The skeptics catch 22 when it comes to U.F.O.'s

a reply to: neutronflux

You said:

There are strong and well studied counter arguments to what your claiming.

You haven't presented a shred of evidence to refute what I'm saying. The quote from Forbes offers no evidence the Sumerians built there modern civilization without any knowledge from prior civilizations.

That defies basic common sense and even the Sumerians didn't claim they came up with these things.

A nearly complete 108-line poem describes Enlil’s invention of the mattock, a key agricultural pick, hoe, ax, or digging tool of the Sumerians. In the poem, Enlil conjures the pickax into existence and decrees its fate.

The pickax is described as gloriously beautiful; it is made of pure gold and has a head carved from lapis lazuli. Enlil gives the tool over to the humans, who use it to built cities, subjugate their people, and pull up weeds. Enlil was believed to aid in the growth of plants.

According to creation myths of the Sumerian people, their Gods used genetic material from life existing on Earth and mixed it with divine genetic material from themselves to create Humans here on Earth.

The Ekur was seen as a place of judgement and the place from which Enlil’s divine laws are issued. The ethics and moral values of the site are extolled in myths, which has been suggested would have made it the most ethically-oriented in the entire ancient Near East. Its rituals are also described as: “banquets and feasts are celebrated from sunrise to sunset” with “festivals, overflowing with milk and cream, are alluring of plan and full of rejoicing”.

aratta.wordpress.com...

Here's more:

The Sumerians in ancient Mesopotamia achieved over one hundred "firsts" for human civilization. Advances in writing, agriculture, science, mathematics, medicine, astronomy, transportation, building, military, schools and city planning, all originated in Sumer. The Sumerians credit these achievements to The Anunnaki--giant, winged gods, who are only found in ancient cuneiform texts. Could these gods be more than legend? Is it possible that civilization made sudden, huge advances in development 5,000 years ago as a result of the Anunnaki's presence on Earth? Could the human race have been jump-started or even genetically created by extraterrestrial beings in the remote past? Might the Sumerian texts describing the Anunnaki be proof of this controversial theory? And if so, could we someday reunite with these celestial visitors?

www.history.com...

Here's more:

Sumerian religion was the religion practiced and adhered to by the people of Sumer, the first literate civilization of ancient Mesopotamia. The Sumerians regarded their divinities as responsible for all matters pertaining to the natural and social orders.[3]: 3–4

en.wikipedia.org...

Here's more:

The Creation of Humankind” is a bilingual Sumerian-Akkadian story also referred to in scholarly literature as KAR 4. This account begins after heaven was separated from earth, and features of the earth such as the Tigris, Euphrates, and canals established. At that time, the god Enlil addressed the gods asking what should next be accomplished. The answer was to create humans by killing Alla-gods and creating humans from their blood. Their purpose will be to labor for the gods, maintaining the fields and irrigation works in order to create bountiful harvests, celebrate the gods’ rites, and attain wisdom through study.

www.metmuseum.org...

The point is, you haven't answered a simple question:

WHERE DID THIS KNOWLEDGE COME FROM?

I will believe the Sumerians and things like the Book of Enoch before I believe some of these Historians. Like you, they have a closed mind.

If the Sumerians invented their modern civilization, where are all the texts of them taking credit for it? Where are the text on how they discovered metallurgy and learned to mine and refine these metals?

Where's the texts of them coming up with these advance mathematics or a banking system or building palaces and taxing people? If they came up with these ideas, why didn't they say it?

Why can't we say, the Sumerians are lying because we can see these things evolving in these 4-5 civilizations before them?

[Chapter 7]

1 And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms 2 and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. And they 3 became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: Who consumed 4 all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, the giants turned against 5 them and devoured mankind. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and 6 fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

[Chapter 8]

1 And Azazel taught men to make swords, and knives, and shields, and breastplates, and made known to them the metals of the earth and the art of working them, and bracelets, and ornaments, and the use of antimony, and the beautifying of the eyelids, and all kinds of costly stones, and all 2 colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they 3 were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways. Semjaza taught enchantments, and root-cuttings, 'Armaros the resolving of enchantments, Baraqijal (taught) astrology, Kokabel the constellations, Ezeqeel the knowledge of the clouds, Araqiel the signs of the earth, Shamsiel the signs of the sun, and Sariel the course of the moon. And as men perished, they cried, and their cry went up to heaven . . .

www.ccel.org...

It's not only the Sumerians, it's in the Book of Enoch or with the Vimanas.

My point is this, you haven't answered the simple question.

WHERE DID THIS KNOWLEDGE COME FROM?

Humans build modern civilizations based on knowledge from previous generations. So historians should be able to show how we went from this:




To this:






Your problem isn't with me, it's with the Sumerians who never took credit for building their civilization and archeology that supports them. So answer the simple question for the umpteenth time I have asked it.

WHERE DID THEIR KNOWLEDGE COME FROM?

a reply to: neoholographic

I asked you to do this:

Since you claimed, “ They say they learned from beings from the sky and this is in line with other civilizations.” Please use the provided link to Sumerian writings to reference where they said they learned form beings from the sky, what race the Sumerians claimed they were, and what the Sumerians claimed they learned.


Straight from the actual Sumerian database.

Cuneiform Digital Library Interactive

cdli.ucla.edu...

Now.

This

The Anunaki, the Igigi and the humans
aratta.wordpress.com...

Who was this written by. And what is the referenced sources?

a reply to: neoholographic

WHERE DID THEIR KNOWLEDGE COME FROM?

Themselves, and other subect matter experts from their
own culture, and other adjacent human cultures, or
a precursor culture from which they decended.

But in short - themselves.

They didn't have "Ancient Aliens" type shows to fill their
heads with entertainment. Though of course they had
folk stories, and yes, the dim-witted in their culture
fell prey to those.

It's the same place anybodys' knoweldge comes from.

Being an older civilization doesn't make them magical.

That's called the logical error of 'argument from antiquity.

Then perhaps, someone in this thread will say that I haven't proven anything
and that I am blathering.

By harping on such a repsonse (which has no merit or factual basis)
that person would just be alienating people willing to have a conversation with them.

Then, after everyone is so annoyed that they don't want to deal with any more
tantrums, they cease participaitng.

By using this ego-saving debate technique, such a person can then
claim 'victory', as the 'last man standing', having said little of value.

Guess what? I don't want to participate any more.

But you did ask that simple question, so I gave that simple answer.
It's not ANY more complicated than that.

Best,

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

A whole bunch of hot air.

I provide links for everything I post and you and the other guy nothing but hyperbole.

You said:

Themselves, and other subect matter experts from their own culture, and other adjacent human cultures, or a precursor culture from which they decended.

But in short - themselves.

This is meaningless. You have to provide evidence of this.

They didn't say themselves and if they didn't say it, then where is the archeological evidence that shows where they got this knowledge? That's why I keep asking this simple question.

WHERE DID THEIR KNOWLEDGE COME FROM?

Stop with the bloviating and let's see some links and sources of evidence that refutes what the Sumerians said themselves.

a reply to: neoholographic

This

The Anunaki, the Igigi and the humans
aratta.wordpress.com...

Who was this written by. And what is the referenced cited sources?

a reply to: neoholographic

Wonder if it’s based on / borrows from Sitchin‘s works…..

a reply to: neutronflux

I've provided source after source that says the same thing. I'm not going to keep repeating myself because you can't handle the truth (I had to sneak that one in there )

The fact is, you haven't presented a shred of evidence to refute anything.

Where's the text of the Sumerians saying they built their civilization?

Where's the text of the Sumerians explaining how they came up with a banking system or taxes or governments or mining and refining metals or astronomy or advanced mathematics?

You haven't answered the simple question:

WHERE DID THEIR KNOWLEDGE COME FROM?

a reply to: neoholographic

You

The fact is, you haven't presented a shred of evidence to refute anything.

Now your down to falsehoods…

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: neutronflux

Another strawman argument.

Show me anywhere in my post where I mentioned Zecharia Sitchin or anything about Nibiru or the 12th planet.

I'll wait..........

And quote where I posted claiming you did. I asked. A simple no would have sufficed.

However. Other than you “connecting” dots. Please cite the text that is conclusive proof the Sumerians didn’t developed technology and ideas on their own other than the vague “talent on loan from god”.

I’ll help you out…

Cuneiform Digital Library Interactive

cdli.ucla.edu...

And I’ll wait.

But I leave you with this little tidbit

This may be important to understand how a fictional Ancient Astronaut Hypothesis was constructed once we appreciate the existence of a genre of Sumerian Literature called Naru in which anonymous authors used fictitious stories to retell significant Historical events in order to further a particular Ruler’s agenda as a form of official Sumerian Propaganda.

www.afrikaiswoke.com...

Shrugs..

Now..

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: neoholographic

This

The Anunaki, the Igigi and the humans
aratta.wordpress.com...

Who was this written by. And what is the referenced cited sources?

Could find the cited sources. And you have no idea what is actual cited reference to the actual tablets, what is made up conjecture, or what is right out made up.

Anyway.

There are strong and well studied counter arguments to what your claiming. And to question what your claiming is completely healthy and warranted.

What Archaeologists Really Think About Ancient Aliens, Lost Colonies, And Fingerprints Of The Gods

www.forbes.com... gods/amp/

Archaeologists are trained as anthropologists to recognize and celebrate the diversity of humanity, both today and in the past. Eric Cline succinctly explains this in his review, noting “pseudoarchaeologists cannot accept the fact that the mere humans might have come up with great innovations such as the domestication of plants and animals or built great architectural masterpieces such as the Sphinx all on their own; rather, they frequently seek or invoke divine, or even alien, assistance to explain how these came to be.”

—— all from a person that doesn’t understand myth, history of ruling propaganda, and has no clue people actually can invent without aid from aliens / gods.

a reply to: neoholographic

At least by sources actually put their name on their work….

a reply to: neoholographic

You

Show me anywhere in my post where I mentioned Zecharia Sitchin or anything about Nibiru or the 12th planet.

You sure this isn’t referencing / based off Sitchin?

The Anunaki, the Igigi and the humans
aratta.wordpress.com...

Who was this written by. And what is the referenced cited sources?

—— you can’t post for sure. Can you?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: neoholographic

At least by sources actually put their name on their work….

What sources? You have provided evidence of nothing.

You haven't refuted anything or provided any evidence as to where their knowledge came from.

Your Forbes says this:

Archaeologists are trained as anthropologists to recognize and celebrate the diversity of humanity, both today and in the past. Eric Cline succinctly explains this in his review, noting “pseudoarchaeologists cannot accept the fact that the mere humans might have come up with great innovations such as the domestication of plants and animals or built great architectural masterpieces such as the Sphinx all on their own; rather, they frequently seek or invoke divine, or even alien, assistance to explain how these came to be.”

Again:

pseudoarchaeologists cannot accept the fact that the mere humans might have come up with great innovations such as the domestication of plants and animals or built great architectural masterpieces such as the Sphinx all on their own;

The Sphinx? Where did I mention the Sphinx?

You haven't answered this simple question:

WHERE DID THEIR KNOWLEDGE COME FROM?

Humans can come up with great innovations but where's the scientific and archeological evidence that this is the case with the Sumerians?

a reply to: neoholographic

Evidently this is a religion for you. Good luck to you.

I get the fact single ufo videos etc can be dismissed by many reasons

Unsure how they can dismiss the mass sightings which are much more credible.. like the one in Austrialia (I think) where it landed outside a school and everyone had seen it.

And obvisly the phoenix lights

Those types of sightings I would love to see them argue.

a reply to: neoholographic

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
I get the fact single ufo videos etc can be dismissed by many reasons

Unsure how they can dismiss the mass sightings which are much more credible.. like the one in Austrialia (I think) where it landed outside a school and everyone had seen it.

And obvisly the phoenix lights

Those types of sightings I would love to see them argue.

a reply to: neoholographic

Good points.

You have sightings with multiple witnesses and radar data yet the witnesses must be idiots or liars and they say weather balloons.

This case has a pilot, 3 U.F.O.'s, damage to his plane, radar data, another plane's pilot saw them, the men in black and Hynek.

The Curious UFO Case of Carlos Antonio de los Santos
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
I get the fact single ufo videos etc can be dismissed by many reasons

Unsure how they can dismiss the mass sightings which are much more credible.. like the one in Austrialia (I think) where it landed outside a school and everyone had seen it.

It never landed as far as I can tell. The witnesses who think it landed saw an area later that they thought may have looked like a landing spot, but that's the same kind of misinformation we have in the Rendlesham case where they also claim a landing spot, which was definitely not a landing spot. None of the eyewitnesses I could find in the Westall UFO case actually saw it land, they saw it disappear behind some trees, and some later inferred a landing, which inference is almost as bad as the supposed Rendlesham "landing".

There are explanations for the Westall case right in the Wikipedia article, but the people who want to "believe in UFOs" don't care to search for them. Even the "investigators" looking into the case only had to call some nearby airports to find out where the airplanes came from, but they failed to do that. The planes weren't jumbo jets with long range, they were small aircraft with limited range so they couldn't have come from another continent.

And obvisly the phoenix lights

Those types of sightings I would love to see them argue.

a reply to: neoholographic

Phoenix lights, both events have been explained here on ATS.

The problem is again some people who want to believe in UFOs choose to put a higher priority on unreliable eyewitness misinterpretation, than they do on good solid evidence like videotape analysis.

(Part 1) The Phoenix Lights - Laying To Rest The Myth

And again the incompetent "investigators" didn't really want to solve the case. Nobody bothered to request the FAA radar records before they were discarded, and one city councilwoman who was promoting the "mystery" actively avoided talking to the witness who got the best look at the UFOs, that's the real conspiracy of the Phoenix UFO case. That story was even written up in the local paper but the "UFO buffs" all completely ignore it.

Councilwoman Barwood ignored Mitch Stanley, a most important witness

Mitch Stanley saw the UFO through a powerful telescope, but Barwood wouldn't even talk to him...she only wanted to talk to people who misperceived what they looked at.

Such misperceptions are common in mass sightings, it happens again and again and again, in numerous cases documented here:


France, Nov 1990,
satobs.org...

Eastern US, March 1968
satobs.org...

Bahamas, Jan 1985
satobs.org...


Baltic, Feb 1976
satobs.org...

Zimbabwe, 1994
satobs.org...

Chile-Argentina Apr 2013
www.slate.com...

Yukon, Dec 1996
badufos.blogspot.com...
satobs.org...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

You more or less begin your post with a strawman including swamp gas, which nobody ever really claims. Hynek is dead and even he said he regretted his swamp gas statement, effectively retracting it.

Not exactly. Give Hynek a break – and get real about the origin of that myth. There were a series of reports, some in the air, some involving mysterious glows in a woods near a college dorm in Michigan. Some students thought they might be from a landed flying saucer. Hynek determined the woods were frequently flooded and had been during that period. In later years he ruefully remarked he still thinks those ground glows probably were natural swamp luminescence but the media had decided he had tried to explain everything that way.

I knew him at Northwestern and later at UFO conferences, and I hosted a visit he made to NASA in 1976 to inspect its photo archives. His central intellectual misconception was he equated level of education with observational accuracy, when actually it was the 'smarter' people who could more easily be subconsciously triggered by bizarre experiences into injecting their own memories and theories into their subsequent narratives.

originally posted by: JimOberg
I knew him at Northwestern and later at UFO conferences, and I hosted a visit he made to NASA in 1976 to inspect its photo archives. His central intellectual misconception was he equated level of education with observational accuracy, when actually it was the 'smarter' people who could more easily be subconsciously triggered by bizarre experiences into injecting their own memories and theories into their subsequent narratives.

That fits with what I was taught. Smarter people tend to try to explain or justify what they see. That tends to cloud their explanation of what they saw. Other people not as smart tell exactly what they saw.

I really hate using the word "smart" in that when "ignorant" is the correct term, but, it tends to be viewed as insulting.

I have to wonder about Bioluminescence though. I remember seeing the wakes of ships glowing at night from the disturbance of their passing in the water. Sometimes they were visible even when the ship was over the horizon. We have a large number of Canadian Geese where I live. I've seen some of the algae covered ponds that they swim in. I've also seen how light can sometimes reflect off of them.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Everything you posted is just biased opinion and nothing more. Again, this is the problem with pseudoskeptics. They speak in absolutes. So the Phoenix Lights are a myth instead of, I have these questions about the Phoenix Lights.

It's okay to have questions and be sceptical but the pseudoskeptic has to act like they know for sure and they don't. Listen to the absolute statements you posted:

Phoenix lights, both events have been explained here on ATS.

The problem is again some people who want to believe in UFOs choose to put a higher priority on unreliable eyewitness misinterpretation, than they do on good solid evidence like videotape analysis.

No it hasn't.

You act like people just want to believe and you're the only wise one that listens and looks at the evidence. "Good solid evidence" is subjective. I can look at the same evidence and say it's not solid because it's bias.

You said:

And again the incompetent "investigators" didn't really want to solve the case.

This is typical, pseudoskeptic nonsense. Everybody's an idiot, liar, unreliable or incompetent except you. How convenient!

I can show evidence that the Phoenix Lights haven't been explained and their still a mystery. Here's some recent articles.:

More than 20 years later, mystery of Phoenix Lights still fascinates people

One witness from Prescott who wished to be known only as J.R. said he watched a boomerang-shaped object glide over Granite Mountain, and it was at least a mile wide. He said there’s no way it was from this planet.

“We don’t have anything that big,” he said. “It was totally silent. I’ve never seen anything even close to the colors from the exhaust that propelled that thing. It was as big as downtown Prescott and completely blocked out the stars.”

However, Symington later did a complete 180 and not only said he saw the lights himself, but believed them to be of otherworldly origin.

“I’m a pilot, and I know just about every machine that flies,” Symington said. “It was bigger than anything that I’ve ever seen. It remains a great mystery. Other people saw it, responsible people. I don’t know why people would ridicule it.”

ktar.com...

The recent Showtime Documentary covered them:



Actor Kurt Russell saw them:



Here's a thread on ATS:

New Report on the Phoenix Lights by a First-Hand Witness
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's a similar case with eyewitnesses in the Phillipines:



The alleged "UFO" was sighted on evening of April 26, 2015 was quickly circulated across the Facebook. The video shows the motionless lights was apparently floating in the sky. According to the person who took the video, while they in Lubao-Pampanga diversion road, they notice that the lights later formed a letter "V". At first, they only saw three lights until the lights are appeared seven more. Later, the lights vanishes a little bit. The next morning, they returned to the area where the lights appeared in the sky; there is no buildings situated in this area. The video was shown by PAGASA, according to them, they estimate about 800–1000 meters high from the ground. Also, PAGASA states that is impossible that the lights coming from the airplane, hot air balloon, or drones due to its size of the lights. The lights appeared in 5–8 minutes based on the concept of eyewitnesses.[3]

www.youtube.com...

I can go on and on. The point is, when you can't refute the evidence, everyone's an idiot, liar or incompetent. You're the only one seeking the truth without bias

I say, I've reached a conclusion based on the evidence and I have said, I respect those that look at the evidence and reach an opposite conclusion.

What I don't respect is pseudoskeptic absolutes. You can't say that these are your conclusions that you reached based on the evidence. You have to act like the case is closed and only your biased opinion is all that there is.

VIDEO: It's been 21 years since mysterious lights hovered over Phoenix


Former Arizona Governor Fife Symington on witnessing the Phoenix Lights


UFO Sends Telepathic Message To A Family

On one night of 1997, over 600 witnesses saw several lights in the sky in a weird formation. That evening one family was "chosen" to receive a telepathic message from these mysterious lights.



Let's stop asking questions though! All is answered by Arbitrageur and if there's no answers everyone's a liar, idiot or incompetent and of course he's without any bias.

Everything you posted is filled with bias and opinion as usual.

originally posted by: JimOberg
Not exactly. Give Hynek a break – and get real about the origin of that myth. There were a series of reports, some in the air, some involving mysterious glows in a woods near a college dorm in Michigan. Some students thought they might be from a landed flying saucer. Hynek determined the woods were frequently flooded and had been during that period. In later years he ruefully remarked he still thinks those ground glows probably were natural swamp luminescence but the media had decided he had tried to explain everything that way.

Hynek and Van Horn exchanged some correspondence about the area near the college dorm.

Hynek seemed to think the area was a swamp, but Van Horn says it's not a swamp and how would Hynek know since he didn't even go to that area.

So in Hynek's rebuttal, I would expect to see him say things like yes he did too go to that area and it was definitely swampy, but he made no such remarks in his response. You can find the correspondence here, some of which I have excerpted, showing some other reasons why Van Horn used to try to convince Hynek it couldn't have been swamp gas:

Correspondence between Van Horn and Hynek regarding swamp gas explanation in Hillsdale

Dr. Hynek:
In both cases the location of the glow was pin-pointed: in Dexter it was seen between two distant groups of people, and at Hillsdale it was seen in a swampy depression between the girls and distant trees.

VAN HORN'S COMMENTS CONCERNING HYNEK'S STATEMENT

#1 Dr. Hynek states he is referring specifically to the Dexter and Hillsdale areas. I am answering only to the Hillsdale investigation of which I am most familiar ...

#6 The Hillsdale area where the observation was made is not a swamp but rather a wooded area. And how would Dr. Hynek know what the area was as he was never in it. The closest he got to the area was the center of Barber Drive, a road which runs parallel to the area.

#9 To the best of my knowledge there were no sounds heard in the Hillsdale incident and Dr. Hynek was very definitely informed of this. With regards to the popping sounds this again is a description which can be found in any one of many books describing Marsh Gas.

#10 I do not call lights ascending and descending to and from a height of 100 to 150 feet a short distance.

#11 Dr. Hynek states that he has never seen the phenomenon of Marsh Gas. I have personally many time witnessed this as a young boy having been raised near a swamp in Jonesville, Michigan. I can very assuredly state we were not observing Marsh Gas the evening of March 21st. His further formula description of Marsh Gas is very correct.

#15 I offer the following wind velocities from an official recorded source in defiance of Dr. Hynek's statement that there was little wind the evening of March 21st. I estimated the wind approximately 10 miles per hour and the following wind velocities are taken from the record of an official U.S. Agency for the area:
(table shows wind from 7-10 knots)
The air has to be extremely quiet and calm for Marsh Gas or Methane to accumulate in mass and form a glow. The above wind conditions would prove that this could not happen.

It is my sincere belief that the bacterial requiring a temperature of 35 degrees C to 40 degrees C optimum temperature and our average mean temperature being -1 degree C that it would have been impossible for little gas if any to have been present at this time of the year. If any gas was present, my contention is that it could not possibly have been present in quantity enough to last for the period of time that we were making the observation.
---
Dr. Hynek's reply
...If there is any substance to the reports of lights high in the sky, then of course this is worthy of further investigation. I repeat that my interpretation applied only to the swamp areas. (jc: bolding is mine) 4

I am anxious for you to read my press report since many of the things I said were taken out of context, as they most frequently are.

You are undoubtedly one of the most responsible witness observers in the entire "Michigan Affair" and I think it would be most unfortunate if you and I found ourselves in opposite camps. I'm sure that we both want to know what the actual facts are.

Van Horn's rebuttal to Hynek's letter

Attached is a photostatic copy of a letter written to me by Dr. J. Allen Hynek on March 29, 1966.

This letter to me is quite confusing in as much as it would give quite a different opinion of Dr. Hynek than I derived of him upon his visit to Hillsdale during the investigation. In reading this letter one would be led to believe that Dr. Hynek was very sincere in getting more to the bottom of the U.F.O. situation than he was upon his visit to Hillsdale. However, as I have previously stated it did not appear to me that Dr. Hynek was interested in any statements other than those which might fit the Marsh Gas theory.

In the second paragraph of his letter Dr. Hynek states that his findings of Marsh Gas were in essence from the letters that he had received from farm area people, proposing the Marsh Gas explanation. Still in his press release he admits that he has never witnessed Marsh Gas. I too have received letters from people in the farming areas who claim that it could not have been Marsh Gas at this time of the year. I have seen Marsh Gas and know that this was not what we were observing. To me, it is unusual for an expert to form an opinion such as this without further researching, especially when one is as unfamiliar with something as Dr. Hynek was with Marsh Gas.

You will notice in the third paragraph of his letter that he states he had recommended a basic scientific study of the well-established U.F.O. cases he made. He has in fact also stated on the dust cover of the book "The Anatomy of a Phenomenon", that he has always felt that the U.F.O. phenomenon was worth of investigation.

In the fourth paragraph of his letter, Dr. Hynek is referring to one of our most unusual sightings, which I witnessed myself. This particular sighting I shall not release any information on at this time other than to say that it occurred on the evening of March 24, 1966 at approximately 8:00 pm. The sighting was referred to Selfridge Air Force Base Radar and I was told that there were two inanimate blips on the Radar Scope.

After studying Dr. Hynek's letter and if his feelings are as stated in the letter, I have a question in my mind. Dr. Hynek being the scientific consultant to the Air Force regarding the U.F.O. situation, and having made the recommendations, where then is the block and why hasn't more intensive research been carried out? Someone, somewhere is forming this block for some unknown reason and I believe this is the thing that should be found.

When I read that correspondence I don't see a meeting of the minds between Hynek and Van Horn about whether the Hillsdale sightings were in a swamp or not. Van Horn says it wasn't a swamp and Hynek's reply doesn't seem to be trying to persuade Van Horn that it actually was a swamp, and he also seems to be acknowledging that the altitudes of over 100 feet may not be consistent with swamp gas as Van Horn suggests, among other discrepancies.

a reply to: neoholographic
You're not addressing the evidence though, and even the "evidence" you post contradicts the "giant UFO" witnesses because Kurt Russell says he saw "6 objects" which is also what analysis of the video shows, multiple independent objects as Russell describes. So you are actually contradicting the giant UFO story by posting Russell's description of the 6 objects!

And Symington, what an unreliable witness! It's shocking some people expect him to be taken seriously when his position has been so contradictory and unreliable. Critical thinking needs to be applied to the evidence which means when someone changes their story, you can't consider what they say to be reliable. That applies not only to Symington but any witnesses who change their stories, like the men inthe Pascagoula abduction case which you cited as "evidence".