Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:27 am Post subject: Fintan's Dunn it again
Yup - i'm sadly on the BreakWindforNews mailout list from when I steamed onto Fintan's F-f-forum to defend Daniel [Hoppy to his friends] Hopsicker. Hopsicker is apparently another CIA fake/disinfo artist - even though he's done some of the best research on the links between the Bush family's narco antics and 9/11 and narco funding generally.
Fintan is of course highly jealous of this type of investigation and journalism.
I just listened to his new rant. CIA fakes - installment #23 - THE CLASH WITH FETZER
I kind of nodded off in that bit but came round for Fintan's latest paranoia target. It's the Washington DC Press Club and the Disclosure Project. These organisations are apparently fishy. Fintan declares with a blatent smirk into netspace that
"the disclosure project are the ones who want to tell us that aliens exist..."
Top marks for getting to grips with their basic concept Fintan.
I think BreakforNews are practising their own version of false flagging. They simply talk about 'tin foil hat' wearing topics with disdain, slag off anything remotely outside the thermate 9/11 reality bubble, cover hyperspatial quantum mechanics but laugh at the idea of extra-terrestrial intelligence and now slate the Disclosure Project and their seminal Press Club event of 2001 - all with the rather dubious and transparent agenda of making themselves feel more 'consensus-like' when they come out with their latest kookie theories that the 9/11 movement is riddled with psy-op fakery.
And Fintan should ask himself why the Disclosure Projects Washington event was:
- The most watched event they've ever staged at that established venue
- Deliberately JAMMED by the NSA on the day it was staged so only a fraction caught the live web feed
...if it was all part of some grand scheme to deceive.
Methinks Fintan is getting a little too alienated with all that research he's doing into CIA fakery.
For a year and a half the CIA Fakes have frozen out the
revealing 9/11 analysis found in the BreakForNews Forum.
Now, in the face of mounting support and a growing dawning
of the truth --they've finally blinked!
Including:
- The Trap that Backfired
- The Alex Jones Connection
- The CIA Fakes Advance Man
- Space Beams and Monty Phyton
- Fake is as Fake Does
My take on the UFO/Alien paradigm is as follows, for what it's worth. (I originally posted this on BFN forum where I post under the same name as here.)
I would be interested in your view.
Quote:
My take on the UFO=Aliens nonsense is that it's all a cover for shady human activity. Yes, of course there are UFOs: there are plenty of unidentified flying objects. But that definition tells us nothing. What the PTB have done is cleverly make us think of "aliens" when we hear talk of UFOs. (Thanks go to Hollywood for their support in this psyop, as well as the CIA fakes like Mack, Streiber, Hopkins, etc.)
When I talk to people about this I ask them these questions:
Who do we know that makes advanced technological machines?
Who do we know that likes secrecy?
The answer:
humans and specifically military humans
We all know about the military's penchant for secrecy and secret technologies. If you saw Stealth being tested in the 1970s it would have been a UFO; it was something that didn't match what we then thought existed. Now we know different - it was just Stealth being tested. Big deal.
There are many reasons why you might want to keep a new technology secret. A secret weapon can be far more powerful and useful than a known weapon. It can surprise and confuse. Keeping a weapon secret makes it much harder for an "enemy" to defend themselves because they literally won't know what hit 'em or what to look out for.
A secret technology could also be used to confuse and distract people. What better way of continuing mind control experments, for example, than by abducting them using UFOs to totally muddy the waters. There was an episode of the X Files which covered this where someone got abducted by some"greys" in a classic UFO and then the "greys" unzipped their body suits to reveal US military fatigues.
The Alien BS is just a cover, a rabbit warren of dead-ends and pointless confusions to send people scurrying away from the real problems on this planet which are entirely human in origin imo.
I have never seen a shred of credible evidence for the existence of aliens on this planet. All the crashed craft and all the strange sightings can be explained by covert human activity, disinfo or other known phenomena. There is no reason whatever to think aliens were behind any of it. All the autopsies and abduction stories and visitations are disinfo and/or mind control/hypnosis-planted BS imo.
_________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject:
Craig W wrote:
Hi utopiated, I like your eponymous website.
Hi Craig
Thanks - just reached the 1000 unique visits a day - which for a site with content that makes 99.9% of net users run a digital mile is not bad.
Quote:
My take on the UFO/Alien paradigm is as follows, for what it's worth. (I originally posted this on BFN forum where I post under the same name as here.)
I would be interested in your view.
You signed off with a RAW quote and although his main meme is not to believe any singular belief structure I think old RAW [RIP] would probably disagree with you and agree with me that sentient life exists off this tiny planet
Quote:
My take on the UFO=Aliens nonsense is that it's all a cover for shady human activity. Yes, of course there are UFOs: there are plenty of unidentified flying objects. But that definition tells us nothing. What the PTB have done is cleverly make us think of "aliens" when we hear talk of UFOs. (Thanks go to Hollywood for their support in this psyop, as well as the CIA fakes like Mack, Streiber, Hopkins, etc.)
The problem with BFN's forum and approach is that it doesn't facilitate any "dissent" from Fintan's view on things. It's interesting that his 9/11 CIA fakes have spread to other areas. So now we have alien research fakes. John Mack was so convinced the ETI phenomena was real he put his psychiatric career on the line. Bud Hopkins has interviewed more "abductees" than anyone on the planet so i think if there was nothing going on he'd know more than anyone.
The problem I find with most ppl who just assume advanced beings don't exist or are in fact military cabal types [like John Alexander] dressed up as greys is that when you ask them - they've actually not really done any in depth research at all. When you do - you find the evidence overwhelming. It's a done deal.
Everything I've understood tells me that to an extent humanity is quarantined and cannot move too far into space flight of any sort. There is evidence of such flights being done by humans but only in conjunction with "alien" entities. Until we admit the alien presence and shift our behaviour patterns it will stay that way.
Quote:
When I talk to people about this I ask them these questions:
Who do we know that makes advanced technological machines?
Who do we know that likes secrecy?
We all know about the military's penchant for secrecy and secret technologies. If you saw Stealth being tested in the 1970s it would have been a UFO; it was something that didn't match what we then thought existed. Now we know different - it was just Stealth being tested. Big deal.
This is the either/or arguement people fall into. Sometimes because they're just like that and sometimes I really think it's out of fear. Fear fear - or fear of ridicule from going our on a limb and stating that little grey men exist. Just because we have access to advanced tech - doesn't then mean that ET life cannot exist. What's wrong with both? Things are always more complex than we think... and if you read Jim Sparks'
http://www.utopiated.net/2007/audio/the_keepers_-_a_new_hybrid_languag e_for_humanity.html
...latest book you kind of see that.
By the way - if you see genuine UFO footage - there is no way, unless labotomized , that you could possible mistake it for a Stealth fighter prototype - proper *organic* [ie: intelligent] UFOs/ETVs don't get put anywhere near the same technological space as them. [although the stealth did use elements of UFO design - as did the B2 I think].
Quote:
There are many reasons why you might want to keep a new technology secret. A secret weapon can be far more powerful and useful than a known weapon. It can surprise and confuse. Keeping a weapon secret makes it much harder for an "enemy" to defend themselves because they literally won't know what hit 'em or what to look out for.
Agreed but all this can happen and does happen along with the ETI phenomena.
Quote:
A secret technology could also be used to confuse and distract people. What better way of continuing mind control experments, for example, than by abducting them using UFOs to totally muddy the waters. There was an episode of the X Files which covered this where someone got abducted by some"greys" in a classic UFO and then the "greys" unzipped their body suits to reveal US military fatigues.
So where did the who symbolism of the "grey" etc etc come from? Was that a psy-op to. Do you really reckon the whole alien phenomena was generated in the cold war era? These things were visiting during cave man times - we have cave paintings of greys... we also have Renaissance art with UFOs in them. It's just silly to say its all a generated/cultural/military illusion. They are NOT THAT CLEVER
Quote:
The Alien BS is just a cover[/b][/size], [b]a rabbit warren of dead-ends and pointless confusions to send people scurrying away from the real problems on this planet which are entirely human in origin imo.
Yup - i think you're right - the problems are human in origin. Although Sitchin claims we had our agression gene re-booted higher 13,000 years ago by naughty ETs. The military rate the UFO thing higher than the H-Bomb as a disinformation priority - we've have 60 years of propaganda and threats against info in this area - so of course it's a rabbit warren.
Cheers for the response... I may come an be nice on the BFN forum now and then
Thanks - just reached the 1000 unique visits a day - which for a site with content that makes 99.9% of net users run a digital mile is not bad.
Hi utopiated,I may have been number 1,000.
Quote:
My take on the UFO/Alien paradigm is as follows, for what it's worth. (I originally posted this on BFN forum where I post under the same name as here.)
I would be interested in your view.
Quote:
You signed off with a RAW quote and although his main meme is not to believe any singular belief structure I think old RAW [RIP] would probably disagree with you and agree with me that sentient life exists off this tiny planet
I didn't say that sentient intelligent life does not exist off this planet. In fact I agree that it is very probable that it does indeed exist. What I doubt is that it exists in any operational sense on this planet.
Quote:
My take on the UFO=Aliens nonsense is that it's all a cover for shady human activity. Yes, of course there are UFOs: there are plenty of unidentified flying objects. But that definition tells us nothing. What the PTB have done is cleverly make us think of "aliens" when we hear talk of UFOs. (Thanks go to Hollywood for their support in this psyop, as well as the CIA fakes like Mack, Streiber, Hopkins, etc.)
Quote:
The problem with BFN's forum and approach is that it doesn't facilitate any "dissent" from Fintan's view on things. It's interesting that his 9/11 CIA fakes have spread to other areas. So now we have alien research fakes. John Mack was so convinced the ETI phenomena was real he put his psychiatric career on the line. Bud Hopkins has interviewed more "abductees" than anyone on the planet so i think if there was nothing going on he'd know more than anyone.
You clearly have issues with Fintan's views and that is fair enough. But my views have nothing to do with his. I have no loyalty to him and the BFN forum is not a personality cult. I post there because there is an intelligent and open-minded atmosphere which I find conducive to truth-seeking.
Regarding Mack et al, I came across information that resonated with my understanding of these matters years ago in the late 90s regarding their activities. I found this information in a number of sources (unfortunately now forgotten) and it suggested to me that they were not all they appeared.
My use of the term "CIA fakes" has nothing to do with Fintan's use in the 911 context. The fact is that the CIA are known to use disinfo agents and assets to control information flow in many ways and fields. And I suspect that the "alien" paradigm is being pushed by these types as part of this process and for entirely spurious reasons.
Quote:
The problem I find with most ppl who just assume advanced beings don't exist or are in fact military cabal types [like John Alexander] dressed up as greys is that when you ask them - they've actually not really done any in depth research at all. When you do - you find the evidence overwhelming. It's a done deal.
I started my conspiracy research in 1996 and my first interest was UFOs. I started out believing in aliens and the whole deal. But after a lot more research my view evolved and now I think I was psyoped. I have not seen any credible evidence for aliens on or around earth.
I have seen this video before. It proves nothing. It is very poor quality but even if it wasn't it would still prove nothing. Look at the quality of unreal images Hollywood can produce. Faking this would be child's play. The evidence value of photographs and videos has been totally destroyed by the development of photoshop and CGI.
And look at the source. NASA has been part of the intelligence network in the US since its birth and I certainly wouldn't trust them.
Quote:
Everything I've understood tells me that to an extent humanity is quarantined and cannot move too far into space flight of any sort. There is evidence of such flights being done by humans but only in conjunction with "alien" entities. Until we admit the alien presence and shift our behaviour patterns it will stay that way.
Quote:
When I talk to people about this I ask them these questions:
Who do we know that makes advanced technological machines?
Who do we know that likes secrecy?
We all know about the military's penchant for secrecy and secret technologies. If you saw Stealth being tested in the 1970s it would have been a UFO; it was something that didn't match what we then thought existed. Now we know different - it was just Stealth being tested. Big deal.
Quote:
This is the either/or arguement people fall into. Sometimes because they're just like that and sometimes I really think it's out of fear. Fear fear - or fear of ridicule from going our on a limb and stating that little grey men exist. Just because we have access to advanced tech - doesn't then mean that ET life cannot exist. What's wrong with both? Things are always more complex than we think... and if you read Jim Sparks'
http://www.utopiated.net/2007/audio/the_keepers_-_a_new_hybrid_languag e_for_humanity.html
...latest book you kind of see that.
I will try and check out that link.
Quote:
By the way - if you see genuine UFO footage - there is no way, unless labotomized , that you could possible mistake it for a Stealth fighter prototype - proper *organic* [ie: intelligent] UFOs/ETVs don't get put anywhere near the same technological space as them. [although the stealth did use elements of UFO design - as did the B2 I think].
Although I am sure a proportion of UFO sitings in the 1970s were Stealths being tested, I never meant to suggest that all UFOs were Stealths. What I meant was that if you had seen any technology that was not publicly known it would in effect be a UFO. I also suspect strongly that some human agencies do use secret craft powered by unknown technologies, developed from the ideas of Tesla, Scuaberger and the Nazi scientists. And these make up the bulk of UFO sitings.
Quote:
There are many reasons why you might want to keep a new technology secret. A secret weapon can be far more powerful and useful than a known weapon. It can surprise and confuse. Keeping a weapon secret makes it much harder for an "enemy" to defend themselves because they literally won't know what hit 'em or what to look out for.
Quote:
Agreed but all this can happen and does happen along with the ETI phenomena.
Quote:
A secret technology could also be used to confuse and distract people. What better way of continuing mind control experments, for example, than by abducting them using UFOs to totally muddy the waters. There was an episode of the X Files which covered this where someone got abducted by some"greys" in a classic UFO and then the "greys" unzipped their body suits to reveal US military fatigues.
Quote:
So where did the who symbolism of the "grey" etc etc come from? Was that a psy-op to. Do you really reckon the whole alien phenomena was generated in the cold war era? These things were visiting during cave man times - we have cave paintings of greys... we also have Renaissance art with UFOs in them. It's just silly to say its all a generated/cultural/military illusion. They are NOT THAT CLEVER
Yes. A psyop to cover for technology they wanted to use without telling us they had. Perhaps because the technology would have far-reaching implications that they wanted to suppress (such as free energy, anti-gravity, etc). Perhaps because they wanted to use the craft to abduct people to use in mind-control experiments. Perhaps because they didn't want their enemies to believe such craft might exist as this would undermine their value as a weapon and could lead to attempts to steal or copy them. Perhaps for other deceptions.
Quote:
The Alien BS is just a cover[/b][/size], a rabbit warren of dead-ends and pointless confusions to send people scurrying away from the real problems on this planet which are entirely human in origin imo.
Yup - i think you're right - the problems are human in origin. Although Sitchin claims we had our agression gene re-booted higher 13,000 years ago by naughty ETs. The military rate the UFO thing higher than the H-Bomb as a disinformation priority - we've have 60 years of propaganda and threats against info in this area - so of course it's a rabbit warren.
Cheers for the response... I may come an be nice on the BFN forum now and then
[b] cheers _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
"Starchild" skull, if it IS non-human, also adds interest because it has been carbon dated (twice) to 900 years old +/- 40 years. A bit before the MJ12 affair. I am surprised at how many people aren't familiar with much of the above.
people who say the ufo storys are to cover up advanced technology usually do so because they feel the exsistance of other life is either impossible or are scared of the ridicule that comes with believing in aliens.
there are more possibilities than they like to admit, ie some programmes to develop high tech equipment/flying vessels is to cover up the fact we are visited frequently by outsiders to this world and therefore can be given as the reason for the sighting "it wasnt a ufo its proberbly a military craft they are developing ect".
i find it hard to know what is true but i dont rule out any possibilities here on this subject simply because we can all see first hand how truthful goverments have been regarding 9/11 and also the media. it has become apparent in recent years that the media and goverments work hand in hand to cover what they dont want us to know and we dont know how long this has been going on for and what subjects they will supress, and when they are supressed how would we know any differant?
so 9/11 was an inside = ridicule, even though there is plenty of evidence to support it.
ufo exsist and have aliens onboard/ i was abducted and probed where the sun dont shine = ridicule, even though there is plenty of evidence to support it or the exsistance of alien craft.
in terms of being lied to and having the truth hidden there have been tons of 9/11's 9/11 is NOT and CANNOT be the only thing they are lieing about.
i also agree that it could be a mixture of both and think this would make more sense. alien craft crashes but we cannot tell the public it would scare them to know of an external threat that we can do nothing against as they are way more advanced than us. take the crashed craft get scientists to study and work out the technology in order to develop and make for your own use so you can defend against the new threat and advance your own technology.
so ufo sighting could be alien or human controllers, a visit from the stars or a human test on human craft mimicing the alien craft recovered?
things are not always one way which alot of people think. to get the answer 9/11 should teach the level people will go to keep you from the truth and it has to be said that is true with the ufo subject to.
ufo's are not in qeustion as far as im concerned they do exsist, i have seen one during the daytime and the manouvers were nothing that we know about today, so it was either alien craft or a human cratf being developed and tested, i would not rule out either possibility in this age of lies and suppresion of the truth. the pattern of keeping people from the truth is ridicule and that to me is more suspious than anything because of how easy it is to tell 9/11 was an inside job job yet nothing is done and people are ridiculed just like ufo believers even when there is evidence to support their exsistance.
I can see why some might find this "evidence" persuasive.
Certainly there are some interesting historic images (among others which may have a more mundane explanation - clouds, stars, comets, etc).
Without looking into them in great detail I wouldn't say I was persuaded that they constitute proof of UFOs, in the sense of technologically advanced flying craft.
But it is certainly possible that some of them could be depictions of ancient UFOs, opening up the possibility of UFO technology being used before the advent of modern technology. I would be interested in reading skeptical views on what the lenticular shapes and black hats may have been.
As for aliens, I didn't see any evidence. I would have to do much more research into the origin and debate around the "starchild" case to form a meaningful view. In the absence of that, I see no reason to think it is not a birth defect or pathological condition of some sort (perhaps unique).
I am still happy with my earlier statementm on this thread:
Quote:
I didn't say that sentient intelligent life does not exist off this planet. In fact I agree that it is very probable that it does indeed exist. What I doubt is that it exists in any operational sense on this planet.
_________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
The Mars article takes about 15 minutes to read. You can check the images yourself on Malin Space Science MSSS systems too - and on USGS.
"UFOs are proved" of course people see unidentifed things in the sky. First, the issue is "have craft controlled by non-human beings from other planets visited the earth and interacted with humans and left evidence". The answer is "yes".
Starchild - a human deformity? Very low probability:
40% bone density of humans
Cranial capacity 1600cc compared to 1200 for a an equivalent human
No sinuses
High degree of symmetry - rarely (if ever) present in deformity or disease
Bone fibres found.
Nuclear DNA unrecoverable (with human primers) whereas mitochondrial DNA was recoverable and showed human mother.
It's better to check the evidence then comment afterwards. It saves me typing messages like this....
Then there's Roger Leirs metal sample, Ted Philips database of 5000 cases with physical landing traces, Stan Romanek, Wilbert Smith (superintendent of Radio regulations in Canada - I have corresponded with several people who knew him and his son is still alive)
I can see why some might find this "evidence" persuasive.
Certainly there are some interesting historic images (among others which may have a more mundane explanation - clouds, stars, comets, etc).
Without looking into them in great detail I wouldn't say I was persuaded that they constitute proof of UFOs, in the sense of technologically advanced flying craft.
But it is certainly possible that some of them could be depictions of ancient UFOs, opening up the possibility of UFO technology being used before the advent of modern technology. I would be interested in reading skeptical views on what the lenticular shapes and black hats may have been.
As for aliens, I didn't see any evidence. I would have to do much more research into the origin and debate around the "starchild" case to form a meaningful view. In the absence of that, I see no reason to think it is not a birth defect or pathological condition of some sort (perhaps unique).
I am still happy with my earlier statementm on this thread:
Quote:
I didn't say that sentient intelligent life does not exist off this planet. In fact I agree that it is very probable that it does indeed exist. What I doubt is that it exists in any operational sense on this planet.
the evidence is out there just like it is for 9/11, i just hope the future generation dont treat 9/11 like this generation has been taught to treat ufo/alien visits to the planet. we are taught to be skecptical and ridicule on this subject just as we are with 9/11 by the mainstream. you have to ask they question why? why are these to subjects laughed at and ignored?
fruitcake, looneys, etc seem the norm to the public when these two subject arise.
both have had the same level of cover-up and the only psy-ops going of from what i can tell is to make people not believe in the possibility.
ufo's do exsist that isnt even in question if you look around or have seen one for yourself, its just a matter of where they come from. but again dont expect the mainstream to be truthfull about that when they cannot even admit ufos do exsist. anything that isnt taken seriously and is ridiculed has to be for a reason when there is lots of evidence around from military personal to your average run of the mill person.
of course fakes exsist and false statements thats a part of muddying the waters, im suprised you have not learnt this with 9/11 which equally has fakes and false evidence to throw people of track. infact making fakes if you want to hide the truth does just that, that way you can pass anything of as a fake or leave people wondering if all ufo sightings are faked.
people need to approach everything keeping 9/11 in mind IMO. 9/11 has shown people the approach taken by those hiding the truth and i cannot seperate 9/11 from ufo's interms of how they are recieved by the mainstream and suppressed.
What I am particularly wary of is the ease with which many people assume that certain evidence (pictures, UFOs, autopsies, artefacts, etc) contitute proof of the existence of aliens (if not proof then balance of probability).
Of course it is illogical to extend from the view that because some UFOs may be human-originated that all are.
No end of quoting personnel from NASA or other intelligence/military agencies is proof of aliens (they have a proven track record of deception and many reasons to lie).
No end of pictures of strange craft is proof of aliens (I think we are all agreed that some humans probably have UFO technology).
No end of witness testimony is proof of aliens (there are a variety of reasons why people's eye-witness testimony may be inaccurate or untrustworthy).
Of course I can't prove aliens don't exist operationally on earth. But I have inhabited that meme and become uncomfortable with it for reasons outlined earlier in this thread.
If somebody would outline each category of "evidence" for the existence of aliens on or around earth I would gladly consider it and respond.
Cheers. _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
The Mars article takes about 15 minutes to read. You can check the images yourself on Malin Space Science MSSS systems too - and on USGS.
I read it but could see no evidence of aliens.
Quote:
"UFOs are proved" of course people see unidentifed things in the sky. First, the issue is "have craft controlled by non-human beings from other planets visited the earth and interacted with humans and left evidence". The answer is "yes".
That is your belief. I have yet to see the evidence but would be happy to amend my view if it were compelling.
Quote:
Starchild - a human deformity? Very low probability:
40% bone density of humans
Cranial capacity 1600cc compared to 1200 for a an equivalent human
No sinuses
High degree of symmetry - rarely (if ever) present in deformity or disease
Bone fibres found.
Nuclear DNA unrecoverable (with human primers) whereas mitochondrial DNA was recoverable and showed human mother.
It's better to check the evidence then comment afterwards. It saves me typing messages like this....
Without being reasonably sure of the origin, history and research on the "starchild" I have no reason to assume it is an alien. Applying Occam's Razor would not lead me to assume an extra-terrestrial origin.
Quote:
Then there's Roger Leirs metal sample, Ted Philips database of 5000 cases with physical landing traces, Stan Romanek, Wilbert Smith (superintendent of Radio regulations in Canada - I have corresponded with several people who knew him and his son is still alive)
and on and on. The debate ended for me in 2003 - just got gigs more evidence since.
I have not the time currently to check all these pieces of "evidence". But they would not appear to constitute proof to me.
I hope this reply does not offend anyone. I am just trying to share mycurrent understanding of things as honestly and truthfully as possible. _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
What I am particularly wary of is the ease with which many people assume that certain evidence (pictures, UFOs, autopsies, artefacts, etc) contitute proof of the existence of aliens (if not proof then balance of probability).
Of course it is illogical to extend from the view that because some UFOs may be human-originated that all are.
No end of quoting personnel from NASA or other intelligence/military agencies is proof of aliens (they have a proven track record of deception and many reasons to lie).
No end of pictures of strange craft is proof of aliens (I think we are all agreed that some humans probably have UFO technology).
No end of witness testimony is proof of aliens (there are a variety of reasons why people's eye-witness testimony may be inaccurate or untrustworthy).
Of course I can't prove aliens don't exist operationally on earth. But I have inhabited that meme and become uncomfortable with it for reasons outlined earlier in this thread.
If somebody would outline each category of "evidence" for the existence of aliens on or around earth I would gladly consider it and respond.
Cheers.
what makes you think witnesses are ALL lieing? the problem with anything to do with ufo's is people are instantly catergorized into nut jobs/fantaists/untrustworthy but why? because people think it is impossible and have been taught by the mainstream to laugh and point at these people. im not saying you are doing this but the mainstream do.
on top of this you do get attention seekers who crave the attention and will make up evidence which is later discredited or found to be fake which does no favours to people who have geniune evidence or have actually experianced something first hand. is some of the faking done on purpose?
i think so it helps discredit the truthful evidence and sightings.
i can 100% without doubt say that u.f.o's exsist as i have seen one, however i can see how those who have not are sceptical given the mainstream view on things which we all follow like sheep.
all i can say is they exsist and it only remains if they are man made/miltary craft or aliens or both.
all my points above cover evidence as a whole because it dosnt matter how geniue the evidence is it will always be overshadowed by the fakes and the publics perception which they pick up from being told its crazy to think so by the mainstream.
there will always be an alternative veiws/excuses for things especially where the truth is not allowed to be known, the evidence will not be taken seriously without being brushed away, just like 9/11 then.
my overall point is regardless of what we think even if differant views niether of us know the truth because of the efforts to ridicule/put out fakes and muddying the waters making it hard to know either way, leaving people to pick between being ridiculed or not which is why i compare it to 9/11. these tatics were also used over jfk and other things and seem to be the general tactic when trying to persaude the general perception or view, good mind control then afterall who wants to be labeled wacko or fruitcake for having a differant view or coming clean about what they do know or have witnessed, i can gaurentee more sightings are not reported as a result than the ones that are.
the only reasons i know ufo's do exsist is because i saw one, which you can disbelieve all you like and you dont know me so i dont blame you if you do, but trust me once you see one you can tell between fakes and real footage to a big degree and the evidence is there if people look, its just a case of if people believe the alien sightings that occur with these strange craft, although i dont see why most people would lie when they know they will be ridiculed and called crazy unless there are more attention seekers out there than we realise.
some people cannot face the truth or think they know everything and i dont think anyone can say it either way alien/human as humans lie to seek attention but also to gain or profit or for power, therefore the person reporting the sighting could lie as much as the authoritys who give excuses for sighting and tell us the person reporting it didnt see a ufo etc.
it just comes down to who you believe which is an impossible task when you dont know the peoples motives who are involved or the person on a personal level.
i think you need a sighting, it solved half the mystery for me. and untill i saw one i was sceptical about the whole thing and didnt really have an opinon on it.
the only thing that people can do is look at avaible evidence with an OPENMIND untill such time the truth of ufo's emerges or you have a first hand sighting of an alien, something i didnt see with my sighting, i dont know if im glad about that or not it would of least cleared it up for me even if i would'nt of know if to say hello i come in peace or just open my bowls .
