Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Why do you believe in UFO's and aliens?


  • Please log in to reply
257 replies to this topic

#76    badeskov

badeskov

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 12,530 posts
  • Joined:27 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please - Mark Twain

Posted 20 October 2012 - 02:28 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 20 October 2012 - 02:15 AM, said:



What makes you right about that and all these other people like Oberth and von Braun wrong?  How can you be so sure?

I didn't say I was right, I stated what I believe. That may be right or wrong, but so far I have not seen that tangible piece of evidence proving me wrong.

Cheers,
Badeskov



"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention to arrive safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming: Wow!! What a ride!". Said to to Dean Karnazes by a running buddy.

#77    DONTEATUS

DONTEATUS

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 18,891 posts
  • Joined:15 Feb 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Planet TEXAS

Posted 20 October 2012 - 03:52 AM

Remember that Space Is Really Big ! Mind Boggling Big ! and Getting Bigger in my opinion ! So E.T  could actually be out there .To of Seen a couple I would say that E.T also knows just how big it is ! ANd were of no interest to them ! They got bigger Fish to Fry ! :alien: :whistle:

This is a Work in Progress!

#78    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 October 2012 - 05:06 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 20 October 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

Have you ever heard of Walther Riedel?  You should look him up sometime if you haven't.  Hint, hint....

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 20 October 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

"The fact that they can hover and accelerate away from the earth's gravity again and even revolve around a V-2 in America (as reported by their head scientist) shows that they are far ahead of us."

Lord Louis Mountbatten, 1950

Hint, hint....

Von Braun was the "head scientist" who told him that, and he knew plenty more about UFOs besides.....

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 20 October 2012 - 12:21 AM, said:

Here's another hint.

When Edward Ruppelt visited Los Alamos in 1952, the scientists told him something interesting about UFOs.

They had also figured out a way to detect them even when they weren't visible.  So had the scientists at Oak Ridge, which was getting a lot of visits from UFOs at the time. Among other things, they knew that UFOs caused a jump in radiation at least 100 times above the normal background level, or at least some of them did.

This is science fact I'm telling you, ladies and gentleman, not science fiction, and they knew it even in the 1950s.

With all of these "hints" I'm compelled to wonder if this is supposed to be some kind of scavenger hunt.  I'm really not interested in going on a scavenger hunt.  If you could just come out and say what you are intending to say, it would help to speed along a coherent conversation.



View PostTheMacGuffin, on 20 October 2012 - 12:28 AM, said:

Dr. Robert Baker told Congress in 1968 about very high-flying UFOs detected on radar:

"The system is partially classified and, hence, I cannot go into great detail... Since this particular sensor system has been in operation, there have been a number of anomalistic alarms. Alarms that, as of this date, have not been explained on the basis of natural phenomena interference, equipment malfunction or inadequacy, or man-made space objects."

I regard this as old business, though, since it was already known as early as 1946, if not before, that there were things flying around 100 or 200 miles up that just should not have been there.

But there they were.  Only the obtuse or the misinformed were not aware of all this long ago.

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 20 October 2012 - 12:31 AM, said:

"They are flying by means of artificial fields of gravity... They produce high-tension electric charges in order to push the air out of their paths, so it does not start glowing, and strong magnetic fields to influence the ionized air at higher altitudes. First, this would explain their luminosity... Secondly, it would explain the noiselessness of UFO flight... Finally, this assumption also explains the strong electrical and magnetic effects sometimes, though not always, observed in the vicinity of UFOs."

Dr. Hermann Oberth, 1962

More old news.

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 20 October 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

Dr. Oberth also knew that UFOs could move very fast when they wanted to--up to speeds of 19 kilometers per second--and that this had been measured dozens of times. That is 11.4 miles per SECOND--over 40,000 miles per hour.

Not science fiction.

Okay, and this is compelling evidence for ET visitation how exactly?


#79    Otto von Pickelhaube

Otto von Pickelhaube

    Environmentally Friendly

  • Member
  • 29,264 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Trump Tower

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 20 October 2012 - 07:05 AM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 19 October 2012 - 08:57 PM, said:

You'd say the exact same thing regardless of what I said, but you must by now that realize I do know about these things.  So did they.



Oberth headed the UFO investigation in West Germany for example, and stated in 1954:

"There is no doubt in my mind that these objects (UFO's) are interplanetary craft of some sort. I am confident that they do not originate in our solar system, but they may use Mars or some other body for a way station. It is also our conclusion that they are propelled by distorting or converting the gravitational field."


How did he know that?  That's the more important question, Boon, since all of them knew that the ETs were here.  You won't find one of those big-time German scientists who did not know it.  

http://www.nationalu...article_440.php
the Herr doktor's thinking seems to be largely in line with mine on the matter, I think; both as regards the method of propulsion and the way that using a forward operating base would be much more sensible than coming directly through the vast distances of space. Some people seem to always dismiss that idea out of hand; I've never been sure why.

Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people."

~ D. Trump.


“You are going to hear all the familiar complaints: ‘freedom of speech,’ ” Mrs. Clinton said in an hourlong speech


#80    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 20 October 2012 - 03:41 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 20 October 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

With all of these "hints" I'm compelled to wonder if this is supposed to be some kind of scavenger hunt.  

Of course it is.


#81    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 October 2012 - 03:43 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 20 October 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

Of course it is.


View PostbooNyzarC, on 20 October 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

If you could just come out and say what you are intending to say, it would help to speed along a coherent conversation.

:hmm:


#82    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 20 October 2012 - 03:45 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 20 October 2012 - 03:43 PM, said:

:hmm:

I gave you some good advice, but you don't have to take it.


#83    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 October 2012 - 03:55 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 20 October 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

I gave you some good advice, but you don't have to take it.

And what advice is that exactly?  Look up old news which isn't any more compelling today than it was when the original speculations were put forth back in the 50s?

That's all these scientists were doing when they mention ET in relation to the phenomenon; speculating.  There's nothing wrong with that, but you appear to be attempting to add more weight to this than is actually there.  When you suggest that they "knew" that these UFOs were alien in origin, it's simply false.  They "knew" no such thing, and neither does anyone else that I'm aware of.

A lot of people strongly believe this to be the case, and many of them characterize this strong belief inaccurately with the word "knowing," but it still boils down to strong belief in the end; no matter how much the claimants may say otherwise.


#84    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 20 October 2012 - 06:17 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 20 October 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

And what advice is that exactly?  Look up old news which isn't any more compelling today than it was when the original speculations were put forth back in the 50s?

That's all these scientists were doing when they mention ET in relation to the phenomenon; speculating.  There's nothing wrong with that, but you appear to be attempting to add more weight to this than is actually there.  When you suggest that they "knew" that these UFOs were alien in origin, it's simply false.  They "knew" no such thing, and neither does anyone else that I'm aware of.

A lot of people strongly believe this to be the case, and many of them characterize this strong belief inaccurately with the word "knowing," but it still boils down to strong belief in the end; no matter how much the claimants may say otherwise.


Semantics.  Why are you so sure about what they knew?


#85    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 October 2012 - 06:23 PM

View PostTheMacGuffin, on 20 October 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

Semantics.  Why are you so sure about what they knew?

Point taken, I'm now guilty of the same unsubstantiated characterization that you were.  I retract anything that might give the impression that I am sure about what they knew or didn't know.

Instead, I'll restate it as follows...

From the information that I've reviewed it appears to me as though these men were merely speculating when they made mention of ET in relation to the UFO phenomenon.  I have not yet seen any compelling reason to believe that any of them actually "knew" what you have claimed they "knew."

Better?


#86    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 20 October 2012 - 06:27 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 20 October 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

Point taken, I'm now guilty of the same unsubstantiated characterization that you were.  I retract anything that might give the impression that I am sure about what they knew or didn't know.

Instead, I'll restate it as follows...

From the information that I've reviewed it appears to me as though these men were merely speculating when they made mention of ET in relation to the UFO phenomenon.  I have not yet seen any compelling reason to believe that any of them actually "knew" what you have claimed they "knew."

Better?


Yes, it would be far more accurate to say that you don't believe they knew, but they were certainly in a position to know plenty, including information about UFOs that had crashed or been shot down.

Lord Mounbatten knew all about that, while Oberth said openly that they had been "helped" by people from other worlds.  They were just revealing some information about what these things were, how extremely fast they were, how they detected them and so on.


#87    TheMacGuffin

TheMacGuffin

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,159 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2012

Posted 20 October 2012 - 06:58 PM

Just trying to hold you to your own standards here, Boon, since you basically don't believe what these people are saying about ETs and all that.  

They are saying that they did know something about ETs, and you are replying that they haven't convinced you.  You want physical evidence and things like that.  All right.

Lord Mounbatten did indeed say that he was aware of such evidence and that the aliens were small humanoids.  I don't KNOW exactly how he was aware of that, but it may very well have been through his high-level military contacts.  That would be my best guess, but I don't know.  

All these old records and statements from the 1940s and 1950s, which are actually a lot better than anything we have from more recent times, are the key to the whole UFO issue.

Edited by TheMacGuffin, 20 October 2012 - 07:10 PM.


#88    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,693 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 20 October 2012 - 07:08 PM

Personal experience. And it isn't a belief. It is a knowing. I KNOW. Belief has nothing to do with it.

As I have said before, now it is wheather you KNOW there are other beings not of this time, dimension, and this planet,... or whether you don't know that there are other beings not of this time, dimension, or planet. Belief has been left behind, into an out-dated file that is no longer pertinent nor useful.

