And RPJ, I’m willing to close this discussion, although I think Sage and I are finally getting closer to an understanding. Perhaps. Maybe. Maybe not.

I said, “Since this is the third time in this thread (at the very least) that you suggest there is nothing of any value in exploring or researching UFOs, why are you even here?”

You replied, “That is not what I said. What I said was UFOlogy has nothing of value.”

Let me quote you, so there’s no mistake on your position:

1) “It is in that sense of the word that they (the military) no longer study UFOs, and for good reason: there is nothing to study where nothing can be proven to exist in the first place.”

2) “That means there have never been any actual physical traces — NONE! It is all storytelling and no facts.”

3) “There are thousands of extraordinary UFO testimonies each year, and every single one has absolutely no evidence to back them up with.”

4) “As for there being no incentive for scientists to study UFOs, there clearly is no incentive to study UFOs, otherwise scientists would be studying them.”

These dogmatic, no-wiggle-room answers sound exactly like what I stated in my previous post: that you claim there is nothing of any value in exploring or researching UFOs.

Or how about:

5) “One hundred percent of all “unexplainable” UFO sightings ever made have had zero percent proof that they actually happened as claimed…There is no physical evidence of any kind whatsoever, just storytales.” Wow, a hundred per cent of every UFO event, ever made? I guess we can all go home then, huh? Game over?

6) “(T)here is absolutely no proof that any UFO testimony had sufficient data to even remotely indicate that anything paranormal is happening.” Gee, not even remotely? (:^D)

7) “Scientists…are very aware that there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that the phenomenon has occurred so far.”

These comments suggest to me that you have investigated or researched every single event and explored every possible answer for each UFO event that’s occurred over, at the very minimum, the past sixty years. If you have, then you are indeed the world’s foremost expert on UFOs, and my hat (were I wearing one) would be off to you. If that is not the case, then perhaps you’d back off from making such all-inclusive, dogmatic statements, and say things more like, “I have yet to see the evidence that irrefutably supports any recent unexplainable UFO event.” That kind of statement at least tells me you’re not an expert on every event, and that you’re open to the possibility of being convinced in the future.

In one of your posts, you include all of the Blue Book unexplained events, yet you leave out this singularly important fact: that some of the best reports submitted to the military were withheld from the Blue Book investigators under restriction of Top Secret clearance. Either you’re unaware of this and you need to do more research before making blanket statements like “100% of all…have zero proof,” or you’re aware of these exclusions and you choose to ignore that evidence.

You also ignore that those well-regarded personnel involved in exploring the Blue Book evidence, like Major Kehoe, Dr. Hynek (who I was lucky enough to study with) and Edward Ruppelt (the former head of the Blue Book project) not only believe the “unexplainables” are very likely extraterrestrial craft (or “paranormals” as you call them) but that many of those lumped into the “explained” category actually belonged in the “unexplained” category as well — as many as 4,000 more cases out of 20,000 total.

I’d certainly accept their judgement on the likelihood of these cases being true UFOs before yours or my worthy opinions. I’m sure most objective researchers would, too.

You did concede, “Case in point, as I already brought up once before, was The Battle for LA.”

I’m glad you admit that there is at least one event that remains suspiciously like a paranormal event (although that sounds suspiciously like it contradicts statements 1 through 7 above, IMHO). I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that you may have been alive when that event happened, and is why you accept that event more readily than some others. Am I close?

Is it also possible you might list a few other events that you accept the possibility of paranormal connections? Bentwaters, perhaps? Shag Harbor? Socorro? How about the Phoenix Lights event — the first one witnessed by a thousand people, including the former Republican Governor, not the coverup flare drop later that night?

I’m honestly not trying to put you on the spot, Sage. I just want to hear what in your view has enough supporting evidence to convince you of its validity as a “paranormal” event.

I said, “You refuse to even consider that such a paper trail exists, which is the actual type of evidence that you say you need,” to which you replied, “Wrong again. I would consider it if there was one.”

