-
Released Videos From The Pentagon's First Batch Of UFO Files
-
Since I have a de facto Ph.D. in UFO Studies after 60+ years of intense involvement and one distinctly non-mundane close-up encounter, I will say that I think the current UAP Disclosure movement is completely misguided to the extent it focuses almost exclusively on nuts-and-bolts craft, supposed crashes and supposed retrieved bodies. Among those of us who have been involved in the field for decades, this is viewed as just about the least likely of the numerous alternative explanations. Whatever the UFO phenomenon (or phenomena) is (or are), the explanation is almost surely something far stranger than this. I personally believe that most of what is observed and photographed is staged - i.e., an intended distraction from what the phenomenon is really all about. Jacques Vallee's notion that it's a "control system" of some sort is probably the closest to the truth. (As mentioned previously, I attended the 1989 MUFON annual conference in Las Vegas where wackos William Cooper and John Lear made their case that JFK was killed - by either Hickey or Greer, as I recall - because he was about to reveal the Alien Secret. So there's the JFK angle that wacky old Douglas Caddy still accepts.)
-
Forgive me if I don't get excited about all this UFO and alien nonsense. Last night Neil DeGrasse Tyson expressed the same thought I have had for years. Just because we don't know what these objects are, it's completely irrational to assume they are extraterrestrial visitors. I suspect some are simply optical illusions or misidentified objects. One of the clips I saw was of a small white object flying above the roofs of buildings in an urban setting. Maybe somebody was flying a drone. Some of the sighting near Roswell New Mexico could be experimental aircraft which of course the Air Force would want to keep top secret.
I find it pretty absurd to think that the unidentified flying objects could be visitors from other solar systems given the distances involved. During the first Cosmos series, Dr. Carl Sagan made the point that it is not possible to fly faster than the speed of light. You could theoretically come close, but not reach or exceed it. The nearest star is over four light years away and our deep space telescopes have given us no indication of life there.
I don't doubt there is life elsewhere in our vast universe and some of it might well be intelligent life. Such intelligent life might be well ahead or way behind our species in development. They are still bound by the cosmic speed limit. Even if they were capable of interstellar travel, what reason would they have to visit the third rock from the sun? Why would they come all this way and then play hide and seek with us.
-
What is the closest "final frontier"? The OCEAN BOTTOM. The area off the San Diego/Calif coast has been a hotbed for this strange "craft" activity. These crafts are Not traveling light years to then just cruise around the Earth. They are here, have been here, and use Earth to extract the mineral(s) they need. These crafts that are doing all of that crazy sh*t are not being fueled by Chevron Unleaded.
History Channel's,"The Secret of Skinwalker Ranch", Season 7 debuts May 19. The US Govt/Robert Bigelow was using that Mesa in the same vein that we saw on "Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind". Underground, there is also a "subway" type of entry/exit. When these clowns are looking into the sky and firing rockets up there, it's time to turn the channel. Whatever remains from that Skinwalker Ranch time period is inside that Mesa and underground.
-
No such things as Aliens....except illegal. "UFO's" are nothing more than the military testing new craft.
-
Not that I care, but we have two responses that reflect an almost complete lack of familiarity with the history and scope of the UFO phenomenon. Anyone familiar with the, say, 1000 best UFO cases - multiple trained and credible witnesses, radar confirmation, physical effects and traces - could not possibly make the dismissive comments we see here.
I won't beat my own peewee encounter to death since I've previously described it, but:
1. I was in the company of a diehard skeptic who was a good friend but thought all varieties of woo-woo were nonsense - and he just about wet his knickers.
2. The encounter was during daylight hours.
3. The UFO was no more than 75 or so yards away and fully visible for 30-40 seconds.
4. Without a word to each other, we both instantly recognized that this was something weird and troubling.
5. There were commonly reported "psychic aftereffects" that confirmed for me that this was no mundane encounter.
I could easily jump on the "ET" bandwagon, but I don't believe this is what it was. The ET explanation doesn't mesh with all the facts of those 1000 best cases (and mine) any better than "optical illusion" or "sooper-dooper miltary technology." The 1000 best cases include UFOs doing unbelievable and even physically impossible things when sooper-dooper military technology still had propellers.
-
Not that I care, but we have two responses that reflect an almost complete lack of familiarity with the history and scope of the UFO phenomenon. Anyone familiar with the, say, 1000 best UFO cases - multiple trained and credible witnesses, radar confirmation, physical effects and traces - could not possibly make the dismissive comments we see here.
I won't beat my own peewee encounter to death since I've previously described it, but:
1. I was in the company of a diehard skeptic who was a good friend but thought all varieties of woo-woo were nonsense - and he just about wet his knickers.
2. The encounter was during daylight hours.
3. The UFO was no more than 75 or so yards away and fully visible for 30-40 seconds.
4. Without a word to each other, we both instantly recognized that this was something weird and troubling.
5. There were commonly reported "psychic aftereffects" that confirmed for me that this was no mundane encounter.
I could easily jump on the "ET" bandwagon, but I don't believe this is what it was. The ET explanation doesn't mesh with all the facts of those 1000 best cases (and mine) any better than "optical illusion" or "sooper-dooper miltary technology." The 1000 best cases include UFOs doing unbelievable and even physically impossible things when sooper-dooper military technology still had propellers.
Physical laws apply all over the cosmos. Nothing can be done that is physically impossible. Just because someone can't explain what they saw doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. It means the explanation isn't known.
-
Physical laws apply all over the cosmos. Nothing can be done that is physically impossible. Just because someone can't explain what they saw doesn't mean there isn't an explanation. It means the explanation isn't known.
I'm not sure of the point being made here. As a matter of fact, we do not know that "physical laws apply all over the cosmos." This is an assumption of science, without which science would be virtually impossible. So-called "laws" are actually subjective models that are sufficiently accurate to make science possible. One oft-cited example is that the laws of physics as we understand them simply do not operate ("break down") inside a black hole.
When I say UFOs have been observed and recorded doing "physically impossible" things, implied in this statement is something like "assuming our present understanding of the nature of reality is at least in the ballpark of being correct." If it isn't, then all bets are off - what seems physically impossible to us may be entirely possible in the context of a reality that is far different from what we now understand reality to be. One possibility that physicists no longer regard as implausible is that we actually occupy a virtual (i.e., simulated) reality or a consciousness-based reality rather than one that is fundamentally material.
The more highly regarded UFO theories include interactions with other dimensions or universes, time travel (wild as that may sound), or manipulation of our reality from a higher reality (be it a deity, a cosmic software programmer, or whatever). Any of these scenarios could produce phenomena that appear to us to be physically impossible - but only because our understanding of reality is actually far off-base.
UFOs have been observed and recorded exhibiting instantaneous acceleration, instantaneous disappearance and reappearance and numerous other "physically impossible" characteristics. Psychic effects have been repeatedly reported. Credible witnesses have reported UFOs that were vastly larger on the inside than they appeared from the outside.
A little novel from 1884 called Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions has always fascinated me. The premise is that a world of two-dimensional circles, squares and triangles is interacting with a world of three-dimensional spheres and boxes and whatnot. When you think about it, what the denizens of a two-dimensional world would experience if a three-dimensional sphere were interacting with their world is almost exactly what UFO witnesses actually report.
I'm not claiming to have any answers. I'm merely claiming to have a sufficient base of knowledge about the UFO phenomenon to know it defies simplistic or mundane explanations (and is way more mysterious and interesting than the JFKA). In fact, I regard even the ET hypothesis and Royell's "ultraterrestrial" hypothesis (as it's known) as among those that are too simplistic to explain the phenomenon. One ET hypothesis I regard as at least a mild possibility is that the phenomenon as we experience it is not the real phenomenon at all but rather a staged phenomenon generated by perhaps a single highly advanced ET source for purposes known only to it - more or less Jacques Vallee's control system idea.
-
Not that I care, but we have two responses that reflect an almost complete lack of familiarity with the history and scope of the UFO phenomenon. Anyone familiar with the, say, 1000 best UFO cases - multiple trained and credible witnesses, radar confirmation, physical effects and traces - could not possibly make the dismissive comments we see here.
I won't beat my own peewee encounter to death since I've previously described it, but:
1. I was in the company of a diehard skeptic who was a good friend but thought all varieties of woo-woo were nonsense - and he just about wet his knickers.
2. The encounter was during daylight hours.
3. The UFO was no more than 75 or so yards away and fully visible for 30-40 seconds.
4. Without a word to each other, we both instantly recognized that this was something weird and troubling.
5. There were commonly reported "psychic aftereffects" that confirmed for me that this was no mundane encounter.
I could easily jump on the "ET" bandwagon, but I don't believe this is what it was. The ET explanation doesn't mesh with all the facts of those 1000 best cases (and mine) any better than "optical illusion" or "sooper-dooper miltary technology." The 1000 best cases include UFOs doing unbelievable and even physically impossible things when sooper-dooper military technology still had propellers.
:D Witness testimony is the most unreliable. You were mistaken.
-
:D Witness testimony is the most unreliable. You were mistaken.
Be that as it may, I heard two shots, saw one alien with a 30.06 in the third-portal window, and saw a different type of alien in a helmet exit the back door at a fast pace. That's my story and I'm sticking with it. My buddy heard three shots and thinks it was the fifth-portal window.
(My actual eyewitness testimony would be curious, even to me. This event was more than 50 years ago. I can recall it more vividly than any event in my life. I can tell you EXACTLY what I was thinking in the minute or so in which it unfolded, including how I tried to rationalize it. I can tell you EXACTLY, word for word, what I and my friend said. What I CANNOT tell you is what the craft looked like as it paced our car at close range. The best I can do is an extremely vague "dark, kinda thin and angular." That's it, as though the craft itself had been wiped from my memory. Whatever it was, both my friend and I IMMEDIATELY recognized this was something weird. There was NO conversation like "What's that funny-looking plane?" The actual conversation was "What ... the hell ... is THAT?" (me) followed by "Jesus Christ, do you see it too? I thought I was seeing things!" (my friend).)
-
Be that as it may, I heard two shots, saw one alien with a 30.06 in the third-portal window, and saw a different type of alien in a helmet exit the back door at a fast pace. That's my story and I'm sticking with it. My buddy heard three shots and thinks it was the fifth-portal window.
