When you say "they" are you talking about ET's??

Just one question which just popped into my mind: are all of the military witnesses in Steven Greer's Disclosure Project liars?

On a point of order...

there are two interstellar strategies being compared here,
the 'asteroid space-ark generation ship'

versus the 'unmanned frozen clone carrying probe';

there are difficulties and advantages associated with both strategies, but neither has been ruled out as a viable interstellar strategy.

In fact the smaller, lighter, faster frozen clone carrying ship will tend to arrive first, and will consume much less energy; however the technology required for a successful 'unmanned frozen clone' strategy is somewhat more complex.

'asteroid space arks' consume vast amounts of fuel, propellant, and life support energy; and are much slower.
When the space arks arrive they are likely to find the destination system has been already claimed by a group ouf defrosted clones.

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense- Novella Contest Issue! . OA Flickr set

Didn't we already discuss this?

• Original commentary
• Follow-up

We did discuss it, but still we discussed more of Dr. Greer. After looking at some disclosure video clips, I still ask: are all the witnesses liars?

Well, unless they release what they claim to possess in terms of "hard evidence", we likely won't be able to answer that question.

Pfft, who cares about some defrosted clones? You've got a huge asteroid with tons of people, orbital weapons, armed walkers, smaller space crafts etc. Just wipe out the clones.

Why would you need clones though? I don't see the point. Either you can "freeze" your crew, or you can't. If you can, it doesn't matter if they're clones or not. If you can't freeze your crew, you just bring a healthy population and a "sperm bank" (or whatever's equal to your reproductive process).

So what's the point of cloning? Now there are several people saying cloning is the solution, but nobody is giving any reasons as to what it solves, and why it would be preferred over another solution.

And IF cloning is the way to go (I don't see why, but lets say so for the sake of argument), don't you think they would be far more advanced in genetics and be able to work out any defects? And why would they need humans anyway? Our DNAs are probably completely different. They could take apes or pigs or sheep. Why humans? Because you want to feel wanted?

I just don't get it.

They're not assumptions R.A.F., I just dropped all the 'apparent,' 'presumably' stuff, for the sake of seeing where it leads if we take many reports of sightings at 'face value.'

The pertinent quote from the original thread http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...hlight=#176833
As I said, I find the idea of a holographic projection interesting because it would solve the movement questions more elegantly than the airflow propulsion idea, imo. But there's big problems with that model--like, how to project a hologram that looks solid (even in broad daylight by some accounts)--it seems that such a holographic technology would be as revolutionary as a new form of propulsion.

My apologies if I ever make it sound like 'these things are alien ships for sure,' because that's not what I mean. I just think it's interesting sometimes to discuss what the implications could be, if we take the testimony and footage for exactly what they say/appear to be, to the witnesses who were there.

If I did, it wouldn't entail an apparent 'breaking of physical laws' as we know them, would it?

And I'm only discussing the issue from the POV of what we have if we take the accounts at face value, for the sake of argument, which is what we're all doing to some degree or another in order to discuss the subject at all, right?

So okay, try this--if it's so easy to make a craft that exhibits the reported flight characteristics of witnesses, using nothing more than forced air, then why doesn't the miltary replace all of their jet fighters with these things? Sure seems like being able to fly into Iraq at 4000+mph, stop on a dime over a munitions depot and drop a bomb, then bolt off in the direction you came from 'like a bullet leaving a gun barrel,' without making a sound, would have some tactical value 8)

Remember
They also abduct cows.
Strangely these cows were found dead with broken legs like if they were left from high above the ground.

The responsables for mutilating these animals were never found and arrested by local polices or the FBI.
http://www.mufor.org/fyffe.htm
FBI disclosed file about
Animal/Cattle Mutilation
http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/ufoanim.htm

No...it's not just you.

scourge, how about you quote whoever said building a craft like we described would be easy, and who said we would be able to survive the G forces involved during violent accelerations/decelerations. I'd love to know.

