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 1
Hazzard

Best evidence for ET visitation - 4th edition

375 posts in this topic

Gidday Mate

Hope you do not mind me butting in, you always expose the most interesting of angles.

Gidday Psyche, and of course not, I dont seem to see things the way you do, so its always fascinating to see 'angles' that I would not, which I guess is why it works well.

I think you would be hard pressed to find opposition to the above I think the average skeptic hold Hessdalen as good proof and a shining example that some UFO's that display decidedly unusual behaviour are most definitely very much terrestrial. I am not sure of the reality of UAP are discounted by anyone. At any one point there is millions of reactions going on beneath our feet, with temps and pressures we can only imagine. There is absolutely no doubt that some of these processes offer display that we would consider optically unusual. Many indeed have been catalogued to date already. That list I expect to grow with time.

I agree, but I suppose the burning question for me is did the Government (or relevant organisations within) make the mistake or did they have more information than we have therefore were able to determine that some UFOs were indeed unknown craft.

Indeed, however, rather than an indicator of the validity of the phenomena, to me it more display's the narrow mindset pointed at the phenomena, no doubt preempted by a love and fear of space. This was before we even had a good look at Mars, and Lowells' canali managed to captivate the imagination of the globe. People were quite comfortable with the idea of Martians. IN fact, many simply wondered how we would initiate first contact, and that intelligent species was a given.

As I just mentioend above that would depend on what they based their conclusion on. If it is just on certain visual characteristics then of course the lack of knowledge then may have created this mistaken conclusion, but I dont think its certain that it was based on this and this alone.

And that my friend, is why Orson Wells' radio stunt had such an impact on the nation. Everyone thought the "Martians" had finally come. Social studies I feel help to unlock the enigma of the UFO=Aliens answer that came from the 40's and 50's. Not the Martians themselves.

the hazy fog that engulfs our mind as soon as fear starts to take hold is quite something.

I find that sounds an awful lot like "self validation" when expressed by a believer - in general.

hmmm, not sure if I expressed my point correctly. What I am saying is that if someone says what is solid evidence, then I would need to know what the target is. So if I see something with my own eyes, this is solid enough evidence for me to believe. I cannot know as science is needed to validate what I saw thus eliminating misidentification, hallucination etc etc.

If someone I trust 100% tells me they saw something, this is solid enough evidence for me to have an interest.

For me to know something is true then a different level of solid evidence is needed.

You are a most perplexing poster!

confuse myself at times mate

I cannot fathom how one could avoid this question........ :lol:

:yes:

That is interesting. This means that you have confidence that there is a genuine report out there, that ET has landed, we just need to find the evidence in this haystack of nonsense?

Or that because this is what one would expect, if such a genuine item happened, someone would find it credulous, and copycat the idea, which has caught on?

I meant that if every report is to be believed then it would be reasonable to think some 'solid evidence' may be in amongst the haystack, if however the real events are limited to say 5, then evidence is highly unlikely to be found, at least in the sense of solid evidence that science could study and conclude with certainty.

I would also say if the Government didnt base their 'conclusion' that UFOs were indeed unknown craft on just the visual aspect then yes I would think there is evidence somewhere.

Beings classed by whom is the problem. Father Gill's description goes as far as to state what was seen appears to be a human being. Then the ETH shoehorn comes in and squeezes ET in by saying things like, "He could not see below the waist the legs might have been 20 foot long (yeah right, and a 35 foot craft!) This is the problem with the ETH. Some are to eager to invoke it. Vallee's saucer with propellors and the 1896 airship show this conundrum is not as straightforward as simply invoking a higher power and saying "That'll do"

Looking froward to it.

Cheers.

I have been aware of your point in that thread with regards to this aspect, I guess if say 'Nordics' i.e. human looking aliens are to be believed, how would you a-describe them and b-classify them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been aware of your point in that thread with regards to this aspect, I guess if say 'Nordics' i.e. human looking aliens are to be believed, how would you a-describe them and b-classify them?

Easy.... Beautiful people from Scandinavia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday Psyche, and of course not, I dont seem to see things the way you do, so its always fascinating to see 'angles' that I would not, which I guess is why it works well.

'

Gidday Mate

Cheers, that is very much a 2 way street.

