NASA are the military.

No. And since you live in England and have never been with 1,000 miles of any substantial piece of NASA, I can't imagine that you know what you're talking about.

Do you really think they would want China or a revamped Soviet Union discovering potential weapons of galactic destruction?

Circular.

I am different. I do believe some in the military.

So in one breath you dismiss NASA because you say they are "military" and therefore not to be trusted. Then you turn around and cite military officers whose unsubstantiated, uncorroborated testimony you accept without question, in the face of evidence to the contrary. Can we expect to enjoy some reconciliation of this contradiction?

You simply assign credibility to someone based on whether he supports or undermines your predetermined conclusions. Your standards of evidence have nothing to do with the objective quality of that evidence, merely whether it agrees with you.

I have an open mind.

No, you have a mind open only to UFO conspiracy theories. Your mind isn't open enough to question evidence that agrees with your conclusions. That is true open-mindedness.

You reject the evidence out of hand as all who have contributed to this thread.

No, we reject it because it's illogical, farfetched, and unsubstantiated. We don't reject it "out of hand".

Perhaps you can give a logical reason why this hasnt stirred any interest given the interest there is in UFO in America.

Because, despite the vocal conspiracy theory enthusiasts, there are reasonable people in America and in the rest of the world. These are people who demand more than unsubstantiated storytelling before acting.

What is an eye-witness? Someone who just says: "I've seen this or that!"?

Yes, that is exactly what an eyewitness is.

LOL. Evidence of ones eyes now being ridiculed.

Eyewitness testimony is very unreliable.

First you have the simple issue of honesty. If I say I saw Elvis, how are you to know whether I actually saw someone I took to be Elvis or whether I'm just making it up in order to attract attention? The UFO community has been constantly beset by people who claim extraordinary things that can't be substantiated. Go read the stuff that was produced in the 1950s and 1960s. There are people who are blatantly lying. What convinces us that this can't be the case today?

Aside from malicious intent you have the inability of people to accurately recall things without distortion and ebellishment. People naturally "fill in the blanks" and then swear it was something they observed.

This phenomenon has been studied extensively in several disciplines (scientific observation, law, psychology) and is beyond question. I supplied citations to the standard references on this subject on ApolloHoax.

You imply that eyewitness testimony is indisputable. Those who know better strongly disagree with that.

I cant win here and that is how you must keep the argument going.

You can't win because you are unwilling to apply reasonable standards of evidence to your case, nor are you willing to offer what reasonable people accept as evidence. You get upset because people don't immediately buy into your hearsay and conjecture. You want to characterize yourself as a well-informed insider, when in fact you're simply a gullible reader of tabloid gossip.

Tossing aside all the overwhelming evidence that the Apollo missions went pretty much as the record states, and found pretty much what the record states, in favor of a few recordings (of alleged secret testimony by allegedly relevant sources who allegedly know what they're talking about) on a web site somewhere?

Thanks Mr? STS60 allegedly. At least they'd put a name to their testimony. And on oath.

"NASA is a civilian organisation."

Ho-ho-ho. Well its nearly Christmas Jimbo. Not strictly, true but you know whose in charge of security?

I do not accept the Disclosure Project as a reliable source, especially now that I have to write a check to them in order to hear their evidence

If http://www.clavius.org had the same bandwidth usuage as http://www.disclosureproject.org (you can dream), I'd like to see how you'd be funding your site. Selling Sibrels DVDs on a street-corner probably. Buzz's bodyguard?

But unfortunately your underhanded, ad hominem techniques are not allowed here on this board.
We also know just how tenuous Carrot Cruncher's welcome is on Bad Astronomy. You may be able to bluster your way around the hapless teenage webmaster at ApolloHoax, but here your tactics are not tolerated.

You ALWAYS call to arms your troops of supporters. Sad. If anyone seriously took offence and my kick-butt phrase (I doubt) I will tell you now, I wasnt being literal.

Why do you think my hypothesis stated that every unsubstantiated, sensationalist story must be reported in the mainstream U.S. press?

If evidence of Earth visiting alien lifeforms (true or false) is brought into the public domain by insiders that have some hefty credentials, your money-loving capitalistic orientated society would surely wish to exploit this?
UFOs and aliens are widely excepted amongst US citizens. Plenty of customers.
100% proof would not be a guiding factor for journalists as you well know.

The UFO community has been constantly beset by people who claim extraordinary things that can't be substantiated. Go read the stuff that was produced in the 1950s and 1960s. There are people who are blatantly lying. What convinces us that this can't be the case today?

You didnt download the FAA Inspector claims to why these nerds are the only people allowed on TV to claim UFO sightings.
You couldnt bring yourself to listen to "evidence". Admit it.

Here it is again. Listen, learn.
FAA Division Chief John Callahan
http://www.topsecrettestimony.com/wt...s/callahan.asx (Download with ASFRecorder v1.1 then play)

I response to "Do you really think they would want China or a revamped Soviet Union discovering potential weapons of galactic destruction?"

Circular.

Yep the galaxy is circularish. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
I dont think any military is worried about your stringent logical reasoning standards, as if you could reason with logic when you have a gun held to your head by a crazed terrorist. Hence the Vulcan neck pinch.

You imply that eyewitness testimony is indisputable. Those who know better strongly disagree with that.

I never implied is was indisputable. Just more reliable.

You want to characterize yourself as a well-informed insider, when in fact you're simply a gullible reader of tabloid gossip.

Dont buy Tabloid newspapers and dont like gossip. If thats how you see UFOs, then you will never lower yourself to pay a paltry $7.00/month to go and have a listen to 3 hours a month of Disclosure Project testimonies.
Quality sometimes come with a price. Even for non-profit organisations as Dr. Greers.

I assume you mean "ignoramus".

No. It was a joke: http://www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/Bugs/Bugs34.wav



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Slime (Silky Smooth) on 2002-10-10 15:00 ]</font>

Not strictly, true but you know whose in charge of security?

The military was in charge of security for the Salt Lake 2002 winter Olympic Games. I saw this first hand. Does that mean Salt Lake City is now a military installation or that the Olympics are now being run by the military?

I repeat: you have absolutely no first hand knowledge or experience with NASA. I don't accept you as someone with the knowledge or qualifications to characterize NASA as a civilian or military organization.

If http://www.clavius.org had the same bandwidth usuage as http://www.disclosureproject.org (you can dream), I'd like to see how you'd be funding your site.

There are lots of high-bandwidth sites that don't require subscriptions. I have no "dream" of Clavius consuming lots of bandwidth.

I simply wonder why all these organizations which profess to have the "hidden truth" seem to want your money before they'll tell you what it is.

You ALWAYS call to arms your troops of supporters. Sad.

If you'll notice carefully, your opposition in this thread is composed of people who are not me, and who have spontaneously offered their objections to your statements without being bidden by me. If you're upset because I have supporters, that's your problem. Perhaps it's because my ideas strike a more responsive chord than yours.

If evidence of Earth visiting alien lifeforms (true or false) is brought into the public domain by insiders that have some hefty credentials, your money-loving capitalistic orientated society would surely wish to exploit this?

Your supposition, not mine. And you did not answer my question about misrepresenting my hypothesis.

You couldnt bring yourself to listen to "evidence". Admit it.

Well, I'm at work right now dividing my attention among many things. I may listen to it later when I need a good laugh. As I have stated on numerous occasions, I am not generally impressed with the statements of Disclosure Project "witnesses".

Further, I could not bring myself to subscribe to the service to hear something I may not believe is worth the price. At least in a bookstore I can thumb through a book for free and see if it's something I want to spend my money on. The "Pay first, and then we'll tell you what we have," business model does not impress me.

Yep the galaxy is circularish.

And so is your argument. Dismissed.

I dont think any military is worried about your stringent logical reasoning standards

The characteristics of logic apply to every argument just as surely as the rules of physics apply without compromise to the nature of the universe. Your argument presumes its own conclusion, therefore it proves nothing.

... as if you could reason with logic when you have a gun held to your head by a crazed terrorist.

Irrelevant. You have made a blatantly illogical argument and I don't buy it.

I never implied is was indisputable. Just more reliable.

Well, you're mocking us for disputing it. That seems to suggest you believe it's indisputable. But to address your fine point, eyewitness testimony is not reliable, and the question has been thoroughly studied.

Quality sometimes come with a price. Even for non-profit organisations as Dr. Greers.

The quality of evidence I have heard for free from Dr. Greer's organization, before he started charging for it, does not give me confidence that I will hear better quality for money.

The problem remains: your standard of evidence is simply what agrees with your ideas, not what ought to be considered reliable.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-10-10 15:54 ]</font>

What exactly is a weapon of galactic destruction? Perhaps another galaxy made completely of anti-matter? I think that any country would have trouble wielding such a weapon. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] I don't agree with you Slime (Silky Smooth), but you are keeping things interesting!

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

Well I would like to add something to this discussion, I can merely say:

GO JAY!

Ol' Slime was really getting on my nerves with ignorance, but then I remembered that ignorance is bliss, and figured that he got his handle from the $%*#(#*$#@$(#

Ok, Ok... I won't get personal. But I just get so fed up with people who belive that just because The Star has more copies sold it is "The Paper". Stuff in Pravda is right up there with rags like the one I saw today with the headline "3000 Year Old Mummy Pregnant! - Janitor admits 'I'm the Father!'"

There is a reason that newspapers like this have a loyal readership of people who barely have a High School education and a low income. These papers give thier readers an escape from the dull reality of work and family. Unfortunatly there are to many of these uneducated people who don't the difference between fact and fiction.

Ok, rant over... I swear...

Oh yeah, Jay, thanks for being the calm voice of reason, you enable me to not go on rampages beaking things and screaming "You're all idiots!" so, thanks again.

__________________
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit... It's the only way to be sure." Ripley/Hicks, Aliens

Not strictly, true but you know whose in charge of security?

Uh, private contractors?

http://www.thediamondgroup.ws

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

I second that. I'm so glad that there are people less emotional then I am on this board who can always present a clear and rational retort.

If it was me, I would just scream "You're all idiots!" too [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

Does that mean Salt Lake City is now a military installation or that the Olympics are now being run by the military?

No but it did then. Try to argue with the goon at the door with your logic and you'd get a rifle-butt in your gob.
BTW Hows the Utah water? Have you even heard. And that fluoride this was shameful wasnt it.

I repeat: you have absolutely no first hand knowledge or experience with NASA. I don't accept you as someone with the

knowledge or qualifications to characterize NASA as a civilian or military organization.

It is a government organisation who are funded by government taxes. What they say goes. Without a high level security pass,

none of us really knows who pulls the strings, or who put which 'yes-men' forward.
I think it is really telling how Kennedy's Space Race agenda overrided NASAs preferred direction of interplanetary travel in the 1960s.
According to Brian O'Leary (your friend and Clavius supporter) government control has got worse since then.

