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

a reply to: JIMC5499

It's true.

Now, the CIA released on their website that they had been faking UFOs
for years. And of course, they rammed radioactive rods up airmen's noses
and does them with that psychodlics. People died. People were misled.

The current government claims they aren't doing those things any longer.

Hard to say.

But yes, agreed.

the 'big bad evil governetn' trope is used by professional con men,
to separate people from their hard earned money.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

1986 I was in the Navy. I was on ship in the Mediterranean Sea. Had to get another Yellow Fever shot. I got one in 1982 and they were good for 10 years. Four times I had to get a test like a TB test and then another "Yellow Fever" booster shot. Nothing was ever said about it. A few years ago I heard that around that time Libya was dropping Anthrax out of Mig-31's at high altitude trying to get it to contaminate a US Aircraft Carrier. We didn't have an Anthrax vaccine at the time. The test was of a type for Anthrax. See why I don't trust the Government? There's a few other things that happened around that time. Chernobyl was one of them.

a reply to: JIMC5499

We were in the Navy together at the same time.

As for the military, in boot camp they tell you (at least they did
in mine), that the constituion does NOT apply to you any longer,
that only the Uniform Code of Milityary Justice (UCMJ) applies
to you..

It's no wonder that a lot of the people who seemed to have
been experimented upon came from military service.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I'm familiar with the UCMJ and that statement. I was in from 82-87. Interesting times. I was aircrew in helicopters. I was supposed to meet my ship in Turkey in 83 when the Marine Barracks was blown up. Went TAD to a different carrier for a bit. Lots of things hushed up during that time.

Here's what I've noticed... notice them think nothing of it try not to capture or "prove" their existence and they will become commonplace and just going about their business... no different than noticing airplanes not being really interested in you either when noticed.

a reply to: JIMC5499

I was in from 82-90 as a nuclear mechanic and engineroom supervisor.

The most 'action' I saw, was the failed Iranian hostage crisis rescue attempt #2.

Kev

a reply to: Crowfoot

yes, if you poke 'it' with a stick, it pokes back.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

What ship?

a reply to: JIMC5499

I was on 2 nuclear cruisers and 1 nuclear aircraft carrier.
I'd rather not connect too many dots. My identity is starting
to come out and i'm not retired yet. Once I'm retired, I won't
care any longer.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Understood. I know the feeling. I had to have my clearance reactivated a few years ago and was re-briefed on things. Funny how things that I was told that were unclassified at my discharge debriefing in 87, have become classified again.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

unfortunately the inverse of that is now true... where intellect or expanding consciousness wants to put us all back in the cave trying to reinvent the wheel so some poor lil martyr can claim it or witness it "first"... most people don't have the time nor the patience for lil gulliver to notice all the life he's been crushing at his feet to "grow up". The metaphor/simile of David and Goliath naturally springs to mind... as such things are wholly impractical like being a pig farmer and not expecting to get feces on you.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

You said:

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.

Let's see if you will apply some critical thinking when the story changes:

The controller on duty that night, Bill Grava, described the experience as “weird” and “inexplicable” to the USA Today reporter. “I have no idea what it was,” said Grava. “Something military I guess.”

But the military denied any involvement, at least at first. A bit later on, the U.S. Air Force took responsibility for the events, saying the lights were leftover high-intensity flares that were dropped by a fleet of A-10s during a training routine at the nearby Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range.

www.esquire.com...

Using your standard of "CRITICAL THINKING" how can we trust the military when they denied involvement at first?

This is the problem with pseudoskeptics, you speak in absolutes.

You didn't add any caveat's to your statement. You didn't say when someone changes their story except the military. You made a blanket, illogical statement. You said:

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.

So using that illogical standard, we have to throw out and count as unreliable the reversal of the military going from no involvement at first to changing their story. You said when anyone changes their story they're unreliable!

a reply to: neoholographic

I'd be surprised if I ever heard so much as a peep about UAP's from the U.S. Air Force. Because the U.S. Air Force --- over the decades --- has fostered a hostile climate that discriminates against non-Christians.

So I've come to the conclusion...that the U.S. Air Force probably will never willingly release any classified data they obviously have on UAP's; due to the religious, Evangelical Christian intolerance that they foster on non-Christian views.

I'm not saying that the UAP phenomena is non-Christian...but I believe that the U.S. Air Force has an opposite opinion than mine.

www.npr.org...

a reply to: Erno86

That's a fascianting POV, and probaby has some veracity to it.

I personally don't know which part of the government is most
infested with the 'UFOs are demons chrisitan theory',
but it certainly may be the Air Force. I have not observed
them playing nicely with others.

That's true, it's either too blurry or looks "too good."

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Arbitrageur

You said:

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.

Let's see if you will apply some critical thinking when the story changes:

The controller on duty that night, Bill Grava, described the experience as “weird” and “inexplicable” to the USA Today reporter. “I have no idea what it was,” said Grava. “Something military I guess.”

But the military denied any involvement, at least at first. A bit later on, the U.S. Air Force took responsibility for the events, saying the lights were leftover high-intensity flares that were dropped by a fleet of A-10s during a training routine at the nearby Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range.

www.esquire.com...

Using your standard of "CRITICAL THINKING" how can we trust the military when they denied involvement at first?

This is the problem with pseudoskeptics, you speak in absolutes.

You didn't add any caveat's to your statement. You didn't say when someone changes their story except the military. You made a blanket, illogical statement. You said:

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.

So using that illogical standard, we have to throw out and count as unreliable the reversal of the military going from no involvement at first to changing their story. You said when anyone changes their story they're unreliable!

That citation is too vague where it says "But the military denied any involvement, at least at first." Did they issue a press release? If so, where is the press release? Was there an official response from a spokesperson? If so, exactly what was the name of the spokesperson and exactly what did they say?

While you still haven't cited exactly who allegedly made the denial comments and exactly what those comments and the context were, I suspect that the denial comments were not made by Lt. Col. David Tanaka, who speaks in this video to say that he and his fellow aviators dropped the flares, so witness Tanaka never contradicted himself that I'm aware of:



Contrast this with Calvin Parker, who told officers he passed out at the beginning of the event and didn't regain consciousness until it was over. Later he was telling elaborate stories of what happened as if he didn't pass out as he told the officers, so this is a contradiction by the same person.

Charles Hickson told officers one version of events, but he was later criticized for inconsistencies and problems with his story, and he changed his story, perhaps in an attempt to address the criticisms.

So in the pascagoula abduction we have the same witnesses who contradicted their own stories.

Your comparison to the Phoenix lights doesn't show that Lt/ Col David Tanaka ever contradicted himself, like the Pascagoula witnesses did. In fact, even though I asked for a citation for the military's denial, you still haven't told me the details of that alleged military denial which may be relevant to understanding exactly what was said, who said it, and in exactly what context.

In some cases I think the military can lie intentionally, but there might also be cases where it's a big organization and sometimes the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. If the military denial meant that the army, air force, navy or marines were not involved, that is still true, since none of those military entities dropped the flares. Lt. Col David Tanaka is not with any of those branches of the military.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

First you show why pseudoskeptics absolutes are illogical and then you want to keep bringing up Pascagoula. Every since you pushed the same lies and arguments in another thread and I exposed your lies, you bring this up whenever I post in this forum LOL. Have you no shame?

If you want to read more about it, check out this thread.

A new analysis of the Pascagoula abduction
www.youtube.com...

Here you were caught in several lies and then you vanished from the thread. If you want to see what happened, just read the last page of the thread. I will not rehash everything, but here's some highlights.

First, I posted a video from Hynek and Arbitrageur did the usual and tried to lie on Hynek. When I called him out on it, he vanished.

The fact is, you got caught in a lie. This is because you blindly posted a video without looking at it or reading the description. You said Hynek said this about Pascagoula:

"I was never able to substantiate (the story) in any manner I would call a scientific manner... I was completely disbelieving the story, and I still disbelieve it, because it's my nature not to believe unless I have firm evidence."

He didn't.

Here's what Hynek said in your video that you didn't watch.

"I went down to Pascagoula completely negative."

"All of those things convinced me that he wasn't making it up, they have had an experience."

Again, why should I believe illogical pseudoskeptics vs the men that investigated the case. Even the ones that started out skeptical believed Parker and Hickson.

The problem with you is that you're so biased every U.F.O. witness is reduced to liars, idiots or incompetent. You can't say I disagree with someone and I think there's another explanation. When you can't refute the claim everbody's a liar, idiot or incompetent.

You are quick to take the smallest thing and then say this one thing negates all of the evidence. You're so insecure in your position, you can't accept that honest, smart, well meaning people see these things and you just disagree with them. You're a pseudoskeptic exhibit A.

Parker story was so strong, you realized you couldn't refute it so you tried to call him a liar when most of the people around them at the time said that he was the most trustworthy and shocked.

Parker is the one who looked so sullen and withdrawn in the well-known photo that shows them soon after the incident. He’s a dramatic contrast to Hickson.

He was the one the sheriff’s deputies said was “climbing the walls” when left alone in an interrogation room to talk with Hickson. It was Parker’s reaction that convinced law officers that something bad had happened.

In the background, deputies could hear Parker begging Hickson, “Don’t talk to them Charlie, those people will come back and get us. They don’t want us to talk.”

www.sunherald.com... › counties › article219679955

Why can't you use basic common sense? You have to assume the worst of anyone that says they have seen something like this.

If this was just a tale as you say, why did Parker:

Have an emotional breakdown
Pass a Polygraph
Leave jobs when recognized
Not make big money off of speaking fees like pseudoskeptics do
Convince skeptics like Hynek and people at the Sheriff's Department who tried to catch them in a lie

If it's a lie, why didn't Parker cash in on the lie? He vanished and tried to stay out of the public eye for 40+ years. He could have easily made millions on the U.F.O. circuit.

It's call looking at the fact pattern of this case. When Parker says he lied because he didn't want publicity, does this ring true?

He didn't want to report it.

He had an emotional breakdown.

He was "climbing the walls" and was most convincing

He left jobs when people recognized him

He stayed out of the public's eye for 45 years

Yes, this sounds like a man who would lie about some things in order to stay out of the media's focus. Like he said, he didn't want to be known as the guy who was taken on a spaceship. He just wanted to get married and stay out of sight.

You seem to be locked in so deep that you can't use basic common sense. Parker did everything you would expect of someone that didn't want to be known as the guy who was taken on a spaceship.

If he's lying why did he have an emotional breakdown over a lie? Why did he leave jobs when people recognized him? Why did he stay out of the public's eye for 40+ years instead of making millions doing book, movie rights, magazines and more?

This is a very strong case and the fact that you're still butthurt because you were caught in a lie on the thread shows how threatened you are by the case.

originally posted by: neoholographic

My point is, there isn't any explanation outside of extraterrestrial/extradimensional visitation that explains the accumulation of evidence. We have been visited by U.F.O.'s since humans could draw on cave walls.

So I reach a conclusion based on the evidence that the most likely explanation to explain the accumulation of evidence is extraterrestrial/extradimensional visitation.

If we were to assume extraterrestrial/extradimensional visitation has occurred, there wouldn't be any U.F.O.'s It's the only explanation that explains all of the evidence.

You say there isn't any explanation outside of extraterrestrial/extradimensional visitation that explains the evidence. How about another advanced terrestrial race? There is the legend of Atlantis...An advanced underwater terrestrial race is a much simpler explanation of all the UFO sightings. It doesn't take super advanced technology to travel trillions of miles between the stars. It doesn't take the unexplainable magic of inter dimensional that is not provable. It explains why there are so many sightings around military bases / events, since they have a direct interest. It explains why so many of these crafts are so small (They could be drones controlled by this race). It can easily explain away the bible too.

Our oceans are vast, there are discussions of fast under water movers. A small civilization of a thousand beings or so that live in 5-10 small underwater communities could escape detection quite easily in our oceans. The oceans could supply them with everything required to survive. Do I have any proof of this? Not other than the stories of fast movers from the Navy, stories and pictures of USOs and the plausibility that it could explain the evidence you point to. This theory would also explain if our governments know about it, why they would never disclose. Telling the masses their is a vastly superior race on our planet, they won't talk to us and they can do anything they want to us would create panic.

Anyway, overall good discussion. My point is that you are jumping to a conclusion saying it must be this. I am trying to point out there is another alternative based on the same evidence you are looking at that could also explain it, without being a skeptic and in my view creates a more cohesive theory taking into account all the sightings that have occurred and requires less technological efforts to be true.

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: neoholographic

I'd be surprised if I ever heard so much as a peep about UAP's from the U.S. Air Force. Because the U.S. Air Force --- over the decades --- has fostered a hostile climate that discriminates against non-Christians.

So I've come to the conclusion...that the U.S. Air Force probably will never willingly release any classified data they obviously have on UAP's; due to the religious, Evangelical Christian intolerance that they foster on non-Christian views.

I'm not saying that the UAP phenomena is non-Christian...but I believe that the U.S. Air Force has an opposite opinion than mine.

www.npr.org...

Check out the details on the NASA administrator as it pertains to religion:

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Probably not a lot of UAP disclosure excitement there, either.

Tell that to gov, they don't want anyone to know.