where is the evidence for alien visitation?

[Gustav]

as you did in your undressing of Gustav

really? i find that strange since i still have my clothes on. perhaps, my brown nosing little fanboy, you could point out and quote, what you think constitutes an "undressing"

Since when did Norval have "good buddies?"

note the time below

you also called my good buddy a "fucking crackpot"

It was magnificent to read, and while I spent most of it crying from laughter, I managed to take a few notes, sir, and I thank you for the education.

i recommend you slit your wrists immediately.
i have never encountered such a degree of fawning and servile flattery ever on this board. could you be mr anonymous?

anyways boy
while you are on knees, open wide please
this will not take too long
i promise

 

[Gustav]

Em... Actually old boy, ............Toodles.

bah
somewhere down the line i lost my sense of discernment and judgement
perhaps i am too overeager..
either way
sorry about the unwarranted crap

 

[Gustav]

I just ask for common sense among my peers here at Sciforums, and since I can find very little, I wanted to force those of you lacking to re-up on it with these questions. Enjoy.JD

arrogant bastard
expect hell and humiliation (re-up)

 

[Balerion]

And yet, Gustav, you failed to answer my questions. Apparently, though, my comments moved you to ask for my immediate suicide.

Strange. You claim to be unaffected, yet here you are bashing in multiple posts. Why not just answer my questions?

JD

 

[Gustav]

And yet, Gustav, you failed to answer my questions. Apparently, though, my comments moved you to ask for my immediate suicide.

Strange. You claim to be unaffected, yet here you are bashing in multiple posts. Why not just answer my questions?

JD

lies and exaggerations

a question was answered
the claim was not made

explain the discrepancy b/w your version of events and the historical record

really? i find that strange since i still have my clothes on. perhaps, my brown nosing little fanboy, you could point out and quote, what you think constitutes an "undressing"

answer the frikking question
it is directed specifically at you

show me that you are capable
only then will i consider answering your moronic questions

 

[Mr Anonymous]

bah
somewhere down the line i lost my sense of discernment and judgement
perhaps i am too overeager..
either way
sorry about the unwarranted crap

Think nothing of it old man, forgotten and done with.

No, wait...before I do, let me first thank Mr. A for finally slamming the door on Norval in a way that was...phew...perhaps the most eloquent and complete verbal ass whoopings I've ever encountered. I could never in my life aspire to cut to the bone so completely as you did in your undressing of Gustav and Norval. It was magnificent to read, and while I spent most of it crying from laughter, I managed to take a few notes, sir, and I thank you for the education.

Oh, your awfully kind old man and thank you very much for the compliment, but ultimately, when y'gets right down to it, whatever "skill" may possibly involved in the way all that business may have been handled unfortunately equally speaks of no small measure of practice - a state of affairs in actuality speaking really rather poorly of myself as a person, I can't help but be want to observe...

Tearing a strip off someone lamentably is all too easy in this world. Patience, tolerance, kindness... These are qualities worth applauding in my book, qualities I all to regrettably often more than merely occasionally lack.

Still, on the plus side, you asked a number of very sound, very germane, very pertinent questions there - top marks for analytical thought. Think probably the world and his dog already what m'own answers would be in triplicate, but can basically be summed up with the following observation that, if a thing is genuinely secret, exactly how does everyone get to "know" about it...?

Rarely ever a good answer to that one, can't imagine why.....

 

[Gustav]

if a thing is genuinely secret, exactly how does everyone get to "know" about it...?

Rarely ever a good answer to that one, can't imagine why.....

quite simple
you are guilty of....

RAISING THE BAR (Or IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION): This trick consists of demanding a new, higher and more difficult standard of evidence whenever it looks as if a skeptic's opponent is going to satisfy an old one. Often the skeptic doesn't make it clear exactly what the standards are in the first place. This can be especially effective if the skeptic can keep his opponent from noticing that he is continually changing his standard of evidence. That way, his opponent will eventually give up in complains, the skeptic can tag him as a whiner or a sore loser.

and introducing a red herring

it is not secrets nor is it "genuine secrets" that is the issue here. rather it is the occurrence of an ufo incident

lets take a typical example

One of the most famous stories in 'UFO history' is that in 1947 an alien craft crashed in the New Mexico desert near Roswell and that civilians arriving at the scene witnessed dead and injured alien bodies. When the military arrived they captured the craft and aliens and initiated a massive cover-up.

The story has been bubbling along for many years, fueled by various pieces of fairly inconclusive evidence. However, 'Roswell Fever' has struck recently with, firstly, US congressman Steve Schiff of the GOA demanding the release of official documents relating to the event and, more importantly, the emergence of film footage which purports to show the military dissection of two of the alien corpses in 1947.

now let me emphasize the pertinent portion...

civilians arriving at the scene witnessed dead and injured alien bodies.

this can be repeated ad nauseum to a lot of ufo reports. namely, there are civilians that were either the first responders or simple bystanders.

do you get the point? the initial sighting is not a secret. from here, speculation and rumor gets its start.

i wonder if you can comprehend the conceptual error in your reasoning

 

[Gustav]

Still, on the plus side, you asked a number of very sound, very germane, very pertinent questions there - top marks for analytical thought.

