Let's pretend that invisible pink elephants exist
Now let's make up excuses for why they don't appear to everyone.
Then let's continue making up reasons for the reasons for the make believe
excuses for why they don't appear to everyone.
A 'discussion' of that type could literally go on forever because when does the
make believing end and reality begin? Imagination is limitless but reality has
limits.
And the difference between that discussion and one on the reality of ET? None.
Both discussions are exactly the same. If you don't want to discuss facts or
search for truth, you will continue to go around and around in ever widening
circles, never going anywhere and not even noticing you aren't going anywhere.
>Nowadays, almost everybody and their cousins have camcorders and some of
>these individuals are videotaping certain things in the sky that sometimes
>are (and sometimes are not) evident to the human eye at the time the picture
>was taken.
The problem is that by claiming that they weren't 'evident to the human eye'
when the picture was taken, they mean that the people taking the pictures or
video shots didn't notice any strange objects until after they were DEVELOPED
later on, proof that the 'UFOs' were not alien craft at all, but a result of one
of the artifacts of modern day photography and camcorders called 'noise,'
'smudges,' 'scratches,' etc -- exactly what most 'UFO' sightings look like.
Don't you find it funny that in the 40's through the 80's, UFO photos were
blurred because that was the best that their technology was able to do, but even
with today's technology, UFO pictures are still blurred despite the fact that we
can send back hi-resolution pictures of the Orion Nebula via Hubble or work in
almost no light with the latest CCD video cameras.
>Take a look at THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S STORY and tell me this doesn't look
>genuine. (see http://www.nationalufocenter.com/features/bethune.htm)
The problem with the photos here is that they obviously look staged. A candidly
taken picture never comes out so contrived looking as these pictures are --
unlike hoaxes usually do. Let us take an objective look at those pictures again,
okay, and see what we can objectively come up with. What we see is a perfectly
framed picture, with the alleged UFO taking up the entire frame of the photo.
That indicates that who ever took that picture had to take the time to carefully
setup each shot, not at all like something that someone had accidentally
stumbled upon, and had no idea how long the object would be around to be
photographed. There is no rational or reasonable explanation for taking all that
extra effort to make a professional studio quality portrait photo of an UFO, as
if the UFO had posed for each shot like a paid model, therefore there is no
logical or factual reason to suspect that the photos are real or should be taken
seriously. I've seen better known fakes for example.
Photos are always interesting but never proof. It is easy to fool the experts
with photos and this is being done all the time, even as we speak. There is alot
of egotism invested in videos and photos of UFOs, hence the reason why so many
hoaxes are being uncovered all the time. That makes every picture or video
suspect from the very start. Yes photos and videos just don't cut it -- but it
isn't like there are any good ones out there anyway. The vast majority of them
that haven't been successfully exposed as hoaxes, are blurs or blobs or
extremely distant specks of undefinable lights.
Then on the other hand, even when the object was evident to the human eye, the
vast majority of photographic evidence of UFOs are useless junk because they
fail one or more of the following reasonable criteria:
1. The object and it's surroundings must be clearly visible,
2. The object and it's surroundings must be distinct,
3. There must be visual references to enable one to accurately determine size
and distance to the object.
`In this day and age of computer enhancing technology, the only irrefutable
media evidence would be two or more video clips or pictures showing the same
object at the same time from two or more completely different points of view,
taken by two or more entirely different and unrelated people.
This not to say that all UFO pictures are fakes, since some are due to the sheer
ignorance of the way cameras work, for example, the laughable attempt by many
people to pass off lens flares as 'UFOs'.
Things that actually exist can be heard, seen, smelled, tasted, and/or felt.
