ABC News primetime special on UFOs

[SkinWalker]

You're wrong.

BTW: 1947 was hardly the peek of UFO events. Just another example of your ignorance.

First, I'm right. 1947 did mark the peak of the 'saucer craze' started by Kenneth Arnold's sighting. Second, you didn't correct me. You just said, "your're wrong."

But that's all you ever say about these things, VRob. Whenever someone is skeptical or critical, you come along and say how wrong they are but never supply any real information.. only spurious claims to support spurious claims.

Yet, Extremely credible firsthand eyewitness(Pilots, Military Officers, Military Generals, Intelligence officers, Presidents, Police officers, ect...) get labeled as nut cases, or suffering from some type of Mass delusion.

These types of people have proven as fallible as the rest of us. There's nothing about them that is special as far as their ability to accurately recount an event of an unusual occurrance. They fall victim to the same problems the rest of us do: they see things that aren't there when experiencing unusual (though prosaic) events. Be they balloons, weather events, aircraft, etc. 98% of all UFO events are probably misidentified IFOs. The other 2% are probably delusions and lies.

There are intelligent people, and then there are Educated people.

Smart and educated people people can believe in strange things as easily as dumb, uneducated people.

 

[SkinWalker]

Arthur C. Clarke said, "eldom has any subject been so invested with fraud, hysteria, credulity, religious mania, incompetence, and most of the other unflattering human characteristics."

But I have to agree with John F. Kennedy when he said, "the great enemy of the truth isn't the lie -deliberate, contrived, and dishonest- but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic." He went on to say that myths provide the "comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

 

[2inquisitive]

He went on to say that myths provide the "comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
===============================================================

The myth is that the military and the government would NEVER lie to us about something they didn't want us to know. SkinWalker, I sometimes think the military
could serve you a turd on a plate, tell you it was chocolate, and you would swallow
it whole, only remarking afterwards "hum, they must have scorched that chocolate
because it tasted and smelled funny". HeHe.

 

[SkinWalker]

Your ad hominem remarks aside, I never said that the military/government is beyond lying to the American public. I stated quite the opposite, actually.

But to say that because the military/government is capable of lying to the public, therefore there are alien spacecraft/bodies in their possession and they are keeping this from the public is a statement that is not only ignorant, but completely without merit.

It is mythology.

 

[Starman]

It is mythology.

Mythology has little to do with sworn eye whiteness accounts for credible individuals.

If a Police officer witnesses you committing a crime such as reckless driving and he has no evidence other than his credible testimony in a court of law you will prosecuted and found guilty in most cases.

Testimony is not mythology when it is a first hand account of the event. This is true no matter how sensational the actual testimony may be. This is a fact when the source is deemed credible.

To ignore testimonials from many credible individuals on the same subject is an act of ignorance.

 

[Avatar]

I can swear on anything you want to hear.

 

[SkinWalker]

Mythology has little to do with sworn eye whiteness accounts for credible individuals.

It has everything to do with the accounts of eyewitnesses. Believers will routinely reinforce mythology by "witnessing facts" that support it. Christians believe that a man died on the cross to wash away sins... thousands of people report seeing stigmata every year and some of these "witnesses" are considered "credible." Yet, the so-called miracles of stigmata never hold up to impartial investigation.

If a Police officer witnesses you committing a crime such as reckless driving and he has no evidence other than his credible testimony in a court of law you will prosecuted and found guilty in most cases.

Really? Then why do modern police departments now use dash-cams and enter this as evidence of the offense when they go to court?

Testimony is not mythology when it is a first hand account of the event.

No. Mythology fuels the inaccuracies and delusions of those that witness real events but embellish them with their perceived observations. It's called confirmation bias. In no branch of science is "eyewitness testimony" considered sufficient in drawing conclusions. This must always be corroborated by measurable and testable observations. What observations about Roswell can be considered qualifiable and not simply quantifiable? Quantity without quality is useless in science.

This is true no matter how sensational the actual testimony may be. This is a fact when the source is deemed credible.

The testimony of the Shroud of Turin was sensational. It proved to be a hoax. The testimony of eyewitnesses to Uri Geller's feats of magic were sensational. He proved to be a hoax. etc. etc.