(My actual eyewitness testimony would be curious, even to me. This event was more than 50 years ago. I can recall it more vividly than any event in my life. I can tell you EXACTLY what I was thinking in the minute or so in which it unfolded, including how I tried to rationalize it. I can tell you EXACTLY, word for word, what I and my friend said. What I CANNOT tell you is what the craft looked like as it paced our car at close range. The best I can do is an extremely vague "dark, kinda thin and angular." That's it, as though the craft itself had been wiped from my memory. Whatever it was, both my friend and I IMMEDIATELY recognized this was something weird. There was NO conversation like "What's that funny-looking plane?" The actual conversation was "What ... the hell ... is THAT?" (me) followed by "Jesus Christ, do you see it too? I thought I was seeing things!" (my friend).)
Incredible isn't it? Someone could stand right next to you and claim the exact same thing. It could even be a stranger.
:D In JFKA World, it doesn't mean a damn thing.
-
Incredible isn't it? Someone could stand right next to you and claim the exact same thing. It could even be a stranger.
:D It doesn't mean a damn thing.
I'm not following what windmill you're tilting at. Who said it meant a damn thing? It is what it is. Whether we're talking about the existence or nonexistence of a deity, the nature of ultimate reality, the ontological truth about the UFO phenomenon or even the historical truth about the JFKA, all we each can do is diligently inform ourselves, weigh the evidence and arguments as best we can, and arrive at the best set of convictions of which we are able. My direct experience with the UFO phenomenon is obviously going to factor into my thinking more than the thinking of anyone else, but even here I have to examine the event itself and my own thought processes and biases. That's why epistemology is such a fascinating branch of philosophy, at least to me.
An interesting philosophical question, it occurs to me is why posters such as yourself, who deal almost exclusively in snide one-liners, seem so perpetually dismissive and angry about almost everything - as though every thread were some sort of emotional, hot-button issue for you? It's quite fascinating. Perhaps you could seriously address why you consider this a worthwhile use of your time?
-
I'm not following what windmill you're tilting at. Who said it meant a damn thing? It is what it is. Whether we're talking about the existence or nonexistence of a deity, the nature of ultimate reality, the ontological truth about the UFO phenomenon or even the historical truth about the JFKA, all we each can do is diligently inform ourselves, weigh the evidence and arguments as best we can, and arrive at the best set of convictions of which we are able. My direct experience with the UFO phenomenon is obviously going to factor into my thinking more than the thinking of anyone else, but even here I have to examine the event itself and my own thought processes and biases. That's why epistemology is such a fascinating branch of philosophy, at least to me.
An interesting philosophical question, it occurs to me is why posters such as yourself, who deal almost exclusively in snide one-liners, seem so perpetually dismissive and angry about almost everything - as though every thread were some sort of emotional, hot-button issue for you? It's quite fascinating. Perhaps you could seriously address why you consider this a worthwhile use of your time?
it's quite simple really. A nutter's creed, often times abused:
Witness testimony is the most unreliable. Therefore mistaken. whenever.
-
I'm not sure of the point being made here. As a matter of fact, we do not know that "physical laws apply all over the cosmos." This is an assumption of science, without which science would be virtually impossible. So-called "laws" are actually subjective models that are sufficiently accurate to make science possible. One oft-cited example is that the laws of physics as we understand them simply do not operate ("break down") inside a black hole.
When I say UFOs have been observed and recorded doing "physically impossible" things, implied in this statement is something like "assuming our present understanding of the nature of reality is at least in the ballpark of being correct." If it isn't, then all bets are off - what seems physically impossible to us may be entirely possible in the context of a reality that is far different from what we now understand reality to be. One possibility that physicists no longer regard as implausible is that we actually occupy a virtual (i.e., simulated) reality or a consciousness-based reality rather than one that is fundamentally material.
I find it far more probable that the witnesses' judgement of flying objects doing things that are physically impossible is flawed.
The more highly regarded UFO theories include interactions with other dimensions or universes,
Again, it makes far more sense to question the judgement of the witnesses than to question our understanding of physical laws.
time travel (wild as that may sound), or manipulation of our reality from a higher reality (be it a deity, a cosmic software programmer, or whatever). Any of these scenarios could produce phenomena that appear to us to be physically impossible - but only because our understanding of reality is actually far off-base.
Either that or the eyewitness accounts are FUBAR. I know which one I am betting on.
UFOs have been observed and recorded exhibiting instantaneous acceleration, instantaneous disappearance and reappearance and numerous other "physically impossible" characteristics. Psychic effects have been repeatedly reported. Credible witnesses have reported UFOs that were vastly larger on the inside than they appeared from the outside.
What makes these witnesses credible?
A little novel from 1884 called Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions has always fascinated me. The premise is that a world of two-dimensional circles, squares and triangles is interacting with a world of three-dimensional spheres and boxes and whatnot. When you think about it, what the denizens of a two-dimensional world would experience if a three-dimensional sphere were interacting with their world is almost exactly what UFO witnesses actually report.
[/quote]
All theoretical. No proof of additional dimensions.
I'm not claiming to have any answers. I'm merely claiming to have a sufficient base of knowledge about the UFO phenomenon to know it defies simplistic or mundane explanations
It doesn't defy the explanation that eyewitnesses are very frequently wrong about what they thought they saw.
(and is way more mysterious and interesting than the JFKA). In fact, I regard even the ET hypothesis and Royell's "ultraterrestrial" hypothesis (as it's known) as among those that are too simplistic to explain the phenomenon. One ET hypothesis I regard as at least a mild possibility is that the phenomenon as we experience it is not the real phenomenon at all but rather a staged phenomenon generated by perhaps a single highly advanced ET source for purposes known only to it - more or less Jacques Vallee's control system idea.
The parallel with the JFKA is that a lot of people would prefer to believe something fantastic over the plain old boring truth.
-
I find it far more probable that the witnesses' judgement of flying objects doing things that are physically impossible is flawed.Again, it makes far more sense to question the judgement of the witnesses than to question our understanding of physical laws.
Either that or the eyewitness accounts are FUBAR. I know which one I am betting on.What makes these witnesses credible?
it's quite simple really. A nutter's creed, often times abused:
Witness testimony is the most unreliable. Therefore mistaken. whenever.
These quotes are right in my epistemological wheelhouse, so thank you.
Yes, eyewitness testimony is generally characterized as unreliable - but this paints with too broad of a brush. Eyewitness testimony immediately after an event is generally quite reliable insofar as the major details are concerned. In fact, there have been studies with hoax UFOs (lights suspended from balloons, drones, etc.) that showed the witnesses quite accurately reported what they saw; they simply (and not unreasonably) misinterpreted the phenomenon as something more mysterious than it actually was. An epistemologically savvy witness would not leap to any conclusion but would consider all the circumstances and possible mundane explanations and arrive at his best estimate of what he actually saw;if and when the mundane truth was revealed, he would accept it.
What is often characterized as the unreliability of eyewitness testimony is really talking more about the fallibility of memory. I often play memory games with myself that do indeed demonstrate the astonishing fallibility of my own excellent memory. I've hammered a couple of participants here who actually were in Dealey Plaza and purported to remember details no one could reasonably remember 60 years after the event. I apparently drove Toni Glover away, but her purported "memories" just aren't credible in my opinion. Had Toni documented her recollections at the time, and been telling a consistent story for 60 years, I'd be less skeptical.
We also have to factor in the nature of an event. The JFKA was sudden, wholly unexpected, hideously traumatic and utterly chaotic. Eyewitness testimony is obviously not going to be as reliable here as what happened in the third inning of a baseball game or even what happened when a big silver disk appeared in the sky and hovered for five minutes.
My recollection of my UFO experience has remained the same since it happened. I can remember virtually NOTHING of my wedding a year later, but the UFO event is burned into my mind, has never varied one bit, and is as fresh today as 50+ years ago. I am kind of astonished by this myself, but there it is.
Had I been alone, I would be far more skeptical of my own experience than I am. I had been fascinated by UFOs and heavily involved in the study of them since the age of ten. I would have LOVED to see a UFO. I thus would have been the least credible eyewitness imaginable. But my friend was the exact opposite, as hard-nosed and skeptical of everything as they come, yet he saw what I saw and was even more shaken. I have considered the alternative explanations and remain convinced this was something extraordinary. This conclusion is reinforced by what I have called the "psychic aftereffects," which are not uncommon in UFO experiences.
Because I am an intelligent, rational, analytical critical thinker, I do not insist on any particular explanation for this event. I am convinced that what the two of us saw was actually, objectively there. It defies any mundane explanation that occurs to me. It was simply - yep - an "unidentified flying object." My very vague recollection of the craft actually meshes fairly well with stealth technology. If information surfaced that the military was testing small stealth craft in 1971 and these super-secret craft occasionally paced old VW Beetles on Nevada highways during daylight hours at a distance of 75 yards just for the hell of it, I'd cheerfully say "Well, I'll be damned." I'd still have to account for what I have called the psychic aftereffects, but I'd probably throw in the towel if the military explanation were solid enough. (FWIW, Lockheed and Northrup were awarded contracts to build the first static models of stealth craft in 1975.)
Should anyone else attach any weight at all to my experience? Someone who knows me well might do so. I've had people I know very well describe to me experiences, UFO and otherwise, that were mind-blowing and jaw-dropping. One otherwise extremely dull civil engineer described a camping experience in which a large disk zoomed over a lake in full view of him and his son, hovered and sucked up a huge column of water and zoomed away. In fact, one of my little axioms, that has proved itself time and again, is that if you share one of your own extraordinary experiences in a group of five relatives, friends or colleagues (even lawyers!), at least two and more likely three will proceed to relate some incredible experience that makes your own sound like it was hardly worth telling.
The reason I mentioned the 1000 best cases is because volume is how anecdotal and testimonial evidence is best assessed. No matter what extraordinary phenomenon we're talking about, at some point the mountain of anecdotal and testimonial evidence reaches such an overwhelming volume that the only alternative explanation is something like "No matter how credible these folks may seem in the rest of their lives, and no matter how much we may rely on what they say and do, they are fundamentally crazy when it comes to this phenomenon and we can't trust anything they say." This is, indeed, a fair summary of John's post.
