Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
zoser

Tantalising Testimony

5,543 posts in this topic

Hi Bee,.. hope you are well my friend! .. :tu:

The Drakensberg Photos?

Just wondered if you actually believe that Elizabeth Klarer , (the photographer of that ,..and the six other photograph's in the series) was actually a reliable source of UFO pictures?

The reason being that although the photographs are in themselves, superb for the time period, (1956) ,..and that to intentionally create such 'quality hoaxed' pictures 56 years ago (when photographic trickery techniques ,shouldn't really have been good enough to avoid simple detection somewhere along their 50-odd year journey ) is almost as amazing a feat as her meatier claims!..the fact that I find Elizabeth's other fantastical claims , I find to be a sure sign that she was either someone very special indeed!...Or one of life's great fantasists!

And i'm afraid that imo because of the enormity of her preposterous "story" I very-much lean toward the latter! :unsure2:

Just in case you weren't aware of Elizabeth Klarer's claims, it's all here....

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/africa/Photo36.htm

and here ...

Now I won't say that my disbelief of Elizabeth's story means that her photograph's are undoubtedly fake,... but I will say that for me at least,.."it doesn't help toward convincing me that they are genuine either!"

Cheers Bee.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Buddy , thanks for the reply .

I feel that most, if not all eyewitness testimonies that offer a definite conclusions are very likely to be heavily biased by pop culture if that is what you are asking. I would say that 99% of people "who definitely saw ET" are indeed incorrect. No case in historical record follows logic. Not one adreses things like communication problems, quarantine issues, how they managed to identify a light in the night sky as an alien craft, or any sort of protocol. I simply refuse an advanced alien race crosses space to mess with our heads. I have adressed every single case with backing information, and the only case I can historically say has left me truly baffled is the Portage County case. About the only one not adressed here. As such, my view of claims at face value will be somewhat cynical, considering the credulous history of the OP.

I did agree that the majority of cases would be misidentified , & I also would agree with you that most if not all of the definite conclusion claims that are pumped out on you tube , ancient aliens and other “ alternate “ web sites , are most likely all rubbish . What ever truth might have been in the story it losses all credibility when they sensationalise the truth and dress it up to make it more interesting :tu:

That’s not what concerns me , it’s the testimonies from pilots , military staff etc . People that had to make a report , rather than looking for fame .These are the cases that I can put some credence in , agreed that even some if not all of them could still be attributed to misidentification , environmental factors etc , but even if you take all those factors into account I still can’t see how you can get 99% of all cases are misidentified .

The trend that I was referring too was you dismissing all witness testimonies , you surprised me with 99% so that still leaves us 1% to play with , I will gladly retract the “ trend “ bit :P

I am not following you here. I have adressed the erroneous claims made, and offered supporting information from sources such as Harvard University. I am trying to discuss each case before it is buried by the next 4 or 5.

I am not blaming him for anything more than a severe lack of research. Might I trouble you to go back over the thread and have a look at how many times Zoser has posted erroneous information, when the correct information was literally at this fingertips. Like the silly Buzz Aldrin claim of his Apollo 11 UFO, it was never ET, and Buzz himself said so, and got mad at the people who twisted his words. Yet what did we get? Listen to this tantalizing testimony! Astronauts seeing ET! There is just no excuse for the lousy claims made like trying to tell us all how wrong we all are about Roswell Rods only a couple of pages ago. I mean mate, this is the height of credulous belief. Who is still dim enough to believe in Roswell Rods???????? Nobody! But Zoser is trying to sell them to us. How do you react to someone who is not only continually lying to your face, and trying to sell you a bad product? That is why I cannot abide by Scientologists. I do not for a second believe that Tom Cruise believes in Xenu, so he is lying to my face, where does one go from there? I would think an even sided discussion would be the go, but no. I am told in this thread by the OP that Mass Hallucinations simply do not happen. So I put up a case of mass hallucination by thousands that has been documented clearly and proves without a doubt that mass hallucinations do happen, the response is another youtube claim. Avoiding answers to these questions is less than convincing.

These are responses, not new cases, not new claims, just the correct and qualified information of what has been peddled to us as genuine proof of ET. I am asking the question Are these testimonies actually tantalising?

How is that doing the same thing? From what I can see, Zoser does not really want to discuss any of the cases, he just want a the biggest catalogue he can possibly create, just as mentioned, like the BFRO does with their databes to make it seem legitimate. What I am doing is the opposite from what I can see, and trying to slow the flood so some cases can actually be looked at.

Sorry I wasn’t trying to put you into Zosers class when It comes to research and information , clearly you do your homework better than he does :tsu: , I was trying to get the point across that you also post allot of information that seems to overload the topic and some of It I can’t directly relate to each individual case . I fell that when you post all the information on misidentification , you mean to “ blanket “ it over all the testimonies and it becomes kind of like a debunk because no one can prove other wise , as we don’t have any actual physical evidence to confirm the testimony . If I have got this wrong I apologise , I know that you have been around here along time fighting the fight and it can be frustrating when wild, plain to see , erroneous claims are made & you post the information to refute it and nobody takes notice . That is certainly not my style and once again , if I have got you wrong I apologise .

The rest of that quotes goes like this:

In spite of statistics showing that eyewitness misidentification is the most common element in all wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA evidence, witness testimony has remained a gold standard of the criminal justice system, according to The New York Times.

For the first time in three decades, the validity of using eyewitness testimony has come under review by the Supreme Court in a case involving a New Hampshire man who was convicted of theft based on the identification by a woman who saw him from a distance in the dead of night.

