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 2
zoser

Phoenix - Flares Debunked

238 posts in this topic

I was on holiday so no time, and anyway I think you present us with your evidence not some videos, just because its a video means its true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I know, it is quite odd.

And I'm not even asking him to accept the 10 PM conclusion as factual, only to make the distinction that this segment from Unsolved Mysteries was centered on the earlier events and therefore makes little if any contribution to the 10 PM event.

In fact, this segment reinforces and confirms the 10 PM flare conclusion; which is the exact opposite of what zoser claims in the OP and in the naming of the thread.

Using testimony about the earlier events and claiming that it disproves conclusions about the later events is intellectually dishonest, a strawman, ignorance, or complete incompetence. I'm not sure which applies in this instance, but I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and go with simple ignorance.

Stop the intellectualism and watch the testimonies. So simple. Saying of a wise man "Intellectualism is a disease". Listen to the people who were there.

Edited by zoser
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop the intellectualism and watch the testimonies. So simple. Saying of a wise man "Intellectualism is a disease". Listen to the people who were there.

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that I watched your clip?

As a matter of fact, I've watched all of the documentaries about the Phoenix Lights multiple times. I've listened to and read all of the testimonies multiple times. I've not reached my conclusions from an uninformed position.

Why do you keep on avoiding the core point that I'm making here?

I'm confident that your evasion of that point is clear to the majority of readers here, so I'll not waste more effort on trying to discuss this topic rationally with you.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that I watched your clip?

As a matter of fact, I've watched all of the documentaries about the Phoenix Lights multiple times. I've listened to and read all of the testimonies multiple times. I've not reached my conclusions from an uninformed position.

Why do you keep on avoiding the core point that I'm making here?

I'm confident that your evasion of that point is clear to the majority of readers here, so I'll not waste more effort on trying to discuss this topic rationally with you.

So what is your impression of the testimonies? To me they are all consistent in relation to each other and to the facts. i.e regarding when the USAF claimed they dropped flares and when the sightings occurred. I don't want to get drawn into some ancillary issue; what are you saying? Are you saying that they are referring to some earlier sighting and that sightings later were in fact fares? If so we still need to explain what they saw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like this story right ? " Believe it or not the day will come when all skeptics,and believers will stand on the same playing field and gaze upon the bright silver craft as it settles onto the ground. ANd for the first time in mankinds history all the answers of the universe will be given to us Or not "

This is science you take from it what you may,It gives of its self as it does, only after the time spent is looked upon by many and they all decide to look even futher, just for science sake.

The Answers may change even this is why we continue to look. But Not to Look ,Not to Listen, not to understand that all is just a preception of a ever changing universe !

Our trick is to just be part of this time and place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sorry,... I had the four steps of the scientific method in mind when I wrote that. Science instead of pseudo science.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

Intellectualism at it's very best. Why not just listen to the people that saw it? :alien:

Just off to watch another Doc. See you later.

Edited by zoser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is your impression of the testimonies?

That they were sincere and that the witnesses highlighted in this clip, and several others not included in this clip, did indeed observe something that they were unable to identify.

To me they are all consistent in relation to each other and to the facts. i.e regarding when the USAF claimed they dropped flares and when the sightings occurred. I don't want to get drawn into some ancillary issue; what are you saying? Are you saying that they are referring to some earlier sighting and that sightings later were in fact fares?

Many of the testimonies were relatively consistent, I agree.

What I'm saying is that they were not describing the 10 PM flare events. They were describing sightings from earlier in the evening. Therefore their testimony is completely irrelevant to the 10 PM flare event which was captured on video by 4 people from 4 different locations. Which follows that this clip does not debunk the flare conclusion as you've claimed in the OP and in the naming of your thread.

If so we still need to explain what they saw.

For the earlier events which are the focus of this clip from Unsolved Mysteries, read this. I don't expect you to agree with it. I expect quite the opposite actually. But that won't change the reality of what they saw.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modern science? Nuclear reactors spewing out their poisons; fossil fuels in cars for the last 100 years; burning coal in homes slowly poisoning the planet that our ancients were doing to keep warm. Forgive me if I don't bow down to science just yet,

How can you blame "Science" for that?! It doesn't even make sense!

