Member
It seems, from Slime's statements about the inherent discredibility of the US government and the general establishment, that (s)he wants to believe that we are living in the world of George Orwell's 1984.
I must confess myself puzzled as to why anyone would want to.
Order of Kilopi
Plenty of that too. Unless they were deformed humans dressed up in alien suits.
Show me one.
If I supplied you with photographs (dont ask I have none), they would only be written off as fake.
Or maybe determined, after careful examination, to be inconclusive at best. But it's moot; we haven't seen any of the evidence.
Of course you have Sergeant Clifford Stone, US Army and his claimed 57 varieties. Already written off as a sensationalist by Jay.
No, determined after careful consideration to be wildly implausible. There are those among the ranks of the skeptics who are very well versed in the government's practices regarding security and clearance, and Sgt. Stone's testimony bears no resemblance to any of it.
You uncritically accept Sgt. Stone's finely-spun fantasy as if it were fact. I find too much wrong with it to believe it. And not simply because it talks about little alien monsters. There is plenty wrong with the ordinary aspects of his story.
Never been officially observed, without media ridicule. Its a big secret.
Circular (again). You have postulated the existence of something. When it is pointed out that such an existence should produce certain kinds of evidence, none of which is observed, you and your camp come up with fanciful speculative explanations for why that expected evidence is lacking. A far more parsimonious conclusion is that the thing you say exists doesn't really exist.
Pilots have observed aliens in flight, but as most look similar to us ...
No, they are claimed to look similar to us. No proof of such a hypothesis is to be found. This is just one of the many ways UFO enthusiasts try to get around the uncomfortable lack of evidence.
There is no evidence that aliens exist on earth. The proposition that aliens further look similar to humans is moot.
Its life.
Cute, but unsatisfying. You want your evidence to be taken seriously, yet you persist in polemical tactics and ignore the required rigor.
Its a secret remember. There's security and big, BIG money interests to consider.
Circular, and circular.
It can make use of known and unknown physical laws.
Our understanding of physical laws evolves, but by way of refinement and not wholesale redefinition. You're simply trying to make the facts fit your preconceived conclusion.
But all this is common-sense to me.
I am not interested in what appeals to your intuition. Your intuition seems to be the source of your whopping lack of reason.
You are asking as if you are child with no imagination.
Imagine all you want, but don't profess that your imaginings ought to be taken as the truth and that those who disagree are deluded.
Ask an alien.
Produce an alien, and I will. Until then I'll ask the people making the assertions to support them.
Circa 1972, I along with thousand of others in S.E. England.
Fine, you experienced something you can't explain. I respect that. I'm not going to tell you it was swamp gas or light refracted from Venus. I wasn't there. But you'll have to understand our natural skepticism when ream after ream of flimsy, easily contradicted statements are paraded in front of us.
Seeing is believing. If youre lucky to see one, the question will no longer arise.
I see plenty of things I can't explain. Perhaps nothing quite so dramatic as what you see, but I don't immediately assume that what I see is caused by the most farfetched thing I can imagine.
Seeing is indeed believing, but seeing is not necessarily understanding.
It will mean back to school for you experts.
I can't speak for everyone authoritatively, but most of us would salivate profusely over the possibility of examining radically new and advanced technology. We love to learn, and many of us make it a lifetime pursuit.
But we are not impressed with promises of great and wonderful things, only to be introduced to talented storytellers who shine briefly and then fade into obscurity. We want substance, and you can't provide it.
Member
Perhaps slime is right (notice pool of dripping sarcasm) I have proof of it here:
http://www.n810.com/hell.jpg
Established Member
Slime, In simple terms, I don't believe you. You have formulated a scenario that has more relationship to paranoid delusion than to alien encounters. You see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe. It's probably pointless to have further discussion because you are too close-minded to accept the possibility that your "reality" might be wrong.
Postulating a motive for the government to keep secret the discovery of aliens isn't the same as proof that the government has done so. Unfortunately, in your mind they are the same thing. As I think someone else in this thread commented earlier, the UFO conspiracy crowd doesn't need the government to make them look foolish. They do a fine job of it all by themselves. The enemy isn't outside you, it's within! Get some help!
Established Member
Actually, Slime has totally redeemed himself in my eyes when he admitted to riding a motorcycle. Pity he can't fix it.
This whole UFO thing has me disappointed. My bookcase is full of 'mystic' type books, giving answers to deep and meaningful questions that I want answers to. I read them and every time I find fatal flaws in what would be an apealing theory. Time and agin, I'm prepared to believe, as I was with the Moon landing hoax, only to be disappointed with the offerings, which more often than not seem to be produced to part me from my money. It's a bit like advertising for cars. You see the ad, want one, but when you drive them you realise they are really no different than the car you already have.
Member
The military was involved but the military was not in control. You cannot make the distinction. I saw, on a daily basis, detachments of soldiers placed under direct command of civilian officials of the city, state, and Olympic organizations. There was an immense military presence in my city, but the military was not running the Olympics.
Nit-picking. This thread was about alien artifacts on the moon. Only you see the semantics of language more important.
I suggest strongly that if a terrorist attack was imminent your happy-faced civilian control (a guise to keep the games and its participents unconcerned) would have been given its due position.
ie. Bert & Fred the security guard would have been bundled out of the way pretty damn quick.
Now how much longer are you going to persist in attempting to make "informed" comment on things you know nothing about?
Tell me Jay. Did you hear personally from Army personnel that they were really just waiting in the wings, just in case?
Dubya wouldnt have wanted a security firm protecting him if he had control of the military.
I certainly wouldnt.
You have proved military involvement. You have not proved military control. That is my entire point. You cannot distinguish involvement from control and you consider proof of involvement to be proof of control. Thus when you say "NASA is military," we understand that you cannot distinguish between the military controlling NASA and the military having dealings with NASA.
I think you will find that if NASA was to discover life on the moon (which is the point of this thread), or artifacts, the military mind would see such information as a potential threat. The military would then be in charge of supervising the operation. What is released in the interests of National Security (After all they may be secret US buildings) and what actions should be taken to counteract an alien invasion.
