Actually, they did! The Air Force's EOTS, 1948, Wright-Patterson AFB and the Air Force's, August 1952 Intelligence Report on 'flying saucer" maneuvers, were pretty much to the point they were not ours.

Did they use those exact words. "They are not ours."


Also I like to say that you can jump on a post really quickly. You see I edited the post you quoted.

"Interplanetary spaceships" other than those of mankind. I should also these as well.

http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/ufo00008.pdf

http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/ufo00004.pdf

Ok. You see if they did use those words they did not specify that ANY UFO's are of ET origin. They said interplanetary spaceships.

I see you are digging up old "evidence" again. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I could safely assume that those articles were written by biased UFO fanatics in an unreliable magazine.

Interplanetary pretty much summed it up.

The quote of General Arthur Exon, Former Commanding General of Wright-Patterson AFB.

"Roswell was the recovery of a craft from space."

Of course I understand. I also hope to reach a larger audience than just the person I'm addressing in my posts as well.




Unfortunately this has been very true in the U.S. for that last 3-4 decades at least, the saving grace for Science is that Science is inherently self-correcting.





Like I was saying these people simply exist, they are out there and they are simply going to be part of the equation for the foreseeable future. These people by their very nature reject Science and are therefore irrelevant.

Anyone who admits they do not follow the evidence because of these people is also admitting to letting these people interfere with the idea of following the evidence. Again, outside the U.S. Scientists tend to separate Science and public opinion.





Like I said unless you were to start ethnically cleansing the house ( General population) of "Crazies", then your still going to have a public opinion that is less than Scientific. We already know and accept this to be the case in all other Scientific fields of study.

Why should we ethnically cleanse the population just to get a public opinion that agrees with the empirical evidence?

We won't do that, and even if we tried it wouldn't work and it would be unethical to even attempt and we already know that these people will not listen to reason so they are irrelevant anyway.




Well I've talked to lots of famous and infamous and important people involved in the UAP phenomena, but I haven't talked to Nick Cook yet so I won't respond since I've admittedly not bought his book nor read any Scientific papers based on his book.

I do not think that you understand what I am saying. What Exon was trying to say was that the craft they recovered was from space, but was developed here on planet Earth by scientists and engineers. NONE of the quotes you have posted state that UFOs are of ET origin.

Nope, General Exon was referring to an ET spacecraft. Scientist and other Air Force officers and civilians at Wright-Patterson AFB concurred.

Question for you. In 1952, did we (mankind) solve the problem of sonic booms? I am asking that for a very specific reason.

Well then he should have been more clear. But just because he says so doesnt mean that there are Extra-Terrestrials visiting our planet.

Actually I'm not the person to ask, but from what I understand, we've been working on it for 80+ years.

Actually, it does because UFOs have been recorded flying at hypersonic speeds within the Earth's atmosphere without creating any sonic booms, which simply means that the technology exhibited by UFOs could not have been that of mankind. In other words, if we didn't have it, (advanced technology) then someone else did.

Simple logical sense, you understand,

I agree - I find it curious that some think so lowly of Man - even while they are typing answers HERE via technology that MAN created.

Look at the likes of Leonardo DeV. - Albert E - Bill G. and a host of other people that thought 'outside the box' and it worked!
Some Men may be slow at times - but NOT ALL mankind.
Some people really have good heads on their shoulders and know how to use them with Good Critical Analytical and Reasoning Skills. They know how to think 'outside the box'.

I mean - Speed of Light was supposed to be 186K mps, that is the "SPEED LAW", or so we were told at one time. But some, thought outside the box - people that have SLOWED light down, stopped it, even made it go faster! According to the "Experts" at one time - THIS WAS NOT POSSIBLE! Gee, experts at times are wrong and do not know all.
These were done by people with a slightly 'limited budget', as such goes.
So what would happen w/these people or those like them that had no 'limited funds'?? "You want it, you got it!" They, the government even took (stole in some cases) ideas, concepts and technology of/from other people: Tesla comes to mind, as does Hutchison from Vancouver B.C. They didn't 'sit on these' in some "U-Store-It" garage.

The technology and more is out there - has been in process of developing and growing and added to since 1920's. This is a fact not fiction - not assumption - not guessing - it has happened and is happening.

Silence as stated, isn't denial of something existence or non-existence. It is just what it is: SILENCE. Sometimes silence can speak very LOUD.

Here is something that some of you might ask yourselves:

"Why am I so quick to believe in technology/ideas that man thought of - but I refuse to accept he could create it? But "aliens" can."

