The matter of UFO's is a real one

[Mellow]

Goldstone, you may not be advocating little grren men in shiny saucers, but you're clearly stating someone is controlling them when you say...

who is intelligently flying these aircraft

My argument is that there isn't great deal of conclusive evidence that there's anything "intelligent" or, more to the point "controlled" about the vast majority of sightings.

[Strange]

Goldstone, you may not be advocating little grren men in shiny saucers, but you're clearly stating someone is controlling them when you say...

who is intelligently flying these aircraft

My argument is that there isn't great deal of conclusive evidence that there's anything "intelligent" or, more to the point "controlled" about the vast majority of sightings.

Or, more to the point, "aircraft".

Goldstone, one more time: how do you get from "unidentified" to "aircraft"?

[Goldstone]

I do not promote any idea suggesting that aliens are visiting planet earth. I see it as a possibility, but I do not believe it to be true to what is happening. I have said this in the OP and also two other posts related to this thread.

Also I am not promoting Goods own personal beliefs. He formed them from honest investigations. I have studied those investigations, (also knowing many of these incidents he spoke of before reading his work) and I cannot share his contention that aliens are visiting earth [yet].

No where ever have I interchanged the words ''aliens'' with ''UFO's'' to mean the same thing. I have attributed ''aircraft'' to ''UFO's'' because I am under the impression at least a small amount of these sightings show evidence of an intelligence behind their control. I have mentioned keyhoe a few times here, I wanted everyone to be directed to the revered man and watch this classic interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxkdCciZMhk

Nt long before that interview, Keyhoe had been cut off the air on another program as he testified to the validity of the UFO phenomenon and said some where under intelligent control.

[Strange]

I have attributed ''aircraft'' to ''UFO's'' because I am under the impression at least a small amount of these sightings show evidence of an intelligence behind their control.

Then you need to be more careful in your writing. You made a general statement about UFOs and equated them with aircraft. Some proportion may be aircraft (but we will never know because they are unidentified).

[JayUtah]

What are you talking about? What kind of UFO do you think I am referring to Joesph Walker here? The kind little green men are piloting? Oh gawd, get the tin foil out so I can make myself an antitelepathic hat! lol

You're the one trying to turn this into something sinister. You're the one trying to make Walker's work into something than just routine air patrol. You must think there's something salient in mentioning him in connection with a book on the subject of alleged UFO coverups. If you're not just making idle chatter, and there's something you think is especially remarkable about Walker's work, then it's your burden to state it and defend it.

Stop redirecting things I say to silly definitions which (I MADE CLEAR) from very early on.

On the contrary, you haven't made any definitions clear at all, and you've stubbornly resisted my questions asking you to clarify. You keep saying UFOs are "real," and I keep asking you "real what?" You don't answer. If, as you say, you've been clear all along, it will be trivially easy for you to point to some prior post you made and say, "See, this is where I define what I mean by 'UFO.'" Why don't you do that, because we're all pretty confused here.

[Goldstone]

You're the one trying to turn this into something sinister. You're the one trying to make Walker's work into something than just routine air patrol. You must think there's something salient in mentioning him in connection with a book on the subject of alleged UFO coverups. If you're not just making idle chatter, and there's something you think is especially remarkable about Walker's work, then it's your burden to state it and defend it.



On the contrary, you haven't made any definitions clear at all, and you've stubbornly resisted my questions asking you to clarify. You keep saying UFOs are "real," and I keep asking you "real what?" You don't answer. If, as you say, you've been clear all along, it will be trivially easy for you to point to some prior post you made and say, "See, this is where I define what I mean by 'UFO.'" Why don't you do that, because we're all pretty confused here.

Don't even get me started. I read the rest of that previous post, and If i see anyone misrepresenting facts, it is you.

The only Debus memo I spoke of in my work was the memo which he said the FBI where not within jurisdiction to investigate the UFO phenomenon. I have a copy of that memo. You are trying to say Good is misprespresenting facts.... forget Good for a moment, and study what that memo said... Good doesn't even need to be brought into the equation. The FBI had lied and their shame was brought to the public eye a long time ago. Good cannot misrepresent the true past events which took place in these memos.

[Goldstone]

Then you need to be more careful in your writing. You made a general statement about UFOs and equated them with aircraft. Some proportion may be aircraft (but we will never know because they are unidentified).

I try to be careful as possible. This is why I made it clear very very early on that I am not the kind of person you will deal with here who takes UFO to naturally mean alien intelligence.

[NEOWatcher]

Goldstone; I have a major request. Please make clear what your intentions of this thread are.
In that clarification I want to know:
What is it you want us to discuss with you specifically?
What is your claim?
Primarily, what do you think you will accomplish by talking with us?

With your lack of clarity, all I am getting is some people can't identify something that they see in the sky on occasion. That statement is true, and I doubt you will find anyone that disagrees with that. The problem is, that statement doesn't point to anything except that people don't know everything.

[Tensor]

If I say UFO --- I MEAN ''an unidentified flying object.'' Period. Stop redirecting things I say to silly definitions which (I MADE CLEAR) from very early on.

If the above is the case then you obviously have to explain the following:

From post #63

They are intelligently controlled 'a good bit of the time' ...
Situations where air force pilots have been ordered to chase these objects and when these objects evade the air force, are cases of intelligently controlled.

From post #64

Formations are also a good way to indicate whether there is any intelligence behind them.

From post #79

This is the biggest hoax the governemet wants you to believe, is that these objects don't exist, or are nothing but manned aircraft.

If you mean the object is unidentified, why do you keep intimating something else (there are more examples out there than just these three)? If you don't want us to (in your view) put words in your mouth, then how about you abandon sneaking in sly references to these unidentified objects being intelligently controlled? If you think the objects are unidentified, just leave it at that. Don't mention controlled flight or try to twist these observations into something they are not. Then, when called on it, claim that's not what I meant. You are the one making the ambiguous statements. That is not our fault. Not to mention your use of authors who push the "aliens are controlling these things" view.

As for this:

you said ''I find it mildly interesting the many UFO proponents consider the military to be selectively reliable.''

Why do you find it interesting? These officials who come forward make a greater risk in their endeavours to make the truth be known. These are revered, high-class respected among their peers that they would jeapordize their own credibility and their job positions to let the disclosure of information be known to the public. I don't find it odd at all, why (people like me for instance) take their words in higher regards than most other witnesses. It is only by common-sense their integrity can be least questionable out of those who have nothing to gain, but make a short-lived fame for themselves. They will could inevitably loose their whole job with being so bold and brave, there livelihoods outweigh any simpletons desire for a moment of fame.

How many of the people that have served in the military forces have you known personally? I served for 16 years and painting people with such a broad brush is just foolish. There are quite a few who would be more than happy to get their moment of fame. It wouldn't be odd if those investigating would take those that report these things with the same view. But it's only those that report what the investigators want to believe that are somehow more worthy. Why not believe those that report the mundane things also? It basically comes down to "I think they're more trustworthy because they agree with my position" more than anything else.

[dmr81]

I do not promote any idea suggesting that aliens are visiting planet earth.

I wanted everyone to be directed to the revered man and watch this classic interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxkdCciZMhk

(Link goes to a video suggesting that UFOs are flying saucers piloted by aliens).

[Goldstone]

Goldstone; I have a major request. Please make clear what your intentions of this thread are.
In that clarification I want to know:
What is it you want us to discuss with you specifically?
What is your claim?
Primarily, what do you think you will accomplish by talking with us?

With your lack of clarity, all I am getting is some people can't identify something that they see in the sky on occasion. That statement is true, and I doubt you will find anyone that disagrees with that. The problem is, that statement doesn't point to anything except that people don't know everything.

What is it you want us to discuss with you specifically?

The facts which seem to indicate a world-wide conspiracy among shadow governments whe are intentionally perpetuating the myth that UFO's are a product of the imagination, or by-pass their existences as nothing but hoax's, weather balloons, meteors and other natural aerial phenomenon. I want to discuss the reasons for their attempts at keeping the public naive on the subject which has been reported by some officials as being classified even higher than the H-Bomb. Keyhoe and Wilbert Smith have both made similar statements on this. I then want to discuss whether there is no enough evidence to suggest the secrecy is as sinister as actually accepting their is some kind of alien adversaries which are then a subject of the National Security of each Nation on planet Earth.

What is your claim?

