France to release UFO files - Page 2

Gillianren · #31 (**permalink**) 23-March-2007, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serenitude

My love for Gillian continues to grow daily

Hooray! Jay and Phil aren't the only ones with fan clubs!

And no worries, Fazor; you just happened to make an error in a word I consider especially cool--imagine, if you will, that someone had spelled "tomfoolery" wrong. As I've said before, I don't pick on every error, because I'd like to have a life outside this board (ha!), and I'd never post anything else. Even though you guys are much better than I think you give yourselves credit for, all of you. Well, almost.

Orion437 · #32 (**permalink**) 23-March-2007, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serenitude

This is the Conspiracy Theory forum. By implication of name, you are expected to have a Conspiracy to consider, either your own or one you've come across, or have a component of a Conspiracy theory (ie; a facet of Apollo) you wish considered. If you read the forum rules, the same rules now govern the CT forum that were already in place for the ATM forum - in particular, your hypothesis will be attacked with glee and fervor, you will respond in a timely manner, etc. If you are presenting no hypothesis, only news, as it appears Argos is, I think it would be helpful to find a better home for post before "glee and fervor" get to it, do you not think?

It's not that Argos has done anything wrong - merely posted news in perhaps the wrong forum. A longtime forum member, in good standing, such as Argos, should be given the benefit of doubt in this case, I believe. The news alone provides no indication of either aliens or a conspiracy.

I have to disagree in some minor way.

The news deals with the possibility of alien visits, spacecrafts, etc.

And the ufo phenomena is considered the biggest secret / conspiracy in human history, by the believers of the phenomena.

captain swoop · #33 (**permalink**) 23-March-2007, 11:14 PM

Well, of course they haven't released the 'conclusive' evidence, just the stuff they think it's safe for u to see.

Skyfire · #34 (**permalink**) 23-March-2007, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captain swoop

Well, of course they haven't released the 'conclusive' evidence, just the stuff they think it's safe for u to see.

But that's only true for certain values of "safe" !

Serenitude · #35 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Hooray! Jay and Phil aren't the only ones with fan clubs!

And no worries, Fazor; you just happened to make an error in a word I consider especially cool--imagine, if you will, that someone had spelled "tomfoolery" wrong. As I've said before, I don't pick on every error, because I'd like to have a life outside this board (ha!), and I'd never post anything else. Even though you guys are much better than I think you give yourselves credit for, all of you. Well, almost.

I think of it as "you've arrived". You know, you get spoofed on South Park or Family Guy - you've arrived. Here, you get referenced in a post by JayUtah, Phil laughs at a comment, or Gillian corrects your spelling - you've arrived

Christopher Ferro · #36 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Thompson

No, I would prefer to know what your point is. A link to a report doesn't mean much unless you tell us why you are drawing our attention to it.

I'll note that ToSeek often posts links to articles with no comment, but not typically in the CT threads. So I say lay off Argos.

Back a number of years ago, I was very interested in UFOs and read some of Jaques Valle's books. At the time, I was impressed, a bit spooked, and intrigued by his take on the UFO phenomena. Now I just wonder if some of these French "UFOlogists" didn't hit their heads on something.

CJSF

P.S. to Gillian - I'm a fan, too!

Pinemarten · #37 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 06:34 AM

Don't get any ideas! I may live in Canada but won't be able to translate any of those French reports when their site is back up. We speak Quebec French here, not Parisian.

galacsi · #38 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VPCCD

Well at least the the french "UFOligists" will no longer be able to say how the goverment is witholding information from the public.

It is not directed at French Ufologists who know by experience and from a long time there is nothing to hope from these administrations. It is done for the general population and will disclose absolutely nothing of interest. Totally dummy news.

R.A.F. · #39 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by galacsi

It is not directed at French Ufologists who know by experience and from a long time there is nothing to hope from these administrations.

Actually...

Quote:

The aim was to make it easier for scientists and UFO buffs to access the data for research.

...that is exactly why they released the information. (at least that is their claim)

Quote:

It is done for the general population and will disclose absolutely nothing of interest. Totally dummy news.

I have to agree that "nothing of interest" will be disclosed. (Unless one is interested in why people believe weird things.)