lets see shall we?
too bad you had to jump on the bandwagon at such an early stage
to tar and feather jdawg at this point would do the same for his intellectual bedfellows
whatever

jdawg introduces another oft used red herring employed by pseudo skeptics such as he.
he fails to understand that regardless of whether a ufologist can or cannot ascertain as to why an incident is covered up by the govt, does not in anyway refute the incident that was alleged to have taken place

1) If there is this amazing cover-up by the American government regarding the existance of alien UFOs/technology...how do you people know so damn much about it? (jdawg)

addressed in earlier post

2) What would be the reason behind hiding evidence of alien interaction with the Human race? What is the benefit of doing so? (jdawg)

i take it that you refer to govts hiding evidence

you attribute rationality without the slightest idea as to whether it is warranted or not. consider the iraq war and the shifting rationals given for the neccessity of invasion. there can be a multitude of reasons why a govt might find it neccessary to conceal et. that said, i personally find it useless to speculate on motives that i probably will not have any chance of ascertaining until disclosure occurs either voluntarily or forcibly.

motives are irrelevant. what matters is an incident occurred. the incident is recorded by observers. thats it. discrepancies b/w reports put out by interested parties will have to be resolved but asking why is pointless

i see disk
you say balloon
i ask you why?

3) Why would these aliens allow us to keep their ship rather than wiping us off the face of the universe? If they are trying to be as stealthy as you all seem to believe, why would they allow such a compromise to their mission? (jdawg)

now this is laughably stupid.
who is this "you all"?
i want names

i refuse the idea that there is any real attempt by these alleged ufos to conceal themselves. on the contrary, it appears as if et, if really at the wheel, does not give a damn about being sighted by humans. how else could it be? there have been thousands of recorded incidents throught history. et seems to fly willy nilly thru our airspace at the drop of a hat.

anyways......first i am asked to speculate about some nebulous govts motives, now i must discern some hypothetical aliens pathology

are you fucking insane?

#Argue that extraterrestrials would or wouldn't, should or shouldn't, can or can't behave in certain ways because such behavior would or wouldn't be logical. Base your notions of logic on how terrestrials would or wouldn't behave. Since terrestrials behave in all kinds of ways you can theorize whatever kind of behavior suits your arguments.

5) Why has no other government in the world come clean on this matter? Surely America isn't the only place they've been? (jdawg)

"From late 1989 into mid-1990, a spectacular wave of sightings occurred in Belgium. Sightings were reported almost daily from October 1989 through July 1990. Witnesses included police, military and civilian pilots, and air traffic controllers. During part of this period the Belgian Air Force kept interceptors on stand-by status, equipped with infrared video cameras, and the Air Force cooperated with civilian groups in documenting and researching the sightings."

belgium

In his paper "Monitoring Air Force Intelligence," presented last July at the International MUFON Symposium in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Olmos reported that the released documents consisted of 62 files pertaining to 122 events, including 29 radar cases and 11 Close Encounters. Forty-five incidents involved aircraft (27 commercial airliners and 18 military jets). Of these, 67 percent of the civil airplane incidents and 78 percent of the military aircraft cases were solved. That is, the observed UFOs were ultimately identified. Eleven reports describe scrambles of military jets, launched, for example, in the pursuit of unknown radar targets. In four cases, no successful identification was made.

spain

In an article in the U.K. Western Daily Press, CAA spokesman Chris Mason said, "Our reports are from highly trained pilots and air traffic controllers. We have no argument with what they say they have seen, even if what they saw can't be explained. We admit that in some cases the aircraft which were nearly in collision with the aircraft have never been traced. We keep an open mind about UFOs. Some things just can't be explained, but they have been reported by top professionals and we do take that into account."

An article appeared in the BBC regarding a near miss with a UFO that resulted in a CAA investigation and an official Airprox report. Also included in the article are interesting near miss statistics and commentary.

more

 

[Balerion]

By: Gustav
you attribute rationality without the slightest idea as to whether it is warranted or not. consider the iraq war and the shifting rationals given for the neccessity of invasion. there can be a multitude of reasons why a govt might find it neccessary to conceal et. that said, i personally find it useless to speculate on motives that i probably will not have any chance of ascertaining until disclosure occurs either voluntarily or forcibly.

That is as untrue a statement as you have made yet in regards to this subject. Rationality is the cornerstone of keeping one from jumping over cliffs of fantasy and illusion. Taken at face value, most UFO reports are believable. At face value, an ex-military man with Majestic clearance telling me that he had worked on UFOs is believable. That is, until I use my rational mind to discern the truth from the BS. It's called motive, and it is as important as a witness in the court of law (at least in America) so why would it have simply no bearing here?

Why the government would hide this supposed "truth" about UFOs is the million-dollar question. Without a reasonable, convincing answer (even a theory), your case is already lacking. If you refuse to even consider this, then you are robbing yourself of an out to this whole mess, if someday you think better of it.

Why hide it? If you say the technology would bankrupt the oil companies, I say that the government would make sure their oil buddies had a good hand in the new technology ventures and would make out the same if not better than before.

And Gustav, don't bring up the Iraq war, because I could go on for hours. There were dozens of posibilities for that, from Saudi influence to honest-to-goodness good intentions. Either way, the Iraqi war is in the American GOVERNMENT's best interest. May not be in the best interest of the American people, but Prez Bush is mighty happy that we went there, and that is a fact.

By: Gustav
i refuse the idea that there is any real attempt by these alleged ufos to conceal themselves. on the contrary, it appears as if et, if really at the wheel, does not give a damn about being sighted by humans. how else could it be? there have been thousands of recorded incidents throught history. et seems to fly willy nilly thru our airspace at the drop of a hat.

This is true; I apologize. That question is unfair. As a matter of fact, if any of this mess is true, I would say that this scenario is the most possible: They care less if we know about them or not, and the governments of the world have NO SAY or INTERACTION with them or their actions.

By: Gustav
RAISING THE BAR (Or IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION): This trick consists of demanding a new, higher and more difficult standard of evidence whenever it looks as if a skeptic's opponent is going to satisfy an old one. Often the skeptic doesn't make it clear exactly what the standards are in the first place. This can be especially effective if the skeptic can keep his opponent from noticing that he is continually changing his standard of evidence. That way, his opponent will eventually give up in complains, the skeptic can tag him as a whiner or a sore loser.

You haven't satisfied any of the evidence requirements put to you. Nor has any claimant to the UFO craze. And none of us have changed what we ask for; all we have done is ask for testable evidence. Give me a UFO. Give me an alien. Give me MY GOVERNMENT coming out and saying "Aliens are visiting our planet." You have provided none of this. And your links to these various governments does NOTHING for me. NONE of them said "Aliens are here." At best they have encountered things they cannot explain readily. For whatever reason, they do not make the claim that the UFOs are alien or even in existance...they simply dont' know. While that may be a victory for those who believe, it does nothing for me.

By: Gustav
civilians arriving at the scene witnessed dead and injured alien bodies.

See, this is the problem with you and 99.9% of the UFO freaks in the world; that you don't even know what you're talking about. First of all, there were no witnesses at the scene except for the farmer who owned the land, Mac Brazel. And this wasn't one of those things that everybody sees and comes running to the scene; quite the contrary. Mac Brazel heard this horrible sound during a thunderstorm one night, and didn't even visit the site until the next morning. That's when he found the debris.

The first man to see the debris besides Brazel was his neighbor, who didn't even come to the site himself; Brazel brought him a piece.

This neighbor convinced Brazel to go into town and let someone know about it. A few days later he did that, and that's when this fantastic legend begins.

Even in the press release made by the US Media stating that a saucer had crashed, NOWHERE does it make mention of dead or injured aliens. Or even dead or injured humans. Brazel himself--the first and only man outside the military to see the site, and the one with the most unobstructed view--never mentions bodies of any sort.

Get your facts straight before coming at me with that shit. You can't produce evidence and you can't even get the story of the most celebrated UFO "event" in the history of the world right. Get a clue.

JD

 

[Mr Anonymous]

i wonder if you can comprehend the conceptual error in your reasoning

Well old man, if you're seriously asking me if my reasoning stems from a position whereby one assumes anyone considering the notion of the sorts of stories you relay possesses the ability to apply even the merest modicum of critical thought to the proposition as presented - patently my thinking is gravely in error of the most profound sort.

I find it undeniably incredible the notion that anyone can be prepared to take such tall tales purely on face value and demonstrate not the slightest wit or apparent notion to simply ask themselves exactly how is a person supposed to know the body of an "alien", dead or alive, in the first place?

The events concerning Roswell as hardly without well documented, perfectly well understood historical precedent...

civilians arriving at the scene witnessed dead and injured alien bodies.

In late October 1936 during the now infamous Orson Wells Theatre Companies radio production of HG Well's War of The Worlds, its pioneering documentary/news broadcast style of presenting the drama of that most famous and eminently recognisable of literary fictional tales provoked instances of panic and civil disorder amongst the civilian population throughout the continent of the United States. As the drama unfurled many, many listeners found what they were hearing so convincing it prompted them to bundle up their loved ones and possessions and attempt to flee the oncoming Martian onslaught - others grabbed whatever fire irons they could lay muster on and form ad-hock civilian defence groups which then proceeded to discern in the twilight gloom of that most interesting of Halloween weekends the form of actual Martian War machines in any spindly shape that could be perceived to be towering over the familiar skyline of their home towns.

Pylons and Water Towers that had been fixtures for as long as these self same individuals could remember bore the scars of buckshot and small arms fire for years after that infamous night, and many a respectable member of small town USA would be walking around with a face as red as a beet for many a month after that solaced only by the singularly inescapable fact that whatever a personal arse they may have made of themselves in being duped by what was clearly presented and listed in the newspapers prior to the broadcast as a radio drama, such individuals themselves were in no way any more affected than everyone else...

One of the most famous stories in 'UFO history' is that in 1947 an alien craft crashed in the New Mexico desert near Roswell and that civilians arriving at the scene witnessed dead and injured alien bodies. When the military arrived they captured the craft and aliens and initiated a massive cover-up.

Now, the news of the "wreckage" found plastered over that interesting stretch of Arizona, upon discovery by a civilian farmer very shortly there after became the property and exclusively hot news of the local radio station remarkably shortly thereafter discovery - civilians heard about the incident first via that local station and were not at all merely told that wreckage of some description or other had been found - but that what had been found was specifically the wreckage of a Flying Saucer.