Earlier in the year, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a landmark decision requiring major changes in the way courts are required to evaluate identification evidence at trial and how they should instruct juries. The new changes require courts to greatly expand the factors that courts and juries should consider in assessing the risk of misidentification.

When selective attention combines with fear, “you have a very strong memory for a few details,” said Elizabeth Phelps, a psychology professor at New York University. “Emotion gives us confidence more than it gives us accuracy.”

The problem comes when witnesses bring that certainty to the entire memory.

But the most important part that you have overlooked was this part:

Quote

Eyewitness Misidentification Testimony was a factor in 72 percent percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions.

LINK

Now, out of all the claims being made, how many claim to be "definitely" alien? What would be that percentage against say the total number of claims? Maybe 6.6% if we are lucky? Co-incidence?

Some claims are very genuine, and anyone would be a fool not to accept that. Claims of people watching aliens land and make pancakes are more than dubious, and claims where religion enters the mix, more so again. How do you believe someone who can show you a picture of a grainy light in the sky when they start telling you it is an alien craft? People who make extraordinary claims are going to be asked to provide extraordinary evidence. I feel that is simple courtesy.

And what happens to people that get something like this wrong? Bad things. People have gone to jail over testimony and suffered for a very long time. Also, I think this is a much bigger problem than just testimony, being driven by emotion, testimony is blinded by the worst we have to offer as a species, consider these statistics:

Races of the 297 exonerees:

186 African Americans

84 Caucasians

21 Latinos

2 Asian American

4 whose race is unknown

I do not think we should make scientific evaluations based on emotion, and there is no doubt at all that testimony is swayed by emotion. Testimony I find a reason to investigate something, not in any way an answer. One mans Alien is another mans Goblin.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that on one hand witness testimonies can be wrong , no problems , this can happen . They can also be a powerful tool in conviction with a much higher rate of success than failure .

Eyewitness Misidentification Testimony was a factor in 72 percent percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions.

The above information , I feel is not in context unless you can provide the total amount of cases where the eyewitness testimonies have been proven to be correct , you have to remember that even though 72% sounds like allot , Its not that much when you put it into context , It’s 72% of cases proven to a wrongful conviction , that’s where my somewhat dubious math came into it , I even gave an extra 3% on the factor :P

I did however make a mistake by not taking into account how many of the 1500 were actually convicted by witness testimony , for this I apologise , I would love to look into it further but I don’t have allot of time at work today ,and I don’t think it will prove much more that I mentioned above , It can be right and wrong , I wont take a guess but my original figure of 85 % would be reduced significantly .

I’m going to retract the bit about it strengthening Zoser’s argument , I was a little hasty with that comment , If we had the results of how many people have been convicted and proven to be guilty via witness testimony , It would , at the least , show that witness testimony can be useful to a certain degree .

It does apply to ET research. What we are lacking is the ET evidence. That part is entirely made up. What is the ET benchmark? As far as know, the only thing to identify something as ET is Isotopic Ratio, and I have not seen a single thing to make that claim stand up to testing. I think after 60 years we ought to have at least one genuine piece of evidence, particularly so consider the alleged number of claims. But that is what I am illustrating here, just how many claims, actually can be considered genuine? I feel quantity is the goal of this thread, but only quality will provide the answer.

I agree about the quality of evidence required and the need for more that just hear say , my point was that I feel you dismiss all testimonies because they can t be backed up by any evidence , its a fair stance , personally I won’t discount the fact the person could actually be telling the truth ( provided its a good source to start with , as stated above ) . Even though I won’t discount it , It doesn’t mean that I class it as gospel either , I like to just put it in the “ maybe “ box and if any other information comes to light to corroborate it I can refer back to it .How many claims can be considered genuine you ask ? I agree not many but they can’t all be dismissed either .

Now with say a human condition we can observe behaviours, heck, we can even cut up a brain, we can pursue a hypothesis, with ET we cannot because there is nothing to support the hypothesis. It is like you getting cranky with me for Challenging Thor as the entity responsible for lightning bolts. Can I prove a God called Thor does not mysteriously appear invisible and thrown lightning bolts at the earth? No, I cannot despite having a perfectly reasonable and qualified explanation for the formation of lighting, how do I prove this formation is not then man, nay godhandled and hurled at the earth? I feel there is a point where common sense should take over from political correctness.

I like your reference to Thor , we would have more chance of disproving Thor than we would proving that ET actually exists :P

I don’t disagree with the rest of you comments , common sense is not common , isn’t that what they say ? J

Now with regards to research, should we not consider precedents? I do believe that human history is filled with us making up stuff to explain natural phenomena. Gods, Fairies, Mermaids, you name it. We are no strangers to answering the tough questions with fantasy. And then still on the note of a precedent, where has every single UFO answer come from to date? Beneath our feet. So why is that not the best place to start? Why jump up and stick ones head in the clouds, make up a bunch of stuff, and then insist it is true when every answer to date has been of earthly origin? Can you honestly tell me the ETH consists of much more than that? Zoser is, and that is why I take his posting in a dim light. He tells people "do your research" when it is more than clear he has done none at all himself. He insists that these testimonies are faultless, and that is just talking me for a ride. And he shows no courtesy for people with real qualifications who have actually taught us some facts, like Jim Oberg, or Tim Herbert. If you treat others with contempt, it is bound to come back at you in some form or another. The worst part is that is is plainly obvious that he is severely under-qualified to question these men of science. All he wants to hear is "It's ET" an no other answer will suffice. It pains me to see good people like yourself duck into a thread like this and get the impression that Zoser is under fire, when all that is happening is karma.