My claim is that we should take the memo's seriously, that by not doing so we leave ourselves open at risk as an under-prepared nation for a new paradigm shift in will what be known as ''the Day of Disclosure'' - a full intelligence report which are still in the hands of the governments... most notably the British and American governments, but no doubt being itself a world-wide influence. I claim they are most likely ''spy'' technlogies. A Surveillance aircraft due to their ability to suspend for long periods of time at certain altitudes. Since they have displayed little to no direct threat physically, it would seem that they are not primarily used for the acts of war. (But that is largely speculative of me)

Primarily, what do you think you will accomplish by talking with us?

If I can get a discussion out of it and maybe even cause a little doubt in a skeptics mind, then why not? I am here to learn as well :P

[Goldstone]

(Link goes to a video suggesting that UFOs are flying saucers piloted by aliens).

They are his beliefs. Did you watch the whole thing? He admits he's never directly seen a UFO but has tracked them down on radar.

[Goldstone]

How many of the people that have served in the military forces have you known personally? I served for 16 years and painting people with such a broad brush is just foolish. There are quite a few who would be more than happy to get their moment of fame. It wouldn't be odd if those investigating would take those that report these things with the same view. But it's only those that report what the investigators want to believe that are somehow more worthy. Why not believe those that report the mundane things also? It basically comes down to "I think they're more trustworthy because they agree with my position" more than anything else.

I appreciate you have served your country... and that is to be commended.

But sir, I can recite dozans of official Military reports which seem to indicate the validity of investigations and recoveries of UFO's. I even have reports that suggest recoveries of bodies as well from important declassified memorandums.

[NEOWatcher]

What is it you want us to discuss with you specifically?

The facts which seem to indicate a world-wide conspiracy among shadow governments whe are intentionally perpetuating the myth that UFO's are a product of the imagination, or by-pass their existences as nothing but hoax's, weather balloons, meteors and other natural aerial phenomenon.

That's already a one sided statement. Why are all those posssibilities a "myth"? We already have PROOF that most UFO sightings correspond to those items. Why is that a myth?

I want to discuss the reasons for their attempts at keeping the public naive on the subject which has been reported by some officials as being classified even higher than the H-Bomb.

First, we need evidence of those attempts before we can discuss the reasons behind them.

Keyhoe and Wilbert Smith have both made similar statements on this. I then want to discuss whether there is no enough evidence to suggest the secrecy is as sinister as actually accepting their is some kind of alien adversaries which are then a subject of the National Security of each Nation on planet Earth.

We've already stated repeatedly, there is not enough evidence. Do you think we are hiding it and can uncover it?

My claim is that we should take the memo's seriously, that by not doing so we leave ourselves open at risk as an under-prepared nation for a new paradigm shift in will what be known as ''the Day of Disclosure''

And previous disclosures of other classified information created "paradigm shifts"?

- a full intelligence report which are still in the hands of the governments... most notably the British and American governments, but no doubt being itself a world-wide influence. I claim they are most likely ''spy'' technlogies. A Surveillance aircraft due to their ability to suspend for long periods of time at certain altitudes. Since they have displayed little to no direct threat physically, it would seem that they are not primarily used for the acts of war. (But that is largely speculative of me)

"Spy technologies" have been uncovered in the past. There has never been any kind of impact on the general populous that I am aware of. Even if this is spy technology, I see no issue.

If I can get a discussion out of it and maybe even cause a little doubt in a skeptics mind, then why not? I am here to learn as well :P

Then please interact and learn instead of just throwing out all these alien references.

[Goldstone]

I am open to the idea of aliens being responsible though. I am well aware of the physics behind the idea and it is very possible they could have been visiting for a long time. ''How else would we explain the STS tapes'' I ask myself... unless this technology has been developed to fly past the terrestrial sphere and into the vacuum of space. Such a technology would make the conventional rockets sending astronauts into space as primitive.

[Goldstone]

That's already a one sided statement. Why are all those posssibilities a "myth"? We already have PROOF that most UFO sightings correspond to those items. Why is that a myth?


First, we need evidence of those attempts before we can discuss the reasons behind them.


We've already stated repeatedly, there is not enough evidence. Do you think we are hiding it and can uncover it?


And previous disclosures of other classified information created "paradigm shifts"?