I agree, but I suppose the burning question for me is did the Government (or relevant organisations within) make the mistake or did they have more information than we have therefore were able to determine that some UFOs were indeed unknown craft.

Indeed, there are enough conspiracy ideals out there to make one consider that the Government might be involved in someone, and I cannot blame someone for wanting to look at that angle, as I did myself. However, we have been running around this very bush since 1947. I think it seems rather obvious that if an answer exists in that haystack, that we are going to have to start again, by ourselves. If there really is something, and some amazing group has managed to keep this a secret for so many decades, then I think that more protest will achieve the same result - naught. I think that if we continue to try and prove the Government has, and is hiding cases, that nobody is going to get to that information in any case. It seems a waste of time to try.

As I just mentioend above that would depend on what they based their conclusion on. If it is just on certain visual characteristics then of course the lack of knowledge then may have created this mistaken conclusion, but I dont think its certain that it was based on this and this alone.

Speaking historically, everyone expected Mars to be inhabited and people too be living there. In a time of war, it was just another conflict to people already in a grip of fear. I have no doubt at all that the prevalent mindset is indeed the inspiration for many, if not most of the claims from the day, which is why as time wore on, stories got less spectacular. In such a mindset, many visual aspects could well be seen as objects to fear. Death rained from the skies, this was just higher up. I am not sure if anything is based on anything "alone" I think that people being individual, have varying degrees of credibility or skepticism as a result from upbringing. Surely that is a major factor? Unless something as bizzare as the Pacagoula case happened personally to such a person, it strikes me that their position is likely to be predetermined, at least to an extent. A YEC is less likely to describe a light in the sky as ET, but as an Angel.

the hazy fog that engulfs our mind as soon as fear starts to take hold is quite something.

Indeed! But I would consider it merely a defence mechanism. We do need to respect that which we are not familiar with.

hmmm, not sure if I expressed my point correctly. What I am saying is that if someone says what is solid evidence, then I would need to know what the target is. So if I see something with my own eyes, this is solid enough evidence for me to believe. I cannot know as science is needed to validate what I saw thus eliminating misidentification, hallucination etc etc.

If someone I trust 100% tells me they saw something, this is solid enough evidence for me to have an interest.

For me to know something is true then a different level of solid evidence is needed.

Sorry my bad, and in what you say above I do agree. The problem lies when an open testimony, such as Father Gills is taken, and interpreted by UFOlogists. He said he saw Human Beings, which is not at all remarkable. But because he also said, they were on a craft that hovered, and took off at great speed, we say, this cannot be human. That to me is a massive leap, and not listening to Father Gill. I find it bizarre that someone would promote the case as ET, an then say the Humans were Aliens. the Father just did not know it.

Not one person has had a fair go at trying to solve the real mystery - the performance of the craft. This is where solid evidence turns to liquid.

confuse myself at times mate

:yes:

LOL :D:tu:

It amazes me that you maintain support for the other side when all you have had to work with is 99% woo woo. As I have mentioned to others,. I think there are 2 types of believer. Good ones and bad ones. The Good ones have names like Sagan, Drake, Hawking, and Quillius. The bad ones are not worth mentioning. They feed of the good work. It more pains me that real believers have to carry the credulous.

I meant that if every report is to be believed then it would be reasonable to think some 'solid evidence' may be in amongst the haystack, if however the real events are limited to say 5, then evidence is highly unlikely to be found, at least in the sense of solid evidence that science could study and conclude with certainty.

I would also say if the Government didnt base their 'conclusion' that UFOs were indeed unknown craft on just the visual aspect then yes I would think there is evidence somewhere.

I do wonder what that actual number of what can one can consider solid reports to be? In 3,000+ pages of Best Evidence, only three stories "made the cut" so to speak. Zamora, Teheran and Portage. Father Gill deserves a place in that perplexing three, so it really should be 4. But as you know, I do not consider Father Gill to be ET, but a conundrum like Vallee's flying saucer powered by propellors, and the 1896 airship.

I have been aware of your point in that thread with regards to this aspect, I guess if say 'Nordics' i.e. human looking aliens are to be believed, how would you a-describe them and b-classify them?

