Tic Tac UFO document: Interesting (if real)
Copyright 2018, InterAmerica, Inc.
Bill Murphy, at The Anomalist, posted
[5/22/18] a few comments and this link to a Bill Knapp I-Team report for
Channel 8 in Las Vegas:
The alleged "Tic Tac paper" about the era 2000 UFO “encounters” (and videos) by U.S. military pilots is more than interesting reading; it is an MJ-12-like document, marred
by footnotes, as Bill Murphy notices, from Wikipedia.
Why would a supposedly authentic U.S. Pentagon paper use
Wikipedia, and not military source documents to make its points?
The so-called “Executive Summary” ends with this:
The paper represents, if actual, a military summary of UFO
activity that seems to be dismissive, when one reading it sees that the alleged
encounters and observations are tantamount to something profoundly significant,
militarily and scientifically.
I’m sure there will more about this I-Team discovery….much
more.
RR
posted by RRRGroup at
Tuesday, May 22, 2018
51 Comments:
I agree. If authentic, it does describe something that is "profoundly significant" as you put it. Dismissive? Perhaps, but you can rest assured that someone, somewhere in the military/industrial/intelligence community, is studying the hell out of these reports. We now have over 60 years of "interest" by the military in flying objects that appear to display an exotic technology. That the phenomenon is still poorly understood is apparent.
By
Dominick, at Tuesday, May 22, 2018
Indeed - there's obviously STILL military/industrial/intelligence 'interest' in the phenomenon, despite repeated 'official' pronouncements they don't have any - as demonstrated by the admission of US Govt. collaboration with & funding of Bigelow Aerospace's 'Advanced Aviation Threat' Project (or whatever it is they've decided the acronym actually stands for!)
Former MI5 'UFO Desk' operative Nick Pope admits that part of his remit while holding the post was to appear on radio/tv & in the press in order to officially deny the Intelligence Services still had any ongoing 'interest' in the phenomenon.
By
DrDee, at Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Let's assume that what the Navy pilots reported and what the gun camera film and radar showed is accurate: A 46 foot "something" that was observed repeatedly, that was evasive when approached, and which displayed flight characteristics that were far beyond anything that "we" or anyone else has developed. Now where are our resident skeptics that want to simply dismiss even the possibility that UFOs are real? Zoam, your "analysis"please? And please don't tell us that something entirely mundane was misidentified.
By
Dominick, at Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Well like you say - you KNOW what the answer's gonna be so why bother asking him? (Waste of time...)
By
DrDee, at Wednesday, May 23, 2018
"Let's assume that what the Navy pilots reported and what the gun camera film and radar showed is accurate."
Why should we assume this? 70 years ago two pilots Chiles & Whitted observed a "gigantic" object from their plane. This "displayed flight characteristics that were far beyond anything that we or anyone else has developed".
A visiting spaceship, maybe? Or a misidentified bright and exploding fireball (also seen from the ground)? There have been others of a similar ilk too.
True, there were no gun camera films in the latter case, but I do not suppose for a moment that if and when the supposed films in the Navy case are ever produced, they will show anything useful at all.
Zoam can correct me if he has anything to add.
But yes there may STILL be a few genuine unidentifieds. Very few indeed.
By
cda, at Thursday, May 24, 2018
Dom;
It's all about the money and an old eccentric businessman's ego--not any real "UFOs."
It's same story we heard in December 2017, being told by the very same group of hardcore Believers. They're not just subjects of an ambiguous "UFO" myth and delusion, they're advocates of the insane idea that Earth is being visited by a highly advanced interstellar traveling civilization. Same story we've heard for decades: the "flying saucer" myth.
Former Senator Harry Reid abused his position to funnel $22 million over five years to Nevada businessman Robert Bigelow through a single desk in the Pentagon occupied by Luis Elizondo, who is most probably the author of these anonymous undated papers.
Even the former Navy pilot is a hardcore Believer who never fails to include in his statements that the object he saw was "not of this world." Of all the people who have been Navy pilots, Bigelow found one Believer who would make such statements.
And like the papers, the three videos are of dubious provenance. The DoD says it has NOT released any such videos; and the hysterical voice-over on at least one is hokey in the extreme. One skeptic questioned whether such FLIR systems even have voice tracks. And I've seen one analysis that shows the blobs in the videos are actually just other jets!
So that's it, Dom. All the usual suspects, associates and employees of Bigelow (and probably Tom DeLonge's TTS enterprises has a part in it) and including George Knapp are out promoting the old ETH and "flying saucer" madness for money and attention.
Two of the things that have promoted "UFO" hysteria for over a century; the two others being aerospace dreams and fears of aerial wars.
By
zoamchomsky, at Thursday, May 24, 2018
Another 'skeptical' skimming over of a case where the many inconvenient facts you fail to mention just DON'T ADD UP - including there being NO reported blast wave effects or damage from a supposed large 'exploding' bollide meteor. Ludicrous.
Despite all the usual 'skeptic' suspects agreeing (Klass, Menzel, Hynek before his later 'volte face') that it was a 'meteor', the case 'was one of three "classic" UFO incidents in 1948 that convinced the personnel of Project Sign "that UFOs were real."
An officer with Project Sign (the forerunner of Project Blue Book - itself an official public debunking exercise of UFO sightings with a second, unreleased version often giving VERY different versions of events) disagreed with Dr. Hynek's official 'explanation', stating: "It is OBVIOUS that this object was NOT a meteor" and that the object should be labelled 'UNIDENTIFIED'.
Similarly, Dr. James E. McDonald, a physicist at the University of Arizona concluded Chiles and Whitted who stated the object 'pulled up with a tremendous burst of flame out of its rear and ZOOMED UP into the clouds', had definitely 'NOT seen a meteor'.
A visiting spaceship maybe? 'What they were probably seeing is some blue light bouncing off a strut...' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsapOr4KXig&feature=youtu.be
Don't really see how two pilots would mistake an Earthward FALLING, single trajectory, (&/or 'exploding') 'fireball'/bollide meteor as an object that 'zoomed UP into the clouds' and exhibited advanced 'flight characteristics'.
As Woody says in Toy Story - 'That's NOT flying - that's FALLING with style!'
The flaming & exploding Chelabynsk meteor of 2013 produced light 'brighter than the Sun & visible up to 100 km (62 mi) away with a 'blast yield of 400–500 kilotons of TNT 26 to 33 times as much energy as that released from the atomic bomb detonated at Hiroshima'. At only 20m/65ft in circumference, less than half the length of a modern jet fighter, it was hardly 'GIGANTIC' yet this was the 'LARGEST known natural object to have entered Earth's atmosphere since the 1908 Tunguska event'.
Did ANYONE think this an unknown 'gigantic object' displaying 'flight characteristics far beyond anything that we or anyone else has developed'?
No - thought not.
The Chiles and Whitted 'meteor' must have been many, many times smaller since it caused no reported ground effects yet they reported seeing a GIGANTIC object that 'zoomed upward'. If what they saw was an exploding bollide meteor (let alone a GIGANTIC one) the shockwave alone would've meant EVERYONE for miles around would DEFINITELY have known about it, yet NOTHING was reported. Strange...
Just more simplistic & literally unbelievable 'skeptic' hogwash about a supposed 'exploding bollide meteor' whose behaviour doesn't even abide by the Laws of Physics. Hynek of course after many further years of research and witnessing at close hand more Military disinformation & debunking of cases they themselves were at a loss to explain, later famously rejected his official 'swamp gas' skepticism.
Zoam of course, the 'all-seeing, all-knowing' dispenser of 'truth' from on high (minus the inconvenient 'physics' details of course) will indeed no doubt 'correct' us all.
By
DrDee, at Thursday, May 24, 2018
We should "assume" this, CDA, because unlike the Chiles sighting this took place during the day, this was one of several sightings during the battle-group exercises, this (and another) was recorded on gun camera film, this was in part radar confirmed, the maneuver by the UFO was termed evasive, and a relatively precise measurement of the UFO (46 feet) was obtained.
By
Dominick, at Thursday, May 24, 2018
Zoam raises a good point concerning Bigelow's $22 million "gift" or "graft" since the dollars had to be appropriated and ultimately accounted for in the form of Contract Line Items (CLINS) and contract deliverables...even in a so-called black program. Oh...not only was I an ICBM launch officer and staff officer...I finished up my last 5 years as an acquisitions program manager dealing with radar and anti-jam proof ship/airborne radios. So I know how to follow the money, or rather, where it should be followed and accounted for.
So far, I've yet to see any legit accounting for this $22 million dollar farce. Harry Reid should have been "probed" legally and anatomically for this give away. IMHO...of course.
By
Tim Hebert, at Thursday, May 24, 2018
cda, you say;
->But yes there may STILL be a few genuine unidentifieds. Very few indeed.<-
While Ufology is saying, there is "OVERWHELMING evidence"...
We must remember, this has been taken to the Citizens hearing, under oath!! Overwhelming evidence; in the push for Disclosure!.....?
70 + years, Way overdue! Why?.. NOT because Zoam & his ilk, say there is nothing to UFO at all, But because good people like himself, find it hard to believe, not having seen the like, for themselves, but others HAVE, OVERWHELMINGLY!!!
Some sightings, may be mistaken identities, but in my book, not all of them!
The UFO myth, as some see it, has for a long time been a myth, for those whom, can not except the UFO reality. I'll leave you with this thought in mind...
IF UFOs where just a myth, and not to be taken seriously, then why would such prominent & upstanding citizens, in positions of trust in the USA.. stand up, under Oath, & testify to; the overwhelming witnesses, being engaged by the reality of UFOs...WHY???.....? Why would they "testify under Oath" and lie. I believe them to be truthfully testifying, and that UFOs are not just a myth, but a reality!
Can we prove it though? That's the six million dollar question, that has us all stumped, and patience is running out of time......
By
Daniel, at Thursday, May 24, 2018
Has anyone seen these gun camera films? Has anyone analysed them? More important: do they exist at all?
I am quite willing to acknowledge that some ET civilisation is visiting the Earth, and has been for a long time, but certainly not on the strength of these alleged sightings made in 2004.
And I do not want to hear, as I have over and over again, that the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, the NSA or any other of the 'top secret agencies' has the vital evidence and has been withholding it from the public and interested scientists, for seven decades.
If any of these agencies has this evidence, let them present it to a group of impartial scientists (of which there are plenty), preferably an international group, so that they, and ultimately we the public, can judge.
Otherwise it is all a boring repeat of what was first said by Keyhoe and others in the 1950s. And totally useless to science.
WHERE ARE THESE GUN CAMERA MOVIES?
By
cda, at Friday, May 25, 2018
@Daniel
Exactly Daniel, well said & a point I repeatedly put to Zoam.
'IF UFOs were just a myth, and not to be taken seriously, then why would such prominent & upstanding citizens, in positions of trust in the USA.. stand up, under Oath, & testify to...the reality of UFOs...WHY???.....? Why would they "testify under Oath" and lie. I believe them to be truthfully testifying, and that UFOs are not just a myth, but a reality!'
There's nothing 'mythical' about the Channel Islands incident which even Zoam's skeptic hero Dr. David Clarke accepts took place. Clarke asserts (on no evidence of course) it will probably prove to be a 'natural phenomenon' as yet unexplained by science. The pilot (who saw it) maintains it was an anomalous, self-illuminating 'object'.
There's nothing 'debateable' about this incident other than inconclusive differences of interpretation which themselves are informed by the interpreter's own pre-existing viewpoint.
I'm fully aware of 'Zoam's' beliefs but as you note, the testimony you & I defer to is from experienced, qualified, professional & often 'eminent' people including high ranking intelligence operatives & in the case of Paul Hellyer, the ex-Canadian Defence Minister!
As you rightly say, what on Earth would be the motive for all these respected, professional people, to concoct a load of baloney which they then testify to under oath, putting their hard earned reputations on the line & as you note - if indeed they are LYING under oath - risking a prison sentence to boot. It literally MAKES NO RATIONAL SENSE - something which Zoam's supposed 'rationalist' viewpoint fails to account for or explain.
Zoam's neither a former Pentagon Intelligence Officer, a Military official, an Astronaut, Pilot or NASA technician, he's just an ordinary punter like us with a supposed 'interest' in the subject - although I've seen precious little evidence of it!
His main 'hobby' appears to be asserting he's some sort of 'Omniscient Being' who KNOWS everything about the subject and that everyone else - from former High Ranking Govt. officials down to us mere mortals & interested parties - are just a bunch of deluded idiots.
He's entitled to his opinions of course, as we all are, but in a court of law, the experience, expertise and sheer weight of 'insider knowledge' held by such credible witnesses would rightly kick his case into the long grass.
:D
By
DrDee, at Friday, May 25, 2018
Dr Dee:
I am curious why you attach such high significance to the views of a man like Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Defence Minister (or to anyone else in his position).
Unless Mr Hellyer has, or had, some top secret information on UFOs which was the foundation for his strong ET bias, why should we take his opinions as worth more than those of you or I?
I think you are trying to bring in so-called 'UFO expertise' into a subject that has no real experts. Hellyer may well have been, and was, an authority on Canadian defence matters, but does that qualify him to make pronouncements on UFOs, and if so why?
Is it not far more likely that Hellyer (or others of a similar status) simply formed an early personal opinion that UFOs were ET craft, and incorporated such beliefs into their high ranking jobs in later life? What is a "hard earned reputation" anyway, in his case?
Decades ago, no less a person than Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, came out in favour of the Leslie-Adamski book: "Flying Saucers Have Landed". Big deal!
By
cda, at Friday, May 25, 2018
You guys (Daniel & Dee) ever hear of the "Appeal to (phony) Authority" fallacy?
Apparently not. Because rational people don't make arguments by fallacious reasoning.
Just who are these witnesses and where and to who are they testifying under oath?
In private "UFO" conferences in rented rooms at the National Press Club. Duh!
I could rent a room there testify to my belief that Earth is being visited by "Unicorns From Outer Space." Would that make it true? Of course not!
Same for all of these so-called Disclosure events, private parties for lying hardcore "UFO" nutbags.
And you guys buy this crapola. I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
By
zoamchomsky, at Friday, May 25, 2018
"If any of these agencies has this evidence, let them present it to a group of impartial scientists (of which there are plenty), preferably an international group, so that they, and ultimately we the public, can judge."
Exactly, cda. If there was ever any evidence of real "UFOs" we'd all know it already!
And to put your challenge in other words: Falsify the Null hypothesis for "UFO" reports, Dr Dee! Produce a real "UFO" of any kind.
What's a real "UFO?" No one knows. If they did, it wouldn't be a "UFO." --zo
By
zoamchomsky, at Friday, May 25, 2018
Dr.Dee:
Clearly Dee, it appears, we're on the same page of understanding.
-> What on Earth would be the motive for all these respected, professional people, to concoct a load of baloney which they then testify to under oath, putting their hard earned reputations on the line & as you note - if indeed they are LYING under oath - risking a prison sentence to boot. It literally MAKES NO RATIONAL SENSE - something which Zoam's supposed 'rationalist' viewpoint fails to account for or explain.<-
This cannot be overlooked, these respected professional people, are not going to put their reputation on the line, by LYING under oath, this is the point for everyone to consider. It gives strength to their testimony; That we are not alone, and are being engaged, as Steven Bassett & Dr. Steven M. Greer, put it......
By
Daniel, at Friday, May 25, 2018
Zoam and CDA forget, apparently, that the bulk of the "evidence" with respect to the UFO phenomenon has been collected (going back to 1947 and Project Sign) and kept confidential by the Military/Intelligence community. So these agencies that CDA speaks of, and naievely urges to deliver their evidence to "impartial scientists, have instead, for 60 years now, guarded the bulk of that evidence and/or intimidated non-military (commercial pilots, FAA controllers, etc.) to keep quiet or risk losing careers. Only the the slightest amount of info has leaked out or been pried out (while heavily redacted) by FOA legal procedures. Hard to do "science" when the State totally corrupts the process (imagine trying to do Astronomy when the state controls all of the telescopes and captures (and holds) 99% of the data).
By
Dominick, at Friday, May 25, 2018
Morning Zoam:
You asked;
>- Just who are these witnesses and where and to who are they testifying under oath? <-
This link below to the "Citizen Hearing to a Congressional Panel" April 29th.2013
I have listened to most of these videos, for hours, NOW, it's your turn, if you have the time, and the patients to get the gist of what going down here, under oath.
Link to the Citizens Hearing to Congress:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=citizen+hearing+on+disclosure+2013+full
By
Daniel, at Friday, May 25, 2018
@Zoam
While replying Daniel has also supplied you with a helpful link above so do have a look - then you might at least have an inkling of what it is you're slagging off as 'complete crap'. Idiot.
Anyway - The Disclosure Project in 2001 held a 2 hour press press conference which was covered by most major news channels including the BBC in the UK, not a 'private "UFO" conference' in rented rooms at the National Press Club. Duh!' You'd have seen all the tv cameras there if you'd bothered to look. Still, it has only been available to view for the LAST 17 YEARS so we can't expect miracles can we?
Here's the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClhNHIEPCKE
Do try and at least get your facts straight before you start rubbishing stuff you've obviously not bothered to look up let alone view - cos of course, yet again you already KNOW it's all 'crapola' without even watching it.
Your supposedly 'rational' assessment as to what is & isn't 'crap' when you've obviously not even bothered to listen to the testimony & evidence you're slagging off is becoming a little bit tiresome.
Again - How f***ing scientific of you.
The 'hard earned reputations' I mentioned were mainly in reference to the various NASA technicians & astronauts as well as people like John Callahan, head of accident investigation at the FAA, although I'd say that covers a former Canadian Head of Defence as well, who presumably was privy to secret Defence Intelligence while in the job, since that pretty much IS the job. This of course is not the case of 'no less a person' than Prince Phil - the Duke of Edinburgh himself! There is indeed 'no less a person' you could mention. Hahahahahahaha you complete & utter berk.
You don't honestly think ANYONE takes Phil the Greek seriously do you? Hahahaha. 'I don't know whether to laugh or cry' as I'm sure someone said quite recently. He obviously hasn't earned anything since marrying Liz, let alone a reputation (other than as an unintentionally hilarious utterer of embarrassing, ill-informed faux pas) - much like the ones you keep making.
'Unless Mr Hellyer has, or had, some top secret information on UFOs' well as the former Minister of Defence & an accepted 'authority on Canadian Defence matters' as you put it, he may well have since any 'uncorrelated targets' (the accepted military euphemism for 'UFO') in Canadian airspace & deemed a potential threat (and NORAD apparently has hundreds of these every year) would sort of come under his direct remit wouldn't you think?
Former UK 'UFO Desk' incumbent Nick Pope was an employee of & worked at the Ministry of Defence. Was he initially a UFO 'expert' - probably not. Is he, having had top secret clearance & investigating several incidents more qualified to comment on UFOs than you or I - most CERTAINLY.
So YES I think an 'authority on defence matters' IS infinitely more qualified to 'make pronouncements' on UFOs - it's the defence sector (i.e. the military - primarily the Navy & Air Force) that almost exclusively deals with such reports.
It would appear 'far more likely that in the case of Hellyer (or others of a similar status)' - you're now resorting to sheer speculation or 'making shit up' as it's commonly known to back up your own supposed argument.
By
DrDee, at Friday, May 25, 2018
@Zoam
On the 'Produce a REAL UFO' point, I've repeatedly asked you (to no avail) to comment on the Kera Encounter & its 'nuts & bolts' REAL UFO which was examined,(notably by the father of one of the witnesses who was the Director of the Center for Science Education in the city of Kōchi) as well as being filmed and photographed in some detail.
Mr. Fujimoto noted the object was 'something like cast iron, but too light for this metal. (It) had a top down (but) it was impossible to open and inside were pieces similar to a radio. I did not give it more importance, but now I regret not having studied more closely.'
Some four years later, in 1976, and in the same prefecture, an object with a very similar description was reported again, this despite the original case remaining practically unknown until 2004.
Anyway a REAL UFO for you Zoam. Discuss (as opposed to dismissing it offhand as usual)
Here's the link:
http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2011/07/the-bizarre-case-of-the-kera-ufo-encounters/
By
DrDee, at Friday, May 25, 2018
Whoops - apologies! I've addressed some comments to Zoam which were made by 'cda' - notably the Paul Hellyer & Duke of Edinburgh stuff so apologies for that - their stance is pretty much the same tho' :D
The comments still stand though and the REAL UFO is most DEFINITELY addressed to Zoam!
Anyway nighty, night space cadets! ;)
By
DrDee, at Friday, May 25, 2018
Dr Dee:
Tell me: why should Paul Hellyer be any better informed on UFOs than yourself? Once again, you are assuming the Canadian government (as well as the US one) possesses top secret information on UFO reality. Much more, than does, for example, the UK govt, the Chinese, the Russians, the Japansese, etc. Why is it that only the USA and Canada should be the ones to know about our ET visitors?
And why, precisely, after 7 decades do not all the professional scientists the world over know about it? Astronomers have been for decades (centuries?) hoping for that vital evidence of ET intelligence or indeed of ET life of any kind. Yet you claim a few top defence chiefs in the USA and maybe Canada know it all but ain't telling anyone.
This idea is as dotty as my suggestion that maybe Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who was impressed by the Adamski story of long ago, was an obvious authority on UFOs.
Hellyer, I assume, was an early believer in ETs, and this was BEFORE he became Defence Minister in 1963. What about those who succeeded him? If he had this 'special knowledge', didn't he, as Defence Minister, have a duty to pass on this great knowledge to them?
No, those gun-camera films of 2004 either do not exist or, if they do, they show absolutely nothing of value to the scientific world. I stick by this statement unless and until the films are made public.
Zoam is a 100% skeptic. Me? I am a mere 90%.
By
cda, at Saturday, May 26, 2018
CDA,
Well is that not why Bigelow has all of those "alien" artifacts squirreled away in his Harry Reid sponsored ware houses? What's in those ware houses? The public does not know and Bigelow is not telling and/or showing. Seems to me that if there were evidence, Bigelow would be having daily "open houses."
A darling of the UFO community doing what the faithful claims that the government is doing...hiding evidence.
It's all laughable.
As in the "Roswell Slides" fiasco, one merely has to follow the money. Ufology has turned into a Roman-style spectacle...bread for the masses as a way to distract.
By
Tim Hebert, at Saturday, May 26, 2018
Dom defaults to the great conspiracy that has covered up the "UFO" reality since the 1940s. Let's just ignore the fact that such a conspiracy would be impossible.
Daniel;
That's one of Bassett's private "UFO" crackpot parties at the Washington Press Club. Those people can sit and tell goofy old "flying saucer" stories to kingdom come, it's not going to make one bit of difference to the world. "Disclosure" never happens and it will never happen because there is simply nothing to disclose.
By
zoamchomsky, at Saturday, May 26, 2018
"Zoam is a 100% skeptic. Me? I am a mere 90%." ;-DDD
As I wrote to our great skeptical friend just yesterday: "Skeptical to the Max!"
By
zoamchomsky, at Saturday, May 26, 2018
"Anyway a REAL UFO for you"
Not even close. Dee, as early as the Great Airship mania of 1896-97, hoaxers presented pieces of crashed or exploded "airship": primitive circuit boards, pieces of broken machinery and odd bits of mystery metals, some with hieroglyphics.
But there were no airships in existence, certainly not what was being described.
And then there were conmen selling "flying saucer" parts. Did that make them real?
Please.
By
zoamchomsky, at Saturday, May 26, 2018
According to De Longe AATIP did some investigations on cases, which happened in Brazil.
I heard rumors ,that they have material from the colares incident including film footage, which wasn´t made public. Afaik De longe and Elizondo are guest speakers on a UFO conference in porto alegre this weekend, so maybe we will get somehting new.
By
Zak MacKracken, at Saturday, May 26, 2018
"then you might at least have an inkling of what it is you're slagging off as 'complete crap'. Idiot."
How lovely. It is "complete crap," Princess Dee.
I've seen these same hardcore "flying saucer" crackpots "testifying" in their phony press-club conferences for decades. Okay? So I'm very familiar with all their silly "UFO" fairy tales.
By
zoamchomsky, at Saturday, May 26, 2018
@Zoam - well of course - you already KNOW so there's no point even listening anymore is there?
And that's the sum total of your take on the Kera UFO is it? Have you actually READ the article? If it was a hoax how was it achieved and to what purpose since the case remained practically unknown until 2004? How, where & by whom was such an object apparently precision manufactured, from what material and how did it achieve flight without any apparent means of lift or propulsion?
You're a classic skeptic - you condemn ALL evidence & testimony that contradicts your stance as 'complete crap' often without even viewing it & anything else you just dismiss offhand without addressing any of the established facts.
Why the hell do you even bother responding to anything on a UFO blog when we already know your ONE SINGLE ANSWER to everything is 'it's all garbage' even when you often haven't even bothered to review the case in question.
If that is your unchanging view of the subject in its entirety then not only are you wasting my time, you're wasting your own on a subject you repeatedly & categorically state is 'complete garbage'. Seriously, why bother? Haven't you got anything more productive you could be doing - like engaging with a topic you're actually interested in rather than one you think is 'garbage' and 'doesn't exist' ffs?
There's a whole plethora of subjects I think are complete garbage but I don't waste my time lurking on blogs & forums discussing those topics just to keep to telling them that - what an utterly pointless & futile exercise that would be.
At least I have a genuine interest in the subject & think there's something to it (which inevitably led me to Rich's blog in the first place) whereas you CLEARLY DON'T on either count!
What a ridiculous individual.
By
DrDee, at Sunday, May 27, 2018
Good morning Zoam:
-> That's one of Bassett's private "UFO" crackpot parties at the Washington Press Club. Those people can sit and tell goofy old "flying saucer" stories to kingdom come, it's not going to make one bit of difference to the world. "Disclosure" never happens and it will never happen because there is simply nothing to disclose.<-
I couldn't disagree more, Zoam. The link I gave to the [Citizens Hearing to a Congressional Panel April 29th.2013] I doubt that you have listened to one or more, or if, any of those videos, it takes time, and you are too quick of the mark in replying, Soooo, Dr.Dees comments "stand" You don't know what's going on, and just assume. You set a bad example for your disrespect to the citizens of USA & other Countries, given that they were under oath, when giving their testimony.....
By
Daniel, at Sunday, May 27, 2018
This debate has centred on what certain 'experts' said or thought. These so-called experts are only so in their field of expertise or knowledge. A person, whether he is a high-ranking military person or a highly regarded civilian scientist, cannot be an expert in a subject such as Ufology because ufology is itself a fringe subject and is not a recognised scientific field of study.
Similarly with astrology. There may be astrologers of long standing, but none can legitimately be called 'experts'.
One day ufology MAY be accepted into the fold and become a 'respectable' field of science. But that day is still a long, very long, way off. Pronouncements from people on high count for little, if anything, in this field. The same applies to negative pronouncements.
After 7 decades of UFOs, where exactly are we now? Perhaps we should cease debating this tiresome subject until something really positive and useful emerges.
By
cda, at Sunday, May 27, 2018
Daniel;
Since that was 2013, I think I've had time to watch it all. If I hadn't seen it all already since Bassett and Greer have hosted these private "UFO" crackpot parties several times over nearly twenty years. It's always Roswell; RendleSham; "UFOs" and Nukes, etc. Conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy....
I know enough about it all to know it's all a lot of worthless conspiracy baloney.
By
zoamchomsky, at Monday, May 28, 2018
Dee;
There's more to the "UFO" subject that you think or know apparently. You clearly don't understand that the Psychosocial hypothesis for "UFO" reports is the most plausible explanation for why people have made "UFO" reports for over a century.
Since no one can produce a real "UFO" of any kind.
Thousands of wildly varying reports in all their weirdness; thousands of books and magazine articles; millions of believers; thousands of movies and TV shows; everything remains exactly the same, there just aren't any real "UFOs" of any kind.
That's the Null hypothesis. There is no "UFO" phenomenon, never was. No Mystery!
It was all a myth and social delusion. ufxlogy is history already! Get over it.
By
zoamchomsky, at Monday, May 28, 2018
Good Morning Zoam:
I was thinking, let's reflect on something here, & consider just for the sake of it, that all of what you have said was correct, as far as the UFO myth is concerned.
What IF, AFTER the UFO myth, historically, that you talk of, Man, may have in their possession, their own manufactured craft, that we call a UFO today, when seen!? A prototype, yeah? Let's say, nothing to do with ETs as such, but who knows!? Could this be a possibility, you might consider in the advancement of MANs technology here on earth, of MANs ingenuity!? This COULD, explain some of the UFO reports.....?
By
Daniel, at Monday, May 28, 2018
So what do you suggest these reports are about? http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/06/air-force-captain-claims-ufo-deactivated-10-nukes-in-silos/
Again, neither you or I are in any position to establish the veracity of such incidents (which would obviously remain defence secrets) but how can such reports ever be dismissed when WE can't ever determine the 'facts'?
Absence of evidence (particularly when it would understandably be witheld from public view) is not necessarily evidence of absence.
I've shown you a REAL (in the traditional sense) tangible Unidentifed Flying Object (the Kera UFO) which as expected you again simply dismiss as a 'hoax' when this has been officially rejected as a credible explanation. There are no rational answers as to why, where or indeed how such an object was manufactured or by whom, nor indeed how it flew.
Again - what do you mean by a REAL UFO? A 'nuts & bolts' extra-terrestrial 'craft'? I don't think for a minute that's what they are & if they involve or utilise any form of 'new physics' beyond our current understanding (which their reported attributes & capabilities suggest they do) or if they are more akin to interdimensional 'projections' of some sort these would neither behave like tangible, physical 'objects' as we understand them, nor would they necessarily reflect radar returns.
Again - how do you KNOW this is not the case?
You DON'T of course but you just skeptically dismiss & shutdown all possibilities that can't be explained by recourse to the current scientific paradigm.
Unless of course you're one of those idiots who believe we already 'KNOW' everything.
By
DrDee, at Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Dr. DEE:
-> So what do you suggest these reports are about? http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2017/06/air-force-captain-claims-ufo-deactivated-10-nukes-in-silos <-
I'm glad you brought this case up, (US. & in Russia) If they can be deactivated once, they can be deactivated again. How serious is that, in the "balance" of political power!?......
By
Daniel, at Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Dr. Dee and Daniel,
Could you both provide an example of UFOs shutting down US ICBM nuke sites? I mean one that has hard evidence that such a thing actually occurred?
Thanks, and I'm looking forward to your replies!
By
Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, May 29, 2018
Daniel;
The "Secret advanced technology" hypothesis for "UFO" reports was the most favored explanation for phantom "Airship" reports, "Ghost balloons" and other mystery aircraft to "flying saucer" hysteria in 1950, when the ETH took the lead.
No doubt reflections of aircraft bodies, various lights and exhaust have been the stimuli for "UFO" reports, but I do not think there is some REAL secret aircraft technology that is the cause of "UFO" reports.
Where are all the old "airships?" Where are all the old "flying saucers?" Because that's what people claimed they saw. Not in air & space museums, probably because there never were any "airships" or "flying saucers."
There's a much simpler explanation.
By
zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Dee;
We have a former SAC missile crew commander and dedicated expert in the "nukes and UFOs" mythology posting right here on this page. We can very much determine the facts.
"Absence of evidence (particularly when it would understandably be witheld from public view) is not necessarily evidence of absence."
That's folk logic, the fallacious appeal to ignorance, and an appeal to a "UFO" conspiracy. "Absence of evidence is very good, if not complete, evidence of absence" is real logic and good sense. We can prove negatives all day. Think!
"I've shown you a REAL (in the traditional sense) tangible Unidentifed Flying Object (the Kera UFO)"
No, you've shown me an obvious teenage prank of which there have been dozens if not hundreds since 1896--as I told you and gave examples. I can give more, much the same as the Kera hoax.
"There are no rational answers as to why, where or indeed how such an object was manufactured or by whom, nor indeed how it flew."
Maybe you shouldn't uncritically accept the story. How do you know that most if not any of it is true--except for the quite Japanese esthetic of the molded and machined metal object. ;-D
Dee, there's a principle in debunking: If the hard evidence presented is questionable, then the entire "UFO" report is quite questionable as well.
"Again - what do you mean by a REAL UFO?"
A persistent, present, substantial object that exists unambiguously in the world but defies identification by science and rational people.
"the current scientific paradigm."
That's all we have. The rest is just endless talk that goes nowhere and produces nothing.
And be careful with that p-word. I think you'll find that it's more a cumulative than "shifting" aspect of science. ;-D
>> Arguments from ignorance fallaciously infer that since a hypothesis has not been disproved, it is reasonable to believe that hypothesis or regard it with an open mind.<<
Study this, Dee:
https://www.csicop.org/SI/show/open_minds_and_the_argument_from_ignorance/If
By
zoamchomsky, at Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Hi Tim:
Hard evidence?
Capt. Robert Salas, and other witnesses are the only ones, to claim, hard evidence, we weren't there:) but for the record;...
Two links:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCrIZ1qhw24&t=1s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaeIO5aEEWI
By
Daniel, at Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Daniel,
Robert Salas provides a story that is not backed up by hard facts. There are no documentation from SAC, 341st SMW, and on site personnel that corroborates Salas' tale.
You mentioned "other witnesses" yet there are none that have come forward.
Salas' story has changed over the years to morph into it's current (final?) narrative.
By
Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, May 30, 2018
Good Morning Zoam:
-> No doubt reflections of aircraft bodies, various lights and exhaust have been the stimuli for "UFO" reports, but … [I do not think there is some REAL secret aircraft technology that is the cause of "UFO" reports.] <-
It is because we don't know, of some REAL secret aircraft technology, being the cause of "UFO" reports, that we need "Disclosure" on the subject, to clarify it once & for all, but thanks for your response......
By
Daniel, at Wednesday, May 30, 2018
@zoam
'We have a former SAC missile crew commander and dedicated expert in the "nukes and UFOs" mythology posting right here on this page. We can very much determine the facts.'
Well as you've said previously there are no 'UFO experts', so...? Again all you do is cherry pick the stuff that backs up your position when invariably there are other, just as credible & qualified opinions that disagree - as in the 'Chiles-Whitted' UFO encounter.
'Study this, Dee' - What csicop? Hahahahahaha - totally open & unbiased opinion there. Don't make me laugh.
'except for the quite Japanese esthetic of the molded and machined metal object'. Really? In what way? I don't agree at all that it looks 'Japanese' it looks completely 'western' to me and how is it 'an obvious teenage prank' when no one could establish how & where it had been 'precision manufactured' in a light, unidentifiable metal with no apparent welds, joins or fixings. How did these teenage boys achieve such an elaborate 'prank' creating an object which inexplicably flew & was independently witnessed again some 4 years later after having vanished?
'A persistent, present, substantial object that exists unambiguously in the world but defies identification by science and rational people.' - Well, that's the Kera UFO for ya!
Why do you insist UFOs are 'substantial' objects in the sense we understand? Vallee noted that many reported 'unidentified objects' would seem to exhibit qualities suggestive of them being some sort of 'projection' rather than 'persistent, present or substantial' things.
"the current scientific paradigm."
'That's all we have. The rest is just endless talk that goes nowhere and produces nothing.'
This was the reason I brought up the Einstein 'entanglement' problem. Phenomena that even the greatest minds (using the 'null hypothesis') dismiss as 'unlikely' since it would seem to contradict elements of the existing paradigm (observed UFOs seemingly defying the accepted 'Laws of Physics' as we understand them) isn't necessarily fallacious - rather the accepted 'paradigm' is.