"Could the governments 'denial of the existence of ET's here on earth' be the “magicians goal” - "Misdirection" -> "Focus "here", so you do NOT focus 'elsewhere'."

"Look at the lack of answers, evidence and proof. Could it be, there really isn't any? Could it be, we are asking the wrong questions and looking in the wrong direction??"

Apparently, that problem was solved already as noted in radar tracking data tapes on UFOs from the 1950's to the present, which once again, proves the technology was not that of mankind simply because mankind was still working on the problem when UFOs had clearly demonstrated they had the problem solved already.

But most of those so called alien space craft are in all actuality, particles of ice floating in space, or reflections of light from the sun. I doubt you could come up with any real evidence that says these UFO's are piloted by ETs.

Sure, but it doesn't matter what one person did or did not say. The point here would be what does the Scientific evidence have to say and does Exxon and so many others statements support that evidence?

Look at Jj's assertion that Human technology might be responsible for UAP, then Exxon's statements can't be discounted by Jj as they support what he's asserting as a possibility. Yet, your willing to discount them altogether when you perceive the statements to support Skyeagles position because Exxon wasn't clear enough for you?

No, I just realize that what Exon said doesn't really mean squat, and I stated that saying "interplanetary space ships" does not say "ET piloted craft".

I am well-aware of our advancement over the decades.

What I see today is that mankind is still using old jet propulsion technology for getting around in our skies today when 'flying saucers' were clearly demonstrating advanced anti-gravity systems decades ago on our radar screens and mankind still haven't figured out how to eliminate sonic booms back then either yet UFOs have clearly demonstrated they have solved the sonic boom problem as well. Eventually, mankind will catch up.

Here is a curious observation:

The very "group" of people that denied "ROSEWELL" - we yell, "LIES! COVER-UP!!" ....> yet, when they tell us things that support the basic premise of "Rosewell" - we believe. Why is that?

Why is it - "here" -- "They lie to us." But over "here" --- "They are telling the truth" ??,

The very 'truth' they deny over 'there'.

Did mankind inhabit other planets durng the 1940's and 1950's? If not, then it is time to call up 'Oscom's Razor' and bring in the ETH.

OK I'm turning in. This has only become a back and forth exchange of one line posts and it isn't creating any real discussion on the matter.

It just goes to show that what the government thought was a water-tight case regarding its cover-up story on the Roswell incident, is not leak-proof. Now, other members of government, including those of the military, are coming out into the open and spilling the beans on what the government knows about UFOs.

In these past few threads - there is a seriously BIG ASSUMPTION made - that has NO PROOF or EVIDENCE. There for is NOT ">FACT<"

"Interplanetary Crafts" - "Man Inhabit other planets" -
This has no logic to it, let alone facts:
There is not one single bit of proof of this.
..... There is NO evidence at all that these are "interplanetary crafts".
..... There is NO evidence at all that they came from other planets.

What is FACT - the UFO was in 'Earths Air Space' - nothing more.
There is nothing to support "interplanetary" at all. That is assumption based on no facts at all.

Jj -

You know the very first RADAR's developed tracked UAP Targets. And this was all pretty hush-hush considering RADAR came of age during WWII. Of course Britain and the U.S. had this fact classified well before Kenneth Arnold's sighting in late June of 1947.

If you are unable to prove the UFOs in question as those of mankind, then we have to take a closer look at the ETH.

This is based on this theory:
A. That ALL government departments are sharing technology w/each other. Especially CLASSIFIED TOP SECRETS.
(this is so not the case....)

Fact:
1. Flying saucers have been experimented w/and on since 1940's, by man.

Question:
Why do we assume Saucers are the accepted design of aliens?? There is no evidence of that. There is a paper trail of Man-made flying saucers since the 1940's.

Jj -

I can only wonder how much other stuff the government is hiding from the public. I'd read where General Jimmy Doolittle was sent to Europe to investigate sightings there.

Of course it is not the case, this also makes massive amount of industry needed to be accomplished in secret that much more implausible.




We don't assume that Jj. There are many different UAP described over and over again and some of these have been Scientifically observed both optically and with RADAR on many occasions. The MoD's Condign Report goes into detail describing the phenomena.

Yeah, that's true. It was Army Air Force Deputy Chief Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg that sent him and what he learned has to-date not been revealed publically.

That is still far short regarding the history of flying saucers, which date back for thousands of years as noted in flying saucer reports from centuries ago.



Once again, the UFO enigma is thousands of years old. I must also add, that we are still flying around in piston and jet-powered aircraft to this very day while UFOs were using anti-gravity technology to fly at hypersonic speeds long before the we even flew our first supersonc jet fighter.