"Spy technologies" have been uncovered in the past. There has never been any kind of impact on the general populous that I am aware of. Even if this is spy technology, I see no issue.


Then please interact and learn instead of just throwing out all these alien references.

That's already a one sided statement. Why are all those posssibilities a "myth"? We already have PROOF that most UFO sightings correspond to those items. Why is that a myth?

It has been the goal of this shadow government, (according to some sources) to simply make [any] sighting as some which can be explanable. Whilst there is some logic and truth behind the statement any way as it is, it does not take into account the sightings which really can't be explained, and as Donald Keyhoe has explained, there are many of those cases. Not the 1% we are usually led to believe in.


First, we need evidence of those attempts before we can discuss the reasons behind them.

This might turn into a relative problem then, because I see plenty evidence throughout history.

We've already stated repeatedly, there is not enough evidence. Do you think we are hiding it and can uncover it?

So now we have evidence, just not enough of it?

And previous disclosures of other classified information created "paradigm shifts"?

There has been some ''smoking guns''. We require full declassification of every UFO-related project including an official governement statement. It has been suggested by the late Senator Barry Goldwater that he was made aware through channels that a disclosure was planned for the future.

[Strange]

The facts which seem to indicate a world-wide conspiracy among shadow governments whe are intentionally perpetuating the myth that UFO's are a product of the imagination, or by-pass their existences as nothing but hoax's, weather balloons, meteors and other natural aerial phenomenon.

The ones that have been identified as hoaxes, weather balloons, meteors and other natural aerial phenomenon or a product of the imagination are no longer UFOs. Only the remaining small percentage that are not identified are UFOs. You seem very confused about this.

What exactly do you think "exists" which is being "bypassed" by these mundane explanations?

What is a "shadow government"?

What are the facts that indicate a world-wide conspiracy?

I want to discuss the reasons for their attempts at keeping the public naive on the subject which has been reported by some officials as being classified even higher than the H-Bomb.

So do you think that the thousands of websites and books on UFOs as aliens, spiritual beings, time travellers, etc. are just government propaganda to hide The Truth? What is the truth, according to you?

[Goldstone]

The ones that have been identified as hoaxes, weather balloons, meteors and other natural aerial phenomenon or a product of the imagination are no longer UFOs. Only the remaining small percentage that are not identified are UFOs. You seem very confused about this.

How am I confused? What you said is correct, but what I said was correct as well. They had to be UFO's in the first place to be identified.

Some of you are clutching to straws in your arguements. You're also attacking my understanding, which (didn't I get infractioned for)???

[dmr81]

They are his beliefs.

Do you share his beliefs, or did you link to a video that you disagree with as a deliberate troll?

[Goldstone]

Do you share his beliefs, or did you link to a video that you disagree with as a deliberate troll?

I linked you to the video because it it was in reference to my claim ''under intelligent control.'' The man in the video is also mentioned in my OP, so get out my face!

[Goldstone]

And I'm sure I got infractioned for name-calling as well. I am sure calling someone a troll comes under the catagory.

[NEOWatcher]

Thank you for completely ignoring the point of my post.
You have made no attempt to address previous classified technology and how they created a "paradigm" shift, or even any impact on the general populous.

It has been the goal of this shadow government...

Already a biased statement. What shadow government?

, (according to some sources)

An often misused way of selecting statements you want to believe.

to simply make [any] sighting as some which can be explanable. Whilst there is some logic and truth behind the statement any way as it is, it does not take into account the sightings which really can't be explained, and as Donald Keyhoe has explained, there are many of those cases. Not the 1% we are usually led to believe in.

"Many"? Compared to what?
Out of the volume of sightings reported, even the 1% translates into "many".
And that's even ignoring things people see and don't report. I have seen (what I consider) a UFO a few times. I never reported them, but I did take the time to understand what I saw. Guess what? none of those sightings was anything out of the ordinary. They were just things I've never seen, or seen from the perspective I've seen them from.

This might turn into a relative problem then, because I see plenty evidence throughout history.

Like?

So now we have evidence, just not enough of it?

What evidence? We have hearsay, and physical evidence which is only a documentation of that hearsay.

And previous disclosures of other classified information created "paradigm shifts"?
There has been some ''smoking guns''. We require full declassification of every UFO-related project including an official governement statement. It has been suggested by the late Senator Barry Goldwater that he was made aware through channels that a disclosure was planned for the future.