Yes I agree we have been making up stuff to suit our own needs and self satisfaction for a long as history can remember , no arguments from me on that one . Precedent is a hard work to use when it comes to ET research , what precedent can we work from when we are pretty much trying to set a precedent ourselves without any real solid , unrefusable evidence . Its a tough one whatever angle you look at it from .

I kind of came across that I was defending Zoser and that was not my intention at all , I was merely pointing out the fact that you are refuting all of the testimonies he has presented , when I come to think about it I can understand why you get so frustrated after posting information that does prove him to be wrong and it just washes off like water on a ducks back , If the end game for Zoser is ET every time than I can totally understand your stance with him . Just for the record , until I see an official release from a trusted source I can’t admit that what is going on is actually ET related , I can however admit that something strange is going on and It could be ET , dimensional issues , or any other force in the universe / earth that we are yet to discover . This is all providing that the usual possibilities have been excluded including environmental issues , stars , gas , misidentification etc etc etc .

I haven’t just “ ducked “ into this thread either my friend :o , I have been reading this thread on and off for a long time now , I really just haven’t had anything I would consider constructive to add , for what I have seen here and in the Ancient History section of the forums over the last year or so , Zoser is always under fire for his approach and tactics when it comes to posting dubious information , nothing new to see , I’m no friend of his or enemy for that matter and aren’t trying to stick up for his methods he’s a big boy and can fight his own battles .

I agree with that, but I want to know what is going on. The Hessdalen project is a great start, what I do not want is people peddling me their fantasies. Too many people have pretty much the same one, and repetition is boring. And I do not like being sold something intangible, it goes against every grain in my being to accept these stories at face value. So many take advantage of these wants that people have, and leech of society for a lifetime instead of getting a real job and contributing to society. Any person would only be lying to themselves if they were to think that only honest people are involved in UFOlogy. Like Penn Gillete says, most of these people only really need a hug.

No problems with this mate , It’s the question that we all want answered .

Why is it do you think this thread refuses material from Harvard and insists on taking the view of something like tunguskamystery.com? So it can get as much volume in as possible, you will be hard pressed to find the opinions of Professor Kaku, or Professor Hawking, let alone past giants such as Drake and Hubble, yet these men were a great deal closer to alien life than every single Youtube claim put together and folded over. Co-incidence? I am going to go out on a limb and say "No". Should we not be considering these intellectual giants foremost?

Mate, this is what you are pushing for, the right of people to send us all backwards. The ETH is not much more sophisticated than the Greek Gods were.

I hope this clears some things up, I am of the impression that you are missing a part of the puzzle here.

Yes we should look to accredited people first when it comes to any sort of research , that just a given as far as I’m concerned .

I don’t believe I was “ pushing “ anything , I was just questioning your methods of how you rate witness testimony and your approach , to say I’m looking to send us all backwards is a gross over statement and not even close to the way that I think , hopefully some of my comments above will help to reduce this perception you have of me .

We are all missing the same piece of the puzzle , the answer !

TiP.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could just be the angle of it, of course, if it was heading upwards at an angle.

I would say not looking at the negative in the Vallee evaluation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it have to be? What about the angle of tilt of the craft affecting the apparent 2D view (Just a little Maths speak there).

Yes, of course an Arial vehicle has to be. Try doing a little math, if you know a teacher ask for some help, and see how stable it might be with such an irregular shape.

Yes, I adressed the 2D view. I referred to it where it is, it is in the Vallee paper, the negative of the object shows distinct irregularity. If the photos show the true nature of the object, then this thing is not flying any place soon.

aero48.jpg

I'm sure someone would have checked out if it was Island by now......like you for instance.... :P

If you can supply the co-ordinates, I would not mind checking Bee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Highly coincidental that it is saucer shaped. Particularly in view of the fact that this was the most common type of UFO sighted back then, Nowadays we have all manner of exotic styles, but then it was predominantly flying saucers. Far too much of a coincidence.

Yes, too much of a co-incidence indeed.

220px-George_Adamski_ship_1.jpgsemjasesplejarenbeamshipthes.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ET and UFO thread is the most popular one on UM, with over 10,000 topics and 8 million replies. I don't follow most of the others very much, but my guess is that this one has more real evidence to offer than just about any other subject.

I think that this is basically about real science, not pseudo-science, religion or the paranormal. I doubt that most of these other subject have tens of thousands of declassified government documents that prove the subject has always been taken very seriously in many countries. I don't think that exists with ghosts, demons, Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster--nothing like that.

This is one subject that I think it's safe to say for sure that something very real and unexplained has been going on, and many people have been aware of it for a very long time.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Buddy , thanks for the reply .

Gidday Mate

You are most welcome. I have often enjoyed our brief exchanges, and felt you deserved the full story.

I did agree that the majority of cases would be misidentified , & I also would agree with you that most if not all of the definite conclusion claims that are pumped out on you tube , ancient aliens and other “ alternate “ web sites , are most likely all rubbish . What ever truth might have been in the story it losses all credibility when they sensationalise the truth and dress it up to make it more interesting :tu:

That’s not what concerns me , it’s the testimonies from pilots , military staff etc . People that had to make a report , rather than looking for fame .These are the cases that I can put some credence in , agreed that even some if not all of them could still be attributed to misidentification , environmental factors etc , but even if you take all those factors into account I still can’t see how you can get 99% of all cases are misidentified .