In those 1000 best cases, the witnesses will include experienced pilots, military personnel, law enforcement officers, high-level scientists and others who are trained in observation. Often a sighting will include multiple such witnesses. Often the eyewitness testimony will be reinforced by radar returns and/or physical effects and traces. Entire volumes have been written concerning the phenomenon's apparent interest in military and nuclear facilities, and these volumes are chockful of the testimoy of men on duty who saw what certainly appeared to be craft that had an ability to render the most technologically advanced security and weapons systems inoperative. It takes a rather closed and rigid mind - or a wholly uninformed one - to blithely conclude "Nothing to see here, move along."
John's posts reflect a mindset that I often encountered among a certain species of atheists on religion forums. The materialistic paradigm is rock-solid, Newtonian physics explains everything, go away and leave me alone. Well, no. There is no physicist who thinks Newtonian physics explains everything or that quantum physics is anything other than mysterious and baffling. The materialistic paradigm is hanging on by its fingernails. The notion that consciousness rather than matter is the fundamental stuff of the universe is taken very seriously. The possibility that our reality is a simulation is taken seriously. The possibility that we live in a designed, information-based reality is taken seriously. To dismissively attribute the 1000 best or 10,000 best or 100,000 best UFO cases to "eyewitness unreliability" is simply an uninformed, head-in-the-sand position.
Again, I make no claims. I simply say that the UFO phenomenon is genuinely mysterious, worthy of serious study and exceedingly difficult to explain in mundane terms. I know what I experienced, I know what others have reported in the best cases, I have my hierarchy of theories, and I factor them into my overall convictions as to What It's All About. That being said, my convictions could prove to be 100% incorrect.
-
I don't know what you saw but it is completely illogical to assume because you can't explain what it was that it must have been space aliens or some other supernatural phenomenon. There is zero credible evidence that extraterrestrials have visited the third rock from the sun or of the existence of supernatural events. I am a believer in the adage that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. I've seen lots of examples of the former and none of the latter. I'm not sure of the origin of that adage but the late Dr. Carl Sagan expressed it in both video and print.
-
If John didn’t exist, I’d have to invent him because he provides such a perfect foil. The sort of rigid, dogmatic thinking he exemplifies, here and in his responses to anyone who dares not to share his views about the JFKA, is encountered across the entire spectrum of what I lovingly call Weirdness, which includes the UFO phenomenon and even the JFKA. This "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up, I'm right and you're wrong" mindset is all too common.
Duncan may be regretting he ever started this thread, but I shall persist because this is way more interesting for me than whether Oswald was carrying curtain rods into the TSBD …
I don't know what you saw but ...
John doesn't know what I saw, but by God he knows what it wasn't!
it is completely illogical to assume because you can't explain what it was ...
Do my posts suggest I "assume" anything at all about my experience? Did I not make quite clear that I have no firm position as to what it was or wasn't? The nature of the experience leads me to a provisional belief that it was non-mundane, but I would be prepared to be disabused of that belief by compelling evidence to the contrary. My belief that it was non-mundane is bolstered by numerous anecdotal reports of similar experiences by other sane and credible persons. My provisional belief that it was not a nuts-and-bolts ET craft is based on 60+ years of study of the UFO phenomenon, but I would be prepared to be disabused of that belief as well by compelling evidence of ET craft.
that it must have been space aliens or some other supernatural phenomenon.
Does anything in my posts suggest I assume my experience involved "space aliens"? Quite the contrary. In my first post, I made clear that (1) I thought the UAP Disclosure movement was badly misguided for focusing on this angle, and (2) among experienced ufologists the ET hypothesis is regarded as among the most unlikely. I also made clear that I did not think my own experience involved an ET craft. (That being said, there are a vast number of UFO reports, including some of the best, for which an ET craft seems at first blush the most likely explanation; the problem is that there are just too many such cases unless Earth is the Disneyland of the universe and, moreover, there are aspects of the phenomenon that just don't mesh with the ET hypothesis.)
Does anything in my posts suggest I think my experience was a "supernatural" event or that the UFO phenomenon is a "supernatural" one? I used the term "non-mundane," meaning "not easily explainable in terms of our present understanding of reality." No, I don't think my experience involved angels or demons, which is about the only supernatural UFO hypothesis.
There is zero credible evidence that extraterrestrials have visited the third rock from the sun or of the existence of supernatural events.
John appears to know pretty close to nothing about the UFO phenomenon, but he somehow knows there is "zero credible evidence." Ditto for whatever he means by the supernatural - a term that I do not use unless talking about theology because "anomalous" and "non-mundane" are more precise. I have spent 60+ years deeply involved in these subjects, to some minor extent as an experiencer. Although I don't happen to buy into the ET hypothesis, I would strongly dispute the statement that there is zero credible evidence. There is a great deal of credible evidence for which ET visitation is at least a plausible hypothesis. For the supernatural - i.e., anomalous - I would say flatly that John doesn't know what he's talking about. There are mountains of evidence, including laboratory PSI studies, that cannot be explained by conventional science.
The problem with folks like John is that he thinks he gets to be the sole arbiter of what is credible. I wish it worked that way, too - but it doesn't. I get to be the arbiter of what I find credible and so do you, but that's as far as it goes. If 999 out of 1000 people disagree with me, then I probably do need to take a closer look and reconsider.
I have no problem with someone who has studied the UFO phenomenon or any area of the anomalous as diligently and for as long as I have and who reaches entirely different conclusions and convictions. I do have a problem with someone who seems to be speaking from a position of near-total ignorance telling me my own conclusions and convictions are "completely illogical" and supported by "zero credible evidence."
I am a believer in the adage that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. I've seen lots of examples of the former and none of the latter. I'm not sure of the origin of that adage but the late Dr. Carl Sagan expressed it in both video and print.
One wonders if John knows that his hero Sagan wrote a scholarly article in 1963 in which he speculated that the earth had been visited by ETs numerous times in the past and possibly within the historical era: "Direct contact among galactic civilizations by relativistic interstellar spaceflight," Planetary and Space Science, Volume 11, Issue 5, May 1963, Pages 485-498. Using the Drake equation for the likelihood of ET life, he estimated the frequency of extraterrestrial visitation. Based on his estimates, he hypothesized that Earth had been visited many - perhaps hundreds - of times during geological time and possibly once during historical times. He went on to state, "It is not out of the question that artifacts of these visits still exist, or even that some kind of base is maintained (possibly automatically) within the solar system to provide continuity for successive expeditions."
Once he became a highly paid spokesman for atheism and the materialistic paradigm, he did his best to suppress this paper and distance himself from it. The fact is, the tales of his intellectual dishonesty and manipulation are legendary. But I digress ...
No, the "extraordinary claims" shiboleth was popularized by Sagan but predates him by 300 years. It is akin to a logical fallacy. The obvious problems are: Who gets to decide when a claim is "extraordinary" and who gets to decide when the quantum of evidence is "extraordinary"? In reality, this is little more than a tool for intellectually dishonest skeptics and debunkers to keep saying, "Sorry, you're nowhere near the 'extraordinary' standard yet. In fact, your claim is so 'extraordinary' we don't see how you could ever get there." As Thomas Kuhn suggested in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, it's also a tool to insulate a prevailing paradigm against challenge - anything that contravenes the prevailing paradigm is ipso facto "extraordinary."
As Garry P. Nolan, an immunologist and the Rachford and Carlota A. Harris Professor Endowed Chair in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University School of Medicine, has stated: "Science doesn’t care whether the claim is extraordinary or not. It simply arbitrates if the evidence is sufficient. The extraordinary claims/evidence meme is pretentious nonsense."
Many UFO hypotheses and other claims regarding the anomalous are "extraordinary" only in the sense that they are inexplicable given the prevailing materialistic paradigm, which itself is fast crumbling. If reality happens to be fundamentally different from what we now understand it to be, these hypotheses and claims may not seem extraordinary at all. Indeed, perhaps the evidence for UFOs and anomalous phenomena is a very large clue that our present understanding of reality is incorrect.
-
Not that I care, but we have two responses that reflect an almost complete lack of familiarity with the history and scope of the UFO phenomenon. Anyone familiar with the, say, 1000 best UFO cases - multiple trained and credible witnesses, radar confirmation, physical effects and traces - could not possibly make the dismissive comments we see here.
I won't beat my own peewee encounter to death since I've previously described it, but:
1. I was in the company of a diehard skeptic who was a good friend but thought all varieties of woo-woo were nonsense - and he just about wet his knickers.
2. The encounter was during daylight hours.
3. The UFO was no more than 75 or so yards away and fully visible for 30-40 seconds.
4. Without a word to each other, we both instantly recognized that this was something weird and troubling.
5. There were commonly reported "psychic aftereffects" that confirmed for me that this was no mundane encounter.
I could easily jump on the "ET" bandwagon, but I don't believe this is what it was. The ET explanation doesn't mesh with all the facts of those 1000 best cases (and mine) any better than "optical illusion" or "sooper-dooper miltary technology." The 1000 best cases include UFOs doing unbelievable and even physically impossible things when sooper-dooper military technology still had propellers.
Dear Fancy Panzer Rants,
Maybe what you experienced was a glimpse into the next century -- through RFK Jr's wormhole -- when your boys Donald Trump, Peter Thiel, J.V. Trance, Elon Musk, and Vladimir Putin, et al. ad nauseum, have thawed themselves out and developed some super-duper new drone technologies with which to kill as many Ukrainians, non-white immigrants, and Snowflake Socialistic Communistic Libtards as possible!
-- Tom
-
I don't have any skin in the UFO game but my instinct is that given the enormous distances in space that it is extremely unlikely that anyone is visiting Earth. Even if they did, the time continuum makes it unlikely they have done so in our short human time span. Also, they would be subject to certain laws of science. No radio signals detected to the outermost regions of space. Conclusion - no UFOs have come here in recent history.
-
I don't have any skin in the UFO game but my instinct is that given the enormous distances in space that it is extremely unlikely that anyone is visiting Earth. Even if they did, the time continuum makes it unlikely they have done so in our short human time span. Also, they would be subject to certain laws of science. No radio signals detected to the outermost regions of space. Conclusion - no UFOs have come here in recent history.