To ignore testimonials from many credible individuals on the same subject is an act of ignorance.

To accept the testimonials of any individual simply because of their station in life is truly ignorant. Listen to what you're saying: you can't trust the government (high station in society), because they lie. But trust other officials in regard to supporting the untestable, unproveable hypothesis because they have a high station in society. Ironically, many of the "credible witnesses" the UFO believers want us to accept are members of the very government that is considered to be "untrustworthy." Governments are comprised of individuals. The Brigadier General quoted above is an individual within that entity. Perhaps it is he that cannot be trusted.

The UFO crash at Roswell is a myth.

 

[Neildo]

The testimony of the Shroud of Turin was sensational. It proved to be a hoax.

It was? Since when? I just posted a news article like a month ago (in the religion section I think) proving the years given by the one who considered it a hoax to be inaccurate. It's now much older than it *was* "proven". The Shroud of Turin can still very well be what it supposedly is.

Kinda funny and ironic how the dismissal and falsification of proof can work both ways, eh?

- N

 

[SkinWalker]

I'm willing to discuss the Shroud nonsense, but not in this thread... pm me the link or perhaps I'll look for it later... I'd be glad to get into the real facts.

 

[Starman]

To accept the testimonials of any individual simply because of their station in life is truly ignorant. .

So if your mother, tells you how it was that you were born, you won't believe her?

I guess you would not, for she is only another person in a station of life. In your scenario, no one is credible or believable, not even your mother. How absurd is that?

The UFO crash at Roswell is a myth.

According to your last statement, you are also, a myth.

 

[SkinWalker]

To accept the testimonials of any individual simply because of their station in life is truly ignorant.

So if your mother, tells you how it was that you were born, you won't believe her?

Now you're being silly. My mother was under full anesthesia, so she wasn't a reliable witness. I doubt she has any idea how I was born beyond the general process, but I do have a bit of evidence: my mirror. So I need not bother with how, since this is a well-documented and fully observable process. In fact, should the process be questioned, one need only test the claims of others by observing the process in the local maternity ward.

But you are correct, I would not trust my own mother to know the details or even remember them correctly as told to her by the hospital staff. The drugs influenced her ability to be a credible observer.

 

[btimsah]

Except that's not what I said. That's not even a good paraphrase. What I'm saying is that significant government conspiracies have not been kept in the past. I cited several examples. I then stated that if there were indeed a coverup that regarded Extraterrestrials from a crashed space ship at Roswell, NM, then it would have long revealed itself in a fashion that would have left no doubt.

But, earlier you stated the the debris from Roswell have long been destroyed. Are you saying that if it was a space craft, it's no longer destroyed? It' exists, so where is it? What kinda double standard is that? If they would destroy evidence of a top-secret weather balloon, they sure as hell would destroy evidence of an alien vehicle. Unless, again you don't think "they could hide such a thing, because skinwalker debunks this stuff".

I did not read the indian story. I will dismiss that story, for the same reason you dismissed my testimony by a general.

It has all the markings of a myth: an actual event that was very mundane compared to the end story; snowballing embelleshments -more added to the story each year; anecdotal transmission; no physical evidence to support the embellishments; evidence to support the mundane explanation; devoted believers that accept the embellished version on faith all the while rejecting the prosaic and more probable version; etc.

Yes, you believe the government's 3rd explanation of the myth. You think I'm sensational?

That is certainly a possibility and it makes sense. However, the military and the US Government has not demonstrated that it is capable of sustaining a secret of that sort of significance for that length of time. Can you produce such a case? The most significant secret of the day was the Manhattan Project. You can get just about any information on the project you want today. Entire books have been written by participants and the data has been acknowledged by the government.

Well, again you seem to be saying they could not cover such a thing up. When probably half the country if not more, believes ALIENS CRASHED AT ROSWELL I don't really get the point. When a government witness does come forward, saying aliens do exist, and that evidence was destroyed, and that it is covered up, you still don't believe it's a coverup. lol. You actually find it more likely to cover-up a weather balloon, than an alien vehicle. Even with the testimony which speaks of a cover-up of aliens.

However, when you consider those that have "come forward" with regard to the alleged "Roswell/Alien Spaceship" conspiracy, you only get third party authors or those that claim to be minor players in the scheme of things. Even your rather long copy and paste (against forum rules, by the way) of the General's "testimony" to the so-called Disclosure Project is unconvincing. The fact that he was a general doesn't imply that he is any more or less fallible than a janitor or parking lot attendent. It is still a spurious anecdote without corroborating physical evidence and can be discarded until such time as corroborating physical evidence can be produced.

Even if their not thrid party author's, you disbelieve them. That's more debunkery bullshit. The General's testimony, which is not third party for example, you don't believe. Also, the GENERALS who came up with the claim that Roswell was a weather balloon, are fallible as well. Yet, you are more than ready to believe them without ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. This is a nice try, but it's obvious you're bias has lead you to fight any and all UFO cases and make them "mundane".

This, my friend, is the thing that separates the believer from the skeptic. I'm not willing to accept what others claim they have seen simply because they say they saw it. Believers are quick to imply that the "shear volume/quantity of witness testimony" is enough, but I maintain that the more quantity you have, the more physical evidence must be present. And yet witness count keeps going up, but no implants have been shown to exist; no rear fender has been recovered from the space ship; no owner's manual nicked by abductees; no photographs that aren't at extreme distance and/or blurred to extremes; no bodies produced; no epithelials recovered; no artifacts of alien manufacture at all.

You are willing too accept the first claim, when it rebutts anything "alien". There's you're first obvious contradiction. The moment someone claims they say they saw something else, you believe the mundane one. Even if HE/SHE contradicts multiple witnesses. Secondly, any photograph of an alien or vehicle will be looked upon as fake, it won't look real. Thirdly, perhaps as said before the evidence has been destroyed or hidden because it's top secret? Thus no artifact's.. just like Roswell. Wait, I forgot we only deem weather balloons as top secret.

But of course, they exist... the government just keeps them hidden. It's a convenient excuse. I even read a post from a believer a while back that criticized the US Government for being incompetent to the extreme, while maintaining that they are able to sustain a secret.

It's about as convenient as you claiming it's a weather balloon with no physical evidence. Or that every UFO is an atmospheric phenomon, or secret test craft. These are all but a mountain of possibilities. I don't always lean toward ETI. However, you ALWAYS lean toward a non un-explainable explanation and that is where you fail and become fanatical. SOME CASES ARE UN-EXPLAINABLE. Admitting that is okay!

Why would I be desperate? for one; and for two, I only contradict those claims that are without merit. The claim that the US Government has in its possession a crashed alien spacecraft and the bodies of extraterrestrial aliens is not substantiated by the claimants and readily explained by the government in this post-Cold War society.

A high quantity of anecdotal claims with a zero quantity of physical evidence is suspect, but it is readily present in all human mythology.

We all believe things without physical evidence chief. You believe it's the Mogul weather balloon, without physical evidence. I believe it was probably a crashed flying saucer by an ET. WITHOUT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

It has everything to do with what I wrote above. Correct me if I'm wrong. The debris was discovered by rancher Mack Brazel on 6/14/47. On 6/24/47, Kenneth Arnold has his "sighting" over Oregon/Washington and the press coins the term "flying saucer" based on his description. 7/4/47 marks the relative peak of the saucer hysteria in the United States. 7/5/47 is the day that Brazel hears of the saucer story. On 7/7/47 he tells the Roswell sheriff what he found on his ranch. Not knowing that Professor Charles Moore's Mogul Flight #4 was launched on 6/4/47 and subsequently lost, Brazel, and later Marcel, make the assumption that since there are all these 'flying saucers' about, one of them crashed. Near a military proving ground!

What is you're point? Yes, that's what the radio address said. "We believe we found a solution to the so called flying disk's". They reported the story as they should have.

The whole myth of Roswell's UFO crash is so insignificant once the 'flying saucer craze' is relatively over, that nothing is ever discussed in the popular media until after Spielburg's movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind re-popularizes the idea in 1977, the same year that Star Wars debuted, instilling the desire for outer-space adventure just about anyone who went to the theater. Stanton Friedman started talking about Roswell in 1978 and the embellishments snowballed from there.