Aliens that look very much like human's. Could Father Gill have got this incorrect? Yes. But I do not believe it is being interpreted as ET for the right reasons. There is no reason to think Father Gills "men" were Aliens, but there is reason to question the origin of the vehicle. Methodology demands the two are separated. Nobody is prepared to do that, because it put's the ET aspect in jeopardy.

As soon as we assume that Father Gill was incorrect in a description, we are re-writing the description. That to me is a no-no. We can then bias and influence it in any way we want, hence a reference to time travellers. This illustrates that another answer is more plausible than ET, even if it is not the answer. They explain the situation better than ET, but next thing you know I have people telling me time travel is not possible, Yet one man has actually time traveled. Granted only one 50th of a second into the future, but he actually did it. Therefore, I do not feel it is any more than bias that indicates that time travel is more likely than ET, in fact, using a wormhole for time travel would be easier than building one for space. We could do it now, if we could make the wormhole. All we need is two ends of a wormhole, and a very fast spaceship.

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'

Gidday Mate

Unless something as bizzare as the Pacagoula case happened personally to such a person, it strikes me that their position is likely to be predetermined, at least to an extent. A YEC is less likely to describe a light in the sky as ET, but as an Angel.

sorry, waht's a YEC?

* What, not waht.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy.... Beautiful people from Scandinavia.

so you describe them as - easy

and classify as - beautiful people

:innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'

Gidday Mate

Cheers, that is very much a 2 way street.

:tu:

Indeed, there are enough conspiracy ideals out there to make one consider that the Government might be involved in someone, and I cannot blame someone for wanting to look at that angle, as I did myself. However, we have been running around this very bush since 1947. I think it seems rather obvious that if an answer exists in that haystack, that we are going to have to start again, by ourselves. If there really is something, and some amazing group has managed to keep this a secret for so many decades, then I think that more protest will achieve the same result - naught. I think that if we continue to try and prove the Government has, and is hiding cases, that nobody is going to get to that information in any case. It seems a waste of time to try.

I agree, its usually only by starting again that you find different paths that people before may not have explored.

Speaking historically, everyone expected Mars to be inhabited and people too be living there. In a time of war, it was just another conflict to people already in a grip of fear. I have no doubt at all that the prevalent mindset is indeed the inspiration for many, if not most of the claims from the day, which is why as time wore on, stories got less spectacular. In such a mindset, many visual aspects could well be seen as objects to fear. Death rained from the skies, this was just higher up. I am not sure if anything is based on anything "alone" I think that people being individual, have varying degrees of credibility or skepticism as a result from upbringing. Surely that is a major factor? Unless something as bizzare as the Pacagoula case happened personally to such a person, it strikes me that their position is likely to be predetermined, at least to an extent. A YEC is less likely to describe a light in the sky as ET, but as an Angel.

do we not see what we fear though? If so how do aliens enter our thought process? i.e. during war we are fearful of the enemy (whatever country that may be)....not spacecraft piloted by ET. Although I do see and agree with your point, this example does make me think its not so cut and dry.

Indeed! But I would consider it merely a defence mechanism. We do need to respect that which we are not familiar with.

hmm, does this partly answer the previous question regarding fear, i.e. if we fear the unknown then most of what we create we can fear. The enemy is the 'unknown' rather than the 'enemy country' :unsure2:

Sorry my bad, and in what you say above I do agree. The problem lies when an open testimony, such as Father Gills is taken, and interpreted by UFOlogists. He said he saw Human Beings, which is not at all remarkable. But because he also said, they were on a craft that hovered, and took off at great speed, we say, this cannot be human. That to me is a massive leap, and not listening to Father Gill. I find it bizarre that someone would promote the case as ET, an then say the Humans were Aliens. the Father just did not know it.

Not one person has had a fair go at trying to solve the real mystery - the performance of the craft. This is where solid evidence turns to liquid.

I do see where you are coming from here Psyche. As mentioned on that thread, the glow around the 'beings' is an anomoly, as potentially is the anomoly that he could not see their faces, which begs the question what made him think they were human?

LOL :D:tu:

It amazes me that you maintain support for the other side when all you have had to work with is 99% woo woo. As I have mentioned to others,. I think there are 2 types of believer. Good ones and bad ones. The Good ones have names like Sagan, Drake, Hawking, and Quillius. The bad ones are not worth mentioning. They feed of the good work. It more pains me that real believers have to carry the credulous.