All well and good, but bear in mind that you - like most people - are limiting the definition of UFOs to nuts-and-bolts craft that are traversing the vast distances of space at speeds that we would regard as obtainable. UFO = alien spacecraft. I would agree that this is exceedingly unlikely, especially in the numbers that proponents of the ET hypothesis seem to think is happening (making Earth the Disneyland of the universe). Bear in mind, however, that in his 1963 paper Carl Sagan hypothesized that this had happened hundreds of times. The larger point is that the ET hypothesis is no longer favored by most serious ufologists (or even little old me), so the term UFO encompasses far more and much stranger hypotheses than just "alien spacecraft." The problem is, almost every explanation - including even mundane ones like secret military technology - fits some of the cases but does not come close to explaining the phenomenon as a whole. One of my very best friends - a true UFO luminary who has appeared on national TV programs for decades - thinks we live in a simulated reality, basically meaning a cosmic software program where anything is possible. The UFO phenomenon as a whole is so weird that it almost drives you to an explanation along these lines. (FWIW, this is no longer regarded as lunatic fringe stuff: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/.)
-
All well and good, but bear in mind that you - like most people - are limiting the definition of UFOs to nuts-and-bolts craft that are traversing the vast distances of space at speeds that we would regard as obtainable. UFO = alien spacecraft. I would agree that this is exceedingly unlikely, especially in the numbers that proponents of the ET hypothesis seem to think is happening (making Earth the Disneyland of the universe). Bear in mind, however, that in his 1963 paper Carl Sagan hypothesized that this had happened hundreds of times. The larger point is that the ET hypothesis is no longer favored by most serious ufologists (or even little old me), so the term UFO encompasses far more and much stranger hypotheses than just "alien spacecraft." The problem is, almost every explanation - including even mundane ones like secret military technology - fits some of the cases but does not come close to explaining the phenomenon as a whole. One of my very best friends - a true UFO luminary who has appeared on national TV programs for decades - thinks we live in a simulated reality, basically meaning a cosmic software program where anything is possible. The UFO phenomenon as a whole is so weird that it almost drives you to an explanation along these lines. (FWIW, this is no longer regarded as lunatic fringe stuff: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-simulation-chances-are-about-50-50/.)
I'm sure there are certain military craft that are responsible for some of these events. Many are also fakes or bizarre weather events. I heard someone say that the most likely source of proof of any alien existence will be the discovery of some type of abandoned alien vehicle/space junk that has been orbiting the universe for eons. That sounds about right. But they are not visiting Earth. Even if they had some type of currently unimaginable technology that allowed them to transverse enormous distances, the odds of this coinciding in time with our own existence must be trillions to one. Like the JFK conspiracy, many UFO types take the lack of evidence to reverse engineer a theory that still allows them to maintain some basis to believe. Often not only baseless but insane.
-
I'm sure there are certain military craft that are responsible for some of these events. Many are also fakes or bizarre weather events. I heard someone say that the most likely source of proof of any alien existence will be the discovery of some type of abandoned alien vehicle/space junk that has been orbiting the universe for eons. That sounds about right. But they are not visiting Earth. Even if they had some type of currently unimaginable technology that allowed them to transverse enormous distances, the odds of this coinciding in time with our own existence must be trillions to one. Like the JFK conspiracy, many UFO types take the lack of evidence to reverse engineer a theory that still allows them to maintain some basis to believe. Often not only baseless but insane.
I wonder how many people are aware that Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, once thought it was likely that the human species was the product of seeding by ETs ("directed panspermia"). Famed atheist biologist Richard Dawkins has also conceded this possibility. As you may or may not know, the origin of life on Earth is as big a mystery today as it was 50 years ago (in some ways, more of a mystery). I'm not pushing the ET notion here, but I don't see the time problem that you describe as being significant. Given the age of the universe, and what humans have accomplished in just the last 5,000 years, an alien civilization could be unfathomably more advanced. One could have been visiting the Earth for millions of years. The idea of an unfathomably advanced ET civilization is basically the premise of the movie Contact, based on Carl Sagan's novel.
I would somewhat turn your logic back on you: Yes, some UFO enthusiasts do use a lack of evidence to "reverse engineer" some pet theory, but an equally problematic phenomenon is the tendency of many people to view the UFO phenomenon as though ETs were basically humans and subject them to the same limitations. "Impossible for us and therefore impossible for them." One of the truest statements was that of Stanislaw Lem, author of the novel Solaris: If we encounter an alien race, we may never understand what it is doing or why and may not even realize we have encountered it. Or, as Arthur C. Clarke said, any sufficiently advanced technology is likely to be indistinguishable from magic. The UFO phenomenon has to be taken on its own terms, not anthropomorphic notions of what we think it should be like or what we think is possible or impossible.
Well, I think I've beaten this subject to death. I wonder why Duncan started a UFO thread?
-
If John didn’t exist, I’d have to invent him because he provides such a perfect foil. The sort of rigid, dogmatic thinking he exemplifies, here and in his responses to anyone who dares not to share his views about the JFKA, is encountered across the entire spectrum of what I lovingly call Weirdness, which includes the UFO phenomenon and even the JFKA. This "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up, I'm right and you're wrong" mindset is all too common.
Facts? What facts? I've been waiting for 62 years for someone to present credible evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. The only credible evidence that we have all points to LHO as the assassin and no one else. I have no expectations that anyone will ever present such compelling evidence, but if someone does, I will be most interested. Surprise me. Come up with such evidence and you will see my attitude change.
I feel the same way regarding UFOs. I am not willing to believe all these sightings are of extraterrestrial visitors or any other supernatural explanation unless someone presents me with compelling evidence of that. Your tale does not constitute such evidence. It's just an unexplained phenomenon. If you want to base your beliefs on faith alone, you are free to do so. Don't expect me to buy into it.
Duncan may be regretting he ever started this thread, but I shall persist because this is way more interesting for me than whether Oswald was carrying curtain rods into the TSBD …
John doesn't know what I saw, but by God he knows what it wasn't!
I don't know what you saw and apparently neither do you. You seem willing to assume what you saw was something supernatural. I am not. As with the JFKA, I am not willing to believe in things for which there is no evidence. Show me some hard evidence and I assure you I will be interested. Until then,
I will remain skeptical.
Do my posts suggest I "assume" anything at all about my experience? Did I not make quite clear that I have no firm position as to what it was or wasn't? The nature of the experience leads me to a provisional belief that it was non-mundane, but I would be prepared to be disabused of that belief by compelling evidence to the contrary. My belief that it was non-mundane is bolstered by numerous anecdotal reports of similar experiences by other sane and credible persons. My provisional belief that it was not a nuts-and-bolts ET craft is based on 60+ years of study of the UFO phenomenon, but I would be prepared to be disabused of that belief as well by compelling evidence of ET craft.
Does anything in my posts suggest I assume my experience involved "space aliens"? Quite the contrary. In my first post, I made clear that (1) I thought the UAP Disclosure movement was badly misguided for focusing on this angle, and (2) among experienced ufologists the ET hypothesis is regarded as among the most unlikely. I also made clear that I did not think my own experience involved an ET craft. (That being said, there are a vast number of UFO reports, including some of the best, for which an ET craft seems at first blush the most likely explanation; the problem is that there are just too many such cases unless Earth is the Disneyland of the universe and, moreover, there are aspects of the phenomenon that just don't mesh with the ET hypothesis.)
Does anything in my posts suggest I think my experience was a "supernatural" event or that the UFO phenomenon is a "supernatural" one? I used the term "non-mundane," meaning "not easily explainable in terms of our present understanding of reality." No, I don't think my experience involved angels or demons, which is about the only supernatural UFO hypothesis.
John appears to know pretty close to nothing about the UFO phenomenon, but he somehow knows there is "zero credible evidence." Ditto for whatever he means by the supernatural - a term that I do not use unless talking about theology because "anomalous" and "non-mundane" are more precise. I have spent 60+ years deeply involved in these subjects, to some minor extent as an experiencer. Although I don't happen to buy into the ET hypothesis, I would strongly dispute the statement that there is zero credible evidence. There is a great deal of credible evidence for which ET visitation is at least a plausible hypothesis. For the supernatural - i.e., anomalous - I would say flatly that John doesn't know what he's talking about. There are mountains of evidence, including laboratory PSI studies, that cannot be explained by conventional science.
The problem with folks like John is that he thinks he gets to be the sole arbiter of what is credible.
I am the sole arbiter of what is credible to me. If you expect me to believe something, show me your evidence. I'm not willing to believe you saw something extraordinary just because you saw something you don't understand.
I wish it worked that way, too - but it doesn't. I get to be the arbiter of what I find credible and so do you, but that's as far as it goes. If 999 out of 1000 people disagree with me, then I probably do need to take a closer look and reconsider.
I have no problem with someone who has studied the UFO phenomenon or any area of the anomalous as diligently and for as long as I have and who reaches entirely different conclusions and convictions. I do have a problem with someone who seems to be speaking from a position of near-total ignorance telling me my own conclusions and convictions are "completely illogical" and supported by "zero credible evidence."
One wonders if John knows that his hero Sagan wrote a scholarly article in 1963 in which he speculated that the earth had been visited by ETs numerous times in the past and possibly within the historical era: "Direct contact among galactic civilizations by relativistic interstellar spaceflight," Planetary and Space Science, Volume 11, Issue 5, May 1963, Pages 485-498. Using the Drake equation for the likelihood of ET life, he estimated the frequency of extraterrestrial visitation. Based on his estimates, he hypothesized that Earth had been visited many - perhaps hundreds - of times during geological time and possibly once during historical times. He went on to state, "It is not out of the question that artifacts of these visits still exist, or even that some kind of base is maintained (possibly automatically) within the solar system to provide continuity for successive expeditions."
I believed many things when I was younger that I don't believe now. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Dr. Sagan's experience was similar to mine. I have become much more discerning as to what I find credible.
Once he became a highly paid spokesman for atheism and the materialistic paradigm, he did his best to suppress this paper and distance himself from it. The fact is, the tales of his intellectual dishonesty and manipulation are legendary. But I digress ...
