So what's the big deal anyway
Posted on 11/12/2007 3:53:44 PM PST by mdittmar
UFOs may be fodder for comedians and science fiction but there was no joking Monday when a group of pilots and officials demanded the US government reopen an investigation into unidentified flying objects.
The 19 former pilots and government officials, who say they have seen UFOs themselves or been involved in probes of strange flying objects, told reporters their questions can no longer be dismissed more than 30 years after the US case was closed.
"We want the US government to stop perpetuating the myth that all UFOs can be explained away in down-to-earth, conventional terms," said Fife Symington, former governor of Arizona and air force pilot who says he saw a UFO himself in 1997.
"Instead our country needs to reopen its official investigation that it shut down in 1969," Symington told a news conference.
Symington read an appeal on behalf of the group of who came to Washington to recount their sightings of UFOs.
"We believe that for reasons of both national security and flight safety, every country should make an effort to identify any object in its airspace," the statement said.
The group included a retired pilot from Air France who said he saw an enormous flying disc during a flight from Nice to London in 1994, an Iranian pilot who tried in vain to fire on a UFO in 1976 and a former US official from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) who claims a probe into a UFO seen over Alaska in 1987 was squelched.
"'Who believes in UFOs?' is the kind of attitude of the FAA all the time," Symington said.
"However, when I asked the CIA person: 'What do you think it was,' he responded 'a UFO.'"
When Symington suggested the government tell Americans about a UFO, the CIA official allegedly told him: "'No way, if we were to tell the American public there are UFOs they would panic.'"
The subject of UFOs came up in a recent debate among presidential candidates, with Democrat Dennis Kucinich saying he saw a UFO.
Skeptics say UFO sightings are merely aircraft or meteors re-entering the Earth's atmosphere.
I’ve been backwards and forwards over such things for more than 45 years more times than I care to recall.
My rigor in exammining details; sources; logic; puzzle pieces of evidence is, to my mind, well above average. I have no apologies on such scores. Cheeky skepticism doesn’t impress me a great deal.
I usually detect more sides to issues than most folks are aware of, much less can argue.
I have no great need to “prove” such things. I’ve reached an age where much of what I “know” I know because I know . . . having been backwards and forwards and every other which way through piles of evidence repeatedly.
At this point, I tend to pontificate out of the distilled gestalt of all my vast info vacuum habits. If folks disagree or don’t believe; don’t have anything close to a similar perspective, that, at some point, has to be their problem.
Time will tell soon enough in some respects.
Those who willfully and stupidly rejected the handwriting on the wall will pay whatever their individual costs are for such willful blindness. One can only raise a red flag effectively to a very limited degree.
Comfort zones are hard addictions to alter.
So what's the big deal anyway
I gave the book away years ago.
I have already asserted my relative as a source.
And, I’ve asserted that the highest ranking folks who’ve gone on the record over the years have asserted such.
I don’t have any great need to go into any greater detail. Those experts and direct experiencers had far more info at their fingertips than all my collection of puzzle pieces . . . or yours . . . and in some cases, or Vesco’s.
At some point, one trusts certain sources to a certain minimal degree or one doesn’t.
My PhD in clinical psychology has aided my screening of sources in terms of believability. But it hasn’t greatly altered the conclusions. It helps to have had a profession in which assessing truthfulness has been a key part of one’s professional effectiveness. But one is not flawless regardless of how near so training, experience, diversity of personalities and age may have helped one become.
Nevertheless, I’m comfortable with my conclusions at this point. Much has to be put on the shelf as hypotheses awaiting real time events in the not too distant future in which such technologies and critters will be foisted on the world stage very overtly in behalf of the establishment of the global government.
There are increasing rumblings of such getting closer and closer and louder and louder as well as more detailed in their “disclosures.” We shall see.
BTW, do you own any dog(s)?
But most higher ranking folks of that era who’ve gone on the record at all, have asserted the same thing.
***Wasn’t Marcel the highest ranking military officer on the site until the DIA guys showed up and started telling everyone to keep their mouths shut?
I think so. But I don’t recall for sure.
That’s one of those details I don’t keep in very active memory. Things I can look up tend to become that way, to me unless they are of particular unique interest for one reason or another.
And I’ve studied it for over 45 years as well as having a close relative working around the craft.
