Quotes From Prominent Officials Implying An Extraterrestrial Presence On Earth

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Gianfar

If you do the homework on UFO statistics, you'll find that millions of people the world over witness unconventional craft on a regular basis. To say that thousands of sighting all over the world are all attributed to U-2 and SR-71 spy planes or other such projects in these times really doesn't address the accrued data.

If you do your homework, you will find that 99% of UFO statistics are completely made up.

Then we should assume that statistic is completely made up?

Had you done your homework you'd already know that you should.

Yes, I was being polite. Like I'm being polite right now.

originally posted by: Scdfa
Yes, I was being polite. Like I'm being polite right now.

I applaud your willingness to try something new.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Scdfa
Yes, I was being polite. Like I'm being polite right now.

I applaud your willingness to try something new.

Yes, perhaps you should try it sometime.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Gianfar

If you do the homework on UFO statistics, you'll find that millions of people the world over witness unconventional craft on a regular basis. To say that thousands of sighting all over the world are all attributed to U-2 and SR-71 spy planes or other such projects in these times really doesn't address the accrued data.

If you do your homework, you will find that 99% of UFO statistics are completely made up.

Then we should assume that statistic is completely made up?

Yes, absolutely! As drak correctly pointed out, it was a joke. But, I am also pointing out that there is no real "UFO statistics" based on "accrued data". Here is a summary of "the data".

Jacque Vallee is so highly over-rated and says so little of substance that I'm beginning to wonder if he's more interested in disinformation than information.

He cries there is no ontology in ufology as if that is a bad thing. Perhaps we should leave metaphysics out of the conversation altogether and deal more realistically with UFOs and alien contact, using phenomenology rather than ontology. I don't see how philosophical debates could possibly matter in what appears to be a colonization and genetic manipulation of the human race.

Vallee asks such ridiculous questions, like "How can we use insects to predict the appearances of UFOs?"

How pointless and absurd.

But this clip reveals a more major problem with Vallee's approach: He is looking for one answer to his questions, when in fact, we are talking about dozens, or perhaps scores, of completely different beings. There will be no "one answer" to most of the questions he poses in this clip.

And perhaps most importantly, how seriously can we take him as a UFO /UAP researcher when, after forty years of UFO research, he is still unwilling to state that alien beings are inside some of these ships?

Not very seriously at all, I'm afraid.

We know far too much about UFOs to pretend we can take aliens out of the equation, but Vallee wants us to avoid the ET hypothesis. Whatever credibility this guy enjoyed in the 1970s, he is rapidly squandering.

a reply to: Scdfa

Him being overrated is an understatement.

I'm starting to think he's peddling disinfo with all of these other alternatives to the ETH. I just came across this article authored by him called 5 arguments against the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs. The arguments he's using to substantiate these alternatives are so full of crap I can't believe the serious researcher would buy any of it at all. Unfortunately, there are a good deal of people here on this site and elsewhere who gobble it up as if they were starving and haven't eaten for days.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

Him being overrated is an understatement

He may be, but unfortunately he is the last person left that gives Ufology a fighting chance to not be taken as an utter joke.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: TrueMessiah

Him being overrated is an understatement

He may be, but unfortunately he is the last person left that gives Ufology a fighting chance to not be taken as an utter joke.

originally posted by: Gianfar

If you do the homework on UFO statistics, you'll find that millions of people the world over witness unconventional craft on a regular basis.

For what it's worth there's a thread here about official statistics involved with the subject of unidentified flying objects - actual unknowns are around 20%.

originally posted by: Gianfar

To say that thousands of sighting all over the world are all attributed to U-2 and SR-71 spy planes or other such projects in these times really doesn't address the accrued data.

To say it also shows a person is a 'true beleiver' because there is very little evidence to back it up.

originally posted by: Scdfa


He cries there is no ontology in ufology as if that is a bad thing. Perhaps we should leave metaphysics out of the conversation altogether and deal more realistically with UFOs and alien contact, using phenomenology rather than ontology. I don't see how philosophical debates could possibly matter in what appears to be a colonization and genetic manipulation of the human race.

You have the wrong ontology.

This article is about ontology in information science. For the study of the nature of being, see Ontology

In computer science and information science, an ontology is a formal naming and definition of the types, properties, and interrelationships of the entities that really or fundamentally exist for a particular domain of discourse. It is thus a practical application of philosophical ontology, with a taxonomy

An ontology compartmentalizes the variables needed for some set of computations and establishes the relationships between them.

The fields of artificial intelligence, the Semantic Web, systems engineering, software engineering, biomedical informatics, library science, enterprise bookmarking, and information architecture all create ontologies to limit complexity and to organize information. The ontology can then be applied to problem solving.

Vallee asks such ridiculous questions, like "How can we use insects to predict the appearances of UFOs?"
How pointless and absurd.

Why would that be ridiculous? aren't UFO's supposed to cause physical effects?