Only in my dreams can I be in the same sentence as those men....but many thanks for the compliment :blush:

I do wonder what that actual number of what can one can consider solid reports to be? In 3,000+ pages of Best Evidence, only three stories "made the cut" so to speak. Zamora, Teheran and Portage. Father Gill deserves a place in that perplexing three, so it really should be 4. But as you know, I do not consider Father Gill to be ET, but a conundrum like Vallee's flying saucer powered by propellors, and the 1896 airship.

3 is not a bad start.....although I ofcourse would throw in Pascagoula plus a couple of others...

Aliens that look very much like human's. Could Father Gill have got this incorrect? Yes. But I do not believe it is being interpreted as ET for the right reasons. There is no reason to think Father Gills "men" were Aliens, but there is reason to question the origin of the vehicle. Methodology demands the two are separated. Nobody is prepared to do that, because it put's the ET aspect in jeopardy.

As soon as we assume that Father Gill was incorrect in a description, we are re-writing the description. That to me is a no-no. We can then bias and influence it in any way we want, hence a reference to time travellers. This illustrates that another answer is more plausible than ET, even if it is not the answer. They explain the situation better than ET, but next thing you know I have people telling me time travel is not possible, Yet one man has actually time traveled. Granted only one 50th of a second into the future, but he actually did it. Therefore, I do not feel it is any more than bias that indicates that time travel is more likely than ET, in fact, using a wormhole for time travel would be easier than building one for space. We could do it now, if we could make the wormhole. All we need is two ends of a wormhole, and a very fast spaceship.

could he have been incorrect? well I guess it depends on how he reached the opinion that they were human....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you describe them as - easy

and classify as - beautiful people

:innocent:

I tend to agree with DB on this,... even the "easy" (girls) part. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with DB on this,... even the "easy" (girls) part. :D

:innocent::tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Abracadabra to Zombies. http://skepdic.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always miss the easy girls parts ! Dang it !

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good link haz. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Pax.

We have a position open now.

You ready to log on more often, and be a skeptic?

You know you want to............ :devil:

But we expect you to be completely serious.

tn_1237648331755.jpg

LOL @ psyche101

I couldn't say 'yes' to that - Not because I have a problem with providing skeptic input (i often do) - I just can't put in the same ammount of time you guys do!

: (

Can someone pm me contact details (I mean just an e-mail address) for boony?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me for a quick cherry pick - I admit I'm not following this thread closely, but some words leapt out at me - I hope Quillius won't mind (he's a good egg!).

do we not see what we fear though?

Indeed we do. As a kid growing up in the 60's, I was into space exploration like you wouldn't believe, and also loved reading cheap novels about all sorts of mysteries, and found tales of UFO's and ET fascinating... but even though I happily accepted that 'any day now' we might get visited, I found the tales of alleged previous visits just slightly not all that believable.. (Although I do remember reading about 'spontaneous combustion' and was rather nervous about that one for a while...)

If so how do aliens enter our thought process?

I'm not sure I understand why you question that.. *Especially* in the late 50's, 60's and seventies, aliens were the in-thing in media of all types. Just go to any secondhand book store and look around at the old stuff. And of course as we moved into the age of technology and space travel we realised that we can get off this planet, so it was only natural that we think others would be doing the same elsewhere so of course, we were curious and excited to find out who our neighbours might be. Back then, the Fermi Paradox and related issues weren't all that well-known or discussed and we just assumed that life would be everywhere.

Plus, there's another, more subtle and more interesting reason it was in our psyche.. (Hi, Psyche..!) and that is ....

i.e. during war we are fearful of the enemy (whatever country that may be)....not spacecraft piloted by ET.

I'm going to disagree here. This is one where I believe you need to stop and really consider the implications (and more importantly the opportunities) for warmongers (of any country). Back in the 40's/50's/60's and 70's.. the following generalisations can be made:

- the populace was not very well-informed, and could be classified as a bit gullible - most people would accept that we could be being visited by aliens (see above)

- good tracking systems (radar, visible, IR etc) did not exist or were not common

- ET, if they existed, would be (and were) regarded as a common threat/enemy to any country

- the existence of any threats, be they real or not, meant:

- more funding

- more demand (ie beyond that which is justifiable) for research (better weapons and aircraft) including 'exotic' research (eg flying platforms, anti-gravity, etc)

- an easy excuse for using aircraft to their design limits and beyond (I wuz chasin an unknown craft!!)