***Then produce the relative and let us see the evidence. That would move it from an inductive to a deductive pursuit if he has physical evidence. Keep in mind that the physical evidence of the Roswell site that was sent to Art Bell turned out to be almost EXACTLY what I predicted it would be.
And we both have our assumptions about a variety of puzzle pieces. Occam’s razor; inductive logic; deductive logic . . . none of those remove assumptions.
***Some things are better LOGIC tools than others. Some of them DO have the effect of removing assumptions. For instance, using an inductive approach about Dragnet’s land whale analogy, the whole thing would come crashing down if someone produced a land whale. There’s nothing wrong with having assumptions, but there is something wrong with HIDING assumptions. The same probably applies to having a bias as well, since it colors our assumptions and perspectives.
None of those are magic truth detectors.
*** Truth detectors? Did you have a truth detector strapped onto Marcel during your investigations? Do you have some sort of tool that works as a truth detector? Your own intuition is only as good as its ability to determine futures prices on Pork Bellies, and if you had that you’d be a very wealthy man.
I’m not impressed with your predictive abilities regarding metalic fragment compositions. Interesting but doesn’t decide the war, for me.
My relative only has his experiences to share. They are not greatly different from those of a lot of others who’ve gone on the record about working around the craft.
The business of Pork Belly futures vs discerning whether a given individual speaking orally is telling the truth or not—is—for a psychologist—two very different issues, contexts, set of factors to assess etc. I’d have thought you’d have known that. Is nothing obvious to you?
My rigor in exammining details; sources; logic; puzzle pieces of evidence is, to my mind, well above average. I have no apologies on such scores.
***Then I would hope to see some of it on this thread.
I’ve reached an age where much of what I “know” I know because I know . . . having been backwards and forwards and every other which way through piles of evidence repeatedly.
At this point, I tend to pontificate out of the distilled gestalt of all my vast info vacuum habits. If folks disagree or don’t believe; don’t have anything close to a similar perspective, that, at some point, has to be their problem. Time will tell soon enough in some respects.
Those who willfully and stupidly rejected the handwriting on the wall will pay whatever their individual costs are for such willful blindness. One can only raise a red flag effectively to a very limited degree. Comfort zones are hard addictions to alter.
***Then you should watch your own comfort zone. I’ve seen your posts over the years, and sometimes you fall into a gestaltobabble that just spins round & round. In this post you offer no evidence but you freely offer advice and snide assertions that are unsupported.
I have very little need, if any, to prove my perspective at this point.
I enjoy discussing the topic with those who’ve studied it significantly and who come from a reasonably open minded perspective and/or a sympathetic perspective.
Folks who DEMAND PROOF or even EVIDENCE
ACCORDING TO THEIR UNIQUE SPECIFICATIONS really aren’t very much fun nor very impressive, to me.
I left that level of perspective and need quite a number of years ago.
If water works in the wind contests are one’s joy, then I suspect there might be someone hookable into such a game if one looks hard enough. If not hereon, then ABOVETOPSECRET.COM has them in abundance.
In short, I’ve heard your ‘gospel.’ That perspective has been seriously considered against my collection of puzzle pieces and come up wanting. I see no new collection of puzzle pieces any where close to sufficiently convincing to alter my perspective.
Ranting, pontificating, jabbing etc. will not likely improve your perspective’s chances of getting a more favorable nod from me.
If you find my pontifications
unmeaningrul gestaltobabble
BY ALL MEANS, SKIP MY POSTS!
I assume your scroll button works.
I gave the book away years ago.
***It sounds to me like you’re proceeding from memory about the book, and your memory is faltering. For instance, did Vesco have anything to say about electrogravitics?
I have already asserted my relative as a source. And, I’ve asserted that the highest ranking folks who’ve gone on the record over the years have asserted such.
***Then point us to those threads.
I don’t have any great need to go into any greater detail.
***Then you are doing a disservice to us freepers who want to discuss the evidence. All you’re offering is conjecture without evidence.
Those experts and direct experiencers had far more info at their fingertips than all my collection of puzzle pieces . . . or yours . . . and in some cases, or Vesco’s.
***And yet, Vesco’s book was really the only one that made it through the filter in ufology circles over those years. I have not seen any other. So I would say Vesco’s data has met a higher threshold than these “experts and direct experiencers “ you mention but don’t produce.
