Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Tantalising Testimony


Recommended Posts

Indeed! I think we might be on the same page, in a roundabout way. I think speculation is natural. If you see something strange, one's first instinct is to identify. I enjoy the speculations of people like Kaku, but the speculation in here by comparison is pretty low brow. And I find most people very definitive and defensive of their speculations.

I do not think it is needed, I think it is already there by default. Sort of like story telling maybe? Some people excel, but not too many. I think that putting faith in speculation is a folly, I guess that is what I am trying to say.

Fair enough, maybe it is just me, but every time I see 747400 speculate, he holds onto those musings like a pit bull. The Roswell Incident was one that I mentioned where he tried to remove balloons, and aliens and come up with robots, when not even the crash can be qualified. Proof of the crash field only exists verbally and as he himself said, Alien did not enter the story until 1979, so what disproves Aliens opens a door for robots? It was a real WTF moment for me. Another was an asteroid hollowed out as a space station. When I said we had a decent grip on the asteroid belt and scan it regularly and would know of interstellar traffic, and cited the last 2 Jupiter strikes as a precedent, I felt he got rather shirty about his speculation being torn down, like I say, maybe it is just me, but I get the strong impression that 747400 has more faith in speculation than fact by the way he likes to question even solid explanations with some rather wild ideals.

Hey, if you don't speak up, nobody is going to know what is going on here, and I think that's probably a waste in a discussion forum? I like people to know what I am thinking so I can have a valuable discussion. That's all.

Well we're not a million miles away in our thinking here in terms of speculation, I just think we're looking at from a different side, which i'll explain in reply to another of your posts.

I can't comment on the asteroid debate, I don't remember it, maybe i've never seen it!

THATS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!!!

tumblr_l07akmN96g1qzxzwwo1_500.jpg

These men had to fight speculation that people had become so complacent with that it was considered fact!! Exactly my bugbear!!! Speculation is a guess, it can give one an idea, if that idea is good or bad is up to the person speculating, and with all types in this world, that does not strike me as a balanced outcome. As mentioned, I do not think it is something to be revered or fawned over, it's just a natural reaction. The progress these men forged had to wade through centuries of speculation, that had become rock hard!!!!

The complacent speculation that these men fought that had been considered fact, isn't to far from what the subject of ufo's is about (from both sides). If you look a speculation (from a sceptical stance) as to the origin of ufo sightings, it is gauged from what is currently known, yet applied to a subject that is highly speculative in nature anyway (from testimony onwards).

Where is the difference between that and fighting speculation of yesteryear relating to superstition for example, naming constellations in accordance with their seasonal sightings, and attributing the God's to them to give them food...that kind of superstition had to be fought, to show the correlation isn't related to anything other then the way we orbit the sun.

Sceptical appliance of known facts to an unknown cause of ufo's maybe completely wrong, speculation may lead to a rethink that gives tangible answers, simply by providing a view that means the subject is approach from an angle not previously thought of.

This just comes down to what people think is acceptable levels of speculation....i'm not sure any one side is holding the better cards with that debate.

Edited by The Sky Scanner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, we must only talk about what we know, mustn't we.

And as, according to some, nothing is, or ever will be, good enough to provide proof of anything, we'll never know anything, so why discuss the subject at all? And discussion based on ifs is pointless? But that's the only way we'll ever find anything out. it's the only way we've ever found anything out. We've never found anything out about anything if we stick to what we know. It seems to me that it could almost be that people who don't want to step into rather pointless discussion based on ifs only don't want to do so because they don't want to consider that there may be anything beyond what they know already.

Just pointed out.

Point taken :rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He WILL have to rule out the Island explanation....that was obvious from the outset.

I think psyche was just 'yanking chains' with the Island thing.

....cheers TMG....good job...... :tu:

@psyche....for future reference...when you want a co-ordinate just do a google search...easy peasy (but you knew that)... :)

Looks like the Costa Rica UFO is a tough one for sceptics to explain away ^_^

Thanks, Bee, it's definitely one of the cases that has stood the test of time, and one of the best photographic cases as well. As I said, some of the best UFO pictures were just taken accidentally, when people were photographing something else and a UFO happened to get in the picture. They might not even have seen it until the film was developed, which was true of this 1971 Costa Rica case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this is what I find funny.

What! A camera cannot malfunction, it must be alienz!

I mean, really? Not saying that is what you said, that is pretty much the argument. Do you think that is solid? I honestly think it should take a bit more than that to qualify as one of the best cases of all time?