It's the 99% of the people who definitely saw ET, not all the people who see a UFO. It's very much like the BFRO, People see a Bigfoot at 100 yards and try to say they can tell you the eye colour. Our eyes are just not that good. People see somthing in the sky, but it does not leave the atmosphere, yet it is called a spaceship. In fact not one UFO ever in history has been tracked by scope or RADAR leaving the atmosphere, let alone our solar system. If that was the case, I would be far more accepting of the wilder claims and we would have a direction to follow. SETI would be overjoyed to have a target to aim at, but not one single case in 60 years has lead to space. The closest we have is a handful of claims that say the UFO "Shot straight up". We have natural phenomena that does exactly this that is still not classified, the Naga Fireballs. The Hessdalen project is something of a jewel in this crown as well.

This is where I think we went wrong to begin with. People often cite claims that we overcame, such as the speed of light, but had people looked around them, we had examples of this in nature. Nature strikes me as a decent benchmark that we can quantify at least some cases against, and as such I do believe that would logically be the best place to begin looking.

The trend that I was referring too was you dismissing all witness testimonies , you surprised me with 99% so that still leaves us 1% to play with , I will gladly retract the “ trend “ bit :P

LOL, don't go too light on me! I don't want people to think I am going soft! ;)

What I do find interesting, and captures my attention is the individual people, the little people. I would any day take MacGuffins claim 110% over Edgar Mitchell's claims. MacGuffin is first hand, Edgar is like fourth hand, and champions Bob Lazar. I would let myself down to take these as gospel at face value, but as far as tantalising testimony goes, MacGuffin has the more interesting recollection in this thread IMHO. Sadly, things like Roswell Rods and the Buzz Aldrin claim make that an easy task.

I have no doubt some people see things, I have seen 2 UFO's in my life myself, but I have no reason at all to think they were not of this earth. It puts me in a somewhat awkward position. Good people do recall fascinating events. I do not doubt this, but without proof, it is hard to accept that what was seen was from another planet. I love astronomy too, and mess around with it at home. It has given me a healthy respect for space, and it's really quite a hurdle to overcome. Everyday facts, like those that I look at through my telescope, tend to deny what I have heard. The many Charlatans, and people who make stuff up and pretend it is fact have tempered my more cynical skepticism. But I too hope with the rest of the people in this thread that in my lifetime, some development will happen. I just firmly expect first contact will be communications, not physical contact. To my way of thinking, it is the only protocol that makes good sense.

With regards to prominent people, after Paul Hellyer, I just cannot take any officials any more serious than the plumber who fixed our loo last week. The only people I can take seriously straight up are the Kaku's and Hawking's of the world, who will show you why they put forth the theories they do. To me that is what counts. Qualifying one's claim. Global claims I cannot reconcile at all. The way our Governments work is in direct opposition to the many CT's out there.

Sorry I wasn’t trying to put you into Zosers class when It comes to research and information , clearly you do your homework better than he does :tsu: , I was trying to get the point across that you also post allot of information that seems to overload the topic and some of It I can’t directly relate to each individual case . I fell that when you post all the information on misidentification , you mean to “ blanket “ it over all the testimonies and it becomes kind of like a debunk because no one can prove other wise , as we don’t have any actual physical evidence to confirm the testimony . If I have got this wrong I apologise , I know that you have been around here along time fighting the fight and it can be frustrating when wild, plain to see , erroneous claims are made & you post the information to refute it and nobody takes notice . That is certainly not my style and once again , if I have got you wrong I apologise .

Glad you noticed, Zoser has not! No need to apologise mate, I thank you for the opportunity to further clarify my position.

Sorry, my posts tend to be lengthy, I endeavour to anticipate any question that might arise with regards to any subject I might be commenting on.

I just have very little faith in testimony. I think because it is driven by emotion that it should really be avoided, or at the very least, heavily watered down. I feel that watering down many claims brings to light the more valid aspects of the case. Zoser has posted some awful cases, a couple that I would like to look closer at, but the cases come through too quickly to discuss them. I like to focus on the descriptions, "The white disc" or "The Triangle" As opposed to "The Alien making pancakes" or "the alien who raped me". I find the descriptions are far more open, offer more options, and as such are more likely to lead to an actual answer. I just am not entirely convinced that anyone has the correct answer is all. The vague and ancient cases that nobody has a hope of investigating I think do not add to the mix, they just muddy the waters.

Where I might take a disclaimer here is that I do feel each case should be considered in it's own merit. I openly admit some cases are more intriguing than others, as previously mentioned, I have never personally resolved Portage County. Most of the more prominent cases I can find a personal satisfaction with, but that one is rather a fly in my ointment. It keeps my complacency in check I feel.

I take leaps of faith as well I guess. Just pretty small ones.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that on one hand witness testimonies can be wrong , no problems , this can happen . They can also be a powerful tool in conviction with a much higher rate of success than failure .

The above information , I feel is not in context unless you can provide the total amount of cases where the eyewitness testimonies have been proven to be correct , you have to remember that even though 72% sounds like allot , Its not that much when you put it into context , It’s 72% of cases proven to a wrongful conviction , that’s where my somewhat dubious math came into it , I even gave an extra 3% on the factor :P

I did however make a mistake by not taking into account how many of the 1500 were actually convicted by witness testimony , for this I apologise , I would love to look into it further but I don’t have allot of time at work today ,and I don’t think it will prove much more that I mentioned above , It can be right and wrong , I wont take a guess but my original figure of 85 % would be reduced significantly .

