"Lacking any discernible intake or exhaust features, it is the opinion of AMC and ONF that this craft was designed to operate outside of the earth's atmosphere. The unconventional conclusions reached by members of this fact finding mission remain tentative at this time. Some members expressed the view that ULAT-1 may be the product of an advanced culture from another planet...."
There were at least two more stronger statements to that affect in the document. You don't read carefully when you have an agenda, do you?
I didn't write that document, I read from the same source as you.
As I explained in posts that were not directed at you, military reports were not edited prior to the use of PCs. They were prepared on manual typewriters; and, corrections were deemed too expensive and of no instrinsic value.
I was an officer in the Army AJC. I was explicitly taught that only Congressional and Presidential correspondance was proofed and edited. Reports were never proofed.
What is the quality of documentation produced by your peers, even with Word helping? I find that most people produce reports of poor quality. In military circles, it is the information that is deemed important, not the beauty of the document.
NOW, NOW, DEAR HEART!
How dare you be so unkind as to
try and confuse the naysayers with FACTS!
LOL.
/sar
As I understand it, naysayers have a terminal
and horrific allergy
to facts.
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html
full text:
http://www.book-of-thoth.com/article1782.html
SOME EXCERPTS OF:
Zen . . . And the Art of Debunkery
Revised edition, © 1997 by Daniel Drasin. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without express permission from the author, ddrasin@aol.com
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/scepticism/drasin.html
It’s a great article on the topic. I’m currently emailing him with a request to post the whole article.
Here’s a few paragraphs:
INTRODUCTION
So you’ve had a close encounter with a UFO. Or a serious interest in the subject of extramundane life. Or a passion for following clues that seem to point toward the existence of a greater reality. Mention any of these things to most working scientists and be prepared for anything from patronizing skepticism to merciless ridicule. After all, science is supposed to be a purely hardnosed enterprise with little patience for “expanded” notions of reality. Right?
Wrong.
Like all systems of truth seeking, science, properly conducted, has a profoundly expansive, liberating impulse at its core. This “Zen” in the heart of science is revealed when the practitioner sets aside arbitrary beliefs and cultural preconceptions, and approaches the nature of things with “beginner’s mind.” When this is done, reality can speak freshly and freely, and can be heard more clearly. Appropriate testing and objective validation can—indeed, *must*—come later.
Seeing with humility, curiosity and fresh eyes was once the main point of science. But today it is often a different story. As the scientific enterprise has been bent toward exploitation, institutionalization, hyperspecialization and new orthodoxy, it has increasingly preoccupied itself with disconnected facts in a psychological, social and ecological vacuum. So disconnected has official science become from the greater scheme of things, that it tends to deny or disregard entire domains of reality and to satisfy itself with reducing all of life and consciousness to a dead physics.
As the millennium turns, science seems in many ways to be treading the weary path of the religions it presumed to replace. Where free, dispassionate inquiry once reigned, emotions now run high in the defense of a fundamentalized “scientific truth.” As anomalies mount up beneath a sea of denial, defenders of the Faith and the Kingdom cling with increasing self-righteousness to the hull of a sinking paradigm. Faced with provocative evidence of things undreamt of in their philosophy, many otherwise mature scientists revert to a kind of skeptical infantilism characterized by blind faith in the absoluteness of the familiar. Small wonder, then, that so many promising fields of inquiry remain shrouded in superstition, ignorance, denial, disinformation, taboo . . . and debunkery.
What is “debunkery?” Essentially it is the attempt to *debunk* (invalidate) new information and insight by substituting scient*istic* propaganda for the scient*ific* method.
It’s worth a read.