Ronald Reagan reportedly told Spielberg after a presidential screening of Close Encounter's the following. "You don't know how true that is". That combined with his speeches where he stated something to the fact of: "I dont know what we would do if some alien force threatened our planet, maybe then we would come together". Yes, this is when the stories started getting opened. Unsolved Mysteries was the main thing. Millions of people watched the Roswell episode, and after that it just exploded.

Most believers today are victims of popular media: Close Encounters, the X-Files, Unsolved Mysteries, several books that claim to have interviewed participants, etc., etc. It's mythology. If you can't accept that, it's because you have an emic view of the UFO/Alien culture. I did, too, once. But then I obtained an education, and not just a college one.

Ironic. When you have hundreds (maybe thousands) of government witnesses who can testify to the cover-up, it seriously question's what kind of mindset you must have to honestly not believe it's reasonable. How one can so easily accept that the military would threaten people's lives over a weather ballon, BUT NOT AN ALIEN CRAFT is beyond me.

Guys like you accuse guys like me of being close-minded, but it's the opposite. You've read countless books on the subject of UFOs I'm sure. So have I. I've read books with titles like Alien Agenda, Open Skies, Closed Minds, and Above Top Secret and of authors like Randle, Mars, Streiber, Good, and Mack. But I've also read titles by authors like Carl Sagan, Michael Shermer, Philip Klass, Park, John Casti, and Joe Nickel to name a few. Some of these books dealt with UFOs directly, some with critical thinking and logic, some with science and science history.

I wonder how many UFO/ETI believers bother to read these authors? Some do, I'm sure.

That has nothing to do with being close-minded... What are you talking about? Close minded has to do with not letting yourself believe in something far-fetched or different, one cannot allow him/herself to even concede such a thing, because they are too close minded. If you wish to change the definition, because you don't like being called "close minded".. then okay..

 

[btimsah]

Now you're being silly. My mother was under full anesthesia, so she wasn't a reliable witness. I doubt she has any idea how I was born beyond the general process, but I do have a bit of evidence: my mirror. So I need not bother with how, since this is a well-documented and fully observable process. In fact, should the process be questioned, one need only test the claims of others by observing the process in the local maternity ward.

But you are correct, I would not trust my own mother to know the details or even remember them correctly as told to her by the hospital staff. The drugs influenced her ability to be a credible observer.

I would'nt trust my own mother, when she's lucid.

 

[SkinWalker]

But, earlier you stated the debris from Roswell has long been destroyed. Are you saying that if it was a space craft, it's no longer destroyed? It' exists, so where is it? What kind of double standard is that? If they would destroy evidence of a top-secret weather balloon, they sure as hell would destroy evidence of an alien vehicle.

That's exactly what I'm saying. A true alien spacecraft would have more intrinsic value than even the most elaborate of Project Mogul's other vehicles. That the crashed Mogul balloon that started the Roswell myth has been destroyed (or probably simply tossed in the trash) is easy to imagine. I haven't seen where they've bothered to keep any of the other balloons, perhaps in a museum somewhere, but in such a case I'm sure they would want a whole balloon system. But to suggest that they would destroy an alien spacecraft because they would a crashed, failed balloon (Mogul wasn't about weather, btw) is not only post hoc, but a slippery slope argument that I think most wouldn't accept.

I did not read the indian story. I will dismiss that story, for the same reason you dismissed my testimony by a general.

Sure. No problem. It wasn't for you anyway; it was for the casual lurker that hasn't really made up his/her mind about UFOs and Skepticism. It serves my cause better if you don’t' read it and come up with a logical argument to counter it anyway.

Yes, you believe the government's 3rd explanation of the myth. You think I'm sensational?

The government's explanation is plausible. The crashed alien craft isn't. There are far more problems with that explanation than the government's official explanation. These are problems that the UFO believer won't see, because he/she isn't interested in the physics of space flight, asking questions about the technology of an alien race that will allow them to travel untold light years only to crash on some redneck's ranch, etc.

