Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 146

Thread: Ufo Continued Debate on the Nature of these Craft and Possible Origins

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641

    Ufo Continued Debate on the Nature of these Craft and Possible Origins

    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    There is no credible, convincing evidence for inter-planetary origin.




    That's good, but be aware that if it is your contention that UFO's are alien spaceships, well, it'll be an uphill battle proving that...in other words, people here will require evidence.




    Attention....delusion...I don't care to speculate as to motives...they are as varied as individuals.




    Well, sure it is...but evidence indicates that it has less to do with "what's up in the sky", and more to do with "what's up here". (I'm pointing to my head)




    When that's all the UFO "community" offers up as evidence, what should a skeptic do?




    The possibility of "alienness" is remote at best...nonexistant at worst.
    ''There is no credible, convincing evidence for inter-planetary origin.''

    That depends on who your are trying to convince. Some skeptics are so stuck in their ways, even mass sightings do not count as hard evidence... And I assure you, there have been plenty of mass-sightings. Forensically detailing theses subjects, most of them show advanced technologies, and to anyone who has even the remote grasp of science, are well aware of how damaging these mass-sightings are to the skeptic. But some, of course, just ignore them and say ''it's our own technologies!''

    Well, yes. I actually believe in many instances there is sufficient evidence not presume anything remarkable is going on. However, in many instances we cannot ignore the evidence like many skeptics do.

    I assume you are a skeptic ... right? The fact you have said there is no convincing evidence shows a lack of knowledge in the literature of UFO's.

    ''That's good, but be aware that if it is your contention that UFO's are alien spaceships, well, it'll be an uphill battle proving that...in other words, people here will require evidence.''

    No... that is not my contention. I actually said straight away in my OP in my sister thread next door that my contentions have not been made up - but - I am not a typical skeptic who will dismiss evidence just because I feel like it.

    ''Well, sure it is...but evidence indicates that it has less to do with "what's up in the sky", and more to do with "what's up here". (I'm pointing to my head)''

    No... I strongly disagree. And for a number of reasons.

    These aircraft have been caught on radar, even on film by Military Officials, they have been caught on STS-tapes recorded by officials whose integrity it has hard to question. Mass sightings have occurred... now for the latter here... unless you want to believe that sometimes hundreds of people are just wackjobs, seeing the same delusion, or the other alternative is what they saw was very real.

    Which one of these two, do you think is more plausible? I'd say mass hallucination is somewhat of a myth - we can all be terrified about something simultaneously, like what you might find when you stick seven people into a mansion and tell them to ghost hunt... but when you have a physical object in the sky which is being visually recorded perhaps by hundreds of people at a time, I'd say it is less likely to vanishingly small that they are all experiencing the same common hallucination. Our brains don't work that way.

    ''When that's all the UFO "community" offers up as evidence, what should a skeptic do?''

    That's uninformed. For a number of reasons again. The UFO community do indeed believe in a phenomenon which includes the craft of unknown origin over the landscape of nearly every major country over the globe. It's easy to say for instance ''what should a skeptic do if this is all that is offered'' but there is plenty evidence in the archives of real phenomenon, which has been experienced, by respectable people and to which there is no explanation.

    So in short, this isn't all which a skeptic has to deal with - most of the time a skeptic will choose to listen to what evidence they wish to listen too. When you name incidents like the Washington 1942 case, or the Shag Harbor case, among many many other mass sightings, skeptics are mostly lost with how to deal with it. They may act very obtuse and say ''it was weather balloons,'' but they usually say these things because they believe the ''conventional explanations'' can fit the bill, which when studying the evidence more closely, (which many skeptics don't) the evidence does not.

    In fact, in many ways, the evidence is damning in the sense when we look back even 50 to 100 years ago, when technology was slim and very crude. In these days, when a UFO was found to exhibit technologies greater than our own, it was hard to point the finger of blame. One problem the US government dealt with was that they were the main superpower at the time, next to Britain. Whatever advanced technologies that should have been around, we should have had it - so just imagine the way officials reacted when these things came on to the picture...

    Colonel Keyhoe was one person who actually admitted that Military Officials where soberly concerned about these objects in the back room. They knew, if it was not their technologies, whose the damn was it? I bet the Soviets where blamed a lot, but they where more talk back in the day than actually displaying actual advanced technologies.

    Anyway, there is plenty evidence which someone can offer, and crap youtube video's is not one of them.

    ''The possibility of "alienness" is remote at best...nonexistant at worst.''

    Remote is a strong word.