Just a matter of weeks after the term Flying Saucer had become termed and brought to the consciousness of everyone in the world via national news services API, here in the town of Roswell New Mexico citizens were being informed that one of the Flying Saucers everyone on the planet had been reading all about and speculating on for weeks suddenly was their in their midst’s for all to see - an opportunity few, if any, would not have been interested and curious to see - but what those people were going out to witness was already very clear and certain in their minds considerably prior to actually clapping eyes on a single shred of actually anything at all.

They were going out to the desert to see the crashed Flying Saucer and that was simply all there was too it - quite how anyone actually gets to know what a crashed Flying Saucer looks like without some point in comparison, buff's on this subject have preciously little to venture. The fact that every civilian witness interviewed about the matter subsequently over the course of the intervening years consistently relays that in setting out to go to the site to witness with their own eyes what they were going out to see was a crashed Flying Saucer - this, presumably, relays in some way that these same individuals in being present hadn't made up their minds regarding what they were actually witnessing prior to actually seeing it?

It's a damn good trick if one can do it, but the point is Gustav the witnesses own imaginations were clearly primed towards reaching a very singular conclusion before they ever got to lay eye on a single thing - that what they did observe only served to confirm what they already believed well before arriving speaks to anyone capable of applying even the very minimum of critical thought to the entire debacle that patently the stories as told don't stand up to terribly much in the way of actual scrutiny.

That something overshot White Sands and came down on the edges of Roswell is simply historical record, no one denies there wasn't something there - what people question, and people other than you Gustav do question this and are perfectly right to do so, is did people who claim to have seen "alien" this and "alien" the other regarding Roswell actually see what they merely only believe they saw?

Simply because one thinks one is seeing something, doesn't mean one is seeing anything of the sort at all - even eminently qualified, trained observers make crashingly bad mistakes when letting their imaginations colour what their eyes merely appear to be relaying - eyes don't think and neither do they interpret. Only the brain gives recognition and name to whatever information eyes merely relay...

If you've been informed that there is the wreckage of a crashed Flying Saucer within commuting distance, and this information comes to you not by your local UFO nut but via means of actual, real world media and you trot off out there to see with your own eyes something patently you have absolutely no point in comparison by which to ascertain that what you have been informed to be the case is actually the case to hand - aren't you somewhat predetermined to be see a crashed Flying Saucer and whatever else you appear to witness there at the site inextricably associated with what you've been informed...?

In these precise circumstances as witnesses and historical record clearly relay, anyone would be seeing what the civilian witnesses to the Roswell crash would have seen. Given that this is precisely what they had been told to expect, no different from the War of The Worlds broadcast of '36, the only mystery is quite how those advocating for certain "evidence" of what really happened at Roswell can go through the reams and reams of stuff written on the subject and contrive to take all the stuff that they merely wish to hear on complete face value, and pour a disproportionately large amount of scorn on even the suggestion that possibly all may not be entirely as face value seems to indicate.

 

[Gustav]

Well old man, if you're seriously asking me if my reasoning stems from a position whereby one assumes anyone considering the notion of the sorts of stories you relay possesses the ability to apply even the merest modicum of critical thought to the proposition as presented - patently my thinking is gravely in error of the most profound sort.

you deliberately miss the entire point of my post and run off with some half cocked accusations of psychoses (my fault tho- will be remedied)

no that is not what i am asking

you introduce a red herring

if a thing is genuinely secret, exactly how does

everyone get to "know" about it...? Rarely ever a good answer to that one, can't imagine why.....

again...

it is not secrets nor is it "genuine secrets" that is the issue here. rather it is the occurrence of an ufo incident and a subsequent coverup. i do not see any reason to fixate on on any particular incident but rather focus on patterns of behaviour and actions.

who are the usual suspects in a ufo incident? could be everyone. you might have the military, people in a professional capacity (pilots, cops, soldiers, investigative bodies etc)

are you willing to discount all these opinions and dismiss as delusions?

for instance...

Simply because one thinks one is seeing something, doesn't mean one is seeing anything of the sort at all - even eminently qualified, trained observers make crashingly bad mistakes when letting their imaginations colour what their eyes merely appear to be relaying - eyes don't think and neither do they interpret. Only the brain gives recognition and name to whatever information eyes merely relay

we have an air traffic controller. we all trust him with our lives. yet when he reports a anomalous event, he is suddenly suspect.

In June 1990, the Belgian Air Force released a report, including radar-scope photographs, of a 75-minute chase by two F-16 fighters of a UFO over Brussels on the night of March 29/30, 1990. During the chase, both interceptor aircraft detected the UFO on their radar; two ground radar installations also tracked it; and numerous witnesses (including 20 national policemen) observed the triangular object visually. The Air Force report stated:"[On three occasions during the chase] the pilots managed to get their radars locked on the object, with the immediate result that the object's behavior drastically changed. The object literally played hide and seek with the fighters. It dived toward the ground to evade the airborne and ground radars. Then it climbed back into radar range in a leisurely manner, thus initiating a new chase."

it is plain and simple pathology on your part to explain the events away as delusion and error on the part of the observers
it is desperation and religous fanatiscm that riddle you with fear at the notion of even entertaining the idea of et

lets look at some of the symptoms of pathological skeptism

*maintaining an unshakable stance of hostile, intolerant skepticism, and when anyone complains of this, accusing them of paranoid delusion. remaining blind to scientists' widespread practice of intellectual suppression of unorthodox findings, and to the practice of "expulsion of heretics" through secret, back-room accusations of deviance or insanity.