This is called 'direct evidence'. The flying saucer phenomenon never has been
substantiated with even what could remotely be called direct evidence. This
doesn't mean that is the end of that because we don't have to be present at the
time of a hit-and-run accident to know if there was a hit-and-run accident, do
we? Of course not! That's because real things that actually exist interact with
reality. Real objects interact with other objects by displacing other objects,
or rubbing off on them or scraping or burning or distorting or doing something
to their surroundings that is left behind after the interaction. That
interaction is called 'indirect evidence'. From this indirect evidence we can
reasonably deduce the characteristics of the alleged object. Since there is no
direct evidence of flying saucers, what indirect evidence do we have?
IMPLANTS
What about alien implants? Do we actually have alien implants in our possession
as evidence that ET is visiting us? In the past, somehow the aliens had always
been able to "steal the evidence" before we could get our hands on it (like Budd
Hopkins says they always do in his book, WITNESSED?), but lately there has been
publicized cases of alien implant retrievals. Unfortunately, instead of having
the appropriate logical structure of, for example, what an integrated circuit
would be expected to have and what a monitoring implant DEVICE would be expected
to have, instead all we have is a few irregularly shaped pieces of material that
look suspiciously like shards of ordinary glass.
MEXICO CITY
The Mexico City sightings were not witnessed by 'thousands of witnesses'. That
is the claim but where are all the thousands of names recorded? The film I saw
of this, showed distant star-like points that did not display any kind of
structure whatsoever. The fact that the vast majority of them were taken by a
UFO group there in Mexico, casts doubt on the validity of the films due to the
huge conflict-of-interest present (not to mention the poor quality of the
'evidence'). Now if ten or twenty completely unrelated individuals had taken
those videos, and each one of those videos had a distinct and clearly taken
image of an object with details on it like windows and landing gear, then it
would be a different story. People see strange looking objects in the sky all
the time but only a naive few assume 'unusual object = ET craft', but what they
should be expecting is something completely and totally out of the ordinary, say
like an object that is clearly seen AND then moves at great speeds and performs
virtually impossible maneuvers. There would be no mistaking a plane or a balloon
for a 'flying saucer' then. All we see are a bunch of distant indistinct points
of light, not any actual physical crafts or entities. Furthermore, Mexico is
experiencing a tremendous popularity in the alleged UFO phenomenon, so everyone
and their brother is coming forward to 'confess' a UFO experience. A few of
these random 'confessions' is bound to hit the jackpot every once in awhile, and
fool the experts. But being part of a fad makes them prime candidates for a mass
delusion.
PROJECT BLUEBOOK
There is absolutely no evidence of the existence of UFOs, merely only extensive
cataloging of an overwhelming number of reports of the existence of UFOs. As
UNDERSTANDING SCIENTIFIC REASON by Ronald N Giere puts it, "...the basic data
consist of REPORTS of UFO sightings, not the EXISTENCE of what was reported.
This distinction is crucial because the fact that some people have reported such
things has been verified by many investigators. There can be no doubt that
people have made such reports. That the people in question actually saw or
experienced what they say they did, however, is open to question" (pg 166).
PROJECT BLUEBOOK is one such example of a collection of mere reports of UFOs and
not any actual study of some objects. I can think of numerous other major,
alleged scientific studies that follow under the same logical fallacy of failing
to verify a phenomenon by collecting reports instead of legitimate physical
evidence.
What did PROJECT BLUEBOOK mean for an eyewitness report to be "unexplained"
versus what does it mean for an eyewitness report to be "inconclusive due to
insufficient data"? 20.1% of the Project Blue Book cases (PROJECT BLUE BOOK,
edited by Brad Steiger, pg 400) are labeled as "unknown" and Stanton Friedman's
conclusion is that these must be non-human, probably extraterrestrial craft, but
interestingly, that isn't what PROJECT BLUE BOOK implied about the cases labeled
as "unknown". If you read the actual report, it states, "At this point , a
definition of the term 'unknown' is in order. Usually there is more than one
source or observer...To go a step further, in a report we classify as unknown
there can be no doubt as to the reliability of the persons making the
observation" (Ibid, pg 400). Interestingly, Stanton Friedman (The 'Father of
Roswell') cites these same criteria, but he failed to finish doing his homework
by noting the very last sentence of the paragraph that my quotes were taken
from, ie -- "It might well be that if we had more data on the sighting, it could
be easily explained" (Ibid, pg 400). In other words, the difference between an
unexplained sighting versus an inconclusive sighting due to insufficient data is
in the number and reliability of witnesses only but both types of sightings are
still considered to have insufficient data to reach a scientifically valid
conclusion. Think about it: If there are objects which cannot be accounted for
by any 'scientific' explanation, then likewise that means these are objects
which cannot be accounted for by any explanation whatsoever. Explanation =
storytelling and not fact.