    Again, we should be open to idea that what we have in our hands, the evidence from past encounters shows that the possibility should be a little more than simply remote.

    There is also very suspicious transcriptions over the years made in STS missions. There was even a transcription of an astronaut naming a ''bogey'' which is your usual terminology, an ''alien spacecraft'' - it was a bad recording. There was also a case when a couple of astronauts observed a UFO, the end transcription said ''did you hear our conversations'' Housten: ''Yes we heard them'' shuttle: ''Good, don't forget to censor them.''

    What did they want censored? Alas, we will never know. But the fact remains, there is plenty evidence supporting the debate. I will even type up these transcriptions with the name of the astronauts so you may check these for yourself.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    38,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Some skeptics are so stuck in their ways, even mass sightings do not count as hard evidence... And I assure you, there have been plenty of mass-sightings.
    Just my two cents...

    I don't care how many mass sightings there are, nor how many people see the UFO in any given sighting, none of that is hard evidence, IMO. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, even for so called "professionals" like pilots.

    What is hard evidence... how about hard evidence. How about some physical evidence, a piece of metal for example, that could not have been made by some Earth based technology.

    And yes, I have read the UFO literature on and off for 40+ years. It all sounds like the same vague hand-waving to me.

    One last thought... I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but I hate how some UFO advocates use the word "skeptic", as if it some how marks you as some sort of combination of unbeliever and "dupe" of "the man".
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    Just my two cents...

    I don't care how many mass sightings there are, nor how many people see the UFO in any given sighting, none of that is hard evidence, IMO. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, even for so called "professionals" like pilots.

    What is hard evidence... how about hard evidence. How about some physical evidence, a piece of metal for example, that could not have been made by some Earth based technology.

    And yes, I have read the UFO literature on and off for 40+ years. It all sounds like the same vague hand-waving to me.

    One last thought... I'm sure you don't mean it this way, but I hate how some UFO advocates use the word "skeptic", as if it some how marks you as some sort of combination of unbeliever and "dupe" of "the man".
    Well, I think either of us should establish what accounts for hard evidence. If these things are caught on radar, observed by hundreds, seen to display a technology which does not fit our won, I'd say that was hard evidence for the case.

    Cases in the court of law have gone on with far less.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    I am currently gathering evidence and typing it up. Nothing new to me, but a lot of it will be new to the audience. Say... did anyone here know that UFO's have been depicted in art for centuries, when there was no such technology about?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    9,571
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    I am currently gathering evidence and typing it up. Nothing new to me, but a lot of it will be new to the audience. Say... did anyone here know that UFO's have been depicted in art for centuries, when there was no such technology about?
    I'd be surprised if any of it really is new to those BAUT members who keep up with that sort of thing. The old art argument, for example, has certainly been debated around here before. (Basically, that kind of thing is very subjective. Is it a UFO? Is it just a deity? Is it a fantasy? It's certainly no hard evidence.)

    But yeah, let's see what you've got...
    Thank you, members of cosmoquest forum, you are a part of my life I value.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    I'd be surprised if any of it really is new to those BAUT members who keep up with that sort of thing. The old art argument, for example, has certainly been debated around here before. (Basically, that kind of thing is very subjective. Is it a UFO? Is it just a deity? Is it a fantasy? It's certainly no hard evidence.)
    No its not hard evidence, you are right. Some of pictures are eerily similar howsoever, and most of these depictions look generally the same, which is some kind of a clue. If it was a ''god'' it doesn't seem to measure up to any kinds of gods we are used to in the literature.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    That depends on who your are trying to convince.
    Well, the scientific community, of course...if evidence for alien UFO's is not convincing/credible, then of what use is it?


    Some skeptics are so stuck in their ways, even mass sightings do not count as hard evidence..
    This is a mischaracterization. It "paints" those who require evidence as incapable of changeing their minds. My mind can be instantly changed, given credible/convincing evidence of alien-ness...yet so far I have seen no evidence that can reach that standard.


    ...I assure you, there have been plenty of mass-sightings.
    No evidence for aliens has ever been documented.


    Forensically detailing theses subjects, most of them show advanced technologies...
    No evidence for this, either.


    ...and to anyone who has even the remote grasp of science, are well aware of how damaging these mass-sightings are to the skeptic.
    I "pride" myself as having a grasp....(hey, stop laughing back there)...and I completely disagree...mass-sightings are probably the least interesting of the myrid of sightings...I simply am not impressed by them.


    But some, of course, just ignore them and say ''it's our own technologies!''
    You won't find those type of people, here...


    I actually believe in many instances there is sufficient evidence not presume anything remarkable is going on. However, in many instances we cannot ignore the evidence like many skeptics do.
    Is it really "necessary" to make this an attack on skeptics?


    I assume you are a skeptic ... right? The fact you have said there is no convincing evidence shows a lack of knowledge in the literature of UFO's.
    Please don't do this...I've "studied" this topic since I was a lad in the 60's. I was a believer then, but over time, I came to the realization that the evidence soimply was not sufficient to support the idea of alien UFO's.


    These aircraft...
    How were you able to determine that a "craft" was involved??


    ...have been caught on radar, even on film by Military Officials, they have been caught on STS-tapes recorded by officials whose integrity it has hard to question.
    Could you perhaps limit yourself to one idea?...I don't want to go "bouncing" all over the place trying to answer ALL your queries.


    Mass sightings have occurred... now for the latter here... unless you want to believe that sometimes hundreds of people are just wackjobs, seeing the same delusion, or the other alternative is what they saw was very real.
    Why just it be "one or the other"??? why can't they simply be mistaken about what they witnessed??


    ...when you have a physical object in the sky...
    How were you abvle to determine it to be a "physical" object? I'm not being nitpicky, here...it's a reasonable question.


    ...
    which is being visually recorded perhaps by hundreds of people at a time...
    ...and I'll "call"....please present evidence that hundreds of people recorded the same "event"...or retract that claim.


    I'd say it is less likely to vanishingly small that they are all experiencing the same common hallucination. Our brains don't work that way.
    Oh, you'd be surprised...


    there is plenty evidence in the archives of real phenomenon, which has been experienced, by respectable people and to which there is no explanation.
    Irrelevant...."no explanation" does not "equal" alien spaceships. It is a "jump" from one to the other that is not evidenced.


    So in short, this isn't all which a skeptic has to deal with - most of the time a skeptic will choose to listen to what evidence they wish to listen too. When you name incidents like the Washington 1942 case, or the Shag Harbor case, among many many other mass sightings, skeptics are mostly lost with how to deal with it. They may act very obtuse and say ''it was weather balloons,'' but they usually say these things because they believe the ''conventional explanations'' can fit the bill, which when studying the evidence more closely, (which many skeptics don't) the evidence does not
    Complete mischaraterization of skeptical thought.


    ...the evidence is damning in the sense when we look back even 50 to 100 years ago, when technology was slim and very crude. In these days, when a UFO was found to exhibit technologies greater than our own, it was hard to point the finger of blame. One problem the US government dealt with was that they were the main superpower at the time, next to Britain. Whatever advanced technologies that should have been around, we should have had it - so just imagine the way officials reacted when these things came on to the picture..
    There is no credible evidence for any "advanced technologies"...but you are welcome to present evidence you believe relevant.



    Colonel Keyhoe was one person who actually admitted that Military Officials where soberly concerned about these objects in the back room. They knew, if it was not their technologies, whose the damn was it? I bet the Soviets where blamed a lot, but they where more talk back in the day than actually displaying actual advanced technologies.
    I don't know what you're "on" about here...sounds like the government was "fooling' itself if any of this is true.


    Anyway, there is plenty evidence which someone can offer...
    Been waiting for decades for credible evidence....please present it.


    Remote is a strong word
    I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt.


    ...we should be open to idea that what we have in our hands, the evidence from past encounters shows that the possibility should be a little more than simply remote.
    The evidence from past encounters is the reason for my skepticism...if you have relevant credible, testable evidence, then please present it.


    There is also very suspicious transcriptions over the years made in STS missions.
    Ummm...no, that is not evidenced at all.


    There was even a transcription of an astronaut naming a ''bogey'' which is your usual terminology, an ''alien spacecraft''...
    A "bogey" is an unidentified, NOT an alien spaceship.


    ...it was a bad recording. There was also a case when a couple of astronauts observed a UFO, the end transcription said ''did you hear our conversations'' Housten: ''Yes we heard them'' shuttle: ''Good, don't forget to censor them.'
    Ok, prove it. Which mission, and which astronauts?


    What did they want censored? Alas, we will never know.
    You haven't demonstrated any "censorship", so this is just "begging the question.


    But the fact remains, there is plenty evidence supporting the debate. I will even type up these transcriptions with the name of the astronauts so you may check these for yourself.
    Ok, but next time, do us all a "favor", and make your posts a little shorter...I can't spend half an hour answering each of your posts, as I have just done.