Edited by regeneratia, 20 October 2012 - 07:23 PM.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#89    White Unicorn

White Unicorn

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 967 posts
  • Joined:19 Oct 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 October 2012 - 07:15 PM

View PostbooNyzarC, on 20 October 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

And what advice is that exactly?  Look up old news which isn't any more compelling today than it was when the original speculations were put forth back in the 50s?

That's all these scientists were doing when they mention ET in relation to the phenomenon; speculating.  There's nothing wrong with that, but you appear to be attempting to add more weight to this than is actually there.  When you suggest that they "knew" that these UFOs were alien in origin, it's simply false.  They "knew" no such thing, and neither does anyone else that I'm aware of.

A lot of people strongly believe this to be the case, and many of them characterize this strong belief inaccurately with the word "knowing," but it still boils down to strong belief in the end; no matter how much the claimants may say otherwise.

I think when the MacGuffin says there is a scavenger hunt etc. It concerns old declassified material as well as a few old stories that were originally brushed aside by mainstream for various reasons.  There are old military reports that say certain cases  were "known" to be of "alien" as well as "intellegent" originations. These cases where then studied by other groups within defense. The names of the project group names were blacked out on released documents some 50 years later.  Now being from the cold war period they could have meant Soviet but now that we KNOW the Soviets weren't that far ahead in technology. So what  was the "alien technology"  referring if it wasn't us or them?

That remains a good question for the UFO buffs trying to form their own speculation on the subject.  Nothing wrong with speculation as long as you don't present it as fact.  Some people may say KNOW because they have a certain piece of the puzzle. Ask them why they think they know and move on if you're interested in the subject.  The only part of the subject I find interesting is why some of the really old cases,  when the whole documents should be declassified they are not. Tells me something else may still be going on if they can't declassify whole documents that are really old.


#90    booNyzarC

booNyzarC

    Forum Divinity

  • Closed
  • 13,536 posts
  • Joined:18 Aug 2010
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 20 October 2012 - 07:49 PM

View PostWhite Unicorn, on 20 October 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

I think when the MacGuffin says there is a scavenger hunt etc. It concerns old declassified material as well as a few old stories that were originally brushed aside by mainstream for various reasons.  There are old military reports that say certain cases  were "known" to be of "alien" as well as "intellegent" originations. These cases where then studied by other groups within defense. The names of the project group names were blacked out on released documents some 50 years later.  Now being from the cold war period they could have meant Soviet but now that we KNOW the Soviets weren't that far ahead in technology. So what  was the "alien technology"  referring if it wasn't us or them?

That remains a good question for the UFO buffs trying to form their own speculation on the subject.  Nothing wrong with speculation as long as you don't present it as fact.  Some people may say KNOW because they have a certain piece of the puzzle. Ask them why they think they know and move on if you're interested in the subject.  The only part of the subject I find interesting is why some of the really old cases,  when the whole documents should be declassified they are not. Tells me something else may still be going on if they can't declassify whole documents that are really old.

Yes, I know.  I do understand what he is talking about and I understand what he and many others are under the impression this indicates.  I've gone through a lot of those materials myself as well.  Probably not all of them, but quite a few.  I just don't agree that such documents and statements from antiquity are as substantial as many make them out to be.  In order to accept them for more than what they actually are, one must fall victim to some kind of logical fallacy.

As a case in point, you've kind of created a false dichotomy right here.  You've basically come out and said that if these UFOs didn't belong to the soviets or to us (man made on the one side) then they must be alien (ET on the other side).  I know you didn't use those words exactly, but that seems to be basically what you're implying.  Forgive me if I'm wrong about that, and even if that wasn't your intention there are many who have looked at the problem with this exact limiting point of view.

Why must the phenomena be in one of these two categories?  It seems to me that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of possible explanations for UFOs.  What about natural phenomena like plasma, clouds, and other atmospheric anomalies?  What about simple misidentification of anything from conventional aircraft, to birds, to insects, to reflections, to rockets, to temperature inversions, to (yes) balloons, to (yep) kites, to stars or planets, etc etc etc...?  What about hoaxes?  What about top secret test aircraft?  All of the above have in point of fact been pointed to and labeled UFO, some have been confirmed, some have not.

With that said, could ET also be an answer for some of these sightings?  Sure, it's definitely within the realm of possibility; but so far there has been absolutely nothing brought to the table which I'm aware of that can be used to draw this as a definite conclusion.  Not today, not yesterday, not last year, and not 50 years ago.  There are a lot of people who say that there is, but for some reason those claims just never survive scrutiny.  Some of them remain unknowns, heck a lot of them do, but that still doesn't mean that ET is the right answer.  Maybe tomorrow?

I'm completely open to the possibility, but I'm not about to accept this as reality without some kind of verifiable confirmation.  I value the importance of the subject too highly, and as a result I refuse to dishonor the subject by accepting anything less than the best from it.  To naively believe that the inadequate evidence available is substantial enough to reach an ET conclusion is to treat the phenomenon itself irreverently.

That's all I'm saying.  With all due respect. :)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users