This saucer-shaped craft of mankind couldn't even fly.



And, this contraption of mankind of the 1940's couldn't come close to flying at supersonic speeds.

Ever hear of Area 51? This is a 'planet onto itself'. This fits into the above. How many other 'classified' areas are there?

The Stealth Bomber - was created and assembled here, Area 51. So creation and assembly isn't that hard to work with and deal with.



Yes - I've read, seen and heard of these. What this tells us is:
A. The Radar Tower are NOT aware of what is going on. (No problem.)
B. They are not privy to TOP SECRET CLASSIFIED projects. (No problem here.)
C. Eventually one has to take "test flights" to see.
D. The Stealth Bomber is a good/excellent example of "Need to Know" - "Don't Need to Know."

Here was an interesting project that I did a good number of years back. Go do a historical review of the Stealth Bomber pre-public notice and post-public notice. This plane was NOT suppose to exist. We did not have the 'technology' then. It simply couldn't exist at that time. Even the experts then were caught in "no surprise".

Even our closest alies and friends have no clue how to detect this craft. It is a guared secret, every well gaurded secret. But it does exist, despite the fact that no one - not even the resident 'experts' here and there can tell you how it works. We only know it does.

This was a valued lesson then that taught (supposedly) some 'experts' to not say, "we don't have "this"."

Then we have to answer, "why would "aliens" use the saucer shape at the very same time that we were??" Yes as early as 1940's there is documentation of experimentation, drawings and possible proto-types. You can find this easily on the net.

Funny that at the time we (mankind) were experimenting with the "Saucer" --- 'aliens' were in our air space too, with the same. (Funny some look exactly or close to the ones we were experimenting with. FUNNY.)

Jj -

Till tomorrow - good night one and all.

I personally think the people who say the government is covering up for UFO's existance are giving the government too much credit. Let's face it, most folks in our government and military really aren't the brightest bulbs in the box. The ones you have to be wary of are the big businesses.

Now this is where i have to butt in. It is true what you are saying, but then why dont the skeptics question the skeptics on here who dont know what they are chatting about, you never see that either. There are so many hang along skeptics on here who come on and say the same things( blurry photos, videos, phantasy, attention seekers etc) and the amazing thing is that most of good skeptics say nothing about these people. So, this is causing great damage too, but the decent skeptic will not mention this, only the believer side of it. There is one skeptic on here who is part of the decent skeptics on here( i wont say his name ) but he knows nothing about the subject. He is the classic de-bunker, but i read the good skeptics on here say good things about him, now thats a concern, and is also causing damage.

People should look at both sides!

Yes, I have heard of the so-called Area 51.

Even before the B-2 bomber first flew, Jack Northup was shown a model of the B-2 bomber. Look at what his company produced during the 1940's and note it is not saucer-shaped nor capable of hypersonic flight so there was no way it could have been confused as a 'flying saucer.'





Actually, the YB-49 'Flying Wing' was of the same dimension as the B-2 bomber and its unusual effects upon radar was well-known way back in the 1940's, which left radar operators frustrated.

Once again, there were flying saucer reports centuries before mankind even flew. Check it out.

1133 Japan: A large silvery disk is reported to have come close to the ground.



Get a goodnight rest, Jjbreen. Tomorrow is another day!

Actually I think it is a dry lake bed.




Right, and it was produced by what corporation? Skunk Works wasn't it?





O.k. so let's look at the latest MoD Condign Report.

A. Of course MoD admits that ATC RADAR can not track UAP while Military RADAR is quite capable of doing so.
B. Of course the MoD is privy to TOP SECRET CLASSIFIED projects.
C. MoD would certainly conduct "test flights".
D. The MoD is certainly a good example of someone that would "need to know" about the U.S. Stealth Bomber.



How can I take you seriously when your using this as an example when it was the Horten Brothers in Germany during WWII that first noticed that their "flying Wing" was virtually invisible to RADAR?

Acctually Morris, I have taken a few to task in private PM's. Telling them to either 'shut the hell up' or "seriously know what you are talking about. Flippent answers are NOT helpful." Or I totally agree 100%.

But see here in again is a focal point. The skeptic has no burden of 'proof'. They only have to raise "honest reasonable doubt'.
We were not the ones making any 'claims' of extraordinary.

Also the Skeptic does not create 'fall out' and 'closed doors' of investigation to find the truth. It's the believer side where the burden of proof and such lay. If there are people that cause this to not be "taken seriously" because of 'far out claims' - that is not the skeptic's camp's fault.

