The post I wrote about Ed Mitchell the other day has really touched a nerve. In fact, in my mind it’s a perfect example of something that’s been happening on this very blog lately: people posting comments that precisely exemplify the type of antiscience thinking I am attacking. That includes global warming, antivaxxers, and to a lesser extent other topics.
To wit: in the Mitchell post, and in previous UFO posts (some of which are pretty recent), I make the simple demand of actual evidence of alien spaceships coming to Earth, abducting unwary victims, leaving bent cereal stalks, coring out cow anuses, and so on. I think this is a reasonable request. In fact, I think this is an an incredibly reasonable request, really just about the most basic thing anyone — scientist or not — can want, especially given what people are claiming about UFOs.
All I want is actual, y’know, evidence. I don’t want eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable. I don’t want shaky footage. I don’t want fuzzy pictures. I don’t want claims of redacted documents, or government seizures of evidence, or anything I can’t hold in my hand and examine.
You know. Evidence.
So I make this civil, intelligent, and reasonable request. What do I get?
1) Ad hominem attacks. While accusing me of being a debunker folks, you should understand that you can’t be a debunker without bunk to debunk. And after the insults, I ask, where’s that evidence I asked for?
2) Appeal to authority, which slays me. I am specific in my statement that just because someone walked on the Moon doesn’t mean they have any better claims about UFOs. So I ask again, where is Mitchell’s evidence?
3) Weird analogies. One commenter asked how we know tornadoes exist, making some really stretchy metaphor for UFOs. Um, really? Evidence for tornadoes? You mean like the tens of thousands of clear pictures, thousands of hours of detailed footage, documented examination of the aftermath, the scientific antecedent, and the close study by hundreds or thousands of scientifically experienced researchers?
That’s evidence. Now, please, show me the equivalent for UFOs.
<crickets>
4) Claims that the military has this evidence. OK then, show it to me. This is up to you to show me this, to verify it, and to show me why you have eliminated every single possible terrestrial mundane explanation, including hardware glitches, mistaken conclusions by the people involved, and advanced military craft — things we know exist and are common. Then and only then can you begin to postulate something more exotic.
I don’t think I can be more clear than this. I want good, solid, examinable evidence. What I get are insults, bad logic, and vaporware. That’s not helping your case, folks.
I certainly don’t have the time to sift through every single case, of course, and I’m pretty busy in general. But I’m always interested in what some might consider to be more solidly based cases. So given all this I’ve said, please feel free to leave your evidence for the best cases in the comments section below. Let’s take a look.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
But don’t you understand Phil? The evidence is all there if you want to see it! You just have to get Richard Hoagland to phone the president while standing on one leg facing in the direction of Mecca while pointing a finger towards Iaeptus wearing a Red Sox cap chanting “Blappety Flee” while Art Bell fires a flare gun and throws a pie tin while reciting the script of “Videodrome”. It’s all so simple! The burden of proof is on the person trying to prove me wrong!
Of course, Curtis LeMay was buried with the secret documents in a lead lined casket, so we may never know. You’ll just have to take my word for it.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Above comment ftw.
By the way, love the blog, Mr. Plait, from an incoming UChicago freshman physics major.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
I really don’t like it when someone says U.F.O. and all of the sudden aliens are involved. It is one of those things that can be mistaken for another meaning. Just because an airline pilot saw a U.F.O. Does Not mean he saw an alien spacecraft.
I believe in U.F.O’s, as in I believe in there are many Unidentified Flying Objects in the sky daily.
As for tornadoes… do I even have to make fun of that? It is something that you read and your mind double takes. “Did he just compare alien spacecraft with tornadoes?” …. Yes, yes he did.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
To all those who are attacking Phil for just being rational, I understand. I understand that it is very important to you that these things be true, though you yourselves know that you have no actual evidence. This is why you resent anyone who points that out. It would be easy for me to come here and just be snarky, and I don’t disparage those who do that, because it probably doesn’t make any more impact than Phil’s words or mine. You have to realize that what you have here is an article of faith. As religious extremists prove every day, faith utilized entirely for the purpose of attacking your perceived enemies helps no one. Just be happy with what you believe and quit the name calling, okay? Phil didn’t call you names, he just asked you to provide support for your claims, which means that you started it! You live in your world, we live in ours. Why are you reading this blog, anyway?
July 30th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
I am still hearing crickets from UFO alien believers.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Phil, you just rock. I grew up in Wyoming, and saw several UFOs but they were all later identified by my dad taking me to the Air National Guard base in town, and showing me where the lights were on the C-130 planes and UH-1 helicopters. (back in the ’80s we had an old-school 8′ satellite dish TV, and the c-130s would always jam the signal when they flew by the house on their training exercises.) Finding out the truth was way cooler to me than the mystery or listening to my friends make stuff up about what we saw.
Reality is pretty sweet,
Big Frankie
P.S.: I’m the huge man in black from TAM6 that mentioned the Planet X/Thundarr the Barbarian similarities.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
…also, growing up in Wyoming, I saw a few tornadoes, they seemed pretty freaking real to me too. As you pointed out, there’s all that actual evidence that they exist, along with tested hypotheses of how they are formed.
Reality is still pretty sweet,
Big Frankie
July 30th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
But…what ’bout tornados caused by aliens? Huh? HUH! Ha!
July 30th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Phil…If the military has the evidence, you can be sure no one is going to see it.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
The problem with asking for a flying saucer is that that’s exactly the kind of evidence UFO proponents won’t be able to provide. (I know that just sounds like a slam-dunk debunking, but hear me out.)
It’s like telling a 9/11 conspiracist that they’re wrong “because look, here’s government footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon.” It’s meaningless to them, because if they’re right then the government is on the conspiracy and nothing it says can be trusted. In the case of UFOs and UFO proponents, it’s like giving them a copy of the Air Force’s report on Roswell and saying the matter is closed. For some so-called skeptics that kind of “evidence” will be enough, but I personally wouldn’t trust the government’s position on UFOs any more than I’d trust someone’s unverified sighting of something they couldn’t identify.
Science won’t accept a claim without evidence to examine, I know—but in this context that isn’t exactly fair. If UFO proponents are right and the government is hiding everything, there’s pretty much no way for anyone outside the alleged conspiracy to get the kind of evidence that skeptics want. Of course someone could break ranks and come forward, but it’s a matter of debate whether that has already happened. I’m sure it’s a trivial job for whatever organization is allegedly flying UFOs around to discredit a former employee.
In any case, the point is that while demanding a piece of a UFO is a reasonable and natural thing for skeptics to do, the situation makes it unlikely that kind of evidence can be produced (whether that’s because UFOs are not alien spacecraft or because the government keeps everything under lock and key.) It’s perfectly fair to say that UFO proponents are overreaching if they say that aliens are definitely here, but it’s absolutely not fair for “skeptics” to close the book because what evidence there is, whatever it is evidence of, is not up to their standards. There’s a big difference between “prove it” and “that isn’t true.”
It’s not that skeptics are crossing that line—though a lot seem to be—but that in this case demanding perfect evidence is not exactly fair. It’s good science, and I’m not saying we should lower the standards of rigor, but we should recognize that what seems reasonable to skeptics may not always look so reasonable when we consider the situation from the other side.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
…speaking of which.
You know for those asking for the evidence of tornadoes…tell them to stand in the path of one. They will clearly understand that they are very real..if they ever live to tell about it.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Hmm.. I have seen UFOs. lights in the sky I could not at that time identify.
Yes, they were there and they were real. Usually in 2 ship formations, one which gave off a flashing green light and the other that gave off a flashing red light. Sometimes bright white lights emanate from a third spot in front of and in echelon with the other two sources.
Sometimes I even hear a noise unlike any other noise I have ever heard . . .
of course, I live in an area that could be described as the center of a triangle with a bizjet airport, an Air Force Base and a county municipal airport as the corners.
(/humor)
July 31st, 2008 at 12:14 am
[...] Phil Plait’s follow-up comments about Ed Mitchell & the UFO believers -Phil addresses the logical fallacies of those who responded negatively to his blog about Apollo 14 Astronaut Ed Mitchell’s claims (also reported on here at Skepacabra) that he knows for certain that space aliens have been to Earth and that the government is covering it up. [...]
July 31st, 2008 at 12:17 am
@Daniel: yeah, but why would the military hide for so long, besides it wouldn’t be able to hide something on this scale.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:21 am
You’re just a denialist. Denialists are blind to the truth which has been written (therefore it must be true) in a book that was published back in 1962 that gives us evidence (albeit anecdotal) of a story told by a friend of a witness who ‘s brother-in-law saw a secret document. C’mon, we all know Plait is in league with the Guv’ment, who will have to release details very soon of unquestionable eyewitness testimony and archival F-86 gun camera footage….oh crap, I give up….
July 31st, 2008 at 12:31 am
@Umair: Maybe in the interest of National Security and Sanity. IF we were being visited those beings logically would be looking for said evidence (unless they see how we treat our own people…id run past pluto as well!). However I don’t think we will ever know either way.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:35 am
Ok. You want prof of a UFO???? I have one.. This is the best and most importantly the most clear evidence of a UFO I’ve seen to date:
http://flickr.com/photos/photo_guggi/377397950/
July 31st, 2008 at 12:36 am
Right on! Until we have some good solid hard evidence that it is a UFO, we simply don’t know what it is yes. …
July 31st, 2008 at 12:45 am
The evidence is so overwhelming. You have to be blind deaf and dumb to try and debunk this. I submit within a few years, with astronauts, officials from all government agencies, you will no longer be able to write such blogs. 1000 years ago, they would have told you planes and going to the moon are just fairytales.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:46 am
See Phil, I disagree with you on AGW (on the [b]interpretation[/b] of the evidence), but you’re exactly right here.
And this is the lesson that needs to be clearly and firmly repeated. In Mitchell’s case, my first thought was, “oh, what special knowledge do you have that led you to this conclusion?” Of course he has none, he’s just one more person who has bought into the claim of aliens visiting the earth.
His claim is immediately rebutted by simply, “Why don’t all the astronauts agree with you? Or at least (say) more than one?”. Just as you point out that astronomers don’t point out objects in the sky as UFOs, you can ask why astronauts haven’t seen significant evidence of aliens (especially those that went to the Moon).
July 31st, 2008 at 12:46 am
(Argh, I blew my tags. Is it bold like this?)
July 31st, 2008 at 12:47 am
Ugh. This post is so smug and misguided, I don’t think I have the time or the patience to sit here and compose a full rebuttal to the whole thing. Wouldn’t do any good anyway, as you have your view — alien visitation is bunk — and clearly nothing short of full and deliberate revelation by an involved party will compel you to rethink that position. You pray to the god of “There Are No Aliens On Earth” and you will cling defiantly to the tenets of your religion like any other faithful religious believer in the face of contrary evidence (yes, evidence).
I’m Sorry, Mr. Sciency-guy, but eye-witness accounts ARE evidence. No, not the kind that lends itself to replication in a lab, but the same kind that forms the basis for millions of criminal convictions — y’know, “beyond a reasonable doubt” criminal convictions — every year. People are put to death on eye-witness testimony in this country.
Eye-witness accounts “unreliable”? Yes, some. So a witness who tells of seeing strange lights and says “I swear it was a flying saucer” — yeah, unreliable. A witness who says, “I was a colonel in the USAF and while I was the base commander at XYZ Air Force Base in 19XX, we had an incident in which …” Well, if his credentials check out and if the “incident” was sufficiently unambiguous to answer the “misunderstanding” or “misperception” arguments, and if the rest of the circumstances support the witness’ credibility…then it should be treated as credible EVIDENCE and should be believed unless and until a more credible explanation can be offered. That’s the kind of witness testimony that been convincing normal, rational, professional people like me that this subject needs to be taken seriously, and it has been piling up over the years: military officers, state troopers, FAA administrators, commercial airline pilots, air traffic controllers, astronauts! Mr. Sciency-guy, people like you who lump all witness accounts together and then brush them all off like they’re meaningless — you’re the charlatans, trying to pass off a relative lack of your preferred kinds of evidence for a total lack of any credible evidence.
And BTW, there is evidence of other kinds too — a fair amount of it, actually. There are FAA radar records to support pilots’ accounts; radioactive soil samples to support witness accounts of sightings on land; polygraph test results that support witness accounts; and many, many, many photos and videos — true, many are grainy and meaningless, many others that are hoaxes, but a small portion remains that cannot be explained.
It seems incredibly arrogant for anyone to presume to know enough about what’s going on in these unexplained encounters to suggest that there “should be” evidence of types A, B and C. If you start with the assumption — which you must, to perform a fair inquiry — that one explanation COULD BE extraterrestrial, then you must admit that you HAVE NO IDEA what kinds of evidence there “should be.” The answer to this question depends on many factors that we cannot measure or even estimate, including the actors’ intent, propensity and capabilities with respect to the leaving behind or the cleaning up of “evidence.”
July 31st, 2008 at 12:51 am
By the way. Many astronauts are already and have been telling us for years about this subject. Here’s a sight you can real some real blogs. http://www.ufocasebook.com/ufpquotes1.html
July 31st, 2008 at 12:51 am
^^^ufoquotes1.html
July 31st, 2008 at 1:01 am
While I think this post is SPOT ON for the most part, I have to nitpick a bit.
When people use the term UFO, a lot of people DO NOT necessarily mean “alien spaceship.” Also, an assertion you have made in the past that amateur astronomers don’t report UFOs isn’t entirely accurate. I know several who have seen things they couldn’t explain in the night sky (myself included), which they refer to as “UFOs.” However, none of them believe they actually saw an alien spaceship; just something they couldn’t identify, hence “unidentified.”
July 31st, 2008 at 1:04 am
Daniel said: “If the military has the evidence, you can be sure no one is going to see it.”
And if they have *no* evidence, you can also be sure that no one is going to see it.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:05 am
(oo) “Phone home!”
\ || /
———-
| |
===
|| ||
|| ||
(_) (_)
Here’s your evidence!!
July 31st, 2008 at 1:06 am
As others have said before in these discussions, and as an amateur astronomer, thousands of hours have been spent observing the sky. I have seen a few things that have given me pause. Upon refection, I figured they most likely were bird reflections in a couple of cases and in one more spectacular instance, something being towed by a plane as a prank during the Perseids (prankster most likely assuming there would be more observers). Lights at night. Feh.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:09 am
@Peter: Which is why this thing with Ed is silly. Either way we will never know
July 31st, 2008 at 1:09 am
Monsignor much love for the Videodrome reference.
Phil, I think the reason you don’t believe aliens visit us is that you simply haven’t spent enough time looking at the sky.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:15 am
UFOs in my experience behave an awful lot like pereidolia. We see what we think we are going to see. A tortilla becomes the Virgin Mary. Military flares become aliens. Same cognitive trap.
The problem is we have irresponsible “journalists” and the like who constantly scream at their audience that aliens lurk everywhere in our skies. The uninformed draw on this bad information to assess what they are seeing. No wonder they coome to the wrong conclusion.
It isn’t religion (for the average person). It is just bad and incomplete information. Thank you, Phil for trying to get the good information out there. Now, if only there was a skeptical TV network…
July 31st, 2008 at 1:35 am
Peter B Says:
Daniel said: “If the military has the evidence, you can be sure no one is going to see it.”
And if they have *no* evidence, you can also be sure that no one is going to see it.
Isn’t that just about what Dick Cheney said about WMDs while trying to justify the Iraq War?
July 31st, 2008 at 1:45 am
@Utakata: “You know for those asking for the evidence of tornadoes…tell them to stand in the path of one. They will clearly understand that they are very real..if they ever live to tell about it.”
You could say the same thing about alien spacecraft. Mind you, you might have a harder time finding one to stand in the path of…
July 31st, 2008 at 1:45 am
It’s either paranoia, or wishful thinking. Some people have convinced themselves that aliens are coming and conspiring with our governments (who they don’t trust, a trait they share with a lot of other people). Other people have convinced themselves that aliens are coming and could offer us the way out of the problems with our societies, leading us into a new era of enlightenment. They just want it to happen Right Now Please.
None of these people are likely to be susceptible to such things as evidence and scientific rigour.
Personally I think it’s so probable as to be utterly certain that somewhere, in our galaxy or another, there’s a planet which has life. Chances are, there’s another planet with intelligent life – after all, if we can evolve here, can’t another sentient species emerge somewhere else in a similar amount of time? Or a shorter or longer amount of time, too.
The universe is so large, so incredibly big and complicated that the idea of this being the only planet with life is utterly absurd.
Unless of course there is a God, and he’s playing games by deliberately leaving evidence that contradicts his own scripture.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:52 am
You’re absolutely right, Phil.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:02 am
Don’t count pictures as evidence, even if they’re clear and sharp. Picture manipulation by computers has come very far. If you’ve got the skills and the time, manipulating pictures to the point where the manipulation cannot be seen any more is possible.
Photos are not evidence any longer. You simply cannot assume that the photo shows what the camera saw (and I do hope they will become inadmissable in court some day soon).
July 31st, 2008 at 2:05 am
@Ad…good then they will throw out all the photo radar tickets…PHOTOSHOPPED
July 31st, 2008 at 2:13 am
@Adhominem – Photos are fine as evidence, but as you say, the burden of proof must be higher, as Daniel alluded to. In other words, you need a photo *and* proof that it hasn’t been tampered with. There are ways to get this, but it’s a lot more difficult than just submitting a photo.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:34 am
@ Ad..: This will be the problem, when human beings return to the moon. “They” will say, that the photos are faked with photoshop or what ever – even the photos of a satallite which will shot the remnants of the Apollo-missions will be “faked” (if we will have a satellite with enaugh resolution, of course…)
July 31st, 2008 at 3:01 am
Under the FOI, the FAA recently released Radar data in relation to the Stephenville, Texas, sighting which shows quite clearly unidentified craft (no transponder) accelerating to several thousand miles per hour in a fraction of a second, turning, and repeating the maneuvers.
I would call that evidence. Something was there (with eye witnesses that you don’t seem to want to know about) performing in ways that nothing we have could do. If it’s not the US, China, or Russia who else could it be? Iceland?
Also: Dr. Roger Lear has removed scores of implants over the last decade which have been studied at labs across the country. Consistently they are deemed ‘of non-terrestrial origin’! Comprised, in other words, of materials found somewhere other than this planet. These implants have a material lattice style matrix which is sub-nanoscale and beyond all of our present day technology.
This is evidence you can hold in your hand, and send it for independent testing if you want.
Strange that you have formed your opinion without knowing any of this.
Condemnation before Investigation keeps your mind small and closed.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:09 am
Hmm, maybe because the U.S. Government is so freaking competent about hiding the space aliens and spacecraft, is that they don’t have the resources or time for being competent about terrorism, drugs, national security (other than the one implied in Terrestrial Security), natural disasters, education, social illness…
THANK YOU U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR PROTECTING EARTH!!!
July 31st, 2008 at 3:15 am
>1) Ad hominem attacks. While accusing me of being a debunker folks, you should understand
>that you can’t be a debunker without bunk to debunk. And after the insults, I ask, where’s
>that evidence I asked for?
Does calling anyone with questions over the science behind Global Warming a “denier” qualify as an Ad Hominem?
Just askin’, is all…
July 31st, 2008 at 3:15 am
ALSO: About extraordinary evidence for such claims.
If a ‘fuzzy’ photograph of a metallic craft of saucer configuration from 1939 doesn’t meet your standard of ‘evidence’ that something exists.
OR: eye witness testimony of pilots, police, astronauts, generals, admirals, doctors, Harvard psychologists, etc. etc does not meet your standard of evidence……..
Then when was the last time you questioned the existence of PLUTO?
You’ve never seen that with your own eyes!
All that exists are ‘fuzzy’ photographs.
Anyone who has ever told you Pluto is there was just ‘testimony’
Strange how you have a sliding scale of evidence when it comes to a subject that you clearly don’t want to believe.
Your mighty pride pulls you away from every wanting to except that UFO believers, and your own ignorance of them, might actually be right!
July 31st, 2008 at 3:33 am
How do I know that atoms and molecules exist? Because some scientist said so, not because I have actually seen them, and seeing them on the Discovery Channel doesn’t count, because it could be CGI, for all I know. I’m astonished that something so widely reported could be dismissed as nothing, just because no one has a UFO in their garage, and just as someone else pointed out, if the military got it’s hands on any kind of exotic, foreign technology, they would hold on to it like gold.
One poster asked how Dr. Mitchell could know any more than anyone else, well considering the fact that NASA is a relatively tight-knit bunch and they are government employees, it would stand to reason that the astronauts would discuss things amongst themselves that they could not talk about in public. Also, Dr. Mitchell grew up in Roswell, New Mexico and would be the right age to know many of the people that were there when the alledged crash happened, in 1947. I also have a hard time believing that so many ex-military octogenarians would be just be messing with our heads and the deathbed confession of Walter Haut, the 509th P.R. man that actually isssed both press releases back in 1947, the first one claiming the army had a crashed disc, the second one essentially recanting the whole story.
If you look at all of the testimony in The Disclosure Project and add the stories that Mercury astronaut Gordon Cooper had told until the day he died, I would call that a preponderance of evidence, although there is nothing there that you can hold in your hand or hit with a rock. If someone shows me a nuclear weapon, I don’t need to see it explode to believe that it can, I have blind faith that the proper materials and devices are there to make it work. Not exactly empirical evidence, just a belief.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:37 am
Phil, if you want evidences why don’t you look at the THOUSANDS radar RECORDINGS since the 50′s. We have ABSOLUTE proof that 1 mile wide spaceships came FROM space at incredible speed, stop on a dime and accelerate in a blink of a eye BACK to SPACE! It’s not because Mass Medias censor those RECORDINGS that UFOs dont exist, it’s PROVE the Mass Media TRAITORS. Come on when are you going to stop saying there is no evidences and PUBLISH them instead?! RADAR RECORDINGS record the SPEED, VELOCITY, ACCELERATION, DECELERATION, DISTANCES, where it come FROM AND where it GOES!!!!! What MORE do you WANT???? Almost all our sky is recorded by radar and there is ALSO radar in PLANES!! WE HAVE GROUND radar, GROUND visual, AIR radar and AIR visual confirming EACH others AT THE SAME TIME!!! What MORE do you WANT?????
Stop hiding you hand in the sand and go to http://www.disclosureproject.org and try to PUBLISH those proof in the MASS MEDIA and NOW you will beleive us that the Mass Media are corrupt when they going to refuse you too!
July 31st, 2008 at 3:38 am
Perhaps sometimes we need to get a better balance between listening openly to people’s claims (many of whom are highly educated and with highly respected careers on the line) and our own perfectly valid skepticism and reservation. If people are frustrated because they haven’t been told things they think they should know, then perhaps they need to search more deeply inside themselves as to why they think they should know it. First of all, have they nothing better to do with their time? It should be reasonable to assume that things happen for a reason. If you are an individual to whom no satisfactory proof has been revealed then some humility is necessary at this time. It is often suggested that when the student is ready, then the teacher will appear. It is worth bearing in mind that people who know too much may be imprisoned or killed. The reality of this subject is much more serious than people want to admit. In most cases idle speculation is the result, because who really wants to become the enemy of some of the most powerful people on earth? Who, for example, would want to be in Gary McKinnon’s shoes right now? Some US officials say they ‘want him to fry’. Personally I like to play the piano and write fiction. I think it’s worth spending a little more time trying to find intelligent life in our own heads rather than simply looking outwards all the time. Be a man for all seasons, not a fanatic truth seeker who ends up with no friends, is my thinking. The richness of life is a blessing in itself. Who are we to demand anything of anyone? With patience our restless sense of injustice will be tempered, putting us in a better state for receiving more knowledge. Too much too soon could mean, very seriously, a death sentence or a mental breakdown depending on how the individual reacts, hence the need for a genuine teacher. But hey, what would I know? All the best, folks.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:45 am
I really enjoy reading your blog and completely agree about the evidence part. You make some good points and I’m glad we have someone like you on our team… you know, the “smart people” team hahaha.
July 31st, 2008 at 3:59 am
Phil, when you hear the Mass Media and the FAA saying that the is the UFOs was NOT recorded on radar MOST of the time it’s a LIE! After we obtained them with the Freedom of Access Law the Mass Medias REFUSE to RETRACT themselves and PUBLISH those radar recordings!!! When are YOU going to?
(sorry for my English, I’m French)
July 31st, 2008 at 4:30 am
+1 to Phil.
-1 to the fellow who doubts the reality of tornadoes–or, at the very least, somehow felt his analogy involving tornadoes and aliens was spot-on.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:34 am
There was one instance, quite a long time ago that I saw something above Boston harbor that I just couldn’t get my head around – certainly seemed strange and very unusual, but of course, I was only four years old at the time.
As much as I would have loved this to have been an actual UFO, I think maybe a few hundred thousand people would have seen it as well.
I agree with Phil – over the past sixty years since all of this UFO stuff started, you would think that someone, somewhere would have found some real evidence (materials, a real video, an interview with an alien on YouTube).
If aliens did exist (and I’m sure they do somewhere up there), it probably speaks more to their intelligence that they’ve never contacted us – given the generally suspicious and agressive lot that we are (if I was them, I wouldn’t want to get anywhere near this planet – given our perchant for violence & tendency to want to disect things we don’t understand).
July 31st, 2008 at 4:40 am
I guess we oughta send that tornado guy to Kansas. Let’s say that lots of tornado pictures aren’t blurry and they are quite real, unlike UFOs.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:41 am
…ahem, ALIEN filled UFOs that is. Cuz we all know UFOs exist, it’s anything that flies that we can’t ID.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:50 am
@ Daniel
That reminds me of the Bush rationale for invading Iraq
WE HAVEN’T FOUND ANY EVIDENCE OF WMDs WHICH PROOVES THEY MUST BE HIDING THEM !
Who can win against “logic” like that?
July 31st, 2008 at 4:51 am
Have I seen UFOs? Yup. I have seen thousands of them. I can see one looking out my window right now. Its a loud sucker btw. Oh but the UFOs I see aren’t alien in nature. I just can’t make out what kind of planes and helicopters flying around at night. It sucks to live next to an Air Force base =(.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:55 am
I just knew that after the *ahem* EVENTS in Stephenville, TX, that it would spawn (or spore) a whole slew of UFO proponents coming back out of the woodwork and getting airtime on CNN (again, shame on Larry King).
What really slays me is how often these people say things like “UFO is just that: an UNIDENTIFIED object…WE’RE not saying they’re alien!”, and then they make every possible connection to extra-terrestrial causations, and deny terrestial ones.
I’ve always been curious as to what psychological mechanism is in place that makes the believer convinced of the shoddy non-evidence, and the skeptic not convinced. We’re both seeing the same thing, and yet it always seems like the credulous can’t see the strings holding up the UFO in place (thank, Billy Meier!)
July 31st, 2008 at 5:09 am
Two things.
1) ‘bazillion’ is not a number.
2) Your short bio says you are ‘a skeptic’, not ‘a scientist’. This statement is true and honest.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:18 am
For most UFO believers UFOs and aliens are nothing but a substitute for God. It is the basis of their religious fervour and therefore you can’t argue with them. In their minds, UFOs and aliens do exist and it needs no proof. They see the signs of them everywhere and that is enough. Not believing in them is a sacrilege. Demanding evidence of their existence is a sacrilege. Just like young earth creationists they can not be shaken in their belief, no matter how few (if any) evidence they actually can produce. They simply know they are right, either because God told them so or the aliens did when they abducted them.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:26 am
I’m starting to suspect that some UFO believers – not all, mind you – but some consider the aliens on a subjective, spiritual basis thus explaining away the lack of evidence.
But things like that would be the realm of the supernatural,not actual, physical aliens.
But you’re right, Phil. I’m tired of stories and experiences. I want hard evidence.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:32 am
I was almost certainly abducted one night….had all the classic symptoms – loss of memory, not knowing where time had gone and waking up somewhere entirely different (at home, on the sofa) with a terrible headache. The last thing I can remember was leaving the pub at about 11.30.
The aliens who abducted me had obviously done some very scary experiemtns because when I woke up I found I’d sh*t myself.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:37 am
The proof you are asking for is available to the general public. Thousands of eye witness reports, photographs, videos, radar recordings, trace landings, etc. It’s all there. Do we have one in a museum to show tourists? No, the reason for that is simple. Government cover up.
Don’t think it’s possible? Our children are still taught the JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, with a single file, via a shot that’s been proven to have been almost impossible for the world’s best marksmen. Single bullet theory, that’s what people should be debating.
If you want proof of this cover up, I ask you to research the Disclosure Project, for example. Military and government personnel coming forward and sharing their experiences, radar data, etc. Many of our world’s governments have begun sharing their UFO files from France to the UK. Ask yourself, why hasn’t the US?
Let’s go back to some of this evidence you claim isn’t available. The Phoenix Lights sighting of 1997 was not flares. There’s clear video, thousands of people witnessed it, some have recently gone onto Larry King Live and described a giant craft, flying over the city that blocked out the stars above it. Silent, city sized boomerang shaped craft. We do not have anything that matches such a description, yet people still say it was only flares.
Chicago O’Hare International Airport in November of 2006. Over a dozen United Airlines workers witnessed a saucer shaped craft hovering over the C terminal. It was reported to the tower and after several minutes, it shot straight up through the clouds, leaving a hole. It took weeks for the FAA to reveal that they had in fact gotten reports of it and confirmed the sighting.
Stephenville Texas, late 2007 through 2008, hundreds of UFO reports have been made. MUFON now has obtained radar recordings that show a large object, performing unconventional flight patterns, with no transponder signal. The military first said they had no jets in the area. They later changed their story after the publicity grew and said yes, they had jets in the area. Guess what? The radar data shows the jets, along with this giant unknown.
So let me summarize, the military and government has been lying to the public for at least 60 years about a phenomenon that truly scares them. These craft have been performing maneuvers that we cannot duplicate. They are silent, there’s no sign of exhaust, propellers, engines, etc; yet they can fly thousands of miles an hour and change direction or turn in an instant.
If you want evidence, please do your homework before claiming there isn’t any available. I will quote the nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman, one of the world’s foremost experts on the Roswell crash and UFOs in general. “Don’t bother me with evidence, my mind is already made up.” You would be what I’d consider a “noisy negativist.”
July 31st, 2008 at 5:38 am
Correction, “single rifle.”
July 31st, 2008 at 5:41 am
Some people are just lost to logic and reality. What really puzzles me is why so many of these intellectually celibate charlatans are getting put on media, as well as in positions within the government!
July 31st, 2008 at 5:49 am
MattGS…
This is exactly right. And it is true for conspiracy theorists of any stripe. There is a certain comfort that comes from their particular brand of conspiracy and a serious dearth of real, hard evidence shakes them not at all! From JFK to 9-11 to UFOs to any and all types of “belief.” It is in their world of belief, in their fantasy world, where they choose to remain. Good for them. Hope they enjoy it. But if on occasion they choose to pop into the world of reality they should at least expect to get smacked around a bit by that very reality. It is a cold splash of water. Depends on the individual of course as to whether or not that splash is deeply unpleasant or fresh and invigorating.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:55 am
Phil — I’ve said this before and I will say it again — You Rock!
@madge — Yeah, you can’t win against “logic” like that, for sure.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:00 am
DEAR PHIL,
DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT GOD EXIST?
SURELY NOT, BUT 95% OF AMERICAN PEEPLE BELIEVE IN IT. ARE THESE ALL STUPID AND
ANTI-SCIENTIFIC PEOPLE?
WHY DO PEOPLE BELIEVE IN GOD IF THEY CAN`T TOUCH HIM, SEE HIM,ETC…
BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE “FEEL” THAT GOD EXIST. THEY “NEED” GOD.
FOR UFOs IT IS THE SAME THING.
WE BELIEVE IN THEM BECAUSE WE FEEL THAT THEY EXIST AND EVEN IF
WE CAN`T TOUCH AN ALIEN SPACESHIP (FOR THE MOMENT!!!) WE STRONGLY FEEL THAT
THEY ARE OUT THERE…FLYING OVER OUR HEADS. WE ALSO “NEED” UFOs AND ALIENS.
SIMPLY FOR THIS.
MR. EDGAR MITCHELL HAS SIMPLY INCREASED OUR ” COSMIC FAITH” THAT UFOs AND ALIENS ARE REAL …AND,BELIEVE ME, NO DEBUNKER AND ANY CRITICISM ON UFOs CAN
REVERSE OUR BELIEF IN THEM (it`s more than 60 YEARS that the US authorities try desperatly to ridiculise
this “problem” (UFOs and ALIENS) without any apparent result because the “ufo believers” are always more numberous and organised!!!).
THE FACT IS THIS:
WE KNOW- FOR SURE- THAT THEY ARE OUT THERE AND THAT US AUTHORITIES HAS ALWAYS COVER IT UP BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID OF THE PANIC AND MR. MITCHELL HAS ONLY CONFIRMED THIS SIMPLE THING WITH HIS GREAT CREDENTIALS OF BIG ASTRONAUT. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS…
BEST WISHES,
DR. KATHRINE MARTINEZ-MARTIGNONI (SWITERLAND)
P.S: EXCUSE ME FOR MY IMPERFECT ENGLISH(THAT IT IS NOT MY FIRST LANGUAGE).
July 31st, 2008 at 6:09 am
“The military is hiding it”? There’s no such thing as “the military.” There are only people. And people are notoriously bad at keeping secrets. There is an inverse proportion law regarding secrets. The bigger the secret, the shorter the life span of the secret. Aliens from space? That’s got a half life of about ten seconds.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:15 am
@ Phil
What I remember reading of your other recent article, was aliens are amongst us. Really? Here in Texas, that’s quite a controversy, because our aliens labor cheaper than the residents…only I guess, from your articler, that ED Mithchell was speaking of ETs.
Naw, he meant, ET’s, I know. I don’t believe in ET’s, that much. Should I, or shouldn’t I? Shucks, I’m a closet comedian, what’s the harm in a good laugh? I do wonder about those Grays coming from…secret caves. They aren’t ET’s! They’re subterrestials: ST’s. Well, sometimes, I do wonder about that. However I have no evidence. My trips through caves were with tour groups, as a child, through Longhorn and then Carlsbad caverns. Did crawl a private cave, one time. No ST’s there. Skip it.
This next is serious.
About three or so years ago, one night, at work, I did see something. I was looking up, on a clear night, to see what constellations I could pick out.
All of a sudden, it looked like a star started moving. The bright point of light covered 45degree of arc, in less than a minute, I’m sure. It looked awfully high. Continuing my foot patrol, I thought it over, in my mind. I could only think it was a test craft, turning on the afterburner (when it looked like a star started moving), and blazing across the sky at high Mach speed. We’re near JNRB Carswell, here. And, new jets are tested, there, I later learned.
I’ve always prayed the Lord to spare me any UFO or experimenting ET’s. He ahs fatihfully answered my prayer (not joking).
July 31st, 2008 at 6:15 am
Phil,
When you mess with people’s long-held and cherished beliefs, they’re going to fire back with anything that they’ve got, or worse, think that they’ve got.
Keep in mind the “UFO’s Are There and Hidden By The Government” crowd have been conditioned by books and television documentaries for decades to believe exactly that. Do they have real direct evidence of a cover-up? No, unless you count the latest “UFO Files” on some cable channel or something. But that will never stop them from believing. It’s like a religion.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:16 am
@Some Canadian Skeptic
You beat me to the point about the “Unidentified” part of UFO. To add to your comment, and before any of the UFO community come on here crying about how skeptics supposedly always equate UFOs with aliens, as I said in one of the other threads, we do that partly because that’s what so much of the vocal component of the UFO community talks about. Even if, like SCS pointed out, they highlight the unidentified part, they still build hype around the “it could be aliens” part. And, even though they might maintain that they are just saying any given case remains “unknown”, they tend to discount any rational explanation that is given.
Another thought also occurred to me as to why skeptics might harp on the alien aspect of UFOs so much: because any mundane, terrestrial explanation has so much evidence to support it, that we really don’t care much about it. Mundane encounters don’t hold much potential to lead to significant scientific discoveries. They probably won’t have a significant impact on anyone but the person that experienced the event. And, they hold little potential to impact the way the public views science and what is possible or impossible. Think about it; if aliens are, indeed, visiting Earth, that has HUGE implications for all branches of science. It would also have a pretty big impact on lots and lots of people. That, I think, is a compelling reason to focus on the aliens = UFOs aspect and not care too much about the other claims.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:19 am
As Mike Collins said in the wonderful documentary “In The Shadow Of The Moon”:
“I don’t know two americans who have a phantastic secret without one of them blurting it out to the press. Can you image thousands of people able to keep this secret?”
July 31st, 2008 at 6:21 am
@Charles
Ah, but see, the fact that they don’t have any evidence is proof of the conspiracy!
July 31st, 2008 at 6:24 am
@Madge & Jewel:
Im not saying the military is hiding anything. I am saying that even if they were, You and I will never know about it. Why would the military want to reveal something like that anyway?
This whole thing with Ed Mitchell saying he knows our government made contact is silly. It adds nothing for UFO believers, and the UFO Skeptics are having a field day saying show me proof, when you and I both know there is none.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:27 am
Maybe the aliens are hiding in the tornadoes. I saw a movie once where a tornado sucked up a cow and we know how much aliens like cows. So there you go.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:30 am
People have to remember that the X-Files was fiction.
I honestly hope and believe (although I cannot prove it) that there is life elsewhere in our universe, including intelligent life. Say that though, I have never witnessed a UFO (as in an alien craft) ever in all my night sky gazing and I have seen no second hand evidence that isn’t circumstantial at best.
Also always found it humorous that aliens always visit lonely, desperate people desperate to believe in something and desperate to be significant out in some abandoned trailer home to explain their message which is usually so vague, undefined version of “hope, peace, and salvation” and not show up to someone or someplace who would really matter when it comes explaining their motivations for visiting Earth and desires for contact, like at say, the UN building in Manhattan.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:32 am
@BMcP
They visit out of the way spots because they’re shy.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:37 am
Maybe the aliens are hiding in the tornadoes. I saw a movie once where a tornado sucked up a cow and we know how much aliens like cows.
Yes, I saw that too. I was quite impressed with the traction and power that the red Dodge pickup had in that movie — it was able to keep all four wheels on the ground while tractor-trailers were picked up and sent flying. Incredible.
Come to think of it, that truck was trying to get into a tornado. Wait, wait, I have it now! The red pickup was actually an alien spaceship and that container of cut up soda cans it was carrying were actually released within the tornado to signal the mothership.
Ah well. If Helen Hunt is an alien, she can come abduct me.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:55 am
Hey man. The Truth is, like, out there, man.
The sky is *full* of alien spaceships just scooting about. It’s the mind-control fluoride that the government puts in the drinking water that causes us to not be able to see them!
(FYI, I actually heard said by a David Icke follower)
July 31st, 2008 at 6:57 am
Lets see here. Hmm, there are tornadoes that attack trailer parks. The aliens land in trailer parks. Meh, maybe the toradoes transport aliens to trailer parks???
July 31st, 2008 at 7:02 am
Phil, while I agree with you, you should probably calm down a bit otherwise you might end up sounding like the very people you are trying to debunk. To wit here is a slightly edited version of your third paragraph:
“All I want is actual, y’know, evidence of evolution. I
don’twant eyewitness testimony. I don’t wantshaky footagefossils. I don’t want carbon dating, which is notoriously unreliable. I don’t want claims ofredacted documents, or government seizures of evidencepeople descending from monkeys, or anything I can’t hold in my hand and examine.”Remember that their arguments seem just as logical to them as ours do to us.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:11 am
Conspiracy theorists always like to talk about how the government is hiding things from us, whether it’s UFOs, the Kennedy Assassination, or 9/11. To them, I always like to toss out a line from Tom Clancy’s “The Hunt for Red October”, “The likelihood of a secret being blown is proportional to the square of the number of people who’re in on it.”
So when they expect me to believe that the same government that can’t keep a President’s illicit, under the Oval Office desk, blow-job a secret is in collusion with nations around to globe to successfully keep secret the single biggest story of all time, a story which any reporter would gladly gnaw off their own arm to get the scoop on, I say, “Um, no.”
All sorts of special pleadings will follow, “You don’t understand…”, “That’s what they want you to think…”, etc.
I’d call their attention to Occam’s razor, but in their world the razor is a bit dull and is need of some serious honing.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:12 am
I KNOW what the flying saucers are looking for: flying cups.
[quoting QD](run and hide)
heh heh heh
July 31st, 2008 at 7:18 am
If the US military had evidence of visiting ETs, a soldier with a cell phone camera would have put pics of a naked alien being pointlessly tortured on their unsecured flicker page.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:31 am
@Sir:
As the old saying goes, “Methinks Thou Protesteth Too Much” lol
July 31st, 2008 at 7:34 am
@ Sir Eccles
I hear what you’re saying… but I think maybe your analogous comparison to evolution is a bit of a stretch. There are literally “mountains” of physical evidence to back up evolution, and none of it is really anecdotal. It can be observed in action, it has predictive power, it’s actually quite tangible…
July 31st, 2008 at 7:52 am
@Eccles, there’s plenty of extremely well-documented evolution happening around us, especially in the bacterial world (because bacteria multiply so quickly that cumulative effects of mutations become visible much quicker than in other living creatures), but not only. I’d advise you to visit PZ Meyers’ Pharingula more often.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:58 am
@Sir Eccles:
“All I want is actual, y’know, evidence of evolution. I want eyewitness testimony”
I get your point, but the thing is we have that! We can put selective pressure on bacteria and observe them evolving over many generations.
There’s nothing even remotely like that demonstrating – or even strongly suggesting – the existence of intelligent ET life. And I know, because once upon a time I really, truly wanted to believe that ETs were visiting us, so I looked very hard for anything that could really support that idea. I found very little, and what I found was mostly either faked or so inconclusive as to be useless.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:08 am
@Daniel
“Im not saying the military is hiding anything. I am saying that even if they were, You and I will never know about it.”
The US military can’t even keep a top secret submarine propeller from appearing on Microsoft’s Live Search:
http://dreadnaught.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/us-ohio-class-submarine-visable-on-microsofts-live-search/
To claim that they, nay, *any* organisation on the planet, could keep evidence of aliens from the public is just silly. It’d involve a coverup of gigantic proportions with no one *ever* leaking actual evidence (ex-military members coming forward and saying “I saw this in x base but I have no proof and you can’t go and check yoursel” doesn’t count), which is, frankly, insane.
Seriously. Consider the amount of dirt about various high ranking politicians that gets exposed to the public, in some cases ruining their careers. I know it’s not exactly the same thing, but it shows that even high ranking government officials can’t keep secrets about their personal life. It’s extremely doubtful that any organisation, military or otherwise, could keep such amazing evidence (alien life visting earth) secret.
Hell, in the 1960s, soviet astronomers announced that they had found proof of an advanced alien civilisation (look up Quasar CTA 102) to the press. Imagine that. The soviet government, not known for being open and honest with facts and ideas, found some unusual readings in the sky and immediately announced that they’d found alien life. That’s how exciting the idea of alien life is to those who study it. The idea that anyone would find actual, solid proof of aliens and then never tell anyone about it is laughable.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:13 am
Guys, I’m not disagreeing with you.
We are all rational people here and know good evidence when we see it. But remember that Creationists/moon hoaxers/alien believers/etc think there is an equally large mountain of “evidence” (I put it in quotes to differentiate it from what we might call “real testable evidence”) for their argument too. What I’m saying is that we must remain calm when presenting it otherwise we come across like the lunatics we are trying to convince.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:17 am
Daniel said: “If the military has the evidence, you can be sure no one is going to see it.”
I said: “And if they have *no* evidence, you can also be sure that no one is going to see it.”
Dave Hall said: “Isn’t that just about what Dick Cheney said about WMDs while trying to justify the Iraq War?”
You’ve lost me. Did he say that? What’s that got to do with aliens?
For me, the more relevant comparison is with a story I read a few years ago about allegations of Satanic ritual abuse of children (in the UK IIRC). If I remember the story correctly, a *police officer* said the lack of evidence of abuse was proof of how effective the Satanists were at hiding their activities.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:18 am
Right… I know that, Sir Eccles… you’re point is noted.
My retort was to make the very point that, if you’re going to make that comparison in the way you did with evolution, it’d be pretty easy to argue and show faulty. So the two are not really comparible in that way.
And, that having been said.. I read Phil’s post again, and I have to say, I don’t see it as being as overly emotional or displaying a lack of calm, and I think it was fairly proportional given the contents of the comments on the intitial Ed Mithell post. Given that context, I think Phil’s post was both necessary and properly toned…
July 31st, 2008 at 8:36 am
Sir Eccles:
Celtic_Evolution is being kind. Your comparison of ET Skeptics to Evolution Deniers is way more than a bit of a stretch — it’s a complete non-sequitur, and it’s insulting to biological science. Also, I suspect that the intersection between the “UFO equals ET” crowd and the anti-evolution crowd is near zero. ET, if proven to exist, would shake the already squishy foundation of the YECs.
Which would be a great thing! If only ET were here, he would be a great boon to science! That’s the irony. Scientists, who rightly complain about the dismal quantity and quality of ET evidence, would love it if the world could meet ET for real. (Assuming of course that ET is nice to Earth scientists.)
July 31st, 2008 at 8:39 am
…and Sir Eccles, I wrote that before I saw your reply to Celtic_Evolution. No hard feelings intended, anyway.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:45 am
@ Jim Shaver
I’m being kind, indeed, because I know from past comments where Sir Eccles is coming from, generally… and while I understand the point he’s trying to make, I don’t really agree with it in the way it was framed, with the example given.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:50 am
Thanks, Celtic. I think we’re in agreement here.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:52 am
OMG…these UFO nuts are almost as bad as young earth creationists!
July 31st, 2008 at 8:54 am
Thousands of people (not me, BTW) over several thousand years have seen strange things in the sky, not ALL of which appear to be explainable as natural phenomena or human artifacts. If you accept that admittedly broad statement, then there is a phenomenon/phenomena occuring that is deserving of dedicated, careful, WELL-FUNDED, scientific study. I don’t believe that’s being done — at least not openly, not for peer review.
Why would a skeptical scientist argue with that?
(I only skimmed thru the comments, so I hope I’m not repeating someone else’s message….)
Les (Friendly Airplane Asylum flack)
July 31st, 2008 at 8:56 am
Just a couple of points:
1. I’m skeptical of a government conspiracy to hide UFOs.
2. If I remember the articles and the interviews correctly, Ed Mitchell is relating what he says he was told by others. I don’t have a problem with that. Is that evidence? No. Is it interesting? Yes. Follow up on this point would be great. Who was he talking to? Why does he believe them? Before hearing that, I’d reserve final judgement on him. He could be honest and duped (or right), dishonest or delusional. No one on this blogs knows the real answer I suspect.
3. The logic of the many doubters posting to this site is dubious to me and is too much like the logic that IDers or others use. Just because something may seem hard to you to believe is not proof one way or the other. For example, consider government secret keeping. I don’t think Watergate, Iran/Contra, Lewinski-gate or any of the other items are proof that government can’t keep secrets. It seems very evident to me that the government can do so. Some of these secrets come out decades later (like cold war activities, info on POWs, etc) but only when the government decides that enough time has past. Most, if not all, of the examples of failed secrets are “amateurs” doing illegal or illict things trying to hide them from professional investigators with the power of the federal government behind them (or a very interested press corp aided by a turncoat).
4. That being said, I don’t think there is any direct proof of a conspiracy or visitations. Just losts of stuff that people think are circumstantial.
5. Let be a cynic like everyone else on this site: I have to wonder about what I perceive as BAs anger or outrage to his initial blog. Just what were you expecting? Someone to jump forward with evidence? Or even less likely, someone to say, you’ve convinced me? Or is this just an attempt to whip up blog numbers?
July 31st, 2008 at 8:56 am
If you think about this, it is very similar to intelligent design. ID claims to be a science with evidence and all in a very similar way that UFO people claim there is evidence. Its just that you can’t SEE the evidence because it is hidden.
This also reminds me of that guy in the movie Terminator that went back in time (this happened in another movie also). He couldn’t prove he was from the future because he had no clothes and stuff. Really, it’s kind of funny in a sad way.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:58 am
I think that the argument that the military cannot keep a secret is a major red herring. They can and do keep secrets quite effectively.
The F117a was operational for seven years prior to its release (planned BTW) by the military. For example. Yes, there were rumors of the airplane, but if you sift through what those rumors were and how they jibed with the reality that was eventually disclosed, you will find that an overwhelming majority of the rumors were complete bunk.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:01 am
Well, maybe I missed this in the previous post as I didn’t skim through those comments, but seriously if the gov. had any kind of evidence then we would know about it.
There are tons of hackers going after pentagon computers all the time, and really before the mid 90′s it was barely a chore for them to get access to everything on those systems. Even today it isn’t much of a chore as you can see from the recent news about the extradition of a British citizen to the US so he can be tried for hacking into the pentagon and NASA computers. What was this guy looking for? Oh… you guessed it, evidence of Aliens visiting the earth and the US government trying to cover it up.
What did he find? Well, he claims that he found a number of things, but in all of this guy’s computer genius did he figure out how to save any of the information to his own hard drive? No, he couldn’t figure out how to save the “evidence” that he found.
If you want to read up on this crackpot just go to Google news and search for “British hacker”
July 31st, 2008 at 9:03 am
for Don Snow:
What you saw could also have been a satellite. Go to the following website which provides data about satellites and when you can see them from various locations. I remember several years ago taking my children out to watch the Space Shuttle/ISS fly by several nights in a row. The coolest was after they had undocked and the one was slightly behind the other, looking like it was chasing it!
I had a really strange experience as a child. My family were sitting on my grandmother’s porch at night and all of a sudden a bright light lit up the entire country-side, moving from north to south. We all wondered what happened and looked for information about what it could be. It wasn’t until about 30 years later that I was watching a show about meteor and saw footage of one that I realized that this was probably what we saw….while we doubted for a long time what it was, once I had a reasonable explanation, the mystery was gone. It was kind of sad when I burst everyone’s bubble….maybe that is why this is such an emotional topic for “believers.”
July 31st, 2008 at 9:03 am
forgot to include the website: http://science.nasa.gov/realtime/
July 31st, 2008 at 9:04 am
To those who think “The Government” is covering up evidence of alien visitors:
The supposedly monolithic, all powerful Government couldn’t fire eight attorneys for political reasons and sweep it under the rug. Compare something underhanded and relatively minor like that to the idea that thousands of current or retired military personnel, intelligence officers, politicians, federal bureaucrats, or state employees never let the secret about aliens slip. Not once.
Governments are made of people, who make mistakes, and make them often. Open a newspaper. To paraphrase Lewis Black, you’re talking about “The Government” as if it were a building, walking around and doing sh**.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:05 am
Is there alien life out there somewhere? Yeah, probably… it’s a big universe, after all. Are they visiting us? I think that falls into the realms of (to nick the X-Files phrase) extreme possibility. I doubt it, personally, much as I love the idea it doesn’t ring true. I think should an actual encounter occur it would be a much more tangible event. Why travel light years to see us and then hide-away in some farm land in Nebraska bugging the cattle? I’ll reserve judgement until I see the motherships a-coming.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:07 am
Hell yeah… To all those people who see UFO’s why don’t they catch them? huh? it should be really easy, just catch one and show it to me. Otherwise they didn’t really see anything. I rest my case. If you see it catch it. Hell, that’s how I know that stealth fighters exist. I saw one and, did I just pull my camera out? heck no, I got evidence, I shot it down with my super slingshot and it is now sitting in my basement. SO that ‘s how I know stealth planes are real. You say you believe stealth fighters exists cause you’ve seen them on TV? Video’s can be hoaxed. For all you know the Iraq war is just a long drawn out mini series. That’s stupid to simply believe what you see coming out of a TV screen. If you are so stupid to believe that, maybe I should sell you some beach front property in North Dakota lol. That’s not solid evidence. Until you catch one you can’t claim they exist, me on the other hand, since I have captured an F-177, I am entitled by the authorities of science and knowledge to say they are real. And if you don’t believe me, well, then you are not my friend. The same goes for nuclear bombs, the holocaust, jesus, and all other highly infrequent events and objects that people claim are “real”. To me they are not real until I can touch one or experience them first hand. I also believe it If I’m told by people that I think are super kewl.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:09 am
Regarding the government keeping a secret, it depends on the nature of the secret, the evidence that there is, and who, precisely, is looking for that evidence. Military projects can, I think, be kept pretty hush-hush for a good deal of time. 60 years? Maybe not, but then, if there were aliens, they might not have started visiting at the same time the stories started popping up. So, the number of years keeping a secret rebuttal doesn’t exactly pan out.
I think my biggest problem with the idea that the government is keeping it secret is this. Sure, the U.S. government, and maybe even some of the other governments around the world, could keep the secret. But every government? Maybe the aliens only visit the countries where the government can keep things hushed up. Uh huh. That must be it.
So, governments around the world keeping it a global secret, possible, but not plausible.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:12 am
Also consider the sheer financial incentive to revealing evidence of aliens.
Whoever got that ‘scoop’ would suddenly become insanely rich. Every talk show on Earth would be falling over themselves to interview you. Hell, Oprah would make you co-host for a month. Your book would be a #1 bestseller for the next fifty years. You could sell the movie rights to your life story for fifty bazillion dollars.
There are so many incentives to revealing evidence of alien visitors, and I find it very telling that none has surfaced so far.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:13 am
@ RL
I keep hearing this, but I don’t see it. The logic the “doubters” are using is simple: where is the evidence? This is not at all like IDer logic… IDer logic is to ignore the very real physical evidence presented and then continue to make the same claims and counter-arguments… please show me where we’ve used the same logic, RL…
Was there a point in there relevant to this discussion, RL? Phil’s initial post was to point out the silliness with Ed Mithcell’s claims. It’s perfectly acceptible to do in this forum and is certainly not the first or the last time. And to answer your question… yeah, someone jumping forward with evidence is exactly what we’re expecting in order to take any of the claims very seriously. What’s wrong with that exactly? And secondly, it is an important function of these discussions to provide answers and context for those that might be convinced to actually demand evidence for belief in extraordinary claims. Again… what is your problem with this?
I’d call you a jerk for using such a gratuitous ad-hom… but I bet you already know it.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:17 am
Every single Pro-UFO post here has failed to meet this one demand of Phil:
“and to show me why you have eliminated every single possible terrestrial mundane explanation, including hardware glitches, mistaken conclusions by the people involved, and advanced military craft — things we know exist and are common. Then and only then can you begin to postulate something more exotic.”
How many of you Pro-UFO’ers are actually in the business of trying to DEBUNK this evidence you claim to have, and to eliminate all other possibilities? That is what a REAL scientist does. You suffer from the same mentality and problem as the religious – you already have your conclusion, and you’ll take any little piece of ‘evidence’, no matter how faulty, to support your claim.
Let me state this – it would be really cool if E.T. were coming to visit in cool super-advanced flying saucers; I think any of us could agree with this. But until you can address the subject OBJECTIVELY, no one will ever take you seriously.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:17 am
skepticism is healthy, ignoring evidence, albeit intangible, isn’t.
The problem with some UFOlogist isn’t the staunch resilience in search of truth, it’s the idea of trying to make everyone believers, yourself included. It’s almost like the matrix, once unplugged you tend to realize the nuances we obvioulsy ignore, daily.
With that said, no evidence is required. A simple glance into the world of quantum physics explains logical probabilities. An infinite (to the best of our knowledge) universe with more earth like planets scattered across galaxies, it isn’t hard to speculate here about primordial soups boiling up elsewhere than earth. That is science, hypothesis isn’t based on evidence but the raw facts and * Observations empirically recorded to derive at a sound conclusion.
Again, no need to beat folks over the heads with oceans of conspiracies and blurry pictures till concession. Simply point them in the direction of science.
I find it disturbing how folks relate these UFO phenomena with covert government crafts. While now, it is increasingly possible to agree it may be terrestrial based crafts(our technological leap allows such speculations) but, how do we account for sightings witnessed several decades prior to earthlings breaking the speed barrier?
It’s funny that eye witness testimonies are not concrete enough yet our justice system relies on these to compliment their facts when prosecuting individuals. The eye witnesses coming fort are no carpenters or donut bakers, these are highly credible professionals in the fields. I mean, an officer bestowed with the responsibility to safeguard and operate the state’s nuclear arsenal shouldn’t be considered loony. I’m sure he underwent series of psych evaluations… my point is, these individuals are housed in ranks that require a series of personal substantiation, mental stability, e.t.c, i would be less skeptic about what is said and more inclined to research and see how all these testimonies paint a picture.
Two sitting presidents have been denied access to informations related to extraterrestrial phenomena. Bill Clinton is quoted as saying “within the government, there is another government that answers virtually to no one.”
There, when we let hubris take over our attempts to seeking out truth, we lose every subtle hint to the idea of truth.
If the aforementioned testimonies dosn’t spark a nerve to at least pick up some credible witness testimonials and read, research a little on the subject, then i’m afraid my friend… you are no longer objective in your arguments but subjectively clouding your deductive reasoning process with the ailing fears of an ignorant society.
Again, these sightings predates our MACH 1 achievements. So, either prior sightings were fairies in the sky or some physical object defying all known laws of physics @ our primitive stage of advancement. It’s either this mass delusion is increasing and the public is hallucinating or the phenomena is real and should be addressed, scientifically.
I fear of people who shred the little facts to a subject. I fear logic will fail them someday, an advanced civilizations to these individuals may be viewed as divine in nature. Ended up doing what i started out vehemently saying i wouldn’t do, try to convince people.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:21 am
I saw a UFO once, then I realized it was a helicopter, and it stopped being a UFO. If aliens exist out there (And the laws of probability say they most likely do) then why waste the enormous amount of time, effort and recourses to come to our little backwater planet, and then just sneaking about, dissecting cows, and generally being all secretive? Makes to sense whatsoever.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:22 am
@Brian T.
Not sure there’s really that much of a financial incentive there. I say this because there are a few considerations to be made (and I can’t believe I’m possibly defending the aliens exist crowd).
1. The current climate of the topic is generally a “that guy must be nuts” attitude. This would deter a good number of people, even with financial incentives, unless:
2. Significant, strong, credible evidence would be needed to convince the pertinent individuals (scientific community, some members of the media, etc.) and not come across as being a nut. Getting that kind of evidence would, I imagine, be rather difficult, even if it exists.
3. What disincentives are there? Threats of personal physical or financial harm? Possible harm to family or friends? Legal problems?
I’m sure there may be other points, but I think those are the biggies.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:25 am
I believe that the major problem with the topic of UFOs is that there is too much pseudoscience and malarky taking place around the topic for it to gain any credibility in the scientific community. While I don’t necessarily believe in all the stories of alien abductions, mutilations, or interference in nuclear programs, I do think that alien vistation to this planet once or twice in history is entirely plausible. I don’t think anyone would argue that it is presumptious to think that out of billions of planets we are the most evolved, most intelligent life forms in the universe. I also do not think it is too far of a stretch to believe that the technology for interplanetary travel exists in some form somewhere in the universe. I am inclined to think that is entirely possible that if an incident like Roswell was an alien spacecraft, it may have been a complete accident that it ended up here. Think for a moment about what would happen if one of our spacecraft was somehow shot into outerspace, had some kind of malfunction and drifted outside our solar system. (I’m not trying to go into the physics of this being possible or not, I’m just setting context) Eventually we would lose touch with the craft completely, the occupants would die, and who knows where it would end up? Another good point is to look at our own planet and how advanced we have become, and imagine a similar evolutionary path on a planet 500 years older. Back to my original thought (after having drifted nearly as far as the hypothetical spacecraft I mentioned), I think that all of the overly emotional “conspiracy theorists” and “UFO nuts” are detrimental to the study of what could be in rare cases a genuine phenomenon. Serious scientists most often won’t touch these cases, no matter the credibility of the circumstantial evidence, because ridicule is sure to follow. Scientists hypothesize about far out ideas all the time, only those ideas don’t have the pop culture surrounding them, so they are given consideration. My post is too long already, so I’ll leave it at that.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:29 am
Actually, let me just add to my last comment. I don’t think there’s that much of a financial incentive for honest people with real evidence to come forward and be taken seriously. Now, if they really don’t give a fig about reputation or any of the other aspects, and are fine being relegated to the New Age section of the book store, then yeah, I’d agree there’s a huge financial incentive.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:32 am
The “UFOs are alien spacecraft” crowd used to respond to the “why don’t you have clear photographs or videos” question with “why don’t you have clear photographs or videos of plane crashes”. Of course, now that we do have such photos and videos of plane crashes, I don’t hear that argument anymore.
My personal opinion on the matter? Are “UFO”s alien spacecraft? For virtually all of the ones people report — no. Does that mean that extraterrestrials have never visited Earth? Not necessarily — I’ve just never seen any evidence that shows they have.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:36 am
@Andrew Jackson
Your short bio says you are ‘a skeptic’, not ‘a scientist’. This statement is true and honest.
I second that. Do you hear that, all you astronomers out there? You’re no longer scientists!
July 31st, 2008 at 9:37 am
“Hello, Sport! Chet Mattingly…I work for the Government.”
“The Truth is Out There”
“No, Ma’am; the FBI does not have a sense of humor as far as we can tell…”
“Now, I don’t think they flew 90 Billion miles just to pick a fight…”
“Mr. President, that’s not precisely correct…”
“Imagine it; Earth & Mars. There’s NOTHING we couldn’t do!”
“Watch the Skies! Keep Watching the Skies!”
“Oh, the things I’m gonna do for my country…”
July 31st, 2008 at 9:38 am
Sorry about that…I left the TV on.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:40 am
With all the cries for evidence of extraterrestrial UFOs, allow me to provide the best there is – sans any questionable “abduction” content.
Since I have offered Phil Plait, and other scientists, as much assistance as they need regarding the evidence, I further publicly extend the offer here.
And please let me point out that all challenges from the professional skeptics, including CFI-West, IIG and JREF have failed, as one can read in the available articles.
Further, when an Academy Award-winning special effects company uses words like, “…hard to achieve…very hard, probably even impossible to fake this kind of shot.” to describe UFO films taken by a man in the 1970s, then perhaps less knowledgeable people should take a serious look at the case.
The real question in regards to the Meier is no longer whether it’s true or not but why you don’t know about…and why the unsubstantiated claims against it have persisted for so long.
See http://www.theyfly.com for further information.
P.S. For those who are already tempted to accuse me of financial motivation, etc. I represent this case voluntarily (as in for free) and conduct all my research (for the past 30 years) solely at my own expense.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:42 am
As for the government cover-up:
First, I don’t believe or disbelieve it, I’m just offering a different point of view.
Someone earlier said (paraphrasing) they couldn’t believe it because how could they keep this under wraps and “not one” person has talked.
Several people have come out saying they worked for the government and were in on an alien conspiracy. And each and every one of them has been discredited by not the government, but US. We the majority don’t really want to believe them because it sounds so fantastical. Also each of their stories seem to be different and don’t always match up with each other.
So if it were true, the Government would not have to work all that hard to keep it a secret, because WE don’t want to believe it in the first place.
Once again, for all you would be attackers, I don’t believe this, it’s just a different angle.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:42 am
I don’t know if anyone has ever come up with this argument against seeing Aliens before, thought I’d throw it out there.
Anyone doing a bit of honest research on space will know that distances are amazingly vast, if aliens were to come here to earth, they would need to be very advanced technologically to the point where they could somehow “cheat” the laws of physics as we know them to propel themselves here in days or hours instead of thousands of years.
To an alien race that advanced, coming to Earth would be like us jumping in our cars and driving to the corner store for a loaf of bread. If they have interstellar travel figured out, I postulate that they would sure as heck have “stealth” or cloaking technologies working very, very well, to the point where I’m sure if they decided to, they could be sitting next to every one of us at every waking moment of our day and we’d never be the wiser. If aliens did not want to be seen by us, you can bet yer behind you’d never know they were here. No lights, no noise, no radio interference, no anything.
Conversely, if they wanted us to know they were here, you can bet they’d set a meeting with the President, or Phil, or someone to break the news. I doubt they’d be putting on light shows in Texas to tantalize us with the possibilities……IMHO.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:45 am
@ Danniel B-
Precisely. They’d be so technologically advanced that they certainly wouldn’t be willing to let some bassackwards, primitive, corrupt government keep them “secret.” Retarded.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:49 am
@CE
The example of what I’m referring to is all over the responses to this and the previous subject blog. To paraphrase, “How can there be a conspiracy? I can’t imagine how the government (or all governments) can keep a secret.” I think thats an argument of personal incredulity which is a logical fallacy whether or not its made by someone we agree with.
Oh, and, sticks and stones. I had no problem at all with the first post by Phil. Ask for evidence? No problemo. I had neither either way. No post. After reading this second post, though, I had that reaction. Since I did not think there was any new points made, it appeared to me to just be an attempt to rehash and spin up the old arguments again.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:50 am
What I love about this argument is that most skeptics (myself included) believe in life elsewhere in the universe, even though we don’t buy into the filth about Earth being visited, anal probation, and governmental conspiracies etc. You gotta love the Drake equation! So you can flush the “scientists and skeptics are close minded’ argument right down the crapper.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:52 am
@DR.KATHRINE MARTIGNONI
Please turn off your caps lock. All caps makes things hard to read and, in internet etiquette, means that you’re shouting.
@Chris Augustin
Thanks for the summaries of those claims. Now, where can we find the reports and published papers on those events?
July 31st, 2008 at 9:56 am
Staying away from YouTubes and the like and instead looking at real research, Phil, I don’t think you have enough under your belt to even comment about.
Since you do not have any ‘good research’ under your belt you are not a skeptic because you failed to do any homework. Instead you are simply a debunker or better yet a lampoonist who has a ‘nut’ about trying to convince others that the rest are all crazy.
That’s all I see.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:02 am
@harold
At least we don’t claim it as fact, just likely. ET people say they have real evidence, but all they have are grainy pictures and doubtful eyewitness testimony.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:02 am
@Atrueoriginall
So, Phil’s not a skeptic because he asked the people making the claims to provide evidence of those claims???
Rather than resorting to name calling, why not work to either show Phil the evidence, or shed light on the specific flaws in any arguments he has made in his post?
July 31st, 2008 at 10:03 am
I agree; I would love to see some hard evidence. There are fanatics on both sides of the argument. I think most rational people will admit there are UFOs. The real debate comes down to the supposition on each side as to their nature.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:08 am
skepticism is healthy, ignoring evidence, albeit intangible, isn’t.
The problem with some UFOlogist isn’t the staunch resilience in search of truth, it’s the idea of trying to make everyone believers, yourself included. It’s almost like the matrix, once unplugged you tend to realize the nuances we obvioulsy ignore, daily.
With that said, no evidence is required. A simple glance into the world of quantum physics explains logical probabilities. An infinite (to the best of our knowledge) universe with more earth like planets scattered across galaxies, it isn’t hard to speculate here about primordial soups boiling up elsewhere than earth. That is science, hypothesis isn’t based on evidence but the raw facts and * Observations empirically recorded to derive at a sound conclusion.
Again, no need to beat folks over the heads with oceans of conspiracies and blurry pictures till concession. Simply point them in the direction of science.
I find it disturbing how folks relate these UFO phenomena with covert government crafts. While now, it is increasingly possible to agree it may be terrestrial based crafts(our technological leap allows such speculations) but, how do we account for sightings witnessed several decades prior to earthlings breaking the speed barrier?
It’s funny that eye witness testimonies are not concrete enough yet our justice system relies on these to compliment their facts when prosecuting individuals. The eye witnesses coming fort are no carpenters or donut bakers, these are highly credible professionals in the fields. I mean, an officer bestowed with the responsibility to safeguard and operate the state’s nuclear arsenal shouldn’t be considered loony. I’m sure he underwent series of psych evaluations… my point is, these individuals are housed in ranks that require a series of personal substantiation, mental stability, e.t.c, i would be less skeptic about what is said and more inclined to research and see how all these testimonies paint a picture.
Two sitting presidents have been denied access to informations related to extraterrestrial phenomena. Bill Clinton is quoted as saying “within the government, there is another government that answers virtually to no one.”
There, when we let hubris take over our attempts to seeking out truth, we lose every subtle hint to the idea of truth.
If the aforementioned testimonies dosn’t spark a nerve to at least pick up some credible witness testimonials and read, research a little on the subject, then i’m afraid my friend… you are no longer objective in your arguments but subjectively clouding your deductive reasoning process with the ailing fears of an ignorant society.
Again, these sightings predates our MACH 1 achievements. So, either prior sightings were fairies in the sky or some physical object defying all known laws of physics @ our primitive stage of advancement. It’s either this mass delusion is increasing and the public is hallucinating or the phenomena is real and should be addressed, scientifically.
I fear of people who shred the little facts to a subject. I fear logic will fail them someday, an advanced civilization to these individuals may be viewed as divine in nature.
Ended up doing what i started out vehemently saying i wouldn’t do, try to convince people.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:09 am
In general people would always prefer to believe they saw something special than something mundane.
People like mysteries and the supernatural, it adds another dimension to their lives.
Fighting against that is very difficult. Some people just won’t allow themsleves to accpet they didn’t see what they thought they did. (Plus usually thgememeory elaborates into more.)
From the Greeks believing in odd omans and encounters with Gods,
To Lowell’s canals on Mars
From the various signs that foretold the deaths of Ceasers (many documented by historians such as Suetonius in “The Twelve Caesars”)
To the Cold Fusion fables & cloned humans cult (Raleians?)
From little faries inthebottom of the garden
To little green men in the sky…
Folks just wanna belive.
Tellling them it justain’t so is avery hard thing todo &oiften fightinga losing cause.
As longas we’re human we’llprobably have thatlonging for the exotic other from magical place X be that skygods, little green men aliens or whatever.
Its interesting more in terms of what its tells us about human pyschology than any tangible physical reality.
Ed Mitchall, Moon-walkerand scientific hero maybe wrong but he’s in the majority and I doubt that’ll change anytime soon.
I don’t see Mitchell believing and having his say doing much harm either .. unlike say, President Bush the Moron believing that “God” told him to invade Iraq.
I’d say let this one go …Maybe. Because you (Phil Plait that is) may be right, you may be being perfectly reasonable but you’ll never get those who want to belive to stop wanting.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:13 am
It seems that people who like to write in capital letters are ready to believe in anything.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:14 am
@ Atrueoriginall for saying :
“Since you do not have any ‘good research’ under your belt you are not a skeptic because you failed to do any homework. Instead you are simply a debunker or better yet a lampoonist who has a ‘nut’ about trying to convince others that the rest are all crazy.”
We’re all crazy. True sanity is very rare – and soon swamped by the mass insanity of everyone else. Well I think so but then I’m crazy too!
——
“The whole worlds mad but for me and thee and I ain’t so sure about thee!”
- Somebody’s granny.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:15 am
@ChazInMT
If they have interstellar travel figured out, I postulate that they would sure as heck have “stealth” or cloaking technologies working very, very well, to the point where I’m sure if they decided to, they could be sitting next to every one of us at every waking moment of our day and we’d never be the wiser.
I think you almost got it. The real question is “Why do aliens put lights on the outsides of their ships.” The answer is of course that Federation law requires that all interstellar vehicles have external lights on at all times for safety reasons.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:15 am
@Sam… I’m sorry but eye-witness testimony is unreliable, no matter how high your rank is or how important you are. We don’t think these people are liars… they just didn’t fully see what was actually there. You see, our eyes can deceive us… or probably more correctly, our brain deceives us. The human eye doesn’t take snapshots every 20th of a second and send these to the brain. The eye collects data and then our brains make sense of it, filling in blanks and making connections along the way. So when people say they see lights traveling in formation at night, looking like they don’t move with respect to each other, their brain may interpret this as one big moving object and look for shadows or something to make out the form of it. But these could just be helecopters or jets or whatever. It is the same explanation for why people see Jesus in their dogs morning turd.
You then go on to talk about other “evidence” such as radar (which thinks a stealth bomber is a flock of birds), radioactive soil samples (why doesn’t every UFO landing site, including crop circles, have radioactive soil there?… oh thats right, because soil can be radioactive for many reasons and UFO believers cling to the cases where they happen to coincide… and btw, how radiactive are you talking… i have yet to see any results that are more than barely greater than the surrounding area.), polygraphs (which I covered earlier with my explanation of how they aren’t lieing when they say they saw what they saw), and quality photos and videos (which you have neglected to provide).
And to finish it off you make one of my favorite arguments… that the skeptic can’t explain this “unexplainable event” so it must be a little green man. I put that in quotations because my point is that you readily admit that it is unexplainable but then use it as evidence of the possible existence of aliens. Let me tell you, lack of evidence is not good evidence of something else.
Phil isn’t saying that little green men haven’t visited (from what i can gather) and neither am I… but forgive us if we are inclined to put more weight on more logical explanations for what has happened and hold off on jumping up and down celebrating the expansion of our galactic community until we, you know, have concrete evidence that they are here.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:16 am
McTestes is right!
I am rather sick of these people telling me I am closed-minded (and in all-caps, of course). Ironically, all their ideas are inspired by the science they choose to ignore!
July 31st, 2008 at 10:17 am
And relax about the ALL CAPS. Swiss law prohibits the use of lowercase enabled keyboards.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:19 am
@ Thomas Siefert :
Just curious & Off-Topic but is there a link with you & or your family and the Siefert type galaxies – Which are a type of AGN (Active Galactic Nucelus) galaxy I think ..? Spirals with bright variable nuclei – like a smaller variation of a quasar or radio galaxy? Just wonderin’ …
July 31st, 2008 at 10:24 am
Potterbro said :
“It is the same explanation for why people see Jesus in their dogs morning turd.”
Now there’s a pareoilda (or however that’s spelt) I haven’t heardof befroe! Please tell me you’re joking & there’s NOT one on e-bay already ..!
July 31st, 2008 at 10:27 am
@DR.KATHRINE MARTIGNONI, 95% of americans think God exists? Where did you hear that? And either way, why do you think that the number of people believing in something has any bearing on whether it is true or not? For centuries many people thought the sun revolved around the earth… the quantity of people believing it didn’t keep them from being 100% wrong.
Perhaps you should be analyzing why you are so sure that they exist and are here. You say that you are sure but provide no proof… so either you have some concrete proof that you haven’t shown anybody (which i doubt) or you just place a weak emphasis on having any sort of evidence of your beliefs (which isn’t going to get you very far when it comes to fully understanding a phenomenon).
July 31st, 2008 at 10:28 am
@StevoR, haha, what is even more telling is that you aren’t sure!
July 31st, 2008 at 10:29 am
and i hope that came across in the way i meant (speaking to the ridiculousness of their sightings in general)
July 31st, 2008 at 10:32 am
@Pieter Kok-
Thanks. I feel your pain. This might be a stretch, but I bet most proponents of UFO’s don’t even know what the Drake equation is. The funny thing is that it would be such a strong argument for their case. Maybe it’s good that they don’t know what it is… they’d just use it as fodder and still NOT provide evidence.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:32 am
I do want to add, for those who may come across my post above, that we took the unusual step of bringing in an expert consultant to the U.S. Army Special Forces, a specialist in reading body language, which can mean life or death to a soldier. We filmed him as he watches Meier speak on film, for the first time. And I should add we did it with the sound off and then with the sound on, just in case he could understand Meier’s Swiss-German dialect, which he couldn’t. Not only did we have him evaluate Meier for truthfulness, we had him do the same thing with the retired UN diplomat who also spoke about seeing the UFOs, and one of the extraterrestrials, in India years ago. In both cases, with Meier and the diplomat, he gave them a “thumbs up”.
Now in case people don’t fully appreciate that, they should learn more about how science – as well as the U.S. Army – is relying on human “lie detectors” (http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/28-the-science-of-sniffing-out-liars/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=).
Now, for anyone who is still skeptical of Meier’s truthfulness – and the huge implications of his actually being truthful – isn’t it time to wake up? Of course people who are familiar with the case already know that Meier, and about 15 other people, all passed lie detector tests (100% truthful – ALL of them!) many years ago when the original investigation was conducted.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:45 am
It’s either this mass delusion is increasing and the public is hallucinating or the phenomena is real and should be addressed, scientifically.
Mass delusion is a reality. It’s a cultural, and self perpetuating. One person says they see something, and others are sure to follow. The same goes for Bigfoot, Nessie, and the Chupacabra. They all started with one or a very small number of people saying they saw something, and then the sightings spread like wildfire. Despite the fact that no good evidence ever surfaces.
Of course, things that are real can be discovered by one or a few people as well (see: mountain gorilla or the coelacanth). The difference is that if you have the means and the desire you can acquire hard, indisputable evidence of real things.
I want to meet Bigfoot. I want to ride on an alien spaceship, even if it’s at the expense of a good probing. Sadly, there’s no reason for me to think that there’s the slightest possibility of either happening.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:49 am
What does the existance of Pluto have to do with the lack of evidence regarding visiting alien spaceships???
Where is the evidence that Phil asked for??
July 31st, 2008 at 10:50 am
Somebody always brings up the argument that aliens would be so advanced they would have cloaking devices and other technologies to use to hide their activities.
The problem with that argument is that mistakes always happen no matter how smart or sophisticated someone is. The human suit leaks green light when someone brushes their eye, or someone short-circuits the whosis and the cloaking device goes off-line just as you’re passing over Dallas, or some lab tech miscalculates the dosage of oblivium necessary to make the human subject forget all about the anal probe.
Deal with it. If the aliens are here we would only know about it because of such chance occurrences of error. And if the aliens are not here a lot of people will still think they’re here because countless sorts of events could be chance occurrences of error.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:52 am
It was big and yellow!
Seriously, never argue with fools – those watching/reading/listening might not be able to tell the difference.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:56 am
That last comment should have quoted jw from earlier in this thread where he stated “when was the last time you questioned the existance of Pluto”.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:56 am
@StevoR: No as far as I know, there’s no link between me and Carl Keenan Seyfert, but I have from a reliable source that the name invokes the same association for BA.
I took my wife’s name when we got married, so any connections with Siefert of any spelling would be on her side. I had a very common Danish surname before I got married that didn’t turn cool until the Matrix was released.
My wife raises eyebrows in her proffession because our name invokes associations to the architect Seifert.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:58 am
Bad Science??