What I am particularly wary of is the ease with which many people assume that certain evidence (pictures, UFOs, autopsies, artefacts, etc) contitute proof of the existence of aliens (if not proof then balance of probability).
Of course it is illogical to extend from the view that because some UFOs may be human-originated that all are.
No end of quoting personnel from NASA or other intelligence/military agencies is proof of aliens (they have a proven track record of deception and many reasons to lie).
No end of pictures of strange craft is proof of aliens (I think we are all agreed that some humans probably have UFO technology).
No end of witness testimony is proof of aliens (there are a variety of reasons why people's eye-witness testimony may be inaccurate or untrustworthy).
Of course I can't prove aliens don't exist operationally on earth. But I have inhabited that meme and become uncomfortable with it for reasons outlined earlier in this thread.
If somebody would outline each category of "evidence" for the existence of aliens on or around earth I would gladly consider it and respond.
Cheers.
what makes you think witnesses are ALL lieing?
I haven't said that, Mark. Please read my comments again if you think that I did.
Quote:
the problem with anything to do with ufo's is people are instantly catergorized into nut jobs/fantaists/untrustworthy but why? because people think it is impossible and have been taught by the mainstream to laugh and point at these people. im not saying you are doing this but the mainstream do.
I haven't mocked or insulted anyone. I do not think UFOs are impossible. In fact I have said I suspect they do exist.
The mainstream take on UFOs is either that they don't exist at all or that they are alien craft (see the vast range of Hollywood productions and slick books that say UFOs=Aliens as evidence of that).
By comparison the idea that they may be human-originated secret craft is almost never entertained.
Why might that be? Why do the PTB divert people who don't buy the UFOs don't exist line into the UFOs = Aliens line?
Quote:
on top of this you do get attention seekers who crave the attention and will make up evidence which is later discredited or found to be fake which does no favours to people who have geniune evidence or have actually experianced something first hand. is some of the faking done on purpose?
i think so it helps discredit the truthful evidence and sightings.
Yes there are attention seekers and delusional types, and some of these are very likely to be plants. These are standard disinfo tactics to muddy the waters for all investigators. But the conclusion you seem to draw from that tactic is not the only one and may not be the correct one.
Regarding first hand witness testimony, how do we know these people are not lying, deluded, remembering hypnotically or narcotically planted memories, subject to human-derived impant technology, etc, etc? The answer is we don't.
What we do know is that there are many possible explanations for their testimmony. And we must consider all of them properly. Too many folk seem to want to believe the Alien hype and consequently are prone to buying into all sorts of phoney BS.
Quote:
i can 100% without doubt say that u.f.o's exsist as i have seen one, however i can see how those who have not are sceptical given the mainstream view on things which we all follow like sheep.
I have never denied the existence of UFOs, though I have never seen one myself. The sheer number of reports suggests there are definitely some genuine sightings of craft performing feats not overtly known to modern science.
Quote:
all i can say is they exsist and it only remains if they are man made/miltary craft or aliens or both.
Again, I agree.
Quote:
all my points above cover evidence as a whole because it dosnt matter how geniue the evidence is it will always be overshadowed by the fakes and the publics perception which they pick up from being told its crazy to think so by the mainstream.
there will always be an alternative veiws/excuses for things especially where the truth is not allowed to be known, the evidence will not be taken seriously without being brushed away, just like 9/11 then.
my overall point is regardless of what we think even if differant views niether of us know the truth because of the efforts to ridicule/put out fakes and muddying the waters making it hard to know either way, leaving people to pick between being ridiculed or not which is why i compare it to 9/11. these tatics were also used over jfk and other things and seem to be the general tactic when trying to persaude the general perception or view, good mind control then afterall who wants to be labeled wacko or fruitcake for having a differant view or coming clean about what they do know or have witnessed, i can gaurentee more sightings are not reported as a result than the ones that are.
the only reasons i know ufo's do exsist is because i saw one, which you can disbelieve all you like and you dont know me so i dont blame you if you do, but trust me once you see one you can tell between fakes and real footage to a big degree and the evidence is there if people look, its just a case of if people believe the alien sightings that occur with these strange craft, although i dont see why most people would lie when they know they will be ridiculed and called crazy unless there are more attention seekers out there than we realise.
some people cannot face the truth or think they know everything and i dont think anyone can say it either way alien/human as humans lie to seek attention but also to gain or profit or for power, therefore the person reporting the sighting could lie as much as the authoritys who give excuses for sighting and tell us the person reporting it didnt see a ufo etc.
it just comes down to who you believe which is an impossible task when you dont know the peoples motives who are involved or the person on a personal level.
I agree with much of the above, especially the highlighted comments.
Why you think I might disbelieve your statement that you saw a UFO is beyond me. On what grounds could I judge one way or another?
Quote:
i think you need a sighting, it solved half the mystery for me. and untill i saw one i was sceptical about the whole thing and didnt really have an opinon on it.
the only thing that people can do is look at avaible evidence with an OPENMIND untill such time the truth of ufo's emerges or you have a first hand sighting of an alien, something i didnt see with my sighting, i dont know if im glad about that or not it would of least cleared it up for me even if i would'nt of know if to say hello i come in peace or just open my bowls .
I don't need to visit China to believe it exists. I already suspect strongly that UFOs exist. I just don't see the evidence to leap from that statement to a belief in aliens.
Do you believe in aliens having a real presence on or around earth? If so, could I ask why? And on what evidence you base that belief? _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
[/quote]Do you believe in aliens having a real presence on or around earth? If so, could I ask why? And on what evidence you base that belief?[/quote]
to be honest i have not got a clue on if aliens have a presence or not, i can only go by evidence out there on that the same as anyone else, and with the way things are faked or countered with excuses etc its hard to tell at times if the person claiming to have seen aliens or the persons saying he didnt he must of been imagining it are lieing or which ones are lieing.
sometimes the evidence is there but its put down to something its not, for example if i had gone public with my sighting and somebody wanted to supress my information they could simply say it was a hot air balloon, although i know they would be lieing and it wasnt dosnt mean everyone else would know that, so some evidence seen or witness accounts you dont know which side to trust, more so today as 9/11 is obvious and the same happens to keep the masses dumb.
i can only say what i think, and i just ask my self one question.
would those in charge or who rule over us tell us the truth? going by other events im very doubtful, therefore i dont dismiss alien exsistance amoung us even though i dont know.
but at the same time im fully aware of the other possibilities and do not dismiss them either, and thats all my overall point is, not to dismiss the possibility when its hard to tell what the truth is and while we are being led by liars.
it seems we have been lied to for centurys about certain things so im sure there is lots we dont know about that we think we know about. its only today this is all surfacing due to 9/11 as that exposed the depth and lenght people go to cover up events even when there is clear evidence.
just to add the only reason why i think you would not believe what i saw is because you do not know me and because of the mainstream view to be sceptical instead of taking sightings seriously, i'd expect anyone to disbeileve me, it was nothing personnal.
my guess though is any geniue alien footage is simply explained away with the "its a puppet" line, and faked sighting of aliens are puppets or costumes etc, so you can see how anything geniune can get buried and dismissed easily. the star child thing above is worth keeping tabs on though to see what they get from the tests they still need to do.