- an easy excuse for firing weapons in peacetime (I wuz chasin an unknown craft and it came right at me!!)

- more need for extra staff, extra aircraft, extra armaments

and I think it's fair to say that as a whole, the military forces were nowhere near as well scrutinised as they now are - those making the decisions could pretty much make it up as they went along.

So, can you follow the breadcrumbs? :)

The generals would be motivated to have ufo=alienz as a threat. So would the armament companies. So would the pilots, so would the radar operators ('yeah, that trace is probably pretty close to lining up with what the pilot claimed (- good ole Chuck, we go way back -) so yeah, there was definitely sumpin there - probly was an alien!') and so on all the way up and down the chain and then onto newspaper editors, novelists, filmmakers... And because the technology and intense scrutiny wasn't there to disprove that they were chased by aliens, then it was a win-win for everyone.

Compare that to now - many things have changed in that equation... And you can't ask for a better example of why it doesn't happen now than the recent Mexican Air Force 'Cantarell Oil Wells' debacle! Was that a deliberate attempt to drum up ufology? I doubt it - probably just simple incompetence. But *that* in my opinion is why the reports have dwindled away over the last few decades - we know better and it isn't anywhere near so easy to use alienz as a perceived threat.. That's why so few reports exist recently, compared to the many military reports that were being drummed/hyped up during that time.

So back in those good ole days all this stuff led to the popular belief that the military knew thingz that the populace didn't. And in turn it added to the general hysteria and multiple hangers on and scammers that jumped on the UFO bandwagon..

A vicious circle of UFOLOGY..? IMO, yes, it was.

Anyway, I apologise for delurking on this topic just for that little diversion. Maybe I should get off my backside and start a thread on this as I have promised in the past...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I apologise for delurking on this topic just for that little diversion. Maybe I should get off my backside and start a thread on this as I have promised in the past...

Morning Chrlzs,

I cannot respond in detail now as I am off to meetings all day. I would however suggest you start that thread you threatened as there is plenty of discussion to be had on this angle IMO.

As you are probably aware I have for a long time stressed that I am quite sure that the Government/Military/special division of ... at very least believed ET was responsible for some UFOs. It very much sounds like you agree with this although I guess you would stick to 'they thought/believed' as opposed to 'knew' but hey Rome wasnt built in a day.....I will have you pushing the ETH byu the end of it :)

(just kidding, I am no miracle worker)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning Chrlzs,

I cannot respond in detail now as I am off to meetings all day. I would however suggest you start that thread you threatened as there is plenty of discussion to be had on this angle IMO.

As you are probably aware I have for a long time stressed that I am quite sure that the Government/Military/special division of ... at very least believed ET was responsible for some UFOs. It very much sounds like you agree with this although I guess you would stick to 'they thought/believed' as opposed to 'knew' but hey Rome wasnt built in a day.....I will have you pushing the ETH byu the end of it :)

(just kidding, I am no miracle worker)

{No problem, I'm a patient lad and I don't think this issue is going anywhere in a hurry! Hope the meetings are/were worthwhile. I'm disappearing now too, to retire to bed and rest my aching back. Ouch. Don't ask :D}

Yes, I do agree with you except that I don't think many, indeed most, of those pushing the ET/UFO angle necessarily believed it at all (and I include those at the very highest decision-making levels) - they just went along with it because it suited their needs perfectly! And there was essentially no risk of being caught in a lie! They weren't lying - the reports *could* have been aliens! There was essentially no technology that existed that could prove it either way at the time, and if such technology came to exist later (as it has in some respects, like the airborne radar and visual systems that 'brought down' the Mexican Air Force, so to speak..), then they could simply say - "well they've gone away now - at the time we were working with the best information we had.." and carry on regardless.

I think the UFO=alienz line was pretty much the perfect conspiracy for the 50's thru 70's - it couldn't be disproved (or proven!) then, and as a fleeting airborne phenomena its existence was quite commonplace (of course there are lots of unidentified lights in the skies..) but being fleeting meant it was not available for later re-examination, ie we can't retrospectively use higher resolution photography, better radar equipment and so on. So it was - and remains - undisputable (in the exact dictionary sense).

