UFO Debunkers: A Dangerous "Cult" or Super Patriots?/ The History of UFO Debunking!
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
UFO Debunking!
The standing joke among UFO circles is for every 200 UFO
sightings, the Air Force can explain away 201. The possibility that
our Government might withhold or distort information about UFOs might
seem farfetched, until you read the mountains of evidence compiled
from the Government's own files. Evidence that strongly suggests a
cover-up. The U.S. Military first started seeing UFOs in World War
II, pilots called them "Foo Fighters." We thought they were a German
secret weapon, the German's thought they were ours. An explosion of
civilian sightings in 1947 caught the military by surprise. Top
secret investigations were begun. A joint study by the FBI and Army
concluded, "The flying saucer situation is not all imaginary,
something is really flying around." That report was kept secret until
1976.
Most early UFO sightings were made by eyewitnesses and not
radar. In New Mexico, over a two year period, dozens of people
reported seeing green fire-balls over sensitive military
installations. But when radar and cameras were dispatched to those
installations, the fire-balls mysteriously shifted someplace else. A
1949 study by scientists at Los Alamos Lab stated, "The fireballs
deserve serious consideration.".
Some have suggested that the saucer craze of the 1940's and
1950's was a by-product of Cold War tensions and fears. Both the U.S.
and the U.S.S.R. conducted secret studies to find out if the other
side was behind the UFOs, and both concluded early on that the
capabilities of the flying discs seemed beyond human technology. This
secret report done in 1948 by the Air Force and Naval Intelligence is
among the most fascinating of the UFO documents ever to surface
because it wasn't suppose to exist. A confidential memo at the end of
the report ordered that all copies should be destroyed. But one copy
survived and was finally pried out of the Pentagon in 1985. It's a
study of more than 200 of the earliest UFO sightings, including one
that occurred on June, 1947, near Lake Mead. The report notes that an
Air Force pilot saw a formation of six UFOs, and the UFOs were some
type of flying craft, not weather balloons or hallucinations. The
report made note of the fact that more than a few sighting reports
were made by experienced personnel, and that the origin of flying
saucers was not ascertainable.
The Cold War with the Soviets and Communist countries was heating up.
Strange craft were reported all over our skies, and the news media was
critical of government's explanations. Many people thought the craft
belonged to the Soviet Union or perhaps aliens bent on invasion. There
was fear the Soviets could use UFO propaganda to discredit the US
government. There was genuine concern that a national panic could
occur. Whether UFOs were real or not, the situation made the president
nervous and made the military and the various intelligence agencies
look bad. Plenty of good reports were trickling out that a substantial
number of military aircraft were crashing. Stories started to leak out
that these aircraft were crashing while chasing UFOs. The crashes were
explained as training accidents and mechanical failures, but the news
media was starting to tie the two types of reports together.
The over-all effort to study saucers was called "Project Sign,"
and the headquarters was located at Wright Field in Ohio. In 1949,
Sign personnel wrote a top-secret report, which concluded that, "UFOs
were extra-terrestrial craft." When the report made it to the desk of
the Chief of Staff General Hoyt Vandeberg, he rejected it and ordered
all copies burned. This rejection from the top was in the view of
many, the death knell for any objective study of UFOs. A few weeks
later Project Sign produced another final report stating that it's
findings were "inconclusive." That report was accepted and soon after
Project Sign became Project Grudge. Grudge evaluated reports on the
premise that UFOs could not exist. According to a later report by the
Library of Congress, it was the job of Grudge to explain them all.
Despite this slant, 23% of Grudge cases remained a mystery. Grudge
staffers decided these cases were physiologically motivated, the first
official declaration that people who see UFOs are crazy.
In 1952, there were more sightings than the five previous years
combined, including the two infamous Washington D.C. incidents. Yet
another study was launched, Project Bluebook. Bluebook today is
notorious in UFO circles as a whitewash. There is considerable
evidence the project was far from objective. The man appointed to
head Bluebook, Captain Edward Ruppelt, said he was told in the very
beginning that the 'powers that be' were anti-flying-saucer and to
stay in favor, "it behooves one to follow suit." Ruppelt later
resigned from the military and wrote a book about what he says was the
Bluebook cover-up and the reality of flying saucers. The continued
increase of UFO sightings was a source of great concern for the CIA
and a new strategy was born: "UFO DEBUNKING."
A group of CIA-connected scientists was assembled in secret to
evaluate UFOs. CIA documents reveal that five members of the
Scientific Advisory Panel, who were all well-known skeptics, were
given several poor UFO cases to examine and came to the conclusion
that "there was no evidence of a direct threat to national security in
the objects sighted. Flying saucer reports were overloading emergency
reporting channels with false information, clogging up communication
lines, causing alarm, and realistically even if they were real there
was little we could do about them." Furthermore, the government was
losing the confidence of the people. Our science and aircraft seemed
to be confronted by far superior technology.
The "Robertson Panel" spent all of twelve hours in a round-table
discussion, analyzing only about a handful of UFO cases. The Panel
concluded that, "UFOs are not a threat to national security...but
continued reporting of UFOs is a threat." Their recommendation: The
Government should take immediate steps to strip UFOs of their "aura of
mystery," through a program of public education. The final report
even used the term, "DEBUNKING."
The Robertson Panel discussions and recommendations centered around
the main problem of eradicating belief in these unidentified flying
objects. Ways of using the news media and movies to discredit UFOs
were discussed and placed into action. This resulted in the reduction
of public interest around the reality of flying saucers, which even
today still evokes a strong psychological reaction. Such propaganda
techniques included addressing actual UFO cases, which might have been
puzzling at first but later explained away as natural phenomenon.
The panel also discussed various insidious methods that were often
implemented to execute this debunking program. It was felt strongly
that psychologists familiar with mass psychology should be called in
as advisers to assist with the nature and extent of this program.
These national programs resulted in the National Policy. The end
result was to debunk any valid sighting, even if it resulted in the
embarrassment of pilots and/or government employees. UFO reports were
denied, debunked and those who saw them were soundly and mercilessly
ridiculed.
Timothy Good in his book Above Top Secret writes: Another sinister
recommendation of the panel was that civilian UFO groups should be
watched "because of their potentially great influence on mass thinking
if widespread sightings should occur. The apparent irresponsibility
and the possible use of such groups for subversive purposes should be
kept in mind." The panel concluded that "the continued emphasis on the
reporting these phenomena does, in these parlous times, result in a
threat to the orderly functioning of the protective organs of the body
politic," and recommended:
a. That the national security agencies take immediate steps to strip
the Unidentified Flying Objects of the special status they have been
given and the aura of mystery they have unfortunately acquired.
b. That the national security agencies institute policies on
intelligence, training, and public education designed to prepare the
material defenses and the morale of the country to recognize most
promptly and to react most effectively to true indications of hostile
intent or action.
Shortly thereafter every effort of the government went into debunking
UFOs even if it would mean embarrassing its own people. It soon became
known the best way to destroy your military career was to report a
UFO. Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, Chief of the Aerial Phenomena Branch
at the Air Technical Intelligence Center, said that the CIA ordered
the Air Force to debunk sightings and debunk witnesses. "We're
ordered to hide sightings when possible," he told Major Keyhole, "but
if a strong report does get out we have to publish a fast explanation--
make up something to kill the report in a hurry, and also ridicule the
witness, especially if we can't figure out a plausible answer, even if
we have to discredit our own pilots."
The debunking included spying on UFO witnesses and the infiltration of
UFO organizations by the CIA and FBI. Various effective civilian UFO
organizations have been rendered impotent, and sometimes inactive,
after ex-CIA members have joined their board of directors, the best
example being the ousting of Major Donald Keyhoe from NICAP (National
Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena.). APRO (Aerial
Phenomena Research Organization) head Jim Lorenzen was also put under
CIA surveillance in 1953, after the recommendations of the Robertson
Panel. New federal policy resulting from the Robertson Panel includes
Military Policy Orders AFR 200-2 and JANAP 146, which simultaneously
criminalizes the release by any military personnel of UFO-related
information, but makes the reporting of all sightings to immediate
superiors MANDATORY. The debunking strategy likewise included the
silencing of military personnel through intimidation. Even retired
military personnel risked losing their pension benefits if they talked
about their experiences with UFOs. That ban continues to this day.
For three decades, the Military have publicly scoffed at UFOs but
it has been another matter behind the scenes. A secret order issued
to Air Force base commanders in 1960 stated UFOs should be treated as,
"serious business...directly related to national security." Public
pressures spurred Congress to hold hearing about UFOs in the
mid-1960's and the Air Force decided enough is enough. It
commissioned what was to be the ultimate UFO study, directed by Edward
Condon of the University of Colorado. Condon was a respected
scientist but was hardly impartial about UFOs. Before the study even
began, he said in a speech that "The Government should get out of the
UFO business, there's nothing to it." He later wrote, "The authors of
UFO books should be horsewhipped." There is even evidence that the
studies conclusion were written before the project even began. To the
surprise of few, the committee declared that further study of UFOs
would be a waste of time. The Air Force used this as its reason to
finally end Project Bluebook. UFO researchers have long suspected
that Bluebook was merely for public consumption, that another secret
UFO program existed to handle the most sensitive cases.
The CIA responds to UFO requests in this fashion: "There is no
CIA program to actively collect information on UFOs, nor has there
been one since the 1950's." This statement flies in the face of
numerous reports, squeezed out of the Agency by Freedom of Information
lawsuits. A series of internal memos dated 1976, made repeated
references to "UFO Research"- "UFO Studies"- "CIA-UFO Experts"-and
"Agency personnel who are monitoring the UFO phenomenon." The
reluctance to admit an interest in UFOs dates back to at least 1952,
an internal letter from CIA Weapons Chief states "It is strongly urged
that no indication of CIA interest reach the press or public, in light
of their alarmist tendencies."
Officially, CIA and other government agencies say their lack of
interest is because UFOs pose no threat to national security. Yet,
UFOs have made alarming intrusions at our most sensitive military
bases. As the Washington Post reported, "UFOs visited five separate
nuclear missile launch sites near the Canadian border during a two-
week period in 1975, one right after the other." In a least one case,
UFOs tampered with the launch codes of ICBM missiles. Fighter planes
were unable to catch the UFOs, which makes the government explanation
that those UFOs were "mystery helicopters" seem specious. Mystery
helicopters that can out-race F-16's visiting nuclear missile bases?
If this isn't national security, what is?? Oddly, the government has
used the national security excuse to withhold UFO data. Stan Friedman
fought all the way to the Supreme Court to get UFO documents from the
National Security Agency, and all he got was a summary of the
documents which was over 80% blacked out.
This "explaining away" real UFO cases continues to this day with the
multiple phony accounts of the Roswell extraterrestrial crash given by
the Air Force. Within the span of a single day (July 8, 1947), two
stories were made public: the first one, the correct story as it turns
out, was that a flying disc had been recovered. A few hours later
General Ramey issued a statement that the wreckage was just that of a
weather balloon's radar reflector. 27 years after that in 1993, in
response to the potentially damaging GAO Roswell report, the Air Force
released its now infamous super-secret Project Mogul balloon excuse.