Science isn't something you can blame, only certian scientists for their morals and ethics. But even then they wouldn't be to blame for that, the people to balem for that are goverments and the large companies who run the fuel/power supplies in the world.

On top of that if it bothers you so much then why are you using a laptop or desktop computer etc and probably sitting with your light on in your room etc. Do you use other modern technologies? Do you own a car? it's very hypocritical to say stuff like that when you use these things yourself.

I do think that renewable energy sources should be funded more and thye should try harder to achieve but again dot he big money maker sint his world want that?

Sorry,... I had the four steps of the scientific method in mind when I wrote that. Science instead of pseudo science.

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

Ok I get what you mean now. Fair enough, no need to say sorry either. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I'm saying is that they were not describing the 10 PM flare events. They were describing sightings from earlier in the evening. Therefore their testimony is completely irrelevant to the 10 PM flare event which was captured on video by 4 people from 4 different locations.

Which follows that this clip does not debunk the flare conclusion as you've claimed in the OP and in the naming of your thread.

Here, zoser, if you can forget about the testimonys for a sec and focus on this part,... I have bolded it from boons post.

I would really like to hear your explanation to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Intellectualism at it's very best. Why not just listen to the people that saw it? :alien:

Just off to watch another Doc. See you later.

Hey Zoser

Why do you outright refuse to refute the math done in the BE thread that proves the proponent witnesses wrong? Math cannot lie, people do. You appear desperate to avoid it, have you already looked at it and realised that it reders your argument invalid?

Again, these entertainment programs are not documentaries, it is really funny that you keep calling them documentaries.

Personally, I think the ETs are here, and that many of them are hostile. I can make a pretty good case for that, too, given that there have been a lot of "incidents" with UFOs being chased, fired on and firing back that are not imaginary. No one in the military who knew anything ever thought that it was, going back to the 1940s, especially when people were being killed in UFO encounters.

Hey McG

Have you considered BEKs (Black Eyed Kids) as part of your hypothesis?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I agree with Shaman. We have disected the PL a couple of times in the last BE thread. After looking at both sides evidence and arguments there is no doubt in my mind that the first sighting was aircraft flying in formation, and the second event was flares.

Can I just ask, do you believe in anything science can't explain or are you simply blinded by facts, figures and data, in official government testimony and our 'cutting edge' science, and of course he believes in the 'scientific evidence' provided by 'highly qualified' members of these forums?

I ask this because I've seen you posting on almost every topic attempting to debunk it. Same question to pyche101 who also seems to live his life here and debunk anything he can get his hands on.

Edited by rcarp89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Zoser

Hey McG

Have you considered BEKs (Black Eyed Kids) as part of your hypothesis?

No, but is there some reason that I should?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, zoser, if you can forget about the testimonys for a sec and focus on this part,... I have bolded it from boons post.

I would really like to hear your explanation to this.

I would be surprised to see an answer, he has avoided the good work Boon and LS did in the BE thread that proves the sighting was flares lika a plague. I am guessing that the point of this thread is to hope that everyone forgets all that good work already done, and what it showed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but is there some reason that I should?

I was just reading about them recently and noticed that their contact is intermittent, started approximately in the 90's and figured it might have a place in your hostile aliens hypothesis, I thought of you when I read about them. I had heard of them before but they sort of landed in my face the other night and whilst I had a read, the childlike appearance reminds me vaguely of the shorter stature of the grey depiction, and the outcomes are always unpleasant. There seems no good earthly explanation for their appearance, although I am uncertain as to how well documented most cases are, they had not caught my attention in much depth until I thought of hostile aliens and thought they might be a candidate.

I was just wondering if you had considered them, and if any connections exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just reading about them recently and noticed that their contact is intermittent, started approximately in the 90's and figured it might have a place in your hostile aliens hypothesis, I thought of you when I read about them. I had heard of them before but they sort of landed in my face the other night and whilst I had a read, the childlike appearance reminds me vaguely of the shorter stature of the grey depiction, and the outcomes are always unpleasant. There seems no good earthly explanation for their appearance, although I am uncertain as to how well documented most cases are, they had not caught my attention in much depth until I thought of hostile aliens and thought they might be a candidate.