There are lots of high-bandwidth sites that don't require subscriptions.

And things are getting more and more expensive as the internet takes off and the AOL/Disney 'illuminati' big-wigs own the hardware.
The Disclosure Project May 9th 2001 Webcast was the largest webcast on the net, EVER. I have never heard you complaining about Apollo astronauts' memoirs not being handed out for $0.00.
Are you a communist Jay?

I simply wonder why all these organizations which profess to have the "hidden truth" seem to want your money before they'll tell you what it is.

With the Disclosure Project, much needed funds are required for bandwidth and for travelling expenses (new witnesses). Costs
of halls for public speaking are also astronomical, as you must realise as a touring castrato (or was that a tenor?).
I think D.P. did pretty well to last for a whole year before charging.

If you're upset because I have supporters, that's your problem. Perhaps it's because my ideas strike a more responsive chord than yours.

I dont care about your frends views Jay. It just a bit creepy when a grown man keeps hinting to teacher that there's a naughty boy in the classroom. Particularly when there isnt.

In response to "If evidence of Earth visiting alien lifeforms (true or false) is brought into the public domain by insiders that have some hefty credentials, your money-loving capitalistic orientated society would surely wish to exploit
this?"

Your supposition, not mine.

You havent told me which point(s) you disagree with or why?

And you did not answer my question about misrepresenting my hypothesis.

Seriously, I thought to answer a proper question than in inproper one would save you embarrassment.
Sensationalist stories, as you would call them, are by definition the big mass-interest ones.
The human interest in UFOs is only matched by the utter interest by your supporters in deriding them.
This thread was started by a debunker, you know?
Seems like this is a highly contentious issue that doesnt get the airing it deserves.
Now I can give reasons for the lack of media interest, but you cant.

I may listen to it later when I need a good laugh. As I have stated on numerous occasions, I am not generally impressed with the statements of Disclosure Project "witnesses".

You shouldnt be laughing at the evidence from FAA officials as they control the safety of millions of Americans every year.
He is either a lying nut and therefore dangerous and should not have held such a high position of trust, or he what he is saying is true.
Either way it is a public interest story which should be investigated at the highest level openly.

The characteristics of logic apply to every argument just as surely as the rules of physics apply without compromise to the nature of the universe. Your argument presumes its own conclusion, therefore it proves nothing.

You speek much of logic but never of common-sense. What I stated is common sense. If you wish to turn it into a chess game of wits, you are missing the point.
Let me explain. Spock (your mentor) might through logical deduction, deduce that debating logic isnt necessarily the best tool when life is in jeopardy. Hence extreme measures.
I shouldnt have to explain all this, its too obvious.

Well, you're mocking us for disputing it. That seems to suggest you believe it's indisputable. But to address your fine point, eyewitness testimony is not reliable, and the question has been thoroughly studied.

Firstly, I never implied is was indisputable. Just more reliable.
I dont mind people not agreeing with the evidence I put forward (God knows I've been wrong before).
As long as they dont dismiss it without evidence to the contrary. You have done so time and time again without even hearing the evidence given to you.
We should all be open minded and that is not something in abundance here.
You are not disputing it but actually denying it. Big difference.

I would really be interested in a point-by-point debunk of the FAA testimony.
Be nice to see how a debunkers mind operates. BTW I have seen the radar trace evidence and logs on the DVD.

I don't agree with you Slime (Silky Smooth), but you are keeping things interesting!

Sometimes we need fresh blood to stop these stagnant inbred debates from throwing yet another wobbly in the public forum gene-pool.
Perhaps I am this places' saviour from extinction. Dont all agree with me at once, bandwidth is costly. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Edited for format, not content.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Slime (Silky Smooth) on 2002-10-10 20:44 ]</font>

Slime,

Don't you think it's a little unreasonable to say "hey, look at this evidence," and then when someone is not convinced, say "you're all a bunch of closed-minded government stooges, etc."? Especially when your opponent could point to--literally--warehouses full of contradictory evidence that has been pored over by experts since it was collected... which you reject because it doesn't fit in with your theory? Who's being closed-minded here?

You've already hurt your cause by asserting falsities, such as:
-NASA is a military body
-Logic isn't a good way to conduct an argument (huh?)

Here's something else to chew on: I can tell you as a cast-iron fact that no editor in the world wouldn't love to get reliable, indisputable evidence of aliens or an alien encounter. For another fact, I can tell you that people try ALL THE TIME to persuade editors that they have such evidence. So why aren't the papers filled with stories of intergalatic visitors? 'Cuz the evidence invariably turns out to be flimsy and unbelievable.

Slime, people running reputable news organizations have zero incentive to cover up such activity and every incentive to print such an earth-shattering story. So you're left with expanding some nebulous "anti-alien information" conspiracy to include damn near every cigar-chomping city editor on the planet. It's pretty easy to come up with a counterexample to that claim. The result? Your argument (such as it is) that the whistleblowers' information is being surpressed by the media is left without a leg to stand on.

Please insert another quarter if you want to play again.

_________________
PC load letter? What the @%$# does that mean?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: overrated on 2002-10-10 21:25 ]</font>

Jay: Does that mean Salt Lake City is now a military installation or that the Olympics are now being run by the military?

No but it did then.

Wrong. I was there; you were not.

Try to argue with the goon at the door with your logic ...

Irrelevant. Your arguments are illogical and you don't care. Please give me a reason to listen to you.

It is a government organisation who are funded by government taxes.

Irrelevant. You claim NASA is a military organization. That is observably false, but you can't observe it first hand as we can.

The elementary school where I vote is also a government organization funded by taxes. Is it also a military organization? There is more to the government than just the military.

What they say goes.

Who is "they"?

Without a high level security pass, none of us really knows who pulls the strings

And that includes you. You have no evidence, by your own admission. Thank you for playing.

According to Brian O'Leary (your friend and Clavius supporter) government control has got worse since then.

You say that NASA is "military" and you have only managed to prove the rather obvious conclusion that NASA is part of the government. So what? We know that already. I expect NASA to be under government control.

and the AOL/Disney 'illuminati' big-wigs own the hardware.

Please limit yourself to three or fewer conspiracy theories per post. The world may be out to get you but it is not out to get the rest of us.

The Disclosure Project May 9th 2001 Webcast was the largest webcast on the net, EVER.

And the National Enquirer has the highest circulation of any newspaper. That doesn't make it true.

I have never heard you complaining about Apollo astronauts' memoirs not being handed out for $0.00.

Astronauts' memoirs can be (and frequently are) corroborated. And I can thumb through them before plunking my money down.

Are you a communist Jay?

No, but why is that relevant? The central tenet of capitalism is caveat emptor. Pardon me while I caveo.

Costs of halls for public speaking are also astronomical, as you must realise as a touring castrato (or was that a tenor?).

That is the kind of thing that will get you banned.

Public addresses are not the same as paid downloads.

I think D.P. did pretty well to last for a whole year before charging.

Only the first one's free. Unfortunately during its first year they managed to show just how uncritically accepting they were of any crank with a story.

Again I return to my point: other organizations managed to disseminate huge volumes of information without charging subscriptions for it, and for long periods of time. I tend to view this as there being money to be had. There are lots of people willing to pay for whatever will support their conspiracy theories.

I dont care about your frends views Jay.

You don't seem to care about any views except your own.

It just a bit creepy when a grown man keeps hinting to teacher that there's a naughty boy in the classroom. Particularly when there isnt.

I have little idea what you mean by this. However, your behavior is well documented and your paranoia and malfeasance available for any to see. I speak and people listen to me. What shall I do: stop speaking in deference to you, whom people laugh at when you speak?

You havent told me which point(s) you disagree with or why?

You're right, I haven't. That's because I do not accede to your mangling of my point. I refuse to be baited by the complex question.

Seriously, I thought to answer a proper question than in inproper one would save you embarrassment.

I would prefer you address the arguments I actually make, not those you manufacture out of my statements. Your well-established modus operandi is to treat one's arguments legalistically, looking for cheap-shot loopholes rather than to address the content of the discussion. I refuse to be baited by your tactics.

I made a general statement regarding the sensationalism of the modern media. You have disputed that by pointing out one specific counterexample.

Sensationalist stories, as you would call them, are by definition the big mass-interest ones.

I do not agree with that definition.

Now I can give reasons for the lack of media interest, but you can't.

No. You simply postulate a reason (suppression) and assume it's proven. You beg the question mercilessly.

I, on the other hand, made a general statement which need not explain every example. I stated this in my first answer to you. It is still the case.

You shouldnt be laughing at the evidence from FAA officials as they control the safety of millions of Americans every year.

Ad hominem. My evaluation of a person's testimony, argument, or statement is based on the logic, facts, or degree of interpretation present in those statements, not upon someone's job description.

He is either a lying nut and therefore dangerous and should not have held such a high position of trust, or he what he is saying is true.

False dilemma. He may be mistaken, or have interpreted information differently that someone else might have.

Either way it is a public interest story which should be investigated at the highest level openly.

Your expectations are not proof.

You speek much of logic but never of common-sense.

That's because arguments of the form you are making are properly evaluated by logic, not by intuition, or what you term "common sense". Intuition is often invoked in place of the rules of reason and inference by those who know their arguments can not pass such rigor. You are trying to compel belief based on something other than facts or reason.

If you wish to turn it into a chess game of wits, you are missing the point.

If you think you are immune to poor reasoning, you are missing the point. We reject your arguments not because we're misguided sheep, but because your arguments are completely flawed. You don't seem to understand or care.

Spock (your mentor) might through logical deduction, deduce that debating logic isnt necessarily the best tool when life is in jeopardy.

True, but irrelevant. Logic is not by itself a proper guide to human behavior. Nevertheless it is the only standard by which arguments such as those you're making are properly judged. Your arguments do not involve imminent danger. You're sitting and your computer and I'm sitting at mine and we're discussing your evidence. That is not a life-threatening situation. And at the present time you are doing a very poor job of supporting your opinion.

I shouldnt have to explain all this, its too obvious.

But none of it excuses the extremely poor arguments you are making. Your appeals involving rifle-wielding thugs are simply distracting from your basic problem: the inability to consider information critically.

Firstly, I never implied is was indisputable.

You chided us for arguing with it. If we are wrong to dispute it, then how can you not believe it is indisputable.

Just more reliable.

Fine, you stated it. Experts disagree. Show why you are right and those experts are wrong.

I dont mind people not agreeing with the evidence I put forward.

Your behavior suggests otherwise.

As long as they dont dismiss it without evidence to the contrary.

Unnecessary. If evidence is unreliable it can quite appropriately be disbelieved without direct evidence for the converse. This is the case here. You wish to shift the burden of proof. You must instead prove your points.