* accusing opponents of delusion, lying, or even financial fraud, where no evidence for fraud exists other than the supposed impossibility of evidence being presented

now let illustrate the stupidity of your question again

if a thing is genuinely secret, exactly how does
everyone get to "know" about it...?

you imagine, with a self serving rational, a scenario that supports the absolutely moronic premise contained in your question. namely the existence of a "genuine secret" in a vacuum. you refuse to countenance that in the current context, secrets, genuine or otherwise exist as part of a process.

lets eyeball

The first peek into the Spanish files was published in 1976 by Bilbao journalist J. J. Benitez, who obtained documentation on 12 UFO incidents from a high-ranking general. He discussed these events in his first bestseller, UFOs: Official Documents of the Spanish Government. As a result, the Air Ministry tightened its security and all UFO files remained restricted information until 1992.

spain

read and attempt to understand the dynamics. try to understand the concept of a linear timeline

public > restricted (secret) > public

comprende?

 

[Gustav]

mr anonymous

address and then feel free to debunk the belgian flap

 

[Gustav]

"civilians arriving at the scene witnessed dead and injured alien bodies."

this can be repeated ad nauseum to a lot of ufo reports. namely, there are civilians that were either the first responders or simple bystanders.

stupid fucking punks with agendas
tearing into the roswell story like a pack of rabid and frenzied animals

the story merely illustrated a pertinent facet of most ufo incidents. it is not neccessarily a govt that seeks to conceal that is the first responder

get it maggots? the theme is secrets!
it is the major issue jdawg raises and mr anon runs with
so fucking focus!

 

[Gustav]

jdawg

That is as untrue a statement as you have made yet in regards to this subject. Rationality is the cornerstone of keeping one from jumping over cliffs of fantasy and illusion. Taken at face value, most UFO reports are believable.

how dare you misrepresent me. i am talking about whether a govt coverup and concealment should be automatically held to be a rational course of action. i am not talking about the validity of ufo reports

Why the government would hide this supposed "truth" about UFOs is the million-dollar question. Without a reasonable, convincing answer (even a theory), your case is already lacking. If you refuse to even consider this, then you are robbing yourself of an out to this whole mess, if someday you think better of it.

it is not a million dollar question. it has no relevance
let me provide simple examples

you laud mr anonymous as the next coming of christ
i take it at face value and call you crazy
what you now tell me is if i cannot figure out as to why you said that. i have no grounds for dismissing your statement.

the man from majestic alleges
the official govt position is one of denial
since you cannnot fathom as to why this denial occurs
you discount the man from majestic

i find that astounding and pathological
if the case has merit, it should stand on on its own.

secondly i had never suggested that one should not question the motives of those that make the ufo allegations. on the contrary, one is obliged to investigate as thoroughly as possible his background and motivations. extraordinary claims require........

now look at your question again....

2) What would be the reason behind hiding evidence of alien interaction with the Human race? What is the benefit of doing so? (jdawg)

and the funny thing is you provide an answer.....

There were dozens of posibilities for that, from Saudi influence to honest-to-goodness good intentions. Either way, the Iraqi war is in the American GOVERNMENT's best interest. May not be in the best interest of the American people, but Prez Bush is mighty happy that we went there, and that is a fact.

let me reword it to fit the topic

There were dozens of posibilities for that, from protecting the earth to engaging in joint anal probes on a unsuspecting populace. Either way, the concealment of the ufo phnomenon is in the American GOVERNMENT's best interest. May not be in the best interest of the American people, but Prez Bush is mighty happy that we do so and that is a fact.

do you fucking see?
you hypocritically adopt a double standard. you are quite content to wallow in ignorance

You haven't satisfied any of the evidence requirements put to you. Nor has any claimant to the UFO craze. And none of us have changed what we ask for; all we have done is ask for testable evidence. Give me a UFO. Give me an alien. Give me MY GOVERNMENT coming out and saying "Aliens are visiting our planet." You have provided none of this. And your links to these various governments does NOTHING for me. NONE of them said "Aliens are here." At best they have encountered things they cannot explain readily. For whatever reason, they do not make the claim that the UFOs are alien or even in existance...they simply dont' know. While that may be a victory for those who believe, it does nothing for me.

i am sorry jdawg. resolve your pathology with someone else. i am not in the slightest bit interested in your hangups

When someone produces purported physical evidence of alien technology, point out that no analysis can prove that its origin was extraterrestrial; after all, it might be the product of some perfectly ordinary, ultra-secret underground government lab. The only exception would be evidence obtained from a landing on the White House lawn--the sole circumstance universally agreed upon by generations of skeptics as conclusively certifying extraterrestrial origin!

Get your facts straight before coming at me with that shit. You can't produce evidence and you can't even get the story of the most celebrated UFO "event" in the history of the world right. Get a clue.JD

you filthy fucking pig!
show me where i come to you with the roswell story. show me the fucking post!