FOIA
The Freedom of Information Act has yet to help anyone turn up even the slightest
evidence that indicates that the USA Government has a minimal trace of any
knowledge of the alleged ET presence for anytime or at anyplace. All claims to
the contrary have so far been extensively built upon silly fairytales of
completely unverifiable and unbelievable sensationalistic cloak and dagger
games. The MJ-12 group is one such fantasy that springs to mind.
No one will deny that UFOs are a classified topic in the USA Government, but it
would be ridiculous to believe that an ET presence is of any serious concern to
anyone but tabloid reporters or their infected minions. The USA has a need to
identify intruders for the purpose of enforcing and protecting it's borders, so
should the USA make public to it's enemies, when and how it fails to identify
intruders? I can understand why the USA would choose to keep that info
confidential but nowhere in any of those confidential scenarios does the term
'ET' spring to mind.
There is absolutely no evidence that the NSA, NRO, CIA, DIA, ONI, AFI, SAC, or
any other three-letter agency you would care to mention, are hiding any evidence
from us -- that is pure storytelling. There is nothing to disprove here where
nothing has been proven in the first place, is there? Don't expect me to believe
anything in regards to these organizations unless you can provide FOIA documents
or a smoking gun, but no one, absolutely no one, has anything other than 'take
my word for it'...and that was my point from the beginning.
NASA STS-51 VIDEO
Have you actually seen the NASA STS-51 footage? There is all kinds of debri
floating around in the video, and most of it also changes direction after the
flash of light appeared. So how does one tell the UFOs apart from the debris,
other than by sheer blind faith belief? And the alleged missile? It moves far
faster than the UFO! We have better technology than the ETs? Haha! The NASA
STS-51 footage is a perfect example of imagination gone unchecked by reason.
SOIL SAMPLES
And just where are all the UFO 'soil samples' today? Any scientifically
conducted organization or individual knows that samples are never analyzed and
then disposed of. The evidence must be cataloged and stored...unless of course
there never was any evidence or you don't want anyone to question your evidence
or methodology.
THE PHOENIX LIGHTS FIASCO
The Phoenix Lights sighting was originally just one event: the mistaking of
multiple flares over the Barry Goldwater military range as multiple UFOs. The
singular, triangular UFO report aspect did not appear until much later, after
the flares were reported. Typically when people see an alleged UFO, they report
it immediately out of panic and hysteria. If they have to take weeks and months
to think about it before reporting it, it tends to make it look contrived
instead of spontaneous. That is why many of the late edition add ons to the
Phoenix Lights event have also been coming up as obvious hoaxes, for example,
the unidentified ground crewman at Luke Airforce base who called in one or two
months later to report he saw some F-15s dispatched to seek out the UFO that
night. The problem is that Luke doesn't have any F-15s and hasn't for quite some
time now.
CROP CIRCLES
Crop circles appear to be a case of alien juvenile delinquents, tagging wheat
fields across Europe (and occasionally other continents). How do we know that
the ETs aren't blasting holes in the ozone everytime they tag a wheat field?
Isn't it time the adult ETs cracked down on their children for making such a
mess of our backyards? These supposedly ultra-technologically advanced ETs
haven't heard of plain and simple pen and paper as a form of communication yet?
And why pick on wheat or barley fields? If the purpose of this cosmic grafitti
is to communicate with us, highway pavement or parking lots would make a more
lasting and obvious way to get our attention. Or how about schools of fish
lining up in patterns? Hey, with ETs, who knows? Anything is possible with the
ETs -- that is anything except a simple, direct, honest face-to-face contact.