That’s why I keep mentioning well-researched books like “Above Top Secret” and “Alien Contact” by Good, “The UFO Cover-Up” by Fawcett and Greenwood, and “Conspiracy of Silence” by Capt. Randle. Each one of these presents solid evidence that the US and British governments have a verifiable history (the “paper trail”)l of closely monitoring UFO events, then publicly denying their existence and actively obfuscating the events themselves. To these sources and the evidence they present, you have made no mention (other than denigrating the SAC event and the 1976 Tehran event), thus my appraisal is accurate when I say you are ignoring them.

In your final post here, why don’t you state what you think of books like “Above Top Secret,” which has hundreds of FOIA documents (and direct testimony by people like a former CIA director) that creates a foundation beyond reproach. Or simply admit you’ve never read that book or the others above, and I’ll have a better idea how you base your claims of “no paper trail exists.”

My using the Sufi story as an example is merely a way for you to see this discussion through another’s eyes. The fact that you cannot perceive this, nor my use of humor to soften this often brittle give-and-take, is no surprise to me.

You end your previous post with, “A true scientist is open-minded enough to always be ready to back down when they know they are wrong. This is because science asks questions that cannot be answered, whereas blind faith religion gives answers that cannot be questioned.”

And there are those scientists who never refuse to back down, claiming with their dying breath that Copernicus and Gallileo were wrong, that the sun revolved around the earth, that plate tectonics are illusionary, that evolution is unsupported hoo-haw, and on and on. Those are the ones that seem to be the strongest deniers of UFO events, ones that are 100% certain (as you claim to be), and cover every conceivable event (as you have above) with one unwavering answer: Nyet. Nada. Nope.

BTW: There would be no point in scientists asking “questions that cannot be answered,” as you claim. It is only by postulating a theory that CAN be answered by evidence, that science progresses at all. QED.

And as I’ve already said, I’m not claiming blind faith on anything. I believe I refuted that claim some three or four posts ago, and to continue to suggest that I do is actively obscuring the truth on your part. What I am doing is showing you the error in your logic, and suggesting resources where you can explore the UFO question in more detail. If you choose to explore those resources, fine. If you don’t, that’s also fine — but expect me to call you on the carpet when you make all-inclusive, inaccurate and unsupported statements like you have in this thread.

There are those who are paid by our government(s) to deny and ridicule the continuing UFO presence, whatever it may turn out to be. There are those who also perform the very same denial and ridicule as nothing more than a hobby. Both positions are unworthy of true scientists. I hope you can see the truth in that, Sage.

I perceive glimmers of openness in your last post. Let’s build on that openness, Sage. I’ll allow you the last word to refute my claims, as RPJ has suggested we move on to shorter threads. (:^D)

Until next our paths cross, I remain,

TemplarScribe

How would they know to which category (mundane or “paranormal”)a particular case falls into, if they don’t go out to investigate all of them without any pre-conceived prejudices?

To this, for me we come full circle, since in my very first comment to this thread I wrote that was probably the reason the British MOD went to investiate UFOs in the 60s, to check out if a UFO report was a russian spy plane and therefore a threat to the UK.

But it may well be some of the cases they ended up investigating couldn’t be understood in conventional or CURRENT scientific ways…

I propose you guys to let this thread end with a final comment (it is getting kinda difficult to find this post on my browser, as it was written 20 days ago!), and let’s move to a new discussion, since this one is becoming more repetitive…and loooooooong.

PS: Templar, trust me on this one, “que tengan un buen día” means “may you have a nice day”, whereas usted tiene un buen día would mean that instead of wishing a person to have a nice day, you are AFFIRMING to that person that he’s having a nice day (LOL).

Que tengan LOS DOS (both of you) un buen día

“Since this is the third time in this thread (at the very least) that you suggest there is nothing of any value in exploring or researching UFOs, why are you even here?”

That is not what I said. What I said was UFOlogy has nothing of value. Also, just because the vast majority of UFOs reported by UFOlogy are bogus, does not mean that there are not a few UFOs reported that are not. Case in point, as I already brought up once before, was The Battle for LA.

“I’d say your testimony on this thread is evidence that you are seriously involved in denying UFO events as they have occurred, and all the efforts of the dedicated researchers who are working to uncover the truth behind them.”

