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 4
Scudbuster

Edgar Mitchell says a lot.......

249 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

You can't do or say anything with Greer unless you sign your content over to him and sign a non-disclosure agreement. I was involved with his organization back in the days of the disclosure project and was getting ready to go on one of his expeditions.

Part of the paperwork included signing a non-disclosure agreement!

I said what?? Everything you say/do is geared toward full disclosure.

Snake oil salesman and nothing else.

Wow, really! Thanks for sharing that, first hand accounts carry quite some weight. I cannot say it shocks me, but it's good to show that these charlatans really do not practise that which they preach, even with those paying for the privilege.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

true.... but these dudes on here, the ones with the biggest mouths........ unless NASA "told them" they don't believe squat. Or even give new theories any sort of credibility... because The "GOVT DIDNT TELL THEM ITS RIGHT". Thats the sort of mentality we are dealing with here unfortunately.

Seeming as we all type, you would mean the strongest fingers wouldn't you? But no, if you have a look for a thread about the Apollo 11 so called "UFO" you will see many challenging the notions put forth by NASA with regards to that particular explanation Personally, I contacted Dr David Morrison the senior astrobiologist at NASA and put forth our argument that challenges the explanation of SLA panels. So that is hard roof that you are wrong. And found right here at UM. As far as the Government goes, you ETH'ers are as clueless as one can get. You lot do not seem to notice that the Government cannot even hide the stain on a dress let alone a flying saucer, nor do you ETH'ers acknowledge the very fact that our government's not only hate each other for the larger part, but such results in zero co-operation, yet all have the technology to know if one or the other is receiving interstellar traffic, and they are not going to keep enemy secrets. Also, nothing has even once been tracked as leaving or entering the solar system, despite you lot spouting RADAR as some sort of evidence, but stop short on spacecraft actually travelling through space. It's a joke, and you wonder why the credulous are regarded as having a permanent tin foil hat??

Really?

But that's the mentality one must endure here I suppose.

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Also, nothing has even once been tracked as leaving or entering the solar system, despite you lot spouting RADAR as some sort of evidence, but stop short on spacecraft actually travelling through space. It's a joke, and you wonder why the credulous are regarded as having a permanent tin foil hat??

I should point out that even USAF radar is not good much beyond the moon's orbit and we rely on our conventional telescopes for most observations (although WISE is adding considerably to our asteroid catalogue). Anything smaller than a hundred metres across that doesn't cross the Earth's orbit is pretty much not going to be spotted, even if it's just sitting there like a potato not trying to hide. Also, celestial objects are only considered objects if an orbit can be calculated. A rapidly accelerating spacecraft simply wouldn't be spotted because no-one is actually looking for these things. The standard comparison software used to pick up asteroids will only examine a given patch of sky otherwise it will try to tie zillions of other movement "hits" together to try and plot orbital elements. To calculate orbital elements with certainty, you need at least ten images of the *same* object (although you can statistically approximate with fewer but uncertainty goes up and Google tells me you can even do a SWAG with two).

An "asteroid" with a very *low* acceleration would be fairly easy to spot if it was settling into an Earth-crossing orbit, because we would catch the images more or less in sequence with it appearing more or less where we would expect it to go. An asteroid of extrasolar origin would enter and exit the Earth's gravity at a very high clip (up to 70 km/s). A lot of actual tracked meteorites have hyperbolic trajectories, but there's no way of knowing whether that's due to observation error or whether they arrived on a genuinely extrasolar trajectory. The probability of extrasolar origin is thought to increase as particles get smaller. Unfortunately, most genuine examples would probably have been incinerated due to high entry velocities and their small size. I'd say the odds of us ever seeing a large asteroid arrive from interstellar space are simply billions to one against.