This is the most popular excuse favored by UFO debunkers. Four years
after that in 1997, came the now laughable time-compressed crash-test
dummy explanation which tried to explain the 4 to 5 alien bodies that
were witnessed at the crash site by multiple military and civilian
observers.
Let's ask nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman if it is possible for
the government to completely cover up a story as earth-shaking as
extraterrestrials?
SF: I think it's extraordinarily easy. In the first place, the good
tools for getting the best data all belong to the government. They've
got the radar systems, the closed communication systems, the aircraft
loaded with instrumentation, the Air Defense Command and so forth.
And all that data is born classified. If you were to ask me as a
physicist what I'd like to do to find out about flying saucers, I'd
say, well, you've got to have a system to detect them, then you need
another system to monitor them once you've picked one up, then you
want to communicate back and forth and get guys up there with
instruments as close as you can when they're there. The government's
got all of that, and it's all classified. So, that's the first thing:
they've got a closed system to begin with.
Secondly, when we talk government, we imply--at least some people
do--that everybody knows and nobody's talking. That's not how
security works at all. I had a clearance for 15 years. The "need to
know" concept is most important. As an example of that, I was working
on radiation shielding for nuclear airplanes for General Electric. I
would have liked access to secret restricted data on radiation
shielding being produced by Westinghouse for the nuclear submarine
program. I mean, a shield is a shield. You've got the same
difficulties with light-weight and that sort of thing. I didn't have
a need-to-know for their data. I had the right level of clearance,
but it got me nowhere. So, the key is compartmentalization, which was
honed to a science during World War II by some of the same people who
were apparently involved with UFOs post-War. How did we keep the
Manhattan Project secret as long as we did. Two billion dollars in
1942 money, tens of thousands of people involved in the construction
of enormous facilities that at one point were using eleven percent of
the electricity in the United States, to blow uranium hexaflouride
through little holes in a mile-long building--and yet, it was kept
secret. Secrets are easy to keep, as long as you control the
detection systems, the communications systems, and the interference
systems, if you will. I've talked to a number of people who worked
for Truman and Eisenhower. Every single one agreed that secrets could
have always been kept, at least post-World War II. No problem at all.
Although the case for the flying saucer reality is far better
than the case against most convicted criminals. If you do it on an
evidential basis, you can look at things like Ted Phillips' collected
information on over 4,400 physical trace cases from 79 countries.
These are cases where the saucer is seen on or near the ground, and
after it leaves, one finds clear physical changes such as burn circles
and burn rings, landing gear marks, swirled vegetation, dried out
soil, and so forth. People say there is no physical evidence. Well,
if a footprint and a fingerprint are physical evidence, then the
physical trace cases are certainly physical evidence. And the same
things keep happening all over the world. The problem is most people
are unaware of the evidence, even though there is a preponderance of
evidence. Given the physical trace cases, the radar sightings, the
photographs and the eye-witness testimony from people all over the
world, we have quite sufficient evidence to conclude that our planet
is being visited by manufactured objects behaving in ways that we
Earthlings cannot yet duplicate, and that therefore were produced
someplace else."
In addition, Jim Marrs had the following accurate narrative to add:
As the 20th century came to a close, cattle mutilations continue, crop
circles are more elaborate than in the past, and the abduction
experience appears to be more widespread than ever, in spite of the
debunkers and media-supported public disbelief.
Two concepts increasingly accepted by all but the most intransigent
skeptic are that there is much more to life than our own brief
material existence on Earth and we are not alone on our world.
The concept that we are not alone is supported by overwhelming
evidence, including multitudinous sightings, photographs, films and
videos, radar contacts, personal confrontations, abduction reports,
crop circles, animal mutilations, channeled messages, multiple-witness
reports and physical evidence such as indented landing sites, holes in
the ground, burned vegetation, human scars, and implants. Some of the
human reports and photographic evidence undoubtedly are the product of
misinterpretation or hoaxers, but the sheer number and consistency of
descriptions argues against all of them being mistakes or fakes.
Another argument supporting the idea of non-human visitors is the
longevity of the reports. If sightings had occurred only in recent
times, they might be attributable to some passing mass psychosis, an
aberrant copycat function of minds frightened by the onrush of modern
technology. But reports of flying machines and unearthly visitors
predate man's history. And the evidence of technology superior to
ours in the distant past is particularly compelling. Although there
is no clear indication that such technology was the product of alien
visitation rather than some lost civilization of man, the many ancient
tales of sky-gods and their flying craft tip the scales in favor of
alien contact.
Thank you to George Knapp, Michael Lindemann, Timothy Good, Ralph
Steiner, Stanton Frideman, Jim Marrs and George Filer for the above
information
Andrew W
> UFO Debunkers: A Dangerous "Cult" or Super Patriots?/ The History of
> UFO Debunking!
>
> The standing joke among UFO circles is for every 200 UFO
> sightings, the Air Force can explain away 201. The possibility that
> our Government might withhold or distort information about UFOs might
> seem farfetched, until you read the mountains of evidence compiled
> from the Government's own files. Evidence that strongly suggests a
> cover-up. The U.S. Military first started seeing UFOs in World War
> II, pilots called them "Foo Fighters." We thought they were a German
> secret weapon, the German's thought they were ours. An explosion of
> civilian sightings in 1947 caught the military by surprise. Top
> secret investigations were begun. A joint study by the FBI and Army
> concluded, "The flying saucer situation is not all imaginary,
> something is really flying around." That report was kept secret until
> 1976.
>
> Most early UFO sightings were made by eyewitnesses and not
> radar. In New Mexico, over a two year period, dozens of people
> reported seeing green fire-balls over sensitive military
> installations. But when radar and cameras were dispatched to those
> installations, the fire-balls mysteriously shifted someplace else. A
> 1949 study by scientists at Los Alamos Lab stated, "The fireballs
> deserve serious consideration.".
>
<snip for space>
Its a pity the ufo skeptics and debunkers here have little knowledge about
what you have posted here about the officially documented ufo phenomenon.
I wonder if they will ever educate themselves so they can actually
contribute something sensible to these groups.
--
If you are a hard skeptic then you haven't researched or questioned
enough. If you believe something too much then you have the same
problem.
Hatunen
<removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>Its a pity the ufo skeptics and debunkers here have little knowledge about
>what you have posted here about the officially documented ufo phenomenon.
>I wonder if they will ever educate themselves so they can actually
>contribute something sensible to these groups.
I doubt if there are many "skeptics and debunkers" that deny UFO
exist. But "UFO" is not synonymous with "extraterrestrial
spacecraft". It simply means flying objects that have not yet
been identified. The lack of idbntification does not make them,
ipso facto, some sort of visitors from outer space. In fact,
inevitably, some odd sightings may never be identified, but they
are still not automatically extraterrestrial.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Andrew W
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:04:36 +1100, "Andrew W"
> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Its a pity the ufo skeptics and debunkers here have little knowledge
>> about what you have posted here about the officially documented ufo
>> phenomenon. I wonder if they will ever educate themselves so they
>> can actually contribute something sensible to these groups.
>
> I doubt if there are many "skeptics and debunkers" that deny UFO
> exist.
>
There are many skeptics and debunkers who deny the existence of ufos, some
of them with great prejudice.
That's why they call them skeptics and debunkers. Just see some of their
posts here.
You're probably thinking of the healthy skeptic scientists and fence
sitters/common society.
>
> But "UFO" is not synonymous with "extraterrestrial
> spacecraft". It simply means flying objects that have not yet
> been identified. The lack of idbntification does not make them,
> ipso facto, some sort of visitors from outer space. In fact,
> inevitably, some odd sightings may never be identified, but they
> are still not automatically extraterrestrial.
>
Well then there are also the close up sightings of metallic craft, and the
direct encounters with the occupants.
We're not just talking about the distant sightings.
UFO is just a generic term for this ever broadening subject.
Hatunen
<removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>Hatunen wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:04:36 +1100, "Andrew W"
>> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Its a pity the ufo skeptics and debunkers here have little knowledge
>>> about what you have posted here about the officially documented ufo
>>> phenomenon. I wonder if they will ever educate themselves so they
>>> can actually contribute something sensible to these groups.
>>
>> I doubt if there are many "skeptics and debunkers" that deny UFO
>> exist.
>>
>
>There are many skeptics and debunkers who deny the existence of ufos, some
>of them with great prejudice.
>That's why they call them skeptics and debunkers. Just see some of their
>posts here.
>You're probably thinking of the healthy skeptic scientists and fence
>sitters/common society.
>
>>
>> But "UFO" is not synonymous with "extraterrestrial
>> spacecraft". It simply means flying objects that have not yet
>> been identified. The lack of idbntification does not make them,
>> ipso facto, some sort of visitors from outer space. In fact,
>> inevitably, some odd sightings may never be identified, but they
>> are still not automatically extraterrestrial.
>>
>
>Well then there are also the close up sightings of metallic craft, and the
>direct encounters with the occupants.
Sure there are. But even if there are, they are no longer
unidentified.
>We're not just talking about the distant sightings.
>UFO is just a generic term for this ever broadening subject.
If they're that close, they're identified.
Andrew W
All the better. But they still come under the same umbrella subject of UFOs.
Do you wish to change the name of this field of study? Be my guest.
When a debunker start arguing over semantics its clear that they have
nothing useful to offer.
Hatunen
<removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
Please define this "field of study". That way I'll be sure not to
misuse it.
>When a debunker start arguing over semantics its clear that they have
>nothing useful to offer.
Semantics are everything when you're dealing with a "field of
study". Things need to be defined so we're all studying the same
thing.
Surely the term "unidentified flying object" has a meaning wider
than simply "flying saucers" and the ilk. If you start out with
therejudice that any flying object not yet identified must be
some sort of stange phenomenon, you don't really have an
objective field of study.
Andrew W
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:41:22 +1100, "Andrew W"
> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Hatunen wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:32:16 +1100, "Andrew W"
>>> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well then there are also the close up sightings of metallic craft,
>>>> and the direct encounters with the occupants.
>>>
>>> Sure there are. But even if there are, they are no longer
>>> unidentified.
>>>
>>>> We're not just talking about the distant sightings.
>>>> UFO is just a generic term for this ever broadening subject.
>>>
>>> If they're that close, they're identified.
>>>
>>
>> All the better. But they still come under the same umbrella subject
>> of UFOs. Do you wish to change the name of this field of study? Be
>> my guest.
>
> Please define this "field of study". That way I'll be sure not to
> misuse it.
>
You want me to identify something that everyone is clear about?
There is no single identification for this field. Its an area involving
everything from unexplained aerial phenomenon to paranormal personal
encounters with non-humans.
