106 replies to this topic

[Tim Hebert]

Zoser:  "If I were to be honest with you psyche, I don't have a lot of time for people who set themselves up as professional UFO debunkers,  that hang their coats on their university PHD's.  I find attempts at debunking by such people difficult to follow, highly intellectualised to the point of non-comprehension, largely baseless, and full of more fantasy than any ET hypothesis could ever hope to have."


I'm assuming that this is a jab at Olberg?  As far as hanging our coats on university degrees, I happen to have 2 undergraduate degrees and a masters degree...all irrelevant to the topic at hand.  Rather broad brush that's being painted on people that happen to look at the topic in a different way.  As far as some of our views as being "largely baseless, and full of more fantasy...", I would respectfully ask that you provide examples of such.  It's rather easy to roll off a list of examples as you've done on your "Tantalizing" thread and leaving most of those examples twisting in the wind without any meaningful discourse with your fellow forum members...regardless of their POV.

I can respect someone that is passionate with his/her opinion on the UFO phenomena and brings good ideas to the table.  You tend to show total disdain and contempt towards this process, and frankly its telling...


Zoser:  "The explanations stem in the main from a fear of the unknown, coupled with a perceived threat to what they consider to be established scientific paradigms."


This is total abject nonsense.  And perhaps you can clarify this statement a little further?  Its the "unkown" that sparks interest in any subject that makes it worthwhile, otherwise, why delve into it?  Perhaps you "fear" the responsibility to present your views in a concise and meaningful way that portends clarity.

Edited by Tim Hebert, 18 August 2012 - 05:56 PM.

[TheMacGuffin]

Tim Hebert, on 18 August 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

I'm assuming that this is a jab at Olberg?  As far as hanging our coats on university degrees, I happen to have 2 undergraduate degrees and a masters degree...all irrelevant to the topic at hand.  Rather broad brush that's being painted on people that happen to look at the topic in a different way.  As far as some of our views as being "largely baseless, and full of more fantasy...", I would respectfully ask that you provide examples of such.  It's rather easy to roll off a list of examples as you've done on your "Tantalizing" thread and leaving most of those examples twisting in the wind without any meaningful discourse with your fellow forum members...regardless of their POV.

Well, Tim, I have FOUR university degrees, two undergraduate and two graduate, and while I agree that doesn't automatically make me an expert on everything outside my field, I also like to think that I'm no dummy.  I know what I saw, and I know what evidence was shown to me while I was in the military, so a million people posting in here telling me that none of it is "real evidence" is ever going to change my mind about that.  I know know what I know and that's it.  

Some of these UFOs really so represent a technology far in advance of anything known to us, while others seem to be only slightly ahead of current developments, but in any event, no one will ever convince me that none of this is real, no matter how many intellectual parlor tricks they have up their sleeves.  It doesn't matter.

[TheMacGuffin]

psyche101, on 17 August 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

Indeed, and I think this is proof that a global ET CT is not plausible.

I think this "anarchy" in the international system makes it more likely that UFO information would be kept secret, to deny the other side an advantage, while using intelligence agencies to find out what their rivals really know.  We know that the U.S. and the Soviets were doing this when it came to UFOs.  We also know that they were both worried about UFO reports that might trigger false alarms and the mistaken belief that the other side was launching an attack.  I think we have good evidence that they agreed to share information about that, at least just enough to show that the UFOs were something else and not part of some sneak attack.  

In the Cold War, they were rivals and competitors, but they always had to be careful that they didn't push things so far that they would blow up the world and kill everyone.  That's why the nuclear weapons basically deterred everyone and tended to cancel each other out, at least until they started making agreements to mutually freeze and start reducing the number of these things.  

I also think that an unacknowledged aspect of all the Star Wars type programs has been directed against out unearthly visitors, although as usual all that is shrouded in mystery and disinformation.  In general, the investigation of UFOs has been one part of the space program going right back to the beginning, including the military space program, such as sending up rocket planes to get pictures of them.

The military realized very early on that certain activities always attracted UFOs, including anything to do with rockets, spacecraft or nuclear weapons.  They knew this even back in the 1940s and 1950s, just judging by all the documents that have been declassified.

[zoser]

Tim Hebert, on 18 August 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

Zoser:  "If I were to be honest with you psyche, I don't have a lot of time for people who set themselves up as professional UFO debunkers,  that hang their coats on their university PHD's.  I find attempts at debunking by such people difficult to follow, highly intellectualised to the point of non-comprehension, largely baseless, and full of more fantasy than any ET hypothesis could ever hope to have."