Edited by Captain Zim
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I should point out that even USAF radar is not good much beyond the moon's orbit and we rely on our conventional telescopes for most observations (although WISE is adding considerably to our asteroid catalogue). Anything smaller than a hundred metres across that doesn't cross the Earth's orbit is pretty much not going to be spotted, even if it's just sitting there like a potato not trying to hide. Also, celestial objects are only considered objects if an orbit can be calculated. A rapidly accelerating spacecraft simply wouldn't be spotted because no-one is actually looking for these things. The standard comparison software used to pick up asteroids will only examine a given patch of sky otherwise it will try to tie zillions of other movement "hits" together to try and plot orbital elements. To calculate orbital elements with certainty, you need at least ten images of the *same* object (although you can statistically approximate with fewer but uncertainty goes up and Google tells me you can even do a SWAG with two).

An "asteroid" with a very *low* acceleration would be fairly easy to spot if it was settling into an Earth-crossing orbit, because we would catch the images more or less in sequence with it appearing more or less where we would expect it to go. An asteroid of extrasolar origin would enter and exit the Earth's gravity at a very high clip (up to 70 km/s). A lot of actual tracked meteorites have hyperbolic trajectories, but there's no way of knowing whether that's due to observation error or whether they arrived on a genuinely extrasolar trajectory. The probability of extrasolar origin is thought to increase as particles get smaller. Unfortunately, most genuine examples would probably have been incinerated due to high entry velocities and their small size. I'd say the odds of us ever seeing a large asteroid arrive from interstellar space are simply billions to one against.

I agree that USAF RADAR is not for space based activity, but not one vehicle has ever been recorded by RADAR as having a trajectory of heading into space, or coming from space. None of them. Not even the NEO program has seen anything, but could watch from something leaving out space, and moving on. I would beg to differ with regards to being seen as well, Earthsat alone is well covering the planet from up down, not to mention thousands of independent systems from private enterprise as well as earth observing systems like Aqua, Aura or Grace. Then we have a multitude of Astronomy clubs, some with ambitious projects like SLOOH, and the last 2 Jupiter strikes were discovered by an Amateur not the big players, Anthony Wesley contacted NASA to inform them, with spectral analysis of the meteor belt, missions to mars, the space station just hanging there zipping around the earth, I find it very hard to believe that anything with a power signature is likely to slip past us. I also find the amateur astronomy contingent is vastly underestimated, and the most likely source that would spot something unusual, we have literally thousands of telescopes pointed up all the time, and all looking for something they have not seen before, and well networked across the globe. I think it would be darn near impossible to not be spotted I feel. Most of our equipment in space is pointing back at earth for the real threat, and not one UFO to date has ever been recorded by such equipment with an actual space-bound trajectory.

Yes, I agree, as far as I know, nobody has determined a comet or meteor to have an Interstellar trajectory, the closest we know of would be voyager probes, although the the CO3 chondrite ALHA77307 might pose some interesting questions yet. Still, I think it would be a neat idea to attach a camera to everything in a wide orbit that passes us. :D

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I agree that USAF RADAR is not for space based activity, but not one vehicle has ever been recorded by RADAR as having a trajectory of heading into space, or coming from space. None of them. Not even the NEO program has seen anything, but could watch from something leaving out space, and moving on. I would beg to differ with regards to being seen as well, Earthsat alone is well covering the planet from up down, not to mention thousands of independent systems from private enterprise as well as earth observing systems like Aqua, Aura or Grace. Then we have a multitude of Astronomy clubs, some with ambitious projects like SLOOH, and the last 2 Jupiter strikes were discovered by an Amateur not the big players, Anthony Wesley contacted NASA to inform them, with spectral analysis of the meteor belt, missions to mars, the space station just hanging there zipping around the earth, I find it very hard to believe that anything with a power signature is likely to slip past us. I also find the amateur astronomy contingent is vastly underestimated, and the most likely source that would spot something unusual, we have literally thousands of telescopes pointed up all the time, and all looking for something they have not seen before, and well networked across the globe. I think it would be darn near impossible to not be spotted I feel. Most of our equipment in space is pointing back at earth for the real threat, and not one UFO to date has ever been recorded by such equipment with an actual space-bound trajectory.