It doesn't really matter since there was no island and no camera malfunction, so all the "skeptical" side can do is go to its general fallback position of "you can't prove it was aliens". That's actually one of the weaker positions, and is only resorted to once they cannot deny the evidence that something unknown was flying around.

Frankly, I don't think the aliens explanation is all that absurd or unlikely compared to some of the "skeptical" explanations I've heard over the years. It's certainly far less absurd than if I said something like my mother-in-law was flying around or Santa Claus or Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz.

Yes, we have a lot of cases like this one that are pretty solid and substantial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess you would be quite upset if it did turn out to be an Island?

Wait until I cut some pictures from the Vallee evaluation so I can show you what I mean.

The problem with that volcano and island is that they are on a different lake from the one where the UFO was photographed.

They are simply irrelevant to this particular case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter what I use - IE, Firefox, Chrome or Safari - I cannot get to anything at the Chrome site. How am I supposed to read them if I can't gain access?

There's something wrong with Google Chrome and getting those links to work. They just don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that when it comes to speculation there is a spectrum of plausibility or possibility, with some explanations far more likely or possible than others and some being completely absurd. I do not count aliens and ETs as an absurd explanation, of course, not given the evidence we have accumulated over 60-70 years.

In any case, the US military first came up with it in the 1940s when they ran out of other explanations for what these UFOs could be--or at least they can out of plausible conventional explanations. I never argue with anyone nowadays about the reality of UFOs because General Nathan Twining and others already established that back in 1947-48.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed! I think we might be on the same page, in a roundabout way. I think speculation is natural. If you see something strange, one's first instinct is to identify. I enjoy the speculations of people like Kaku, but the speculation in here by comparison is pretty low brow. And I find most people very definitive and defensive of their speculations.

I do not think it is needed, I think it is already there by default. Sort of like story telling maybe? Some people excel, but not too many. I think that putting faith in speculation is a folly, I guess that is what I am trying to say.

Fair enough, maybe it is just me, but every time I see 747400 speculate, he holds onto those musings like a pit bull. The Roswell Incident was one that I mentioned where he tried to remove balloons, and aliens and come up with robots, when not even the crash can be qualified. Proof of the crash field only exists verbally and as he himself said, Alien did not enter the story until 1979, so what disproves Aliens opens a door for robots? It was a real WTF moment for me. Another was an asteroid hollowed out as a space station. When I said we had a decent grip on the asteroid belt and scan it regularly and would know of interstellar traffic, and cited the last 2 Jupiter strikes as a precedent, I felt he got rather shirty about his speculation being torn down, like I say, maybe it is just me, but I get the strong impression that 747400 has more faith in speculation than fact by the way he likes to question even solid explanations with some rather wild ideals.

Hey, if you don't speak up, nobody is going to know what is going on here, and I think that's probably a waste in a discussion forum? I like people to know what I am thinking so I can have a valuable discussion. That's all.

crikey moses, hold onto musings like a pit bull? You're not still on about those flaming robots are you? Did you actually read what i said up above? I wasn't talking about flaming robots like r2d2, I was talking about robotic, automated craft, like probes, which would seem a much more sensible way of going about exploration than manned craft. Are you deliberately not trying to understand this so you can carry on discussing me and my wierd and wacky ideas? and where on earth do asteroids come into it? If you're talking about the idea that ETs might establish a base somewhere to use as a base for operations, I think you're the only one who finds that hilarious and laughable, probably because you for some reason never seem to even want to consider any ideas that you instantly dismiss as "speculation". If people do, as you surmise, get Shirty, it may be because you seem to have this policy of deliberately not understanding what people mean, or simply dismissing ideas out of hand with the usual "well, Astronomers havent' seen anything", and that can have the effect of irritating people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't really matter since there was no island and no camera malfunction, so all the "skeptical" side can do is go to its general fallback position of "you can't prove it was aliens". That's actually one of the weaker positions, and is only resorted to once they cannot deny the evidence that something unknown was flying around.

Frankly, I don't think the aliens explanation is all that absurd or unlikely compared to some of the "skeptical" explanations I've heard over the years. It's certainly far less absurd than if I said something like my mother-in-law was flying around or Santa Claus or Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz.

Yes, we have a lot of cases like this one that are pretty solid and substantial.

How about fixer splat just before film was submerged into developer bath? Or simply film defect (not mechanical)? Yeah, I've read Hyneks' & Haines' "papers". They would had been kicked out from any (more or less) self respecting journal, in other words - eaten by peers for breakfast. Sloppy "investigation", nothing more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's something wrong with Google Chrome and getting those links to work. They just don't.

