The Disclosure Project

Rhetoric. Thats pretty much what the Disclosure Project and this thread is all about, the same issues spoke, asserted, diverted and argued with an almost fundamentalist vigor.

It can be suggested that there is many arguements that always seem to have the lines blurred between them when discussion occurs. For instance some people just want to know if their governments have lied, others want answers that no-one has confirmable, undeniable proof over like if ET exists, or if they are out there watching us.

The same points too also always exist, the world is made up of many different government bodies that are trying to stay on top and ahead of their competitors, which sometimes means misdeeds which can be seen as criminal. One spies upon another to make sure they aren't up to no good, and potentially are caught spying making them look like they are up to no better etc.

All in all, it's a number of "embarrassing" mistakes that some (especially those that hold positions) want to just forget, which is where all these infernal secret acts came from. (Well that and "War readiness" however since that isn't as much an issue as it once was, it's really just about people saving face.)

Quite simply the point is that these "government positions" have been created because either there is a Political Concensus that suggests such bodies are needed or because the countries competitors have an office or body in that area, and the government decides it needs a body to counter or interact with them.

Suggestibly in that sense if people see UFO's and Aliens as a potential threat, why don't they try issuing their governments to develop relevant bodies to deal with them rather than asking questions they will either have no answers or no straight answers for.

(Although saying that, most governments will probably suggest their tax coffers will not stretch to "Foley". So requests might be ignored or denied.)

Obviously such a body would then have to handle the desensatisation of material (If it contains classified material) but also create a true public picture of information in relationship to any number of reported events. (Basically a better PR unit)
 
SkinWalker said:
"Fair and objective" doesn't mean that every kook and woo-woo gets air-time for their fantasies.
Click to expand...

Susan Clancy insists that "abductees" are by and large psychologically normal and sincere about their experiences. But she thinks they're basically false memories created by sleep paralysis and/or hypnotic regression.

Disregarding your use of the words "kook" and "woo-woo", what is fair or objective about permitting the former theory, but leaving out the fact that abductions don't always occur during sleep, which would make sleep paralysis less than a proper diagnosis in every case? How about the cases where events are recalled consciously WITHOUT hypnosis? What about cases where neither sleep nor hypnotic regression is involved?

Clancy's theory does not adequately cover all the bases.

I try to maintain a healthy amount of skepticism, and I will give the uberskeptics, maysayers and naysayers a chance, especially regarding abductions and hypnosis. However, I caught Larry King Live not too long ago with a panel of guests that consisted of John Schuessler, Dr. Susan Clancy, Seth Shostak, Budd Hopkins, Rob Swiatek and Bruce Maccabee.

That was the first time I could recall hearing about Ms. Clancy's work, as her book was just coming out at the time (though the sleep paralysis/false memory syndrome explanation is not new to me). When the subject of abduction was finally discussed, with Hopkins and Clancy being at the front of the debate, I must say, I was very disappointed with Clancy.

She did a very poor job, to put it simply. Her answers were very meager and lacking when it came to talking about abductions that lack sleep or hypnosis as factors. Or abductions that involved multiple persons and or witnesses (who were not abducted, but noticed a craft or the abductee gone missing, etc). Or abductions that leave scars on a persons body. Several pictures were shown throughout the segment, both of UFOs and of the scars on abductees' bodies. These were not simple scratches, but circular punctures that resembled tiny craters. When asked to comment on these, she made a very trite statement that "People get scratches all the time..." and this after Budd Hopkins remarked that medical doctors had described the marks as being nearly identical to skin biopsies. She had very little substance in her reply. In fact, there were several times where she appeared to be nearly witless.

Budd Hopkins said:
Recently I appeared on "Larry King Live," along with Clancy and several others, when one of the guests showed a blow-up of the world-famous Trent UFO photographs from McMinnville, Oregon, arguably the best-known UFO photos in existence. They were prominently featured in "Life" magazine in 1950, and have been reproduced hundreds of times since in many publications. What's more, in 1969, after careful analysis, an investigator for the skeptical Condon Committee described the McMinnville photo case this way: "This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors investigated, geometric, psychological, and physical, appear to be consistent with the assertion that an extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disc-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses." Optical physicist Dr. Bruce Maccabee has investigated this case thoroughly, flying to McMinneville, interviewing the Trents, their family and neighbors, taking his own test photos from the same location, and carrying out literally months of optical analysis of the original pictures. Maccabee's work has been published widely, but the photos themselves should be familiar to anyone with even a cursory involvement in UFO study and research. Yet, during the Larry King program, abduction authority Susan Clancy glanced at the photos on the monitor and said something like this: "that could be anything...someone who threw up a hubcap or a Frisbee or something." Her evident ignorance of this case, and, by extension, of the literature and history of the UFO phenomenon, was aptly illustrated by this glib, contemptuous wisecrack, a remark one might expect to hear late at night in a Texas barroom, but not from someone holding a Ph.D. degree from Harvard.
Click to expand...