Since what I have said in this thread is not a testimony but a discussion, your conclusion is illogical and therefore invalid.

“What is acceptable for the US legal system is somehow not acceptable to you”

You do not know me and what I find acceptable. The US legal system is acceptable to me — for politics only, and not science.

“Instead of denying the testimony that confirms the reality of such evidence”

You do not get it. There is no evidence, only testimony that cannot be backed up with evidence.

“You refuse to even consider that such a paper trail exists, which is the actual type of evidence that you say you need”

Wrong again. I would consider it if there was one. What you do not understand is the difference between an unidentified flying object and a paranormal unidentified flying object. A weather balloon is a UFO on a military radar screen until an F-16 is scrambled to investigate. An ET piloted flying saucer is a UFO, even after an F-16 is scrambled to investigate. One is mundane and the other is paranormal. It is a fact that the military still investigates mundane UFOs but no longer investigates paranormal UFOs.

“At this point, it appears the only real way of you accepting the reality of UFOs is if one landed in front of you and an occupant got out and kicked you in the shin before getting back in and flying away”

Why do you care so much if I believe or not? What a minute, I think you answered that question for me…

“There is an excellent collection of Sufi teaching stories edited by Khalil Gibran, that includes one about a man in a small village with a single public well”

Once again, you are using one make believe story to try and support another make believe story. Unless UFOs is some kind of religion, why do you not leave out the proselytizing and start giving some science, that way I will have something to actually believe in.

PS — A true scientist is open-minded enough to always be ready to back down when they know they are wrong. This is because science asks questions that cannot be answered, whereas blind faith religion gives answers that cannot be questioned.

RPJ: “Let’s continue the search, for the promises of the answers are just too great to ignore the challenge.” Forgive me for my bold challenges to Sage, but I feel this “search is pretty well one-sided. Sage appears fully unwilling to accept the reality of UFOs on any level, unless he is physically presented with indisputable evidence. 99.99% of the researchers will never get that chance, so to posit such a need puts him in a rarified realm that reality fails to reach. There are far easier ways to prove or disprove an event than having to be party to it.

RPJ: “Que tengan un buen día.” My Spanish is a bit rusty, but it appears you’re telling “them” to have a nice day. Shouldn’t it be, “Usted tiene un buen día”? (:^D)

BTW, glad to have your comments on this interaction, RPJ. It’s good to have an intermediary, especially as I like to wade into a discussion with no holds barred. I’m willing to speak up to those who poo-poo what many people have given their lives to prove.

And I’m not willing to back down when people ignore the facts before them, especially when their answer to such mysteries is to deny, deny, deny. When the basis of all good research, scientific and otherwise, is simply to question, question, question.

– TS

Then why are you here at all, Sage? Since this is the third time in this thread (at the very least) that you suggest there is nothing of any value in exploring or researching UFOs, why are you even here?

You say, “No testimony is worth anything — no matter who gives it — if it cannot be used in the pursuit of at least some truth.” Here, I agree. I’d say your testimony on this thread is evidence that you are seriously involved in denying UFO events as they have occurred, and all the efforts of the dedicated researchers who are working to uncover the truth behind them.

You say, “There are thousands of extraordinary UFO testimonies each year, and every single one has absolutely no evidence to back them up with.” But you then decide what fits in with your select interpretation of “evidence.” What is acceptable for the US legal system is somehow not acceptable to you. Neither is physical evidence that you cannot personally inspect, like radar returns, even though you admit you accept physical evidence from other fields “on faith,” and in such disputed areas as dark matter.

You claim that the hundreds of eyewitnesses to Roswell, including deathbed confessions by high-ranking military and intelligence people, are nothing more than a “bunch of poorly told fairytales, because that is all they could ever get from Roswell.” You suggest that “(t)he UFO community is better off staying away from that kind of media circus nonsense,” despite the fact that if something did crash there, then the very physical evidence you claim you need is in possession by a branch of the US government. Instead of denying the testimony that confirms the reality of such evidence, a truly open researcher would be asking questions of where that evidence went, and how to correlate the observations of that evidence, rather than dissuading any further recovery efforts.

