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

Of course it is a sign of intelligence to you,

Show me your MIT degree. Wait, you spend all your time on the UM forums. 23,000+ post :no:

A ballon that had burst.

You obviously haven't read Jesse Marcel Jr.'s book. :-*

The media makes up ET crap to sell headlines, that much is provable fact.

This coming from a person who demands evidence. :unsure2:

The media just makes this stuff up. Whatever.....

Bragalia? Seriously? Bottom of the barrel now Disco Stu. Good God Man, have you read his blog before? He also claims that Lonnie Zamora hoaxed his town, what do you think of that nonsense? Or are you cherry picking again?

That would be Marcel Jr.'s account. Not Bragalia.

From reading your post I see an unhinged person or spin control person.

This is what I get out of you:

- Diversionary tacticts.

- The guilty by association game.

- Vague and unsupported statements

- Broad statements

- Dowplay by posting silly, unrelated pictures.

All in an effort to discredit a person. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? Heavens*, you've solved a question that's occupied the greatest philosophers, theologists and thinkers of history? There is no Afterlife, people, sorry, it's BS.

:(

* or not, clearly

Yep, he's one smart cookie that Psycho. Just ask him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I get out of you:

*snip*

All in an effort to discredit a person. :no:

lol, the irony.... :yes:

why don't you address the arguments, huh?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Of course it is a sign of intelligence to you,

Show me your MIT degree. Wait, you spend all your time on the UM forums. 23,000+ post :no:

Over 8 long years. That is what is called experience and that which you lack, and it shows, but you still think yourself some sort of authority? What have you got? 403 posts, gee, you must be very interested in the subject hey? Interested in trying to take out a skeptic I would say, is that all you do here? Come out when you want to battle a skeptic? Bit off more than could chew this time huh?

I would not put my credentials online! Crikey, I value my anonymity, I am Psyche101! I do not want some crackpot hunting me down to insist I debate him when I want to be out with my kids, nah, if that what it takes, I pass thanks. My posts speak for themselves. If they are too much for you, just say so! Good God Man, don't get yourself into something you cannot handle!

A ballon that had burst.

You obviously haven't read Jesse Marcel Jr.'s book. :-*

What does further funding the Marcel families continued rape of the subjet have to do with the fact you called Jr a Direct witness? He was not. Not in any way at all. He saw what his father brought home, Bessie was the one who went to the actual site. Why do you insist in the younger sibling who was not taken the debris field? She disagrees with her little brother! Why is that pray tell?

The media makes up ET crap to sell headlines, that much is provable fact.

This coming from a person who demands evidence. :unsure2:

The media just makes this stuff up. Whatever.....

You want evidence? OK.

LINK - MEDIA WATCH UFO ARMADA INVADES NT NEWS

I noticed your a bit light on with links yourself, not much to share I take it, just a lot to protest about?

Bragalia? Seriously? Bottom of the barrel now Disco Stu. Good God Man, have you read his blog before? He also claims that Lonnie Zamora hoaxed his town, what do you think of that nonsense? Or are you cherry picking again?

That would be Marcel Jr.'s account. Not Bragalia.

From reading your post I see an unhinged person or spin control person.

Dick DAmto was heavily covered at Bragalia's Blogspot. Seeming as you did not supply a link as the site rules ask, I will - do you deny this as being the source of your "Dick" information? - LINK

Yes, you might see that, from your cracked view of the Universe, anything is possible I suppose. When you lose a debate, you see a person "out of control"!!!

OMG, he has facts, he must be a control freak or sumptin!

tumblr_lmx0g6UYeV1qbub2i.gif

You strike me as a sore loser.

This is what I get out of you:

- Diversionary tacticts.

- The guilty by association game.

- Vague and unsupported statements

- Broad statements

- Dowplay by posting silly, unrelated pictures.

All in an effort to discredit a person. :no:

Diversionary tactics

Would that be like avoiding all the points I have shown to be erroneous so far?

Guilt by association?

You have been reading my posts? You are starting to see people like Friedman for what they are? Good!

Vague and unsupported statements?

