257 replies to this topic

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

mcrom901, on 23 October 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

and what translates those objects to 'mechanical flying thingys'?

how were uaps ruled out?



sorry, but you cannot jump from flashing / shiny disk like objects to imagined crafts like those... nops

perhaps you can't rule out UAPs, if by UAPs you mean Plasma, Earth Lights & tthat sort of thing, but Plasma does seem to have become the modern all-purpose explanation for everything, hasn't it, although I suppose around a volcanically active area like Mt. Rainier it might be something worth considering, that may be true. But as I'm sure you'll agree, it makes the idea of "secret secret aircraft" seem even less likely than it did before, don't you agree.

[jknightx]

Because I have a hard time believing that humans here on earth repersent the pinnacle of elvolution and are the smartest thing in the universe.

[psyche101]

TheMacGuffin, on 23 October 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

Arnold in fact spent decades investigating hundreds of UFO sightings, and had some unusual stories to tell, such as that Marine transport plane he was searching for on the day he saw his UFOS.

“The Marine Corps transport plane’s wreckage that Arnold was searching for the day he saw the nine saucers supposedly had thirty-two Marines aboard, but the head of the three-man search team that climbed up to the crash site on the side of Mount Rainier told Arnold that they found no bodies, no bones, no blood although the fuselage was fairly intact. Everything else, including the luggage of the thirty-two Marines was still on board. Arnold said the Navy first claimed mountain lions dragged the bodies off and later stated that the bodies were never brought down because the wreck occurred in a very inaccessible place."

http://www.mufon.com...att/kenarn.html


He believed that the UFOs were kidnapping people, as well as shooting down planes, and that it happened far more than the military dared to admit.  From what I've read, Arnold thought that the UFOs were ET and not friendly.

Hi McGuffin

Just brilliant. Whilst I feel Arnold was heavily influenced, as he does not seem to have been ET orientated until many people contacted him about his sighting and put the idea to him, however, regardless of his inspiration, he certainly seems to have uncovered some decent mysteries.
This one is a stirling example, washed out in the fame of the 9 UFO's. I am not aware of this mystery, is it covered from any other sources?

Thank you for the post. This is the sort of mystery I come here to become aware of.

[QuiteContrary]

TheMacGuffin, on 23 October 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:

Arnold in fact spent decades investigating hundreds of UFO sightings, and had some unusual stories to tell, such as that Marine transport plane he was searching for on the day he saw his UFOS.

“The Marine Corps transport plane’s wreckage that Arnold was searching for the day he saw the nine saucers supposedly had thirty-two Marines aboard, but the head of the three-man search team that climbed up to the crash site on the side of Mount Rainier told Arnold that they found no bodies, no bones, no blood although the fuselage was fairly intact. Everything else, including the luggage of the thirty-two Marines was still on board. Arnold said the Navy first claimed mountain lions dragged the bodies off and later stated that the bodies were never brought down because the wreck occurred in a very inaccessible place."

http://www.mufon.com...att/kenarn.html


He believed that the UFOs were kidnapping people, as well as shooting down planes, and that it happened far more than the military dared to admit.  From what I've read, Arnold thought that the UFOs were ET and not friendly.

It's interesting bigfootery has a similar story with several bigfoot scavenging and carrying off bodies at a military crash site. And a subsequent cover-up. I believe this was in Virginia? maybe. Bad memory, sorry.

[psyche101]

747400, on 23 October 2012 - 07:01 AM, said:

I do admire the tenacity of those who cling so doggedly to the "it was the northrop/Horten Flying Wings, that's what it was" theory, but I'm afraid in the face of all the facts and common sense, the case is pretty well untenable, but credit to the people who do for persistence, at least, I suppose. The case seems to be base entirely on this argument

which is really no different at all from "it was clearly a metallic object that did manuevers that we could not possibly do, so there it must be an alien spacecraft", really.

It is worlds apart, I think one needs a decent imagination consider that to provide a drawing of a craft that exists as opposed to creating a drawing of that which cannot be held up against a physical example as being the same thing. I can show you a picture of a real Ho, and show details Arnold drew. This seems to the point where you keep tripping up. The day you can hold up a picture of an alien craft against a physical example then I think you might have a case, until that point, it's just wishful thinking to consider them in the same ballpark.

[psyche101]

747400, on 23 October 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Indeed, that makes the "Secret Aircraft" theory on even shakier ground, doesn't it.

Not at all, but it does muddy the waters.

If it is a disc, and not a crescent then one could consider this opens the possibility of a last squadron of XF5U's on their way to a final resting place, which officially had only just been retied two months previous. However, Arnolds description of erratic movements in the air suits the less stable flying wing designs.

