Aliens tried to save America from nuclear war

[psyche101]

How much of this kind of information would be public knowledge? It's hard to tell.

After all, most of the cases we know about come from retired military officers who broke the silence about their experiences years later.

See: http://www.veteranst...-weapons-sites/

It is not hard to tell, just go to Hasting's website. Look past all the swearing whenever a professional challenges him, and see what is left - nothing.

Not "years later" either, they were always urban myths that some people decided to make into a headline. Like Ghost stories one might tell around a campfire.

These claims are dime a dozen, but people do not bother to see if there is an ounce of truth to them or not, when it comes to UFO's and Aliens, people are more than willing to simply believe without any supporting evidence whatsoever, as you are displaying right here. The over mentioned Echo Flight (which Salas cannot remember if he was at Echo or oscar!!) was determined as an electrical fault, the "star" witness had his comments taken out of context, and when asked to set them straight, Hastings refused to speak to him anymore, even going so far as to not invite him to speak at the so called disclosure project less than ten miles from his residence. Hasting's star witness Figel has cleared up the confusion and he is left alone with Salas, who cannot even remember where he was and with the diagrams form Tim Herbert, we find the incident could not have been the outside source as described in Salas' tall tale as the wiring simply does not physically permit the fault to happen as described. It came from outside, but as as direct injection, noise on the line, not the mysterious EMP from a hovering saucer as the tall tale goes.

[psyche101]

Let’s not over think things here folks, the simplest answer is that they were already here.

No it is not - there are even simpler answers.

Math is not "overthinking" Norbert put some basic dates down, not a complex formula you know. If anyone here is overthinking the situation, that would have to be you.

[psyche101]

His field of expertise is where his credibility derives from. The man walked on the moon. He can talk about all things space with a higher degree of reliability than some random on the street who saw light in the sky.

How many aliens are you saying there is on the moon?

I am currently undertaking a personal survey of the Gum Nebula, it is about 400 parsecs from earth, does that make me more qualified to talk about aliens?

The random guy on the street who saw a light in the sky should not even factor here!!

That aside, military servicemen have already come out and claimed the same thing. You can find some primary sources rather easily if you're inclined to look.

And they have both been debunked, and failed any scrutiny. Talk is cheap. If anyone would know where to get proof, it would be one of these alleged Whistleblowers, yet still nothing, just tall tales that do not make sense or comply with physics.

You have proof that it's nonsense? Or that just your personal opinion?

Yep plenty, have you ever looked at Dr MItchells claims? The information comes largely from Bob Lazar and Stephen Greer - have a look yourself. His "proof" of Roswell is a few tall tales some old childhood chums discussed with him, he maintains NASA is on the level and that he has NO firsthand knowledge.

People bloody tugged at his sleeves and got him aside to tell him old urban myths - THAT is Dr. Mitchells Proof. It is a personal belief, it is nothing you, I or anyone else on earth can actually use or take note of. It is just like any belief - faith, not fact. And personal at that.

Irrelevant. She got axed for stalking.

But aren;t Astronauts of high integrity that would not stoop to such?

That's basically what you are suggesting about Dr Mitchells exaggerations are you not?

[psyche101]

I don't even necessarily disagree with Thor. It may very well be nonsense. It may be a half-truth. It may entirely be true. I don't know.

What I do know is that this man, due to his position as an astronaut, has a higher degree of reliability when speaking of things that allegedly come from outer space. It should be noted and his word should be analyzed with more attention than some random person with no high level experience in related matters. Outright dismissal of the claim, to me, seems unjustifiable without knowing more than what is provided in this article.

No, that is simply an appeal to authority. It is not better than that which you are protesting against.

[psyche101]

It would seem that the FAA is taking action on hobbyist who fly Drones near aircraft and airports but when it comes to Unknown Anomalies buzzing planes and airports then it seems of no importance. One would think after 9/11, air safety in the skies would be taken more seriously whether if the object was identified or not.

http://www.msnbc.com...rn-506269251703

Again, how does that not indicate that the operators who see these anomalies cannot recognise characteristics to determine a "type" of natural phenomena (from birds to plasmas) that is not threat to anyone at all???

