The truth about UFOs by the US Government

a reply to: DJW001
No worries. The 229 was to begin mass production in 1945. It was delayed by bombing forcing them to move factory.

I daresay jet engines, swept wing delta, propellerless aircraft are conventional in the 40s. They had dozens more top secret designs, all which look futuristic even today, let alone then. I got a ton of (formerly) classified files from Peenemunde.

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Now how about that top 10%? Or how about the cases where the kinds of mistakes you all are constantly pinning onto UFO sightings is not even a realistic possibility?

All you have to do is show how its not a possibility. As far as I know, you can't rule out perception or misperceptions or really anything else along those lines. If you can find someone qualified that can rule out those types of things, let me know. That's the crux of the problem.

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

The problem with so called close encounters even those have not provided real proof people can embellish, exaggerate our lie.

How many times even on here we have people looking at videos of objects and making claims for speed or distance when they dont have enough information or the simple fact that with digital images exif data has been removed.

Look how many members on here get taken in by links to obvious hoax videos is it an obsession with wanting it to be true that actually hampers their judgement.

I want to see the real thing that's why I joined here when I think I have I will back it until then if I think I have read or seen BS I will give a reason.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Now how about that top 10%? Or how about the cases where the kinds of mistakes you all are constantly pinning onto UFO sightings is not even a realistic possibility?

All you have to do is show how its not a possibility. As far as I know, you can't rule out perception or misperceptions or really anything else along those lines. If you can find someone qualified that can rule out those types of things, let me know. That's the crux of the problem.

Hynek refuted your idea over 40 years ago. The simple math of it refutes the idea. You actually pretty much CAN rule out 'misperception' when we're talking about objects that are a mere tens of feet from someone. Trigonometry, binocular vision, etc. We're built to know when objects are close to us. Survival has obviously depended on that skill, for many millions of years. So that skeptical refrain of "there's no way to know whether it was a large object closer to them vs. a smaller object farther away" holds no water in this category of cases. Yes, there will always be a tiny bit of uncertainty, but when looking at such sightings as a class, with there being so many of them, it'd be a tremendous stretch to conclude that so many people are simply wrong about things right in front of their face. If we did want to go that route, we'd have to start questioning everything, like "is that wall that's 15 feet from my face right now really there?"

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Hynek refuted your idea over 40 years ago.

You mean the guy that had a category for "crackpot" cases? The astronomer? No, you misunderstood my comments. I'm talking about someone in psychology or related fields preferably from this decade or even this century. There have been no advances in psychology with regards to perception in the last 40 years? Thanks for leading off with that, it saved me a bunch of time.

If we did want to go that route, we'd have to start questioning everything, like "is that wall that's 15 feet from my face right now really there?"

Yes, people can see things that aren't there. People can remember things that never happened...
Honestly, if you have a direct quote from someone that is qualified to to rule out misperceptions or any other related phenomenon, let me know.

originally posted by: LukeCahill
UFOs are undoubtly real. The fact that so many people get to observe it zooming away or landing or whatever. Has it ever occured to any of you why the government try so hard to cover up alien existence? Its simple really. You see Aliens don't ride in UFOs we now observe. In fact these UFOs are man-made. If you had read up on History, The Nazis built the Wunderwaffe, and in it there were blue-prints of UFOs. The most famous being the Die Glocke. After world war two. Operation paperclip which is an operation by the U.S to bring in as many NAzi Scientists as possible. They campaigned the building of "UFOs". It all makes sense, Roswell, an desperate attempt by the government to cover up their "New weapon". Why go through all the trouble and cover up? Even if it was real aliens. But it doesn't much explain the whole deal. The U.S built a prototype UFO and tested it to the public, seemingly making the project look like a failure. But what if it wasn't a failure? But just a delusion by the government. The Kecksberg incident, a stupa shaped "UFO" crash landed. And it looks just like the Die Glocke. After it crashed, the government denied that incident from happening. But not only that, they ordered 2 tonnes of ceramic after that incident. Why? Simple, the rebuild the UFO. Coincidence? What do you think?

There are hundreds of witnesses describing unknown ships landing, with non-human entities descending and many times interacting and even abducting people. It has been happening at least since the 50s.

It doesn't mean the US military won't have secret projects, but generalizations like yours are completely wrong.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: LukeCahill

Die Glocke was a cyclotron, not a flying saucer. If the government had access to exotic technology like you claim, don't you think they would boast about it? A wonder weapon is useless if your enemy isn't afraid of it, and how can they be afraid of it if they don't know it exists?

A wonder weapon is useless if the enemy know you have one and are able to replicate it.....check mate.

a reply to: andre18

A wonder weapon is useless if the enemy know you have one and are able to replicate it.....check mate.

You don't play chess, do you? The wonder weapon is useless only if the enemy knows how to make one. In fact, there might be cause to let the enemy think you have an impossible wonder weapon to trick the enemy into wasting money trying to build one. Ultimately, that was how the Cold War was waged.

a reply to: JackHill

There are hundreds of witnesses describing unknown ships landing, with non-human entities descending and many times interacting and even abducting people. It has been happening at least since the 50s.

You mean that there are hundreds of people who believe they have seen unknown ships landing. It started long before the 1950s. In the Middle Ages there were reports of medieval ships cruising through the sky and getting their anchors caught on church steeples. Members of the elfin crew would swim down the chains to release the anchors. The fairies would also kidnap people. When the abductees returned from Elfland, they experienced missing time; sometimes years. All the evidence indicates that, whatever people have been experiencing, it has been part of humanity's heritage for a very long time. I would suggest you try reading Jacques Vallee to get some perspective.

It doesn't mean the US military won't have secret projects, but generalizations like yours are completely wrong.

The OP isn't the only one making generalizations.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Hynek refuted your idea over 40 years ago.

You mean the guy that had a category for "crackpot" cases? The astronomer? No, you misunderstood my comments. I'm talking about someone in psychology or related fields preferably from this decade or even this century. There have been no advances in psychology with regards to perception in the last 40 years? Thanks for leading off with that, it saved me a bunch of time.

If we did want to go that route, we'd have to start questioning everything, like "is that wall that's 15 feet from my face right now really there?"

Yes, people can see things that aren't there. People can remember things that never happened...
Honestly, if you have a direct quote from someone that is qualified to to rule out misperceptions or any other related phenomenon, let me know.

So whenever witnesses who witness things you never believed in the first place report these things, you relegate them all to misidentification or hallucination? My, my, how convenient for peace of mind.
Don't you know that this can also be referred to as a delusion? When the mind won't accept painful realities that conflict with a CORE belief, they continue with the core belief in a state of delusion.

Not accepting what is right in front of your face, and believing everyone was hallucinating is considered a pathology!
Even Hynek knew they weren't hallucinations, nor were they all misidentifications.
And Blue Book special report 14 confirmed this, and that is why Hynek excused himself away from doing the Air Force's dirty work for them.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So whenever witnesses who witness things you never believed in the first place report these things, you relegate them all to misidentification or hallucination? My, my, how convenient for peace of mind.

That's not what I said.

Don't you know that this can also be referred to as a delusion? When the mind won't accept painful realities that conflict with a CORE belief, they continue with the core belief in a state of delusion.

That would be called denial which would be more of a defense mechanism. not a delusion.

Not accepting what is right in front of your face, and believing everyone was hallucinating is considered a pathology!

That's not what I said. My words actually are right in front of your face...literally

Even Hynek knew they weren't hallucinations, nor were they all misidentifications.

Hynek liked to throw the term "crackpot" around a lot too. Hynek was a smart man and great investigator but he couldn't refute advances in a field that barely existed in his day. There has been a lot of progress in these areas which largely get ignored around here. It has nothing to do with "debunking" or disbelieving. That's all in your head so you have something argue about.

a reply to: JackHill

There are hundreds of witnesses describing unknown ships landing, with non-human entities descending and many times interacting and even abducting people. It has been happening at least since the 50s.

Tens of thousands. I'm one of them. You're absolutely right, Jack Hill.

a reply to: DJW001

You mean that there are hundreds of people who believe they have seen unknown ships landing. It started long before the 1950s. In the Middle Ages there were reports of medieval ships cruising through the sky and getting their anchors caught on church steeples. Members of the elfin crew would swim down the chains to release the anchors. The fairies would also kidnap people. When the abductees returned from Elfland, they experienced missing time; sometimes years.

Funny how elves, fairies, leprechauns, and grey aliens are all the exact same height.
People describe things as accurately as their vocabulary and cultural references allows them to. You're only making the case for alien visitation stronger.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

So whenever witnesses who witness things you never believed in the first place report these things, you relegate them all to misidentification or hallucination? My, my, how convenient for peace of mind.

Oberg pushes that line of bunk all the time. It's such a desperate, obvious withdrawal from the reality of the situation.

People who were admittedly nowhere near a close encounter event, telling the actual participants and witnesses to the event that they don't know what they saw right in front of their eyes?

Yeah, right. You know better, because after all, you weren't there.

Even educated minds can be small and fragile.