Why then just not to edit ("cure") links you post? Right Left/top button for old fashion editing.

Edit: Himmelsreich... I forgot left/right...

Edited by bmk1245
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, this is what I find funny.

What! A camera cannot malfunction, it must be alienz!

I mean, really? Not saying that is what you said, that is pretty much the argument. Do you think that is solid? I honestly think it should take a bit more than that to qualify as one of the best cases of all time?

And you really wonder why people get "shirty" with you? You were saying (you wouldn't Speculate, of course, oh dear me no) that it was an island. I asked why, in subsequent frames, in which the lake was still visible (since it wouldn't be out of sight from the plane in that space of time) it appears not to be there. Therefore you assume that what I was actually saying was "What! A camera cannot malfunction, it must be alienz!"? So now are you saying it was a Camera malfunction rather than an island? But you would not say that you'd changed your explanation, would you? Not when you can take things people didn't say and use that dazzling weapon of mockery on them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about fixer splat just before film was submerged into developer bath?

I've got a darkroom, but due to the digital age I haven't heard anyone use a sentence like that in a convo for many years! No relevance to the convo, but it just took me back..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got a darkroom, but due to the digital age I haven't heard anyone use a sentence like that in a convo for many years! No relevance to the convo, but it just took me back..

I used to fiddle with B/W films back in 1990' (not professionally, of course)... just some drunken parties caught "on tape"... after all, with beer and friends, that process was more than amazing... damn... I need time machine...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why then just not to edit ("cure") links you post? Right Left/top button for old fashion editing.

Edit: Himmelsreich... I forgot left/right...

Can we get a translator in here for BMK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about fixer splat just before film was submerged into developer bath? Or simply film defect (not mechanical)? Yeah, I've read Hyneks' & Haines' "papers". They would had been kicked out from any (more or less) self respecting journal, in other words - eaten by peers for breakfast. Sloppy "investigation", nothing more.

Yeah, yeah, you always say things like that, but I definitely don't see you doing any better. Far from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we get a translator in here for BMK?

Ohm... What can I say....

Seriously, when you post links, delete chrome crap till you see original link. Simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, yeah, you always say things like that, but I definitely don't see you doing any better. Far from it.

What can I (and many others) say...Alleged investigators do make brunders. If you noticed, in the second article they do not ask for any more input. Why not show original negative to real experts and why not to ask film manufacturers for possible defects?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was an Alien, I'd go to the Smithsonian, The Louvre, and possibly the Bahamas.

Bahamas? Bahamas? :o No, no, no. Any alien of worth would come here to Hawaii and join the others already here ... although we call them "tourists." :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a very advanced aircraft of some kind that almost collided with their plane.

I almost got wiped out by one of those humongous high altitude weather balloons that was climbing through my altitude rather quickly. Does that count?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, this is a bit scattered. I'm still not feeling all that well and my thinkertoy isn't up to par yet. I apologize in advance for that.

I agree with MacG. It appears that when incontrovertible evidence is presented the skeptic faction refuse to deal and just put forward some blanket denial while refusing even to review the material.

What incontrovertible evidence? Nothing so far (and yes, I've watched the videos although not all of them since I'm trying to catch up) has screamed ET. At best, I would call some of these "classic cases" unknowns. At worst ... well, you'd not like the terminology I'd use nor would the Moderaptorial Entities. Is there a potential for an ET explanation? Maybe but I'm going to need overwhelming evidence of it. To be fair, though, I also need overwhelming evidence that ET isn't involved in the same cases. With neither, it remains simply unknown.

Going back to one of my favorites, the Lonnie Zamora case, there is absolutely no overwhelming evidence either way so it is a classic unknown. Even with the additional witnesses (the folks who saw it pass overhead on its departure), it's still unexplained and, as a result, a favorite of mine. (Actually, I like it on several levels but that's beside the point.)

So the burden of argument rests with the skeptics should one wish to take that position.

A true skeptic, which I consider myself to be, accepts neither side without overwhelming evidence. Events happen but each side has to present a case as to what actually happened and whether or not there is an ET involvement. IN NO CASE (aside from proven hoaxes & frauds) has either side presented overwhelming evidence either for or against the latter.