The problem here is one perhaps, ultimately, of definitions and perception. In legal terms, some people are convicted of a crime based on witness testimony alone.
Is it correct, therefore, that in such cases witness testimony evidence is taken as proof?
I had a daft thought the other day as I was buying bread from the supermarket. I just go and it's there. I don't know where it comes from, what brings it there or when it arrives - I never see it arriving. It could be delivered by aliens. I have no proof.
In science, a different standard of proof applies - it depends what you're dealing with. For example, it is taken as read that plates are moving round the earth and some volcanoes appear on landmasses above "subduction zones". However, there is no evidence or proof that subduction occurs - at all, yet it is taken to be a real phenomenon.
There are lots of things like this and so when does evidence become proof?
It seems it depends on the issue being discussed. With the ET issue, people often say "exrtaordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I agree with Dr Greer in that "extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary attention". Which is kind of like saying "drop everything else and spend 6 months reading it thoroughly". The links above are just a soupcon of the evidence.
What changes one's worldview? Only through a thorough study, in my view, does evidence become proof which can change that worldview.
As with the SC skull you can, quite rightly, carry on saying "but I just don't know what it is - it could be anything". But this is like saying "I haven't actually gone through and checked the evidence for all the options". People like Lloyd Pye, however, have checked many options (having spent 7 or 8 years doing it), so you are then left to judge whether he is honest and intelligent and how much to trust his judgement, opinion and conclusion.
In fact, every issue which is outside your direct personal experience is like this. To take it to an extreme, "I believe China is a real foreign country - there is a great deal of evidence that it exists, but I have never actually been there, so I don't regard the issue as proved. I have met people who say they are from this country, and they have documents which they say proves this - but those documents could be faked, for all I know." This would be a true statement in my own case.
So, evidence and proof - where does the boundary lie? I maintain it's one which is dictated by an amount of study and cross-referencing, but it can actually also be affected by your current worldview. If a mile-wide boomerang shaped craft flew over your head, it might change your worldview (or did all the people in phoenix in 1997 make the story up?) etc etc
We have no formal recognition in academia or other "regular" instuitions that ET exists (and is not a hoax). Ummm - just like 9/11 truth (still not recognised by any formal institution that I know of - except maybe the US Green Party. So does that mean we have no proof that 9/11 was an inside job? _________________ Andrew
A lot of truth and wise words there, Andrew and Mark. Thank you.
Just a quick note on proof/evidence:
The law uses phrases like "beyond reasonable doubt" (criminal law) and "on the balance of probabilities" (civil law) to determine cases.
I wonder could they be usefully employed here?
To me aliens (similar to Greer's quote) requires "beyond reasonable doubt" type proof and I haven't seen it (yet!).
Do you have any comments as to why the MSM often talk about alien UFOs but almost never human UFOs? I find this a telling indication of where the truth may lie (as suggested in my previous post). _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Do you have any comments as to why the MSM often talk about alien UFOs but almost never human UFOs? I find this a telling indication of where the truth may lie (as suggested in my previous post).
Thanks for an even and civilised debate - so refreshing!
Why I switched on to Disclosure Project so strongly was that it provides an answer to your very question above - as follows. If only have "alien craft" that come and go without much or any interaction, then they are "out there" (even if they are real) and beyond our understanding and access.
However, members of the DP say we have got advanced ET technology and we have figured out how some of it works. Also, people like Tesla and Thomas Townsend Brown (and quite a few others) had worked out ways of extracting energy from nowhere. The reason for the cover up of UFO issues is actually energy much more than it is aliens. Free energy is far more of the threat to the modern globalist elite. I think it's that simple.
Additionally, they ridicule the "alien idea" pretty much, because some people (like me) would say. Hang on! If these things are real (as former Canadian Defence Minister decided in 2005 when he spoke at the Toronto expolitics conference) people are gonna say "Hey! What do they run on? It can't be petrol or coal! Must be something better! I want it!" But as they are kept in the paradigm of fantasy for the masses, very few people see this view as valid. _________________ Andrew
this is unrelated and properbly waffle but i was thinking about what links all species and everything in the universe, what does it all have in common, and what is the source of everything created etc.
the answer i think is energy, we all need it or produce it, nothing can exsist without it. so you can see the importance of having ways of producing it from nothing even if not for consumption personally it would be put into equipment to help food grow and harvest, it is a universal survival tool and when you can get free reuseable energy from nothing you have basically ensured survival of your species with no end in site, especially if you can travel to other planets. that is the greatest acheivment any species can do, and yet it seems to be surpressed on this planet because of loss of profit through oil etc.
Do you have any comments as to why the MSM often talk about alien UFOs but almost never human UFOs? I find this a telling indication of where the truth may lie (as suggested in my previous post).
Thanks for an even and civilised debate - so refreshing!
Why I switched on to Disclosure Project so strongly was that it provides an answer to your very question above - as follows. If only have "alien craft" that come and go without much or any interaction, then they are "out there" (even if they are real) and beyond our understanding and access.
However, members of the DP say we have got advanced ET technology and we have figured out how some of it works. Also, people like Tesla and Thomas Townsend Brown (and quite a few others) had worked out ways of extracting energy from nowhere. The reason for the cover up of UFO issues is actually energy much more than it is aliens. Free energy is far more of the threat to the modern globalist elite. I think it's that simple.
Additionally, they ridicule the "alien idea" pretty much, because some people (like me) would say. Hang on! If these things are real (as former Canadian Defence Minister decided in 2005 when he spoke at the Toronto expolitics conference) people are gonna say "Hey! What do they run on? It can't be petrol or coal! Must be something better! I want it!" But as they are kept in the paradigm of fantasy for the masses, very few people see this view as valid.
Interesting theory, Andrew. Don't know if I have fully got my head around it yet (temporarily inhabiting a different paradigm is tricky).
Are you saying that they would prefer "UFOs=aliens" as a fallback because "UFOs=secret human technologies" might lead people to then question their propulsion methods/energy sources?
This is very interesting. Though I would still require much more evidence of aliens to start lending credence to this theory.
So if I could try and summarise your current view on UFOs/Aliens etc:
- UFOs exist
- some are human-originated
- some are alien-originated
Those seeking to conceal these truths from the masses employ the following approach:
- firstly to deny any and all UFOs regardless of the evidence
- secondly to admit some alien UFOs (perhaps in a confused and vague way to confuse investigators) as a sop to those who definitely know there are some UFOs
- at all costs not to discuss or reveal human-originated UFOs as to do this would lead people to question propulsion methods/energy source, which would blow the lid off a whole can of worms and threaten a whole load of social control methods (if we have free energy then society as we know it would change over night, we wouldn't need oil, nuclear, anywhere near as much money, much less need to work, etc, etc). And (this is my addition) could also make people realise that the "alien abductions" have actually been human-originated abductions (as suggested in Martin Cannon's "The Controllers", for example) and that human elements have been using vastly advanced craft against other people for decades.
