Rhetoric. Thats pretty much what the Disclosure Project and this thread is all about, the same issues spoke, asserted, diverted and argued with an almost fundamentalist vigor. It can be suggested that there is many arguements that always seem to have the lines blurred between them when discussion occurs. For instance some people just want to know if their governments have lied, others want answers that no-one has confirmable, undeniable proof over like if ET exists, or if they are out there watching us. The same points too also always exist, the world is made up of many different government bodies that are trying to stay on top and ahead of their competitors, which sometimes means misdeeds which can be seen as criminal. One spies upon another to make sure they aren't up to no good, and potentially are caught spying making them look like they are up to no better etc. All in all, it's a number of "embarrassing" mistakes that some (especially those that hold positions) want to just forget, which is where all these infernal secret acts came from. (Well that and "War readiness" however since that isn't as much an issue as it once was, it's really just about people saving face.) Quite simply the point is that these "government positions" have been created because either there is a Political Concensus that suggests such bodies are needed or because the countries competitors have an office or body in that area, and the government decides it needs a body to counter or interact with them. Suggestibly in that sense if people see UFO's and Aliens as a potential threat, why don't they try issuing their governments to develop relevant bodies to deal with them rather than asking questions they will either have no answers or no straight answers for. (Although saying that, most governments will probably suggest their tax coffers will not stretch to "Foley". So requests might be ignored or denied.) Obviously such a body would then have to handle the desensatisation of material (If it contains classified material) but also create a true public picture of information in relationship to any number of reported events. (Basically a better PR unit)
Susan Clancy insists that "abductees" are by and large psychologically normal and sincere about their experiences. But she thinks they're basically false memories created by sleep paralysis and/or hypnotic regression. Disregarding your use of the words "kook" and "woo-woo", what is fair or objective about permitting the former theory, but leaving out the fact that abductions don't always occur during sleep, which would make sleep paralysis less than a proper diagnosis in every case? How about the cases where events are recalled consciously WITHOUT hypnosis? What about cases where neither sleep nor hypnotic regression is involved? Clancy's theory does not adequately cover all the bases. I try to maintain a healthy amount of skepticism, and I will give the uberskeptics, maysayers and naysayers a chance, especially regarding abductions and hypnosis. However, I caught Larry King Live not too long ago with a panel of guests that consisted of John Schuessler, Dr. Susan Clancy, Seth Shostak, Budd Hopkins, Rob Swiatek and Bruce Maccabee. That was the first time I could recall hearing about Ms. Clancy's work, as her book was just coming out at the time (though the sleep paralysis/false memory syndrome explanation is not new to me). When the subject of abduction was finally discussed, with Hopkins and Clancy being at the front of the debate, I must say, I was very disappointed with Clancy. She did a very poor job, to put it simply. Her answers were very meager and lacking when it came to talking about abductions that lack sleep or hypnosis as factors. Or abductions that involved multiple persons and or witnesses (who were not abducted, but noticed a craft or the abductee gone missing, etc). Or abductions that leave scars on a persons body. Several pictures were shown throughout the segment, both of UFOs and of the scars on abductees' bodies. These were not simple scratches, but circular punctures that resembled tiny craters. When asked to comment on these, she made a very trite statement that "People get scratches all the time..." and this after Budd Hopkins remarked that medical doctors had described the marks as being nearly identical to skin biopsies. She had very little substance in her reply. In fact, there were several times where she appeared to be nearly witless. Your use of the word WOO-WOO doesn't do justice to people like Clancy whose simplistic theories (which is ALL they are) fail to address the issue on anything more than a superficial level, and can't seem to exist outside the bubble of their controlled-environment. I witnessed her failure firsthand in that hour of Larry King. But what SHOULD I have expected from someone deeply involved in false memory syndrome research, who got discouraged in the field of repressed sexual abuse memories, and decided to ply her theories on alien abduction memories instead. Ms. Clancy, it must be known, does not hide the fact that she chose abductions because she "knew" that there couldn't be anything to the phenomenon. Is that objective? That she had made up her mind BEFORE going ahead with her study? Do you think that possibly her personal opinion of UFOs and aliens at all influenced her conclusions at all? Just maybe??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I know what any good armchair skeptic would say about a scientist who believes in ET and conducts research that concludes that ETs do indeed exist. But apparently subjective analysis in ufology only works for naysayers and deniers, but incriminates the rest, eh? Let me state, for the record, that her theories were shallow, rudimentary, and quite possibly worthy of being dismissed as pseudo-scientific garbage. Let me also state for the record that the efficacy and validity of hypnosis is still being debated, and false memory syndrome is a very touchy subject. Clancy and her cohort McNally are just two people in a science that thrives on theories.