[psyche101]

I would love to believe him, he's obviously an intelligent man, but i need some proof, dammit!!! Why can't anybody 'in the know' somehow get their hands on a decent video or tangible, unquestionable evidence!

If HE cannot find or produce evidence of his claims, what hope does anyone else have?

They are just claims - campfire ghost stories.

[PrisonerX]

If that were anywhere near the truth, you wouldn't have worried about it in the first place and not pestered me with your desire for attention. So, it either bothers you or it doesn't, you can't have it both ways.

You quoted me to initiate the conversation. I never cared to talk to you, you cared to talk with me. You know this, and so do I.

What claim did I make exactly? Codswallop is codswallop, no matter the source. That's my exact phrase. That's not a claim, that's a statement of fact. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean you have to make a fool of yourself over it. An astronaut can be just as wrong, just as loony, as any other person on the planet. They are not superior human beings just because of their profession.

Okay nonsense is nonsense. Fair enough. Just glad we came to the conclusion. Apples are also apples.

The appeal to authority in my argument has been cordially presented by other posters and has been noted.

We done?

[psyche101]

You quoted me to initiate the conversation. I never cared to talk to you, you cared to talk with me. You know this, and so do I.

Okay nonsense is nonsense. Fair enough. Just glad we came to the conclusion. Apples are also apples.

The appeal to authority in my argument has been cordially presented by other posters and has been noted.

We done?

If you care to do a search here at UM, poster Quillius and I had a long debate on Edgar Mitchell - which we really ought to get back to one day - that exposes his sources. It might be an interesting read for you?

Here ya go - found it for ya! LINK

[quillius]

If you care to do a search here at UM, poster Quillius and I had a long debate on Edgar Mitchell - which we really ought to get back to one day - that exposes his sources. It might be an interesting read for you?

Here ya go - found it for ya! LINK

thanks for the link, re-read thread myself just now......

[psyche101]

thanks for the link, re-read thread myself just now......

Cheers mate, it's a good read I reckon, had a peruse myself

[quillius]

Cheers mate, it's a good read I reckon, had a peruse myself

yes.......made me think ''those were the days'......(I have no idea where we found the time )

[outer-mind]

Yeah ! i saw this on google news this morning , I have seen it & heard before , But the interesting part about iit is ,,""" It was on the news """ hmmmm Do I sense a change in their attitudes at last !!!!!

[Rlyeh]

He sounds like John Lear, if Lear was less gullible.

[stereologist]

I don't even necessarily disagree with Thor. It may very well be nonsense. It may be a half-truth. It may entirely be true. I don't know.

What I do know is that this man, due to his position as an astronaut, has a higher degree of reliability when speaking of things that allegedly come from outer space. It should be noted and his word should be analyzed with more attention than some random person with no high level experience in related matters. Outright dismissal of the claim, to me, seems unjustifiable without knowing more than what is provided in this article.

I would agree if the astronaut were relating a personal account, but he isn't. He is retelling a story. That makes his statement no more important than that of a random person with no high level of experience in related matters. Outright dismissal is not happening. Dismissal is based on the fact that this particular astronaut has retold other stories.

We often think that pilots are better people to consider when they report UFOs. Oddly enough pilots are not that reliable.

There is another astronaut that has spent quite a bit of time looking for Noah's ark. The astronaut did that despite the evidence against a world wide flood. In fact, there is no evidence for a flood of that type. Nothing. That did not stop the astronaut from searching.

[DONTEATUS]

Just think of all the books and Films,we will have to really put in the REAL Fiction section If Another 100 Years goes by without any Actual Factual Evidence,Proof Bodies, ect,Ect ! Its Getting Quite old ,And I saw one ! How do you think it makes me feel ?

I still Need The World to see it, and Proof of it to Be really Real .

[Mikko-kun]

I do not understand why people assign purpose, intent, or whatever to aliens which we do not even have evidence for existing. These reports of UFOs shutting down weapons systems seem to be related to people assigning shutdowns to UFOs instead of the known problems that caused the shutdowns. Why use the simplest explanation and turn around assign something with little evidence?

You can do that if you want, no one's stopping you. But why should that be the only way to go? It's not the right method 100% of the time.

