Those who have done any research on it using unbiased sources?

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Playing the role of the poor and victimized is not going to lift the burden of your responsibility to back up your claims.

"We" would include myself and a lot of other people who have looked at The Discovery Project, Dr Greer, and the quality of evidence presented for ET visitations to this planet.

__________________
Olsen the moderator.

i thought this was a free thinkers forum

What does free thought have to do with a first-person plural pronoun? Referring to the occupants of a lifeboat as "we" doesn't negate the likelihood that each person aboard made an independent and conscious decision to flee the sinking ship. I don't tell the other board members what to think or believe, and no one tells me that either. That doesn't mean we won't often come to the same conclusion.

...it would explain a lot of the negativity...

You say "negativity" like it's a bad word. Not that it's what's necessarily happening here, but it's kind of funny to hear you complain in one breath about allegedly regimented, inflexible thought; and in the next breath complain about people exercising their right to freely criticize. If you want a board where your ideas are accepted, no matter how unsupported and unorthodox, then you've come to the wrong place.

Back to the subject at hand, most of us have seen the various witnesses in the Disclosure Project and discussed that testimony at length. It generally falls into three categories: inconsequential, unsubstantiated, or made-up. Much of it is inconsequential in that it simply alludes to something unexplained; the significance is only because the unexplained thing is presumed to be a UFO containing space aliens, or the activity of someone else covering up the space aliens. Likewise with the unsubstantiated portion: someone with tenuous credentials in federal service says he saw something inappropriate, but provides no evidence that lets someone determine whether that person may be lying, mistaken, or whatever. We're just supposed to take it as a necessary consequent of his impeccable credentials. And a few of the witnesses have been appropriately discredited, which is to say their testimony provided verifiable details which simply failed to be verified.

UFO enthusiasts like to hold up the Disclosure Project's infamous press conference as if it were some sort of trump card, against which no defense can be mounted. I tend to see it as the big P.R. hurrah of a guy who now makes his living selling tickets to his space-alien seances. In short, please don't just point us to some D.P. web-flick and pretend that the debate is over at that point.

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

I recently wrote a piece on my webpage about the "disclosure myth". I tried to chronicle the promise of "disclosure" throughout the "modern UFO era" (as some like to call it). My thoughts about this myth are summarized in the ending.

http://members.aol.com/tprinty2/disclosure.html

what research have you done on the malmstrom case? and who were your 'unbiased' sources. (i assume by 'unbiased' you mean people who came to your 'prefered' conclusion)

We!! she must have a mouse in her pocket bfs.

joe - i am convinced that the debunkers are all linked telepathically....

i mean.. i asked the ventriloquist a question and the dummy answered it

Yes, I know some rude person did the same thing to me twice in Polar Shift 2012. Sounds real familiar to me. Check it out. It started on the first page. Very disappointing . . .
(it's not telepathy it is personal messaging, upper right corner . . . )

tim - with all due respect, you also recently wrote that the big sur case had been successfully debunked - it then turned out that this was based on the testimony of one person - now it puzzles me why this 'one person' (kingston george) didn't have to undergo the scrutiny that you tend to put the 'believers' or the 'claimants' through - in other words, why do you trust the word of the guy who tells you what you want to hear?

(actually, that's a rhetorical question - so no answer needed )

we'll call it a draw (then world contact day can be regarded as boyfromspace winning the penalty shoot out )

BoyFromSpace.

You would like to use mud slinging tactics now since you cannot actually hold up to your claims with evidence.
The tactic is- Cast as much doubt on the other guy as you can.

Here's the problem: You actually have a good point.
Your point is: How can anyone be unbiased?
All each side has to do is claim that the investigator was biased if he does NOT rule in their favor.
Somehow, however, police and investigative authorities employ detectives successfully. How can this be possible?

Because the detectives use Scientific Methods.

Imagine that you go into your bathroom and step on the scale.
Does the scale care what your weight is?
Does the scale care what you want to hear?
No. The scale is impartial. It will read your weight as it is actually measured.
Scientific Methods are what detective and investigators use to offer unbiased results.

So whether or not Kingston George was biased is irrelevant. The Tool he Uses- like a scale... - is what keeps the Conclusions Unbiased.

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm pretty tired of your laughing claims of "Woe is Me- I'm being picked on and I'm a victim."
It's just a tactic and you know it.
Either step up to the plate with evidence and use the tools (which if you can use the scientific method to demonstrate your claim is correct- the debunkers will have no choice but to concede your victory- S.M. is unbiased) to support your case or simply quit crying the "pity me" game.