That statement has absolutely nothing to do with my question. My question has to do with previous examples of "paradigm shifts".
And what is this "suggested" statement? And disclosure of what was planned?


I am glad that our government can keep some of these secrets. I feel safer that our enemies (whoever they are, or will be) don't know about them. And; I know as these technologies start to become ineffective, they will start spawning consumer technology advances in the future.
History has already shown that.

[captain swoop]

(Link goes to a video suggesting that UFOs are flying saucers piloted by aliens).

dmr81 Enough. Use the 'liar' smiley one more time and I will give you an infraction

[Goldstone]

Thank you for completely ignoring the point of my post.
You have made no attempt to address previous classified technology and how they created a "paradigm" shift, or even any impact on the general populous.


Already a biased statement. What shadow government?

An often misused way of selecting statements you want to believe.

"Many"? Compared to what?
Out of the volume of sightings reported, even the 1% translates into "many".
And that's even ignoring things people see and don't report. I have seen (what I consider) a UFO a few times. I never reported them, but I did take the time to understand what I saw. Guess what? none of those sightings was anything out of the ordinary. They were just things I've never seen, or seen from the perspective I've seen them from.


Like?


What evidence? We have hearsay, and physical evidence which is only a documentation of that hearsay.


That statement has absolutely nothing to do with my question. My question has to do with previous examples of "paradigm shifts".
And what is this "suggested" statement? And disclosure of what was planned?


I am glad that our government can keep some of these secrets. I feel safer that our enemies (whoever they are, or will be) don't know about them. And; I know as these technologies start to become ineffective, they will start spawning consumer technology advances in the future.
History has already shown that.

I will answer it now.

Already a biased statement. What shadow government?

Aren't you stating the obvious? Someone asked me my beliefs. Of course it is biased, but not without good reason. I have studied the phenomenon to know enough to form this opinion.

An often misused way of selecting statements you want to believe.

Still, atleast I can refer my own contentions based on certain evidence. I see in most threads a lot of hand-waving arguements who cannot even refer their own beliefs to any of the historical evidence which can be found in a little investigation.

"Many"? Compared to what?
Out of the volume of sightings reported, even the 1% translates into "many".
And that's even ignoring things people see and don't report. I have seen (what I consider) a UFO a few times. I never reported them, but I did take the time to understand what I saw. Guess what? none of those sightings was anything out of the ordinary. They were just things I've never seen, or seen from the perspective I've seen them from.

I don't have a definate figure. I know keyhoe had seen a Military report suggesting 800 sightings which had been taken seriously. That was just one department, there are most likely more cases which are reported and have not been declassified. There is also important evidence from project magnet which are yet to be declassified under the dep. of transport.

Like?

The OP? Maybe you meant ''proof''.... but there is plenty evidence.

What evidence? We have hearsay, and physical evidence which is only a documentation of that hearsay.

Again, I think you are mistaking the definitions of the meaning of ''evidence'' and ''proof''.

That statement has absolutely nothing to do with my question. My question has to do with previous examples of "paradigm shifts".
And what is this "suggested" statement? And disclosure of what was planned?

Information on UFO's and their origins.

[Goldstone]

The Shadow Government is most likely a group of a few Military and high-government officials who were most likely created since the day UFO's became knowledge within certain channels in the Government. They exist within the governement but know information which some members of the government don't even know exist. This is a shadow government.

[JayUtah]

I do not promote any idea suggesting that aliens are visiting planet earth. I see it as a possibility, but I do not believe it to be true to what is happening. I have said this in the OP and also two other posts related to this thread.

Indeed I remember those posts. And indeed I don't see anyone pinning the extraterrestrial hypothesis on you. I see plenty of people, however, trying to ascertain just what, if anything, you believe UFOs are if not simply reports of unidentified objects in the sky. You say we dismiss the truth of UFOs when we say they remain unidentified -- that we deny they are "real." Your language is inconsistent and puzzling, and all we're asking for is clarification.