I'm going to attempt to print out the Belgian UFO thread, since I forgot to read it! I like to print things. We are nauts. All of us.
nad can i remind those who may not have been here in past shit about this. i saw a docu about this family who believed someting happened to them. a mum, her two sons and gran what was good was we sqw their feelings about it BEFORE mum agreed to do hypnotherapy in order yto try and work out what happened anyone wid a heart. have empathy. imagine tis: you see someting really strnge in sky tat DEEPLY affefts you. all said it was like they could just allow it to take tem away off earth. and ten they miss an hour ALL, were really upset by tis life zappin event. OBViously.....how could they 'carry on as mnormal'? something unfukinbelieveble had happened. te only OPTION available to try and remember was mum agreeing to do a hypnptherapeutic session which she did these people were very earthy people. gran was particularly upset, and broke down. mum broke down in the session saying she'd been worried for her two sons so.....stop ther. DON'y call tem liars, woo woo, whakos, mentally ill, fame seekers, and psychobabble them. if you will, stay with YOUR confusion but dont fukin trash them when ou do not know yourself . we aree talking human beings wit feelings. and thisis why i get upset when insults are thrown at people just to make YOUR life comfortable and safe in your 'sureities' when you HAVE had an extraordinary event happen to you--which i have also. itis beyond patronizin to have othes 'know' what you experienced
Dam Giam, thought I knew a little about the ufo phenomena, but I have never seen these photos you are talking about. I'll google them. Good posts.
Interesting ive found the same lack of objectivity in ufo critics, underneath the layers of skepticism useally lies a firm and unshakable believe that anyone involved in ufos just by virtue of the fact that theyd be interested in such a thing must be intellectually inferior and incapable. Its amazing how many times ive openly debated with people critiquing ufo data to find that the problem goes way beyond the data itself and extends to the entire ufo community or just anyone expressing an interest. Such people can never truely approach the subject with an unbiased objective mindset because theres far too many preconceived notions, stereotypes, and presumptions to get in the way of rational thought. It seems like his beliefs have become fleshed out over the years the more hes got involved in the ufo scene, i doubt very much that when traveling around the country collecting testomonies he sat down with every individual and out-lined his ideas beliefs and manifesto. So i think at the time collecting the data most people would have been ignorant about his beliefs yes. Thanks, ive got a copy of the disclosure project on pdf somewhere but i cant find it right now so that would be helpful. I dont think you can assume that every witness is 'guilty by association' and must believe in aliens as greer does. In fact contrary to what you believe i increasing feel that greer certainly doesnt speak on behalf of his witnesses which is probably the biggest problem with the whole project to my mind. I actually agree with Ophiolite on this point, his talk of conspiracy; jumping to conclusions without being in possesion of all the facts doesnt really do his cause much justice. However im still grateful for the data hes painstaking collected, im definitely glad its out there, i think its great that it exists and serves as a valuble record of military sightings throughout the latter part of the 20th century. Which is all a moot point as the vast majority of the witness reports dont go beyond explaining the visable nature of the object, the possible origins of the objects observed are never touched apon within the core body of the testimonies. Of course it is a fallacy that people with rank never fall pray to scandal and corruption. Of course people in power lose face, but the point is someone with power and status is less likely to seek out behaviours or opinions which would count against their standing. Although in this instance whats also more important is maybe not their status as such but their specifc positions held.. pilots, radar operatives. These are people used to judging distance, shape, and velocity of airborn objects far more so than any civilian. While you can debate the use and validity of ufo testimonies all day long, i think we can probably agree its far far more useful and meaningful to have eye-witness testimonies from individuals who are familiar with aircraft and monitoring the skies than those who arnt. I think its also much more usefull to have witnesses who have demonstrated that they can hold positions of power and authority than a cross section of people who cant hold down a job and demonstrate their mental competence. Fair point, testimonies are almost always backed up by tangible evidence, but from what i understand there are numerous documents within the disclosure project to count as such if im not mistaken. *i'll do some digging on this one. Definitely true, although not to true to the extent that you seem believe. Eye witness accounts arnt 100% accurate, but this isnt to say that observations contain no accuracury atall. There are many instances where eye-witness reports which have latter been confirmed and proven accurate. A good example would be piolets flying at high altitudes observing sprites (upwards electrical storms). The accounts given by pilots of this phenomenon were systematically ignored by the scientific community and useally had their experiences brushed off as hallucinations probably due to long periods of air-time. It was only untill sprites were accidently caught on film that the reports were proven positive. A clear lesson that human judgement isnt nearly as unreliable as it is offen claimed to be, and a cautionary tale in the pitfalls of ignoring those with experience and knowledge enough to make judgements regarding what theyve seen. You have to remember though that much of these sighting were pre-xfiles, and pre-speilberg, ufos wernt nearly as ingrained in the public imagination then as they are now. Its also worth pointing out that x-file plots are almost all ripped off version of somones real-life ufo account; whether within the military or regarding civilians, in fact the creator has even admited as much. The whole pop-culture ufo phenomenon is actually working the other way round most of the time; real events or proported events are hijacked and turned into fiction. Of course there is a feedback loop working both ways, reality is influencing art and vice versa but its useally the case that the fiction is a bastardised account of something 'real'. However again i feel this is an inconsequential point as i dont see any strong reason to believe that these military personnel have been overly influenced by pop culture. Im honestly not sure to what degree the reports of astronomers differ from those of the average person because i havent looked into it in any great length, so i'll have to take your word on that. Although lets remember that in the disclosure reports we are dealing with a high number of experienced observers, or at the very least more experienced than the average person. Only in so much as theres a element of faith (with greer at least), but the similiarity ends there, we're really just talking about a group of people with a common goal and objective. If the disclosure project is 'like a cult' then so is any business large or small, so is any political/civil rights group. Clearly its completely pointless and inaccurate to liken the disclousre project to a religion or cult, it just serves as an underhanded smear and nothing more to my mind. You cant use pop-culture symbols as evidence for the.. 'actual thing that people really mean when theyre talking about ufos'. It just doesnt work that way, visual associations are just that; associations. Youd be much better off asking 10 or 20 people at random on a ufo forum what they actually mean when they say ufo. You'll probably get a pretty varied response, much as youd get by asking on sciforums by asking 'what does science mean to you?' or a relgious forum 'what does god mean to you?" The term 'Ufo' from what ive seen is still generally applied in the same manner as it ever was, if something is in flight and it cant be attributed to a known craft, animal, or light source than people will employ the term 'ufo'. You cant really point to visual associations of ufos (such as enlarged alien heads) as if these images soley encompass what people are 'really' talking about when they mention a ufo. If you do choose to assume that by saying 'ufo' someone is talking about aliens then youve got a pretty high chance of being incorrect enough of the time to not make it worth making that assumption. Some people claim to have been abducted by aliens yes (i assume thats what youre largely talking about here) from what i understand such people who have been been regressed/psychologically analyised by proffesionals show all the hallmarks of post-traumatic stress disorder and seem to be affected by something that really happened to them, either in their minds or in reality. I really dont think we know much atall yet about the phenomenon to really say one way or the other whether these experience are real or not. I dont think it really matters what you choose to label aliens