Yes, I agree, as far as I know, nobody has determined a comet or meteor to have an Interstellar trajectory, the closest we know of would be voyager probes, although the the CO3 chondrite ALHA77307 might pose some interesting questions yet. Still, I think it would be a neat idea to attach a camera to everything in a wide orbit that passes us. :D

It's a pity Landsat resolution is so low and the failed Scan Line Connector on Landsat 7 has trashed half of each image. Unfortunately, earth observing satellites only make an overpass every couple of weeks so it's like taking a photo of your backyard every two weeks and hoping to catch a mime there. If I actually went and wrote a script to identify (say) circular objects that don't appear in subsequent frames and had say millions of dollars worth of GeoEye data to sift through, I would probably wind up with millions of hits of anomalously shaped clouds, circus tents, hot air balloons, bolides and suspicious mimes. Meanwhile, I still wouldn't be able to catch a daytime UFO which probably wouldn't look like the spectral signature or shape of what I imagined it would. Then I would wound up with a blurry picture of a UFO to post on Unexplained Mysteries and people would be going "see!? the alienz are here! my spirit fairy guide told me so! abduct me!" and all the skeptics pointing out that it is just a blurry photograph of a UFO which proves nothing.

Seriously, you'd be better off using remote sensing to look for instances of ball lightning.

All of this assumes the aliens are morons who can hide from tourist cameras but not realise that we have satellites on predictable orbital paths. Our level of remote sensing capability gives us just a hint of what any prospective alien visitors could muster up. With a modest level of computing power and reasonably sized telescopes or some equivalent like phased arrays, they could monitor the movements of every single person and piece of equipment on Earth - most notably Earth-based telescopes and cameras.

The problem with actually discovering and studying UFOs is that our imagination and knowledge base is simply not up to the problem. We don't know enough to actually narrow down our search to usable parameters. We only know what UFOs are not, and our attempts to classify them as alien spacecraft (e.g. STL with a fusion-based drive) inevitably leads us to our own prejudices with our technology.

Edited by Captain Zim
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's a pity Landsat resolution is so low and the failed Scan Line Connector on Landsat 7 has trashed half of each image. Unfortunately, earth observing satellites only make an overpass every couple of weeks so it's like taking a photo of your backyard every two weeks and hoping to catch a mime there. If I actually went and wrote a script to identify (say) circular objects that don't appear in subsequent frames and had say millions of dollars worth of GeoEye data to sift through, I would probably wind up with millions of hits of anomalously shaped clouds, circus tents, hot air balloons, bolides and suspicious mimes. Meanwhile, I still wouldn't be able to catch a daytime UFO which probably wouldn't look like the spectral signature or shape of what I imagined it would. Then I would wound up with a blurry picture of a UFO to post on Unexplained Mysteries and people would be going "see!? the alienz are here! my spirit fairy guide told me so! abduct me!" and all the skeptics pointing out that it is just a blurry photograph of a UFO which proves nothing.

Seriously, you'd be better off using remote sensing to look for instances of ball lightning.

All of this assumes the aliens are morons who can hide from tourist cameras but not realise that we have satellites on predictable orbital paths. Our level of remote sensing capability gives us just a hint of what any prospective alien visitors could muster up. With a modest level of computing power and reasonably sized telescopes or some equivalent like phased arrays, they could monitor the movements of every single person and piece of equipment on Earth - most notably Earth-based telescopes and cameras.

The problem with actually discovering and studying UFOs is that our imagination and knowledge base is simply not up to the problem. We don't know enough to actually narrow down our search to usable parameters. We only know what UFOs are not, and our attempts to classify them as alien spacecraft (e.g. STL with a fusion-based drive) inevitably leads us to our own prejudices with our technology.