I'm assuming that this is a jab at Olberg?  As far as hanging our coats on university degrees, I happen to have 2 undergraduate degrees and a masters degree...all irrelevant to the topic at hand.  Rather broad brush that's being painted on people that happen to look at the topic in a different way.  As far as some of our views as being "largely baseless, and full of more fantasy...", I would respectfully ask that you provide examples of such.  It's rather easy to roll off a list of examples as you've done on your "Tantalizing" thread and leaving most of those examples twisting in the wind without any meaningful discourse with your fellow forum members...regardless of their POV.

I can respect someone that is passionate with his/her opinion on the UFO phenomena and brings good ideas to the table.  You tend to show total disdain and contempt towards this process, and frankly its telling...


Zoser:  "The explanations stem in the main from a fear of the unknown, coupled with a perceived threat to what they consider to be established scientific paradigms."


This is total abject nonsense.  And perhaps you can clarify this statement a little further?  Its the "unkown" that sparks interest in any subject that makes it worthwhile, otherwise, why delve into it?  Perhaps you "fear" the responsibility to present your views in a concise and meaningful way that portends clarity.

Well done on your degrees.  What do you know about UFO's?

Edited by zoser, 18 August 2012 - 07:18 PM.

[Tim Hebert]

Zoser:  "Well done on your degrees.  What do you know about UFO's?"

My, my...Zoser, the point of my degrees is to personally demonstrate that they have no major bearing on this topic, as you appeared to castigate those with.  I'm assuming that Mac understood this with his reply.

As far as my knowledge of UFOs?  Unidentified Flying Objects, that is these objects may be initially unidentified, but most can be looked at from a rationale point of view.  Noticed that I said MOST, not all.  I'm rather open mined about the subject, but hold that the default position of every sighting and experience is not always of the ET variety.  I look at probability vs possibility.  BTW that tends to fit for quite a few who post here.

Now, Zoser, my fine friend, what do you know of UFOs?

[zoser]

Tim Hebert, on 18 August 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

Zoser:  "Well done on your degrees.  What do you know about UFO's?"

My, my...Zoser, the point of my degrees is to personally demonstrate that they have no major bearing on this topic, as you appeared to castigate those with.  I'm assuming that Mac understood this with his reply.

As far as my knowledge of UFOs?  Unidentified Flying Objects, that is these objects may be initially unidentified, but most can be looked at from a rationale point of view.  Noticed that I said MOST, not all.  I'm rather open mined about the subject, but hold that the default position of every sighting and experience is not always of the ET variety.  I look at probability vs possibility.  BTW that tends to fit for quite a few who post here.

Now, Zoser, my fine friend, what do you know of UFOs?

I agree that Ufology makes a level playing field.  Ufologists are bound to be the people to listen to because most of them research the issue full time.  They may not have degrees at the institute but the well known names sure know their stuff.

What I object to is the casual enquirer, who brandishes his or her reputation or qualifications like a credit card in a restaurant, claiming to be an authority on the subject after looking into one solitary case.  Before you shout foul, I am not talking about any individual, and Mac's post was not about JO.  To make it clear, I am talking about scientist type debunkers generally.

What do I know about UFO's?  That the shear number of testimonies is overwhelmingly pointing to the conclusion that a large number of them are not of earthly origin.

If people on this forum were genuinely scientific, then this juvenile question would have been resolved years ago.  People should be looking into more important questions instead by now.

[TheMacGuffin]

Tim Hebert, on 18 August 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

Zoser:  "Well done on your degrees.  What do you know about UFO's?"

My, my...Zoser, the point of my degrees is to personally demonstrate that they have no major bearing on this topic, as you appeared to castigate those with.  I'm assuming that Mac understood this with his reply.

There's no such thing as a university degree in UFOs, of course, although plenty of people with university degrees take the subject very seriously--Richard Dolan, Kevin Randle and J. Allen Hynek come to mind.  Dolan has made a very good case just based on historical evidence that some of the UFOs are interplanetary, or at least from a civilization more advanced than our own, and that many people in the government and the military reached that same conclusion over the years.

If anyone has any more details about what they are and where they really come from that is being closely held, along with any information about "contacts" with them, but I am quite satisfied with the evidence I have seen that a certain percentage of these flying objects are indeed real and represent some type of technology that is beyond ours.

[TheMacGuffin]

I have sometimes thought that the best way to disclose the reality of UFOs would be for someone handling the real UFO investigation to make contact with our "visitors" and have them come in for a landing where all the world media could see them.  

Most people would be genuinely surprised by that show, while those who weren't would at least act surprised.  LOL.

I would definitely not be among the genuinely surprised group.