But that wouldn't be as fun to do as playing all the silly Captain Decoder games
they do, games like leaving english messages in ASCII binary instead of doing
the more intelligently obvious thing by leaving english messages in english, now
would it? And if the Chilboton Crop Circle Schematic is the ETs idea of a
response to the 1975 Arecibo radio telescope transmission, then the ETs must be
complete and total idiots or psychotic juvenile delinquents. Think about it:
What would you think if you transmitted a message on your shortwave or CB, and
then the next day noticed that someone had sneaked into your backyard during the
night and engraved their 'reply' onto your freshly manicured lawn? Would you
think they were intelligent or insane, criminals or artists? I think the answer
is obvious.
Considering the level of intelligence demonstrated within the contents of Crop
Circles as a method of communication, let's hope and/or pray that it is a hoax
conducted by stupid humans and not stupid ETs, because it would mean that total
idiots are in control of very advanced (and therefore very dangerous) technology
-- and one cannot reason peace with a total idiot. Whitely Strieber states that,
"If people are behind the circles, they are extraordinary human beings. Finding
human crop circle makers would be almost as amazing as finding evidence they're
being made by aliens from another planet. These people would have to be
incredibly organized and fast and also incredibly well educated in mathematics,
music and sacred geometry" (ARE CROP CIRCLES MANMADE? 31-May-2002), to which I
say, incredibly organized compared to what? Granted, they would have to be
"incredibly organized" compared to the UFO community, but that isn't saying
much. And as for the "education", all one needs is well "educated" software and
a PC. Creating fractal patterns or musical compositions or "sacred" geometry on
a computer is as easy as 1-2-3. Nowadays, with the advent of the PC, a five year
old could even do it (which might even explain why crop circles have increased
in sophistication in direct proportion to the degree that computers and their
associated software have increased in sophistication). One would think if ET was
so intelligent, they would have been making fractal patterned crop circles all
along, but such is not the case. And if one wants to pretend that the ETs have
only created crop circles to the level of sophistication that people are
currently at, that would contradict the claim that only "well educated" people
are able to understand and create them.
So it wouldn't take much of a stretch of imagination to believe that humans are
behind Crop Circles, but can I explain them? While I cannot explain how crop
circles are made, it isn't relevant or necessary for me to do so since, for
example, I can watch a magician perform feats of magic I could never explain, so
it too isn't relevant or necessary for me to explain how a magician does his/her
tricks to know it isn't real but trickery. Based on the actual demonstrable
evidence (or extreme lack thereof), I see no other logical or factual conclusion
other than 100% of all crop circles are man-made. There are no exceptions and
there is no logical or demonstrably factual reason to suspect that there would
be an exception. Crop circles are just another magic trick that has fooled some
of the people all the time, but it will never fool all the people all the time.
According to Linda Moulton Howe's web site and the article quoted from Whitley
Strieber above, much of the Crop Circle analysis is being performed by Dr
Levengood, a person who's opinion on any scientific matter I would never ever
consider credible since his write up on THE ALIEN CHOIR...
THE ALIEN CHOIR
The 'biophysicist' Dr. Levengood attributed the appearance of glowing aliens in
THE ALIEN CHOIR (see http://www.abduct.com/photos/pn007.htm) to "a very
significant Doppler shift in a highly active energy form". I must wonder though,
didn't anyone teach Dr Levengood that a doppler shift only occurs when an object
is moving and not standing still, as the alleged aliens are doing on the roof
top? I'm telling you folks, this is one of the many reasons why the UFO
community apparently has no respect. I mean this isn't science, this is sci-fi.