Am I getting close, Andrew?
If so I think I can see how it "makes sense", but you would need to "believe" in aliens and free energy technology.
My earlier stated paradigm also makes sense, without the need to believe in "aliens".
The difference between the two models is that in my models "UFOs=aliens" is used solely as a cover for shady human activity, which then throws up questions about how and when humans got this technology and what about claims that such craft have been used for hundreds of years. Whereas in your model, "UFOs=aliens" is part revelation part cover, in that it is used to funnel people away from UFOs=human secret technology" (as in my model) but is also based on truth (ie that there really are alien UFOs), the motive being to avoid damaging revelations about the nature of human-originated UFOs.
Interesting... _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 7:06 pm Post subject:
This is just a short snippet from a longer talk given by Steven Greer to the US based Conscious Life Expo earlier this year. From the odd hint here anbd there - it seems a fair bit is taking place in the background to move this and more like it onto the mainstream agenda and this is of course just what's needed. We really don't have the time to discuss this issue the way we have as a society for the last 50 or so years.
If this takes place - it's perhaps the ultimate in what CSETI term C.E.5 [close encounter level 5 - or human initiated and led] contact scenarios.
I am sceptical this will amount to anything. These sorts of "major revelations" have been talked up by Greer et al for at least 10 years (as far as I have been interested in all this stuff). They seem to continually be on the verge of breakthrough...
There is an interesting thread on Greer and The Disclosure Project here (some of you will think this is BS but there are some valid reasons for concern imo - have a read and see if it speaks to you):
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=291&start=0
Of note is the list of supposed "ex" intelligence people in the UFOs = Aliens movement and Greer and Bearden's odd links with the oil business... _________________ "Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2007 11:36 am Post subject:
Craig W wrote:
I am sceptical this will amount to anything. These sorts of "major revelations" have been talked up by Greer et al for at least 10 years (as far as I have been interested in all this stuff). They seem to continually be on the verge of breakthrough...
I know what you mean... but then again what do we expect when dealing with a centuries old intelligence cabal that's has multi-billion $ funding to establish the rules??? Nothing is going to shift overnight.
My point was - if anything will do it it is this new move.... forget the USA and shift to this G7 country and force their hand.
We are 99% sure it is of course France.
Quote:
There is an interesting thread on Greer and The Disclosure Project here (some of you will think this is BS but there are some valid reasons for concern imo - have a read and see if it speaks to you):
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=291&start=0
Thanks... will take a look.
Quote:
Of note is the list of supposed "ex" intelligence people in the UFOs = Aliens movement and Greer and Bearden's odd links with the oil business...
Read Greer's latest book - you get a handle on where he is coming from and what he's done. There's a few things that I don't agree with but on the whole the guy has done more than anyone else on this front.
All this suspicion for suspicion's sake is a waste of time. We're never going to move off the starting block unless we start thinking that there are at least a few of us out there doing things for the greater good.
Umm, returning to the subject of the thread, I long ago saw through Dunne's vacuous accusations, which were intended to marginalize most of the 9/11 truthers that he disagrees with so that he could promote his website by setting himself up as a more trustworthy source of real news and insight into 9/11. Hence his arrogant slogan 'The next level.' His forum is NOT a debating chamber for ideas. Instead, it has become a throne room where his fawning acolyte posters continually prostrate themselves before this self-appointed pope, having excommunicated as 'CIA fakers' 90% of those whom he either did not like, was jealous of on account of their superior research and bigger reputation or with whom he just disagreed.
Alex Merklinger, with whom Dunne was happy to work for a while on his radio show "Mysteries of the Mind" called him a little weasel" after hearing how Dunne had back-stabbed him by adding him to his infamous list of 'CIA fakes' after leaving Alex's show. Such ludicrous name-calling towards many prominent radio show hosts and 9/11 investigators, done without an ounce of concrete evidence to back it up, destroyed his credibility for me. For Dunne, you see, it's not about truth. It''s about Dunne.
This is very interesting. Though I would still require much more evidence of aliens to start lending credence to this theory.
So if I could try and summarise your current view on UFOs/Aliens etc:
- UFOs exist
- some are human-originated
- some are alien-originated
Those seeking to conceal these truths from the masses employ the following approach:
- firstly to deny any and all UFOs regardless of the evidence
- secondly to admit some alien UFOs (perhaps in a confused and vague way to confuse investigators) as a sop to those who definitely know there are some UFOs
- at all costs not to discuss or reveal human-originated UFOs as to do this would lead people to question propulsion methods/energy source, which would blow the lid off a whole can of worms and threaten a whole load of social control methods (if we have free energy then society as we know it would change over night, we wouldn't need oil, nuclear, anywhere near as much money, much less need to work, etc, etc). And (this is my addition) could also make people realise that the "alien abductions" have actually been human-originated abductions (as suggested in Martin Cannon's "The Controllers", for example) and that human elements have been using vastly advanced craft against other people for decades.
Am I getting close, Andrew?
You pretty much have it there - that, to me, is what the accumulation of evidence suggests - and Jim Marrs, for one, agrees. There is, in my view a very significant "non-physical" element to all of this (as Wilbert Smith discusses), which is itself often used to ridicule or marginalise those wishing discuss evidence and bring new ideas and information to the table. Many prominent figures in the UFO field are seemingly willing participants in this process. Steven Greer is certainly one of the people who discusses "conventional evidence" and the non-physical aspects. He has, to an extent, been ostracised by the larger UFO community, but he, too seems to keep them at arms length (moreso than I think is warranted at times). _________________ Andrew
Joined: 09 Jun 2006 Posts: 645 Location: UK Midlands
Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject:
Micpsi wrote:
Alex Merklinger, with whom Dunne was happy to work for a while on his radio show "Mysteries of the Mind" called him a little weasel" after hearing how Dunne had back-stabbed him by adding him to his infamous list of 'CIA fakes' after leaving Alex's show. Such ludicrous name-calling towards many prominent radio show hosts and 9/11 investigators, done without an ounce of concrete evidence to back it up, destroyed his credibility for me. For Dunne, you see, it's not about truth. It''s about Dunne.
Indeed it is about Dunne.
Interestingly - I'd suggest the CIA 9/11 [and other] fakes he loves to list almost borders on pathalogical behaviour. There is an element of gross paranoia or maybe:
'Fintan - thou doest protest too much...'
Note the way he moves into groups and cosy's up to individuals then turns on them...
BFN did actually disappear off the radar for a while - Fintan talks about a period of having to go into hiding after he wrote "the first article stating 9/11 was an inside job" - it could well be that it's Fintan that got sheep dipped for the 9/11 movement.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2007 3:18 am Post subject:
UFOs
Craig Wrote:
Quote:
My take on the UFO=Aliens nonsense is that it's all a cover for shady human activity. Yes, of course there are UFOs: there are plenty of unidentified flying objects. But that definition tells us nothing. What the PTB have done is cleverly make us think of "aliens" when we hear talk of UFOs. (Thanks go to Hollywood for their support in this psyop, as well as the CIA fakes like Mack, Streiber, Hopkins, etc.)