Any claim out of the ordinary has to be proven by the claiment. This is a very long standing fact.

Sometimes when I hear claims that ride the 'fence', where, well "Time has to be the teller of that tail...." I shut up and wait and see just what time tells. Usually it (the claim) dies a slow death. Sometimes they incorrectly get 'brought back to life', when they should of been left "DEAD". Like the "Victor - Alien Interview". I am amazed at how often that get's brought back to life, when it would do the believers camp a whole lot of good - to have it "killed" once and for all.

Maybe?? The "Believers" should start their own "debunked list" - a way of saying, "We understand that certain of these claims are seriously "OUT TO LUNCH" - we do NOT support them." Then give logical reasoning of their (the believers) debunking it. This would so seriously speak volumes.

Just a thought -

Skeptics who know what they are talking about is always good, and we need them just as much as we need a believer who knows what he/she is talking about. Its just you get skeptics and believers who try to fit themselves into the good skeptic and the good believer group, when clearly they dont belong there. There are many of these people on here, more than the decent skeptic and believer, but when you have been on this site for a while, you tend to know who these people are. It is frustrating, but i gues it will happen, and you just have learn to either ignore these people, or put them straight, as i have in the past.

We are all here to learn. Even i have changed my mind on some cases after hearing what some skeptics have to say, but some believers can be very stubbern . On here though there are some de-bunkers who are just that! They use the old show me proof( they hide behind it) they copy and paste other peoples thoughts and use it as there own. These people try to come across as intelligent, but as soon as a thread gets interesting they disapear!
and thats because they get in too deep, and there knowledge is very limited. These are the people i feel sorry for, because maybe they do have a decent brain, but they are so wrapped up in de-bunking that they forget how to use it, which is a shame. The same can be said about believers. There is so much to be learn't on this subject, i know i have learn't alot over the last decade or so, but i have learn't this by myself, and thats the best way to do it

I respect some of the skeptics and believers on here. I dont have to name them, because they know who they are

See here you've gone astray.

In a court of law a Defendant has no burden of Proof.

The focal point should be that Scientific Inquiry is not a Court of Law!

When dealing with Science, a *real* Skeptic does have the burden of Rebuttal in the context of Peer Review!


That is in Science there is no "Idea" that one side doesn't have to "prove anything". Either I evidence my position better than you can evidence yours, or vise versa, but neither position gets a free ride in the context of Science!

Ok, this is it for tonight. Sky, you are dealing w/two totally different focal point/topics here.

Current History & Ancient History;
We simply canNOT just put the two together.
There are serious research and investigation into the ancient records that logically prohibits the two 'time periods' to be put into one basket.

There is a serious problem w/ancient history.
Are We 'seeing' with "21st Century bias"?
I already proved this with the ancient Egyptian "UFO". This was such an excellent example of the caution that NEEDS to be taken.
Click to view attachment

Now this was such a great example and evidence of "bias 21st Century Eyes". The script show a "dome" on top of a 'classic saucer'. The problem was it really meant, a "loaf of bread" w/a "mouth". But as you can see, this also 'fits' only all too well, the "classic UFO" line art. But a wrong 'fit'. The Bread and Mouth fits all too well also and is in fact the right 'answer'.

Since we were NOT there - we see, read and understand "Alien UFO" - but in all honesty, we do not know for fact, that is what they saw. What >IF< Leo DeV. built a working proto-type of one of his 'visions'? That would look like a "UFO" to the people then. They would describe "it" w/their understanding, not ours. This is where we have to listen and accept 'unbiased' experts in this field. We can see if their answer is "reasonable": (Using the Egyptian example as, well an example.)
"Well ya, it looks like a loaf of bread." Ok, I cannot really argue with that.
Ok yes, that does look like a mouth, I have to accept that. Bread w/a mouth would be reasonable.
But it sure looks like a "UFO" and yes to our "21st Century Eyes", it does, but it would be an incorrect 'fit'. We then have to accept the 'reasonable' answer that this is NOT "UFO". The reason is logical and works. I have to accept that.

So when it comes to ancient documents, descriptions and drawing - there is a whole LOT MORE research that needs to be done, especially if ONE doing the 'interp' is biased to "UFO/Aliens" - then one HAS TO STEP back and look at all the answers given. Not just the biased presentation but ALL POV's. One has to try as is possible to look at ALL the points, not just one's lean.

So I cannot accept, personally, the throwing ancient record into the current picture. To do so, simply isn't reasonable. It's a whole different “picture” and “discipline”.

