Hello Board!
- Thread starter Ives
- Start date
Yes Q, I fully admit my writing skills are poor. What I questioned
your reading comprehension about was your question what good
would come of UFO study. I stated that you were asking me to
speculate. I said the SPECULATION would be MAYBE we could gain
technology to benefit mankind. I never claimed knowledge of any
technology gained. You then ask me what technology we have gained so far. That indicates to me a lack of comprehension or a deliberate
attempt to provoke. I fully support our schools and universities and
do not expect technologies for the benefit of mankind to come from
each and every student, thus I require NO GUARANTEES from the
use of tax dollars for support and grants given to the institutions.
I am not advocating tax money be used for UFO research, but I
would not require a guarantee that such research would produce
technologies. That seems to be our major disagreement, you seem
to believe any study would be a waste of time and money. So be it,
you are welcome to your opinions, which may be correct, but I am
also entitled to mine. Your statements that "UFO believers" are
"nutters" and are less educated is not born out by facts. The following
is a result of a Gallop poll included in the Condon Report, Dr. Condon
was a disbeliever in the usefulness of further UFO study "at this time."
=========================================
"As to dependence on sex, 22% of men or women have no opinion as to the "reality" of flying saucers. Significantly more women than men believe in their reality:
% Real % Imaginary
Men 43, 35
Women 52, 26
The poll showed that increased amount of formal education is associated with an increased tendency to believe in the reality of flying saucers. Perhaps this result says something about how the school system trains students in critical thinking."
your reading comprehension about was your question what good
would come of UFO study. I stated that you were asking me to
speculate. I said the SPECULATION would be MAYBE we could gain
technology to benefit mankind. I never claimed knowledge of any
technology gained. You then ask me what technology we have gained so far. That indicates to me a lack of comprehension or a deliberate
attempt to provoke. I fully support our schools and universities and
do not expect technologies for the benefit of mankind to come from
each and every student, thus I require NO GUARANTEES from the
use of tax dollars for support and grants given to the institutions.
I am not advocating tax money be used for UFO research, but I
would not require a guarantee that such research would produce
technologies. That seems to be our major disagreement, you seem
to believe any study would be a waste of time and money. So be it,
you are welcome to your opinions, which may be correct, but I am
also entitled to mine. Your statements that "UFO believers" are
"nutters" and are less educated is not born out by facts. The following
is a result of a Gallop poll included in the Condon Report, Dr. Condon
was a disbeliever in the usefulness of further UFO study "at this time."
=========================================
"As to dependence on sex, 22% of men or women have no opinion as to the "reality" of flying saucers. Significantly more women than men believe in their reality:
% Real % Imaginary
Men 43, 35
Women 52, 26
The poll showed that increased amount of formal education is associated with an increased tendency to believe in the reality of flying saucers. Perhaps this result says something about how the school system trains students in critical thinking."
Last edited:
Don't bother responding to Q. His name is quite apt; I would guess that he named himself after his favorite Star Trek character, the omniscient Q; the Q here certainly fancies himself as all-knowing; he already knows there is no point in studying UFOs. Not only does he wilfully choose to ignore the core of good incidents in which there is credible evidence of something highly unusual happening, but he further chooses to ignore the context in which those incidents occur. That context includes a government that behaves differently than it talks, namely on the issue of whether UFOs constitute a national security issue. He also ignores the history of government or government sponsored studies of UFOs, designed to debunk, yet that ended up with dissention in the ranks when staffers not only concluded that UFOs were real, but also began to lean in favor of the ETH. For some reason, none of this sparks an interest in Q; however, the fact that others find it interesting infuriates him. He is anything but a defender of science or reason, or history for that matter.
His penchant for classifying the study of UFOs as a search for aliens while ignoring posts that claim otherwise is a sign of his intellectual cowardice and bad faith. His idea of a debate is to ridicule his opponent, re-state his opponent's position and ridicule that, and then proclaim himself the winner. While ignoring what others actually say, and re-stating their positions incorrectly, he has the gall to accuse others of not answering his questions. It is no surprise he has never worked for anyone but himself. Such ignorance and arrogance is seldom valued in the workplace.