Who really cares what we call it.
>
>> When a debunker start arguing over semantics its clear that they have
>> nothing useful to offer.
>
> Semantics are everything when you're dealing with a "field of
> study". Things need to be defined so we're all studying the same
> thing.
>
I don't think we're going to mistake this subject for something else.
I mean really.
>
> Surely the term "unidentified flying object" has a meaning wider
> than simply "flying saucers" and the ilk. If you start out with
> therejudice that any flying object not yet identified must be
> some sort of stange phenomenon, you don't really have an
> objective field of study.
>
I suggest you have a look at some UFO documentaries to clear up your
uncertainties.
There are plenty available for download on the torrent sites.
Just do a search for 'ufo' on http://www.torrentz.com/ and use a program
like utorrent to download them.
Also check the definition on Wikipedia and dictionary.com etc.
george
wrote:
> I suggest you have a look at some UFO documentaries to clear up your
> uncertainties.
> There are plenty available for download on the torrent sites.
> Just do a search for 'ufo' onhttp://www.torrentz.com/and use a program
> like utorrent to download them.
Oh. So you're into pirating programs..
> Also check the definition on Wikipedia and dictionary.com etc.
Along with the terms scam, Adamaski and Erich von Däniken
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
wrote:
Debunkers simply REFUSE to address the evidence. The rather OBVIOUS
spOOks such as "H"eroin (known for his days as a drug-runner for the
Agency!) really have no place here with civilized educated people.
Debunkers really use the same rules over and over again #1) Don't
bother me with the facts; #2) Attack the person presenting the
evidence, NOT the evidence; #3) Invoke science by proclamation, not
investigation; #4) Come up with any silly excuse, such as hedge hogs,
time-compressed crash-test dummies and stealth blimps to explain
everything away; #5) Try and move people away from the corporate/
Pentagon 60+ year cover up of back-engineering alien craft and
abducting alien abductees (as well as secret working groups with
certain ET races.)
Hatunen
<removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>Hatunen wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 09:41:22 +1100, "Andrew W"
>> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> Hatunen wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:32:16 +1100, "Andrew W"
>>>> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well then there are also the close up sightings of metallic craft,
>>>>> and the direct encounters with the occupants.
>>>>
>>>> Sure there are. But even if there are, they are no longer
>>>> unidentified.
>>>>
>>>>> We're not just talking about the distant sightings.
>>>>> UFO is just a generic term for this ever broadening subject.
>>>>
>>>> If they're that close, they're identified.
>>>>
>>> All the better. But they still come under the same umbrella subject
>>> of UFOs. Do you wish to change the name of this field of study? Be
>>> my guest.
>>
>> Please define this "field of study". That way I'll be sure not to
>> misuse it.
>>
>
>You want me to identify something that everyone is clear about?
>There is no single identification for this field. Its an area involving
>everything from unexplained aerial phenomenon to paranormal personal
>encounters with non-humans.
>Who really cares what we call it.
See below, where you seem to want to define it as "flying
saucers". Is that the definition?
Are saying that the paranormal is included in the definition?
[...]
>I suggest you have a look at some UFO documentaries to clear up your
>uncertainties.
I've seen many of the so-called "documentaries". Too many, in
fact.
>There are plenty available for download on the torrent sites.
I'm sure there are.
>Just do a search for 'ufo' on http://www.torrentz.com/ and use a program
>like utorrent to download them.
>Also check the definition on Wikipedia and dictionary.com etc.
Let's see. Merriam-Webster aka dictionary.com) says: : an
unidentified flying object; especially : flying saucer.
I have no argument; I'm well aware that the word has been
co-opted.
But that it says "especially flying saucers". Are you saying the
whole field is defined by flying saucers?
Andrew W
No. That's just where it all starts.
The basic definition for UFO is objects that have not or cannot be
identified.
But that's just the initial definition of a widening field of study.
Where it connects to the rest of the field is where those objects have been
seen to actually come close or come down and show that they are in fact
metallic discs/vehicles.
Andrew W
The paranormal is not part of the definition but it is definitely part of
much of the field.
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
Debunkers are dis-- and misinformation specialists. Such obvious
spOOks such as "H"eroin, the old NSA-hack, is on record that he has no
need for "facts, data and first-hand testimony." Like all debunkers,
they, to quote another debunker on this newsgroup, "have no concern
for the truth at all."
Debunkers are very bad liars, and they only fool themselves with their
utter nonsense.
Luckily for us, the amount of debunkers has decreased significantly
over the years and the only ones that are left are the absolute bottom-
of-the-barrel debunkers.
Even on these newsgroups, the quality of debunkers has decreased
enormously. There USED to be at least some true skeptics, such as
Weller. But they have died or committed suicide, which is the fate of
the vast majority of debunkers.
There still is a very minor mop-up job to do to get rid of the last of
these truth-terrorists, and hopefully it will be done soon. There are
plenty of FEMA camps to house them and separate them from civil
society. We must insist that this happens sooner than later, because
debunkers are like a cancer and it can spread to the rest of our
nation. We must NOT allow that to happen!!
H.
"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A."
news:7ca4a776-8759-49b3...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
=================================================
Of course you cannot let that happen. You could not
stand to have any "debunker" debunk your bunk.
We have shown time after time that your belief in
aliens is a mental abortion and that you are actually
an inmate of an institution for the mentally deficient.
So have a nice day Holeflapper, and no I am not going
to any FEMA camp.
--
Cap. Harry
King Of The Usenet Spooks
CEO of:
Oregon Home Spaceship High Invisibility Technology
Room 12, Hanger 18, Area 52,
USAF, Nevada, USA, Planet Earth,
Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy,
More or less on the outer fringe of the Universe.
Hatunen
<removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
So far I haven't seen the name of this "field of study". That
would probably be a start toward a definition.
>Where it connects to the rest of the field is where those objects have been
>seen to actually come close or come down and show that they are in fact
>metallic discs/vehicles.
Ah. So "flying saucers" is the field of study?
Hatunen
<removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>Hatunen wrote:
"Paranormal" takes in an awful lot. Is anything paranormal part
of this unnamed field of study, or just some kinds of paranormal
phenomena?
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
> "Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A."<scie...@zzz.com> wrote in message
"H"eroin uses the time-tested by very tired method of debunking #1)
Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.
Poor "H"eroin, will always refuse to address the evidence. Even his
kids want to put him out to pasture!
Sir ArtiØ
Andrew W
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:16:35 +1100, "Andrew W"
> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Hatunen wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 10:42:40 +1100, "Andrew W"
>>> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also check the definition on Wikipedia and dictionary.com etc.
>>>
>>> Let's see. Merriam-Webster aka dictionary.com) says: : an
>>> unidentified flying object; especially : flying saucer.
>>>
>>> I have no argument; I'm well aware that the word has been
>>> co-opted.
>>>
>>> But that it says "especially flying saucers". Are you saying the
>>> whole field is defined by flying saucers?
>>>
>>
>> No. That's just where it all starts.
>> The basic definition for UFO is objects that have not or cannot be
>> identified.
>> But that's just the initial definition of a widening field of study.
>
> So far I haven't seen the name of this "field of study". That
> would probably be a start toward a definition.
>
It has many names. UFOs, ETs, paranormal, abductions etc. etc.
It depends on the researcher and what area they cover.
>
>> Where it connects to the rest of the field is where those objects
>> have been seen to actually come close or come down and show that
>> they are in fact metallic discs/vehicles.
>
> Ah. So "flying saucers" is the field of study?
>
That's become one of the main aspects of it.
I know you want to put this into a box which is what many like to do so they
can get their heads around it better.
Unfortunately studying this subject requires thinking outside the box.
Andrew W
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:24:29 +1100, "Andrew W"
> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Hatunen wrote:
>
>>> Are saying that the paranormal is included in the definition?
>
>> The paranormal is not part of the definition but it is definitely
>> part of much of the field.
>
> "Paranormal" takes in an awful lot. Is anything paranormal part
> of this unnamed field of study, or just some kinds of paranormal
> phenomena?
>
The observation that craft can phase in and out of reality, change/morph
their shape, and the ability of ETs to suddenly appear or go through walls
suggests that they are multidimensional and can manipulate the fabric of
reality.
Our science is also discovering that this is now possible. Science has
discovered that there are multiple dimensions.
Humans have even astral travelled and seen foreign landmarks and activities
that were later verified, yet there was no way the individual could have
known about those things.
george
> "Paranormal" takes in an awful lot. Is anything paranormal part
> of this unnamed field of study, or just some kinds of paranormal
> phenomena?
>
In another set of posts in sci.skeptic he admits to believing that the
Greys exists...
Why?
Because he saw a video that had some-one making the claim in a
'conference setting'...
Andrew W
Wrong. I have heard and read hundreds of interviews etc. over the last ten
years or so including many with credible military officers.
george
wrote:
> Wrong. I have heard and read hundreds of interviews etc. over the last ten
> years or so including many with credible military officers.
>
We even had an astronaut claim that he saw Noahs Ark from space..
Just because some-one held a commission at some time doesn't prevent
them being as mad as a hatter.
Andrew W
You have a right to your opinions I suppose.
That's all you have, opinions.
george
wrote:
> george wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 8:57 am, "Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Wrong. I have heard and read hundreds of interviews etc. over the
> >> last ten years or so including many with credible military officers.
>
> > We even had an astronaut claim that he saw Noahs Ark from space..
> > Just because some-one held a commission at some time doesn't prevent
> > them being as mad as a hatter.
>
> You have a right to your opinions I suppose.
> That's all you have, opinions.
So prove me wrong.
Show me where there is no insanity in the upper ranks of the military.
And show me (when you find him) as to how I got the astronauts claim
wrong about him seeing the Ark from space.
Your scepticism seems to be very shallow with to much credulity in the
strangest places...
Andrew W
> On Oct 28, 12:26 pm, "Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au>
> wrote:
>> george wrote:
>>> On Oct 28, 8:57 am, "Andrew W"
>>> <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>> Wrong. I have heard and read hundreds of interviews etc. over the
>>>> last ten years or so including many with credible military
>>>> officers.
>>
>>> We even had an astronaut claim that he saw Noahs Ark from space..
>>> Just because some-one held a commission at some time doesn't prevent
>>> them being as mad as a hatter.
>>
>> You have a right to your opinions I suppose.
>> That's all you have, opinions.
>
> So prove me wrong.
> Show me where there is no insanity in the upper ranks of the military.
> And show me (when you find him) as to how I got the astronauts claim
> wrong about him seeing the Ark from space.
>
I can't find that article. Post a link please.
I don't see anything 'mad' about wanting to find a religious relic
especially if one was raised in a religious environment.
I think you probably tend to call mad anyone who doesn't think exactly like
you.
I know because my father has the same problem. He's also part of the old
generation that can't handle this advanced stuff and people who think
differently.
But the other thing is, do you really think that NASA would send a
potentially mad person into space? You don't know that they do mental and
personality evaluations on the candidates?
