tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post414273250220182748..comments2024-03-19T11:13:40.642-07:00Comments on A Different Perspective: The Nuns Story - Roswell EditionKRandlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-49846094514733918262012-10-12T19:44:57.957-07:002012-10-12T19:44:57.957-07:00Skipping over the usual arguments in the comments,...Skipping over the usual arguments in the comments, I have to commend Mr. Randle for correcting the record and admitting an error. It took 18 years, and perhaps he had to be pushed into it, but it happened, which seems to be quite rare in this field.<br /><br />Ufology needs a retraction process like science journals have (or try to have -- not all journals are forthcoming with details). When errors are corrected early, especially errors flagged by the investigators themselves, no shame need accrue -- and the less likely those errors are multiplied across internet pages, in documentaries, and in books.<br /><br />Admitting errors -- or even changing one's opinion in light of new facts -- seems to be avoided by most of ufology, presumably because it gives aid and comfort to the enemy (this applies to skeptics too. Jason Colavito called out Ben Radford recently and Radford -- though completely in the wrong -- was a total dick about it).<br /><br />Ufology can never be taken seriously as a science -- or even as a hobby -- if no one is ever wrong. Mr. Randle and others have busted some Roswell witnesses, for instance, but some prominent researchers, most television producers, and pretty much all of UFO fandom seem not to care the least about these developments. To these latter groups, evidence of fraud and error are written off as lies told by debunkers or MJ-12 disinformants.<br /><br />I strongly recommend the Retraction Watch blog to those who enjoy learning about fraud and incompetence in science, and how science tries to correct the record.<br /><br />retractionwatch.wordpress.com<br />Terry the Censorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361088223337740598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-17456245092314972332012-10-07T08:48:46.885-07:002012-10-07T08:48:46.885-07:00Steve:
Please give me a specific instance of a go...Steve:<br /><br />Please give me a specific instance of a government official (military or civilian) who has made a death threat against anyone who has seen any of the following:<br /><br />1. a visiting 'nuts & bolts' ET craft<br />2. a craft from another dimension in space<br />3. a craft from another time dimension.<br /><br />I want full details of such threats. Remember that science does not accept that any of the above exist, so it is no good quoting Roswell witnesses who THINK they might have seen them.<br /><br />The ball is back in your court. I live in the real world. At least I think I do.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-54264175650380295902012-10-07T07:47:43.463-07:002012-10-07T07:47:43.463-07:00@CDA:
"And by the way, the government does N...@CDA:<br /><br /><i>"And by the way, <b>the government does NOT make death threats against people who have seen craft</b> from other planets, other star systems or other dimensions (in time or space). <br /><br />"<b>No world government (even the USA) knows anything about such things.</b> Not even so-called 'intelligence officers' in the military. They simply don't have the intelligence to understand it."</i><br /><br />[<b>bold</b> emphasis added, above]<br /><br />Oh, <i><b> really?</b></i><br /><br />Know that for a fact, do you now, CDA?<br /><br />Care to enlighten us as to the evidential basis for your unqualified opinion?<br /><br />When you say "the government," that's a pretty nebulous term. <br /><br />Your blithe naivete about how <i>some elements</i> of government may have covertly acted in the past never fails to impress me, CDA. <br /><br />These particular blanket statements of yours both perplex and almost amuse me, since, just <i>how would <b>you</b> know, anyway?</i> You don't, so please don't talk blather about such things. <br /><br />There are unfounded personal opinions, and then there are those other thingies, you know, actual facts? <br /><br />It would be nice if you were able to clearly distinguish between the two more often, IMHO.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-43333067193115042762012-10-06T11:15:38.550-07:002012-10-06T11:15:38.550-07:00Part 2 of 2:
Vallee has argued that UFOs apparent...Part 2 of 2:<br /><br />Vallee has argued that UFOs apparently can also affect and manipulate "local" dimensional spacetime, and gives examples of cases where UFOs seem to pop into "our reality" and transmute or shape-shift in appearance, and could also affect human perception and memory via very high-energy electromagnetic radiation, such as microwaves being emitted from some UFOs in CE cases, before popping back out to some other dimensional realm, leaving only the visual impression of something suddenly "disappearing" to the witness, which I guess suggests something other than a metallic craft or physical object as we understand it making its presence known. <br /><br />Instead of an object, per se, think of a coherent form of extremely intense, mobile or directed energy, maybe like a kind of "mini-singularity" able to use the dimensional matrix for transport, a kind of framework for purposeful display. <br /><br />BTW, while Vallee's perspective on the UFO phenomenon has made him somewhat of a "heretic among heretics" within the "UFO community" of researchers, such as it is, he's always been fairly careful to characterize his views regarding the possible nature, origins, and potential intent of genuine UFOs in encounter cases as speculation, or theory, based largely on his own research of nearly 50 years. <br /><br />Vallee had his own very interesting UFO sighting in France at the age of 15 in his mother's company, and this "classic" UFO was also witnessed by a school friend through binoculars, who lived about a mile away, and which was the impetus for his own interest in both astronomy and the UFO phenomenon.<br /><br />BTW, I initially met Vallee at Steve Wozniak's US Festival back in 1982, did some unpublished research on his behalf in the early 1990's on the infamous "Pentacle memo" first disclosed in his book of edited journals entitled "Forbidden Science," and have intermittent contact with him since then over the past 20 years, since I belatedly became interested in the UFO phenomenon myself as the result of learning some new data in late 1991 from someone who I had shared a UFO CE 1 experience with in a multiple-witness incident in late July of 1972 during a camping trip in Northern California.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-58374728114367083782012-10-06T08:47:39.587-07:002012-10-06T08:47:39.587-07:00@CDA:
Part 1 of 2:
"I am a bit puzzled by t...@CDA:<br /><br />Part 1 of 2:<br /><br /><i>"I am a bit puzzled by this idea of the Roswell saucer coming from 'another dimension'. If this were the case, surely it should never have crashed at all."<br />~ ~ ~<br />"It would be safer to stick to the dimensions we know, i.e. 3 of space and one of time."</i><br /><br />"Safer"? I don't know about that, since "safe" hypotheses are not necessarily equivalent to either "more likely" or what <i>might</i> eventually turn out to be factually true, regarding the sources of propulsion and means of transport by any advanced entities. <br /><br />More than one theory regarding the origins, nature, and subsequent methods of travel of "ANHI' may be true -- it's not a "binary" choice of one concept vs. another. We just don't know, as yet. <br /><br />I can only speculate that Boone's references to "a ship" from "another dimension" is shorthand for one of the alternative theories of UFO origin, the EDH (aka IDH) as opposed to the standard extraterrestrial hypothesis. <br /><br />Think of it this way: a "craft" could <i><b>use</b></i> interdimensional travel as a means of transport, and doesn't necessarily mean ANHI originated or resides there. <br /><br />But the Vallee EDH does seemingly posit a form of potential ANHI co-existing with us on a parallel or ED "plane" local to our planet. I see this as an esoteric extension of the ETH, in a way, related to newish concepts of a "holographic universe." <br /><br />See: See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Universe<br /><br />An inter or extradimensional form of ANHI would be an entity which could be "from anywhere or any time," and could employ the known fact (derived from quantum mechanics and QM physics/theory) that there are several additional dimensions, a prospective total of between 8 and 11, embedded within the first 4 (3 spatial dimensions integrated into spacetime), and might employ the equivalent of artificial wormholes or "spacetime bending/distortion" as a means to go from one place (or time!) to another. <br /><br />Vallee has noted, speculatively, that he thinks the EDH, or "extradimensional hypothesis" is more likely than the "nuts 'n bolts school" of the more mainstream belief in the ETH, i.e., beings traveling to here over immense, interstellar distances in purely physical "spaceships" from another solar system, based on his field research and somewhat ambiguous interpretation of the UFO phenomenon. <br /><br />But Vallee does not reject the ETH, either -- he wisely keeps his options open, since no one really knows for sure, and multiple possibilities may co-exist. <br /><br />This also relates to string theory, quantum gravity, supersymmetry, and the idea of the universe as a stochastic information "system." <br /><br />References:<br /><br />See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9pR0gfil_0<br /><br />[Vallee's Brussels TEDx talk, "A Theory of Everything (else)"] <br /><br />See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdimensional_hypothesis<br /><br />See also: http://bit.ly/1jgCex<br /><br />["Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects" by Jacques Vallee, SSE/JSE, 1990)<br /><br />Vallee has also developed the EDH theory more clearly and at greater length in his book "Dimensions."Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-57999203778778372382012-10-05T13:25:18.820-07:002012-10-05T13:25:18.820-07:00Oh now, Chuck. I haven't taken over for anyone...Oh now, Chuck. I haven't taken over for anyone. I am merely me and have my own beliefs. It's likely that I will not be joining in your discussions because I don't have the words or any proof ( btw, thank you for the pep talk, Steve. ) for what I believe in. It's better left to experts such as yourselves. I inserted myself where I did not and do not belong. I may have connections to the Wilcox Family as I said but that still doesn't justify anything. And yes, Jesse M. Jr. was my neighbor here in Helena and I went to school with his son. They are both great men who I look up to and respect. Just like I respect you guys. I really do. At least you have the balls to go after this case and write what you believe. It's actually good that you are arguing or rather, going back and forth. Like I said, I apologize and that's the best I can really do. I only hope something great comes out of all this ( maybe it already has! ). I wish you all the best and I'll be right here in beautiful Montana minding my business and digging old bottles like I usually do unless it's snowing! Take care you guys and cheers! No Chuck, I am not the new KK! - BooneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-19784577827785351352012-10-05T08:15:09.597-07:002012-10-05T08:15:09.597-07:00so guys - think maybe the BH has taken over for th...so guys - think maybe the BH has taken over for the late KK?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02279373418277865493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-745261209361549962012-10-05T07:41:09.857-07:002012-10-05T07:41:09.857-07:00Part 2 of 2:
I guess what I'm trying in a gen...Part 2 of 2:<br /><br />I guess what I'm trying in a general sense to get at here, Boone (and to others here), is that we all, as humans, inherently have some degree of belief and confirmation bias operating, whether we're conscious of it (or willing to admit it), or not. It's part of our human nature. <br /><br />The Roswell incident, whatever it truly was, is a crucial "inflection point" in considering the foremost and most ponderous question that confronts ufology (and science, in ways), which is whether we are "alone" or not, and if not, has any form of advanced non-human intelligence (ANHI), regardless of whether you use the convenient terms of <i>interpretation</i> like extraterrestrial, interdimensional, cryptoterrestrial, or simply an unknown "other," actually been here in the past and/or may be here now, and if there is in fact any form (or forms) of ANHI present today, or not. <br /><br />That is the <i>sine qua non</i> and prerequisite first question that must be addressed and resolved before we can progress, IMHO. <br /><br />Beyond that, if one speculates, as I do, that the historical UFO record, and circumstantial evidence, suggest that ANHI may very well be the case, then the penultimate questions are how and why, and what are "they" doing here, especially in regard to our species and this planet? And how do you <i><b>prove</b></i> it?<br /><br />To me, the possible nature(s) and origins of such an "other" is, while important, secondary to the unresolved preliminary question of whether "they" truly exist or not. <br /><br />That is why scientifically and objectively investigating the Roswell incident is so essential and critical.<br /><br />We must not become trapped by and should avoid what Vallee calls "first-level" interpretations or anthropocentric belief systems about UFOs. We must use the tools and technology of science to derive evidence independent of anecdotal or recollected experience in order to develop logical hypotheses or theory, not the other way around. <br /><br />Or, as Sgt. Joe Friday in "Dragnet" used to say, "Just the facts, ma'am." 8^}<br /><br />[Which also reminds me of Paul Kimball's motto or imperative: "Don't believe. Don't disbelieve. Think." And to which I'd add, "And then question what you may think." In this field especially, you have to be your own “devil’s advocate,” and challenge any presumptions that may arise.] <br /><br />How might we better approach these questions, reducing as best we can bias and belief to an absolute minimum, in order to more properly explore and investigate this potentially world and paradigm changing matter, or "challenge to science," as Vallee put it? <br /><br />That is difficult to say, given what Billy Cox often refers to as the “Great Taboo” of seriously considering or recognizing that the UFO phenomenon deserves a concerted, full-scale and public scientific investigation, and why that is so. <br /><br />Unfortunately, it would have taken (and still requires) a well-funded, multi-phasic, properly planned and major instrumented effort by qualified scientists in a variety of relevant fields, coordinated and authorized by the government to access and analyze confidential sensor data and other means to conduct a serious, high-level project over a number of years, and which is extremely unlikely to ever occur (at least in the acknowleged public realm), due to an apparent lack of genuine interest and consensus on the part of both the vast majority of the public and particularly those elements of government that, if the phenomenon <i>does</i> involve ANHI, would have and will continue to keep it secret, due to the potential implications for humanity and perceived national security concerns. <br /><br />For some insight into these latter issues, see:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertson_Panel and http://www.cufon.org/cufon/robert.htm<br /><br />Speculation is fine, and if so characterized as such, but <i><b>assume nothing.</b></i><br /><br />Caveat emptor.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-75245343381732382192012-10-05T06:29:28.011-07:002012-10-05T06:29:28.011-07:00I'll just unnecessarily also say I am in compl...I'll just unnecessarily also say I am in complete agreement with Steve's above comment...thanks Boone for your comments and don't worry about it...skeptics have to have a thick skin to discuss the paranormal amongst enthusiasts because we start from what is seen as a hostile position.<br /><br />I could definitely be more polite and I'll strive to remember that and actually do it!<br /><br />We do argue a lot here (and elsewhere on this topic). I'm not totally sure if any of it does any good but here we are so...often if it looks like a bunch of folks talking past each other, unfortunately it often is!<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-13612169191027691112012-10-05T05:39:54.578-07:002012-10-05T05:39:54.578-07:00"I am a bit puzzled by this idea of the Roswe..."I am a bit puzzled by this idea of the Roswell saucer coming from 'another dimension'."<br /><br />Other dimensions should be verified before anyone attributes anything such as UFOs to them.starmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09884942748644499035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-53761695660786572542012-10-05T02:33:32.637-07:002012-10-05T02:33:32.637-07:00Boone H:
There is no need to be "sorry"...Boone H:<br /><br />There is no need to be "sorry" about anything. You believe what you want and debate it here. It is all part of the game. <br /><br />I am a bit puzzled by this idea of the Roswell saucer coming from 'another dimension'. If this were the case, surely it should never have crashed at all. But these are probably matters beyond the understanding of any of us (including the top USAF intelligence officers who looked into the case). It would be safer to stick to the dimensions we know, i.e. 3 of space and one of time. <br /><br />Apart from that, by all means join in the debate, but beware - we often, very often, stray from the topic.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-69697875187758406512012-10-05T01:53:17.877-07:002012-10-05T01:53:17.877-07:00@BooneH:
Part 1 of 2:
I'm glad you came came...@BooneH:<br /><br />Part 1 of 2:<br /><br />I'm glad you came came back to apologize, since I was perplexed by your initial comment here, and was wondering just how to respond, or if I <i>should,</i> since it was mainly directed at Lance, even though you <i>did</i> say:<br /><br /> "<i>...it just gets really tiring reading your comments ( and I mean <b>all</b> of you ) and <b>you all</b> just keep trying to either defend yourselves or poke and prod at each other. Is that getting any answers to the big question? No, it's not. So, can we please stop this back and forth bickering and concentrate on what is important? What is important is getting and finding the correct and right evidence and proving that the Roswell Crash was exactly what we all ( well, most of us, anyway! ) think it was."</i> <b>and</b> <i>"It's just been painful watching <b>you all</b> go back and forth here. All I know is that Roswell happened and it was exactly what the majority of us think it was. A ship or some kind of vehicle from somewhere not on this planet or dimension."</i><br /><br />[<b>bold</b> emphasis added]<br /><br />How does someone, from either the debunking pseudo-skeptical school, honestly skeptical, or even "crashed vehicle" Roswell advocacy faction rationally and coherently respond to such comments? Let me try:<br /><br /><b>You</b> may be convinced that the Roswell incident was the crash of a "flying saucer" as they were originally termed, or as you put it, the <i>"crash of an Extraterrestrial or other dimensional ship,"</i> but that's simply <i>your <b>belief,</b></i> <b>_not_</b> an established or proven <b>fact,</b> as yet, if ever. <br /><br />It it were, a proven fact, then I suspect we wouldn't be so strenuously arguing these issues, now would we?<br /><br />Ask yourself, honestly, <i>precisely <b>why</b></i> do you think that? What is it based upon? Where is the concrete, vetted evidence that is so convincing to you? <br /><br />Or, as actress Clara Peller once famously asked in an old Wendy's hamburger commercial, <i>"Where's the <b>beef?"</b></i> 8^}<br /><br />This all goes to the critical question of <b>ontology</b>, or <i>how and why</i> we think (or believe) or know something, or better, what is or is not, or the nature of reality, and the bases for belief vs. proof and substantiated evidence. <br /><br />How and why do we really know what we <i><b>think</b></i> we know?<br /><br />See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology <br /><br />And that's exactly why these debates and conflicting opinions are still ongoing -- because the proof, <i>either way,</i> is still not sufficiently established or available (to the public, at least). In other words, you may be right. But, you may also be wrong. I don't know, for a fact, and you don't either.<br /><br />As a famous (and honest) skeptic, Marcello Truzzi once said (and as Carl Sagan later paraphrased and popularized), "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof." Nothing less. <br /><br />See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi<br /><br />And when you say, "What is important is getting and finding the correct and right evidence and proving that the Roswell Crash was exactly what we all ( well, most of us, anyway! ) think it was," I'd have to differ, and suggest that what that statement reveals is a form of "confirmation bias."<br /><br />See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias<br /><br />The point is <b>not</b> to attempt to gain the evidence that confirms what we may already think or <b>believe,</b> but to empirically try to objectively determine by what the testable facts in this case are, either way, and regardless of what we may think, be predisposed to, or conditioned to believe beforehand, in order to derive the truth. <br /><br />Anything less is not science, and is only circumstantial, at best.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-52015207361646631752012-10-04T16:24:44.055-07:002012-10-04T16:24:44.055-07:00Hey guys,
Sorry about the post yesterday. I reall...Hey guys,<br /><br />Sorry about the post yesterday. I really should have edited myself before posting my comment, I see that now. I sure didn't mean to come across as a sh*thead like I did. I really shouldn't be trying to get up in your all's business anyway. I apologize and especially to Lance. I'm sorry, sir. It wasn't right of me to go off on you or anyone. I guess what it comes down to is that I'm very tired of all the BS that has gone on for years regarding this case. I still think the majority of us know exactly what happened at Roswell. Mainly, I wanted to apologize for butting into something that was not my business. Sorry guys. Carry on by all means and I'll keep my mouth shut from now on! I will now go sit in the corner where I belong. - BooneHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-33151350570312051372012-10-04T09:17:04.073-07:002012-10-04T09:17:04.073-07:00CDA -
Before we move onto something else, let me ...CDA -<br /><br />Before we move onto something else, let me say that I have been reviewing documentation in the last few days, documents with a known provenance, documents from a variety of sources, and I believe that we just might be able to link the object in the air with the crash on the Foster ranch...<br /><br />This is, of course, if the diaries exist, if we can find them, if we are allowed to read them and if they contain descriptions with enough detail, then a connection might be made.<br /><br />But, that's a lot of "ifs" and at the moment, we only know of the specific diaries that are not nearly old enough. The serach continues. My point, however, is you can't say they are worthless without knowing what they say, specifically... with enough detail, we just might be able to connect the two events.KRandlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06333125414889883920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-22796119676763492092012-10-04T07:22:34.074-07:002012-10-04T07:22:34.074-07:00I've read your personal data. You say you shou...I've read your personal data. You say you should have been born in the 1850s. But if you had, think of all the crashed saucers you would have missed, as these didn't occur until the 1940s and 50s. <br /><br />And by the way, the government does NOT make death threats against people who have seen craft from other planets, other star systems or other dimensions (in time or space). <br /><br />No world government (even the USA) knows anything about such things. Not even so-called 'intelligence officers' in the military. They simply don't have the intelligence to understand it.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-164731640689655522012-10-03T19:49:22.671-07:002012-10-03T19:49:22.671-07:00Boone,
Thanks for the comments. I'm sure that...Boone,<br /><br />Thanks for the comments. I'm sure that some of what you say is true (especially the part about me looking like a jerk).<br /><br />I'll probably continue to keep forwarding the skeptical side of things. You might consider the idea that I come across as particularly nasty because you don't agree with my opinion?<br /><br />Every once in a while, though, it is good for me to consider how hostile a counter opinion can seem to someone on the other side. I think that is just the way it is. <br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-80959215271090781492012-10-03T16:08:03.805-07:002012-10-03T16:08:03.805-07:00Lance,
Please! Just stop it. You're coming ac...Lance,<br /><br />Please! Just stop it. You're coming across as and being such a jerk here. I don't know you, and I probably don't want to. I don't know anyone involved in this whole thing except for J. Marcel Jr. who was my neighbor in Montana for a number of years. I also knew or know of Law Enforcement Officer Wilcox as he is a cousin of mine. What I want to say is this: Look what the Government spooks did to Mac Brazel. The man was just a normal cowboy who happened to find something odd and strange on the ranch he was taking care of. The Government threatened this man and his family with death if he talked about what he had seen. Would they do that if The Roswell Crash" as it is called, was a meteor or a stupid weather balloon? No. I don't think so. I wish you people would look at the larger picture here. It's so plainly obvious that something not from this world or perhaps dimension did in fact crash on the ranch outside of Roswell. Two somethings if you include the Aztec Crash or perhaps it was part of the same ship/vehicle that crashed on the ranch. I know enough to know what is true and what is BS. Lance, my dear man, you're merely poking and prodding at these investigators because YOU don't believe it was anything but a meteor or a balloon. These investigators are not stupid. Why not just stop poking and prying at them? I think they have got your hint by now. You keep repeating it over and over like some Government disinfo agent. I know that's not what you are but you sound like it because you keep going in circles. What you need to look at and what everyone else needs to remember is that Mac Brazel was a really nice, humble man and after the meeting with the Government thugs, he became withdrawn and somewhat hostile. He wouldn't ever talk about what he had found ever again. Same goes with a few other people who were involved at that time. It's just clearly obvious that something of a great magnitude did indeed happen at Roswell and our Government went to great lengths to hide it and terrorize anyone and everyone who had anything to do with it except those who were part of the whole cover up. Hey, maybe I'm not the most eloquent guy but it just gets really tiring reading your comments ( and I mean all of you ) and you all just keep trying to either defend yourselves or poke and prod at each other. Is that getting any answers to the big question? No, it's not. So, can we please stop this back and forth bickering and concentrate on what is important? What is important is getting and finding the correct and right evidence and proving that the Roswell Crash was exactly what we all ( well, most of us, anyway! ) think it was. The crash of an Extraterrestrial or other dimensional ship.? By all means continue arguing if that makes you all feel better but jeez, let's not forget what this is really about! Thanks and I apologize for just butting in like I did. It's just been painful watching you all go back and forth here. All I know is that Roswell happened and it was exactly what the majority of us think it was. A ship or some kind of vehicle from somewhere not on this planet or dimension. I'll tell you one thing, it's easy for someone like me to tell who is an old soul and who is a rather new soul. Cheers, Regards Etc - BHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-20216400669732252272012-10-01T08:31:33.544-07:002012-10-01T08:31:33.544-07:00Steve,
Thanks for the above well reasoned comment...Steve,<br /><br />Thanks for the above well reasoned comments.<br /><br />Yes, it is a presumption to assume that reports like Moore's are likely prosaic. I am aware that I could be wrong. What I do know is that there is good evidence that witnesses get their descriptions wrong or miss details that later explain their sightings in prosaic terms...and even very good and qualified witnesses do this. <br /><br />I can not say that this happened in Moore's case. The skeptical response is just that a prosaic explanation is the most likely answer.<br /><br />From experience, I don't accept the witness accounts as a final authority on sightings. <br /><br />It's just betting on the odds or Occam's razor.<br /><br />I wish that could tell you what Moore saw but I can not.<br /><br />Nor can you tell me.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />Lance<br /><br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-43016433021095220632012-10-01T04:30:05.631-07:002012-10-01T04:30:05.631-07:00Part 2 of 2:
[Sorry for the long delay in posting...Part 2 of 2:<br /><br />[Sorry for the long delay in posting this part 2 -- I got distracted by something else while composing it, and forgot to post it earlier.]<br /><br />So here we have a case involving someone who was quite obviously qualified and equipped to accurately observe and report something that even the debunking U.S.A.F. at the time could not explain away, and Moore is a well-known skeptic in regard to UFOs in general (as far as the ETH is concerned) and specifically a debunker of Roswell, as you are also. <br /><br />But, when he had his own sighting, he could not dismiss it, and was upset when others, like Menzel, apparently tried to refute it or dismiss it. <br /><br />Did Moore "...exaggerate, misrepresent, overlook, and conflate the actual data" in your opinion? Or was he truthful and objective in his observation and reported recollections of it?<br /><br />I guess my point here is that you can't have it both ways, now can you? <br /><br />If even a skeptic and Roswell debunker such as Moore says he and four others observed for about a minute an "ellipsoid" object that appeared so anomalous and whose motion was so fast and erratic that even Moore would tell Hynek he was "disgusted" that the U.S.A.F., in his opinion, showed a "lack of attention" to such a UFO report, doesn't it begin to at make you at least <i>partially</i> consider that in some reported UFO cases, particularly multiple-witness cases involving presumably objective observers (although, granted, relatively rare within the overall history of reported UFOs), that even though there was no "hard" evidence to follow-up on, something significant may have transpired? <br /><br /><i>"As I said, this seems to lead nowhere. There is nothing to hang onto and no avenue for further investigation (that I am aware of). You pointed me to a page of many cases, quite a few of which were just lights in the sky<br /><br />"You may well conclude that there is something exotic about the case and I certainly will suggest that there is more likely a prosaic cause."</i><br /><br />More likely a prosaic cause? Isn't that a presumption? What does Moore's description logically suggest to you? <br /><br />[And, actually, I pointed you to a page in an earlier comment here listing a variety of cases from the period under discussion (and which note daytime sightings of various disc, egg, spherical, and cigar-shaped "objects", not simply "lights in the sky"), but the cite in Part 1 of my comment here was exclusively in regard to additional documentation of only Moore's case.] <br /><br />I would agree that, with the observation Moore reported in 1949, that there "is nothing to hang onto and no avenue for further investigation," as it seems no contemporaneous sightings on that particular day, time, and area were reported, but Moore did report what he apparently observed, and I think an important point is that the Moore case should be considered as part of series of New Mexico UFO reports in that timeframe by qualified military personnel and civilian scientists, not just yokels or "believers," and possibly indicative of a <i>_pattern_</i> of similar regional sightings in that era that were determined after some investigation as "unknowns," not meteors, balloons, or other prosaic phenomena, and remain unexplained, not just due to the variegated morphology of the objects seen, but also their anomalous in-flight motions or "behaviors," which in some even rarer cases of rapid retreat from aerial pursuit suggest <i>reactivity</i> to attempts at close observation, and thus, potentially, some form of intelligently-controlled flight. <br /><br />That, to me at least, is suggestive of an ongoing phenomenon of unknown nature which should have been investigated much more thoroughly, given the nature of such cases.<br /><br />I chose Moore's case as an illustration of someone skeptical of the UFO phenomenon (or at least the ETH interpretation), <i>except</i> when it came to his own observation of it. <br /><br />That often seems to make all the difference in attitude.Steve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-89469470965343054932012-10-01T03:13:24.209-07:002012-10-01T03:13:24.209-07:00Steve Sawyer:
"So, I would ask LM and CDA to...Steve Sawyer:<br /><br />"So, I would ask LM and CDA to respond how they might explain such sightings. Aren't these kind of incidents a form of evidence that something other than meteors or other natural phenomena were involved?"<br /><br />I have never claimed to be a 100% skeptic, in the sense I can explain each and every sighting. <br /><br />The one by Charles Moore is exceptional and I have no desire to even try, considering that the blog is supposed to be about what two nuns saw one evening in July (and whether it can be used to confirm Roswell).<br /><br />So my answer to you is "I do not know". Period.<br /><br />We are discussing aspects of Roswell and possible confirmation or disconfirmation thereof. <br /><br />I agree with Lance that the whole of Roswell is a shambles, from start to finish, if you regard the 'start' as being when Friedman first met Marcel in early 1978. <br /><br />And to re-emphasize what I said before: there is no documented thunderstorm or explosion at the supposed time of the event. None whatever.cdahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01005702597775594084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-15637359770738841882012-09-30T20:57:22.169-07:002012-09-30T20:57:22.169-07:00Steve,
I am certainly aware of the Moore case. I...Steve, <br /><br />I am certainly aware of the Moore case. It isn't much more that a light in the sky but I admit that it is a no detail object in the daylight sky.<br /><br />As I said, this seems to lead nowhere. There is nothing to hang onto and no avenue for further investigation (that I am aware of). You pointed me to a page of many cases, quite a few of which were just lights in the sky<br /><br />You may well conclude that there is something exotic about the case and I certainly will suggest that there is more likely a prosaic cause.<br /><br />That's why I try to focus on cases that involve more actual evidence. And almost without exception, that stuff leads to a prosaic cause.<br /><br />It is infuriating when such evidence supposedly exists but the mystery mongers work against coming to a solution. The current Frank Kimbler nonsense is an example that comes to mind.<br /><br />I realize that you don't agree with the skeptical side but you aren't standing on much when it comes to evidence.<br /><br />And as far as Roswell goes, the entire idea is a farce.<br /><br />Lance Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-75139912891101483422012-09-30T19:01:24.669-07:002012-09-30T19:01:24.669-07:00@LM:
Part 1 of 2
"The bottom line is that l...@LM:<br /><br />Part 1 of 2<br /><br /><i>"The bottom line is that lights in the sky reports lead nowhere. Much of that which is reported as "evidence" as above turns out to be conflated and misrepresented. That which is left, who knows?"</i><br />~ ~ ~<br /><i>"One of the biggest problems is the way believers exaggerate, misrepresent, overlook, and conflate the actual data."</i><br /><br />Well Lance, there you go <i><b>again.</b></i> <br /><br />Doesn't being such a vehement pseudo-skeptical debunker ever become a bit... tiring? 8^}<br /><br />In the reports I referred to above, we are <i><b>not</b></i> simply looking at "...lights in the sky reports" as you deliberately and falsely mischaracterize them. Talk about paranoid style. <br /><br />C.B. Moore definitively stated, in both 1949 and again later in 1986, in reply to a query by Dr. Bruce Macabee about his sighting, that he observed an object, not simply a light in the sky, and as you would know if you'd read the details of Moore's statements and report of the incident. <br /><br />Specifically, Moore said the following in his original 1949 letter to the U.S. Air Force (excerpted): "I saw a rapidly moving object while making a pibal wind run."<br />~ ~ ~<br />"The object was moving too fast to crank the theodolite around, therefore one of the men pointed the theodolite and I looked.<br /><br />"The object was an ellipsoid about 2½:1 slenderness ratio, length about .02 degrees subtended angle, and white in color, except for a light yellow of one side as though it were in shadow. I could not get a hard focus on the object due to the speed at which the angles changed. Therefore I saw no good detail at all."<br />~ ~ ~<br />"The object was not a balloon and was some distance away. Assuming escape velocity, a track was figured which put the elevation about the station of about 300,000 feet over the observed period. If this is true, the flight would have probably gone over the White Sands Proving Ground, Holloman Air Force Base and Los Alamos.<br /><br />"We made another pibal wind run 15 minutes later. This balloon burst after an 88 minute flight of 93,000 feet only 13 miles due south of us. Therefore this object could not have been a free balloon moving at such angular speed below 90,000 feet."<br /><br />So in this rather pertinent case, we have an experienced senior scientist, in the company of 4 Navy technicians, who reported he saw an <b>object,</b> not a balloon, not a "light in the sky," but what appeared to him as an "ellipsoid about 2½:1 slenderness ratio," primarily white in color, flying at an estimated 7 miles per second while exhibiting several anomalous changes in angular motion so rapidly he could not keep his theodolite focused on the object, and against the prevailing winds. <br /><br />In Moore's letter to Maccabee from 1986, he reiterated the following:<br /><br />"What I saw was not a mirage; it was a craft with highly unusual performance. It was not a balloon; at the time we were the innovators and manufacturers of the new balloons and I certainly would have known about any new developments as I was newly in charge of General Mill's Balloon operations. It was not the X-1 that was in its hangar at Muroc [Edwards AFB, California] that Sunday. It was nothing from White Sands nor from Alamogordo. ...We were in contact with Range Control and were informed our operation was the only one active on Sunday. For these reasons I am cynical about Dr. Menzel and his approach to science." <br /><br />According to Dr. Allen Hynek, Moore also told him he was "disgusted" with the Air Force for its lack of attention to the sighting. Interestingly enough, the U.S.A.F. concluded Moore's sighting was an unknown, or UFO. <br /><br />See further detailed documentation at: <br /><br />http://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/arrey49.htmSteve Sawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716314515943305158noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-71995608335460583502012-09-30T16:34:13.249-07:002012-09-30T16:34:13.249-07:00Steve Sawyer asked:
And, to David, do you know if...Steve Sawyer asked:<br /><br /><i>And, to David, do you know if FOIA's or MDA's have been submitted in the past to attempt to unearth the films of these objects taken at WSMR, and if so, what the results were?</i><br /><br />Steve, the most extensive analysis of the White cinetheodolite sightings can be found at Bruce Maccabee's website:<br /><br />http://brumac.8k.com/WhiteSandsProof/WhiteSandsProof.html<br /><br />In one of the sightings, from the film and triangulation from at least one other theodolite station, there were four objects about 30 feet in diameter, at about 150,000 feet altitude, and traveling at an indeterminate but high speed.<br /><br />Obviously "meteors."<br /><br />As can be seen, much of the evidence was misrepresented and suppressed in the final Project Twinkle report. The original Twinkle head, a Dr. Mariarchi, became one of Lance's "nutty believers" and "conspiractor buffs", even going public the following year to rebuff the Navy's claim that people were just seeing Skyhook balloons.<br /><br />Another one of those nutty White Sands conspiracy buff believers was Commander Robert McLaughlin, the head of the Navy's missile program there, who went public in 1950 saying the object's being seen in the area were extraterrestrial. He had seen one himself during a missile launch along with a bunch of people at various tracking stations. He also mentions the Project Mogul/Charles Moore sighting through a theodolite of another object:<br /><br />http://www.nicap.org/true-mc.htm<br /><br />Here's a letter McLaughlin wrote earlier to Dr. James van Allen (of van Allen radiation belt infamy) mentioning his sighting and that of Moore's, plus Clyde Tombaugh:<br /><br />http://www.roswellproof.com/McLaughlin_Van_Allen_letter.html<br /><br />(You'll also notice McLaughlin calling Moore the head of "Project Mogul", despite Moore's later dubious claim that he never knew the supposedly super "top secret" project name until the 1990's.)<br /><br />A listing of other balloon project related UFO sightings:<br /><br />http://www.roswellproof.com/mogul_ufos.html<br /><br />http://www.roswellproof.com/Balloon_UFO_Sightings.html<br /><br />There were other interesting cases around White Sands in June/July 1947 in my list, such as the three Naval missile scientists on June 29 of seeing a bright, silvery disc traveling at high speed that seemed to suddenly disappear after they had watched it for about one minute. This got national press coverage on July 8 because one of them (Zohn) reported the sighting to the newspapers when he was back in Washington.<br /><br />The official "explanation" in this case was not that these expert witnesses had seen a "meteor" but a "balloon".<br /><br />Another set of sightings I find very interesting was on the night of July 8. This started in El Paso at 9:40 p.m. when three witnesses reported a "disc" over the city that disappeared over the mountain north of town.<br /><br />This was followed by a group of people in Las Cruces, who said they saw the following (as I summarized):<br /><br />"Mr. and Mrs. E. B. Farmer with friends Mr. and Mrs Enoch Hughes and daughter Lilly saw a large light coming from the south (from direction of El Paso). Mr. Farmer said the object appeared larger than an automobile head light and was traveling at a terrific rate of speed. It left a tail similar to a comet. As it traveled north between Las Cruces and the Organ Mountains to the east, it burst into three pieces. Immediately search lights went up from the White Sands Proving Grounds east of the mountains and 'searched the skies for an indefinite length of time.'" (Las Cruces Citizen, 7/18/47) <br /><br />Apparently White Sands Proving Grounds went on alert for one of Gille's and Lance's "meteors".David Rudiakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10213284910238852377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-33069858545180393202012-09-30T16:08:46.905-07:002012-09-30T16:08:46.905-07:00David, your creativity is impressive.
Have you tr...David, your creativity is impressive.<br /><br />Have you tried, "I know you are but what am I?"<br />Who am I kidding, of course you have!<br /><br />The point is that in the desert, a few pieces of debris could easily be spread over a wide area. Just as you get to one, you might then see another bit further along and in that way you could cover a large area and yet still find a very small amount of debris.<br /><br />Nowhere but in saucer believer land would anyone dispute the above. How is Rudiak disputing it? Why just by saying so, of course.<br /><br />LanceLancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11558306.post-45221882384749888512012-09-30T15:56:57.096-07:002012-09-30T15:56:57.096-07:00Steve,
The bottom line is that lights in the sky ...Steve,<br /><br />The bottom line is that lights in the sky reports lead nowhere. Much of that which is reported as "evidence" as above turns out to be conflated and misrepresented. That which is left, who knows?<br /><br />A skeptic can only say that there is no evidence that it is OMG! Aliens. Indeed, in cases where the evidence is copious, you are very likely to find a prosaic explanation. <br /><br />I, along with other skeptics have looked into many cases and tried to address some of the so-called "best ones". All of the top ten best lists contain a motley collection of cases, virtually all of which have real problems. <br /><br />One of the biggest problems is the way believers exaggerate, misrepresent, overlook, and conflate the actual data.<br /><br />If we find a problem with a case, the true believer won't be discouraged, he simply points to another case.<br /><br />I took a look at the conspiracy buff site you link and notice that each case is told in conspiracy-speak with a sneering discussion and hand waving dismissal of official explanation. Anyone who questions the data is just a debunker.<br /><br />Look above and tell me, is David Rudiak now suggesting that his June 27th "meteor" sighting is the real Roswell crash date--he takes pains to put the report near the Foster ranch? Or maybe that is another crash since other Roswell buffs insist upon several other dates? Kevin fancies July 4th, I think. They can come up with up "facts" that support any date you want. This is the paranoid style.<br /><br />And for a certain mindset, that is good enough. Feel free to enjoy their "science"! You may want to reread the original article this comment is linked to before you complain about MY response time.<br /><br />Lance<br />Lancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17280922104955532058noreply@blogger.com