You say, “The military is no longer interested in civilian stories about ALLEGED PARANORMAL PHENOMENON,” and that “they no longer study UFOs.” Yet, when confronted with the paper trail of just such investigations, by the CIA, FBI, MI-5, and many other military and government agencies around the world (outlined in the above mentioned books), you ignore those sources as well. You refuse to even consider that such a paper trail exists, which is the actual type of evidence that you say you need. You even claim that an FOIA-garnered Flash report from the JCoS is likely nothing more than “misinterpreted, misrepresented, or ambiguous” reporting. When I point out that very document exists, and are duplicated in its entirety, you completely ignore that inconvenient fact.

And when I suggest you’re excluding factual evidence and the conclusive signs of ongoing research, you ignore such challenges by claiming I’m only here to argue with you. You dismiss any challenges to your preconceived notion of reality by closing your mind even further.

So, I ask again, why ARE you here, Sage?

At this point, it appears the only real way of you accepting the reality of UFOs is if one landed in front of you and an occupant got out and kicked you in the shin before getting back in and flying away.

From your own words in this thread, especially your last posting, it appears your stated reason for being here is to turn people off from investigating what the rest of us consider are very real events occurring around the world.

There is an excellent collection of Sufi teaching stories edited by Khalil Gibran, that includes one about a man in a small village with a single public well. One fateful week, as each person drinks from the well, they appear to go insane, babbling incoherently. The one man left who has not drunk from the well holds out as long as he can, but eventually even he succumbs and drinks. As soon as he does, he becomes instantly able to understand the others.

One of them walks up to him, looks him straight in the eye and asks, “What took you so long?”

– TS

I honestly cannot. Partly because the level of evidence you are seeking may not be possible to attain in these phenomenon.

The scientific method rejects anecdotal evidence, but that does not mean an anecdote is in itself completely worthless, since it can be the basis of an hypothesis that could later be put to the test.

Yes, the scientific method is a wonderful tool, but it is definitely NOT the only tool man can use to seek truth. To use it in some other things may be a waste of time, like trying to observe the Moon with a microscope.

Can you use the scientific method to quantify how much your parents love you?

Besides, even if the method is in itself flawless, that doesn’t mean the men whouse it are without flaws. ALL men have biased views, and scientists are definitely not different. They may choose to disregard evidence because it doesn’t fall inside their cherished mental schemes and belief systems. For further proof of this look at the battles between Evolutionists vs Intelligent Designers vs Creationists.

“Throughout the history of the UFO phenomenon, that method has been a complete waste of time.”

Maybe, maybe not. I agree that for the last 60 years we are not better off than the beginning.

If anything, these 2 generation of ufologists have at least succeded in sparking the interests of young kids who might choose to learn more about these things. And Ufology is a pretty wonderful hobby, because it forces you to learn about physics, astronomy, biology, archeology, history, psychology, sociology, mythology, etc, etc.

Sure, subsequently they learn to discern what things are valuable and what is pure crap. It’s kind of a painful process but all growth requires an effort.

But I’m not and Ufologist myself. That’s hardly the case. For me it is a hobby bordering on ADDICTION

“Be careful not to make up your facts, instead of reporting actual known facts.”

I’m really not. Right now I can’t referr you to a webpage that you can check, but I have read a couple of things concerning alzheimer and the loss of mental faculties with lost age. I have been in touch with Alzheimer patients, and I can tell you FOR A FACT, that as they lose touch of the day-to-day events, their momeories of meaningful events of their early past become stronger.

“I am hoping that other serious people who are truly interested in the pursuit of truth will read these kind of threads and realize there is nothing for them in UFOlogy except an empty wallet and lost time.”

I take it then that you consider all these comments you have posted here so far… a waste of time?

IMHO the problem with serious people is that they end to take THEMSELVES too seriously. Certainly this man was not the case.

http://pcollaog.firefox.cl/2006/11/12/leyendo-por-ahi/

But don’t mind me. I’m not being serious

Have a good weekend.