>
> Your scepticism seems to be very shallow with to much credulity in the
> strangest places...
>
It all comes purely from research. Something you stopped doing just as the
best tool became available.
H.
"Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A."
news:fbb03be1-db19-44a2...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
==============================================
I hope you can get out of the rubber room Holeflapper.
H.
george
wrote:
> george wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 12:26 pm, "Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >> george wrote:
> >>> On Oct 28, 8:57 am, "Andrew W"
> >>> <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>>> Wrong. I have heard and read hundreds of interviews etc. over the
> >>>> last ten years or so including many with credible military
> >>>> officers.
>
> >>> We even had an astronaut claim that he saw Noahs Ark from space..
> >>> Just because some-one held a commission at some time doesn't prevent
> >>> them being as mad as a hatter.
>
> >> You have a right to your opinions I suppose.
> >> That's all you have, opinions.
>
> > So prove me wrong.
> > Show me where there is no insanity in the upper ranks of the military.
> > And show me (when you find him) as to how I got the astronauts claim
> > wrong about him seeing the Ark from space.
>
> I can't find that article. Post a link please.
James Irwin
"Beginning in 1973, Irwin led several expeditions to Mount Ararat,
Turkey in search of the remains of Noah's Ark. His expeditions failed
to find any sign of the Ark. In 1982, he was injured during the
descent and had to be transported down the mountain on a horse and
then to the nearest hospital by Lieutenant Orhan Baser and his
commando team. Lieutenant Baser was assigned to protect and lead the
team on this expedition."
> I don't see anything 'mad' about wanting to find a religious relic
> especially if one was raised in a religious environment.
> I think you probably tend to call mad anyone who doesn't think exactly like
> you.
That is a copout.
> I know because my father has the same problem. He's also part of the old
> generation that can't handle this advanced stuff and people who think
> differently.
You just made an assumption. Inncorrect as it happens
>
> But the other thing is, do you really think that NASA would send a
> potentially mad person into space? You don't know that they do mental and
> personality evaluations on the candidates?
>
Oh. So how about the female astronaut who drove across the USA in a
daiper so she didn't have to stop so she could murder some-one she
thought as getting away with her favourite astronaut
>
> > Your scepticism seems to be very shallow with to much credulity in the
> > strangest places...
>
> It all comes purely from research. Something you stopped doing just as the
> best tool became available.
>
You don't use sceptisism as a tool. You believe and that it all you
do.
Look at the background to these 'alien' cllaims.
Look for viable explanations with the evidence .
I recommend the following as a guide.
"If I hear hooves in the night I expect horses and not Zebras"
Andrew W
> On Oct 28, 6:44 pm, "Andrew W" <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au>
> wrote:
>> george wrote:
>>> On Oct 28, 12:26 pm, "Andrew W"
>>> <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>>> george wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 28, 8:57 am, "Andrew W"
>>>>> <removethis_ajwer...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>> So prove me wrong.
>>> Show me where there is no insanity in the upper ranks of the
>>> military. And show me (when you find him) as to how I got the
>>> astronauts claim wrong about him seeing the Ark from space.
>>
>> I can't find that article. Post a link please.
>
> James Irwin
>
> "Beginning in 1973, Irwin led several expeditions to Mount Ararat,
> Turkey in search of the remains of Noah's Ark. His expeditions failed
> to find any sign of the Ark. In 1982, he was injured during the
> descent and had to be transported down the mountain on a horse and
> then to the nearest hospital by Lieutenant Orhan Baser and his
> commando team. Lieutenant Baser was assigned to protect and lead the
> team on this expedition."
>
Ah, I think I saw that one but it might have been after I had posted my
reply.
The story sounds like what a lot of passionately curious people have done in
history.
>
>> I don't see anything 'mad' about wanting to find a religious relic
>> especially if one was raised in a religious environment.
>> I think you probably tend to call mad anyone who doesn't think
>> exactly like you.
>
> That is a copout.
>
Really? Can you honestly say that you can bring yourself to look at things
from other people's perspectives?
You've called a lot of people and things mad and nonsense so far.
That's not a scientific or open minded approach in anyones book.
>
>> I know because my father has the same problem. He's also part of the
>> old generation that can't handle this advanced stuff and people who
>> think differently.
>
> You just made an assumption. Inncorrect as it happens
>>
I may have made a bit of an assumption but you do show all the signs of a
conservative old school rigid thinker.
All hard line skeptic debunkers do.
>
>> But the other thing is, do you really think that NASA would send a
>> potentially mad person into space? You don't know that they do
>> mental and personality evaluations on the candidates?
>>
> Oh. So how about the female astronaut who drove across the USA in a
> daiper so she didn't have to stop so she could murder some-one she
> thought as getting away with her favourite astronaut
>>
That is barely coherent. I can't even begin to imagine what that could be
about.
>
>>> Your scepticism seems to be very shallow with to much credulity in
>>> the strangest places...
>>
>> It all comes purely from research. Something you stopped doing just
>> as the best tool became available.
>>
> You don't use sceptisism as a tool. You believe and that it all you
> do.
> Look at the background to these 'alien' cllaims.
> Look for viable explanations with the evidence .
> I recommend the following as a guide.
> "If I hear hooves in the night I expect horses and not Zebras"
>
Now you have made an assumption.
What you don't know is that I have over 100gig of audio and video interviews
of credible witnesses and insiders. And yes they have been verified as
honest., sane and authentic. They include insiders like Colonel Jesse Marcel
Jnr. who was a full-bird Colonel and had dealings and knowledge regarding
the Roswell incident and the government's cover-up activities.
His story as well as others is completely different to the government's
story about Roswell which was first a weather balloon, then a Mogul balloon.
But then there was the government's completely ridiculous dropped dummies
story which I won't go into.
One thing very noteworthy is that the military carried out a high security
operation to recover debris using trucks which they later claimed was a
Mogul balloon, yet the Mogul project wasn't even highly classified. (This is
strange since they even threatened many people in the area to not talk).
There were other similar balloons and they often didn't even bother
collecting them after they had fallen to earth. So why the big rah-rah this
time? Other than the balloon material itself which is no secret, the Mogul
only carried a Radiosonde which was known technology at the time.
Another thing to note is that the Roswell crash was from the start called a
'crash', yet balloons don't crash, they just come down. And they don't leave
a heck of a lot of scattered debris, certainly not 3/4 mile which the main
report says. Plus they don't need trucks accompanied by military and/or
airforce generals and advisors/consultants to carry them away.
The Roswell incident wasn't the only case using high security operations to
recover things (in some cases using large low-loader trucks). There were
several. Strange considering there was allegedly nothing at those sites to
begin with according to the government and military.
Other interviews I have include ones with:
(All were thoroughly checked out by research personnel and have appeared on
multiple respected radio programs over the years)
- Lt. Col. Kevin Randle (decorated in two wars, over 27 years of service,
expert on military matters, studied and considered leading authority on
paranormal, UFOs, has knowledge on Roswell)
- Stanton Friedman (Roswell, Majestic 12, Nuclear Physicist-Lecturer, BSc.
and MSc. Degrees in physics)
- Peter Robbins (involved in UFO studies for more than thirty years,
researcher, investigator, writer, lecturer, activist, consultant and author)
- Dennis Balthaser (Underground Bases and Tunnels, Speaker at The
Roswell-MUFON Conference, knowledge about Government and Military Secrecy at
underground locations)
- Thomas J Carey (Co-Author - Witness To Roswell, Air Force TOP
SECRET/CRYPTO clearance, research focussing on Roswell Incident)
- Frank Warren (UFO Chronicles, UFO historian)
- John Rowe (Airline pilot of 38 years shares his UFO experiences)
- George Green (Has had multiple contacts with extraterrestrials)
- Dr Nick Begich (Mind Control, HAARP, RFID's and More. Serves as Executive
Director of The Lay Institute on Technology)
- Stan Romanek (Close Encounters: Scientific Proof UFOs and Aliens are
Real - The Stan Romanek case is possibly the most scientifically documented
human/extraterrestrial encounters case in the world. There have been well
over 100 individually unique experiences that Stan has encountered since
December of 2000).
- Michael Horn (Authorized American Media Representative for the Billy Meier
Contacts which he has researched since 1979 and demonstrated to be
authentic).
- Bob Dean (retired Command Sergeant Major)
- Dan Burisch (Stargate Secrets, Project looking glass)
- John Lear (retired airline captain and friend of Bob Lazar)
- Clifford Stone (former Army Sergeant, US Government tried to suppress what
he actually saw one day in Pennsylvania 1969)
- Bill Holden (served as a steward on board Air Force One, from which he
tells a story of a short but revealing conversation with JFK about UFOs. But
that was just the beginning of his experiences. In the years which followed,
he was asked to participate several times in small select military groups to
encounter alien beings and craft demonstrations in what he believes was a
least partly a sort of experiment to assess reactions - a procedure that
others have also reported elsewhere).
- Nick Pope (The British UFO X-Files - Nick Pope used to run the British
Government's UFO project at the Ministry of Defense. Initially skeptical,
his research and investigation into the UFO phenomenon and access to
formerly classified government files on the subject soon convinced him that
the phenomenon raised important defense and national security issues,
especially when the witnesses were military pilots or where UFOs were
tracked on radar. Nick also looked into other mysteries such as alien
abductions, crop circles and ghosts. He now continues his research in a
private capacity and is recognized as a leading authority on UFOs and the
unexplained. He does extensive media work, lectures all around the world and
has acted as consultant on numerous television documentaries).
And many more.
- Dan Sherman (was trained by the US Air Force as an "Intuitive
Communicator" - a high-tech telepath - and found himself in daily
communication with two extraterrestrials as part of the US military's
preparation "for a future time in which all electronic communications would
be rendered useless").
- Bill Hamilton (speaking at the 2005 Crash Retrieval Conference in Las
Vegas and covered The Case for Reverse Engineering and Alien Astronautics,
UFOs, ETs and their agenda and interaction with mankind).
- Richard C. Hoagland (former museum space science Curator; a former NASA
Consultant; and, during the historic Apollo Missions to the Moon, was
science advisor to Walter Cronkite and CBS News).
Rex
credibility of sources will always be called into question by naysayers.
This again becomes an unprovable assertion- very similar to religion.
Q:Why, for example, have none of these supposedly eminent people and
experts been featured by the mainstream media?Why are all these sources
of information coming from dodgy looking websites that look like they
were made by some geek in a basement?
A: Because the mainstream media doesn't believe them and are part of the
coverup conspiracy.
All the photographic and film evidence to date shows nothing but grainy
footage that could mean anything.
I would like to see hard evidence as much as the next UFO fan- however
given the current state of speculation, UFO phenomena must firmly remain
in the realm of pseudoscience and deeply wishful thinking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Technology is a word for something that doesn't work yet"
-- Douglas Adams
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
Good work! This will quiet the real skeptics, but the debunkers will
make a total fool of themselves. That is what they do. Hagar,
"H"eroin, Cujo and the rest, as worthless as the shit on their
shoes.
