257 replies to this topic

[TheMacGuffin]

Concerning the crashed Marine plane, other versions of the story had the park rangers finding the tail section but with most of the wreckage wedged into a crevasse, with some frozen bodies seen.

This again is different from the story told to Arnold that no bodies were found there, or the version that had the wreckage scattered about widely.  

http://www.google.co...vqNu6U9zeRaUEew

[psyche101]

TheMacGuffin, on 24 October 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

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

I have never been able to consider it as a solid speed though, as Arnold always said it was a rough estimate based upon the mountain ranges. It might be accurate, but it might not.

[TheMacGuffin]

psyche101, on 24 October 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

I have never been able to consider it as a solid speed though, as Arnold always said it was a rough estimate based upon the mountain ranges. It might be accurate, but it might not.

As Edward Ruppelt pointed out long ago, if the UFOs were were 20-25 miles away as Arnold reported, weaving in and around the mountains, then they had be be much larger than the 40-50 feet he estimated, but more like 200 feet long.

If they really were 40-50 feet, then they had to be much slower and closer than he estimated, but Arnold definitely saw them flying close to the mountains, which means they were larger and faster.


Ruppelt also denied the "no bodies" report about the Marine plane, and said that pictures were taken of the remains but not shown to the families.


http://www.google.co...AQij0BiKVHhwEwA

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 24 October 2012 - 06:41 AM.

[TheMacGuffin]

As Ruppelt pointed out, the military denied all knowledge of Arnold's UFOs almost immediately, and there was a big discussion at Wright-Patterson over whether he really had seen spaceships or something like that.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 24 October 2012 - 06:46 AM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

psyche101, on 24 October 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

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.

... such as that, for instance. Nine of these, in formation over the Cascade Mountains? Once again, you run up against those inconvenient things called facts.

Quote

By 1946, the XF5U-1 project was already long over its expected development time, and well over budget.^[2] With jet aircraft coming into service the Navy finally canceled the project on 17 March 1947 and the prototype aircraft (V-173) was transferred to the Smithsonian Museum for display. Although two aircraft were constructed, a lone XF5U-1 underwent ground runs but never overcame vibration problems. Taxi trials at Vought's Connecticut factory culminated in short "hops" that were not true flights.^[5][6] The only completed XF5U-1 proved to be so structurally solid that it had to be destroyed by a wrecking ball.^[7]

So a squadron of them would probably be unlikely.

Edited by 747400, 24 October 2012 - 06:57 AM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

psyche101, on 24 October 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

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

baiting? My heavens, you do seem extraordinarily thin skinned. Who was beating who? I was asking mcrom a question regarding the point he raised, not even anything that you said. I don't know why you seem so sensititive all of a sudden.

[psyche101]

747400, on 24 October 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

... such as that, for instance. Nine of these, in formation over the Cascade Mountains? Once again, you run up against those inconvenient things called facts.



So a squadron of them would probably be unlikely.

Not really, it is the first suggestion based on a extremely rough drawing, and that is why I called it a possibility  many other craft may fit the bill, they may not all have been that shape, and arnold may have assumed they were. His sighting was original coined a mirage, and perhaps the area exhibits conditions that just might have distorted his view somewhat.  What we do have is a very muddy interpretation of the shape discussed which I do not think is correct anyway seeming as Arnold posed with the picture, and if it was grossly inaccurate, I doubt he would do that to begin with.
So I am only half serious about it at this stage, unless you see some reason to reconsider the drawing Arnold advocates?

[psyche101]

747400, on 24 October 2012 - 06:56 AM, said:

baiting? My heavens, you do seem extraordinarily thin skinned. Who was beating who? I was asking mcrom a question regarding the point he raised, not even anything that you said. I don't know why you seem so sensititive all of a sudden.

Bait, not beat.