747400, on 23 October 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Has anyone considered that the person who drew the famous artist's impression that Arnold is depicted holding might have drawn it, consciously or subconsciously, with some detail added to look like what they thought an advanced aircraft would look like? ... i.e. that the artist may have been influenced by the Flying Wings himself, and Arnold's description have been elaborated slightly?

Then wouldn't Arnold have made a protest if not a correction? Instead, he poses with the picture.

[TheMacGuffin]

psyche101, on 24 October 2012 - 02:35 AM, said:

Hi McGuffin

Just brilliant. Whilst I feel Arnold was heavily influenced, as he does not seem to have been ET orientated until many people contacted him about his sighting and put the idea to him, however, regardless of his inspiration, he certainly seems to have uncovered some decent mysteries.
This one is a stirling example, washed out in the fame of the 9 UFO's. I am not aware of this mystery, is it covered from any other sources?

Thank you for the post. This is the sort of mystery I come here to become aware of.

It was a C-46 transport plane that crashed on December 10, 1946 and was found on July 25, 1947, one month after Arnold saw the UFOs.  The official story was that the wreckage was too high up to recover the bodies, although Arnold disputed that.  He was right that a memorial service was held, but without any bodies.

There really was a $5,000 reward so that's why he was flying around Mt. Ranier looking for it.  If Arnold was right, of course, there were no bodies to be found.  Then they also said that they had found some bodies near a section of the plane, but the conditions were too difficult to bring them down off the mountain.

There were eight park rangers in the group that found the wreckage, which they claimed was scattered over a wide area. Arnold seems to have heard a very different version of the story from the park rangers.


http://www.google.co...K1RGGGi073VM4Pg

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 24 October 2012 - 03:29 AM.

[TheMacGuffin]

Kenneth Arnold had two more UFO sightings that don't get mentioned very much, on July 29, 1947 and another in 1952.

http://www.google.co...ruFvSAIandJyChg


In July 1947, he saw 20-25 UFOs, which he filmed:

"The sun was at my back and to my right. These objects were coming into the sun. I wasn’t sighting through the viewfinder on my camera but was sighting along the side of it. As this group of objects came within 400 yards of me they veered sharply away from me and to their right, gaining altitude as they did so and fluttering and flashing a dull amber color. I was a little bit shocked and excited when I realized they had the same flight characteristics of the large objects that I had observed on June 24. These appeared to be round, rather rough on top, and to have a dark or a light spot on top of each one. I couldn’t be absolutely positive of this because it all happened so suddenly. I attempted to make a turn and follow them but they disappeared to the east at a speed far in excess of my airplane. I knew they were not ducks because ducks don’t fly that fast. After a few minutes I gave up the chase and continued to let down at La Grande."

Flying over California in 1952, he saw two objects, one of which looked semi-transparent:


"In 1952, Kenneth Arnold was flying in his CallAir Airplane over Susanville, California. Two UFOs flew directly under his plane. I believe these two UFOs were identified as the same kind. He described the first craft as it flew under to be as solid as a Chevrolet car. The second craft was transparent in the middle and he could see through it.

For Kenneth Arnold, this sighting over Susanville was one of his most intriguing. He was convinced that UFOs had the ability to change their density and become completely invisible.

In 1967, Look Magazine published a special Issue commemorating the 20th anniversary of flying saucers. This special article is titled, “The Man Who Started It All”. It describes my father as a solid-citizen that was the first to report mysterious objects that “flew like a saucer”. It read on and says, Today he believes UFO’s are “alive rather than machines”. Here is my father’s quote from end of this article:

“The impression I had after observing these strange objects a second time was that they were something alive rather than machines---a living organism of some type that apparently has the ability to change its density similar to fish that are found in our oceans without losing their apparent identity.”

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 24 October 2012 - 03:40 AM.

[mcrom901]

747400, on 23 October 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

perhaps you can't rule out UAPs, if by UAPs you mean Plasma, Earth Lights & tthat sort of thing, but Plasma does seem to have become the modern all-purpose explanation for everything, hasn't it, although I suppose around a volcanically active area like Mt. Rainier it might be something worth considering, that may be true. But as I'm sure you'll agree, it makes the idea of "secret secret aircraft" seem even less likely than it did before, don't you agree.

oh, absolutely.. the electromagnetic interferences which fred johnson had experienced is another sign... that's a classic with uaps...

"bright objects," "flashing," "flew erratic," "peculiar weaving motion," those descriptions don't sound like planes to me....