I was just wondering if you had considered them, and if any connections exist.

I've heard of them, although like the Men In Black, I'm not sure if anybody has ever really seen one. (Not that I have any doubt about the military and intelligence agencies sending out creepy people to threaten, harass and intimidate UFO witnesses and researchers, get them to hand over their evidence, impersonating Air Force officers and so on. We know that was going on.) I've read some wild speculation about BEK's being alien hybrids and things like that, or that they seem very menacing to people who encounter them, but I am not going to say for a fact that they truly exist.

There are quite a lot of stories on the Internet about them, like this one:

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2011/04/black-eyed-kids-insidious-threat-or-myth-in-the-making/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Can I just ask, do you believe in anything science can't explain or are you simply blinded by facts, figures and data, in official government testimony and our 'cutting edge' science, and of course he believes in the 'scientific evidence' provided by 'highly qualified' members of these forums?

As I can see by your post count that you have had little to do with the conversation, I will accept that you are unaware of the Best Evidence thread in where Lost Shaman and BoonyZarc triangulated the position of the flares and analysed pretty much every photograph that is freely available, and in every case the math said flares. No picture depicts a large triangle, there is absolutely zero evidence for the ET claim, and my problem is that Zoser knows this. He has been pointed at the math on numerous occassions and he simply refuses to accept that it exists. That is not discussion, that is propaganda, and this is a discussion forum. And dont you agree, it is a bit sad when one keeps arguing for something, but refuses to so much as have the gumption to even attempt to counter existing debate? Pretending it does not exist is an inherent sign that the debater knows he is beaten and is trying to pretend that fact does not exist. Should you look up the math, you will see that others who are far more competent than Zoser with regards to ET debate eperience tried to counter the math and could not.

Could you explain the usage of the word "blinded" in your above post"? How is empirical evidence "blinding" anyone? I disagree with that statement completely. Zoser is calling these shows "documentaries" and you are saying people who understand scientific method are blinded???? Really?

Does it bother you that I seek prosaic explanations, do you think everyone should just Ohh and Ahhh over any tales they are told and believe it at face value? I have never had a solid theory for Portgae County, so that blows your statement right out the window. I have no doubt seen more of these cases and studied them deeper than you have. If you put the effort in to find out more about these cases, I have no doubt you are likely to come to the same conclusion I have, and if you have countering information, please present it for debate, that after all is the purpose of this place. If you are just having a whine, put a sock in it. It is not a place to sit around and pat each other on the back grinning and saying how we beat the Government, and we know they are hiding aliens from us. I am interested in developments and personal recollections, most of these old campfire stories I find pretty lacklustre. They have zero substance, but much ghost story potential. If the stories do not stand up to scrutiny, how is that my fault??? Some people get really annoyed when you take their fairytales away! I been watching this subject for 35 years now, you?

I ask this because I've seen you posting on almost every topic attempting to debunk it. Same question to pyche101 who also seems to live his life here and debunk anything he can get his hands on.

Well there you have you answer, give me something tangible! What in your opinion trumps the WOW! signal as far as Alien life and real contact with it goes? What do you think is the best case to date, and can you counter that math presented that proves the Phoenix lights were flares? Math does not lie, but what about Billy Mier or Bob Lazar, or George Adamski.......... it's quite a list you know.

I admire you asking the question rather than beating around the bush, that shows more balls than all these proponents tied together and folded over! (not Q, D and McG understand, I hold those "believers" if that is the right word in the highest regard) whatever your view is, you have my attention. I am hoping to see good debate from you. Not just whining, like we have seen for far too long. If new to the subject, those guys I mentioned would be worth watching for your own perspective. But I suggest you look at both sides and make your own mind up.

Edited by psyche101
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard of them, although like the Men In Black, I'm not sure if anybody has ever really seen one. (Not that I have any doubt about the military and intelligence agencies sending out creepy people to threaten, harass and intimidate UFO witnesses and researchers, get them to hand over their evidence, impersonating Air Force officers and so on. We know that was going on.) I've read some wild speculation about BEK's being alien hybrids and things like that, or that they seem very menacing to people who encounter them, but I am not going to say for a fact that they truly exist.

