Top Guns ordered to shoot UFOs

dailytelegraph ^ | January 26, 2009

[JoeProBono]

AIR Force Top Guns have already battled UFOs in the skies over Britain under a top-secret Government directive, a former senior insider has sensationally claimed. Nick Pope - whose 21-year stint at the Ministry of Defence included three years on the UFO desk - told The Sun of the rules of engagement for the first time. He claimed RAF pilots had fired at UFOs several times - but couldn't take them out.And he added: "We know of cases where the order has been given to shoot down - with little effect to the UFO."

[TalonDJ]

So nice to have a world class expert in gravitics and gravity propulsion systems.

There aren't any such experts because there are no such drives on earth nor does anyone really understand gravity here anyway. Someone claims it was that because they know no one has the information to disagree. Might as well say it was subetherwaverezorberation engines and they react badly to cow farts. Maybe there are ET and maybe they have visited and maybe one even crashed. But it sure as heck was not because some alien who could make a gravity wave engine knew less about radar than we do. Total BS. If that was the case their ships would crash into stars a lot because stars put out microwave freq RF much like radars. Tinfoil hat types would get less mocking if they made their theories even slightly believable.

[FreedomFerret]

This is quite possibly the best thread I’ve read all day. No.. all week. Month!

Enlightening. Entertaining. Educating. I laughed, I cried, I ate some chips.

Next I’d like to read a thread about the Hollow Earth Theory.

[sig226]

"Tinfoil hat types would get less mocking if they made their theories even slightly believable."

But then they would be far less amusing. I think Quix is having a meltdown with core collapse and groundwater contamination. Agent Mulder should be along any minute now. The grays have locked on to the implants and they're firing up the transporter ray. Yeeeee - Haaaaa.

[Quix]

In terms of ‘anti-gravity’ propulsion systems, my relative, he’d fiercely disagree with you.

I’ll trust his perceptiveness and job related knowledge

A LOT MORE

and

for a LOT LONGER than I’ll trust willfully blind bias & hide-bound myopia.

[Quix]

Obviously

your knowledge of Quix is about as robust as your knowledge of UFO’s.

Do you have teenage children?

[Quix]

Some ill-informed blokes think their faster-than-light transits are untrue as it is! LOL.

[TalonDJ]

In terms of ‘anti-gravity’ propulsion systems, my relative, he’d fiercely disagree with you.

Did he show you his flying car? Because I would hardly call wanting actual evidence of a technology "willfully blind bias & hide-bound myopia".

But my disagreement is not based on lack of evidence of gravity drives. It is based on extensive experience with aerospace design requirements. To believe aliens were accidentally shot down would by radar is as dumb as how robots in movies go crazy all the time. Both are clearly concocted by someone with no real understanding of the level of thought and planning that goes into defense and aerospace designs. They relay for people to believe them on similar levels of ignorance and the 'sounds plausible' reaction from people with marginal knowledge. In reality engineers are far more methodical and intelligent than movie writers and give them credit for. Likewise whatever ET theorist invented the 'gravity drive - radar interaction' story did so based on having no understanding of the level of redundancy and reliability engineering thought that goes into a spacecraft. The idea that alien engineers were that stupid and myopic is insulting to me as a fellow engineer.


Besides, EVERYONE knows the Zartonians use PSI wave engines and not primitive gravity drive.

[Quix]

the engineers I have known have been top flight blokes.

I don’t know that the Roswell thing was crashed because of a change in our radar stuff that was unanticipated . . . that’s just an assertion made by a researcher or 3.

I suspect some of your assumptions are more farfetched than that.

You should know that things are extremely compartmentalized.

And, that textbooks are willfully lying.

But, hey, enjoy your construction on reality as long as you can.

Things are in a flux.

[starlifter]

Sooo..... from your post #32:

“The video has been analyzed by video experts for 2 weeks and passes every test of authenticity.”

Your words, unless they were garbled by the aliens.