As I have stated before, I do not regard the study of UFOs as a search for aliens, but as a search for the core identity, if any, behind this unusual phenomenon. Repeatedly I have stated that I don't believe the evidence exists to leap to a conclusion that UFOs are alien in origin. I had the intellectual honesty to admit a hunch that some may have this origin, and further admitted I had no articulable basis for this leap. Unable to think abstractly, and unable to enjoy a challenge, Q jumped all over my position as though it were a weakness.
The study of UFOs actually provides, if nothing else at all, a remarkable forum for Epistemology, the philosophical discipline that examines how we know what we know. For hundreds of years, Epistemology has manifested in a debate in how we acquire knowledge; on the one hand through empiricism, which could be described as obtaining knowledge through experience, or through rationalism, which holds that knowledge can be obtained purely through the use of reason. There are of course subdivisions within those catagories; most rationalists would admit that much knowledge will still require some experience on which to base one's reasoning. And there is much more to Epistemology than just this.
The UFO presents us with an opportunity to examine how we know things. Q's posture is sad, since it distracts from some good questions that he poses; what good is the study of UFOs? The question isn't bad, its just that there is no good or right answer for Q, because for him, the question is rhetorical, not genuine. He already knows. There is no good to be gained from such study. His question as framed demands that we frame the answers for him, as though we could know them. Even the process that led to the discovery of pennicilin could not have survived such a question.
It is also a good question as to whether we can engage in any speculation at all about the behavior of a UFO, since it is outside our frame of reference. Once again, the question isn't bad, but Q already knows the answer.
This is to me the heart of the problem. Let's take away reports of claimed sightings of aliens, and disregard the abduction phenomenon. That leaves us with some fairly credible data that suggests that craft-like objects occasionally appear in the atmosphere, and appear to be under directed control. Where is the line between reasonable and unreasonable speculation? Because trying to determine the core identity of anything unknown must entail some speculation. If we can find no basis to believe that these "craft" are from Earth, are we skipping steps when we speculate they could be craft from another planet? Or is that the most likely possibility of which we can currently be aware? Q would argue that no speculation is justified, because we are outside our frame of reference. I don't like that approach, because it presents us with intriguing facts and behaviors, but then simply disregards it because of an analyitical philosophy. We might not learn anything from the study from UFOs, but we WILL not learn anything from them if we don't.
So for the sake of argument, we have what from within our frame of reference, appears to be an unknown craft operating in the atmosphere. What reasonable, if any, speculation and/or conclusions naturally flow from that observation? Admittedly, our analysis must begin from within the limits of our own frame of reference. Should that cause us to disregard it, as Q suggests, or are there reasonable steps to be taken from there? I suppose Q is offended by the lack of ability to test theories about UFOs in a strict application of the scientific method. Fair enough, we should concede that. But humankind has acquired a great deal of valuable knowledge outside the scientific method. We do have accounts of credible experiences with UFOs. We can use our ability to reason to try and figure out what we see. So it at the least provides a good context for Epistemological study. who knows, the study of UFOs might indeed one day establish that there were prosaic explanations for them all. I'm certainly open to that possibility. We might discover some fascinating natural events in the process. Would Q then say the study had been worthless?
Q once posted his theory of all UFOS:
Terrestrial, non-intelligent, phenomenon – if may be difficult, mundane and boring for a believer to wrap their head around such an explanation, but at the very least, give it a try.
Like other debunkers, Q doesn't bother advancing a theory that would fit. He doesn't even seem to realize that this is not an "explanation" since it presents nothing specific. It isn't really even a theory since it presents no parameters but "terrestrial" and "non-intelligent". Boy, that Q is really risk taker, really putting himself out there. Yet he maintains that his unnamed, undiscovered, unknown prosaic "explanation" prevails over all other attempts to examine the evidence. But I wonder if Q's imagined "explanation" for UFOs will ever be found if we followed his actual advice, which is to simply look away.
His penchant for classifying the study of UFOs as a search for aliens while ignoring posts that claim otherwise is a sign of his intellectual cowardice and bad faith. His idea of a debate is to ridicule his opponent, re-state his opponent's position and ridicule that, and then proclaim himself the winner. While ignoring what others actually say, and re-stating their positions incorrectly, he has the gall to accuse others of not answering his questions. It is no surprise he has never worked for anyone but himself. Such ignorance and arrogance is seldom valued in the workplace.
As I have stated before, I do not regard the study of UFOs as a search for aliens, but as a search for the core identity, if any, behind this unusual phenomenon. Repeatedly I have stated that I don't believe the evidence exists to leap to a conclusion that UFOs are alien in origin. I had the intellectual honesty to admit a hunch that some may have this origin, and further admitted I had no articulable basis for this leap. Unable to think abstractly, and unable to enjoy a challenge, Q jumped all over my position as though it were a weakness.
The study of UFOs actually provides, if nothing else at all, a remarkable forum for Epistemology, the philosophical discipline that examines how we know what we know. For hundreds of years, Epistemology has manifested in a debate in how we acquire knowledge; on the one hand through empiricism, which could be described as obtaining knowledge through experience, or through rationalism, which holds that knowledge can be obtained purely through the use of reason. There are of course subdivisions within those catagories; most rationalists would admit that much knowledge will still require some experience on which to base one's reasoning. And there is much more to Epistemology than just this.
The UFO presents us with an opportunity to examine how we know things. Q's posture is sad, since it distracts from some good questions that he poses; what good is the study of UFOs? The question isn't bad, its just that there is no good or right answer for Q, because for him, the question is rhetorical, not genuine. He already knows. There is no good to be gained from such study. His question as framed demands that we frame the answers for him, as though we could know them. Even the process that led to the discovery of pennicilin could not have survived such a question.
It is also a good question as to whether we can engage in any speculation at all about the behavior of a UFO, since it is outside our frame of reference. Once again, the question isn't bad, but Q already knows the answer.
This is to me the heart of the problem. Let's take away reports of claimed sightings of aliens, and disregard the abduction phenomenon. That leaves us with some fairly credible data that suggests that craft-like objects occasionally appear in the atmosphere, and appear to be under directed control. Where is the line between reasonable and unreasonable speculation? Because trying to determine the core identity of anything unknown must entail some speculation. If we can find no basis to believe that these "craft" are from Earth, are we skipping steps when we speculate they could be craft from another planet? Or is that the most likely possibility of which we can currently be aware? Q would argue that no speculation is justified, because we are outside our frame of reference. I don't like that approach, because it presents us with intriguing facts and behaviors, but then simply disregards it because of an analyitical philosophy. We might not learn anything from the study from UFOs, but we WILL not learn anything from them if we don't.
So for the sake of argument, we have what from within our frame of reference, appears to be an unknown craft operating in the atmosphere. What reasonable, if any, speculation and/or conclusions naturally flow from that observation? Admittedly, our analysis must begin from within the limits of our own frame of reference. Should that cause us to disregard it, as Q suggests, or are there reasonable steps to be taken from there? I suppose Q is offended by the lack of ability to test theories about UFOs in a strict application of the scientific method. Fair enough, we should concede that. But humankind has acquired a great deal of valuable knowledge outside the scientific method. We do have accounts of credible experiences with UFOs. We can use our ability to reason to try and figure out what we see. So it at the least provides a good context for Epistemological study. who knows, the study of UFOs might indeed one day establish that there were prosaic explanations for them all. I'm certainly open to that possibility. We might discover some fascinating natural events in the process. Would Q then say the study had been worthless?
Q once posted his theory of all UFOS:
Terrestrial, non-intelligent, phenomenon – if may be difficult, mundane and boring for a believer to wrap their head around such an explanation, but at the very least, give it a try.