Dr Levengood goes on to state that the glow is the result of an energy that,
"...is beyond our ordinary methods of monitoring electromagnetic energy. The
final state from this Doppler shift appears to be in the 'actinic region' of the
spectrum where it stimulates photo-luminescence in the green region of the
visible spectrum". Dr Levengood could tell all that from just from one blurry,
out-of-focus photo? Wow! He could actually see the x-rays or ultraviolet
radiation being emitted by the alleged aliens? Where? Show me!...or did he mean
that was the only explanation he could think up? Well it isn't even a good
guess. For one thing, ultraviolet radiation is invisible and air does not
noticeably fluoresce in the presence of ultraviolet light, and definitely not in
the green portion of the spectrum. Ditto for the x-ray radiation claim unless
the radiation is so intense that the air becomes ionized...but then again, a
radiation intense enough to ionize the air would certainly be intense enough to
char the roof of the garage where the alleged aliens were standing. So scratch
the ultraviolet or x-ray claim because it doesn't hold water.
If I were going to make up stories, I might say that the glow was being caused
by Cherenkov radiation...but then again, the rooftop of the garage in the
picture would have been radioactive afterwards and no mention was made of
radiation damage or radiation sickness of any of the occupants of the owners of
the garage. No, no, no...how about this: someone had a camera with a thermal
imaging attachment (the kind like you can buy at the Price Club or Best Buy) and
took a picture of some friends sitting on a rooftop? Nah, that would make too
much sense now, wouldn't it?
THE NELLIS VIDEO
There is nothing 'genuine' about the Nellis video because it isn't a UFO, it
isn't a flying saucer, it isn't nothing but a bunch of pixels on a screen. No
one knows who took the video, no one can tell by the video where the video was
taken, and the blurry smudge moving about on the video cannot be demonstrated to
be physical (vs a special effect or model or whatever). The whole entire thing
is one poorly told story to go along with a poorly taken video. The alleged make
believe Nellis 'sighting' in no way shape or from can be considered a 'UFO' but
an unidentifiable video creation or UVC.
THE HUBBA OVER BUBBA
Someone made the very big mistake of claiming the repeat return visit of a UFO
to Gilbert Arizona, a UFO lovingly called 'Bubba'. A mere 1-1/2 miles from the
location of the repeated Bubba visitations, is an extremely popular shopping
center and a major freeway. If you take the time to look over this site, located
at the Gilbert/Guadalupe intersection in Gilbert Arizona, the first thing you
will notice are the numerous jumbo jets that frequent the area there (about one
plane every ten minutes), as this area is close to a local aircraft
landing/takeoff corridor for the huge Phoenix Airport. So far, Bubba has eluded
me, any and all jam packed jumbo jet aircraft that frequent the area, a shopping
mall packed full of potential witnesses, and busloads of freeway gawkers. It is
literally impossible, to have so many thousand's of potential witnesses passing
by within arm's reach, hour after hour, and have only one or two individuals
ever notice such a profound phenomenon after six months of repeatedly returning
on a regular basis! This kind of oversight just doesn't happen in real life with
real life phenomenon, so where's the beef?
Furthermore, no size, distance, or speed measurements were scientifically or
logically derived from what has been posted about it and what little estimates
were given were inconsistent from one report to another, ie -- one time it was
an object 20 feet in diameter and 2000 feet in the air (which would appear as a
very large star from the 'witnesses' point of view), then another time it was
such an incredibly tiny speck in the sky, barely visible even with an 80x video
camera, maneuvering anywhere from 5000 to 100 feet in the air, so it was
practically a miracle that it was ever discovered to begin with. But at least
this last report allowed the UFO proponents to always give the excuse that if we
didn't see Bubba, that it must be because we weren't looking hard enough with
our 80x eyes.
Since only a small handful of believers ever 'saw' it, I personally believe
Bubba is a hoax and the believers are bluffing. What we really have is an
undetermined flying aircraft with a red blinking light that looks exactly like
"the starboard light of a commercial airplane". Logically speaking, if it looks
exactly like the starboard light of an airplane and blinks exactly like the
starboard light of an airplane, then it must be exactly that -- the starboard
light of an airplane (or helicopter, since the Mesa Police helicopter frequents
this area also) -- any other claim would not be logical or reasonable or
scientific. We will have to have someone demonstrate more for us besides poorly
taken videos that show us nothing more than a light identical to the starboard
light of an airplane, if you want to convince thinking people, like myself, that
Bubba is anything more than the apparent overdramatization of mundane events by
some Gilbert locals.