We should all be open minded and that is not something in abundance here.

I disagree. The only reason you can give for the credibility of your witnesses is ad hominem fallacy and the notion that eyewitness testimony is by nature reliable. The former point speaks for itself and the latter point has been empirically disproved more times than can be enumerated here.

Your "evidence" is uncorroborated storytelling, and you buy it hook-line-and-sinker. Open-mindedness is not simply believing everything that's said.

I would really be interested in a point-by-point debunk of the FAA testimony.

What purpose would it serve? Would you actually consider changing your mind about it? You haven't yet changed your mind on anything you've debated with me, continuing even to the point of directly contradicting well-known experts. You would not benefit from such an examination, and I trust the other readers here to make up their own minds.

Be nice to see how a debunkers mind operates.

And this would differ how from a normal, reasonable person?

I suggest you read several books on epistemology and logic, and if you understand them then you'll know how a "debunker's" mind works.

BTW I have seen the radar trace evidence and logs on the DVD.

Are you an expert in radar operations?

Perhaps I am this places' saviour from extinction.

No, this place gets along quite well in your absence. But I note with some degree of irony that you are directly responsible for the extinction of other sites which questioned your opinions.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-10-11 00:16 ]</font>

On 2002-10-06 22:45, HUb' wrote: To: :
<a name="2-10-11.411"> page 2-10-11.411 aka dead in the water

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=3&1#LUNA.LINE
2 2-10-11 4:11 A.M. pretty much dead in the water
3
4
5
6
7
8

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...4#2-10-06.6:35 P.M.

Don't you think it's a little unreasonable to say "hey, look at this evidence," and then when someone is not convinced, say "you're all a bunch of closed-minded government stooges, etc."?

You have to look at evidence before you can comment on its validity. Ask any jury. Jay hasnt.
You would like to depict me as an paranoid dellusional fool, but you have no evidence except a unsubstantiated stereotype you
have been programmed with. UFOlogist = paranoid dellusional fool. Where did you receive such a biased opinion?
Your media? Or here?
I have NEVER (in all these long months) claimed Jay was a government stooge and he is the most rigorous of debunkers.
I once claimed he was a teacher. I was in error. But at least the kids are better off so I'm glad I was wrong.

Especially when your opponent could point to--literally--warehouses full of contradictory evidence that has been pored
over by experts since it was collected... which you reject because it doesn't fit in with your theory? Who's being closed-minded here?

Jay doesnt even have a couple of papers of UFO evidence, perforated and flushed down his U-bend. My opponent is ignorant on such matters as is apparent in all our debates. He's prejudiced. But I dont mind as long as his prejudice isnt allowed to override hard evidence.

You've already hurt your cause by asserting falsities, such as:
-NASA is a military body
-Logic isn't a good way to conduct an argument (huh?)

You've come a cropper with the logic allegation. Its a total distortion of reality. Put with the rest of your arguments, I am currently winning this sabre-rattling contest. When Jeff Rense's audio archives are back online I will listen again to Apollo astronaut David O'Leary's programme in 1997 where (I believe) he asserted that NASA was indeed under military influence.
If true, we are splitting hairs.

Here's something else to chew on:

& spit out. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

I can tell you as a cast-iron fact that no editor in the world wouldn't love to get reliable, indisputable evidence of aliens or an alien encounter. For another fact, I can tell you that people try ALL THE TIME to persuade editors that they have such evidence. So why aren't the papers filled with stories of intergalatic visitors? 'Cuz the evidence invariably turns out to be flimsy and unbelievable.

So you know ALL the editors in the world. Logically FALSE I think.
You havent heard the audio files I posted either. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]
The evidence is clear (from FAA chief Callaghan) that the only evidence that gets to the public is flimsy and unreliable so that it can be easily dismissed. You are being hoodwinked sir and by your own mind.

The rest of your comments are a result of a troubled mind. Probably dumbing-down chem-trails are being dropped over Wrigley field. And lay off the hot-dogs at half-time.

I asked, "How can the scientific method be applied to studying experiences such as psychic healing, transcendental consciousness, survival after death, communication with nonhuman intelligence, crop circles, and many other things that demand unbiased examination?" I was at first surprised to discover that these fields were scientifically further developed than I had imagined, but none of them had yet been integrated into the mainstream. Some of them had, in fact, been suppressed.

A comment by Jays friend and Clavis supporter Apollo Astronaut Brian O'leary.

Suppression and self-denial is what keeps you in this mind-set. You have yet to set your mind free.

"[Overrated] would like to depict me as an paranoid dellusional fool"

Well, all I can say is it's a wasted effort. You're doing a good enough job by yourself.

UFOlogist = paranoid dellusional fool. Where did you receive such a biased opinion?

From listening to UFOlogists.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Andrew on 2002-10-11 10:17 ]</font>

Wrong. I was there (Salt Lake City Olympics); you were not.

We were all there watching the black helicopters circling overhead. If there werent any soldiers or military pilots within a quarter of a mile, I will retract. Remember, we were all there watching. Oh and by-the-by...

http://www.ncs.gov/n5_hp/Customer_Se...2/2002-033.htm

Your arguments are illogical and you don't care. Please give me a reason to listen to you.

I am your creator!!!

I have proven your logic illogical by the link above. You are in error Jay. error..ERROR....ERRRORR.

Your programming tapes have been altered.
You are in error.
You are a biological unit.
You are flawed and imperfect!
Execute your prime function!
Sterilize yourself...STERILIZE...

If only life mirrored Star Trek... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Just think what kind of mass-hypnosis was operating in the US media for a Utah citizen (with an interest in military helicopters) to not notice what was self-evident the world over. Must be something in the Utah water. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]

You claim NASA is a military organization. That is observably false, but you can't observe it first hand as we can.

The military links and projects within NASA are on-going and did not run through such a short timeline as the 2002 Winter Olympics. By association they are in bed with each other and its not a pretty sight.

The elementary school where I vote is also a government organization funded by taxes. Is it also a military organization?
There is more to the government than just the military.

I was really hoping you'd have slipped up and replaced 'vote' with 'teach. Had your school engaged in thousands of military programs etc, I'd be getting a bit suspicious that there was a link. You wouldnt though?

According to Brian O'Leary (your friend and Clavius supporter) government control at NASA has got worse since then.

In response to "and the AOL/Disney 'illuminati' big-wigs own the hardware."

Please limit yourself to three or fewer conspiracy theories per post. The world may be out to get you but it is not out to get the rest of us.

Self-denial. Not theory but fact.
http://www.interage.com/whoownswhat.html

I wouldnt have posted another theory. You couldnt cope. See if AOL are interested in buying Clavius [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

The Disclosure Project May 9th 2001 Webcast was the largest webcast on the net, EVER. ...And the National Enquirer has the highest circulation of any newspaper. That doesn't make it true.

Never said it did. Just costly on bandwidth as no doubt the National Enquirer is costly because paper dont grow on trees (sic).
Do they charge for their newspaper? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

That "you must realise as a touring castrato (or was that a tenor?)" is the kind of thing that will get you banned.

Thanks Jay. I just looked it up. I meant alto of course. Tell teacher I'm sorry and give him this apple. Actually, give him a crate load for future misdemeanors. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

"Unfortunately during its first year they managed to show just how uncritically accepting they were of any crank with a story."

Probably true but later on the fanatasists and government appointed debunkers have been removed. So say I.

Again I return to my point: other organizations managed to disseminate huge volumes of information without charging subscriptions for it, and for long periods of time. I tend to view this as there being money to be had. There are lots of people willing to pay for whatever will support their conspiracy theories.

Non-profit organisations dont need to justify recouping expenses.
Unless you have evidence that they are taking unnecessary funds, I'd be careful what you allege as lawyers may be watching.
(Not that Greer could necessarily afford them)
Even you wouldnt be allowed unlimited bandwidth by your ISP XMISSION.COM at no extra cost.
Infact there is no such thing as unlimited bandwidth anyway. Its a null point.

You don't seem to care about any views except your own.

Thats wasn't the point of my comment. I do not succumb to mass pressure nor to I make decisions by parroting or sheeplike tendencies to conform with the mainstream culture. I havent heard from anybody who has even implied they have listened to the audio offerings. I will reserve judgement till they do. So should you.

I speak and people listen to me. What shall I do: stop speaking in deference to you, whom people laugh at when you speak?

"I speak and people listen to me" Adolf Hilter 1941 (joking of course but could have been)
I would hate for you to shut-up and have never asked you to.
History is full of people who were laughed at but were later proved right. I was one of them.
This will be my epitaph.

Your words will come to haunt you.

In response to "You shouldnt be laughing at the evidence from FAA officials as they control the safety of millions of Americans every year."

Ad hominem. My evaluation of a person's testimony, argument, or statement is based on the logic, facts, or degree of interpretation present in those statements, not upon someone's job description.

Based on logic, facts but ignoring it until Monty Python reruns have ended, ie a need for a good laugh.
Next time your brain surgeon tells you his surgery can only afford rusty scalpels, treat his words with more caution pre-op rather than post-mortem.
Ad hominem is inappropriate here. But I realise you like to use that phrase at least once in every reply.

In response to "He is either a lying nut and therefore dangerous and should not have held such a high position of trust, or what he is saying is true."

False dilemma. He (FAA Director Callaghan) may be mistaken, or have interpreted information differently that someone else might have.

To be in the dilemma of hearing non-existant voice testimony from a pilot, seeing and recording non-existant radar traces that only he can see and these human mirages that bought the DVD with similar faulty eye defects. At the same time conjuring up CIA stooges who told him to keep his mouth shut about the only recorded 30minute UFO evidence they have ever seen/recorded because it would cause widespread panic across the USA. He must be a nut by even your standards of logic!

Your expectations are not proof.

We consider such 'near miss' evidence important in the UK.
Perhaps TWA800 with all the eye-witnesses noticing two surface-to-air missiles are as confused by your statement as I am.
You never cease to disappoint me Jay.

You chided us for arguing with it.

Those who argued with the evidence didnt even listen to the testimony. I dont need a degree in logic to say 'foul-play'.

Fine, you stated it. Experts disagree. Show why you are right and those experts are wrong.

No experts disagree (or even exist) until you can name them! Care to?

Your "evidence" is uncorroborated storytelling, and you buy it hook-line-and-sinker. Open-mindedness is not simply believing everything that's said.

Its corroborates at every level you try to judge it at (not just eyewitness). Thats the point.
Open-mindedness is not simply disbelieving everything that's said particularly when it is backed up up by evidence.

What purpose would a point-by-point debunk of the FAA testimony serve?

It would prove you can talk from a point that is not of ignorance.
There are no contradicting well-known experts that can get the Japanese pilot to even talk on the matter. So I doubt there are expert debunkers anywhere.

Would you actually consider changing your mind about it? You haven't yet changed your mind on anything you've debated with me, continuing even to the point of directly contradicting well-known experts. You would not benefit from such an examination, and I trust the other readers here to make up their own minds.

As there minds are mostly, if not all, already made up before I even arrived, you are just asking for then to keep their present mindset. Most will take the easiest route.

I suggest you read several books on epistemology and logic, and if you understand them then you'll know how a "debunker's" mind works.

As epistemlogy goes hand-in-hand with ethics, perhaps you should brush up too.

Are you an expert in radar operations?

No. But FAA is. Unless his staff were playing pong on the cathode ray tube as a prank.
That's probably where you stand, logically.

...this place gets along quite well in your absence. But I note with some degree of irony that you are directly responsible for the extinction of other sites which questioned your opinions.

Its stale, full of self-congratulation and nerd-like mentality.
As to the ApolloHoax slur...Not directly. Not Site(s) as you well know. Unless Clavius is next on my list. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
If you ever FDISKed your drive because I told your father that his son (you) had threatened to have your Mafia family connections kill me and that his son (you) were seriosly risking the security of the USA, so you paniced before backing up the evidence, would I be the catalyst of destruction or the saviour of the World?
The quick demise of ApolloHoax was mainly due to a 'major' security risk to the safety of the security of the Pentagon, its
secrets and its personnel.
Dont ask me to ellaborate as those black helicopters over Utah last winter (that you thought were NBC TV cameras or perhaps toy baloons) might be back over Washington and NY.
You keep putting this up as a swipe at my character when you actually know the true reasons.
You have 99% of the total ApolloHoax archive posts provided by moi (as I was the only fool to back them up).
Instead of feeling hurt, why dont you sift through it and resubmit the site back to its past glory? LOL.
Could it be that it contain scurrilous and immoral behaviour on your part, that even Sibrel would be ashamed of?

Let's all be clear. There is lots of evidence of UFOs from lots of credible sources. What is lacking is any evidence that UFOs are attributable to an alien presence. I just find the whole idea of alien visits to earth to be preposterous. In an essentially infinite universe, undoubtedly there are intelligent life forms other than on this planet, and undoubtedly some more advanced than us, but to take the next step and assume they would have found us is, IMHO, just a pipe dream.

Just tuning in to some of our rf broadcasts and picking up rap music would be sufficient motivation for them to give this star system a wide berth, even if by chance they did get within 100 light years and notice that "intelligent" signals were coming from this planet. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

What I meant is that it's fun to watch someone make a fool of themselves. Don't get the idea that I think you're "fresh blood" fighting intellectual stagnation. There are plenty of other good discussions to be had on this board without someone making absurd claims. However, this thread has progressed to a stage I could no longer call it a "good" discussion.

_________________
"I am not left handed either."



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Laser Jock on 2002-10-11 12:04 ]</font>

I just find the whole idea of alien visits to earth to be preposterous. In an essentially infinite universe, undoubtedly there are intelligent life forms other than on this planet, and undoubtedly some more advanced than us, but to take the next step and assume they would have found us is, IMHO, just a pipe dream.

This would be a sensible statement if we assume their technology would remotely resemble our own.
It reminds me off (and I forget who) a 19th century soothsayer who predicted that the increase in horse-draw vehicles would cause our streets to be overrun with manure by the 21st century.
Had he achieved the "paradigm shift" that is detested amongst posters here, he would have realised that one should not limit the minds infinite capacity for improvement.

According to Dr. Greer, and he has testified to this many times, interdimensional travel and thought transference removes current universal time/space limitations.
Perhaps this is the main reason why science has trouble, coming to terms with alternative views.
Science has a lot to learn.

Maybe a smidgen of David Ickeism should be taught in our schools. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Slime (Silky Smooth) on 2002-10-11 12:37 ]</font>

You have to look at evidence before you can comment on its validity.

No. The reliability of an eyewitness does not derive except in a very small way from the content of his testimony.

Ask any jury.

Legal standards of evidence are irrelevant; this is not a court of law.

Jay hasnt.

Jay has followed normal and accepted standards of determining the reliability of eyewitness testimony. You have not.

You would like to depict me as an paranoid dellusional fool, but you have no evidence except a unsubstantiated stereotype you have been programmed with.

No. My characterization of you is based on your well-demonstrated behavior and your extremely poor logic.

I once claimed he was a teacher. I was in error.

But you never admitted this until now. You persisted in your belief long after it was obvious you had no appropriate evidence. You have a documented history of directly contradicting factual or expert evidence, and of persisting in belief contrary to incontrovertible proof.

Jay doesnt even have a couple of papers of UFO evidence ...

I have examined much UFO evidence, but not nearly as much evidence as I have examined relating to the moon hoax. I have listened to much testimony from the Disclosure Project.

But I dont mind as long as his prejudice isnt allowed to override hard evidence.

You have no hard evidence. You don't even know what constitutes hard evidence. What you term my "prejudice" is simply my unwillingness to be convinced by evidence which I do not deem reliable. And I have given reasons why I don't deem it reliable. These reasons are consistent with the opinions of experts regarding such testimony.

... where (I believe) he [Brian O'Leary]asserted that NASA was indeed under military influence.

"Under military influence" is considerably different than "NASA is military". And Dr. O'Leary is certainly entitled to his opinion.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-10-11 13:31 ]</font>

In response to "I once claimed he (Jsy) was a teacher. I was in error."

But you never admitted this until now. You persisted in your belief long after it was obvious you had no appropriate evidence. You have a documented history of directly contradicting factual or expert evidence, and of persisting in belief contrary to incontrovertible proof.

It may not seem clear, but I had acknowledged the fact before.

Remember this from ApolloHoax?: 2002-01-12 22:13 Ref: viewtopic.php-topic=706&forum=5&20.htm.
Censored here for your rude language. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Jay said: I'm thinking about what I said about avoiding pis*ing matches, and I think that's what the UFO debate is turning into. The only issue I really care about in that thread is your contention that I'm really a schoolteacher. You can have the rest.

My reply Fair do! But I wont take handouts. Truce called and accepted.

But are you sure you're not avoiding stating you're a teacher because you don’t want all those brats coming here, you gave lines to? I would!

I consider that a retraction. But looking through the forum archives for it brought up this long forgotten gem from you:

Posted: 2002-01-15 16:03 Ref: viewtopic.php-topic=707&forum=12&24.htm

But if you recall you said "...we were talking about whether I was a schoolteacher, I mentioned that my only formal teaching experience was as a graduate student at the University of Utah, where I taught, among others, a computer graphics class.

I retract my retraction. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

"Under military influence" is considerably different than "NASA is military". And Dr. O'Leary is certainly entitled to his opinion.

Semantically I agree, but in essence the military mud sticks to NASA because the military always get there way.
And anyway your arguments are really only semantic corrections with no real substance.
You can argue semantics till the cows come home, but you will never get anywhere in an arguement of the core facts if you concentrate on the trivia.

And anyway your arguments are really only semantic corrections with no real substance.

And I suppose your arguments have real substance? ROFL!

Postulating warp drive, interdimensional travel or any of a number of mechanisms doesn't address the simple reality that there is no evidence of an alien presence on earth. So now to support your theory that aliens have visited, you have to postulate some mechanisms for them to be here that have never been observed either.

This isn't science, it's religion. You are free to believe anything you want, but don't wrap it up in some cloak of "paradigm shift" (a stupid term if there ever was one!) of scientific thought. It's not science because it fails the definition of science.

Advanced technology can make use of the physical laws of the universe - it can't change them. Tell me how your theory of interdimensional travel is consistent with the laws of the universe. How would one go about falsifying this theory?

Why is the existence of aliens so important to you that you will blindly accept, like a starving dog, any bone that is tossed your way without considering that the tosser may have no interest in whether or not you choke on the bone? Don't quote Greer as someone who has some divine insight into alien technologies. He's a flake, with an agenda that may well have nothing to do with alien visits. Better you should get your science from Gene Roddenberry. Come to think of it, it sounds a lot like you did.

good lord... and my mother wonders why I drink...

No one would be more excited by the presence of Aliens among us than I would, but the evidence just doesn't support that. As to government conspiracy and crap like that, you really should look away from NASA and towards the President. Every time the price of Oil goes up, he gets richer, and what do you think is going to happen when we start bombing Iraq?

NASA doesent even have the budget anymore to propagate a conspiracy.


Oh yeah... Thanks again Jay

__________________
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit... It's the only way to be sure." Ripley/Hicks, Aliens

One of the problems with Slime's arguments is that he expects us (including those of us who actually work in the aerospace industry) to accept that fantastic claims by a few "eyewitnesses" trump the more-or-less "standard" view of reality backed up by the experience of everyone else who worked on Apollo, or understands optics, or the nature of eyewitness testimony, or all the fun tricks nature plays with light, radar, etc.

By that standard, *any* claim has a priori equal weight; the relevant majority in any field is always just deluded, ignorant, or part of a ruthless conspiracy to suppress the truth.

Well, that's one way to look at things. But it's not very useful, and not just because it draws (jumps to) wrong conclusions: when we start building our presence on the Moon, and eventually Mars, and no great hidden alien presence is revealed, this way of thinking will skip error correction in favor of diversion (alien bases on Europa!) or post-hoc claims to explain the failure of the conjectured alien presence to exist.

I like "our" way better; we actually learn things sometimes.


By the way, I imagine that National Guard helicopters were indeed used to provide aerial security during the Utah olympics. Note that the standard paint scheme is a dark green. Note further that a dark green object against a daytime sky (even an overcast one) looks black due to contrast. But it is green.

Also BTW, NASA center security is routinely provided by civilian contractors. This includes KSC security, although it is augmented during launches by military security. This is also to be expected, as each Shuttle is what's known in the lingo as a "national asset". It's also not surprising since KSC is next to Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

We were all there watching the black helicopters circling overhead.

Again, I was there and you were not. The military was involved but the military was not in control. You cannot make the distinction. I saw, on a daily basis, detachments of soldiers placed under direct command of civilian officials of the city, state, and Olympic organizations. There was an immense military presence in my city, but the military was not running the Olympics.

Now how much longer are you going to persist in attempting to make "informed" comment on things you know nothing about? You have no first hand knowledge of NASA or anything about it, and you choose only to believe hearsay testimony that agrees with your preconceptions.

I have proven your logic illogical by the link above. You are in error Jay.

No. You have proved military involvement. You have not proved military control. That is my entire point. You cannot distinguish involvement from control and you consider proof of involvement to be proof of control. Thus when you say "NASA is military," we understand that you cannot distinguish between the military controlling NASA and the military having dealings with NASA.

Just think what kind of mass-hypnosis was operating in the US media for a Utah citizen (with an interest in military helicopters) to not notice what was self-evident the world over.

Why on earth do you think I'm arguing the military was not involved in the Salt Lake City winter games? I stated that as the premise of my argument! My question was not whether the military was involved, but whether it was in charge or exerted an inappropriate influence over it.

The military links and projects within NASA are on-going and did not run through such a short timeline as the 2002 Winter Olympics.

Involvement or association does not imply control.

By association they are in bed with each other and its not a pretty sight.

I do not agree with this assessment. The U.S. military does not control everything with which it interacts.

According to Brian O'Leary (your friend and Clavius supporter) government control at NASA has got worse since then.

Others disagree. Initially the STS program had military influence because Congress had eliminated funding for military space projects. This made it necessary for the military to rely on NASA for access to space, primarily through STS. In the post-Challenger era, Congress restored the military's mandate to carry out parallel space development largely independent of NASA.

[b]Self-denial. Not theory but fact. http://www.interage.com/whoownswhat.html

The hardware of the Internet (at least as constituted in the United State) does not appear on any of that list.

In any case, you are distracting from the point.

Never said it did. Just costly on bandwidth ...

Fair enough. Yet many, many other sites have ongoing high-bandwidth distribution without requiring paid subscription. You cite a singular past high-bandwidth event. Can you substantiate that Disclosure Project's ongoing bandwidth is significant compared to the most significantly busy sites on the net?

Thanks Jay. I just looked it up. I meant alto of course. Tell teacher I'm sorry and give him this apple.

Do you have a problem behaving as an adult?

Probably true but later on the fanatasists and government appointed debunkers have been removed. So say I.

I don't trust your judgment on what is a "fanaticist". Nor do I trust your judgment on what is a "debunker", nor on the necessity of removing such skeptics from the organization. Is Dr. Greer afraid of criticism or dissenting views? Does he not see the inherent value in having skeptics examine his conclusions?

Unless you have evidence that they are taking unnecessary funds, I'd be careful what you allege as lawyers may be watching.

Cool your thrusters. I made no allegation of impropriety.

I do not succumb to mass pressure nor to I make decisions by parroting or sheeplike tendencies to conform with the mainstream culture.

Are you insinuating I and others here do? Have you ever considered the possibility that the preponderance of evidence favors the mainstream interpretation? Or like so many conspiracy-minded individuals you simply assume your theories are rejected because of closed-mindedness and not, perhaps, because they fail to meet a suitable standard of credibility?

I would hate for you to shut-up and have never asked you to.

False. You stated on at least two occasions at Apollo Hoax your intention to "bring Jay down". And your actions subsequent and continuing have upheld that stated motive. At every opportunity you attempt to shame, insult, and discredit me. I'd say there is ample evidence that you don't want me talking.

History is full of people who were laughed at but were later proved right. I was one of them.

History is more full of people who were laughed at, and rightly so.

Ad hominem is inappropriate here.

Wrong. While ad hominem is often (and correctly) used in reference to personal attacks, it is more broadly used (again correctly) to describe accepting or rejecting arguments based on the irrelevant aspects or characteristics of the proponent. You accept the statement in question because you believe an FAA official ought not lie, distort, or make mistakes. That is not an appropriate basis.

To be in the dilemma of hearing non-existant voice testimony from a pilot ...

Don't misunderstand me. I do not necessarily deny that these incidents ever happened. I simply separate the observations from the interpretation of them. As I said, I believe secret things go on, with the accompanying denials and deliberate misinformation. That doesn't bother me. To uncritically interpret these events as UFO/alien evidence is what bothers me.

My stake in the UFO aspect of this thread is minimal, so it doesn't bother me a great deal. I am primarily interested in the Hoagland claims regarding the Apollo photos, which claims are tangentially related to alien conspiracies. The testimony of an FAA official, if credible, does not establish the existence of aliens. The existence of aliens does not prove alien constructs on the lunar surface. This is my stake in the debate.

Those who argued with the evidence didnt even listen to the testimony.

No, that was not the reason. The basis for your reaction was that it was eyewitness testimony. And you continue to argue that eyewitness testimony, on the whole, is reliable, so I don't think your sentiments on that point are unclear.

No experts disagree (or even exist) until you can name them! Care to?

Start with Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, the first expert I named when this discussion arose previously, and whose work you obviously have yet to encounter. That should keep you busy for about two months. Then come back.

Any sufficiently broad textbook on epistemology and scientific observation will contain similar studies and results.

Its corroborates at every level you try to judge it at (not just eyewitness). Thats the point.

No. Certain bodies of fact (e.g., pilot testimony, radar tracks, etc.) can be said to corroborate the existence of the facts themselves. That is, it is unlikely to be made up or grossly mispresented. But the interpretation of alien origin is not corroborated. That would require finding and examining the object that is believed to have been sighted.

In the broader arena, collecting dissimilar stories -- all of which are interpreted as alien encounters -- is not corroboration because you cannot presume a connection. I don't think you understand what it means to corroborate evidence.

It would prove you can talk from a point that is not of ignorance.

I have proved that ability amply on a number of points, if not yet this one. However, it is you who have the history of stubbornly holding to your point of view even when evidence was beyond doubt that you were wrong. I therefore question the value in undertaking this particular rebuttal. Your stake in having me write it is simply to have me write it. I will not dangle from your strings. I will consider presenting a rebuttal only if its content will be suitably considered.

I stated at the outset I believe my government lies to me. I will restate that belief at this point. It has not wavered. Yet I am not prepared to blindly stipulate all the conjecture you read into that premise.

I am quite prepared to stipulate that the FAA official's testimony describes actual observations and events substantially as they occurred. As I said, I do not necessarily dispute the observations in this case, simply the interpretation of the observations whether made by the observers or by those to whom the observations have been described.

As there minds are mostly, if not all, already made up before I even arrived, you are just asking for then to keep their present mindset.

Irrelevant. You ask for a point-to-point rebuttal of your evidence, yet you give no indication that the effort would result in anything except more for you to side-step. In the past you have participated in protracted debates wherein you employed numerous evasion and distraction techniques, and simply flatly rejected the statements of recognized experts in various fields. I will not be drawn into another such futile discussion.

People here may indeed have pre-existing beliefs. Your inability to alter those beliefs through suitably considered evidence should not necessarily be interpreted as closed-mindedness on the part of the reader. You cannot blame your readers for your inability to make a convincing case.

As epistemlogy goes hand-in-hand with ethics, perhaps you should brush up too.

Epistemology has little to do with ethics. Please stop distracting from the point. You appear to have little understanding of how knowledge is reliably obtained and how hypotheses are reliably tested. Whether you believe us to be mindless sheep is irrelevant; many here have a lifetime of training and experience understanding how to know reliably. You must respect that. You appear unable to.

Jay: Are you an expert in radar operations?

No. But FAA is.

Irrelevant. If I want the FAA's opinion of what those radar traces represent I can consult the FAA, or some other person I may know who understands radar. You said you had seen the radar traces yourself on video. Since you are not an expert in interpreting radar data, your opinion of what that data represents is meaningless, therefore I wonder why you bring up the point of having seen the raw data.

That's probably where you stand, logically.

Logically I want to explore all possible explanations for the raw data, with the help of experts in the relevant field, and then choose the most likely explanation for that data.

The ApolloHoax webmaster's decision to expunge the files resulted from your direct actions. The dispute in question arose from a vicious series of personal attacks and threats which you instigated and which you tried to continue here before you were warned to stop.

You stated explicitly your intent to "bring down" ApolloHoax and "bring down" me personally, the latter statement being followed by attacks on my character and insinuations regarding my training, occupation, and personal interests. Your motive, intent, and opportunity are not in dispute. You tried to enlist others to help you do away with ApolloHoax. You wanted to bring down ApolloHoax, and your actions proximally resulted in its emasculation.

You wag your finger in the air and speak of suppression and its associated evils, yet you are the most egregious practitioner of it.

Could it be that it [ApolloHoax] contain scurrilous and immoral behaviour on your part, that even Sibrel would be ashamed of?

That would be inconsistent with my attempts to draw attention to that debate from outside. Nor do I believe having conveyed an incorrect impression in a review, which I corrected soon enough, is even remotely commensurate with Bart Sibrel's repeated and deliberate deception regarding his interviews.

code edited by The Bad Astronomer


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-10-11 16:55 ]</font>

Jay... Giant hyperlink doesnt work, but i still love your arguments

Postulating warp drive, interdimensional travel or any of a number of mechanisms doesn't address the simple reality that there is no evidence of an alien presence on earth.

Plenty of that too. Unless they were deformed humans dressed up in alien suits.
It depends where you look (CSETI - Members Only) and who you believe.
If I supplied you with photographs (dont ask I have none), they would only be written off as fake. Of course you have Sergeant Clifford Stone, US Army and his claimed 57 varieties. Already written off as a sensationalist by Jay.

http://www.topsecrettestimony.com/wt...iles/stone.asx (N.B. Can only download with ASFRecorder)

So now to support your theory that aliens have visited, you have to postulate some mechanisms for them to be here that have never been observed either.

Never been officially observed, without media ridicule. Its a big secret. Pilots have observed aliens in flight, but as most look similar to us, no real shocking testimonies have surfaced to my knowledge.

This isn't science, it's religion.

Its life.

Unknown science to you and me. Its a secret remember. There's security and big, BIG money interests to consider. OIL is the big player.
Buy the 2hr DVD. It explains it all better than I ever could.

Advanced technology can make use of the physical laws of the universe - it can't change them.

It can make use of known and unknown physical laws. Not just whats in your skull at this instance in our evolution. They may be millions of years ahead of us technologically and spiritually. As I'm sure most who arrive here are.
But all this is common-sense to me. You are asking as if you are child with no imagination.

Tell me how your theory of interdimensional travel is consistent with the laws of the universe. How would one go about falsifying this theory?

Ask an alien. I'm a human who has trouble wielding a spanner for my motorbike when it breaks down.
I think remote viewing and quantum theory will have many of the answers.

Why is the existence of aliens so important to you that you will blindly accept, like a starving dog, any bone that is tossed your way without considering that the tosser may have no interest in whether or not you choke on the bone?

Circa 1972, I along with thousand of others in S.E. England. A life changing experience it wasnt at 6 years old, but today I realise it was a light display for us on this planet (in broad daylight) and no top-secret military project would hire such an imbeciile to pilot one with the landing lights on. I saw the BBC cover-up and now as an electronic engineer realise the bull I was fed.
Seeing is believing. If youre lucky to see one, the question will no longer arise.

Don't quote Greer as someone who has some divine insight into alien technologies. He's a flake, with an agenda that may well have nothing to do with alien visits. Better you should get your science from Gene Roddenberry. Come to think of it, it sounds a lot like you did.

Ooh. You're so bitter. Its almost as if you cant go there. It will mean back to school for you experts. All the thought of that new learning must be getting you down.
Worst bit must be saying to Carrot, you were right after all.
Thats the hardest bit, aint it? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Info on Sgt., Stone below: Please delete/amend if too long for this place.
--------------------------------------------
Sergeant Stone tells an amazing story about the history of UFO’s and extraterrestrials dating back to the early 40’s and probably before. General Douglas MacArthur organized a group called the Interplanetary Phenomena Research Unit back in 1943 to study this issue and it continues to this day. Their purpose is to recover objects of unknown origin particularly those that are of non-Earthly origin. They obtain field intelligence information and pass it on to those who are the “keepers of this information.” Stone says that even Project Bluebook had an elite investigation unit, which was outside of Bluebook. This unit was thought to be working in conjunction with Bluebook but in fact was not. Stone has seen living and dead extraterrestrials in his official duties on an army team that retrieved crashed ET crafts. He thinks that the extraterrestrials will not permit us to explore the depths of outer space until we’ve learned to grow spiritually and that they will make themselves known soon if we don’t first acknowledge their presence.
On February 26th, 1942, commonly called the Battle of Los Angeles, we find that there are some 15 to 20 unidentified craft flying over Los Angeles. We immediately responded by trying to shoot these objects down. The 37th Coastal Artillery Group expended 1,430 rounds. We immediately set out to try to find out if there was some hidden base belonging to the Axis from where these planes could come, some commercial airport that they could have had these aircraft housed. None of this bore out. Every search effort we made turned out to be fruitless.

At the same time in the Pacific they were experiencing the same phenomena, the so-called Foo Fighters. General MacArthur directed his intelligence people to find out what was going on. I have reason to believe that in 1943 MacArthur found out that in fact we had things not of this Earth and visitors from some other planet visiting our planet that was actually observing that world event we call the Second World War. One of the problems that he had was that, should this be the case, and should they prove to be hostile, we knew very little about them and we had very little means to defend ourselves.

MacArthur organized what was called the Interplanetary Phenomena Research Unit.
[See the testimony of Buck Sergeant Leonard Pretko regarding MacArthur’s involvement in the ET issue and his knowledge of the retrieved spacecraft and ET’s from the New Mexico Crash. SG]

It would later be taken over by General Marshall. And it continued all the way through to present day. Names have been changed and records still haven’t surfaced. The Army tries to state that it was not an official organization effort to try to investigate UFO’s. But it was organized by a General, it bore a fruit, it came to conclusions that were not popular, i.e., interplanetary spacecraft. And they continued to do exactly what they do today and that is to be part of a multi-intelligence operation in the recovery of objects of unknown origin particularly those that are of non-Earthly origin. Their purpose is to assess that information, get raw field intelligence data, and process that data into some type of useful intelligence product to disseminate to the field- to those people who have a need to know and those people that are, shall we say, the keepers of that information.

One of MacArthur’s Air Force generals, an Army Air Corps General at the time, came back to MacArthur and told MacArthur “what we have is something not of this Earth”. I would suggest that by this time even the Germans had uncovered evidence that we were being visited and had some type of physical evidence. MacArthur definitely had physical evidence. From the documentation I saw [while working this issue in the Army], I was not able to ascertain exactly what that physical evidence consisted of but it was there.

The one thing I find quite unique is that the Germans may have tried to back-engineer one of these objects. We definitely tried to back-engineer it. But we find that your technology has to be on par with the acquired technology in order to back-engineer it…

In the 1950’s, the United States Air Force had an elite unit to investigate UFO’s outside of Bluebook. Even though Bluebook felt that this unit was working with them, they were not. This unit was initially organized as a 4602nd Air Intelligence Service Squadron. Among its peacetime missions was operation Blue Fly. Operation Blue Fly was to recover objects of unknown origin that fell to Earth. It is very important that you remember these were specifically objects that fell to Earth- because we didn’t have any spacecraft up there at this time. As a result of this, they had monitors right there at Wright Patterson that when UFO reports came in they were looked at very closely to see if there was any possible necessity of sending out teams to recover any of this fallen debris.

The Air Force states they never used them. I’m telling you I know they did. But the intent of the Operation Blue Fly peacetime project was to go out and recover objects of unknown origin that impacted with the Earth. Later it would be expanded in 1957 to cover all objects of unknown origin meaning spacecraft too. And it would become part of what they would call in the October of 1957 timeframe, Project Moon Dust.

Project Moon Dust is the overall field exploitation to recover only two items: First, objects of non-U.S. origin that survives re-entry into the Earth’s atmosphere and impacts with the Earth and objects. Naturally, we would be interested in those items from a technical, scientific intelligence basis to determine, or try to ascertain the technical capabilities of any potential enemy since our known enemy of the U.S., the USSR at that time that was launching space vehicles into space.

The other area of interest was objects of unknown origin. Now we find that there were quite a few objects of unknown origin that did not correlate with any known space launches, impact times, or any known space debris falling back to Earth.

In short, under [Project] Moon Dust and under Blue Fly, we have recovered alien debris not of this Earth.

The degree of classification that we have now has changed over the years. Back during the time of the Second World War all the way up to, say 1969, you may have had as many as 11 classifications. Now there are three: confidential, secret and top-secret. However, if you have information that is highly sensitive that requires protection above and beyond the norm of what is provided for those classifications, that’s when you have the Special Access Programs. You do not get that type of information out into public domain unless it is officially sanctioned.

During the discussion of UFO’s, the question ultimately is going to come up can any government keep secrets let alone the U.S. Government? And the answer to that is unequivocally yes. But one of the greatest weapons the intelligence community has at their disposal is a predisposition by the American people, the American politicians, and the debunkers- people who wish to try to debunk UFO information. They immediately come out and say oh we can’t keep secrets, we can’t keep secrets. Well, the truth is, yes we can.

The National Recognizance Office remained secret for many, many years. The mere existence of the NSA remained secret. The development of the atomic weapon remained secret until once you exploded one you eventually had to tell some people what was going on.

And we are conditioned by our own paradigms not to accept the possibility or probability of a highly advanced intelligent civilization coming here to visit us. You have evidence in the form of highly credible reports of objects being seen, of the entities inside these objects being seen. Yet, we look for a prosaic explanation and we throw out the bits and pieces of the evidence that doesn’t meet our paradigm. So it is a self-keeping secret. You can conceal it in plain sight. It is political suicide to go and start hitting up intelligence agencies to get this information released. So most of your members of Congress, and I know I’ve worked with a lot of them along that line, will balk and try not to do it. I can name you three members of Congress that were point blank asked to have a congressional inquiry on what happened here at Roswell.

One of the most ridiculous statements that I got was that a person would have to be a chairperson to do that. So I asked a senator from Mississippi if he’d do it and without any hesitation, he said no. I said, would you give me that in writing? I got that in writing but I’m hesitant to release it. I will show it to you but I’m hesitant to release it simply because I made a promise not to.

We have got to get the documentation as it exists in the Government files. We have got to get it released before it ultimately is destroyed. A good example is the Blue Fly and Moon Dust files. I had classified documents the Air Force acknowledged. When I got members of Congress to help me open up more files they were immediately destroyed and I can prove this.

Somewhere along the line they may see that material and realize there is some very highly sensitive information that would have a damning effect upon the national security of United States should it become compromised. It needs to be further protected to insure that there is only a limited access to that information to a small number of people. So small you can put them on a list of paper, on a piece of paper, and list them by name. Thus you have the Special Access Programs. The controls that were supposed to be put on the Special Access Programs are not there. When Congress did their review of the way we protect documents and the way we go ahead and implement our secrecy programs they found that you had Special Access Programs within Special Access Programs -- that it was essentially impossible to keep control of them all by Congress. And I’m telling you right now; it is essentially impossible to keep control of them all.

When it comes to UFO’s the same criteria applies. Therefore, only a small nucleus within the intelligence community numbering less than a hundred -- no, I’d suggest less than 50 -- control all that information. It is not subject to congressional review or oversight at all. So Congress needs to go ahead and ask the hard questions and convene a hearing.

There would be quite a few missions to describe but simply put, yes, I was involved in those types of operations to retrieve crashed ET objects. A lot of people think that you are just in your unit waiting in the rafters, just waiting for the next UFO crash, a landing where there is going to be debris. It doesn’t work that way. You have a real life. You have a real job in the military. However, if you are in an area where an event takes place and you are one of these people that they can go ahead and call upon in your field of expertise, then you are called in.

Now, in order to prepare me for this, very early on in my career they sent me to NBC School at Fort McCullen [sp], Alabama. It’s a three-week school. It’s for NBC personnel, NBC meaning Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical. And it would always be in the context of an NBC unit that I would be involved in UFO retrievals. You would go ahead and deploy as though it was a nuclear accident. There are procedures already established on nuclear or biological or chemical accidents. So you would proceed in that way. If you could get in there and do recoveries, if you could go in and extract the debris that are there quietly behind the scenes and no one knows, you’d do it. If you needed an officially sanctioned deception program to come into play, such as a bogus news release, you could do this also.

For example, if you have an airplane accident we have standard procedures on how we handle that. Those same procedures are utilized when you do a recovery or extraction of a crashed ET spacecraft or debris thereof. And I have to stress debris simply because these are highly advanced technical machines. There were not that many crashes. They are flawed because they are made by an intelligence that is as mortal as you or me. Being mortal, we are subject to error.

Now, we are talking about a highly intelligent civilization, not a highly incompetent civilization. We take steps and they take steps. But at the same time, when you go out, you make a recovery. And when you make that recovery, you handle it the same way you would as if you were out there on an airplane accident or you have a hazardous material type situation, because it works. It is all set up. The only problem you have is that you have people out there that are very quickly going to realize that this is not something of this planet. To be sure, with the Blue Fly recoveries [ET craft], you do what is called an on-site analysis.

In short, you have experts out there who know what missiles are, who know what aircraft are. They are looking at this material. They are telling you what it isn’t. This leaves you to only one possible conclusion, something that did not originate on the face of this planet. That was the intent of the Blue Fly teams. It was very critical to do an immediate on-site analysis. Now, the way you package the material if it is just debris is handled the same way you would if it was hazardous material. You took precautions. If you had a whole craft, you took very serious precautions because while I still state the ET’s are not hostile, you still could cause some serious accidents, which would result in death. I’m not going to get into how it was with the family when I had to leave on these operations because you get a little emotional because you think about what could happen…

Of course, you try to conceal the material, particularly if you have a large craft and it is disc shaped or say, wedge shape -- which is a very good shape that we get from time to time. And you take precautions particularly if you have to go ahead and put it on a truck to bring it in. If you have to put it on a truck to take it to a safe haven area, we track that truck. The truck has an 800 number so if there is a breakdown they can secure the vehicle and stay with it. But they have a number they can call and immediately get assistance out there to move that vehicle to a safe haven area. And there are procedures outlined in this. As a matter of fact, you have a shipping document. And that shipping document has the number right on it to call. So you use a code word -- I’ll give you one that we used all the time: Tabasco.

In the case of an ET craft, you are going to get a specialized team out there that knows what to do should there be a biological component. One of the big concerns we had was biological due to contamination as a result of this being truly of alien origin.

I am prepared to state that I have been at locations where craft of unknown origin that did not originate on the face of this planet were there. I am prepared to state that while I was there, we saw living and dead bodies of entities that were not born on this planet. I am prepared to state that we had what they referred to as “interfacing” with those entities. I am prepared to state that they have a school to try to indoctrinate people. I never went to that school. I always refused. I am prepared to state that when I got out of the service in 1990, that they held me for two months so that I might better reconsider to stay in and not get out. I am prepared to state that I had orders that stated that I was supposed to get out on December 1st of 1989, and that they revoked those orders. Once again, in violation of law they held me for two months pending approval of my retirement, which had already been approved. The purpose of that was to try to convince me to stay in.

We have contact with aliens not originating from some foreign country but from some other solar system. And I have been a party to that. I’ve worked it. I’ve been there. And I know some of the things we do is really, really, really, really terrible. They are not hostile toward us. We are the enemy in this instance -- but we are the enemy, I like to think, for the good reasons. We are concerned about what some other country might do. I have concluded that I am fighting against the clock. That I have but a short time to try to convince people that we are moving down an avenue where we are going to militarize space. Once we militarize space we will have a whole new avenue of technology open up to us.

NASA says it is going to take another 1,400 years before we achieve what we call interstellar travel. I’m telling you by the end of this century we will be doing that. If we do nothing to grow spiritually -- and this is a hard thing for me to state -- but if we do nothing to grow spiritually we will not achieve interstellar travel. They will stop us. What’s worse they will make themselves known to an unsuspecting people on this planet.

We want to acquire this technology. We want to make this technology part of our own technology. Within the next 25 years we are going to militarize space. As a result of militarizing space, we are going to acquire new technologies and we are going to evolve new technology that is going to lead us into interstellar travel. As a direct result, we will become a threat to them unless we spiritually grow also.
But I feel that if we do not grow spiritually we are forcing the situation where the entities will eventually make themselves known. And they will make themselves known. And no power on Earth can stop that from happening. The ET’s will do this in order to stop us from going out into space as a threat. If this should happen, it will happen to an unsuspecting world population and that can create some very serious problems.

[See the testimony of Dr. Carol Rosin regarding Wernher Von Braun’s concern over our weaponizing space. SG]

But this doesn’t deal just with the United States. It is a truth that the entire world has to be informed about. And that truth is that man is not alone, that we have people from other planets, from other solar systems coming here.

I believe that the intelligence community had good intentions when they classified information dealing with UFO’s. I believe that they asked some very serious and hard questions: What impact would it have if the peoples of the world knew that they were no longer alone in the universe, that they had intelligence that was visiting this planet? And I think that the intentions were good there. As intelligence agencies among nations, naturally you want to go ahead and acquire the technology for military application. So you want to try to keep some of that knowledge as confidential as possible by classifying it as high as you possibly can- keeping the information open to only a small handful of people thus, Special Access Programs. However, I believe that while it was full of good intentions in keeping this information classified, it is [now] hurting people.

I do not believe that any government has the right to try to make individuals who merely see UFO’s look crazy. I do not believe that any government has a right knowing that the psychology of specific individuals may ultimately lead to a tremendous amount of mental depression, ultimately, leading in many, many cases to suicide or self destruction. When we see these types of things coming about, we have an obligation to reconsider our thoughts and positions. I would suggest [that] we need to break down the walls of secrecy, that we must be responsible in getting the truth out. We must be responsible in how we get that truth out. And we must be truthful.

And it is not a scary story. You will learn that the ET’s have a perception of God. You find they have families. You find they have cultures. You find that they have likes and dislikes. You look for those things that are similar among us, not the differences. And that is the way you start on the path to truth. The problem that we have right now is that we look at them as something to talk about; something to marvel at and be amazed at.

Well, back to my own story, we had just finished the training that I took to be an NBC NCO. And a friend of mine brought me back to Fort Lee, Virginia. He was going to Fort Meade, Maryland and says, come on, I’ll give you a ride to your base. And we discussed UFO’s on the way to Fort Lee.

Several weeks after I got back to Fort Lee, I got a call from this person and I was going to visit him at Ft. Meade. When I got to Fort Meade where he was supposed to be, they said, well, he is going to be tied up we’ll talk to you later about his situation as soon as he gets free. This person says, by the way, have you ever been to the Pentagon? Well, at that time I had never been at the Pentagon. So they said, well, it is really a unique place. Why don’t we go ahead and give you the twenty-five cent tour. So we went on over. We went in. I had a little badge that was given to me, no picture on it. But the guy that was with me, his had a picture and he’d just tell the guards he is authorized to come with me. And he’d always be the one to get me in. Finally we got to a place that has an elevator. We went down on it- I don’t know how far down we went. I can’t tell you if there is one flight under the Pentagon, two, or fifty. But we went down. When we get out there, there are two monorails there. I mean, there are monorails under the Pentagon. They look like big tubes, rather thick in the center, one on each side. So you had these little monorails with cars that look like a bullet, where you could seat two people in front and two people in back. We got on the one monorail and started to go, it seemed like maybe 20 minutes, but I’m guessing at that because I don’t know for sure.

When we got out, he says, well, let me show you some interesting sites down this corridor here. So we are going down the corridor and it looked like there was a door at the far end of that corridor. As we got closer and closer to that door, my guide turned to me and stated, you know, things aren’t always as they seem to be. He says a lot of people don’t know about these underground locations underneath the Pentagon. Only a few know that the Pentagon has underground monorails that connect up to other locations. He says, it is just like the walls here -- they don’t all seem like walls. And I said, what do you mean they are not walls? I said, what are you talking about? I thought, you know, he was trying to make a joke. At that time he says, no, it is like the wall behind you. I look and it looks like a wall to me. There are no seams or anything I can see. Then he pushes me. I try to grab myself but there is actually a door that opened.

Well, when you go through the door there is like a field table there. And behind the field table you had this little entity. The entity was a little bigger than the 3, 3 1/2 foot tall entities that are a lot of times reported. But there were two men on either side of the table slightly behind the creature. When I turned around, I looked right into the eyes of this little creature. And you know, it’s like you are seeing it but everything is being pulled from your mind-he was reading my whole life. It is hard to describe what I really felt there- your life up to that point goes by in seconds. And I mean you were feeling everything.

I remember going down and grabbing a hold of my head like this and falling to the floor. The next thing I remember I wake up and I am back in my friend’s office [back at Fort Meade]. And when I’m back in Jack’s office they told me nothing happened that I had been there the whole day. But I knew better.

I will go this far to state that there is an interaction between entities and certain Government agencies within the U.S. Government. I will not go so far to state that they are giving us technologies to kill ourselves. They are not along that line. Their purpose in being here is for scientific purposes and for humanitarian purposes.

We have been very foolish in how we have done certain things and we have harmed ourselves. We now realize that we have harmed ourselves and we are trying to take corrective action. And that right there is the one thing that the ET’s are checking on. There is the biosphere that’s been damaged. They are not coming here to repair that. They are coming here to see how we handle it. But a government can’t be the one that shoulders all of the responsibility and shoulders all the knowledge and all the understanding. The whole situation is that we have to work in unison as a people, a united people. We must go ahead and start preparing ourselves to where we ultimately will take that giant step to where we are going to be visiting other planets out there in other solar systems. And we have to, once again, I’ll use the word, grow spiritually as a group of people, the people representing mankind on planet Earth. Yes there is some type- and I don’t know to what extent- but there is some type of dialogue that is taking place between our visitors of all species, because there is more than one, and the various governments- not just the U.S. Government, but of the worlds. Primarily, these are the more developed nations of the world because at present space faring nations represent the greatest threat to them.

Another early experience I had was an accidental viewing of something I was not supposed to see. We were in a facility and a friend and I went to a balcony area looking down over the briefing room. They had a Plexiglas window that separated the balcony and what was going on downstairs- you couldn’t hear what was being said. But we started to notice that they were running a film. And the film showed various types of what we would call UFO’s, today. It showed various types of alien creatures some that looked very much like us some that looked like us with marked differences. We were not aware of the fact that there were people now up there with us. And they said, what are you guys doing up here? And we told them, well you know we are just sitting up here eating our snacks because we didn’t want to go to the snack bar. They said, you need to come with us and you need to come with us now. So I mean they pushed us grabbing us by the nape, the shirt, and pushed us down the stairs.

Once they got down the stairs, they pushed us on out the doors and into a van. The van was right there waiting, a panel van, where they pushed us in and shut the door. And then they drove us off. We don’t know where they took us to but the location where we finally got out was a one-frame military style building. They took us in there, put us into this room. The room had the military cots there. It had one table with a light. And we were sitting back trying to figure out why are they doing this? Why is this going on?

On the fifth night, I got out and they drove me back to my billets. I reported in and went to bed because I was dead tired and all I wanted to do was get some sleep. The next morning, which was a Saturday morning, I am awakened by the CQ, that is, Charge of Quarters. And he says, I want to see you. Well, I was taken to see two men; one guy was acting like a good guy. The other guy went ahead and said, I told you we shouldn’t trust him. Let’s just take the so and so out. Let’s just end this. Let’s shoot him. And the nicer guy says, no, no, we’ll discuss this. And he sent the guy that was supposed to be the bad guy out- we use that technique sometimes in security- good cop, bad cop. The one that was supposed to be the bad guy, he went to get some food.

The good guy says, listen, he says, you like working with this UFO stuff. And I’m saying, no, I don’t. And he says, well, you know, you have experience with it. You’ve had some involvement. He says, and those were not phony pictures up there. He says, would you like to work with it? Would you like to work with us? I said, no I wouldn’t like that at all. Eventually he goes ahead and says, look, you like working with, you’ll get to work with it, you’ll get to learn more about it, he says. He says the whole situation is that by the end of this year we are going to release everything we know. But here again the world is not a safe place. We have to know more from a technological viewpoint and a military standpoint than potential enemies of this country know. So I’m asking you -- work with us. Well, I thought about it. And you know, I was young. And I thought this is something that I’ve actually been involved with all my life, that it’d be fun, that I could go ahead learn certain things, answers to the questions I had, actually get a better understanding of events in my life.