I agree: …that definition tells us nothing.
Because the majority of so-called UFOs turn out not to be Objects, and therefore cannot be Flying, all that’s left is the other initial, U, for Unidentified. Of course, some of these unidentified things may turn out to be objects which are able to fly—stealth aeroplanes from Lockheed’s Skunkworks, for example—but because the primary adjective in the phrase is ‘unidentified’ it clearly precludes such knowledge, so the acronym is totally inaccurate, as Craig so rightly points out.
When referring to what are currently, and misleadingly called UFOs, we should begin by substituting Phenomena for Objects, for obvious reasons.
Unidentified has to go, because it pre-supposes that what we are referring to has an identity, which it may not have, because it may be an illusion. ‘Inexplicable’ came to mind, as a replacement, but I’ve ruled it out because there is a connotation that whatever It is, can never be explained, while clearly some are all too easily explained.
Strange has the right connotations: unusual, peculiar, surprising, eccentric, novel, while the second meaning, given in the Oxford Encyclopaedic Dictionary, would satisfy those who would like to see just a hint that little green men might be responsible for whatever It is: unfamiliar, alien, foreign.
Anomalous is also a strong contender, because that is what It often turns out to be: unequal, incongruous, irregular. It also covers what is not seen, but which may be sensed.
Finally, because these phenomena are, in all but the rarest of cases, seen or photographed or filmed or videotaped, and often turn out to be optical illusions, the word Optical cries out to be included.
So here is the replacement: Strange Optical or Anomalous Phenomena — SOAP
Don't forget: You saw it first on The British 9/11 Truth Campaign's website. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
My take on the UFO=Aliens nonsense is that it's all a cover for shady human activity. Yes, of course there are UFOs: there are plenty of unidentified flying objects. But that definition tells us nothing. What the PTB have done is cleverly make us think of "aliens" when we hear talk of UFOs. (Thanks go to Hollywood for their support in this psyop, as well as the CIA fakes like Mack, Streiber, Hopkins, etc.)
I agree: …that definition tells us nothing.
Because the majority of so-called UFOs turn out not to be Objects, and therefore cannot be Flying, all that’s left is the other initial, U, for Unidentified. Of course, some of these unidentified things may turn out to be objects which are able to fly—stealth aeroplanes from Lockheed’s Skunkworks, for example—but because the primary adjective in the phrase is ‘unidentified’ it clearly precludes such knowledge, so the acronym is totally inaccurate, as Craig so rightly points out.
When referring to what are currently, and misleadingly called UFOs, we should begin by substituting Phenomena for Objects, for obvious reasons.
Unidentified has to go, because it pre-supposes that what we are referring to has an identity, which it may not have, because it may be an illusion. ‘Inexplicable’ came to mind, as a replacement, but I’ve ruled it out because there is a connotation that whatever It is, can never be explained, while clearly some are all too easily explained.
Strange has the right connotations: unusual, peculiar, surprising, eccentric, novel, while the second meaning, given in the Oxford Encyclopaedic Dictionary, would satisfy those who would like to see just a hint that little green men might be responsible for whatever It is: unfamiliar, alien, foreign.
Anomalous is also a strong contender, because that is what It often turns out to be: unequal, incongruous, irregular. It also covers what is not seen, but which may be sensed.
Finally, because these phenomena are, in all but the rarest of cases, seen or photographed or filmed or videotaped, and often turn out to be optical illusions, the word Optical cries out to be included.
So here is the replacement: Strange Optical or Anomalous Phenomena — SOAP
Don't forget: You saw it first on The British 9/11 Truth Campaign's website.
rare sightings? are you aware of how many sightings are reported each year? what ever the figure is they are just the ones who took the risk of being ridiculed.
i certainly never reported my sighting of an object that was flying and was unidentified, but you know i must of been imagining it because they dont really exsist right? why didnt i report my sighting? mmmm let me see, whats the point when you get people who didnt even see it trying to tell you you didnt, no one will take it seriously or even consider it to be real. the only place i mention it is here or with people who are openminded who i know or know considers the possibility.
how many people out there see them shake there head and say nothing and just try to forget?
the only thing that isnt certain is the alien thing, but i know 100% u.f.os are seen and do exsist and nobody can convince me otherwise that is how certain i am it was something we are not aware of that i saw, i was sceptical myself untill that day.
alot of people make a mistake though that u.f.o.= alien, although while ever unexplained u.f.os are flying around the skies its still a possibility untill more is known.
Joined: 20 Feb 2007 Posts: 370 Location: Phuket, Thailand
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:22 am Post subject: UFOs or SOAPs
UFO or SOAP
Hello Marky 54,
I'm not saying that people do not see or experience such things, I am just trying to introduce more accurate terminology. And I didn't start off with the acronym, and work backwards.
At one stage, after considering the options, it became SAP: Strange Anomalous Phenomena, which is marginally more concise, and just as accurate, but I put the Optical back in, for obvious reasons, even though I knew that whichever I chose, there would be questions asked as to whether either was appropriate for such a serious matter.
That some of these phenomena are a result of the inner workings of our minds cannot be ruled out, either. When I was young, I had a serious accident, and wound up in hospital for a month. My parents were divorced, and my mother did all of the visiting. One night, just before I was to be operated on, my father came to see me. When I told my mother this, the next day, she smiled her sweet smile and said: 'That was nice, darling.'
Many years later, I learned that my father, who was a violinist, had been performing with the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra that evening, while I was in a hospital in Sydney, and it would be many years before jet travel would reduce even the airport-to-airport journey to under two hours. But I know that my father visited me that evening, even though, rationally, I realise that he could not have been a physical presence in the ward.
My point is that, until I know the exact mechanism of my experience—which I doubt will happen—I will have to place it in the Strange Optical or Anomalous Phenomena category, and not suggest or postulate that it could have been anything else, like aliens transporting my father between Melbourne and Sydney and back, because I wanted to see him.
If I did suggest that such an alien-transportation scenario was a viable explanation for my experience, I would expect, as I am sure you would, to be doubted by most of those who had never had such an experience themselves.
It is a strange phenomena that it is accepted as being perfectly rational for people to go into a place of worship and speak to ‘God,’ yet those who claim that ‘God’ has spoken to them, are, more often than not, viewed with suspicion or pity. _________________ The truth won't set you free, but identifying the liars could help make the world a better place.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
, that you could possible mistake it for a Stealth fighter prototype - proper *organic* [ie: intelligent] UFOs/ETVs don't get put anywhere near the same technological space as them. [although the stealth did use elements of UFO design - as did the B2 I think].
.
or costumes etc, so you can see how anything geniune can get buried and dismissed easily. the star child thing above is worth keeping tabs on though to see what they get from the tests they still need to do.