Yes, the government's explanation is far more plausible. That's not meant to imply that the government always tells the truth, only that, in this case, given the speculations available, Project Mogul would appear most likely.

When probably half the country if not more, believes ALIENS CRASHED AT ROSWELL I don't really get the point.

Half the country or more believes in the Christian god. Half the country or more believes in George W. Bush. I'd say half the country or more is pretty gullible. But if half the country or more had half an education or more, all of the above would be far less prevalent in the United States.

Your arguments keep following the post hoc, ergo propter hoc and non sequitur fashion: I don't believe in a government conspiracy to cover up aliens, but I accept one to cover up weather balloons, etc. This implies either an unwillingness to examine the evidence objectively or evaluate historical precedents of the actions of government entities during wartime, etc. The Cold War, while largely before your time, did exist and did create circumstances that caused a protocol of secrecy to be established in all governmental organizations, particularly the military. S2 and G2 sections of battalion and division sized elements worked to maintain operational security (OPSEC) of all functions of their units, even those without security classification.

That Project Mogul existed is expected. It had clear purpose and was precisely the kind of operation that might provide the kind of information that we needed to get regarding Soviet Atom Bomb tests. Project High Dive also was precisely the kind of experimentation you would expect in developing fighter jet ejection seats. It all had to be conducted somewhere. The myth of Roswell centers around the White Sands Proving Grounds, exactly where you would expect such experiments and operations to occur.

The crashed disk nonsense arose from out of two things, initially: 1) the flying saucer craze that had just begun that June with Kenneth Arnold's "sighting" and, 2) the military's secrecy and initial cover-up of a Cold War operation. The military acted just as expected given the time period, circumstances, and OPSEC of the operations.

The General's testimony, which is not third party for example, you don't believe.

Which is it? The general was a member of the government. Either you believe the government or you don't. You can't have it both ways, remember.

Yet, you are more than ready to believe them without ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. This is a nice try, but it's obvious you're bias has lead you to fight any and all UFO cases and make them "mundane".

Of course. It is because there's no physical evidence that the Project Mogul/Project High Dive explanations are more credible. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be. The physical evidence of the two projects is lacking, but not non-existent. We have photographs and epigraphical evidence of both projects. We haven't any photographs or epigraphical evidence of a crashed disk.

I don't always lean toward ETI. However, you ALWAYS lean toward a non un-explainable explanation and that is where you fail and become fanatical. SOME CASES ARE UN-EXPLAINABLE. Admitting that is okay!

I readily agree with you last two statements. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most cases defy explanation, primarily because there simply isn't enough data. But just because they are "unexplainable" in no way implies that they are "alien."

We all believe things without physical evidence chief. You believe it's the Mogul weather balloon, without physical evidence. I believe it was probably a crashed flying saucer by an ET. WITHOUT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

The difference is that there is evidence that Projects Mogul and High Dive existed as well as legitimate reasons for them both to exist. Moreover, the Mogul balloon (which is not a "weather" balloon, as you keep stating –it makes me think you don't actually know what you're talking about) crashed near a PROVING GROUND. In the absence of any extraordinary evidence and with only some very mundane evidence, it seems clear that the extraordinary explanation is without merit. The conspiracy theories of UFO believers notwithstanding.

It has everything to do with what I wrote above. Correct me if I'm wrong:

The debris was discovered by rancher Mack Brazel on 6/14/47.
On 6/24/47, Kenneth Arnold has his "sighting" over Oregon/Washington and the press coins the term "flying saucer" based on his description.
7/4/47 marks the relative peak of the saucer hysteria in the United States.
7/5/47 is the day that Brazel hears of the saucer story.
On 7/7/47 he tells the Roswell sheriff what he found on his ranch.
Not knowing that Professor Charles Moore's Mogul Flight #4 was launched on 6/4/47 and subsequently lost, Brazel, and later Marcel, make the assumption that since there are all these 'flying saucers' about, one of them crashed. Near a military proving ground!
”

What is you're point? Yes, that's what the radio address said. "We believe we found a solution to the so called flying disk's". They reported the story as they should have.