Agreed, but we are talking a small percentage of claimants. Considering I have two claims to make and neither would fit into this category. It's 99% of the contingent who know what they saw is ET. I think we should establish what a UFO might be, if it is ET, I do not think there will be much doubt. It seems like I doubt an awful lot, but there is quite a number of claims floating about.

I’m going to retract the bit about it strengthening Zoser’s argument , I was a little hasty with that comment , If we had the results of how many people have been convicted and proven to be guilty via witness testimony , It would , at the least , show that witness testimony can be useful to a certain degree .

And I would agree with you. I feel it is helpful, and in some cases valuable, but I just do not think that it should be the be all end all of the question, as I feel Zoser suggests in this thread. He calls the youtube clips documentaries, I mean, how does one even converse on that level? I think testimony should be used to evaluate if further investigation is warranted, but not to conclude an unknown.

I agree about the quality of evidence required and the need for more that just hear say , my point was that I feel you dismiss all testimonies because they can t be backed up by any evidence , its a fair stance , personally I won’t discount the fact the person could actually be telling the truth ( provided its a good source to start with , as stated above ) . Even though I won’t discount it , It doesn’t mean that I class it as gospel either , I like to just put it in the “ maybe “ box and if any other information comes to light to corroborate it I can refer back to it .How many claims can be considered genuine you ask ? I agree not many but they can’t all be dismissed either .

I think we are on the same train, I am just a little more hardcore. It might have more to do with my age. I have been watching the subject since I was a kid, a good 35 or more years now. So much time with no proof tends to make one a bit cynical, more so when you have those new to the subject trying to peddle things like the Apollo 11 UFO, or Roswell Rods.

I like your reference to Thor , we would have more chance of disproving Thor than we would proving that ET actually exists :P

I don’t disagree with the rest of you comments , common sense is not common , isn’t that what they say ? J

Indeed they do, I just wonder why?

Yes I agree we have been making up stuff to suit our own needs and self satisfaction for a long as history can remember , no arguments from me on that one . Precedent is a hard work to use when it comes to ET research , what precedent can we work from when we are pretty much trying to set a precedent ourselves without any real solid , unrefusable evidence . Its a tough one whatever angle you look at it from .

Exactly, we are on the same page again, but the precedents I refer to are those with regards to our study of the unknown. On that we agree. We have a history of choosing the easy answer. With this I also refuse to bow to old ways. I feel we should learn from the historical record, but we seem determined to follow the same path. Maybe I am a rebel inside LOL.

I kind of came across that I was defending Zoser and that was not my intention at all , I was merely pointing out the fact that you are refuting all of the testimonies he has presented , when I come to think about it I can understand why you get so frustrated after posting information that does prove him to be wrong and it just washes off like water on a ducks back , If the end game for Zoser is ET every time than I can totally understand your stance with him . Just for the record , until I see an official release from a trusted source I can’t admit that what is going on is actually ET related , I can however admit that something strange is going on and It could be ET , dimensional issues , or any other force in the universe / earth that we are yet to discover . This is all providing that the usual possibilities have been excluded including environmental issues , stars , gas , misidentification etc etc etc .

The problem with official released is that the media release them. Any scientist will tell you that he hates talking to media, because 99% of the time they will stuff it up altogether. If I may use Edgar Mitchell as an example, so many chastise me for "not taking this hero at his word" yet these people who tell me to take him at his word do not realise he is using someone else's words, not his, he is just expressing his faith in what he has been told. This is where the appeal to authority comes into play, and I feel that is a very steep decline. I really do not know what a Pilot would know more about ET than you or I. Hazz is a pilot, and he is a pleasant fellow who is asking the same questions we are. When it comes to the technolog of other worlds, I really do not think anyone here is any sort of expert. It levels the field, and that I feel is why we see some amazing and brilliant posters in here, many regulars.

I haven’t just “ ducked “ into this thread either my friend :o , I have been reading this thread on and off for a long time now , I really just haven’t had anything I would consider constructive to add , for what I have seen here and in the Ancient History section of the forums over the last year or so , Zoser is always under fire for his approach and tactics when it comes to posting dubious information , nothing new to see , I’m no friend of his or enemy for that matter and aren’t trying to stick up for his methods he’s a big boy and can fight his own battles .

My apologies for the assumption, I am trying to dump assumption altogether. It is surely the mother of all stuff ups.

Indeed he is, I would really like to see him accept some accountability for his claims instead of the usual post, claim, and run. I understand that I am a big baddy where he is concerned, but I think I am doing him a favour. If he thinks I am bad, he should enter a public debate in person. He would be torn apart. I think I posted that ABC special "My Mother Talks To Aliens", not sure of you saw it or not, in it the mother takes on a debate with a University professor, she not only loses the debate dismally, but her credibility along with it.

I think I shake his world so much that he does truly fear that which he accuses skeptics of. Not wanting to know the truth.

No problems with this mate , It’s the question that we all want answered .

Fingers crossed!

But I more wanted to answer myself to you. I enjoy your posts, and your view, I think you are a good guy, and I would love to buy you a beer someday if possible. I treat those how I am treated. I felt you deserved an explanation for my more acidic posts.

Yes we should look to accredited people first when it comes to any sort of research , that just a given as far as I’m concerned .

I don’t believe I was “ pushing “ anything , I was just questioning your methods of how you rate witness testimony and your approach , to say I’m looking to send us all backwards is a gross over statement and not even close to the way that I think , hopefully some of my comments above will help to reduce this perception you have of me .