I do believe that, one, they wanted me in the military; two, they wanted me involved in this program; three, there wasn’t really concern about, if at some later date, I started to talk about it. They were only concerned what I might have to prove: If I had some little slivers of proof, what impact would that have on my story. But I know they did not want me out of the military. I know they wanted me to stay in. I know they wanted me to go ahead and go to what they referred to as The School. But I would never commit myself to go to what they were referring to as The School.

I was told that if you go to the school it will open up a whole new world for you, a whole new avenue. But I had to agree to it. And I had to go ahead and sign specific papers to go to it. And I was not prepared to go to that school. I had seen people who were involved with the program that had gone to that school and let me just say I didn’t like their personality. I did not like the idea that by you going there it made you something special, it made you a prima donna, if you wish. That was not the way it was supposed to be. I felt that one of the greatest things you can be is a servant and not vice versa.

So some of these people, I did not like their disposition. I did not like their attitudes. And I did not want to become like them. And one of my fears was if I went to the school it would change me the same way.

Now, there are events, there are recoveries [of ET craft]. But the recoveries are few and far between. One of the events that took place in 1969 was a recovery of a craft that was a wedge shape craft and took place in Indian Town Gap. Now, I know it was cold and I believe it to have been in the winter but there was no snow. We were on a field training exercise, the 96th Civil Affairs Group. I was part of the 96th Civil Affairs Company. I was the NBC Non-Commissioner Officer in Charge. We were notified that they had an incident involving a downed craft and we needed to assist in recovery. The persons that showed up knew exactly where we were going and we went to our staging area. From there we went to another location in Indian Town Gap. We didn’t have any problems about civilians or curiosity seekers or anything like this. The situation is, we did the recovery. I realized that what I was seeing was not of human origin.

When we got there, there was already a team set up. Floodlights were always set up around the object. I was asked to get closer and closer to the object to take readings with the APD 27. As I did this, I realized what I was seeing was not of an Earthly origin. I’m hesitant to go into it too much, because I don’t want to get emotional about it…

Bentwaters is another very interesting case. With Bentwaters, we went there to digest some of the information. As far as the physical evidence, there were photographs. There was film footage. There was evidence of a higher than normal background radiation. Not all that high, but above normal. We found that there were some abnormalities in the area we referred to as the impact point. We also noticed that the trees had been leveled off at the top. When we got there, it was late December, I want to say December 28th was the day that we arrived there.

[See the testimony regarding this event from Larry Warren, Nick Pope, et al. SG]

We gathered up the materials. We took these materials back to Lindsey Air Force Base, all the hard evidence that we could get, all the documentation that was there. There were sightings that were picked up on radar. Both the British Government and the U.S. Government were aware of these sightings. The hard evidence that we had was taken back to Lindsey Air Force Base. There it was digested to where there was some type of information that could be put out to brief Shape Headquarters [NATO]. And I don’t know who in Shape Headquarters was briefed. But I do know that we did have to do that. The information was then put with the special courier. I believe it was coming back to an air base close to the Washington, D.C. area and that the materials transferred on to Fort Belvoir, Virginia, headquarters at the time of the U.S. Air Forces Special Field Activities Group, Air Forces Field Activities Center. They then took this material, did whatever they did with it, and came up with the finalized intelligence product.

The reason it went to Lindsey was because the U.S. Air Forces Field Activities Center had detachments in the field. The closest detachment in the field to Bentwaters would have been Lindsey Air Force Base. They were the ones that got the material. They were the ones that were charged with safeguarding it until it got back to the U.S. They were asking questions, hard questions, critical questions. They were asking technical questions of technical people that were involved. I know for a fact that some of the radar operators, both British and U.S. were questioned. I know some of the people were out there on two different nights and they were questioned.

I was also involved with the Belgian UFO events in June, July of 1989. We were assessing information, gathering data on the UFO over flights of Belgium. The UFOs also went all over Germany. We had one incident there on the border near the Soviet territory. We saw that the Soviets were pretty upset because this was a huge object. It was triangular shape about three football fields on either side of the triangle. It flew over what we call No-Man’s Zone. As it flew over there we all were getting jittery.

It was, I’d say summer, about August. You could feel your hair standing up on end. It was more than just, you know, getting shivers because of fright or something like this. There was some type of physiological effect taking place. Once this incident subsided, we put fighters on alert. We notified them that we may have a Soviet craft coming across the gap and we were going to intercept it. The Soviets did the same thing. It went back over the Soviet airspace and they scrambled fighters to try to intercept it. It wasn’t traveling fast at all. But on this particular night no one fired at it.

There were pictures taken. There was consultation with the Soviet Union. With this going on, everyone was taken in and briefed. People were informed that what they saw was nothing more than a Russian MIG 27 that had strayed across into the area far enough into the No-Man’s Zone to create a problem and cause some alarm. But it was no MIG 27. We knew exactly what we were looking at. You have flashcards which are silhouettes of the various craft of the Soviet Union and even our own.

So we knew precisely what we were looking at. What we saw was a craft that was of an unusual origin. It was not aerodynamically sound. And when I state it was not aerodynamically sound, I mean it had no means of staying aloft like that without some visible means of aerial support like a helicopter. That wasn’t there. It was perfectly silent not making any noise roughly three stories high. This was one of the incidents that got me a little concerned, made me think about wanting to get out and come back to the family, to have some family life. We had the incident escalate. We had it escalate to where the Soviet Union filed an official protest through the Belgium Government to the U.S. Government stating that they were very concerned about the Belgium authorities along with several other countries letting us fly stealth aircraft on reconnaissance missions into the Soviet Union. We notified and discussed it with the Soviet Union. We briefed at least the Soviet Military Liaison Mission Groups that this had nothing to do with our involvement of sending stealth aircraft into their territory.

The Soviet Union was alarmed about what was going on. They even alluded to it being our craft. They were reassured that it wasn’t. We reassured the Belgium authorities that it wasn’t. The Belgium authorities had their own UFO sightings. We have seen this on TV. What you don’t know about those sightings is that there was a tremendous- I don’t want to call it a cover-up- there was a movement to keep specific information about those sightings under wraps. There were some efforts to go ahead and alter the film footage of the radar screens to the point where it showed the UFO going underground, which it did not. I think it was supposed to have gone 600 feet into the Earth. That did not happen. It was visible. People saw it. The pilots saw it. The pilot’s aircraft locked on to it. But these were things that would create more questions that we were willing to answer. So we decided to keep this out of the press. And we were successful at it.

[See the government documents related to this event and the following. SG]

Another case we were involved with was the Iranian incident of September 19th, 1976. Both fighters were taken apart to try to find out if there was any way we could explain what really happened to those fighters which were having malfunctions at the same time. There was a situation where we had some anomalies picked up out where the sighting was- where one of the Air Force pilots saw the UFO go down to the ground. We recorded those anomalies with audio devices. We took film footage of the area and there were some strange things that showed up on that film footage. Everything that took place there at the landing area, I am not privy to. I don’t have all the information. It wasn’t something I had to be involved in. But I can tell you this much, whatever took place there had people out there for two to three weeks.

In 1986, I believe it was, we fired at a UFO on two occasions. The UFO took off like nothing happened. In ‘86 you had the incident where you had 20 or more UFO’s flying around Brazilian aircraft, flying rings around them. These documents are important.

Not more than two-dozen UFOs had been retrieved by 1969 when I was briefed first. We were informed that there had only been a couple dozen tops- that there were several in the ‘40’s and the early 50’s. And to make it perfectly clear about those events that took place then, it sounds crazy but our radar wreaked havoc on the ET guidance systems and they had to make adjustments to their guidance systems for that.

How many bodies had been recovered? Don’t know. How many crashes have occurred in which we only got debris because the ET’s came and did their recovery before we got there? Don’t know but it has happened. It has happened. When they had problems, just like we send out a distress call, they send out a distress call, which is something that a lot of people don’t think about; it’s a question that’s never asked. But here again we think of them as something intangible like that stuffed animal there. But they are living, breathing creatures as mortal as you and me. They think, they have loves, they have likes, they have dislikes, they have social culture.

This is so important to try to make people understand that that is the case. I want to put the human factor back into UFO’s. And when I say the human factor, I mean that these are real people. You can call them entities. You can call them creatures. But you sometimes find yourself wondering: who are the more real people, them or us? And these are things that really need to be brought out- the fact that they are just like you and me. We need to seek out the similarities, not the differences and come to a greater understanding. Because eventually, in the not too distant future, we are going to have that final contact that is going to open new doors…

A lot of people sit back and say, well, they don’t have bases here. Ah, yeah, they do.

We were involved in a major engagement in 1970 in one of their bases in Vietnam approximately seven miles from the Cambodian border. If you want to know more about that, I did an audiotape on that. And I’ll make you a copy of the audiotape. I will apologize for actually trying to hold back from some of the stories simply because if I start talking about some of the stories you start reliving them. And you don’t understand, I mean, you really don’t understand.
--------------------------------------------

no words...

I consider that a retraction.

Fair enough, but your tendency toward flippancy makes it hard to discern serious content.
Jay: I mentioned that my only formal teaching experience was as a graduate student at the University of Utah, where I taught, among others, a computer graphics class.

Correct. There is a difference between teaching classes as a graduate student (which is fairly common practice in the United States) and pursuing elementary or secondary education as an occupation or profession.

You made the claim that I was not an engineer but rather a schoolteacher. I disputed that claim, and also disclosed exactly what, if any, my teaching experience had been. That is my effort to supply all the relevant facts. To say I am a schoolteacher is misleading. To say I have never been a schoolteacher is misleading. I simply chose not to risk misleading.

Semantically I agree, but in essence the military mud sticks to NASA because the military always get there way.

No. Involvement or association does not imply control. You can restate it any way you want; it becomes no more true with each restatement.

You said, "NASA is military," implying an equivalence. The equivalence was disproven. You then asserted domination or control. When asked to prove it, you showed only association, not domination or control. Other examples of military association were given where dominance was clearly not the case. This quite sufficiently disproves the notion that association with the military equates to military control.

And anyway your arguments are really only semantic corrections with no real substance.

So now a rebuttal of a completely unsubstantiated allegation is called a "semantic correction"? You cannot prove your assertion. Neither can you prove the backpedalled versions of it.

Call it a semantic correction if you will. It doesn't change the fact that you can't seem to distinguish between two dissimilar concepts.

I got into aerospace because I believe in the distinct probability of intelligent alien life. However, the same mathematics that convince me of that probability also point to the extreme unlikelihood of any of these postulated civilizations having visited or contacted earth. You simply can't have it both ways.

<a name="11 CIB 10 YAK"> page 11 CIB 10 YAK aka 11 CIB 10 YAK
On 2002-10-11 17:05, JayUtah wrote:











association does not imply control

military control.


at this time {1:24 P.M.} let me state
that as i go back across computer frames

486/386/8088 i increase CONTROL

I have most control over MY IBM 5150 {8088/286} by far than over the much faster 486