 

[Gustav]

jdawg

answer the questions

 

[duendy]

mmmmmmmm very interesting and very passionate thread. ...hav just seen a SKY documentary about abductions. i've recorded it, and when watchin again i'll take some notes, as it is very convincing, and very reminiscent of my experience in these forums here......ie., when a surgeon who hasremoved very strange 'implants' from people, he noed how all the sceptcs who seem rto know everything about him and what he does...not a one of them has actaully researched the EVIDENCE....tis gae me teimage of sceptics, which in tis case i agree with Gustav, are pseudosceptics are always demanding evidence, but tat is it...!te rest is a sham. rthey dont.period

we saw tis family--northern English. as real as you could get. a mum her two boys---aout 10-11 in te docu. not sure how old when it happened........they had been to tis Inn, and left and were driving across the moors, then tey ALL saw a brilliant lighted round shape tat swiftly hovered over teir car. they all claimed--including the boys--tat te feeling the had was like a lov was coming from te UFO, and they didn't want it to go away. te boy said it ws like he wouldn't have minded if it had landed and taken tem off into space.

then mum said she forgot what happeed,but there was a sigificant loss of time.
I the docu mum and her gran( dsid i mention it was the mum her gran and te 2 boys? in te car) were interviewed and they sid that it was tis thing that happened that was so beyond their ken that it is hard to live with cause they dont understand it. the older woman broke down in the interview

later in the programme the youngmum chooses hypnotherapy, and we see a bit of it. very realisticallywe see here recount being taken into this 'black' space, and she was very worried for her kids--who were also there.....the 'aliens' assured her they'd be alright

it was hillarious to ten hear te pychology expert--top of tis field--try and explain away their group experience...will obviously tell youu more about this later. if you haven't killed each other by then........

 

[Mr Anonymous]

comprende?

Em.... Frankly, no. Absolutely non the wiser to tell the honest truth. I'm not following your reasoning at all old man. Forgive me, but you do seem to be a trifle all over the place regarding quite what it is you specifically want addressing.

You introduced the subject of the Roswell crash, I simply addressed it as per request. Apparently, my bad.

As with regards to the Belgium UFO flap of 1990 - it was broadcast on the news the world over. I'm somewhat puzzled with regards to how the incident qualifies as a secret cover-up - half the western world saw reports it taking place.

I mean, not meaning to be contentious here old man, but your own quote does somewhat relay this exact observation - yet presumably there's a cover-up in place....

I'm sorry, but I'm really not following this.

 

[Balerion]

you laud mr anonymous as the next coming of christ
i take it at face value and call you crazy
what you now tell me is if i cannot figure out as to why you said that. i have no grounds for dismissing your statement.

See, that's where you're wrong. I simply said I appreciate his style of banter. I thought it was great. If you knew my motives, though, you'd know that it was more of my complete lack of respect for Norval that anything Mr. Anonymous said that I really loved. It was a funny post, and what we here in America might call an "undressing" or going "up one side of him and down the other."

if you want an answer as to what constitutes this "undressing," it was that Anonymous used his obviously superior linguistic skills to absolutely diminish anything either of you could say. Also, the fact that he was funny in his delivery made it all the more stinging. Maybe not for you, although by your response to me, I'd say it must have stung a little.

All that said, if you had known that I really just dislike Norval and his unbelievable claims and aptitude for slamming whomever disagrees with his insane ideas, you'd understand that I would have praised anyone who did what Mr. Anonymous did, because they did it better than I could have.

the man from majestic alleges
the official govt position is one of denial
since you cannnot fathom as to why this denial occurs
you discount the man from majestic

I discount him based on common sense. He says he was fired from his job, one that undoubtably paid him tremendous amounts of money. I imagine he's bitter, and he wants to get back at his former bosses with stories that I'm sure they all joke about at the facility. Or, as is the actual case in question, he could not even provide solid background evidence of his own education or employment within the military. He said he couldn't remember his Professor's names, and the one he "sort of" remembered didn't match any past or present at the academy in question. Basically, all his stories had major holes in them. While of course I cannot say "It is a fact that he lies," I can safely say that I don't believe him based on the lack of evidence.

and the funny thing is you provide an answer.....

There were dozens of posibilities for that, from Saudi influence to honest-to-goodness good intentions. Either way, the Iraqi war is in the American GOVERNMENT's best interest. May not be in the best interest of the American people, but Prez Bush is mighty happy that we went there, and that is a fact.

let me reword it to fit the topic

There were dozens of posibilities for that, from protecting the earth to engaging in joint anal probes on a unsuspecting populace. Either way, the concealment of the ufo phnomenon is in the American GOVERNMENT's best interest. May not be in the best interest of the American people, but Prez Bush is mighty happy that we do so and that is a fact.

The differnece is that there is some measure of evidence for the motives in the Iraqi war. Saudi influence is not far fetched due to the amount of money the Saudi royal family has invested in our nation. The fact that the Saudi embassy is the only one in our country that gets protection from US, as opposed to their own security detail...

One could look at a strong possibility that once a democratic Iraq emerges in the Middle East, other nations may rise up and take power for themselves, trying to immitate the Iraqi way of life. This is years down the road, but it's a possibility.

Of course, there is oil, but it doesn't seem that our beloved oil companies have benefited at all from us invading Iraq. I could be wrong, and I haven't researched this at all.