There are quite a lot of stories on the Internet about them, like this one:

http://mysteriousuni...-in-the-making/

Thanks for the link, I will have a closer read now, the eyes catch me as the link, size of Grey has always been considered short in stature, it struck me that in some cases a person might misinterpret a smaller humanoid for a child. I cannot see where such large pupils would advantage humans, if such could ever be confirmed it sounds like an entirely different eye structure, I wondered if the large pupils might be of assistance to the inhabitants of a planet in the zone of a red dwarf star. Still thinking about possible type of aliens that might be able to evolve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link, I will have a closer read now, the eyes catch me as the link, size of Grey has always been considered short in stature, it struck me that in some cases a person might misinterpret a smaller humanoid for a child. I cannot see where such large pupils would advantage humans, if such could ever be confirmed it sounds like an entirely different eye structure, I wondered if the large pupils might be of assistance to the inhabitants of a planet in the zone of a red dwarf star. Still thinking about possible type of aliens that might be able to evolve.

This is an artist's rendition of a BEK. They are usually described as asking people for rides or to come in and use the phone, things like that, but their eyes and behavior are so "off" that people find them disturbing. These types of stories remind me very much of the MIBs.

Black_Eyed_Children.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thanks for the link, I will have a closer read now, the eyes catch me as the link, size of Grey has always been considered short in stature, it struck me that in some cases a person might misinterpret a smaller humanoid for a child. I cannot see where such large pupils would advantage humans, if such could ever be confirmed it sounds like an entirely different eye structure, I wondered if the large pupils might be of assistance to the inhabitants of a planet in the zone of a red dwarf star. Still thinking about possible type of aliens that might be able to evolve.

That's assuming that the so-called small humanoids are the product of natural evolutionary processes, and are not somehow artificial or designed, as some people have claimed. I've even heard stories that the dark coverings over their eyes are really protective membranes to shield them from the relative brightness of our sun, sort of like sunglasses, but of course I can't prove that.

Edited by TheMcGuffin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As I can see by your post count that you have had little to do with the conversation, I will accept that you are unaware of the Best Evidence thread in where Lost Shaman and BoonyZarc triangulated the position of the flares and analysed pretty much every photograph that is freely available, and in every case the math said flares. No picture depicts a large triangle, there is absolutely zero evidence for the ET claim, and my problem is that Zoser knows this. He has been pointed at the math on numerous occassions and he simply refuses to accept that it exists. That is not discussion, that is propaganda, and this is a discussion forum. And dont you agree, it is a bit sad when one keeps arguing for something, but refuses to so much as have the gumption to even attempt to counter existing debate? Pretending it does not exist is an inherent sign that the debater knows he is beaten and is trying to pretend that fact does not exist. Should you look up the math, you will see that others who are far more competent than Zoser with regards to ET debate eperience tried to counter the math and could not.

Could you explain the usage of the word "blinded" in your above post"? How is empirical evidence "blinding" anyone? I disagree with that statement completely. Zoser is calling these shows "documentaries" and you are saying people who understand scientific method are blinded???? Really?

Does it bother you that I seek prosaic explanations, do you think everyone should just Ohh and Ahhh over any tales they are told and believe it at face value? I have never had a solid theory for Portgae County, so that blows your statement right out the window. I have no doubt seen more of these cases and studied them deeper than you have. If you put the effort in to find out more about these cases, I have no doubt you are likely to come to the same conclusion I have, and if you have countering information, please present it for debate, that after all is the purpose of this place. If you are just having a whine, put a sock in it. It is not a place to sit around and pat each other on the back grinning and saying how we beat the Government, and we know they are hiding aliens from us. I am interested in developments and personal recollections, most of these old campfire stories I find pretty lacklustre. They have zero substance, but much ghost story potential. If the stories do not stand up to scrutiny, how is that my fault??? Some people get really annoyed when you take their fairytales away! I been watching this subject for 35 years now, you?

Well there you have you answer, give me something tangible! What in your opinion trumps the WOW! signal as far as Alien life and real contact with it goes? What do you think is the best case to date, and can you counter that math presented that proves the Phoenix lights were flares? Math does not lie, but what about Billy Mier or Bob Lazar, or George Adamski.......... it's quite a list you know.