As far as I know, most of what “science” thinks it knows about say the BIG BANG as an example is based on fundamental assumptions that have never been proven. The real problem is that you people that call yourselves real scientists take somethings as assumptions as true but when there is overwhelming evidence to support something as trivial as ET life visting the earth as total nonsense. I read all sorts of articles saying for example that a study has found that no you shouldnt drink 2L of water a day or scientists have found a way to beat cancer using tabacco. Untill real “science” stops contradicting your messages we still going to believe that there may be some truth to all this. Maybe you should prove to us that it isn’t real instead of always asking us to prove it is. Then maybe we can get some serious investigations going to get to the real truth. I’m unimpressed with what real “science” have been saying of late
July 31st, 2008 at 11:00 am
To people who cite Pluto, we already have enough info about it to know about its orbit, composition, brightness, size, etc. What do you know about ET? Nothing, except the fact that they only show up in grainy pictures. We aren’t saying UFOs don’t exists, it is just that most of them has been explained as being natural or artificial phenomenom.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:03 am
I think the Pluto analogy is covered by point #3 in Phil’s post.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:03 am
Question to moderators, not submitting as a post.
Is the long approval process for posts mainly because I’m a new contributor? Just for the record, I’m not here to be contentious, I simply represent the only scientifically proven, still ongoing UFO case and want to inform people about it.
Of course, I can answer any challenges and do so within the accepted standards.
Thanks,
MH
July 31st, 2008 at 11:04 am
The problem with looking at “best UFO cases” is that it is like fighting the Hydra. In that myth if you chop off a head, another two grew in its place. The same can be said for disproving a UFO case. The instant you demonstrate one of the cases as a misidentification or hoax, UFO proponents will substitute another and say “well, what about this one?”
BTW, back in 1997 some of UFOlogy’s best minds presented their best cases to a panel of scientists. There was no skeptical side offered. It was a one-sided UFO proponent presentation. The scientists would eventually conclude:
“It was clear that at least a few reported incidents might have involved rare but significant phenomena such as electrical activity high above thunderstorms (e.g., sprites) or rare cases of radar ducting. On the other hand, the review panel was not convinced that any of the evidence involved currently unknown physical processes or pointed to the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence.” (Sturrock – The UFO Enigma – P. 121)
That in itself indicates the evidence is not very strong.
Depending on which people you talk to, 90-95% of all UFO cases can be explained as misperception/misidentification and, in some cases, hoaxes. With so many cases of people misidentifying things, what does it say for the remaining 5-10%? Are these simply misperceptions that are so distorted or poorly reported that a positive identification of what caused them can not be done or are they truly something unknown to science?
July 31st, 2008 at 11:04 am
@ RL
The problem is that your “paraphrase” is a complete mis-characterization, invented by you, and then presented as truth. Bah. What we are saying, and quite correctly, is that history has shown that it’s really unlikely that our government would be able to keep the lid on something this huge, and as an added problem, do so in concert with other governments over the course of 50 + years, some of which have collapsed completely. And, if you disagree with that charge, then once again… put your money where you mouth is and prove an example of something on this scale that has been kept completely hidden and secret for this length of time. Show the evidence. So, it’s not an argument of incredulity. It’s an argument of lack of evidence to support the claim. And for like the “bazzilionth” time… the honus is not on the skeptic to prove your claim is false. What part of that do you still not get? So your characterization is totally without merit.
Oh, and I don’t care what you think was your justification. Making the statement you did at the end of your first post just showed your willingness to make baseless attacks that don’t touch upon the subject matter… making you a jerk. There’s your stick and your stone.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:06 am
Wow.. What a conversation/slap fest we have here. I think that DR.KATHRINE MARTIGNONI was correct in ONE respect. USING ALL CAPS REALLY HELPS TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS!
Just kidding- I mean her point that UFOs/Aliens have become equivalent to a modern religion. They each rely on faith without evidence, they even fulfill many of the same psychological needs we have as human beings (somebody more powerful is watching over us, there is a greater purpose to life than what we see here on Earth, etc.).
I can respect people who think they’ve seen something unexplainable in the sky. I’ve even taken people up on their requests to come to my university and show me their “evidence”. It’s usually footage of a meteor, or something they filmed very close to a military research base in southern California. Then they usually come to some conclusions that have no basis in what they saw, such as “You see, a dimensional door just opened up and it disappeared through it!” (actual quote from person with video footage).
I, like Phil, encourage anyone who believes they have hard evidence that incontrovertibly proves the existence of Aliens to bring it on! I would LOVE to see it. So far, all I’ve ever seen is speculation, heresay, and emotional attacks on “non-believers” with no real content. Most of the commenters to this post have done nothing but prove Phil’s case in the original comment.
Remember Carl Sagan’s comment on this issue: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” He was talking about the results from the chemistry experiments performed by the Viking lander on Mars, where they initially were claiming to see evidence of extraterrestrial organisms.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:13 am
@ Michael Horn
*sigh*… the ol’ Billy Meier thing. Right.
Michael, I’d love to have some mettalurgists I work woth have a look at the metal alloy samples that were reportedly given to Meier and then tested… what happened to those?
July 31st, 2008 at 11:15 am
@ PG
Please read my posts above, review the suggested material and then raise any specific challenges, questions, etc.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:16 am
@Sully Says:
Somebody always brings up the argument that aliens would be so advanced they would have cloaking devices and other technologies to use to hide their activities.
In all seriousness, why would alien interstellar vehicles have lights on the outside? They’re not spotlights. The only reason I can think of is to say “we’re here”. But if that’s the case, why don’t they just come down and say hi, or even let somebody take a picture of them that doesn’t look like a dinner plate covered with aluminum foil? Are they just messing with us like they do when they flatten our crops?
July 31st, 2008 at 11:17 am
Phil, the sudden increase in antiscientific comments after moving the blog shows two things. First, you aren’t used to getting so many comments of that kind anymore because you were so good at educating your original audience. Second, you have been successful enough to gain a much wider audience. Your work is cut out for you now, but I have no doubt that after a while, the n00bs will learn from you and this kind of commenting will dwindle. If you can educate just a few of these folks, you will have done a great service.
Congratulations and keep up the great work!
July 31st, 2008 at 11:19 am
@Michael Horn
I noticed the same old cannard in one of the articles on your site regarding the JREF Challenge that the money doesn’t exist. The JREF web site provides info on how to get legal proof that the award money is there. Seriously, lying so blatantly does little to bolster any of your arguments.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:19 am
As over 150 posts have already pointed out thus far, the comparison of UFOs to religion is a valid one. Absolutely nothing can change their minds, because they each have one overpowering argument that they have convinced themselves of that nullifies anything we can throw at them.
Religion: “I don’t need evidence, I just have faith, and that means I’m right no matter how much scientific proof you can ever show me.”
UFOer: “We have no evidence because the government goes to the most extreme lengths to keep it a secret. Thus no matter how much science you throw at me and talk about having no proof, that still doesn’t explain it so I’m right.”
As far as government conspiracies go, that would mean that all governments in the entire world have made a secret pact to never reveal UFOs. Unless, that is, the aliens have only decided to fly over, crash, and leave evidence in North America. I can’t imagine EVERY country would share the same “keep it secret at all costs” mentality that the US government SUPPOSEDLY has, in which case you’d see some other country come out and say “Hey check this out, these aliens just crashed in our country, we just think it’s cool”.
The many many unlikely things that would need to happen globally in order for any type of government conspiracy to be a reality is just too far fetched for me and for most here.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:22 am
“Then when was the last time you questioned the existence of PLUTO?
You’ve never seen that with your own eyes!”
HA! That one was almost as good as the twister analogy in the previous blog entry.
Why don’t we question the existence of Pluto? Um… let’s see… because it was mathematically determined based on observations of the other planets that it might be there decades before it was finally discovered in 1930? Could it be because we have evidence of Pluto besides fuzzy photographs? Maybe its the fact that we have a whole slew of astronomers specializing in Kuiper Belt objects that just might possibly be able to provide, um, I dunno, VOLUMES of information on the subject?
I don’t want to call people names, but good grief, if you’re smart enough to use the internet to post to this blog, are you not smart enough to spend 5 minutes doing a Google search for “Pluto?”
And people wonder why UFO skeptics get tired of the UFO=Alien believers…
July 31st, 2008 at 11:23 am
@ Jose
God put them there to test our faith…
Oh wait… wrong conversation…
July 31st, 2008 at 11:33 am
@shaun
Maybe you should prove to us that it isn’t real instead of always asking us to prove it is. Then maybe we can get some serious investigations going to get to the real truth. I’m unimpressed with what real “science” have been saying of late.
Scientists apply the same criteria to the possibility of alien visitation as they do to everything else. Things like evolution and the big bang hold up pretty well. Alien visitation fails. It’s that simple. You should understand what “real science” is, before you criticize it.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:37 am
@ Todd
First, there are no ies whatsoever regarding the case that I am aware…at least not from our end.
Please read the articles documenting the retraction of claims by the skeptic from CFI-West/IIG.
Then do know that the following was received by me from Jeff Wagg, official spokesman for James Randi, “If there’s not enough evidence to support the model claim, the model claim is suspect.” That should be clear enough.
Read the comment from Uncharted Territory – given at the request of Bartholomaus from IIG who was seeking to get them to refute what we quoted them as saying in the film.
@ Celtic
I feel your pain…I’d love to have the samples too. However, read what Vogel (and other scientific experts) said about the evidence (and then read Vogel’s patent record also posted on my site).
BTW, I have in my hot little hands a book, published in 1982, with info from Meier (originally published by him in 1958 and 1978) on the two planets beyond Pluto that would be discovered around the time of the new millennium. And there’s a lot more of the scientific info that should interest you…and Phil.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:38 am
@ Michael Horn
I knew this rang a bell for me. I remebered reading about this on Randi’s site. I think it’s been addressed pretty adequately there, and I’ll not bore any of you with the details here… i’ll just point you to Randi’s handling of Micheal Horn and Billy Meier… enjoy!
http://www.randi.org/jr/032604why.html
July 31st, 2008 at 11:38 am
@gregin
I don’t think Pluto was discovered thanks to the influence on other planets. Well, they looked for it because they thought something was making Neptune go a little weird, but Pluto is so small that its influence on other planets is negligible. The disturbance on Neptune was eliminated after Voyager 2′s flyby, by correcting the mass of Neptune.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:42 am
BTW, a few days ago I emailed Phil offering him a copy of the new film on Meier for his review, critique, etc.
He gets a lot of email so probably hasn’t even seen it yet but, for the record, since he wanted evidence, I’m glad to provide it.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:42 am
@ Michael Horn
Right, but I’ll fill in the blank for the rest of us here… you don’t have them because they “conveniently” disappeared off the entire face of the earth before they could be independantly inspected and verified. You can understand why that might induse a certain level of incredulity, hmm?
Read the bio on this Meier guy… it’s a hoot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier
Does anyone else see parellels with Joseph Smith? Oye.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:43 am
I believe Phil was asking for evidence. I see a lot of people attacking him for being ‘naive’ but no one has supplied any evidence. Do you people just not understand the definition of evidence? There is no need for personal attacks. Either produce evidence or just go away.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:45 am
Comedian Larry Miller had a great quote about Conspiracy Theorists the other day on Adam Carolla’s morning show:
“You’re really too crazy to be in public.”
I always get a kick out of the CTers when I ask for the actual names of the people that are hiding the evidence or responsible for certain actions in the cover-up. For example, ask a 9-11 “Truther” who actually conducted the attacks and they’ll always say, “the government” or “the military” or “Bush and Cheney” but when you ask them the actual name of the person who pushed the button for the “controlled demolition” or personally fired the supposed missile at the Pentagon, they come up with a blank.
Same goes for the UFO crowd. If there’s evidence being covered up, and you have as much proof as you say you do, start naming names. Real names, of real people, not shadow agencies or vague references to governmental departments. Think of this as a court case, and you as the righteous UFO crusader are acting in the role of prosecutor. What individuals will you name in the complaint? What evidence will you present that will convince a jury that those individuals hid the existence of extra-terrestrial visitations? The rules of law are not even as stringent as the rules of science, but most conspiracy theories cannot even meet that standard. Just ask Jim Garrison.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:52 am
@Michael Horn
Quoting from the article “Photo Analysis Ends Challenge by Skeptics”, emphasis mine:
PDF of the prize account balance as of 1/31/08 held at Goldman Sachs available here: http://www.randi.org/challenge/goldmansachs_jan08.pdf
The article quoted above clearly states that the prize money is “non-existent”. I have shown that it does exist. Therefore, you are lying.
As to your quote from Jeff Wagg, says to me exactly what it says. That sentence, in and of itself, does not sound to me like any manner of denial or refusal. Perhaps if you provided more context.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:06 pm
@Sam
“I’m Sorry, Mr. Sciency-guy, but eye-witness accounts ARE evidence. No, not the kind that lends itself to replication in a lab, but the same kind that forms the basis for millions of criminal convictions — y’know, “beyond a reasonable doubt” criminal convictions — every year. People are put to death on eye-witness testimony in this country.”
What country do you live in, ’cause in America, that is baloney. If you’ve ever sat on a jury for a murder trial, you would know that 99% of the evidence is physical (like, there’s a body, and a knife, and proof that it happened), and MAYBE 1% is witness testimony. Can you provide evidence of your claim that “People are put to death on eye-witness testimony in this country,” or is that something you saw on TV? The rest of your post has already been debunked, over and over.
@JW
“Under the FOI, the FAA recently released Radar data in relation to the Stephenville, Texas, sighting which shows quite clearly unidentified craft (no transponder) accelerating to several thousand miles per hour in a fraction of a second, turning, and repeating the maneuvers. I would call that evidence.”
In light of the fact that Radar data is not perfect, and can be fooled, please show us the link that provides the data you speak of. I would like to know how YOU know that this radar data could not have been fooled by, say, flares from a military aircraft, as most of the reports I’ve read say they were.
@Sylvain
We have ABSOLUTE proof that 1 mile wide spaceships came FROM space at incredible speed, stop on a dime and accelerate in a blink of a eye BACK to SPACE!”
“Stop hiding you hand in the sand and go to http://www.disclosureproject.org and try to PUBLISH those proof in the MASS MEDIA and NOW you will beleive us that the Mass Media are corrupt when they going to refuse you too!”
July 31st, 2008 at 12:10 pm
… continued
OR, you could start your own blog that IS NOT CENSORED, and provide your evidence yourself, thereby sidestepping any such corruption. OR, you could take your “ABSOLUTE proof” to a university, where dozens of undergrad and graduate students would be able to verify your data. OR, you could actually provide us here with your evidence, because we promise not to refuse you. We just want to see your evidence.
It is amazing that still so many of the UFO=Alien believers use the same boring arguments.
I’ve begun to repeat myself. To make it easier, let’s just say this over and over and over until it sinks in:
Show us the real evidence for your claims. Show US the evidence. SHOW us the evidence. Show us THE evidence. Show us the EVIDENCE!
July 31st, 2008 at 12:23 pm
JW – I have seen pluto with my own eyes through an ordinary (albeit moderately large) back yard telescope. Go to a star party near you and you might have the chance as well.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I’ve said this before, but I’ll annoy you all with it again. The chances of not only a civilization with space travel but one who has then traveled to visit us is SO much smaller than the chances of just another intelligent species with a civilization, and even smaller than the chances of just another intelligent species who are, say, hunter-gatherers.
Consider a species even 1000 times more intelligent than we are who has been around much, much longer. Assuming that they are intelligent enough, they still need so many things to be able to invent space travel: complicated speech, organized and motivated citizens and leaders (well, at least citizens), the necessary materials and fuels, and, the one we don’t think about as much, appropriate limbs and something similar to an opposable thumb, combining to create a grasping system. Or, of course, some form of psychokinesis or other method of making something as intricate as a space travel system.
I’d say the chances of other species, probably far more advanced than we are mentally, is pretty high. At least, that is, the chances that they ever existed. You then have to consider whether they exist now and whether they have the qualities I mentioned, not to mention tons of others I didn’t mention or can’t think of myself. There could be super-intelligent gasses and fish out there (see dolphins) that couldn’t ever create even a city, much less a spacecraft.
And, you can consider the example from Hitchhiker’s Guide, where there could be tons of species who live on parts of the universe where they see nothing in the sky and therefore they never even consider traveling into space.
Those, in my opinion, blow Drake’s equation out of the water.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Well, Phil… I bet this blog entry gets a few more comments than that one about your new stapler!
July 31st, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Greg, stop beating around the bush! Honestly, man, is there something you want from the UFO crowd?
July 31st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Michael Horn,
Using Billy Meier as an unassailable source is just asking for people to shower you with rotten vegetables.
Are you talking about the same Billy Meier who tried to pass off a Swedish model as an alien? The same Billy Meier whose photos are obvious fakes, including a couple with visible wires? Or is there a different Billy Meier?
If you’re going to convince me and a lot of other people you need to get a better shill.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
>I think you almost got it. The real question is “Why do aliens put lights >on the outsides of their ships.”
I chuckle whenever I see video of a supposed “extraterrestrial spacecraft” with a flashing red strobe. Really is considerate of those E.T.s to do that for collision avoidance!
I need a close encounter, plz. I have to check to make sure the strobe installation is FAA-certified….
Les (Friendly Airplane Asylum flack)
July 31st, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Also, @DR.KATHRINE MARTIGNONI Erm, Phil’s not going to use your arguments about “God” to any end you’d appreciate… I’m pretty sure he’s an atheist. So what you’re saying about god is exactly the same as the aliens… we require proof.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:58 pm
@ Ray
I notice that there are people who use inaccurate, unsubstantiated claims…rather than being responsive to the evidence, the scientific experts, heck, the admitted collapse of the skeptical challenges (which started eight years ago!)…by the skeptics themselves.
Also, to save time an needless contentiousness, I am quite well versed n the evidence in the case, far more than anyone here, including Phil (as I’m sure he’d admit).
So I suggest actual responsiveness, challenging how we know, for example, that Meier published specific, irrefutably accurate information about Jupiter, its rings and moons…moons before the probe got there to document, and confirm, Meier’s information.
Even Prof. Joseph Veverka, Chairman of the Astronomy Department at Cornell University, admitted that.
So, with no inappropriate humility or bragging, I know more about this than you do and I know – not believe – that the case is true and authentic.
I do not know if everything in it is accurate, since there are some 24,000+ pages of information, most still in German.
I suggest elevating the tone and substance of the challenge. And please notice, I don’t call anyone here “shills”, etc. simply because they are uninformed and/or don’t agree with me.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:59 pm
CredulousCat says:
I can haz abdukshen plz?
July 31st, 2008 at 1:06 pm
@ Michael Horn
Thanks for doing nothing to address any of the issues we’ve brought up here.
Before you go issuing “challenges” to any of us here, why don’t you explain your inability to meet either of the standing challenges presented to you at either JREF or IIG?
Once again, it is not up to the skeptics to provide proof that your claims are false… it’s up to you to provide proof that they are not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And before you go off on more bragging about how informed you are on the topic, I will simply say that your level of understanding of the claims or level of involvement in them is totally irrelevant. At the end of the day many people have given you ample opportunity to provide evidence, and so far you have not been up to the challenge.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
@Michael Horn:
Billy Meier? The man who took a picture of a television program with a lady on a popular variety show, and showed that pic as evidence of a Pleidian?
Oh, that Billy Meier.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:15 pm
@Sylvain, ah yes, the “Disclosure Project.” You know, it’s really hard to believe in an organization whose founder, Dr. Stephen Greer, claims to be able to direct UFO’s to a landing site while waving at them with flashlights.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Too many posts in the queue. My rebuttal regarding the JREF challenge is still awaiting moderation.
Oh, and CE, love the CredulousCat.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Michael Horn,
When did you get your hands on this book published in 1982?
July 31st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Also, Mr. Horn…
Living in Ithaca, and being involved in the astronomy community locally, I can tell you that Professor Veverka is not the chairman of Astronomy at Cornell… that distinction belings to Dr. Ira Wasserman.
And, knowing Dr. Veverka… I can tell you that I find it highly unlikely that he made any such claim that irrefutable evidence of anything regarding discoveries in our solar system can be attributed to Meier’s “prophecies”. But, I will be speaking to him and ask him to clarify.
But if you could, please… can you cite where Dr. Veverka has made this admission? I’d like to approach him with it before asking for clarification.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:18 pm
@Greg in Austin
OR, you could start your own blog that IS NOT CENSORED
Oh, come on now. Do you honestly thing the New World Order would allow him to have a blog. As soon as he tries to do that, he’s a dead man.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:18 pm
@ Celtic et al
Unfortunately, you are misinformed. The actual challenge was issued…by me, to CFI-West, in 2001, when they said that the Meier evidence was “an easily duplicated hoax”. They agreed, they accepted the challenge to duplicate just ONE of Meier’s UFO photos (see the Photo Analysis document at my site to understand what that means) and just ONE of Meier’s films.
They failed to do either.
And now THEY have retracted their claims of hoax. I provided links to my site so that you could inform yourself, which you obviously haven’t done, as yet.
And now Uncharted Territory effectively endorses the authenticity of a Meier UFO film.
Do you comprehend the meaning of all of these things?
Please consider.
Most online blogs, like this one, are not populated by people who really know anything about the UFO subject. It’s understandable because there’s not much useful information out there, with the exception of the Meier case.
Now I’ve made an extraordinary claim, which does require extraordinary proof. There are only two possibilities, either the Meier case is the biggest, most impenetrable hoax, or the most important story in all of human history. There’s nothing in between.
Neither my telling you that it’s true, nor someone saying that it’s not, means anything. The only thing that matters is how well the evidence holds up and you get to decide (and challenge) that for yourselves.
One thing is for certain to me, neither the UFO skeptics nor the proponents actually think that they will encounter the truth…and certainly not on a blog. That is the (unconscious or otherwise) prejudice that is brought to the table…here included.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Same ol’ crap I see… a bunch of yakkin’ and STILL no evidence from the pro-UFO community. This is getting unbelievably mundane and tiresome. WTF is so hard to understand, here? Either post some evidence or go post comments somewhere else.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
@Celtic
Dr. Veverka made the statement to me in a phone conversation in April of 2003 (or 2004) if memory serves me right.
I quote it on the new film and I stand by it. Again, I suggest that you educate your self on the abundant factual documentation in the case, such as the Jupiter information, that you will find in this newsletter:
http://www.theyfly.com/news2005/jan06/jan06.htm#skeptics
Have a go at it.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Mitchell, Gordo Cooper, the disputed Majic documents etc. is all evidence… and there’s a vast well of it. some good, some dubious (Majic). What you are asking for is definitive proof. Which is hard to come by partly because video etc. is so easy to fake, traces in this case are minimal, documents can be forged, because ETs, if such they are, seem not to want to make contact, and because some governments (by no means all) apparently cover up evidence for some bizarre reason.
I’m not convinced that we are being visited by aliens, but its plainly obvious that metallic-looking UFOs with irregular movement patterns, signs of intelligent piloting (escape from pursuing aircraft etc.) and technologically extremely impressive capabilities are appearing throughout the world on a regular basis. Recorded radar logs (apparently) and the quantity and quality of whistle-blowers which have come forward (for the Disclosure group, for example) make the case for ‘Flying Saucer’ existance almost impossible to ignore.
The balance of evidence now suggests that this much at least is true.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Even Prof. Joseph Veverka, Chairman of the Astronomy Department at Cornell University, admitted that.
– Dr. Joseph Veverka, 2003
That’s a pretty big ‘if’ even for a fallacious appeal to authority.
We’re talking about a man (Meier) who claims the government broke into his home and PLANTED pictures that Meier later claimed to be of alien origin but were, actually, from SCIENCE FICTION BOOKS. A man who provided metal samples that according to the man who THEN LOST THE SAMPLES indicated “cold fusion” had to have been used in their creation. Cold fusion? WTF? That doesn’t even make sense. ALL elements heavier than HYDROGEN were created by fusion. All it needed to be was an alloy that could only be made in low gravity but they have to trot out COLD FUSION!? Hey, and how ’bout that global thermonuclear war Meier claimed the aliens told him would occur in November of 2006? Eh? Eh? Or Meier’s ex-wife who claims he’s a lying loon?
Heck, I’m just like Mulder; I WANT to believe. But I am not a man of faith and I will NOT believe without evidence. And this garbage is not even close.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Michael Horn,
Nice try. I note that you attempted to change the subject. Why no answers to the obvious cracks in the Meier facade?
Like any good publicist, you attempt to stay on message. The problem is that your message is so flawed that no one with an ounce of intelligence will buy it.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:32 pm
@Michael Horn
Okay, so they have retracted their claims that that ONE particular photo and ONE particular film were not hoaxes. I haven’t looked into the specifics, yet, but saying that two items, out of however many you have, were not hoaxes hardly clears the bundle.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Durnit…hit submit before I finished my thought.
So, hardly clears the bundle, but just because they couldn’t find that the one photo and one film were hoaxes (assuming that claim itself is accurate), that still leaves the possibility for misidentification or misinterpretation.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:35 pm
To those concerned,
I have placed a ton of free information at my site. You don’t have to buy anything to get it.
You DO have to know what you’re talking about instead of rehashing disinformation. How do I know it’s disinformation?
Well, I’ve formed an informed opinion after 30 years of researching, meeting Meier and almost all the other principals, etc. And of course, kicking the stuffing out of the pompous skeptics who’ve collapsed in irrelevancy (with the exception of the fodder they now produce for the case’s authenticity).
So I avoid nothing, I simply expect that those who post internet-sourced disinformation and incomplete information do their homework.
In addition to the courtesy of the blog and its moderators, I’m here at my pleasure. And, apart from running to teach some classes this afternoon, I’ll be glad to respond to intelligent challenges, which so far are not in abundance.
And really, if there really were all these holes, faked evidence, etc. in the case…then why have the skeptics fumbled the ball so badly?
July 31st, 2008 at 1:35 pm
@ Todd
Homework time.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:37 pm
@ Michael Horn
Misinformed? Really…
So… Randi is lying. (Already linked to his site regarding this by the way… and I must commend you on your treatment of Randi, by the way).
And IIG is lying…
http://www.iigwest.com/investigations/meier/horn.shtml
Your claim that they were unable to reproduce Meier’s photo’s in the lab is abjectly false, and the only person making that claim is you. There is far more evidence supporting this side of the story than yours. Again, see Randi’s site for more details of this.
Hogwash! They’ve done no such thing… please link to where this is cited… First of all, they never claimed that the photos were, wihtout question, a hoax. What they claim is that the pictures could be hoaxed, and showed exactly that. They continue to state that these photos can easily be reproduced, and you’ve shown nothing to prove that they can’t.
And again… I’m unimpressed with your claims of authority on the subject of UFO’s based on your willingness to believe it. As am I unimpressed by your assumption that you know more than everyone here on the subject. Neither of those items is relevant to the issue of your complete lack of any tangible evidence. Which you still have yet to address… 1599 days and counting, Mr Horn…
On this we are agreed, completely. So as soon as you provide some of that evidence that can be tested, we’ll do exactly that… still waiting…
July 31st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
@Michael Horn
Would you mind providing direct links to the specific claims you’ve mentioned above so that we can get directly to the items pertaining to them? This will help us more efficiently manage our time, rather than wading through the various links trying to track down what you’re talking about.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Sarcastro said, regarding Dr. Veverka at Cornell –
“If he said that 3-5 months before, then all that I can say is that he’s right.”
Ahhh… thanks, Sarcastro… I knew Dr. Veverka would never had made such a claim.
So, Mr. Horn… there’s the quote, and yet you mis-represented it as though Dr. Veverka stated a fact that Meier had predicted discoveries in the solar system far before they were confirmed.
This is wilfull deception of the lowest kind… how do you pleas, Mr. Horn?
July 31st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
That should read “how do you plead, Mr. Horn”…
July 31st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
To everyone who is arguing against Michael Horn, could you please also provide links to support your arguments against Billy Meier/Mr. Horn? I’ve posted a link above (still awaiting Phil’s approval as I write this) showing how Mr. Horn has lied outright about one item. For those who want to check what I am referencing, if my previous post doesn’t show up soon, go to the site linked in Mr. Horn’s handle, click on Articles and scroll down to the one titled “Photo Analysis Ends Challenge by Skeptics”. In there, he states that the JREF prize does not exist. The link that I think made my post get picked up by the spam filter is to the most recent statement from Goldman Sachs indicating the current balance of the JREF Prize Account.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
ah…the link is up there now.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
To all,
As for links, I took the time to write, and to post, tons of stuff. You’ll find some key articles right on the home page.
See also the Archived Newsletters and Headlines.
If I wasn’t clear, here’s what I should have said. I called and spoke to Dr. Vereka and told him about Meier. He said to send him the info. I did. I called him back and started to discuss the Jupiter info (he was involved with the VOyager, as I recall). He said what I quoted him as saying and then…hurriedly got off the phone.
I’d be glad to speak with him again.
Let’s note that just because people have access to blogs and computers doesn’t mean that they either know what they’re talking about and/or have anything of significance to say. That’s okay, it’s part of the game. But we should keep that in mind.
BTW, I’d be glad to debate Dr. Veverka, Phil or anyone else and, no, not to “ride on their coattails”, as they don’t know anything about a subject that I’m as close to an authority on as one can be, at least in English; I know lots of German speakers who know more about the info in the Meier case than I do. They’re among dozens of those “untrustworthy” eyewitnesses – and several other photographers – of the UFOs in this case.
Our good friends mentioned above, and others, could learn a lot from this case. I’d be glad to help them. And isn’t learning what all of this should be about?
Hope to rejoin you all this evening, if possible.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
@ Todd W.
Yeah… posts with links are held up for moderation… my information that I’ve cited so far comes from Randi’s site and from the IIG website under “investigations”…
July 31st, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Meier? That guy has some sort of delusional grandeur. If you ask me, his mind went bonker.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Mr. Horn, although I’m no fan of James Randi (because of his arrogance, I have no problem with his work) I am curious as to why, if it is so indisputible, that you have not claimed the million dollars.
July 31st, 2008 at 1:56 pm
And thus is born the “argument from self-proclaimed personal authority”.
I’ll have to remember that one.
As for Dr. Veverka’s comment, I think it’s pretty clear to everyone here that you intentionally mis-represented him… a very low tactic. To even attempt to use his quote and try to assign it as support for your argument is transparent and sleazy, and I’ll not waste any more time with you.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Just wanna throw something in here since I have some remote “expertise” that may be of use (I’m a psychologist. Don’t laugh.)
What many people don’t realise is just how fickle and easily altered their minds and memories are. I mean *really* fickle. And I mean *everyone*. Not “crazy” people, not “stupid” people, not kids and not OAPs. Everyone.
And I mean *really* fickle. I mean one or two words during an interview being able to generate false memories that are, to you, as real and true as your real memories (check out pretty much any of Loftus’ research).
People think of memories as perfect mental “pictures” or “videos” of events they’ve experience. That simply isn’t the case. Memories are re-organised, re-interpreted and changed all of the time. Research into “flashbulb memories”, for example, which were previously thought to be the most perfect memories you can have (literally a “flashbulb” of memory that sticks in your mind perfectly) has shown that the memories themselves change quite drastically. However, the *belief* that they are real is intense.
And once again, this is *everyone*. When people think of psychological research, they have this image or notion of it only applying to crazy people, or weak minded people. That’s not the case. It applies to everyone, including you and I.
Memories, especially older memories, and especially again when you’re tired, drunk, drowsy, confused etc… are not perfect records. Older memories tend to be based on a rough check list which you then “fill in” with your mind. For example, someone asks what you did on Monday 20th March 1970 (don’t know if that was a monday or not, just a random example). You can’t remember exactly what you did, but you can “fill in” the details. It’s a monday, so I must’ve been at school. I was 10 years old so I must’ve been in Ms. Trancher’s class at the time. I was probably talking to Paul about my sister annoying me etc etc… This applies to pretty much all memories, to greater and lesser extent.
In light of this, eyewitness testimony on things as incredible as alien abductions simply isn’t reliable. It doesn’t matter how much the person *believes* that they are telling the truth. To them, they may have absolutely perfect memories of being abducted by aliens. That doesn’t mean it’s what happened.
If you take nothing else from this, I really want people reading this to understand just how easy it is for you to “trick” yourself into believing things that never happened. It happens to everyone, and I mean *everyone*.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
You want proof?
I’ve found this stunning footage Billy Meier took of a wobbly plate glued to a bowl spinning on the end of a string while slowly being swung around like a pendulum.
http://www.steelmarkonline.com/media/06-12-75_Tree_Circling_Ship_Near_Hinwil_(Hi-Res).mpg
Take that close-minded deniers.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
How about this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident
July 31st, 2008 at 2:10 pm
For some reason I can’t help thinking of the movie: Le Dîner de cons. BA you do have a mean streak in posting on this subject.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:13 pm
@Meeee
Thanks for the post! Very pertinent to the topic!
July 31st, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Cool post, Meee. I didn’t know that thing about long term memories. It is always a pleasure to learn new things. ^_^
July 31st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
@meeee-
Excellent point, and I’d like to add to it. When I was around 10 years old, I decided to take up magic as a hobby. The thing that has stuck in my mind throughout my adult life (my interest in magic only lasted until about age 12 or so) is how easy it was to fool “adults”. I’m not referring to sleight of hand either, but solely the power of suggestion. Just by manipulating the english language I was able to convince people that they said and saw certain things that really didn’t happen. I can remember being dumbfounded and astonished (at age 10 mind you) of how simple the whole process was. The things I could get people to believe were ludicrous! I’m not saying that I’m smarter than anyone else, I’m still a sucker for a good mentalist.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Nothing like a call for evidence to being out the talkback manifesto posts. Yikes.
Volume of text != proof.
July 31st, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Arg. being == bring.
Can we get user accounts and editing ability here please? Thanks!
July 31st, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Wow, I just watched a few of the Meier vids for the first time… what garbage. In one of the videos the ship is obviously tied up somehow (probably by the loop at the top of the “ufo” that shows up in some of the pictures) and pushed so that it oscillated in a circle. This is your evidence?… aliens with motion sickness because they can’t keep their intergalactic ship steady?
July 31st, 2008 at 3:45 pm
@Meee:
Why would the military or any government in their right mind reveal something like that? It could be used as a trump card for national interest. seems IF (big IF) anyone was hiding any sort of evidence that only a few people would know in a perfect world (and we know how WMDs went down lol)
July 31st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Wow, I figured it was a matter of time until Mike Horn showed up.
Are you going to explain the Astrid and Neira fiasco? or shall I?
How about the time(s) you repeatedly tried to bully Steven Novella and the NESS and the SGU into giving you an interview or you would interpret their refusal as an acquiessence on his part?
If you don’t want to explain them (I wouldn’t blame you, it’s frightfully embarassing), I’d gladly give the run-down.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Oh. My. God.
I just had one of the best laughs of my life! Just came from Michael Horn’s site. Does he work for the Onion? Too, too funny.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Just looked up Billy Meier on wikipedia and Stanton Friedman thinks his images are fakes, if Friedman thinks there are fakes they must be awful.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Looking at the photo gallery, I saw a lot of fuzzy pictures that are, at best, inconclusive. However, the pictue of the “UFO” apparently hovering above a van next to a tree made me chuckle. Looks an awful lot like a hubcap with some other stuff affixed to it to make it look more like a flying saucer. It is much closer to the camera than the van that I think is supposed to be directly under it. How can I tell? Well, the van is in pretty sharp focus, while the majority of the saucer is a bit blurred around the edges.
I would agree, though, that the photos do not look like the film was altered or double-exposed, nor that there were paper cutouts used as the UFO models. So, the pictures are, I would say, real, but exactly what they are pictures of…hard to say, but probably not UFOs. If that close-up picture is any indication, then it’s likely that the photos are of models made by Meier or someone he knows.
I also took a look at the two video clips on the site. Again, blurry, poor quality video. The object appears to be at some distance. Like with the photos, I would agree that the video itself has not been tampered with and that it depicts a real object being filmed. The movement of the object in the first clip is consistent with it being attached to a thin line running to a point just a bit outside the viewfield. The second clip is too short to really determine a pattern to the movements.
July 31st, 2008 at 4:25 pm
@Jeff
Yea, because you can believe everything you read on wiki. The first 3 external links are basically repeats of the wiki article, revealing little if any additional information.
Is it possible, or even plausible, that what the F4 pilots saw was indeed a 707 or 747 (as the radar suggested) with extremely bright lights and radar/equipment jamming technology, such as the Airborne Laser Lab? Did any US, Soviet or Middle Eastern military have such technology, and did they have any reason to fly into Iran at that time? Any why, if the UFO were really an alien ship, would it transmit a distress beacon on a known earthling emergency frequency? And why was there no evidence at the supposed landing/crash site? Who were the people at the garden house? Were they military? How many of them were there? Why would they have a beeper? Was it a military beeper? Could the cigar-shaped aircraft (which would describe nearly every commercial jet when seen from the side) have been a U2 spy plane? There are so many unanswered questions.
Yes, it does sound intriguing, but if you cannot say what it WAS, then you cannot say what it WAS NOT. I say there’s not enough evidence to support this being alien in origin.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Here is a link, the person takes on of the contacts and the predictions made by Meier,funny thing is that most of what he predicted actually was actually already published in newspapers.
http://www.iigwest.com/investigations/meier/ike42report.htm
July 31st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Regarding Meier’s films, perhaps you failed to read what Uncharted Territory said. Anyone here in their caliber as special effects experts, especially with models. So, regarding the UFO circling around the tree that the “experts” here have pegged as a fake, here’s the quote from that Academy Award-winning company:
“But, to reflect on the statement that’s in the film, I also remember seeing a shot on the Super8 reel that showed a UFO circling around a fairly tall tree. According to that shot, we said that we can’t conclusively say whether it’s real or not, but it seemed impossible to stage that kind of a shot with a miniature (it would have to be hanging on a very tall crane, with wires – but even then the movements would be hard to achieve.) So, yes, in regards to that shot, we mentioned that we could definitely do it today with CG, but at the time these were supposedly shot – it would have been very hard, probably even impossible, to fake this kind of shot.”
Now, go ahead exert your own “expertise” above theirs.
It’s true, as I stated before, that blogs are not the best place for serious discussions. I thought though that one connected to this magazine just might be. Oh well.
Stanton Friedman, Dr. Mitchell…you name your expert. They simply don’t know as much about the UFO subject as I do.
Now that some people figure that this was an egocentric statement, allow me to drop the other shoe. Anyone here who troubles themselves to actually read the content of my site will also, with sufficient thinking and reflection, know more than they do.
If a ray of intelligent, objective interest manages to shine through here, I’ll be delighted to engage and provide additional information.
And, should Phil Plait – or Dr. Veverka – read this blog, please note my offers as above. Certainly Phil hasn’t seen any of the Meier evidence or he wouldn’t say that he hadn’t seen evidence of real UFOs.
And to the skeptics here, may I suggest that you contact CFI-West, IIG and JREF to offer your services, since they’ve proved themselves totally incompetent to show any hoaxing in the Meier case, despite your certainty that it exists.
July 31st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Still no evidence what so ever, you people are so hopeless.
Any EVIDENCE? and for the matter, the government is not hiding any aliens. So all of you are saying that the US Government is hiding an entire extraterrestrial civilization, do you really think aliens have crashed or playing around on Planet Earth, and there rest of the civilization is still sitting out there?