Thanks again for the great info. This is what we are talking about!!
Sir AriØ
HVAC
"Andrew W" <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:4ae93db6$0$16717$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> "If I hear hooves in the night I expect horses and not Zebras"
>>
>
> Now you have made an assumption.
> What you don't know is that I have over 100gig of audio and video
> interviews of credible witnesses and insiders.
What a waste of hard drive space.
I save that valuable space for important
things..... Like porn.
> And yes they have been verified as honest., sane and authentic.
<<<SNIP>>>
> - Richard C. Hoagland (former museum space science Curator; a former NASA
> Consultant; and, during the historic Apollo Missions to the Moon, was
> science advisor to Walter Cronkite and CBS News).
LOL! This is the same Hoagland that claimed that astronauts had to dodge
glass buildings on the moon while landing?
"honest., sane and authentic"? BWAHAhahahahaha!
--
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain
Andrew W
The mainstream media is controlled by the governments.
Plus only bad news and violence gets ratings. That's what the majority like.
The media is all about ratings and money.
>
> Why
> are all these sources of information coming from dodgy looking
> websites that look like they were made by some geek in a basement?
> A: Because the mainstream media doesn't believe them and are part of
> the coverup conspiracy.
>
What exactly is a dodgy website? Just because some young creative mind was
employed to create an innovative website doesn't mean it contains lies.
Plain looking websites have been known to contain propaganda.
>
> All the photographic and film evidence to date shows nothing but
> grainy footage that could mean anything.
>
Its hard to be at the right place at the right time with a camera and a
tripod.
Plus if your only way to gain data from an event is to watch movies then
you're not a very good investigator.
>
> I would like to see hard evidence as much as the next UFO fan- however
> given the current state of speculation, UFO phenomena must firmly
> remain in the realm of pseudoscience and deeply wishful thinking.
>
There is no wishful thinking in this field. There is lots of very
interesting data.
Its just that the debunkers are not really interested. They just want
instant satisfaction. They want the evidence to be dropped in their laps
while they sit in their armchairs.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Technology is a word for something that doesn't work yet"
> -- Douglas Adams
--
Andrew W
> "Andrew W" <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4ae93db6$0$16717$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>> "If I hear hooves in the night I expect horses and not Zebras"
>>>
>>
>> Now you have made an assumption.
>> What you don't know is that I have over 100gig of audio and video
>> interviews of credible witnesses and insiders.
>
>
> What a waste of hard drive space.
> I save that valuable space for important
> things..... Like porn.
>
Typical profane remark by a vacant mind.
>
>
>
>> And yes they have been verified as honest., sane and authentic.
>
> <<<SNIP>>>
>
>> - Richard C. Hoagland (former museum space science Curator; a former
>> NASA Consultant; and, during the historic Apollo Missions to the
>> Moon, was science advisor to Walter Cronkite and CBS News).
>
>
> LOL! This is the same Hoagland that claimed that astronauts had to
> dodge glass buildings on the moon while landing?
>
You didn't know that photos were routinely airbrushed of all structures?
>
> "honest., sane and authentic"? BWAHAhahahahaha!
>
Yes that's right.
I can see that you've never even listened to *one* interview of the
verifiably honest, sane and authentic witnesses and insiders.
Rex
>
>>
>> I would like to see hard evidence as much as the next UFO fan- however
>> given the current state of speculation, UFO phenomena must firmly
>> remain in the realm of pseudoscience and deeply wishful thinking.
>>
>
> There is no wishful thinking in this field. There is lots of very
> interesting data.
> Its just that the debunkers are not really interested. They just want
> instant satisfaction. They want the evidence to be dropped in their laps
> while they sit in their armchairs.
>
See- you can look at all the grainy photos and interviews of retired
personnel you want and perhaps convince yourself that they are real.
Why isn't this topic being given any credence or investigation by the
mainstream media? Why is it that Nature magazine does not feature any
papers or theses by 'UFOlogists' ?
Or are you going to effectively say that 'everyone who disbelieves in
this is part of the cover-up conspiracy' ?
Again- we have the following:
1) You cannot catch hold of a UFO in broad daylight in view of a million
people (like in the movie 'Independence Day') and make it land in the
middle of a big city so that there is no doubt AT ALL that what they are
seeing is real, exists and of ET origin.
2) You cannot bang on the doors of Area 51(and whatever other such
places are there) and demand to be let in to view whatever was found at
Roswell.
3) ETs are not going to again show up in broad daylight in front of
everyone- they will continue their tactics of flying around at night and
abducting random people in remote areas so that no one will believe
their story.
Given the above- all you have are a bunch of photos and videos of
dubious origin. Face it, they can be doctored and however much you want
to believe, they fail the tests of basic science:
a) Can it be observed/measured precisely and objectively? (No one has
seen one up close, in broad daylight, in the presence of witnesses.UFOs
are not like some exotic insect discovered in a rainforest that you just
go and look in the place you first saw them to see them again)
b) Is the appearance of a UFO predictable by any pattern?(repeatability)
What would help here? As someone else pointed out- any of the following:
a) A crashed UFO, or the remains of one
b) Bodies of the UFO pilots themselves
c) Any other advanced technological artifact that cannot be attributed
to anything made on Earth.
The response to the above will always be that 'these things are there
but being covered up by the Govt.'
So these things are non existent as far as we're concerned because we
can't prove either way whether or not the govt. has them.
So what does it boil down to? Belief. Belief that there is something
being covered up by the government, belief that those photos are real
and so on, and desperate hope that it is so.
Which is again no different from believing that there is a God sitting
above the clouds who will rain fire and brimstone upon you (but it says
so in the Bible!!) for sexual transgressions.
I'm sorry, but UFO fans are totally stuck in the company of Bible
thumpers until either the US government or the ETs themselves break the
shroud of secrecy and come out in the open with whatever is supposedly
being covered up.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
" "
-- Marcel Marceau
Andrew W
>>> I would like to see hard evidence as much as the next UFO fan-
>>> however given the current state of speculation, UFO phenomena must
>>> firmly remain in the realm of pseudoscience and deeply wishful
>>> thinking.
>>
>> There is no wishful thinking in this field. There is lots of very
>> interesting data.
>> Its just that the debunkers are not really interested. They just want
>> instant satisfaction. They want the evidence to be dropped in their
>> laps while they sit in their armchairs.
>>
>
> See- you can look at all the grainy photos and interviews of retired
> personnel you want and perhaps convince yourself that they are real.
> Why isn't this topic being given any credence or investigation by the
> mainstream media?
I already answered those questions.
>
> Why is it that Nature magazine does not feature any
> papers or theses by 'UFOlogists' ?
>
Such magazines used to, but this world has changed a bit since then.
>
> Or are you going to effectively say that 'everyone who disbelieves in
> this is part of the cover-up conspiracy' ?
>
No. There are many who are genuinely ignorant.
>
> Again- we have the following:
> 1) You cannot catch hold of a UFO in broad daylight in view of a
> million people (like in the movie 'Independence Day') and make it
> land in the middle of a big city so that there is no doubt AT ALL
> that what they are seeing is real, exists and of ET origin.
>
The world is not quite ready for that yet.
The religions for a start would go berserk.
However in places like Mexico there are daily sightings of multiple objects
in the sky which are being videoed by many people.
>
> 2) You cannot bang on the doors of Area 51(and whatever other such
> places are there) and demand to be let in to view whatever was found
> at Roswell.
>
That's because its a military facility unfortunately.
We will have to replace our current war minded governments before we can do
that.
>
> 3) ETs are not going to again show up in broad daylight in front of
> everyone- they will continue their tactics of flying around at night
> and abducting random people in remote areas so that no one will
> believe their story.
>
You don't know that.
>
> Given the above- all you have are a bunch of photos and videos of
> dubious origin. Face it, they can be doctored and however much you
> want to believe, they fail the tests of basic science:
>
If you still think that all we have are some photos and videos and we have
no data then you know nothing about this subject.
Do some research and find out what we have.
Listen to the interviews available on many radio sites and find out what
considerable data we've gathered.
Unless of course you're not interested in data but just grabbing glossy
photos that you can ogle at like a kid.
>
> a) Can it be observed/measured precisely and objectively?
This is not a biology or chemistry class.
>
> (No one has
> seen one up close, in broad daylight, in the presence of
> witnesses.
>
Plenty have, but you just haven't heard about them because you're not in the
loop.
>
> UFOs are not like some exotic insect discovered in a
> rainforest that you just go and look in the place you first saw them
> to see them again) b) Is the appearance of a UFO predictable by any
> pattern?(repeatability)
No, due to the war, fear and politics of this planet that's still in effect.
We are slowly changing that however.
>
> What would help here? As someone else pointed out- any of the
> following: a) A crashed UFO, or the remains of one
> b) Bodies of the UFO pilots themselves
> c) Any other advanced technological artifact that cannot be attributed
> to anything made on Earth.
>
Those have happened, but the military always swoops in to collect them
within a couple of hours.
>
> The response to the above will always be that 'these things are there
> but being covered up by the Govt.'
>
We have multiple proof for that.
>
> So these things are non existent as far as we're concerned because we
> can't prove either way whether or not the govt. has them.
> So what does it boil down to? Belief. Belief that there is something
> being covered up by the government, belief that those photos are real
> and so on, and desperate hope that it is so.
>
Only you have to resort to belief or disbelief because you've never seen the
enormous amounts of data and evidence.
>
> Which is again no different from believing that there is a God sitting
> above the clouds who will rain fire and brimstone upon you (but it
> says so in the Bible!!) for sexual transgressions.
>
> I'm sorry, but UFO fans are totally stuck in the company of Bible
> thumpers until either the US government or the ETs themselves break
> the shroud of secrecy and come out in the open with whatever is
> supposedly being covered up.
>
Let us know when you're ready to come in and start making an effort to study
the data and testimonies instead of just standing outside bitching.
HVAC
>>>
>>> Now you have made an assumption.
>>> What you don't know is that I have over 100gig of audio and video
>>> interviews of credible witnesses and insiders.
>>
>>
>> What a waste of hard drive space.
>> I save that valuable space for important
>> things..... Like porn.
>>
>
> Typical profane remark by a vacant mind.
Typical lack of humor by a believer.
>> LOL! This is the same Hoagland that claimed that astronauts had to
>> dodge glass buildings on the moon while landing?
>>
>
> You didn't know that photos were routinely airbrushed of all structures?
And civilians studying the moon's features with privately owned
telescopes... Are they part of this evil conspiracy?
Science evolves not by believing.... But by disbelieving.
--
HVA� - Shock Treatment For Believers
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
wrote:
The main point about debunkers is that they have done absolutely NO
research on the subject, yet they portray themselves as experts. The
only subject debunkers are experts in is the study of shit, -- yes,
THAT shit. Proof: "H" - "Shit is my favorite subject."