Oh, and one more thing...
That's very bad form.

how's that 'bad form'? - i thought it was a very accurate metaphor.

anyway, back to the point in question.

i have been meaning to make the following point for some time now because people keep shouting,"where's the evidence - show us the evidence - prove it", well you see - if, as i suspect, some ufos are ET vehicles, then by definition (assuming they have travelled from light years away, or from a different dimension or universe or from a different time frame) they will be technologically more advanced than humans. in which case, how can our scientific knowledge (as it is today) ever hope to gather any evidence of their technology? (other than that which they are prepared to let us have)

in other words - your demanding answers but i think the truth of the matter is, we dont even know what the question is yet!

your whole approach to the subject is from a 'we(the scientists) know everything' angle.

so what is your opinion on the bob salas/malmstrom case

i had to chuckle at bill nye the science guy on the larry king show when he accused bob salas of 'misinterpreting what he'd seen' at which point salas pointed out to him that he hadn't actually seen anything, he was in a capsule 60ft underground - dont you just love a guy who doesn't do his homework (well why should he? he already knows that ufos dont exist) - so he strolls onto a live tv show armed with the essential skeptics tool kit (venus,swamp gas, weather balloons etc.) and proceeds to make an absolute fool of himself.
priceless!

You just described Van Rijns Invisible elf.
Do you realize that?

I have a proposition for you.

You and I- Go over- piece by piece- the report made by Kingston George.
No distractions, accusations, mud slinging, ad hom attacks, pity me claims, etc... Just Discuss the Merits of the Investigation Only.
We can use the Scientific Principles- so if either one of us is Biased in any way- That bias can be thwarted.
JoeBoy- Self proclaimed half woo- can act as mediator if he's willing, since he rides the fence and is apparently not biased.

At that point- We can determine what the questions are, what is supported by evidence- what is unsupported by evidence and whether or not the George report is, in fact, biased.

I'm offering a very very sweet deal here.

What do you say?

how could i possibly refuse?

i'm about to go to bed so we'll do it later.

btw - please explain the invisible elf

It's a question in my sig:

I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

I provide no evidence for the backyard invisible elf. I am simply saying there is one. But, go ahead, try to prove me wrong - or are you simply going to accept my claim without evidence? And, please tell me what difference (if you see any) there is between my claim for an invisible elf and this:

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

The reason George does not require an extensive review is because what he states is most plausible. Can there be errors? Sure. However, George wrote a story about an event that requires no spacemen, explains most of what Jacobs says he saw, and was a technical expert on the instrument and its operation at the time. Heck, he even wrote the initial report about using the scope at Big Sur and had reviewed the films for that report. It is a matter of what you want to accept. The more outrageous the claim, the more important it is to provide documentation to support it.

A good analogy (Asimov used a form of this once) is if I told you I had a pot of lead in my back yard. You would not even want to look. If I told you it was a pot of gold, you would be very interested and would probably want to see it. It could be that I did have such a pot. If I told you it was a pot of an element unknown to earth that little spacemen left me, you would begin to question it outright and would demand to see it. If we arrived at the scene, and the pot was not there, I could then claim that MIBs took the pot. Would you believe me or would you seriously question what I told?

This is why the George story is more plausible UNTIL something can be shown that demonstrates the Jacobs story, as he tells it, is true. So far, all we have is the story by Mansmann and Jacobs with nothing else to show for it because the conspiracy took all the evidence away.

From what I can gather (reading this: http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm ), it has been verified that the minutemen missiles were indeed disabled and that Boeing was unable to determine the cause. It appears also that several witnesses saw unidentified lights hovering near the facility (in a foia document, the air force contested this). This seems to be another of those tough ones.

No way to know what was really seen. No evidence that there was a connection with what was seen and the minuteman malfunction. However, it does seem that unidentified lights were seen at both locations prior to the malfunction.

I've been thinking about this and the "unexplained failure" along with the "mysterious lights" feels like a very convenient cover story.
Suppose that something went very wrong and a vital component in some of your ICBM's went off-line, perhaps it is a one in a million combination of unusual circumstances, a batch of faulty parts and bad luck. Whatever it is it's both extremely embarrassing and the sort of information that you really don't want the "other side" to know.
So you try to cover it up, first you write a bunch of material telling that it was an unexplained failure, a mysterious event, and above all that there wasn't anything wrong with the ICBM's, they're perfectly normal, healthy ICBMs , nothing to see here people, go on, move along.
And then you spread around a nice bunch of rumors about strange lights around the base, so that those annoying conspiracy theorists will have something to chew on and let sleeping dogs lie. People will look at this incident in the future and suspect a hidden cause and a cover up behind the "unexplained failure" so why not give them one that won't ruin careers and disturb retirements ?

The reports (actually rumours) of UFOs were described as 'disproven' on this page.
http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/page38.htm, where it says that the Strike team did not find any reports of sightings or unusual activity (contradicting the Cufon report on this page http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm ).

That page also mentions sightings on February 8, 1967 and at other times during this period and in this region; in order for the two to be firmly correlated, we should see just how frequently UFOs were being reported at that time and in that area. If the reporting of UFOs in that area was a frequent event, then the correlation between the UFO and the unexplained shutdown becomes less strong.

It looks as if a UFO 'Flap' was occuring at that time and in that place; for some unknown reason , during flaps, it appears that people are more likely to report UFOs. That really doesn't prove that extraterrestrials are involved.

Note also that Salas did not see any UFO; he is relying on hearsay - and I would venture to suggest, on unreliable memory as well.

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

Not so sure, since at the time the event was not publicized, and Salas came out many years later, when he read that the information had been declassified.

It looks as if a UFO 'Flap' was occuring at that time and in that place; for some unknown reason , during flaps, it appears that people are more likely to report UFOs.

According to this link:

http://www.nicap.org/papers/78hall-wave67.htm

This would seem to present a conundrum for proponents of the UFO “cover up”… if the Zeta Reticulans disabled a missile base, why would the AF declassify the incident?

__________________
Men go and come but Earth abides.

OK, so why would some alien fly all those many billions of miles across space to make a few missiles stop working for a short while?

What's the motivation?

__________________
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 ►

Presumably the motivation would be to make us change our ways.

In the classic sci-fi film The Day the Earth Stood Still, the alien ambassador Klaatu stops all electrical power all over the world, as a demonstration of his power and in an attempt to warn the governments of the Earth that atomic power and weapons are dangerous. This fictional storyline seems to have a very direct relation to the supposed interventions by extraterrestrials suggested by the stories presented in this thread, and may have been their inspiration.

If we are to believe the stories, a Klaatu-like intervention did occur in the 1960s, a demonstration of technology which basically showed that missile technology cannot be relied upon. However if this direct display of power is supposed to have influenced the governments of the world, I don't see much evidence for it.

If aliens had really done this back in the sixties, then the alien threat would have become the most important aspect of military and political thinking from that time onward. Instead we have leaders who are as much in the dark about extraterrestrials as anyone else, and who are concerned with military problems of a much more mundane nature.

If there really were powerful and advanced extraterrestrials looking over the shoulders of the leaders of our world, with the ability to shoot down or simply disable their missiles, I believe that those governments would behave in a significantly different way. However they seem (to me) to simply carry on as normal, as if they were not expecting any intervention or criticism.

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

The first I had heard of this I thought the same about the possibility that we were being given a demonstration of our inability to stop them from shutting us down. Not that I really believe it happened in the first place. However, assuming they did do this for those reasons, with the military mentality (no one is going to tell us what to do) I'm not sure they would have changed their ways so quickly. I am not going to get into this further for lack of qualifications, I have not read the entire thread and don't know enough about the incident to make an intelligent contribution but if I may make one more comment, I had heard early on that it would be all but impossible to shut down more of these silos than just one at a time as they were all independently powered at a different source. If this was covered earlier I apologize and will butt out now. But that did raise my eye brows a bit--tnx--joe

This is true.

source: http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm

In the case of ten isolated systems, this seems to point to some external source causing the shutdown.

As always, I appreciate your help friend---kindest regards--joe (this might sound kind of corny in this day and age, but I still find it sort of cool that you can harvest some info from someone so far away in a split second)

Hi Joe,
I find these two cases (Big Sur, Malmstrom) pretty interesting. Not something you can readily dismiss like Billy Meier assertions of telepathic contact with aliens. The witnesses are credible and appear honest.

I personally do not want to speculate on the motivation issue "why would aliens do this", since this it also opens up speculation "the airforce would cetainly cover this up, etc.", but rather concentrate on any concrete evidence on hand.

The case for the Malmstrom incident, while not conclusive, seems stronger to me.

Isn't a certain percentage of missiles just going to fail no matter what? Obviously, that percentage will vary wildly, but I remember reading that SCUDs, for example, were very unreliable.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

gzhpcu, that one piqued my interest too, strictly from a more scientific POV, not necessarily a CT or an E.T. One. All the same it was intriguing resulting in me hitting I.E. ( I use Firefox for BAUT) and pestering Google.

Maybe a new thread might be useful for discussing that topic in depth?