The History of Exopolitics(pdf).

I'm interested in hearing people's opinions about this approach to the ETH.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

The old "We don't have evidence of ET visitors because the government is hiding that evidence", excuse...

I don't think much of it at all.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

I think it's an utter waste of electrons. How they can bother to include terms such as empirical while referencing long-debunked and credulous sources completely escapes me.

__________________
It can only be attributable to human error.

They may very well be crazy. But calling them crazy is no better an arguement than their calling us myopic.

And they may very well reference long-debunked sources. But what about those sources they reference which have not been long-debunked?

Time to start debunking!

As long as the argument (government cover-up) remains the same, and as long as there is no evidence supporting that argument, (there isn't) then there is really nothing to debunk.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

catpain_kangaroo, please review the FAQ. Calling people "crazy" is an ad-hominem attack, which is against the rules.

Let's start with this...

The ETH was first officially proposed as the most valid explanation for UFO/Flying Saucer sightings by a classified study initiated by the U.S. Air Force in 1948. The classified study of approximately 300 cases produced an ‘Estimate of the Situation’ in September 1948, whose conclusion supported the ETH. The study and its remarkable conclusion was moved all the way up the Air Force hierarchy to the desk of the Chief of Staff, General Hoyt Vandenberg who rejected it and made clear that acceptance of the ETH was not an acceptable conclusion for reasons related to national security concerns.


Was the "Estimate of the Situation" a real document?
And if so, was it singlehandedly rejected by Gen Vandenburg like this?

Also, and more importantly, has Keyhoe's material been thoroughly debunked?
Afterall, he's one of the earliest, if not the first, to suggest government cover-up and conspiracy.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I apologize, and I have removed the post. I still stand by my original sentiment, but acknowledge that it was not proper conduct to post it here.

__________________
It can only be attributable to human error.

Yes...and it did reach the conclusion that flying saucers were real and that they came from outer space.

Yes and no. He did reject it, but not for the reason stated. He rejected it because the reports evidence was not sufficient to support its conclusions.

Keyhole was biased by his belief in aliens. He had no "inside information" to confirm his claims. He was a writer after the BIG "story" and that caused him to "see" things that simply were not there.

It is interesting to note what Keyhole "thought" about the supposed aliens "motives". He felt that they were afraid of us because we were exploding H-bombs...and if we exploded a large number of these, the Earth would leave its orbit causing it to crash into Mars or Venus. (At that time, the "logical" home for these aliens.)

Obviously he had some very "odd" ideas.,

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Fascinating!
How do you now this for sure?
The FOIA?

I'd like to see some cited works that show this; do you know of any?
I ask because the report apparently passed up through the ranks and was considered supportive of the conclusions, until Vandenburg, no?

I've read none of his books, so how was he biased?
And how exactly do you know he had no "inside info?"

Also, I thought he started out as a skeptic of the UFO phenomena?

From where does this info come?
His books?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

(I knew not reading that Sitchin book was going to come back and "bite me" in the butt...)

I got "nearly all" of my information from the very excellent book Watch the Skies: A Chronicle of the Flying Saucer Myth written by avation historian Curtis Peebles.

Mr. Peebles goes into great detail explaining the 'in-fighting" behind the scenes in the Air Force, and how "misconceptions" (at the time) lead outsiders to believe certain aspects about the AF's investigation that simply were not true. He quotes from various sources, detailing Keyhole's "involvement" and how Keyhole was instrumental in defining what the "Flying Saucer Myth" would become.

It would take WAY more space than is available here to go into enough detail to explain what made Keyhole "tick". The only thing I can say is...if you're interested, you'll have to read the book. (Now you understand the first sentence in this post. )

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

LOL, RAF!

I certainly won't argue against Peebles' work since I've not read it.
Are there any other sources of info that characterize Keyhoe as such?

And why do you keep calling him "Keyhole?"

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Nothing I can "put my finger on" at the moment...perhaps it will "come to me" later...but old age is a "harsh" mistress, and does lead to failing memory.

Thanks for pointing that out (I never would have "discovered" it, myself)...why indeed...I don't know. I guess when I type Keyho the "le" just happens. Chalk it up to sloppyness.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

OK, and while I realize I need to read Peebles' material, I'm not prepared to dismiss Keyhoe just yet.

I need more info.

Done.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Perfectly understandable...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Since nothing more about the "history" of exopolitics, how about Former Canadian Defense Minister Speaks Out on ET Visitors and Government Secrecy?

Anyone know anything about this?

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

Here is some more info about this. Apparently, all he has is unconfirmed information from a not identified US general. I.e. nothing.
The same guy is also giving interviews about the 9/11 conspiracy.

As long as he has nothing more concrete, he is only an appeal to authority.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

So basically he is saying, he didn't know anything then,
and he doesn't know anything now.

[Edited to add:]
Considering the importance of Canada to the integrated air defence of North America,
the responsible minister not knowing anything is telling.

__________________
Join the Illuminati

Well, he must be the only "one". That special had almost no effect on people's opinions. If you were a believer before watching it, then you were after watching it...same holds true for "skeptics".

Unnamed General??? Is that suppose to be some "form" of evidence?? Consider this...the unnamed General "blabs" to Hellyer about what would have to be the biggest secret of the American government, and now Hellyer is "blabbing" about it at UFO conferences? Does anyone else have a major problem with that?

I think that "says it" right there. Hellyer has become the "darling" of the UFO lecture circuit. He gets the "attention" he (for whatever reason) craves, and the UFO folks can say that they have a "former high ranking politician" who tells the "truth" about UFO's...everyone wins!

I noticed further down the page that Hellyer will be speaking at a conference in Hawaii. Heck, I'd give a speech at a UFO conference if it meant that I'd get an expense paid trip to Hawaii...

...and before anyone says it...I'm sure that the conference is paying his expenses...they payed for his "helecopter ride" so I see no reason why they wouldn't pay for his trip...they want him there badly...

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov