Honest Questions

I am very SINCERELY interested in the UFO phenomenon. Have been for many years and have done a considerable amount of reading and speculating. Lately however, I have found such deep diversity within Ufology that the whole UFO perspective seems to be teetering on sheer confusion. Here are a few questions I would like to get honest feedback on. Possibly, this may help me to regain somewhat of a perspective foothold.

1) Is there a present day Bill Cooper? I am not asking as much because I idolized the man, I am asking because Bill seemed to have such a firm and REAL grasp on that which he presented and researched. Is there anyone that picked up the torch where William left it lay. God rest his soul.

2) Why the hell do we allow crack pots to ruin this extremely serious concern? All they do is help to create and forward the notion that the entire UFO matter is nonsense. There are more paranormal bloggers (most just wannabe paperback writers) and ridiculous new age kooksters than ever before these days. Haven't we learned that it is this very image that most effectively destroys the common fabric of hope that might one day shed the light of reality on this phenomenon? 98% of these goofballs need to be tarred and feathered. Young and old, we NEED to call a spade a spade and learn to separate the reported information from the out and outright entertainment. Now, I fully realize that it's a "free country" (yeah right) and everyone has a right, blah, blah, blah, but there comes a time when you have to, that is if you care anything about the matter at hand, call these jokers out. Please don't mistake this for some meaningless philosophical rant. It's absolutely KEY. These yuk yuks are destroying the credibility of Ufology. I honestly believe you know who and those types I am referring to. Certainly NOT the likes of the Late DR. Mack or David Jacobs.

3) This last one is a complete mind blower that I just can't seem to get over having my mind thoroughly exploded by. Could it even be remotely possible that the entirety of the UFO phenomenon is man made? Is the responsibility for UFOs, Abductions and Cattle Mutilations all human in origin? Could there REALLY be such a technologically advanced parallel to what we all commonly believe to be our "cutting edge" science????

1. Dont know. I guess not well versed in "ufology"
2. Always consider the source, when people make ufo/alien claims. There are disinfo agents, not to be confused with a true skeptic, whom I believe is needed to keep things in perspective. Crazy people who think they are aliens and or just wanna believe because they can't entertain any other notion. And genuine people like you and I who would like to examine evidence in a constructive manner and not simply jump to conclusions. Its always important to consider the source.
3. Of course. Man exists. so far man is responsible for everything, unless we have proof. The technology advances that the news reports to us is so far beyond what TPTB can truly do. You think that they would give you the "latest" and "greatest" of what they are capable of? Technology is a filtered resource and if you think otherwise you are a fool. Always something to consider.

1) Some would probably put John Lear in high esteem.

2) Who cares? I welcome free speech and everything that comes with it. I'm sure some people would like you to shut your yap, would you do that if someone didn't like what you were saying? Use your own knowledge to counter what these people are saying, that's your privilege.

3) I'm sure if someone knew the answer to that, this forum would be closed. There's no certainty when it comes to UFOs\Aliens\Hybrids, I mean take your pick. Places like this are made for you to endulge in speculation and fantastic fantasies, and some will prove your thoughts to be BS and some will encourage it. That's the beauty of it. I for one wouldn't find much joy in life if all questions were answered. Maybe that's the point of living...

Originally posted by Droogie
1) Some would probably put John Lear in high esteem.

Some might put Bugs Bunny in high esteem too...nuff said.

Originally posted by MasterOfSparkz
1) Is there a present day Bill Cooper?

Not that I know of, although the Internet has kind of made everybody a Bill Cooper.

2) Why the hell do we allow crack pots to ruin this extremely serious concern?

I'm not in charge. Also, how serious can it be when it has very little if no impact on my day to day life?

3) Could it even be remotely possible that the entirety of the UFO phenomenon is man made?

Possibly. And that includes tulpas generated from a linked human consciousness to human time travelers appearing as quantum "pre-echoes" of our not too distant or alternate future.

The whole idea of "aliens" certainly hasn't panned out all that well over the past 60 years.

reply to post by MasterOfSparkz


Yeah, but Bugs Bunny operates within the realm of the ridiculous, wouldn't you agree? Besides Mel Blanc is gone, and several people can take his place. Can't exactly say the same for John Lear, no? He's a nice guy and he's harmless, no need to ridicule him by that comparison. Regarding John Lear, take it or leave it.

reply to post by Droogie



Droogie
My point is this: Bill Cooper could substantiate 98% of what he claimed as fact, John Lear on the other hand CANNOT substantiate 98% of what he claims. Big difference, no?

Substance, INTEGRITY, the real deal...or...

I was around, possibly like yourself, when John and Bob made their initial rounds. Had the VHS tape when it came out. I only state this because I have seen where the man came from with respect to UFOs and have seen where he has went with respect to UFOs, and other than a lot of charm and neat stories, what of substance has this man given the UFO community?

Forgive me, but I am just so tired of the whole "that's really cool!" entertainment value that the UFO schools of thought have become mesmerized by and saturated with. That BS spin is why so little REAL effort is being poured into Ufology these days. No ones to be associated with it unless there is money to be made.

All that does is to ultimately forward confusion. That's honestly why I am hoping for less of the Que Sera, Sera and a heck of lot more of the REAL substantiated specifics that this whole thing NEEDS.

reply to post by MasterOfSparkz


Can you really support the claims made by any of these peronalities by any kind of percentage? I don't know where you get the 98 percent from?

I was merely replying to the question the OP was asking, and my answer was John Lear. As far as I know, he's the only one that compare to Bill Cooper as both of them collaborated back in the day, and they're both to this day considered controversial personalities. I'm not saying I'm subscribing to anything these two were\are saying. But I believe Lear is the only one at present time that can amount to that position.

But if you want to focus on money being made, and certain people deceiving gullable people, look at Steven Greer.

This man looked legit in the start of his campaign, now he's sh*ting on the people he made step forward with the bogus UFO clips he's putting out. Greer is a dangerous guy that destroys the credibility of who he associates with by the BS he's spitting out. And people that subscribes to the notion of "guilt by association" won't even register what's being said by these people. I'm amazed he's been able to build up the Disclosure Project and establish the trust among the witnesses he has been able to, and turn out to be a nut job. This is the guy that should be in your crosshairs, not Lear as he haven't made any money from what he's been sayin'. As far as I know.

But yeah, I feel the frustration as you eloquently describe in your OP, but I refer to the answers in my first post.

[edit on 12/8/10 by Droogie]

reply to post by Droogie


Let me start by making clear that I was being facetious concerning Bill's 98% reliability. MR. Cooper was a very hard working and utterly convicted researcher of the first degree. HOWEVER, what he stated as being fact most of time was in fact, fact. He regularly stated that certain of his numerous conclusions were his own and he openly invited valid criticism and proof to the contrary so that he could adjust his own views. Assuredly, Bill was dealt his more than fair share of disinformation, some of which he made publicly known. In short, Bill was VERY sincere and ultimately the horrifying price he paid was proof in effect that the proverbial road to hell is oft paved with the best of intentions.

That's just it Droogie, I DON'T want to focus on the sources of more confusion. I want to aid in identifying a basic behavior pattern, no matter how unpleasant the resulting recognition may be, so I can focus on the forwarding of the truth no matter how non sensational, or mind blowing, that truth may be. Those like Steven Greer, Robert O'Dean, John Lear or anyone else that may forward a either a false representation of themselves, or a saturation level of questionable information, only serve to quicken the sands that serve to swallow the truth within the mire of pseudo esoteric entertainment. Enter Art Bell.

Think about it logically for just a moment. This is certainly NOT to state you are not thinking logically, whatsoever, just humor me...

There are two sides to the "proposed" legitimate information coin. "Legitimate Information being information that is presented with the overtone of streamlined esoteric information that has been gleaned at the price of betrayal (whistle blowers) or hard work (research).

One side of this coin is heads and it represents research, the other side is tails which represents the whistle blower. Neither is any less of a truth/absolute than the other, so what must be accomplished in order to convince the onlooker (that's you and I) that the coin toss that results is in no way fair or reliable?

It starts with a set up. A "set up" is a situation wherein a choice is publicly offered, however only one real fore determined conclusion is reached. This is called a "force" and it's one of the oldest tricks in the con artist's repertoire. This effect is achieved through one basic, yet almost invariable, technique. Namely, the successfully perpetrated illusion of there being more than one equal choice to begin with.

I apologize, as there is no "save draft" feature that I can find on this forum, I have to post this much now and will pick up here tomorrow when I am able.

I am sure that a large portion of the ufos that we see are secret military projects, but I also think that there are extra terrestrial ufos as well.

Originally posted by MasterOfSparkz
1) Is there a present day Bill Cooper?

2) Why the hell do we allow crack pots to ruin this extremely serious concern?

You ask why we allow crack pots to ruin this field, yet you're asking for a modern day Cooper. You are one of those allowing crack pots to ruin the field.

Originally posted by orbero
I am sure that a large portion of the ufos that we see are secret military projects, but I also think that there are extra terrestrial ufos as well.

That's pretty much what I speculate as well.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by MasterOfSparkz
1) Is there a present day Bill Cooper?

2) Why the hell do we allow crack pots to ruin this extremely serious concern?

You ask why we allow crack pots to ruin this field, yet you're asking for a modern day Cooper. You are one of those allowing crack pots to ruin the field.

Give me one single shred of evidence (BTW, that's the debunker's definition of evidence, as in PROOF, NOT the real definition of the term "evidence") that Bill Cooper was a "crack pot" He made outrageous claims substantiated by outrageous evidence time after time. He NEVER presented what he had to say without as much. How is that being a "crack pot"?

If the ONLY thing your logic is repeatedly armed with, is Occam's razor, you'll likely nick and bleed yourself to death trying to shave the stubble from the surface of your most powerful mental capacity, the imagination.

Without it, there would be NO scientific discovery.

Originally posted by MasterOfSparkz

Give me one single shred of evidence (BTW, that's the debunker's definition of evidence, as in PROOF, NOT the real definition of the term "evidence") that Bill Cooper was a "crack pot"

Sure Thing.

Download and Listen to the mp3 in the OP of the following thread - You will hear Bill Cooper be destroyed:

Bill Cooper Destroyed by Don Ecker


*Any Bill Cooper fan who listens to this mp3 walks away no longer a fan of Bill Cooper. It has Cooper being caught telling lies and making drunken threats. All sorts of stuff on that drunken sack of crap.



[edit on 13-8-2010 by Exuberant1]

reply to post by MasterOfSparkz


continued IRT Droogies post in this thread:

The illusion of fair choice is crucial when attempting to publicly confuse or discredit any school of information. It's the only way to gain a powerful enough operational momentum to insure a quickly reached level of trust, so that same trust can in turn be dashed on the rocks of faithless doubt and confusion. In short, it does a most effective job of destroying any certain school of thought's informational credibility and integrity.

So how do we accomplish our mission in seemingly such a basic two sided information give away? It's done by creating a subconscious preferential impression with respect to "free choice". The following is the simplest example I can think of. A magician lays down three cards for you the spectator to pick from. It is a well known fact that better than 70% of those given a free choice in this matter will choose the middle card. If either of the end card's is chosen, the Magician's patter shrewdly excludes these by impressing the spectator that he him/herself is exercising their free will in doing so by process of elimination. It's verbal misdirection. In short, the participant onlooker is made to believe they have had a free and willful choice in the matter that serves the magician's "set up".

At this time I ask that you substitute the aforementioned informational coin toss for the three cards.

So how is it that we purposefully impress and align the onlookers preference, without them knowing it, so that a predisposed side of the coin is subconsciously chosen? One word: Authority. The man in blue, the person in uniform, those that "SHOULD" know. In a informational world submersed in supposed conspiratorial secrecy, who better to carry that torch than a champion rebel, the "whistle blower".

IMO, this is EXACTLY what critical intelligence agencies started doing by first unleashing the "whistle blower" and subsequently, the "disclosure" and FOIA premise. I honestly do not believe for a second that any of these "options" represents anything other than confusion and discredit.

If anyone is even remotely familiar with modern governmental intelligence, they KNOW unequivocally that they would NEVER allow any such act as "public whistle blowing" with respect to truly accurate secret information. That individual would be dead or in prison NOW.

So what happens to the other side of the coin? That being the tails side that represents free will and passion driven research. Not much need to bother with that side IMO. Although I don't doubt for a second that it too has been purposefully infiltrated with intentional disinformation agents, it's just that because of human nature, that side is most apt to take care of itself. There will always be the Stanton Friedman's, but sadly there will always be the New Agers, the Bloggers, the book sellers to dim the perspective illumination of honest and credible research. Thanks to the internet, which is certainly not all bad, but assuredly serves to bombard us with an 80/20 ration of garbage to substance.

Do you see why we must INSIST on credentials and substantiation? Why it is NOT enough just to be entertained by fantastic stories and the appearance of authority.

We are DROWNING in a sea of BS thanks ultimately to human nature. While the real potential for authority based illumination is contaminated with intentional confusion and discredit by those like Greer.

This is why I am asking these questions of those that may in fact have glimpsed reality beyond the human based BS and the retained secrecy directed disinformation ploys concerning these matters. I am asking honestly, without agenda. Without a sincere understanding. I am doing my best to ask as a true skeptic minus the ego derived foregone conclusions of the mentally educated cement minds of those pretending to be skeptics.

Originally posted by MasterOfSparkz
Give me one single shred of evidence (BTW, that's the debunker's definition of evidence, as in PROOF, NOT the real definition of the term "evidence") that Bill Cooper was a "crack pot"

Since Exuberant1 beat me to the Bill Cooper was a drunken, belligerent, plagiarist and fabricator who wanted to die the way he did, orchestrating it so he would...

...maybe you could tell us about the differences between the definitions of evidence and what you think the "debunker" use of evidence.

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by MasterOfSparkz

Give me one single shred of evidence (BTW, that's the debunker's definition of evidence, as in PROOF, NOT the real definition of the term "evidence") that Bill Cooper was a "crack pot"

Sure Thing.

Download and Listen to the mp3 in the OP of the following thread - You will hear Bill Cooper be destroyed:

Bill Cooper Destroyed by Don Ecker


*Any Bill Cooper fan who listens to this mp3 walks away no longer a fan of Bill Cooper. It has Cooper being caught telling lies and making drunken threats. All sorts of stuff on that drunken sack of crap.



[edit on 13-8-2010 by Exuberant1]

No sh*t! This is where you get to know me. I have not listened yet, BUT I WILL, and if this is TRULY the case, I stand corrected and APOLOGIZE openly for my ignorance concerning Bill Cooper. *if*

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
...maybe you could tell us about the differences between the definitions of evidence and what you think the "debunker" use of evidence.

You KNOW the answer to this, but I will humor you.

Debunker evidence = proof.

Real Evidence = any amount of collected information that supports a given claim or premise.

That's the difference.

Originally posted by MasterOfSparkz
You KNOW the answer to this, but I will humor you.

Debunker evidence = proof.

Real Evidence = any amount of collected information that supports a given claim or premise.

That's the difference.

And your basis for this claim is?

I'm also very curious about who you consider serious researchers and who you consider crackpots.