O-BORG, - "yes, that's the shit." Hager - "I know all about shit."
It goes on and on.
Sadly, they are NOT experts in dealing with the FACTS regarding ETs
and UFOs. Nor do they plan to be.
Sir ARtiØ
H.
>>>>> DELETION <<<<<
> If you are a hard skeptic then you haven't researched
> or questioned
> enough. If you believe something too much then you
> have the same
> problem.
The main point about debunkers is that they have done
absolutely NO
research on the subject, yet they portray themselves as
experts. The
only subject debunkers are experts in is the study of
shit, -- yes,
THAT shit. Proof: "H" - "Shit is my favorite subject."
O-BORG, - "yes, that's the shit." Hager - "I know all
about shit."
It goes on and on.
Sadly, they are NOT experts in dealing with the FACTS
regarding ETs
and UFOs. Nor do they plan to be.
Sir ARti�
============================================
For once you are right Holeflapper, you are my favorite
turd.
H.
Andrew W
> "Andrew W" <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4ae9fa75$0$5425$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>
>>>> Now you have made an assumption.
>>>> What you don't know is that I have over 100gig of audio and video
>>>> interviews of credible witnesses and insiders.
>>>
>>>
>>> What a waste of hard drive space.
>>> I save that valuable space for important
>>> things..... Like porn.
>>>
>>
>> Typical profane remark by a vacant mind.
>
>
> Typical lack of humor by a believer.
>
Oh yes it was very funny.
>
>
>>> LOL! This is the same Hoagland that claimed that astronauts had to
>>> dodge glass buildings on the moon while landing?
>>>
>>
>> You didn't know that photos were routinely airbrushed of all
>> structures?
>
>
> And civilians studying the moon's features with privately owned
> telescopes... Are they part of this evil conspiracy?
>
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
But what I said has been confirmed by ex-insiders.
>
> Science evolves not by believing.... But by disbelieving.
>
That's only one part of the picture.
Einstein didn't come up with his theories and formulas by disbelieving. He
used his imagination and open mindedness to the fullest extent.
And they called him a wacko at the time.
Here's one of his quotes you'll probably remember.
Imagination is more important than knowledge.
~ Albert Einstein
Hatunen
No they didn't. Where did you get that idea?
HVAC
>>>> LOL! This is the same Hoagland that claimed that astronauts had to
>>>> dodge glass buildings on the moon while landing?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You didn't know that photos were routinely airbrushed of all
>>> structures?
>>
>>
>> And civilians studying the moon's features with privately owned
>> telescopes... Are they part of this evil conspiracy?
>>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that.
> But what I said has been confirmed by ex-insiders.
So, not only are you devoid of any humor... Your're also a retard?
Maybe if I explain it as I would to a child.
YOU said the moon pictures had Hoagland's 'glass structures'
airbrushed out. *I* asked if even all the civilians with telescopes
were in on this giant evil airbrushing conspiracy.
Is it clear yet Forest?
"Airbrush is as airbrush does".
>> Science evolves not by believing.... But by disbelieving.
>>
>
> That's only one part of the picture.
No. It is THE picture.
Someone postulates a theory and then it's on.
Everyone is invited to tear that theory down.
If it can't stand up to close scrutiny, if it can't be
repeated, it's discarded for something better.
Hoagland's shit is dismissed out of hand because
it can't stand up to even a cursory examination.
Rubes and retards eat it up tho.
> Einstein didn't come up with his theories and formulas by disbelieving. He
> used his imagination and open mindedness to the fullest extent.
> And they called him a wacko at the time.
Who did?
Andrew W
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Einstein+was+ridiculed&meta=&aq=f&oq=
Here's one example.
http://www.bokkilden.no/SamboWeb/produkt.do?produktId=2734854
Omtale
"Einstein's Struggles with Quantum Theory: A Reappraisal by Dipankar Home
and Andrew Whitaker" provides a detailed account of Albert Einstein's
thinking in regard to quantum physics. Until recently, most of Einstein's
views on quantum physics were dismissed and even ridiculed; some critics
even suggested that Einstein was not able to grasp the complexities of the
formalism of quantum theory and subtleties of the standard interpretation of
this theory known as the Copenhagen interpretation put forward by Niels Bohr
and his colleagues.
Andrew W
> "Andrew W" <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4aeb4dce$0$17749$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>> LOL! This is the same Hoagland that claimed that astronauts had
>>>>> to dodge glass buildings on the moon while landing?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You didn't know that photos were routinely airbrushed of all
>>>> structures?
>>>
>>>
>>> And civilians studying the moon's features with privately owned
>>> telescopes... Are they part of this evil conspiracy?
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by that.
>> But what I said has been confirmed by ex-insiders.
>
>
> So, not only are you devoid of any humor... Your're also a retard?
>
When its time for humour we'll joke the night away.
We're not there yet.
>
> Maybe if I explain it as I would to a child.
>
> YOU said the moon pictures had Hoagland's 'glass structures'
> airbrushed out. *I* asked if even all the civilians with telescopes
> were in on this giant evil airbrushing conspiracy.
>
> Is it clear yet Forest?
>
> "Airbrush is as airbrush does".
>
Civilians can't see certain parts of the moon which are not visible from
earth, like the side facing away for example, so your comment was kind of
pointless. That's why I couldn't figure out what you were on about.
>
>
>>> Science evolves not by believing.... But by disbelieving.
>>>
>>
>> That's only one part of the picture.
>
>
> No. It is THE picture.
>
Only as far as you hard liners with no imaginations are concerned.
>
> Someone postulates a theory and then it's on.
> Everyone is invited to tear that theory down.
> If it can't stand up to close scrutiny, if it can't be
> repeated, it's discarded for something better.
>
That's theoretical physics science which is very competitive.
This is ufo research which is a very different ballgame.
I can see that you guys are rigid thinkers who don't understand this very
difficult situation because of the nature of our secretive governments and
military and can't figure out why the proofs still aren't being released
after all these years, so you get all bitchy and angry and take it out on
the remaining dedicated researchers who still have the patience to wait for
the current govt. structure to crumble.
>
> Hoagland's shit is dismissed out of hand because
> it can't stand up to even a cursory examination.
>
Hoagland isn't perfect, I give you that, but no one is.
But you also have to look at the sheer volume of data from around the world
and not just toss it all out because one or two links in the chain are
fallible.
You guys are bitter and frustrated and it shows by how you treat everyone
who comes into these groups.
Nightcrawler
"Andrew W" <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message news:4aeb4dce$0$17749$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> If you are a hard skeptic then you haven't researched or questioned
> enough. If you believe something too much then you have the same
> problem.
Skepticism requires equal parts of being able to believe, or to not
believe, in something. Generally, a skeptic is an idiot. Generally,
skeptics want to believe in stupid things.
When evidence suggest that people cannot live after you chop their
heads off, one does not continue to chop heads off in the hope of
finding a person that somehow survives the act of beheading.
Imagination has limits within reality.
Hatunen
<removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>Hatunen wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:34:19 +1100, "Andrew W"
>> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> That's only one part of the picture.
>>> Einstein didn't come up with his theories and formulas by
>>> disbelieving. He used his imagination and open mindedness to the
>>> fullest extent.
>>> And they called him a wacko at the time.
>>
>> No they didn't. Where did you get that idea?
>>
>
>http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=Einstein+was+ridiculed&meta=&aq=f&oq=
That list isn't very impressive. You've got an Onion article, fr
pete's sake. One on hie political views, which many people
disagreed with. There's one abouyt his being ridiculed by his
grade school teachers, which is more of a myth. Another site is
about Kuhn and says "Instead, Einstein was largely ridiculed for
suggesting the notion that characteristics like mass might not be
constant"; certainly a lot of people had trouble with it at
first, but anyone who understood the specail theory wouldn't have
ridiculed him.
Nothing there implies "wacko". In fact, it would be nice if you
could quote a few contemporaries ridiculing Einstein (I'm sure
the Joe Sixpacks of the day had some things to say about such
outlandish concepts)
I beleive Einstein got ridiculed by the Nazis, who called scuh
things "Jewish science"; if that's what you meant I'll plead to
it.
>Here's one example.
>http://www.bokkilden.no/SamboWeb/produkt.do?produktId=2734854
>Omtale
>"Einstein's Struggles with Quantum Theory: A Reappraisal by Dipankar Home
>and Andrew Whitaker" provides a detailed account of Albert Einstein's
>thinking in regard to quantum physics. Until recently, most of Einstein's
>views on quantum physics were dismissed and even ridiculed; some critics
>even suggested that Einstein was not able to grasp the complexities of the
>formalism of quantum theory and subtleties of the standard interpretation of
>this theory known as the Copenhagen interpretation put forward by Niels Bohr
>and his colleagues.
I guess we need to define the phrase "at the time". It's well
known that Eisntein had problems with quantum theory, and he may
have been ridiculed for not being up to speed, but the term I'm
addressing is "wacko".
You should read the whole squib at Omtale (click les mer)
HVAC
>>
>> Maybe if I explain it as I would to a child.
>>
>> YOU said the moon pictures had Hoagland's 'glass structures'
>> airbrushed out. *I* asked if even all the civilians with telescopes
>> were in on this giant evil airbrushing conspiracy.
>>
>> Is it clear yet Forest?
>>
>> "Airbrush is as airbrush does".
>>
>
> Civilians can't see certain parts of the moon which are not visible from
> earth, like the side facing away for example, so your comment was kind of
> pointless. That's why I couldn't figure out what you were on about.
Andy, I am having a tough time believing that you're THAT stupid.
Hoagland claimed (and YOU back him up) that astronauts had to dodge
glass structures on the moon while landing. Did they land on the darkside?
This is the problem with you kooks. When you try to pin them down
they start (ahem) *acting* stupid. Why don't you just admit that Hoagland
is a fucking liar and be done with it?
>> Someone postulates a theory and then it's on.
>> Everyone is invited to tear that theory down.
>> If it can't stand up to close scrutiny, if it can't be
>> repeated, it's discarded for something better.
>>
>
> That's theoretical physics science which is very competitive.
> This is ufo research which is a very different ballgame.
Of COURSE it is...That's because it's a religion, not science.
> I can see that you guys are rigid thinkers who don't understand this very
> difficult situation because of the nature of our secretive governments and
> military and can't figure out why the proofs still aren't being released
> after all these years, so you get all bitchy and angry and take it out on
> the remaining dedicated researchers who still have the patience to wait
> for the current govt. structure to crumble.
LOL!
>> Hoagland's shit is dismissed out of hand because
>> it can't stand up to even a cursory examination.
>>
>
> Hoagland isn't perfect, I give you that, but no one is.
Then why won't you just admit that he's a cocksucking liar?
It's got nothing to do with being perfect.
It's got EVERYTHING to do with lying.