Then there is the theory that we wanted Iraq to overthrow an old enemy, one who tried to assasinate the first President Bush, our current President's father. Revenge is a powerful thing, and the need for it should not be discounted.

Finally, no matter the reason, it seems obvious to me that invading Iraq does not make sense in a war on terrorism. We ousted the taliban because they harbored terrorists, and yet we attacked Iraq with no evidence of terrorist activity in the nation. We claimed weapons of mass destruction were there, yet there have been none found. We claimed they were a threat, yet they had not rebuilt a single shred of their military since our first invasion.

When someone produces purported physical evidence of alien technology, point out that no analysis can prove that its origin was extraterrestrial

This is true, and seemingly unfair, I agree. And I do understand that you, Gustav, aren't exactly saying that ET is behind the wheel of any of the crafts in UFO reports. It is unfortunate, but the requirement is some proof...and the definition of that word is:

"The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true."

Can you provide me some proof that either A) the UFOs are alien or B) the UFOs are secret United States Military technology?

you filthy fucking pig!
show me where i come to you with the roswell story. show me the fucking post!

Arguing semantics again when you are defeated. Fine, I'll show you...

One of the most famous stories in 'UFO history' is that in 1947 an alien craft crashed in the New Mexico desert near Roswell and that civilians arriving at the scene witnessed dead and injured alien bodies. When the military arrived they captured the craft and aliens and initiated a massive cover-up.

These were your words. You were incorrect in that statement. No civilians arrived at the scene. It was simply Mac Brazel, followed by the Air Force. The only people outside of this group to see a shred of this debris was Brazel's neighbor, and Jessie Marcel's young son, whom he brought a peice home to (And even this is not verified). But no civilians were at the crash site. And Brazel, again, never reported anything about dead or injured alien bodies. Neither did Marcel, who was in charge of the investigation.

So you were WRONG. Even if you were using it as an example of how speculation and exaggeration begin from the moment following the historical crash, you did not get the story right; there were no civilians on site.

I will agree with you that the crash took place; everyone agrees to this. But if it is your argument that it was a flying saucer...well...

JD

 

[glenn239]

An article appeared in the BBC regarding a near miss with a UFO that resulted in a CAA investigation and an official Airprox report. Also included in the article are interesting near miss statistics and commentary.

I remember that one - it got some coverage here in Canada. What struck me as unusual (and therefore worthy of memorization) was that the aircrew in question put their careers on the line and pressed the issue - and, IIRC, the British air safety board (whatever it's called) took the matter very seriously. (Wasn't it because the object in question was behaving aggressively?)

Why the government would hide this supposed "truth" about UFOs is the million-dollar question. Without a reasonable, convincing answer (even a theory), your case is already lacking. If you refuse to even consider this, then you are robbing yourself of an out to this whole mess, if someday you think better of it.

Loss of authority. Interference with policy.

Let's suppose for a moment that they are here, cold, hostile, and mute. A Stalin super-Einstein. I submit that this wouldn't be information that the government could ever be too keen on letting us know. You see, even democracies have to go invade other countries every now and again, and it's tough here to get a foreign policy accomplished - even with the limitations as they currently exist!

Imagine, for a moment, the ideological impact that such knowledge might have upon the peoples of the world, and specifically how that could interfere with our foreign policy: that it's true that we exist at the sufferance of a superior species that is both capable of cruelty and able to wipe us out in an hour. No Tom Cruise heroics. No passing Go. No $200 dollars. Simply the liquefaction of the Earth's crust, good night Irene.

You might find, under these circumstances, that the next time some Moslem nation needs to be reduced to smoking rubble, peacenik public opinion might be...against it. For what other defense would we have against extermination save demonstration that we are a "civilized" planet?

Stories of weird things going bump in the night is kind of fun. Turn that into the Sword of Damocles hanging above our race and it's...not so entertaining anymore, is it?

As a matter of fact, if any of this mess is true, I would say that this scenario is the most possible: They care less if we know about them or not, and the governments of the world have NO SAY or INTERACTION with them or their actions.

100% dead-nuts on. If they're here, they are not talking to us, and that means they are hostile. This is the one condition that explains both why they're not talking, and why were not admitting.

The Theory of Relativity might tell us why ET is here and doesn't like us. It may have taken ET, cruising just below the speed of light 2,000 or 3,000 years to get to us from his home world. But in less than 100 years we've gone from steam power to the moon, and beyond. If ET had only left to get here 100 years ago, he'd only be, say, 5% of the way here today. But our rate of technical progress is formidable. He might be only 50% of the way here when we figure out how to shoot him down before he arrives!

It seems archaic to suppose ET could have a motive stretching 2,000 or more years into the future. But Einstein's Relativity says he must. For, when ET leaves home on his way here, time passes more slowly as he approaches the speed of light. To him, a thousand years may appear as only a few days. We think,

"ET can't be concerned about 5,000 years from now. It's too long to care about."

ET thinks,

"Acceleration complete. We'll be there in 7 days. According to our predictions Human science, (currently in the steam age), should invent star drives 4 days (2,000 years) into our flight, so we expect to be shot down on about day 6.5. On second thought, let's stay home."