Argos · #40 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serenitude

My first reaction as well, as I found nothing inherently suggesting ET or Conspiracy in the disclosure. My first instinct was that Argos was simply bringing the info to the attention of the CT crowd.

Yeah, my post has only informative purposes. I thought it was pertinent to the conspiracy theory field of study, and I expected someone to come up with something interesting to say about it. Feel free to move it or take other meaures that seems fit.

Argos · #41 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah

In the linked article, the custodian of this project, Jacques Patenet, says, "We do not have the least proof that extra-terrestrials are behind the unexplained phenomena." And also, "Nor do we have the least proof that they aren't."

Actually, this quote prompted me to post the article, since the second part can encourage CTheorists to continue on their pursuit...

mugaliens · #42 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 01:49 PM

I find the following comment rather indicative of the poor efficacy of that agency altogether: "Of the 1,600 cases registered since 1954, nearly 25 percent are classified as "type D", meaning that "despite good or very good data and credible witnesses, we are confronted with something we can't explain," Patenet said."

I'll be that if I had access I could find plausible explanations...

Argos · #43 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Serenitude

This is the Conspiracy Theory forum. By implication of name, you are expected to have a Conspiracy to consider, either your own or one you've come across, or have a component of a Conspiracy theory (ie; a facet of Apollo) you wish considered. If you read the forum rules, the same rules now govern the CT forum that were already in place for the ATM forum - in particular, your hypothesis will be attacked with glee and fervor, you will respond in a timely manner, etc. If you are presenting no hypothesis, only news, as it appears Argos is, I think it would be helpful to find a better home for post before "glee and fervor" get to it, do you not think?

In fact I feel like a newbie in the CT forum. I thought we could have a discussion on how CTheorists woud react to the disclosure of the files. Maybe I shouldn´t have posted it [or should have stated it clearly in the OP]... Well, sorry.

Orion437 · #44 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 02:14 PM

The site is down or having technical problems.

Serenitude · #45 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argos

In fact I feel like a newbie in the CT forum. I thought we could have a discussion on how CTheorists woud react to the disclosure of the files. Maybe I shouldn´t have posted it [or should have stated it clearly in the OP]... Well, sorry.

No worries Argos. Thanks for clarifying. Things are fine - we just wanted to clarify your position - and it's news, as we suspected

We'll leave it here - maybe some useful CT discussion will come about.

JayUtah · #46 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 03:44 PM

I find the following comment rather indicative of the poor efficacy of that agency altogether: "Of the 1,600 cases registered since 1954, nearly 25 percent are classified as 'type D', meaning that 'despite good or very good data and credible witnesses, we are confronted with something we can't explain,' Patenet said."

That's a credible percentage of unexplained happenstance events. Of course you want to know what they mean by can't explain. It might mean they're clueless, or it could mean that they suspect something but don't have enough evidence to falsify it. Remember that the goal is not just to find out what it might be, but to make a good case for what it is. If they can't confidently do that, they might not.

Nevertheless your chances of finding out what it was increase with effort. And perhaps that's the motive behind releasing this information. If more people are able to see the reports and original testimony, they might bring insight to the table.

JayUtah · #47 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 04:03 PM

I thought we could have a discussion on how CTheorists woud react to the disclosure of the files. Maybe I shouldn´t have posted it [or should have stated it clearly in the OP]... Well, sorry.

That would be an excellent discussion. You're definitely justified in posting it here, so don't feel bad. But in future, yes, it is helpful to express your intentions a bit more clearly.

Here's why.

Conspiracy theorists often bait critics into a weak position by forcing the critic to guess at his theory. Then after the critic has committed to a line of refutation, the conspiracist can change horses. It also makes the critic look overly argumentative. That's why classical logicians considered it a fallacy in itself to fail to state one's argument carefully.

Doesn't really apply to you since you are a reputable poster, but that's the mindset that prevails here.

Orion437 · #48 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 08:24 PM

Removed, totally off-topic.

R.A.F. · #49 (**permalink**) 24-March-2007, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orion437

Here you have 62 young people who swear they saw weird things...

And your point is??