If we steadfastly refuse to accept that phenomena outside & beyond our current paradigm potentially exists, we'll never progress at all. Einstein couldn't accept (despite new, recent confirmation that this is indeed the case) that the spin of an entangled particle was:
a) completely & unpredictably RANDOM nor that
b) once the unpredictable spin of one particle had been categorically established this necessarily & instantaneously determined (faster than the speed of light) the opposing spin of the other entangled particle.
Your stance is ultimately an 'argument from ignorance' since you can't possibly KNOW the details of EVERY report, many of which remain unreleased (according to military/intelligence insiders) and most of which (again why?) contain large, redacted sections.
'The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were'. John F. Kennedy
By
DrDee, at Friday, June 01, 2018
@Daniel Zoam says 'NO DOUBT reflections of aircraft bodies, various lights and exhaust'
'NO DOUBT!' - whatsoever hahahahahaha!
As Bill Hicks says 'Wow - NEVER been THAT confident...'
By
DrDee, at Friday, June 01, 2018
Good Morning, Dr Dee:
-> [Zoam says] No doubt reflections of aircraft bodies, various lights and exhaust have been the stimuli for "UFO" reports, but … [I do not think there is some REAL secret aircraft technology that is the cause of "UFO" reports.] <-
I think this comment of his, is correct, "in part!?" But NOT where Zoam says;..
[I do not think there is some REAL secret aircraft technology that is the cause of "UFO" reports.] I know better, than to except that:)......
I believe this, not to be correct, Dee!
By
Daniel, at Friday, June 01, 2018
Morning, Tim:)...
You & Robert Salas, need to talk:)..I mean, it's a serious statement, Robert Salas has publicly announced, given that he & witnesses top-side, were told by their superiors, not to talk of this, and he didn't, until his retirement years, as I understand.
Surely, your not suggesting he's lying...A trained & trusted man in his position.
What would the reasons be, unless it was true?...In other words, what does he know that you don't?......
By
Daniel, at Friday, June 01, 2018
Daniel,
I recommend, if you've the time, to read my workup on Salas' claims:
https://timhebert3.blogspot.com/ Oscar Flight: The Mysterious UFO Tale that Never Was.
There is more to Salas' story than a couple of YouTube video clips. No, unfortunately for Salas there were no witnesses that came forward to back his story after four decades. No Blue Book investigation despite there being one the next following day regarding the Belt UFO sighting as well as the full AF and SAC investigation for the Echo Flight shutdown a week prior.
By
Tim Hebert, at Saturday, June 02, 2018
WOW! Tim, interesting read, through the roof, BUT I think Salas, still holds his trump card to throw out. Watch that space, he's not alone on this, there are other reports of the same thing, having taken place......
By
Daniel, at Sunday, June 03, 2018
VERY interesting piece by Neil Turok - 'Why some scientists say physics has gone off the rails' - that echoes some of my points about the often purely mathematical & theoretical speculative models that pass for 'science' rather than actual study & investigation of real phenomena.
link - https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/why-some-scientists-say-physics-has-gone-rails-ncna879346
"Physicists today 'write a lot of papers, build a lot of [theoretical] models, hold a lot of conferences, cite each other — (it has) all the trappings of science,' he says.
Dr. David Clarke asserts that the Channel Islands UFO will probably turn out to be a 'natural phenomenon as yet uncategorised by science'. Well why the hell aren't they on with that then if there are (apparently) commonly experienced aspects of our own physical world we still don't understand?
'ALL the theoretical work that's been done since the 1970s has not produced a SINGLE successful prediction.' Turok notes.
'That's a very shocking state of affairs.' he adds.
By
DrDee, at Sunday, June 03, 2018
Dee says, "Your stance is ultimately an 'argument from ignorance' since you can't possibly KNOW the details of EVERY report,"
No, Dee, that's just another empty statement, I'm not appealing to ignorance in any respect. And the fallacy you're committing here is akin to the Residue fallacy. I don't have to know the details of every "UFO" report or even every one of innumerable reports. I know enough them (95%) and about them already--enough to make a determination.
As usual, you're all over the place, that is, irrational, though you've calmed down a bit. But you're still refusing to accept the obvious (Is anyone else even bothering to address the Japanese boys' hoax? No!) and appealing to the history and philosophy of science--as you strangely understand it to be generous. That's another worthless rhetorical tactic. Argument by analogy is iffy at best, argument by analogy in the philosophy of science even more so, my friend.
I sort of like you, and I'm still willing to talk with "Dr Dee."
As the great social scientist Gilles Fernandez recently echoed Royston Paynter:
I don't care how many "UFO" stories you present, in all their mystery and wonder, your task is to falsify the Null hypothesis for "UFO" reports: Show a REAL "UFO!"
By
zoamchomsky, at Sunday, June 03, 2018
Daniel,
Regardless of your views, I do thank you for taking a look see at the site. In the end, I, like others, present information. I leave it up to the readers to either accept or reject my premise. Due considerations is all that I ask for.
By
Tim Hebert, at Sunday, June 03, 2018
Post a Comment
<< Home