Your use of the word WOO-WOO doesn't do justice to people like Clancy whose simplistic theories (which is ALL they are) fail to address the issue on anything more than a superficial level, and can't seem to exist outside the bubble of their controlled-environment. I witnessed her failure firsthand in that hour of Larry King. But what SHOULD I have expected from someone deeply involved in false memory syndrome research, who got discouraged in the field of repressed sexual abuse memories, and decided to ply her theories on alien abduction memories instead.
Ms. Clancy, it must be known, does not hide the fact that she chose abductions because she "knew" that there couldn't be anything to the phenomenon. Is that objective? That she had made up her mind BEFORE going ahead with her study? Do you think that possibly her personal opinion of UFOs and aliens at all influenced her conclusions at all? Just maybe??? :rolleyes: I know what any good armchair skeptic would say about a scientist who believes in ET and conducts research that concludes that ETs do indeed exist. But apparently subjective analysis in ufology only works for naysayers and deniers, but incriminates the rest, eh?

Let me state, for the record, that her theories were shallow, rudimentary, and quite possibly worthy of being dismissed as pseudo-scientific garbage.

Let me also state for the record that the efficacy and validity of hypnosis is still being debated, and false memory syndrome is a very touchy subject. Clancy and her cohort McNally are just two people in a science that thrives on theories.
 
I'm going to attempt to print out the Belgian UFO thread, since I forgot to read it! I like to print things.

We are nauts. All of us.
 
nad can i remind those who may not have been here in past shit about this. i saw a docu about this family who believed someting happened to them. a mum, her two sons and gran

what was good was we sqw their feelings about it BEFORE mum agreed to do hypnotherapy in order yto try and work out what happened

anyone wid a heart. have empathy. imagine tis: you see someting really strnge in sky tat DEEPLY affefts you. all said it was like they could just allow it to take tem away off earth. and ten they miss an hour

ALL, were really upset by tis life zappin event. OBViously.....how could they 'carry on as mnormal'? something unfukinbelieveble had happened. te only OPTION available to try and remember was mum agreeing to do a hypnptherapeutic session which she did

these people were very earthy people. gran was particularly upset, and broke down. mum broke down in the session saying she'd been worried for her two sons

so.....stop ther. DON'y call tem liars, woo woo, whakos, mentally ill, fame seekers, and psychobabble them. if you will, stay with YOUR confusion but dont fukin trash them when ou do not know yourself .
we aree talking human beings wit feelings. and thisis why i get upset when insults are thrown at people just to make YOUR life comfortable and safe in your 'sureities'

when you HAVE had an extraordinary event happen to you--which i have also. itis beyond patronizin to have othes 'know' what you experienced
 
Dam Giam, thought I knew a little about the ufo phenomena, but I have never seen these photos you are talking about.
I'll google them.
Good posts.
 
SkinWalker said:
people who have an active (rather than passing) interest in UFOs have deficits in their ability to process information objectively.
Click to expand...
Interesting ive found the same lack of objectivity in ufo critics, underneath the layers of skepticism useally lies a firm and unshakable believe that anyone involved in ufos just by virtue of the fact that theyd be interested in such a thing must be intellectually inferior and incapable.
Its amazing how many times ive openly debated with people critiquing ufo data to find that the problem goes way beyond the data itself and extends to the entire ufo community or just anyone expressing an interest. Such people can never truely approach the subject with an unbiased objective mindset because theres far too many preconceived notions, stereotypes, and presumptions to get in the way of rational thought.

One need not be able to 'read the mind' of members of the so-called "ufo community" to clearly infer that their meaning is that "ufo" refers to the space-alien hypothesis. But this point need not be made with regard to this thread since we are speaking of the "disclosure project," the cult-leader of which clearly states his beliefs: Clearly, anyone who "testifies" for Greer and his "project" are buying into his intent and beliefs. There may be an exception or two, but do you really think they are ignorant as to his beliefs?
Click to expand...
It seems like his beliefs have become fleshed out over the years the more hes got involved in the ufo scene, i doubt very much that when traveling around the country collecting testomonies he sat down with every individual and out-lined his ideas beliefs and manifesto. So i think at the time collecting the data most people would have been ignorant about his beliefs yes.