It could not have been better for the warmongers.. and everyone else who jumped aboard the bandwagon.

Edited by Chrlzs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The backfire effect is pretty interesting.

The "backfire effect" is a term coined by

Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler to describe how some individuals when confronted with evidence that conflicts with their beliefs come to hold their original position even more strongly:

http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:tu:

Gidday Mate

I agree, its usually only by starting again that you find different paths that people before may not have explored.

Exactly, as well as technology and information is superior to what people had to work with in the past.

do we not see what we fear though? If so how do aliens enter our thought process? i.e. during war we are fearful of the enemy (whatever country that may be)....not spacecraft piloted by ET. Although I do see and agree with your point, this example does make me think its not so cut and dry.

hmm, does this partly answer the previous question regarding fear, i.e. if we fear the unknown then most of what we create we can fear. The enemy is the 'unknown' rather than the 'enemy country' :unsure2:

Well I guess my nick comes into play. Chrlz also has good points, in addition to those the human psyche does have a common "spectre" image we fear naturally, the bad man in the dark. As kids this is recognised as the boogeyman. As we get older, we rationalise this fear, sometimes as Bigfoot (often unwarranted fear is mentioned) sometimes as alien.

You make a good point though, and I have to agree with both you and Chrilz here, we did have a mindset that we thought Aliens could land any day. We were more gullible, we did believe the stories about Martian Canali. But you are right to, we still do not have weapons pointed at space wary of ET, they are all pointed back at earth - at each other, where the real threat, and concern lies.

I do see where you are coming from here Psyche. As mentioned on that thread, the glow around the 'beings' is an anomoly, as potentially is the anomoly that he could not see their faces, which begs the question what made him think they were human?

I would guess shape and the waving, suggesting familiarity. That he mentions "Human" and "Human Being" several times I feel is significant. He seemed quite sure, and that is all we have to work with.

Only in my dreams can I be in the same sentence as those men....but many thanks for the compliment :blush:

Everyone starts some place, and that is by asking questions. Even these men had to learn. To be able to not fall into the bottomless pit of woo woo is an accomplishment that I think puts you on this path. Objectivity in a proponent is rare, and IMHO, valuable.

3 is not a bad start.....although I ofcourse would throw in Pascagoula plus a couple of others...

Indeed, but these are ones I think everyone agrees on. ET even hits the table as a possible in these cases for near everyone. Personally Teheran I find sounds like Plasma, but it is most definitely a majority case.

Pascagoula really hits home for your doesn't it? Is there any one aspect that in particular you find convincing, or just the entire account as a whole?

could he have been incorrect? well I guess it depends on how he reached the opinion that they were human....

Indeed, but if we are to assume he is salt of the earth and would not embellish, then I feel we have no choice but to take his words for their very descriptions. I find the recollection very vanilla, and therefore more valuable than the average interpreted recollection. Is this not second guessing Father Gill?

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The backfire effect is pretty interesting.

The "backfire effect" is a term coined by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler to describe how some individuals when confronted with evidence that conflicts with their beliefs come to hold their original position even more strongly:

http://www.skepdic.c...fireeffect.html

We have definitely seen that in here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL @ psyche101

I couldn't say 'yes' to that - Not because I have a problem with providing skeptic input (i often do) - I just can't put in the same ammount of time you guys do!

: (

Can someone pm me contact details (I mean just an e-mail address) for boony?

Well, the spot is always open for you mate ;) I'll do what I can with Boon, have you tried PM? He might be monitoring that still?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the spot is always open for you mate ;) I'll do what I can with Boon, have you tried PM? He might be monitoring that still?