So far aliens are assigned to blurry images in videos. Happens every day it seems. That's the evidence for aliens. Next, those blurry dots on shaky videos are assigned behavior. The first step was far fetched. Assigning behavior to some far fetched idea seems a bit odd doesn't it?

You know there's more evidence than that, old church art, old pyramid carvings... we all just have our own criteria for evidence, and while it's good to be aware of pitfalls of different criterias, for abovementioned reason you'd do well not to limit your search if you don't see it fit. That is, the reason that not one criteria is correct in 100% of the cases in every section.

I've found from personal experience in these "offbeat" things to be best to try different criterias and not exclude any results, just put different weights to them. You can always shift your focus more to one direction, to one line of thought, especially when evidence of different weight piles up, but until you can be certain through experience, the jury's still out there. Because friends, government, loved ones, your own senses, courts, people in general, everyone can lie. But your experience will not, at worst it will only be distorted or you make unrealistic conclusions of your experience.

...

The big question seems to be why would aliens be interested in us.

Easy. We might not see it, or well, some of us, but there's more to us than meet the eyes of most scientists. Or most religious practitioners. It's because of this science-religion war, it shouldn't be. Both have the same goal, betterment of mankind, so they should work together. The cooperation only takes baby steps now.

The aliens would know better than us, because they see more, if they're more advanced.

[bmk1245]

[...]The big question seems to be why would aliens be interested in us.

Easy. We might not see it, or well, some of us, but there's more to us than meet the eyes of most scientists. Or most religious practitioners. It's because of this science-religion war, it shouldn't be. Both have the same goal, betterment of mankind, so they should work together. The cooperation only takes baby steps now.

[...]

Let me guess: soul, life power...

[...]

The aliens would know better than us, because they see more, if they're more advanced.

Yet, they managed to crash countless times (starting with Roswell)...

[Thorvir]

We done?

Oh yeah. You've done quite enough, I can move on from you.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Thorvir Hrothgaard

[badeskov]

So, first of all we have seen this utter garbage here at UM for years. It was, is and will be garbage.

His field of expertise is where his credibility derives from. The man walked on the moon. He can talk about all things space with a higher degree of reliability than some random on the street who saw light in the sky.

The amount of gullibility to utter such is simply incredible. Indeed, he was a knowledgeable and smart man, and courageous as well. But to imply he has a higher knowledge of space simply because he has been there is utter nonsense. So because I have a diving certificate and I have been diving I know more than any marine biologist?

Good grief!

That aside, military servicemen have already come out and claimed the same thing. You can find some primary sources rather easily if you're inclined to look.

Nope.

You have proof that it's nonsense? Or that just your personal opinion?

You have no evidence of your initial assertions.

Irrelevant. She got axed for stalking.

BS.

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Leo Krupe]

He sounds like John Lear, if Lear was less gullible.

Is that possible?

[badeskov]

Is that possible?

Eeh...no. That would be a very hypothetical scenario merely paraded for illustrative purposes. That chances of that happening in reality would be.....about zero...

Cheers,

Badeskov

[Watch Dog]

Then do some critical thinking about it. You will know then.

BS. An astronaut can be just as wrong as a lunatic tin-foil hatter. The fact that you relate credibility to profession is incredibly naive.

The fact that you relate credibility to profession is incredibly naive.

You would honestly be surprised at the number of people that do this. Hang around a religion forum for a while they hang on this crap especially if you start to get the best of them in a debate.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Watch Dog

[stereologist]

You can do that if you want, no one's stopping you. But why should that be the only way to go? It's not the right method 100% of the time.

You know there's more evidence than that, old church art, old pyramid carvings... we all just have our own criteria for evidence, and while it's good to be aware of pitfalls of different criterias, for abovementioned reason you'd do well not to limit your search if you don't see it fit. That is, the reason that not one criteria is correct in 100% of the cases in every section.

I've found from personal experience in these "offbeat" things to be best to try different criterias and not exclude any results, just put different weights to them. You can always shift your focus more to one direction, to one line of thought, especially when evidence of different weight piles up, but until you can be certain through experience, the jury's still out there. Because friends, government, loved ones, your own senses, courts, people in general, everyone can lie. But your experience will not, at worst it will only be distorted or you make unrealistic conclusions of your experience.