I certainly will. Once I'm able to access my own pc again as I'm currently away from home. I do have, however, the entire "disclosure document" in both pdf and Word format.
Click to expand...
Thanks, ive got a copy of the disclosure project on pdf somewhere but i cant find it right now so that would be helpful.


Your perceptions notwithstanding, the statement remains valid: some (perhaps even most) obviously believe what they are implying. They are implying, very clearly, that space aliens are among us and they are in agreement with <s>Prophet</s> Profit Greer who is asserting that space aliens are here; world governments know about them and have interacted with them; and that many advanced technologies are a direct result.
Click to expand...
I dont think you can assume that every witness is 'guilty by association'
and must believe in aliens as greer does. In fact contrary to what you believe i increasing feel that greer certainly doesnt speak on behalf of his witnesses which is probably the biggest problem with the whole project to my mind. I actually agree with Ophiolite on this point, his talk of conspiracy; jumping to conclusions without being in possesion of all the facts doesnt really do his cause much justice. However im still grateful for the data hes painstaking collected, im definitely glad its out there, i think its great that it exists and serves as a valuble record of military sightings throughout the latter part of the 20th century.

Moreover, delusion is looked upon by the believer in a given supernatural or paranormal phenomenon as a pejorative label. However, delusion is something that anyone can fall victim to. Delusion is a function of belief and the brain's ability to discern what its senses tell it. If one observes an extraordinary event, the brain's experience with what it sees is limited or non-existant. Belief of what occurred is therefore influenced by pre-existing beliefs and assumptions. If three people a half a mile apart see a light in the sky, one may see a recognized atmospheric or astronomic phenomenon; another might equate a sign from a god; still another might see an alien spaceship. -not that these are the only possibilities. The only way to know for sure which is right is to verify or test one of the three hypotheses, yet the only one of the three that *is* testable or verifiable (to date) is the first. The god and space alien hypotheses are, to date, supernatural and/or paranormal. While each are possible, only the first has any precedence and is therefore the most probable of the three.
Click to expand...
Which is all a moot point as the vast majority of the witness reports dont go beyond explaining the visable nature of the object, the possible origins of the objects observed are never touched apon within the core body of the testimonies.



Again, I must object to "something" versus "nothing" in what may be "to lose." This is a very elitist position and assumes that the livelihoods and social status among peers is somehow less valuable to those who haven't attained rank in society. This is demonstrably a false assumption, for if it were valid, public officials would avoid scandal and corruption because the have "something more to lose" than the average school teacher or gas station owner. The fact is, these people do have passions that get them in loads of trouble and it is often a matter of public record. Jeri Ryan's Senate candidate husband is a good example. This is an appeal to authority and a fallacy of the worst kind. Moreover, it would seem that many if not most of the "witnesses" aren't currently in their positions of status, so I don't see what they have "to lose" with regard to anyone else in society.
Click to expand...
Of course it is a fallacy that people with rank never fall pray to scandal and corruption. Of course people in power lose face, but the point is someone with power and status is less likely to seek out behaviours or opinions which would count against their standing.
Although in this instance whats also more important is maybe not their status as such but their specifc positions held.. pilots, radar operatives. These are people used to judging distance, shape, and velocity of airborn objects far more so than any civilian. While you can debate the use and validity of ufo testimonies all day long, i think we can probably agree its far far more useful and meaningful to have eye-witness testimonies from individuals who are familiar with aircraft and monitoring the skies than those who arnt. I think its also much more usefull to have witnesses who have demonstrated that they can hold positions of power and authority than a cross section of people who cant hold down a job and demonstrate their mental competence.


And these testimonies are coroborated by physical evidence. Rarely is an eyewitness testimony given that doesn't have other evidence. Indeed, I'd challenge you to show a single court case that included a felony
Click to expand...
Fair point, testimonies are almost always backed up by tangible evidence, but from what i understand there are numerous documents within the disclosure project to count as such if im not mistaken. *i'll do some digging on this one.


