From The UFO Archives 3
Here’s this week’s report from my old files — which is based on a collection of letters contained within an old British Air Ministry file (reference number: AIR 2/17318) that I found at the National Archives, Kew, England around 1994:
In September 1963, an event occurred at Beckenham, Kent, England that in some ways was reminiscent of the fabled Foo Fighters of the Second World War. In this particular case, the witness had a military background: he had served during the hostilities of 1939-45 with an anti-aircraft detachment and until 1961 was attached to a territorial unit of the British Army.
As Mr. W. Hooper informed the Air Ministry:
“At 0150 hrs on Tuesday the 27th August I was awakened by my wife to see what appeared to be something in flames falling from the sky, slightly N.W. of my house. This object appeared to be a ball of incandescent gas, red and black and was about a foot in diameter, and gave the impression of intense heat. It dropped like a stone from approximately 1000 ft to 500 ft, then stayed still for about 2-3 seconds, then started moving at an incredible speed in a Northerly direction and was out of sight in a matter of about 4 seconds. As it went away the wind brought a slight humming sound to us and the red and black appearance turned slightly yellow.”
He continued:
“I would be grateful if you could throw any light on the matter for me and would like especially to know if you had anything showing on your radar screens at the time I have stated. I am convinced that the object was powered as it travelled against the wind, and think what we saw may have been some sort of exhaust gas or flame.”
Possibly anticipating that Whitehall would offer a totally down-to-earth explanation for what occurred, Mr. Hooper closed his letter thus:
“I hope you will not try and persuade me that the object was a meteorological balloon as these as far as I know could not possibly travel against the wind.”
In this particular case, Air Intelligence once again asserted that a solution had been found. Mr. Hooper, came back the conclusion, had been fooled by a “fireball.” That the UFO had hovered in the air for two to three seconds was ignored by Air Intelligence; as was the fact that Mr. Hooper’s anti-aircraft work during the Second World War could have given him first-class observational skills.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, September 19th, 2007 at 7:01 am and is filed under Breaking News, Eyewitness Accounts, The Redfern Files, UFO Sightings, UFOlogy. You can follow responses via RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is not allowed.
del.icio.us Digg Reddit Ma.gnolia Technorati Help
- Related News Stories:
- UFOs and Unit 731 »
- UFO Archives »
- From the UFO Archives (Part 4) »
- The Kecksburg UFO »
- Another From The Archives »
|
Sep 19 2007 
September 19th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
The don’t seem to put much effort in their dismissal job, do they?
September 19th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I find that some people put as much effort into believing the UFO stories and the Intelligence community puts into explaining it away. More importantly though, it is extremely interesting that the so-called Intelligence community always seeks to explain away even suspect testimony, when all they need to do is simply ask the witness for proof that they saw something. The man had and has no proof that he saw anything at all and there is nothing to explain away where nothing has been proven to exist in the first place. In fact, the only logically proper thing to do when someone makes an extraordinary claim in the complete absence of extraordinary evidence, is to dismiss that claim. But to offer to explain away an event is to admit that an event did take place and needs some explaining, does it not? Either the Intelligence community is putting on an act of being very stupid and scientifically illiterate, or they actually are very stupid and scientifically illiterate. What really needs explaining is why counter one poorly told storytale with a matching poorly told explanation…unless
maybe both the storyteller and the Intelligence community are one and the same as part of a disinformation and ridicule campaign?
This kind of subtlety is exactly the reason I remain interested in UFOs, despite 99.9% of the stories being the stupidest thing you could ever hear.
September 19th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
“In fact, the only logically proper thing to do when someone makes an extraordinary claim in the complete absence of extraordinary evidence, is to dismiss that claim.”
It sounds valid enough, but then again there are cases when dismissing info could be a waste of an opportunity, or even DANGEROUS.
If some american citizen would go today to the NSA or FBI and say they heard their neighbour talk about planning to put a dirty bomb inside some football stadium, would the NSA or FBI wait until that person comes with undisputible proof to suppor his claim? possibly not. I don’t think they would believe him 100%, but maybe they would consider it is worth the effort to check that lead and see if it’s a real threat.
It has been said here on other occasions that the British Ministry of Defence manifested interest in investigating UFO reports it’s because of the possible chance that it may be some form of threat to the UK. I think it’s fair to say back in the days of the Cold War those guys in the Ministry were not that concerned of ETs invading England, but were more afraid of these strange things people were seeing could be russian planes.
So, I think it was in the best interest to try to find some explanation for those sightings, just in case it turned out to be a direct military threat against NATO or England.
And yes, 99.9% of those sightings were probably misinterpretations of common aerial phenomena, but you gotta admit Sage, there’s still that 0.1% out there, and MAN has it got us grabbed by the BOLLOCKS
And maybe those guys at the Ministry were also beginning to find interest in those rare but astounding cases that were given by reliable witnesses, and that defied a common explanation, and that maybe even were enforced by some sort of suplemental proof (burnt soil, radiation readings I dunno). After 50+ years that 0.1% may account for at least DOZENS of incredible cases.
September 19th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Red Pill:
Yours is an assessment re the Ministry that I think is extremely close to the real situation - at least, as it relates/related to the situation in the UK. Maybe for some other Goverments it’s different. Great comments you made.
You’re exactly right: most cases were explainable, and there was indeed a concern that maybe these things were foreign aircraft (for a while at least).
But a small percentage seemed to present evidence of “something else” in our presence, and it mystified the Air Ministry and later the Ministry of Defence to the point where they didn’t really know how to handle the situation because the phenomena was/is elusive and didn’t/doesn’t act in a fashion that the military is/was used to dealing with: such as an assault or attack.
Indeed, whatever it is, it doesn’t attack, it doesn’t wipe us out, it doesn’t land and help us. Rarher, it stays in the shadows, occasionally surfacing to do whatever it is that it’s doing…
And it mystifies a military that is used to dealing with overt threats and attacks, rather than all of the skulking around and interfering that the phenomenon seemingly displays.
Hence, the military may not really understand how to deal with a phenomenon that may be more in line with the paranormal (however we define that term) than it does with nuts and bolts “craft.”
September 20th, 2007 at 11:14 am
That’s one of the things I liked the most about Vallee’s latest interview on “Coast to Coast” (thanks once again misteranderson!), in that he thought the most plausible explanation for the governments’ denial about this whole thing, it’s because although they (the military) might have TONS of interesting data, they might not know what to make of it! He put a very interesting example: Look at how much data we can collect from observing the sun, and yet there’s still a lot of things abut the sun we don’t have a good theory to try to explain them. Just the same with cancer, medical doctors have a mountain of data coming from MRIs and chemical analisis, and yet the cure of cancer still eludes us.
The same would be if they did in fact had physical samples of these crafts. It would be like handling a computer chip or a Compact Disk to Galileo: he might spend a lifetime researching the properties of the disk to bend the light and form multicolored reflections on its surface, but the REAL purpose of the disc would elude him, because we would never have heard of a “computer”.
Very good interview, my respect for the man has increased ten fold.
September 20th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
red pill junkie:
“There are cases when dismissing info could be a waste of an opportunity, or even DANGEROUS”
But never in the case of UFOs since there is no proof that (1) there is anything dangerous about them, or (2) that they even exist as claimed.
“If some american citizen would go today to the NSA or FBI and say they heard their neighbour talk about planning to put a dirty bomb inside some football stadium, would the NSA or FBI wait until that person comes with undisputible proof to suppor his claim? possibly not”
Yet you do not know since that is a hypothetical situation. Why do you use one make believe situation to try and support yet another make believe situation?
