From the UFO Archives…
Further to my post of a couple of days ago concerning some of my old files and reports on UFOs that never made it into print and that I didn’t sell, give away, or destroy before moving across the pond from Ye Olde England to the States, someone emailed me yesterday to inquire if there were any other reports I have on file that have never seen the light of day.
Well, yes, there are. Quite a few, in fact.
And I figure that I might as well make this material available for one and all to see. So, I have decided that perhaps once a week I’ll make a kind of “From the Archives” posting of some of the stories that I investigated years ago but never got around to publishing.
Here’s the first, extracted directly from my original Word document of 2000:
It was at approximately 8.30 p.m. on an autumn evening in 1985 and a father and son were driving across the Cannock Chase (a densely packed area of forest that dominates Staffordshire, England) towards the town of Rugeley, having visited the nearby town of Penkridge to purchase a motorbike.
All was normal until they approached one particular area of the Chase that the military uses as a rifle-range. As they rounded a bend in the road, both the father and son were shocked and amazed to see sitting in the sky at a distance of around one hundred feet, and at a height of no more than one hundred and fifty feet, a large, black triangular-shaped object that was lit up by a series of three lights attached to its underside.
They screeched the car to a halt, jumped out and stared in awe at the incredible spectacle. For a moment, the object simply hung there in utter silence above the silhouetted trees of the forest, and then without warning shot away at an incredible speed. Both father and son looked at each other and then raced back to the car and headed home to Rugeley.
On arriving, the father breathlessly telephoned Rugeley Police Station to report what had occurred. Interestingly, the police responded immediately and two uniformed officers arrived on the doorstep post-haste.
Detailed witness statements were taken from the two men who, significantly, were informed by the officers: “You know, you should never have got out of the car.”
Precisely why this should have been the case was never made clear; however, the police did admit that a report on their close encounter would be forwarded to the Ministry of Defense for analysis.
To this day, no explanation has been forthcoming as to why police at Rugeley responded with such speed to the report; however, the possibility that the police action was prompted by other, similar reports on the night at issue, or that the object was being secretly test-flown by the military, must be given some consideration.
There it ends. Have a great Labor Day Weekend from all at UFOMystic!
This entry was posted
on Friday, August 31st, 2007 at 2:33 pm and is filed under The Redfern Files, Breaking News, Eyewitness Accounts, Alien Encounters, Government Projects, UFO Sightings, Close Encounters, Evidence, 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 »
- From The UFO Archives 3 »
|
Aug 31 2007 
August 31st, 2007 at 4:56 pm
That’s a great story, and I think that a “From the Files” section is a great idea.
Presidential Address to the nation tomorrow here in Mexico. So that means no alcohol will be sold
August 31st, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I love these stories. A coworker of mine said when she was 12 years old(early 60′2 or late 50’s) that her grandparents who lived in Montana saw a bright light in their field. They went outside & saw a large spherical object in the field with little beings walking around it. She believes her grandparents. The problem with these stories is in their unverifiability & they always come in the form of an urban rumor or campfire story. How can you take a story like this & believe it & have it be a part of your picture of reality? You want to believe but if you want to be a solid epistemological person you might be inclined to walk away from a story like this.
August 31st, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Well then, wouldn’t this incident be among the files
just released by MOD?
Are you familiar with this ‘encounter’ :
a remarkable interview with 2 policemen from 1967
in ‘The West Country’ of England.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzay0t-drY0
Honestly,these two events are astounding….forget the special effects tv ‘documentaries’, simply present the thousands of cases like
this that have occurred and it’s adds up !
Us or ‘Them’, something friggin’ amazin’
is going on.
m
September 2nd, 2007 at 5:36 am
Nick — thanks for further confirmation that these black triangles don’t just slowly drift, as they hum, at low altitude, which was the case for my sighting. I had read of a similar high-speed take-off near my sighting and then there’s the infamous Belgium chase.
Oh yeah Nick I hate to veer off course but have to mention the speculation on big foot being a big garlic eater! haha. Garlic is amazing stuff and the military is using hydrogen sulfide to create paranormal powers (maybe these black triangle pilots are wookies after all).
September 3rd, 2007 at 10:07 am
Your “report” sounds more like a movie script than an unbiased, objective scientific attempt to record the details of a real event…
“…both the father and son were shocked and amazed…”
“…both father and son looked at each other…”
“…the father breathlessly telephoned…”
Terms like that make the story so much more exciting and readable, but it also makes it sound like an attempt to manipulate the reader’s emotions so as to hook them into believing the story. Was the police report also framed in such prosaic terms…or was a police report even filed, it just being assumed that a police report was filed?
Why is it that UFO researchers never take steps to eliminate the possibility that witnesses could be exaggerating or embellishing or confabulating? What actual evidence is there that the alleged witnesses were credible and reliable? Is it based on meresay or hearsay? Not that it matters but at least one can filter out the dubious testimony from the valid testimony. Yet UFO researchers will not hesitate to take steps to consider the possibility that an “object was being secretly test-flown by the military” despite there being absolutely no witnesses or statements to that effect. Just because the alleged sighting took place near a military base, it is blindly assumed that it was a military craft. If a UFO is sighted near the Empire State building, will that mean that UFO researchers can safely assume that the UFO was built by people within the Empire State building? This type “reasoning” requires us to ignore the possibility that UFO occupants might be more interested in casing out military installations then they would be in sightseeing near famous landmarks. But why even speculate on any such issues when there is no rational reason or vital information within the testimony to justify such off-the-wall guessing?
Were there any witnesses to the witnesses? Of course not — there never is. Likewise, there was no physical evidence — there never is — so why even bother looking for some? This makes of a very non-compelling story. There is nothing about this story that should belong in a serious report about a serious phenomenon. The situation here is *exactly* like the situation of a reporter trying to cover a story about “the big one that got away”. Stories like that are told all over the world, even by very credible and reliable witnesses. I can see it now…
“…father and son were driving to the Loch Ness for a day of fishing. All was normal until something grabbed both of their fishing lines. Both father and son were shocked and amazed to see such a big fish. All of a sudden, the fish shot away. Both father and son looked at each other for a moment, before telephoning reporters…”
There are literally thousands of such stories and some people still believe in them. And if an organization were to be established to look into the stories of “the big one that got away”, would you not expect people to laugh at them? Most people no longer believe in the tales of “the big one that got away”, instead they believe in the tales of “the big UFO that got away”. Is it any wonder that the UFO community is the laughingstock of the world?
September 4th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Sage:
You seem to be missing the point.
Namely, that the reason why I am putting this story out into the public domain - around 8 years after I interviewed the two men - is precisely because up until now it has been held back by me for precisely the reasons you bring up: lack of additional sources, the witnesses refused to allow their names to be used, and I could not find any additional support.
That’s why I am calling these weekly posts “From the Archives.”
These are the cases from my files that led nowhere, or that lacked support, or where the witnesses would not go on record, or where the original sources had died and I only had secoond or third hand testimony.
However, my view is that almost a decade on after the interview(in this particular case), if anyone reading this has any awareness of the case, then putting it out into the public domain when practically everyone is on the Internet, may just bring in additional witnesses.
As for your comment re Ufology being the laughingstock of the world: you’re wrong. And the reason you’re wrong is because the reality is that “the world” does not care about us in the slightest (despite the fact that Ufology is full of huge ego-types who think the world DOES care about them).
Here’s my reply (as a copy-paste) of my views on Ufology as given to Paul Kimbakll in a previous post:
COPY-PASTE:
I predict that ufology will never be anymore than a subject that attracts a few thousand people on a regular basis (and maybe less now).
Many ufologists confidently think that the world is waiting for them to finally deliver the ET goods and go down in history.
They’re not. Most people outside could not care less about the petty arguments in ufology (and don’t know about it anyway) and unless someone really makes a major breakthrough (along the lines of proving that Roswell was ET, for example), we will not be remembered by science, the media or the public.
A good many ufologists are ego-driven and full of self-importance. But at the end of the day, we are just a group of largely unrecognized people who argue with each other, and publish things here and there that get read by a few thousand people. And that’s it.
Same as it ever was. Same as it always will be.
(END OF COPY-PASTE)
As for your other comments, both father and son did confirm to me they were shocked, did stare at each other in almost literal shock, and the father raced into the house and did indeed phone the police in an out of breath fashion.
How the hell am I manipulating the emotions of the reader when I am relating what the witnesses told me?!
But to an extent we are going around in circles here, for the reasons pointed out at the start of my reply to you: namely that these “Archives” stories are the cases that languished in my files for years for (ironically) some of the very reasons you bring up.
September 4th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Hmmm… I am reminded somehow of some of the comments I read recently in ‘Encounters at Indian Head’ where it was one of the author’s opinions that those with less of an education (PhD) than him should not even discuss the subject of UFOs.
Sage…
This is not taking up your precious bandwidth and if people wish to discuss stories of the paranormal (no matter how unsubstantiated) then that is precisely what they will do.
If any absolute, concrete evidence ever does show up… it will be obviously worded somewhat differently than Nick’s article here, headline news, etc. I’m not really surprised that you joined a forum about UFOs just to tell us that we’re a bunch of idiots… I’ve seen it before. At least you didn’t trot out the usual Troll-esque crap about this being ‘harmful to UFOlogy’, or the utterly laughable crap about UFO forums not being a place for ’speculation’, when in fact that is the entire point of such forums.
Sorry, Nick, but….
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!
September 4th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Well I’ll throw in my “witnessless witness” experience! haha.
My sister and I were watching the X-files, summer 1997, a re-run. The show ends, she points out the porch glass door towards the horizon and states “there’s those lights I’ve seen in Taos and just north of here.” (This is north of Stillwater MN, in the St. Croix River valley, bordering Wisconsin).