My perception of you is a good one. And I knew once I explained myself that you would understand where I am coming from. If I sounded terse at any point, that is more likely attributed to the fact that I have been working some long hours this year. My prose could definitely have been better. And thanks for the opportunity to do so. In fact, I think we are in a similar vein of thought.

We are all missing the same piece of the puzzle , the answer !

TiP.

:D Yes we are, that is the main point I try to get across regularly. That has been the main agenda of all my posting in this thread.

A pleasure mate, hope your day has been a good one, Suns just going down, down under, summers coming, it's a beautiful day :D

Cheers.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ET and UFO thread is the most popular one on UM, with over 10,000 topics and 8 million replies. I don't follow most of the others very much, but my guess is that this one has more real evidence to offer than just about any other subject.

Me too, Crypto drew me here, but I ended up back into UFO's. Its hard to resist!

I think that this is basically about real science, not pseudo-science, religion or the paranormal. I doubt that most of these other subject have tens of thousands of declassified government documents that prove the subject has always been taken very seriously in many countries. I don't think that exists with ghosts, demons, Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster--nothing like that.

To an extent. Ghosts and Bigfoot are also reported in most cultures and most land masses. But I think that might have something more to do with the human psyche and that we have always had a fear of a spectre type image.

I just do not think that is what Zoser is illustrating in this thread. Not only the people like McDonald and Klass, they are small potatoes in the question, as they only avail themselves to the answer. Drake, Sagan, Hynek, Hawking, Fermi, Dyson; too many to mention exist and are a good reason to say science is what this is about. It's just that there is a Disney element to the phenomena as well. And it is not helping. It's dragging it down. Nat Geo ought to be ashamed of themselves.

This is one subject that I think it's safe to say for sure that something very real and unexplained has been going on, and many people have been aware of it for a very long time.

I will drink to that.

Indeed, I think there is more than one answer to such a complex question, I just hope we see part of it at least in my lifetime.

Good luck with it all MacGuffin. I hope that one day you get the smoking gun you have sought for so long. Or better yet, the bullet.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bee,.. hope you are well my friend! .. :tu:

The Drakensberg Photos?

Just wondered if you actually believe that Elizabeth Klarer , (the photographer of that ,..and the six other photograph's in the series) was actually a reliable source of UFO pictures?

The reason being that although the photographs are in themselves, superb for the time period, (1956) ,..and that to intentionally create such 'quality hoaxed' pictures 56 years ago (when photographic trickery techniques ,shouldn't really have been good enough to avoid simple detection somewhere along their 50-odd year journey ) is almost as amazing a feat as her meatier claims!..the fact that I find Elizabeth's other fantastical claims , I find to be a sure sign that she was either someone very special indeed!...Or one of life's great fantasists!

And i'm afraid that imo because of the enormity of her preposterous "story" I very-much lean toward the latter! :unsure2:

Just in case you weren't aware of Elizabeth Klarer's claims, it's all here....

http://www.ufoeviden...ica/Photo36.htm

and here ...

Now I won't say that my disbelief of Elizabeth's story means that her photograph's are undoubtedly fake,... but I will say that for me at least,.."it doesn't help toward convincing me that they are genuine either!"

Cheers Bee.

Hiya 1963....I'm fine thankyou and hope you are too..... :tu:

No...I wasn't aware of Elizabeth Klarer's claims...I just saw the pic on a link and thought it looked similar to the Costa Rica one.

Thanks for the info...will take a look later.

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can supply the co-ordinates, I would not mind checking Bee.

http://wikimapia.org...38/Lago-de-Cote

anything else you need....lol... ;)

and it is thought to be a crater...?

http://www.visitcost...nuras_norte.asp

COTE OR COTER LAKE

This lake is situated at 680 meters above sea level and has a diameter of approximately one kilometer. Many Costa Rican scientists believe the lake is a crater due to its geological characteristics. Recreational and tourism activities here include boat tours and fishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one subject that I think it's safe to say for sure that something very real and unexplained has been going on, and many people have been aware of it for a very long time.

I agree...... :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good news is even If the Skeptics are 99% correct ,and the Non-Believers are 99% correct, That leaves that 1% And thats all it Takes ! :tu:

Goo post everyone

!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have been reading this thread on and off for a long time now , I really just haven’t had anything I would consider constructive to add , for what I have seen here and in the Ancient History section of the forums over the last year or so , Zoser is always under fire for his approach and tactics when it comes to posting dubious information , nothing new to see , I’m no friend of his or enemy for that matter and aren’t trying to stick up for his methods he’s a big boy and can fight his own battles .

Instead of brown nosing up to the skeptic faction why not comment constructively on some of the cases? Politics doesn't win arguments or persuade people's beliefs.

And btw, I am one of the least guilty in here in terms of calling people down ; I wish others would adopt similar standards. People normally do that in life when they are frustrated with something. Think on that.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, too much of a co-incidence indeed.

220px-George_Adamski_ship_1.jpgsemjasesplejarenbeamshipthes.jpg

I don't understand the point you are making psyche? It's undeniable that the majority of sightings from the 40's to the 70's were saucers. What has BM got to do with anything?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, of course an Arial vehicle has to be. Try doing a little math, if you know a teacher ask for some help, and see how stable it might be with such an irregular shape.

More put downs psyche? You are letting yourself down imho.

Edited by zoser
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kelowna British Columbia - 2003.

By Brian Vike

The story is real but one of the names in this report is fictitious for obvious reasons. Corina, the driver of the vehicle is her real name.