As I learned early in my job choice, the hard way too, I might add.
One cannot allow themselves to see what they want to believe.
Also, one cannot allow themselves to believe what they see.
You have to, as is reasonably possible – LOOK AT ALL THE FACTS: ALL OF THEM. Even if you don’t like them.

Jj -

BTW: I enjoy your dialog in this.

AMEN!! And sometimes that frustration does get a 'bit much'. You, Sky and a few other's, who's names are just 'not there' at the moment -> are GREAT to dialog with. I've also come to appreciate Bades and Lilly, ZoD and few others, who also names are ‘not just there’. (ZoD did a great job calling me on the carpet earlier.)

Yes we have to deal with them - it sure would be nice if they would go 'feed off each other' - the extreme believer and the debunker to just debunk. Wonder what the outcome would be???? LOL!!!

One person wrote me a PM giving me NO SMALL HELL for being a "Skeptic", saying I "just do not understand the reality." Then I referred him to my posts about my own 'over night experiences' for which I would love to have an answer to! He wrote back, "well what's the problem, it was ALIENS!" For which I stated, "I have no evidence of that. No memory, no nothing. Yes I can see and understand how some would come to that thought. But I simply cannot make that jump, for I have no facts to back that 'jump' with." (One of my 'hang-ups' I was told...) But I won't dismiss the THEORY and await facts before I state such has happened. Plus as I stated, I have seen my own share of UFO's - so I'm not biased on or the other. I look at and for facts, vs theory, vs speculation, etc.....

Thanks for the great dialog: Jj -

Jj,

Are you joking?

I've never seen anyone at all ever make this loose "connection" to hieroglyphics that you seem to be implying.

NO, sad but true, I am not joking:

Start with Post 2 and follow the thread.

Also the source of this tread:

Scroll down about 1/2 way to see the Egyptian Carvings in question.

This is NOT the only site that has this and has 'jumped' with 'biased 21st Century Eyes'. But this will give you some idea.

Jj -

In other words your looking at hieroglyphs you admittedly can not read and thinking that they look like "flying Saucers"?

This topic is so long to read, I'm going to post this and ask who agrees with me and who does not, just to get a perspective as to who's claming what.

We have evidence of odd aircraft in our skies, however, we have no evidence what-so-ever as to what or who are driving them.

Not me - the people that made this 'mistake'.
Read the sited posts, my friends. I DIDN'T make this claim of "Egyptian UFO".

Here is a website, that I went to the Seattle Museum and asked about this, as being a valid site. YES.


See this is what I am talking about - we need to take great care in ancient records - it's not as easy to make, "Black and White."

Are we clear now??

Some people took some Egyptian Carvings and saw, "UFO" the point of my "21st Century Biased Eyes", when actually as was stated, it was a loaf of bread w/a mouth.

Jj -

Look, your idea of UFO is so stretched and out there that I don't even know where to start the rebuttal!

What pray tell are you talking about? Like I said, I've not ever seen anyone use common hieroglyphs to make a point about UAP.

I can only assume???? that you did not read the sighted website and link to the thread on UM???

Because if you did - you wouldn't be asking this.... ????

Here again are the two sites: ONE thread here on UM that was started by: Fantasycat89
Here is the site that Fantasycat sighted:

Scroll 1/2 way down to see the author of that sites - 'thoughts about, and I quote:
Again I am not nor have I claimed these are "UFO's" - I presented the facts from this site:

This is where we see the "Loaf" symbol explained and the "mouth" symbol explained, which I sited w/the attached jpg:
Click to view attachment

Ok, I think I see the question here.

I was using these sites to show the need to be cautious about "reading ancient texts". No one on this specific thread did this. I used the mentioned as visual reason for caution and care in Ancient Texts. We have, as sited, a tendency to have "biased eyes". This showed the need for caution and care is all.

Follow me now...?

I even stated in the orgnal above post:


Bold - Italics for emphasis that this was an EXAMPLE of what I was talking about, in the need for care and caution in reading ancient texts. Because the sited UM-Thread and their use of the site where they got this 'interp' of "UFO" from Egyptian Carvings.

Again it was an EXAMPLE of the need and showing actually where this is/was done by other's.

Are we good now??

Jj,

You think it's a "flying Saucer" or otherwise you wouldn't be "debunking" it right?

Not really. Your talking about EXAMPLES that schizophrenics might post.

I am more apt to talk about *real* Science. Like I said you can not stop people from making outreageous nonsensical claims, but a Scientific rebuttal must also be Scientific in nature.

lose_shaman, I've noticed alot of psuedo-skeptics give explaintions and rebutals that are not scientific. It's all too often. I've commented on this quite a few times as well.