> But you also have to look at the sheer volume of data from around the
> world and not just toss it all out because one or two links in the chain
> are fallible.
> You guys are bitter and frustrated and it shows by how you treat everyone
> who comes into these groups.
I calls em like I sees em. Some people hate me for it.
Like I care?
--
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many
people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
Andrew W
> "Andrew W" <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4aeb610b$0$6091$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Civilians can't see certain parts of the moon which are not visible
>> from earth, like the side facing away for example, so your comment
>> was kind of pointless. That's why I couldn't figure out what you
>> were on about.
>
>
> Andy, I am having a tough time believing that you're THAT stupid.
>
> Hoagland claimed (and YOU back him up) that astronauts had to dodge
> glass structures on the moon while landing. Did they land on the
> darkside?
The only thing I specifically backed up was the fact that *all* structures
were routinely airbrushed out, not necessarily glass ones and not
necessarily on the near side.
I was unable to find any reports or articles where Hoagland says that
"astronauts had to dodge glass structures on the moon while landing". It was
most likely just a throw away line in an interview or something.
In fact if there are glass structures on the moon, which I don't know that
there are, then they probably wouldn't be seen by private telescopes
especially if they were rounded.
The structures I mainly referred to were the ones photographed on the far
side by the Luna obiter.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/moonstructures.html
I think that your intent here seems to be just to try to pin things on
people for sole purpose of ridicule. F.Y.I. this is not a humour group. But
I guess you've got nothing better to do with your life.
>
>>> Someone postulates a theory and then it's on.
>>> Everyone is invited to tear that theory down.
>>> If it can't stand up to close scrutiny, if it can't be
>>> repeated, it's discarded for something better.
>>>
>>
>> That's theoretical physics science which is very competitive.
>> This is ufo research which is a very different ballgame.
>
> Of COURSE it is...That's because it's a religion, not science.
>
Lol.
That's your opinion.
Its not exactly a science in itself, its more like an ongoing investigation,
but it has elements of science like advanced technologies, propulsion, space
travel, life on other planets, etc.
Religion is when a group of people believe things based on nothing but old
stories and legends.
>
>
>> I can see that you guys are rigid thinkers who don't understand this
>> very difficult situation because of the nature of our secretive
>> governments and military and can't figure out why the proofs still
>> aren't being released after all these years, so you get all bitchy
>> and angry and take it out on the remaining dedicated researchers who
>> still have the patience to wait for the current govt. structure to
>> crumble.
>
>
> LOL!
>
You don't believe that our governments and especially our military are
secretive?
>
>>> Hoagland's shit is dismissed out of hand because
>>> it can't stand up to even a cursory examination.
>>>
>>
>> Hoagland isn't perfect, I give you that, but no one is.
>
>
> Then why won't you just admit that he's a cocksucking liar?
>
That's going a bit far. He's very passionate. That trait always has some
good and bad sides.
>
> It's got nothing to do with being perfect.
>
> It's got EVERYTHING to do with lying.
>
Lying is when you know something's definitely not true.
>
>> But you also have to look at the sheer volume of data from around the
>> world and not just toss it all out because one or two links in the
>> chain are fallible.
>> You guys are bitter and frustrated and it shows by how you treat
>> everyone who comes into these groups.
>
> I calls em like I sees em. Some people hate me for it.
>
> Like I care?
>
Do you see everything that goes on in this world and beyond?
Then its only your opinions.
HVAC
>>
>> Andy, I am having a tough time believing that you're THAT stupid.
(I now wish to rescind that statement)
>> Hoagland claimed (and YOU back him up) that astronauts had to dodge
>> glass structures on the moon while landing. Did they land on the
>> darkside?
>
> The only thing I specifically backed up was the fact that *all* structures
> were routinely airbrushed out, not necessarily glass ones and not
> necessarily on the near side.
The mental gymnastics that you have to go through to defend
your ideas would win a gold medal in the kook Olympics.
Ironic, isn't it?
You defend your unsubstantiated claims as would a religious nut.
Not with facts, but with fervor.
Ghosts, ufo's and other bullshit is the new religion of the millenium.
> I was unable to find any reports or articles where Hoagland says that
> "astronauts had to dodge glass structures on the moon while landing". It
> was most likely just a throw away line in an interview or something.
> In fact if there are glass structures on the moon, which I don't know that
> there are, then they probably wouldn't be seen by private telescopes
> especially if they were rounded.
> The structures I mainly referred to were the ones photographed on the far
> side by the Luna obiter.
> http://www.ufocasebook.com/moonstructures.html
Let's see. If he's telling the truth (no) then he's a traitor divulging
secrets that he SWORE not to reveal, or he's a liar (yes).
> I think that your intent here seems to be just to try to pin things on
> people for sole purpose of ridicule.
Ummmmm, YA. That's what I do.
> F.Y.I. this is not a humour group.
I find this EXTREMELY comical!
> But I guess you've got nothing better to do with your life.
The 15-20 minutes a day that I devote here is richly rewarded
in smiles, laughs and giggles.
>>> That's theoretical physics science which is very competitive.
>>> This is ufo research which is a very different ballgame.
>>
>> Of COURSE it is...That's because it's a religion, not science.
> That's your opinion.
That's all I got dude.
> Its not exactly a science in itself, its more like an ongoing
> investigation, but it has elements of science like advanced technologies,
> propulsion, space travel, life on other planets, etc.
And what insights into advanced propulsion systems has ufo
research given us to date?
(awkward silence)
> Religion is when a group of people believe things based on nothing but old
> stories and legends.
Tell that to scientologists.
Ghosts, ufo's and other bullshit is the new religion of the millenium.
>> Then why won't you just admit that he's a cocksucking liar?
>>
>
> That's going a bit far. He's very passionate. That trait always has some
> good and bad sides.
Funny how you defending Hoagland is similar to
Tom Cruise defending L. Ron Hubbard.
Coincidence?
Ghosts, ufo's and other bullshit is the new religion of the millenium.
> Lying is when you know something's definitely not true.
Do you know that scientology isn't true?
Are you 100% certain it isn't true?
~
Ghosts, ufo's and other bullshit is the new religion of the millenium.
Andrew W
> "Andrew W" <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4aecd7a7$0$5423$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>
>>> Andy, I am having a tough time believing that you're THAT stupid.
>
> (I now wish to rescind that statement)
>
Why thank you. You're very kind.
>
>>> Hoagland claimed (and YOU back him up) that astronauts had to dodge
>>> glass structures on the moon while landing. Did they land on the
>>> darkside?
>>
>> The only thing I specifically backed up was the fact that *all*
>> structures were routinely airbrushed out, not necessarily glass ones
>> and not necessarily on the near side.
>
>
> The mental gymnastics that you have to go through to defend
> your ideas would win a gold medal in the kook Olympics.
>
It wasn't mental gymnastics for me. I just untwisted all your twisted false
accusations.
>
> Ironic, isn't it?
>
> You defend your unsubstantiated claims as would a religious nut.
> Not with facts, but with fervor.
>
Sorry, but I and others in this field work only with facts.
Its just that you hate certain facts and research like cats hate swimming
pools.
>
> Ghosts, ufo's and other bullshit is the new religion of the millenium.
>
21st century science is a religion to all ignorant old flag-wavers.
>
>> I was unable to find any reports or articles where Hoagland says that
>> "astronauts had to dodge glass structures on the moon while
>> landing". It was most likely just a throw away line in an interview
>> or something. In fact if there are glass structures on the moon, which I
>> don't
>> know that there are, then they probably wouldn't be seen by private
>> telescopes especially if they were rounded.
>> The structures I mainly referred to were the ones photographed on
>> the far side by the Luna obiter.
>> http://www.ufocasebook.com/moonstructures.html
>
>
> Let's see. If he's telling the truth (no) then he's a traitor
> divulging secrets that he SWORE not to reveal, or he's a liar (yes).
>
A traitor against a traitorous government is a friend.
And we have documented proof that we have a traitorous government.
>
>
>> I think that your intent here seems to be just to try to pin things
>> on people for sole purpose of ridicule.
>
>
> Ummmmm, YA. That's what I do.
>
>
>
>> F.Y.I. this is not a humour group.
>
>
> I find this EXTREMELY comical!
>
>
>> But I guess you've got nothing better to do with your life.
>
>
> The 15-20 minutes a day that I devote here is richly rewarded
> in smiles, laughs and giggles.
>
By who? Your fractured multiple selves?
Ah, you have a mirror next to your screen.
>
>>>> That's theoretical physics science which is very competitive.
>>>> This is ufo research which is a very different ballgame.
>>>
>>> Of COURSE it is...That's because it's a religion, not science.
>
>> That's your opinion.
>
> That's all I got dude.
>
Yep.
>
>> Its not exactly a science in itself, its more like an ongoing
>> investigation, but it has elements of science like advanced
>> technologies, propulsion, space travel, life on other planets, etc.
>
> And what insights into advanced propulsion systems has ufo
> research given us to date?
>
> (awkward silence)
>
Many. I have also seen several patents.
>
>> Religion is when a group of people believe things based on nothing
>> but old stories and legends.
>
>
> Tell that to scientologists.
>
Scientologists are only into ripping people off.
>
> Ghosts, ufo's and other bullshit is the new religion of the millenium.
>
>
>>> Then why won't you just admit that he's a cocksucking liar?
>>>
>>
>> That's going a bit far. He's very passionate. That trait always has
>> some good and bad sides.
>
>
> Funny how you defending Hoagland is similar to
> Tom Cruise defending L. Ron Hubbard.
>
> Coincidence?
>
Hubbard was actually straight out crazy.
See the doco "Secret lives of L. Ron Hubbard".
>
> Ghosts, ufo's and other bullshit is the new religion of the millenium.
>
>
>> Lying is when you know something's definitely not true.
>
>
> Do you know that scientology isn't true?
>
> Are you 100% certain it isn't true?
>
Actually I have studied the principles of Dianetics and found some very
interesting things, but I'm not going to say what they are.
> ~
> Ghosts, ufo's and other bullshit is the new religion of the millenium.
--
HVAC
>>
>>> Its not exactly a science in itself, its more like an ongoing
>>> investigation, but it has elements of science like advanced
>>> technologies, propulsion, space travel, life on other planets, etc.
>>
>> And what insights into advanced propulsion systems has ufo
>> research given us to date?
>>
>> (awkward silence)
>>
>
> Many. I have also seen several patents.
Hahahahaha! Nice duck and cover there Andy.
'Many' LOL !!
> Scientologists are only into ripping people off.
And Hoagland isn't? Your religous fervor has blinded you.
>> Funny how you defending Hoagland is similar to
>> Tom Cruise defending L. Ron Hubbard.
>>
>> Coincidence?
>>
>
> Hubbard was actually straight out crazy.
My irony meter just shit the bed..........
> Actually I have studied the principles of Dianetics and found some very
> interesting things, but I'm not going to say what they are.
Of COURSE you did! It's all part of your religion.