“the British Ministry of Defence manifested interest in investigating UFO reports it’s because…it may be some form of threat…[such as] russian planes. So, I think it was in the best interest to try to find some explanation for those sightings, just in case it turned out to be a direct military threat against NATO or England”
But as it turned out, they were never a threat against anyone. That is one reason they gave up investigating them.
“you gotta admit Sage, there’s still that 0.1% out there, and MAN has it got us grabbed by the BOLLOCKS”
If the explanation for that 0.1% was that they were ET piloted vehicles, then it WOULD have to be grabbed by the bollocks. That also is not the case here. The case is, As PROJECT BLUE BOOK pointed out, the testimonies have insufficient data to allow any reasonable conclusions to be made about them. One hundred percent of all “unexplainable” UFO sightings ever made have had zero percent proof that they actually happened as claimed. The UFO phenomenon is built entirely on nothing more then trusting someone else’s storytales. There is no physical evidence of any kind whatsoever, just storytales.
“And maybe those guys at the Ministry…”
Let us not deal with “what ifs”, let us deal with “what is”. The fact is there is no maybes about it, there is absolutely no proof that any UFO testimony had sufficient data to even remotely indicate that anything paranormal is happening.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
“But never in the case of UFOs since there is no proof that (1) there is anything dangerous about them, or (2) that they even exist as claimed.”
Remember this was the Cold War, and there were a lot of governments who showed interest in this phenomenon because if something is flying and trespassing your territory, it MIGHT be a threat, and until you identify it, by definition it remains a UFO (I admit that from there to extrapolate it has to be a spaceship from Mars will always be speculation). It wasn’t just the USA, Brazil also had military personnel researching sightings, because some of them happened near Air Force bases, in the 50s and 60s. Spain also kept records of the sightings made by their Air Force pilots too.
I suppose many governments like the US concluded that there was not a threat in these phenomena. But there are cases, like in Brazil once again, where people who had some sort of contact with the UFOs suffered some form of damage. You might be interested in researching the cases of the so-calle CHUPA CHUPAS that happened in the 60s in the zone of Minas Gerais, in Brazil.
“Why do you use one make believe situation to try and support yet another make believe situation?”
It was merely an example to try to illustrate my point. Besides, there’s nothing wrong with a little “thought experiment” as Einstein would put it, isn’t it?
“the testimonies have insufficient data to allow any reasonable conclusions to be made about them”
All the more reason to continue the research. If the Air Force did conclude it wasn’t their job to continue investigating these things because they weren’t a threat, then they should have asked help from other organizations.
And that’s what they did, they asked Dr. Condon to continue the research, but I think many people agree with me in that this man was completely biased since the moment he started the study, and I don’t think that’s a good scientific approach.
“There is no physical evidence of any kind whatsoever, just storytales.”
I agree that accounts alone by themselves are not proof enough, they are only a lead for an investigation. But there have been some form of physical traces like burnt soil, markings left by heavy objects on terrain, radiation burning on the skin of witnesses, etc.
The problem here I think is that we are dealing with an extremely complex and elusive phenomenon that, despite our efforts, does not conform to the rules of the scientific method. That doesn’t mean we should be free of ANY methodology to study it, but we should be careful and open-minded about our assumptions regarding Nature. I know it’s quite a conundrum and I’m the least to claim I have the answers to the way we should get to the bottom of this mistery!
“Let us not deal with “what ifs”, let us deal with “what is”.”
I’m sorry, it’s just that I love thinking about the “what ifs”, If only because they are good tool to actually test the limits of the “what is”. Any hypothesis I can imagine began when a man asked “what if” and tried to see where that line of thought might take him.
I understand the need to remain with the feet on the ground, though. Sobriety is a crucial tool when studying these kinds of things.
September 20th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
red pill junkie:
The military is no longer interested in civilian stories about ALLEGED PARANORMAL PHENOMENON. That is what PROJECT BLUE BOOK et al was all about. It is in that sense of the word that they no longer study UFOs, and for good reason: there is nothing to study where nothing can be proven to exist in the first place. No outside help is needed in order to come to this inevitable logical conclusion.
Since you like what ifs, then consider this: what if we were to pretend that the paranormal kind of UFOs existed? Again, they have never been a threat and they do not want to leave behind absolutely any evidence that they ever existed. That leaves zero incentive to study them. Nobody likes going around in circles and chasing their tail for naught. Not even the military. Just like scientists all over the world already did, the military slowly came to their senses and concluded that UFOlogy is more appropriately called “the study of nothing” because that is all the study of UFOs (the paranormal kind) have ever turned up — nothing.
Note that a report of a UFO is not the same thing as evidence of what was reported. Reports of physical traces of alleged UFOs is not the same thing as physical evidence of a UFO. Indirect evidence is not conclusive unless it can be proven that it was caused by what was reported to cause it. Finding some burnt soil does not prove a UFO did it, finding some markings on terrain does not prove a UFO did it, and radiation burns are part of the storytelling, not the actual facts. Again, no outside help from other organizations will change that (they do exist and they have nothing to show either). That means there have never been any actual physical traces — NONE! It is all storytelling and no facts.
September 21st, 2007 at 2:21 am
Gentlemen,
I’ve followed your back-and-forth, and decided I needed to add a few points.
First off, a few years ago I interviewed a high-ranking police official that served in a US police department that shared security duties with one of the US research laboratories. He shared with me a surprising UFO event that bears striking similarities with the initial story. I included this incident in a screenplay I subsequently wrote, called “Oblivion,” that deals with the coverup of UFO events in the US.
In 1987, he and a fellow officer were in their patrol car, facing west-southwest at around midnight, when they both observed a luminescent light descending rapidly through overhead cloud cover. They originally thought they were witnessing a plane on fire heading straight down, except the “flames” appeared to be purplish in color. Within a few seconds, the illuminated object seemed destined to crash in a nearby wooded area, when, just as it neared the treeline, it made an instantaneous ninety-degree turn, and sped off due north “like a bullet” (a different speed than its descent).
The partner refused to admit he saw anything, fearing for his career. But the officer I interviewed, the most decorated officer on this particular police force (and responsible for saving multiple lives on at least one occasion) realized it was his duty to report what he saw, exactly as he witnessed it.
He was told to keep quiet, and that “some people” would arrive to debrief him. Within five hours, two government officials did just that, flying all the way from Washington DC to discuss the matter with him.
In subsequent conversations with other police departments, this officer found repeated instances of UFO observations by serving police officers who were ordered to keep their UFO observations to themselves, and not to discuss them with their families, or even with other officers.
I mention this incident because of the similarity to the 1963 incident, where a luminous object descended, then sped rapidly to the north. This is the first time I’ve heard of another incident that so closely parallels the 1987 event.
Interestingly, later the same week, another UFO was spotted in the same area as the descending luminous object, except that this time it was at 11 in the morning, was a clearly discernible silvery disc in an otherwise cloudless sky, and was spotted by over 40 people.
Some intrepid reporters dug into the police reports from the area, and a reference was discovered to the first incident and the officer who reported it. He went on record then as having seen the first object, but never shared with the reporters his debriefing.
It’s clear from incidents like these, as well as fine books like “Above Top Secret,” that both the US and British governments are involved in ONGOING UFO investigations, and that they routinely concealed their involvements in research in the past. It’s clear also that when such investigations as Project Blue Book and the Conden Report were in place, the best incidents were siphoned off and never judged by the public investigators. Even with those incidents removed, investigations like Blue Book continuously found as many as 10% of the cases “unexplainable,” after assigning ridiculous possibilities to some of the events, as when Blue Book claimed that decorated veteran pilots were mistaking the planet Venus for a moving, interacting object at altitude.
To admit there are events in our atmosphere that we can physically observe from multiple sources and with scientific evidence (from radar returns to ground effects), is not giving in to hysteria or buying in to any hoax. Rather, it is only what any good investigator does: to admit that “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
– TemplarScribe
http://www.MichaelDelving.com
http://www.EternalHorizons.com
September 21st, 2007 at 2:41 am
BTW: Sage, you said, “That means there have never been any actual physical traces — NONE! It is all storytelling and no facts.”
Are you ignoring the event in Iran in the 1970s where multiple F-4 military jets, flown by US-trained pilots, had their avionics shut down by a UFO hovering near Tehran airport? I doubt that this incident, reported through official channels back to Washington, would qualify as erroneous or a hoax.
How about the event at the SAC missile base where a football-field-sized hovering UFO first set off ground sensors, then travelled straight, up only to disappear off radar at around 200,000 feet? The next day, military officials discovered that the missile in the silo beneath the UFO had had its computer telemetry inexplicably changed! This incident, BTW, made its way into the Joint Chiefs of Staff daily briefing the very next morning.
And to consider that radiation burns are, as you put it, “part of the storytelling,” is to suggest either self-inflicted wounds as part of a hoax, or simply psychosomatic effects. Would you say the same thing if someone displayed a healed wound from, say, a past car crash, or the signs of a broken leg from a skiing accident? To claim that people who suffered radiation exposure, as did two of the three people involved in a spinning UFO close encounter in Georgia, severe enough to cause hair loss and hospitalization, is to completely ignore the “evidence” that you claim you require for proof.
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of events where actual physical interaction with objects on the ground have occurred concurrent with UFO activity. To assert that “no evidence exists” is to deny the obvious.
There are also people who deny evolution and the physical age of the planet, among other equally provable events. Do you consider yourself in those camps as well?
– TemplarScribe
September 21st, 2007 at 9:50 am
There are others event I can think of, aside from the excellent examples presented by TemplarScribe above: how about the two ladies and a little boy that in Texas witnessed a diamond-like object that spewed fire from its bottom and caused severe radiation burns and illness to the witness. These persons BTW blamed the Air Force because they thought they had seen an experimental aircraft, which they clearly denied. A lot of these sightings are probably black-ops military aircraft, not beings from Venus, Zeta Reticulli, Shamballa, Magonia or whatever name we can come up with.
“what if we were to pretend that the paranormal kind of UFOs existed? Again, they have never been a threat and they do not want to leave behind absolutely any evidence that they ever existed. That leaves zero incentive to study them.”
As I understand it, “pretending” is following something without fully accepting or believing it beforehand. I don’t think any of us suscribe to that. That is a fruitless endeavour because it is hipocrisy.
Besides, I personally have problems with the term “paranormal”, what exactly is something that can be above nature? Isn’t paranormal a sort of epistemological “crutch” to try to feel more comfortable with our enormous ignorance about Nature and the world we live in? It can’t be understood by our current science, therefore it must fall into the realm of “paranormal”… well no, I don’t think so because a lot of things we understand right now were “paranormal” less than a century ago.
And yet, we should suscribe to the idea of ALWAYS remaining open to the possibility that the phenomenon exists, but never giving fully to the idea. At least that’s why I’m trying to do, since I have never witnessed a UFO myself…the eternal paradox of God giving bread to the toothless
And getting back to the idea that there should be no incentive to study the UFO (or any phenomenon for that matter) because there’s an apparent lack of evidence, I corteously disagree.
As I wrote earlier, the accounts of witness is in itself not proof enough, but it should not be dismissed before sutdying it. At least it is a (weak if you will) circumstancial evidence, reinforced by the fact that multiple persons throughout history have reported seeing these things. If it is some sort of mass hallucination caused by something, that at least merits further study. Not all people can be pranksters, and not all are untrained observers.
And telling that absence of evidence is evidence of absence should be a tough blow for all those physicists hurrying to try to understand what Dark Matter is, don’t you think? Because dark matter, dark energy and all those things that are in the vortex of the interest of modern physics, are in essence “paranormal” (they have never been seen, measured or registered by any instrument known to man… yet), but that should not stop us from trying to study them.
September 21st, 2007 at 12:08 pm
TemplarScribe:
Many thanks for your comments and input; much appreciated.
September 21st, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Reports of physical evidence is not the same thing as proof of the existence of the physical evidence reported. All you have are reports of physical evidence, not proof of the existence of the physical evidence. When you can tell me where I can drive to and look at some actual evidence for myself, without having to take someone at their word that some actual evidence exists, then you can say you have some actual physical evidence. Do not ask me to look at some markings on the ground or some other such thing, unless you can prove that a UFO, and only a UFO, could cause those kind of things.
So what if some avionics temporarily failed during the 1976 Tehran incident — can you show me what failed and how it failed? No, because all we have is their word that it failed and their mere word is not physical evidence. So what if some alarms were triggered during the 1975 SAC base weapons area incident, is there some kind of proof that only UFOs can trigger alarms? No, and if you look at the Chief of Staffs daily briefing, the first thing they said was that the one rumored UFO report was unconfirmed. What about radiation burns? If I come to you with a radiation burn, are you going to be able to look at it and tell whether it came from a UFO or from a microwave oven? No, a radiation burn is not physical evidence of a UFO either. And why do you assume that people cannot self-inflict such wounds if they also report it in conjunction with a UFO, when self-inflicted wounds are quite common, even when there are no UFOs around to cause them?
To admit that every story told of events in our atmosphere where there is no proof that they occurred, is being gullible or biased, not scientific. It is okay to have your head in the clouds just so long as you have your feet on the ground.
You can call UFOs whatever you want to, but names do not affect their existence or behavior. Some people call them paranormal, but that does not make them paranormal. Science DOES understand UFOs — it is myth of things seen in the sky. That is perfectly normal. Scientists are always open-minded to the POSSIBILITY that the phenomenon exists, but they also are very aware that there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that the phenomenon has occurred so far.
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. You can disagree all you want to but it will not change that fact. You can cite all kinds of reasons why they should be studied, but they are only reasons why YOU want to study them, and never reasons why scientists should study them.
Dark Matter is an educated guess first developed to explain the motion of stars within galaxies. Scientists are looking for proof of it’s existence, but none has been found. Until then, you have no way of knowing whether dark matter will go the way of the lumineferous ether, which was also an educated guess but only to explain the motion of light in a vacuum. Scientists also looked for proof of the ether’s existence until the Michelson-Morley experiment proved the ether to be impossible. You are once again using one make believe subject to try and support another make believe subject.
September 22nd, 2007 at 10:34 am
Sage, let me first assure you that it is not my intention to convince you that UFOs are real (how could I, since I’m not 100% certain myself, I’m just more open to the possibility that most people). I do not want you to change sides or anything, I’m just presenting you with things I have read in several forms of media, like the Internet, magazines, books, etc.
You are right in the sense that I actually don’t have in my power any of the so-called evidence I and TemplarScribe have mentioned…I also don’t have a lot of proof about pretty much anything in this world, if you think about it much of our belief systems are based on “educated guesses” and taking people’s word as valid (which can cause discrminations since sometimes we focus more on a person’s credentials than the validity of his assertions), you yourself have mentioned this when talking about dark matter, since right now it’s merely a comfortable “patch” on the cosmologists’ equations to try to explain the registered acceleration of he Universe.
And you’re right in the sense that there COULD be other alternative explanations for a skin burn, or a marking in the terrain left by a heavy object. These things viewed separately and thus taken out of context could have numerous explanations; but science it’s about taking everyhting into account, not dismissing the seemingly minute details that could actually make your assumptions wrong. That’s what Einstein did to expand our view of the Universe that we had based on Newton’s theory, he took that seemingly trivial problem of the photoelectric effect that many of his peers had already deemed as unimportant or unsolvable and… well, the rest is pretty much history.
I’m really curious as to what would constitute for you the least amount of evidence that could give credibility to the UFO phenomenon. I’m not talking about a saucer landing in front of the White House, but what would be the least amount of necessary evidence for you to consider UFOs more than a modern myth? What would it take?
And once again I apologize for using make-believe examples, but since we’re not really physically interacting in these discussion, what else is there for me to do to illustrate my points?
Have a good weekend, it’s sunny day here in Mexico, Thank God! Hope the weather’s also nice in your area
September 22nd, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Red Pill, your comment regarding “context” says it all.
As a lowly writer with no serious scientific credentials, no one would pay attention if I claimed the following: that a particular researcher’s “long and diligent investigations have been efficiently conducted, and the results are carefully and accurately reported. All this makes the astounding revelations in this book impossible, certainly for me, to dismiss, unless or until they are equally publicly disproved.”
Now, for me to make the above statement would carry little validity. But when the author was Admiral of the Fleet Lord Norton-Hill, GCB, Chief of Defense Staff 1971-73, and Chairman of the NATO Military Committee (1974-77), then the book he’s commenting on, Timothy Good’s “Alien Contact,” must certainly be accepted with more authority than any common UFO report.
Context is indeed the key. When an unusually bright and extremely large light is seen in the sky, it’s no big deal. But when that light is seen by multiple people from different angles, and also detected on radar, and it exhibits movement that doesn’t appear possible by normal avionics, and the event occurs in the 1970’s, long before the advent of fly-by-wire and most black projects, then such an event carries context that gives it unusual credence. When you add in effects on the ground, as in the triggered ground sensors that are tuned to the weight of a human footstep, and the altered computer tapes on the SAC missile warhead without the warhead itself being touched, then there is strong evidence not only of an unexplainable event, but also of that even more elusive of UFO proofs: evidence of intent.
Unlike Red Pill, I’m all about trying to open people’s minds to the possible. However, it’s impossible for me or Red Pill to change your mind, or anyone else’s. Only you can do that.
But far too often, evidence that would normally persuade an objective observer to admit the possible, is denied by the overly skeptical because they require additional proofs that they normally wouldn’t require. Layman like us cannot penetrate some areas of current research, such as particle physics and string research, dark matter and dimensional membranes. Heck, it’s taxing enough just following the math! We have to accept the viability of these theories, even if we ourselves cannot vet the authorities behind them. We accept as a rule that when a scientist from MIT or Sandia Labs shares a new breakthrough, that it’s on the cutting edge.
The problem is, sometimes even those eminent researchers get things wrong. Do we denigrate the entire body of work, and claim no scientist worth their salt would work on such childish subjects? Of course not. The scientists go back do work and do the math again, perform the tests and research again, and do the observations again. We cannot always do that with events that occurred in the past, like Roswell or the Tunguska explosion. But we can pour over the available interviews, as many excellent researchers have done, and compare and contrast to try and uncover as much of the truth as we can.
To suggest “no scientists are studying UFOs,” as you do, Sage, is to deny the very history of the past fifty years. Try reading a decent backgrounder on the subject, like “Conspiracy of Silence,” from Captain Kevin Randle, USAFR, who shows beyond doubt that the US government (among others) siphoned off the best stories from supposedly all-inclusive investigations, and lied repeatedly about not having any interest in UFO while continuing heavily funded research projects on the very thing.
In fact, to overlook the repeated incursions into US air space, and the quite strong likelihood that extraplanetary vehicles crashed (or were shot down) more than once on US soil, would be the very ultimate of folly. Our government would only be doing its duty to follow these events closely, try their hand at back-engineering whatever as recovered, and to deny, deny, deny any involvement.
Interestingly, before the CIA was constituted in 1947, the US military had a completely different view about UFO secrecy. Military leaders like Genl. Nathan Twining and Admiral Forrestal went on record admitting the certainty of UFO events, including ones that Forrestal himself had witnessed as big as the aircraft carrier he commanded. The only thing they couldn’t figure out was what those Unidentifieds were.
To that, I admit that I’m not convinced 100% one way or another what these objects really are, wthether from other planets, other dimensions or other times. But I am most definitely convinced that there is something physical, observable and measurable occurring in the skies all over this planet.
To claim otherwise is to merely close our eyes to the sun in the sky, and pretend the heat on our face is nothing but the warmth of a low-grade fever.
– TemplarScribe
September 24th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
red pill junkie:
“…It’s about taking everyhting into account, not dismissing the seemingly minute details that could actually make your assumptions wrong”
Which every practicing scientist will do, but we are not talking about seemingly minute details, we are talking about claims given in the complete absence of evidence.
“That’s what Einstein did to expand our view of the Universe that we had based on Newton’s theory, he took that seemingly trivial problem of the photoelectric effect that many of his peers had already deemed as unimportant or unsolvable…”
Science is founded on doubt, not blind faith belief. Einstein’s peers did the right thing by doubting his theories until they could be experimentally reproduced. What happened with Einstein is the exception, not the rule. For example, there were people in Anton van Leeuwenhoek’s day who also believed in the concept of Spontaneous Creation, when Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered that microscopic life existed and could explain cases of apparent spontaneous creation.
Contrary to popular belief, skepticism doesn’t kill ideas, it actuallys helps logical and objective ideas to grow and it does that by killing off make believe fantasies. What would they have called the first group of “scoffers” if Anton van Leeuwenhoek turned out to be wrong? You can only call these people scoffers or say that they were wrong in HINDSIGHT and not by FORESIGHT. No one could rationally and logically have called them scoffers or say that they were wrong BEFOREHAND…not without proof. It is so easy to say in hindsight that they were stupid to not believe in microscopic life, but it is so easy to forget that we also only know of the fact of the existence of microscopic life by way of hindsight and not by foresight.
“I’m really curious as to what would constitute for you the least amount of evidence that could give credibility to the UFO phenomenon”
I have already explained that to you, and believe it or not, I actually already believe there is enough evidence. The difference is, I believe in far less claims of evidence then you do. It is all those other claims of evidence that take away credibility of the UFO phenomenon.
The one claim that comes foremost to my mind was the 1942 Battle of Los Angeles. I know of three witnesses (there were more) — none who knew the other. There were numerous pictures of it, all taken from different vantage points by different people. It made good photographs (considering the state of technology back then) because it was lit up by numerous spotlights from multiple cities as it traversed the LA coast. There was one video of it taken by a reputable news service (video cameras were rare back then). Over 1400 anti-aircraft shells were fired at it by the Army, and numerous fighter planes were sent after it to bring it down — all to no avail. This event appeared in all the newspapers the next day.
You might wonder if there was physical evidence of the UFO itself — there was not — but there was evidence that a physically real object interacted with other physically real objects. The photos, the testimony, and the video all compliment each other. The Army later said it was just a weather balloon but never showed us the balloon afterwords and could not explain how a primitive weather balloon could survive 1400 shells and a squadron of planes.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
TemplarScribe:
“The event occurs in the 1970’s, long before the advent of fly-by-wire and most black projects, then such an event carries context that gives it unusual credence”
Scientific credibility does not come from the age of a sighting or whether an aircraft has modern technology or not. It comes from facts that cannot be explained by anything else, and evidence that a story happened just as it was told — things not present in that story. What about the radar you say? Show me a picture of the radar screen that day at that time. If you cannot do so, how can you prove or disprove that the radar had anything on it. Heck, it may not have even been turned on for all we really know. It is all hearsay.
“However, it’s impossible for me or Red Pill to change your mind, or anyone else’s. Only you can do that”
Who wants me to change my mind and why?
“But far too often, evidence that would normally persuade an objective observer to admit the possible, is denied by the overly skeptical because they require additional proofs that they normally wouldn’t require”
That is not true in this case so that is irrelevant. And it is an excuse, not a reason for you to not have to consider alternate viewpoints that do not coincide with your own.
“But we can pour over the available interviews, as many excellent researchers have done, and compare and contrast to try and uncover as much of the truth as we can”
That is only possible if there is new information or new witnesses. Otherwise you are beating a dead horse.
“Our government would only be doing its duty to follow these events closely”
There is no evidence that they do that.
“Interestingly, before the CIA was constituted in 1947, the US military had a completely different view about UFO secrecy. Military leaders like Genl. Nathan Twining”
Yes, that is interesting. Very interesting. I would like to see that mystery solved. Someday.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Hey Sage, you didn’t answer my question. If you don’t mind I’ll post it again, here goes:
I’m really curious as to what would constitute for you the least amount of evidence that could give credibility to the UFO phenomenon. I’m not talking about a saucer landing in front of the White House, but what would be the least amount of necessary evidence for you to consider UFOs more than a modern myth? What would it take?
September 25th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
I have already explained that to you.
September 25th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Oops, forgive me! I just saw your response to TemplarScribe.
Yep, that 1942 case in Los Angeles is a very good one. You say you know of three witnesses. You managed to talk to them? If so, what causes you to give them credibility over other alleged witnesses of UFOs? There were photos taken, but the quality and degradation of them would probably make may people (who could maybe even believ ein UFOs) to dismiss them or not take them seriously.
This discussion we’re having is really important for me, in the sense that every one of us should ask him/herself, what causes you to give credibility, or at least give the benefit of the doubt, to something you read in a book, or a photo you watch in a newspaper. And I’m not really talking necessarily about UFOs, it is something vital to any belief system which makes us life a little more easy without emmulating Descartes and doubting everyhting.
Do we base our judgement on credentials? certification made by an establihed organisation? On the integrity of the person then? But what if we are not personally acquainted with that person, how do we know if he is a liar or not?
We can base our judgement on our level of education and make a more-less educated guess, but unfortunately our knowledge can go only so far; we can read about recent discoveries in the realm of genetics, but not all of of us can be geneticists or astronomers to confirm the validity of what a peer-reviewed paper proposes.
Of course, there are a lot of trivial events in our lives when we feel it’s safe to stop being a “Doubting Thomas” and trust the information given by a stranger. If I’m lost and want to know how to get to a certain street, I ask a stranger who will probably give me a set of directions; and then I have a choice: either I trust this person blindly, or I confirm the information asking another passerby.
But there are many events in life when we cannot make confirmations of the information we’re given. What to do then? Do you reject everything until it is confirmed by someone or something you trust? Do you follow your intuition?
How do you confirm the veracity of an event (or the account of an event) of which you have never had a simmilar personal experience that can give you a comparison point?
And the problem increases with a multifaceted phenomenon like UFOs, whith such evident disparities in every case or report.
We’re living in strange times, when the access to information is increasing exponentially, but the screening methods to discern what data is valuable and what is horse manure are very insufficient.
I’m sorry for all this rambling, but personally this is something of a capital importance. I often get annoyed when someone asks me if I believe in UFOs or not. Not because I fear being labeled or judged byt the answer to the quation, but because I feel… uncomfortable when viewing UFOs as something you either believe or not. Almost like a religion, when I feel this should not be the case; UFOs should be evaluated byt the powers of reason, not be accepted apriori like Dogma.
But in the end, I guess it is inescapable the strong link between UFOlogy and Religion, because both human endeavours tackle (in their own way) with some of the most basic questions you can come up with: where’s my place in this universe? Is there more beyond what I can see with my eyes or comprehend with my mind? Is there a purpose I’m not aware of?
And both deal with things so strange and beyond human understanding that are therefore scoffed as unimportant by positivistic science.
September 26th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Recent comments by Sage, and my comments:
…We are talking about claims given in the complete absence of evidence.
That’s your POV, but many others consider (as you admit later) that there is plenty of evidence surrounding certain events.
What Red_Pill mentioned earlier, and I supported, was the “context” of a witness’ testimony: was there corroborating testimony from other witnesses (as you mentioned in the Battle of LA event)? Was there any kind of physical corroboration, such as radar returns or film? And are those witnesses themselves reliable, are they unusually trained to be observant, such as with pilots or police officers?
Science is founded on doubt, not blind faith belief.
Oh, really? I always believed science was founded on curiosity, on trying to find out the truth behind unsolved problems. Doubt only enters into it, IMHO, when one disagrees with the results of tests or the evidence of the events themselves.
I believe in far less claims of evidence then you do.
But that’s not true, Sage. When you claim later that an event at a SAC missile base, witnessed by trained military response members, that interacted with missile telemetry and ground sensors, was then spotted on radar and later reported on a Flash report to the Joint Chief’s of Staff, is merely “heresay,” you totally denigrate all the evidence in that report.
I’m willing to bet, Sage, that when you read a report in a book on microbiology, you don’t run right over to your personal lab and duplicate every tests and experiment. Why? Because you accept the authors as experts in their field. Likewise, we must work diligently to make sure certain events are accurate and that the researchers are expert enough to be believed, but once we do, we must accept with a high degree of certainty that what they’re reporting is true and accurate.
If you cannot do that with UFO reports, then my claim that you are treating UFO reports differently than you treat other science is itself true and accurate.
It is all those other claims of evidence that take away credibility of the UFO phenomenon.
Ah, now THERE, we both agree. There are so many false pieces of evidence that it makes it very hard to tell reality from fiction. That’s much the same in cold fusion these days: too many false claims have made scientists instantly suspicious of any new claims.
You mention your disbelief in a radar return unless you could see the radar yourself (which will never happen, and you know it). But I could show you dozens of pictures, and even some compelling films, of supposed UFO events that are complete frauds. The much-heralded Mexico City disc from a few years ago is one good example. Are you saying that by seeing that video, you’d be a believer? Because I sure wouldn’t: there were too many suspicious threads to that story, starting with the fact that no one else spotted a 200-foot disc on broad daylight, to make me believe it, no matter how stunning the images.
In Australia last year, a group of tech wizards created a series of excellent UFO images that turned out to be part of an experiment to basically see how gullible people were. Much the same thing is happening currently with the Done images from California and elsewhere. Again, I could show you the images themselves, and even some sort-of corroborating physical evidence, but that doesn’t prove anything.
Show me a picture of the radar screen that day at that time. If you cannot do so, how can you prove or disprove that the radar had anything on it…
As I’ve mentioned, we cannot be privy to hands-on evidence in almost all cases of scientific research. Thus, we stand on the shoulders of giants. I can’t touch the Hubble, but I accept its results without much doubt. I cannot see firsthand the results of particle physics collisions at Batavia, but I can accept (with slight interpretational differences) the results as interpreted by the Fermilab geniuses.
This is what I mentioned as taking UFO evidence differently than other science: you set up an impossibility (being able to hold something in your hand)m as reason to deny. Thus, you’re starting from a negative, and are satisfied with your conclusion. That’s actually the opposite of good science, where you set out with a theory then look for evidence to support or deny that theory.
In response to my claim that “… evidence that would normally persuade an objective observer to admit the possible, is denied by the overly skeptical because they require additional proofs that they normally wouldn’t require:” …(I)t is an excuse, not a reason for you to not have to consider alternate viewpoints that do not coincide with your own.
Sage, I always consider alternative viewpoints. I take everything I read these days, hardbound or siliconized, with a huge grain of salt. But I’ve also experienced events in my life that others have claimed are impossible. No, not UFO events, but precognitive dreams and remote viewing, just to mention two. Can these events be reproduced in a lab? Not easily, and thus, denied by those who only accept what they can touch or manipulate. But to me, they’re just as real as last Sunday’s sunset, which I also cannot touch or duplicate.
To my claim that various governments are following UFO events closely, and denying it afterwards: There is no evidence that they do that.
If you’re open to having your mind changed, then I urge you to read anything from Timothy Good, an author I’ve mentioned before. Don’t know him, never even met him, but his evidence comes from thousands of FOIA files. Now, given that these documents do exist and are in the public mainstream, only one of two possibilities could exist:
1) The governments in question are actively creating false paper trails to support real-life events (which raises multiple questions right there), or
2) The files themselves are real, and the governments in question are actively recording and examining these events, but are not willing to make public their efforts.
There are other good books on the subject that prove, to me at least, that the US and British at the very least have ongoing, well-funded projects studying every aspect of UFO propulsion, navigation and miniaturization. If you need additional authors besides Mr. Good, feel free to ask.
Who wants me to change my mind…?
Ah, well, that would be me. (:^D)
As to why? All I want to do, Sage, is open your mind to the possible. As open-minded researchers, we must accept that we cannot touch the stars, nor even the exposed plates and CCDs of the leading astronomers, yet we can still gasp at the beauty of the Horsehead Nebula.
We cannot touch moon rocks nor perform the tests that expose their familial connection with earth matter, but we can accept the current conclusion that there is strong evidence that suggests the moon was created from an earth-extraterrestrial object collision.
And we cannot see the native Americans nor touch the since-extinct wildlife that Lewis and Clarke came into contact with during their famous expedition, but we can accept their written record, complete with drawings and samples, as a true and accurate account.
I am certain that there are many false and damnably infuriating phony claims regarding UFOs and other paranormal events, Sage. But I am just as certain that there many sincere, believable witnesses to events that can only be explained as non-terrestrial events. Whether truly extra-terrestrial, extra-dimensional or something else, they are to be considered with an open mind, just as we consider Einstein’s equations a hundred years on.
– TS
September 26th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Sorry my above post makes it unclear which are Sage’s comments and which are my replies. I forget that I can’t drop in HTML code into these comment forms. I’ll do better with this one.
Red Pill Junkie’s comments, and my replies:
“(E)very one of us should ask him/herself, what causes you to give credibility, or at least give the benefit of the doubt, to something you read in a book, or a photo you watch in a newspaper… Do we base our judgement on credentials… certification… integrity…? (H)ow do we know if he is a liar or not?”
Good questions. Difficult to answer. Each of us have our own criteria, sometimes that even we are unaware of. That’s why Alvin Toffler was so right when he said that the illiterate of the 21st century won’t be those who can’t read, but those who can’t learn, unlearn and relearn. Information will change so quickly that we must be ready each day to cast aside what we thought we knew, in favor of what is now known to be true (or at least, what is a bit closer to the truth).
With UFOs, there will always be mistakes made, where we accept some things that turn out later to be false. With government interference, there will be more attempts in the future to make the UFO community look gullible and foolish; my belief is that the Aussie government had a hand in the false UFO flap last year. But there will always be the events that cannot have been faked, like Canada’s Shag Harbour, where average townspeople and fishermen interacted with an underwater UFO, still observable to Canadian divers after seven days underwater. The hoax factor is obviously extremely low in an event like that.
I think, RPJ, you hit it on the head before: context. Context is so important, and in many cases, the real determining factor.
“Do you reject everything until it is confirmed by someone or something you trust? Do you follow your intuition?”
Intuition itself is something that many hard scientists don’t believe in. But there is evidence that many past scientists, like Einstein, Tesla (the genius) and Edison (the thief!), that did believe in gut feelings, as well as dreams and such. Intuition works great with meeting people face to face, but it doesn’t work nearly as well with information, where we can’t get nonverbal clues. That’s why I do the background checking and legwork, just to make sure.
“And the problem increases with a multifaceted phenomenon like UFOs, whith such evident disparities in every case or report.”
Even more problematic are the hoaxers, which the UFO and paranormal fields have in abundance, more so than nearly all other fields combined.
“I often get annoyed when someone asks me if I believe in UFOs or not…UFOs should be evaluated by the powers of reason, not be accepted apriori like Dogma.”
Excellent points. I wonder how much the poster in Mulder’s office, the “I Believe” poster, is to blame for the current “believe it or not” Occam’s razor we find ourselves in.
“But in the end, I guess it is inescapable the strong link between UFOlogy and Religion…”
I once wrote a tongue in cheek story called “The Scientist and the Holy Man,” wherein each tries to see the other’s POV. Suffice it to say, one ends up insane, the other ends up in the hospital, and neither sees the other’s point of view.
If Moses were alive today, he’d be told to come down off his mountain and submit those two pieces of obviously forged rock to an independent testing laboratory.
“And get a haircut!”
– TS
September 26th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Thanks for your input TemplarScribe. Lot’s of good point there.
Yeah, I guess context is something that shouldn’t be overlooked when dealing with these head-splitting phenomena
September 26th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
red pill junkie:
“You say you know of three witnesses. You managed to talk to them?”
I did not talk to the witnesses. These are people on the Internet who have posted their testimony on them.
“If so, what causes you to give them credibility over other alleged witnesses of UFOs?”
I do not. The credibility of witnesses is relevant to court of law, not a court of science. It does not matter what the personality of the witness is, or how believable they are, or how nice they dress. All that matters is if their storytales can be backed up with facts…which in the case of The Battle for LA, it could.
It is that simple — I only believe in facts, therefore I do not believe in *ANY* testimony. If the testimony cannot be verified, corroborated, or confirmed with demonstrable evidence, the proper thing to do is to doubt the testimony. To dismiss a report because the reporter is personally considered unbelievable, is the logical fallacy of ad hominem. That is science.
From a non-scientific point of view, you could go further and judge the person in terms of honesty or credibility, but the person is not important to science, only the report and only if the report can be verified, corroborated, or confirmed with demonstrable evidence.
Science never scoffs. That is a personal insult and that is not part of the scientific method. Scientists are supposed to be very skeptical and that is a good thing because skepticism puts other people on their toes, to triple-check their work and to wonder if they could be wrong and search for some other way to look at things that might explain their work the same or better. Do not fight the skeptics but welcome them, because they might be right and you might be wrong.
September 26th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
TemplarScribe:
We are talking about claims given in the complete absence of evidence.
That’s your POV, but many others consider (as you admit later) that there is plenty of evidence surrounding certain events.
You are being argumentative. It is not a POV, it is an objective observation. To disagree is not proof; to demonstrate some evidence — just one piece of evidence is all it takes — is proof. You have no proof and you do not know anyone who has any proof. Case closed.
Corroborating testimony is not the same thing as corroborating evidence. It is just more words on a piece of paper or an audio tape. It can prove or disprove nothing unless that testimony gives directions on where to find evidence. A thousand Frenchmen CAN be wrong to the logical fallacy of appeal to the masses is not valid reasoning.
Science is founded on doubt, not blind faith belief.
I always believed science was founded on curiosity, on trying to find out the truth behind unsolved problems. Doubt only enters into it, IMHO, when one disagrees with the results of tests or the evidence of the events themselves.
No mention of blind faith belief there either, so you did not disagree. To accept any and all UFO testimony without regard to it’s factualness, it blind faith belief and it is not scientific or logical.
I believe in far less claims of evidence then you do.
But that’s not true, Sage.
But yes it is. You believe in far more claims of evidence then I do.
When you claim later that an event at a SAC missile base, witnessed by trained military response members, that interacted with missile telemetry and ground sensors, was then spotted on radar and later reported on a Flash report to the Joint Chief’s of Staff, is merely “heresay,” you totally denigrate all the evidence in that report.
What evidence? I see nothing in those reports about recovered ETs or hardware from a flying saucer. I do see testimony about malfunctioning hardware and a report about a UFO, but no evidence that the UFO actually existed outside of the report of it. Testimony is not evidence.
I’m willing to bet, Sage, that when you read a report in a book on microbiology, you don’t run right over to your personal lab and duplicate every tests and experiment. Why? Because…
You do not know the answer to that question because you cannot read my mind. You are talking about the difference between faith and blind faith. If I accept something in a microbiology textbook, I would do so on faith, and never on blind faith. What is the difference? If I am being asked to believe a claim is true and that claim does reasonably approximate what other evidence indicates about the truthfulness of the claim, then fine, I can believe without absolute proof. Otherwise I will doubt the claim. Yes, even experts and University textbooks have been known to have errors — I have found a few myself. Claims of perpetual motion machines and over-unity devices fall under the category of blind faith. So do UFOs. Blind faith accepts all claims without question. Blind faith does not care if a claim is true or not. Blind faith does not even care if the claims contradict each other, as many UFO stories about ETs do. Science doubts things until they are proved; blind faith believes until it is disproved. One method has a history of working very well — the other method does not.
You mention your disbelief in a radar return unless you could see the radar yourself (which will never happen, and you know it) I could show you dozens of pictures, and even some compelling films, of supposed UFO events that are complete frauds. The much-heralded Mexico City disc from a few years ago is one good example. Are you saying that by seeing that video, you’d be a believer?
You are not paying attention to what I have said. I did not say I would believe in a UFO if I could see a radar return for myself, I said I would believe in the radar return if I could see the radar return for myself. It could happen because there are way to document radar sweeps.
But to me, [RV and PK are] just as real as last Sunday’s sunset, which I also cannot touch or duplicate.
Nothing that is purely imaginary can be reproduced, but imaginary things can also be just as real as last Sunday’s sunset. Illusions, delusions, hallucinations…they are all just as real, but only to you. If you have a delusion or hallucination, I cannot see it. The only way you are going to know if something is actually as real as last Sunday’s sunset is if you find something outside of yourself that can prove it was real.
Now, given that these [FOIA] documents do exist and are in the public mainstream, only one of two possibilities could exist…
That is the logical fallacy of limited choices. There are lots of other possibilities such as the most obvious ones: the reports were misinterpreted, misrepresented, or ambiguous.
All I want to do, Sage, is open your mind to the possible.
My mind is already open to the possible, otherwise I would not be here. My mind is also equipped with a BS detector and I never turn it off.
If Moses were alive today…
Why do you use one make believe story to try and support another?
September 27th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Believe it or not I thank and welcome your cautious opennes Sage (I acknowledge that if you were a close-minded denialist you wouldn’t be here in the first place). It’s obvious you are an advocate of objectivism, something from which I personally have grown a bit doubtful over the years. Physicists like John Wheeler seem to disagree with objectivism too.
And it’s a good thing you give weight to facts, although I’m not sure what are exactly the facts in the story of LA/1942, aside from the testimony of thousands of witness, grainy photos and testimonies of radar returns, which I don’t know if they differ much from the case TemplarScribe referrs to (IMHO).
Yes, witnesses’ accounts are not evidence in themselves, they are a tool in order to try to find more information or collect mensurable evidence (if there is any to find). I think you, me and TemplarScribe could agree with that.
If a witness talks about an object that went flying above some trees, you take the time to check the trees to see if something more can be collected, maybe some burnt leaves, broken branches, I don’t know…
We disagree on tems of if the background of such witnesses’ can lend more or less weight to their testimony. If an airplane pilot who is a trained observer says he saw a strange object that he could not identify, for me that case merits a closer look than others made by witnesses with more… mundane occupancies. We can agree to disagree on this regard.
When a UFO report leaves nothing more to study than said reports, I think that nonetheless it should be filed, because you don’t know if another case could appear in the future that is linked to the first in some way. Many years later a patient researcher my find some pattern between cases thatat first glnce have nothing to do with each other, that’s why Jackes Vallee saw from the beginning the importance of having a thorough computer database of UFO cases, and Dr Hynek came up with his system to catalogue them.
Also, it is a good policy for researchers to go and interview a witness after some years have passed, to see if his/her testimony remains unaltered when retold; that in my opinion would lend or take credibility to a testimony.
As I said, I don’t give 100% credibility to ANY case, I’m just more open to the possibility of some accounts and more doubtful of others (Belgium triangles for example, I’m about 80% convinced, Roswell? perhaps 30%).
Still waiting though… and the years keep rolling
September 27th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Ah, this is what I like, a good, no-holds-barred argument.
A: “No you didn’t, you came here for an argument.”
M: “An argument isn’t just contradiction.”
A: “It can be.”
M: “No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.”
A: “No it isn’t.”
M: “Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.”
A: “Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.”
M: “Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’ ”
A: “Yes it is!”
M: “No it isn’t!”
Love that Monty Python! Best basis for a liberal high school education ever!!
Now, back to the argument:
—–
Sage: “We are talking about claims given in the complete absence of evidence.
TS: “That’s your POV, but many others consider (as you admit later) that there is plenty of evidence surrounding certain events.”
Sage: “You are being argumentative. It is not a POV, it is an objective observation. To disagree is not proof; to demonstrate some evidence — just one piece of evidence is all it takes — is proof. You have no proof and you do not know anyone who has any proof. Case closed.”
Case unclosed. Consider that what we’re arguing about here is the definition of evidence: what you consider evidence excludes the very thing much of our legal system is based upon, that being sworn testimony. Are you saying then that it’s good enough for any court in the country, just not for you?
Consider also that tests and experiments are themselves sworn testimony of a sort. That’s why I included the continuing furor over cold fusion, which shows that even experiments can be falsified.
Also consider this possibility: is it POSSIBLE, not demonstrably provable of course, just POSSIBLE, that a non-human intelligence is keeping tabs on us, or giving us brief glimpses of technology, yet is keenly aware not to leave traces behind, the exact evidence you claim you need? If we were exploring another planet and its lifeforms, wouldn’t we do the same thing?
Sage: “Corroborating testimony is not the same thing as corroborating evidence.”
True, but then, you demand that the physical evidence, such as radar tapes, be directly available to you. That’s impossible for most scientific experiments, thus, I feel you’re holding UFO evidence to a higher standard.
Sage: “Science is founded on doubt, not blind faith belief.”
TS: “I always believed science was founded on curiosity, on trying to find out the truth behind unsolved problems.”
Sage: “No mention of blind faith belief there either, so you did not disagree. To accept any and all UFO testimony without regard to it’s factualness, it blind faith belief and it is not scientific or logical.”
But Sage, I never said I believed in “any and all UFO testimony.” In fact, I’ve mentioned a few different UFO events that are out-and-out hoaxes. I even admit that some events that many once believed in, such as the MJ-12 documents, are considered now to be hoaxes.
That’s why I consider RPJ’s comments about “context” so important. You have to take a lot of elements into consideration before accepting ANY testimony. That’s also why I can accept certain testimony, such as the three radiation-burned UFO witnesses, and the decorated police officer’s recorded testimony, as stronger than most, since there were substantive elements supporting their words.
Sage: “What evidence? I see nothing in those reports about recovered ETs or hardware from a flying saucer. I do see testimony about malfunctioning hardware and a report about a UFO, but no evidence that the UFO actually existed outside of the report of it. Testimony is not evidence.”
I’m sure you’d agree, Sage, that there is no physical evidence that we can touch that proves the existence of icy meteorites, since they disintegrate when they explode in our atmosphere. Yet, we accept the testimony and the photographs of astronomers that they exist in space.
This is another example of distancing yourself from what is factual evidence of interactivity between at least one UFO and the real world. Context again, Sage, the context being the sworn testimony of military officers, reported to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “Heresay”? Hardly. And the “malfunctioning hardware” you describe was actually the magnetic tapes within a top secret military warhead, where nothing else malfunctioned except the target data.
TS: “I’m willing to bet, Sage, that when you read a report in a book on microbiology, you don’t run right over to your personal lab and duplicate every tests and experiment. Why? Because…”
Sage: “You do not know the answer to that question because you cannot read my mind.”
Here, I assume the freedom to make the same blanket statement you made earlier, when you claimed no scientist would bother studying UFOs. Except in this case, it’s only about one person, based on their comments in this thread.
Sage: “If I am being asked to believe a claim is true and that claim does reasonably approximate what other evidence indicates about the truthfulness of the claim, then fine, I can believe without absolute proof.”
Interestingly, that’s exactly the way many respectable UFO and paranormal researchers operate.
Sage: “Claims of perpetual motion machines and over-unity devices fall under the category of blind faith. So do UFOs…Blind faith does not even care if the claims contradict each other, as many UFO stories about ETs do. Science doubts things until they are proved; blind faith believes until it is disproved.”
You’re misstating my position, Sage. I never claimed to have blind faith in UFOs, nor their proponents. I simply claim that certain events, based on multiple supports that include testimony, the character of the witnesses, their professional training, the context of the sighting, and any additional witnesses and the paper trail and the physical evidence behind it all, makes SOME events more likely to be believed that any other.
If that’s not a qualified opposition to “blind faith,” I don’t know what is.
TS: “You mention your disbelief in a radar return unless you could see the radar yourself… I could show you dozens of pictures, and even some compelling films, of supposed UFO events that are complete frauds….Are you saying that by seeing that video, you’d be a believer?”
Sage: “You are not paying attention to what I have said. I did not say I would believe in a UFO if I could see a radar return for myself, I said I would believe in the radar return if I could see the radar return for myself.”
There, I agree, Sage. Even some radar returns are not proof of a UFO, such as with black projects or weather inversions. But you did say exactly this: “Show me a picture of the radar screen that day at that time. If you cannot do so, how can you prove or disprove that the radar had anything on it.” You’re suggesting then that by seeing the radar screen or tape — and only by seeing them — would you believe that piece of supporting evidence.
You’re deconstructing the evidence chain in your favor entirely. IMHO, of course.
Sage: “Nothing that is purely imaginary can be reproduced, but imaginary things can also be just as real as last Sunday’s sunset. Illusions, delusions, hallucinations…they are all just as real, but only to you…The only way you are going to know if something is actually as real as last Sunday’s sunset is if you find something outside of yourself that can prove it was real.”
Not true, and I risk getting into semantics here. Last Sunday’s sunset occurred. It is a fact, indisputable even if unprovable to anyone else, and even if unwitnessed by anyone else. It’s as real as the 1969 Moonwalk, Columbus’ voyage, the founding of Tenochtitlan. These events all happened, whether or not I can put my hands on anything physical to prove they did. Their factuality occurs outside of our belief system, just as the planets orbited the Sun long before we woke up to the possibility.
BTW: You suggest that “finding something outside myself” would prove the reality of that sunset. What if my neighbor comes up to me and asks, “Say, did you see that sunset last Sunday?”
And if that works for you, then what’s different from that statement and, “Say, did you see that UFO last Sunday?” Or even, “Here’s a picture of that wonderful sunset, and over here, a wonderful little triangular UFO.”
TS: “Now, given that these [FOIA] documents do exist and are in the public mainstream, only one of two possibilities could exist…”
Sage: “That is the logical fallacy of limited choices. There are lots of other possibilities such as the most obvious ones: the reports were misinterpreted, misrepresented, or ambiguous.”
Again, you are dismissing evidence that you have not investigated. And again, I feel quite honestly that you’re bringing pre-conceived notions to a scientific investigation. Are you saying that a complete once-Top Secret Flash report, as released to the public and published in its entirety, including photocopies of the original paperwork, is “misinterpreted” or “ambiguous”?
How about the Space Shuttle images, broadcast live, that show an odd circular cloud at high altitude, which dissipates, only to reveal a silvery disc-like object that flies away at incredible speeds? Is that not evidence because you cannot see the original video from NASA? Or is that also subject to being “misinterpreted”?
How about the Shag Harbor sighting that involved hundreds of people, including on-duty Canadian military personnel? Is that “just testimony,” because the craft left no bumper stickers behind?
TS: “All I want to do, Sage, is open your mind to the possible.”
Sage: “My mind is already open to the possible, otherwise I would not be here.”
I wonder, Sage. I really do.
I noticed you made no comment about the books I’ve mentioned that show, to a truly open mind, that the US and British governments are involved in keeping their UFO investigations secret. That contradicts one of the first comments you made in this thread, BTW, that “there clearly is no incentive to study UFOs, otherwise scientists would be studying them.” And I expect with plenty of resources at their disposal, there have been attempts in the past to disinform the public regarding the truth behind UFOs.
Am I claiming you’re a disinformer, sage? No. I will say that you’re denying evidence categorically without doing the research, which is the first sign of a closed mind.
TS: “If Moses were alive today…”
Sage: “Why do you use one make believe story to try and support another?”
Well, Sage, it’s called humor. (:^D)
Although I do not consider UFOs and other paranormal events to be “make believe.” Just denied by sceptics, which doesn’t affect their actual reality one way or another.
– TS
September 27th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
red pill junkie:
“We disagree on tems of if the background of such witnesses’ can lend more or less weight to their testimony…We can agree to disagree on this regard”
We can but we will not. It is not the proper thing to do. If a backwoods, uneducated person reports a UFO along with some evidence to back up that claim, his testimony is far more valuable than the airplane pilot who is a “trained observer” (which is not true of airplane pilots but for sake of argument, let us pretend it is true) reports a UFO along with no evidence.
“When a UFO report leaves nothing more to study than said reports, I think that nonetheless it should be filed, because you don’t know if another case could appear in the future that is linked to the first in some way. Many years later a patient researcher my find some pattern between cases thatat first glnce have nothing to do with each other…”
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.
“Also, it is a good policy for researchers to go and interview a witness after some years have passed, to see if his/her testimony remains unaltered when retold…”
Then every case would fail because human memory has been demonstrated to degrade with time. A person with somewhat different story then was told 20 years ago would not prove they were a liar, but it could indicate that, just like everyone else, their memories degrade with time. The degradation of memory with time is very well known in American Court Rooms.
September 27th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
templar:
“Ah, this is what I like, a good, no-holds-barred argument”
I can tell you do. Let me know when you are ready to be serious and we can have a debate instead of an argument. I will not play your game.
September 27th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
“If a backwoods, uneducated person reports a UFO along with some evidence to back up that claim, his testimony is far more valuable than the airplane pilot who is a “trained observer” (which is not true of airplane pilots but for sake of argument, let us pretend it is true) reports a UFO along with no evidence.”
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.
September 27th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Hello, RPJ!
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
September 28th, 2007 at 9:44 am
You are right Templar, the UFO phenomenon may be one of the most important questions in the history of mankind.
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”.
September 28th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
red pill junkie,
“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.
September 28th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
“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?”
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.
September 29th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Sage: “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.”
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
September 30th, 2007 at 12:08 am
RPJ said: “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.” exactly right. Losing our sense of humor is like losing our balance: we begin to teeter one way or the other, without the ability to right ourselves.
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
September 30th, 2007 at 8:45 am
TemplarScribe,
“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.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:47 am
“It is a fact that the military still investigates mundane UFOs but no longer investigates paranormal UFOs.”
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
September 30th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
RPJ, I said my Spanish was a little rusty. (:^D) That’s why I use Babelfish.com, which gave me that translation.
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. Wha