I admire you asking the question rather than beating around the bush, that shows more balls than all these proponents tied together and folded over! (not Q, D and McG understand, I hold those "believers" if that is the right word in the highest regard) whatever your view is, you have my attention. I am hoping to see good debate from you. Not just whining, like we have seen for far too long. If new to the subject, those guys I mentioned would be worth watching for your own perspective. But I suggest you look at both sides and make your own mind up.

First of all thank you for your calm, collected and informative response. Secondly, let me apologise for maybe coming off slightly more aggressive than was intended in the original post. My main question was not really about the Pheonix lights, and you'll be happy to know that I hold the same views as you about old and tired UFO cases. I'm bored of being excited by cases popping up on here only to find they are about 1970's this or 1980's that. I am also more personally interested in more recent sightings. I do not personally wish to argue about the PLs right now as on this specific subject, my knowledge is very limited (however I will be looking into the thread talked about earlier, thank you). Again I merely wanted to question what personal beliefs you held about extra-terrestrials and other things that science may not yet have found/explained. Also I would not like to hijack this thread, however I will post in my opinion the best case that has caught my eye in the time I have been looking into UFOs, and I await your theories on this. May I also ask if you have investigated the Disclosure Project and what you think of them and their testimonies?

This is a link to the case, declassified documents are linked on the page: http://www.cufon.org...strom/malm1.htm

Edited by rcarp89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an artist's rendition of a BEK. They are usually described as asking people for rides or to come in and use the phone, things like that, but their eyes and behavior are so "off" that people find them disturbing. These types of stories remind me very much of the MIBs.

Black_Eyed_Children.jpg

Me too! Just suddenly showing up on a doorstep unannounced, and a seemingly harmless disposition whist an underlying notion of terror tends to fill the witness. This is becoming a pet project, it strikes me that there might be quite a few connections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's assuming that the so-called small humanoids are the product of natural evolutionary processes, and are not somehow artificial or designed, as some people have claimed. I've even heard stories that the dark coverings over their eyes are really protective membranes to shield them from the relative brightness of our sun, sort of like sunglasses, but of course I can't prove that.

Indeed, and one would be reluctant to speculate such as a dozen questions will be immediately forthcoming from all directions, but the protective membranes strikes me as very plausible as an ideal, we have many species right here on earth with the same eye protection, it in fact makes good sense I feel. I know it is not usually the vein of investigation I normally take, but I have always been intrigued by some of the MIB stories. I think that if there is such a thing connected the the phenomena that the indications to date are nefarious in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

First of all thank you for your calm, collected and informative response. Secondly, let me apologise for maybe coming off slightly more aggressive than was intended in the original post. My main question was not really about the Pheonix lights, and you'll be happy to know that I hold the same views as you about old and tired UFO cases. I'm bored of being excited by cases popping up on here only to find they are about 1970's this or 1980's that. I am also more personally interested in more recent sightings. I do not personally wish to argue about the PLs right now as on this specific subject, my knowledge is very limited (however I will be looking into the thread talked about earlier, thank you). Again I merely wanted to question what personal beliefs you held about extra-terrestrials and other things that science may not yet have found/explained. Also I would not like to hijack this thread, however I will post in my opinion the best case that has caught my eye in the time I have been looking into UFOs, and I await your theories on this. May I also ask if you have investigated the Disclosure Project and what you think of them and their testimonies?

This is a link to the case, declassified documents are linked on the page: http://www.cufon.org...strom/malm1.htm

Hi rcap

Thanks for the reply, very prompt and well written. I too hope I did not come of too defensive, it's a bit of a knee jerk reaction in here, I am sure you understand. The main posters to look out for in the BE threads are Lost Shaman, Perycithion and BoonyZarc. These people did a stirling job of triangulating the lights and pretty much have sewn up the case. I feel they did a better job than the so called professional UFOlogists that have attempted to explain the case to date, so I guess I am fiercely proud f UM and it's astute members in this instance. These guys would be better to discuss the PL's with in any case as they actually did the math, which as far as I can see cannot be falsified.