[zoser]

TheMacGuffin, on 18 August 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

There's no such thing as a university degree in UFOs, of course, although plenty of people with university degrees take the subject very seriously--Richard Dolan, Kevin Randle and J. Allen Hynek come to mind.  Dolan has made a very good case just based on historical evidence that some of the UFOs are interplanetary, or at least from a civilization more advanced than our own, and that many people in the government and the military reached that same conclusion over the years.

If anyone has any more details about what they are and where they really come from that is being closely held, along with any information about "contacts" with them, but I am quite satisfied with the evidence I have seen that a certain percentage of these flying objects are indeed real and represent some type of technology that is beyond ours.

I do wonder if the information is being closely held?  What has leaked out (assuming it to be genuine) seems banal, and ranges from using the earth as a refueling terminal, to a source of genetic material for populating other planets, to trying to stop ourselves from wrecking the environment, to trying to uplift a spiritually bereft human race.

Edited by zoser, 18 August 2012 - 08:22 PM.

[zoser]

TheMacGuffin, on 18 August 2012 - 08:18 PM, said:

I have sometimes thought that the best way to disclose the reality of UFOs would be for someone handling the real UFO investigation to make contact with our "visitors" and have them come in for a landing where all the world media could see them.  

Most people would be genuinely surprised by that show, while those who weren't would at least act surprised.  LOL.

I would definitely not be among the genuinely surprised group.

Then there is the question; does any one strain of ET represent the others?  If one strain landed, and disclosed their intentions would that tell us much?  I have the feeling that if they (the people in the know) really spilled the beans we may be surprised by what they don't know.

[TheMacGuffin]

zoser, on 18 August 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

I do wonder if the information is being closely held?  What has leaked out (assuming it to be genuine) seems banal, and ranges from using the earth as a refueling terminal, to a source of genetic material for populating other planets, to trying to stop ourselves from wrecking the environment, to trying to uplift a spiritually bereft human race.

Some of our visitors seem to have a long-term interest in earth, for whatever reason, and may very well be based here--or nearby.  They are lots of places they could be, such as remote areas, underwater, under mountains and so on, rather than traveling across vast distances in relatively small craft.  The more I have thought about this, the more likely it seems that at least some of them are based on earth or very close by, and in the last 60-70 years we have just got much better at detecting them.

I really believe that some of them also like to put on shows that are bound to attract our attention in such a way that even the village idiot could not fail to notice them.

[TheMacGuffin]

zoser, on 18 August 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

Then there is the question; does any one strain of ET represent the others?  If one strain landed, and disclosed their intentions would that tell us much?  I have the feeling that if they (the people in the know) really spilled the beans we may be surprised by what they don't know.

I suspect that if one group did, then they all would, and we would suddenly find ourselves in the middle of a UFO convention.

[zoser]

TheMacGuffin, on 18 August 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Some of our visitors seem to have a long-term interest in earth, for whatever reason, and may very well be based here--or nearby.  They are lots of places they could be, such as remote areas, underwater, under mountains and so on, rather than traveling across vast distances in relatively small craft.  The more I have thought about this, the more likely it seems that at least some of them are based on earth or very close by, and in the last 60-70 years we have just got much better at detecting them.

I really believe that some of them also like to put on shows that are bound to attract our attention in such a way that even the village idiot could not fail to notice them.

I agree with this totally.  The Russian Navy clip I posted a couple of days ago that showed huge craft disappearing into the sea really makes you think.  Also I know there have been a few suspected frauds disgorging information about S4, but there have been a lot of them telling a similar story.  

That the place is riddled with tunnels, some man made others not, that house ET craft.  As you say the earth is a base whether we like it or not; do they get on with their business regardless of human activity I wonder or do they have an influence?

TheMacGuffin, on 18 August 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

I suspect that if one group did, then they all would, and we would suddenly find ourselves in the middle of a UFO convention.

I wonder if psyche would attend that?

Edited by zoser, 18 August 2012 - 08:38 PM.

[DONTEATUS]

THis topic reminds me of so many oldies songs from our past ! "Dream a Little Dreamer Dream" , "Some Where over the Rain Bow ", Fat Bottom Girls ? Well that ones a bit of a Long Shot !

[zoser]

DONTEATUS, on 18 August 2012 - 09:08 PM, said:

THis topic reminds me of so many oldies songs from our past ! "Dream a Little Dreamer Dream" , "Some Where over the Rain Bow ", Fat Bottom Girls ? Well that ones a bit of a Long Shot !

Not really; if you check out my video clips, it would all be as real as a Texas steer.