So here, by request, is what I could find of some interest on the web so far, by way of photographic evidence and reports. Please bear in mind that this is the best I could find on the web in three days of spare time tinkering, so not all of this bears the 'scourge stamp of approval,' but I think it illustrates that there may be something to consider in this area.

Of particluar disappointment, is NICAP's 'come one come all' policy of photographic filing--several of the cases on their website have been convincingly dismissed by skeptics at CSICOP and others, but others remain of interest.

I find cases in different parts of the world that appear similar to be especially interesting so I've pointed some of these out.

Ideally, I'd like to see radar/visual/videotaped cases, but as long as the investigation effort is volunteer and grass-roots that's not likely to happen.

Here's a good page of photos, for overview purposes--I like how you can just scroll down to see additional shots, so I'm posting it here, despite the fact that it contains a few cases that have certainly been explained or debunked: http://unionbell.8k.com/photo2.html

Here’s the link to NICAP’s collection of ufo photos (still no luck finding any video footage online, which is frustrating-- I know some interesting stuff exists because I’ve seen it): http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/cat8.htm

And another link to photos: http://bedlam.rutgers.edu/ufo/pictures/

This 1965 California case: http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/heflinrep.htm, bears a bizarre similarity to this 1974 Yugoslavia case: http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/yugo74.htm
and this 1977 Germany case: http://www.ufocasebook.com/germanylarge.jpg

This link presents an argument that several sightings may be of the same object: http://www.temporaldoorway.com/ufo/c...ject/index.htm

This 1954 image taken in France http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/france54.htm is strikingly similar to this 1950 Oregon case: http://brumac.8k.com/trent1.html

And here’s a 2002 NARCAP paper of interest: http://www.narcap.org/reports/TR6pt1.htm “Radar Catalogue: A Review of Twenty One Ground and Airborne Radar UAP Contact Reports Generally Related to Aviation Safety for the Period October 15, 1948 to September 19, 1976”

Also, NARCAP’s catalog of 1302 sighting reports http://www.narcap.org/reports/tr-4c.doc
And their 2001 report http://www.narcap.org/reports/emcarm.htm “A Preliminary Study of Sixty Four Pilot Sighting Reports
Involving Alleged Electromagnetic Effects on Aircraft Systems"

I don't know, I never said that.

2 remarks:

* Why ô why do UFO pictures HAVE to be blurry??

* http://www.nicap.dabsol.co.uk/cat8.htm
One should indeed not give this site too much value. This site lists confessed fakes among their "important incidents". I haven't read through the other sites (I've looked at the pitures), but if that's the level of investigation efforts they go for...

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Maybe you meant they would be piloted by AI, or remote controlled?
There'd be the whole issue about jamming communications, not to mention if the control center lost power or was taken out. But we can discuss that if you want to explain your reasoning.

And what about who said it would be easy to build one of these crafts?

Not to mention from 1965, faded and then scanned at lowres around 1995, and then compressed to jpg around 2003 before being put online. There's no telling what those objects actually are, would be no problem to hang a wooden/plastic model on a fishing line and take a pic, scan it at lowres after developing it, then compressing it further.

Sure the object might be there, but what is it? Could be anything.

Google images: "high res UFO" ("high resolution UFO" gave no satisfactory results)

1 positive result.
This: http://ray.onemoremonkey.com/ufo/1-1200.jpg

I guess the only thing being "high res" on that picture is the amount of pixels, but it's just bloated from a smaller photo.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

Well, I've heard we have some kind of special liquid-pressure flight suit so pilots can survive steep accelerations, and apparently you can survive extremely high accelerations if the exposure time is brief. But I tend to favor the 'remote probe' idea, for the smaller craft anyway. Or, another form of propulsion, maybe some kind of asymmetric gravitational field principle. Until we have a better idea of how matter curves spacetime, we can't rule out the possibility of a synthetic gravitational field effect. This would explain all of the current observations, and would also allow for pilots, because the acclerat