Dr. Sagan was not an atheist and he said so on numerous occasions. He was an agnostic. He once expressed the idea that both believers and non-believers exhibit a certitude that science does not support. He said, "I don't want to believe. I want to know.". That pretty much sums up my position.
No, the "extraordinary claims" shiboleth was popularized by Sagan but predates him by 300 years.
I was very careful not to claim that Dr. Sagan was the originator of that idea, only that he was a proponent of it. So am I.
It is akin to a logical fallacy. The obvious problems are: Who gets to decide when a claim is "extraordinary" and who gets to decide when the quantum of evidence is "extraordinary"? In reality, this is little more than a tool for intellectually dishonest skeptics and debunkers to keep saying, "Sorry, you're nowhere near the 'extraordinary' standard yet. In fact, your claim is so 'extraordinary' we don't see how you could ever get there." As Thomas Kuhn suggested in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, it's also a tool to insulate a prevailing paradigm against challenge - anything that contravenes the prevailing paradigm is ipso facto "extraordinary."
We all get to decide that for ourselves.
As Garry P. Nolan, an immunologist and the Rachford and Carlota A. Harris Professor Endowed Chair in the Department of Pathology at Stanford University School of Medicine, has stated: "Science doesn’t care whether the claim is extraordinary or not. It simply arbitrates if the evidence is sufficient. The extraordinary claims/evidence meme is pretentious nonsense."
I have seen no evidence that the explanation for UFOs is, to use your term, non-mundane.
Many UFO hypotheses and other claims regarding the anomalous are "extraordinary" only in the sense that they are inexplicable given the prevailing materialistic paradigm, which itself is fast crumbling. If reality happens to be fundamentally different from what we now understand it to be, these hypotheses and claims may not seem extraordinary at all. Indeed, perhaps the evidence for UFOs and anomalous phenomena is a very large clue that our present understanding of reality is incorrect.
It is the hallmark of good science to be constantly re-evaluating one's beliefs. I am perfectly willing to do that if presented with evidence that UFO sightings have an extraordinary, or if you prefer, non-mundane explanation. Until I see such evidence, I am not willing to believe it that is the case. Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a protege of Dr. Sagan's, has recently expressed a viewpoint similar to mine. Skepticism is also a hallmark of good science, to the point that a true scientist will go so far as to question his own findings. He will subject his findings to peer review.
Given the size of the cosmos, I find it probable that there is intelligent life somewhere out there. I have no idea what the odds are of intelligent life forming in any given cosmic body or system. Where it has formed, there is no way to tell how advanced or primitive such life forms are. There may have been countless other examples of intelligent life that developed and have since gone extinct. It's also possible there are lifeforms that are in the same stage of development as the earliest forms of life on our planet and which in a billion or more years could produce a race far more advanced than we are now. I have no expectation I will see evidence of such life forms in my brief existence. I'm not going to spend what remaining time I have left pondering such a question because I have more important things to concern myself with, such as improving my golf game.
-
There were two themes that I hammered on at the Ed Forum to howls of protest: (1) the large body of psychological and sociological studies and literature that has accumulated over the past 20 years concerning the distinct conspiracy-prone mindset, and (2) the near-exact parallels between the UFO phenomenon and the JFKA and their respective communities of researchers, hobbyists and cultists.
No less a legend in his own mind than Jim DiEugenio said that my UFO analogy was the single most irritating thing about me for him. UFO believers are all wackos, you see, while he is a serious historian (albeit one who exemplifies the conspiracy-prone mindset to the nth degree).
I happen to think the UFO phenomenon is far, far more significant than the JFKA. It has the potential to alter our understanding of our place in the universe and even of the very nature of reality. If the LN narrative is correct, the JFKA is no more significant than the McKinley assassination. If certain conspiracy theories are correct, the JFKA might tell us something about the subsequent history and current state of the country – but not much, and pretty much nothing we couldn’t have figured out without worrying about the JFKA.
Like it or not, a truly vast body evidence, scientific studies and serious theorizing concerning the UFO phenomenon has accumulated over the past 75 or so years. Much of it has little or nothing to do with “space aliens,” and serious theories are all over the map. Even versions of the ET hypothesis are far more sophisticated and plausible than "space aliens" in nuts-and-bolts craft.
As with the JFKA, most people have no awareness whatsoever of this vast body of material. They glean their minimal understanding from the mainstream media and perhaps the occasional program on the Discovery Channel or video on YouTube. They either think the UFO phenomenon, like JFKA conspiracy theorizing, is all nonsense or they have some vague notion that “there must be something to it” but they don’t really know or care what this might be.
This near-complete lack of awareness is evident on this thread. For many, the term UFO conjures up nothing but images of wacky folks who think “space aliens” are visiting the planet in motherships and saucers from Zeta Reticuli and the Pleiades.
When the vast body of UFO material is viewed in the context of the latest thinking in the areas of physics, cosmology and consciousness, it becomes fascinating. Some of the more sophisticated UFO theories no longer seem nearly as far “out there” as they once did. As we see on this thread, however, most people have no clue. It’s all just “space aliens.”
As with the JFKA and every other area of weirdness and religion, the UFO community is absolutely plagued with hoaxsters, fraudsters, fast-buck artists, nutcase cultists, and folks deep in the grip of the conspiracy-prone mindset or even genuine mental illness. Indeed, in my opinion based on long experience and observation both the UFO and JFKA communities are dominated by these characters. (Don't come unglued, CTers. I'm talking about the LN side as well.) One has to work to find the serious and worthy-of-consideration aspect of either subject and separate the wheat from the chaff.
I find it slightly humorous that folks who think the JFKA is worth vast amounts of their time are so utterly clueless and cavalierly dismissive of a phenomenon that is potentially vastly more significant. We can’t all be equally informed about (or even interested in) everything, of course, but the knee-jerk dismissiveness by JFKA folks who obviously have no clue what they are talking about insofar as the UFO phenomenon is concerned is really kind of astonishing and vaguely humorous (or perhaps pathetic).
But on it goes, and always will.
-
There were two themes that I hammered on at the Ed Forum to howls of protest: (1) the large body of psychological and sociological studies and literature that has accumulated over the past 20 years concerning the distinct conspiracy-prone mindset, and (2) the near-exact parallels between the UFO phenomenon and the JFKA and their respective communities of researchers, hobbyists and cultists.
No less a legend in his own mind than Jim DiEugenio said that my UFO analogy was the single most irritating thing about me for him. UFO believers are all wackos, you see, while he is a serious historian (albeit one who exemplifies the conspiracy-prone mindset to the nth degree).
I happen to think the UFO phenomenon is far, far more significant than the JFKA. It has the potential to alter our understanding of our place in the universe and even of the very nature of reality. If the LN narrative is correct, the JFKA is no more significant than the McKinley assassination. If certain conspiracy theories are correct, the JFKA might tell us something about the subsequent history and current state of the country – but not much, and pretty much nothing we couldn’t have figured out without worrying about the JFKA.
Like it or not, a truly vast body evidence, scientific studies and serious theorizing concerning the UFO phenomenon has accumulated over the past 75 or so years. Much of it has little or nothing to do with “space aliens,” and serious theories are all over the map. Even versions of the ET hypothesis are far more sophisticated and plausible than "space aliens" in nuts-and-bolts craft.
As with the JFKA, most people have no awareness whatsoever of this vast body of material. They glean their minimal understanding from the mainstream media and perhaps the occasional program on the Discovery Channel or video on YouTube. They either think the UFO phenomenon, like JFKA conspiracy theorizing, is all nonsense or they have some vague notion that “there must be something to it” but they don’t really know or care what this might be.
This near-complete lack of awareness is evident on this thread. For many, the term UFO conjures up nothing but images of wacky folks who think “space aliens” are visiting the planet in motherships and saucers from Zeta Reticuli and the Pleiades.
When the vast body of UFO material is viewed in the context of the latest thinking in the areas of physics, cosmology and consciousness, it becomes fascinating. Some of the more sophisticated UFO theories no longer seem nearly as far “out there” as they once did. As we see on this thread, however, most people have no clue. It’s all just “space aliens.”
As with the JFKA and every other area of weirdness and religion, the UFO community is absolutely plagued with hoaxsters, fraudsters, fast-buck artists, nutcase cultists, and folks deep in the grip of the conspiracy-prone mindset or even genuine mental illness. Indeed, in my opinion based on long experience and observation both the UFO and JFKA communities are dominated by these characters. (Don't come unglued, CTers. I'm talking about the LN side as well.) One has to work to find the serious and worthy-of-consideration aspect of either subject and separate the wheat from the chaff.
I find it slightly humorous that folks who think the JFKA is worth vast amounts of their time are so utterly clueless and cavalierly dismissive of a phenomenon that is potentially vastly more significant. We can’t all be equally informed about (or even interested in) everything, of course, but the knee-jerk dismissiveness by JFKA folks who obviously have no clue what they are talking about insofar as the UFO phenomenon is concerned is really kind of astonishing and vaguely humorous (or perhaps pathetic).
But on it goes, and always will.
You are spot on with this. This is legit but what exactly is it.
I grew up around Malmstrom AFB and UFO's were a constant subject with all the ICBM's in the area. One UFO was seen over a legion Baseball game in mid-day by a large group of people.
A AF security detail recently testified to Congress about one encounter and can be read online.
In the same sentence with UFO's were cattle mutilations. Both are very real and seem to go hand in hand with no explanation.
-
There were two themes that I hammered on at the Ed Forum to howls of protest: (1) the large body of psychological and sociological studies and literature that has accumulated over the past 20 years concerning the distinct conspiracy-prone mindset, and (2) the near-exact parallels between the UFO phenomenon and the JFKA and their respective communities of researchers, hobbyists and cultists.
No less a legend in his own mind than Jim DiEugenio said that my UFO analogy was the single most irritating thing about me for him. UFO believers are all wackos, you see, while he is a serious historian (albeit one who exemplifies the conspiracy-prone mindset to the nth degree).
I happen to think the UFO phenomenon is far, far more significant than the JFKA. It has the potential to alter our understanding of our place in the universe and even of the very nature of reality. If the LN narrative is correct, the JFKA is no more significant than the McKinley assassination. If certain conspiracy theories are correct, the JFKA might tell us something about the subsequent history and current state of the country – but not much, and pretty much nothing we couldn’t have figured out without worrying about the JFKA.