I know you do not post much, and that new information is a hill you have yet to conquer, but someone really should have told you by now the blue writing with the underlines are links - you click them and they take to you to a webpage, in this case, one supporting the supplied information. In fact, you are supposed to be doing it as well, but this explains a great deal. I will try to accomodate you and point out links for you in future, if you have any more problems, just sing out and I will endeavour to talk you through these problems.

Broad Statements?

Maybe, some of the material you have posted is archaic, and pretty silly really. They could be sen as broad statements considering the validity and nature of the subject material you have provided, Disco Stu. If something is confusing you, again, point it out, and sing out, I will do my best to break things down for you so it is easy to understand.

Downplay by posting silly pictures?

Well yes, I am guilty of that, some of the pictures are very silly. This subject tends to bring out deep passions in people, and that's pointless. It just heats a rooms up and ends a conversation, most people seem to enjoy a touch of levity, it keeps things on a more amicable note I find. But downplay? No I am not sure that is possible!

Edited by psyche101
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, he's one smart cookie that Psycho. Just ask him.

tumblr_lpvof4lgDG1qzwfr0o1_500.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

lol, the irony.... :yes:

why don't you address the arguments, huh?

:D

Edited by Saru
Removed copyright cartoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We told them there would be dire consequences," Noce says. "You scared them."

Police%2520Brutality%252C%2520Man.jpg

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a 1980’s-ish conversation with retired DIA head Eugene Tighe, which was NOT about UFOs, but about sleuthing Soviet space secrets, we were discussing techniques of using scattered clues to infer broad generalizations about foreign technology. I was suddenly startled to hear the Roswell story come up. In the early 1950s, Tighe [1921-1994] had been a student at the DIA Intelligence School (over in the Anacostia Annex to the Navy Yard in DC for many years -- I worked there in 1973-1974). He told me that the 'crashed disk' was a 'case study' for future intelligence officers in how NOT to handle an anomalous recovery or event -- jump to a sexy conclusion right away before full analysis. Tighe told me that the officer's freaking out over what he was sure he had a hold of, and arguing for his interpretation even when he was asked to just provide what he had observed, was held up by one of his teachers as a counter-example of what a good intelligence officer is NOT supposed to do.

Elaboration: An intelligence officer is tasked to collect ‘intelligence’, that is, data about activities of interest. The collection ideally is ‘raw’ and unbiased by any interpretation of what it means – that is the task of intelligence analysts higher up the chain. A constant hazard of this process is an intelligence officer’s unwitting use of his own unauthorized [and untrained] analysis and his conclusions as to an explanation for the intelligence he is gathering. This is a process that can and does lead to subconscious editing of raw data to downplay information contrary to the way the intelligence officer has come to believe it must have happened [also called ‘confirmation bias’]. It’s why Marcel’s behavior would have been such a useful ‘bad example’ for future intelligence officers.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not gonna quote and rehash what has previously been stated. But, what I will say is that people aren't paying attention to what qualified people are saying on the ET topic to dismiss it. You have had astronauts like Edgar Mitchell, Gordon Cooper, and James McDevitt claiming to have heard about or seen direct proof of aliens or the subsequent cover-up. Then, of course, you have all the Roswell people like Walter Haut and Jesse Marcell who were involved in the event and privy to the cover-up following the event. Philip Corso was practically dying and wanted to get the burden of truth off his chest and let people know what was and still is going on. We have the Majestic 12 documents detailing the governments involvement and even outlining their protocols for dealing with the whole UFO/ET dilemma. Last, but certainly not least, is J. Allen Hynek. For those who don't know their history, Hynek was the government's lead investigator on Project Blue Book which was the government's study on the UFOs and whether they were extraterrestials and determining if these races held a threat to national security. Hynek was an admitted skeptic on the UFO phenomena until he started looking into these cases in which hard proof and eyewitnesses verified the reality of what was and still is happening. Now how does the public face of a government study go from skeptic to believer? Obviously, he saw enough of what was going on to think there was and still is something real to it. Skeptics will claim it is a disinformation campaign, but that seems like mere double-speak on the part of those wanting to dismiss the reality of UFOs.