“What I meant was if both types of witness (the backwoods guy and the pilot) had NOTHING else to back their claim but their account alone”

No testimony is worth anything — no matter who gives it — if it cannot be used in the pursuit of at least some truth. There are thousands of extraordinary UFO testimonies each year, and every single one has absolutely no evidence to back them up with. Explain to me how there can be thousands upon thousands of testimonies of incredibly extraordinary things, yet not one shred of evidence ever remains to back up even just one of those thousands of claims? That is never the way any other real things behave in real life. There is more “evidence” for the existence of the mythical Minotaur than there is for UFOs.

SAGE — “In the last 100 to 200 years, that system has never worked in regards to solving the UFO mystery. Clearly a better system is needed.”

RPJ — “Indeed, but one should ask: is it the system’s fault, or the researchers’ for not using it properly?”

The answer to that question will do nothing to change the fact that a better system is needed. It is only a dodge and evade from the fact it needs to be changed.

“But new methodologies should be examined and tested. I think that is worth considering.”

How about some old and proven methods instead? I suggest the Scientific Method. In the last one hundred years, it has made possible things like running water, air conditioning, automobiles, cell phones, television, DVDs, computers, the light bulb…no other method has been as successful or even comes close, so why take chances with anything else?

“Take for instance the so-called witnesses of Roswell…”

Let us not. Been there; done that. All you are going to get from that is bunch of poorly told fairytales, because that is all they could ever get from Roswell. That is also Nick’s approach (the one I keep telling him needs to be abandoned): collect a bunch of storytales in a book or a webpage, then hope that your book or webpage causes more people to come forward so you can add even more storytales to your collection, and then when all is said and done, be nowhere closer to solving the mystery then you were before you ever heard of it. Throughout the history of the UFO phenomenon, that method has been a complete waste of time. The UFO community is better off staying away from that kind of media circus nonsense.

“…but the old memories of events that happened perhaps decades ago become fresher”

Be careful not to make up your facts, instead of reporting actual known facts.

“You should learn not to take these arguments too seriously, really.It IS after all a game”

My idea of fun is being serious. I am hoping that other serious people who are truly interested in the pursuit of truth will read these kind of threads and realize there is nothing for them in UFOlogy except an empty wallet and lost time. Better off forging ahead on your own than to be dragged down by the masses.

All the more reason to take it with a little humor. We should try to approach serious problems with determination, objectivity, but also with a little humor in order to prevent the problem from overwhelming us (like our own death for instance). That’s one of the things I try to learn from reading Castañeda’s books.

For my part, I thank you both, you Templar and also Sage, for letting me be part of this incredibly interesting (and FUN) intellectual exchange. IMO you both wrote pretty important things to consider.

Let’s continue the search, for the promises of the answers are just too great to ignore the challenge.

Que tengan un buen día

RPJ

PS: I thank you for your offer about the blogging, but Alas, I don’t think I’ll have enough time to take on the assignments with the level of commitment they should rightly deserve. Right now I’m content with being a “reactor”, someone who shares his 2 cents when they can add something meaningful to a discussion. Maybe sometime in the future, who knows? Like Castañeda wrote, you have to learn to be “fluid”.

Since Sage seems to be bowing out of the conversation for his own reasons, I’ll carry on with your insightful points.

Regarding memory: have you heard of the recent studies that have shown up to 80% of all eye-witness testimony in coutrrooms may be in error? Much of the flap over people on Death Rows here on the States has come from such research, and the undeniability of DNA evidence.

Still, I agree with you that there are a few events in my memory that are chiseled in granite and are as memorable today as they were when they happened, including a few that are frankly unexplainable. I’d consider anyone who had a truly authentic UFo experience who lost significant portions of their story over the years might not have really had an authentic experience. I also agree, anyone who begins to add in elements to such stories must be eyed suspiciously.

I don’t doubt, BTW, that there are posters on certain esoteric websites (and a few hosts and mods too, IMHO) who are paid to spread discord and disinfo. Wouldn’t put it past the Powers That Be to make use of the Internet that way, just as I’m fairly certain that there are some government dollars behind recent hoaxes like the SoCal Drones and the Aussie Flap of ‘06. I mean, if it was me, I’d see a lot of bang for the buck by muddying the waters that way.