Like it or not, a truly vast body evidence, scientific studies and serious theorizing concerning the UFO phenomenon has accumulated over the past 75 or so years. Much of it has little or nothing to do with “space aliens,” and serious theories are all over the map. Even versions of the ET hypothesis are far more sophisticated and plausible than "space aliens" in nuts-and-bolts craft.
As with the JFKA, most people have no awareness whatsoever of this vast body of material. They glean their minimal understanding from the mainstream media and perhaps the occasional program on the Discovery Channel or video on YouTube. They either think the UFO phenomenon, like JFKA conspiracy theorizing, is all nonsense or they have some vague notion that “there must be something to it” but they don’t really know or care what this might be.
This near-complete lack of awareness is evident on this thread. For many, the term UFO conjures up nothing but images of wacky folks who think “space aliens” are visiting the planet in motherships and saucers from Zeta Reticuli and the Pleiades.
When the vast body of UFO material is viewed in the context of the latest thinking in the areas of physics, cosmology and consciousness, it becomes fascinating. Some of the more sophisticated UFO theories no longer seem nearly as far “out there” as they once did. As we see on this thread, however, most people have no clue. It’s all just “space aliens.”
As with the JFKA and every other area of weirdness and religion, the UFO community is absolutely plagued with hoaxsters, fraudsters, fast-buck artists, nutcase cultists, and folks deep in the grip of the conspiracy-prone mindset or even genuine mental illness. Indeed, in my opinion based on long experience and observation both the UFO and JFKA communities are dominated by these characters. (Don't come unglued, CTers. I'm talking about the LN side as well.) One has to work to find the serious and worthy-of-consideration aspect of either subject and separate the wheat from the chaff.
I find it slightly humorous that folks who think the JFKA is worth vast amounts of their time are so utterly clueless and cavalierly dismissive of a phenomenon that is potentially vastly more significant. We can’t all be equally informed about (or even interested in) everything, of course, but the knee-jerk dismissiveness by JFKA folks who obviously have no clue what they are talking about insofar as the UFO phenomenon is concerned is really kind of astonishing and vaguely humorous (or perhaps pathetic).
But on it goes, and always will.
I find it far more probable that the various UFO witnesses have simply misinterpreted what they thought they saw than that these sightings are a game changer for our understanding of astrophysics.
-
You are spot on with this. This is legit but what exactly is it.
I grew up around Malmstrom AFB and UFO's were a constant subject with all the ICBM's in the area. One UFO was seen over a legion Baseball game in mid-day by a large group of people.
A AF security detail recently testified to Congress about one encounter and can be read online.
In the same sentence with UFO's were cattle mutilations. Both are very real and seem to go hand in hand with no explanation.
To me these accounts are in the same category as crop circles which for a while confounded people including some in the scientific community until somebody showed how easy it was to create these circles with boards tether to a rope attached to a center point. I don't hear much about crop circles any more. Once the trick was revealed, the explanation was far more mundane than what had been speculated.
-
There were two themes that I hammered on at the Ed Forum to howls of protest: (1) the large body of psychological and sociological studies and literature that has accumulated over the past 20 years concerning the distinct conspiracy-prone mindset, and (2) the near-exact parallels between the UFO phenomenon and the JFKA and their respective communities of researchers, hobbyists and cultists.
No less a legend in his own mind than Jim DiEugenio said that my UFO analogy was the single most irritating thing about me for him. UFO believers are all wackos, you see, while he is a serious historian (albeit one who exemplifies the conspiracy-prone mindset to the nth degree).
I happen to think the UFO phenomenon is far, far more significant than the JFKA. It has the potential to alter our understanding of our place in the universe and even of the very nature of reality. If the LN narrative is correct, the JFKA is no more significant than the McKinley assassination. If certain conspiracy theories are correct, the JFKA might tell us something about the subsequent history and current state of the country – but not much, and pretty much nothing we couldn’t have figured out without worrying about the JFKA.
Like it or not, a truly vast body evidence, scientific studies and serious theorizing concerning the UFO phenomenon has accumulated over the past 75 or so years. Much of it has little or nothing to do with “space aliens,” and serious theories are all over the map. Even versions of the ET hypothesis are far more sophisticated and plausible than "space aliens" in nuts-and-bolts craft.
As with the JFKA, most people have no awareness whatsoever of this vast body of material. They glean their minimal understanding from the mainstream media and perhaps the occasional program on the Discovery Channel or video on YouTube. They either think the UFO phenomenon, like JFKA conspiracy theorizing, is all nonsense or they have some vague notion that “there must be something to it” but they don’t really know or care what this might be.
This near-complete lack of awareness is evident on this thread. For many, the term UFO conjures up nothing but images of wacky folks who think “space aliens” are visiting the planet in motherships and saucers from Zeta Reticuli and the Pleiades.
When the vast body of UFO material is viewed in the context of the latest thinking in the areas of physics, cosmology and consciousness, it becomes fascinating. Some of the more sophisticated UFO theories no longer seem nearly as far “out there” as they once did. As we see on this thread, however, most people have no clue. It’s all just “space aliens.”
As with the JFKA and every other area of weirdness and religion, the UFO community is absolutely plagued with hoaxsters, fraudsters, fast-buck artists, nutcase cultists, and folks deep in the grip of the conspiracy-prone mindset or even genuine mental illness. Indeed, in my opinion based on long experience and observation both the UFO and JFKA communities are dominated by these characters. (Don't come unglued, CTers. I'm talking about the LN side as well.) One has to work to find the serious and worthy-of-consideration aspect of either subject and separate the wheat from the chaff.
I find it slightly humorous that folks who think the JFKA is worth vast amounts of their time are so utterly clueless and cavalierly dismissive of a phenomenon that is potentially vastly more significant. We can’t all be equally informed about (or even interested in) everything, of course, but the knee-jerk dismissiveness by JFKA folks who obviously have no clue what they are talking about insofar as the UFO phenomenon is concerned is really kind of astonishing and vaguely humorous (or perhaps pathetic).
But on it goes, and always will.
I'll make the same challenge to you that I have made numerous times to the CT community over the past several decades. I have challenged them to provide an alternative explanation of the assassination and their supporting evidence. Few even tried and the few who did were easily shot down. If you think these UFO sightings have a "non-mundane" explanation, tell us what you think that explanation is and what your supporting evidence is. Until somebody can do that, I will continue to believe these sightings have a mundane explanation even if we don't yet know what that explanation is.
-
There were two themes that I hammered on at the Ed Forum to howls of protest: (1) the large body of psychological and sociological studies and literature that has accumulated over the past 20 years concerning the distinct conspiracy-prone mindset, and (2) the near-exact parallels between the UFO phenomenon and the JFKA and their respective communities of researchers, hobbyists and cultists.
No less a legend in his own mind than Jim DiEugenio said that my UFO analogy was the single most irritating thing about me for him. UFO believers are all wackos, you see, while he is a serious historian (albeit one who exemplifies the conspiracy-prone mindset to the nth degree).
I happen to think the UFO phenomenon is far, far more significant than the JFKA. It has the potential to alter our understanding of our place in the universe and even of the very nature of reality. If the LN narrative is correct, the JFKA is no more significant than the McKinley assassination. If certain conspiracy theories are correct, the JFKA might tell us something about the subsequent history and current state of the country – but not much, and pretty much nothing we couldn’t have figured out without worrying about the JFKA.
Like it or not, a truly vast body evidence, scientific studies and serious theorizing concerning the UFO phenomenon has accumulated over the past 75 or so years. Much of it has little or nothing to do with “space aliens,” and serious theories are all over the map. Even versions of the ET hypothesis are far more sophisticated and plausible than "space aliens" in nuts-and-bolts craft.
As with the JFKA, most people have no awareness whatsoever of this vast body of material. They glean their minimal understanding from the mainstream media and perhaps the occasional program on the Discovery Channel or video on YouTube. They either think the UFO phenomenon, like JFKA conspiracy theorizing, is all nonsense or they have some vague notion that “there must be something to it” but they don’t really know or care what this might be.
This near-complete lack of awareness is evident on this thread. For many, the term UFO conjures up nothing but images of wacky folks who think “space aliens” are visiting the planet in motherships and saucers from Zeta Reticuli and the Pleiades.
When the vast body of UFO material is viewed in the context of the latest thinking in the areas of physics, cosmology and consciousness, it becomes fascinating. Some of the more sophisticated UFO theories no longer seem nearly as far “out there” as they once did. As we see on this thread, however, most people have no clue. It’s all just “space aliens.”
As with the JFKA and every other area of weirdness and religion, the UFO community is absolutely plagued with hoaxsters, fraudsters, fast-buck artists, nutcase cultists, and folks deep in the grip of the conspiracy-prone mindset or even genuine mental illness. Indeed, in my opinion based on long experience and observation both the UFO and JFKA communities are dominated by these characters. (Don't come unglued, CTers. I'm talking about the LN side as well.) One has to work to find the serious and worthy-of-consideration aspect of either subject and separate the wheat from the chaff.
With the CTs, its all chaff and no wheat. None of them can provide any evidence to support the proposition that anyone other than Oswald were complicit in the crime.
Since I have studied the UFO phenomenon far less than the JFK assassination, I'm willing to be a bit more open minded but I remain unconvinced that there isn't a very mundane explanation for them. For the UFO buffs, I remain unconvinced there is any wheat and that it too isn't all chaff.
-
Deleted
-
To me these accounts are in the same category as crop circles which for a while confounded people including some in the scientific community until somebody showed how easy it was to create these circles with boards tether to a rope attached to a center point. I don't hear much about crop circles any more. Once the trick was revealed, the explanation was far more mundane than what had been speculated.
But yet you can embrace the idea that there was shot at Z152 with zero evidence there ever was one. An early missed shot is nothing but a fantasy. If that is how you feel about UFO sightings then I understand.
-
I'll make the same challenge to you that I have made numerous times to the CT community over the past several decades. I have challenged them to provide an alternative explanation of the assassination and their supporting evidence. Few even tried and the few who did were easily shot down. If you think these UFO sightings have a "non-mundane" explanation, tell us what you think that explanation is and what your supporting evidence is. Until somebody can do that, I will continue to believe these sightings have a mundane explanation even if we don't yet know what that explanation is.