[psyche101]

synchronomy, on 23 October 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Canada and Britain have released files too.  Since I'm in Canada, I went through the details at some length, and it was fruitless.  It was mainly copies of reports by various police agencies and others giving the original documents relating to the sightings.  Very little conclusive evidence.  I went through some of the British ones too, since I am originally from there, and I found the same things.

Hi Synchronomy

New Zealand too.

We are told by British Pilots that they are amazed at American Pilots being stifled. We are told that the Brazilian Government is on the level. When we see these files, if they do not have aliens in them, so many scream cover up. How can all of these countries have the same result with different philosophies, unless the phenomena is terrestrial? The only way I can see is to go back into CT land, and I really do not feel facts have a place in conspiracy land, so we have to convince ourselves that every government has the same mentality, when we know that is not the case don't we? Lets face it, the CT'ers will only accept a cover up answer, or a statement saying aliens are here no matter what proof is brought to the table. So why should CT'ers be given more credibility and respect than they themselves would even consider offering? Is this not where proof of these claims becomes a must?

synchronomy, on 23 October 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

There was no evidence that I could see of any on-going research into the phenomenon.

I feel you are looking in the wrong places. There is heaps of research happening all the time. The military official gave up responsibility on the 70's but will have to be involved in any report that could be deemed a threat. That is not the place to look. Meterology, astronomy, physics is where the focus has shifted to. Try using Google Scholar as opposed to Google when you do a search, and have a look at the different results.

There you will find articles that are not bickering about ET, but titles such as:


On the instability of ionospheric plasma originated by charge separations in the troposphere. The «UFO» phenomenon mechanism


The myth that science abandoned the UFO subject before it started is pure nonsense. From the early days of Frank Drake, enduring years that brought forth greats such as Carl Sagan, and onto today's Professor Hawking and Micio Kaku. Science has lent a healthy had to the investigation from day one, and have never dropped the ball, despite people promoting McDonald's science in default speech as though it were accurate. But I would say that is the difference between Google Scholar and UFO Chronicles
I seriously hate the UFO chronicles website, the colours hurt my eyes.

synchronomy, on 23 October 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

I can't speculate on the how's of why's of "cloaking".  It's speculation on my part...just a possible scenario.  Perhaps they only become visible under certain conditions, which the ET's can't control.  Maybe at high speed in space they are completely invisible, then slowed down in our atmosphere we see them intermittently.  Just speculation.

Indeed. And speculation is used to ascertain a UFO as an alien vehicle. So you are using speculation to validate speculation. Can you see the danger in that method?

I tend to deal in what I know and can qualify, I do not think imagination has a place where conclusions are offered. Is it not even more likely that such is made up to make another made up story sounds possible? The way I see it, if they are seen in the atmosphere  and some say very regularly, then you can see them out of it. The same reasons these identities would become visible apply just as well in space as they do on the ground. And it does not cover the wide ranging spectrum that satellite cameras and RADAR do. And then the amateur astronomer contingent has a healthy number of radio telescopes as well. If ET can get past all this, I fail to see how he gets seen in the atmosphere where all the people can see them, but not in space where only tech can see them. When they are seen on the ground, the "stealth" seems to fail at it's critical moment, i.e. when one's chances of being detected are at their highest. I cannot see advanced tech working backwards?

synchronomy, on 23 October 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

You mention 57 species.  I believe that comes from one of the Disclosure Project witnesses, Clifford Stone.  I believe many of the DP witnesses, but although I believe Stone has some knowledge of ET's, I think he has embellished it dramatically.
Here's his website.  His descriptions of the various races sounds very Sheldan Nidle "ish" to me.  Just my opinion on him.
http://www.bibliotec...autor_stone.htm

Yes, and Greer advocates that number. I find that alone enough reason to doubt it.

Why do you think he is anything more than a snake oil salesman? May I ask what he has presented that you could possibly find plausible? He has Dinosaurs, and Biblical figures in there as visiting earth. Amoebas, dwarves and fallen angels.

I have to admit to being intensely curious as to what aspect this fellow has produced for you to give him any credibility whatsoever.

This one I found nothing more than intensely humorous, and it almost indicates that this is intended to be a comedy.

Quote

JAWAS
Another group of extraterrestrials has been termed the ’Jawas’, after their resemblance to the creatures in the film, Star Wars. This groups is distinguished by their clothing. They wearhoods and robes, are generally short, 3-4 1/2 ft. tall and their faces are concealed by the shadows thrown by their hoods. There has been reports that this species has glowing eyes.

Jawa's are watching us? Come on mate. If that is not reason to break out a new tin foil hat, I do not know what is.