When you take a look at historical people that were in much better positions than the average person and analyze what these experts are saying, you'd be ignorant not to listen to their findings. These people were privy to information that we will probably never have access to and have spent years trying to verify their research. Are we honestly to believe that every single one of these insiders were crazy? Or is that just the policy of those who wish to suppress the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not gonna quote and rehash what has previously been stated. But, what I will say is that people aren't paying attention to what qualified people are saying on the ET topic to dismiss it. You have had astronauts like Edgar Mitchell, Gordon Cooper, and James McDevitt claiming to have heard about or seen direct proof of aliens or the subsequent cover-up. ....

I seem to have missed Jim McDivitt's claim of aliens. Please remind me.

As far as Gordon Cooper's claim to having SEEN such evidence [eg, Edwards AFB 1957] , why -- in your eyes and your mind -- is the testimony of other witnesses and researchers [eg Jim McDonald] INVISIBLE? Having trouble seeing?

...and you said 'astronauts LIKE...' as if to imply there were even more. Are there any other -- a single one? -- credible astronaut stories you would offer as validated evidence?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These people were privy to information that we will probably never have access to and have spent years trying to verify their research.

have you tried verifying any of it?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have you tried verifying any of it?

Unfortunately, there is no real way to verify any of this. All we really have to go on is eyewitness testimony and the honesty of those involved. While I'll be the first to admit that some people may have less than honest reasons for giving information, a lot of these people that tell of their experiences with the UFO topic are simply looking to tell their stories. Some for the benefit of the people and some for their own motives. However, the people I listed like Corso, Hynek, Marcell, Haut, and the astronauts seem to be the more credible and believable ones to indicate something more going on in reguards to any cover-ups. The sad truth is that the government controls the information and owns it. When you have the information, you can bend it or make it fit whatever your particular agenda is. In this case, that seems to be suppression of the truth. It's not as if these people that have been maintaining the lies are going to say, "yes, yes, we admit it". Not gonna happen. If you look at the UFO topic relating to the US and govt. policy, you see a pattern and anyone who objectively and open mindedly looks at the circumstantial evidence will suspect that there is indeed a cover-up going on. If you assume this is true, it's only a matter of time before the truth eventually comes out as it always does. It is up to each person to look at the pieces of the puzzle and discern their interpretation of the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the UFO topic relating to the US and govt. policy, you see a pattern and anyone who objectively and open mindedly looks at the circumstantial evidence will suspect that there is indeed a cover-up going on.

But what exactly is being covered up? The US has used the UFO hype as a cover for other operations quite successfully in the past.

Washington (AP) - As hysteria grew over alleged UFO sightings in the 1950s, the US Air Force concocted stories to hide the fact that its secret spy planes had been spotted, an intelligence study says.

The historian Gerald Haines writes that the air force, responding to purported UFO sightings during the Cold War years, frequently provided explanations that were untrue to deflect attention from the planes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/us-hid-spy-plane-projects-behind-ufo-hysteria-1243753.html

So how can we be sure that the stories we are given are legitimate without corroborating evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, there is no real way to verify any of this. All we really have to go on is eyewitness testimony and the honesty of those involved. While I'll be the first to admit that some people may have less than honest reasons for giving information, a lot of these people that tell of their experiences with the UFO topic are simply looking to tell their stories. Some for the benefit of the people and some for their own motives. However, the people I listed like Corso, Hynek, Marcell, Haut, and the astronauts seem to be the more credible and believable ones to indicate something more going on in reguards to any cover-ups. //////....

CB, that's silly. You can verify by checking with other witnesses, other documentation, other potential explanations. You appear to ENJOY playing helpless and impotent in the face of highly-interesting but still controversial assertions. You appear to want to NOT know about any such non-supportive evidence. Is your mind so open your braijn's fallen out?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not gonna quote and rehash what has previously been stated. But, what I will say is that people aren't paying attention to what qualified people are saying on the ET topic to dismiss it.

Well I consider that very lazy of you, and you disappoint me. I have covered the below erroneous claims above, but for some reason, you think repeating them strengthens their validity. I am not sure where FTB's get that idea from.

Very poor of you to retreat from debate, I will consider your response a proverbial white flag.

You have had astronauts like Edgar Mitchell, Gordon Cooper, and James McDevitt claiming to have heard about or seen direct proof of aliens or the subsequent cover-up.