I thought I had made clear that I do not have "an explanation" for the UFO phenomenon. I am well-informed about essentially all of the evidence and all of the theories. The phenomenon as a whole does not mesh with our present undersgtanding of reality; hence my characterization of it as "non-mundane" and "extraordinary." There are hypotheses that, to me, fit the phenomenon as a whole better than do others such as the "space aliens" hypothesis. Those hypotheses generally involve interactions with other dimensions or levels of reality, and my views are informed by my pretty considerable studies of physics, cosmology and consciousness. I could entertain the possibility that the entire phenomenon is generated by a single unimaginably advanced alien culture for some purpose known only to it and that it is essentially a staged phenomenon that gives the appearance to us (in Arthur C. Clarke's phrase) of "magic."
I don't believe that either I or a JFKA CTer is obligated to respond to your challenges. You don't have sufficient interest in the subject to have even minimally informed yourself, so why should I attempt to summarize my 60+ years of involvement in the field? What do I care what you think about UFOs or my understanding of them?
I have L-O-N-G experience engaging with the curious species of atheist who haunts religion forums. Your posts are very similar. The atheists have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to theology and do not haunt the forums for the purpose of genuine discussion, Their tactic, which becomes quite tedious, is to issue endless "challenges" and then announce that believers' "evidence" is neither "extraordinary" nor even credible and they remain wholly unconvinced even though (they claim) they are open-minded and would be receptive if only the silly, delusional believers had anything at all resembling real evidence.
When it comes to the JFKA, some conspiracy theories are "easily shot down" by the standards of any reasonable person. Others, not so easily. And there are aspects of the LN narrative that are problematical and troubling. Those for whom the LN narrative seems to have achieved the status of some sort of religion are in many ways more puzzling to me than any CTer. Conspiracies are, at least, kind of intriguing and fun to kick around. If I were 100% convinced the LN narrative were true and there was nothing to talk about, I'm not sure why I would care anything about defending it on a forum such as this. This again is reminiscent of the internet atheists - they purport to regard religion as utter silliness and practically a mental illness, yet they spend vast amounts of time attacking and discussing it and railing against a deity they supposedly think is a complete fiction. Weird.
-
But yet you can embrace the idea that there was shot at Z152 with zero evidence there ever was one. An early missed shot is nothing but a fantasy. If that is how you feel about UFO sightings then I understand.
There is evidence of an early shot although I admit it is not conclusive evidence, which is Zapruder's camera shake at Z155 which would be indicative of a shot fired at Z147-148. The reason that it is not conclusive evidence is that there are other things that could have caused that shake. Coupled with the reactions of JBC and Rosemary Willis less than a full second later, it is probative if not conclusive. We see similar camera shakes following shots we know were fired at Z227 and Z318.
-
But yet you can embrace the idea that there was shot at Z152 with zero evidence there ever was one. An early missed shot is nothing but a fantasy. If that is how you feel about UFO sightings then I understand.
As Jack knows, I found Phantom Shot be pretty compelling and persuasive. It eliminates a number of problems. It's curious that most LNers cling so tenaciously to the three-shot scenario while having such incredibly diverse notions as to when the first shot was fired and why it missed. Just intuitively, two shots that nailed JFK squarely in the back and head and one that missed all of downtown Dallas seems problematical.
-
As Jack knows, I found Phantom Shot be pretty compelling and persuasive. It eliminates a number of problems. It's curious that most LNers cling so tenaciously to the three-shot scenario while having such incredibly diverse notions as to when the first shot was fired and why it missed. Just intuitively, two shots that nailed JFK squarely in the back and head and one that missed all of downtown Dallas seems problematical.
It's hardly surprising that LNs have diverse opinions on when the first shot was fired since the Z-film gives us no definitive clues. A case can be made for shots at various points prior to JBC turning in reaction to hearing the first shot. It comes down to how one chooses to weigh those clues.
-
Keen-eyed observers may have noticed that no one, including me, had anything whatsoever to say about the video Duncan posted. I found it about as exciting as watching my microwave cook a Banquet pot pie (fairly yummy if cooked properly, and still only $1 at Walmart!). If you think you saw something interesting, do let us know.
It would seem that the UFO research community found the release equally underwhelming. The Anomalist, a weirdness site I have visited daily for many years, linked to several reactions to the release in its entries for May 11 and May 12: https://www.anomalist.com/.
FWIW, an Arizona law firm where I was a partner used a court reporter who had also been used by NASA during the moon missions. He said there was both the public transmission and a private one. Technology was so primitive that they used court reporters to transcribe the private line. He said he heard astronaut Michael Collins have some sort of mental or emotional breakdown but never heard anything juicy in the UFO vein.
-
Those Banquet pot pies, with cheese melted on top, with pepper...not half bad.
-
Those Banquet pot pies, with cheese melted on top, with pepper...not half bad.
Indeed, a bigger mystery perhaps than the UFO phenomenon. Through all the ups and downs of the last 6 or so years - COVID, Biden, Trump, tariffs, Aaron Rodgers - they have steadfastly remained exactly $1 at Walmart (and 5 for $5 if you buy them at Safeway). It's become my personal check on the actual state of the economy. I have actually asked Walmart cashiers "How is this POSSIBLE?" without a meaningful response. I have three theories: (1) they were actually all made in 1957 and are sitting by the millions in some warehouse; (2) they only cost $0.03 to make anyway, and Banquet isn't greedy; or (3) they are, in fact, tied into the UFO phenomenon. At least at Walmart, there is a new sausage one that is muy bueno for breakfast.
-
I tried a few Banquet dinners and decided the cardboard box would have been tastier.
-
Your culinary expert cannot in good conscience recommend Banquet frozen dinners. Banquet has, however, perfected the $1 pot pie. 5 minutes in the microwave, let stand in the microwave 5 minutes with a damp paper towel over the top, dump into a dish and squish around, and consume while telling yourself "Hey, it was only a dollar!"
-
Separated at birth? Coincidence? I think not.
The bottom image, for you ufology-challenged folks, is from famous one-armed Swiss farmer and Pleiadian contactee Billy Meier. Billy endorses nothing but Banquet pot pies.
The question is, which image is cheesier?
OK, I think we're done.
(https://photos-us.bazaarvoice.com/photo/2/cGhvdG86YmFucXVldA/cbeca14d-fa54-560d-af58-ae165cef6f34)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/da/Billy_Meier_UFO_66.jpg/250px-Billy_Meier_UFO_66.jpg)
-
Your culinary expert cannot in good conscience recommend Banquet frozen dinners. Banquet has, however, perfected the $1 pot pie. 5 minutes in the microwave, let stand in the microwave 5 minutes with a damp paper towel over the top, dump into a dish and squish around, and consume while telling yourself "Hey, it was only a dollar!"
I'll give one a try. If it only costs $1 it's worth a try. If I don't like it, I'm sure my dogs will.
-
My Two Cents is that JFK was assassinated by Oswald alone and that we have not been visited by Alien Spacecraft. Space is just too vast. Too hard to make the journey. And there are philosophical reasons to believe that we cannot visit other starts and aliens cannot visit ours.
First of all, the constants of fundamental properties of physics, strength of gravity, the strength of electric attraction of protons and electrons, just happened to be set perfectly to allow the existence of stars, planets, life and intelligent life. The odds of this happening by sheer luck alone are astronomical. How did this happen?
Well, for most people, the answer is obvious. God set up the universe that way.
I do not go along with this. I am biased against supernatural explanations. Maybe I am wrong, but that is my bias.
I go along with the theory that universes are being created all the time, with different properties. In most of these universes, life never forms. In a small fraction of universes, life can form and does form and sometimes develops intelligent beings that wonder how they could be so lucky.
Now, let's imagine a catalog that contains a card that corresponds to a star which has intelligent life. The majority of these cards should occur in universes with lots of civilizations. So, most likely, we live in a universe with lots of civilizations that develop around certain stars.
What kind of property should such a universe have:
* Lots of stars that provide potential for a civilization to develop.
* Some 'mechanism' that makes it basically impossible for a civilization, even with advanced technology, to visit other stars. Otherwise, an early civilization could form first, quickly colonize other star systems, and prevent other civilizations from ever forming. Such a universe would develop relatively few civilizations and so, statistically, we are probably not in such a universe.
Does our universe look something like this? Yes, it is vast. With hundreds of billions of galaxies, each with billions, even hundreds of billions of stars. And there is 'mechanism' that likely prevent the visiting of other solar systems, which will prevent one civilization preventing other potential civilizations from ever forming? Again, yes, the vast distances between stars which scientists just don't see a way of technology of ever overcoming.
So no, I do not think we have ever been visited by aliens.
-
For the most part, I agree with everything you wrote about Oswald and space aliens. The obstacles to interstellar travel are mind boggling. As for the creation of our universe or other universes, that is a complete mystery to me. I have no idea how that could happen but somehow it did. Science can take us back to the Big Bang but I want to know what came before the Big Bang and what triggered the Big Bang. I don't know what the answer to that is and I doubt I ever will but until that fundamental question is answered, I don't rule anything in or anything out.
-
My Two Cents is that JFK was assassinated by Oswald alone and that we have not been visited by Alien Spacecraft. Space is just too vast. Too hard to make the journey. And there are philosophical reasons to believe that we cannot visit other starts and aliens cannot visit ours.
And the vast majority of those who have been deeply involved with the UFO phenomenon over the past 50+ years agree with you - few think "space aliens" in saucers explains the phenomenon. Repeating the "space aliens" mantra does not make this highly mysterious phenomenon disappear.
I go along with the theory that universes are being created all the time, with different properties. In most of these universes, life never forms. In a small fraction of universes, life can form and does form and sometimes develops intelligent beings that wonder how they could be so lucky.
For which there is even less evdience than "space aliens." Some of the best physicists have admitted that the "many worlds" or "multiverse" hypothesis is little more than an an entirely evidence-free effort to avoid the theistic implications of the Intelligent Design explanation for the one universe we do know exists.
-
And the vast majority of those who have been deeply involved with the UFO phenomenon over the past 50+ years agree with you - few think "space aliens" in saucers explains the phenomenon. Repeating the "space aliens" mantra does not make this highly mysterious phenomenon disappear.
For which there is even less evdience than "space aliens." Some of the best physicists have admitted that the "many worlds" or "multiverse" hypothesis is little more than an an entirely evidence-free effort to avoid the theistic implications of the Intelligent Design explanation for the one universe we do know exists.
As I already stated, when it comes to the origin of the cosmos, I don't rule anything in or out since we have no definitive proof of how it happened. I don't know what is more mind boggling, that there was a beginning of time or that there wasn't a beginning of time. I do believe there is life elsewhere in the universe and that some of it has evolved into intelligence equal to or greater than ours. I don't know what the odds of intelligent life forming in on any given planet but I have a hard time believing the earth is unique among the trillions of galaxies that make up the cosmos.
Somebody once asked Stephen Hawking what came before the Big Bang. He said "That's like asking what is north of the north pole.". To me, that was the equivalent of saying, "It's a mystery.".
-
Sorry to interrupt the JFKA Follies, but this new documentary was the subject of a segment on Elizabeth Vargas' show on NewsNation last night, and it sounded interesting enough that I coughed up $5.46 to watch it on YouTube. It is part 1 of a 2-part documentary. The filmmaker said that only a very, very small group knows the UFO Truth and that it will never be fully revealed to Congress or the public because it would fundamentally alter our understanding of the universe and our place in it, as well as destroy all spiritual traditions; this would suggest something far more consequential than "space aliens." OK, claims like this are almost passe, but we clearly are on the verge of at least some sort of "modified limited hang-out" disclosure. One thing he suggested is that the real keepers of the secrets are likely not even in government and thus not subject to oversight or FOIA-type requests. It is known beyond any doubt that the government long used Battelelle Memorial Institute, https://www.battelle.org/, to shield sensitive UFO information. Anyway, plunk down your own $5.46 or wait for my review. (The second batch of Pentagon disclosures, while scarcely "Close Encounters" sort of stuff, has clearly stunned some those who previously pooh-poohed the subject.)
https://www.accidentaltruthnext.com/
-
Released Videos From The Pentagon's First Batch Of UFO Files
As long as the U.S. Government still officially denies that the UFO sightings and even the UFO photos and video footage are not extraterrestrial aircraft, most WC apologists will come up with their usual lame excuses for dismissing this evidence as "mistaken" or "hoaxes," even though dozens of former government officials, government contractors, and military personnel, some of them quite senior in rank, have now come forward and acknowledged that UFOs exist and that the UFOs most certainly are not experimental U.S. Government/Russian/Chinese aircraft.
I worked in military intelligence for decades. These UFOs exhibit capabilities that are far beyond U.S./Russian/Chinese capabilities. The recently released Navy footage of a UFO totally debunks the notion that we're talking about classified experimental aircraft.
During my time in the military, I knew two air traffic controllers back in the 1980s and 1990s who told me they tracked UFOs traveling at speeds and doing maneuvers that vastly, drastically exceeded the capabilities of our most advanced fighter jets. One of the air recon flights that I supported in the 1980s encountered a UFO over the Mediterranean Sea. I personally talked to some of the intel operatives on that flight (since I held the same Top Secret clearance that they held), and they confirmed that they saw the UFO with their own eyes and that it outmaneuvered their recon jet like it was a horse-drawn buggy trying to deal with an Indy 500 race car.
-
One of the things I find curious about all this UFO-mania is that it seems these aliens come in many different forms as do their spaceships. It almost seems like we are being visited by aliens not from another planet but from many different planets. All at once. What are the odds?
I have to say it is kind of boring restricting my beliefs to what evidence tells me. It must be so much more interesting to believe in things based on imagination and speculation.
-
As long as the U.S. Government still officially denies that the UFO sightings and even the UFO photos and video footage are not extraterrestrial aircraft, most WC apologists will come up with their usual lame excuses for dismissing this evidence as "mistaken" or "hoaxes," even though dozens of former government officials, government contractors, and military personnel, some of them quite senior in rank, have now come forward and acknowledged that UFOs exist and that the UFOs most certainly are not experimental U.S. Government/Russian/Chinese aircraft.
I worked in military intelligence for decades. These UFOs exhibit capabilities that are far beyond U.S./Russian/Chinese capabilities. The recently released Navy footage of a UFO totally debunks the notion that we're talking about classified experimental aircraft.
During my time in the military, I knew two air traffic controllers back in the 1980s and 1990s who told me they tracked UFOs traveling at speeds and doing maneuvers that vastly, drastically exceeded the capabilities of our most advanced fighter jets. One of the air recon flights that I supported in the 1980s encountered a UFO over the Mediterranean Sea. I personally talked to some of the intel operatives on that flight (since I held the same Top Secret clearance that they held), and they confirmed that they saw the UFO with their own eyes and that it outmaneuvered their recon jet like it was a horse-drawn buggy trying to deal with an Indy 500 race car.
I believe that as long as debunkers and those who recognize the legitimacy of the phenomenon persist in limiting their thinking and the discussion to "ET craft," the discussion will go nowhere. "ET craft" cannot possibly be the full explanation unless earth is the Disneyland of the universe or a single alien civilization is generating fleets of holographic "craft" or something of that sort. "ET craft" just doesn't fit the phenomenon in its totality.
-
One of the things I find curious about all this UFO-mania is that it seems these aliens come in many different forms as do their spaceships. It almost seems like we are being visited by aliens not from another planet but from many different planets. All at once. What are the odds?
I have to say it is kind of boring restricting my beliefs to what evidence tells me. It must be so much more interesting to believe in things based on imagination and speculation.
You believe in an early missed shot. It does not get any more imaginative or speculative than that. It is flat out fantasy.
-
Debunkers and naysayers across all areas of what I call Weirdness – including the JFKA, UFOs and almost all types of anomalous phenomena – are really quite fascinating. They pride themselves on being exceedingly rational critical thinkers, but they are actually the opposite.
The first tactic is to dismiss all testimonial accounts as “not evidence.” Evidence, you see, is only that which can be falsified. This is an artificially narrow definition that is not even the standard in the hard sciences.
One then points out that in many areas of weirdness, including UFOs, there are literally thousands and thousands of highly detailed reports spanning decades from witnesses as unlikely as Aborigines and African tribesmen to highly trained military observers, pilots and professors. Many, many reports involve multiple witnesses and withstand intense scrutiny. Can this vast body of testimonial evidence simply be dismissed? Yes, it can – it’s “not evidence.”
But wait, you point out: Many, many of those reports are accompanied by physical evidence – radar reports, electrical interference, damage to ground and foliage. Here, the debunkers play a bit of a shell game. The physical evidence receives some mundane “explanation” that is completely at odds with what the witnesses reported – but that’s OK, because what they reported is “not evidence.” The radar was malfunctioning, cars and generators sometimes just quit, a family of moose caused that damage.
There is also the game of trying to pigeonhole the phenomenon: UFOs are pigeonholed as “space aliens,” even though this not what most serious students of the phenomenon believe (or least accept as a full explanation of the phenomenon). Why the pigeonholing? Oh, because the pigeonhole is always phrased in a way that sounds slightly silly and is a relatively easy target because many of the most mysterious aspects of the phenomenon can then simply be ignored.
Lastly, the debunkers and naysayers seldom – almost never – really know what they are talking about. They have no depth of knowledge because they assume the subject is beneath them, mere entertainment for credulous cranks. Credulous cranks like Nobel Laureates and the Pentagon. Ya think?
When the Pentagon itself releases videos that observers of the highest caliber agree show “Something” exhibiting performance characteristics that are far beyond any earthly technology and that defy the known laws of physics, what do we get? Still, “Not evidence.” Or perhaps, “Don’t know what it is and don’t really care, but it ain’t space aliens 'cause there ain't no space aliens.”
It’s a bizarre, head-in-the-sand approach to a subject that is of potentially far greater significance than any in the history of mankind. I can only attribute it to fear. It is anything but rational critical thinking. The fact that these folks portray themselves – and perhaps even view themselves – as hard-nosed critical thinkers is literally comical.
I think there’s a lesson here for discussions of the JFKA as well. It’s less a lesson for CTers than for LN zealots because the latter seem to be the ones who exhibit the debunker mentality I’m talking about. I have said that hardcore LN zealots are more puzzling to me than rational CTers (or at least rational questioners of the LN narrative), but I guess I shouldn’t be too puzzled because I’ve encountered this mindset across the entire spectrum of Weirdness and religion.
-
The mindset of the "hardcore LN zealots" stems from knowing we are right about a simple double homicide case for which the evidence is absolutely conclusive. The only thing that puzzles us is why so many people have such a hard time figuring it out.
-
Watched the documentary. Eh. Save your money. Almost entirely talking heads, and too many of them the usual suspects. It's produced by MUFON Television. I was once a MUFON state section director and did some pro bono legal work for the late founder, Walt Andrus. MUFON has had its ups and downs, to put it mildly. I actually fell asleep for part of it - hey, you try babysitting six cats while your wife eats bon-bons and frolics on the sunny beaches of Belarus. I take it the dark thesis, to be fleshed out in Part 2, is that we are being programmed, or perhaps were programmed from the get-go, to merge with AI and achieve a non-biological consciousness that will open new vistas of existence. Yes, the direction of much scientific thinking is that consciousness is in the fact the fundamental "stuff" of the universe and that the universe is fundamentally informational, and I have been very uneasy about AI from the get-go, but is this an Alien Agenda or just a stage in human development? I will undoubtedly plunk down $5.47 for the next installment, but I was underwhelmed by this one. (They did say Oswald shot JFK with the assistance of Jack Dougherty, but you already knew that.)
-
Last one, just tossing a bone to the ET folks. Anthony Bragalia is the real deal in terms of UFO research. I've corresponded with him about the Socorro case. Here he argues that the ET hypothesis is still the best option:
https://www.ufoexplorations.com/
Here is a well-reasoned piece on the more exotic "avatar" hypothesis, which is closer to my own thinking:
https://rizcambridge.substack.com/p/the-avatar-hypothesis-for-ufosuap