At Daniel: We will discover an extraterrestrial civilization in the near future, hopefully.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:04 pm
why don’t we have more people like you phil? and to all of the people that say that the eye witness reports are evidence: there’s a little something in the world called LYING, and there are people that do it.
you still don’t have any reliable evidence. i don’t care what you say
(i love you phil)
July 31st, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Michael Horn,
So I went to a couple of sites and looked at some of the pictures of the “wedding cake” ship. Funny how it looks an awful lot like a garbage can lid with some junk piled on top. The Pleiadians even went to the trouble of leaving the lid’s handle on it! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
As for the academy-award winning company that could do it with CGI, the problem they have is they don’t think in terms of yesterday’s technology. All they know is modern tech. They don’t think in terms of a small tree, long pole and some fishing line like Billy did.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Here are images iigwest took and compared them to the ones meier took. I guess they can be faked easily and why did you not give sample of the alloy if you wanted to prove the metal was not of this world?
http://www.iigwest.com/investigations/meier/ufopix.html
July 31st, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Sorry BA for making moderating so many links.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Ray, be a good boy and duplicate Meier’s films for us. Even simpler, duplicate the Wedding Cake video, freely available at my site. Use a garbage can lid, okay?
And, er, by the way, having met and spoken personally with the guys from UC, allow me to tell you that, again, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. They know models and cameras, Ray, that’s, as you put it, “yesterday’s technology”.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:46 pm
@ Michael Horn-
I remember numerous experts being interviewed on Fox’s infamous Alien Autopsy with all of them claiming that there was no way the effects could have been created by special effects and FX artists etc; only to find out later that it was all a hoax. I realize that you aren’t affiliated with any of that nonsense, but I think it’s a good example of why NOT to believe in so called experts.
Also, can you elaborate on the metal issue regarding IIG and JREF? Forgive me if it’s already been addressed on your site, it’s a lot of info to wade through. On IIG they claim that you won’t provide metal samples that you have in your possession so they can be submitted for third party analysis. Details? Again, I apologize if it’s already been addressed.
July 31st, 2008 at 6:50 pm
@Michael Horn
From the quality of the video on your site, it is difficult to discern the actual distance of the object from the camera. Also, it is moving at an apparent height above the tree, never passing behind it. The color quality also hampers the ability to determine distance to the object and distance to the tree. So, again, the video is inconclusive at best.
Also, the onus is not on the skeptics to prove that it is a hoax. The weight is on the claimants to prove that it is real.
I’m curious about your response regarding your lie that I pointed out above. And the comments others made about presenting pictures of models as pictures of aliens. And my comment about the hubcap-UFO above the van.
One last thought on the videos. How many people other Uncharted Territory examined the videos? What conclusions did they reach? Which people at UT examined it, and what is their particular experience? Has anyone examined the films and disagreed with UT’s conclusion? What did they say?
July 31st, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Michael, you appear to be under some kind of assumption that people are deliberately disbelieving your “evidence”. Why would people do that?
You seem to think that Mr. Meier’s films are so compelling, so conclusively true, that they show with 100% certainty that aliens exist and are visiting the planet.
If this is so, why does no one believe them? Why does everyone claim they’re hoaxes? Why doesn’t the scientific community acknowledge them?
While it’s remotely possible that the military/government could coverup and keep secret evidence that they have (however unlikely), your “evidence” is freely available for anyone, anywhere, to see. So *why hasn’t the scientific community acknowledged it”? You can’t possibly claim that they’re trying to keep it secret.
That is not how science works. People seem to think that science works by holding on to old beliefs and that scientists somehow stay famous and “in power” by dogmatically defending old theories and beliefs. This is literally the antithesis of science. Scientists are constantly looking to disprove pretty much anything they can.
That’s what makes a famous scientist. By disproving previously held notions, or by proposing completely new (but testable and confirmable) ideas and theories. That’s what scientists try to do every day. That’s what makes them famous. It’s what gets them money for funding, it’s what gets them nobel prizes (you don’t hear of a scientist getting a nobel prize for, say, simply agreeing with evolution).
So in light of *all of this*, why has NO ONE proven, to the satisfaction of the scientific world, that aliens are 100% real and are definitely visiting the planet? I claim it’s because you have no compelling evidence. The only other explanation is that the millions of scientists worldwide are all being held to some kind of secrecy pact for reasons that no one has ever agreed on (to keep alien tech for themselves? To prevent panic? Why?), which is literally laughable in it’s absurdity.
If your proof is so compelling, so amazingly remarkable that it proves with no chance of error that aliens exist and are actively visiting earth, post it here in this thread. Don’t post one of Mr. Meier’s videos since we’ve established that they’re faked, or at the very least are not going to convince anyone in this thread.
Do *not* post something like “go to my site and read up”. Do *not* post something like “the evidence is out there, go get it yourself”. Do not post anything that dodges the direct question. Post, in this thread, evidence that aliens are real and are visiting this planet. Post evidence that would convince a hard skeptic, say, Phil Plait himself.
Do this, or stop posting.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
@ Harold
Actually, I thank you for bringing the metal sample issue up, for those who may be interested. The samples were analyzed by Marcel Vogel, a truly genius level scientist at IBM. He videotaped his analysis and, as the comment in the SCientific Experts article at my site relates, he said that he couldn’t duplicate them with any technology available to him as a scientist.
That deserves to be pondered.
As do the comments of David Froning, the astro-physicist (with the top secret security clearance) who shared the stage with me at one of my presentations and made the statements attributed to him in that same article.
So let me disagree with you about experts, as Vogel, Froning and the guys from UC, among others were all at stellar levels in their professions. If their opinions mean nothing, and conjecture means more, than the state of thinking is (and the country) is very dangerously poor indeed.
As I think I’ve said, no one here can duplicate ANY of Meier’s evidence. And experts who know models, cameras, special effects, etc. said they’d HAVE to go to CGI to do it.
That deserves to be pondered too.
And now, since people who know nothing about this and/or me have called me a liar, allow me to make this as clear as possible. I will donate $500 to anyone’s charity of choice if they can find – anywhere – that I have ever said that I possess the metal samples.
To make that even clearer, THAT claim is a deliberate lie on the part of the now thoroughly discredited, incompetents at IIG and JREF.
You also need to know that I recently challenged them to prove a statement by Derek Bartholomaus in our film that Meier used a model in a particular film sequence. He declined. And the response by Jeff Wagg (for JREF) several posts above, is the effective, complete withdrawal of that claim by JREF.
Now, again, if all of these skeptics can’t back up their claims, and legitimate experts and scientists are coming down on the side of Meier’s authenticity…doesn’t it at least suggest a very THOROUGH bit of examination and research by any genuinely concerned parties?
July 31st, 2008 at 7:09 pm
So Michael where did the samples of metal go for a scientific study to happen another chemist has to have sample of the metal and test it themselves. As for videotaping the precedure that is fine to show what he did but does not prove what the metal is.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:13 pm
I am still cracking up! This is great stuff. Michael Horn is funny!
July 31st, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Mike Horn is utilizing one of the most over-used, and cheapest of rhetoric tactics, called the “three-foot stack argument”. Its a way of saying, “Here is my three-foot stack full of my super-awesome evidence, and until you’ve familiarized yourself with EVERYTHING in this stack, you’re not qualified, so shut up, you dummie.”
Mike, we’ve got a quicker route: you pick your best, most compelling piece of evidence: the piece that, for you, make the best, most bullet-proof case. Show it to us, and we can look at it.
Problem is, you’ve already done this….many times, and the Meier films are laughably childish, easily repeatable, and incredibly mundane. For once, use Occam’s Razor.
And stop arguing from the ‘expertise’ of people. That’s a cheap tactic that proves nothing, and shows even less (except for your unwillingness to present the actual arguments themselves, and your willingness to simply defer).
July 31st, 2008 at 7:14 pm
@ Meeee
Do not try to define the only acceptable means of discerning the truth, do not deliberately ignore and disregard the collective efforts of numerous people totaling several decades, do not…
Then again, do what you want. As I said, I’m here at my pleasure, not yours.
If you do not know how to think, if you do not know how to answer Meier’s publication of dozens of specific, previously unknown information (try to answer how he published the info about the 5,100 year-old man some 10 years before the scientists did), if you want to be spoon fed, if you want to ask effectively rhetorical, nonsensical questions about “why no scientists” accept this or that…it only indicates that you’ve been lazy.
I suggest trying to fool someone else, not me. I’ve read the Sound Analysis and photo Analysis documents, as well as the comments from the scientific experts, spent hours with the original investigative team, hours with Meier over the last 9 years (including trying to trick him to see if he was lying) and personally spoke with the TWO owner/experts at UC, I had a (very brief) conversation with another (top secret clearance level) scientist who was skeptical of the Meier case. It lasted less than five minutes, because he was wise enough to understand that he was in over his head.
I’ve answered questions during four-hour radio lshows and live lectures…do you have ANY level of expertise that would warrant that?
So what I’m telling you is this, most of the questions you raise have already been addressed. I spent decades learning; is it really asking too much of you to put a lid on the attitude and get educated, to take, say, a couple of days to peruse some info so that you might have a faint inkling of what you’re talking about?
And I have one other “do this” for you. PROVE that Meier faked ANY evidence or…stop posting.
Have a nice day.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Mike Horn: One question, and its a VERY important question:
What would it take for you to not be convinced by Meier’s videos?
July 31st, 2008 at 7:19 pm
@Michael Horn
What is Marcel Vogel’s area of expertise?
Also, as regards you being a liar, only I have called you that explicitly so far, and that was only as regards the JREF prize money. I’ve already provided evidence to support that claim, and you’ve yet to address it or any of the other questions, really, that have been asked of you. You keep evading, rather than specifically answering what people are asking.
As to proving that a model was used in a particular film sequence, that is impossible using only the film. It would also require producing the model or other physical evidence. So, that they declined to accept your challenge is not surprising, as it would be impossible to prove.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Mr. Horn is quite the dramatic one, i’n't he? Not to mention rather full of hubris.
Again, Mr. Horn, YOU are the one making the claims. YOU are the one that needs to provide the evidence. And, as to your web site, I would venture to say that the majority of people posting here would rather not waste a couple days sifting through your site. As Some Canadian Skeptic asked above, produce the one (or two) absolute best, shoe-in bits of evidence that you have available to us, here, on this blog, so that we can take a look at it. It will ave everyone a lot of time and possible shut us up much faster.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:26 pm
It would require that I disregard not only the experts, including the ones I personally met, it would require disregarding the photos taken not only by other people in Meier’s group, it would take disregarding not only the photos taken by a SKEPTIC in Switzerland (http://www.figu.org/ch/files/downloads/bulletin/figu_bulletin_37.pdf?download) it would require that I disregarded the admitted failure of JREF, CFI-West, IIG, Dr. Novella, Jeff Ritzmann, David Biedney, it would require that I disregarded the testimony of UN diplomat Phobol Cheng, as well as 15 other witnesses who passed lie detector tests, it would require that I disregarded the evaluation by the expert consultant to the U.S. Army, it would require that I disregard the impossibility of either overhead/side suspension of models or pulley rigs (easily proved impossible – it’s what the skeptics now can’t and won’t address) and it would require my disregarding the absolute consistency of information and behavior of a man who I know personally and have met with over a 9-year period.
Oh yeah, it would require one more thing…that YOU duplicate the evidence.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Michael,
You dodged the question. The one thing I actually asked you to do was provide a piece of evidence so solid, so amazing, that everyone would believe it, even skeptics.
Instead, what you did, was what I specifically asked you not to do. You asked me to “go read up on it”.
You claim that you have spent decades educating yourself on aliens and UFOs. So? What do you have to show for it? So far, very little.
This blog is full of astronomy fans, people who enjoy looking up at the night sky and wondering exactly what’s out there. We are amongst the most fanciful people in the world. And yet you have failed to convince one of us.
Your “film evidence”, the films that you’ve apparently had verified… where’s the news? Where are the peer reviewed, scholarly papers discussing the aliens that are visiting us every day? Nowhere, surprisingly.
Your “metal”. Again, where are the scientific papers discussing the various new and previously unheard of properties in this mystical metal that no one on earth can reproduce? You claim you showed it to a distinguished scientist who then claimed that he could see no way of reproducing it. What happened then? Did he simply give it back and forget about the incident? Where are the scientific announcements, the worldwide discussion over this proof of aliens?
Nowhere.
It’s all very well and good you pooh-poohing “scientists” and apparently claiming that your evidence doesn’t need their backing:
“if you want to ask effectively rhetorical, nonsensical questions about “why no scientists” accept this or that…”
That’s not an answer. Where are the peer reviewed scientific papers discussing the very real existence of active alien visitation on the planet.
They are nowhere, because it’s not happening.
Having a few scientists who agree with you isn’t enough. There are scientists who perhaps don’t deserve the title. There are scientists who are more gullible than others. There are scientists who might just plain lie.
This is why scientific process is in place. It’s not enough to have 1, 10 or even 100 people claiming one thing is true. Until you can demonstrate it to the entire community, the serious scientists in the world, and thus the skeptics, aren’t going to believe you.
So, I ask again (in futile effort, I assume):
Where is the evidence that will convince the scientific community that aliens are actively visiting the planet. Note the very specific use of “community”. By that I mean not just a few random scientists here and there, or “experts” here and there.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Apparently, ‘the structuring of water’ and ‘the therapeutic application of crystals’. Google him, and the cranks and crackpots refers to him by the minute.
But this sound genuine: “His areas of expertise were phosphor technology, liquid crystal systems, luminescence, and magnetics.” Not an expert in metallurgy then, but a crank that would play along with other cranks.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I think I hear crickets chirping.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:48 pm
@Todd W.
“I think I hear crickets chirping.”
That was me, sorry. Bad sushi.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:51 pm
@SCS
Ah, yes. Gotta watch out for that sushi.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:51 pm
I can’t help but add a little nugget here. If ANY of you actually think that the government can’t hide secrets, you’re dreamimng. Technological advancements are guarded tenaciously by armed guys, many of whom don’t even know what they’re guarding. Another poster here compared UFO believers’ beliefs to a Hydra, with many heads. Interesting analogy, but one more fiiting to describe the government. The US government has multiple heads, but it also has multiple intertwined bodies from these heads grow. People that think that the US government acts one entity has most cetainly never been involved in law enforement where officers from one agency constantly run into brick walls when trying to access information that another agency possesses.
Also, any government agency or organization, be it military or DOJ, has many different clearance levels and compartmentalization, need-to-know access only, and so on. If the Air Force has proof of ET, you can bet your bottom dollar that only select members of the brass and some Air Force intelligence officers would know anything about it.
As for the debate about the difference between beliefs and actual knowledge, many posters here have pointed out what I did earlier and that is there are many things that I “know”, but only because I read them or saw them on TV. Should I discount everything that every scientist and researcher says until I can verify their claims for myself? I don’t have enough lifetimes to even learn HOW to verify everything, much less verify everything. I see this huge ball of fusion in the sky every day, but I only know that the light and heat are the product of fusion because “science” tells me so. Accumulated knowledge on top of acculated knowledge is how we grow, intellectually speaking, but how much first-hand knowledge, scientific or otherwise, do any of us carry around inside our heads? I would say that the amount of actual, first-hand knowledge, that is knowledge that one individual possesses through their own experimentation and verification is minimal for 99% of the humans on this planet. so why is this subject treated so differently?
I accept what coventional wisdom says on most issues until such time as said wisdom is disproved, but as another poster pointed out, hardly a week goes by that there isn’t some national news story about some common-held scientific or medical notion being challenged by new research. Personally, I think that we, as human beings, are mere infants on a cosmic level, and one day many of our so-called scientific ‘facts’ will looked back on as medievil or even silly, just as we look back and laugh at those that believed that the Earth was flat and was the center of the Universe.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:52 pm
To be fair though, it WAS cricket-sushi.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:53 pm
@ Michael Horn
Meier’s space ships are plates, bowls, hubcaps other garbage you can pick up at a dollar store. I’m pretty sure my mom has the exact same dining set as he does. Draw an imaginary line from the center of gravity of the “space ships” upwards in each frame of the film. Notice how the line always points to the exact same spot? The scientific name of that spot is “the point of string attachment”. Notice the slight wobble? It’s exactly the same wobble you see when you spin a plate or throw a Frisbee.
I remember seeing his photos when I was five and thinking “hack job”. If you ever get a chance to do the Disney haunted mansion ride, let me tell you now, that’s not a real ghost sitting next to you. Is there really no better hoaxer you latch on to than Meier?
July 31st, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Actually, Todd W., I too go on record as calling Michael Horn a liar. He deliberately mis-identified Dr. Veverka as the Chair of Cornell’s astronomy dept… and then intentionally mis-represented his quote in a veiled attmept to make it seem like Dr. Veverka supported his claims, and did so from a position of authority he does not hold. A two for one liar’s special.
Both lies. Both which Mr. Horn has cleverly failed to address. Just like completely dodging Meeee’s questions… gullibility.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Oooh, I like these pictures:
http://www.iigwest.com/investigations/meier/ufopix.html
July 31st, 2008 at 7:55 pm
I’m with you on this one, Phil! If you’ve got no evidence, you’ve got nothin’. Simple as that!
July 31st, 2008 at 7:59 pm
@ Meeee:
Um, Vogel wasn’t a scientist, not even an engineer. According to the link I found he never finished school. Apparently he was for some time working at IBM’s Data Products Division. Just goes to show us that one should never accept anything offered by a crank as a possible fact.
Here is an analysis of his patents (fewer than ’100s’ and mostly foreign) and a related discussion on his analysis of ‘UFO’ metal samples on JREF, in case it hasn’t come up in the previous comments.
Btw, how many patents have Horn produced? I’ve been part of two – he can send the samples to me, I guess, and I’m sure I too will be ‘unable to reproduce them’.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:00 pm
@SCS
Mmmm…cricket sushi. Crunchy!
@CE
Ah, my bad. Good points. Two calls of “shenanigans”. But still, though, neither of us said he was a liar regarding possession of the metal samples.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:06 pm
@MCW
The claim that the government can hide things that it develops internally is a valid claim, but it doesn’t quite compare to how an alien situation would play out.
The military, for example, can produce an experimental jet with extremely few people knowing about it, because they can plan ahead. They have prepared and consistent lies and misdirection that they can mislead people with consistently. They know exactly what staff will be where and when they’ll be there. They know where the jet will be built, where it’ll be tested, landed and maintained. That’s all under control and can be planned for.
A hypothetical alien incident, such as a craft crash landing, has none of these controls. It come out of nowhere, in a random location, with no pre-planned excuses or staff rotas. If you plan on keeping it secret, then by necessity you must use the nearest local military base and the personal within. You have an entire chain of command who are “in” on something odd going on. You have an entire army base that is “in” on something weird going on. You have several regular eyewitnesses of the crashed craft and any possible alien bodies. Before you can apply proper threats/rewards for keeping silent, these people will have told their friends, family members and so on.
While still not entirely impossible, it’s still significantly harder to keep it entirely secret.
As for your claim about accepting things you hear at face value, that is a fairly true contradiction in some skeptics claims. Many people, skeptics and “rational thinkers” in general, claim that you should never believe something you can’t check out yourself. Obviously, this is extremely impractical. One must use judgement in what to just accept and what to criticise.
Your example of the sun, let’s say. You may see on some TV science program what it is. To you it’s just a giant ball of fire in the sky, but they claim differently. But this is not something to just “accept”. It’s in pretty much every science textbook from extremely early on in school. The people presenting it on TV aren’t claiming it’s a new discovery, they’re not claiming there’s opposition to the idea. It’s an old idea that’s been thoroughly tested.
Compare this to the claim of UFOs, and you see the difference. Alien UFOs are known to be highly controversial topics. People presenting them on TV are often suspect in their presentation. The “evidence” offered are blurry photos and films, and extensive, rather vague, eyewitness accounts.
An extremely often used phrase is “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and that’s a good rule to go by. Claiming that aliens are visiting earth is extraordinary. I may be the single most important discovery of all time, and that would not be an exaggeration (just think of the impact it’d have on religion, for example), but to date no extraordinary evidence has been provided.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:08 pm
I don’t get it. I’ve seen a number of Meier’s films, like Supervixens and Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, and they seemed pretty convincing. It’s not until his later work, such as Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens, that there were suggestions of any kind of artificial enhancement.
We are talking about Russ Meier, aren’t we? Or am I getting confused by a certain astrologer who featured recently on this site?
July 31st, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Come on MCW… you can do better than that…
On your first paragraph… all I have as evidence for your claim in that paragraph is “cause I really think so.” So I’ll ask again… What proof do you have of the military covering up, succesfully, anything of this magnitude? What example of this do you have that makes you so sure it would be soooo easy for them… or is it just cause it seems that way on TV? Even top secret projects like the Stealth fighters and bombers were leaked out far before they were disclosed by the military. I’m sorry, I’m just not going to take it on your really strong belief that you are right about this. Show me proof.
Now… your next paragraph needs some attention… please don’t take any of this too harshly… I just want you to take it as intended and think about it:
No… but if you like, you can pretty easily find multiple sources of confirmation in the form of repeated experiments for most scientific claims. Science rarely accepts anything as credible based on a single source…
Well, the great thing about science is that the things you would need to do to verify this knowledge for yourself are readily available… if you really are concerned that you are just being sppon-fed knowledge and don’t know whether you should believe it, then stop being darn lazy and go find out for yourself. We encourage it, and the world would be a better place if more people would do precisely that, instead of the lazy answer of just believing what you are told.
I very seriously doubt that, or else we’d still be starting fires with rocks and sticks and trying to cure disease by bloodletting. You may get that impression based on your own experience… but ask yourself how vast your experience really is, given the vastness of the world and all the people in it.
This has a ring of truth to it, but doesn’t it also contradict your previous point? How could this be true if so few of us are actively learning anything first-hand? The great thing about science is that it never stops trying to improve upon its findings. I wouldn’t say that scientific ideas are turned upside-down every day… in fact that’s very rare… but scientific theories and ideas are improved upon every day…. and this is a really, really good thing… and by the way has nothing to do with demanding evidence for extraordinary claims… and someone using that argument to defend UFO sightings is simply “moving the goalposts”, as it were.
I certainly hope so… as that would be a good thing, too… but some things will not change, like the basic principles of scinece as a tool for discovering truth. That method will never change… nor will the need for critical thinking to prevent us from accepting anything as “fact” without evidence.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Sorry, Meeee… didn’t mean to step on your toes there… didn’t see your post before I put mine up.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Phil, I love you and your posts. I agree with one of the commenters way above that perhaps the move to Discover has opened the floodgates and allowed a lot of self-righteous zealots to comment on your postings.
I had an especially hearty laugh over the so-called Doctor who hails from some backwater province called “Switerland.”
Michael Horn’s so-called arguments have all been dissembled by others so I won’t go into those cesspools of faith.
However, he reminds me so much of how Dr. William Shockley was lionized as one of the three who developed the first transistor. When he was a fellow at the SWOPSI (Stanford Workshop on Political and Social issues) in the 60s, he espoused a truly pitiful rehash of the “Aryan supremacy” aspect of the Nazis. The “believers” in racial superiority suddenly had a “brilliant” scientist on their side and the appeals to authority were much like Horn’s continued insistence on appealing to Meier’s and Vogel’s so-called expertise (Vogel was hardly brilliant (references pending) and was hardly the person to use in a scientific discovery scenario – the fact that he conveniently lost the samples is enough to create clouds of suspicion on an otherwise dull and drab career at the Almaden site) to prove his sieve-like theses. With credential like these, who needs to offer up hard evidence? Shockley was my teenage hero (he lived down the street near the Los Altos Country Club in case anyone cares) and I visited his lab a few times. That didn’t make his racial theories anything more than celebrity hogwash.
Thanks again for your insights, Phil. Now on to the next post!
July 31st, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Is this evidence? I think so. Before you scoff, at least read the executive summary that begins on page 6/77. I dare you.
http://www.mufon.com/documents/MUFONStephenvilleRadarReport.pdf
July 31st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
@Meeee
What about THOUSANDS radar RECORDINGS since the 50′s? ALL censored by the Mass Media!
July 31st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
In case there are any aliens monitoring this thread, I will restate what I said earlier. I would like to ride on your space ship. Although, I’m not looking forward to it, I will accept good probing as a trade off, provided no eggs or anything of that nature are implanted in me, and proper lubrication is used. We can work out a more formal contract when the time comes. I’m going to try and sleep now. I hope to see you soon.
Sincerely,
Jose
July 31st, 2008 at 8:24 pm
@Wendy
What about THOUSANDS radar RECORDINGS since the 50’s? ALL censored by the Mass Media!
July 31st, 2008 at 8:25 pm
@EVERYONE
What about THOUSANDS radar RECORDINGS since the 50’s? ALL censored by the Mass Media!
July 31st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
@CE
No need to apologise, you made the point far better than I did anyway.
Everything else aside, it’s 3:30am here and my brain no make good thinks any more.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:30 pm
@ Sylvain
What about them? There a literally hundreds of thousands of false or unidentifiable radar contacts at installations across the US every year.
So… unidentifiable radar contacts = ET? Sorry… I’m not following that one.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:31 pm
@Meeee
You’ve done a bang up job! Much more eloquent than I’ve been, I think. Get some rest!
July 31st, 2008 at 8:33 pm
@CE
Repeating the same exact phrase, complete with the same punctuation and capitalization makes the point irrefutable. Why ask for clarification? [/snark]
July 31st, 2008 at 8:34 pm
@Sylvain
All censored by the Mass Media, huh? Care to provide anything to support that claim? And, no, the fact that these recordings are not available is not evidence of a coverup.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:35 pm
@ Tod, no there were no Zealots at the old site, no none at all.
(I managed to type that with straight face)
July 31st, 2008 at 8:39 pm
They ARE available, they are just not publish by the Mass Media!
July 31st, 2008 at 8:41 pm
@Sylvain
What reason does the Mass Media have to publish them? The media is all about ratings, not about truth. The fact that the media doesn’t put them up for the public to see doesn’t provide any support to the “aliens are visiting us” schtick.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:41 pm
We HAVE evidences why don’t you look at the THOUSANDS radar RECORDINGS since the 50’s. We have ABSOLUTE proof since the 50′s that 1 mile wide spaceships came FROM space at incredible speed, stop on a dime and accelerate in a blink of a eye BACK to SPACE! It’s not because Mass Medias censor those RECORDINGS that UFOs dont exist, it’s PROVE the Mass Media TRAITORS. Come on when are you going to stop saying there is no evidences and PUBLISH them instead?! RADAR RECORDINGS record the SIZE, SPEED, VELOCITY, ACCELERATION, DECELERATION, DISTANCES, where it come FROM AND where it GOES!!!!! What MORE do you WANT???? Almost all our sky is recorded by radar and there is ALSO radar in PLANES!! WE HAVE GROUND radar, GROUND visual, AIR radar and AIR visual confirming EACH others AT THE SAME TIME!!! What MORE do you WANT?????
Stop hiding you head in the sand and go to http://www.disclosureproject.org and try to PUBLISH those proof in the MASS MEDIA and NOW you will beleive us that the Mass Media are corrupt when they going to refuse you too!
July 31st, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Search out this headline on google:
Honoring Veverka, a man who chases snowballs and discovers ‘continents’
Find the article that says:
Much progress indeed, with thanks to dedicated astronomers like Veverka, who three decades later is chair of Cornell’s Department of Astronomy and who will celebrate his 60th birthday with a unique gift from his colleagues: a symposium, “Exploration of the Universe,” to be held Oct. 4-6 on campus.
Photo showing:
Joseph Veverka, professor and chair of the Department of Astronomy, shown in his office with a model of the CONTOUR mission craft, will be honored with a symposium on campus Oct. 4-6 to celebrate his 60th birthday.
This concludes my attempt to cast pearls before the proverbial oinkers, such is the low level of self-contented, incompetent…lying.
No need to apologize for your blatant lies, having no respect for you it would mean nothing to me.
A final note:
A major problem with skeptics (okay, with many bloggers too, obivously) is the gross overestimation of their own importance, intelligence and competence, as well as some firmly held belief that somebody MUST want something from them. These items actually go hand in hand. As far as the Meier case goes, nothing’s been asked of anyone. No one’s trying to recruit people for a non-existent cult, or trying to get them to buy stuff. Why would so much free information be offered if it wasn’t for the purpose of trying to…inform and educate people?
It’s a thankless job, certainly for Meier. With 21 documented assassination attempts on his life, attempts on his children’s lives and endless libel and slander from incompetent know-it-alls, why should he bother?
It’s additionally too bad that much of this cynicism and overrated self-importance is rampant in the very generation that is inheriting the mess of this earth and who should have greater concerns than spending their time playing video games, being hooked up to their iPods and all other various forms of non-productive entertainment…possibly including blogging on matters about which they know nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing. It wouldn’t be so bad if they weren’t seemingly so uneducable.
They want the answers they want, the way they want them, petulant babies lacking any self-motivation and self-responsibility.
Don’t point them in a productive direction, they want to go the other way.
As far as my whacking a bunch of phony poseurs upside the head, as in taking shots at self-important, empty-headed skeptics like some already mentioned, I plead…guilty.
When I decided to up the ante on the skeptics, I searched out the ones who had drawn unsubstantiated conclusions on the Meier case, as well as who offered gratuitous derision, and challenged them to put up or shut up. James Randi initially took up the fight, and then retracted his claims against the Meier case. CFI-West/IIG jumped in…and drowned in their incompetence and inability to substantiate their claims. Novella was a real no show who (maybe wisely) didn’t even try to back up his claims.
None of them could duplicate ANY of Meier’s evidence, just like no one here can, or ever could…not even Ray with his fishing pole and garbage can lid, or the anonymous Canadian guy, who’s obviously spent some time reading very lame and inaccurate theories from other folks with too much time on their hands.
So it’s the skeptics that have made it a fight, having come to the table already convinced that the case was a hoax, a very unscientific approach indeed…and having come to a battle of wits only half-armed. How much better it would have been for them to try to find out what the truth of the matter really is.
And, since there’s still some minor (or major) outrage among some here at having been presented with information (from a man with a 57-year record of prophetic accuracy), why not take your own personal inventory to see if you were so diligent in scrutinizing anyone you’ve ever voted for, any political view you’ve held, any religious beliefs you’ve held (let alone many of the personal relationships you may have had). Have you thoroughly questioned everything that you’ve been taught…or everything that you think is true?
More importantly, contemplate just what it would mean to YOU if the Meier case is true.
If anyone has any questions of merit (there are plenty examples of meritless comments here) email me through my site. You’ll get an auto-responder but I’ll make it a point to reply asap.
Lastly, for the poor, self-confident fellow, the…”expert” here:
Much progress indeed, with thanks to dedicated astronomers like Veverka, who three decades later is chair of Cornell’s Department of Astronomy and who will celebrate his 60th birthday with a unique gift from his colleagues: a symposium, “Exploration of the Universe,” to be held Oct. 4-6 on campus.
Just as I said.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:44 pm
@Todd
There is no free press. The Mass Media are under control by the Government!
The proof that alien are visiting us come from RADAR RECORDINGS!!!!! Radar tell the UFO come FROM SPACE and GO BACK to SPACE!!!
July 31st, 2008 at 8:59 pm
@ Michael Horn
Nor will one be forthcoming. Michael, you come here with extraordinary claims and no evidence… you’d better darn well have your facts straight. It would have taken you 3 minutes to have verified Dr. Veverka’s position with Cornell. Maybe less. You couldn’t be bothered to verify, though, could you? Nothing surprising there. Your statement, as made above, was a lie, and therefor I do not feel the need to retract or apologize for it.
And either way, you still wilfully mis-represented him.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Irony… Ur doin it right!
July 31st, 2008 at 9:02 pm
@Michael Horn
Umm, going directly to the web site of the Cornell Department of Astronomy, it lists Ira Wasserman as “Professor of Astronomy and Chairman of the Department of Astronomy”, while Joseph Veverka is “The James A. Weeks Professor of Physical Sciences” (under Faculty on the People page). While Prof. Veverka may have been the chair at one point, he isn’t now. The claims of lies regarding his position cancel each other out.
Now, to the meat of your post:
Evading questions – check
Evading providing evidence – check
Name calling – check
More evidence of pride and self-importance – check
Let’s see…if the Meier case, by some leap of logic, turned out to be true, cool! It would open the door to major advances in science. Transportation, biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, metalurgy…they’d all be advanced greatly! That would be really, freakin’ awesome.
So, again, pick what you feel is the best evidence you have and post it here. And please, don’t ignore the request again. You came here with a claim. Post your evidence here. Yes, we could go to your site, but seriously, save us all some time and just post your best stuff.
And, I’m still waiting for your answers to my questions.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Shorter Michael Horn:
Blah blah blah go to my website.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:05 pm
@Sylvain
You didn’t address anything in my post. Again, what reason would the media have for publishing these recordings?
July 31st, 2008 at 9:06 pm
@CE
You forgot the personal attack and name-calling.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:08 pm
@ Todd W
Yeah… perhaps… but at the end of the day I really think Mr. Horn’s goal is traffic to his site. For fairly obvious reasons.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:09 pm
@CE
He’s lonely?
July 31st, 2008 at 9:12 pm
@Todd
None, since they are corrupt. but people still keep beleiving them that there is no proof but in REALITY they are simply not PUBLISHING them. People need to be kept stupid for better control.
@skeptics
We have proof. Go look at them, stop believing the Elites! Wake up people!
July 31st, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Michael Horn,
Why should I cooperate with you and recreate hoax videos when you won’t address questions that we’ve been asking? Here, I’ll help you with a short list:
1. Why does the “wedding cake” ship look just like the garbage can lid in this picture? Why did Billy leave the handle on it?
http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo/Wedding_Cake_infront_house_B_L+highl.jpg
http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo/garbage_lid_zoom+highl.jpg
2. Why did Billy attempt to pass off photos of dancers from the Dean Martin TV show as aliens from Pleiades?
3. Why is it that many of Billy’s “predictions” from the late 70′s seem to have been published in newspapers and/or magazines before he made them?
July 31st, 2008 at 9:14 pm
CredulousCat says:
I needz beleeverz… and hugz…
July 31st, 2008 at 9:14 pm
@Sylvain
Same request we’ve made of Mr. Horn, post your best piece of evidence here so that we can take a look at it.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:14 pm
There’s a point I’d like to raise in opposition to the position that “the government hushes it all up” or “the military keep all the evidence”.
We’re talking about the US government and military here, I presume. The one that had (admitedly inaccurate) models of the stealth fighter on hobby shop shelves for years before it was released? The one that couldn’t cover up consensual oral sex in the Oval Office itself?
It’s unfortunate that a noteable proportion of the US populace has a world view that doesn’t ever go outside the borders of the USA – as I am sure the vast majority of people here realise, the USA contains only a small percentage of the Earth’s population or land mass, and there are a lot of other governments and militaries out here.
Maybe the US government will cover it up for some unknown reason. Maybe not one sitting president would use the knowledge as part of his bid to get re-elected. Maybe all the tens of thousands of politicians and military personnel and scientists and engineers who have been part of this cover up keep their mouths shut. Maybe they really believe that the American people will go crazy, or commit mass suicide, or not vote for them any more if they found out We Are Not Alone.
Maybe not a single politician or general in the USA would attempt to use this knowledge to get the corporations he works for alien tech to sell. Maybe not one would try to send out missionaries to convert the heathen aliens.
But….
Is the same true of the UK government? Or the Russians? Or the French? Or the Swiss? Or the Swedish? Or the Chinese? Or the Mexicans? Or the Brazilians? Or the New Zealanders? Or the Iranians? Or the Syrians? Or the Cubans?
While an alien intelligence that did its research would undoubtably conclude that the USA was the biggest single player on Earth, it would also conclude that it’s by no means the only one. They wouldn’t have the automatic assumption that the only place worth going to, dealing with, thinking about, talking to or crashing in would be the USA.
It’s one thing to assume that the US government is covering something up. It’s harder to believe that they all are.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Awww…CredulousCat’s soooo cute.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:18 pm
@ Celtic
One more time, since you have some difficulties with the facts in front of your face. The quoted article above states that Veverka was chair of Cornell’s astronomy department, as he was at the time when I contacted him. Why didn’t YOU take “3 minutes” to verify it instead of accusing me of lying, my anonymous nobody friend?
And I quoted Veverka accurately. No lies…except from you.
Finally, you were pointed towards where the evidence can be found. I’m terribly sorry that it isn’t where you’d like it to be, or what you’d like it to be. Life’s like that.
You’re an amateur full of bluster and attitude. Fine. Someone came to, at the very least, offer education. You’re “too smart” to fall for that.
Some people will probably be industrious, open-minded, yet critical in their thinking enough to search the truth out for themselves.
The people who provided the evidence and information to Meier are sufficiently far more advanced than we are, and far smarter, to understand and accept that there’s a preponderance of stupid, arrogant people in this world. They know that we are, to a large degree, beyond help.
On the remote chance that you’re a citizen of the U.S., take a look around at the gargantuan collapse taking place here…and ponder just how it could happen when such geniuses as yourself have been so scrupulously on guard against frauds and hoaxers. Yes, paragons of vigilance and accountability, who can watch their jobs disappear, lose their homes and be hoodwinked by imbecilic “leaders”. But hey, at least you can be the big (anonymous) guy on campus, online.
Or I should say, could have been, if you only knew what you were talking about.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:19 pm
@ Sylvain
Ummm… yikes…
July 31st, 2008 at 9:25 pm
@JPETER
“Is the same true of the UK government? Or the Russians? Or the French? Or the Swiss? Or the Swedish? Or the Chinese? Or the Mexicans? Or the Brazilians? Or the New Zealanders? Or the Iranians? Or the Syrians? Or the Cubans?”
Answer: Yes (except Mexicans, French, Bresil, China, some other european contry. since they are telling that UFOs exist)
Do you want to know why?
July 31st, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Ummm… having firsthand knowledge of the fact, I didn’t need to. But as Todd W. showed, it would have been prett easy… and as I said before, YOU are the one coming here with extraordinary claims. YOU make sure you have your facts straight, BUB.
And no… you didn’t quote him accurately:
From your earlier post:
You state above that Dr. Veverka “admits” that Meier accurtaely predicted discoveries about our Solar system months before the discoveries were published.
Dr. Veverka’s actual statement:
That’s an admission? Care to revise your statement?
As I said… wilfull mis-representation.
Again… is the irony of YOU making this statement lost on you?
And on and on… blah blah blah, more insults, blah blah blah, evidence on my website, blah blah blah, don’t need to respond to the valid questions by Meeee and Todd W., blah blah blah I’m smarter than you, blah blah blah, still no real evidence.
I get it, genius… go peddle your snake oil somewhere else… you’ve been exposed for what you are here.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
@JPETER
If Intelligence Aliens was being know publicly. The entire population of the world would united as a new idendity (Human) being Americans, Irakians, British, Canadians will be gone and/or become meaningless. Most Government are self centered, willing only to growth by itself. Do you imagine that if we get a DEMOCRATIC WORLD government the Chinese and India will have the majority. This is the worst nightmare of Government like the U.S. who want to RULE the world and not just being part of it.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:34 pm
@ Sylvain
Allow me to repeat… YIKES.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:34 pm
@ Mr. Horn:
“It’s a thankless job, certainly for Meier. With 21 documented assassination attempts on his life…”
Um, who goes around documenting attempts? Who exactly are these unskilled assassins that they keep missing their target? Maybe these “assassins” were just kids with air rifles taking target practice with hubcaps tossed in the air.
Why would anyone feel the need to assassinate Meier, what’s the desperation?
What a crock. So you want Meier to be a near-martyr because he’s avoided being killed.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:35 pm
@CE
Sylvain’s ventured off the deep end. Just ignore their posts and maybe they’ll stop.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Almost all of the NASA STS mission footage showing anomalous objects entering, leaving and moving through the upper atmosphere is HARD evidence to support the existence of craft capable of maneuvers beyond that of commonly accepted ‘terrestrial’ technology. Granted, it could all be secret military technology being tested right beneath the ISS, or whatever current shuttle is in orbit… yet somehow, I tend to doubt this is the case. I’m not going to point out specific footage (as there is far too much to reference) so I’ll let you do the legwork on that. Don’t be lazy! Do the research, then formulate an opinion. It’s always easy to tell someone else to “prove it” for you. Do the research and find out for yourself, it’ll be far more rewarding.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Agreed… sort of what I was getting it with the “Yikes”…
Consider it advice taken.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:41 pm
@Todd I already post them http://www.disclosureproject.org
If reading is too difficult
go to google video and search “disclosure project” and watch all the videos.
take note of the radar recordings they have, ask for them (or download them)at the web site.
MUFON also have radar recordings at:
http://www.mufon.com/symposia.htm
Exemple Stephenville, Texas Radar Report
http://www.mufon.com/documents/MUFONStephenvilleRadarReport.pdf
and many more!
If you can’t read radar please take the yellow pages under piloting school. It’s very easy to learn.
Or even google it. They are sites teaching this subject.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:42 pm
You know, I wonder sometimes if some of these people are just doing a psychological experiment, seeing how long they can keep blog readers responding to their wackiness.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:49 pm
@Todd W.: Well said, LOL.
July 31st, 2008 at 9:49 pm
And me the poor, willing subject…
Now where the heck is that cheese….
July 31st, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Buzz Aldrin is on the Colbert Report!
July 31st, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Warning to outer-space alienz…
CredulousCat is in ur flying zone takin ur picksherz…
July 31st, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Phil, and guests, just because you don’t believe in something, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
Seriously, how naive can you all be?
Dr Mitchell is a brilliant man, and one would be foolish or ignorant to dismiss his claims. Talking with people who have had first hand experience is proof, not hear say.
How does traditional science explain apparitions for example? Hundreds of people experience apparitions simultaneously. So, are these events really taking place?
Are they just mass hallucinations? What’s going on here?
Traditional science cannot explain these types of events. And when they cannot, it’s easier to ridicule it or laugh it away. Just like the media does. They are ill-equipped to deal with it. What a missed opportunity to ‘find out’ what is really going on.
You can say things like since there is only eyewitness proof, nothing tangible, it probably didn’t really happen. But, you’d be wrong, as I stated above.
Remote viewing is something else that is very real. Many critics again can’t relate to that type of activity, so they just tear it to shreds, instead of trying to embrace it and take it for what its worth. What a shame.
Did you know that the ring around the planet Jupiter was discovered before we sent a probe all the way out there to image the distant planet. That’s a fact. Ingo Swann accomplished that. And he didn’t even use a telescope. lol.
But, how did he do it? Traditional science, again cannot explain that either. Plenty of nay sayers though. Their a dime a dozen, still.
The list goes on and on. The inhabitants of planet Earth are becoming more aware (ever so slowly), about what is really going on around us. The United States is not the leader in that effort however.
Again, just because you find it’s difficult to comprehend something, certainly does not mean that it isn’t happening. It’s true.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:00 pm
@Todd, Umair, CE
We are just trying to help you, educated you, you being lied and mind wash since your birth. We doing this for you. We simply fell sorry for you. Do you realize that you can’t even go check even 1 radar recordings. You are scare, in denial, being lied for so long that the truth scare you. Do you realise that you can’t stop laughing and go LOOK at the evidences that YOU asked. YOU asked us for the evidences and the ONLY thing you are CAPABLE of in LAUGHING but not LOOKING. Do you understand that is not NORMAL behavior?
Come on think about what you are doing…YOU asked for evidences, WE are giving them to you and you are scare to simply look at them. Now can you see there something very wrong with that!
July 31st, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Ok ok. Mr Horn, I think I need to start from the top again
Are you saying that this: http://www.theyfly.com/photos/images/f0829.jpg
and this: http://www.theyfly.com/photos/1NewPics/f_179.jpg
are pictures of spacecraft from another world with intelligent alien beings in them?
my personal favorite is this one: http://www.theyfly.com/newsflash5/images/43.%20WCUFO%205..jpg
July 31st, 2008 at 10:18 pm
I am a skeptic, but how do I deny my own eyes? I’ve seen something extraordinary that defies explanation, twice, so how do I account for it? The choices are few: share the news with others (and face ridicule) or keep quiet. I don’t have proof. I wasn’t able to break off a chunk to bring to you, (which is apparently the only proof that would do). Nor did I happen to have a camera handy, as so many other people have had. But that’s not proof. You would only laugh at the picture no matter how many experts authenticated it. If I was able to find a scientist willing to take a serious look at my “evidence,” you would simply declare them a kook, no longer credible for even taking my evidence seriously.
So, tell me, oh wise scientifically minded people, if you found yourself in my position, what would you do?
It’s easy to laugh at anyone who has the audacity to counter your established beliefs, but you should be careful. Your jokes are becoming brittle, and it’s also becoming evident just how afraid you really are. It’s a self perpetuating mind game: The study of UFOs is crackpot science, therefore no credible scientist will study UFOs, therefore any scientist who studies UFOs is a crackpot, therefore, there is no credible evidence of UFOs. If this is science, you can keep it.
As for whatever it is I saw, do I want it to land on the White House lawn just so you will have to eat your smug words? Hell no. I just hope they leave us alone.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Michael Horn, I figured you had. I mean, I had suspected this much before, but you’ve given ample evidence.
You’re just a bully. You’re a bully who trolls around looking for people who don’t accept Billy Meier’s childish videos and phots. You troll around looing for people who stand up to your bullying tactics and then artifically place yourself at some high-minded level of discourse that only exists in your petty head.
Why are you even on this site? You know that this is a site full of skeptics. I mean, if I were to follow yours and Meier’s example, I might suspect a large conspiracy to get the government to believe in UFO’s, and you’re either an active agent of their propoganda, or you’re too afriad of having your precious extra-terrestrial paradigm threatened and have your *ahem* career ruined.
But I guess I’m just some jerky, closed-minded skeptic.
And as for Sylvain, are you being satirical? You use LOTS of CAPS interspersed THROUGHOUT your SENTENCES to MAKE me THINK you’re ACTUALLY really CLEVERLY making FUN of UFOLOGISTS. If you are indeed being satirical, good work. You’ve made me giggle more than once.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Robin, just because you saw something that defies your explanation, doesn’t mean it is beyond explanation. It’s an argument from ignornace.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:33 pm
@Some Canadian Skeptic
NO I’m not stirical at all!!!
1) I don’t know how to make bold so I use caps
2) Im french and I don’t see why using bold make the text satirical (really)
3) I really mean what I says (Im 38 years old. I don’t find this subject funny at all)
4) ETs issue is not a funny one. It’s is very serious. It is affecting the entire Humanity and Forever!
July 31st, 2008 at 10:34 pm
using caps sorry not bold
Why caps make english text satirical? (seriously)
July 31st, 2008 at 10:44 pm
If the aliens wanted to reveal themselves to the people of Earth they could do that pretty easily. If they’ve got the technology to get here then no government would be able to stop them.
OK, so, the government doesn’t want us to know about the aliens. The aliens don’t want us to know about the aliens. In that case what’s the point of fighting the “mind wash”? It’s not like you can do anything about it.
Seems to me there are 2 options:
1) No aliens.
2) The aliens are playing pranks and having fun with the earthlings. “Buzzing” the Earth, a la Hitchhiker’s Guide.
My razor is blunt; I’m going with 2.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Sylvain,
1) Well, I share your ignorance in not knowing how to type in bold. And it is indeed frustrating to me as well.
2) Using caps (or bold) is not satirical, but the things you say sound as crazy, paranoid and delusional as any “they’re here-type” comic books that always portray the weired guy with the tin-foil hat.
3) I know you don’t find it funny….that’s part of why I do find it funny. It must really be terrifying to live in a world so bereft of reality that you have monsters from space abducting people and the the government keeping an all-watchful eye on people trying to leak that knowledge out, and would stop at nothing to protect this most terrifying of secrets.
4) But wait, if the governments of the world are so-damn good at keeping the mass-media silent, why aren’t you dead? why isn’t Billy Meier and Mike Horn dead? Why aren’t all these insanely-poor websites with lots of multi-colored flashing text shut down the instant they get put up?
Oh right, you’re just that damn good at elluding. And Billy Meier is an expert at avoiding assassins (who no doubt tried to kill him with an assortment of rubber-chickens and beach-balls).
Don’t talk about teaching people reality when you clearly need to calm down a second and listen to what you’re actually proposing. Your Occam’s Razor is in desperate need of sharpening.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:47 pm
@Some Canadian Skeptic
Do you realize that YOU asked for EVIDENCES for Stephenville UFO and I gave it to you and you still gigling like a child and not looking like a normal adult would? Do you realize this is not normal behavior? Ask yourself “Why am I giggling?”, “Why can’t I stop”
Why do I fell like a teacher teaching sex to a class of 10 years old?
do you realize WE are trying to educated you, give you all the proof you asked and all oyu do is giggling. Do you realize that the “name calling” are BECAUSE of those childish giggling? Who many of you are adults?
SO I repeat again:
“I already post them http://www.disclosureproject.org
If reading is too difficult
go to google video and search “disclosure project” and watch all the videos.
take note of the radar recordings they have, ask for them (or download them)at the web site.
MUFON also have radar recordings at:
http://www.mufon.com/symposia.htm
Exemple Stephenville, Texas Radar Report
http://www.mufon.com/documents/MUFONStephenvilleRadarReport.pdf
and many more!
If you can’t read radar please take the yellow pages under piloting school. It’s very easy to learn.
Or even google it. They are sites teaching this subject.”
July 31st, 2008 at 10:49 pm
This is just an open-question to all the UFO-believers out there….
If these inter-stellar species, who break all kinds of known laws of physics to get here, and have presumably evolved far past our puny, petty human civilization, why are they so crappy at flying their suspiciously-plate-shapped saucers? Why do they seem to crash all the friggin time, and usually in cultures of European heritage, to boot?
Seems to me that if a species is capable of defying E=MC2 (or at least getting around it), they’d be at least SLIGHTLY better pilots.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I think we’re all being duped. Some guy named Michael Horn keeps getting on here telling everyone to read his blog, or website, or whatever, and we keep doing it.
I think even Michael Horn knows the UFO=Alien pictures on his website are fake. Where is MY evidence? Right here, in this quote from one of Michael Horn’s posts up above:
“Regarding Meier’s films, perhaps you failed to read what Uncharted Territory said. Anyone here in their caliber as special effects experts, especially with models. So, regarding the UFO circling around the tree that the “experts” here have pegged as a fake, here’s the quote from that Academy Award-winning company:”
Stop right there. This is a perfect example of Appeal to Authority. Some special effects group that most people in the US probably have never heard of made a statement, and we’re just supposed to believe them because they are “experts?” Well, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, and I’ll bold the important parts. They are quoted as saying,
““But, to reflect on the statement that’s in the film, I also remember seeing a shot on the Super8 reel that showed a UFO circling around a fairly tall tree. According to that shot, we said that we can’t conclusively say whether it’s real or not, but it seemed impossible to stage that kind of a shot with a miniature (it would have to be hanging on a very tall crane, with wires - but even then the movements would be hard to achieve.) So, yes, in regards to that shot, we mentioned that we could definitely do it today with CG, but at the time these were supposedly shot – it would have been very hard, probably even impossible, to fake this kind of shot.” “
Wait… What was that? “(it would have to be hanging on a very tall crane, with wires)” Well, we all know how difficult it is to find a crane around here. If only there was a company that rented large construction equipment… (Sorry for the sarcasm.) It seemed impossible, but was it? It was probably even impossible? Well, was it impossible or not? “We can’t conclusively say whether it’s real or not.” If you can’t say with certainty that it was real, then the most likely answer is: it was not real.
I say that not only could the UFOs in the videos be faked, based on Michael Horn’s “evidence” posted here, he knows full well that the videos were faked. This has all been a big scam to get hits on a website, and we’ve all fallen for it.
Yay.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:51 pm
@Colin
Having knowledge is OUR responsability not the aliens.
3th options
3) Your in denial
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
July 31st, 2008 at 10:53 pm
The giverment is really good at covering up aliens and for some reason they let Meier and others tell about their encounters, why does the phrase “does not compute” come to mind. 21 attempts on his life and they still can’t kill him.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Canadian Skeptic I like to add why all the probing once I can see, I guess they can’t be good at biology either.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:57 pm
@SCS
“If these inter-stellar species, who break all kinds of known laws of physics to get here, and have presumably evolved far past our puny, petty human civilization, why are they so crappy at flying their suspiciously-plate-shapped saucers? Why do they seem to crash all the friggin time…”
Not the same alien (species)
please why dont you go to http://www.disclosureproject.org
or LOOK at the video
you would have learn FROM a CIA agent that a least 57 species so far have visiting our planet. All different technologie
If you learn about REAL evolution you would know that some species are BILLIONS years olders than our EXISTANCE. Our SOLAR SYSTEMS is VERY young compare to the our GALAXY and our GALAXY is VERY young compare to the Univers. You being taugh evolution by a Creationist school system.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Davidlpf, “21 attempts on his life and they still can’t kill him.” Well, according to many of his followers, Meier is a prophet, the latest incarnation of Isaiah, Elijah, Jesus and Muhammad.
I like my theory better, that the assassins used an assortment of various objects made of rubber, filled with air, and used for maximum comic effect (with lots of Boings and Squeeks).
July 31st, 2008 at 11:02 pm
@SCS
Do you realize you are still giggling and not looking at the evidences that YOU asked?
July 31st, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Sylvain, your theory gets more and more complex with each challenge. Your theory is now a massive web with very sketchy evidence (most of which is testimonial).
And you STILL haven’t answered why they seem to crash all the time. Why are they such lousy pilots?
And no, I’ve never learned evolution in a creationist school system (note my nickname, it doesn’t say “Some Louisianan Skeptic”). I learned evolution from reading Darwin, and the 150 years of evolutionary biology that has come since him, perhaps you’ve heard of it?
July 31st, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Sylvian, I’m not in the mood right now to watch any more of your silly 2-hour documentary that is packed with meaningless testimonials (the mention of the word ‘Nibiru’ really sets if off on the wrong foot). Maybe another time, perhaps, but I’m still asking you.
Don’t defer. YOU answer for YOUR claims.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Why people has car accident ALL the time. How many “car accident” will think we would have if when driving people was SHOOTING at you.
There about 5 crash and only 1 of them was by accident (roswell)
and if you go to http://www.disclosureproject.org you will know why that one crash
You being learning a pseudo-science since your birth my young friend.
When do you think evolution started? At the SAME time as WE did????
Our galaxy has being full of intelligence species bnillions of years BEFORE our own solar system came to life. In case you don’t know our Sun is revolving around a black hole in the center of our galaxy. WE make so for ONLY 3 turn around it. There being stars WAY before that revolving also around it making a LOT more turns. You forgot 1 very important fact from Darwin it’s called “TIME”. Creationist teaching evolution never mention that since for them GOD has create ALL the Univers all AT THE SAME TIME (Poof!). So for them (and you) evolution started at the same time as us.
Poor Darwin, how would he react see people like you destroying all that he try to teach you?
July 31st, 2008 at 11:19 pm
@Sylvain
1) You said,“There is no free press. The Mass Media are under control by the Government!”
Maybe not in your country, but in the US, there certainly is free press. Yes, we have national broadcasting stations, but we also have large corporate broadcasting companies that outnumber the 4 or so national ones by the hundreds. Not only that, we have what we call “local access” or “community access” channels, where anyone with the money (and it doesn’t take much) can transmit almost anything they want (as long as it doesn’t violate FCC rules on obscenity). In addition, we have print media available from large and small companies, as well as private individuals. Many large cities have multiple printed media that are not even censored for profanity, and they are free to print whatever they think their readers want. Finally, there’s this thing here called “the Internet” and pretty much anyone with a computer can blog about whatever they want (as long as its not certain types of porn) and its pretty much free. Oh, and I almost forgot radio. Anyone with a transmitter and a license can broadcast whatever they want over the airwaves, limited only by the cost of the equipment.
2) To use fancy text like bold, italics or
deletedtext, you have to insert certain tags for formatting. Do an internet search for “html tags” and you will find more information on that than you can handle in a day or three.3) Thank you for “… just trying to help you, educated you, you being lied and mind wash since your birth.” However, since you do not know me, and certainly cannot have known me since my birth, you have no idea how I was educated, or if I was brain washed. Instead of trying to use scare tactics, why don’t you simply summarize for us what it is you think we don’t know, and exactly why you think we need to know it?
Good luck!
July 31st, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Oh, and Sylvain… Where is your scientifically tested and peer reviewed EVIDENCE? EVIDENCE? EVIDENCE?
July 31st, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I am canadian too and ALL our school system is infected by those creationist teaching their “evolution”, and that the reason why you can’t accept the truth about ETs life. You being taugh pseudo-science from them since you birth my young friends, please read DARWIN and not listen to those Creationist teach you about Darwin.
Your ” evolution” doesnt make sense.
I REALITY ETs life exist a least BILLIONS of years before our EXISTANCE and they have being travelling the univers since. The “cheap” saucers from ETS just as old as us.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:27 pm
@Greg
http://www.disclosureproject.org
http://www.mufon.com/symposia.htm
July 31st, 2008 at 11:27 pm
“When do you think evolution started? At the SAME time as WE did????”
Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?
I’ll forward the same request to you: present your ONE best piece of evidence. Don’t forward us to your website where we can buy your wares, give us ONE piece, the BEST piece. Don’t scoff at us for not looking through the 3-foot stack of your crappy evidence and tell us we’re being dogmatic and ignorant.
And another question: why are you even here? Why are you trolling this website, yelling at a bunch of people who you KNOW are active skeptics, calling us stupid, arrogant and cowardly, then in the next breath shrug your shoulders in confusion as to why we just won’t wake up and smell your coffee?
Your evidence is really shoddy, which is why I think you (and Horn) keep falling back on testimonials.
This sure is getting exhausting.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:31 pm
@ Greg
“why don’t you simply summarize for us what it is you think we don’t know, and exactly why you think we need to know it?”
……eh… Do you realize that this blog ASKED about EVIDENCES. People here are either giving them, getting them or giggling. Why are you here?
July 31st, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Some Canadian Skeptic said, “This sure is getting exhausting.”
Indeed. But we have to continue the epic battle between the Reality-ists and the WooWoo-ites if we ever hope to survive! Eternal vigilance!
July 31st, 2008 at 11:40 pm
@Sylvain
A) You’re welcome.
B) I’m here waiting for someone to provide actual physical evidence of the existence of alien life visiting our planet.
C) If you don’t understand why myself, and many others here, are frustrated, simply go all the way to the top of this page and re-read what Phil said at the very beginning.
I think its going to be a long wait.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:45 pm
It’s gotten a bit “gun hoe-tze bee dio-se” in here.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:47 pm
@Some Canadian Skeptics
I think you miss understand me (or more probably I misspoke)
I DONT’T want you to watch the testimony since you ALREADY told me you don’t want to listen to them. (In fact the day someone try to convince me that ETs existed I was EXACTLY like you , not want to listening to testimony and want ONLY the hard evidences and this is what I AM trying to give you (I listened the testinomy after)
I want you to take a pencil and paper and NOTES the Numbers of their radars sightings, call (well write) the FAA get these radars recordings yourself.
Like I says if you don’t know how to read a radar recordings you can find in the yellow page courses or check google there are sites teaching that.
If you had watch the MUFON link you would have see in the PDF that they put the FAA numbers and the Freedom of Information requests numbers of all they are saying about the Stevenville radar recordings
So like that YOU can check BY YOURSELF. Just like I did a couple years ago.
Exemple p 54 Freedom of information Act Request (DODR 5400.7)
in the pdf it’s is there already but if you think it’s a fake write to the FIAR and ask for a copy of DODR 5400.7
http://www.mufon.com/documents/MUFONStephenvilleRadarReport.pdf
(I hope my english was better and my intention of why to go to the sites)
July 31st, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Thomas Siefert: I may regret outing myself like this later on, but I really wish I understood what “gun hoe-tze bee dio-se” means. I bet its really funny, and I want in!
(That was not sarcastic, just in case)
July 31st, 2008 at 11:53 pm
I for one welcome our new alien cricket overlords.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:57 pm
I only try to give the evidences YOU are asking. In cases you don’t know I’m NOT talking to you about testinonies since you (and phil) already says you don’t want those. So I’m talking about a scientific instruments from the FAA itself. It’s called a RADAR.
Here lets take the Phil Tornado
would you like to have?
1) someone telling you about that tornado exist.
2) a picture of a tornado
3) Multiple Thermals Radar VIDEO imaging of a tornado from different sources confirming each others.
Same for UFOs
1) someone telling you about that UFOs exist.
2) a picture of a UFO
3) Radars recording of a UFOs from both multiple ground radars and airbone radar (in a plane) confirming each others that the UFOs is there. Telling you the size, velocity, speed, acceleration, deceleration, where is come from (space) and where it goes back (space)
August 1st, 2008 at 12:04 am
Thomas Siefert said July 31st, 2008 at 10:56 am :
“@StevoR: No as far as I know, there’s no link between me and Carl Keenan Seyfert, but I have from a reliable source that the name invokes the same association for BA.
I took my wife’s name when we got married, so any connections with Siefert of any spelling would be on her side. I had a very common Danish surname before I got married that didn’t turn cool until the Matrix was released.
My wife raises eyebrows in her proffession because our name invokes associations to the architect Seifert.”
Thanks!
Seyfert – yes that’s the name of the galaxy type I was thinking of. Cheers!
August 1st, 2008 at 12:08 am
Some Canadian Skeptic:
In 1976, in Tucson, AZ, at about 10:00 pm, a triangular object the size of parking lot slowly floated over my head without making a sound. That same year, I watched what I thought was a shooting star fly very fast across the night sky, stop, and then move at a right angle into a vastly larger “star.”
Explain what I saw to me. Please. Give me a rational explanation for how I could see objects moving in a way that defies our current understanding of physics. I guess it’s just easier to dismiss me as misinformed or delusional or assume that I’m lying, because if you had to take anything I’ve said seriously, well where would that leave you?. The point is that seeing is believing. No matter what evidence is presented, you will continue to assert that there is no evidence.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:09 am
Oh I see whats going on everytime I put a link the text goes to waiting mode. So you dont see the evidences I try to give you and explanation with it
August 1st, 2008 at 12:10 am
Hot topic. I actually just started my own debunk series about a list of “Abduction Symptoms” I came across whilst crawling the tubes. My first post went up not too long ago, and it’s part of a five part series on the subject since I have soooooo much to say about it.
Despite my years of asking for good evidence of UfO’s and Abductee stories, I’ve never gotten anything more than anecdotal tales, fuzzy pictures, and shaky videos.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:12 am
@River
How many radar recordings did you analyse?
August 1st, 2008 at 12:18 am
@Davidlpf
The aliens are into anal probing because they are secretly trying to coax Yahweh into destroying the earth because of all the sodomy going on.
BTW, to Mr. Horn. Me and my friends used to make super-8 movies when we were kids. Several featured “flying saucers” buzzing my house. Looked about as real as Herr Meier’s pictures. Which is to say, not very. I guess I should have become a special effects expert in Hollywood.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:26 am
@ kuhnigget
How old are you? Tell me if someone else was acting childishly like you do on this subject on any other ones what would you think about that person?
Can we have a children section?
there adults asking for evidences, adults who give them and annoying mentally age children making joke and try to prevent the mature educational aspect of this blog.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:48 am
@Sylvain: “Do you realize that this blog ASKED about EVIDENCES. People here are either giving them, getting them or giggling. Why are you here?”
Let’s have a poll. Put me down for giggling. Sylvain, too, I more than suspect. Let’s face it, you don’t fit under either of your other categories.
“mature educational aspect of this blog” ROFL!!!
August 1st, 2008 at 1:23 am
I suspect Sylvain is a Raelian. As for the earlier discussion about the ” Gov’t being good at hiding secret tech”…. attitudes have changed over the decades, to be honest, here. Not to support any conspiracy theory, but the public and workers did cooperate with the Gov’t's requests for secrecy during wartime . As an extension , similarly during the cold war era, esp immediately following WW II and thru the Korean conflict and McCarthyism. Attitudes are different now. But, if some gov’t was sitting on advanced alien technology…well it’s all too silly to even waste words….
August 1st, 2008 at 1:36 am
Oh, and I don’t know if anyone has posted this yet, but here’s the latest link to Swift on the this topic from Randi: http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/206/27/
August 1st, 2008 at 2:02 am
It’s official. I’m drunker than Cooter Brown right now and this blog is NOT helping with the spins. Eleventeen hundred posts later and still NO evidence… this is utterly retarded. I’m outty.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:04 am
@ Sylvain
With all due respect, If IF there were aliens, Our population would not become “One”. After just one day on our planet those aliens would make tracks so fast past Pluto and we would never see them again (maybe THATS why they didn’t search for their friends in Roswell)
August 1st, 2008 at 6:30 am
In the Meier video, it’s not clear that the “ufo” is flaying around the tree. The saucer prop could be in the foreground, with a distant tree in the line of sight.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:34 am
Wow, considering the amount of comments in this thread, you’d think Phil had just done something to a cracker…
August 1st, 2008 at 7:19 am
Boy, with all the heated rhetoric in this thread, you’d think Phil had just done something to a cracker…
August 1st, 2008 at 7:22 am
@ defectiverobot
LOL… yeah… although that’s really not Phil’s style, I don’t think.
But it really is funny how the thought processes and reasonings run parallel, isn’t it?
August 1st, 2008 at 8:42 am
@sylvain:
Actually, your question about age is meaningless. I am a pan-dimensional being who transcends space and time.
Prove me wrong! I am an expert in pan-dimensionality and have studied the subject much more than you! What’s that? You’ve never heard of me or my transcendence? That is because the “evidences” for my existence have been deliberately hidden for centuries! The very fact you have not seen them proves this! But if you believe in me, sylvain, if you truly believe…all becomes clear.
August 1st, 2008 at 9:41 am
Meeee Said on July 31st, 2008 at 8:29 pm :
“@CE … Everything else aside, it’s 3:30am here and my brain no make good thinks any more.’
Hmm. I can relate to that so, so well.
So … many, m-a-n-y, po-ossts .. *Sigh *
So little evidence.
Raelians would know about brainwashing I guess – like that Hale-Bopp aliens sucicide cult they practice it.
Sylvain get yourself some help. If your really serious you really need to think some more & get yourself some help. Not from a cult memember either.
One other nail in Mike Horn’s coffin here (not that its needed, its more nails than wood!)
Meirs aliens come from the Plieades!? You know M45, “the seven sisters”, that cluster of young, massive, short-lived unlikely to have exoplanets stars!?
Which one of the 100 plus stars in the Plieades (6-7 visible with unaidedeyesight alone) are they from in particular Mike? Alycone? Maia? Taygete? Atlas? Pleione the shell star? It sounds blatantly dumb on that astronomical howler alone .. *Sigh*
Could you get a less likely place to have aliens from – I suppose Venus and Io were already taken?
(BTW. An earlier about as convincing UFO-cultist indeed had aliens coming from Venus back in the 1950′s – in one of Patrick Moore’s books if I recall right… Funny how they never come from there or Mars now annit!
)
I didn’t even his website & I still feel I’ve wasted my time.
August 1st, 2008 at 9:54 am
@ Jose
I have a scientific degree although not in the field that would make me an expert on this topic. I’m just stating that mainstream science does not take the topic at hand seriously enough. At least not publicly.
I know that nothing is ever right or wrong; it’s just our best understanding of the truth.
I watch shows on the history channel and discovery channel where these great minded people presume that ET would never be able to come here because of the distance. They say things like they would never be able to come down to Earth because our bacteria would kill them. This is an assumption. The human race is already on track to build things like Nanobots that are going to revolutionise medical science. If we already can imagine this then why is it so hard to believe that an ET race could have it already. Therefore bacteria wouldn’t be an issue, nor could the distance if anything Eistein predicted about wormholes turns out to be true.
Look at some of the fundamental questions raised by Tom van Fladern @ metaresearch.org. He proposes some really interesting ideas that mainstream science does not accept or is willing to consider.
My point is mainstream science will always assume even though they are trained not to. To be objective. The bias is so apparent and it makes me a little sick because I think science has taken a wrong turn somewhere. I think we should all go back to basics really!
We all need to put aside our belief systems including our scientific belief systems. What you and I know is WRONG, its just part of the truth. We humans think we so smart yet we cannot even have a conversation with our pets.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:05 am
[...] so accepting of anecdotal stories with no real evidence (and hey, do you think that might apply to UFOs?). It’s a good article and all, as usual for Michael, but I have to chuckle at the picture he [...]
August 1st, 2008 at 10:07 am
Hmm. Just thought of an answer for my own question – Eta Carinae or the Pistol Star!
Yep, we’re the Eta-Carinans; highly advanced aliens with surprisingly only useless platitudes to give you coming from a planet around a 100 or so solar mass, ultra-short-lived blue hypergiant star that’s about to go supernovae any night now!
Well, I reckon its better than Meier’s & Horn’s effort!
A couple of names for curious skeptics to note / wiki :
George Adamski who was the one with Venusian flying saucers
The Aetherius Society (oddball cult of “dr King”) &
Immanuel Velikovsky who claimed Venus was a comet ejected by Jupiter. (Are there any Velikovskites still here? Will this bring them out of the woodwork? Hmm ..enough other woos to get one more .. Surely no one now believes Adamaski – but then again ..
All curious case studies similar to other “flying crocks” (to parapharase and yoik a line) from Patrick Moore’s non-fiction debunking book “Can you Speak Venusian” (Wyndham Publications, Star book, 1976.)I’d highly recommend it if you can find a copy somewhere. Its a good reference for all skeptics and a very amusing read to boot. One of Phil Plait’s precursors really ..
Incidentally, Carl Sagan also covered Velikovskly in “Brocas brain’ … Advice to UFO-ists you may do well to read these too!
—–
I’m going to stop procrastinating – tomorrow!
August 1st, 2008 at 10:09 am
@ shaun
“I know that nothing is ever right or wrong; it’s just our best understanding of the truth.”
Um… wha? Your logic fails.
2+2=5
The Earth is flat
The moon is made of green cheese.
These statements are all WRONG! Wrong in this case means untrue, false, not correct. I think you paid too much for your science degree.
The History Channel and the Discovery Channel are poor examples of actual scientific information. Occasionally they get something right, but they are simply there for entertainment and to make money.
Science is not a belief system. If you really think so, you have not taken the time to learn how science actually works. Perhaps you yourself need to go back to the basics. Here’s a good place to start:
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml
Now, to the topic at hand, what was your point?
August 1st, 2008 at 10:12 am
Sorry for the italics. I try really hard to double-triple-check my posts, but I still can’t get it right all the time.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:15 am
Davidlpf :
“@ Tod, no there were no Zealots at the old site, no none at all.
(I managed to type that with straight face)”
I’m not surprised the Zealots have been extinct for millennia. They were a political messianic Jewish sect that existed about the time of Christ died out and perished with the crushing of the Jewish Revolt by the Romans in 70 AD.
Oh, you mean zealous er .. eccentric, rant-loving, logic-deprived
individuals .. Hang on, isn’t that almost everyone online?!
August 1st, 2008 at 10:30 am
Robin: “So, tell me, oh wise scientifically minded people, if you found yourself in my position, what would you do?”
Well, considering the exact wording of how you felt about what you saw… “I’ve seen something extraordinary that defies explanation, twice”… I would say that I saw something that i couldn’t explain and then wish I could find better evidence for what I saw. I might try and check FAA records or radar or look to see if others saw it too… but these only tend to justify that I saw something but don’t bring me much closer to figuring out what it was that i saw (unless the FAA or government confirms that it was helicopters in formation or something). Then I would continue with my life and hope that better evidence comes along before I jumped to any conclusions as to what it was.
As a scientifically minded person, this is what I would do. Doesn’t it sound far more reasonable than saying unexplained == aliens?
August 1st, 2008 at 10:32 am
Jose said at July 31st, 2008 at 8:23 pm :
“In case there are any aliens monitoring this thread, I will restate what I said earlier. I would like to ride on your space ship. Although, I’m not looking forward to it, I will accept good probing as a trade off, provided no eggs or anything of that nature are implanted in me, and proper lubrication is used. We can work out a more formal contract when the time comes. I’m going to try and sleep now. I hope to see you soon. Sincerely,Jose
Okay sure, we’ll come tonight.
We just have a few cows we’ve got to pick up first – hope you don’t mind sharing the saucer with them; afraid it does whiff a bit especially after the cattle have been probed!
Strange, we’re still trying to work out how such odd & seemingly defenceless
creatures as bovinus domesticus manage survive in the wild! What itheir secret? Can you help us with that great cosmic mystery? (Nothing else about Earth really interests us as much.)
——–
PS. Nah, just kidding. I’m afraid we’re set on picking up a few drunken rednecks instead before heading back to Sanduleak -69 202 & our cargo hold is just too full already!
PPS Bet you were waiting for someone to post something like this eh?
August 1st, 2008 at 10:48 am
Greg in Austin :
“2+2=5
The Earth is flat
The moon is made of green cheese.
These statements are all WRONG!”
Not necesarily.
2 + 2 = 5 when two couples one including a preganant woman (& I hope a Doc or midwife!) go into a maternity hospital lift – then the lift door gets stuck and the pregnant lady goes into (& out of!) labour there having her baby in that lift so that five people come out ..
The Earth is flat when we’re looking at a prarire or grassland or an area of ground that needs to be prepared to make a road.
The moon is made of green cheese when its the moon in a child’s school project where a moon and spoon are also jumping the moon. Macrame is it? Diorama? Or in a poem ..
Or in the future when nano-bots have been programmed to transform the Moon into a really good pepper a & brie cheese!
So it all depends on context see!
(Playing devils advocate for the sheer hell of it. Sorry couldn’t resist!
)
August 1st, 2008 at 10:58 am
Phil, I am an armchair observer and the only UFO knowledge I have is from publicly available knowledge over the last 50 or 60 years or so. But I can make a couple of contributions.
First, about generally used UFO terminology:
The word “DEBUNKER” is usually misued by the UFO interested community. You are abolutely correct: A “debunker” is (or should be) used to describe someone who proves a claim to be untrue. Given the high occurence of fraudulent and misidentified reports, this is a very valuable function, assuming that the “debunker” is also being honest and scientific.
Another word should be added to the UFO lexicon: “DENIER” This is someone who denies everthing regardless of whether it has validity or not. No evidence is good enough to convince a “denier.” YOU, sir, are a “DENIER.”
Now, about “evidence:”
You cavalierly dismiss all eyewitness reports and all UFO evidence as not actual evidence. Granted, the evidence publicly available, at least to me, does not prove what these objects or phenomena are. But there are certainly volumes of credible, scientifically acceptable evidence that they exist. If you don’t or can’t accept that as scientifically proven, you are a “denier.”
It is also quite proven that agencies of our United States government keep their knowledge of UFOs a highly guarded secret; that they cover up their knowledge and interest in the subject; and in fact often go to great lengths, including lying and intimidation of witnesses, to keep UFO knowledge from the public. This is not just history from 50 or 60 years ago; this is ongoing to this day.
The issue continues . . .
August 1st, 2008 at 10:59 am
I said :
Meiers aliens come from the Plieades!? You know M45, “the seven sisters”, that cluster of young, massive, short-lived, unlikely to have exoplanets stars!? ”
But one small correction : these stars may have young exoplanets that are just forming but such worlds are NOT likely to be inhabited by aliens. Certainly not as their homes. Too many meteors & meteorites and in many cases still red-hot, even liquid surfaces frequently and very much unfinished solar (stellar?) systems.
In any case the bright stars in the Plieades are very much the wrong sort of star for life – too much UV and too short in stellar lifespan. Mybasic pointremains unchanged just that particular aspect slightly altered. Exoplanets? Well they’re possibly forming .. & they may have ‘em briefly but they won’t make good homes. Not yet and esp. not around the brighter stars.
PS. Is this the longest thread here ever?
August 1st, 2008 at 11:07 am
Shaun,
“We humans think we so smart yet we cannot even have a conversation with our pets.”
Well there is that dog whisperer show
Seriously tho, how is communicating with our pets a requirement for being smart? We do actually communicate with some of the other species at some level or another, no?
These general statements of possibilities are often the defense alien-ufo proponents fall back on. Skepticism is often in the face of specific claims of alien visitations like our friend Horn is promoting and not speculation of interstellar travel. I bet there is quite a bit of speculation of such things in the scientific community than those cable shows have led you to believe.
I have not checked out metaresearch.org but keep in mind that there are a lot of crazy ideas out there that make sense if presented right and taken at face value.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:21 am
Shaun
We humans think we so smart yet we cannot even have a conversation with our pets.
Ummm… do your pets carry on conversations with each other? If not, how can you expect them to carry on conversations with humans… or any other species for that matter.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:25 am
Greg
My point is it’s obvious that mainstream science selectively chooses what it wants to believe and disregard the rest. Even though there is overwhelming evidence on the contrary. If it doesn’t fit the accepted model then it is ousted as a possibility. Examples, the big bang theory (flawed), faster than light travel is impossible (flawed, what of gravity?), an expanding universe (flawed). All these are accepted by mainstream science when the evidence is not present or limited and a mounting body of alternatives (with evidence) are overlooked.
I think you don’t understand soft systems at all if you don’t understand the logic of my phrase. You are Naive if you think everything you know is the absolute truth. Science is all about getting to a better understanding of the truth. Nothing should ever be accepted as the absolute truth because eventually someone will prove it wrong (inaccurate) and a better definition of the truth will be revealed. That is what is meant by my phrase “I know that nothing is ever right or wrong; it’s just our best understanding of the truth.” so therefore the earth used to be flat (as this was our best understanding at the time and was accepted as the truth! that is fact!) Then it was shown otherwise so it then became wrong. Do you get it now?? Or do you want to try adding 2+2 again and still getting it wrong.
I’m sceptical about the whole ET visitation topic. I am highly sceptical about “alien abduction”. Yet look at the evidence that is mounting on the subject. It cannot be ignored and you cannot just explain it away as natural phenomena. We cannot just presume it not to be possible as we don’t know what is or isn’t possible with our current understanding of the universe. I think when credible people are saying these things are real we should listen! Try to get to the truth.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:57 am
” If it doesn’t fit the accepted model then it is ousted as a possibility. Examples, the big bang theory (flawed), faster than light travel is impossible (flawed, what of gravity?), ”
Wait for it….!
August 1st, 2008 at 11:57 am
Huh? That is pure invention on your part. Let’s take your examples…
Again… huh? What do you mean by “flawed”? It’s certainly not a final answer, but that’s not how science operates. It’s a theory… one that is supported pretty widely throughout the scientific community. It is tested, revised, and scrutinized regularly, but it holds up pretty well. Gravity is a theory as well… so give me your prefessional opinion as to how one theory is more “flawed” than the other, please.
Who said this? This isn’t even a theory… and it’s incorrect. And it needs qualification. Faster than light travel on a quantum level? At a human body size level? These distinctions matter…
Yeah… ok… but that debate has been going on for years, and I think your follow up statement…
…is pure bunk. According to whom? You? If you even only read this blog you’ll know this isn’t a factual statement. The three “theories” you quoted above are under constant scientific scrutiny, and are regularly reviewed and updated. I think your problem may be how you are defining “mainstream science”… so please define it for me, so I can better understand where your coming from, because none of your claims matches up with the “mainstream science” I’m familiar with.
And you are not paying attention if you think any of us here think that.
Beware of sweeping, all encompassing statements of absolute fact… someone might correct it… for example, quoting Greg in Austin above: 2+2=/=5… please prove it wrong or reveal what possible better definition of this there could be.
Umm… no it didn’t. It was alwayswrong. Nobody ever made claims of the earth being flat as a result of scientific calculations based on observation… you need to ask yourself why it was that a large section of the population (although not everyone) believed it was flat in the first place… Hint: it had nothing to do with science. Do you understand the flaw in your logic here?
We’re not claiming it should be ignored. Nor are we claiming to explain it all away as “natural phenomena”. We’ve just seen no evidence that it’s NOT. So why is it always the default position of the credulous UFO believer that if it can’t be explained away naturally, right away, then it must be ET. This jump in logic is where we draw the line.
No-one has said it’s not possible. Just not likely based on what we know, and given that such a claim would be extraordinary based on what we know, I think real, testable evidence is a fair minimum requirement to “ET visitiation” to have any credibility as an explanation. And as has been said many times before… If we were to get some, that would be freakin’ awesome.
Agreed… and I see no evidence here that we are not doing just that.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:59 am
shaun,
“It cannot be ignored and you cannot just explain it away as natural phenomena.”
This is the crux of the “proof” of alien visitations. You’re asserting that our understanding of the universe is incomplete and even flawed, yet you’re using this incomplete knowledge to eliminate any possibility of a natural phenomenon behind the events. You’re making a very basic error in thinking that just because we cannot immediately come up with a natural cause, that there really isn’t one.
In your last post you sound very conflicted about a ET visitations. Or you’re being disingenuous. Note that this does not exclude the possibility that you’re trolling, a very real and natural phenomenon on the Internet. Tons of documentation and evidence on that one.
Oh wait, hang on. Can you elaborate on this more?
“faster than light travel is impossible (flawed, what of gravity?)”
August 1st, 2008 at 11:59 am
ND
The dog whisperer is brialliant but he doesn’t communicate with dogs he understands dog behaviour. He basically just dominates them. the leader of the pack. We all see animals communicating yet with our superior intelligence we cannot work out their language. It is probably not the best example but I’m just making the point we should get off our high horse.
I’m not trying to defend UFO as being ET. I just want us all to agree something is going on and that we need to get to the truth. I really wish we could all stop arguing and put pressure on governments to come clean. As all I see is devide and rule. devide the sceptics from the believers and rule the truth.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:12 pm
[...] the Daily Grail writes about the recent brouhaha involving Bad Astronomy blogger Phil Plait and his summary debunking of the UFO subject. This was of course precipitated by the Edgar Mitchell ruckus from last [...]
August 1st, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Turning off my built-in snark-o-tron for a moment, one thing that always amazes me about the UFOlogists is how much of their mythology, er, science is composed of pop culture iconography.
To wit, the whole “government conspiracy” thing, including the infamous men in black and their super secret operations.
The majority of this, including the MIB, came from pop culture. “Flying Saucers Are Real” by Donald Keyhoe was a work of fiction published in 1950. It is the source of many tropes still around today. Keyhoe was smart enough to realize that he’d make more money if he repackaged his fiction as “fact,” which is exactly how his subsequent books were marketed.
Likewise, all these wonderful videos of aliens peeking in people’s windows and getting autopsied. Why do they all look like covers from science fiction magazines of the 1940s and 1950s, or monsters from B-movies made in the same era?
Now one of the latest tropes I’ve been seeing is this whole idiocy that labels cirrus clouds as pan-dimensional beings zipping around the stratosphere. Okay. Cool. But it’s a rip-off from science fiction books written in the 1980s!
I mean, come on, guys. At least be original with your silliness!
August 1st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Guys, I don’t have the proof you want. some of the examples I used you can get alternative theories from metaresearch.org which explain problems with eg the big bang/faster than light travel.
I’m just thinking about all these revelations that some credible people are asserting. I refer to the latest revelations from Dr Mitchell and all those witnesses from the disclosure project. Why are these people saying these incredible things and risking everything (the families risk included). I just makes me angry that whenever the subject is being discussed it seems to be another opportunity to bash these people and make a joke of them.
I know that does not constitute evidence that what they say is true but surely it indicates that something big is going on?? (not evidence of it but indicates it…).
August 1st, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Shaun, you seem to have a very “skewed” view of what mainstream science actually “is”. It is most certainly NOT about “belief”, it is about evidence…When will the BA’s request for evidence be answered??
August 1st, 2008 at 12:35 pm
[i]I refer to the latest revelations from Dr. Mitchell, and all those witnesses from the disclosure project.[/i]
Talk is cheap…where is the evidence for alien visitation??
August 1st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
(To avoid confusion with someone else with the same name, I’ll post as “carlhcarl” instead of just “carl.”)
Here are some of my favorite known incidents that have plenty of evidence and that defy conventional explanation:
The so-called “Battle of Los Angeles” in February 1942: Thousands of eyewitnesses, over 1,400 anti-aircraft shots fired, a huge, glowing, low flying, slow moving object, apparently unaffected by the anti-aircraft barrage, front page newspaper photo the next day, and absolutely no known or possible explanation then or now.
Japan Air Lines 747 over Alaska, November 1986: The crew reported being surrounded by several gigantic flying objects, one “the size of an aircraft carrier,” and FAA radar confirmed the presence of the objects.
The 1989-1990 Belgium “wave:” Unlike the United States government, the Belgian government made public the UFO reports that began in November 1989. Thousands of witnesses, including military and civilian pilots, air traffic controllers, police, and ordinary citizens reported seeing triangular shpaed objects that defy conventional explanation.
The January 2000 glowing object “as big as a 2 story house” moving slowly over southern Illinois: Reported by a trucker, witnessed and reported by police patrol officers in 4 different towns. One officer took a Polaroid photo of the object.
No evidence? Look ‘em up. There are a lot more . . .
August 1st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
shaun,
You’re overly generalizing scientists and skeptics here. If you ignore the heated words (there has been plenty of insults and bashing from the like of Horn and others), you will see very clear reasons for not taking people simply at their word, no matter how credible they appear. These reasons have been stated repeatedly yet they have not sunk in. I don’t know what else to say.
August 1st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
“I know that does not constitute evidence that what they say is true but surely it indicates that something big is going on?? (not evidence of it but indicates it…).”
And that can’t be an indication of common human psychological traits? Why does “something going on” always lead you to the most complicated and improbable solution, aka alien visitation?
August 1st, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Shaun
Please look up “Occam’s Razor”…
August 1st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Alright. I won’t generalise and further. Let’s try stick with the request for proof . I have four of you bashing me.
Please explain why this study by the French is not proof that the UFO phenomena is real?
Link:http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1626.htm
Assessment of the UFO phenomenon by GEPAN (1978)
Claude Poher, GEPAN Report to the Scientific Committee, June, 1978
Positive conclusions from the GEPAN Report to the Scientific Committee, June, 1978: “In 60% of the cases reported here, the description of this phenomenon is apparently one of a flying machine whose origin, modes of lifting and/or propulsion are totally outside our knowledge.”
August 1st, 2008 at 1:46 pm
@Shaun
I have a scientific degree although not in the field that would make me an expert on this topic. I’m just stating that mainstream science does not take the topic at hand seriously enough.
I don’t have any degree, let alone a scientific degree. But when someone brings me something written in crayon, and they tell me it’s the Magna Carta, my eyebrows go up.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
@Shaun
Why are these people saying these incredible things and risking everything (the families risk included).
They’re not risking everything. They get off on playing the part of the maverick rebel. Sure, they’re laughed at by some people, but to many others, they’re heroes.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I hope I didn’t just cause another italics meltdown.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Jose, since I have now provided some evidence of a scientific study that concluded UFO are a real phenomena. Instead of continuing bashing me, why not explain why the French scientists are mistaken? Or are you now trolling the blog?
August 1st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
I’ve noticed between the last couple threads on UFOs and this one, that people in or supportive of the UFO community have some basic misconceptions:
1) I cannot be mistaken about what I saw. It was real, and my memory is correct.
2) If I can’t explain what it was, and some of the people I talk to can’t explain what it was, then it was not something natural (or alternatively, then it must be alien).
3) If someone doesn’t believe me 100%, they are stupid and don’t know what they’re talking about.
4) If someone doesn’t believe me 100%, they are saying that it must be something natural and that it cannot possibly be aliens.
5) Implausible is the same as impossible.
Addressing these in order:
1) Human perception and memory are woefully flawed things. We often see or remember things that either did not happen, or happened differently. We trick ourselves, fill in gaps, miss small yet important details, alter our memories as time passes, etc. The last thread about Ed Mitchell had a nice post regarding psychology, memory and perception.
2) This is the “arguing from ignorance” logical fallacy. There is a strong urge to make sense of what is going on around us. The unknown is, admittedly, scary at times. There are times that we can’t make out what something is, because we just don’t have the experience or training necessary (or, see #1), but we do our best to make sense of it. If we can’t, and those whose opinions we trust can’t either, there is a tendency to explain it as something outside the realm of the real world we know. Rather than leaving something as just “unknown”, particularly where it has had a profound emotional effect on us, we try our best to explain it in some fashion, often leading to erroneous or unsupported conclusions (e.g., it must be alien, it must be natural, it must be God, etc.). Most of the time, I’d wager, we don’t even know that we’re doing this. We get blinded to our own bias and mistaken assumptions, believers and skeptics alike. However, I would say that skeptics tend to examine their own beliefs and conclusions a bit more closely than non-skeptics. Not always the case, but I think the is a tendency there.
3) Sometimes, when people become so absolutely certain of their conclusions, they tend to puff up and get a little self-righteous. When this happens, it is very easy to ignore what someone else is saying and simply dismiss them as stupid. They shut down any rational evaluation of others’ alternate arguments, perhaps even to the point that they argue even when what others are saying agrees with their position. An “Us vs. Them” mentality sets in.
4) We tend to see in others qualities of ourselves. Someone that has a tendency to jump to a sweeping conclusion (e.g., it cannot possible be natural; it must be alien; etc.) is likely to transfer this view onto those who disagree with them. The majority of skeptics, as demonstrated by most of the posts in this and other threads, will not say that something was definitely, 100%, without a doubt, natural unless there is abundant evidence to reach that conclusion. Likewise, skeptics will not say that it is without a doubt, definitely not an alien, unless, again, the evidence supports such a conclusion. In fact, the majority of posts by skeptics in this thread do not say “it is absolutely impossible for aliens to be on Earth”. Instead, they point out that it is unlikely. Which brings me to my final point.
5) So often, it seems, when a skeptic says that such and such explanation is unlikely or not plausible, it seems that believers interpret this to mean “impossible”. Please note that there is, actually, a difference between the “implausible” and “impossible” besides just the spelling. Impossible means 0% chance. Nada. Zilch. By contrast, implausible implies that there is still a chance, although it is rather low. When we say that it is unlikely that aliens are here, or that the chance of some UFO encounter having an alien or non-natural explanation is rather slim, we’re not saying that it’s impossible. There is a chance, yes. But, unless there is really good evidence to support it, we’ll say that there are other, more likely explanations.
I think it behoove those on both sides of the discussion to keep these thoughts in mind, and to evaluate your own behavior and arguments to see if any of these flaws are popping up.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:25 pm
@shaun
The quote that you provided:
does not conclude that what is reported is definitely an alien UFO. Note the word “apparently”. Also, they’re talking about descriptions that have been reported of the objects seen, rather than the objects themselves.
I will add a caveat that this is just an initial reaction to the quote you provided, not the entire report.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:35 pm
@Shaun
Okay, I’ll bite. I followed your link and poked around for a while. I see a summary of the GEPAN report, and some information on their methodology. The link to the original document is dead. I did not follow the French links since about the only French words I know are “fries”, “kiss”, and “letter”. I did not see anything on this site that would remotely pass for evidence.
All I can see is that a French organization I know nothing about, composed of Dr. Claude Poher, Ph.D, and other people who are not named whose qualifications not mentioned, concluded back in 1978 that, based on unspecified evidence, some UFO’s are probably alien craft. I don’t doubt they came to this conclusion, but it doesn’t help this discussion, where people are asking for evidence.
What you have presented is evidence that some people believe there is evidence – which we already knew was true, and doesn’t count for much. This is just another appeal to authority.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Jose, since I have now provided some evidence of a scientific study that concluded UFO are a real phenomena. Instead of continuing bashing me, why not explain why the French scientists are mistaken? Or are you now trolling the blog?
Because your “evidence” is still written in crayon.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:57 pm
I agree with everything you have said Todd.
Just to reinterate. I did not say UFOs are of ET origin. In fact I stated that I am still sceptical. I too need the proof before I will believe it is of ET origin.
I do think the phenomena is REAl though! This blog requests proof yet it is unlikely, actually impossible that anyone will ever be able to provide this in this forum to the satisfaction of the sceptics. I mean how can anyone prove it in words on a blog? photos/video none of this is enough. we all want to see/touch and study it physically before it will truely constitute proof.
I go with what Sam said near the begging of this blog and that be the end of my contribution to this subject.
Ref – Sam Says: July 31st, 2008 at 12:47 am
Cheers all have a good weekend.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:04 pm
@shaun
We are not bashing you, we are simply questioning your facts (when you give them.)
“Please explain why this study by the French is not proof that the UFO phenomena is real?
Link:http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1626.htm”
I checked this link. While it does sound interesting, it fails the basic requirements that Phil and everyone else here have asked for:
1. It is lacking any physical evidence
2. It is entirely based on witness observations
3. It clearly says that 60% of the witnesses observed something outside of their knowledge, but it does not say what the other 40% say they saw. If the other 40% say it was a plane or a balloon or anything man-made, then 60% of the witnesses are wrong!
4. The link to the “original source” at the top of the page goes to “The page cannot be found” error 404, so there is no way to verify the authenticity of the source.
5. It is not up to us to prove it wrong. It is up to you to prove it right!
Let’s try to help you think better. Say a woman walks up to you holding an apple, and she tells you it is a banana. Do you believe her? What if she tells you she has a Masters Degree in Agriculture, and she promises that this is a banana. Then she tells you that she asked 10 other people, and they all agreed that it was a banana. Do you believe her now?
Now let’s say you’ve never seen a banana. Do you believe her now? How could you possibly know for sure it is, or is not, a banana if you’ve never seen one? She is an expert in agriculture, and she has eye witness testimony backing her up. How can you be sure?
You ask questions. Questions like, what color is it? What is its shape? Where did she get it? What area of the country or the world did it come from? Is it a plant? Did it come from a tree, or grow in the ground? What kind of tree was it? What did the tree look like? Does she have a book that says its a banana? Where did that book come from? Did she show her banana to 10 other people with Masters Degrees in Agriculture, and did they agree that it was a banana? Did she send her banana to a lab without telling them what she thought it was, and did they come to the same conclusion? Did anyone make a comparison of her banana with any other known bananas, and did they match? Does her banana actually match the characteristics of something different, like a grapefruit or an apple?
See now why you cannot take expert witness testimony as actual evidence? Just because someone says its true, even if they are experts in their field, it still does not necessarily mean it is.
If Phil Plait came to me and told me the apple in his hand was a banana, I’d say, “Phil, I think you’re a great guy, and you’re website rocks. But dude, I’m sorry, that’s not a banana.”
August 1st, 2008 at 3:08 pm
@Shaun:
I would love to actually SEE this evidence of yours, but as Yojimbo and Jose have suggested, you’re not really providing it, you’re only providing the conclusions of unknown others.
Please refer upthread to Mr. Horn’s constant quoting of “expert” Hollywood special effects artists. I followed the link Mr. Horn provided and looked at the same footage as these “experts” and came up with a vastly different conclusion, namely, that the flying saucers the videos purportedly showed were in fact rather crudely put together models obviously suspended (swaying back and forth) from a wire. I did the same thing myself back when I was a kid making super 8 monster movies.
I suspect, though obviously without the data I can’t state outright, that I would have a similar conclusion if I could see your “evidence.” Show it to me for real, and I’d be glad to analyze it.
One other note regarding this particular report of yours. I can’t help but notice that Dr. Poher is the same guy who claims to have built a “UFO engine.” A quote from the good le docteur:
“It all comes down to standard physics. An electromagnetic field can create a low pressure area under an aerodyne, or flying saucer. To this can be related the peculiar property of plasma. Plasma’s magnetic field is frozen inside while it expands at unimaginable speeds, producing an electrical current. Using plasma, a belt of ‘free air’ can be created. The molecules of air in front of this belt are pushed aside without piling on top of each other, as they do when a normal aerofoil passes through the atmosphere fast enough to break the sound barrier.”
Uh-yup!!
August 1st, 2008 at 3:50 pm
@Shaun
“I do think the phenomena is REAl though! This blog requests proof yet it is unlikely, actually impossible that anyone will ever be able to provide this in this forum to the satisfaction of the sceptics. I mean how can anyone prove it in words on a blog? photos/video none of this is enough. we all want to see/touch and study it physically before it will truely constitute proof.”
I don’t recall anyone claiming the phenomena are not real. What is in question is whether an extraordinary explanation for them is required – that is the claim that needs the extraordinary evidence. And that extraordinary evidence doesn’t have to be all that spectacular. Unambiguous pictures or video would be really helpful – something that isn’t blurred to the point of uselessness or that looks faked, some physical artifact that isn’t lost or heresay.
Having a ship land on the White House lawn during a press conference would be really useful, but I’d be satisfied with a lot less – just give me something where you don’t have to say “well, you had to be there…”
August 1st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
potterbro :
I never said I thought it was aliens, certainly not at the time. I assumed it was something the military was doing — except that it’s really hard to imagine how we could possibly be making something so huge without people commenting on the size of the assembly plant, or the thousands of people who would have to be working in it, not to mention a monster sized power source.
Funny thing though, despite the fact that I didn’t go public with my experiences, many other people have reported seeing the same things all over the planet. Isn’t that too much of a coincidence, even for science? Simplest explanation has to be the right one, right?
August 1st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
@ Shaun –
I appreciate your willingness to have this discussion… I know we can be sharp, but remember… we’ve heard this all before. I think Todd W. has tried to address you in a conversational tone… and I would like to think I’ve done the same… if I’ve come across too harsh, I’m sorry…
There is only one final thing from your last post I’d like to address… and that is the following statement you make:
This is abjectly false. Earlier in this thread, our good friend Michael Horn was trying to convince us of the encounters of Billy Meier. One of the “proofs” for Meier’s experiences was a sample of metal alloy that was supposedly of alien origin. I, and I’m guessing nearly everyone else here, would trip over themselves trying to get their hands on such evidence. It’s exactly the sort of thing that would give us reason to believe the UFO claims. It’s tangible, it’s testible, it can be confirmed inependantly, and can be displayed for all to see.
Alas, like every other piece of evidence, it mysteriously disappeared, and thus our quest for real evidence must continue. So I must object to your position that we just will never be convinced. We certainly can be with the right evidence. And once again, nothing would geek me out more.
August 1st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
@ robin
You’re almost there… now just follow that logic, understanding that ET / Alien visitation is not the simplest explanation… not by a long shot.
August 1st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Shaun posted: I have four of you bashing me.
Why do you characterize a request for evidence as “bashing”?
August 1st, 2008 at 5:14 pm
@ Robin
“In 1976, in Tucson, AZ, at about 10:00 pm, a triangular object the size of parking lot slowly floated over my head without making a sound. That same year, I watched what I thought was a shooting star fly very fast across the night sky, stop, and then move at a right angle into a vastly larger “star.”
Explain what I saw to me. Please.”
You saw a hot air balloon coming down for a landing, or perhaps a weather balloon partially deflated such that it was no longer a typical shape.
Then you saw a meteor (not an actual star) streak across the sky at an odd angle from your position, and then at the point at which it finally broke apart, it slowed down and suddenly dropped, appearing from the ground to go at a completely 90° angle, then burning out right about the vicinity of an actual star or bright planet.
That’s my inexpert analysis of your observation, and is most likely the case, unless you have any further evidence of either event. Please, feel free to add more info.
Remember that when we are standing on the ground, it is very difficult to perceive things in the air moving in 3 dimensions. Even though the cars and buildings and trees nearby are obviously not 2-dimensional, anything up in the sky more than a couple hundred feet becomes extremely difficult to measure without a frame of reference. Anyone with any experience sky watching can agree that our eyes are easily fooled.
August 1st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
“Shaun posted: I have four of you bashing me.
Why do you characterize a request for evidence as “bashing”?”
[kuhnigget blushes and tries to hide his snark-o-tron.]
Tho, in my own snarky defense, this is yet more common behavior, is it not? The UFOlogist presents his “proof,” said proof doesn’t go over, UFOlogist ignores contrary arguments, becomes a martyr and adopts “I tried but you wouldn’t listen” line, goes away claiming moral high ground in his own head.
August 1st, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I’ve reached my own conclusion that about 4 or 5 of you are just monitoring this blog to debunk everything that is offered to you.
As I stated, no amount of evidence will be sufficient. Due to the extraordinary nature of the topic. I’m sure that if ET landed on your lawn and shook your hand you would suspect you had been drugged or there would be some other rational explanation.
Obviously no amount of observation by witnesses, credible or not is going to convince you otherwise.
I mean the premise of an expanding universe theory hinges on the observation of galaxies that have a red shift glow to them… This somehow draws the conclusion that the universe is expanding theory.
I mean come on. We accept observations and derive theories. We see pictures and video of these things and theorise they are ET. What is wrong with this theory until proven otherwise? We for the most part go along with the theories of the big bang and an expanding universe on less observational evidence…
If UFOs are of ET origin could the government keep it secret? I think they could if it was classified top secret and only a few people knew.
Didn’t the government keep the stealth fighters secret for 20 years before it crashed and the secret was out? I’m sure a lot more people where prive to those secrets that then there are to UFO secrets. I mean we are speaking about the single most earth shattering conclusions here, that UFOs could be of ET origin.
What happened to all the physical debris that was collected at Roswell?
What happened that night in LA when the military was attempting to shoot down UFOs?
What happened with the Phoenix lights event? was that not observed by thousands? Where are the pictures and video? surely someone thought to take a few snapshots?
What happened to some of Tesla experiments? The ones that would have negated the need for Oil? like the wireless power.
What happened to John Hutchinson equipment? seized by the government right?
What of the ancient Sumerians ramblings about the Annunaki. The stories of the nephelim in the bible, the creators of the megaliths etc. Could this be the proof you seek? Is all this just conspiracy theories or myth and hoaxes?
The evidence you seek is not accessible to us citizens. Should we outright believe people who say they have top secret clearance and confirm it real? NO, we do need extraordinary proof, that we all can concede.
I too want the physical evidence and would also wonder if my mind is playing tricks on me or I had been drugged if I actually witnessed something of this nature.
I merely want to demonstrate that if the powers that be don’t want us to know, then we wont ever know because the truth is distorted so much that nobody can ever discern the truth.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
@ Shaun
OK… I give up… there are so many factual things wrong with that last post (not the least of which is your “expanding universe theory” and comparing those observations to jumps of “must be ET” logic…. cripes, have you listened to nothing we’ve said? You can’t make that comparison and we’ve detailed why pretty clearly.
So many long debunked urban legends and conspiracy theories lumped into one post it’s really hard to continue to take you seriously… and more continued “the gubment is hiding the real evidence, but I have no evidence of that” garbage… *sigh*… t’s clear you’re not interested in actually regarding our responses with any acutal critical thought… I’m starting to think you might me a Poe… and I’ve pretty much lost interest…
August 1st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
No amount of evidence would be sufficient.
No…what has been presented as evidence of alien visitation is simply not convincing.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Final steps in UFOlogist methodology:
Return, start all over again.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Quoted from:
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp
DOES THE UNIVERSE REALLY EXPAND?
One might be inclined to think, given the popularity of the big bang theory today, that we must by now have solid evidence that the universe is indeed expanding. But in truth, that most fundamental premise to the big bang cosmology remains an assumption. Attempts to show its truth observationally have frustrated astronomers for decades. Moles recently summarized the four classical tests for expansion.5 These involve the relationships between the redshift of galaxies on the one hand, and apparent magnitude, surface brightness, number counts, or angular size of galaxies on the other hand. The redshift of galaxy light is assumed to be caused by the velocity of the galaxy away from us. We are here examining tests of the correctness of that assumption. In the next section we will mention some alternative interpretations of redshift for galaxies. To be clear on this point, it is well established that the redshift of ordinary galaxies (although not radio galaxies, Seyfert galaxies, “active galactic nuclei”, or quasars) is closely correlated with the distance of those galaxies. But is not well established that the redshift is caused by an increase in that distance.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:33 pm
sorry to go off topic…
August 1st, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Shaun. Dude. You are obviously a dedicated and not unintelligent individual. So, please…use the amazing resources of the internet to explore some real science. Quoting articles from Metaresearch, Inc., (claim to fame: the Face on Mars™ really isn’t an eroded mesa, despite all those fantastically clear photographs that show it to be exactly that) is not the way to win friends and influence people in these parts, off-topic or not.
August 1st, 2008 at 8:31 pm
@ Shaun –
I’m going to have to leave it up to you to figure out the reasons why, but for your consideration:
Badastronomy.com = Science based website.
Metaresearch.com = pseudo-science based website.
That’s not to say that this site and its ilk shouldn’t be explored, reviewed and considered, but they are more interested in sensationalism than science… Just keep that in mind when using them as a source…
August 1st, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Oh… and I meant to address the actual question… as I pointed out earlier, no-one here has once stated that we have the final, definitive answer on the nature of the universe and its ultimate fate… so what exactly is your point with that post?
August 1st, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Shaun,
The intention here is not to bash you. I think you’re overreacting to our responses. You kept insisting that you’re skeptical about actual alien visitations but you also appear to be quite invested intellectually and emotionally to possibility that these alien-ufo reports might be for real. There has been this conflict in all your posts.
All skeptics on this blog would love to hear of a positive result from seti or a advances in detecting earth like planets around other stars and to detect tell-tale signs of intelligent life. However if an actual visitation happened and an alien was standing in front of me, I’d probably piss my pants and faint.
August 1st, 2008 at 9:04 pm
[...] that’s kinda what I said. I have no problem with people investigating UFOs — honestly! — as long as it’s [...]
August 1st, 2008 at 9:22 pm
The blog requests proof.
Brilliant.
Perhaps someone with post ‘the link’ with the answer soon, or turn in a piece of hardware.
Its already been pegged as crack pot science, as someone stated above, so any proof is really a waste of time.
Can any of you bloggers explain apparitions, which are incredibly close to the UFO/ET phenomena.
Seeing ‘things/events’ that no one else is seeing. And ‘no proof’ once again, except eyewitness reports.
No one so far has even addressed that little idea.
People really are seeing things, and experiencing events that are truly extraordinary.
Sagan said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; I say that extraordinary events require extraordinary people to find out why these types of things exist.
Fortunately, the knowledge is at hand.
Unfortunately, its acceptance is not.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:12 pm
“so any proof is really a waste of time.”
Yeah. That pretty much sums it all up, doesn’t it? Though probably not in the way you intended.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:05 pm
@Shaun
You keep flip-flopping and contradicting yourself, and you are ignoring what everyone here is saying. Its not only 4 or 5 of us that want real evidence, its more like 400 or 500 on this blog alone. As to your ramblings:
What happened to all the physical debris that was collected at Roswell?
Its in a box labeled “Weather Balloon Debris”
What happened that night in LA when the military was attempting to shoot down UFOs?
You mean in 1942, when we were at war? They were aiming at enemy fighters.
What happened with the Phoenix lights event? was that not observed by thousands? Where are the pictures and video? surely someone thought to take a few snapshots?
There were, and they did. They were flares dropped from military aircraft.
What happened to some of Tesla experiments? The ones that would have negated the need for Oil? like the wireless power.
Try doing a google search on Nikola Tesla, and find out for yourself.
What happened to John Hutchinson equipment? seized by the government right?
Proven fake.
What of the ancient Sumerians ramblings about the Annunaki. The stories of the nephelim in the bible, the creators of the megaliths etc. Could this be the proof you seek? Is all this just conspiracy theories or myth and hoaxes?
Oh boy, I can’t even begin to point out all the things wrong with those statements.
Shaun, did you even bother to read what everyone has been telling you?
@ Rizz
Ok, ghosts? Really? After you have read all of the previous posts from the top of this page, one single sentence should stand out in your head: “Where is the evidence?” Do we really have to start all over?
Let’s say a woman walks up to you with an apple in her hand, and she says its a banana…
August 1st, 2008 at 11:20 pm
When I was a girl (around 12) my best friend and I wandered onto a small dirt road in an isolated, wooded area of our suburban neighborhood. It was a beautiful summer day with a bright blue sky and no clouds. As we got to the end of the road, we noticed something hovering right over a large tree beside us. It was a seamless round silver metallic disc. It silently hovered, motionless, about 50 feet above our heads.
At first we couldn’t understand what we were seeing, and just stared at it.
Then, without saying a word, fear took hold, and we both ran nonstop, to our respective homes. We never spoke a word of the incident until about 25 years later when I looked her up and contacted her. She recounted the same memory without any prompting or suggestions from me.
Since that amazing sighting, I have seen many other UFO’s, sometimes alone, other times in large groups. Sometimes viewed as bizarre moving lights far up in the sky, other times as large low flying objects that vanished before our eyes.
I’ve accepted long ago that something is flying in our skies that our military cannot control. There have been countless commercial and military pilots around the world that have reported sightings and even near misses of unidentified objects flying in their airspace. In many cases, pilots have been forced to make sudden maneuvers in an effort to get out of the way of these objects.
For the safety of pilots and their passengers, it is high time we have professional, serious investigations into these reports to determine what the protocol for pilots should be in dealing with this phenomenon!
August 1st, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Did the US goverment not spread disinformation in 1947 by announcing that a weather balloon had crashed, which they later retracted their story and then announced it was a top secret project Mogul balloon. So they do feed the public false information if they feel it’s in the interests of National security. If they behave that way towards the Soviet threat how would a paranoid US goverment then act if an otherworldly threat appeared back in those days. If that were to happen today then their response probably wouldn’t be as extreme. But I don’t think it’s inappropriate for UFO investigator to say that dis-information is part of the goverments game, where it is quite obvious they are good at doing that.
Now there’s a recent case made public on ‘Britain’s Closest Encounter’s’ on Channel 5 in the UK, where a radar operator described how 6 separate radar receivers detected 35 objects travelling faster than the majority of our planes of the time. This was around the 1950s as far as I remember, and was mentioned in between the hour long programme on the Alderney lights. He said the whole operation room was shocked at what was happening, and there was no way that we had that many planes that could fly that fast in that location. In fact they sent jets to try and intercept the radar blips, and the pilots saw them on radar, although didn’t make any visual contact, and the objects moved away too fast for them to keep up. Now these radar signals were either not recorded, or most likely just kept locked up by the government. I know that this is only an eyewitness account, and not real evidence, but if true then the UK goverment is holding back on what they know from the public.
Now I know there’s no real proof that any of that happened but ask yourself, what would the goverment of that time do in such an event – keep quiet about it is your answer. If that such evidence exists I would be interested in reading an experts opinion on it. Would 6 radar recievers all having the same 35 radar traces at exact same time, direction and matching velocity, be enough with matching eyewitness accounts, to account for the necessary physical evidence and so proof of an unknown phenomena?
So Phil, what’s your interpretation of the Alderney/Guernsey lights that the pilots and crew of 2 planes claim to have witnessed? We know of your almost disregarding qualities towards these eyewitness acounts, but their accounts were more broad and from passenger eyewitness testimony as well, which was the first time their accounts were made public on video at the same time, as far as I know. I would be interested in the sceptics viewpoint of what they think happened. An experienced pilot says he doesn’t know what he saw, how can you say more accurately what it was when you didn’t see it yourself? Thus according to David Clarke, we could have a new phenomena, and speculates this could be weather related. While now you may agree this is unexplained, why cannot we say that this can be something new to science? Why do you fear the possibility of this ever happening, surely new stuff to science can just happen at any moment, what is so wrong with saying it could be? And is there a real need to try and discredit anyone who says that this is possible, because we all would love some actual physical evidence to come forth, but I ask you, what possible means does any ordinary person have available to collect this kind of evidence? Shall we all carry around RPG weapons to blow up a UFO when we see one!
If we are to conclude that Mitchell is not right just because he’s an astranaut, we cannot also conclude that all of his ideas are crazy, just because some of his other ideas sound crazy. Or are you going to fight bad science with more bad science?
Although I still do find your blogs interesting, and your feedback from previous blog’s
comments are amusing (notably the tornado from a followup blog). This can only lend further reason for more people who have witnessed ufos to come forward on here, and will just annoy you even more because of their lack of evidence. You are somehow making that situation worse, and if you keep on complaining on future blogs I will remind you again why. Although the tornado comment was probably from someone who was joking, and using that against everyone who claims to have seen a ufo is silly, and doesn’t help your case at all in the long term, as that is obviously not a logical scientific approach. Why don’t you also post blogs about sceptics commenting, who are pretending to know what some people have witnessed without asking for eyewitness accounts first? Is that also not ridiculous too, or do you only prefer biased ridicule? Oh yeah I forgot why bother since you would obviously just call this inaccurate just like all other eyewitness accounts. Until we have physical evidence, or sceptics start to take eyewitness acounts as more worthy,we will forever have a stalemate situation, regardless of whether alien visitation is or isn’t happening.
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:05 am
Greg in Austin:
Thanks Greg, but I know what I saw. It was over my head, moving slowly and silently and was so immense that it took a full 20 minutes to go by — so I had time to study it quite well. I remember thinking it was impossible, yet there it was. It had a triangular shape, was absolutely silent and did not displace the air. (I’ve seen balloons before, so no go on that one.)
As for the star, your description would make sense if what I saw was falling toward the earth, but it streaked across the sky with no tail, stopped moving for several seconds, and then moved at a 45 degree angle back and up to a brighter, larger “star.” I waited for it to pass in front of this brighter “star” at the same rate of speed, but it didn’t. Did it disappear inside of it? I don’t know. I just know it disappeared and I sat and stared for a long time wondering WTF.
I’m not sitting hear wearing a tinfoil hat and I’m not out in the desert every night holding up a sign welcoming ET. I guess I’m just finally old enough not to care anymore what other people think. It does bother me when scientist make fun of the subject, and the people who are honestly trying to share their experiences (and yes, I know there are a lot of people on the fringe with whom I share as much in common as I do with narrow minded skeptics). What I am trying to say (though I’m beginning to wonder why I bother) is that eyewitness testimony is valid enough in a court of law to put someone in jail for life. Why is it that when it comes to this subject, not only does it hold no weight, but anyone who claims to have had an experience is automatically considered to be missing some important bricks, and is therefore, in kindness, talked down to as if they are a simpleton and told that something the size of a parking lot is a balloon.
There are many as yet unexplainable things in the world that actually have simple explanations once scientifically analyzed. But there are also some that cannot be explained. I believe that I have seen two of them. Is it really so hard for you to open your mind to the possibility that I am relating something extraordinary? Not to convince you, but to maybe, just maybe, put a tiny crack in your certainty?
You don’t have to cop to it here, no one has to know. It can be our little secret. But it might come in handy to be forewarned if you should ever happen to look up and see something you can’t explain. Just don’t tell anyone. They’ll be pretty sure they know better than you do what it is that you saw. Mums the word.
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:07 am
RAF Says:
August 1st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
No amount of evidence would be sufficient.
No…what has been presented as evidence of alien visitation is simply not convincing.
@RAF How do you know if you are not looking at the evidences we present to you? Omniscience?
August 2nd, 2008 at 1:57 am
Wow — lots of condescending rhetoric and back-slapping among the anti-ufo crowd, but no responses to the substance of the more credible claims and, yes, the credible EVIDENCE. Oh, yes, you all are the “smart” and “rational” and “logical” people… we know how great and inherently superior your logic is to ours (we, the silly and simple-minded people who are still looking for answers to the many baffling incidents of unexplained aerial encounters).
I love how, toward the end of his post, Mr Bad Science (that title has a nicely ironic ring to it) writes: “I certainly don’t have the time to sift through every single case, of course, and I’m pretty busy in general.” Really — too busy to do research for the article you have the nerve to write on this subject? Gee, forgive me for expecting that you might want to try spending some time looking at the evidence before you disparage it. I guess I’m just a kook, but that sounds like bad science to me.
Mr Bad Science then goes on to write, “But I’m always interested in what some might consider to be more solidly based cases.” Really? How interested, exactly? interested enough to do ANY research on your own initiative into ANY of these cases? or only interested enough to ask the random public to summarize the evidence for you? Do you know ANYTHING AT ALL of value on this subject that you write about with such bravado? Have you bothered to watch the leading documentary on the subject, “Out of the Blue”? Or the Disclosure Project testimonials at he National Press Club in 2001? Have you examined what’s available at ufoevidence.org? Have you done ANYTHING to educate yourself on the EVIDENCE that you’re so quick to dismiss as being non-existent? Have ANY OF YOU nay-sayers out there?
Finally, Mr Bad Science writes, “So given all this I’ve said, please feel free to leave your evidence for the best cases in the comments section below. Let’s take a look.” How generous of you! Sorry, if you want to have anything remotely resembling credibility on the subject, you have to do your own homework, not just read the cliffs notes version that one of your readers leaves for you. But if you’re looking for a suggestion as to a serious case to look into “for starters,” that’s seems like a fair request (should be unnecessary if you’ve ever even watched any decent ufo documentaries, but fine…) Try reading about the 1986 Japan Airlines (JAL flt 1628) incident over Alaska.
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:16 am
Kuhnigget, quoting the deliciously uninformed and equally un-self-aware Rizz, sums up the entire debate going on on this web site perfectly:
“’so any proof is really a waste of time.’
Yeah. That pretty much sums it all up, doesn’t it? Though probably not in the way you intended.”
Thank you, Kuhnigget — you nailed it! It doesn’t matter what evidence is put forth; the people who insist on mocking this subject (who are invariably people who HAVE NOT looked at the evidence) have made up their minds. Period. They won’t believe it until the US government or CNN tells them to believe it. Anything less is, as Rizz declared with authority, “crack pot science.”
For those of you demanding “the proof,” do your credibility a favor and spend a few hours looking at some of the proof that’s publicly available. Until you do, you really should shut up — or at least stop leaving absurdly uninformed comments on a blog called “bad science.” The irony is just too rich!
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:43 am
The following is a comment I copied from an article in today’s New York Times in response to Nick Pope’s article, “Unidentified Flying Threats.” I don’t know the protocol of including it here. I hope the commenter will forgive me if I’ve overstepped. (Quotations indicate the comment.)
“As an investigative journalist and close associate of Nick Pope’s, I am pleased to see his op-ed published in today’s Times stressing the safety implications of incursions of unknown aircraft into protected airspace.
I represent a group of government officials, military personnel and aviation experts from eleven countries who have launched an initiative to bring about exactly what Pope recommends: a new official U.S. investigation into UFOs within the appropriate government agency. My group, the Coalition for Freedom of Information, includes Nick Pope as a key advisor, as well as former Governor Fife Symington of Arizona; John Podesta of the Center for American Progress, formerly President Clinton’s chief of staff, has publicly supported our efforts towards increasing government openness through use of the Freedom of Information Act.
Our formal Declaration to the U.S. Government requesting a new official body to investigate relevent UFO incidents has been signed by six Generals; John Callahan, former head of the Accidents, Evaluations and Investigations Division of the FAA; and Pope and Symington, and is posted on the home page of http://www.freedomofinfo.org. Like Mr. Pope, the signatories, both active and retired, have worked within the governments of European and South American countries which currently investigate UFO incidents and now recognize the need for international cooperation involving the United States.
These experts are united in their position that since their governments, militaries and pilots have documented the existence of a real, physical phenomenon operating in our skies which so far defies conventional explanation, the UFO problem is worthy of investigation by the U.S. as well, especially given the aviation safety and national security issues involved.”
Leslie Kean, New York
— Leslie Kean, New York, NY
Recommended by 47 Readers
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:52 am
THE EVIDENCE
“The evidence that there are objects which have been seen in our atmosphere, and even on terra firma, that cannot be accounted for either as man-made objects or as any physical force or effect known to our scientists seems to me to be overwhelming. . . There have been thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of sightings and encounters, physical results and of the latter, by people all over the world whose evidence on any other subject would be accepted without question.”
Lord Hill-Norton, Admiral of the Fleet, former Chief of the Defence Staff, former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee. United Kingdom, 1988.
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 am
Sorry to bother you all, I’m outta here.
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 am
@Potterbro (ref 7/31, 10:15a post) and the rest of you of like mind –
Re Eye-witness testimony: You miss my point, and you clearly demonstrate that you have done no serious inquiry into this subject on your own. The kind of eye-witness accounts I’m talking about are of an entirely different variety – a point I tried to make by distinguishing between hypo examples of witness accounts. You’re dwelling entirely on the kind I dismissed when I wrote of those who see strange lights and then say “I swear it was a flying saucer.” I was exaggerating for effect, but I would include all kinds of ambiguous visual experiences with that. The witnesses I find most convincing are the ones who explain that they KNOW things from having had some top secret security clearance or because they happened to be present when some extraordinary event took place that was treated by the government as one might expect the govt to treat an alien encounter incident.
For example, check out the accounts of John Callahan, former head of FAA Accidents & Investigations Division (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJlnSGkljho), or Daniel Sheehan, former Chief Counsel of the Jesuit Order of the Catholic Church in the US (and former Asst Gen Counsel of the NY Times)(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY9ZRfa5tBs&feature=related). There are also military officers who apparently have had experiences that cannot be explained away — e.g., USAF Sgt Karl Wolfe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6QNzH4x1rY), USAF Security Ofcr Larry Warren (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ydRncq9wQA), USAF Lt Col Dwynne Arnessone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4DXn5rxPt4&feature=related), USAF Maj George Filer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrFC9pHCyVo&feature=related).
If you’re willing to accept that there’s not a BETTER explanation for these witness accounts than the one we’re debating on this blog, then that’s good enough for me; that’s really all I’m saying too. On the other hand, if you’re saying there IS a better explanation, then put your money where your mouth is and tell us what that better explanation is.
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:33 am
Robin — Thanks for that excellent and timely post!
I note that Rizz signed off without responding to your post, or, for that matter, mine, in which I seconded Kuhnigget for calling him out for admitting that no proof could ever persuade him to alter his view of this subject (truly an enlightened approach).
I have a feeling all we’ll hear from the uninformed nay-sayers in response to your post and my most recent post (in which I linked to several credible witness accounts) will be, in the words of Mr Bad Science…
“”
Bad science indeed!
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 am
Hmm… apparently if you put something inside pointy brackets, the whole thing fails to show up. (Sorry, didn’t realize.)
Let me try it again using different brackets:
“…in the words of Mr Bad Science…
‘{crickets}’”
August 2nd, 2008 at 8:54 am
Robin
“As for the star, your description would make sense if what I saw was falling toward the earth, but it streaked across the sky with no tail, stopped moving for several seconds, and then moved at a 45 degree angle back and up to a brighter, larger “star.” I waited for it to pass in front of this brighter “star” at the same rate of speed, but it didn’t. Did it disappear inside of it? I don’t know. I just know it disappeared and I sat and stared for a long time wondering WTF.”
This could still be a meteor. What do you mean by “Did it disappear inside of it?”
Was it a point of light? slightly elongated? You can’t tell how far a meteor has fallen vertically to earth as it streaks across the sky. How often do look up at the night sky? How familiar are you with it? This is something important to consider.
Here’s my experience, I once saw a meteor, and right after it expired I saw another meteor streak in another direction from near where the first one ended.
But since we weren’t there with we cannot tell you exactly what you saw. Only speculate based on what we know. Note that this does not translate into “no known explanation except an ET craft.”
As for the moving triangle you saw, did you see any other details? was it just dark?
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:15 am
Robin, do you remember what month (or even day of that month) you saw the streaking object?
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:20 am
You know what always interests me? And this goes back to Isabell’s post, and touches on the Billy Meier experience as well…
Why is it that people who claim to see UFO’s, so frequently see them “all the time”. I’ve talked about this before in earlier posts, but whether consciously or subconsciously, there seems to be a desperate need by many in the “UFOlogist” community to be special, and unique. Meier has “hundreds, maybe thousands” of pictures of aliens, yet not another single person in the area where he lives has ever actually seen them, let alone photograph them… doesn’t this give you pause? And it’s a common theme in the UFO crowd… a few dozen people with multiple encounters… almost everyone else with none… that stretches credulity.
Meeee spoke earlier in this thread about the mind’s capacity to see things and perceive things that aren’t there… Isabell, I suggest you read her post to start and then research it a little more on your own… simply accepting that what you saw or have seen is unexplainable because you can’t explain it just isn’t good enough.
For the rest of you… John, Shaun, RAF, Sam, Rizz (I suspect a little sock-puppetry may be going on here, but anyhow…), please read Phil’s initial post again… you continue to spout out more anecdotal stories… we’ve covered this, ladies and gentlemen, ad nauseum. As Phil stated, you can clamor all you want and pile up a 3 ft. pile of anecdotal claims and yell as loud as you want “this can’t be ignored”… but you’ll still be missing the point. They’re not ignored… and we have no doubt there are some real phenomena tied to many of them… but for the last time, that does not mean it’s OK to make the logical leap to assigning them to ET visitiation. You say it’s ET visitation… I say it’s fairies or pixies. And my evidence is just as strong as yours… so why aren’t there more “Pixologists” out there?
So again… to be able to rule out pixies or fairies as the cause of these weird sightings, I’m gonna need some actual evidence to test other than the stories of the weird sightings themselves. Why is this so hard to grasp?… I really don’t get it.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:31 am
@robin
If the governments feel that UFOs pose a credible threat to security, then I would see no problem with calling for them to investigate these cases. I’m curious, though, if the government does look into these cases, and find that there is nothing extra-terrestrial going on, will the UFO community accept that finding or just make claims of government cover-up?
On your second post about “the evidence”, I noticed that Lord Admiral Hill-Norton mentions “physical results”. I’m assuming he means that there is physical evidence that has been exmined? It would be great if that physical evidence were to be shared with multiple scientists of the appropriate specialties (both in and out of the UFO crowd) to examine it and see if they all come to the same conclusions.
Also, regarding the two sightings you had, asking us to evaluate what you say you saw isn’t exactly the most productive approach. The only account of it that we have is yours. What I mean is that we don’t know what details you may be leaving out or that you may not remember. We don’t know how accurate your account is or whether your memories have altered at all since the events. You may feel certain that what you recall is accurate, but as was mentioned in the last Ed Mitchell thread, memory is a very changeable thing. Because we are working with very limited information, we might offer conjectures, as Greg did, but in the end, we can’t prove anything, and no matter what we say, you will likely put more stock into what your interpretation of events was than any explanations offered here. In the end, the best answer to you asking what it was that you saw, is “I don’t know.”
@Sam
The pointy brackets are used in HTML tags, that’s why your text didn’t show up.
I’ll comment on your post lambasting Phil for requesting evidence/best cases to be posted in the comments, even though your tone was incredibly rude and uncalled for.
Frankly, there is a lot of garbage out there, when it comes to UFOs. Lots of cranks and fakes, many cases where the witnesses were just mistaken, and tons of cases where the details are far too lacking to come to any reasonable conclusion other than, based on the evidence, it’s still just “unknown”. So, asking for the best-case evidence to be posted here would help to narrow down the field, saving quite a lot of time. I don’t see this as an unreasonable request.
If you feel that there are specific cases or reports out there, which meet the rigors of scientific methodology, please post them here. Just do it politely and without the personal attacks.
Also, regarding Rizz, I think that if you re-read his post, you’ll find that he seemed more supportive of the UFO supporters and somewhat critical of the skeptics.
Finally, a quick note regarding eyewitness testimony and its use in the courts. Eyewitness testimony, while valid evidence in the court system, is usually not enough to convict someone. There must also be some form of physical evidence. Why? Again, because people, their perceptions, their memories, are faulty. Doesn’t matter who. Doesn’t matter what their qualifications, they are still prone to mistakes, bias and/or lying. And even if the courts did rely solely on eyewitness testimony, science does not. When someone discovers some new chemical property or a new mechanism used by a certain disease, their word is not enough for it to be accepted. They must show the data. They must share exactly how they arrived at that data and how they analyzed it. Other scientists must try to replicate the results. Only after lots of scientists have looked at it and overwhelmingly come to the same conclusions is it actually accepted as true. And even then, as more information comes along, that “truth” may be altered or done away with.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 am
Sorry, RAF… incorrectly lumped you in up there with the others… totally unintended… my apologies…
August 2nd, 2008 at 10:01 am
@Sam
The video links you provided show people who sound quite certain about what they saw. However, they are still just their stories and don’t provide us with any evidence that we can evaluate. Again, at best, the events that they describe at best are “We don’t know what it was” scenarios. There is certainly nothing in those videos that definitively says that UFOs are alien. It may convince you that aliens are visiting Earth, but those videos, by themselves, amount to nothing, as far as proving such a case.
August 2nd, 2008 at 11:09 am
@Robin
“Thanks Greg, but I know what I saw. ”
Except, you cannot explain what you saw. I’m not poking fun or trying to be a jerk here, but you are simply not giving us any information other than, “I saw something.” I believe that you saw something. Now I’m trying to help you figure out WHAT you saw.
Where were you? Were you standing, walking, driving a car? What time of day or night was this? Which direction did the object come from? Which direction did it head? Which way was the wind blowing? You say it was big, but what was your frame of reference? Were there buildings or trees between you an this object that you could use to roughly estimate its size? How long did you observe it? Did you try to follow it? Did anyone else see it? Did THEY know, or think they knew, exactly what it was? Could it have been a blimp? (The Goodyear blimp is amazingly large when actually seen on the ground). Could it have been a cloud? Did anyone photograph it? Did you call any of the local airports, private air strips, police, fire or even your neighbors to ask them if they saw anything or know what it was? Was this near a military base? If so, did you call the base and ask them if they saw anything? Is there anybody else who saw the same thing that we could also ask these very same questions? Had you been drinking or enjoying any recreational drugs (like say, a hallucinogen?)
Let me try to put this nicely… If you do not know what it was, then it could be anything. And the most likely explanation, based on thousands of years of observation, is always terrestrial in nature. There is absolutely no evidence to assume that it was an alien space craft, because 99% of these cases have non-alien explanations, and the 1% that are “unknown” could be anything. They just as likely could be a bird or a plane as they could be Marvin the Martian or ET.
I am among those here who would love to see an alien ship, an alien life form, or even just some piece of alien technology. But I spend a lot of time observing the sky, during the day and at night, and I’ve seen lots of neat things. But none of them could even remotely be extraterrestrial.
Here’s my anecdotal story: 3 friends and I were driving at night in our home town. It was dark, probably around 10pm, and we were in a residential neighborhood. Suddenly there was this white, ghost-like object floating across the road in front of us. The guy driving immediately stopped the car, and we watched this 3-foot “thing” float slowly across the road about 5 feet off the ground. We rolled the windows down, and heard no sound. There were no trees, and the headlights could pass thru this object, but it was clearly there. It had no particular shape, just a weird oblong mass of semi-transparent white stuff. We were dumbfounded. As we sat there for a moment, the driver said he didn’t want to go on in that direction, so we turned around and took a different street. One block away, in this neighborhood, we saw a large decorative water fountain at the entrance to the neighborhood. Someone had apparently put lots of bubble bath or laundry detergent into the fountain, because the whole thing was overflowing with a gigantic mass of bubbles! Large chunks of bubbles were floating around in the air, wisping on the calm summer night’s breeze. If we had not turned around, we to this day would have sworn we saw a ghost, because until we saw the fountain, we would not have known what it was.
August 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 pm
@Sylvian
“If Intelligence Aliens was being know publicly. The entire population of the world would united as a new idendity (Human) being Americans, Irakians, British, Canadians will be gone and/or become meaningless. Most Government are self centered, willing only to growth by itself. Do you imagine that if we get a DEMOCRATIC WORLD government the Chinese and India will have the majority. This is the worst nightmare of Government like the U.S. who want to RULE the world and not just being part of it.”
You have a very optimistic view of humanity.
I suspect half of the populace would be “oh cool!” and talk about it for a week, then it would be replaced in the news by the latest Big Brother, Idol or celebrity gossip story.
Of the rest, the religous fundamentalists of all flavours would compete to be the first to alternately send missionaries to convert the new heathens or declare a crusade/jihad against them.
Corporations would compete like crazy to be the ones to bring new high tech to market.
Nations would desperately try to be the only ones with alien military tech, or at least to be the ones with the aliens as allies. Except for the idits who would shoot at them in “a show of strength”.
In short, I sincerely doubt that humanity would suddenly unite in universal brotherhood. Even in the worst disasters we have plenty of people robbing each other, looting, raping and murdering, not just selfless examples of heroism, bravery and brotherhood. Why would the simple knowledge of aliens be any different.
For a historical analogy, there have been several times in history when a more powerful, more technologically advanced different culture encountered smaller, more primitive tribes. The situation in South America when Cortez arrived would be an example. Rarely has universal brotherhood broken out among those tribes – usually they were played off against one another by the higher tech, more powerful new arrival.
Do you push openly for a world government united behind Washington? Or Moscow? Or Beijing? Or Delhi? Or Geneva? Any option will be opposed by most of humanity. Probably unfortunately.
August 2nd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Just for clarification, regarding ‘proof being a waste of time’, I was refering to Robins post July 31 @10:18 PM in a sarcastic way, which I apologize for. Hence the comment on crackpot science.
I’m right there with you Robin.
You also stated “I am a skeptic, but how do I deny my own eyes? I’ve seen something extraordinary that defies explanation, twice, so how do I account for it?”
That is the real question at hand, I believe.
Not so much having to ‘prove’ what you saw, but rather how do you begin to ‘explain’ what you saw.
The apparitions I was speaking of were the ones taking place in Medjugorje, where many hundreds of eyewitnesses experienced, at the same time, an extraordinary event.
I’ve been around long enough to know that you cannot convince anyone of anything. That has to be left to ones personal beliefs, and personal experiences.
Having said that, I do believe that this will be my last post.
In closing I would encourage you all to listen again to what Dr Mitchell actually said – http://ufonotebook.vox.com/library/post/edgar-mitchell-we-are-not-alone.html, and perhaps become familiar with his work.
He really is a brilliant man, and more qualified to speak about this topic than anyone else I know.
Again, sorry for the sarcasm in my earlier post, it was late.
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
One question struck me as a source of much misunderstanting – “On the other hand, if you’re saying there IS a better explanation, then put your money where your mouth is and tell us what that better explanation is.”
The fellows doubting visits by ET don’t have to provide a better explanation. The believers in ET have to provide proof that is experimentally testable. If that involves breaking into area 51 or bribe one of the guards to bring out a piece of the spacecraft or the body of an alien, so be it.
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Celtic Evolution @9:43….
No worries.
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Sylvain Pimpare says: How do you know if you are not looking at the evidences we present to you?
I simply do not find what has been presented to be convincing. Why do you assume that I haven’t looked at the “evidences”?
August 2nd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
C’mon RAF, don’t you know when you’re presented with “evidences” you’re immediately supposed to accept it (them?) at face value, forget about critical analysis, forget about the context of who is presenting it and where they got it from, ignore the scientific method and never ever try to test said evidences, and…most important of all…when presented with evidences you are supposed to believe.
August 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Celtic_Evolution:
I had a pretty up close UFO sighting at a young age which brought about the awareness to pay attention to the sky throughout my life. I don’t see UFOs all the time as you suggest. But I have seen some very unusual things over the past 40 years. It’s been about 15 years since the last significant sighting. I am not feeling the need for attention, I don’t think I am special, I am not writing a book, or screenplay, or even hosting a blog. I do share Robin’s sentiment in that – I don’t care what anyone thinks. I know what I saw (or I should say), I know what I didn’t see. In addition, I was not alone. There were many documented UFO sightings in the Hudson Valley during the early 70′s, the time to which I reference the childhood sighting.
I have to ask all of you out there that say you are skeptical but would love to see “ET”…
How much time do you actually spend outside watching the sky? Chances are, you probably aren’t going to see a UFO staring at your computer screen. Like ants, most of us never look up.
And thanks to Robin for the excellent reference from Leslie Kean.
I was at that press conference in DC. These were extremely credible international witnesses that gave riveting accounts. The Iranian General spoke of an actual dog fight he had with a UFO. He described firing a missile at it, and the missile was just “absorbed” into it, having no effect at all. Weather balloon? Comet? Tornado? I know, hallucination right? I don’t think so.
August 3rd, 2008 at 1:14 am
The phenomenon is well documented. Its existence is undeniable: sane -and credible- people see stuff in the sky that they cannot understand.
What is also undeniable is that our species’ science has no explanation for such a phenomenon, not even the beginning of one.
This does not mean that the phenomenon is not happening: the absence of ‘evidence’ is not evidence of absence, neh?
As a matter of fact, some people are prepared to stick their neck out and testify under oath about what they personally witnessed. Some, for example, will tell stories which suggest that the phenomenon seems to be capable of rendering weapon systems inoperative, or producing ‘glitches’ in missile launch system operation, or other somewhat puzzling ‘anomalies’ which, of course, not any government would be willing and ready to publically admit.
While our political masters acknowledge the existence of the phenomenon, (as the French and the British authorites did by releasing their official records) they cannot acknowledge this very simple -and perhaps terrifying- truth: We are not smart enough to figure out WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE PHENOMENON, the capabilities of which, meanwhile, seem way beyond anything our species is capable of…imagining.
Our scientists have no answer(s). Our knowledge and understanding of the physical reality, whether macroscopic or subatomic, is minimal, incomplete, wrong (?), insufficient, unsatisfatory, handicaping etc… We have an enigma here that for all our intellectual prowesses we are unable to resolve.
It is THIS EVIDENCE that is being covered up, wittingly or unwittingly by all sorts of people, most of them exponents of the ‘extraterrestrial visitation hypothesis’, unfounded, unproven but, if one thinks about it, a lot more confortable, a lot more acceptable, a lot more REASSURING than…no explanation at all.
So is human nature that we prefer to keep silent -or lie- rather than admiting that we don’t know and -for some perhaps- that we are scared.
August 3rd, 2008 at 3:53 am
Meanwhile,
What do scientists say in public ? (orthodox responses)
What do scientists say in private ?
What have scientific review panels concluded ?
Summary: http://www.freedomofinfo.org/science/USymp021114.pdf ,
and some data:
Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports
The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York
September 29 – October 4, 1997
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/ufo_reports/sturrock/toc.html
August 3rd, 2008 at 4:52 am
Here is a story of a once lost man…after years of feeling so lonely in his confusing search for truth. He once believed that if he worked to the best of his ability and payed his taxes then nobody could touch him. He trusted the estate agent to sell him a house despite the impending credit crunch, of which neither parties were aware. He voted for a different government because they convinced him they had a better way. He trusted the doctor and the priest with himself and his family, and for the most part everything went alright.
The following night he was visited by three small beings who filled his mind with light and truth. He saw the corrupt and devious nature of mankind present at every level and in every circle. He found himself joyfully illuminated by what he now knew to be a new mission for him – to help others understand what the hell’s going on.
The next morning he began trying to explain through every channel he could find, even in online blogs which laid his faithful telling of the story open to ridicule and derision.
He still maintained his worldly life but had an extra burden on his shoulders, to try and help his poor brothers and sisters make sense of the confusing times in which they are living.
God has created the universe out of love, which mankind has repeatedly failed to notice. Even when he has noticed, it is very difficult for him to fall into line with the truth. The men of the lost and fallen world are waiting more helplessly than ever, wearing suits and making jokes to get themselves through the days. And yet, little do they know, our hero is running out of patience. The ones who have set their minds against believing him will reap what they sow, which is doubt and further confusion. The ones who are open to his words must take care and discern, but eventually they will see a glimmer of light. It may well be in the most unexpected of places…
August 3rd, 2008 at 9:02 am
Isabell says: “How much time do you actually spend outside watching the sky? Chances are, you probably aren’t going to see a UFO staring at your computer screen. Like ants, most of us never look up.”
Perhaps that is true for you, but to assume that folks posting to an ASTRONOMY blog would not be inclined to look at the sky is rather foolish don’t you think?
Personally, I look to the sky all the time…have ever since I was a kid.
August 3rd, 2008 at 9:03 am
Isabell,
Can you gives details on some of your UFO encounters? And when you say UFO you mean ET visitation?
August 3rd, 2008 at 2:48 pm
RAF:
Okay, point well taken. It’s not the first time I’ve been foolish and it won’t be the last.
For example, I’m actually going to take the bait and reply to ND below!
Most of the folks I know are too busy working and taking care of their families to spend much time searching the heavens. Including myself these days. Glad to hear that you do!
ND: No scoop marks, missing time or implants to report. Sorry.
But here are a few of the observations I’ve made…
Early summer 1983- I was with a group of about 15-20 people outside one night. (There were no drugs or alcohol involved.) From a distance we noticed two red lights approaching, maintaining the same distance from each other. At first we thought it was a plane, then as it got closer we thought it might be two separate planes flying in formation although there was no sound. Finally as the lights moved overhead what we saw was hard to comprehend. There were no clouds out that night, the sky was full of stars.
The red lights were at either end of a huge black object which was only visible because it blocked the stars above. It remained motionless and soundless above us for about 5 minutes. Then it began moving off and actually vanished a few yards away from where we stood.
Late Summer 1983- Same place as above. I went outside after putting my baby to sleep to watch the stars on the front porch. There were about 4 other friends with me there.
We watched some planes and satellites cross the sky. There was a particularly bright star in the center of the sky that I noticed right away. After about 15 minutes another bright light flew with remarkable speed from the horizon on my right and stopped in the center of the sky next to the bright star that we had noticed earlier on. The second light began to rotate around the original bright star. After about 3 rotations both lights sped off in opposite directions with incredible speed.
1993 or 94 – Was traveling home over a mountain with my son and a friend.
A huge fireball flew over the car. It came from the southwest and blazed by right above the tree line. It was very impressive and we all assumed it was a large meteor.
We arrived home about 10-15 minutes later. As we got out of the car, another fireball flew by overhead, this time coming from the northeast followed closely by 3 low flying military jets. I discussed this event at length with an astronomer a few years ago. He assured me that jets don’t follow meteors.
My mind is open… I have no agenda. If anyone reading this can come up with an explanation to any of these events, please enlighten me.
August 3rd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Greg in Austin, and those of like mind.
See my post re: “Evidence,” and the one before it. Do a little research. Not a lot. You don’t even have to go outside your house. Noodle on my comment that many, many people around the planet have described seeing EXACTLY what I saw. (Again, the Goodyear blimp is not shaped like a triangle). Read some of the reports.
I realize that you are at a disadvantage. It is easier to be open to the idea that something is happening once you’ve had a personal experience. But I didn’t want to believe that I had seen anything unusual until I caught a newspaper story years later describing what other people had witnessed; it’s size, it’s shape, the fact that it moved slowly and silently. Until that day, I was quite happy to assume that what I had seen was a prototype of the stealth bomber, because I DIDN’T WANT TO BELIEVE it could be anything other than something we made. But then I found out that the Stealth design wasn’t even accepted until October of 1981, with the first flight in 1989. (My event occurred in May of 1976.) With a length of 69 feet, you could have landed a fleet of Stealths on the thing I saw.
Whether you believe me or not, I’ve done my homework, Greg, because it was important to me to make sense of the experience. And given that research, I can only conclude that something is happening. What other conclusion can there be for why so many people, from all walks of life, many different countries, have come forward to say that they saw exactly what I saw, despite the fact that I never told anyone what I saw?
Now, if you would do just a little open-minded research on the topic, you might start to wonder about the sheer numbers of reports by airline pilots and military personnel, and ordinary citizens around the world — courageously given, in my opinion, despite the possibility of ridicule so evidenced on this blog.
Or you can just continue to enjoy the echo in your bell jar. (It is safer in there, I know, at least for the time being.)
Really, it’s all the same to me.
(ND: I’ve seen meteors. This did not have a tail. Up is away from the Earth — meteors typically fall toward the earth.)
(Rizz: No worries. I understood you perfectly, but thanks for the shout out)
August 3rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Thanks Sam — just saw your post. I appreciate it.
August 3rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Todd W.
Thanks. I found your comment to be sincere and open minded.
It is very true than memory fades, but the memory of an extraordinary event rarely does — precisely because it was extraordinary. How many times have you heard someone say “I can see it as if it were yesterday.” I suggest that such extraordinary events, and the memory of them, is why it is so easy to dismiss the subject. People are so certain of what they saw, that they must be wrong. Have you ever in your life seen something so outside the norm, so incredible, that you can summon the memory of the event at will? The way things looked, the way it made you feel?
Once I came upon what looked like snow drifts on a summers night. The puffy whiteness of the snow reflected in the lights of the stores along the street as it piled up against the grass, the way snow does after you shovel the sidewalk. It had to 75 degrees out, and yet there, defying my rational mind, were snow drifts on the ground. Of course, it turned out to be fiber glass that had fallen from a truck, but I will never forget the way it felt to argue with my own rational mind, even as my eyes were deceived.
That was an extraordinary event. And I will never forget it.
Nor do I take lightly, or for granted, any extraordinary thing that I might see. I always look for the rational explanation first. But when they are exhausted, whatever remains, however improbable, must after all, be the truth.
Now we just have to figure out what that truth is.
August 3rd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
robin,
yes meteors do fall toward earth but it’s hard to tell since they don’t have enough distinguishing features and no nearby objects to use as a references to tell that they are falling. So any point of light in the sky will be hard to judge when it comes to speed, distance and direction. Otherwise I have nothing else to tell you about what you saw. The knowledge that meteors fall can affect how you judge what you see.
This is what’s so frustrating about these unrecorded observations. There’s no way for others to really help you.
As for remembering extraordinary events clearly, you might want to talk to psychologists who have studied this.
August 3rd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
These comments are very amusing, but I had to stop reading them after about 1/4 because the I could no longer stand the burn of the stupid. It seems many people wouldn’t know coherence even if it bit them in the eyeball.
Very good post, Phil. The crickets made me laugh out loud.
August 3rd, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Isabell,
event 1) did you see any other details about this object other than the red light? Were you able to judge how far above it was? I would think that’s hard to do without seeing any detail or other objects next to it. “Then it began moving off and actually vanished a few yards away from where we stood.” Did you mean several hundred hards?
second event) Lighning bugs? You did not say the lights blinked so I’m guessing they were constant points of light. Can’t think of anything else.
third event) there isn’t enough in this story to say that the objects you saw weren’t earth based. This is the thing. It’s a mystery, and not something definitive. Was this at night or during the day?
August 3rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I am amused by your attempt at scientific inquiry on this matter Mr. Plait. I don’t believe in aliens myself (I need to see the proof/evidence too). In your mind somehow, redirecting the question towards the notion of evidence is incredibly inadequate. If you wanted to see evidence of polar bears, it would be quite easy to do. Although cruel, we have the technological means to capture, imprison or kill a bear to show you that they exist. Assuming aliens are visiting earth, I doubt that any one of us has the technological capacity to kill and/or capture an alien for your high and mighty viewing pleasure.
The sun does not revolve around your seemingly religious closed-mindedness.
The onus is really on you to explain away the best cases. For example: the over 3000 official air incidents reports between alleged UFOs and civilian/military aircraft collected by Dr. Richard Haines (the former Chief of NASA’s Space Human Factors. Reference: http://www.narcap.org ). Some of these incidents involved instrument failures or near collisions where the object in question was able to avoid collision at the last moment by making impossible, sharp turns. Instead of listening to your pointless armchair mental masturbation, I would much rather be interested on your thoughts concerning an alarmingly large number of these unusual air safety cases. But somehow, I doubt you will rise to the occasion.
August 3rd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Raj,
Unless I’m reading your post incorrectly it sounds like you’re saying two things.
“I don’t believe in aliens myself (I need to see the proof/evidence too).”
I read this to mean that you’re looking at this sceptically and that so far you have not seen any definitive evidence to support that UFOs are ET in origin with alien occupants.
Then what’s the point of the site with UFO air incidents? The site uses the term “unidentified aerial phenomena” (UAP) and tries to disassociate from orgs that promote alien-ufo encounters. So the site is not about aliens. I don’t understand your criticism. Phil’s and others request for evidence has to do with alien UFOs and not simply reports of unidentifiable phenomenon or the fact that people see them.
Reports and eyewitnesses can take you so far. The next step is evidence. So many people want to believe or are driven by imagination a mystery inspires, that desire to skirt evidence is becomes too strong.
Are these two sentences not contradictory?
“I am amused by your attempt at scientific inquiry on this matter Mr. Plait. I don’t believe in aliens myself (I need to see the proof/evidence too). In your mind somehow, redirecting the question towards the notion of evidence is incredibly inadequate.”
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
@Robin,
My suggested possibilities for what you saw were completely reasonable considering the (limited) information you provided. Yet, you continue to swear that what you saw was different than anything ordinary, or can provide evidence for. Then you ironically accuse me of being close-minded.
Thank you for taking my honest attempt at helping to find possibilities and pooping on it.
@Raj,
We also have the capability to prove the existence of polar bears WITHOUT capturing, killing, or even seeing them. Polar bears leave plenty of evidence, i.e. foot prints, urine and fecal matter, remains of uneaten food, bite marks on unsuccessful hunting attempts, not to mention the actual physical remains of polar bears that die of natural causes. The life of nearly all of the animals on earth have been well documented, by scientific observation.
So, where are all the little bits and pieces of actual physical evidence that even suggests the presence of aliens? Where are their footprints? Where are their little bits of spacecraft from all these crashes? Are you telling me that they travel billions of light years to get here, and they don’t even drop a piece of alien candy wrapper on the ground? You can’t even drive a car to the park for a picnic without needing a barrel for all your trash, and leaving behind fifty pieces of evidence that you were there.
So far, ALL scientific observations of Aliens, Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, Ghosts, Fairies, Zombies and the like have been 100% negative. There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence yet that any of these things actually exist, and especially not in any of the attempts we see here.
I know, I know… You know what you saw, and it was Aliens.
Prove it.
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I might as well go stand in front of a brick wall and say, “Phil has asked anyone here to provide actual physical evidence for Aliens,” for all the good it apparently does.
August 3rd, 2008 at 9:07 pm
ND:
1- Yes, I meant to say a few hundred yards, it seemed close. The reason why it seemed close was because we watched the 2 red lights for a long time as they approached and eventually paused directly overhead. How far up overhead? There was no way of knowing for sure.
But the object’s visibility was made possible only by the night sky behind it. It had a domed shape to it. The lights were on either side of the object. The object reflected no light, it was totally black with no visible details at all.
2 -I defiantly know the difference between something that looks like a star, and lightning bugs. They weren’t bugs. LOL.
3 – This happened at night. The object was a large ball of fire. It didn’t appear to be falling, but traveling very fast, parallel to the ground. I must note that I have never seen military jets flying in formation in our neck of the woods ever before and I have been living here for almost 30 years.
August 3rd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Before signing off, I thought I would leave you all with one of my favorite quotes from
Edgar Mitchell – the one to whom we owe all of this lively debate!
Cheers…
“Suddenly, from behind the rim of the moon, in long, slow-motion movements of immense majesty, there emerges a sparkling blue and white jewel, a light, delicate, sky-blue sphere laced with slowly swirling veils of white, rising gradually like a small pearl in a thick sea of black mystery. It takes more than a moment to fully realize this is Earth……..home.
My view of our planet was a glimpse of divinity.”
- Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut
August 3rd, 2008 at 9:28 pm
@Isabell
That’s nice. How does that prove the existence of ET?
August 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Hi Isabell,
I really don’t know what else to add to these events. That’s what’s so frustrating about. I actually would have liked to be there and seen them, even though I don’t subscribe to the ET-UFO idea (unless they’re floating over a city as depicted in Independence Day, now that would be some evidence).
Maybe it was another plane with an engine on fire? Must have been scary sight. The first time I saw a meteor streak across the sky, it scared the crap out of me. It was then followed by excitement that I finally saw one. But as you know, it’s a sudden and unexpected event.
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Greg:
It doesn’t – it’s just a beautiful poem Greg.
ND:
It sounds like the Stephenville Texas UFO sightings of late were similar to the Independence Day UFOs in the sheer size.
The thing was said to be miles wide and hovering above the tree line. Can you imagine looking up and seeing something suspended above you as far as the eye can see?
I would have been terrified.
Re: the ball O fire. It was a ball of fire. There were no reports of a crash or a meteor in the news although I know others who also witnessed it.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond with intelligence and respect.
Best…
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:56 pm
@Greg,
I think you missed the point. If we are to assume for a moment that aliens exist and are visiting us, then we can not reasonably predict their behaviours, priorities, whether they are common enough to have come from nearby stars as opposed to “half-way across the galaxy” as many of you love to conjecture, etc. Neither can we assume (as you do) that they would be as clumsy as humans and leave technologically advanced candy wrappers for us to pick up, send to material sciences labs for R&D into novel technologies that we are not ready for. In 100 years we’ve gone from stage coaches to nuclear weapons, integrated circuits…and (strangely) we still depend on fossil fuels. If I were an alien, I would make sure I would keep even my candy wrappers away from us. Even landing on the White House lawn for a day, only to say “dropped by to say hi, but you’re dangerous babes in the woods that need to grow up, so sorry can’t help you” may be dangerous. A confirmation of their existence and observed capabilities of their craft would together redirect all of our scientific resources to modify our understanding of physics to replicate their technologies. I believe we truly are THAT capable. Anyway, it’s all conjecture (as you have all conjectured about alien behaviour). But cetainly worth thinking about.
On the issue of science by observation, if aliens were visiting us, we would be in no position to apply controlled experiments to supposed alien ships or their occupants (if there are indeed any). In fact they would likely possess the tools necessary to observe US! How can we be talking about evidence if the observer can become the observed! Again, I do believe that we need evidence, but the ET/UFO hypothesis by its very nature robs us of the usual techniques and tools required to prove most “earthly” hypotheses. So to clarify my earlier post, we cannot seek the kinds of physical evidence most skeptics demand. So talking about physical evidence is pointless when it comes to the UFO/ET hypothesis. The same is NOT true of Lochness Monsters, bigfoots, etc. as we assume that they should be trackable by our science. So there in that situation, the reasonable scientist deserves the on-my-desk proof.
August 4th, 2008 at 2:13 am
Raj says: “The onus is really on you to explain away the best cases.”
Sorry, but you don’t seem to understand the concept of why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Raj says: “we cannot seek the kinds of physical evidence most skeptics demand. So talking about physical evidence is pointless when it comes to the UFO/ET hypothesis.”
How very convenient. You’re basically saying that skeptics might as well just accept that aliens are here because there will never be physical evidence to examine?
What a bunch of bull.
August 4th, 2008 at 4:17 am
FROM POSTER JOSE
# Jose Says:
August 1st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Jose, since I have now provided some evidence of a scientific study that concluded UFO are a real phenomena. Instead of continuing bashing me, why not explain why the French scientists are mistaken? Or are you now trolling the blog?
Because your “evidence” is still written in crayon.
MY POST
The above is typical of close minded thinking about the UFO field. To use the ‘require extraordinary evidence’ prerequisite many areas of natural phenomena cannot be studied in the regular scientific method. For instance ‘earthlights’, ‘earthquake lights’, ‘ball lightning’. Since nobody has reliably created earthlights from a massive tremor event, does it mean the phenomena does not exist.? It is rare, unpredictable and not possible to replicate in the lab. Skeptics don’t have to be convinced of this phenomena , but they have a duty to to their research about the field and admit there are huge numbers of very difficult to explain away cases and also numerous UFO reports come in all the time from people who had very clear sightings but only recently feel okay to report them because of the anomonymity of the internet and the opening up of discussion of this field.
Would we believe in DNA if we couldn’t analyse it in the lab. The rules of genetics were disovered in the late 1800s by Gregor Mendel, but people thought his idea was a bit wacky and since nobody had the concept of a double helical molecule that could easily encode information it was left until technology caught up with his observations.
August 4th, 2008 at 4:22 am
POSTER
Greg in Austin Says:
August 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
So, where are all the little bits and pieces of actual physical evidence that even suggests the presence of aliens? Where are their footprints? Where are their little bits of spacecraft from all these crashes? Are you telling me that they travel billions of light years to get here, and they don’t even drop a piece of alien candy wrapper on the ground?
MY POST
Yes, they do not leave candy wrappers.
The US goverment has the stealth fighter in operation for 10 years before it’s existence was confirmed during the first gulf war. Do you think it would be difficult for an advanced civilisation to hide their presence from us?
They may or may not have crashed, that’s debatable. You must remember if they are an advanced civilisation they are not God, omnipresent……they are subject to the same laws of the universe as us (with better capabilities of course), and as such mistakes can happen. Also they may not be of one motivation or one type. Finally if they are using technology all technology is prone to failure, it’s the law of entropy!
August 4th, 2008 at 6:12 am
I suspect that many US officials are in the midst of a massive ‘saving face’ operation. Ordinary men like you and I who know a lot more than us but who are so full of self-importance that they can’t just hold up their hands. Perhaps certain people will need to die of old age before the rest of us get a chance to work it out. People with power are afraid of the masses. Others simply enjoy their lifestyle and their influence. Behind closed doors – erm…what happens? Oh yes, that was why the door was closed – they didn’t want me to know.