Hell, Stone lied about his service, he lied about Kecksburg (later claiming he "remote viewed the site") he lied about Project Moon Dust, he lied about Roswell. In short he has quite a history of lying, so much that Greer is one of the only buddies he has left. I do not know if you are aware of Kevin Randle, but I personally consider him one of the best, and most honest UFO researchers on "the other side of the fence" - to me that is.

Here is a link to his site, and his evaluation of Clifford Stone. I think you will have a hard time refuting Kevin's work, he is very thorough.

From the above link.

Quote

If these two testimonies and already the discredited tales of Philip Corso (for more information on Corso please seehttp://www.cufon.org.../corso_da66.htm) and Robert Lazar (for more information http://www.serve.com...zar/lazarmn.htm andhttp://www.ufowatchdog.com/hall3.html) were used to develop an exopolitics theme, then aren’t those theories badly flawed? And if these testimonies are removed from exopolitics, then won’t it be necessary to rethink the underlying themes of exopolitics? And finally, just what good are theories and suggestions for human behavior as it relates to alien visitation if those theories are the products of invention and fabrication?

In other words, isn’t it time for the proponents of exopolitics to properly vet the backgrounds and the tales of the whistleblowers rather than simply defend them? Isn’t time for us to stop embracing every tale we are told that appeals to us simply because it appeals to us? Shouldn’t we instead search to find the truth in a field with the voices of the charlatans seem to drown out the voices of reason.

synchronomy, on 23 October 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Who knows.  Perhaps the US does have a crashed vehicle and they have a couple of recovered bodies.  Maybe somehow that gave them a bargaining chip with the ET's.  Maybe those ET's are in some way "in charge" of all the visiting species in some sort of "galactic federation".

I do not get it.

A lesser species commands 57 advanced species? Because it has two held hostage?

Or for the sake of it, even one advanced species?

That is bowing to terrorism. Nope, I do not see an advanced species doing so. That would indicate we need to be wiped of the planet, easily done from space by an advanced species in minutes. And 99.9% of the planet would not even know. I think this would be a scenario where the Government would inform the people and tell them Aliens are a threat for a show if resistance. If they have speculated stealth technology, then they have speculated transporters. Beam me up Scotty.

I cannot see that working on any level. Especially so for 60 years. It sounds like a bad sci fi story.

synchronomy, on 23 October 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Maybe the US recognized the global interest in the ETH long ago, and decided to take the lead and portray a false image that they are somehow calling the shots for the entire planet.  That wouldn't surprise me, as the Wikileaks released documents clearly showed there are few nations that the US doesn't take an interest in.

I am not following this either, sorry. They are not calling the shots for the entire planet, and China would not care what they say, If China sees an Interstellar spaceship coming in from space and landing in the US, and they do have the tech to do so, I do not understand how the above would curb them. And I cannot see Afghanistan taking the side of the US on something like this. Or North Korea. All of whom certainly have the capability of knowing if the US has regular interstellar visitors.

synchronomy, on 23 October 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

There is probably only an appearance of collusion.  If all nations have a similar agenda relating to the ETH, then it would give the illusion that they are working together.

Again, as with the last two posts, no appearance of collusion exists. Not sure where that keeps coming from. Collusion is required. Not perceived. This is my question. The one I find there is no answer to. Governments do not play nicely together, as per previously listed examples. Not even the most basic of tasks such as the Sea Shepard can be agreed upon. They hate each other, so why would we see any collusion? I most certainly do not see any currently. The ETH is focused on America, not the globe. The only time global examples are considered is when particular curly situations arrive, such as the Valentich case. Whilst it seems quite likely that he crashed into the sea, that canot be proven, and his cryptic last call creates the question. But that is when focus is applied to the case, and the Government angle is dismissed. I feel it should not be, and this is where the question arises. Australia might cover for the US, so might Britain. China, North Korea, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran and the USSR would not. Just to mention a few.

synchronomy, on 23 October 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

Since all nations want everyone else to believe that they have something up their sleeve regarding ET's they all stay quiet.  The less said, the more people will speculate.  Also, perhaps a bit of diplomacy.  If China announces,  "the US government is engaged in contact with ET's", a few things may happen...probably many.
- the US discredits the statement because China can't prove it
-  China, by making the claim, gives the appearance that they do not have any ongoing contact
-  China loses credibility because many people worldwide believe the ETH is all smoke and mirrors

So, unless China can prove their statement beyond any shadow of doubt, all that would happen is that they would look silly to the rest of the World
First they would have to prove ET's are visiting, then they would have to prove ongoing contact with the USA, which would have to involve some high level spying going on.

