Father just did not know it.
Not one person has had a fair go at trying to solve the real mystery - the performance of the craft. This is where solid evidence turns to liquid.

I do see where you are coming from here Psyche. As mentioned on that thread, the glow around the 'beings' is an anomoly, as potentially is the anomoly that he could not see their faces, which begs the question what made him think they were human?

psyche101, on 01 February 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

LOL   

It amazes me that you maintain support for the other side when all you have had to work with is 99% woo woo. As I have mentioned to others,. I think there are 2 types of believer. Good ones and bad ones. The Good ones have names like Sagan, Drake, Hawking, and Quillius. The bad ones are not worth mentioning. They feed of the good work. It more pains me that real believers have to carry the credulous.

Only in my dreams can I be in the same sentence as those men....but many thanks for the compliment

psyche101, on 01 February 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

I do wonder what that actual number of what can one can consider solid reports to be? In 3,000+ pages of Best Evidence, only three stories "made the cut" so to speak. Zamora, Teheran and Portage. Father Gill deserves a place in that perplexing three, so it really should be 4. But as you know, I do not consider Father Gill to be ET, but a conundrum like Vallee's flying saucer powered by propellors, and the 1896 airship.

3 is not a bad start.....although I ofcourse would throw in Pascagoula plus a couple of others...

psyche101, on 01 February 2013 - 07:38 AM, said:

Aliens that look very much like human's. Could Father Gill have got this incorrect? Yes. But I do not believe it is being interpreted as ET for the right reasons. There is no reason to think Father Gills "men" were Aliens, but there is reason to question the origin of the vehicle. Methodology demands the two are separated.  Nobody is prepared to do that, because it put's the ET aspect in jeopardy.
As soon as we assume that Father Gill was incorrect in a description, we are re-writing the description. That to me is a no-no. We can then bias and influence it in any way we want, hence a reference to time travellers. This illustrates that another answer is more plausible than ET, even if it is not the answer. They explain the situation better than ET, but next thing you know I have people telling me time travel is not possible, Yet one man has actually time traveled. Granted only one 50th of a second into the future, but he actually did it. Therefore, I do not feel it is any more than bias that indicates that time travel is more likely than ET, in fact, using a wormhole for time travel would be easier than building one for space. We could do it now, if we could make the wormhole. All we need is two ends of a wormhole, and a very fast spaceship.

could he have been incorrect? well I guess it depends on how he reached the opinion that they were human....

[Hazzard]

quillius, on 01 February 2013 - 01:36 PM, said:

so you describe them as - easy
and classify as - beautiful people

I tend to agree with DB on this,... even the "easy" (girls) part.

[quillius]

Hazzard, on 01 February 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

I tend to agree with DB on this,... even the "easy" (girls) part.

[Hazzard]

From Abracadabra to Zombies. http://skepdic.com/

[DONTEATUS]

I always miss the easy girls parts ! Dang it !

[DBunker]

Good link haz.

[Paxus]

psyche101, on 25 January 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

Well Pax.

We have a position open now.

You ready to log on more often, and be a skeptic?

You know you want to............


But we expect you to be completely serious.

LOL @ psyche101

I couldn't say 'yes' to that - Not because I have a problem with providing skeptic input (i often do) - I just can't put in the same ammount of time you guys do!

: (

Can someone pm me contact details (I mean just an e-mail address) for boony?

[Chrlzs]

Forgive me for a quick cherry pick - I admit I'm not following this thread closely, but some words leapt out at me - I hope Quillius won't mind (he's a good egg!).

quillius, on 01 February 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

do we not see what we fear though?

Indeed we do.  As a kid growing up in the 60's, I was into space exploration like you wouldn't believe, and also loved reading cheap novels about all sorts of mysteries, and found tales of UFO's and ET fascinating... but even though I happily accepted that 'any day now' we might get visited, I found the tales of alleged previous visits just slightly not all that believable..  (Although I do remember reading about 'spontaneous combustion' and was rather nervous about that one for a while...)

Quote

If so how do aliens enter our thought process?

I'm not sure I understand why you question that..  *Especially* in the late 50's, 60's and seventies, aliens were the in-thing in media of all types.  Just go to any secondhand book store and look around at the old stuff.  And of course as we moved into the age of technology and space travel we realised that we can get off this planet, so it was only natural that we think others would be doing the same elsewhere so of course, we were curious and excited to find out who our neighbours might be.  Back then, the Fermi Paradox and related issues weren't all that well-known or discussed and we just assumed that life would be everywhere.

Plus, there's another, more subtle and more interesting reason it was in our psyche.. (Hi, Psyche..!)  and that is ....

