Did he really say reflective "like a mirror" or rather about some deflective action on the electromagnetic spectrum visible by the human eyes?

I am not ready to throw out his reputation on that possible misinterpretation.
Dr. Vallée
Life and career
UFO research and academic work
Vallee's interpretation of the UFO evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques..._academic_work

Here is a condensed version.

"Many years ago I gave a lecture on UFO research at Oxford University. One of the people attending, a physics faculty member, told me of an interesting personal experience. His hobby was to fly gliders over the English countryside. On one occasion, on a bright afternoon, he was astonished to see his plane reflected in a surface that appeared to be motionless in the atmosphere. He actually flew around the object and determined it was a perfectly reflecting cylinder. It is obvious that such a device would have "low-observable" characteristics - a visual stealth platform."

He also states: "It is tempting to jump to the conclusion..."

Jumping to conclusions is all he does.
He is a highly gifted Bart.

... or a BS-artiste.

__________________
Join the Illuminati

Wow! all these pages and still nothing.

I get a hankering for a 30 day limit like in ATM.

OK, If the technology for these 'fake' flying saucers has been developed since ww2, why are the Air Force still using Gas Turbines? They are of a similar vintage according to your theory>
?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Yeah, I liked it better when it was only three pages and nothing.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I am not ready to throw out his reputation on that possible misinterpretation.

I base my judgment of his UFO claims not on his reputation (i.e., what he had said) but rather on what he says: and what he says is untestable, purely speculative hogwash. As I said, faced with his opinion of the unworkability of one outrageous hypothesis (extraterrestrials), he simply propounds another one just as outrageous, only this time formulated to avoid his claimed pitfalls in the data -- yet just as unworkable, untestable, and unscientific. He simply widens the goalposts so wide that even a ball kicked by a blindfolded drunkard saturated in Novocaine from the waist down would still hit it.

And he makes the standard presumptions of incorporation by attribution all weird occurrences from time immemorial, and the circular assessment of technological prowess from the implications of the interpretations. None of that is the least scientific.

Let's look at his bibliography. His technical publications are few, lackluster, and pedestrian; they cease abruptly in the mid-1980s after only about 15 years in the field. No wonder he published more on the subject of UFOs than on the topics he was trained in, as well as writing science fiction in more vast volume. You'll have a hard time convincing me he is one of France's top minds on anything except UFOs.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

One of the people attending, a physics faculty member, told me of an interesting personal experience.
he was astonished to see his plane reflected in a surface that appeared to be motionless in the atmosphere.
He actually flew around the object and determined it was a perfectly reflecting cylinder. It is obvious that such a device would have "low-observable" characteristics - a visual stealth platform.

In that paragraph he does not say " that aircraft can be made invisible by making them perfectly reflective. (Like mirrors.)"

Lets complete the phrase which is located 2 paragraph above the quote you give ...from your link
"It is tempting to jump to the conclusion that some sort of space-based weapon is being developed."
"I am reluctant to assume this because of the cost involved."
Now you can put the whole thing in context by reading from there.

He does not jump to conclusions as you report it.

He is "not jumping to conclusions" the same way Von Däniken never "jumps to conclusions."

__________________
Join the Illuminati

To resume you say that until someone come with an Alien and his spacio temporal / interdimentional ship to study there is nothing worth the discussion.

That is the way the "phenomena" -present to or interact- with humanity since time immemorial who make Vallee suggesting that attribution.
There is something happening and the possible government manipulation of UFO sightings seem more and more evident as demonstrated in the
"Pentacle Memorandum"
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/pentacle.htm

You probably miss the link from wikipedia i given earlier
Dr. Vallée
Life and career

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques..._academic_work
Vallée also dismiss the myth that astronomers dont see UFO
And ......

To resume you say that until someone come with an Alien...

Okay, none of that addressed the points I raised.

That is the way the "phenomena" -present to or interact- with humanity since time immemorial who make Vallee suggesting that attribution.

Repeating the unfounded attribution doesn't create a foundation for it.

You probably miss the link from wikipedia i given earlier...

No, I simply note that he has been much more prolific as a UFO "researcher" than as a scientist. If you want me to believe he is a renowned scientist who happens also to believe (scientifically) in space aliens, then you'll have to show me more that just a few pedestrian publications in his original chosen field -- and hopefully something other than retrospective or descriptive work. He hasn't produced any actual science. His record shows a rather mediocre academic who evidently switched to something more noteworthy.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

No, he don't (scientifically) believe in space aliens here is the reason :
from wiki
Vallée's opposition to the ETH theory is summarised in his paper, "Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects," Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1990:

"Scientific opinion has generally followed public opinion in the belief that unidentified flying objects either do not exist (the "natural phenomena hypothesis") or, if they do, must represent evidence of a visitation by some advanced race of space travellers (the extraterrestrial hypothesis or "ETH"). It is the view of the author that research on UFOs need not be restricted to these two alternatives. On the contrary, the accumulated data base exhibits several patterns tending to indicate that UFOs are real, represent a previously unrecognized phenomenon, and that the facts do not support the common concept of "space visitors." Five specific arguments articulated here contradict the ETH:
1-unexplained close encounters are far more numerous than required for any physical survey of the earth;
2-the humanoid body structure of the alleged "aliens" is not likely to have originated on another planet and is not biologically adapted to space travel;
3-the reported behavior in thousands of abduction reports contradicts the hypothesis of genetic or scientific experimentation on humans by an advanced race;
4-the extension of the phenomenon throughout recorded human history demonstrates that UFOs are not a contemporary phenomenon; and
5-the apparent ability of UFOs to manipulate space and time suggests radically different and richer alternatives."

No, he don't (scientifically) believe in space aliens...

Yes, of course: interdimensional aliens -- a concept we already dealt with. Sorry about that.

Now address my other points, please.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

what he says is untestable, purely speculative hogwash. As I said, faced with his opinion of the unworkability of one outrageous hypothesis (extraterrestrials), he simply propounds another one just as outrageous, only this time formulated to avoid his claimed pitfalls in the data -- yet just as unworkable, untestable, and unscientific.

I agree with that....

That is why i switched with:

To resume you say that until someone come with an Alien and his spacio temporal / interdimentional ship to study there is nothing worth the discussion scientifically speaking.

One comment about Blue Book project.

Their conclusion was not that there was no UFO's cases defying natural explanation but that UFO's are not a threat for National Security...Right?

According to their fact sheet, Blue book concluded:

No UFO reported, investigated, and evaluated by the Air Force has ever given any indication of threat to our national security.
There has been no evidence submitted to or discovered by the Air Force that sightings categorized as "unidentified" represent technological developments or principles beyond the range of present day scientific knowledge.
There has been no evidence indicating the sightings categorized as "unidentified" are extraterrestrial vehicles.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=188

Interesting how the wording can be twisted to match both your statements.

"There has been no evidence" makes no inference on whether or not the situation "defies natural explaination".

In other words, there is no evidence one way or another. So; how do you play the cards? The AF has played them with a comparison of known threats.

And; no matter how you slice it, there is no reason for the Air Force to persue it, other than out of curiosity.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

Interesting how the wording can be twisted to match both your statements.

"Twisted" being the operative word.

UFO proponents tend toward loaded language. "Defies explanation" has an emotional component. It suggests that explanation thwarted all the best efforts of comsummate professionals. Therefore it "must" be due to some extraordinary cause such as space aliens, otherwise these talented investigators surely would have reached some conclusion.

Those of us who must write carefully as a matter of course use phrases such as "we have seen no evidence," and "no evidence has been presented," in conjuction with specific hypothesis to show that a nominal burden of prima facie proof is required for it, which has not been satisifed under the normal course of data collection, but to avoid saying that a specific line of reasoning and evidentiary analysis has been constructed to rule out the hypothesis.

Under no circumstances is that mean to convey the belief or conclusion that no prosaic explanation is likely, nor that the hypothesis is necessarily false.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I just got to the part about the "blindfolded drunkard saturated in novocaine from the waist down". What did your mother feed you Jay. I want some right now!! Don't you know you are supposed to be a stuffy scientist without any sense of humor? Is there nothing you can't do well? I have been observing and I think I have found your weakness. You can't fly can you? Ha!! (you can't can you??!!)--joe

AFAIK he can...

__________________
"Who does not know anything, must believe everything."
Baroness Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach 1830-1916
our animal welfare board and organisation

DRAT!!!

ohhh..... kingston george..... who was most definitely NOT i repeat NOT at the screening of the film which clearly showed a disc shaped object shooting down the dummy warhead.

q: is there such a word as 'un-debunked'? .... game on!!!