Seem it's a lot easier for all if they keep their mouths shut...which adds to the speculation of collusion between nations.

I find none of the above list plausible, China has as good if not better technology and can prove any such thing, were it to happen. It might be easy to make a woman who claims to have been raped and impregnated by a reptillian, and sees her son in Reno every now and then, but a proud and accomplished nation that America relies upon for technology is a different story. The US risks war with offending a nation like that.

How can the US discredit China if they can not only show data, but tell us where to look? That is Greer's biggest downfall. If we did have these massive strictures on the moon  all he need do is supply some co-ordinates, and every astronomer on the planet would be providing pictures of such.
China would not have any ongoing contact, this is my point. Unless everyone on the globe is secretly having their own individual conspiracy, it does not work, and if everyone does have their own individual conspiracy, why are some Governments transparent?

Not only that, but once China speak up, you can be sure others would be saying, yes, we can confirm that. I just cannot see Afghanistan covering for America under and circumstances. This country has people that strap bombs to themselves to kill whatever infidel they can. And if the can detect ICBM's they can detect spaceships. All it would take is one piece of undeniable information and the US would come undone.

Skeptics pull cases apart, because they can. If one ET story is genuine, they can't. Skeptics want to see ET, not some wild claims full of speculation and imagination. I do not mean that in a derogatory way, but claim after claim can get tiring, when completely unsupported, and to me, physical contact is what I would see as a last option for first contact - logically. I feel that communication is far more likely, and sensible as an approach.

Thank you for the conversation, at least I can see how some see this scenario, even if I find it rather far fetched, you are helping me begin to gain an understanding.

[psyche101]

jknightx, on 23 October 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

Because I have a hard time believing that humans here on earth repersent the pinnacle of elvolution and are the smartest thing in the universe.

Has something led you to believe that, or do you just like to put down your own species for the sake of it?

[Slave2Fate]

psyche101, on 24 October 2012 - 05:38 AM, said:

Has something led you to believe that, or do you just like to put down your own species for the sake of it?

It does seem to be a popular stance of late. I'm not sure where it stems from but I think such a dim view of humanity is neither correct nor healthy.

[psyche101]

747400, on 23 October 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

perhaps you can't rule out UAPs, if by UAPs you mean Plasma, Earth Lights & tthat sort of thing, but Plasma does seem to have become the modern all-purpose explanation for everything, hasn't it, although I suppose around a volcanically active area like Mt. Rainier it might be something worth considering, that may be true. But as I'm sure you'll agree, it makes the idea of "secret secret aircraft" seem even less likely than it did before, don't you agree.

Do you see this sort of baiting as contributing to the subject matter?

[TheMacGuffin]

The military officially denied that any aircraft were being tested in Washington state at the time of Arnold's UFO sightings, or indeed that they possessed any aircraft that could fly even remotely as fast as the ones he reported.

V-2 rockets could fly faster, but those were not what Arnold reported and in any event they were only being tested in New Mexico.

http://www.google.co...SWXfEezQSqd7JEg

[psyche101]

TheMacGuffin, on 24 October 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

It was a C-46 transport plane that crashed on December 10, 1946 and was found on July 25, 1947, one month after Arnold saw the UFOs.  The official story was that the wreckage was too high up to recover the bodies, although Arnold disputed that.  He was right that a memorial service was held, but without any bodies.

There really was a $5,000 reward so that's why he was flying around Mt. Ranier looking for it.  If Arnold was right, of course, there were no bodies to be found.  Then they also said that they had found some bodies near a section of the plane, but the conditions were too difficult to bring them down off the mountain.

There were eight park rangers in the group that found the wreckage, which they claimed was scattered over a wide area. Arnold seems to have heard a very different version of the story from the park rangers.


http://www.google.co...K1RGGGi073VM4Pg

Hi McGuffin

Thank You for that, a great read.

Interesting that in one version a reward was offered for the plane, which is the one I presume Arnold was chasing. I cannot say I have heard of a reward being offered on a search and rescue mission before. Most people would look out of the goodness in their hearts to help a fellow out. One paragraph says the parents contributed, another says they put up the full amount. A Bit of controversy there, I wonder what the actual contribution was.
And, the tadpole bit made me smile.

It does offer the conclusions for the empty coffins though.

Quote

A month later the first bodies would be found along with a section of the plane. But it was far too treacherous to attempt any recovery, and so -- with the approval of the families -- the men were left to rest in peace forever where last they lay, already partially entombed in glacial ice, on the highest slopes of the mountain.

But not for the bright flash Arnold described. Fascinating tale, again my thanks. I intend to look more closely at this one.