You assert, categorically, that the video “passes every test of authenticity” but decline to provide even the slightest evidence to support that claim. Not one bit.

How can you hope anyone to think your claim has merit without providing some backup beyond an internet video? You have not provided (and probably cannot provide) any legitimate support for your fantastic assertions.

Your credibility is null and void.

Standing-by for the obligatory name calling and arm waiving.

[starlifter]

You wrote:

“video analyzed by all manner of special effects and video experts for 2 1/2 weeks and declared authentic . . .”

Who are those experts (names and qualifications) and where are their declarations?

[Quix]

Hmmmmm

I had the impression that you had fingers.

And, that you knew how to type.

And, that you had eyes.

And, that you had a connection to the net.

I suspect, ASSUMING the above to be true,

you can track such down as well as any of the rest of us.

Besides, you might care.

As a psychologist, I found the video entirely convincing. Given that my profession entails interviewing folks and assessing their honesty and the plausibility of their stories . . . I’ll go ahead and trust my judgment in this case.

Folks given to denial and all manner of other fantasies, rationalizations and blindness are not much fun, anyway.

[Quix]

WOW.

Another incredibly

FLAWED ASSUMPTION . . .

that I care a microgram’s worth what my “credibility” is with you!

Cue dog rolling on floor laughing and slapping floor.

[Quix]

Is it really true that you’ve not VIEWED the video???

Your inane absurde pontifications about it are without having viewed it????

LOL

LOL

ROTFLOL TO THE MAX!

[starlifter]

Thank you for making my point and, more importantly, giving the rest of us a good laugh.

Polite requests by me and others for evidence to support your unearthly claims are met with deflection, insults, ridicule, etc. Not the response of a mature mind. Rather, pretty much what you find on school playground.

BTW, your inability to backup your assertions with facts belies your claim to being a psychologist. A legitimate scientist welcomes inquiry and challenge. A charlatan does not.

Enjoy your fantasies.

[Quix]

We of the UFO ping list . . . 150 plus members

are used to jerks visiting us on our threads and making a lot of loud shallow noises.

We have been assaulted routinely as

—idiots
—insane
—schizophrenics
—dumb
—low in IQ [rather the opposite of reality, thankfully]
—uneducated [also rather the opposite of reality as are most items on this list]
—etc.
—etc.
—etc.

Some of us have elected to just ignore such jerks.
Some of us have decided to give jerks some of their own medicine.
Some of us have decided to be spontaneous in whatever way the moment seems to move us.

We don’t tend to consider the jerks substantive FREEPERS worth much of a substantive reply.

WE HAVE DONE sufficient research into the field . . . and some of us have had enough personal experiences and/or are married to or otherwise related to folks who’ve worked around such craft and technologies or have someone close in our network who has . . . etc. etc. etc.

So, the issues of

IF

there are such things were settled so long ago and so emphatically that all the p*ssing in the wind jerky idiotic statements about such are rather embarrasing to us—for the people making them.

Most of us on the UFO PING LIST consider such ignorant rantings to be less worthwhile and less interesting than last winter’s dog poop in the freeway bar-ditch.

Most of the questions that jerks ask us on the ping list are abundantly and easily answered at any number of sites

IF FOLKS TRULY WANT THE TRUTH.

But we’ve virtually never met a naysayer who was seriously interested in the truth.

And at some point, humoring them with civil and sane answers is just not worth the bother and very uninteresting.

So . . . enjoy making of all that . . . whatever you will.

In my book, the historic traditional crop of naysayers on FR have earned all the naysayers whatever guff they get.

BTW, some FREEPERS have worked in the field or close to the field. Of course they do not post such things openly.

Occasionally, some of us do have fun toying with the jerky idiots . . . it helps bump the thread and others have more of a chance to consider the facts . . . and prepare themselves for the paradigm shifts ahead.

[Quix]

I don’t recall ever observing

the least bit of a robust genuine, fair-minded inquiry and challenge from any naysayer hereon.