I think most of us accept that intelligent life is highly probable in the Universe. As such, I am sure that some being exist that we could communicate with. Recent sightings are so lackluster compared to the vivid tales of the 50's and 60's that one has to wonder if many of them could have been explained by todays standards. But those niggling instances remain, as I mentioned my bugbear is Portage County, I just cannot convince myself that I have a good prosaic for that one, and although black ops might fit the bill, that just never sat quite right with me on that one. The disclosure project I am rather dubious of, the track record is no the best and I think these guys have something to sell. That is why I tend to side with science, repeatable experimentation is solid, if we can get that, I think we have a case closed. If we are being visited, it strikes me that logically this evidence must exist.

I have read up quite a bit on the Echo/Oscar incidents. Another good thread here tackles that subject, and it took me rather notably that Mr Robert Hastings did not manage to complete a debate here. He did visit UM full of gusto as his Internet posts might suggest, but a few questions from UM Member Leonardo seem to have had him pack his bags. Yet his main opposition James Carlson, stuck around as long as anyone asked a question, and interestingly his father Eric Carlson, one of the actual men involved in the incident, also visited UM and asked why none of the ET proponents never had the gumption to talk to him. Walt Figel his "star witness" changed his tale and Hastings dropped him like a hot potato. (same with Barlow incidentally) Then Tim Herbet, another who has worked on those very systems visited UM and showed us his blog. In it he discusses the wiring configuration, and that alone proves Hastings claims completely impossible to happen as he described them. The physical wiring that the "shutdown" route had to take simply did not exist, so he cannot possibly be correct about the UFO interference. A long list if unsavoury name calling, some outright mistakes, and his fear of Eric Carlson I do believe is a very strong indicator that Mr Hastings and his sidekick Salas are fabricating the event to sound far more grandiose than it actually was, not based on actual record. James Carlson, Erics son, has had quite a presence in here, again doing a search just on his name should offer some interesting, if not somewhat argumentative information. As such, I am sorry to say I find Mr Hastings and his claims rather far fetched. I would suggest Googling Tim Herbets blog for a good balance of the situation but I do not see hw the wiring problem can be circumvented, which is my area of expertise in the outside world, so I understand what Mr Herbert is saying, and I know he is right. Again, a lengthy thread exists here which I suggest you might be interested in reading. Very informative. Also, James Carlson has written a book on the subject which I can vouch is worth downloading, it is free and found here - LINK Also, Tim Herbert's Blog LINK I just expect if Mr Hastings had more to his story that he would not run out of steam so quickly. But all in all, the wiring configuration settles Oscar/Echo for me. It simply could not happen as descried.

Please forgive my lack of manners. Welcome to UM!

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been BEK discussions on UM before, but usually on boards that I don't visit. A lot of people do seem to doubt whether they exist at all and I certainly can't offer up any real proof that they do, only these very creepy stories. There are stories on the Internet, such as the one about two BEKs showing up at a military base late at night and knocking on a Marine's door, asking if they could come in and read. Marines generally don't scare very easily, but he said that his instinctive reaction towards these two was fear. He refused to let them in and they kept knocking at the door for five minutes, and then just disappeared. No one else on the base reported seeing them, not even the guards on duty.

I don't know what to make of stories like these. They don't have nearly as much evidence as many UFO reports that I am familiar with: gun camera footage, radar detection, multiple witnesses, physical traces, planes firing at them, etc. These BEK stories are truly anecdotal in ways that much of the UFO evidence is not.

I agree with Hynek that UFOs can and should be treated as a genuine scientific problem, but unless someone catches a real BEK there's not much to go on.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=226271&hl=%20black%20%20eyed%20%20kids&st=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, and one would be reluctant to speculate such as a dozen questions will be immediately forthcoming from all directions, but the protective membranes strikes me as very plausible as an ideal, we have many species right here on earth with the same eye protection, it in fact makes good sense I feel. I know it is not usually the vein of investigation I normally take, but I have always been intrigued by some of the MIB stories. I think that if there is such a thing connected the the phenomena that the indications to date are nefarious in nature.

Hey psyche,

How do you know it's not just weird kids wearing contacts?

http://www.cosplaylab.com/proshop/immortaleyes.asp

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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.