No you do not, that is a major embellishment.

Ed Mitchell - no personal knowledge, and I double dog dare you to dig up his "sources" Been there, done that, you can check the history of Dr Mitchell's claims uncovered right here at UM - LINK There is absolutely nothing compelling about Dr Mitchell's information, in fact, he has garnered this information from known crackpots like Bob Lazar. Nothing to see here, I challenge you to find me something compelling about Dr Mitchell's "evidence".

Gordon Cooper - You seem reluctant to debate Jim Oberg here, no guesses as to why. I feel not the need to cover this, Jim has done an admirable job of showing us the trail that Cooper has left with his UFO trail. Again, nothing compelling just your claim that it is.

Walter Haut, who's claim one can drive a bus through. I believe he is no more than a mythmaker.

James McDivitt says what he saw was man made space junk, how does that strengthen an ET argument????? Because he politely speaks to UFO people?

McDivitt has publicly denied having seen a aliencraft and states that the released picture was not the object that he saw. The released picture was a light reflection off the copilot's window. McDivitt believes that what he saw was a manmade satellite which was probably not acknowledged for defence security reasons. Unlike many of the astronauts McDivitt has been willing to speak about his incident with the public and press.

LINK

Then, of course, you have all the Roswell people like Walter Haut and Jesse Marcell who were involved in the event and privy to the cover-up following the event.

What Marcels description should alert you to is that Marcel was also intelligence - did you know that? Look at this - LINK - You claim to have an open mind? Let's see if you really do. Falsify that hypothesis if you can.

Jesse Marcel Sr. told UFO researchers in the late 1970s, that what was found in 1947 was not a weather balloon but something else. His testimony made "The Roswell Incident" what it is today as he told stories about recovered exotic materials that were "not of this earth". During the interviews, Jesse mentioned Haut but not in the manner one might expect of a fellow officer:

We had an eager beaver PIO (Public Information Officer) who took it upon himself to call the AP on this thing…I heard that the brass fried him later on for putting out that press release, but then I can’t say so for sure…
(Berlitz and Moore 74).

Additionally, he stated:

It was the public information officer, Haut I believe his name was, who called the AP and later wrote the press release. I heard he wasn’t authorized to do this, and I believe he was severely reprimanded for it. I think all the way from Washington
.(Berlitz and Moore 75-6)

Walter Haut was also interviewed but he had little to add.While there are no direct quotes of Haut, the writers stated that:

  1. Haut never saw the object or any other debris.
  2. He was ordered to stay behind to answer the phone.
  3. Blanchard became upset when it was learned that the press release turned into something sensational
  4. Haut resigned his commission in 1948 because he did not want to be transferred.

LINK - Haut's Unconvincing Testimony.

Philip Corso was practically dying and wanted to get the burden of truth off his chest and let people know what was and still is going on.

And you do realise that people who are practically dying say strange things? I have witnessed this personally.

Why do you ignore the very fact that his story is full of inconsistencies? Why do people like Stanton Friedman and Kenvin Randle find him unreliable? What do you know, or what makes you a better investigator than those two people? What do you see ad the fault with their conclusions? Whilst I have no faith at all in Stanton Friedman, I do give credence to Kevin Randle. He is better at investigation than most I find.

LINK - Stanton F The Day After Roswell (FTB sacrificial offering)

LINK - Kevin Randle

LINK - Kevin Randle

Link - Kevin Randle

We have the Majestic 12 documents detailing the governments involvement and even outlining their protocols for dealing with the whole UFO/ET dilemma.

MJ12 is a crock, who is the best source ot determines it's validity? The Government, and even if they said it was genuine, FTB's would insist that too is a cover up. The type is impossible for the timeframe (justification was not possible at the time) it has stolen a reference from Bob Lazar, which was really terrible anticipation on the authors part, obviously penned by a FTB, the "appearance" just happens to have been with a couple of UFOlogists, Scientific forensic linguistic testing failed and it is so full of anomalies and questionable claims that only a handful of the most feverent UFOlogists give it support.

All this mess does it attempt to take the focus of the very fact that not a stitch of physical evidence or any real proof exists. You FTB's are not fooling anyone.