...

The big question seems to be why would aliens be interested in us.

Easy. We might not see it, or well, some of us, but there's more to us than meet the eyes of most scientists. Or most religious practitioners. It's because of this science-religion war, it shouldn't be. Both have the same goal, betterment of mankind, so they should work together. The cooperation only takes baby steps now.

The aliens would know better than us, because they see more, if they're more advanced.

Suppose the simplest and worked out explanations have not always been right. That does not in any way provide support for the idea that aliens are there or have done the things that they have been claimed to do. There is zero evidence that UFOs have affected weapons systems. There are unsupported tales with no evidence passed about. That's it, isn't it? There is nothing to support the tales of aliens.

There is no more evidence. Old church art does not show UFOs or aliens. Old pyramid carvings do not show UFOs or aliens. That claim is simply not true.

It seems you keep referring to what is known as the residual effect. UFO believers have this idea that there are so many reports that there must be something in all of the reports. Even if some of the reports can be revealed to be planes, satellites, planets, or whatever not all of them can be explained.

My favorite analog is the group of farmers that pile all of the manure into a single large pile. They stand back and see the largest pile of manure ever made. Then they tell each other that a pile of manure that big must be more than just manure. The fact is no matter how much manure is piled up it it still all manure.

BTW, the big question is why there is no evidence for aliens.

[Thorvir]

You would honestly be surprised at the number of people that do this. Hang around a religion forum for a while they hang on this crap especially if you start to get the best of them in a debate.

It doesn't surprise me, but it still agitates me. Anyone that thinks this way is completely naive and a fool. When nonsense and woo and codswallop is spouted, it remains nonsense, woo and codswallop no matter the source.

And as for visiting said religious forums...I'll pass. No Thanks.

[psyche101]

You can do that if you want, no one's stopping you. But why should that be the only way to go? It's not the right method 100% of the time.

The point of "doing that" is to determine the most accurate answer. It is always the best possible answer, even if science refines that answer with time. Where exactly do you feel the method falls down? I cannot say there is one single valid case across all history where woo has come out on top?

You know there's more evidence than that, old church art, old pyramid carvings... we all just have our own criteria for evidence, and while it's good to be aware of pitfalls of different criterias, for abovementioned reason you'd do well not to limit your search if you don't see it fit. That is, the reason that not one criteria is correct in 100% of the cases in every section.

Old Church art and carvings have been extensively researched and there is nothing otherworldly about any of it. That is not evidence, that is taking something, redefining the historical record associated with it and making something up. One must limit one's search to remain at that point.

LINK - ART and UFOs? No thanks, only art...

I've found from personal experience in these "offbeat" things to be best to try different criterias and not exclude any results, just put different weights to them. You can always shift your focus more to one direction, to one line of thought, especially when evidence of different weight piles up, but until you can be certain through experience, the jury's still out there. Because friends, government, loved ones, your own senses, courts, people in general, everyone can lie. But your experience will not, at worst it will only be distorted or you make unrealistic conclusions of your experience.

Putting personal experience towards an unknown will produce many different results, I do not see how that is beneficial in any conceivable way.

The big question seems to be why would aliens be interested in us.

I think that might be more appropriate if aliens ever contact us, which logically would be via communications, not a physical visit.

Easy. We might not see it, or well, some of us, but there's more to us than meet the eyes of most scientists. Or most religious practitioners. It's because of this science-religion war, it shouldn't be. Both have the same goal, betterment of mankind, so they should work together. The cooperation only takes baby steps now.

That is interesting, what do you feel one can offer with regards to teaching scientists about science?

Religion has always held science back, it is only in modern times as religion loses it's grip that the truth is beginning to emerge, I do not see controlling the masses and educating them as being anything alike at all. It is a step backwards, why wallow in 11th century practises in a modern age?

The aliens would know better than us, because they see more, if they're more advanced.

Why do people insist aliens must be advanced? We have had the concept to reach other stars since the late 50's, observations seem to mirror our technology if anything, indicating it is not alien technology to be frank, but even if it was, proponents speak of familiar items during alleged contact, it is only performance characteristics that lead to that wild assumption, that does not sound far in advance to me.