At some point, one trusts certain sources to a certain minimal degree or one doesn’t.
***If 20 people see something, it’s probably trustworthy to say they saw it. But that doesn’t mean those 20 people know what they saw. Someone familiar with technology at the time of the 1890 flap would have been able to decipher it pretty fast. And someone like me familiar with the technology could decipher the 1940’s sightings pretty fast. Here’s an exercise for you. Try to find a flap (as defined by the 10-witness thing) that centers around a saucer-shaped device prior to the 1920’s. If these aliens were so advanced, why is it that they only started showing up with flying saucer shapes in volume in 1947 ? It’s not a oincidence that it was just 2 years after the end of WWII and about the same amount of time it would take to finish off the experiments to fruition.
My PhD in clinical psychology has aided my screening of sources in terms of believability.
***Bull Shiite. You’re hiding behind your training so that you can pontificate. When PhD clinical psychologists all get together and are forced to be honest with each other, they all know that they have about as much capability in this area as most people, some a little more than others.
But it hasn’t greatly altered the conclusions. It helps to have had a profession in which assessing truthfulness has been a key part of one’s professional effectiveness.
***Most of us have such a profession.
But one is not flawless regardless of how near so training, experience, diversity of personalities and age may have helped one become.
***Here you go off again into that gestaltobabble that means basically not much.
Nevertheless, I’m comfortable with my conclusions at this point.
***That points to a problem with respect to an earlier post of yours, where you said, “Comfort zones are hard addictions to alter.”
Much has to be put on the shelf as hypotheses awaiting real time events in the not too distant future in which such technologies and critters will be foisted on the world stage very overtly in behalf of the establishment of the global government.
***No, nothing has to be put on the shelf. The evidence is ripe for an inductive investigation.
There are increasing rumblings of such getting closer and closer and louder and louder as well as more detailed in their “disclosures.” We shall see.
***More gestaltobabble with a touch of speculation. Notice that you really do not produce evidence.
BTW, do you own any dog(s)?
***How would this produce evidence in the inductive study of UFOs?
I think so. But I don’t recall for sure.
***Then that should tell you something. The DIA guys were hiding a secret, and Marcel was not in on it. Consequently he was played as the patsy.
That’s one of those details I don’t keep in very active memory. Things I can look up tend to become that way, to me unless they are of particular unique interest for one reason or another.
***Well, my theory on Marcel would be one reason to check into who was on site with the highest military credentials and what they were saying. Also, the story about alien bodies didn’t come out until a few years later supposedly leaked by a nurse at the supposed autopsy, but her story didn’t check out and if she was at the site, she probably wasn’t one of the nurses and she looks like a DIA operative planting a cover story.
Have a nice day.
I have very little need, if any, to prove my perspective at this point.
***Then your perspective will get shot down on this thread because you choose not to defend it. The evidence is strong once the reader gets his hands on Vesco’s book, “Intercept UFO”.
I enjoy discussing the topic with those who’ve studied it significantly and who come from a reasonably open minded perspective and/or a sympathetic perspective.
***This is a fascinating statement. I’ve been studying the topic for 30 years with an open minded perspective but you appear not to enjoy discussing it with me. I believe that it is because of the latter part of your statement where you say, “who come from a reasonably open minded perspective and/or a sympathetic perspective.” And this is a double-edged statement where you can make it appear that people who do not agree with you are not open minded. That and/or is probably just an AND in your case. People who are comfortable with the ET conclusion find Vesco’s theory to be troubling and they start trying to color the proponent as someone without an open mind.
Folks who DEMAND PROOF or even EVIDENCE ACCORDING TO THEIR UNIQUE SPECIFICATIONS really aren’t very much fun nor very impressive, to me.
***Why is DEMAND PROOF capitalized? Where have I DEMANDED PROOF? On this thread it was Dragnet who demanded proof. When you say “Folks who DEMAND EVIDENCE ACCORDING TO THEIR UNIQUE SPECIFICATIONS really aren’t very much fun nor very impressive, to me” you are using a straw argument because you paint the opponent as someone who demands it according to some unique perspective, which is simply not what I am doing here. So any time you are arguing against a position that the other person doesn’t hold it is usually a straw argument or maybe a miscommunication. Now that you’ve proceeded to using capital letters and adding inflection, it is a sign that you’ve got your gander up, and that you are now emotionally invested in what is being said. Your comfort zone has just been ruffled.