Andrew W
> "Andrew W" <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4aee63b7$0$5421$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>
>>>> Its not exactly a science in itself, its more like an ongoing
>>>> investigation, but it has elements of science like advanced
>>>> technologies, propulsion, space travel, life on other planets, etc.
>>>
>>> And what insights into advanced propulsion systems has ufo
>>> research given us to date?
>>>
>>> (awkward silence)
>>>
>>
>> Many. I have also seen several patents.
>
>
> Hahahahaha! Nice duck and cover there Andy.
>
> 'Many' LOL !!
>
What duck and cover? Its the truth. Check out my claim any time.
But of course because you like study and research about as much as cats
likes swimming pools you wouldn't know anything about this sort of thing.
>
>
>
>> Scientologists are only into ripping people off.
>
>
> And Hoagland isn't? Your religous fervor has blinded you.
>
Is Hoagland a millionaire? No.
Are his fans satisfied? Yes.
It is a fact that ufologists make relatively little on sales of book and
videos etc.
So no, they don't do it for money, like many ignorant loudmouths like to
trumpet.
>
>
>>> Funny how you defending Hoagland is similar to
>>> Tom Cruise defending L. Ron Hubbard.
>>>
>>> Coincidence?
>>>
>>
>> Hubbard was actually straight out crazy.
>
>
> My irony meter just shit the bed..........
>
Your opinion of who's crazy is worth zilch.
>
>> Actually I have studied the principles of Dianetics and found some
>> very interesting things, but I'm not going to say what they are.
>
>
> Of COURSE you did! It's all part of your religion.
>
Your opinion of what's a religion is worth zilch.
>
> ~
> Ghosts, ufo's and other bullshit is the new religion of the millenium
>
You forgot to spell check the word millennium.
Sir Arthur CB Wholeflaffers ASA
<scie...@zzz.com> wrote:
> UFO Debunkers: A Dangerous "Cult" or Super Patriots?/ The History of
> UFO Debunking!
>
> The standing joke among UFO circles is for every 200 UFO
> sightings, the Air Force can explain away 201. The possibility that
> our Government might withhold or distort information about UFOs might
> seem farfetched, until you read the mountains of evidence compiled
> from the Government's own files. Evidence that strongly suggests a
> cover-up. The U.S. Military first started seeing UFOs in World War
> II, pilots called them "Foo Fighters." We thought they were a German
> secret weapon, the German's thought they were ours. An explosion of
> civilian sightings in 1947 caught the military by surprise. Top
> secret investigations were begun. A joint study by the FBI and Army
> concluded, "The flying saucer situation is not all imaginary,
> something is really flying around." That report was kept secret until
> 1976.
>
> Most early UFO sightings were made by eyewitnesses and not
> radar. In New Mexico, over a two year period, dozens of people
> reported seeing green fire-balls over sensitive military
> installations. But when radar and cameras were dispatched to those
> installations, the fire-balls mysteriously shifted someplace else. A
> 1949 study by scientists at Los Alamos Lab stated, "The fireballs
> deserve serious consideration.".
>
> Some have suggested that the saucer craze of the 1940's and
> 1950's was a by-product of Cold War tensions and fears. Both the U.S.
> and the U.S.S.R. conducted secret studies to find out if the other
> side was behind the UFOs, and both concluded early on that the
> capabilities of the flying discs seemed beyond human technology. This
> secret report done in 1948 by the Air Force and Naval Intelligence is
> among the most fascinating of the UFO documents ever to surface
> because it wasn't suppose to exist. A confidential memo at the end of
> the report ordered that all copies should be destroyed. But one copy
> survived and was finally pried out of the Pentagon in 1985. It's a
> study of more than 200 of the earliest UFO sightings, including one
> that occurred on June, 1947, near Lake Mead. The report notes that an
> Air Force pilot saw a formation of six UFOs, and the UFOs were some
> type of flying craft, not weather balloons or hallucinations. The
> report made note of the fact that more than a few sighting reports
> were made by experienced personnel, and that the origin of flying
> saucers was not ascertainable.
>
> The Cold War with the Soviets and Communist countries was heating up.
> Strange craft were reported all over our skies, and the news media was
> critical of government's explanations. Many people thought the craft
> belonged to the Soviet Union or perhaps aliens bent on invasion. There
> was fear the Soviets could use UFO propaganda to discredit the US
> government. There was genuine concern that a national panic could
> occur. Whether UFOs were real or not, the situation made the president
> nervous and made the military and the various intelligence agencies
> look bad. Plenty of good reports were trickling out that a substantial
> number of military aircraft were crashing. Stories started to leak out
> that these aircraft were crashing while chasing UFOs. The crashes were
> explained as training accidents and mechanical failures, but the news
> media was starting to tie the two types of reports together.
>
> The over-all effort to study saucers was called "Project Sign,"
> and the headquarters was located at Wright Field in Ohio. In 1949,
> Sign personnel wrote a top-secret report, which concluded that, "UFOs
> were extra-terrestrial craft." When the report made it to the desk of
> the Chief of Staff General Hoyt Vandeberg, he rejected it and ordered
> all copies burned. This rejection from the top was in the view of
> many, the death knell for any objective study of UFOs. A few weeks
> later Project Sign produced another final report stating that it's
> findings were "inconclusive." That report was accepted and soon after
> Project Sign became Project Grudge. Grudge evaluated reports on the
> premise that UFOs could not exist. According to a later report by the
> Library of Congress, it was the job of Grudge to explain them all.
> Despite this slant, 23% of Grudge cases remained a mystery. Grudge
> staffers decided these cases were physiologically motivated, the first
> official declaration that people who see UFOs are crazy.
>
> In 1952, there were more sightings than the five previous years
> combined, including the two infamous Washington D.C. incidents. Yet
> another study was launched, Project Bluebook. Bluebook today is
> notorious in UFO circles as a whitewash. There is considerable
> evidence the project was far from objective. The man appointed to
> head Bluebook, Captain Edward Ruppelt, said he was told in the very
> beginning that the 'powers that be' were anti-flying-saucer and to
> stay in favor, "it behooves one to follow suit." Ruppelt later
> resigned from the military and wrote a book about what he says was the
> Bluebook cover-up and the reality of flying saucers. The continued
> increase of UFO sightings was a source of great concern for the CIA
> and a new strategy was born: "UFO DEBUNKING."
>
> A group of CIA-connected scientists was assembled in secret to
> evaluate UFOs. CIA documents reveal that five members of the
> Scientific Advisory Panel, who were all well-known skeptics, were
> given several poor UFO cases to examine and came to the conclusion
> that "there was no evidence of a direct threat to national security in
> the objects sighted. Flying saucer reports were overloading emergency
> reporting channels with false information, clogging up communication
> lines, causing alarm, and realistically even if they were real there
> was little we could do about them." Furthermore, the government was
> losing the confidence of the people. Our science and aircraft seemed
> to be confronted by far superior technology.
>
> The "Robertson Panel" spent all of twelve hours in a round-table
> discussion, analyzing only about a handful of UFO cases. The Panel
> concluded that, "UFOs are not a threat to national security...but
> continued reporting of UFOs is a threat." Their recommendation: The
> Government should take immediate steps to strip UFOs of their "aura of
> mystery," through a program of public education. The final report
> even used the term, "DEBUNKING."
>
> The Robertson Panel discussions and recommendations centered around
> the main problem of eradicating belief in these unidentified flying
> objects. Ways of using the news media and movies to discredit UFOs
> were discussed and placed into action. This resulted in the reduction
> of public interest around the reality of flying saucers, which even
> today still evokes a strong psychological reaction. Such propaganda
> techniques included addressing actual UFO cases, which might have been
> puzzling at first but later explained away as natural phenomenon.
>
> The panel also discussed various insidious methods that were often
> implemented to execute this debunking program. It was felt strongly
> that psychologists familiar with mass psychology should be called in
> as advisers to assist with the nature and extent of this program.
> These national programs resulted in the National Policy. The end
> result was to debunk any valid sighting, even if it resulted in the
> embarrassment of pilots and/or government employees. UFO reports were
> denied, debunked and those who saw them were soundly and mercilessly
> ridiculed.
>
> Timothy Good in his book Above Top Secret writes: Another sinister
> recommendation of the panel was that civilian UFO groups should be
> watched "because of their potentially great influence on mass thinking
> if widespread sightings should occur. The apparent irresponsibility
> and the possible use of such groups for subversive purposes should be
> kept in mind." The panel concluded that "the continued emphasis on the
> reporting these phenomena does, in these parlous times, result in a
> threat to the orderly functioning of the protective organs of the body
> politic," and recommended:
>
> a. That the national security agencies take immediate steps to strip
> the Unidentified Flying Objects of the special status they have been
> given and the aura of mystery they have unfortunately acquired.
>
> b. That the national security agencies institute policies on
> intelligence, training, and public education designed to prepare the
> material defenses and the morale of the country to recognize most
> promptly and to react most effectively to true indications of hostile
> intent or action.
>
> Shortly thereafter every effort of the government went into debunking
> UFOs even if it would mean embarrassing its own people. It soon became
> known the best way to destroy your military career was to report a
> UFO. Captain Edward J. Ruppelt, Chief of the Aerial Phenomena Branch
> at the Air Technical Intelligence Center, said that the CIA ordered
> the Air Force to debunk sightings and debunk witnesses. "We're
> ordered to hide sightings when possible," he told Major Keyhole, "but
> if a strong report does get out we have to publish a fast explanation--
> make up something to kill the report in a hurry, and also ridicule the
> witness, especially if we can't figure out a plausible answer, even if
> we have to discredit our own pilots."
>
> The debunking included spying on UFO witnesses and the infiltration of
> UFO organizations by the CIA and FBI. Various effective civilian UFO
> organizations have been rendered impotent, and sometimes inactive,
> after ex-CIA members have joined their board of directors, the best
> example being the ousting of Major Donald Keyhoe from NICAP (National
> Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena.). APRO (Aerial
> Phenomena Research Organization) head Jim Lorenzen was also put under
> CIA surveillance in 1953, after the recommendations of the Robertson
> Panel. New federal policy resulting from the Robertson Panel includes
> Military Policy Orders AFR 200-2 and JANAP 146, which simultaneously
> criminalizes the release by any military personnel of UFO-related
> information, but makes the ...
>
> read more »
Excellent!
Benj
wrote:
> HVAC wrote:
> > What a waste of hard drive space.
> > I save that valuable space for important
> > things..... Like porn.
>
> Typical profane remark by a vacant mind.
Shame on you! Why are you wasting any time on nutcase like HVAC. I
can't figure if he is trying to be Beavis or Butthead, but it is
certain that next to name calling in "borderland" groups his next
favorite pastime is "frog baseball".
Please do not feed the trolls.
He said "HARD" drive!!!!! Huh huh huh. huh. huh.
Sir Arthur C.B.E. Wholeflaffers A.S.A.
Worth a read!!