as, if theyre supernatural mythical beings to you, then im absolutely fine with that. For the record space aliens arnt something i consider to be true or believe in, but im definitely open to the idea that theyre visiting us and wouldnt rule it out. No intellectual dishonesty here just personal experience and rational thinking. The idea that everyone who uses the term 'ufo' is talking about aliens is just absurd, if everyone used the term ufo meaning 'alien spaceship' that would mean anyone who even utters the term ufo (in relation to a real-life event or maybe footage theyve seen) must therefore by your logic believe in aliens! come on think about it...there must be a high percentage of people using the term true to its original meaning otherwise everyone who uses the word in the context of a (non-fictional) ufo by your reasoning must be a believer in ETs. I dont think a judement/approximation of flight chacteristics constitutes as a belief. Meaning you? meaning me? No theyre just judgments, and not hard ones at that, judging if somethings metalic (as long as its polised to a high enough degree) shouldnt be problem for anyone. Light plays off metal in a very unique way that most people i think would be able to pick out in numerous weather conditions. Interesting ive found the complete inverse to be true, the number of high quality images and quanity keeps getting better and better, for instance the ufos over phoenix, arizona during the late 90s for were filmed by in excess of 7 different people. There you have one incident in which a ufo has been filmed by different people are different vantage points, something that would have been unimaginable pre-camcorder age. Im interested to know how you work out that hallucinations are getting falsely described as ufos though, how can anyone objectively know when a ufo sighiting is in fact a hallucination? surely thats a complete impossiblity. Well let me rephrase that then.. new/advanced would be more accurate. Since noone in the public sector can recreate or even create plans to produce the saucer/ball shaped craft we see in our skies we have to assume that the technology is indeed advanced and 'new' in the sense that it seems to be beyond what anyone in the public sector can manufacture. I think youd first have to prove that most people do mean alien spacecraft when saying ufo before i could atempt to refute you.
The modern UFO phenomenon appears to be essentially a space-age version of the long-standing interaction between humans and the denizens of the psychic world. We seem to be confronted with the reappearance of an occult current, coloured with 'our new human biases, our preoccupation with science, our longing for the promised land of other planets'. Having grown disillusioned with the angels and gods of old, many people now prefer to look to space beings for their salvation, and some join UFO cults that behave like irrational religious sects. The majority of UFOs are unexplained lightforms that often seem to be living, conscious entities. Most of them probably emerge into visibility from the ethereal realms interpenetrating our physical world, and are able to change their shape, size, and density. The large-scale use of radar, which emits high-energy microwave pulses, must be causing major disturbances in the ethereal borderland, and this could be a factor in the increased sightings of UFOs since the Second World War. The ways in which the UFO phenomenon manifests seem to be linked to the world of human beliefs and imagination, but the phenomenon also seems to have a dynamic of its own. The realm where the visitors come from is therefore best conceived of as a collective mind containing but transcending individual minds, and as a transphysical world that interacts with the physical world -- in other words, as the astral realm of occult tradition.
As a few have suggested here, there is a lack of proper reasoning on both sides of the ufo debate. True believers, who have a strong devotion to the idea of extraterrestrial visitation and fail to apply rational analysis, on a case by case basis, are practicing religion, nothing more. You can tell this type by his/her correlating affinity for New Age beliefs, crystals, meditation, etc... Not that there isn't merit to that body of belief, but it's vague and nebulous at this time. On the other end of the continuum of belief, are the debunkers who ignore the true spirit of science and spurn deductive analysis, on a case by case basis. Their logic is often tautological, their reasoning inductive and often reductionist. Occam's razor, in their hands, becomes Occam's chainsaw, turning the complex eco system of game theory and consciousness into the stump farm of gamed theory.