And perhaps most importantly, how seriously can we take him as a UFO /UAP researcher when, after forty years of UFO research, he is still unwilling to state that alien beings are inside some of these ships?

Not very seriously at all, I'm afraid.

Maybe get your definitions of what he is talking about first before you say that you can't take him seriously.

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
a reply to: Scdfa

Him being overrated is an understatement.

I'm starting to think he's peddling disinfo with all of these other alternatives to the ETH. I just came across this article authored by him called 5 arguments against the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs. The arguments he's using to substantiate these alternatives are so full of crap I can't believe the serious researcher would buy any of it at all. Unfortunately, there are a good deal of people here on this site and elsewhere who gobble it up as if they were starving and haven't eaten for days.

Well said, True Messiah. I was beginning to think I was the only one to take a serious look at what Vallee is peddling and see it is virtually without substance. His song and dance is basically empty rhetoric, of no use in dealing with the reality of alien contact and alien abduction.

Whatever Vallee's game is, whatever his actual goal, by steering the discussion away from the fact that some UFOs are piloted by alien beings that abduct humans, what some call the ETH, he is not helping.

I'm sorry to say it, but Vallee is hindering our understanding of the terrible and ominous nature of this VERY one-sided relationship with aliens. A relationship we did not seek, but has been literally forced upon us.

Vallee won't talk about Greys. or insect, or mantis-type aliens, he prefers we avoid talk of aliens or ET altogether. He prefers we just call it "The Phenomenon", using the most vague euphemism possible to muddy the water. And you certainly won't hear Vallee ask how many Americans have been abducted, or what is their agenda and why does it require our reproductive cells?

Nope. Watch the clip of Vallee above, he asks questions like:

When does it stop being a flying saucer and becomes an orb?

How can we use insects to predict UFO occurrences?

Say what you want about David Jacobs, his work is far more substantial, useful and vital to understanding recent alien contact and the predicament we are in.

Not just Jacobs, of course, but he is vilified in here, and yet I feel his work is more valuable than Vallee's, by far.

a reply to: Scdfa

Say what you want about David Jacobs,

OK. He is an idiot.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian
You can't say that.
Oh. Wait.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa

Say what you want about David Jacobs,

OK. He is an idiot.

Did write a very good book though.

The UFO Controversy In America by David M. Jacobs:

An account of sightings and reports of unidentified flying objects in the United States, from 1897 to the 1970s, describing and examining societal and individual responses to the controversial phenomena.

Free copy

a reply to: karl 12

OK, fine, He wasn't always an idiot

I admit that I have hard time with some of his more recent shenanigans. Others have also mentioned that his earlier work was better.

Oh, and thanks for that Vallee video, since I stole it from your other thread.. That's really good stuff. I wish more people would pay attention to what he is trying to do with the data collection and not get so hung up on the ETH.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: karl 12

Oh, and thanks for that Vallee video, since I stole it from your other thread.. That's really good stuff. I wish more people would pay attention to what he is trying to do with the data collection and not get so hung up on the ETH.

Yes, if only we could pay more attention to Vallee's plans for data collection and not get so hung up about the aliens that have been abducting us for the past fifty years.

Regardless of the anti-thought being spewed from various places on the internets, 'aliens' (as we define them, in general) are NOT extra-terrestrial. They're extra-dimensional. The first thing you need to understand, is that there is no such thing as coincidence. Erase that word from your mind, because it is a falsehood.

When the PTB in this World want to tell you a thing, they state it explicitly, and to your face. Always 'in disguise,' of course. Any particular reason why they would go out of their way, to state explicitly, that the aliens in the latest Indiana Jones movie, were inter-dimensional 'archaeologists?'

As if they were that benevolent.

No, the only thing they want from us is pain, they want to hurt us. I'm not going to go into details. Look on this site, on others that talk about interactions with these beings, that talk about abductions, they are horrifying in some of the details.

These creatures are your enemies.

They are NOT here to help.

They DO NOT bring enlightenment.

Only false promises, and death.

If your truly serious about the images in your avatar, and sn, then I hope you are prepared for the days to come. God bless.

a reply to: Chronogoblin

Please tell us more about your views, chronogoblin.

a reply to: Scdfa

Yes, if only we could pay more attention to Vallee's plans for data collection and not get so hung up about the aliens that have been abducting us for the past fifty years.

You see that's the problem. Fifty years of abductions and nothing to show for it? Yes, pay attention to what people are saying and not just the ones that tell you what you want to hear. Nobody will take anyone seriously with just a bunch of stories. And again, before you critique Vallee, you should at least try to understand what he is saying. You should go back and rewatch the video now that you have the correct definition of the word 'ontology'. It might make more sense to you.

a reply to: JimOberg


I am not denying anything. I welcome investigations. My point is that no matter what evidence there is, there will never be enough.

That is not me saying "I believe". It is merely me trying to point out that there will never be a conclusion to the argument. I did say I find it hard to believe there "ISN'T", but I cannot be sure until, as you said, investigations take place.