    Thanks in advance


    edit to add...I concede that the length "problem" is partially my fault too.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    ...I think either of us should establish what accounts for hard evidence.
    Evidence isn't a matter of opinion, so why?


    Cases in the court of law have gone on with far less.
    Relevance??

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    No its not hard evidence, you are right. Some of pictures are eerily similar howsoever, and most of these depictions look generally the same, which is some kind of a clue. If it was a ''god'' it doesn't seem to measure up to any kinds of gods we are used to in the literature.
    Ancient art is interesting, but as evidence for alien visitors, it isn't testable.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    7,963
    I do try to keep up with UFO sightings myself, Aethelwulf; most of the 'mass sightings' disappear when you examine them closely. For instance there were thousands of witnesses to the phenomena at Fatima at 1917, but the events there are likely to have been caused by large numbers of untrained observers staring into the Sun - not a very wise thing to do if you want accurate observation.

    The 'STS' sightings are all explained by ice crystals and other particles shed by the Shuttle itself; we've examined several such cases on this forum, and failed to find any convincing alien craft. Why do people who think that the Shuttle was followed by alien craft never wonder why these objects could not be seen from the ground? If they were big enough to be seen from the Shuttle at a great distance, they'd be just as easy to see from the Earth.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    7,963
    The Washington 1942 case?
    Are we getting two different cases mixed up here?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
    The Washington 1942 case?
    Are we getting two different cases mixed up here?
    Sorry typo 1952

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    17,148
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    ''There is no credible, convincing evidence for inter-planetary origin.''

    That depends on who your are trying to convince. Some skeptics are so stuck in their ways, even mass sightings do not count as hard evidence... And I assure you, there have been plenty of mass-sightings.

    Pick one mass sighting and show how it is hard evidence for an ET spaceship.


    Forensically detailing theses subjects, most of them show advanced technologies,
    What advanced technologies? How has this been established?

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
    I do try to keep up with UFO sightings myself, Aethelwulf; most of the 'mass sightings' disappear when you examine them closely. For instance there were thousands of witnesses to the phenomena at Fatima at 1917, but the events there are likely to have been caused by large numbers of untrained observers staring into the Sun - not a very wise thing to do if you want accurate observation.

    The 'STS' sightings are all explained by ice crystals and other particles shed by the Shuttle itself; we've examined several such cases on this forum, and failed to find any convincing alien craft. Why do people who think that the Shuttle was followed by alien craft never wonder why these objects could not be seen from the ground? If they were big enough to be seen from the Shuttle at a great distance, they'd be just as easy to see from the Earth.
    The STS video's have been challenged by professionals. The tether incident for instance, surely was not ice crystals. Nasa got very ice-crystal happy in many of its explanations. STS-tapes of things orbiting the earth, then directly looking into the earth, strange objects emerging from clouds.

    So I disagree - not every STS-tape can be explained by ice-crystals. There are also STS tapes of orb-like structures appearing, flying about, then flying away. Just by identification we know that this wasn't an ice crystal.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    As for the Fatima sighting, I'd be surprised if hundreds of witnesses could not discern the sun from another object. I mean... common... it's the sun. We are taught what that object is in our infancy.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    Pick one mass sighting and show how it is hard evidence for an ET spaceship.




    What advanced technologies? How has this been established?
    I'd rather not just pick one... there are tens and tens, which I am typing up at the moment. Advanced technology may include speed, trajectories which otherwise would rip a human apart (evidence perhaps these things are not biologically controlled.) There was also an incident on an island where the peoples had been attacked by UFO's exhibiting a type of ray-gun technology. There was a Doctor on the island who treated the injured - the Doctor had also been attacked but was not injured to the extent the others had been. I forget the name of this incident, but I was about to look that up.

    Please people, wait until my presentation.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    27,065
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Well, I think either of us should establish what accounts for hard evidence. If these things are caught on radar, observed by hundreds, seen to display a technology which does not fit our won, I'd say that was hard evidence for the case.