Monday - August 18, 2003 I received a telephone call from Corina who lives in Kelowna, British Columbia. The lady was very upset and had a time speaking of the event that took place with her and a close female friend of hers. She told me today that a friend had brought over a newspaper article which was run in the Kelowna Capital Newspaper. The headline read "Seeking Witnesses to UFO." which showed up on August 15, 2003

Here is her story...

She tells that her and her friend are having a very hard time dealing with what took place. Also another couple who lives in the area watched an aerial craft hovering close to the location where the two ladies had parked there car at the side of the highway and gave confirmation to the incident, or at least witnessed an object.

At approx: 12:05 a.m., July 31, 2003 the two ladies were playing around on the computer when Linda said, we haven't done any star gazing in a long time, so Corina, the lady who contacted me said, you're right, lets go out and do some star gazing. They left home at 12:05 a.m. heading out to an area where they would get a look at the clear night sky without having lights to obscure their view. Corina drove to Glenmore, which is north from where she lives and is on the back road heading to Winfield from Kelowna, B.C.

They were driving along and Corina reported that there was quite a bit of traffic for that time of the night, but soon after they decided to stop just off to the side of the road to see what they might notice, the traffic stopped coming. There was not a light from any vehicles, not anything other than a very dark stretch of road. Corina grabbed her flashlight and shone it into the sky as she has done this in the past. Her friend Linda had the binoculars on the other side of the car scanning the starry night sky. They were there only a minute out of the car when her Linda said, this is really strange. There are three stars up in the sky and formed into a triangle shape. All three lights at this time were solid white. Both ladies watched as the three white lights started moving, but moving together. The witness with the binoculars said stars don't do that, and Corina replies, of course not, as she thought it may have been a plane or something. Linda replies, no this is not a plane as the lights were changing color to a neon green and the object had stopped and hovered just ahead of their car on the highway.

Corina turned the headlights off, and shone her flashlight down the road in front of her car. They were worrying about animals such as a bear, cougars, etc. being around in this isolated area. As she shone the light up the road both of the women spotted something which frightened them a lot. Five sets of eyes staring at approx: 40 feet away from them. As frightened as they were, their first thoughts were of coyotes or some other wild animal, but she said once you really look your brain takes it in.

Corina describes the creatures as being roughly four feet tall, dark gray shoulders and coming towards the women. Corina said "I was so scared I could hardly talk, and could hardly breathe". She yelled to her friend Linda, "get in the car, get in the car". Corina said they both scrambled to get back into the vehicle, but she said it was like moving through quicksand and it felt horrible. Being so terrified and trying to move as fast as they possibly could, it felt as if everything was slowing down around them.

Once they were both back in the car, Corina tried to turn the ignition on so she could get the power windows up. But all the electrics on the car was failing. The dome light, headlights were going off and on, on their own and as she said. "Everything was going nuts!"

Finally the car started and they turned around in the middle of the road and sped off towards home and as they traveled along they noticed a fair bit of traffic coming in their direction. (Corina commented to me, where was all the traffic when all this was happening?) As they drove along the road, Corina said to Linda, "this is the weirdest thing. "She said I feel like electricity, my whole body is tingling, just like I was zapped by a charge from a battery". When Linda heard this, she said, "I didn't want to say anything to you as you might think I was nuts, but I am feeling the same. As if I was hit by an electrical charge." As Linda was explaining how she felt, and facing Corina she glanced at the clock in car and said, "Jesus Corina, look at the time" ! Corina said what are you talking about ? Linda said we were only stopped and out of the car for a few minutes at the most, and the time of the car's clock reads an extra 25 minutes of time.

As they drove along and close to home they both discussed it and wondered if they had imagined it all. As they were just about home, they turned onto Baker Street which is covered in darkness next to a field. All of a sudden they saw this bright, glowing neon green ball low in the sky. The object started moving to the right, "stop", left, "stop", right, "stop", left, "stop" and then it started to move away until the ladies car came to a halt, and so did the object. Before they knew it, the ball of green light started heading towards them at a high rate of speed and hovered high above their car. At this point they just wanted to get to their home and be as far away from whatever it was as possible.

The driver sped off quickly again and they headed into an orchard which was very close by. They thought they would not be seen hiding amongst the trees, plus there was no lighting in this area to reveal their position. Corina looked at her friend and said, "they will never find us here". Both women are sitting in the car trying to get themselves together as the driver said she was losing it at this point. Only after a very short time after arriving in the orchard Linda said, Corina you better look out the front windscreen and look up slightly. We don't have just one green ball of light, there are now three, glowing green objects. The way the green lights were in the sky, it looked as if the they formed a triangle formation and all moving now together. After a short period of time each of the green lights moved away in different directions.

Brian Vike asked if the witness could give some idea of how large the green lights were. The witness told me each of the lights were approx: half the size of a full moon. After seeing the lights flying off into different directions the ladies raced home as quickly as they possibly could.

Once safe at home, both ladies shaken, they tried to come up with some reasonable explanation for what just happened. They tried to put it out of their minds but that was impossible ! Later on, both ladies turned in for the night and when they woke up in the morning, Corina discovered a large bruise on her left breast and another on the bottom of her foot. She did not know how they got there but she did know they were extremely painful.

As she sat drinking a cup of coffee, Linda finally got up and was walking down the hall towards the kitchen when she said, "god, good morning - do I feel rough this morning". After Linda finished saying that, Corina watched as blood came pouring from Linda's nose. Corina jumped up, ran and grabbed a towel. Linda also commented that she was having a lot of pain in her lower back area. She asked Corina to have a look to see if there was anything that could be seen. So she looked and gasped, there was a large circle burned into her skin and was located in the middle, lower back area (tail bone). Also bruises were found on Linda's body as well, some of them appeared to look like finger marks and there were three of them on each thigh. Both women at this point were shocked, upset and very frightened.