The point is clear, but perhaps not to someone close-minded. Hysteria was in effect following Kenneth Arnold's "sighting" and Brazel's find on his ranch only fed the hysteria. A hysteria that didn't last long, and the Roswell story remained obscure until later authors profited very handsomely from book sales on the subject in the 1970s and 1980s.

I wonder how many UFO/ETI believers bother to read these authors. Some do, I'm sure.

That has nothing to do with being close-minded... What are you talking about? Close minded has to do with not letting yourself believe in something far-fetched or different, one cannot allow him/herself to even concede such a thing, because they are too close minded. If you wish to change the definition, because you don't like being called "close minded".. then okay..

Clearly "close-minded" is not allowing for all possibilities or examining all information objectively. You are quick to accuse me of being close-minded for not believing in an alien intelligence that has the ability to travel untold light-years to crash on some redneck's ranch in New Mexico, but when I suggest probabilities you won't even acknowledge them.

Close-minded is the undereducated masses that believe in UFOs, Ghosts, astrology, psi, ESP, remote viewing, etc. without question.

Could UFOs be the result of alien intelligence? Sure. That is a possibility. It just hasn't shown itself to be a plausible one, particularly with regard to Roswell.

But if you want to shut out the information and education that will shed light on such myths, yet consider yourself to be "open-minded," be my guest.

 

[btimsah]

Skin-walker, only you could claim someone who believes aliens exist is close minded.

 

[SkinWalker]

You're making my point for me. You're close-minded attitude is not allowing you to see what I actually said.

 

[Ophiolite]

Skin-walker, only you could claim someone who believes aliens exist is close minded.

Wrong again! I open my mind to possibilities - wonderful, intriguing possibilities of a) life on other planets; b) visits to this planet by advanced examples of such life. Then I ask 'is it possible', 'is it probable', is it certain'. How are those possibilities/probabilities determined? Evidence.
Here is a conundrum you may like to help us out of. SkinWalker has repeatedly explained a) the unreliability of eye witness testimony b)the preference for plausible, probable explanations over extraordinary explanations c) the need for repeatable, objective data. You reject these requirements.
But these requirements are essential for the scientific acceptance of UFOs as alien craft. So, btimsah, would you agree with that? In other words if we are to accept UFO as alien craft the evidence you are enamoured of may be considered adequate. If we are to scientifically accept UFO as alien craft the evidence is not. Agreed?

 

[Agitprop]

New to forum. I'm probably going to make a comment that's been made several thousands of times before:

If the Drake hypothesis has been overruled by recent, more appropriate hypotheses regarding space/time travel, why would extraterrestrial visitation be considered a subject for seltzer down your pants giggle fests, in the academic community?

Isn't it high time to fold the curtain of nervous snickering that obscures this issue and study Roswell as a serious political as well as scientific subject? Can you honestly believe that if there were much in the way of physical evidence it wouldn't immediately be sequestered away? If there were just a small amount of physical evidence, it would be explained away. Something bigger and less "inconclusive" would be required. The process of ratcheting up the criteria for credible physical evidence would begin.

The ufo phenomenon doesn't test how great a scientific mind one has, necessarily, but how well that mind understands how science interacts with the political realm

 

[SkinWalker]

"Isn't it high time to fold the curtain of nervous snickering that obscures this issue and study Roswell as a serious political as well as scientific subject? Can you honestly believe that if there were much in the way of physical evidence it wouldn't immediately be sequestered away?"

You answered the first question with the second. Without evidence, what can be studied by science?

As to the interaction between science and politics, it is an unfortunate reality that scientists and researchers must deal with in obtaining funding and research grants, but science shouldn't be conducted with a political agenda -it should be conducted with a scientific agenda.

Should someone present a hypothesis regarding Roswell that is both tenable and testable, I'm sure it would have merit on it's own.

 

[Agitprop]

Here's where it gets interesting. Suppose we are studying something that is studying us, where we are the primary objects of study and physical evidence can be withheld. (This is purely conjectural.) What would humanity do-- continue to ignore it, or develop the best theoretical framework, using the best tools, short of concrete physical evidence that we could come up with. Would we continue to approach it as fit only for scientific hard science or would we approach it from a more politically expedient angle. This is a very valid question.