For some reason, such seem to be mutually exclusive things vis a vis naysayers, their attitudes, their capacity and willingness to understand and fairly consider facts etc.

You have about as much clue about my PhD in clinical psychology as you do about UFO’s, evidently.

I don’t consider farts in the wind to qualify.

[Hot Tabasco]

“I do believe we will bring one down.

Never happen! If their energy shields can withstand a limited barage of photon torpedos, there is no way our primitive weapons systems or even the weapons we may develop in the next 100 years, will be able to bring one down.

Our best bet is to just pray that the UFO hits either a telephone pole or a flock of geese while at warp speed........

[TalonDJ]

I suspect some of your assumptions are more farfetched than that.

My 'assumptions' are based on sound engineering principles and years of knowledge of how high reliability systems are designed.

You should know that things are extremely compartmentalized.

Exactly why radars don't make the crash.

And, that textbooks are willfully lying.

Not about design methodology. Otherwise planes would be falling from the sky.

But, hey, enjoy your construction on reality as long as you can.

What construction? I disagreed with you one what may or may not have made it crash. You said you don't know either. Don't assume any of my other beliefs or 'constructions' based on that one point of disagreement. It is entirely possible that something crashed at Roswell but anyone that claims to know not only what it was but the exact method it was brought down, and the method the claim is technobable straight out of StarTrek, is not to be believed.

Here is an assumption for you:
If the craft was so advanced that 50 years later we still don't have them in common use that either means a VAST conspiracy beyond all that data would warrant, or that we have no clue or almost none about how it worked. In that case we would would have no idea what crashed it.

Here is another independent one:
If the aliens were able to instantly fix the problem such that now their craft aren't susceptible to radar then they were total morons in the first place for leaving that weakness in. That size of an oversight is unbelievable. Just as unbelievable, as I was pointing out before, as military robots that go nuts all the time. Those movie tales are, much like the explanation of the ET crash, workable only because people want to believe then and are willing to overlook the assumption that is needed to make them make sense; the assumption that engineers are morons.

That is the problem with most fringe theories. They are usually supported or propagated by those that really want to believe them and hence are not logically or rationally broken down and analyzed. Some my have a nugget of truth. Some may have a lot of it. But as long as they are only looked at by those that passionately WANT to believe them then they will never be vetted or taken seriously. In some ways it is 'catch 22'. Usually the way you can tell when theories are garbage is they have overly specific information, like that a gravity engine was interfered with by a radar system, but utterly lacking in the details of HOW or WHY that would happen. Just the assertion that it did with nothing at all to back it up. Assuming the researcher found real evidence that it DID happen that way then they would be able to present that evidence. The argument that would compromise their source is nonsense because telling the 'what' already did that without telling the 'how'. The 'what' can be a fanciful story that people can believe with no evidence at all. The 'how' is mathematically and scientifically provable. So if they are liars they don't dare speak a word of 'how' because it proves them to be liars. On the other hand if they were telling the truth, and if they only knew (the theory of) what had happened and not the details of how then they would not state the what as a proven fact but instead assert it as a theory. Hence it becomes easy to spot the real frauds. If someone claims something strange crashed somewhere they might be telling the truth. If someone says it was a model 5-KT7 saucer with a Borihamont drive that was low on fuel but have no evidence of how they know that then they are a total fraud.

[TalonDJ]

“video analyzed by all manner of special effects and video experts for 2 1/2 weeks and declared authentic . . .”

Who are those experts (names and qualifications) and where are their declarations?

Exactly. Real facts can be documented. Assertions that are sure to be questioned MUST be documented.

[TalonDJ]

As a psychologist, I found the video entirely convincing. Given that my profession entails interviewing folks and assessing their honesty and the plausibility of their stories . . . I’ll go ahead and trust my judgment in this case.

Do you have to give a bibliography for a PhD thesis in psychology or do you just say 'trust me' and the board knows if you are lying?