Last, but certainly not least, is J. Allen Hynek. For those who don't know their history, Hynek was the government's lead investigator on Project Blue Book which was the government's study on the UFOs and whether they were extraterrestials and determining if these races held a threat to national security. Hynek was an admitted skeptic on the UFO phenomena until he started looking into these cases in which hard proof and eyewitnesses verified the reality of what was and still is happening. Now how does the public face of a government study go from skeptic to believer? Obviously, he saw enough of what was going on to think there was and still is something real to it. Skeptics will claim it is a disinformation campaign, but that seems like mere double-speak on the part of those wanting to dismiss the reality of UFOs.

Are you serious? This is the guy you FTB's turned on, and he gave up on ET. You FTB's just believe what you want, don't you? Forgotten this incident, or just hoping others will?

In late March 1966, in Michigan, two days of mass UFO sightings were reported, and received significant publicity. After studying the reports, Hynek offered a provisional hypothesis for some of the sightings: a few of about 100 witnesses had mistaken swamp gas for something more spectacular. At the press conference where he made his announcement, Hynek repeatedly and strenuously made the qualification that swamp gas was a plausible explanation for only a portion of the Michigan UFO reports, and certainly not for UFO reports in general. But much to his chagrin, Hynek's qualifications were largely overlooked, and the words "swamp gas" were repeated ad infinitum in relation to UFO reports. The explanation was subject to national derision.

LINK

You lot dumped on him, and he started to see FTB's for what they are.

In 1973, at the MUFON annual symposium, held in Akron, Ohio, Hynek began to express his doubts regarding the extraterrestrial (formerly "interplanetary" or "intergalactic") hypothesis. His main point led him to the title of his speech: "The Embarrassment of the Riches." He was aware that the quantity of UFO sightings was much higher than the Project Blue Book statistics. Just this puzzled him. "A few good sightings a year, over the world, would bolster the extraterrestrial hypothesis—but many thousands every year? From remote regions of space? And to what purpose? To scare us by stopping cars, and disturbing animals, and puzzling us with their seemingly pointless antics?

Yeah, they are Hynek's quoted words.

Hardly an FTB is he.

When you take a look at historical people that were in much better positions than the average person and analyze what these experts are saying, you'd be ignorant not to listen to their findings. These people were privy to information that we will probably never have access to and have spent years trying to verify their research. Are we honestly to believe that every single one of these insiders were crazy? Or is that just the policy of those who wish to suppress the truth?

You would be ignorant to simply take the media version of events and not delve into the real story, such as you will find on the Edgar Mitchell thread here at UM that I linked to above. But the media will offer a nice exciting fantasy to read. You do not care what has actually come form these people, you are happy to hear a rumour and fill in the blanks. That is all you have illustrated. These "insiders" do not have the information you think they do, one or two absolute nutters have some very wild claims they cannot fulfil, and the rest have an offhand comment that the media embellishes. All you have done is present an appeal to authority, where are the statements? Are they valid? Do they even make an ounce of sense? You have not considered any of the because greedy people, very much like Leslie Kean, make crapola up to sell books, and they write it in a way so they appear objective, but anyone can see for the conclusions drawn they are anything but.

You are the one suppressing the truth. All you have published is appeal to authority, where is your evidence?

LINK - UFO Book Based on Questionable Foundation.

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, there is no real way to verify any of this. All we really have to go on is eyewitness testimony and the honesty of those involved. While I'll be the first to admit that some people may have less than honest reasons for giving information, a lot of these people that tell of their experiences with the UFO topic are simply looking to tell their stories. Some for the benefit of the people and some for their own motives. However, the people I listed like Corso, Hynek, Marcell, Haut, and the astronauts seem to be the more credible and believable ones to indicate something more going on in reguards to any cover-ups. The sad truth is that the government controls the information and owns it. When you have the information, you can bend it or make it fit whatever your particular agenda is. In this case, that seems to be suppression of the truth. It's not as if these people that have been maintaining the lies are going to say, "yes, yes, we admit it". Not gonna happen. If you look at the UFO topic relating to the US and govt. policy, you see a pattern and anyone who objectively and open mindedly looks at the circumstantial evidence will suspect that there is indeed a cover-up going on. If you assume this is true, it's only a matter of time before the truth eventually comes out as it always does. It is up to each person to look at the pieces of the puzzle and discern their interpretation of the truth.