As is clearly demonstrated in literature cited in a thread which I linked to in an earlier post, we know that belief about a given event is a function of one's familiarity with the experience. If it is an unusual or rare event, then the brain searches for analogs or ontological assumptions that already exist in the mind of the person observing the event. In otherwords, what the person thinks is being experienced isn't necessarily an accurate description of what actually occurred. And, indeed, the event itself is very much subject to unintentional embellishment following the event as the brain continues to work on the observations, trying to fit that which was observed into new ontological templates or existing ones.
Click to expand...
Definitely true, although not to true to the extent that you seem believe.
Eye witness accounts arnt 100% accurate, but this isnt to say that observations contain no accuracury atall. There are many instances where eye-witness reports which have latter been confirmed and proven accurate.
A good example would be piolets flying at high altitudes observing sprites (upwards electrical storms). The accounts given by pilots of this phenomenon were systematically ignored by the scientific community and useally had their experiences brushed off as hallucinations probably due to long periods of air-time.
It was only untill sprites were accidently caught on film that the reports were proven positive. A clear lesson that human judgement isnt nearly as unreliable as it is offen claimed to be, and a cautionary tale in the pitfalls of ignoring those with experience and knowledge enough to make judgements regarding what theyve seen.


When you apply an unexpected event or unfamiliar occurrance of a strange phenomenon, to someone who is already familiar with pop-cultural myths and fictions like X-Files or UFOs (which is a pop-culture phenomenon, whether you choose to acknowlege that fact or not), the result is that the only ontological templates the observer has to access are fictive.
Click to expand...
You have to remember though that much of these sighting were pre-xfiles, and pre-speilberg, ufos wernt nearly as ingrained in the public imagination then as they are now. Its also worth pointing out that x-file plots are almost all ripped off version of somones real-life ufo account; whether within the military or regarding civilians, in fact the creator has even admited as much.
The whole pop-culture ufo phenomenon is actually working the other way round most of the time; real events or proported events are hijacked and turned into fiction. Of course there is a feedback loop working both ways, reality is influencing art and vice versa but its useally the case that the fiction is a bastardised account of something 'real'.
However again i feel this is an inconsequential point as i dont see any strong reason to believe that these military personnel have been overly influenced by pop culture.



If this hypothesis of fictive ontological templates is true, then we would expect to see a decreased occurrance of UFO reports among those that are experienced at observing the sky. Incidently, the reports of UFOs among amateur astronomers and meteorologists is not consistent with the reports of less experienced observers.
Click to expand...
Im honestly not sure to what degree the reports of astronomers differ from those of the average person because i havent looked into it in any great length, so i'll have to take your word on that. Although lets remember that in the disclosure reports we are dealing with a high number of experienced observers, or at the very least more experienced than the average person.



And I don't think I have. I do, however, note that there are very clear corolations between groups of proponents in the ETI-UFO hypothesis and religious cults: the Raelians, Heaven's Gate, and the Disclosure Project each have specific religious-like markers.
Click to expand...
Only in so much as theres a element of faith (with greer at least), but the similiarity ends there, we're really just talking about a group of people with a common goal and objective. If the disclosure project is 'like a cult' then so is any business large or small, so is any political/civil rights group.
Clearly its completely pointless and inaccurate to liken the disclousre project to a religion or cult, it just serves as an underhanded smear and nothing more to my mind.



I'll leave you with your semantics and diverge from here. That most of the UFO community equate space aliens to the term "UFO" is clear. One need only read the jackets of the most popular UFO literature or click on any of the most popular UFO websites and see pictures and descriptions of space aliens and speculations of what their intentions are. You are free to disagree with my assertion, but you'll never quantify or qualify your refution by simply saying that isn't what's implied by "UFO" when the evidence says otherwise.
Click to expand...
You cant use pop-culture symbols as evidence for the.. 'actual thing that people really mean when theyre talking about ufos'. It just doesnt work that way, visual associations are just that; associations. Youd be much better off asking 10 or 20 people at random on a ufo forum what they actually mean when they say ufo. You'll probably get a pretty varied response, much as youd get by asking on sciforums by asking 'what does science mean to you?' or a relgious forum 'what does god mean to you?"