I mentioned this in the other thread, I just do not see what pursing an angle that is not really worth considering at this stage is accomplishing. McGuffin is not going to entertain the earthlights conclusion, neither would I with the information at hand, I just thought it was wearing a bit thin. McGuffin has excellent case knowledge, and I felt he deserved a little more respect than that on this case, I have found his contributions in this thread quite valuable (and may others for that matter). Without someone to point out the other side of the coin, one might miss it altogether. McGuffin offers what he can, and always says "I cannot prove this, but I have heard" whereas ETh'ers will come right out and say "This is ET if you can't see it your a blind stupid idiot working for the government." Chalk and Cheese, I do not consider McGuffin "A believer" I consider him something more akin to an enthusiast. And an enthusiast is generally very well versed in his preferred subject.
As I said earlier, I was probably speaking out of turn on McGuffins behalf, and I apologise for that, but I thought it was wearing a bit thin already. I'll try to mind my own business.

[psyche101]

synchronomy, on 23 October 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

I agree.

One thing the natural world is not, is wasteful.  Miriads of species have filled near every nook and cranny of our planet.  I believe it's fair to assume that can be extrapolated to apply to the Universe as a whole.

I would find it more of a "shock" if we somehow determined that the only life in the Universe is here on Earth, than if we found we are part of a Universe teeming with life.

It also pays to consider though that we are very lucky to be here. The earth has suffered five major extinction events. I suspect we are quite resilient due to our location, in another scenario, this would be a lifeless rock.

[TheMacGuffin]

psyche101, on 24 October 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

Bait, not beat.

I mentioned this in the other thread, I just do not see what pursing an angle that is not really worth considering at this stage is accomplishing. McGuffin is not going to entertain the earthlights conclusion, neither would I with the information at hand, I just thought it was wearing a bit thin. McGuffin has excellent case knowledge, and I felt he deserved a little more respect than that on this case, I have found his contributions in this thread quite valuable (and may others for that matter). Without someone to point out the other side of the coin, one might miss it altogether. McGuffin offers what he can, and always says "I cannot prove this, but I have heard" whereas ETh'ers will come right out and say "This is ET if you can't see it your a blind stupid idiot working for the government." Chalk and Cheese, I do not consider McGuffin "A believer" I consider him something more akin to an enthusiast. And an enthusiast is generally very well versed in his preferred subject.
As I said earlier, I was probably speaking out of turn on McGuffins behalf, and I apologise for that, but I thought it was wearing a bit thin already. I'll try to mind my own business.

It wasn't part of my "official" duties in the military to deal with UFOs, although after I had my sighting and was invited to the lecture on the subject, I knew that there had to be some kind of organization that was dealing with them.  As far as I can determine, it has been around for decades and decided very early on that some of these things were ET.

In Arnold's case I don't think they knew what he saw, only that they weren't "ours" and did not look or behave like conventional aircraft.  Perhaps they knew even more than that concerning the downed Marine aircraft.  At least Kenneth Arnold was told that they did.  If that was true, I can certainly see why they were afraid the public might panic.  

I'm not really all that enthusiastic about them being here, either, because I have my doubts that they are all friendly visitors who are just here to admire the scenery.

[quillius]

psyche101, on 24 October 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

Bait, not beat.

I mentioned this in the other thread, I just do not see what pursing an angle that is not really worth considering at this stage is accomplishing. McGuffin is not going to entertain the earthlights conclusion, neither would I with the information at hand, I just thought it was wearing a bit thin. McGuffin has excellent case knowledge, and I felt he deserved a little more respect than that on this case, I have found his contributions in this thread quite valuable (and may others for that matter). Without someone to point out the other side of the coin, one might miss it altogether. McGuffin offers what he can, and always says "I cannot prove this, but I have heard" whereas ETh'ers will come right out and say "This is ET if you can't see it your a blind stupid idiot working for the government." Chalk and Cheese, I do not consider McGuffin "A believer" I consider him something more akin to an enthusiast. And an enthusiast is generally very well versed in his preferred subject.
As I said earlier, I was probably speaking out of turn on McGuffins behalf, and I apologise for that, but I thought it was wearing a bit thin already. I'll try to mind my own business.

I think you should speak up when you feel the need Psyche, I for one have very much respect for you and I am sure McG feels the same way. You have remained very fair throughout your discussions with either/both McG and I. And most importantly you have avoided putting the boot in and I appreciate this balanced approach....

And as you pointed out our side also needs that opposite side of teh coin presented in cases.......then I guess its up to us all as individuals to interpret the information as we see fit. That is the nature of the site right? If we were always talking about 'scientific evidence' then the discussion would soon come to a halt

[wolfknight]

We are not alone. To think that we are is foolish!

[synchronomy]

psyche101, on 24 October 2012 - 05:21 AM, said:

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?

Maybe it's just the mood I'm in today, but I am feeling overwhelmed by the snowballing of the amount information circulating wrt the ETH.  Sometimes I just feel like throwing in the towel and giving up.  Instead of layers of the onion being peeled away one at a time to reveal the core issues, the damn onion is growing and at an accelerating rate.
There's no doubt American pilots are stifled.  There's lots of British pilots who have stated what they have seen without repercussions.  This confuses me, because it seems the British and American governments appear to be on the same page on the subject.

psyche101, on 24 October 2012 - 05:21 AM, said:

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.

In referring to research, I meant there seemed to be no indications of it being done in the Canadian release of UFO files.  It was just an archived list of sightings with some case by case speculation as to the cause or explanations where possible.  Didn't seem to be an organized approach to it.

psyche101, on 24 October 2012 - 05:21 AM, said:

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?

Good point.

psyche101, on 24 October 2012 - 05:21 AM, said:

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.

Greer did a good job of organizing the DP.  With the notariety it provided for him he launched a successful business.
He's lost all credibilty in my view.  Cars using water as fuel, zero point energy, telepathic contact with ET's, speculative conjecture stated as fact.  Now he has a damn humanoid in a shoe box and he is asking for funds to do a DNA analysis.  For God's sake...he claims to be a medical doctor...he is just an educated Hoagland and a conman now.  His recent blog post about Neil Armstrong and the Apollo cover-up.  In light of his recent death, it makes me puke.
http://drgreersblog....ject.org/?p=202

psyche101, on 24 October 2012 - 05:21 AM, said:

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.

Edgar Mitchell seems to think Greer is a twit.

psyche101, on 24 October 2012 - 05:21 AM, said:

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.

Guilty in my lack of clarity.  The galactic federation was a reference to the PAO, run by Sheldan Nidle.  They believe in replicators too.
"Tea.  Earl Grey. Hot"

psyche101, on 24 October 2012 - 05:21 AM, said:

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.

How would China prove such an event to be true?  I just think if they couldn't, they would keep their mouths shut.

psyche101, on 24 October 2012 - 05:21 AM, said:

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.



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.

You are providing valid points here.  I'm spending my day chewing on them.

Hey, don't knock the Reptilian stuff!
You should read David Ickes books.  It all backed up with references too.

Dammit.  I was taking the day off, and now you've given me stuff to think about

Edited by synchronomy, 24 October 2012 - 02:50 PM.

[Slave2Fate]

synchronomy, on 24 October 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

How would China prove such an event to be true?  I just think if they couldn't, they would keep their mouths shut.

Hey synch, one point I would like to address if I may.

The thing with politics, even on a world stage, is you may not necessarily have to prove anything. Reasonable doubt could be damaging enough. Look at the WMD's in Iraq.

[synchronomy]

Slave2Fate, on 24 October 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

Hey synch, one point I would like to address if I may.

The thing with politics, even on a world stage, is you may not necessarily have to prove anything. Reasonable doubt could be damaging enough. Look at the WMD's in Iraq.

Good point.  Many examples of how the diplomatic communications exposed by Wikileaks use subtle innuendo to accomplish things.
A lot of damage done by their exposure too.
There's a good documentary on YT about the damage done.  Search: "BBC - WikiLeaks: The Secret Life of a Superpower (Ep. 1)"