I double dog dare you to follow up these claims, which despite you claim they can indeed be followed up, a good place to start might be the Edgar Mitchell thread I referenced for you previously.

Sitting o your hands claiming you are hogtied does not cut the mustard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always, psyche,... :nw: Very good post.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As always, psyche,... :nw: Very good post.

Cheers mate. Not much to these "solid claims" is there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CB, that's silly. You can verify by checking with other witnesses, other documentation, other potential explanations. You appear to ENJOY playing helpless and impotent in the face of highly-interesting but still controversial assertions. You appear to want to NOT know about any such non-supportive evidence. Is your mind so open your braijn's fallen out?

I will answer both you and pysche101 in the same response in this reply. First off, no I am not open minded to the point where my BRAIN[assuming that's what you meant in place of braijn?] will fall out. Just the opposite. I read the evidence in the form of books, watch documentaries, and draw my own conclusions based on that. If I were too open minded as you were implying, I would simply be going on a willingness to believe or blind faith. Neither of which I have, btw.

And to p101, I can say this again; what we have is a clash of mindsets on this Edgar Mitchell issue. You are obviously of the mindset that there is nothing to it. I am of the mindset that something is definitely going on with this and other occurances in reguards to a UFO cover-up. I have no need to give link after link to direct proof because all of the evidence that would either convince or dissuade each individual is historical knowledge. There are books, documentaries, television shows, and search engines for those who wish to look up what I say on the forums here and view the circumstantial evidence for themselves. Nice touch with the whole attack mode in which you quite convincingly made me look like a crackpot or blind believer. Its a good spin and one which skeptics have used for decades to make the believers in a cover-up look less than credible or even insane. In my view, that is a diversionary tactic to distract from the real issue; government suppression of intimate knowledge of ET life and the UFO phenomena. Like I say, you either believe guys like Edgar Mitchell or you don't. But, to ignore people like Mitchell who knew a helluva lot more than the general public is simply arrogant and ignorant at the least. Some people are content to look the other way and pretend nothing is going on. Which is fine, just don't try and undermine those of us who chose to see what is clearly in front of us......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my view, that is a diversionary tactic to distract from the real issue; government suppression of intimate knowledge of ET life and the UFO phenomena.

if anything regarding the ufo phenomenon is classified then that translates to there being a cover-up re etz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if anything regarding the ufo phenomenon is classified then that translates to there being a cover-up re etz?

I think a cover was certainly being actioned.....whether it was ET or they thought it was ET is another story....but the fact that something is covered up certainly 'suggests' a knowledge of something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a cover was certainly being actioned.....whether it was ET or they thought it was ET is another story....but the fact that something is covered up certainly 'suggests' a knowledge of something.

yes, i can agree with that, but it's the definitive assertions that i have a problem with... like when people point out the government's handling of the ufo subject as proof that they're indeed hiding et knowledge... :mellow:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, i can agree with that, but it's the definitive assertions that i have a problem with... like when people point out the government's handling of the ufo subject as proof that they're indeed hiding et knowledge... :mellow:

I've never been able to quite follow that logic either. Unless one makes the mistake of equating UFO's to ET. Such has never been proven yet and even the evidence to support that notion is a bit suspect in my opinion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, i can agree with that, but it's the definitive assertions that i have a problem with... like when people point out the government's handling of the ufo subject as proof that they're indeed hiding et knowledge... :mellow:

agreed, it is not 'proof' and it is just what the evidence of a cover up suggests. I also think that outright denial that there was never a cover up let alone a continued investigation (even after the apperent closure of Bluebook) is also just as problematic dont you think? In fact I would say these two extremes fuel eachother, and without eachother may not find it as necessary to maintain their 'extreme' position,

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been able to quite follow that logic either. Unless one makes the mistake of equating UFO's to ET. Such has never been proven yet and even the evidence to support that notion is a bit suspect in my opinion.

hello S2F, when you say notion are you referring to the notion that there was a cover up or that UFOs equate ot ET?

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.