However, my point regarding the two NASA memos is that Good asserts they define UFO the same way whereas it's evident from the context that they do not. None of those definitions may be what you mean by UFO, and I don't mean to suggest that they are, or that you need to endorse either one. My point is simply that Good has manufactured a controversy out of the two memos by omitting important details. Without those details, the reader is likely to assume both memos talk about "UFOs" the same way and are legitimately in conflict. If the reader is allowed to consider that each author intended "UFO" to mean something different in each context, then he may question Good's conclusion that these are evidence of NASA duplicity.

The Debus memo suggests "UFO" means simply something in the sky over KSC that's not expected during flight test operations. He lumps "UFO" into the same category as things that are expected (i.e., falling debris, returning spacecraft, jettisoned components) and are to be similarly reported by the same channels. The message seems to be, "If you don't know what it is, report it anyway to this office."

The HQ memo distinctly points to the UFO phenomenon, as peaked in the late 1970s with a great deal of public interest in UFOs, UFO sightings, and considerable buzz in the entertainment industry that these may have a paranormal, or at least very exciting explanation. It is a correct general statement that NASA did not, nor does not, have an organized ongoing program of research into UFOs similar to Project Blue Book or to the clandestine investigations and coverups depicted fictitiously in E.T or Close Encounters. It would be safe to say that the field of study Good himself works in -- popular ufology -- is what was meant by the HQ memo. But it is not the phenomenon to which Debus refers in his operational instructions at KSC. Debus' instructions do not establish or insinuate an ongoing program of UFO research of the type Good suggests, of the type previously done by the military (e.g., Blue Book), or as depicted in fiction.

Also I am not promoting Goods own personal beliefs.

Then why do you rely upon him so heavily as a source? You seem to cite Donald Keyhoe also as a source. Do you share his conclusions? What portions, if any, in what works do you consider authoritative, or non-authoritative, and why?

Both Good and Keyhoe conclude that aliens are among us, and propose that the research contained in their books is proof of this. So you believe in their research and assert its validity, but do not share the conclusions drawn on the basis of that research? How does that work? Do you then believe the research is flawed in some way? Is your authors' logic flawed in some way?

He formed them from honest investigations.

What have you personally done to verify the reliability of his investigations? I've asked you specific questions about it since the beginning of this thread, and you have not provided answers. If you're going to rely heavily on Good and expect us to take you seriously about it, then you will need to convince us that Good is a reliable source. Our own fact-checking indicates he is a very poor source. If you're going to rely on Keyhoe as a source, then we expect you to be familiar with the long-standing skeptical response to his claims. Most of us have very little desire to rehash old debates. We expect you to have something new and original.

I have studied those investigations, (also knowing many of these incidents he spoke of before reading his work) and I cannot share his contention that aliens are visiting earth [yet].

Why "yet" in brackets? Do you mean you don't believe yet that UFO sightings up to now have been of visiting aliens, or you don't believe that aliens have visited Earth yet, but may do so in the future? Depending on how you answer, you'll find a variety of agreement here.

Here's a word of caution. Although you've stated explicitly that you do not believe, nor propose to defend, the proposition that UFOs are alien spacecraft, it is very common for UFO proponents to walk right up to that conclusion, stop just short of drawing, but in practical terms leave no other alternative. In other words, the standard UFO rhetoric is to pinion the discussion to leave only the extraterrestrial- or interdimensional-being explanation, but not actually to assert it. This may be somewhat simplistically illustrated in the following fictitious dialogue where Tom is a UFO proponent and Harry is a skeptic:

Tom: This sighting is of a phenomenon that can't be identified, but which exhibits behavior that cannot be explained by any vehicle achievable by humans.
Harry: Very well, I stipulate that, as interpreted, it seems unlikely to be any known vehicle of terrestrial origin.
Tom: But by the same token, its observed behavior seems non-random and inconsistent with any natural phenomenon. Therefore I contend that it must be intelligently piloted.
Harry: We can debate later the validity of your argument for intelligent control, but for now it seems that you argue the phenomenon is something under intelligent control and not from Earth. So in effect you argue it's an alien spacecraft.
Tom: No, I never said that! I wish you skeptics would stop putting words in my mouth.
Harry: But what have you left us? You say it can't be a natural process because that's the basis of your intelligent-control claim. So it must be an artifice. And you say it's not Earth technology, so it must be from somewhere other than Earth. If we define an alien spacecraft as a piloted artifice originating from somewhere other than Earth, how can you not claim it's an alien spacecraft?
Tom: I don't know what it is, but I'm not suggesting it's an alien spacecraft.
Harry: I don't know what it is either, which is why I'm calling it "unidentified."
Tom: But you're dismissing the remarkable things I'm telling you about it.