Tried that, he has no account on UM anymore :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

{No problem, I'm a patient lad and I don't think this issue is going anywhere in a hurry! Hope the meetings are/were worthwhile. I'm disappearing now too, to retire to bed and rest my aching back. Ouch. Don't ask :D}

Yes, I do agree with you except that I don't think many, indeed most, of those pushing the ET/UFO angle necessarily believed it at all (and I include those at the very highest decision-making levels) - they just went along with it because it suited their needs perfectly! And there was essentially no risk of being caught in a lie! They weren't lying - the reports *could* have been aliens! There was essentially no technology that existed that could prove it either way at the time, and if such technology came to exist later (as it has in some respects, like the airborne radar and visual systems that 'brought down' the Mexican Air Force, so to speak..), then they could simply say - "well they've gone away now - at the time we were working with the best information we had.." and carry on regardless.

I think the UFO=alienz line was pretty much the perfect conspiracy for the 50's thru 70's - it couldn't be disproved (or proven!) then, and as a fleeting airborne phenomena its existence was quite commonplace (of course there are lots of unidentified lights in the skies..) but being fleeting meant it was not available for later re-examination, ie we can't retrospectively use higher resolution photography, better radar equipment and so on. So it was - and remains - undisputable (in the exact dictionary sense).

It could not have been better for the warmongers.. and everyone else who jumped aboard the bandwagon.

Hey Chrlzs,

I definately think it would be a good thread if you find the time. I have looked at a detailed response but feel it should be on its own thread as there could well be a lot of going back and forth.

I have bolded a part fo your post which is really what needs to be established.

You say you dont think many believed, I guess this is a starting point. I am not convinced that it is all just 'belief' anyway, although I guess a counter to this could well be if that many people 'knew' then the secret would be hard to keep, and if only a few knew then this kind of supports your theory that the rest had other agends and didnt really believe/know but pushed it for other gain as you highlighted in previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gidday Mate

Exactly, as well as technology and information is superior to what people had to work with in the past.

agreed.

Well I guess my nick comes into play. Chrlz also has good points, in addition to those the human psyche does have a common "spectre" image we fear naturally, the bad man in the dark. As kids this is recognised as the boogeyman. As we get older, we rationalise this fear, sometimes as Bigfoot (often unwarranted fear is mentioned) sometimes as alien.

hmmm.....fear in God? (this may take us nicely into your pondering about Et/God)...and mine

You make a good point though, and I have to agree with both you and Chrilz here, we did have a mindset that we thought Aliens could land any day. We were more gullible, we did believe the stories about Martian Canali. But you are right to, we still do not have weapons pointed at space wary of ET, they are all pointed back at earth - at each other, where the real threat, and concern lies.

yes good point. With the bolded though, have we ever? (more pondering lol for me)

I would guess shape and the waving, suggesting familiarity. That he mentions "Human" and "Human Being" several times I feel is significant. He seemed quite sure, and that is all we have to work with.

ok yes, will cover this on the other thread.

Everyone starts some place, and that is by asking questions. Even these men had to learn. To be able to not fall into the bottomless pit of woo woo is an accomplishment that I think puts you on this path. Objectivity in a proponent is rare, and IMHO, valuable.

:tu:

Indeed, but these are ones I think everyone agrees on. ET even hits the table as a possible in these cases for near everyone. Personally Teheran I find sounds like Plasma, but it is most definitely a majority case.

I did briefly look into Tehran recently, but luckily for me Dbunker bottled it :gun: (emoticon used to emphasise fight talk DB :-* )

Pascagoula really hits home for your doesn't it? Is there any one aspect that in particular you find convincing, or just the entire account as a whole?

to be honest mate, yes it really does, I have listened to the interviews and their continued discussion many many times and I have no doubt they had the experience they describe (sorry I mean they believe they had)...I see the only way to explain this in any other way is by plasma enduced hallucination, with a little bit of false memory added during their conversations in the two hours prior to reporting it...this is needed to explain the similarities in descriptions etc....I still spend an hour or two a week looking into this....but nothing exciting to add...yet

Indeed, but if we are to assume he is salt of the earth and would not embellish, then I feel we have no choice but to take his words for their very descriptions. I find the recollection very vanilla, and therefore more valuable than the average interpreted recollection. Is this not second guessing Father Gill?

again if ok with we can cover some of this on other thread.....my brain is on overload at the moment and can just about remember my name :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did briefly look into Tehran recently, but luckily for me Dbunker bottled it :gun: (emoticon used to emphasise fight talk DB :-* )

What? :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far theres no best evidence for E.T ! But Thank you Hazzard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? :unsure2:

I was just teasing

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.