MJ-12 DOCUMENTS
What exactly are the MJ-12 documents? The MJ-12 documents are claimed to be a
copy of a very top secret special operations manual on the recovery and disposal
of aliens by the American government. So far so good, but the next issue becomes
that of how was this very top secret document obtained, ie -- what are it's
sources? Unfortunately, the MJ-12 documents were not obtained via any
scientifically legitimate means, say like the Freedom of Information Act or an
archaeological dig or the dumpster of some military installation. No, the MJ-12
documents were conveniently found in someone's mailbox, once upon a day, and the
junk mail of someone's mailbox is hardly considered a 'legitimate scientific
source'. Therefore a scientifically-mindful committee would have immediately
rejected any such material from the outset and justifiably so since there is no
way to validate the true source of these documents. To do otherwise would leave
us at the mercy of having to take somebody else's word that they are
'legitimate' with the even more usual, 'Trust me when I say...' sort of
dealings.
DISCLOSURE PROJECT
As I have already pointed out before, testimony without physical evidence you
can put in your hands and take home is nothing more than storytelling.
>Interesting that your requirements are far more stringent than those
>required in a court of law. In fact, circumstantial evidence for the
>material existence of UFOs abounds, albeit without attribution as to the
>origin of the UFOs.
Science requirements are far more stringent that those required in a court of
law because a court of law isn't reliable, scientifically logical, or completely
factual. Remember the OJ Trial? Remember all those Salem Witch Trials? Remember
the Inquisitions? For as long as there has been a written history, a court of
law has never contributed to our knowledge of reality or encouraged progress --
in fact, it has often contributed to barbarism. Using a court of law as a
template to conduct scientific research is the most barbaric thing one could do
in a real pursuit of truth.
If you want examples of science in action, you don't go to OJ Simpson's trial,
you go to a scientific establishment. You are looking in all the wrong places
for your answers so far.
And since when does sworn testimony mean anything outside of a court of law?
Didn't OJ Simpson give a sworn testimony under penalty of perjury that he had
never worn a certain pair of particular shoes, yet in his second court
appearance, a clearly taken picture of him wearing those shoes on a golf course
the year before was shown. Just because it comes from a court of law means
nothing. And it is also another example of meresay instead of fact finding.
ROSWELL: THE NEVER ENDING STORY
Roswell is the story that won't die, in fact, everytime I hear it, it gets
bigger and better...not at all unlike the story of 'the big one that got away',
told and retold by fishermen all over the world.
According to the still public sources of the July 8th and July 9th, 1947 issues
of THE ROSWELL DAILY RECORD, here is a synopsis of what happened at Roswell that
fateful day:
On June 14th, 1947, WW Brazel found some debris, seven or eight miles from
the JB Foster ranch he was operating on. Thinking nothing of it at the time,
he left without further incident.
On July 2nd, Mr and Mrs Dan Wilmont were sitting on their porch at 105 S Penn
in Roswell, New Mexico, whereupon they claim they saw a 'flying disc' zoom
out of the sky from the southeast and remain in view for about 40 to 50
seconds before disappearing in the hills to the northwest. The Wilmont's did
not report the alleged phenomenon nor did anyone else claim to see this
phenomenon.
On July 4th, WW Brazel finally decided, for reasons unknown, to act upon his
previous finding of June 14th by going back out to the sight with his whole
entire family and collect up most of the debris and stash it under some
nearby brush.
On July 5th, WW Brazel was in town and heard all the excitement about Kenneth
Arnold and his 'flying discs' sighting and thinking that the debris he found
might be the cause for all this talk about 'flying discs', he decided that
first thing Monday morning he would report his find.