And so forth. The scripted rhetoric we see so often appears aimed at maintaining a vast gulf of ambiguity between UFO proponents and skeptics about what is really meant by "unidentified," and by several other adjectives common to the debate. Decoding that rhetoric is important to having a meaningful conversation about UFO reports and possible explanations. The indirect approach I outline above is dishonest.

So my caution is that we here at BAUT are well aware of the rhetoric. As such, we tend to ask questions designed to pare away the ambiguity and arrive at some sort of resolution. Going round in circles is not typically something the moderators allow to continue for long. Those questions may seem like we're putting words in your mouth, but they're aimed more at determining what's really and precisely coming out of your mouth. The final statement of caution is not to assume you can prevail by using well-recognized rhetoric. If you truly have something honest and unique to say, we'll surely listen politely and engage you as fairly as we can.

I have attributed ''aircraft'' to ''UFO's'' because I am under the impression at least a small amount of these sightings show evidence of an intelligence behind their control.

Is the assertion of "intelligent control" part of how you define UFOs to be "real?" In other words, does a disputation of your claim of intelligent control in some case equate in your mind to claiming the case is not "real?"

Claiming that a UFO sighting is of an intelligently controlled phenomenon or artifice is, in fact, an attempt to identify it. As the author of an affirmative attempt to identify, you bear the burden of proof. Further, I want to emphasize the circularity in claiming that something must be artificially controlled, yet unidentified, when the indirect argument in favor for artificial control relies on the ability to identify it, so as to rule out expectations of other kinds of behavior.

[Goldstone]

You're post is long, i will tend to it all, but you said:

However, my point regarding the two NASA memos is that Good asserts they define UFO the same way whereas it's evident from the context that they do not. None of those definitions may be what you mean by UFO, and I don't mean to suggest that they are, or that you need to endorse either one. My point is simply that Good has manufactured a controversy out of the two memos by omitting important details. Without those details, the reader is likely to assume both memos talk about "UFOs" the same way and are legitimately in conflict. If the reader is allowed to consider that each author intended "UFO" to mean something different in each context, then he may question Good's conclusion that these are evidence of NASA duplicity.

The Debus memo suggests "UFO" means simply something in the sky over KSC that's not expected during flight test operations. He lumps "UFO" into the same category as things that are expected (i.e., falling debris, returning spacecraft, jettisoned components) and are to be similarly reported by the same channels. The message seems to be, "If you don't know what it is, report it anyway to this office."

Does it matter which way Debus meant it? And Good writes at the beginning of his book that ''UFO'' is to be taken as it's real meaning. He clarifies this point immediately. So your arguement is faulty and without ground.

[Goldstone]

I say does it matter how Debus used ''UFO'' as well, because he still said that ''UFO's'' where not a matter of investigation permitted in the jurisdiction of their power. Then 2 years (or something like that) later, 1,100 documents where released from the FBI which stated that they had been investigating them for decades.

[Strange]

The Shadow Government is most likely a group of a few Military and high-government officials who were most likely created since the day UFO's became knowledge within certain channels in the Government.

There you go again, misusing "UFO".

Or do you really mean that this "shadow government" was created when they realised that not everything that is seen can be identified with certainty?

[Goldstone]

Then why do you rely upon him so heavily as a source?

Because of every bit of information I have extracted from him, I have cross-referenced via the internet. I particularily enjoyed learning about Wilbert Smith. Anyway, he was a source, but you can find any of the men I have spoken about in the OP on the internet.

What have you personally done to verify the reliability of his investigations?

I have obtained memo reports, and cross checked his statements on reports with statements reported on the net. I have also studied other books, like ''Open Skies, Closed Minds,'' by Nick Pope.

Is the assertion of "intelligent control" part of how you define UFOs to be "real?"

No. I see intelligent control only being allowed when there is a clear report of fighter pilots chasing these objects, and no matter what strategy used the objects always evade them. These are reports from the Military itself from declassified memo's written by the air force. Keyhoe also explains this in the video as well.