I certainly am not commenting now or previously on what your beliefs are with regard to the term "UFO," I'm only establishing that the term "UFO" with regard to this thread, the "Disclosure Project" and the UFO community in general refers to space aliens.
Click to expand...
The term 'Ufo' from what ive seen is still generally applied in the same manner as it ever was, if something is in flight and it cant be attributed to a known craft, animal, or light source than people will employ the term 'ufo'. You cant really point to visual associations of ufos (such as enlarged alien heads) as if these images soley encompass what people are 'really' talking about when they mention a ufo.
If you do choose to assume that by saying 'ufo' someone is talking about aliens then youve got a pretty high chance of being incorrect enough of the time to not make it worth making that assumption.



Ah, but we aren't discussing the beings that may or may not live on extra-solar worlds. We're discussing the space aliens that are alleged to have visited Earth. These aliens appear to exist only in mytholoy and fiction and not in reality. Their characteristics are supernatural.
Click to expand...
Some people claim to have been abducted by aliens yes (i assume thats what youre largely talking about here) from what i understand such people who have been been regressed/psychologically analyised by proffesionals show all the hallmarks of post-traumatic stress disorder and seem to be affected by something that really happened to them, either in their minds or in reality. I really dont think we know much atall yet about the phenomenon to really say one way or the other whether these experience are real or not.

I will concede, however, that should it be discovered in the future that these space aliens where, in fact, visiting our planet and remaining hidden, then they are natural. But when the entire body of lore that surrounds space aliens is examined, it has all the characteristics of supernatural mythology that we see throughout human literature and oral tradition. Until they can be physically tested or observed, they are -for all intents and purposes- supernatural. If they aren't, I challenge you to show me the DNA (or whatever molecular equivalent they may have) of one. Show me any physical evidence that exists of any space alien, and I will imediately retract the position that these are supernatural beings.
Click to expand...
I dont think it really matters what you choose to label aliens as, if theyre supernatural mythical beings to you, then im absolutely fine with that.


Of course not. It would run contrary to the belief system that you appear to have established, which includes that conspiracy must exist, therefore the the stories of space aliens must be true. This is, however, my opinion based on what I've inferred from your posts, so no need to refute it, I freely admit it may be wrong.
Click to expand...
For the record space aliens arnt something i consider to be true or believe in, but im definitely open to the idea that theyre visiting us and wouldnt rule it out.


Again, we've addressed the semantics of the "UFO" term to death. The technical definition of "UFO" is well understood. But to conclude, I don't subscribe to the intellectual dishonesty of crying afoul when UFO is equated to space aliens since this is clearly the colloquial definition.
Click to expand...
No intellectual dishonesty here just personal experience and rational thinking. The idea that everyone who uses the term 'ufo' is talking about aliens is just absurd, if everyone used the term ufo meaning 'alien spaceship' that would mean anyone who even utters the term ufo (in relation to a real-life event or maybe footage theyve seen) must therefore by your logic believe in aliens! come on think about it...there must be a high percentage of people using the term true to its original meaning otherwise everyone who uses the word in the context of a (non-fictional) ufo by your reasoning must be a believer in ETs.

Indeed, the very term UFO -unidentified flying object- is already an assumption and therefore establishes a belief. It establishes that that, which has yet to be identified, is both flying and an object.
Click to expand...
I dont think a judement/approximation of flight chacteristics constitutes as a belief.
The semantics of your argument don't wash and aren't accepted by anyone with a critical and objective viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Meaning you?
The space alien believer with a bit of intellectual aptitude will, however, use this semantic argument to distract from the overall woo-woo nature of the space alien hypothesis.
Click to expand...
meaning me?


They are perceived as spherical, saucer shaped, metalic, etc. One cannot say this empirically unless additional, objective observations could be made. What is observed is mostly a limited perspective, from which assumptions are made. Most of the assumptions are made with regard to belief: belief about what "metalic" looks like from a distance in a set of given atmospheric and temporal conditions, for instance. These assumptions aren't science but pseudoscience.
Click to expand...
No theyre just judgments, and not hard ones at that, judging if somethings metalic (as long as its polised to a high enough degree) shouldnt be problem for anyone. Light plays off metal in a very unique way that most people i think would be able to pick out in numerous weather conditions.


Interestingly enough, the availablity, quantity and quality of camaras has increased yet the images of UFOs has decreased (or at least has appeared to). Balloons, Venus, hallucinations, delusions, atmospheric phenomena, etc. continue to be announced as UFOs.
Click to expand...
Interesting ive found the complete inverse to be true, the number of high quality images and quanity keeps getting better and better, for instance the ufos over phoenix, arizona during the late 90s for were filmed by in excess of 7 different people. There you have one incident in which a ufo has been filmed by different people are different vantage points, something that would have been unimaginable pre-camcorder age.