Gidday Mate

However, Landsat is one of many, it might not be capable alone, however, in addition to the eight landsat missions, we have another 10 or so similar programs, private enterprise has double that or more, NORAD, Polar Satellites and GOES programs. I do not think an Alien would be a moron to not know these are there, after all, they, like us, are seeking the unknown. I canot buy into the uber brilliant advanced species, they cannot all be like that. We have had the capabilities to reach the stars fro a long time, we just did not take that leap, another species is likely to considering the statistics for life. And again, the amateur community is what I feel the best bet would be, yet this is the most silent of communities where this subject is concerned, some astronomers have reported UFO's, I realise that, but again, considering the numbers involved, this is an insignificant contribution which like the rest of the phenomena from descriptions to photographs, is very fuzzy. Each individual works on the spur of the moment, I myself scan the heavens, which I do not see as predictable. Radio telescopes are impervious to light refraction, we just monitor too much for things to be slipping past us on a regular basis. Especially with the breaches of such purported stealth are a regular item, but only within the atmosphere, never outside of it, or heading towards it.

Rather than a clear picture from a satellite, anything showing a space-bound trajectory, incoming or outgoing would be something to add, but no such thing exists, not by any trackable means, yet within the atmosphere, these things seem to breach RADAR. That seems to not make sense to me. If they are advanced enough to know the location of every person on earth, then the tales of crashes and RADAR tracks seem extremely unlikely to be connected to the ETH at all.

Whilst I agree that our knowledge might not be up to the task, I fear our imagination surpasses it. I have little doubt that the UFO phenomena, and in particular the ETH is very much over-thought. The phenomena no doubt has many answers, I think we need to look beneath out feet before we decide these occurrences are caused by unknown forces from the heavens. We know that some things that used to be considered UFO's are these days IFO's (sprites, plasmas, earthlights), and there are still many to learn more about, I agree, but I do not see a reason to reach further than out own world at this point i time, the evidence is simply not compelling enough to invoke ET.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that USAF RADAR is not for space based activity, but not one vehicle has ever been recorded by RADAR as having a trajectory of heading into space, or coming from space. None of them. Not even the NEO program has seen anything, but could watch from something leaving out space, and moving on. ....

The NEO program doesn't even USE radar for searches, it uses telescope cameras -- and last summer they spotted an unknown small [several meters across] object leaving Earth headed for interplanetary space. So your flat assertion may not be entirely accurate.

PS They DID finally figure out whose it was.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NEO program doesn't even USE radar for searches, it uses telescope cameras -- and last summer they spotted an unknown small [several meters across] object leaving Earth headed for interplanetary space. So your flat assertion may not be entirely accurate.

PS They DID finally figure out whose it was.

Well, we are waiting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The NEO program doesn't even USE radar for searches, it uses telescope cameras -- and last summer they spotted an unknown small [several meters across] object leaving Earth headed for interplanetary space. So your flat assertion may not be entirely accurate.

Quite right, the confusion is in my description, I believe it could take over from RADAR when RADAR reaches it's boundaries. Then we could get a trajectory from the surface of the earth to an Interplanetary destination using multiple sources that would confirm each other, which I would find rather intriguing. RADAR seems to be heralded as being able to see these things, so it would seem a good tool for initial detection.

PS They DID finally figure out whose it was.

So it ended up being an IFO? Could I press you for more information please Jim.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it ended up being an IFO? Could I press you for more information please Jim.

The most ultimate Frisbee ever!! :clap:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For many reasons we need to use every tool available to monitor what's up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The NEO program doesn't even USE radar for searches, it uses telescope cameras -- and last summer they spotted an unknown small [several meters across] object leaving Earth headed for interplanetary space. So your flat assertion may not be entirely accurate.

PS They DID finally figure out whose it was.

I thought I'd mention that astronomers do use radar when asteroids make a close pass for fine orbital element determination.

Edited by Captain Zim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I'd mention that astronomers do use radar when asteroids make a close pass for fine orbital element determination.