Relativity creates a different viewpoint to the issue of time between a stationary species and one capable of near-light velocities. What we see as a distant issue, they see as only a week from now. Further, there's only so many tricks in the universe that can be exploited. Technology will flatline. ET may know everything there is, but that's a perishable advantage. Every advance we make here closes the technology gap, and ET can't widen it because the laws of the universe have nothing left to give; there's no stone Mr. Clever hasn't left unturned.

For his own safety, ET would have to fan out into the Galaxy and spy out the likes of us, where ever we exist, and long before we reached the stone age. The danger to him is the huge time it takes to move great distances in the galaxy in comparision to the tremendous pace at which we are advancing scientifically. Coupled with the idea of ET's tech advantage being parishable and life prevelent everywhere, and you've got one bad-ass security dilemma for our alien friends.

Even in the press release made by the US Media stating that a saucer had crashed, NOWHERE does it make mention of dead or injured aliens. Or even dead or injured humans. Brazel himself--the first and only man outside the military to see the site, and the one with the most unobstructed view--never mentions bodies of any sort.

The most compelling feature of the Roswell incident was that it was the USAAF itself - the 509th Bomber Wing (Atomic) that made an announcement of a crash. It's less likely that this unit (the best in the USAAF) would pull a boner, or ever wish to draw any form of attention.

who are the usual suspects in a ufo incident? could be everyone. you might have the military, people in a professional capacity (pilots, cops, soldiers, investigative bodies etc)

Unlike other crackpot scams, there are a great many trained witnesses coming forward with disturbingly good credentials. That gets my attention (unless Family Guy is on, of course).

 

[Gustav]

mr anonymous

Em.... Frankly, no. Absolutely non the wiser to tell the honest truth. I'm not following your reasoning at all old man. Forgive me, but you do seem to be a trifle all over the place regarding quite what it is you specifically want addressing.



on the first day, god created jdawg. jdawg created a series of questions

They are very simple, and very important, and I believe they warrants an immediate response:

1) If there is this amazing cover-up by the American government regarding the existance of alien UFOs/technology...how do you people know so damn much about it?

2) What would be the reason behind hiding evidence of alien interaction with the Human race? What is the benefit of doing so?

3) Why would these aliens allow us to keep their ship rather than wiping us off the face of the universe? If they are trying to be as stealthy as you all seem to believe, why would they allow such a compromise to their mission?

4) Since when did Norval have "good buddies?"

5) Why has no other government in the world come clean on this matter? Surely America isn't the only place they've been?

on the second day, god created mr anon. mr anon agreed with jdawg

Still, on the plus side, you asked a number of very sound, very germane, very pertinent questions there - top marks for analytical thought. Think probably the world and his dog already what m'own answers would be in triplicate, but can basically be summed up with the following observation that, if a thing is genuinely secret, exactly how does everyone get to "know" about it...?

Rarely ever a good answer to that one, can't imagine why.....

now
what are you both talking about? is there a pattern to these questions?
is it not concealment? secrecy? cover ups? is that not the overiding theme?
it is what my posts focus on

You introduced the subject of the Roswell crash, I simply addressed it as per request. Apparently, my bad.

yes, apparently lets revisit......

now let me emphasize the pertinent portion...

civilians arriving at the scene witnessed dead and injured alien bodies.

this can be repeated ad nauseum to a lot of ufo reports. namely, there are civilians that were either the first responders or simple bystanders.

do you see what i want to focus on? it is not the veracity of the purported event but an oft repeated facet of ufo sightings.

civilians arriving at the scene witnessed _______________

i did not ask for an opinion on the roswell case. nor did i put forth my own. it was an example introduced to indicate that this alleged secretive behaviour and conduct of govts is not a factor in how the public initially learn about ufo incidents.

they are first hand witnesses. the alleged coverups (if any) are usually subsequent to the discovery

As with regards to the Belgium UFO flap of 1990 - it was broadcast on the news the world over. I'm somewhat puzzled with regards to how the incident qualifies as a secret cover-up - half the western world saw reports it taking place.

the belgium flap was initially presented to show jdawg that not all govts are secretive. it was a response to this question...

5) Why has no other government in the world come clean on this matter? Surely America isn't the only place they've been? (jdawg)

when i included it in my post to you, i had adopted the viewpoint that you will discount that report in the same manner as you did roswell. look at the nature of your generalizations. it could be easily applied to the players in the belgian flap

...presumably, relays in some way that these same individuals in being present hadn't made up their minds regarding what they were actually witnessing prior to actually seeing it?..

...witnesses own imaginations were clearly primed towards reaching a very singular conclusion before they ever got to lay eye on a single thing - that what they did observe only served to confirm what they already believed well before arriving..

...Simply because one thinks one is seeing something, doesn't mean one is seeing anything of the sort at all - even eminently qualified, trained observers make crashingly bad mistakes when letting their imaginations colour what their eyes merely appear to be relaying - eyes don't think and neither do they interpret. Only the brain gives recognition and name to whatever information eyes merely relay...

..Given that this is precisely what they had been told to expect...

the nature of most discussions in this forum is one in which posters are painted into their respective corners. you are either a ufology kook or a pseudo skeptic. deal with it

a well reasoned discussion requires ground rules, a statement of position, mutually agreed upon definitions.......

lacking this. we find ourselves in a morass of confusion.
i do not mind

I mean, not meaning to be contentious here old man,

contentious is good. it is also fun