Like other debunkers, Q doesn't bother advancing a theory that would fit. He doesn't even seem to realize that this is not an "explanation" since it presents nothing specific. It isn't really even a theory since it presents no parameters but "terrestrial" and "non-intelligent". Boy, that Q is really risk taker, really putting himself out there. Yet he maintains that his unnamed, undiscovered, unknown prosaic "explanation" prevails over all other attempts to examine the evidence. But I wonder if Q's imagined "explanation" for UFOs will ever be found if we followed his actual advice, which is to simply look away.
Ives, I do apologize for allowing myself to become part of the process
in disrupting your thread. I, too, have decided to stop responding
to Q's remarks. I will hold my remarks in this thread to questions
or information which might be of use, after this last useless post.
in disrupting your thread. I, too, have decided to stop responding
to Q's remarks. I will hold my remarks in this thread to questions
or information which might be of use, after this last useless post.
Ivan Seeking
Registered Senior Member
Re: Ivan
Which Nellis video? I have several. I will review Malmstrom case and post shortly.
Which Nellis video? I have several. I will review Malmstrom case and post shortly.
Ivan Seeking
Registered Senior Member
Ivan Seeking
Registered Senior Member
Ivan Seeking
Registered Senior Member
Here are some thoughts and observations on the Malmstrom case.
Firstly, no description of the UFO is found. All we read are description of a glowing red light; possibly saucer shaped.
Additionally, we have this statement:
Also, there appear to have been multiple sightings by multiple witnesses
Finally:
Then, p38 of the AF files indicate that rumors of UFOs in the area were disproved. So, we have the word of two witnesses against the official record on this point. I am not aware of any other witnesses that have gone public. However, this is not the case of the failure itself.
According the the evaluation of this failure done by Boeing:
One thing that is not made clear here is whether this pulse was this required to disable all missiles, or if this needed to be duplicated on each missile. In fact, these are isolated systems. In the case of ten isolated systems, this lends credence to the claim that some external source caused this event. This alone would seem to vindicate the claim that some kind of unknown energetic phenomenon caused this event. In the case of HEMP [High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse Protection] protected systems, we find [classified] intrinsic barriers that produce extreme signal attenuation in the event of intense ambient EM energy. Test parameters [many of which are also classified, but not this one] include signal injections of up to 5000 amps with rise times less than 20 nanoseconds – about 2.5 X 10^11 amps per second. This in turn [the amps per second] determines the EMF [voltages] induced in shielded wires. [See the unclassified DOD Interface Standards: MIL-STD-188-125-2, p32…I have done some work in this area]. With this level of shielding, only an extremely energetic EM phenomenon could induce a 10 volt pulse in an isolated system. In principle, the pulse required would exceed that produced by a high altitude nuclear detonation. By comparison, lightning typically produces a current of about 10,000 amps with a rise time in the order of one millisecond – about ten million amps per second and about 1/10,000 as influential as the injected test currents. This means that a direct lightning strike should have no effect. This makes it difficult to imagine what kind of naturally occurring phenomenon could influence this system. At this point, the burden of proof lies with the skeptics. What can produce this level of energy?
Next, from the official report:
Error detection normally would cause a controlled shutdown. This is not unusual; what does seem unusual is the timing. Were the event cause by a single pulse, we would expect the simultaneous shutdown of all systems. That we had up to seconds between each shutdown implies that something was affecting specific systems, but not others. So, we are left with some kind of highly energetic phenomenon, one that appears to exceed any known natural EM phenomenon and that can selective disable isolated systems. The burden of proof lies with the skeptics to produce such a phenomenon for comparison..
Next, we have this:
This could be a function of the error detection mode. This does not strike me as unusual.
However:
Even if we take Salas completely at face value, we can’t be sure that this is the correct incident. Perhaps this is clarified somewhere else in the literature.
Lastly, perhaps something worth mentioning from just a few months later:
From what I have read, we have no further evidence to support any claims made. Does this agree with what you all know about this case? I have not read all of the related literature as yet.
Note a minor edit: RF was used where EM was intended. This has been corrected.
Firstly, no description of the UFO is found. All we read are description of a glowing red light; possibly saucer shaped.
Additionally, we have this statement:
Also, there appear to have been multiple sightings by multiple witnesses
Finally:
-- Salas
Then, p38 of the AF files indicate that rumors of UFOs in the area were disproved. So, we have the word of two witnesses against the official record on this point. I am not aware of any other witnesses that have gone public. However, this is not the case of the failure itself.
According the the evaluation of this failure done by Boeing:
One thing that is not made clear here is whether this pulse was this required to disable all missiles, or if this needed to be duplicated on each missile. In fact, these are isolated systems. In the case of ten isolated systems, this lends credence to the claim that some external source caused this event. This alone would seem to vindicate the claim that some kind of unknown energetic phenomenon caused this event. In the case of HEMP [High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse Protection] protected systems, we find [classified] intrinsic barriers that produce extreme signal attenuation in the event of intense ambient EM energy. Test parameters [many of which are also classified, but not this one] include signal injections of up to 5000 amps with rise times less than 20 nanoseconds – about 2.5 X 10^11 amps per second. This in turn [the amps per second] determines the EMF [voltages] induced in shielded wires. [See the unclassified DOD Interface Standards: MIL-STD-188-125-2, p32…I have done some work in this area]. With this level of shielding, only an extremely energetic EM phenomenon could induce a 10 volt pulse in an isolated system. In principle, the pulse required would exceed that produced by a high altitude nuclear detonation. By comparison, lightning typically produces a current of about 10,000 amps with a rise time in the order of one millisecond – about ten million amps per second and about 1/10,000 as influential as the injected test currents. This means that a direct lightning strike should have no effect. This makes it difficult to imagine what kind of naturally occurring phenomenon could influence this system. At this point, the burden of proof lies with the skeptics. What can produce this level of energy?
Next, from the official report:
Error detection normally would cause a controlled shutdown. This is not unusual; what does seem unusual is the timing. Were the event cause by a single pulse, we would expect the simultaneous shutdown of all systems. That we had up to seconds between each shutdown implies that something was affecting specific systems, but not others. So, we are left with some kind of highly energetic phenomenon, one that appears to exceed any known natural EM phenomenon and that can selective disable isolated systems. The burden of proof lies with the skeptics to produce such a phenomenon for comparison..
Next, we have this:
– Salas
This could be a function of the error detection mode. This does not strike me as unusual.
However:
– Salas.
Even if we take Salas completely at face value, we can’t be sure that this is the correct incident. Perhaps this is clarified somewhere else in the literature.
Lastly, perhaps something worth mentioning from just a few months later:
http://www.malmstrom.af.mil/history.html
From what I have read, we have no further evidence to support any claims made. Does this agree with what you all know about this case? I have not read all of the related literature as yet.
Note a minor edit: RF was used where EM was intended. This has been corrected.
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking
Registered Senior Member
It appears that you can find all related information at this link and at CUFON which linked in this link.
http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/malmstrom67dir.htm
Copies of official documents are found. Original can be obtained.
Ivan Seeking
Registered Senior Member
A nice overview of the Malmstrom event. See the video: middle column, fifth from the bottom.
http://www.ufocasebook.com/videos.html
http://www.ufocasebook.com/videos.html
tablestone
Registered Member
I have read this entire thread. Both sides present valid points. For a while I sided with Ives. Then I sided with Q. However, after viewing the Malmstrom video, I have questions. The incident has not been resolved to my satisfaction. Offering hypothesis at this point in the investigation would be worthwhile. While testing them would be difficult if not impossible, I won't discount the validity of any hypothesis presented.
I challenge Q to view the footage and offer an interpretation of the events. And please, don't respond by saying that it is a futile or foolish act.
I challenge Q to view the footage and offer an interpretation of the events. And please, don't respond by saying that it is a futile or foolish act.