I left that level of perspective and need quite a number of years ago.
***This is an attempt to appear superior to your opponent. You are SO much better and open-minded and smarter than me that years ago you threw away the book I’m referring to.
If water works in the wind contests are one’s joy, then I suspect there might be someone hookable into such a game if one looks hard enough. If not hereon, then ABOVETOPSECRET.COM has them in abundance.
***This is another of your statements that becomes hard to follow. But the tone is easy to discern. Notice that, several posts into this exchange, you have yet to produce evidence for your belief and you appear to be maneuvering in such a way that you will not produce such evidence. You do not appear to have the desire to openly and honestly investigate the physical evidence on this thread, you just want to pontificate.
In short, I’ve heard your ‘gospel.’ That perspective has been seriously considered against my collection of puzzle pieces and come up wanting.
***That’s obvious enough. We can all see your conclusion, but the readers are going to want to know how you arrived at it. I’ve considered your ‘gospel’ and came up with the opposite conclusion, and there are classical descriptions & approaches towards the evidence that I can point to in order to help readers wrestle with the data themselves. The main approach is Occham’s Razor and basically asking, “what is the most likely explanation to this?”
I see no new collection of puzzle pieces any where close to sufficiently convincing to alter my perspective.
***You threw out the book and you don’t want to discuss it. It disrupts your comfort zone.
Ranting, pontificating, jabbing etc. will not likely improve your perspective’s chances of getting a more favorable nod from me.
***I already got a favorable nod from you. You said you read the book and that it was worthwhile reading. But you do not appear to have the desire to discuss the evidence, the readers can see for themselves that you are the one pontificating.
To: Kevmo
If you find my pontifications unmeaningrul gestaltobabble BY ALL MEANS, SKIP MY POSTS! I assume your scroll button works.
***Earlier you said, “Ranting, pontificating, jabbing etc. will not likely improve your perspective’s chances of getting a more favorable nod from me.” So here you are admitting that you do pontificate. I’m here to discuss the evidence. I’m calling a spade a spade. You can keep on talking about what you think this all means, I know how fun it is to speculate, but I’m going to identify it as it is, simply fantasizing. Where the rubber meets the road in the investigation of the evidence is in discussing it with an open mind and using logic. In this case, it is inductive logic as differentiated to deductive logic, and that is difficult for many people but it is a bridge that can be crossed.
Have a nice day.
***You too.
I’m not impressed with your predictive abilities regarding metalic fragment compositions. Interesting but doesn’t decide the war, for me.
***And yet that is the one time I was able to bring about a prediction proceeding from my theory, which makes it a falsifiable theory, and it was proven correct. That is a major, major stake in the ground for the discussion of this theory.
My relative only has his experiences to share. They are not greatly different from those of a lot of others who’ve gone on the record about working around the craft.
***Then let’s see them. If the evidence is only available to you alone, it becomes invalid for inductive reasoning. It’s fun for you, but useless for those of us who want to investigate evidence.
The business of Pork Belly futures vs discerning whether a given individual speaking orally is telling the truth or not—is—for a psychologist—two very different issues, contexts, set of factors to assess etc. I’d have thought you’d have known that.
***Of course it’s different. But you have no more capabilities in this area than most people do, otherwise you could have used it to become a wealthy man. If such a capability were buildable by education, we’d see evidence of it.
Is nothing obvious to you?
***It’s obvious to me that you would rather talk about the fun side of this issue, which is speculation about aliens and what they might be like, rather than get down to discussing evidence using the common sense that God gave the average person.
***It’s obvious to me that you would rather talk about the fun side of this issue, which is speculation about aliens and what they might be like, rather than get down to discussing evidence using the common sense that God gave the average person.
= = =
Your assumptions on that score are . . . of a poorer quality than I might have expected.
Have discussed such extensively hereon from time to time.
Am still quite open to discussing the perspective put forward at
Your Vesco contentions hold no attraction for me.
If elaborating on some term above would aid understanding, please let me know.
link re:
UFO VS MIG FIGHTER OVER ROMAANIA
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.