On July 7th, WW Brazel reported his finding to sheriff George Wilcox. The
sheriff called Major Jesse A Marcel at the Roswell Army Air Force, whereupon
the Major and "a man in plain clothes" went to WW Brazel's home with the
evidence and tried to "make a kite" from the debri.
On July 8th, the Wilmont's finally decided to report their alleged UFO
experience. Minutes later, the Roswell Army Air Force claimed it had in its
possession a 'flying disc' -- obviously a reference to the debris they had
collected from WW Brazel's home. In response to this story, WW Brazel became
an instant celebrity, had his picture published, and then given some airtime
on radio station KGFL.
So where's the beef again? I mean, this story had so little impact upon the
Roswell at the time -- and this at the very peak of the UFO fad!! The saucer
craze of the 1940's and 1950's was a by-product of the Cold War: American
citizens lived in fear that UFO sightings could be craft belonging to the
Soviets. Always on the ready to exploit people's fear to sell a paper or a TV
spot, the mass media was criticizing and demanding an explanation from the
government. Then there was the genuine concern that a national panic could occur
after considering what happened with the then recent Orsen Wells broadcast of
THE WAR OF THE WORLDS. So how could such an allegedly very important issue such
as this be put on the back burner and completely forgotten about for the next
20+ years or so, before this 'very important' issue would ever be mentioned
again? Nevertheless, inconsistencies of the crashed UFO interpretation of the
Roswell incident are cropping up all over the place, forcing the media to come
up with even more ridiculous interpretations of the Roswell incident.
For example, in order to justify their faith that the Roswell incident was
really due to a crashed flying saucer, and in order to have a piece of the
action, various 'researchers' interviewed numerous 'witnesses' in a desperate
attempt to validate their version of the Roswell fairytale. Unfortunately, the
'researchers', not wanting to share information for fear of losing out on their
share of some of the money to be made through all this sensationalism,
accidently wound up with five basic, contradictory testimonies.
So in Linda Howe's version of 'the big one that got away' from Roswell, her
story consists of incorporating three of the unrelated crash-landing site
testimonies into one. Therefore, by incorporating three of the testimonies into
one testimony, three contradictions magically become one contradiction, reducing
the previous five contradictory testimonies to a mere three contradictory
testimonies. And what about the government's insistence that what was mistaken
by the public as a UFO was really only a balloon? Well at one (of the many)
Roswell crash sites, the craft had apparently collided with the balloon on it's
way down, therefore Brazel and the government weren't lying, but only telling a
half-truth.
In Stanton Friedman's version of 'the big one that got away', he just simply
ignores any research other than his own, thereby proving that (1) he doesn't
want to be bothered by the facts and (2) he doesn't want to do his homework.
>If Roswell had no importance at the time, then why was a teletype sent by
>the AAF to get the FBI involved?
Perhaps, as the teletype clearly stated, "...BECAUSE OF NATIONAL INTEREST IN
CASE...". Note it says "INTEREST" and not "SECURITY". Of course it was of
national interest and the sensationalistic media was capitalizing on a popular
fad of its time as it always does. Everyone was interested due to the hype, but
no one felt threatened for national security reasons.
Since 1947, new information has surfaced for the Roswell incident:
In 1978, Jesse Marcel admitted that his claim that the debris was a weather
balloon was a planted lie.
In July of 1994, the Air Force admitted that what was really found near
Roswell in 1947 was part of a TOP SECRET balloon project called PROJECT
MOGUL.
In June of 1997, the Air Force revised its 1994 report by adding
matter-of-factly that it was likely that the bodies claimed to have been
found in or near the debris discovered near Roswell were "anthropomorphic
dummies".
Of course, it was nice of the military to 'volunteer' that information under
duress from Congressional pressure, but their confession actually creates more
questions than it answers... .