MacG's documents (which I greatly appreciate) show that the government was concerned enough about UFOs (or, as I prefer, UAP) during the Cold War to establish organizations and projects related to them. Blue Book, which wrote off something like 98% of the reported incidents as explainable, concluded that some could not be explained by any known means. Does this mean ET? No, it means they couldn't be explained. Period. I can't help but wonder what other official investigations found as compared to that. He also has stated he has seen official documentation indicating that we have been/are being visited and pictures of alien bodies. I don't recall the context but I would like to know more and if alien tech was also included.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I almost got wiped out by one of those humongous high altitude weather balloons that was climbing through my altitude rather quickly. Does that count?

Only if the "balloon" attacked you. That's when things start to get really interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you really wonder why people get "shirty" with you? You were saying (you wouldn't Speculate, of course, oh dear me no) that it was an island. I asked why, in subsequent frames, in which the lake was still visible (since it wouldn't be out of sight from the plane in that space of time) it appears not to be there. Therefore you assume that what I was actually saying was "What! A camera cannot malfunction, it must be alienz!"? So now are you saying it was a Camera malfunction rather than an island? But you would not say that you'd changed your explanation, would you? Not when you can take things people didn't say and use that dazzling weapon of mockery on them.

I will say that Psyche is one of the few "skeptics" who cares to have a reasonable conversation once in a while. Some of the others are far more unpleasant to deal with and more intense in their personal dislike of me. That is all obvious to any of the regulars here.

No matter, I stand by everything I said.

Nobody has ever really explained that 1971 UFO picture in Costa Rica, which of course was not an island, since there were none in that Lake Cote. It was clearly flying above the lake, and near the little peninsula that was also on the map and in the pictures.

I do not think it was anything of ours flying around there in 1971, and it was clearly of a design and type that is unknown to us, moving at very high speeds. I don't think there is any other explanation for it but an unknown flying object with highly unusual characteristics. There are many such UFO reports, of course.

Obviously I cannot know anything about its real origin or "occupants", assuming that there even were any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, this is a bit scattered. I'm still not feeling all that well and my thinkertoy isn't up to par yet. I apologize in advance for that.

MacG's documents (which I greatly appreciate) show that the government was concerned enough about UFOs (or, as I prefer, UAP) during the Cold War to establish organizations and projects related to them. Blue Book, which wrote off something like 98% of the reported incidents as explainable, concluded that some could not be explained by any known means. Does this mean ET? No, it means they couldn't be explained. Period. I can't help but wonder what other official investigations found as compared to that. He also has stated he has seen official documentation indicating that we have been/are being visited and pictures of alien bodies. I don't recall the context but I would like to know more and if alien tech was also included.

Whoever made this drawing saw something similar to what I did in those documents and pictures, including the appearance of the three dead aliens--similar if not identical. It was not a crash from 1947, though, and Roswell was never mentioned at any time. This is about as close to what they looked like as anything I have ever been able find.

aliencockpit555.jpg

This website says they were the "Roswell aliens" but once again I never heard the word "Roswell" used in that lecture, nor had I even heard of it at all at that time. This was just not familiar to me back then.

http://www.aliens-everything-you-want-to-know.com/TheRoswellAliens.html

I have mentioned that the information we were shown sounded more similar to the alleged 1953 crash at Kingman, Arizona, but once again no one mentioned the name of that place either. I have been to Kingman, by the way, and it really is in the middle of nowhere--a lot of empty desert in that part of the world.

There were no classification markings on the documents they showed us, and no information about the technology or propulsion system of the craft. We were not told where they took the wreckage or the bodies. Their ship was intact and showed no signs of interior or exterior damage--no sign of explosions, gunfire or anything like that. Three aliens were slumped over dead in their chairs, and the craft looked like it crashed into the desert at high speed. They did not tell us what caused the crash.

Basically the documents at pictures were general reports back to Washington, including the Pentagon and FBI headquarters that this thing had crashed and three dead aliens were inside it. There was nothing about any later research or analysis of the craft and the remains.

It was essentially a very general lecture about the types of UFOs that had been seen, what they did, where they had been seen and so on, going back to the 1920s and 1930s. I think someone must have been collecting and studying reports like these even before World War II.

There were reports about UFOs that had intruded on military bases, interfered with missiles and aircraft, and even one about how they had shot down a missile that was being tested over the Pacific and sent it off course and crashing into the ocean. Some one had even gotten a picture of the "saucer" flying parallel to the missile and firing something at the nose.

I think I have mentioned that some of these incidents sounded similar to a few cases that became public knowledge, but once again, the details were usually somewhat different.

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.