So we both go out to the deck. She gets bored at these spheres on the horizon, each a different color, red, green, yellow, doing inexplicable manuevers. So she goes in, having seen it before. I stand there trying to figure out the source: headlights, helicopters, tower lights, nope, none of those.
Suddenly I see something slowly coming from the lights on the horizon towards our house and I see it’s a craft. It comes slowly over the neighbors’ woods, then close to the top of the hill then right over the tree on the north end of the yard. It slowly passes through going down across the valley.
I could triangulate it from the hill and the tree and realized it was bigger than the roof of our house, it was a perfect equilateral triangle, with a light on each corner. It made a humming noise and moved slowly. I could have hit it with a rock but I didn’t dare take my eyes off it!
So it’s a “witnessless witness” sighting and I immediately think it’s some military craft because at this point I had read John Keel, Vallee and others.
I think end of story but I mention it to my family and friends. Sure enough my mom’s worker, for the local newspaper, brings over a three-ring binder full of local paper photos of UFO sightings in the same area in the 1970s. Then I learn that this area is a military flight test corridor. This person also states that there was a cattle mutiliation so bad that the rancher, adjacent to Carlos Avery game park, actually moved out of the area.
Fascinating background detail. Then around 2000 when the internet is in full-swing I happen across the exact same black triangle sightings posted on rense.com. Now I realize that what I saw was to the detail the same as other sightings: slow, equilateral black triangle, lights on the corners, humming noise, low altitude.
So I read up on it — learn about the belgium sightings. I then emailed Nick and he mentioned researching the black triangles and it would be in his next book. I then read Curt Sutherly’s book which has the most detail I’ve seen on the black triangles. Nick’s book comes out stating that there was a black triangle sighting in a U.S. airforce base in the U.K. shortly after WWII. (correct the details if I’m wrong Nick).
So then I look into MUFON sightings in MN and sure enough: equilateral black triangles — two other sightings, both in the late 1990s. Then there’s a sighting in WI, not too far off the border, where the craft, like the sighting Nick has described above, takes off at high speed.
I think the adjectives that Nick uses to describe the experience are apropos. It was something of an initiation and strangely I did not know that black triangles had been featured on the X-files, nor that one of the UFO disinfo dudes featured in Greg Bishop’s amazing Project Beta book was a consultant to the X-files. The fact that this test flight took place right after the show ended may have been a coincidence but it was surely timed well!!
September 4th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Sage,
I realize that a lot of this sounds like hollywood script that’s probably where HW gets it’s script from. People who have never experianced any ufo phenomina, do not react the way most people may understand they should. I’ve had three seperate sightings and all three were differant. The first (approx1977)three bright lights in a cloud in the middle of the day.1 witness,self. The 2nd (approx1981) seen travelling very slow right over house at dusk. 5 witnesses. The 3rd (approx early 90’s) Riding bike on darkened pathway with starlite night. Seen a huge starless section of sky shaped like a huge triangle. So seeing is part of believing and even then there are questions. It is oddvious why many are reluctant to share info as I myself didn’t realize there is an appropriate way to express a sighting.
September 4th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Drew;
Good one forgot to mention the 2nd sighting was not too far from our military base. The military should be held accountable for their deception as their is more proof of their evolvement of secrecy and deception. Proof hidden in secrecy that’s their way. Believe it or not.
September 4th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
OK, here’s my Black Triangle encounter from late 1998…
Myself and 2 friends, Phil and John, had headed out towards Warrington for the weekly Rock night — drinking, stumbling about the dance floor, and watching with amusement as John tries to score… again!
Unfortunately, the event had been cancelled so we headed to the nearest KFC for some grub and then headed back towards John’s house in Tiverton (near Beeston).
On the way back, Phil spotted a craft heading in our general direction very, very low over the fields. Phil instructed John to turn left down a narrow lane so her could get a better look at it. To our surprise the thing turned 180 after we passed it by and started to follow us down the lane. John slowed the car down whilst Phil stuck his head out of the passenger side window and watched it approach. We then came to a stop in the road expecting it to go on over us and on it’s way. But it didn’t. It stopped right over us! I got a look at it too. It had a light in each corner and on slightly larger, and brighter one in the middle. John and Phil stuck their heads out of the sun roof for a while until it ficked the power up on it’s central light. They both jumbed back into their seats, Phil shouted at John to put his f’n’ foot down, and John obeyed without question!
Before we knew it we were doing 120 in a 30 zone and I kept a look out through the back window to make sure it wasn’t following us; it wasn’t it just stayed where it was.
Back at John’s house they grilled me on my relative knowledge concerning UFOs, whether we’d had missing time (we hadn’t) and whether or not we should report it (something we decided against). The two of them were badly shaken by the incident but I tried to help out by mentioning that RAF Wharton was too terribly far away and that the place had recently been implicated as far as test aircraft were concerned.
And so, I guess this doesn’t count for anything either in the grand scheme of things. It is however a fascinating story for myself John and Phil, and one we will bore people rigid with for the rest of our days
September 4th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Nick:
You are correct I am missing the point and I still am missing the point. I mean, the stated purpose of opening your archives is so that people can see precisely how there is a lack of sources or scientific support for them, i.e. — the reports are being released because they are incomplete and unverifiable. What exactly is that supposed to prove again? Your comments to Paul about the UFO community were wonderful and they hit the nail right on head. Why can you not apply that same keen insight to paranormal phenomenon?
“How the hell am I manipulating the emotions of the reader when I am relating what the witnesses told me?!”
You are not supposed to be relating to the witnesses, you are supposed to be taking a report. The witnesses were embellishing their stories with colorful language, and you just parroted them back.
Now a scientifically conducted report does not focus on the observers’ report, but on the observation. A properly conducted report will filter out the interpretations and colorful language and leave nothing but the observation behind. So what if the witnesses telephoned the police, that information is not about the UFO and will do nothing to resolve the investigation. That kind of information might be great for a Nancy Drew mystery or a Perry Mason case, but we are talking about a scientific investigation, not a legal case.
uv777bk:
You seem to believe that if there are people who participate in the paranormal and act silly and/or stupid about the subject, that it is okay for them to act silly and/or stupid about the subject because “that is just the way they are”. Then people who want to be serious about the subject and try to influence the silly and/or stupid people to start acting serious, should not be allowed to do so. So the immature and goofy people (or mentality) should be allowed to run the whole show, right? Wrong! I have every right to point out their stupidity and silliness so that they will grow up and start acting serious or allow someone who is serious can step up and take their place.
Of course, I do not think Nick is silly or stupid, but I do think that he is scientifically naive.
Drew:
Now here is something I can appreciate — your honesty in reporting. You are not trying to tell me what to think or believe, and you did not go off on some wild New Age tangent about gravity drives or a conspiracy theory.
If I were to write a scientific report of what Drew saw, it might go something like this: “Witness is outside sightseeing from the deck of his house when he notices a black equilateral triangle-shaped object do a slow fly-over of his house. The corners of the object had lights visible on them and it made a humming noise as it passed over”
Anything else Drew stated was irrelevant. Missing details like the actual size or thickness and so on would not make the observation any more or less important or help to resolve the issue, so I would not ask anything about them. Pretty boring though, huh? The “spheres” Drew saw in the distance had nothing to do with the UFO that he described. The X-Files synchronicity was not part of his actual UFO observation, so out it goes too, along with all the other “background detail”. As a scientific investigator, I would fill in the background details on my own, not from the witnesses. If Drew had indicated that he might have more information or indicated something occurred that might lead to physical evidence, I would ask him for an interview and an on-site investigation.
And that is how it is supposed to be done. It tells me all I need to know, and nothing more. This one case would mean nothing though unless there were at least a dozen more. Afterall, can anyone prove that Drew is not hoaxing or was smoking something funny and saw an illusion or delusion? It would not be right to ask him those kinds of questions, so I would just take what information I had and wait for more. Would not you?
sasdave:
You are correct, sometimes seeing is believing, but I would not mention anything I saw that I could not describe in believable terms. It is better to remain silent than to bring disrespect to a respectful subject. If I did report it, I would make sure to keep my comments just to what I saw, and not what I believed about what I saw.
September 4th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Sage:
Yes, I think that people should be able to do whatever the hell they want! What are you and who are you to stop them?! They don’t run the show. The people who look into things properly, those who have knowledge and work hard in their research are the ones who are justly looked up to.
And YOU appear to think that we should all keep our unsubstantiated comments well and truly to ourselves. And this is your main point, isn’t it? Getting us to SHUT UP.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Wow,
You all came to Nick’s aid! “Sage” has been at me for weeks.
This person seems to have no more reason to be on this site other than to argue about things for the sake of contradiction, with the main purpose being to irritate rather than contribute or point out something new. A “sage” usually dispenses egoless wisdom, not condescending semantics, unless the arguments s/he presents here are designed to make us look at our own opinions. For that I’m grateful at least.
Perhaps the Sage is much smarter than I, but if that’s the case, s/he should start a blog or write a book and educate us. Our “understanding of science” is obviously flawed.
Science as it is practised in this society appears to be a quantifying pursuit. If you have looked at this UFO subject for any amount of time, it it fairly obvious that human emotion and perception plays a huge part in it, and seems to change at the whim of the phenomenon. How science can solve this conundrum in its present state is beyond me.
The late comedian Bill Hicks sarcastically parodied the part of his audience who didn’t “get” his act with the taunting phrase “When do you think science is going to save us?!”
Science is not the only way of getting at truths; it is a tool, and one of many in our box. Those who do not consider this are not ever going to “solve” the UFO mystery, if there is even is a solution as we know it.
September 5th, 2007 at 7:49 am
Sage:
You say: “…the stated purpose of opening your archives is so that people can see precisely how there is a lack of sources or scientific support for them, i.e. — the reports are being released because they are incomplete and unverifiable. What exactly is that supposed to prove again?”
No, that is not the purpose. I held most of these old reports back purely because I could not get further corroboration, or the witnesses didn’t want to speak on the record, etc.
Yes, they are incomplete and unverifiable, for the reasons cited above; and in this case because I interviewed the witnesses 14 to 15 years after the event occurred!
So, now, I have taken the decision to put the accounts into the public domain in the event (however slight it may be) that it may bring others forward who may know something of the cases and who can fill in some of the blanks. To me, that’s a reasonable thing to do.
You also say: “You are not supposed to be relating to the witnesses, you are supposed to be taking a report. The witnesses were embellishing their stories with colorful language, and you just parroted them back.”
Wrong. Dead wrong. We should be collecting all of the info - the report, the thoughts and feelings of the witnesses and just about everything we possibly can.
What gives you the right to say that the witnesses were “embellishing”? That’s an outrageous thing to say about 2 people you have never met, never interviewed, and who you know nothing about!
They were no embellishing. Rather, they were telling me how the experience made them feel in terms of awe, shock etc.
If you were in a plane crash tomorrow and you were the only one to walk away from it, and a local TV news company interviewed you, would you be embellishing to say that you were terrified as the plane hit the ground, and jumped out of the door in a panic and ran breathlessly away before it burst into flames?
Of course you wouldn’t be embellishing. Rather, you would be explaining to the interviewer the nature of the incident and the way you felt.
Ufology is not just a cold, emotionless, scientific discipline.
Greg hit the nail right on the head when he said: “Science as it is practised in this society appears to be a quantifying pursuit. If you have looked at this UFO subject for any amount of time, it it fairly obvious that human emotion and perception plays a huge part in it, and seems to change at the whim of the phenomenon. How science can solve this conundrum in its present state is beyond me.”
Greg is right: Ufology goes way beyond the nuts and bolts angle that many ufologists want to see it categorized in.
I can tell you for certain that you are as much likely to have a UFO or entity encounter via ritual magic as you are by driving down a lonely road in the early hours of the morning.
Human emotion, perception and belief are all manipulated by the phenomenon that lies behind the UFO puzzle (and countless other puzzles too), and so ignoring the state of mind of the witness is crazy - in fact, it’s a vital aspect of the whole mystery that plays a key role in how the phenomenon manifests.
September 5th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Yeah Sage I have to disagree with your parsing of my information. But then I didn’t give you all the details. The spheres of light on the horizon appeared to be from the three lights on each corner of the triangle. My guess, from the humming sound, is that this is some sort of electrogravitic propulsion. Also the size of the craft is related to how close it was so my ability to triangulate it is of course relevant. This equilateral black triangle had absolutely no fuselage — a flat craft, maybe 9 feet in height (just a wild guess), unlike other top secret craft that have been made public. All I know for sure is that there was no fuselage.
The CIA specializes in psychological disinformation and has had a close collaboration with Hollywood for years. I recommend reading the book “The Stargate Conspiracy” to get details on how there are strong cross-marketing blitzes in disinformation. Philip Coppens’ website will give you lots of details. The CIA also has had close control in psychiatry as well and cracks down on people investigating knowledge systems which might be a threat to top-down hierarchy.
Finally I’m serious about the hydrogen sulfide, garlic wookie pilot hypothesis.
September 5th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Nick:
Okay, I understand your purpose now. I am curious though, has that approach ever worked?
You assert we should be collecting all the info but you do not state why. Maybe this question is irrelevant, afterall, who is your target audience? If your target audience is scientific types, you are way off target — just look at they type of people responding to this thread. If you truly wanted this phenomenon to have recognition and respect, you would not target people who already believe, or the fanatics. You would target the anonymous scientist who becomes curious enough to want to know more.
Recording personal thoughts and feelings on a subject are not the scientifically proper way to pursue truth. Personal thoughts and feelings cannot be a test or proof of scientific truth.The only place recording personal thoughts and feelings are in grocery store tabloids or Hollywood. That is because they are meant to be entertaining, not enlightening. I do not say this from personal thought or feeling, I say this from studying University textbooks on the subject, like UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC REASONING by Ronald N. Giere.
As for the assertion that science is not the only way to pursue truth, consider this: in the last 100 years, science has single-handedly remade an entire civilization, with things like light bulbs, automobiles, computers, running water, vaccinations, putting a man on the moon, airplanes, television, and the Internet. There is no comparison. No other method has worked as well or as successful as science. Not even close. I will believe there is a better method when I see it.
PS — This is not about “rights” to speak the truth, but simply the freedom to speak the truth. The witnesses were embellishing their story by adding things to the story for dramatic effect. That is obvious. They wanted to you be interested in their storytale and what better way to draw someone in then to over-dramatize the whole thing? If I were in a plane crash tomorrow, no one would want to interview me because I would not over-dramatize the story for them. I would not allow them to broadcast my personal fears and pain, just so they can make a buck. My feelings are more important to me than that.
uv777bk:
Do not falsely put words in my mouth I never said or implied. That would not be honest. I am not telling anyone to shut up, I am telling them to grow up and get real — and I have every right to tell them to grow up and get real. You seem to indicate that people like Kal Korff are the paragon of what UFOlogy is all about, and you may be right, but it is not right for a serious subject to be characterized by people like that, is it?
September 5th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Drew,
No one likes to have their testimony parsed, but it is the proper thing to do.
Of course you left off some information but nothing you stated in your initial testimony would scientifically compel me to investigate for anything more than the already adequate and basic information you gave: you saw an object, it was not identifiable by you, and it left no evidence. There is nothing you can add to your initial testimony that would change those basic facts. Case closed — from a scientific perspective that is.
If I were writing a book or making a documentary, that would be a different story. Then I would want all kinds of additional information from you and to record your personal feelings about it and copy your personal collection of truths of the matter. Just understand that the purpose of parsing your testimony was not to trivialize your experience, but to leave out anything that could not be a test or proof of a scientific truth, and none of those additional things would qualify as a test or proof of a scientific truth.
PS — I am very interested in the CIA’s role in disinformation tactics, in regards to UFOs. I will investigate the person you cited. Thanks for the info.
PSS — The pilots must be Chinese or Korean wookies to love garlic so much!
September 5th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
The Sage: I’ve eaten about 7 cloves of garlic a day for the past week and I’m a German-Swedish American-Wookie. See this is the problem with “science” — the logical assumptions are wrong.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:39 am
Sage:
I can see now that we are of vastly differing mind-sets.
You say:
“Okay, I understand your purpose now. I am curious though, has that approach ever worked?”
Do you mean re ritual magic? Certainly: I practice it.
You say:
“You assert we should be collecting all the info but you do not state why. Maybe this question is irrelevant, afterall, who is your target audience? If your target audience is scientific types, you are way off target — just look at they type of people responding to this thread.”
I don’t have a target audience in mind at all. First and foremost, I pursue Fortean mysteries because they interest me as an individual.
Then, where possible, I share that data with others who may find it intriguing and/or interesting; and I do that via books, magazine articles, the Net, lectures, and TV and radio.
It matters not to me in the slightest if my research appeals (or does not appeal) to scientists, bus-drivers, lion-tamers, bank-robbers, 007-style hitmen, or just about anyone else.
What I care about is sharing the data with those - like the people on this list - who care passionately about the subject, regardless of backgrounds and regardless of who someone thinks we should or not should be targeting.
You say:
“If you truly wanted this phenomenon to have recognition and respect, you would not target people who already believe, or the fanatics. You would target the anonymous scientist who becomes curious enough to want to know more.”
I recognized years ago that ufology will never get mainstream respect. One reason is that a lot of scientists - anonymous or otherwise - are unwilling to embrace the UFO issue for fear of their reputations being smeared (where I come from we call that utter and pathetic cowardice), and so they prefer to laugh at it.
I care not if we get respect or recognition: I care about trying to find the answers for myself and sharing that data with those who also care. To hell with those who think the subject has no legitimacy. I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince some old geezer in a lab-coat whose mind was made up years ago and whose opinion is driven by fear of what his peers or colleagues will think. Screw them all.
The UFO research community is largely isolated, ostracized and on its own when it comes to flying the ufological flag, so for that reason we should be all the more determined to seek out the answers ourselves.
You say:
“Recording personal thoughts and feelings on a subject are not the scientifically proper way to pursue truth. Personal thoughts and feelings cannot be a test or proof of scientific truth.The only place recording personal thoughts and feelings are in grocery store tabloids or Hollywood. That is because they are meant to be entertaining, not enlightening. I do not say this from personal thought or feeling, I say this from studying University textbooks on the subject, like UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC REASONING by Ronald N. Giere.”
But as I and Greg have pointed out, while at first glance the UFO puzzle appears to be a “nuts and bolts” scientific puzzle, it is much more (or much less, depending on how you look at it).
Synchronicities, ritual magic, the issue of Tulpas and thought-forms and much more lay at the heart of the UFO puzzle. Science for the most part is nowhere near close to resolving this, and mainstream scientists will rarely delve into such controversial issues.
So, recording all the data (including the human emotion angle) is crucial because emotions and belief systems help to create the experience and are intergral parts of most encounters (even though many would disagree with me on that point).
You say:
“As for the assertion that science is not the only way to pursue truth, consider this: in the last 100 years, science has single-handedly remade an entire civilization, with things like light bulbs, automobiles, computers, running water, vaccinations, putting a man on the moon, airplanes, television, and the Internet. There is no comparison. No other method has worked as well or as successful as science. Not even close. I will believe there is a better method when I see it.”
But that’s my point: mainstream science has made all these advances; however, it has made zero advances in the field of ufology, for one prime reason: in my view, ufology (despite the fact that many people in the subject disagree with me) has less (maybe nothing) to do with literal aliens and far more to do with a form of intelligence that has been a slient partner to us for years (and possibly for as long as we have been around).
It is manipulative, trickster-like, it changes and evolves to suit the perceptions of the people of the relevant period, and encounters with are attainable via ritual magic, DMT, altered states, meditation and more.
Anaylzing radar tapes etc will never get anywhere; because although the phenomena may leave trace evidence, it defies explanation via current scientific methods - and may always do so.
You say:
“PS — This is not about “rights” to speak the truth, but simply the freedom to speak the truth. The witnesses were embellishing their story by adding things to the story for dramatic effect. That is obvious. They wanted to you be interested in their storytale and what better way to draw someone in then to over-dramatize the whole thing? If I were in a plane crash tomorrow, no one would want to interview me because I would not over-dramatize the story for them. I would not allow them to broadcast my personal fears and pain, just so they can make a buck. My feelings are more important to me than that.”
Did you sit in on the interview with me? Nope you did not. I can tell you that there was no desire on their part to “over-dramataize” their story!
They were simply a father and son who had a truly astounding experience with something they had never seen before and had no real comprehension of and were shocked, awed and amazed.
Lest you forget: human beings have emotions: that’s why we laugh, cry, get angry, depressed, and get excited when we watch “The L Word” (well, I do anyway…).
We are not cold, emotionless robots; and, frankly, if they had sat there stone-faced and said: “We saw a UFO, it was triangular, it was there for a few minutes, it flew away, we went home, we phoned the police etc…” that would have sounded like some weird zombie-talk.
They had a weird experience; they told me -with emotion- how the experience affected them; I wrote up my notes; I kept them for nearly a decade; and then published them to see if we might finally make some advances with the case.
But if you think that showing and recording emotion is somehow wrong, well, I’m not sure what else I can say.
Surely getting excited, shocked, awed or maybe even frightened in a very close encounter-style UFO event is normal? And if so, the witness response to me should reflect that range of emotions.
And if I am trying to inform the reader of not just the incident - but how the witness was profoundly affected by the incident - then I see nothing at all wrong with my approach.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Sage;
So firstly you agree with me then you say I should keep silent for I can’t describe it in believable terms. So it is better to remain silent than to bring disrespect to a respectful subject. I applaud you for your fake honesty as if there is one person who respects this subject I thought it was I more than you. I may be a terrible writer; but, if anything my experiances has nothing to do with the closemindedness of those so called scientists that are too busy creating murdering machines. Oh, the great achievements of space travel with caveman engines that are killing more kids, people, animals and plants. Show me the proof that these millions of experiances people have are lies and disrespectful of this subject. You appear to know more then you are letting on; eventhough, these sheep scientists are shut ins to what is more real then their advancements. So good luck in your search for truth as with my experiances my mind is open and whether you or anyone else doesn’t believe me so be it. At least I own what I say and don’t disbelieve because the some scientists are closeminded and carry their ego up their butt.
September 6th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Mouseonmoon:
It is possible that the report may have been released and overlooked, or may surfaced as more of these files are released via the FOIA. Hopefully someone in the UK can look into this.
Re the 1967 cases: yeah, I’m familiar with these. A guy named Robert Chapman wrote a book on the 67 UFO wave that hit the UK and it also features in Andy Roberts and Dave Clarke’s Out of the Shadows book - both well worth reading.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Nick:
You did not answer my question. Has opening the archives ever worked to “bring others forward who may know something of the cases and who can fill in some of the blanks”? My guess is, no, that has never worked.
Another question you did not answer was why we should record every little trivial detail of an investigation, things like what emotional state the witnesses were in when they answered the telephone or how they did a double-take after an alleged UFO disappeared, etc. I want to know how that “information” will help solve the UFO riddle? When in history has the emotional element ever helped solved a riddle? It has not and it will not. Emotion and science are not compatible because one is an action and the other is a reaction. The reaction is often inappropriate.
You do have a target audience, you either just do not recognize it or you are ignoring it. If your approach is a scientific approach, then your target audience are scientists. If your approach is professional, then your target audience will be professional. One way to tell what kind of target audience you have is to see what businesses want to advertise on your website.
If your pursuit of Fortean matters was purely a personal matter, you would not be posting this in public. Nobody asked you to post in public, you are posting in public because you want people to know what you feel and think.
The world is often what we make of it, so if for you UFOlogy will never get mainstream respect, then that is true for you. However, if you believe that you can find the answers by doing it alone, good luck, because it will never happen. Without peer review, there is nothing to bring you back down to reality if you go way, way off in left field.
Science has made no advances in the field of UFOlogy because there is no one practicing science in the field of UFOlogy. Maybe if someone would give the scientific types more information than the poorly told tales of the poorly taken photographs, or of the competition to make the best UFO hoax film/photograph, or the varied emotional states of the witnesses, then some scientific type might get involved then.
But so far there is nothing to explain where nothing has been demonstrated to exist in the first place.
Have you had any training on how to conduct objective reporting? How about how to interview witnesses so as to word your questions so as to not be suggestive or leading? Just curious.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Drew:
No one has ever found a legitimate problem with science, only with themselves and their (mis)understanding of science.
September 6th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Sasdave:
“So firstly you agree with me then you say I should keep silent for I can’t describe it in believable terms. So it is better to remain silent than to bring disrespect to a respectful subject. I applaud you for your fake honesty as if there is one person who respects this subject I thought it was I more than you”
Where is the alleged “fake honesty” in any of that? I am not saying shut up, I am saying that it is better for one to keep their mouth shut and let people wonder if you are stupid, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt. Or as one so-called UFO researcher once said, have facts in hand before opening mouth. It is a good idea, is it not?
“I may be a terrible writer; but, if anything my experiances has nothing to do with the closemindedness of those so called scientists that are too busy creating murdering machines. Oh, the great achievements of space travel with caveman engines that are killing more kids, people, animals and plants”
Science never made that possible, politicians and the military abusing science did that.
“Show me the proof that these millions of experiances people have are lies and disrespectful of this subject”
Do your own homework. I have done mine.
“You appear to know more then you are letting on; eventhough, these sheep scientists are shut ins to what is more real then their advancements”
There is no such thing as “sheep scientists”. That is something you just made up out of thin air.
“So good luck in your search for truth as with my experiances my mind is open and whether you or anyone else doesn’t believe me so be it. At least I own what I say and don’t disbelieve because the some scientists are closeminded and carry their ego up their butt”
My mind is open too, but it is not so open that my brains fall out. If you believe that has anything to do with ego, you need to get a dictionary, because you do not know what you are talking about.
September 7th, 2007 at 5:39 am
Sage:
You say:
“Has opening the archives ever worked to “bring others forward who may know something of the cases and who can fill in some of the blanks”? My guess is, no, that has never worked.”
Well, of course it has worked! I’ve written 10 books and countless articles and have had countless corroboration/additional support for cases.
Examples: my book “A Covert Agenda” included a chapter on witness testimony and official British Royal Air Force files on UFO encounters in 1952 during a NATO exercise called Mainbrace. Publication brought in approx 14 or 15 new sources (such as retired RAF people who either worked on radar, at the old Air Ministry etc) who had an awareness of the case or who were directly involved.
I’ve yet to write a book that hasn’t resulted in at least 40 people (per book) coming forward who know something of the data contained within.
A further example: my book “The FBI Files” included a chapter titled “The Oak Ridge Invasion” that focused on declassified FBI files on UFO encounters at the Oak Ridge atomic energy installation in the 1940s and 50.
That chapter brought in 3 people alone, including one old lady whose story is told my in my “Body Snatchers in the Desert” book.
You say:
“Another question you did not answer was why we should record every little trivial detail of an investigation, things like what emotional state the witnesses were in when they answered the telephone or how they did a double-take after an alleged UFO disappeared, etc. I want to know how that “information” will help solve the UFO riddle? When in history has the emotional element ever helped solved a riddle? It has not and it will not. Emotion and science are not compatible because one is an action and the other is a reaction. The reaction is often inappropriate.”
I believe we should record every detail because (a) we need to secure as much info on the encounter itself and the UFO etc; and (b) I see nothing wrong with recording how the witness felt and how they were affected by the experience. You see recording that as problematic. I don’t. People differ. That’s life.
You say: “You do have a target audience, you either just do not recognize it or you are ignoring it. If your approach is a scientific approach, then your target audience are scientists. If your approach is professional, then your target audience will be professional. One way to tell what kind of target audience you have is to see what businesses want to advertise on your website.”
No I don’t have a target audience. I put the info out to share with those that are interested. I am not targetingt anyone, nor do I have my sights set on trying to find a specific audience. If people find the things I write about to be interesting, great. If there’s no audience - or a dwindling one - then that’s how it goes.
You say: “If your pursuit of Fortean matters was purely a personal matter, you would not be posting this in public. Nobody asked you to post in public, you are posting in public because you want people to know what you feel and think.”
No: I never said it was “purely” a personal matter. Go back and see what I said. I said that “first and foremost” my research is based on personally trying to secure answers. I then specifically followed that up by saying that where possible I then put that material into the public domain where it can be read/heard/watched by others who I know are of a like-mind. But trying to convince people or specifically target an audience is irrelevant to me. I put the data out because I know there are those that are interested. I don’t waste time worrying or thinking about those that aren’t interested, or trying to convince them to believe etc.
I lay the info out for people, but the idea of targeting someone and doing the equivalent of knocking on people’s doors like some insurance salesman to convince them to accept (in the case of ufology) a story, theory etc has no place in this subject - or at least it shouldn’t.
You say: “The world is often what we make of it, so if for you UFOlogy will never get mainstream respect, then that is true for you. However, if you believe that you can find the answers by doing it alone, good luck, because it will never happen. Without peer review, there is nothing to bring you back down to reality if you go way, way off in left field.”
I don’t care in the slightest about mainstream respect. There are too many pontificating egotistical types in ufology who are full of self-importance about having mainstream acceptance etc. Again, I research and write to share the data with those that care passionately about this subject, as I do. I don’t care in the slightest what the “mainstream” thinks of me.
You say: “Science has made no advances in the field of UFOlogy because there is no one practicing science in the field of UFOlogy. Maybe if someone would give the scientific types more information than the poorly told tales of the poorly taken photographs, or of the competition to make the best UFO hoax film/photograph, or the varied emotional states of the witnesses, then some scientific type might get involved then.”
Maybe, but fear of losing grants because they investigate “little green men” or fear of being laughed at by colleagues does a far better job of keeping them away from the subject. It’s called not having the balls to stand up and not worry about reputations.
That’s the difference: I don’t care about what sort of reputation (or not) I have with the media, the mainstream, the scientific community. I’m looking for answers and I can’t be wasting time thinking about what others think etc. That’s a stupid attitude to take.
You say: “Have you had any training on how to conduct objective reporting? How about how to interview witnesses so as to word your questions so as to not be suggestive or leading? Just curious.”
Yes to both: my educational background is in English literature and English language. My first job was on a UK rock music, fashion, entertainment magazine where I was taught on-site. And today I write regularly (as a feature writer) for the British Daily Express newspaper.
Why do you presume I ask questions in a suggestive or leading fashion? I do not.
For example, in a hypothetical situation, if someone called me up and said they had seen an alien, I would of course not ask them, “Did it have big black eyes?” “Was its head large?” Was it about 4 feet tall” And the reason I would not do that is because all of those questions ARE leading and place into the mind of the person (concsciously or otherwise) the classic image of the “alien Gray.”
What I WOULD say is: “Please tell me everything you recall.”
September 7th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Sage;
Oh your right my brain has fallen out, I better pick it up. So if you don’t think I have had some out of this world experiances, believe what you will. Even if you believe me to be stupid so what, at least I don’t have to pretent to be a wise sage like you who needs proof that some of us are not perfect. One thing for sure at least I have witnessed my share of the unknown to believe there is something weird that some scientist are too scared to study. Just because they do not believe ufo’s exist or the Ground Burrowers (Sasquatch) are a link to our past as maybe even those unbelievable ufos maybe too. That is possibly one of the reasons many pick on the believers. The sheep talk was refering to the closemindedness that scientist tend to stay away from this subject or the secretness if they are working on this subject. Yes it is a touchy subject for some especially you and I will try to remember to get proof next time a sasquatch crosses my path or a ufo hums by. I have my reasons why I believe as you have your reasons to not believe as it shows.
September 7th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Sage makes some obviously good points here and there but loses it with the cheap ad hominium jabs (re-motivation and ‘target audience’).
I’d like to see a critical response to the 2 police officers interviewed (youtube above).
I have no ‘complaints’ with their ‘testimony’ here -what the ‘ell’s going on, the peasants
wanna know?
No photo’s , no ‘evidence’ - simply two very credible witnesses who’s testimony
would be accepted ‘by any reasonable standard’ imo.
And again, what the heck are they saying NOW! That’s the point of ‘returning’ to these cases.
Where are they now and why isn’t someone taking down ‘their story’ (call it whatever ya like-
is this really yet another ‘one that got away fish story’ ((again Sage, this is simply another way of calling ‘em “hillbilles” > and the Loch Ness comparison is a strawman’s delusion > come on, stick to the facts presented, please).
(a ’strawman’s delusion’ is a psychological defense mechanism used ….blah, blah, blah ie an ‘ego hoax’
m
September 7th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Nick:
I guess your method has worked…sort of. What I mean is, have you ever heard of The Burning Bed, starring Farrah Fawcett? When it came out in the late 70’s, it was immediately followed by lots of copycat murders. Columbine? Ditto. I guess what I mean is, you had more people come forward, but did really have anything to contribute to the mystery or were they copycat witnesses? If they had something to contribute, I would have expected the mystery would have been solved by now. I can accept that maybe you did have some people that contributed something to a past case, but I will remain skeptical of that until I see something more.
I can say the same thing for recording people’s emotional states. You have all that emotional information and yet the cases are still not solved or resolved. Emotions tells us absolutely nothing about UFOs, but it tells us a lot about you and the feelings of the people you interview.
So I guess you really have no target audience. Your target audience is not people who have Internet connections and that is why you post on the Internet. You have no target audience for your books…but I bet you your publisher would vehemently disagree. All publishers must consider the authors target audience, so they can know whether to proceed with a book or not. Books that target too limited of an audience will either have to cost more to make a profit, or they will not be published at all. I get the feeling from most of the UFO books I read, that the target audience of most UFO authors are gullible people with money to spend on a book.
I think that “personally trying to secure answers” is the equivalent of “a purely personal matter”, when taken in conjunction that you supposedly have no target audience, i.e. — putting your information out there in public would be targeting an audience but you claim to not care what the public thinks or does in regard to your information, so that bit of info was irrelevant.
“…But fear of losing grants because they investigate “little green men” or fear of being laughed at by colleagues does a far better job of keeping them away from the subject. It’s called not having the balls to stand up and not worry about reputations”
That is nonsense and you know it. Scientists have studied all kinds of things that put their reputation on the line and are ridiculed for. One scientist that comes to mind is the one that studied dinosaur coprology and how he thought excessive dinosaur flatulence caused the dinosaurs to go extinct. That took a lot of balls and he lost his reputation. Another scientist that comes to mind is the one that saw “holes” in the ultraviolet pictures of the Earth’s atmosphere taken by satellite and decided that they were real and were 100 ton water comets. Everyone else had written them off as artifacts of photography. That took a lot of balls and he was ridiculed to no end until he was proven right. So do not give me this phony scientists fear studying UFOs. That is an urban myth and there is nothing to hold them back expect the fact that there is nothing to study where nothing has been proven to exist in the first place.
“My educational background is in English literature and English language. My first job was on a UK rock music, fashion, entertainment magazine where I was taught…I write regularly…British Daily Express newspaper”
In other words, you have not had any training on how to conduct objective reporting or how to word questions so as to not lead the witnesses. It also explains why you feel recording the feelings of the witnesses is so important and it explains your writing style. Newspapers are not considered examples of objective reporting — and never will be. That is not their purpose. Fashion magazines are not objective reports either, again, because that is not their purpose. Just knowing English is not enough to know how to do objective reports. Just keep this all in mind — that your methodology may be flawed, from a scientific point of view.
September 7th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
sasdave:
I believe you have had some experiences. It has nothing to do with whether you are intelligent or stupid or perfect. It has to do with human nature…for all of us, including myself. Personal experience is not part of the scientific method because personal experience is very unreliable and sometimes impossible to determine if true or false. Three people can go to the Matterhorn at Disneyland and report three different experiences: One can report out of fear, another out of boredom, yet another out of exhilaration. It tells me nothing factual or real about the Matterhorn.
Like I said, there is absolutely no such thing as a scientist who is close-minded to the subject of UFOs. That is a UFO community urban myth.
A personal myth of yours, is that UFOs is a touchy subject for me. There is no way a rational person would believe that after talking to me about the subject, as I often do.
September 7th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
mouseonmoon:
Ad hominem has to be an attack on the person, not an attack on the subject, therefore that argument will not work.
The “big one that got away” is an analogy — a perfect analogy. It illustrates human nature is to confabulate and embellish. Why would UFOs be the exception to the rule? Because you want to believe in UFOs and I am undermining that belief?
Just so you know, testimony is never acceptable scientific evidence, unless it is accompanied by verifiable facts. Even then, the testimony is never accepted word-for-word. Someone may say they saw a glowing sphere when what they really saw was just a light at a distance, where it looked like a sphere. A circle of light is not a sphere of light. Remember the OJ Simpson testimony? Remember the testimony of all the adventurers of Columbus’ day who said they saw monsters that did not exist? Get it?
September 7th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
sasdave:
Sorry, but I did not complete my thought…
If you are perfect in every way and never make mistakes, then there is not reason for you to question your experiences. But if you are like everybody else in the world, you might just want to consider factually determining if any of your experiences were influenced by an optical illusion, personal delusion, or wishful thinking. I have done all three myself. It happens. It pays to be honest with yourself when trying to investigate phenomenon that is at the forefront of the ability of our consciousness to assimilate — remember when the native Indians could not see the New World ships when they first arrived to the Americas?
September 8th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Sage;
By the way I am very sure of the experiances I had in the past; yet, questions come up after these things are experianced. Fear is one of them, then you try to find answers and you run into people that have every reason in the world that cannot believe unless there is proof. With your great english skills you appear to like to change the subject from what this post was about. I don’t disagree that there are some great scientists out there and some great mysteries that scientists can’t even fathom. With my past experiances there are details that were omitted by my choosing and for good reason.Being a writer like you I am sure you would find a writing error to descript it to a saging insult as it is unbelievable. Just because you base your reality on the scientists of the world doesn’t mean these experiances aren’t real happenings. Just because you need proof doesn’t mean I have to proof anything to you either or the papers you write for. They probably wouldn’t allow it to be printed… that’s probably one of the purposes of editors. If I was a proper or better writer I could put out a book regarding mine and many others experiances, with proof missing just to piss those that believe in nothing; but, what the false preach. Cause by the sounds of it proof is not really what your after. If you want proof use your writng skills to get into these so called non existant secret bases that are around; yet, not on any map…cause they don’t exist. History is laced with unbelievable stuff; yet, some experiance it even today, some believe it and some hide it and some write around it.
September 8th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
sage quote:
“Ad hominem has to be an attack on the person,
not an attack on the subject,
therefore that argument will not work.”
“has to be….” > what’s your tactic here-an attempt to ‘define ‘a way’
out of ur position’ ?
Let’s play Chess > nothing personal here, white moves,
black moves/responds/attacks….
I’m guessing u can play Chess, and you understand some will
take it very ‘personal’…..
I’m ’saying’ (iow =’s in other words) that characterizing ‘UFO witnesses’
as ‘toothless hillbillies’ is (in fact-primea facea-in ur face) ‘a personal attack’. (Loch Ness ‘fish story’ v…)
What would u like to call it otherwise?
example : Fermi’s ‘paradox’ isn’t a paradox > therefore no need to discuss it
((’in my mind’, he sez)) - it’s a ‘brush off’….avoidence behavior ((btw, Psychology is a Science-
would u like to attack the Capitols? First Manhatten, then Berlin?))
Honestly, isn’t your ‘attack’ against NR ‘Ad hominem’ ?
ex: ‘what are yer credentials anyway’, u ain’t a scientist, journalist, etc.
(but i’m ‘afraid’ u don’t know what a Fortean IS–at least not my
definition of ‘one’….)
Anyway, no sense in ranting on further (btw, it’s actually ok now to use further/farther,
i could ‘prove it’, trust me…..
sage quote :” Because you want to believe in UFOs
and I am undermining that belief?”
pleeeeease…..where’d ya get that ‘delusion’ ?
((delusion =’s “false belief”))
KWIS-KWIM ?
Hey, i’d ‘love’ to talk to ya…..but stop ‘pickin’ on the children’.
What about that interview with the ‘cops’ ?
Cri-tique that 4 me….show me u ain’t sufferin’ from an ‘ego hoax’.
(smiley face)
m
September 9th, 2007 at 9:32 am
sage
i will reply to your latest some time tomorrow (monday).
September 9th, 2007 at 9:43 am
sasdave:
Everyone is very sure of their experiences because experience is as mentally real to us as actual reality seems to be, but just because you experienced something does not mean it occurred as you remember experiencing it. There are ways to determine how accurately any one of your experiences reflects the actual reality of an event.
You can get by not questioning ordinary everyday experiences, but when you experience something highly unusual, it should be a suspect experience. Why is it unusual to begin with? I am not talking about the experience of recreational drugs, where the experience is all the reality you need. I am talking about flying saucers or triangles or ET piloted craft or alien abductions. I know this is a hard concept to fathom at first, but please try to understand.
“…I know of three more cases where certain objects were seen in the clearest detail (in two of them by two persons, and in the third by one person) and could afterwards be proved to be non-existent. Two of these cases happened under my direct observation…people who are entirely compos mentis and in full possession of their senses can sometimes see things that do not exist…For as a rule we do not verify things we have seen with our own eyes, and so we never get to know that actually they did not exist.” (CWJ, Vol 10, para 597)
“When Columbus reached the New World, he inquired again and again about the presence of humanoid monsters. Perhaps his informants did not understand what he was asking, or perhaps they attempted to please him by telling him what he seemingly wanted to hear. Columbus recounts in his letter, that he received information about people with tails, people having no hair and women living and fighting on an island devoid of men, for example. The tales to which Columbus paid attention, and the manner in which he interpreted them, undoubtedly reflected both his expectations and his hopes” (WHAT COLUMBUS ‘SAW’ IN 1492, by Bernard Cohen, Sci American, Dec 1992, pg 103-104).
“We thought at first that something unpleasant must have happened to her; but finally she pulled herself together and explained that ‘a star-dweller had sat opposite her in the train.’ From the description she gave of this being I recognized an elderly merchant I happened to know, who had a rather unsympathetic face. Apropos of this event, she told us all the peculiarities of the star-dwellers…” (CWJ, Vol 1, para 59)
Writing is just words and it takes more than words for me to believe in something extraordinary. My reality is not based on scientists and it is not based on unconfirmable testimony. My idea of reality is based on proper logic, invariant fact, objective observation, and lots of doubt of any claim given in the complete absence of evidence.
September 9th, 2007 at 10:18 am
mouseonmoon:
Clearly you are not very good at playing chess…
You can never quote me where I said UFO witnesses were “toothless hillbillies”. I did not even imply that. How in the world you ever came up with that interpretation from anything I said, I have no idea…in fact, I believe you have no idea how you came up with that idea. It is a strawman.
Clearly you do not understand what ad hominem means…
I am “attacking” the subjects of UFOs, not UFO witnesses, therefore it cannot be called ad hominem in any way, shape, or form. Drawing an analogy between UFO storytales and Fishermen storytales is clearly an analogy about the type storytales, not the type of people, so your “toothless hillbilly” nonsense is spurious and dishonest. Questioning people’s credentials is also not ad hominem, it is the proper thing to do. Would you hire someone off the street to landscape your yard without checking their credentials and asking for some prior examples of their work? If someone knocks on your door and says, “Open up in the name of the police”, would you open the door without asking for credentials first? If you were going to hire someone for work, would you not ask them for credentials to see if they were qualified to do the work?
“What about that interview with the ‘cops’ ? Cri-tique that 4 me….show me u ain’t sufferin’ from an ‘ego hoax’”
Maybe your childish taunts work with your peers, but it will not work with me, as I outgrew that kind of thing back in Junior High School. There is no way to convince you of anything because you are not trying to find a way to be convinced of anything other then what you already believe in.
PS — There is no such thing as a “ego hoax”. That is a nonsensical grouping of words.
September 9th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
sage quote : Clearly you are not very good at playing chess…
har har….if i last 17 moves using the Hillybilly opening will you buy me a beer
(i prefer New Castle Ale actually). Will u give me an extra Knight? can i choose the music?
5 hours of Mahler ain’t my cup of tea for an afternoon’s entertainment waiting on you to make
yer 242nd move, still insisting you can win this game…How about letting Greg DJ
(can you imagine “DJ” being used as a verb?)
u’ve demonstrated u can’t play a game of Chess without making it an ‘ego-trip’.
Let’s repeat this > You compared UFOs to the Loch Ness Monster > you’ve described the
‘witnesses’ (categorically) as no more than ‘fishermen telling ‘fish stories’….
Hear this, UFO ’stories’ are not confined to a local lake > they were reported over Washington DC,
from the highest security military bases and atomic facilities, from our military pilots etc
it’s a world wide cross cultural phenomena and it isn’t simply reported by ‘your fishers’ or your buddies ‘hillbillies’ ( yet this same ‘rural bumpkin’ image was used not 2 weeks ago on Obermann, in spite of the fact
that the incident at hand was at O’Hare !!
(that’s one ex of an “ego hoax”)
It’s a continuous example of ’scientists’ calling the peasants superstitious idiots ‘cos rocks don’t fly’,
when all they do is ‘tell what they saw’…..yeah, i know rocks don’t fly, but something is ‘going on’-
it’s way past time to ‘investigate’…
see: “Thomas Jefferson and the Yankees” : “Gentlemen, I would rather believe that two Yankee professors would lie than believe that stones fall from heaven.”
((note that this is Virginian humor….hasn’t been debunked by Snopes as yet, and makes the point….but u know the story of meteorites….the French Academy of Science declaration, etc…
quote: I am attacked by two very opposite sects - the scientists and the know-nothings. Both laugh at me - calling me “the frogs’ dancing-master.” Yet I know that I have discovered one of the greatest forces in nature. - Luigi Galvani, Italian physicist (1737-1798)
Who’s knocking on doors? ….seems to me you’ve shown up here trying to sell some ‘home improvements’
at a Fortean pot-luck dinner and insist on vanilla ice cream with yer apple pie, without raisins ( you’re complaining but you aren’t contributing….
so give me a ‘real example of your work’–comment on the ‘cops interview at youtube.
And ask yourself why you ignored this, yet continue with the ‘personal’ nit pickin…..could it jus be, maybe a ……..
m
September 9th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
mouseonmoon:
Your childish taunts have no effect on me. Your inability to control your hostile ranting and raving do affect me and my response is to refuse to stoop down to your level of “reasoning” by ignoring you. You are not worth the effort.
September 10th, 2007 at 3:19 am
geez, wuz it the meteorites or the frog leg ?
childish taunts? -that’d be more like,
‘red rover red rover,send Penn and Teller on over,
or at least the Amusing Randi’ ….
i think you actually meant ‘Fortean taunts’ - those ‘damned facts’ that punch holes in that ’ship of reason’ that won’t float outside ur aquarium….
(Oh no, not the youtube video….proving your ‘ignore-ance’ again ?
how childish, head under the covers of categories till that fated day,
hey, everything will be ok, when you pull out ur Klass notebook….
September 10th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Sage:
You said:
“I guess your method has worked…sort of. What I mean is, have you ever heard of The Burning Bed, starring Farrah Fawcett? When it came out in the late 70’s, it was immediately followed by lots of copycat murders. Columbine? Ditto. I guess what I mean is, you had more people come forward, but did really have anything to contribute to the mystery or were they copycat witnesses?”
No, they were not copycat witnesses and yes they had plenty to contribute. One of the people in the 1952 NATO case I cited was able to provide copies of original photos taken of one of the UFOs at the time and that resided in an official file. So, no: nothing copycat about these people. Just ordinary people who came forward to relate their accounts when I placed some of these cases into the public domain. And before you ask: yes they did all provide evidence of their military backgrounds.
You say: “I can say the same thing for recording people’s emotional states. You have all that emotional information and yet the cases are still not solved or resolved. Emotions tells us absolutely nothing about UFOs, but it tells us a lot about you and the feelings of the people you interview.”
Well, of course it tells us a lot about the feelings of the people I interviewed! People are human beings; human beings have emotions; and seeing something as incredible as a UFO is bound to create an emotional response. Again (how many more times do I have to say this): I see nothing wrong with reporting on the way in which a witness has been profoundly affected by a UFO encounter. You do see a problem with this. We are human, we differ, big deal. Does including the emotional data help solve the case? Not directly no. But since (in my view) the nature (and appearance) of the phenomenon during the experience is in part at least linked with the expectations and beliefs of the participant, then I feel it’s a part of the puzzle at least, that requires recording.
You say: “So I guess you really have no target audience. Your target audience is not people who have Internet connections and that is why you post on the Internet. You have no target audience for your books…but I bet you your publisher would vehemently disagree. All publishers must consider the authors target audience, so they can know whether to proceed with a book or not. Books that target too limited of an audience will either have to cost more to make a profit, or they will not be published at all. I get the feeling from most of the UFO books I read, that the target audience of most UFO authors are gullible people with money to spend on a book.”
No I do not have a target audience. May I remind you that in a previous comment, you said: “You assert we should be collecting all the info but you do not state why. Maybe this question is irrelevant, afterall, who is your target audience? If your target audience is scientific types, you are way off target.”
You referred to a “target audience” and associated it specificallt with “scientific types.” And this is my point: you are equating a “target audience” with a specific group of people.
And that’s where we differ: Ufology for me is not a “target audience” because it is not made up of solely “scientific types,” or solely of police employees, or solely of airline pilots, or solely of actors, or solely of shop-workers, or solely of photographers or (the list goes on). Rather, ufology is made up of random individuals from all walks of life. So again, I am not targeting specific groups as you interpret it re your “scientific types” comment. Rather, I am putting the data out there for the wide and massively varied body of *individuals* who have wide and varied backgrounds and beliefs, but who find various aspects of ufology to be of interest to them.
And if that’s what you truly believe, that: “…most of the UFO books I read that the target audience of most UFO authors are gullible people with money to spend on a book” then you don’t know much at all about UFO publishing etc.
As I can tell you for certain, and as Greg can too (and so can practically every UFO author I know), and as countless others can, a lot of time, effort and personal expense (monetary and otherwise) goes into researching and writing a book.
Personal satisfaction with a job (hopefully) well done is the end result. And while I vehemently disagree with some (maybe many) people in Ufology who have written books on the subject, I would say that your comment that “most UFO authors” are trying to target “gullible” people to get them to part with their money is an outrageous slur on those who spend years researching and writing books, just to share the data with those that are interested.
For example: I have written 10 books. Of those 10, only 1 has ever sold enought to earn me any royalties. But does that prevent me from continuing to write books? No, because for me, getting the data out to those that may vbe interested, and revealing new and (hopefully) important data is what counts. And that’s true for most writers I know in this field.
Before you make comments like that, you need to learn a little more about the motivations for writing UFO books, why we do it, what drives us, and the reality of UFO publishing in terms of what you insultingly refer to as UFO authors trying to part “gullible” people from their money.
You say: “I think that ‘personally trying to secure answers’ is the equivalent of ‘a purely personal matter’, when taken in conjunction that you supposedly have no target audience, i.e. — putting your information out there in public would be targeting an audience but you claim to not care what the public thinks or does in regard to your information, so that bit of info was irrelevant.”
Twice now I have said that “first and foremost” my research is based around trying to secure the answers for me, at a personal level. And twice I have said that, after digging into these cases for myself, I then (where possible) share the data with others that may also be interested.
But do I care what others think of me? Not in the slightest. If people agree with me, disagree with me, think I’m way off mark, think I’m mad or anything else, that’s up to them.
I can certainly assure you that I don’t lie awake at night staring at the ceiling and wondering what the collective UFO community or the mainstream media thinks of me.
If I can share the data I uncover wihe people who are interested (such as the people who come to this site), that is what matters to me.
You quote me saying: “‘But fear of losing grants because they investigate “little green men” or fear of being laughed at by colleagues does a far better job of keeping them away from the subject. It’s called not having the balls to stand up and not worry about reputations.’”
You then add: “That is nonsense and you know it. Scientists have studied all kinds of things that put their reputation on the line and are ridiculed for. One scientist that comes to mind is the one that studied dinosaur coprology and how he thought excessive dinosaur flatulence caused the dinosaurs to go extinct. That took a lot of balls and he lost his reputation. Another scientist that comes to mind is the one that saw “holes” in the ultraviolet pictures of the Earth’s atmosphere taken by satellite and decided that they were real and were 100 ton water comets. Everyone else had written them off as artifacts of photography. That took a lot of balls and he was ridiculed to no end until he was proven right. So do not give me this phony scientists fear studying UFOs. That is an urban myth and there is nothing to hold them back expect the fact that there is nothing to study where nothing has been proven to exist in the first place.”
Nope it’s *not* nonsense. The fact is that research into dinosaurs and the earth’s atmosphere can be controversial (as per the cases you cite); however, none of that has any bearing on the sheer scale and level of controversy (and ability to provoke ridicule) that surrouds UFOs.
It’s one thing for a respected scientist to get involved in a controversy that revolves around the atmosphere or dinosaurs.
But scientists who have reputations and grants are fearful of getting involved in deep, lengthy research into UFOs because of the “little green men,” “take me to your leader,” type jokes that surround the subject.
The level of ridicule that would come down today on a respected scientist for digging deep into Ufology at a serious long-term level would far exceed anything connected with farting dinosaurs.
You quote me saying: “‘My educational background is in English literature and English language. My first job was on a UK rock music, fashion, entertainment magazine where I was taught…I write regularly…British Daily Express newspaper.’”
Then you say: “In other words, you have not had any training on how to conduct objective reporting or how to word questions so as to not lead the witnesses. It also explains why you feel recording the feelings of the witnesses is so important and it explains your writing style. Newspapers are not considered examples of objective reporting — and never will be. That is not their purpose. Fashion magazines are not objective reports either, again, because that is not their purpose. Just knowing English is not enough to know how to do objective reports. Just keep this all in mind — that your methodology may be flawed, from a scientific point of view.”
I already told you in my last reply that I don’t lead witnesses with questions - I ask them to tell me what occurred from A to Z.
And I don’t “feel” it is important to report the feelings and emotions of the witnesses just from a personal perspective. Again (yawn), my view is that to understand the nature of the case, the witnesses, etc it is important to report everything.
So, if they make an emotional comment, I will report that. If they just report the facts of the encounter, then that is what I will report on. But I’m not going to omit things just because you think that to include the fact that someone was amazed or scared by a UFO experience is irrelevant from a scientific perspective.
September 10th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Sage;
I understand the want of proof to prove the reality of the strange happenings related to this subject. I will relate to you a experiance I was told that I think relates to a none provable experiance. Yet it is weird and may mean nothing to you and those that choose it to be irrelavent to this subject.
A older gal I met related this dream or astral projection as it was very clear as her sight was not too clear. She was telling me that she noticed a single line of people walking, she procced to walk beside them wondering where they were going. She then noticed a saucer type craft to which they were all proceeded into. She stated that these people had blank looks on their face and none would answer her when she asked where they were going. To her surprise she seen a fellow at the entrance of the craft that looked like what a pilot may wear; except, it was alien looking to her. She approached this fellow and asked him where everyone was going. All he stated to her was they are off to a better place. She said she awoke and thought it to be just a dream.
As of that time the alien autopsy hadn’t been air’d on fact or fiction. I asked if she would mind watching this alien autopsy video, she agreed. As from her description it sounded like she was talking about the same. After she watched the video she was amazed as she stated it looked exactly like the alien in her dream; except, it was shorter and had cloths on.
So yes there are visions that are not actually real; but, that doesn’t mean there is a reason for some of these happenings; to which, led some to believe and some to file it away as crap as it had no bases on what is taught to be reality. I have my reasons to believe what my senses experianced and yes I question it like you and sometimes wish I could explain them away as false even if I can’t varify them with proof.
Regarding the sasquatch I firmly believe if I’m in the woods and one is near I will know. That could be the reason I’m not much of a camper; eventhough, Vancouver Island is a beautiful place for that and is a hot spot for BF sitings as mine was in the Campbell River area. So sorry Sage I believe and I have my reasons to believe.
September 11th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
sasdave:
I seek neither proof nor meaning, my only goal is the pursuit of truth. When it comes to UFOs, truth is the exception to the rule, and what very little truth exists, is ignored most by those who profess to believe in them and are researching them. Truth can be weird but it can also be mundane. That is not the way to judge truth.
Your stories and your experiences, whether they are physically real or imaginary, are very important, even if only for yourself…and that is all that matters, is it not? If not, what valid reason do you have for wanting others to believe your stories too?
September 11th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Nick:
“No, they were not copycat witnesses”
So every single additional witness had something new and unique to add to the case?
“And before you ask: yes they did all provide evidence of their military backgrounds”
Actually I would not ask. Military personnel are not known for their objective observation abilities. They are trained to recognize and kill enemies, not make scientific observations.
“Well, of course it tells us a lot about the feelings of the people I interviewed!”
So what? Tell us what is so important about people’s emotions, other than the obvious, ie — the drama element. Emotions are not evidence, so they add nothing there. Someone else’s emotions tell us nothing about what kind of emotions we would have in the same situation. So what good are they in a research report?
“But do I care what others think of me? Not in the slightest”
But do you care what others think of your “research”? Not in the slightest? I care because peer review is feedback and a reality check. It is one of the most successful methods in science — or any other discipline ever invented.
“But scientists who have reputations and grants…”
You are backpedaling. You said scientists but now you are saying scientists who have reputations and grants. That is so grandiose. You have to start small before thinking big. Like I said before, there are lots of scientists willing to look into UFOs, regardless of whether they would be ridiculed or not. When these scientists have their way, then you can expect the big dogs to be called in. But you got to at least give them a bone and until there is some evidence — the merest wisp of evidence — that ET piloted flying saucers exist, do not expect them to come sniffing around. It is not worth anybody’s time.
“I already told you in my last reply that I don’t lead witnesses with questions”
But how can you really know that for a fact when you have never been formally instructed on how to avoid such things? What about your presumptive question that I would ask you about certain people having military backgrounds? That is a perfect example of leading someone with a question. Without that question, my thoughts and our dialog would have never gone in that direction.
September 11th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
mouseonmoon:
I know I said I was going to ignore you, but I did have something I forgot to say. Since you could not hold your ground on the topic of the Cannock Chase triangle, you tried to dodge and evade that bullet by changing the subject to some silly “policeman interview”. You can take the coward’s way out if you want to, but I’m holding to my ground and you are not. Unless you have something factual to add to the Cannock Chase triangle, some new evidence, or some irrefutable logic as to why we should believe anything in it, please provide some, now. If not, the only logically proper thing for me to do is to doubt any story given in the complete absence of evidence…and to ignore you because you refuse to rationally debate that case.
September 11th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Sage:
You say:
“So every single additional witness had something new and unique to add to the case?”
In the 1952 cases I referred to: yes (and that goes for numerous other cases too). Some of the interviewees worked at the Air Ministry at London. Several worked at Royal Air Force bases along the East Coast of England as radar operators, one worked as a radar analyst at a London office connected with Air Intelligence and the list goes on - so all had different data to impart because they worked in different locations, and in different fields of expertise. Unique perspectives on a single event that added significantly to our body of knowledge, and without contamination from each other, as we are talking about people who were at different levels in the military chain, and who never even met each other. They were simply implicated in the case in question as a result of their specific areas of work and expertise at a variety of official locations.
You say:
“Tell us what is so important about people’s emotions, other than the obvious, ie — the drama element. Emotions are not evidence, so they add nothing there. Someone else’s emotions tell us nothing about what kind of emotions we would have in the same situation. So what good are they in a research report?”
As I said, I feel it’s important to secure and relate all the data (emotional as well as the details of what occurred). Some (like you) might disagree with me with respect to including everything. We’re human, we differ on what’s relevant, big deal.
You say:
“But do you care what others think of your ‘research’? Not in the slightest? I care because peer review is feedback and a reality check. It is one of the most successful methods in science — or any other discipline ever invented.”
I put info out for people to see. But I’m truthfully not going to worry or care if my views are viewed as wrong or distasteful to some. I have far better things to do with my time.
If I put info out for people to see, it’s because I have a firm and strong belief in its importance and its validity.
But if some disagree, why should I care? Seriously: why on earth should I care if someone disagrees with me? There are far more important things in life than worrying what this person or that person thinks crashed at Roswell 60 years ago (for example)!
I’ll continue to dig into significant UFO cases (Roswell being a classic example), but, Sage, you surely can’t seriously think that I am going to think to myself: “Oh my god, if I say something that researcher John Doe disagrees with, what is he going to say about me or think about me?”
I will listen to John Doe, I will debate it with him, but will I actually care if, at the end of the day, he disagrees with me etc? Nope. Got far better things to do. I don’t have nightmares about what the UFO research community thinks of me or my conclusions.
You quote me as saying: “But scientists who have reputations and grants…”
You then say:
“You are backpedaling. You said scientists but now you are saying scientists who have reputations and grants.”
Wrong. Dead wrong. No back-pedalling. Do a word search on this page for “grants.” You’ll see I first used that word with respect to scientists on 7 September - which was 4 days ago, long before my last quote that you cited. So how am I back-pedalling suddenly, when my “grants” quote was made 4 days ago?
You say: “That is so grandiose.”
Nope: ridicule, reputations and fear of losing grants as it relates to scientists getting involved in ufology will always be the driving forces.
“You have to start small before thinking big. Like I said before, there are lots of scientists willing to look into UFOs, regardless of whether they would be ridiculed or not. When these scientists have their way, then you can expect the big dogs to be called in. But you got to at least give them a bone and until there is some evidence — the merest wisp of evidence — that ET piloted flying saucers exist, do not expect them to come sniffing around. It is not worth anybody’s time.”
Nope. Science for the most part doesn’t want to deal with ufology, aside from making snide/sarcastic comments on TV documentaries.
You quote me as saying: “I already told you in my last reply that I don’t lead witnesses with questions.”
You then say: “But how can you really know that for a fact when you have never been formally instructed on how to avoid such things? What about your presumptive question that I would ask you about certain people having military backgrounds? That is a perfect example of leading someone with a question. Without that question, my thoughts and our dialog would have never gone in that direction. ”
And I could easily say that you seeded the idea of “copycat” witnesses in the minds of the people reading this, when there is absolutely no proof on your part that these people were copycats.
The fact is that when I interview people I am always careful to ask them to relate all the data they can - and then I sit back and let them tell their stories.
I don’t ask them “were the aliens short in height with big heads?” because that creates precisely that imagery of the aliens in their minds.
I don’t ask them: “How many fingers did the aliens have?” because that implies in the mind of the witness the idea that the aliens *did* have fingers, and they then feel obliged to try (consciously or not) to provide me an answer to the “number of fingers” issue.
I ask them to relate their accounts, I don’t interrupt. End of story.
September 11th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
sage quote :I know I said I was going to ignore you,but….
yeah, thought you were gonna ignore me, and i was only speaking to my ‘peers’ anyway…
but hey…
been through this before, so , may as well make my 243rd move…
you din’t ‘actually read’ my post , did ya? (some scientist u r!)
maybe you should try it agin??
but let’s see what i’ve read from you lately…
sage quote : Like I said before, there are lots of scientists willing to look into UFOs, regardless of whether they would be ridiculed or not.
me : Name 3.
oh,sorry, you mean >sage quote : But you got to at least give them a bone and until there is some evidence — the merest wisp of evidence — that ET piloted flying saucers exist, do not expect them to come sniffing around. It is not worth anybody’s time.
changing the subject? u do understand the Subject? > IT IS UFOs: ‘unidentified flying objects’
something seen in the sky that really ‘makes no sense’ according to what we know about ‘things flying in our skies’….
jus like the OP from NR- where’s ET?
how many ways must this be said or written? Neither the OP by Nick or i or anyone on THIS thread
has mentioned anything beyond a UFO….but you wanna insist totally from yr mind-set that a UFO ‘must be piloted’?-by an ET?…..let’stalk about assumptions.
((i sez to my peers…Like all of a sudden now it’s gotta be a” flight manual” from the Sombrero Galaxy!
….childishly taunting anyone from “The Committee for Scientific Investigations”))
Let me make this perfectly clear > u, ‘ i already know’…..HA!
(show me the ‘i believe’ quote-git it? !)
hey sage, you have yet to ‘prove’ to me that you understand my OP…and i invite U to the X-conference this weekend to play a game of Chess! (beat me in 17 moves mutherfugger, i want an Ale!)
But let me say this (to my ‘peers’), analyze what’s being said here, check out ‘the Logic’….
u’ll learn sumfin…..a ‘bag of tricks’ from someone sufferin’ from an ‘ego hoax’…. a Sage! HA!
bottom line > “ignore-ance” from the ’sciencetist’ again!!
((Sic All!))
mr. mouse!
( i am not a child!)
September 12th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Nick:
“In the 1952 cases I referred to: yes (and that goes for numerous other cases too)”
You know, there is no point in discussing this any further. If you say it has worked for you, then as far as I am concerned it has worked for you…but only for you. There are no records of it working for anybody else though, which I find…interesting.
“Tell us what is so important about people’s emotions…”
“As I said, I feel…”
Then that is all you need to say. You feel. There is no rational reason behind recording emotions in a “serious” report, you just feel like it. All I wanted to say is that what you feel or what I feel or what other’s say they feel is not something to take seriously because it is not science but journalism. I know the difference between the two and I just wanted to point it out.
“Wrong. Dead wrong. No back-pedalling”
You are partially right, but you are still dead wrong because of your views on this. You made the unsubstantiated assertion about scientists “not having the balls to stand up and not worry about reputations”, which I proved was fallacious with two examples. Do not stereotype all scientists with a label and boxing them up in a negative light just because they do not support your causes. They are people just like you and me and there are scientists that do not care about grants or reputations and are willing to risk everything, just like anybody else in any other paid or unpaid profession. Yet even THOSE scientists with balls who do not care about grants or reputation do not have any desire to investigate the UFO phenomenon. Why? Because they are trained to be smart enough to know that there is nothing to investigate where nothing has been proven to exist in the first place. How can they investigate something you cannot even prove exists outside of your imagination? There are no statistics or facts to back up your assertion about scientists “not having the balls to stand up and not worry about reputations”. It is a poor excuse and an urban myth invented and perpetuated by the UFO community.
“I ask them to relate their accounts, I don’t interrupt. End of story”
Not end of story. Have you ever subjected your UFO interrogation or reporting methods to peer review? For example, transcripts or recordings of you during your interviewing processes? Linda Moulton Howe does this (to her credit) and to me it is very obvious that she leads her witnesses…have you ever read her web page? Have you ever read Whitley Streiber’s web page? It looks and reads to me more like a grocery store tabloid then a “cutting edge news” site. Ask them if they care. I know you do not care, so who is going to care? With all these people who are so interested in getting out the word of the paranormal and UFOs, yet none of them caring how it gets out there or how it is presented, should the people reading it care? And these same people wonder why UFOlogy will never make any prog