Linda, who was up visiting from the Abbotsford ended her holiday and headed back home. Two days after being home in Abbotsford, B.C. she went to consult her family doctor due to still experiencing the terrible pain which was originating from her lower back, plus it was not getting any better. Her doctor examined her, and her injury to her back, the doctor said if I didn't know any better I would say you have a radiation burn. He was of course referring to the burn mark on Linda's back. The doctor is still trying to heal this mark on her back, as something had burned right through the outer layer of this ladies skin.

I would also like to add, this Missing Time event took place around the same date over 200 witnessed watched one amazing event unfold in southeastern British Columbia. I also received a flood of sighting reports which also came from this area. July 27/28 to August 18, 2003.

Parts 2 and 3 can be found on youtube. They are only 5 minute clips each. Well worth listening to.

Corina.jpg

[media=]

[/media] Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More put downs psyche? You are letting yourself down imho.

Buh - huuh every one is soooo mean to me!! :rolleyes:

Its easy to understand the frustration. You are given the opportunity to actually learn something, but always chooses to ignore it. You choose to go with the fantasy explanation EVERY time even when hard facts is telling you otherwise,...if you bother to look at all that is?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buh - huuh every one is soooo mean to me!! :rolleyes:

Its easy to understand the frustration. You are given the opportunity to actually learn something, but always chooses to ignore it. You choose to go with the fantasy explanation EVERY time even when hard facts is telling you otherwise,...if you bother to look at all that is?

I haven't got time for this; straight and simple and I'm not going to participate in any banter at the expense of the subject; sorry Hazz, you and the other members of the skeptic factions are punching dead air from now on. I'm only responding to case information.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that the Las Lomas case has been dismissed by skeptics as a hoax. Yet on this one clip we see 3 witnesses giving separate testimonies, video footage, video analysis, and a woman underneath the craft saying that she received some UV burns from the craft. She also described it's sound which compares to what other people have heard being emitted from similar craft. She even made references to disturbed domestic animals as the craft flew overhead.

Welcome to Tantalising Testimony.

Indeed tantalizing, cause other witnesses seem can't remember "very bright light" mentioned by Ana Lask, nor any other had "burns".

BTW, you had more than enough time to find reliable info about "IR - UV analysis" - I'd like to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed tantalizing, cause other witnesses seem can't remember "very bright light" mentioned by Ana Lask, nor any other had "burns".

BTW, you had more than enough time to find reliable info about "IR - UV analysis" - I'd like to see it.

Maybe the burn victim was closer to the craft? I have said all I know about UV and IR filters. Any photo shop experts out there are invited to contribute. In the context of the case as a whole, it's only one small part. An answer would be nice but it's not a deal breaker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, I'm just bein' a devilled avocado.... :D

SWIPED! And I have just the place to use this. :su:tsu: :tsu: :tsu:

It's all a bit meaningless unless you have an actual case to consider where an analysis of such things might be possible - are there any? I confess I haven't been keeping up with the thread.

None so far nor do I recall any mention elsewhere but it is an interesting concept to pursue.

Zoser, can you point us to the very best tantalisers you have, so they can be put through the harsh wringer of proper analysis?

I don't know about Zoser but my favorite is Lonnie Zamora's sighting in Socorro, NM. It doesn't scream ETH but it does remain a head scratcher.

And, yeah, folks. I'm kinda back after getting wiped by illness. I'm still working my way through the 120 or so pages I missed and I'll try to be better about participating but I'm still prone to fatigue etc so I don't know how well I'll do.

Psyche, I don't know if I pointed it out here but I did post a rather lengthy description of how airships would have been possible as early as the the 1897 sightings. Only I don't remember where I posted it. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about Zoser but my favorite is Lonnie Zamora's sighting in Socorro, NM. It doesn't scream ETH but it does remain a head scratcher.

Zamora's is certainly a good case. I prefer cases where more than one witness is involved and testimonies concur. That said solo witness cases are not to be ignored particularly when things like radiation burns to the skin and ground are involved. For me though I get very caught by the type of witness. A lot of my favourite cases involve rural type folk, with no obvious ulterior motives. So the Stephen Michalak, The Delphos Kansas, Edwin Fuhr, Renato Nicolai cases all strike a deep chord with me. All of these are mentioned on this thread. Some excellent ones still to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, of course an Arial vehicle has to be. Try doing a little math, if you know a teacher ask for some help, and see how stable it might be with such an irregular shape.

Yes, I adressed the 2D view. I referred to it where it is, it is in the Vallee paper, the negative of the object shows distinct irregularity. If the photos show the true nature of the object, then this thing is not flying any place soon.

Again, assuming based on our level of knowledge. It might seem not implausible that an advanced space vehicle would not rely on aerodynamic lift, might it not? It might use form of gravity repulsion or something similarly exotic. Therefore aerodynamic shape and questions of stability based on our knowledge of physics would be irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one of my favourite cases very similar to Edwin Fuhr, occurred in Barry County Missouri in 1978 and multiple witnesses were involved. This was posted much earlier in the thread so I won't labour it too much now. The clip begins at 7:27 and continues into the next part.

Ted Philips investigated the case in detail, and the craft left behind trace evidence of heat, dehydration as well as a crater.

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9S94THtMOk

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.