And amateur astronomers also perform star occultation surveys to see stars wink out when the asteroid passes in front of it -- and winking even when the asteroid 'missed' the stars was the first evidence for invisible narby objects, asteroid satellites, later confirmed on fly-by missions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll have a whole slew of debunker explanation concerning astronauts because it's egg on the face for the on going cover-up but I do believe these astronauts have encountered these objects. Of course, NASA is very aware and involved.

Logically it makes sense that if ET craft are penetrating our airspace they would be observed by both pilots and astronauts in space.

Gordon Cooper's story about pursuing a disc reflects UFO shoot down and jets scrambling after these objects type testimony.

RAF controllers told US pilot Milton Torres to “lock on” and launch all

24

of his rockets over the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll have a whole slew of debunker explanation concerning astronauts because it's egg on the face for the on going cover-up but I do believe these astronauts have encountered these objects. Of course, NASA is very aware and involved.

You don't have to rely on my investigation alone. Why don't you believe James McDonald's detailed report re Edwards 1957.

No landing. No Gordon Cooper. No diisappearance of photos.

How reality-repellant is your intellect on this?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You don't have to rely on my investigation alone. Why don't you believe James McDonald's detailed report re Edwards 1957.

No landing. No Gordon Cooper. No diisappearance of photos.

How reality-repellant is your intellect on this?

Where NASA messed up is those test pilots turned astronauts live on adrenaline. Problem is there is a long list of UFO landings, UFO Landing feet cases, scambling after UFOs. I do not believe astronauts would be talking about UFOs, details that others report, if there was nothing to it. It's more likely the astronauts are brave enough to go against the monster of a sad system we live in. Astronauts who are brave enough to talk about the truth are still the hero's.

Edited by topsecretresearch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Where NASA messed up is those test pilots turned astronauts live on adrenaline. Covering up UFOs by defense/war mongering people or pulling the wool over people's eyes like an American citizen is small fry would be considered a challenge.

Problem is there is a long list of UFO landings UFO Landing fee cases. I do not believe astronauts would be talking about UFOs, details that others report, if there was nothing to it. It's more likely the astronauts are brave enough to go against the screwed up system we live in.

I'm sorry but I can't figure out what you are trying to say.

Please address my direct question:

You don't have to rely on my investigation alone. Why don't you believe James McDonald's detailed report re Edwards 1957? You do know who James McDonald was, don't you?

No landing. No Gordon Cooper. No disappearance of photos. Nothing like the story later attributed to Cooper himself.

Edited by JimOberg
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lee Speigel of The Huffington Post was talking about Gordon Cooper on C2C AM several days ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I'm sorry but I can't figure out what you are trying to say.

Please address my direct question:

You don't have to rely on my investigation alone. Why don't you believe James McDonald's detailed report re Edwards 1957? You do know who James McDonald was, don't you?

No landing. No Gordon Cooper. No disappearance of photos. Nothing like the story later attributed to Cooper himself.

I vaguely recall the debunker explanation you are referring to. Problem is from reading many UFO landing cases where landing feet are also described, the Edwards landing story seems very plausible.

If Gordon Cooper wasn't really there then he either heard something or saw the footage and was hushed up. I don't not believe Gordon Cooper is lying about UFOs. Why would astronauts go out on a limb like that? It's more like a reaction to something real and that is being covered-up. Gordon Cooper know's he's making people mad by talking. Like I said, these old astronauts live on adrenaline. Trying to hush them up or attack them will only make the Gordon Cooper's mad.

Information about UFO landings from Ted Phillips.

The objects fall into three general groups:

1. Small Hemispherical/Spherical Objects, from 4 feet to 12 feet in diameter, 4 ft to 5f ft thick, glowing brightly

at night & showing a metallic surface in daylight.

They rarely touch the ground but remain stationary 1 feet to 5 feet above ground surface.

External details, such as “vents” or “extensions” are often reported on the base of such objects.

They are reported as silent, whistling, humming, or rumbling.

These objects generally leave behind 4 feet to 12 feet circular areas which are depressed, burnt or dehydrated.

Considerable tree damage is usually found in the immediate area.

Animal & human reaction is often reported.

2. Egg-Shaped Objects, 16 to 20 feet in length with visible landing legs, generally four, on occasion six.

Generally silent, humming or whistling sounds.

These make ground contact, leaving burnt areas & imprints, some tree damage.

Small beings are often reported.

3. Typical Flying Saucer, 30 feet to 40 feet in diameter, three landing legs, touch the ground & leave burnt or depressed areas with an irregular configuration.

Landing imprints are found, in some cases considerable external features are seen on the objects.

Small beings reported.

Source: Ted Phillips (CUFOS) http://www.angelfire...o/cptr/dir.html

All of Gordon Cooper's UFO testmony fits what others have reported.

Edited by topsecretresearch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to rely on my investigation alone. Why don't you believe James McDonald's detailed report re Edwards 1957? You do know who James McDonald was, don't you?

No landing. No Gordon Cooper. No disappearance of photos. Nothing like the story later attributed to Cooper himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to rely on my investigation alone. Why don't you believe James McDonald's detailed report re Edwards 1957? You do know who James McDonald was, don't you?

No landing. No Gordon Cooper. No disappearance of photos. Nothing like the story later attributed to Cooper himself.

Jim - here's another military individual - Gen. Nathan Twining - with specific comments - now you can't overtly reject this now can you?

Lt. Gen. Nathan F. Twining, then-head of Air Material Command's intelligence and engineering divisions at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (then Wright Field), compiled and analyzed the data. Twining's memorandum to Schulgen, dated 23 September 1947, stated, in part:[8]

  • The phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious.
  • There are objects probably approximately the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as a man-made aircraft.
  • There is the possibility that some of the incidents may be caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.
  • The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and action which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely.
  • It is possible within the present U.S. knowledge... to construct a piloted aircraft which has the general description ...
  • Any development in this country along the lines indicated would be extremely expensive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't Oberg also claim one of the Disclosre Project witnesses that worked for NASA (Johnson Space Center) was being teased by co-workers so that's why she made up a story about alien cover-up? Thinks how silly that is. If there was nothing to UFOs or aliens how are you really getting even with NASA? :w00t:

A lot of the stink over astronauts is just damage control PR type stuff IMO.

I recall there was one stupid debunker explanation like Cooper was invloved in a bad investment scheme or business dealing with someone and that's why he had to make up stories. It just goes on and on with these people who need to make a huge fuss over something that they claim isn't real. Then why bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim - here's another military individual - Gen. Nathan Twining - with specific comments - now you can't overtly reject this now can you?

Lt. Gen. Nathan F. Twining, then-head of Air Material Command's intelligence and engineering divisions at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (then Wright Field), compiled and analyzed the data. Twining's memorandum to Schulgen, dated 23 September 1947, stated, in part:[8]

  • The phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious.
  • There are objects probably approximately the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as a man-made aircraft.
  • There is the possibility that some of the incidents may be caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.
  • The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and action which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically or remotely.
  • It is possible within the present U.S. knowledge... to construct a piloted aircraft which has the general description ...
  • Any development in this country along the lines indicated would be extremely expensive...

What Twining stated in said memo is still pertinent, but says nothing about ET. It merely outlines that people have seen something in the sky, which is obvious. As is also stated:

(2) The lack of physical evidence in the shape of crash recovered exhibits which would undeniably prove the existence of these subjects.

It's a fact that people see things in the sky, but that is all that we have and that is not going to cut it.

Cheers,

Badeskov

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a fact that people see things in the sky, but that is all that we have and that is not going to cut it.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Right - but given the current state of affairs - secrecy, denial, feigned indifference, etc , this is all we have to go on - testimony from military & NASA folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right - but given the current state of affairs - secrecy, denial, feigned indifference, etc , this is all we have to go on - testimony from military & NASA folks.

That is indeed all that we have, for sure. But if we were really visited, it is my personal opinion that we would have more than that.

Cheers,

Badeskov

1 person likes this

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 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.