That's true - excelent work. But you only covered the two extremes and didn't mention the huge number of us who are in the middle. Most of this group would be willing to believe in the UFO/alien connection if there were only some evidence. Any at all. We have no doubt at all that people have seen "things", in fact many of us have seen them as well. But it's that tremendous leap from unidentified to alien - automatically - that we object to. After 60 years of sightings, there has yet to be even one tiny piece of material evidence ever offered. And all that we ask is why?
Thanks for the compliment, Light. As far as physical evidence goes, -- that assumes that at least some of the craft are physical. Secondly, it assumes that ufos are of predominant interest to scientists, that science resides in the marketplace of free exchange of info and ideas, and that politics is somehow divorced from the exercise of examining alien intelligence. I would suggest that, the subject maintains many of the earmarks of a "covert" intelligence problem, and that it's study would be, for that reason, under the auspices of some branch of govt. The physical proofs required, would, therefore, require a very high security clearance--certainly not available to the average person, the media, or the world of science, as we know it. As far as those in the middle. There is actually a group calling themselves, "The Excluded Middle" who do a fairly good job of examining strange phenomenon, on a case by case basis. They're pretty funny too. They skewer people like David Icke and his reptilian aliens ideas, for example. http://www.excludedmiddle.com/
There are also sightings of apparently structured craft that behave at times like solid physical objects, but are also capable of suddenly appearing, disappearing, and changing shape. The possibility that genuine extraterrestrials who have evolved on other physical planets or even on nonphysical planets are visiting earth cannot be ruled out. However, the incredible diversity of entities and their often weird and eccentric behaviour suggest that the majority are temporary manifestations of shape-shifting elemental entities, moulded by pictures in the earth's thought-atmosphere. Their craft, too, may be temporary manifestations modelled on astral images rather than the product of a technology that has evolved on some other planet. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/twilight1.htm http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/ufo1.htm
You're welcome to the compliment, it was indeed good work. Here again, I believe you may be thinking that all research is neatly compartmentalized and all under the direction/control of some governmental agency. That's simply not the case - and besides that there are many governments in the world. Surely they could not all keep all of their people silent all of the time. And there are still a good many independent researchers who are free to investigate using their on time and money. If you think about it for a minute, it's pretty much unbelievable that all this time could have gone by without someone somewhere bringing something out. (The fringe groups notwithstanding.) Military secrets have been made public, time and again secret government deals have been exposed and the list goes on. Just exactly how could everyone in the whole world with any credibility be kept completely silent for over 60 years? That's a little hard for anyone to accept if they just think about it. Yes, I'm aware of Icke (and his background as a sports reporter) and I've even visited his site a few times just as a humorous diversion. And even though he may be a little cracked, he's just in the game of selling his books, making appearances at his "seminars" - it all boils down to making money.
I've admittedly produced my own little "Disclosure Project". http://www.haqtraq.org I'm sure I'll add more to it eventually, and yes, you won't find any Evidence there at all and you know what... I don't CARE. If you want the evidence then you have two ways about getting it: 1: Reinvent the wheel. Since the stuffs out there, you just have to follow the initial footsteps with the preposed outcome and fill in the blankspots. Admittedly it would be a complete duplication of effort but it doesn't need to resort way 2. 2: Take the information by force, it's out there, it's in the hands of those that we are suppose to trust and they are pretty much ****ing us all over. So Force them to give us some answers, rather than bureaucratic backpeddling mumbo-jumbo. I'm not talking aliens or UFO's here, just a simple ARE YOU MESSING THE PUBLIC OVER? (refrained from the true way it should read).
did u guys know that nazi's were supposed to have built ufo's? a model called Haunebu flying at speeds of 7000km/h or so. the nazi's also landed on the moon and built a base there. hitler escaped to antarctic and joined with a subterranean dinosauroid master race (reptils). there are pictures of rockets flying saucers and aliens.