NASA just pilot the probes when everything goings OK.
Much like the 2002 Winter Olympics the chain of command is dependant on a minute-to-minute basis.
An interesting article on the security aspects and chain-of-command is here:
http://www.afmc.wpafb.af.mil/HQ-AFMC...htsecurity.htm
Should a terrorist action occur, you could argue no one entity is in control.
Semantics Jay.
Why on earth do you think I'm arguing the military was not involved in the Salt Lake City winter games? I stated that as the premise of my argument! My question was not whether the military was involved, but whether it was in charge or exerted an inappropriate influence over it.
Thank your lucky stars you never had to find out!
The U.S. military does not control everything with which it interacts.
It has control when it seeks or needs it. That is ultimate control.
The hardware of the Internet (at least as constituted in the United State) does not appear on any of that list.
We dont see the hardware, just the software interface. Remember the Matrix
Yet many, many other sites have ongoing high-bandwidth distribution without requiring paid subscription. You cite a singular past high-bandwidth event. Can you substantiate that Disclosure Project's ongoing bandwidth is significant compared to the most significantly busy sites on the net?
All I will say is Dr Greer asked supporters to donate $7/month to pay for the ever increasing bandwidth costs, so they could put up the Disclosure Project webcast which is no longer available to view (National Press Club remove webcasts after 6 months)
The cost would also help future travel expenses for new witnesses/halls etc.
They have a further 400 witnesses to film. His goal was to get 1,000 subscribers. So thats $7,000 he obviously needs.
I agree that it is a most unsatifactory situation, that the biggest story will only be seen by a fraction of the audience it would otherwise draw. I dont think he has sold out to commercialism, just commerical realities.
I believe his other website http://www.seaspower.com is a money-making venture. I hope it does well for him.
Do you have a problem behaving as an adult?
All work and no play... And I have read the libelous ad hominem attacks on me later.
I might be childish at times but its not underhand or unethical.
Is Dr. Greer afraid of criticism or dissenting views? Does he not see the inherent value in having skeptics examine his conclusions?
No. I'm sure he'd welcome them. Skeptic and debunkers are different. Skeptics are healthy; debunkers are usually negative.
Cool your thrusters. I made no allegation of impropriety.
You merely infered he was in it for the dough. Still libelous without evidence to support your position.
In response to "I do not succumb to mass pressure nor to I make decisions by parroting or sheeplike tendencies to conform with the mainstream culture."
Are you insinuating I and others here do?
I see you guys getting very heated over one person who disagrees with you. Andrew/DaveC are having kittens as I dare challenge their reality. Sounds like some mind-control technique to do with conformity is being adhered to.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the preponderance of evidence favors the mainstream interpretation?
Yes. Then I wake up and shudder at the stupidity of people. When I see it fairly discussed with 'real' witnesses in the mainstream press, you can then begin to contemplate righteousness.
Until then you and your supporters are just plain chicken scared. Frightened of a proper debate.
Or like so many conspiracy-minded individuals you simply assume your theories are rejected because of closed-mindedness and not, perhaps, because they fail to meet a suitable standard of credibility?
Your standards (as I have said before) are impossible to obtain.
Eye witness testimony - Unreliable.
Photographic evidence - Fakeable.
Insider Confession - Sensational.
Doesnt leave much.
In response to "I would hate for you to shut-up and have never asked you to."
False. You stated on at least two occasions at Apollo Hoax your intention to "bring Jay down". And your actions subsequent and continuing have upheld that stated motive. At every opportunity you attempt to shame, insult, and discredit me. I'd say there is ample evidence that you don't want me talking.
I love you talking. But I want you talking like a human and not a robot. Bring Jay down to bring the new Jay up.
One day, we will be friends and on the same side. I will train you in the ways of the Carrot and we shall seek enlightenment from the myriad of races that populate our universe.
If you havent murdered me first. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
You accept the statement in question because you believe an FAA official ought not lie, distort, or make mistakes. That is not an appropriate basis.
He's a liar now. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]
To uncritically interpret these events as UFO/alien evidence is what bothers me.
16 miles in half the sweep of a radar and remaining stationary. If you had a secret weapon that could do that, dont you think
you'd be careful about following a passenger airline with lots of witnesses for a whole 30 minutes.
You see we UFOlogists use logical reasoning too.
The existence of aliens does not prove alien constructs on the lunar surface. This is my stake in the debate.
I came here to post testimony of the moon artifacts and to put across a diverse viewpoint.
If you and others will deride such things, dont expect to have the argument only one way.
In the broader arena, collecting dissimilar stories -- all of which are interpreted as alien encounters -- is not corroboration because you cannot presume a connection. I don't think you understand what it means to corroborate evidence.
You mean it to be unattainable, if you're honest with yourself. The FAA clip was such corroborate evidence.
I still dont think youve heard it.
You are always deriding my men-in-black, illuminati, CIA death squad rationale to the UFO debate, as having no merit or justification.
But at the same time you appear to be suggesting that governments have such incredible advances in science undewraps to the public.
Surely such a big secret would suggest all the previous must be in place to keep it secret.
Dont tell me you think that UFOs are a spiritual phenomenon, or God?
We never learn what you actually think on such matters.
Epistemology has little to do with ethics. Please stop distracting from the point.
Ethics is fundamental. Please look up ethics and epistemology. You will find numerous occasions where they are closely linked.
You appear to have little understanding of how knowledge is reliably obtained and how hypotheses are reliably tested. Whether you believe us to be mindless sheep is irrelevant; many here have a lifetime of training and experience understanding how to know reliably. You must respect that. You appear unable to.
I have an engineering degree at the highest level, like you probably. I have been told by experts that the UFO I saw was Venus, ice crystals, and a team of white-coats from a university told me it was there polythene bag lifted up on warm air-currents at night. All of this was supposed to produce a dazzling light in broad dayligh that traversed the sky faster as fast as a Perseid meteor.
Oh and it did all this from a lowly 1.5V cell
I've had my fill of expert opinions and reliably tested hypothesis.
There is no answer that has yet been put forward to answer these strange anomalies that is compatible with modern day Earth science. Only lies. I'm only surprised that so-called intelligent people of so gullible.
BTW it weren't a flock of mallards either.
If I want the FAA's opinion of what those radar traces represent I can consult the FAA, or some other person I may know who understands radar. You said you had seen the radar traces yourself on video. Since you are not an expert in interpreting radar data, your opinion of what that data represents is meaningless, therefore I wonder why you bring up the point of having seen the raw data.
The FAA director who produced the evidence is an expert and explains the data findings. It was he who was asked to explain the evidence to the government.
The ApolloHoax webmaster's decision to expunge the files resulted from your direct actions.
Thats like saying your Grandfather is directly responsible for your birth. Thats an impossibility.
The dispute in question arose from a vicious series of personal attacks and threats which you instigated and which you tried to continue here before you were warned to stop.
No threats except to tell Mr Ploegman snr of his 17 year old sons mafia death threats aimed at me and a rather whopping security blunder.
If that is a threat then so be it. I threatened to "tell daddy". Not put a horse head in his bed.
Get real. Ploegman junior deleted his forum in a panic. You say I am directly responsible. I say you have no credible evidence.
You stated explicitly your intent to "bring down" ApolloHoax and "bring down" me personally, the latter statement being followed by attacks on my character and insinuations regarding my training, occupation, and personal interests.
You have a selective memory. Without hacking ApolloHoax I could not possibly bring down a website. I rang up Jons father to complain about a death-threat leveled at me on numerous occasions and without getting above myself, I think that is a reasonable action to take. John is 17 and in my country at least, his parents have some responsibility for him until he is of age. I could have rung up the Police/FBI/CIA...you name it.
Bear in mind what Skull 'N Bones Bush is doing to protect his and all Americans souls from threat of death.
It seems you will not allow me same protection even though the UK military looks like supporting 'your' cause.
I knew full well that the site may be temporarily halted to remove the threats. But couldnt in my wildest dreams assumed no one had ever backed it up. Dumb!
If I had really thought it would all have vanished there'd be more than the 99% of files stored on my drive.
It would be 100%. You have them from me so your motive looks very sus now.
Your motive, intent, and opportunity are not in dispute.
False. I dispute it.
You tried to enlist others to help you do away with ApolloHoax. You wanted to bring down ApolloHoax, and your actions proximally resulted in its emasculation.
The other (no plural) came of his own free will. Not to get rid of ApolloHoax but to expose you as unethical.
I have that thread in its entirety. Do you want me to post it here?
Get BA's permission and consider it done.
You wag your finger in the air and speak of suppression and its associated evils, yet you are the most egregious practitioner of it.
Youre losing it. Reality is often different to your recollection. Notice I dont call you a liar because I have the threads and you know it. Put your evidence up and I will shoot it down.
Nor do I believe having conveyed an incorrect impression in a review, which I corrected soon enough, is even remotely commensurate with Bart Sibrel's repeated and deliberate deception regarding his interviews.
You went on at lengths to discredit Sibrel by strongly inferring he wrote his own reviews. I have no proof of that and as for his LunarHoax claims, he may merely be disillusioned.
Writing a false review should be considered to be of lesser merit.
Member
The reason why I rarely contribute to this forum isnt because I dont have many question or answers I'd like to share, its because Jay would never let me sleep.
Good night all.
Talk to you in the morning. zzzzZZZZZZzzzzz
Order of Kilopi
This thread was about alien artifacts on the moon. Only you see the semantics of language more important.
On the contrary I find the question of alien artifacts on the moon much more interesting than the military presence in my town during the Olympics or any of the other things that have cluttered this thread. Let's talk about alien artifacts on the moon.
I think you will find that if NASA was to discover life on the moon (which is the point of this thread), or artifacts, the military mind would see such information as a potential threat.
Supposition. I don't trust your characterization of the military.
Thank your lucky stars you never had to find out!
Actually I considered myself to be in the safest place on earth.
It has control when it seeks or needs it. That is ultimate control.
No, there are limits to the military's power.
We dont see the hardware, just the software interface. Remember the Matrix
I see the hardware. It's part of my job now. (I have a new job since we last spoke.) BTW, The Matrix is fiction, in case you missed the e-mail.
Skeptic and debunkers are different.
Could you elaborate more on the difference?
Still libelous without evidence to support your position.
No, I speculated that he may have profit as a motive. That is not libelous under U.S. law, but it's not something I'm interested in trying to prove. I have merely explored alternative motives for his operation.
I see you guys getting very heated over one person who disagrees with you.
It's more than just a disagreement. Your approach is tantamount to calling us ignorant and conformist for not buying your conclusions. That's poor manners. We have other reasons for not believing your conclusions.
Andrew/DaveC are having kittens as I dare challenge their reality. Sounds like some mind-control technique to do with conformity is being adhered to.
This is what I'm talking about. You can't seem to grasp the notion that people who disagree with you may have very valid reasons for doing so. And you seem to strongly oppose any attempt to change your view of reality, not just on this point but on several points you have discussed.
Yes. Then I wake up and shudder at the stupidity of people.
No, you're missing the point. If the preponderance of evidence favors a certain view, those who hold that view are not necessarily stupid.
Frightened of a proper debate.
Very well, a proper debate obeys the rules of logic. You break several of them in nearly every post and then when this is brought to your attention you raise irrelevancies like terrorists and thugs. You talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?
Your standards (as I have said before) are impossible to obtain.
No, they are not. They are the standards of legitimate inquiry and investigation.
Eye witness testimony - Unreliable.
Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Thus it must be corroborated to be believed, especially when the testimony is implausible at prima facie.
Photographic evidence - Fakeable.
Not to mention inconclusive. Photographs of unknown objects cannot simply be stated to depict some certain thing, even if they are reasonably assured not to be faked.
Insider Confession - Sensational.
Insider confessions are special cases of eyewitness testimony. Under normal circumstances there is no question that an insider is an insider. If someone claims, say, to be from a tobacco company and gives evidence of the company's intent to create an addictive product, there is usually little question whether the witness is really from a tobacco company. That can be tested.
Insiders in the UFO camp are frequently people who only claim to be insiders. Their insider status cannot be reliably determined. If their claims are implausible a priori and we cannot determine their authority, it is foolish to rely on them.
Doesnt leave much.
No, it doesn't. That's why historical research and other forms of investigation are hard. You have to choose. Either your research is easy to do, or it's reliable. You can rarely have both.
I love you talking. But I want you talking like a human and not a robot. Bring Jay down to bring the new Jay up.
Nice save, but I'm not buying it.
I will train you in the ways of the Carrot and we shall seek enlightenment from the myriad of races that populate our universe.
So far the ways of the Carrot don't appeal to me. It's nothing personal. Your method of reasoning doesn't strike me as particularly useful or reliable.
He's a liar now. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]
Not necessarily, but we have to consider that possibility. In his case, probably not. In other cases, we just don't know.
16 miles in half the sweep of a radar and remaining stationary.
Assuming it's an object.
If you had a secret weapon that could do that, dont you think you'd be careful about following a passenger airline with lots of witnesses for a whole 30 minutes.
If I could help it, yes. Accidents happen. Why do you leap to the conclusion that it's a weapon?
You see we UFOlogists use logical reasoning too.
Not really. You just followed an affirmed consequent.
I came here to post testimony of the moon artifacts and to put across a diverse viewpoint.
Great, that's actually what I want to talk about too.
You mean it to be unattainable, if you're honest with yourself.
Not at all. If someone sees something he can't explain and someone else sees something different that he can't explain, and you interpret both of them as UFO experiences and say that one corroborates the other as UFO experiences.
The biggest mistake people make is to presume a connection where none is proved to exist. I do this myself. It's very common.
I'm not trying to set a standard of evidence that is unattainably high, knowing you will not be able to reach it. I'm setting the standard of evidence which is common in historical investigation and noting that you fail to attain it. That's the basis for my rejection of your claim.
The FAA clip was such corroborate evidence.
What, exactly, do you claim it corroborates?
But at the same time you appear to be suggesting that governments have such incredible advances in science underwraps to the public.
Not at all. You presume too much. I accept as an axiom that elements of government, especially the CIA, may have things to hide. But I don't presume it has necessarily to do with some sort of specific technology. You have a visible correlation to a radar-observed phenomenon. That doesn't necessarily have to be an object.
Surely such a big secret would suggest all the previous must be in place to keep it secret.
Absolutely not. It presumes some method of keeping a secret, but not necessarily that method.
Don't tell me you think that UFOs are a spiritual phenomenon, or God?
I don't believe that. But I do believe that some of the same phenomena that is being seen today may have been attributed to spiritual or religious manifestations in earlier times.
We never learn what you actually think on such matters.
I suspend judgment. You want me to consider the possibility that many of these things are alien spacecraft. Fine, I've considered it and I am not convinced.
You will find numerous occasions where they are closely linked.
Okay, I yield the point.
I have an engineering degree at the highest level, like you probably.
Did you study epistemology? The scientific method? Most undergraduate engineering curricula don't include that. I learned it as an elective while a graduate student, and practically from my early work on scientific research projects.
I have been told by experts that the UFO I saw was Venus, ice crystals, and a team of white-coats from a university told me it was there polythene bag lifted up on warm air-currents at night.
I don't profess to tell you what you saw. Honestly I would love to have seen it.
The FAA director who produced the evidence is an expert and explains the data findings.
That's my point. That is legitimate evidence. You say you've seen the evidence, as if that proves something. It may be interesting, but it's not proof. The proof is in the expert analysis by the FAA official.
Established Member
Would you like to put that assertion to a vote? Or is this another of those instances where you claiming it to be true makes it so?Put with the rest of your arguments, I am currently winning this sabre-rattling contest.
Established Member
Okay.On 2002-10-11 23:17, JayUtah wrote:
Let's talk about alien artifacts on the moon.
http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa030899.htm
That "Castle" thing puzzles me good. Is it perhaps a lens flare?
Order of Kilopi
News flash!...having kittens as I dare challenge their reality.
You are not challenging anybody's reality.
At best, you are straining our credulity.
Your credibility goes down with every ad hominem attack and unsupported allegation.
_________________
Be alert! The world needs more lerts.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-10-12 05:35 ]</font>
Order of Kilopi
Hey Slime, can you prove that you are not paid by the government to do the job to discredit everyone who has the slightest interest in UFOs?
BTW, UFO is not a synonym for Alien. It just means there is something we can't explain ad hoc. As science progresses, more and more phenomenons can be explained.
Established Member
Slime,
You appear to use the word ethics a lot in your posts. As if this was important to you that people are ethical.
Yet, as I recall when you first started posting on ApolloHoax as Slime, you stated that you were not Carrot Cruncher, the similarities between he and yourself were apparently only co-incidental. Do you consider lying to be ethical conduct?
Member
Yet, as I recall when you first started posting on ApolloHoax as Slime, you stated that you were not Carrot Cruncher, the similarities between he and yourself were apparently only co-incidental. Do you consider lying to be ethical conduct?
I never 'directly' or 'indirectly' denied being Carrot Cruncher. I was amazed that nobody asked me a direct question to deny my alter-ego. You all missed out on an opportunity there to dig for facts.
You see I never knowingly lie.
Care to find such a reference to you claim?
When you cant you can ethically apologise.
Or groveling will do. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
Order of Kilopi
I never 'directly' or 'indirectly' denied being Carrot Cruncher.
Stating that the similarities are purely coincidental is unquestionably an indirect denial. At best it conveyed a misleading understanding, which is all I did to earn the title "unethical" from you. The difference is that when my mistake became apparent, I corrected it. Your tactic instead is to deny (directly or indirectly) as long as possible, and then a bit longer.
Here, as on ApolloHoax, you demonstrate your hypocrisy. You excuse behavior in yourself or in your allies which you viciously denounce in your opponents. Your judgment regarding ethics is hardly of anyone's concern. When you can demonstrate clear-headedness and even-handedness, then perhaps your opinions on ethics might mean something.
Now what do you believe is compelling evidence there are alien artifacts on the moon?
Member
You uncritically accept Sgt. Stone's finely-spun fantasy as if it were fact. I find too much wrong with it to believe it.
And not simply because it talks about little alien monsters. There is plenty wrong with the ordinary aspects of his story.
'Little' and 'Monster' are your adjectives. Like little green men and science fiction monster stories.
Theyre also descriptions commonly used by the media to spin and kill intelligent debate.
You have taken the word of those who know about the military against that of an Army unit Sergenat that had cosmic security clearance.
First you need to ascertain what security clearance level they had and further, to confirm your suspicions, know no possible motive to discredit Sergeant Stone.
I would say you have a problem in both areas of your debunking exercise.
You have postulated the existence of something. When it is pointed out that such an existence should produce certain kinds of evidence, none of which is observed, you and your camp come up with fanciful speculative explanations for why that expected evidence is lacking.
The credible evidence is the stuff you wont look at for fear of being locked in an unescapeable conclusion. It is contained within the pages of Disclosure Project literature, DVD and videos.
You must buy before you can see.
Before you postulate as to why is much be paid for, and ignoring legality issues for arguments sake, consider the interests that 'may' like to keep it secret.
Logic should guide you to the conclusion that the evidence would be consumed as quickly as it could be printed.
Dubya expose book 'The fortuate Son' sold out very quickly. It appears few will admit to having a copy!
A far more parsimonious conclusion is that the thing you say exists doesn't really exist.
These things that dont exist have been admitted to by the Norwegian government. Perhaps Johnno will confirm.
Dr. Greers (UFO Doctor-On-Call) has been on site at the behest of NATO and the Belgium government to view such imaginary objects hovering a few yards off the ground. Debunk this rather that nit-pick the semantics.
A shadowy government organisation operating in the UK during the 1950's, officially denied until last year, was set up to investigate the UFO phenomenon.
Even with Project Bluebook the government of the UK/USA 'appeared' to be taking the subject seriously once. Which indicates the existence of E.T. alien technology or Earth alien technology. So that leaves the Ruskies and the Red Chinese with superior weaponry than the US have today!
Witnesses now tell the true story of Project Bluebook. If you prefer the official version thats up to you.
No, they are claimed to look similar to us. No proof of such a hypothesis is to be found. This is just one of the many ways UFO enthusiasts try to get around the uncomfortable lack of evidence.
No Jay. Photos presented to you would be inconclusive as you have already stated (not that you needed to).
Numerous pilots took close-up photos of UFOs in flight. They dutifully handed them over to their superiors. The fact that none are officially acknowledged would be more likely proof of a cover-up.
Particularly as Gordon Cooper can testify to this convenient loss of evidence.
Cooper, one of the famous Mercury 7 astronauts, had his own UFO experiences during the early 1950's. In 1951, while serving as a pilot with the air force in Germany, Cooper claims he chased groups of saucer shaped vehicles. He recalled that groups of saucer-shaped vehicles had been sighted for days in a row over the base. He said that "we tried to get close to them but they were able to change direction faster than our fighter-jets."
On May 2 1957, at Edwards Air Force Base, Cooper was part of what has become a famous and much publicized encounter.
He was project manager of the flight test centre and said of the incident;
"I had a crew that was filming an installation of a precision landing system out on the dry lake bed, and they were there with movies and stills and they filmed the whole installation, and they came running to me that this UFO, this little 'saucer' had come down right over them, put down three landing gear, and landed about fifty yards from them, and as they proceeded to go over and get a better shot of it, it lifted up, put the gear in, and disappeared at a rapid rate of speed....I had to look up the regulations on who I was to call to report this, which I did, and they ordered me to immediately have the film developed, but put it in a pouch and send it to them by the commanding General's plane to Washington, which I did. And that was the last that I ever heard of the film."
Although Cooper did not witness the sighting, he did study the film. 'It was a typically circular shaped UFO. Not many people saw it, because it took off at quite a sharp angle and just climbed out of sight.
Cooper was "surprisingly" selected as a Mercury astronaut only two years after reporting the UFO. Cooper was one of seven
people chosen from five hundred military personnel who applied to fly aboard what was to be the first manned space flight.
"All Apollo and Gemini flights were followed at a distance, and sometimes quite closely, by space vehicles of extraterrestrial origin - every time it occurred, the astronauts informed Mission Control who then ordered absolute silence".
Maurice Chatelain - former Chief of Communications with NASA.
(Chatelain also helped design the Apollo spacecraft)
NASA was formed in 1958 and from the start a number of it's astronauts and test pilots testified to sighting UFOs or craft of undetermined origin.
Initially Joseph Walker was the first to announce a sighting - he told the National Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Space Research in 1962 that he had an aerial encounter with two disc-shaped objects the previous month. He had actually filmed the encounter.
In April 1962, NASA pilot, Joseph Walker, filmed five cylindrical and disc-shaped objects from his X-15 aircraft.
In July 1962, Major Robert White, another test pilot, reported an incident involving a formation of UFOs whilst flying at 314,000 feet. NASA refused to reveal any evidence that might substantiate the pilots' claims - photographs or films were never released.
In April 1964, two radar technicians watched UFOs following an unmanned Gemini capsule.
In 1965 the FBI received information from a confidential source that an informant at NASA was secretly divulging information on UFOs to two UFO researchers in Pittsburgh. According to FBI files:
"The source believes that the informant may be classified and had actually seen a film showing a missile separating and a UFO appearing on the screen. The informant advised prior to the flight of Gemini 4 - watch out for something interesting because the spaceship had devices aboard to detect UFOs".
The FBI files infer that NASA was (is) withholding filmed evidence of UFOs to which the general public is being denied access and the remarks about Gemini 4 is of special interest because James McDivitt , a pilot with Gemini 4, confirmed that during the mission he did see an "unidentified object".
I could fill this web site up with testimony from the highest ranking people testifying to UFOs and the cover-up and that they are of extraterrestrial origin.
Buy the book "Disclosure". The evidence is on my side. The nit-pickers can play semantic games with the facts.
Thats as far as their brains can take them down the rabbit hole.
I'm not a neurologist by they appear to be mentally defective IMH(and fair)O.
In response to "Its a secret remember. There's security and big, BIG money interests to consider."
Circular, and circular.
Obviously its a secret. Logic dictates that Oil interests are incompatible with free-energy (See video 'Life of Nikola Tesla').
Security of the nation is also incompatible with home-made ICBMs with unlimited propulsion systems.
Use logic once in a while correctly, then you can answer your own questions.
Just last week I was listening to the world news at http://www.americanfreedomnews.com about a 1999 report handed to the US administration suggesting the US 'must' go to war with Iraq as Iraq was seriously hampering the flow of oil from the Middle East. The report came from a Halliburton official (OIL Man).
I once worked for Brown & Root Vickers (A Hallibuton company) on the Great Man-made River Project (Libya).
Money and business was still going on as normal while the US and UK were bombing the mad-dog Quadafi and Iraq.
Looks like there are those that would happily kill for oil still.
I'm not surprised to find the situation the US are in today.
Big bully in the playground running out of oil. And all because they wont admit to free-energy.
Nikola Tesla. Where did he get his ideas? (Alien intervention / Our all-knowing subconscious / God), it wasnt from study.
The blue-prints of his inventions were burnt into his brain in a blinding-light migraine that lasted a few seconds.
They dont tell you that in school.
Who else claims Alien inspiration today? Stephen Hawking, thats who.
Jay would call then nuts. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]
In response to "It can make use of known and unknown physical laws."
Our understanding of physical laws evolves, but by way of refinement and not wholesale redefinition. You're simply trying to make the facts fit your preconceived conclusion.
No. I stated a glaringly obviously fact, that should not have needed to be stated here or on a kindegarten forum.
Only a nit-picker could have found something to criticise.
In response to "Circa 1972, I along with thousand of others in S.E. England...blah...blah...blah"
Fine, you experienced something you can't explain. I respect that.
You dont respect that as I "can" explain it.
I'm not going to tell you it was swamp gas or light refracted from Venus.
That trick is old isnt it?
Then speculate scientifically.
I see plenty of things I can't explain. Perhaps nothing quite so dramatic as what you see, but I don't immediately assume that what I see is caused by the most farfetched thing I can imagine.
Again, speculate on the least far-fetched thing my UFO could have seen.
But we are not impressed with promises of great and wonderful things, only to be introduced to talented storytellers who shine briefly and then fade into obscurity. We want substance, and you can't provide it.
My particular experience was when I was six. I didnt even own a camera and anyway the Government cover-up was very effective at killing the story. I have yet to find mention of it anywhere on the net.
Buy the book/DVD. Look at various web sites regarding Apollo astronauts tails. You will probably regard this testimony as the most credible (Sibrel wouldnt). There's a lot of it. They will be story-telling until they are dead. Let's hope its from natural causes.
Actually I considered myself to be in the safest place on earth.
But if the illiminati had wanted to create a reason for war? All the cameras would have been in place.
Dont be so sure.
No, there are limits to the military's power.
Not according to President Eisenhower's final address to the nation. Stop kidding yourself.
"In the councils of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
Jan 1961
“There exists a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of the national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself.”
Senator Daniel K. Inouye
"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry"
That's funny isnt it?
Things havent improved unless you know otherwise.
The evil that the US military/government do around the world and at home is on your heads too.
Ignorance can no longer be your plea. Denial is futile.
In response to "We dont see the hardware, just the software interface. Remember the Matrix"
I see the hardware. It's part of my job now. (I have a new job since we last spoke.) BTW, The Matrix is fiction, in case you missed the e-mail.
Unless "the e-mail" was a cryptic message I didnt understand, I have checked my 4 email accounts and not received anything but unsolicited US SPAM.
'You' may see the hardware, but the point was we dont need to treat it as anything but a 'black box'.
Being an engineer, you will understand the term.
Good luck in the new job. Sure must beat teaching (a computer-graphics class at Utah Univ, part-time). [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
Could you elaborate more on the difference (between Skeptic and Debunker)?
Skeptics are open-minded. If they have pre-conceived ideas they are willing to alter them.
Debunkers are close-minded. Its a job-description thingy. I have never met a debunker who thought I wasnt a nut and took offence as soon as I mentioned something they disagreed with. Andrew/DaveC are quite revolted by my posts.
How could a "nut" get so deep under there skin?
It's more than just a disagreement. Your approach is tantamount to calling us ignorant and conformist for not buying your conclusions. That's poor manners. We have other reasons for not believing your conclusions.
Your conclusions are always that UFO witnesses are liars, deluded or motivated by money.
Poor manners, considering these witnesses are usually your betters.
You can't seem to grasp the notion that people who disagree with you may have very valid reasons for doing so.
They dont have valid reasons. They have a poor grasp on what may be quantum-leap-advances in science as theyre stuck in this time frame, quoting light as a constant. Even Einstein wasnt happy with his work, but he is treated like a God here.
Not to forget discrediting witnesses as they testify to star-trek technology.
I actually doubt they would even believe their own eyes.
In fact I'm sure they wouldnt as eye-witness testimony is such a poor judge.
And you seem to strongly oppose any attempt to change your view of reality, not just on this point but on several points you have discussed.
If I am proved wrong, so be it. But the evidence is on my side and I have the highly impressive witness testimony books at hand. Not forgetting my own experience.
No, you're missing the point. If the preponderance of evidence favors a certain view, those who hold that view are not necessarily stupid.
I agree. But the evidence is on 'my' side. If it wasnt and still people believed in UFOs it would cut no ice with me.
Democracy may be all we have but its no judge of truth.
...a proper debate obeys the rules of logic. You break several of them in nearly every post and then when this is brought to your attention you raise irrelevancies like terrorists and thugs. You talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?
Your logic has always been in error. If I were you, I'd lay off logic as a defense of your arguments.
If someone claims, say, to be from a tobacco company and gives evidence of the company's intent to create an addictive product, there is usually little question whether the witness is really from a tobacco company. That can be tested.
Good film that with Russell Crowe - and real-life too. If you remember they attempted to scare him from testifying, while he (and his family) were in fear for their lives. "WE WILL KILL YOU" on his computer.
The dodgy court proceedings were evident and collusion with the mass media CBS Radio Station / TV Network was proved (60 minutes) as Tobacco owned the station and attempted to stop the story from going public.
Bad case study to give to an illuminati UFO nut who accuses the secret government of all this everyday.
I recall they had to prove that insiders referred to the cigarette as a "nicotine dispenser". Which they did.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...01599-idx.html
Scenario.
CBS HQ Front Desk.
Hello Mr Cruncher. I hear you have evidence that UFOs exist.
Step this way. Just walk up to the top floor where the TV studio is and walk through the door marked "Do not open this window".
I'm sure it must happen all the time.
Insiders in the UFO camp are frequently people who only claim to be insiders. Their insider status cannot be reliably determined. If their claims are implausible a priori and we cannot determine their authority, it is foolish to rely on them.
Dr. Greer demands they hand in their work documents before they can testify. That's all one can reasonably do in such a highly secretive field.
In response to "16 miles in half the sweep of a radar and remaining stationary."
Assuming it's an object.
Yes visual and electronic confirmation of it movements. Corroborating evidence. The equipment was checked too. No faults.
In response to "If you had a secret weapon that could do that, dont you think you'd be careful about following a passenger airline with lots of witnesses for a whole 30 minutes."
If I could help it, yes. Accidents happen. Why do you leap to the conclusion that it's a weapon?
I didnt. I jumped to the conclusion that it was a UFO inhabited by peaceful beings. But in the event it might fall into the hands of the US military, a weapon it would be. A secret weather baloon perhaps? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
I'm not trying to set a standard of evidence that is unattainably high knowing you will not be able to reach it.
You are like a floating point super-computer dishing out logic evaluation.
FALSE = 0.999999999999999999999999999999 True = 1
...the standard of evidence which is common in historical investigation and noting that you fail to attain it. That's the basis for my rejection of your claim.
Here's an 'Hysterical' investigation you should be proud of that goes along way to proving a hypothesis.
http://www.ufon.org/archives/audio-video/David_Icke/
Its an historical investigation that goes all the way back to man's conception and before.
BTW The cross-referencing can be obtained from his books. Powerful stuff.
Look at it and wonder how the Coincidence Theorists must be feeling.
Please look. It'll give me 6 hours peace from here, if you do. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
What, exactly, do you claim (the FAA clip) corroborates?
Electronic and Visual witness testimony from multiple sources.
But I do believe that some of the same phenomena that is being seen today may have been attributed to spiritual or religious manifestations in earlier times.
Good. The you must download that David Icke stuff. It sort of half way goes along with your views.
But remember this before you watch. Open your mind.
Member
Stating that the similarities are purely coincidental is unquestionably an indirect denial.
Wrong. Where is the link. I'm waiting.
At best it conveyed a misleading understanding, which is all I did to earn the title "unethical" from you.
Wrong. You watched 6 minutes of a 47min59sec DVD.
An ethical review it could never be and you know it.
The difference is that when my mistake became apparent, I corrected it.
Nor can your unethical act be attributed to a "mistake". A word often used by politicians and criminals when they are found out.
The rest of your tirade is predictable.
Now what do you believe is compelling evidence there are alien artifacts on the moon?
I dont have any. I never said I did!
Someone who worked in the film lab processing the data said he did.
I posted the link. It seemed an appropriate place for it. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
All this is not to say there arent any artefacts.
Which is the viewpoint most people here find comfortable with.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Slime (Silky Smooth) on 2002-10-12 12:04 ]</font>
Order of Kilopi
Wrong. Where is the link. I'm waiting.
You know very well there can be no link to the evidence because it's gone now, thanks in large measure to your actions. Thankfully there are those here who also recall your statements.
Wrong. You watched 6 minutes of a 47min59sec DVD.
And I reviewed those six minutes, completing the review based on secondary sources which all interested have acknowledged to be accurate. But since one should not review from secondary sources, I removed the review.
Nor can your unethical act be attributed to a "mistake".
Poor judgment, then. Can you compare your deliberate attempts to hide your identity with that?
The rest of your tirade is predictable.
That's because you were and still are hypocritical regarding it and me. It's been some time now. Have you contacted Bart Sibrel to protest his misleading review of his own material? Have you protested his luring of astronauts to interviews under false pretenses? If not, why not?
Someone who worked in the film lab processing the data said he did.
I posted the link.
That's all I was asking. So if I go back, follow that link, and hear that testimony, that will be the evidence you wish me to comment upon?
I am also interested in how you view Richard Hoagland's evidence of alien construction on the moon. You called my rejection of it "ignorant" (well, "ignoranimous" to be precise). Do you believe Hoagland's evidence to be strong on that point?
Order of Kilopi
There is a lot of content in your latest substantial post, so forgive me if it takes some time to address. This one, however, I can answer immediately because it happens to be something in my area of expertise.
"All Apollo and Gemini flights were followed at a distance, and sometimes quite closely, by space vehicles of extraterrestrial origin - every time it occurred, the astronauts informed Mission Control who then ordered absolute silence".
Maurice Chatelain - former Chief of Communications with NASA.
(Chatelain also helped design the Apollo spacecraft)
No. Chatelain was never "Chief of Communications" for NASA. I have the original rosters of senior NASA personnel from that era, and Chatelain's name does not appear.
Maurice Chatelain was a rank-and-file engineer who worked for a subcontractor that handled part of the communications system design for the MSFN. He was dismissed from the company prior to Apollo 11, according to his employers, and was never at any time in the MOCR or any of the communications backrooms during any lunar Apollo mission. So it's impossible for him to testify authoritatively on "secret" Apollo downlinks.
This is one of countless myths that continues to make its way around the very uncritical UFO camp. Maurice Chatelain's claimed credentials are easily shown to be false claims.
Established Member
Wiil you two just give it up? You don't agree. Fine. We know.
BTW, Slime, what kind of bike do you ride?
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-10-12 13:32 ]</font>
Member
Many crap bikes, John.
2x1980 Honda CB250N Superdreams. Honda CM250T with matching floodlights. Honda H100A & S [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
We had have this conversation at ApolloHoax I think, when I fell off and cracked my backbone.
I am fully recovered as you can guess.
Member
First of all, as Jay's friend, I will listen to Johns advice to lay off Jay as he has begged me.
You know very well there can be no link to the evidence because it's gone now, thanks in large measure to your actions.
I thought the link was here. No wonder I couldnt find it! I still dispute your version of history.
I always tease Jay with a wink (actually a nervous twitch) [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
There is no real subterfuge operating on my part. WYSIWYG.
I am also interested in how you view Richard Hoagland's evidence of alien construction on the moon.
Never really looked at it. Been very busy recently. Will do it in a few days.
Member
This is one of countless myths that continues to make its way around the very uncritical UFO camp. Maurice Chatelain's claimed credentials are easily shown to be false claims.
Looks like Chatelain is a charlatan.
Or deliberate disinformation from a frightend NASA. I will look into this.
It was just a web link from a page of real Gordon Cooper UFO testimony.
It looked pretty so I posted it. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]
Established Member
Cool bikes. Had a couple of CB250's myself a while back. I've recently bought a TZR 125. A complete nutter of a bike.
Can this really be an attempt to divert the course of this thread. Is it a good one?
Order of Kilopi
Looks like Chatelain is a charlatan.
Yep. And I've followed half a dozen such goose chases touted by conspiracy theorists as "inside" information. Not to say that every bit of testimony is fabricated, but enough of it is that we have to look carefully at all of it.
Or deliberate disinformation from a frightend NASA.
Wow, NASA must be pretty sneaky to retrospectively change the books that have been in my attic for thirty years.
Do you honestly think NASA can just change everyone's recollection of who held an important post in their organization? "Oh, yeah, that guy Bruce Springsteen who was VP of engineering at Ford," etc. Which is more likely: that NASA changed everyone's private collection of printed materials without their knowledge and erased everyone's memory of who did what; or that a guy named Maurice Chatelain who once had a minor, tangential role in the space program is trying for a little fame and fortune, and there are plenty of gullible people willing to fawn all over him?
It was just a web link from a page of real Gordon Cooper UFO testimony.
I'm sure you've realized that the web contains both reliable information and stuff that's just plain gossip. It's in your best interest to weed out the gossip before promulgating it.
Member
Wow, NASA must be pretty sneaky to retrospectively change the books that have been in my attic for thirty years.
They dont need to. Just promote this stuff as fact on a site thats just pretending to be kosher UFO info.
UFOlogy experts like Stan Friedman are always exposing these cranks and their lies.
He's still a firm believer and so am I.
Good reason to stick to the Disclosure Project manuscripts and not be tempted into the sewer.
Member
I once worked for Honda, Power Rd, Chiswick. Met Carl Fogarty and his lovely girlfriend(s).
Use to get my bikes serviced for free there.
Hope your bike lasts.
Yamaha's 'boy racer' bikes are unreliable (imho). And thats what we use to tell potential customers.
Make good flutes and electric pianos though.
Order of Kilopi
Interesting idea, Slime. I've heard military types say (unofficially, of course, so consider it gossip) that they let the UFO rumors persist, and maybe even feed them a little, in order to provide a plausible cover story for some of what they really do. The theory, I understand, is to let people believe that the government has UFOs or what-not, and let the cranks tell wild, implausible stories about them. That way blended-body reconnaissance aircraft get written off as UFO stories that no one believes. I guess the best cover story is one that other people invent for you.
Now does that explain everything that people see? Not in the least. It might not even be true. The big mistake, in my opinion, is assuming that things are connected when they might not be. Presuming associations between observations constrains the set of possible explanations, and wrongly so.
Established Member
Hope your bike lasts.
Yamaha's 'boy racer' bikes are unreliable (imho). And thats what we use to tell potential customers.
So, a Honda dealership tell potential customers that Yamahas are unreliable? Am I the only one who thinks there is a conflict of interest here?
I've owned Suzuki, Honda, Yamaha and Kawazaki bikes and I've always found Yamahas the best to ride. That's probably just my subjective preference, but the Yamahas just feel better and more stable than the Hondas, and so inspire more confidence. My Yamaha is 11 years old and still going strong. And it looks about as complicated as a spoon to fix if it does go wrong...
Make good flutes and electric pianos though.
I wouldn't know. However, there was a girl,
this one time, at band camp, who did funny things with a flute...
Member
Bedtime isnt right unless you have some of Dr. Greers novels or Mary Bennetts signed photos to look at.
Before I nod off, let me leave you with this paragraph from Extraterrestrial Contact - The evidence & implications.
We can all take comfort in this letter I found from Dr. Greer to Al Gore's Scientific adviser, Dr. Kohlenberger (I wont eat at his place).
...I can assure you that 90-95% or more, of everything said, written and seen on this matter is a combination of nonsense, fantasy, hoaxes, covert disinformation and conjecture. With that said, I also wish to assure you that there is a core of data, evidence, photographs, videotape, government documents and, most importantly, first hand government witness testimony which establish the fact that we are being visited by advanced extraterrestrial life forms.
Obviously, they are not using 20th Century Earth technology, and therefore their existence has been largely overlooked by the non-covert scientific community due to paradigm insufficiency and the nonsense and disinformation mentioned above...
I will frame this.
I will now restrict my defense of UFO to that information corroborated in Dr. Greers testimonies.
Unless you buy the evidence (ie part with some cash) we may have little to argue over Jay.
That'll make us both happy. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
So, a Honda dealership tell potential customers that Yamahas are unreliable? Am I the only one who thinks there is a conflict of interest here?
At weekends when there was no one to man the switchboard we'd get away with blue murder.
DONT tell Yamaha.
Posting Permissions