Im interested to know how you work out that hallucinations are getting falsely described as ufos though, how can anyone objectively know when a ufo sighiting is in fact a hallucination? surely thats a complete impossiblity.

No. It is assumed that there is a "new type of technology." To qualify your statement of "pretty clear," you would need to show empirical evidence.
Click to expand...
Well let me rephrase that then.. new/advanced would be more accurate. Since noone in the public sector can recreate or even create plans to produce the saucer/ball shaped craft we see in our skies we have to assume that the technology is indeed advanced and 'new' in the sense that it seems to be beyond what anyone in the public sector can manufacture.



And, again, that isn't what I've said. But I stand by the assertion that most do. An assertion I'm confident you can only refute by saying "it isn't true" and not by providing quantifying data.
Click to expand...
I think youd first have to prove that most people do mean alien spacecraft when saying ufo before i could atempt to refute you.
 
Last edited:
The modern UFO phenomenon appears to be essentially a space-age version of the long-standing interaction between humans and the denizens of the psychic world. We seem to be confronted with the reappearance of an occult current, coloured with 'our new human biases, our preoccupation with science, our longing for the promised land of other planets'. Having grown disillusioned with the angels and gods of old, many people now prefer to look to space beings for their salvation, and some join UFO cults that behave like irrational religious sects.

The majority of UFOs are unexplained lightforms that often seem to be living, conscious entities. Most of them probably emerge into visibility from the ethereal realms interpenetrating our physical world, and are able to change their shape, size, and density. The large-scale use of radar, which emits high-energy microwave pulses, must be causing major disturbances in the ethereal borderland, and this could be a factor in the increased sightings of UFOs since the Second World War.

The ways in which the UFO phenomenon manifests seem to be linked to the world of human beliefs and imagination, but the phenomenon also seems to have a dynamic of its own. The realm where the visitors come from is therefore best conceived of as a collective mind containing but transcending individual minds, and as a transphysical world that interacts with the physical world -- in other words, as the astral realm of occult tradition.
 
As a few have suggested here, there is a lack of proper reasoning on both sides of the ufo debate. True believers, who have a strong devotion to the idea of extraterrestrial visitation and fail to apply rational analysis, on a case by case basis, are practicing religion, nothing more. You can tell this type by his/her correlating affinity for New Age beliefs, crystals, meditation, etc... Not that there isn't merit to that body of belief, but it's vague and nebulous at this time.

On the other end of the continuum of belief, are the debunkers who ignore the true spirit of science and spurn deductive analysis, on a case by case basis. Their logic is often tautological, their reasoning inductive and often reductionist. Occam's razor, in their hands, becomes Occam's chainsaw, turning the complex eco system of game theory and consciousness into the stump farm of gamed theory.
 
Agitprop said:
As a few have suggested here, there is a lack of proper reasoning on both sides of the ufo debate. True believers, who have a strong devotion to the idea of extraterrestrial visitation and fail to apply rational analysis, on a case by case basis, are practicing religion, nothing more. You can tell this type by his/her correlating affinity for New Age beliefs, crystals, meditation, etc... Not that there isn't merit to that body of belief, but it's vague and nebulous at this time.

On the other end of the continuum of belief, are the debunkers who ignore the true spirit of science and spurn deductive analysis, on a case by case basis. Their logic is often tautological, their reasoning inductive and often reductionist. Occam's razor, in their hands, becomes Occam's chainsaw, turning the complex eco system of game theory and consciousness into the stump farm of gamed theory.
Click to expand...
That's true - excelent work.

But you only covered the two extremes and didn't mention the huge number of us who are in the middle. Most of this group would be willing to believe in the UFO/alien connection if there were only some evidence. Any at all.

We have no doubt at all that people have seen "things", in fact many of us have seen them as well. But it's that tremendous leap from unidentified to alien - automatically - that we object to. After 60 years of sightings, there has yet to be even one tiny piece of material evidence ever offered. And all that we ask is why?
 
Light said:
That's true - excelent work.

But you only covered the two extremes and didn't mention the huge number of us who are in the middle. Most of this group would be willing to believe in the UFO/alien connection if there were only some evidence. Any at all.