I'm unfamiliar with the particulars. Is this entire event base on the word of Bob Jacobs? Did any of the other guys shown in the pic see this? Is there any evidence at all besides Bob's word?

And you were there? What do you base this upon? Kingston George was part of the team with the telescope but you ignore his testimony and accept Jacobs story? Seems to me you want to believe the fantastic rather than the more likely scenario. Provide evidence that Kingston George was not at the screening. Jacobs doesn't count because it just becomes one word against the other.

you claimed that the incident had been debunked because of the testimony of one person - kingston george ... then you claim that jacobs' account doesnt count. why is one persons word more valid than another's?

http://www.theufochronicles.com/2008...debunkers.html

florenz j mansmann backs up jacobs' story - so thats two peoples word against one.

you asked me to provide evidence that kingston george wasn't at the screening - i dont need to, george himself doesn't even claim to have been at that screening - his testimony is based on what the team witnessed in the 'live' viewing at big sur.

(btw - i dont think jacobs or george are lying about what they witnessed - i dont think any of the team saw anything suspicious at the time, but for george to try and tell the world what jacobs saw or didn't see, at a private screening that he wasn't involved in, is arrogance of the highest degree)

Because it is one person against another. Neither outweighs the other. You claim that George was not there. George claims he saw the film and said there was nothing unusual about it and there was reasons for classifying the film. BTW, George was also at the site with the telescope.


That link did not work for me.


So what? That is not evidence that it is as Jacobs described. Again, George was very familiar with the telescope and saw the film. Even Jacobs admitted this in his article:

It is not clear whether or not Kingston George was privy to the screenings of the Big Sur film which recorded the UFO. My suspicion is that he was one of those to whom Mansmann has admitted showing the film. His document, however, states clearly that a missile malfunctioned during the B.U. test period, now putting the final lie to the Air Force denials.

Of course, George explains what the "malfunction" was all about.

You stated George was absolutely not there. George states he saw the film in the article I linked.

Weeks later, my clearance level was increased to allow me to see the films again and analyze them.

Therefore, you need to prove George was not present at the viewing or admit it is possible that he saw the film. The question is, did Jacobs see the film or did he see something else? If both saw the film and each described something else, then it was obviously open to interpretation. The more likely scenario is what George describes. If you want aliens shooting down missles, you need to provide better evidence than the recollections of Jacobs. [/quote]

With nothing to hide, why don't they let the public see that old film?

According to Kingston George,

The Top Secret film was marked for downgrading and declassification after 12 years, but its utility was over after a few months. Top Secret storage is too difficult and expensive for keeping items of dubious worth, and the film and related materials were all destroyed long before the 12 years were up. Only a few of us even remember the incident today, and Bob Jacobs is being both safe and cagey in observing that the Air Force denies the existence of the film or other hard evidence.

The important thing to note is that the claim is a UFO shotdown a warhead. Imagine yourself a US general in 1964 and some UFO shotdown a nuclear warhead. The first thing you assume is that it was a Russian craft of some kind that did it. The worst case scenario would be the Soviets had shot the warhead down with a new spacecraft they had in their inventory. If they could shoot down one warhead, they could possibly shoot them all down! The US is now open to a potential Soviet nuclear attack! Where are the memos flying fast and furious around the Pentagon, the President, and in the defense department? What about redesigns of missile systems to prevent this from occurring again? Where are they? I am unaware of any supporting documention that mentions the story that Jacobs tells anywhere.

However, if it were the case of the telescope seeing more than it should, then all you do is classify the film and issue non-disclosure agreements with the individuals involved. This is why the Kingston George scenario makes more sense.

If Jacobs can produce one item of hard evidence (i.e. documentation released via FOIA) to suggest what he states is true, then he might have something. Instead, we are fed the usual conspiracy claims and UFO/alien mumbo jumbo.

why shoot down just that one warhead?

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Thanks AP--joe

the link has changed - try this:

http://www.theufochronicles.com/2008...debunkers.html

read the whole article and it explains everything in here - very interesting read.

Much more likely than an (unprecedented and irrational) act of ET aggression is the prosaic explanation that Kingston George gives, that the objects seen were associated with the break-up of the missile itself. The US military also seems to have come to this conclusion, since they did not accuse the USSR of shooting down the missile.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set