Because they were under pressure from Congress, the United States Air Force
(USAF) took great pains in its report of July, 1994 to "insure that there were
no hidden or overlooked files that might relate to the 'Roswell Incident;' and
to provide the GAO with the best and most complete information available" -- so
then why did the USAF have to make major admendments to its 1994 report in 1997?
In 1994 the USAF admitted what really happened in 1947 about what was recovered
near Roswell. Then in 1997 USAF confessed that they didn't tell the whole truth
in 1994, that they had left a few things out and they wanted to make things
right. The military really blew it on this one. I'm very disappointed whether
the 'real' story still turns out to be mundane or not, but so far their lies
have only grown with time and my confidence and respect for the military is at
an all time low.
For one thing, the military's version of Roswell raises some very serious
concerns about intelligence gathering capabilities and the security of the
entire military:
Why did the USAF allow an unclassified civilian (Brazel) to help in recovery
operations of a TOP SECRET project? This was a very serious breach of
security protocol.
Why did the USAF lose track of so many TOP SECRET balloons, despite these
balloons being outfitted with radar tracking targets? What was the purpose of
the radar tracking targets if the Army didn't keep track of them? Remember
that Brazel found the balloon 21 days earlier before he actually reported it,
meaning the Army had no clue of a TOP SECRET balloon's whereabouts for at
least 21 days.
>In what way are anthropomorphic dummies related to PROJECT MOGUL?
All we know for a fact right now is that the only reliable witnesses were any of
those witnesses from 1947 who claimed before 1994 that the weather balloon story
was a premeditated lie (as the military confessed it was in 1994) and that
'bodies' were found in the wreckage (as the military confessed in 1997). By
process of simple elimination, if we exclude all witnesses who were known liars
(the military, the sheriff, etc) that only leaves only one valid witness to this
whole story. That doesn't mean that this one witness should be taken as the
infallible word of God, only that this is the only valid testimony so far.
>I never said that I have physical proof that I can make available to you.
Really? So why do you believe if not for any actual physical proof you have ever
been able to examine? Blind faith? This is no insult, it is an objective
observation -- If it isn't physical real then it can only be imaginary then. I
don't blame you, it must be because of cultural upbringing, ie -- we tell our
kids about the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and
so on, but then when they are old enough to 'understand', we tell them that
Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy was all a lie. We tell them
we only did it for fun and/or to get them to behave, so we teach our kids that
lying is OK as long as it is for fun or profit or to get other people to
'behave' the way we want them to. When they've gotten over that initial
disappointment, then it is on to bigger and better lies, the more adult lies: we
tell them about God and Jesus in the same exact way we told them about Santa
Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. You would think they would have
learned a different sort of lesson, but no, they swallow this new fairytale,
hook, line, and sucker because that is what they, what we, were conditioned to
do through the original fairytales of childhood. So what we have are all the
adults are telling you that ETs exist and they are coming to get you, but I'm
not buying it. Their conditioning program didn't work on me; I'm a free thinker
and I know how to tell the difference between actual reality and yet another
adult fantasy.
>But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Correct, but a complete absence of evidence where much evidence is expected is
evidence of absence. For example, if a UFO landed right in front of me, I know
for a fact that it would leave some kind of evidence behind (that's the nature
of things that actually exist in physical reality). In real life, UFOs never
leave a single shred of evidence behind, despite literally millions of claims of
UFO sightings...and a complete lack of evidence where much is expected is proof
of the non-existence of UFOs. If someone tells you, "There's a UFO parked in
your garage right now and the aliens are marching out in droves right into your
backyard this moment!", all you have to do to disprove that is go outside and
look. If it isn't there then the alleged UFO in your garage didn't and doesn't
exist. This is an example of where a complete lack of evidence is proof of the
non-existence of an alleged event. Likewise, the complete lack of evidence where
much is expected in regards to UFOs is proof that they don't exist.
The Sage
=============================================================
My Home Page : http://members.cox.net/the.sage
"The men that American people admire most extravagantly are
most daring liars; the men they detest the most violently are
those who try to tell them the truth" -- H. L. Mencken
=============================================================