We have no doubt at all that people have seen "things", in fact many of us have seen them as well. But it's that tremendous leap from unidentified to alien - automatically - that we object to. After 60 years of sightings, there has yet to be even one tiny piece of material evidence ever offered. And all that we ask is why?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the compliment, Light. As far as physical evidence goes, -- that assumes that at least some of the craft are physical. Secondly, it assumes that ufos are of predominant interest to scientists, that science resides in the marketplace of free exchange of info and ideas, and that politics is somehow divorced from the exercise of examining alien intelligence.

I would suggest that, the subject maintains many of the earmarks of a "covert" intelligence problem, and that it's study would be, for that reason, under the auspices of some branch of govt. The physical proofs required, would, therefore, require a very high security clearance--certainly not available to the average person, the media, or the world of science, as we know it.

As far as those in the middle. There is actually a group calling themselves, "The Excluded Middle" who do a fairly good job of examining strange phenomenon, on a case by case basis. They're pretty funny too. They skewer people like David Icke and his reptilian aliens ideas, for example.

http://www.excludedmiddle.com/
 
There are also sightings of apparently structured craft that behave at times like solid physical objects, but are also capable of suddenly appearing, disappearing, and changing shape. The possibility that genuine extraterrestrials who have evolved on other physical planets or even on nonphysical planets are visiting earth cannot be ruled out. However, the incredible diversity of entities and their often weird and eccentric behaviour suggest that the majority are temporary manifestations of shape-shifting elemental entities, moulded by pictures in the earth's thought-atmosphere. Their craft, too, may be temporary manifestations modelled on astral images rather than the product of a technology that has evolved on some other planet.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/twilight1.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/ufo1.htm
 
Agitprop said:
Thanks for the compliment, Light. As far as physical evidence goes, -- that assumes that at least some of the craft are physical. Secondly, it assumes that ufos are of predominant interest to scientists, that science resides in the marketplace of free exchange of info and ideas, and that politics is somehow divorced from the exercise of examining alien intelligence.

I would suggest that, the subject maintains many of the earmarks of a "covert" intelligence problem, and that it's study would be, for that reason, under the auspices of some branch of govt. The physical proofs required, would, therefore, require a very high security clearance--certainly not available to the average person, the media, or the world of science, as we know it.

As far as those in the middle. There is actually a group calling themselves, "The Excluded Middle" who do a fairly good job of examining strange phenomenon, on a case by case basis. They're pretty funny too. They skewer people like David Icke and his reptilian aliens ideas, for example.

http://www.excludedmiddle.com/
Click to expand...
You're welcome to the compliment, it was indeed good work.

Here again, I believe you may be thinking that all research is neatly compartmentalized and all under the direction/control of some governmental agency. That's simply not the case - and besides that there are many governments in the world. Surely they could not all keep all of their people silent all of the time. And there are still a good many independent researchers who are free to investigate using their on time and money.

If you think about it for a minute, it's pretty much unbelievable that all this time could have gone by without someone somewhere bringing something out. (The fringe groups notwithstanding.) Military secrets have been made public, time and again secret government deals have been exposed and the list goes on. Just exactly how could everyone in the whole world with any credibility be kept completely silent for over 60 years? That's a little hard for anyone to accept if they just think about it.

Yes, I'm aware of Icke (and his background as a sports reporter) and I've even visited his site a few times just as a humorous diversion. And even though he may be a little cracked, he's just in the game of selling his books, making appearances at his "seminars" - it all boils down to making money.
 
I've admittedly produced my own little "Disclosure Project".

http://www.haqtraq.org

I'm sure I'll add more to it eventually, and yes, you won't find any Evidence there at all and you know what... I don't CARE.

If you want the evidence then you have two ways about getting it:

1: Reinvent the wheel. Since the stuffs out there, you just have to follow the initial footsteps with the preposed outcome and fill in the blankspots. Admittedly it would be a complete duplication of effort but it doesn't need to resort way 2.

2: Take the information by force, it's out there, it's in the hands of those that we are suppose to trust and they are pretty much ****ing us all over. So Force them to give us some answers, rather than bureaucratic backpeddling mumbo-jumbo. I'm not talking aliens or UFO's here, just a simple ARE YOU MESSING THE PUBLIC OVER? (refrained from the true way it should read).
 
did u guys know that nazi's were supposed to have built ufo's? a model called Haunebu flying at speeds of 7000km/h or so. the nazi's also landed on the moon and built a base there. hitler escaped to antarctic and joined with a subterranean dinosauroid master race (reptils). there are pictures of rockets flying saucers and aliens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top