    Cases in the court of law have gone on with far less.
    I bet this will shock you, but eyewitness testimony actually counts for relatively little in a court of law. Why? Because it is known to be unreliable.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    7,963
    Thanks. The CAA looked into the Washington 1952 case and determined it was caused by inversion conditions;
    here's their report.
    http://www.cufon.org/cufon/wash_nat/wash_faa.htm
    CONCLUSIONS
    1. It is believed that most of the unidentified targets observed on the Washington MEW radar during the period beginning on the
    night of August 13, 1952 and the period beginning on the night of August 15, 1952 were ground returns caused by reflection
    phenomena closely connected with the temperature inversions in the lower atmosphere.
    2. Unidentified radar targets of the type described in this report have been noticed since the early days of radar. Unusual
    weather conditions prevailing in the Washington area during the summer of 1952 were exceptionally conducive to the formation
    of these phenomena.
    3. Present evidence indicates that the appearance of unidentified targets of this nature on radar scopes has but little effect on
    the control of air traffic. At its worst, it forms a nuisance by cluttering the scope display and by requiring that additional traffic
    information or heading instructions be issued in order to protect other traffic against the possibility that such a target might be a
    helicopter.
    4. In some cases, it would be desirable to provide the controller with a more positive method of identifying targets such as these
    so that he could determine quickly whether they are spurious or whether they are actual aircraft.
    I think their conclusions are broadly correct; another factor is the fact that many of the radar systems in Washington had just been installed that year, and I'm pretty sure (though I can't prove it) that some of the operators were still unfamiliar with the systems concerned.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    7,963
    The tether incident for instance, surely was not ice crystals.
    It almost certainly was; it certainly wasn't vast spacecraft that could only be seen from the Shuttle but which were invisible from Earth. Remember lots of observers were looking for the Shuttle on that occasion, to see if the tether was visible from the ground. No UFOs were seen.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    The STS video's have been challenged by professionals.
    UFO "professionals"? Certainly you don't think their opinion, unbiased.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    7,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    As for the Fatima sighting, I'd be surprised if hundreds of witnesses could not discern the sun from another object. I mean... common... it's the sun. We are taught what that object is in our infancy.
    One peculiar thing about the Fatima case is that no useful photos were taken.

    We don't actually have hundreds, or thousands, of reports from that event, in any case - what we have is hundreds of newspaper reports which state that everyone saw the same thing, but very little evidence to back that up.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    There was also an incident on an island where the peoples had been attacked by UFO's exhibiting a type of ray-gun technology. There was a Doctor on the island who treated the injured - the Doctor had also been attacked but was not injured to the extent the others had been. I forget the name of this incident...
    Are you speaking of the The Maury Island incident?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
    Thanks. The CAA looked into the Washington 1952 case and determined it was caused by inversion conditions;
    here's their report.
    http://www.cufon.org/cufon/wash_nat/wash_faa.htm

    I think their conclusions are broadly correct; another factor is the fact that many of the radar systems in Washington had just been installed that year, and I'm pretty sure (though I can't prove it) that some of the operators were still unfamiliar with the systems concerned.
    Yes and Military officials even said themselves that explanation was bunk, at the time of the incident that is.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    As for the Fatima sighting, I'd be surprised if hundreds of witnesses could not discern the sun from another object. I mean... common... it's the sun. We are taught what that object is in our infancy.
    I'd be surprised if there are "hundreds" of witness'.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
    It almost certainly was; it certainly wasn't vast spacecraft that could only be seen from the Shuttle but which were invisible from Earth. Remember lots of observers were looking for the Shuttle on that occasion, to see if the tether was visible from the ground. No UFOs were seen.
    Do you know how many objects were seen?

    We are not talking about a few ice crystals here. And the objects seemed large as well. Even the NASA department speaker in the audio was somewhat... curious to what these things where. You'd think if it was ice crystals, he would not have even asked. But he was genuinely curious. He knew it didn't looked right.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Be careful folks, I see people equating UFO to aliens. UFO does not mean that, it is simply unidentified.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,000
    Quote Originally Posted by Aethelwulf View Post
    Yes and Military officials even said themselves that explanation was bunk, at the time of the incident that is.
    What "officials"?...I require a cite please...

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    I'd be surprised if there are "hundreds" of witness'.
    the poster previous to me said thousands.

    I was just being more rational.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    What "officials"?...I require a cite please...
    I am currently writing something for you to chew on. Be patient or look for yourself on wiki.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    641
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    Are you speaking of the The Maury Island incident?
    No. That was a hoax... A man and his dog LOL

Similar Threads

  1. Michael Continued.
    By Gemini in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2008-Apr-14, 01:03 PM
  2. Nature versus nurture: the biological debate
    By Disinfo Agent in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2008-Mar-18, 02:41 PM
  3. Regarding the continued existence of Time
    By BISMARCK in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 2007-Jul-17, 12:54 AM
  4. Sitchin continued...
    By HankSolo in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 1352
    Last Post: 2003-Oct-16, 11:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: