BS: UFOs in the news

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 May 08 - 02:19 PM

BillD,

"The most common gold compounds are auric chloride (AuCl3) and chlorauric acid (HAuCl4). A mixture of one part nitric acid with three of hydrochloric acid is called aqua regia (because it dissolved gold, the King of Metals). It is unaffected by air and most reagents."


And there are a number of alloys.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Bill D
Date: 28 May 08 - 02:15 PM

well...yeah....I guess we don't know everything yet. I DO hold a generalized opinion, though, that some things ARE in fact, impossible. I suspect that it is NOT possible to make 'compounds' with Gold...(and no AuH₂O joles, please.) I really doubt that one can sharpen an axe on a feshly peeled banana.....and I will withhold opinion on FTL drives.

(oh...and to repeat: I DO believe, as in 'willing to bet', that there are other sentient being somewhere in the Universe....just not that they can get to US)

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Bill D
Date: 28 May 08 - 02:06 PM

Hmmm...maybe our government knows more than it lets on.

And alternate theories abound.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 08 - 01:54 PM

I think I would be damned careful about landing on the White House lawn too, if I was them, Bill. ;-) Without authorization? Sounds like a really good way to get shot at to me. We are the most dangerous species on this planet, and I'm sure our visitors are well aware of that by now, if they were ever in any doubt about it.

I would also assume that some of the sightings have been of our own experimental vehicles. Very likely. Just not all of them.

Yes, we have an assumption about the impossibility of faster-than-light travel, based on our latest scientific theories and info. We might not know everything yet when it comes to that. ;-) And if so, how would we know that we didn't know?

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Bill D
Date: 28 May 08 - 01:32 PM

...and they didn't land. There were lights & blips on radar...jets chased them. Nothing was caught, 'seen' or contacted. I 'think' of lots of incidents, but landing on the lawn is my catch-all phrase for the sort of data that would convince me.
(remember...always remember...'doubt' is not denying.) I WANT to be convinced....I do not want to get into a mindset of 'believing' which would change my approach to 'examining'.

Stuff like this or this might explain a few things, but not many.

And here is a bit of what CAN be done. I SEE the possibilities of getting varied shapes to fly...but getting them across the Universe?

I wouldn't bet against the US building some experimental stuff that gets seen at odd times...but that's not the claim that at issue. What we DO have is many stories, experiences and claims of hidden evidence, countered by the inability of current science to imagine *HOW* they could be true. That durned "speed of light" thing is quite a nuisance, but most ideas of how to get around it are just fanciful language. "FTL drives" and "wormholes" are great fun for Sci-fi, but like all notions of interstellar travel, the power sources are just as vague.

Let's keep looking....

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 08 - 12:47 PM

Yes, but oddly enough BillD never thinks of those 1952 incidents when he wonders why "they don't land on the White House lawn". He never thinks of it because the MSM has chosen not to talk about it again or give it any importance for the last 6 decades...unlike IMPORTANT matters such as Brittney, O.J., and Iraqi WMDs.

That is how a coverup is maintained...not by totally stopping the flow of information...just by giving no importance or sustained MSM coverage to the specific things that they don't want you to think about much....while giving exhaustive and continual coverage to ridiculous bullshit about celebrities and non-existent threats to America from Iraqi or Iranian WMDs.

The evidence is out there for alien craft. Plenty of it. People are blind to it, however, because they are hardly ever told anything about it by the MSM or the government. Only the actual eyewitnesses of the vehicles are not blinded by this deliberate policy of shutdown on credible ETV information.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 08 - 12:25 PM

'OBJECTS' OUTSTRIP JETS OVER CAPITAL; Spotted Second Time in Week by Radar, but Interceptors Fail to Make Contact
By The Associated Press.

July 28, 1952, Monday

Page 1, 464 words

WASHINGTON, July 27 -- The Air Force said today that jet fighter planes had made an effort to intercept unknown objects in the sky over Washington last night after the objects had been spotted by radar, but that no direct contact had been made. ...

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 08 - 12:11 PM

A survey of New York Times articles through July 1952 brings up the following leaders. I can't link to the actual articles as they are paid items only.

A

---

SAUCERS' INQUIRY MADE; Air Force Looks Over a Report of Eight Flying in Echelon
July 17, 1952, Thursday

Page 4, 197 words

WASHINGTON, July 16 (UP) -- The Air Force, which does not believe in "Flying Saucers" but is always willing to investigate stories of them, disclosed today that it was looking over a new report on them.

---

Air Force Debunks 'Saucers' As Just 'Natural Phenomena'; Intelligence Chief Denies a Menace Exists -- 'Objects' Believed to Be Reflections, but 'Adequate' Guard Will Be Kept AIR FORCE DEBUNKS 'SAUCER' REPORTS

By AUSTIN STEVENSSpecial to THE NEW YORK TIMES.

July 30, 1952, Wednesday

Page 1, 1023 words

WASHINGTON, July 29 -- Air Force headquarters skimmed away into the broken dishware bin today the latest wave of "flying saucers." It called them "natural phenomena" and announced through high-ranking general officers that henceforth the Air Force would treat reports of the disks with "adequate but not frantic" attention.

---

SAUCERS' VISIT ON COAST; Flying Objects Hover 4 Nights in Area, Californian Says
July 25, 1952, Friday

Page 19, 109 words

(No excerpt)

---

Coast Guard Releases Daytime Picture of 'Objects' Over New England -- Not Reflections, Dayton Fliers Say
August 2, 1952, Saturday

Page 3, 552 words

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 (AP) -- A mystery photograph of four blazes of light in the sky, plus a report from jet pilots on a night flight that an object they sighted was not a reflection, added new twist today to the "flying saucers" puzzle.

---

60 'Saucer' Reports Fly At Air Force in 2 Weeks
By The United Press.

July 18, 1952, Friday
Page 5, 164 words

DAYTON, Ohio, July 17 -- An Air Force spokesman said today some sixty reports of flying saucers had been received during the last two weeks. He could give no reason for the sudden increase.

---

NOW THEY ARE "OBJECTS"
July 29, 1952, Tuesday

Page 20, 333 words

The romanticists who are willing to believe that Mars and Venus are inhabited by people so intelligent and advanced that they have been visiting us for centuries and giving us a periodic "once over" must be highly pleased with the reported failure of jet fighter planes to intercept what, a few months ago, were called "flying saucers" but are now called "objects."

---

Flying Objects Near Washington Spotted by Both Pilots and Radar; Air Force Reveals Reports of Something, Perhaps 'Saucers,' Traveling Slowly But Jumping Up and Down


July 22, 1952, Tuesday

Section: BOOKS, Page 27, 598 words

WASHINGTON, July 21 (AP) -- The Air Force disclosed tonight it had received reports of an eerie visitation by unidentified aerial objects -- perhaps a new type of "flying saucer" -- over the vicinity of the nation's Capital

---

Make Positive Statement
August 2, 1952, Saturday

Page 3, 173 words

DAYTON, Ohio, Aug. 1 (AP) -- Reports by jet interceptor pilots today marked the first time pilots checking on flying saucer reports here had made such a positive statement

---

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Donuel
Date: 28 May 08 - 11:22 AM

July 27 1952 Sunday... The White House and Capitol building provided a wonderful view of 6 bright round craft and culminated in bringing jets into DC for low passes. As soon as the "flying circles" went away the jets returned to base only to have the ufos return and start yet another chase. (the newspaper headlines are dated July 28 1952)

The following weekend the exact same cat and mouse game ensued with the jets and ufos at the exact same location.

The newspaper accounts and thousands of witness' became food for a flurry of films about UFOs in the 50's. Many of the B movies pictured the ufoslanding on the Capitol grounds, which was one thing that did not happen in the July 1952 encounters that shook this nation.

Today it is as if this did not happen. I hear people say "If they exist why don't they land on the White House lawn?"
In 1952 they did everything but land on the White House lawn. President Truman publicly answered questions about the encounter and remarked repeatedly that these kind of saucers are seen all the time.

The United States of Amnesia more recently had to deal with the Phoenix sighting. Today it is as if a 1 mile diameter craft was not actually seen by 20,000 people afterall.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 09:10 PM

Donuel, I also saw a vehicle that suddenly crossed half the sky from a motionless start and vanished over the far horizon in about 2 and a half seconds. Absolutely incredible speed. I don't think it was "one of ours". It was silvery, round, the typical "flying saucer" shape that is often spoken of. It had no visible engines or exhaust or other such features, caused no sonic boom, and made no sound whatsoever during its flight.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Donuel
Date: 27 May 08 - 08:53 PM

The Holy Roman Church incense at one time in history was burning wormwood.




The Jesuits were aware enough to know exactly what I was saying and were concerned that a broad definition of hypnosis might be a threat to viewing all organized religion through such a lens.

While I assured them that they had my highet respect for their unique pursuit of knowledge and alligned myself to Sir Thomas, they were not assuaged.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 27 May 08 - 08:44 PM

I always wondered if that's what the candles, incense and droning voive of the priests in the church were all about. lull you into a sleep like state and then indoctrinate you.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Donuel
Date: 27 May 08 - 08:41 PM

It is a real eye opener to realize that we are such an easily hypnotized species.

I was always careful to explain that hypnosis is used for both positive personal awareness as well as negative mass control.
It is up to you to filter the difference.

This enraged the Jesuit order in town. Enraged is the wrong word. They did however seek to implment a remedy to such radical thoughts.

I don't think anyone is interested in the biographical details of this modern day use of clerical power to control the heretical secular teachings of one solitary young man.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 27 May 08 - 08:26 PM

I watched a program the other day in which they deliberately influenced a group of "witnesses" and then took their reports under hypnosis and got the same story out of each one with guards and guns and debris where there actually hadn't been one.

Though they never came out and said so it was implied that this is what always happens since we've all been exposed to these sorts of stories before.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Donuel
Date: 27 May 08 - 08:02 PM

Perception can be a double edged sword.

But I am sure we can all tell the difference between the truthfullness of a family and their neighbors trying to relate exactly what they saw, and on the other hand watching Katy Couric and a hired debunker laughing at the witnesses and offering the official version of what thousands of people actually saw.

I prefer to err on the side of sincerity than the explanations from media employees who are hired to read the cue cards.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 27 May 08 - 07:46 PM

I can't figure whether that's a pro or con argument.

That does seem to be a fall back argument of the skeptic though.
"It was all mass hallucination".

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Donuel
Date: 27 May 08 - 07:41 PM

In the movie Shawshank Redemtion there is the line spoken by Morgan Freeman's character who says, "Just how often do you ever look at a man's shoes?".
People are like that about watching the sky. They might glance now and then but seldom do they they just watch.

Then if something way out of the ordinary happens, they might not be able to process enough information to catagorize it or remember it. Sometimes its as though a person is psychologically blind to the event. They say that the indiginous natives on the beach could not see the Spanish Galleons until their Shaman showed them exactly what to look at.

1970 near the shore of Lake Erie: I was laying down on my back watching the sky several hours before sunset. With my eyes accustomed to an infinity focus I saw something as I turned my head from right to left. It was a bright reflective silver white cigar shape that was almost thread thin at a great distance. What was beyond comprehension was the fact that it crossed the sky from horizon to horizon in about 4 seconds. I was left feeling as if I had not seen what I had just seen since it was impossible to all my prior experiences.

The reason that I could process what I had seen was probably due to the fact I had once seen a bullet or spark travel from from a gun to the target by snapping my head and eyes in the direction of flight with incredible speed.

You hear people say that eye witness testimony is the least reliable evidence. It is strange to say this aloud but we need permission or prior experience to see what is in front of our eyes. What is visible to one person is psychologically invisible to some else beside them. Then a person's reclollection can be skewed by suggestion or social consensus discussions afterward.

Sometimes there could be things so strange right in front of you that if asked, "did you see that?" you would honestly say, "see what?"

In short, your eyes maight see it but your brain did not.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 27 May 08 - 06:59 PM

Sigh...

That's the other problem...

Hoaxers who take valuable time and effort away from the investigation of "real" ufo incidents and think it's funny. They're not fooling anyone of course but it lends more weight to the skeptics.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 01:23 PM

A lot of interesting fragments of stuff there, Donuel. What is my opinion about (any of) it? Well, I don't have an opinion. But I find some of it interesting.

But if you think that that is the worst UFO video out there, you're wrong. Shane and his brother Don made one using a couple of soup plates, a string, and the soundtrack from an Ozzie Osbourne album. It's way worse... ;-)

Subject: WORST UFO VIDEO CONTEST
From: Donuel
Date: 27 May 08 - 12:57 PM

You may not be able to post a worse ufo video than this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIreWMvuqN4&feature=related

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Donuel
Date: 27 May 08 - 09:34 AM

Daryl made a contract with me regarding proceeds from a book that included any of the interviews I conducted.

When I heard that he is no longer with us I suppose I was misled.

Momey makes liars of otherwise good people.

Alive or not, I do not expect any proceeds.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Peace
Date: 27 May 08 - 12:25 AM

That's the first sign, Chief.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 26 May 08 - 07:18 PM

Amos,

Can't get there from here tonight. For some reason (Men in Black interference perhaps?) Our whole internet system is running extremely slow, if at all.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 08 - 07:15 PM

Oh, I see. ;-D

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 06:05 PM

From 1994, New York Times:

"Three of the five victims -- Ms. Lanza; her mother, Eleanor Lazore Fowler, and Mrs. Fowler's husband, Robert -- were described as core members of a local U.F.O. study group called the Ultimate Frontier Organization, which believes that extraterrestrial contact is intertwined with spirituality, including American Indian mysticism.

Daryl Hardes, a member of the group, is writing a book on the theory, and said that a major part of it would include the Lazore family's experiences -- such as seeing a "disk-shaped" object hovering over their house when Pamela was a child, and Robert Fowler's memory of seeing a deer's face transformed into that of an alien.

But Mr. Hardes said that Brenda Lazore Chevere and Mr. Stevens would have nothing to do with the U.F.O. group, and that he never even met them. Ms. Chevere, who is 31, lives at the end of a remote private road in the town of Victor, about 30 miles from Rochester, and would not open the door when a reporter and photographer drove up this week."

Full story of a bombing attempt concerning this group can be found in the NYT Archive, here.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 26 May 08 - 05:24 PM

I don't think the "Aliens" are running the show either. Although I've got to say the current administration must have some different kind of sensory organs than I do since they keep seeing the situation we're in as being a rose garden.

Perhaps we're at some point in our intellectual/industrial evolution where we're about to make a big breakthrough and they're concerned about what we're going to do. If we gained the ability to travel through space as they do(or time) in the next decade, I know I'd be worried!

First Iraq, then Iran, and then Nekton 99 in the Horse Head Nebula!

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 08 - 09:19 AM

I have no idea, Stella.

Who is Daryl Hardes?

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: GUEST,Stella
Date: 26 May 08 - 07:00 AM

WHY do I read that "Daryl Hardes has passed?"

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 May 08 - 07:18 PM

Cute cartoon, Bill. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 May 08 - 07:01 PM

I understand your position fine in general, Stigweard.

As I say, the vehicles I saw could have been ET Vehicles...or they could have been top secret vehicles of our own (but I doubt it, because I don't think we have progressed that far). I'll probably never know which it was, so I have to go on my best hunch...and that remains merely a hypothesis.

You say it's "convenient" for my coverup theory that all the evidence has been taken. Yeah. (shrug) So what? Look, if there IS a coverup then it stands to reason that all the evidence would be scooped up right quick by the most high security people possible, and the public and most government people would never get to see it.

So whether it's "convenient" or not in your eyes....it's simply inevitable that, if there is a coverup at all, the evidence would be all siezed and would be under lock and key by the security forces.

And there's nothing you or I can do about that.

If there is no coverup, on the other hand, then there are for sure no ETs visiting. If there are ETs visiting us since 1947 (or before that), there has simply GOT to have been a coverup for the last 5 or 6 decades.

It's one or the other.

What people believe about that generally lines up with what they want to believe...to bolster their already established opinion, for or against.

People who've actually seen what looked like alien craft to them definitely want to believe in the evidence of their own eyes, and in the power of their own judgement, not in someone else's who wasn't even there, and I'm one of those people who did see what looked like alien craft to me.

And that's why not you or anybody else can shake me on this.

I am really puzzled by this one paragraph you wrote:

"Look through my posts on the site LH - you'll see I'm no great fan of the establishment, our respective governments or even the capitalist system, but do I believe that aliens are enslaving us, bending the collective will to their own ends? No - there are plenty of ordinary Homo sapiens willing and able to do that for their own reasons and therin lies our problems the world over. No aliens controlling the Holocaust, Abu Ghraib, 9/11 or anything else, just plain, ordinary people. Perhaps because these capability to do these things is an intrinsic part of the human condition it's easier to invent a world controlled by malevolent alien invaders than it is to face up and address to our own inhumanity to each other."

Why would you say any of that to me??? I agree with you 100% on every point. I have never thought or said that aliens are enslaving us, controlling anything political here, or doing anything malevolent to us at all. Yes, we people are doing all that negative stuff to ourselves. That is what I've been saying! We are the problem here, not the aliens, they're just (I would assume) taking a harmless look at us and seeing what is going on on this crazy planet of ours. They're observing us, not doing any harm. We are doing all the harm to ourselves, and maybe sometimes to a few of them too...and the problem is precisely as you have stated...we must face up and address our own inhumanity to each other...and to other lifeforms of every kind, such as all the animals we kill and subject to conditions of misery. We do not have a good record. We are dangerous as a species.

So why the heck would you even have written that paragraph to me? Have you got me confused with someone else?

I do not subscribe to any of those scary, malevolent alien theories you mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Bill D
Date: 23 May 08 - 03:56 PM

Ok, I see I have not looked hard enough at evidence that was right in front of me...especially these days.

But what does it show about Bill?

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Stu
Date: 23 May 08 - 03:39 AM

"There is plenty of physical evidence, but you are never going to have the satisfaction of seeing it, nor is the general public or the press or even most people in the civilian government or even most military people. It's top secret, dummy!!!"

How very convenient. The absence of evidence as proof of a cover-up? Ever heard of the Emperor's new clothes? Thanks for the insult.

"I find the claims of a great many actual eyewitnesses (myself among them) to be far more persuasive than your doubts, Bill . . .""

Did you read the account of my sighting LH? Just because I don't think it was a spaceship makes no less real for all that it's a different opinion, plain and simple. It's not unreasonable to ask for evidence that goes beyond hearsay, and if this were a massive cover-up then I firmly believe there would be more proof.

I used to be very well read on this subject 20 years ago or so, long before MJ12 or whoever emerged on the scene. there was a thriving community of enthusiastic people working hard to find out what some of these sightings might represent. Over time these people had an effect - the exposed the top-secret Aurora project (seen in the area where I live, probably flying from the BAE facility at Woodford, Cheshire), which has since become an open secret.

Look through my posts on the site LH - you'll see I'm no great fan of the establishment, our respective governments or even the capitalist system, but do I believe that aliens are enslaving us, bending the collective will to their own ends? No - there are plenty of ordinary Homo sapiens willing and able to do that for their own reasons and therin lies our problems the world over. No aliens controlling the Holocaust, Abu Ghraib, 9/11 or anything else, just plain, ordinary people. Perhaps because these capability to do these things is an intrinsic part of the human condition it's easier to invent a world controlled by malevolent alien invaders than it is to face up and address to our own inhumanity to each other.

I base my opinions on the facts available at any one time. If the facts change, my opinion might. But blind faith in everything written? Accepting someone's word as gospel every time? No I'll keep an open, questioning mind and form my own views on the subject.

I'd rather be an oink oink with a mind of my own than a sheep.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:07 PM

Shimrod,

We tried not to crash our U-2s as well.
I only could come up with Roswell and it was the base commander that said it was a flying saucer. In Kecksburg the object appeared to be a Soviet capsule. So, that said, they don't crash all the time but it's not improbable that even the highest tech gadgets will sometimes blow up in your face for whatever reason.

Let's look at this another way. Have you ever been in a car crash and then made sure that every little bit of your car was collected from the site? You've likely been in a crash but I doubt you swept everything up. Perhaps the little green guys think of their craft as disposable? Or maybe they're biodegradable so they don't worry about them. Perhaps they think of all earthlings like some skeptics think of those of us that believe, that we're too stupid to worry about. Who knows?

I can think of several reasons for any intelligence to not want to show itself to us. Our main reaction seems to be to shoot first and ask questions later. There seems to be many of us that think that even having nuclear weapons is sheer madness. Maybe they've seen War of the Worlds and haven't got a force shield capable of handling nuclear weapons.

And since when do we have to supply motives for what someone else might do or is doing? I can't explain why my dog makes three circles before laying down to sleep! I can make a few suggestions but it doesn't mean I'd be right or even think I'm right. We examine amoebas, bacteria and viruses. Do you think that the amoebas, bacteria and viruses know why we do?

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 May 08 - 05:55 PM

"It occurs to me that intelligent beings, who have mastered interstellar travel, could make themselves known to the whole population of the World if they wanted to - black ops or no black ops."

Yeah, sure they could. Evidently they have not made a decision to do that on a worldwide basis. I'm not in a position to say why or why not that would be. Neither are you. There could be any number of reasons for it, most of them not particularly sinister.

"I also think it's unlikely that they would regularly crash and allow government 'spooks' to collect the wreckage."

So do I. But I don't see why it's inconceivable that they might occasionally have crashed, specially when our military has probably tried to shoot them down on more than a few occasions. Who ever said that they "regularly" crash? You just did. You just erected the straw man you are taking potshots at when you said that. How convenient for you. ;-)

"they could be in cahoots with the government"

Yeah. Heh! Some people have suggested that kind of dark theory. I don't think so. I don't buy it. But let me ask you this: When you say "they", are you assuming that there is, and has to be, only ONE lot of ETs ever visiting us? And if so, why? What would lead you to the assumption that if there are any ETs out there at all that there is only one lot that ever comes here? That would be like a Tahitian, upon meeting the first British ship to ever visit those islands, assuming that ALL other people in the world MUST be British people!

LOL! An easy assumption to make, but experience would soon prove it to be a facile one indeed. There are probably several different groups of ETs out there coming from different cultures, not just one, and they probably have a variety of different concerns and agendas, just like we do.

But I think they're more mature than we are. The reason I think so is that they would have invaded this planet and conquered us all long ago if they were the sort of immature, violent, destructive morons that we are, in a collective sense, as a culture. We are not yet responsible enough to have any business going off this planet and engaging in space exploration. We can't even treat each other decently. We're barbarians. We have not grown up yet as a species.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 22 May 08 - 05:42 PM

It occurs to me that intelligent beings, who have mastered interstellar travel, could make themselves known to the whole population of the World if they wanted to - black ops or no black ops.

I also think it's unlikely that they would regularly crash and allow government 'spooks' to collect the wreckage.

But ... hang on ... they could be in cahoots with the government ... and they could be planning to ally themselves with the REALLY bad government/corporate bad guys or they might even be giant lizards who can disguise themselves as government/corporate bad guys and then they'll ... what's that!! Oh my god it's a giant corporate/government bad guy lizard and it's eating my leg ... aaaarrrrrgh!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 May 08 - 05:33 PM

Excellent post, CC. You have succinctly covered most of the important bases. Thank you for saving me a whole ton of typing. I find it quite tiring teaching pigs to sing, and I am glad you have relieved me of some of the burden.


Here's another thing about this and probably all coverups. A coverup is an initial lie, followed by a great many further lies. Now, we all know that when a person tells one lie, it doesn't end there. A long series of further lies must be invented to cover the original lie. This can lead to an ever more tortuous train of lies. The longer such lies are told, the more pressure the person telling them is under to maintain his position and defend all the lies. It becomes more and more embarrassing for him to recant, bactrack, and admit he was lying. It's harder to fess up to 1000 lies than to one lie. It's harder for a government to admit to several decades of lying to the public than to admit to one episode of lying.

That, I think, can be one very major factor in the tenacity of the CIA and related groups in stonewalling and refusing to tell what they know about ETs. Many people's reputations, credibility, and careers would be irreparably damaged by full disclosure. It would be a huge scandal, and public faith in their leaders would be greatly reduced, if not destroyed completely.

This would not be a pleasant prospect for those in charge of the coverup or for most people in the government either, and that alone would be strong enough motivation for them to continue the coverup indefinitely. They cannot afford to admit to what they have already done against the interests of their own public.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Bill D
Date: 22 May 08 - 05:22 PM

"It will be dismissed by a skeptic."

Good skeptics do not 'dismiss'...they say "hmmmmm, lets see whether there are any contradictory data..."

And it also depends on whether you are trying teach about facts, or about the nature of teaching and learning itself.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: GUEST,Chief Chaos
Date: 22 May 08 - 05:06 PM

In the only reported crashes of UFOs that I am conversant with (not being an expert, self-claimed or otherwise) Roswell and Kecksburg, the "Army" showed up, secured the area and took away everything that was not of local origin. In the Roswell case the base commander told the local press it was a flying saucer before recanting and saying it was a weather ballon. A picture with the "debris" was released to the paper. The debris then disappeared from public and military records.

Later the incident was reported by the military to have been an experiment in detecting Soviet nuclear bomb tests. Again they took all of the debris, just as NTSB investigators do now to reconstruct the incident.

In Kecksburg an object described as "acorn" shaped was supposedly hauled away from the site on an Army flat bed truck. As described the object to me resembles earlier Soviet space capsules and it's quite possible that that is what it was.

Now, as to the conspiracy theory. It is perfectly reasonable to me that the gov't would indeed be actively involved in a cover-up of any type of craft, be it our own experimental, another gov't's air/space craft or craft that was indeed extraterrestrial in origin.

It's pretty much no secret at all that during WWII we salvaged as much of our enemie's aircraft as possible to discern and secrets (codes & equipment) or advancements in flight. This includes bagging and tagging as much German and Japanese equipment, aircraft, rockets documents, and even personnel as we could after the surrender of the Axis powers. It continued through the cold war with defecting pilots and crashes of Soviet craft.

For our gov't to come right out and admit that they had recovered debris, equipment or a whole craft which as already pointed out would be far advanced would be to invite more spying and possible all out war as other gov'ts would be afraid of the advantage such materials might give our gov't over there's.

As to other evidence, there are strange heiroglyphs, drawings, paintings etc. all over the world on almost all continents. To someone who believes or would like to believe they are possible evidence of visitors from other worlds. To skeptics they are people in ceremonial head dresses.

In several areas around the globe there are huge drawings on the face of the earth that can't be seen in total except from a vantage point of significant height above them. The drawings range from humanoid to birds, ants, spiders, and trappezoidal pieces that resemble "runways".
Why these various peoples should want to draw these things when they couldn't possibly see them has led some to conclude that they were either for their God's pleasure or again, for visitors. To skeptics they are just graffitti.

Any report of a landed craft causing depressions, burns on the ground, infertility of the ground, or damage to vegetation are all dismissed without real investigation.

All pictures are searched for any resemblance to any known object, ennhanced to look for strings, compared and contrasted to known objects to attempt to discern size and distance and then even if a skeptic can't say what it is in the photo, it is dismissed.

All reports of UFOs regardless of actual source are described by skeptics to come from slack jawed, high school drop-out yokels who've been out drinking or smoking something. Reports have come from military, commercial, and private pilots, Police, people from all walks of life including at least 1 president and yet skeptics find none of these people to be credible. It doesn't even matter how many people witnessed a UFO together, it will then be dismissed as mass halucination.

It doesn't even matter if air traffic controllers admit to seeing a contact on radar acting in a manner inconsistant with any known aircraft with regard to speed or maneuverability (bursts of speed to hovering, incredible course corrections to dead stops from high speeds, things that no earthly craft are capable of). It will be dismissed by a skeptic.

Some people consider the preceeding items enough to believe in the possibility of extra-terrestrial intelligence.

I guess it does depend on your view of who's the pig and who's the teacher.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 May 08 - 03:46 PM

When did I ever say I have the kind of proof you desire, Bill? All I have ever said is that I had a couple of sightings.

How would I get that proof? If I did get it, who would believe me? No one would, except those already in the field who are positive toward such a belief. Others would discount or explain away anything I had. If it really WAS proof, it wouldn't be in my hands for long...in my opinion...some official people would come and take it away and I would never see it again. That's what I expect would happen. If I ever acquire some major proof, I will find out... ;-) I hope not to be in that position, frankly, because I like being left alone by people.

"If, after 100 years, no one has yet caught one (THEY HAVE CAUGHT SOME, Bill), gotten clear pics (THEY HAVE GOTTEN CLEAR PICS, Bill), or found those secret storage lockers with bodies and strange pieces of metal (They HAVE done that too, Bill, but you weren't there to see it and it didn't get reported on the 6 O'Clock News to the nation)........."

Bill, he who controls the flow of public information controls the evidence. Period. Evidence that is not publicly seen or admitted to cannot be subjected to public scrutiny, can it?

I find the claims of a great many actual eyewitnesses (myself among them) to be far more persuasive than your doubts, Bill. ;-) (Not that I don't understand your doubts. I do. I doubted similarly until my first sighting.) I think most really serious UFO proponents are people who have either had a sighting themselves or who have been involved in various investigative activities after one had occurred (and this is where many of the military and police witnesses come in who have come forward with their own stories).

******

Donuel - I've been far too busy in my life with other stuff (like just surviving) to be engaged in active UFO fieldwork. Where would I find the time and money for that? The main reason I'm interested in them is simply because I had those sightings back in the late 60's and that got me very interested. One of the ships I saw also had that ability to change its direction of flight instantly, at any angle, at tremendous speeds...and to decelerate to a stop instantly from a tremendous speed with no noise, no sonic boom, no exhaust, no visible disturbance of anthing on it or around it. No vehicle we can manufacture can do that as far as I know. What I saw was simply extraordinary, and I don't find any other explanation plausible, really, than that it was not "one of ours".

If it was "one of ours" then the technological stuff our people are covering up is just about as astounding as it would be to meet some interplanetary visitors.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Bill D
Date: 22 May 08 - 03:26 PM

"But why do you find it so unlikely that people in the CIA and Black Ops and other such intelligence agencies might want, since the late 40's, to have kept the lid on their information about extraterrestrials?"

One...more...time. I Do NOT necessarily find that unlikely...given the mentality of some of those guys, I can see that they might do that, even IF it were unnecessary or counter-productive. I can see why those oil companies & others with vested financial interests 'might' hide data until it was to their advantage not to! That is not the issue!!!!!!
   In order for those suppositions to be relevant, there must BE significant evidence for them to hide! THAT is what we are all curious to know. You frame your entire debate as if there were no doubt, and that is where I balk. **This** is the crux of MY position...just because I can't trust certain people, it does not follow that they are necessarily guilty of doing what you suspect! Nor does it prove that they had the opportunity! You can have your suspicions, but you can't base a case on two hypotheticals supporting each other. You see where I am? *IF*, tomorrow, a saucer lands at Bush's front door, and offers interviews to the press, all I have to say is, "Ahh..now, that's better! Lets talk to 'em and examine 'em!"

If, after 100 years, no one has yet caught one, gotten clear pics, or found those secret storage lockers with bodies and strange pieces of metal, then YOUR successors will still be making claims, and mine will still be saying "I'm waiting".

You understand....I'd LOVE to find you were right. But so far, I'm not 'wrong', because I have made no claims one way or the other. All I have done is wait...and while waiting, read and watch a bunch of your purported proof.....with mixed results. (Dr. Greer is pretty impressive!)

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Donuel
Date: 22 May 08 - 03:00 PM

It seems that little hawk is an expert on ufos, with or without actual field work.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Donuel
Date: 22 May 08 - 02:59 PM

Today I met a woman from Peru that saw a UFO when she was only 12.
The sight stayed crystal clear after many years.

It was pyramidal shaped with the top cut off and a dark dot that traveled counter clockwise around the top. It could change direction instantly. This shape is a very rare reported shape for ufos.


To be an expert you master a particular layer of BS and pile on more expert BS over the years. ufos just happen to be my pile of BS.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:43 PM

bobad, it ain't the aliens you have to worry about. ;-) WE are the only real enemy we have. It's our own security and surveillance forces and police and military forces and financial pressure groups and criminal elements that you have to worry about in life...NOT the aliens.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Donuel - Yeah, I know Bill does that. It's his chosen mode. I can think of worse modes a person could choose to be in. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:39 PM

I understand your perspective, Bill. But why do you find it so unlikely that people in the CIA and Black Ops and other such intelligence agencies might want, since the late 40's, to have kept the lid on their information about extraterrestrials?

They could certainly have had strong motivations to do that, don't you think? And they have had the means to, because they have the authority to decide what's classifiable and what isn't. They have the authority to show up at a crash scene, for example, show their I.D. and command any police, civilian or military people who are there to do whatever they want them to do.

They have the authority to take all recovered physical evidence to a sealed facility at some base and keep it there, investigate it, and disclose nothing to the public or to other levels of government.

And I believe they have done so, consistently.

Why do you find it so unbelievable that this could have happened? There have been quite a few witnesses to testify that it has happened, after all, but you don't seem to give those people any credibility. Why? I suggest because they aren't singing the tune that you most would like to hear.

You can suggest the same thing about me. Fine. ;-) We both have a tune we like to hear. The thing is, either one of us could be right...or wrong. We do not know, Bill. I admit I do not know. Such an admission is a good place to start when considering possibilities.

Ebbie - I don't know what happened on 911. I am simply saying that it is 100% possible to control and fly airliners by remote computer control and execute any known flight maneuver they are capable of by that fashion, very accurately...it has been done many times already in various tests of those systems (I've seen video of some)...and it can be done with ease. The technology is proven. It could have been done on 911. All available evidence from flight schools where the hijackers took flying lessons suggests that the alleged 19 Muslim hijackers who may or may not have been on those planes were simply not individuals with anything even near the flying ability to handle those aircraft as effectively as they were handled, particularly in the case of the Pentagon hit. Therefore, I am considering the other possibilities. In so doing I am, for many people, committing outright heresy...because I am challenging a popularly held viewpoint supported by mass media and government. That draws strong reactions from people. Well, I can live with that.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Donuel
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:38 PM

(according to Col. Corso) Col. Corso was the key US military "go to guy" for the select disemination of exo technology to be "discovered" and then manufactured.

There are 2 examples among many that his claims become far fetched if you have a true understanding of certain inventions and their inventors..

1 the transitor

2 the laser


PS

Hawk:
Bill has a life long developed social and intellectual niche in which he plays the role of a rationalist and skeptic. Sometimes he overplays his hand but usually he can offer a helpful lens to observe claims. Physical observation is not his greatest strength.

I am not down grading the games that people play when they communicate but rather celebrate them. For example in the Jewish culture the art of argument is a well rehersed and often heated play of words.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: bobad
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:20 PM

I saw some aliens today. They had morphed themselves into the humanoid forms of our terrestrial teenagers but were clothed in strange garments, had odd looking pieces of a metal-like substance inserted into various places on their bodies, had strange writing on their exterior, skin-like covering and spoke an alien language. They didn't appear threatening but I didn't attempt to make contact. I will be keeping an eye to the window and an ear to the door from now on though.

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Bill D
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:08 PM

No, Little Hawk, it is far from lack of respect for your intelligence. (and not all of my posts are implicitly directed at YOU.)
As for objectivity, YOU are the one who continuously asserts that none of us are really objective...that we all interpret according to our own experience. I can debate that a bit, but not right now.

Here's my dilema... Imagine two people accused of a crime. One says, "I didn't do it! I would never do such a thing!" The other says the same thing. Later, one is PROVED guilty by incontrovertible evidence, and the other exonerated. But until the **right** evidence is obtained, it is obvious that the guilty one would claim innocence as long as possible, but those trying to find the truth cannot ASSUME anything until that **right** evidence is in hand.

I have no dog in this fight... I have not seen a UFO to explain. But I have this keen interest in the concept, coupled with my training in the search for truth & objectivity. as far as possible. So, when claims are made, I, just like authorities interviewing two accused criminals, MUST suspend judgment, and apply the best analytical tools that I can muster to guide me. So far, all they tell me is that, although there is MUCH to explore and worthwhile 'purported' evidence and accounts to examine, I would dare not take the evidence presented so far to a court & jury!

For those who are convinced and sure that such evidence already exists, about the only disclaimer available is that "someone is hiding it". This is an almost automatic response. But then, they must explain the conspiracy, as well as the original claim of UFOs....and the problem for investigators and skeptics like me is to be willing to listen, while maintaining a high standard for real evidence.
   After all, those guys in the video were not ONLY making claims that 'something is out there', they were also touting the huge importance of it to the *future of mankind* and suggesting the alien technology is 'available' if we play our cards right....without any evidence that the aliens play cards! (and one of the purported 'proofs' that we need to listen to is that some middle-aged woman has been 'channeling' an alien ship commander!)....you'll pardon me if I hesitate.

No, LH, I don't doubt your intelligence...and I don't doubt that you 'feel' that you are being objective. Those who claim the moon landings were faked make similar claims. What AM I to make of all the claims flooding in?

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:02 PM

No, we don't all think the same. I, for one, have never seen the need to believe that the UFOs are EXTRAterrestrial. It seems likely to me that they are amongst us. 'Let he who has eyes to see...'

Actually, I don't know. I know there are theorists who believe that 'aliens' live underground or underwater on earth. As I said, I don't know.

Serious thread lurch here.

Little Hawk, saying: "And the planes were probably guided by the very well-known technology we already have that can fly any airliner or any large plane entirely by computer from the ground from the time it takes off till the time it lands (or is made to crash), and can execute any maneuver desired with no difficulty whatsoever, including extreme aerobatics such as those needed in the Pentagon hit. It's a known technology. It can easily be done." makes little sense to me.

Are you hypothizing that a computer took over the controls of the airliners, sending them miles off their course and taking X number of minutes before crashing them into buildings- and not one of the pilots was moved to, or had time to, protest?

I have heard various people theorize that no hijackers at all were involved or present. You are saying that none were necessary. Are you saying that the pilots were, or would be, knocked out with noxious gases or whatever?

I tell you what- when I get to the "other side" I'll send word. :)

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 22 May 08 - 12:46 PM

I'm not ridiculing anyone, Little Hawk - no need to when the ETH is founded on something so ridiculous a notion in the first place. But I do think for myself, which is why I know the ETH to be 100% wrong, and also because I have no need to believe otherwise.

Problem is, you ETH guys don't think differently, you all think the same; it becomes a matter of faith & strict orthodoxy complete with its own heresies & theology with no proof one way or the other. And yet you still believe it. Remind you of anything?

Meanwhile, keep watching the skies!

Subject: RE: BS: UFOs in the news
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 May 08 - 12:25 PM

I'm not saying the government's all that effective. I'm saying that the CIA and its covert paramilitary operatives are effective. I think the government's in a state of confusion, frankly.

And, yes, I do think 911 was very probably an inside job. And the planes were probably guided by the very well-known technology we already have that can fly any airliner or any large plane entirely by computer from the ground from the time it takes off till the time it lands (or is made to crash), and can execute any maneuver desired with no difficulty whatsoever, including extreme aerobatics such as those needed in the Pentagon hit. It's a known technology. It can easily be done. No hijackers were ever needed to do that. Chew on it.

You could just as well be wrong about any of this as I could. Neither one of us knows. We only can hypothesize about things we cannot know for sure. That's the part you will never even imagine or admit to. Your pride and ego won't let you admit to it. You have to be sure...and to be sure you have to ridicule those who think differently from you.