Quote

i.e. during war we are fearful of the enemy (whatever country that may be)....not spacecraft piloted by ET.

I'm going to disagree here.  This is one where I believe you need to stop and really consider the implications (and more importantly the opportunities) for warmongers (of any country).  Back in the 40's/50's/60's and 70's.. the following generalisations can be made:
- the populace was not very well-informed, and could be classified as a bit gullible - most people would accept that we could be being visited by aliens (see above)
- good tracking systems (radar, visible, IR etc) did not exist or were not common
- ET, if they existed, would be (and were) regarded as a common threat/enemy to any country
- the existence of any threats, be they real or not, meant:
  - more funding
  - more demand (ie beyond that which is justifiable) for research (better weapons and aircraft) including 'exotic' research (eg flying platforms, anti-gravity, etc)
  - an easy excuse for using aircraft to their design limits and beyond (I wuz chasin an unknown craft!!)  
  - an easy excuse for firing weapons in peacetime (I wuz chasin an unknown craft and it came right at me!!)
  - more need for extra staff, extra aircraft, extra armaments
and I think it's fair to say that as a whole, the military forces were nowhere near as well scrutinised as they now are - those making the decisions could pretty much make it up as they went along.

So, can you follow the breadcrumbs?

The generals would be motivated to have ufo=alienz as a threat.  So would the armament companies.  So would the pilots, so would the radar operators ('yeah, that trace is probably pretty close to lining up with what the pilot claimed (- good ole Chuck, we go way back -) so yeah, there was definitely sumpin there - probly was an alien!') and so on all the way up and down the chain and then onto newspaper editors, novelists, filmmakers...  And because the technology and intense scrutiny wasn't there to disprove that they were chased by aliens, then it was a win-win for everyone.

Compare that to now - many things have changed in that equation...  And you can't ask for a better example of why it doesn't happen now than the recent Mexican Air Force 'Cantarell Oil Wells' debacle!  Was that a deliberate attempt to drum up ufology?  I doubt it - probably just simple incompetence.  But *that* in my opinion is why the reports have dwindled away over the last few decades - we know better and it isn't anywhere near so easy to use alienz as a perceived threat..  That's why so few reports exist recently, compared to the many military reports that were being drummed/hyped up during that time.

So back in those good ole days all this stuff led to the popular belief that the military knew thingz that the populace didn't.  And in turn it added to the general hysteria and multiple hangers on and scammers that jumped on the UFO bandwagon..

A vicious circle of UFOLOGY..?  IMO, yes, it was.

Anyway, I apologise for delurking on this topic just for that little diversion.  Maybe I should get off my backside and start a thread on this as I have promised in the past...

[quillius]

Chrlzs, on 04 February 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Anyway, I apologise for delurking on this topic just for that little diversion.  Maybe I should get off my backside and start a thread on this as I have promised in the past...

Morning Chrlzs,

I cannot respond in detail now as I am off to meetings all day. I would however suggest you start that thread you threatened as there is plenty of discussion to be had on this angle IMO.

As you are probably aware I have for a long time stressed that I am quite sure that the Government/Military/special division of   ... at very least believed ET was responsible for some UFOs. It very much sounds like you agree with this although I guess you would stick to 'they thought/believed' as opposed to 'knew' but hey Rome wasnt built in a day.....I will have you pushing the ETH byu the end of it
(just kidding, I am no miracle worker)

[Chrlzs]

quillius, on 04 February 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

Morning Chrlzs,

I cannot respond in detail now as I am off to meetings all day. I would however suggest you start that thread you threatened as there is plenty of discussion to be had on this angle IMO.

As you are probably aware I have for a long time stressed that I am quite sure that the Government/Military/special division of   ... at very least believed ET was responsible for some UFOs. It very much sounds like you agree with this although I guess you would stick to 'they thought/believed' as opposed to 'knew' but hey Rome wasnt built in a day.....I will have you pushing the ETH byu the end of it
(just kidding, I am no miracle worker)

{No problem, I'm a patient lad and I don't think this issue is going anywhere in a hurry!  Hope the meetings are/were worthwhile.  I'm disappearing now too, to retire to bed and rest my aching back. Ouch.  Don't ask }

Yes, I do agree with you except that I don't think many, indeed most, of those pushing the ET/UFO angle necessarily believed it at all (and I include those at the very highest decision-making levels) - they just went along with it because it suited their needs perfectly! And there was essentially no risk of being caught in a lie!  They weren't lying - the reports *could* have been aliens!  There was essentially no technology that existed that could prove it either way at the time, and if such technology came to exist later (as it has in some respects, like the airborne radar and visual systems that 'brought down' the Mexican Air Force, so to speak..), then they could simply say - "well they've gone away now - at the time we were working with the best information we had.." and carry on regardless.

I think the UFO=alienz line was pretty much the perfect conspiracy for the 50's thru 70's - it couldn't be disproved (or proven!) then, and as a fleeting airborne phenomena its existence was quite commonplace (of course there are lots of unidentified lights in the skies..) but being fleeting meant it was not available for later re-examination, ie we can't retrospectively use higher resolution photography, better radar equipment and so on.  So it was - and remains - undisputable (in the exact dictionary sense).

It could not have been better for the warmongers.. and everyone else who jumped aboard the bandwagon.

Edited by Chrlzs, 04 February 2013 - 11:20 AM.

[DBunker]

The backfire effect is pretty interesting.

The "backfire effect" is a term coined by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler to describe how some individuals when confronted with evidence that conflicts with their beliefs come to hold their original position even more strongly:

http://www.skepdic.c...fireeffect.html

[psyche101]

quillius, on 01 February 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

Gidday Mate

quillius, on 01 February 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

I agree, its usually only by starting again that you find different paths that people before may not have explored.

Exactly, as well as technology and information is superior to what people had to work with in the past.

quillius, on 01 February 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

do we not see what we fear though? If so how do aliens enter our thought process? i.e. during war we are fearful of the enemy (whatever country that may be)....not spacecraft piloted by ET. Although I do see and agree with your point, this example does make me think its not so cut and dry.

hmm, does this partly answer the previous question regarding fear, i.e. if we fear the unknown then most of what we create we can fear. The enemy is the 'unknown' rather than the 'enemy country'  

Well I guess my nick comes into play. Chrlz also has good points, in addition to those the human psyche does have a common "spectre" image we fear naturally, the bad man in the dark. As kids this is recognised as the boogeyman. As we get older, we rationalise this fear, sometimes as Bigfoot (often unwarranted fear is mentioned) sometimes as alien.

You make a good point though, and I have to agree with both you and Chrilz here, we did have a mindset that we thought Aliens could land any day. We were more gullible, we did believe the stories about Martian Canali. But you are right to, we still do not have weapons pointed at space wary of ET, they are all pointed back at earth - at each other, where the real threat, and concern lies.

quillius, on 01 February 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

I do see where you are coming from here Psyche. As mentioned on that thread, the glow around the 'beings' is an anomoly, as potentially is the anomoly that he could not see their faces, which begs the question what made him think they were human?

I would guess shape and the waving, suggesting familiarity. That he mentions "Human" and "Human Being" several times I feel is significant. He seemed quite sure, and that is all we have to work with.

quillius, on 01 February 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

Only in my dreams can I be in the same sentence as those men....but many thanks for the compliment

Everyone starts some place, and that is by asking questions. Even these men had to learn. To be able to not fall into the bottomless pit of woo woo is an accomplishment that I think puts you on this path. Objectivity in a proponent is rare, and IMHO, valuable.

quillius, on 01 February 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

3 is not a bad start.....although I ofcourse would throw in Pascagoula plus a couple of others...

Indeed, but these are ones I think everyone agrees on. ET even hits the table as a possible in these cases for near everyone. Personally Teheran I find sounds like Plasma, but it is most definitely a majority case.

Pascagoula really hits home for your doesn't it? Is there any one aspect that in particular you find convincing, or just the entire account as a whole?

quillius, on 01 February 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

could he have been incorrect? well I guess it depends on how he reached the opinion that they were human....

Indeed, but if we are to assume he is salt of the earth and would not embellish, then I feel we have no choice but to take his words for their very descriptions. I find the recollection very vanilla, and therefore more valuable than the average interpreted recollection. Is this not second guessing Father Gill?

Edited by psyche101, 05 February 2013 - 04:41 AM.

[psyche101]

DBunker, on 04 February 2013 - 11:37 PM, said:

The backfire effect is pretty interesting.

The "backfire effect" is a term coined by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler to describe how some individuals when confronted with evidence that conflicts with their beliefs come to hold their original position even more strongly:

http://www.skepdic.c...fireeffect.html

We have definitely seen that in here.

[psyche101]

Paxus, on 04 February 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

LOL @ psyche101

I couldn't say 'yes' to that - Not because I have a problem with providing skeptic input (i often do) - I just can't put in the same ammount of time you guys do!

: (

Can someone pm me contact details (I mean just an e-mail address) for boony?

Well, the spot is always open for you mate I'll do what I can with Boon, have you tried PM? He might be monitoring that still?

[Paxus]

psyche101, on 05 February 2013 - 04:38 AM, said:

Well, the spot is always open for you mate I'll do what I can with Boon, have you tried PM? He might be monitoring that still?

Tried that, he has no account on UM anymore