I have noticed that about him as well, he does do that any chance he gets. He always says he is just educating people, but he really means re-educating them with the doctrine his handler showed him , "for the good of national security and all". I bet he has a security clearance but would never admit that.

The Air-Force and other ABC agencies recruit a certain type as public relations agents all the time, and the way he says things have sociological markers that can be easily attributed to a disinformation source. Those who would argue against this out of chivalry for him for past services don't look at that point, nor would they care to understand how that can be shown by patterns in his ways of communicating the things he says. But those things don't get past everyone.

a reply to: Scdfa
Didn't you bring up Hynek before and how he didn't want to investigate abductions or cases that were too bizarre or something along those lines?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa
Didn't you bring up Hynek before and how he didn't want to investigate abductions or cases that were too bizarre or something along those lines?

You're correct. That is what I read about Hynek, regarding the Hudson Valley wave of sightings/encounters of the 1980s.
It was alleged that Hynek didn't want to include alien encounters, but to limit the investigation to sightings of alien ships because the public wouldn't accept it at the time.

They still don't. Right, Zeta?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I have noticed that about him as well, he does do that any chance he gets. He always says he is just educating people, but he really means re-educating them with the doctrine his handler showed him , "for the good of national security and all". I bet he has a security clearance but would never admit that.

The Air-Force and other ABC agencies recruit a certain type as public relations agents all the time, and the way he says things have sociological markers that can be easily attributed to a disinformation source. Those who would argue against this out of chivalry for him for past services don't look at that point, nor would they care to understand how that can be shown by patterns in his ways of communicating the things he says. But those things don't get past everyone.

Great post. Please go into more detail regarding these sociological markers, maybe you could help people recognize these patterns.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I have noticed that about him as well, he does do that any chance he gets. He always says he is just educating people, but he really means re-educating them with the doctrine his handler showed him , "for the good of national security and all". I bet he has a security clearance but would never admit that.

The Air-Force and other ABC agencies recruit a certain type as public relations agents all the time, and the way he says things have sociological markers that can be easily attributed to a disinformation source. Those who would argue against this out of chivalry for him for past services don't look at that point, nor would they care to understand how that can be shown by patterns in his ways of communicating the things he says. But those things don't get past everyone.

Great post. Please go into more detail regarding these sociological markers, maybe you could help people recognize these patterns.

He uses the same exact wording and excuses verbatim quite often for one, which is not normal communication but more a canned or practiced way of answering to others. maybe even like learning how to respond to " " from a manual. There are manuals on disinformation and counter intelligence that have all sorts of ways to change people's thoughts on subjects, The military, CIA, Army, NSA all use things like this, and each topic that becomes a target for a counter intelligence mission will be unique and have practiced phrases and jargon to aid the counter intelligence operative who is usually a public person that speaks as either an expert or a historian, or a public relations type of person.

The agencies and military use specialists that are psychiatrists and sociologists, and other professionals with security clearances to assist in making these manuals to use all the right words and phrases that have been researched to have the most effect to get into target audiences heads for best effectiveness, This is KEY>>>and when you see someone use verbatim patterns all the time in their communication, and they are also a highly public figure who reach a lot of people, well, the math computes that there is some BS happening there.(:

He falls flat doing it and sometimes back peddles and goes back to whatever he has practiced to say rather than improvise, because he isn't very good at improvisation, because whatever he is doing is like at the forefront in his ways of talking, even in the documentaries I have seen this behavior and recognize it as coming from some directive he has been given, He will start to say things, and then back peddle and use the same canned responses as always, like reading an instruction manual.. Nobody does that unless they are playing a part in something else.

This is of course my opinion, but I have never been wrong when I see certain things and tell someone about it, then 10 years later, for example, is proven to be true, and the people always come back and they remembered that I told them long ago some secret about something, and they are amazed how I knew. Just a little talent I have I guess.

The cat has jumped from the bag now

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Scdfa
Didn't you bring up Hynek before and how he didn't want to investigate abductions or cases that were too bizarre or something along those lines?

You're correct. That is what I read about Hynek, regarding the Hudson Valley wave of sightings/encounters of the 1980s.
It was alleged that Hynek didn't want to include alien encounters, but to limit the investigation to sightings of alien ships because the public wouldn't accept it at the time.

They still don't. Right, Zeta?

Thanks, I was wondering if that had any relation to what he called "crackpot" cases and it doesn't seem to. I would think a researcher would investigate all aspects of an event regardless. That is the one thing that I don't get.

As far as the public acceptance of aliens...I see a lot of documentaries and tv shows out there that are pro alien and that tells me that those shows have high ratings and are in demand. On the other hand, most people I talk to don't really acknowledge the topic or want to discuss it.