But in the long run, there’s not enough disinfo floating around to cover up the recent unexplained events, like the O’Hare Airport sighting of November 2006. Spotted by twenty people or more, including flight crews from two airlines (at least), and even some FAA control tower personnel. It only takes a few events of that magnitude to convince a few more thousand people of the reality of UFOs, despite our inability to understand why or exactly who.

I do take a slight disagreement with you when you caution Sage not to take this too seriously, that it’s all “just a game.” Our postings may be light hearted, and for my part, my sense of humor is always close at hand — I find that those on the Net who lack a sense of humor quite often lack a sense of perspective, and is a clear window into their true characters.

But I just finished reading a section of Jerome Clark’s excellent comprehensive history of UFOs, called “The UFO Book,” where he describes a researcher sitting in a college library late at night, when a MIB-type visitor sits down and engages him in conversation. When the researcher admits he’s more interested in the stories behind the UFO encounters than in the factualness of the craft themselves, the visitor flies into a rage: “Flying saucers are the most important fact of the century, and you’re not interested?!”

I can’t help but feeling a sliver of my soul straining to cry out a similar warning to so-called “objective skeptics” like Sage, although I’d qualify my outburst along the lines of, “If UFOs are physical objects under sentient control, then they represent the most significant event of the last three millennia!” Give or take a few hundred years, depending on when the Old Man of the Mountain finally went underground.

To that end, although I may use sarcasm and humor at times, I am deadly serious about the UFO question, which is this: are there really highly advanced vehicles exploring our solar system, and do they represent a threat or a life raft?” Either way, we ought to stop dismissing them as hallucinations, and start treating them with the respect of either Krakatoa or Florence Nightingale, ’cause if they’re real, then their effect on the future of mankind are likely to be as profound as one or the other. (Hope you’ve read this far, Sage. I’d hate for you to think I don’t take this subject seriously).

BTW: Shoot me an email, RPJ, and I’ll clue you in to my blogging links, Davout@ligtel.com . There are more and more blogs every day looking for intelligent and productive bloggers, although as of right now, I’m strictly non-profit in that area. (:^D)

– TS

What I meant was if both types of witness (the backwoods guy and the pilot) had NOTHING else to back their claim but their account alone. Sure, if farmer John has a reticulan kept in his refrigerator, it would make a much more compelling case now wouldn’t it?

“In the last 100 to 200 years, that system has never worked in regards to solving the UFO mystery. Clearly a better system is needed.”

Indeed, but one should ask: is it the system’s fault, or the researchers’ for not using it properly?

But new methodologies should be examined and tested. I think that is worth considering.

“Then every case would fail because human memory has been demonstrated to degrade with time.”

I think researchers understand that. What I think they should investigate is if the witness’ account is unchanged in its basic premises. Take for instance the so-called witnesses of Roswell: they might first tell that the crashed ship they witness was like a disk, if 10 years later they say it was cigar-shaped, that would be something to consider. They might not remember specific details, that’s entirely comprehensible, BUT if first they talk about seeing 3-4 dead corpses lying nearby, and 10 years later thy start talking about seeing one alive and that they even talked to it, that should be a sign of warning to the researcher; it might be the “witness” is nothing but a hoaxer seeking more attention and trying to “ballon” his story to make it more interesting.

I agree memories tend to fail when regarding trivial or daily events (the age of the witness is something to state for the record). For example, I don’t have any idea of what I had for dinner 2 days ago, but the witnessing of an extraordinary case, that could also have a really high level of emotional or traumatic content for the witness, would be more easy to mantain fresh in the memory. Take for instance how one can remember a terrible car crash, or an armed-robbery (and as a matter of fact I speak from experience on that one).

Also,it is a scientific fact that when people age, the short term memory begins to falter, but the old memories of events that happened perhaps decades ago become fresher.

PS: You should learn not to take these arguments too seriously, really.It IS after all a game (we do it for recreational purposes, at least I do it).

…Unless you have managed to find someone that PAYS you for blogging in UFO forums? Can you give me their e-mail in that case?

Take care.