tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post3555411533801352530..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: Detroit Airport Clears Venus to LandKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-83161419071343124382013-12-06T03:44:33.344-08:002013-12-06T03:44:33.344-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02269071196867674978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-52678994167329132062013-11-10T08:47:33.910-08:002013-11-10T08:47:33.910-08:00The idea of Venus coming in to land is not new. I ...The idea of Venus coming in to land is not new. I seem to recall Keyhoe talking about a similar case, or cases, in FS TOP SECRET chapter Viii ('November Crisis') in which two separate incidents happened at White Sands on November 3, 1957.<br /><br />The first was of a round device "obviously under intelligent control" (Keyhoe's words) making a "completely controlled landing" at White Sands at 3 AM, the second was at 8 PM and was a projectile shaped object "two to three hundred feet long" taking off from the same base.<br /><br />The AF press release put the first down to Venus and the second to the moon. Make of that what you will, but apparently the spokesman got the two sightings mixed up and the explanations in the wrong order! A ghastly error. Keyhoe had a wonderful dig at them for what were two obviously wrong answers. <br /><br />Regardless whether the answers were correct but reversed, it is obvious that the first one never got clearance to land and second never got clearance to take off. Thus if both Venus and the Moon had got their takeoff/landing clearances first, presumably the mix-up would not have occurred.<br /><br />BTW, is Hendry still around to comment on Sparks's critique?cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-81093433517051196872013-11-04T02:42:49.941-08:002013-11-04T02:42:49.941-08:00Terry the Censor said:
"the attacks on Hendr...Terry the Censor said:<br /><br /><i>"the attacks on Hendry in the comments are shameful."</i><br /><br />Attacks? I only see criticisms (which by the way can be also critizised).Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-62281255891426898312013-11-03T18:11:01.021-08:002013-11-03T18:11:01.021-08:00Mr. Sparks gives very good reasons for doubting th...Mr. Sparks gives very good reasons for doubting the story. But I am disappointed he did not simply ask an air traffic controller if such a mistake were possible. That would seem a prudent thing to do before hallucinating a foam-flecked conspiracy about unnamed debunkers.<br /><br />Certainly, the attacks on Hendry in the comments are shameful.<br /><br />Terry the Censorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361088223337740598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-15478853557431833302013-11-02T02:50:09.104-07:002013-11-02T02:50:09.104-07:00I would also argue that Vallee's critique of t...I would also argue that Vallee's critique of the ETH needs to be developed. The criticism that humanoid aliens are inconceivable seemed conclusive even in the 1980s and was perhaps the strongest argument against close encounter cases. Since that time two areas of theoretical and experimental developments require that conclusion to be reviewed.<br />Our improved understanding of complexity theory and its relevance to both the origin and evolution of life (convergent evolution) is significant in this regard. Whilst I would not go so far as Professor Simon Conway Morris in arguing that humanoids are an inevitable result of evolutionary processes, as we can not yet quantify the relevant fitness landscapes to establish the inevitability of the necessary parallel convergence, I would argue along the same lines as Professor Ruchard Dawkins that this is a possibility.<br />A second area of development is panspermia, which has moved from being considered total nonsense in the 1970s to receiving serious consideration, again as a possibility, today. A relatively conservative view, proposed by Professor Paul Wesson, notes that whilst the viability of micro-organisms over interstellar distances is open to debate the physical transfer of the remnants of micro-organisms over interstellar distances is not. This delightfully termed necropanspermia is of significance, in my opinion, as it results in the transfer of information, and complex organic molecules. Combine this with the implications if complexity and an argument in favour of humanoid aliens becomes possible.<br />I also agree with DR in that the modification of space time suggested by some UFO reports is one of the stronger arguments in favour of the ETH, although again there have been theoretical developments (Hill, Alcubierre. Puthoff. Davis and White etc) which begins to make this seem a little less outlandish than it perhaps did thirty years ago.<br />Above all the ETH is testable. It predicts humanoid aliens, psychic functioning and space time modification ( the latter would be challenged by proponents of MHD propulsion). We might also predict how certain words in the Ramey memo will come out as relevant technology improves. The paranormal hypothesis does not lend itself to testing as far as I can see and therfore is not scientific at this time.<br />If I had to state an opinion... I am undecided between the core puzzle being a very odd natural phenomenon linked to atmospheric plasma or the ETH being correct, but going down the route of fairies etc ( other than recognising cultural contexts in which events have been interpreted) is a retrograde step, but I can see how Vallee's arrived at his argument in the context of the best theoretical models available at the time.Anthony Muganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09500170864254300321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-40728033154220588462013-11-01T09:44:52.563-07:002013-11-01T09:44:52.563-07:00Sparks says he agrees mostly with Vallee why UFOs ...Sparks says he agrees mostly with Vallee why UFOs are not extraterrestrial, citing Vallees five arguments against the ETH. What are Vallee's five argument?<br /><br />(1) Unexplained close encounters are far more numerous than required for any physical survey of the earth.<br /><br />Notice the implicit assumption that the only thing of interest to the visitors would be a "physical survey" of the planet, like our politics, culture, biological diversity, technological development, etc., etc., which have kept many millions of human beings fully occupied for thousands of years would be of no interest to them. This is a really dumb assumption, since humans visiting some alien civilization would not behave in this way.<br /><br />(2) The humanoid body structure of the alleged 'aliens' is not likely to have originated on another planet and is not biologically adapted to space travel.<br /><br />So does Vallee think alien sea anemones could build spaceships? There are good evolutionary reasons for a technological species to have a basic humanoid shape, which would involve a very long discussion, but basically the biological adage that form follows fuctions. How does Vallee know that they aren't biologically adapted for space travel or need to be, or that they are necessarily biological at all or even self-evolved? Again notice all the questionable implicit assumptions.<br /><br />(3) The reported behavior in thousands of abduction reports contradicts the hypothesis of genetic or scientific experimentation on humans by an advanced race.<br /><br />Millions of doctors and biological/medical researchers over many decades are still trying to figure us out, but Vallee ASSUMES aliens can figure out everything about our physiology and genetics in just a few abductions. Really? What about other possibilities such as long-term tracking of certain genetic lines?<br /><br />(4) The extension of the phenomenon throughout recorded history demonstrates that UFOs are not a contemporary phenomenon.<br /><br />Can't imagine why this is some sort of argument against the ETH, unless Vallee assumes any aliens would immediately grow bored with us and never come back.<br /><br />(5) The apparent ability of UFOs to manipulate space and time suggests radically different and richer alternatives.<br /><br />Or it could be how they achieve interstellar travel, so again not really an argument against the ETH. What does Vallee propose as a substitute hypothesis, unless he wants to take us back to supernatural explanations like gods, new-age invisible Gaia entities, elves or interdimensional fairies, etc.? How could you even test such a hypothesis? At least with the ETH, you would predict physical trace evidence or interactions, which do indeed exist, or even the possibility of picking up crashed craft and bodies, so in principle, testable. The ETH is actually a fairly conservative hypothesis that doesn't require the existence of other mysterious, undefinable, universes or parallel realities, instead assuming the visitors are from OUR universe/reality with physical laws we either understand or can potentially understand.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-6361880657945967432013-10-29T18:44:46.483-07:002013-10-29T18:44:46.483-07:00My Father was a WW2 Air Corp veteran. One of his s... My Father was a WW2 Air Corp veteran. One of his small pleasures was pointing out mistakes in movies about the war and he really liked when they goofed up something air related.<br /> That said, the errors in the books would be the kind that only pilots and those experienced in air traffic control would spot. Like the defination of "cleared for landing."<br /> Like so much of what we see as mistakes and falsifications, these simply pass un-noticed by the less informed. Sargehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04038947773327250058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-58455944976505370362013-10-29T13:46:04.647-07:002013-10-29T13:46:04.647-07:00I agree with the notion that the idea expressed in...I agree with the notion that the idea expressed in Hendry's book is indeed outrageous.<br /><br />The purpose of such claim is to discourage further interest in studying UFOs. Indeed, claiming that Venus was cleared to land in an airport, if mentioned in the context of UFOs near airports, implies that Venus is potentially responsible for almost every UFO case that may come to anyone's knowledge or mind, no matter the characteristics of the case.<br /><br />It also seems strange to me that Hendry wrote it twice, almost verbatim, in his book. Repeating information in a book is usually not a good sign (one may suspect memory problems, a hidden author, lack of rigor, obsessive ideas, etc) unless in the second mention the author adds an "as said before,..." and new information is connected to the repeated information.<br /><br />Why didn't Hendry add a clarification on the answer. How many times was Venus cleared to land?, or just a commentary on why he considered it his "favorite" comment?Don Maorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09501920515893210306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35003711549847392802013-10-29T10:17:57.115-07:002013-10-29T10:17:57.115-07:00I can't say I care much for mass single-person...I can't say I care much for mass single-person UFO surveys like Hendry's (or the more recent British Project Condign), either pro or con. NOBODY can be an expert in all necessary fields or investigate all cases in the detail that is necessary. As a result, we can end up with "explanations" that make no sense based on the surveyors' flawed understanding of fields outside their own field of expertise.<br /><br />Hendry had a bachelor's in astronomy, which does not necessarily make one an expert in such things as radar, aeronautical engineering, human perception, etc. E.g., Hendry invoked some ridiculous visual perceptual explanations without clearly knowing what he was talking about. (I'm thinking here of his optokinetic nystagmus "explanations" of erratic flight patterns.) <br /><br />His CUFOS mentor Allen Hynek made the same sort of perceptual mistakes, such as dismissing the Kenneth Arnold sighting based on Hynek's deeply flawed beliefs (NOT expert knowledge) about human visual acuity. (He was off by a mere order of magnitude.) <br /><br />Ironically, the boys in blue at Wright-Patterson did their own perceptual tests and got it right, getting Arnold's objects down into commercial jet size rather than Hynek's absurd miscalculated 2000 feet in length, his basis for dismissing Arnold's report.David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-35086869127264256832013-10-29T04:05:23.277-07:002013-10-29T04:05:23.277-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Gilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-36815816807274343552013-10-29T02:40:32.493-07:002013-10-29T02:40:32.493-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Gilles Fernandezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17128214022795566635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-32291988758163409202013-10-27T14:55:58.088-07:002013-10-27T14:55:58.088-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.com