Are we being protected or controlled by not being told the truth?
Discuss…
August 4th, 2008 at 6:41 am
@Raj and maninasia,
The imaginary beings you conjure up are based solely on speculation, hearsay, and science fiction stories. You have yet provided any evidence for your claims.
What makes you think that they are so advanced that they don’t leave behind a shred of evidence?
We have left dozens of landers and probes on planets, asteroids and moons, and have a tens of thousands of satellites surrounding our own planet. The evidence of human activity in this solar system is clearly evident by the amount of junk we place everywhere we go. What PROOF do you have that aliens wouldn’t do the same?
August 4th, 2008 at 6:52 am
@Squid,
What “truth?”
August 4th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Please visit: http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/
Download these two docs:
Key to the Extraterrestrial Messages by H. Campaigne
Extraterrestrial Intelligence by Howard H. Campaigne
and explain what I am reading?
August 4th, 2008 at 8:17 am
@Greg,
I don’t know, nobody told me.
But COME ON! Nobody has to offer their experiences for free and there are so many stories. Obviously some people do want to make money from it, others crave fame and attention (God knows why!!), some may well be agents of disinformation to throw us off the scent. But some UFO and alien-related stories I am certain are true.
By the way, who created the laser and fibre optics, for example? Some very clever guy? I don’t want to know who developed the formats. Who INVENTED the laser and holographic technology which contains information of all kinds within light? I wasn’t the best at physics but there seem to have been some pretty amazing leaps in the past few decades.
Open minds are what we need, with caution and extreme filtering in operation.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:28 am
@Greg and @RAF
I actually don’t know that aliens are indeed visiting us. But you (in a very unscientific, school-yard bully way) suggest that I assume they are here. I actually don’t. If you are going to have a discussion, I do suggest that you leave behind your religious dogma—which clearly is closed-minded and devoid of any potential for innovative thought. And once again, you anthropomorphize theoretical alien behaviour by suggesting that they would leave screws and other junk in space as humans do at this point in our history. That is hardly scientific thinking. Your lines of thought are riddled with many assumptions that cannot themselves be verified. This blog obviously is a rallying place for a cult-like dogma—-which is unsuitable for proper scientific discourse on the UFO/ET hypothesis.
I guess the UFO/new age quack believers have their counterparts in the “skeptic” world.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:29 am
To the moderator:
Why is my previous post which contains evidence not being approved?
It’s still awaiting moderation even though I posted it prior to Squids last post??
August 4th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Squid says: “…some UFO and alien-related stories I am certain are true.”
That is your BELIEF and you are entitled to it, however belief is not enough to convince those of us who DEMAND evidence before belief.
You understand that, right?
August 4th, 2008 at 8:35 am
@shaun,
Uh-oh… Looks like the moderators may be MIB or something? What chance have we got NOW??
August 4th, 2008 at 8:38 am
@Squid.
You said, “Are we being protected or controlled by not being told the truth?”
Perhaps I need to be more specific. What exactly are we being protected from? By whom? Who is controlling us? And please, like everyone else here has asked, please provide your evidence for such claims.
“But some UFO and alien-related stories I am certain are true.”
How do you know for certain, without either physical evidence, or positive results from any scientific experimentation? All we have is negative or inconclusive studies, or demonstratively unreliable witness accounts.
“By the way, who created the laser and fibre optics, for example?”
Well, if you can believe anything you read on the internet, it takes about 5 seconds to learn from Wikipedia:
- Laser
Foundations
In 1917 Albert Einstein, in his paper Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung (On the Quantum Theory of Radiation), laid the foundation for the invention of the laser and its predecessor, the maser, in a ground-breaking rederivation of Max Planck’s law of radiation based on the concepts of probability coefficients (later to be termed ‘Einstein coefficients’) for the absorption, spontaneous emission, and stimulated emission of electromagnetic radiation.
In 1928, Rudolph W. Landenburg confirmed the existence of stimulated emission and negative absorption.[7] In 1939, Valentin A. Fabrikant (USSR) predicted the use of stimulated emission to amplify “short” waves.[8]
In 1947, Willis E. Lamb and R. C. Retherford found apparent stimulated emission in hydrogen spectra and made the first demonstration of stimulated emission.[9]
In 1950, Alfred Kastler (Nobel Prize for Physics 1966) proposed the method of optical pumping, which was experimentally confirmed by Brossel, Kastler and Winter two years later.[10]
- Optical Fiber
Guiding of light by refraction, the principle that makes fiber optics possible, was first demonstrated by Daniel Colladon and Jacques Babinet in Paris in the 1840s, with Irish inventor John Tyndall offering public displays using water-fountains ten years later.[1] Practical applications, such as close internal illumination during dentistry, appeared early in the twentieth century. Image transmission through tubes was demonstrated independently by the radio experimenter Clarence Hansell and the television pioneer John Logie Baird in the 1920s. The principle was first used for internal medical examinations by Heinrich Lamm in the following decade. In 1952, physicist Narinder Singh Kapany conducted experiments that led to the invention of optical fiber, based on Tyndall’s earlier studies; modern optical fibers, where the glass fiber is coated with a transparent cladding to offer a more suitable refractive index, appeared later in the decade.[1]
Again, there is no evidence here that these technologies are not completely human in origin. Surely you’re not going to suggest that all the mathematics and physics we have developed over the centuries were actually given to us by aliens.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:39 am
No seriously now this is double standards.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:50 am
@RAF
Yes, I understand. And I wish you well. Unfortunately I cannot present you with evidence and I hope you meet someone who can. Someone in real life, not online. Perhaps you too will need to be presented with something behind closed doors (stop your mind wandering, if you can). The most important gifts are timely and wise in their appearance, not randomly stumbled upon. Think positive and try not to spend too much time in front of a screen is my advice. Suspend your disbelief for a moment and imagine there are people who have real proof of alien intelligence. And if you think we’re all watched too closely these days (CCTV, phone tapping etc.) then imagine how closely those who have real evidence must be watched. Not nice but, in my humble opinion, true.
Take care.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:51 am
@Raj,
Ignoring the personal attacks, I will attempt to make my point clear:
“And once again, you anthropomorphize theoretical alien behaviour by suggesting that they would leave screws and other junk in space as humans do at this point in our history. That is hardly scientific thinking. Your lines of thought are riddled with many assumptions that cannot themselves be verified.”
My lines of thought are based on observation and historical evidence. It is not possible for humans to travel around the nearby region of space without leaving evidence. Many people, yourself included, are arguing that the alleged aliens are somehow visiting earth and not leaving behind one iota of scientifically testable evidence, and cannot be accurately observed. I am simply stating that is not likely. However, if you would like to provide some evidence that supports your idea, I, and many many others, would be very interested in seeing that evidence.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Raj says: “This blog obviously is a rallying place for cult-like dogma.”
So requesting evidence for an extraordinary claim is “cult-like dogma”?
Boy are you confused.
…and Shawn, try not to be so paranoid. You just got caught in the spam filter. There is no conspiracy to silence you.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:04 am
@Squid,
If you posted a hypertext link, your post will be delayed. It happens to everyone here.
If we were to “imagine people who have real proof of alien intelligence,” instead of actually “seeing” the proof, then why would we need to stop with aliens and UFOs? Why not just imagine that AT&T has magical pink unicorns locked in cages, who flick their tails to make my email work, and that a little green leprechaun lives in my car to make it go, but Ford doesn’t want anyone to know about it?
The answer is because unlike some people, I choose to live in reality, not fantasy. See what I’m getting at?
August 4th, 2008 at 9:06 am
@Greg
I don’t think all the mathematics and physics was given by aliens, no.
But hey, who couldn’t use a little help down here?
I sure hope that peace wins through in the future of this planet. It’s not looking too good right now, I think. OK, different topic. But if I were watching events on this planet from somewhere truly peaceful then I think that I’d be cautious about getting too involved, unless I wanted to take over.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Ok let me try do this again without getting caught by the “spam filter” twice.
I’ve not included the url incase that is what is blocking my messages.
Please go to the NSA website and the UFO section.
Please read the following docs:
Key to the Extraterrestrial Messages by H. Campaigne
Extraterrestrial Intelligence by Howard H. Campaigne
please let me know what you all think?
August 4th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Squid say: “try not to spend too much time in front a screen is my advice.”
This is kinda funny. I don’t post to any BB’s (anymore), and have only recently (like the last week or so) regularly posted to this blog.
Since Phil has been nice enough not to ban me, I will continue to post when I have something to say.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:25 am
wow it went through! well done RAF
August 4th, 2008 at 9:47 am
If you have trouble navigating to find them.
Go to http://www.NSA.gov
Go into HTML version
Click Public Info
Click declassification Initiatives
Go into UFO section
I’d love to hear what the sceptics have to say regarding this signal? because as far as I knew, only the wow signal has ever been spoken about in public.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:02 am
@shaun,
This looks to me like a sample test or quiz for learning cryptology. In the second document, it clearly states,
“In the most recent issue of the NSA Technical Journal- Vol. XI, No. 1 Mr.
Lambros D. Callimahos discussed certain aspects of extraterrestrial
intelligence and included several messages to test the reader’s ingenuity.”
Its a practice exercise, and the answer key.
What do you think?
August 4th, 2008 at 10:08 am
@shaun
Greg’s answer may not be too far off.
However, let’s assume for a moment that it is not merely a cryptology test. There are no dates on the documents, so we cannot tell when they were written. The documents do not specify where in space the signals originated. Were they from a satellite orbitting Earth? Were they encrypted messages from astronauts? The document also does not specify how the signals were detected.
Nothing in the document provides absolute evidence that the signals were from a non-human source. Without more details, we cannot conclude that they were, indeed, from some alien race.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:10 am
shaun is a close encounter of a the troll kind.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:29 am
@Robin
“But when they are exhausted, whatever remains, however improbable, must after all, be the truth.”
Not necessarily. The true explanation may still be something outside the observer’s or investigator’s knowledge and experience. Don’t take this next statement the wrong way, but one could just as easily say that what you saw was God, or a giant space whale with bioluminescent barnacles on it. Those are also improbable and have just as much evidence to support them. Whatever it was that you saw clearly had a big impact on you, both intellectually and emotionally. Just try to keep in mind, that humans are incredibly adept at filling holes in the details and changing other details in order to make sense of what we experienced. If someone is open to the possibility of aliens, they may patch together their observations in such a way that that is the only possible explanation for them. What a person remembers is almost never a 100% accurate depiction, down to the very last detail, of what actually happened. Even seemingly significant aspects of the event can be altered or made up, all so the brain can make some sense of it.
@Isabell
Regarding the first case you shared (the two red lights silently floating by). It may have been some sort of balloon or blimp. That would explain the large, domed shape you describe and the lack of sound. As for the lights disappearing from view, it is possible that it turned in such a way that the beacons were blocked from view. Just a suggested explanation, of course, since I cannot say with absolute certainty that that is what you saw.
Quick note regarding aliens leaving stuff behind:
It is a reasonable assumption that some trace would remain. Just about everything in nature leaves some sign of its passing. Animals leave tracks, droppings, claw/teeth marks, blood, etc. Plants leave seeds, stems, leaves and so on. Humans leave all of the same types of marks that other animals leave, but we also leave signs of tools and other artifacts, ever since we started using tools and making things. Even the weather and other natural phenomena tend to leave some sign of their having occurred: precipitation leaves moisture, lightning results in thunder and ozone, volcanoes spew forth molten rock, fires leave charred remains, and so on. Why would aliens necessarily be any different? The real question is not, I feel, “Do they leave behind signs of their having been here?” Rather we should ask a few other questions: how long do the traces last? where were the traces left (single trace in a remote location vs. public place vs. many small traces over a greater area)?
IF aliens are visiting Earth, they will almost certainly leave some trace behind. Maybe not candy wrappers, but imprints, markings, bits and pieces of their ship that may have jiggled loose. These pieces of evidence are crucial to answering that big IF.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Here’s a thought to make the UFO supporters’ minds spin (particularly those believing in some massive coverup or that governments have lots of information): What if declassified government docs regarding UFOs as specifically alien in nature (as opposed to terrestrial tech/natural phenomena) are released merely to feed the UFO theory and draw attention away from classified projects? In other words, what if alien spacecraft don’t actually exist, except in fiction put out by governments, writers, fakes and mistaken witnesses?
Just a hypothetical to consider.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Greg in Austin
How can you believe an advanced civilisation would leave traces such as probes etc. sitting around on earth. Their technology is probably 1000s or even millions of years ahead of ours. They do not need to use primitive rocket space craft to get around, if indeed UFOs are a by-product from an advanced civilisation they already display capabilities that we don’t have now. What is so difficult to understand about this point? Again I’m not saying that UFOs are definitely from ETs, but it has to a distinct possibility.
Lastly google Gordon Cooper and 1955 ufo sighting….. his sighting report goes way past Mitchell in that he claims to have personally seen one land.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Phil Plait is now researching the Meier info…and the skeptics take it on the chin again:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/08/prweb1174744.htm
August 4th, 2008 at 11:30 am
I never read it carefully.
Yes I believe you are correct Greg, it does appear to be a test. Todd – all your points are very valid too. No dates/additional data etc, does make the case it is a fictional scenario.
I disagree that it is disinformation. I just misinterpreted it.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:33 am
@maninasia,
Of course you have proof of your claim that they don’t use rockets to get around, and you’re not just speculating, right?
Again, I base my reasoning on simple observations of reality.
Of the two choices:
1) If aliens come here, then they must be able to completely hide, remove or cover up all traces of their visit.
2) If aliens come here, then based on all of our experience of everything in the universe, there would be evidence.
My bet is on #2.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:38 am
@Shaun
No worries. And my disinformation thing was just playing at the same theories being thrown about by UFO-proponents, rather than specifically responding to your post.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
@Michael Horn,
Many people here concluded that
A) Meier’s photos of UFO’s were fake, and easily manufactured
B) Meier’s claims of Aliens from Plieades were in fact female actors
C) Meier’s “alien metal” was conveniently lost, therefore no scientific studies could be made
D) All of your claims are based on appeal to authority and unreliable testimony
E) Your personal attacks on anyone who questions you proves you are not open to a real debate regarding UFOs.
Can you explain any of these?
Oh, and we’re still waiting for that shred of evidence.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
One more thing,
Michael Horn,
How many predictions has Billy Meier made in his life, and how many of them were actually FALSE? The reason I’m asking is that from your article, 5,100 Year-Old Iceman Proves Meier UFO Contact Case True! you state,
“Dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of Meier’s specific, prophetically accurate information have already been noted and have served as sufficient proof, for many diligent researchers, that the case itself is authentic.”
So I ask again, how many total predictions did Meier make, and how many of them were inaccurate?
August 4th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
@Greg
Don’t hold you breath for any real answers from Horn. I’m still waiting for answers to the questions I asked. He has proven himself to be a rather pompous, self-important bully who would rather hear himself talk, hear others agree with him, and puff himself up than invest any time or effort in serious, respectful discussion.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
@ maninasia
Thanks for introducing Gordon Cooper to this. How could we not respect a man like that?
Peace and truth be out. The hippies had peace, the government had truth. It’s a shame they didn’t get together and help each other.
August 4th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Re:
Many people here concluded that…
MH: First, what are the qualifications of the “many people here”? How many have actually researched the case (for more than 10 minutes, etc.)?
A) Meier’s photos of UFO’s were fake, and easily manufactured:
MH: If you actually do read carefully, the skeptics have failed to prove that, after eight years of trying. Let them know if you’re more qualified to to substantiate the claims of hoax, they’d love to hear from you.
B) Meier’s claims of Aliens from Plieades were in fact female actors
MH: Not true. How do I know? Because Meier was warned that something was going to happen re the photos (which were later manipulated by other parties). How do I know? Because it’s in a book published well more than a DECADE before the falsifications happened. and yes, I have the book.
C) Meier’s “alien metal” was conveniently lost, therefore no scientific studies could be made
MH: Wrong again. The metals were examined by SEVERAL scientists. Marvel Vogel’s very detailed video analysis of the metals has not been refuted by anyone. And I hate to be the one to have to tell you this but, the “evidence” for some 90%+ of history is actually no longer present. You can’t touch a star either yet I’m sure you know ALL about them and can “prove” that they exist and that they are exactly what you think they are.
D) All of your claims are based on appeal to authority and unreliable testimony
MH: Nonsense. The claims are based on examination by scientific experts, of course, as well as on extremely reliable eyewitnesses (including FIVE other photographers), trained observers…even skeptics. Meier and 15 other people passed lie detector tests (100% truthful, years ago) and of course again got a thumbs up from an expert consultant to the U.S. Army Special Forces.
Even more importantly, by actually researching and investigating the INFORMATION in the case one can prove for themselves if it’s accurate…and if Meier indeed published it before “official” discovery. Examples of this are referred to in the press release. One such is Meier’s publishing info on the surprise awaiting us when we discover water on Mars, as just occurred.
How do I know he published it, in 1976, before NASA?
I first read it in his work in 1986. And it’s in published books with an outside date of 1993.
E) Your personal attacks on anyone who questions you proves you are not open to a real debate regarding UFOs.
MH: Not really. Go back and you’ll see that I was called a liar here when I was submitting information. It was MY fault, however, to post here initially because I thought, since this was associated with Discover magazine, that this was a blog/forum for mature, scientifically minded people, and not just another hang out for, primarily, adolescents with too much time on their hands.
Find that insulting? Well, how come since you mention the 5,100 year-old man, your jaw hasn’t hit the floor trying to figure out this one-armed farmer – who’s just happened to kick the butt of all the genius skeptics – also publishes mind-blowing information like that?
Actually there’s no insults intended, I’m just not PC enough to cater to people who think they know everything, people who, instead of trying to prove just how glib and smart they are, could better spend their time – if they spend any on this – getting into the information and finding out for themselves (as opposed to the so-called experts that YOU rely on) just what the truth of the matter is.
There are only two possibilities, it’s either the biggest, most impenetrable hoax, or the most important story in all of human history.
And, in light of the latter, it’s really beyond immature and irresponsible to expect me to spoon feed you what you can go and find for yourselves. Especially since I’ve already spent years of my time, and tens of thousands of dollars, to bring to the public. Another thankless job, as there’s an awful lot of lazy, immediate gratification, types out there who think that making demands is a substitute for respectful discourse…and self-responsible due diligence.
Don’t worry about “hits” to my website. I don’t make any money from it and, as you might notice, I don’t carry any advertising either.
August 4th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
A) The photos and/or negatives may be real pictures of something, but that does not prove that the something is alien. The same trickery has been done a million times by confirmed hoaxers and debunkers, and its been proven a million times that the exact same effect can be done with ordinary objects.. What we are insisting is that you, or anyone, provide evidence that the objects in the pictures are anything other than an ordinary hubcap tied to a string on a crane, yet you refuse.
B) So Meier has DNA evidence from these aliens that prove they are not related to any person on earth? He has some kind of evidence, a flake of skin, a few hairs, or a drop of saliva that can be analyzed, right? Right?
C) Who does video analysis of a metal to determine its structure? Where are the chemical lab results? Where are the spectrometer test results? Oh, and nice diversionary tactic: “You can’t touch a star either yet I’m sure you know ALL about them and can “prove” that they exist and that they are exactly what you think they are.” Because that has ANYTHING to do with the question at hand. Again, where is the metal, or at least where are the confirmed independent scientific test results of supposed metal?
D) Greg: All of your tests are based on appeal to authority…
MH: Nonsense. The claims are based on examination by scientific experts…
That’s the definition of appeal to authority. The evidence can’t stand on its own and be independently verified, but don’t worry, this EXPERT says its real.
E) We say you use personal attacks instead of evidence to argue your case, and you respond with more personal attacks? Brilliant!
My jaw didn’t drop when I read about Meier’s supposed knowledge of the 5,000 ice man because I seriously doubt its legitimacy. If it were true, then men who discovered him, the museums that own the remains, the scientists who studied him for years, as well as the rest of the world would have said something.
There is a third, and most likely possibility: It is a hoax, it has been penetrated, and you are in denial.
Oh, and by the way, you still didn’t answer the question as to how many predictions Meiers got wrong.
August 4th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
@Greg
Don’t forget that he was right about being called a liar, but has failed to explain himself yet. For Mr. Horn, I am referring to the claim that the JREF prize money does not exist, just to be clear.
August 4th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Let me put it in a better, clearer context…now that we’ve dispensed with the other questions.
My point with JREF was that first James Randi called Meier’s evidence “a farce any child can see through”. Note that farce is equivalent to hoax.
He then did a “gee, I never said that” which was an effective retraction of the hoax claims.
But his affiliated organizations, CFI-West and IIG, continued to claim that Meier haoxed…despite their saying that they didn’t TO be clear, when someone accuses Meier of using models and claims that his evidence is “an easily duplicated hoax” – as they did – it should be clear what their position is.
But I not only issued a challenge – which they accepted – to duplicate Meier’s evidence, I included a presentation (not an interview) by Derek Bartholomaus of IIG in our film presentation, where he reiterated those claims.
I gave some brief rebuttal but saved the best stuf for AFTER the film was released, which forced him to retract some of his claims. Then I recently issued the challenge for him to back up his other claims of models for a Meier film.
He couldn’t do it. And Randi’s representative also backed away from the model claims – the only possible means left for Meier to have hoaxed his work.
So that leaves us with JREF, CFI-West and IIG no longer claiming it’s a hoax.
IF it’s not a hoax…doesn’t somebody owe somebody something regarding claims of the “paranormal”?
And, to be even clearer, this isn’t wasn’t has never been and won’t ever be – for us – about the money.
If you’re involved in the most important story in all of human history (since the skeptics have admitted that it isn’t the biggest hoax, the only other possibility) money is irrelevant.
Oh really? Yes, as I mentioned before, I don’t get paid to do my work, it’s voluntary.
August 4th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Hey, Michael Horn!
As I said repeatedly before: I looked at the Meier pictures again just now. I checked out the videos, too. I’m no “expert” on CGI like the ones you’re always quoting, but I did make 8mm movies of flying saucers when I was a kid, and I tell ya…Meier’s flying saucers look exactly like my old 8mm movies, right down to the wobble caused by the model wiggling around on the wire and the difference in focus between distant objects and the model in the foreground. I even figured out a way to get rid of the wobble for static “hovering” shots by adding a guide wire down to the ground. Pretty cool, huh?
Here’s a suggestion: instead of getting “experts” in computer technology to comment on your evidence, why not listen to some people who actually used the same techniques Meier did? Like me? Better yet, send me $20 bucks and I’ll digitize the old 8mm film and upload it onto youtube for ya.
August 4th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
@ Shaun
Excellent application of analysis and deduction Shaun. You re-examined the evidence, used your head, came to a logical conclusion. That’s what science is all about. And I bet if a person were to dig deeper and actually contact the people involved, they could confirm your theory. Woo-hoo!
August 4th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
Michael Horn,
You said:
“A) Meier’s photos of UFO’s were fake, and easily manufactured:
MH: If you actually do read carefully, the skeptics have failed to prove that, after eight years of trying. Let them know if you’re more qualified to to substantiate the claims of hoax, they’d love to hear from you.
B) Meier’s claims of Aliens from Plieades were in fact female actors
MH: Not true. How do I know? Because Meier was warned that something was going to happen re the photos (which were later manipulated by other parties). How do I know? Because it’s in a book published well more than a DECADE before the falsifications happened. and yes, I have the book.”
A) The “wedding cake” sure looks like a trashcan lid with some junk on top. It even has the lid’s handle still on it. Exactly why did the Plejarans leave the handle on the ship AND what purpose does having a gigantic handle serve?
Or did Billy forget to remove the handle in his haste to perpetrate the hoax?
B) Please explain how the Plejaran women looked just like the dancers on the Dean Martin TV show.
As for any “predictions” by Billy of tampering, thats way too easy. Any good charlatan will have a backup plan to cover himself when discovered. Billy simply makes “predictions” to cover the holes in his hoaxes.
For example, I will now make a prediction: Michael Horn will deny that the “wedding cake” ship is merely a trashcan lid with the handle still attached and adorned with shiny paint and some odds and ends.
August 4th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Quick responses:
I GUARANTEE that your films won’t even come close to Meier’s for a number reasons, including the haze factor, thermographic signatures, etc. will not be the same, edge enhancement will show distinct differences and I doubt that you have the equivalent of 10o+ fee above and to the sides of your models, nor are they filmed OVER deep valleys, as was established by the on-site investigation.
You really should read the photo analysis at my site, it’s free.
As for the WCUFO, there’s $500 on the table for anyone who can take a garbage can lid and duplicate the object.
My money will collect dust before you ever collect it.
Try to duplicate the WCUFO video. And, not to be TOO obvious here but why do you assume such things as “handles” and all the other nonsense? Make one, video it as Mieer did – with himself in the video – and then let’s talk.
Oh, the reason I checked in her ewas to share this update to my press release, funny how it just gets better for Meier, isn’t it?
BREAKING NEWS FROM NASA – FURTHER CORROBORATION OF MEIER MARS INFORMATION!
Information received early Monday evening from NASA reports that the Phoenix spacecraft detected the presence of chemicals in the Martian sopil that may make it “detrimental to life” http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j1hvRUNc9W-3lupLU6TLQtR0gdRAD92BPQ980.
Could this be what Semjase was referring to, in her last sentence to Meier below – from 1976?
Meier- You are right, too. Yet now another question: Yo u had once told me that no life would exist on
Mars. If I have understood this right, you meant by this but planetarian human life, didn’t you?
Semjase- 114/Certainly.
Meier- Well – then your earlier answer does not exclude (the possibility) that any other life of floric
or faunic form can exist there, or even does exist. You then told (me) expressly, that life does
not exist there, while logically you had addressed only the human planetary life. What do you think now,
Will the Americans discover low forms of life with their sonde sent to Mars?
Semjase- 115/They will meet with surprises in many respects, as in the fact that Mars has much more
water than earthly science had assumed until now.
116/ But there are also surprises in the character of the ground and the nature of the microworld.
117/The floric and faunic world can absolutely be found on Mars when the scientific instruments of these sondes are well enough to evaluate and store the concerned results.
Meier- Then “life on Mars” could prove true for our science?
Semjase- 118/It is in the compass of possibility, that the analyses could verify this, when the scientific instruments are qood enough, because faunic and floric forms of life are existing on Mars, even though this planet destroys other forms of life by its contrary to life nature.
August 4th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Can’t believe I’m actually going to get into this again…
Mr. Horn, a few questions for you:
1) Did you, or Billy Meier, ever actually apply for their challenge? And no, issuing your own challenge doesn’t count. If you didn’t apply, then you’re not eligible for any prize.
2) If you did apply, what did you put forth as evidence? Was it available for IIG, CFI-West, or the JREF to examine themselves or by scientists they selected? Were the original materials (photos, films, metal) provided to them for study?
Let me make some predictions of my own:
1) They accepted your challenge. You did not accept theirs. Ergo, no prize for you.
2) You will likely say something along the lines that the original materials were not in your possession and you could not provide them, for whatever reason, to IIG. This seems rather a double-standard, since you required their materials (e.g., photos) to be examined and tested, but did not allow them to examine and test Meiers’.
And a note, even though you have been told this over and over for several years, photos are, at best, inconclusive, as far as evidence goes. Even if the film has not been manipulated, what appears in the picture can be staged or faked, and, depending on the skill of the photographer, can be very difficult to establish as a hoax. The Meiers photos and video are rather fuzzy, and the objects in most of them far away from the camera, making any detection of, say, strings or wires, exceptionally difficult. The photos in which the objects are closer have the top of the objects out of the frame, making it impossible to determine if it is suspended from a line.
Also, as regards proving a claim. Yours was the original claim: that they Meiers photos and other material were proof of an extraterrestrial presence on Earth. The onus of proving those claims is therefore on you, not on the skeptics to prove that they are a hoax. And even if they cannot prove that it was a hoax, that does not mean that it is therefore real, merely that they were unable to determine whether it was a hoax or not.
Finally, regarding the actual money. I figured it was only time before you make the cop-out that you don’t need the money. Well, perhaps some scientist could use the money as a grant to further their research? Or perhaps a charity or hospital could use the money? No one cares what you do with the money once you win it, so it doesn’t matter whether you consider the money “irrelevant.”
August 4th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
One more thing, on the photo of the “alien”. As Ray mentioned, making a prediction is an easy out. Now, if you maintain that the photo was tampered with, I assume that you have evidence, besides Meiers’ word? Is the photo available for examination so that independent investigators can verify your claim?
August 4th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
And a finaly note, that I forgot to mention before hitting submit. I see that, once again, you dance around my accusation about your lie regarding the JREF prize money. Almost let you get away with that. Perhaps I just need to remind you of exactly what I’m talking about. To quote:
I’ve removed the URL so that my post does not get caught in the spam filter, but for those who are interested, please see my post above: July 31, 11:52am.
August 4th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
@maninasia
The above is typical of close minded thinking about the UFO field. To use the ‘require extraordinary evidence’ prerequisite many areas of natural phenomena cannot be studied in the regular scientific method.
I’ll settle for ANY evidence. I don’t need extraordinary. A tissue sample or Exotic space ship material is fine. With all the extraterrestrial activity on our planet, it doesn’t seem like those should be too hard to come by. Instead we get amateurish photographs and fake autopsies.
Skeptics don’t have to be convinced of this phenomena , but they have a duty to to their research about the field and admit there are huge numbers of very difficult to explain away cases and also numerous UFO reports come in all the time from people who had very clear sightings but only recently feel okay to report them because of the anomonymity of the internet and the opening up of discussion of this field.
I have done the research. I don’t see huge numbers of difficult to explain away cases. Here are two reasons.
1. The unreliability of eyewitness testimony has been scientifically proven. People can fool themselves into seeing what they want to see. This goes for individuals as well as large groups of people.
2. People lie. They may be trying to get attention or make a buck (Meier). Or they may just do it to mess with people (Crop circle makers).
The rules of genetics were disovered in the late 1800s by Gregor Mendel, but people thought his idea was a bit wacky and since nobody had the concept of a double helical molecule that could easily encode information it was left until technology caught up with his observations.
I don’t know if this is true, but let’s assume it is for the sake of argument. Mendel made his claims, and people were able to duplicate and confirm his results. But imagine if people weren’t able to duplicate his results? If he behaved like a UFO huckster, Mendel would claim that they did the experiment incorrectly, or they were part of a close minded scientific establishment bent on suppressing the truth. Of course, he would have his supporters who would point to the fact that he was a monk, and therefore more credible that the average person.
August 4th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
This spam filter thing is very annoying as it negates the possibility of posting some great cases on here
@Michael
Basing your assumptions on testimony from one man is very dangerous and in the end fruitless.
@Greg
You have a very black and white mind. Actually I am a scientist with an advanced degree. When I look at this area I try to take in all the angles. I have a biological background, when approaching the idea ‘Are these objects possibly the result of an advanced civilisation’, I take into account the high probability of life on other planets and the billions of planets in the milky way (this is my professional area of expertise) and I say yes, there is a good possibility of this since they display characteristics and have displayed characteristics of flight we cannot replicate.
The one thing this whole UFO thing is, it is not black and white. It has multiple components
- Natural phenomena mistaken or unidentified
- Man-made phenonmena mistaken or unidentified
- 1-5% of cases which defy explanation.
It is very difficult to explain rotating and extremely rapidly moving metallic disks, sphere, cigars and triangles as natural phenomena. In the case of disks and sphere shaped objects they cannot generate lift and velocity by any of our conventional technology. They have been sighted since the 1940s and actually before that. In world war II Foo fighters were identified by both the allies and the axis forces, both assumed the other side were responsible. There have been pictures of these objects taken, however due to their distance, limitations of common camera designs, rarity
and velocity they are very hard to take pictures of. The other simple thing which many posters have mentioned is that most people simply don’t look up and would not notice these things. When they do notice them the majority do not report or talk about them.
Astronomers are not kitted out to study these objects either, they usually train telescopes on fixed objects in the solar system or beyond at night-time.
Google ‘Foo’ and ‘UFO’ and check the wikipedia link since we are being prevented putting links here. It’s time to make a few people embarrassed, can all these witnesses be mistaken (). Among the objects described (some of which were probably St.Elmo’s fire on their wingtips) they describe disks, large cylindrical objects moving at 1000mphs (in the 1940s!). One bronze coloured object followed a plane near Tasmania and then dove into the ocean. The Robertsons Panel concluded ‘If the term Flying Saucers had existed in the 1940s, Foo fighters would have been included in this group.
What’s interesting about the Foo fighter reports (some of which only emerged in the 1990s), they were not even assumed to be alien craft in the 1940s, these witnesses has NO AGENDA to describe these objects as they did. They were reported by military crews with no reason to report them other than doing their job.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
@ John
There are many cases of multiple eye-witness testimony and radar tracked objects moving at incredible speed. There are cases of UFOs landing beside a school in Australia in the 1960s and numerous students and teachers seeing the disk-shaped object! The object left impressions on the ground before it took off again
Google ‘Westall UFO encounter’ , this case has it’s own yahoo group formed by the ex-students who witnessed the event and who want to get witness testimony from the now adult students and before the teachers pass on.
The problem is the ridicule that these cases are subject to and a lot of people just don’t want to challenge their own world view/religion and feel uncomfortable admitting to seeing things that bring them ridicule. They risk losing their jobs and liviehoods and often are forced to keep quiet.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
@ManinAsia
The spam filter just puts a post into moderation, waiting for approval. Once it’s approved, it will appear in the thread. Any post with a hyperlink in it gets picked up. As long as it’s not to some adult-only type of site, it will likely get approved and posted.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Hi all. Just figured I’d pop back in and see if there had been any evidence posted yet. Still nothing remotely credible I see… bummer. I’ll try again next week.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
@Harold
Heh…I think this may very likely be the longest thread in BA history(just guessing), and still nothing. Wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
I have to give you props, Todd. You hung in there like a champ!! Props to Greg too. You guys have carpal tunnel yet?
August 4th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
There’s so much nonsene here that it isn’t worth a lot of time, since no one ehre actually does any research.
Here’s a beauty:
“The Meiers photos and video are rather fuzzy, and the objects in most of them far away from the camera, making any detection of, say, strings or wires, exceptionally difficult. The photos in which the objects are closer have the top of the objects out of the frame, making it impossible to determine if it is suspended from a line.”
Thanks for showing that, in your ignorance, you’re making a case for the authenticity of the Meier evidence. “Fuzzy, far away”…that means large objects a good distance from the camera and not small models. Didn’t you do ANY homework?
And your next line is simply…factually wrong, go check the link referred to in my press release at a site that ends in dot info.
And the genius remark about the “word of one man” or whatever, another indication of someone babbling without knowing ANYTHING about the facts of the case, the dozens of witnesses, the five other photographers, the lie detector tests, investigation, etc.
Okay, no one knows what the heck they’re talking about so the BIG issue is my saying that there was no money behind the challenge? That’s it? Not that Meier published the info about water on Mars 32 years ago AND that just today the new discovery about the substances that are detrimental to life on Mars that were discovered were ALSO mentioned in the same contact 32 years ago?
Have any of you gone to school? Did you run this kind of utterly incompetent, non-responsive nonsense on your instructors? Do you have ANY idea about how proof for something is actually established or do you just like playing with your keyboards?
I’m sure you think I’m “bullying” or whatever because of your absolutely intolerably self-absorption. I’m not. It’s just that so far none of you would last two minutes in a real debate, a lecture challenge, etc.
The problem is that you don’t know just how pathetic this is, in this instant gratification “culture”.
Think what you wish, simply because thinking itself would be a refreshing activity to observe here. You have been presented with a rather impressive puzzle, which so far no one here is qualified to even discuss.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
This is a list of the various types of people on our planet relating to the UFO phenomenon, although not exhaustive.
1. Believers who have seen a UFO and say that was an alien ship. (These are what most witnesses tend to be like… easily accepting of something)
2. Sceptics who have seen a UFO, and just don’t know what they saw. They are often rational and don’t claim to know what it was, but do sometimes say it looked just like an alien ship out of the movies. (These tend to be people of above average intelligence from any background, although scientists usually, apart from a few, keep quiet because they know no-one will ever believe them without proof. We are getting more and more of those scientists with this account or knowledge starting to come forward with it. Some even changing from saying something unusual is happening to saying that they know some are alien visitors)
3. Deniers who have seen a UFO and say “nah that didn’t happen, it can’t be real” (These can be religious in nature, uneducated people or people who just cannot fathom et outside of sci-fi, or even some scientists who like to think everything unexplained is best ignored. These don’t tend to announce their scepticism in public, and tend to just keep silent, therefore strengthening the viewpoint of person number 4.)
4. Sceptics who have haven’t seen anything that remains unexplained until this day, and so find the idea that people have seen a UFO ridiculous. These can be anyone from all walks of life, but are usually fairly intelligent, and can be scientists. These tend to announce their scepticism in public from time to time, and use a valid argument that no physical proof of UFOs remain for us to examine. (Some people dispute this fact using radar traces from multiple receivers matching eyewitness accounts, burn marks, radiation marks. These sceptics will always find a way to explain these using a mundane explanation, even though a few cases remain unexplained they will say a mundane explanation is always likely, even though we just don’t know that is true for every case. These kind of people are only going to be convinced if a piece of a craft or alien body or something similar is produced in front of the world media with a full testing and report completed by a credible scientist)
5. People who haven’t see anything unexplained and don’t care.
———————————————–
Now no.1 kind of people discredit the no.2 people often, which is not always helpful. But I know for a fact that some unknown phenomenon exists as I’m in second category. This is also the case for many many other witnesses, with some claiming they know such as Mitchell. People in category 3 need to come out of the closet, we know you are out there. People in 4 are stuck in a rut, there’s nothing we can do about those yet, and there are quite a few who make themselves known on here. People in 5 which I suspect are the majority of the world’s population and need to wake up.
And for people in 4. this is correct even without sufficient physical evidence. How do I know this? From my personal experiences and other credible people’s experiences which match mine, and the rest is from observing your behaviour.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
It really is as simple as we who saw something “know”, other people who saw something “know”, Mitchell who talked to people “knows”, and you sceptics just don’t know.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
even they should understand it plain and simple as that
August 4th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
@maninasia,
You said, “Actually I am a scientist with an advanced degree. When I look at this area I try to take in all the angles. I have a biological background, when approaching the idea ‘Are these objects possibly the result of an advanced civilisation’, I take into account the high probability of life on other planets and the billions of planets in the milky way (this is my professional area of expertise) and I say yes, there is a good possibility of this since they display characteristics and have displayed characteristics of flight we cannot replicate.”
Since you have a degree in science, as you claim, surely you remember your lessons on the Scientific Method, which goes something like this:
# Ask a Question
# Do Background Research
# Construct a Hypothesis
# Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
# Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
# Communicate Your Results
It sounds to me like your method is:
# Come to a conclusion
# Look for data that supports that conclusion
# Communicate your results
Just something to think about.
You also said, “Astronomers are not kitted out to study these objects either, they usually train telescopes on fixed objects in the solar system or beyond at night-time.”
Actually, one of the first pieces of equipment any good amateur astronomer would have is a pair of binoculars. These would be very useful for getting a closer look at objects in the sky, and are not fixed on any position. However, my argument was actually related to the amount of time amateur astronomers observe the skies, with or without telescopes, compared to the average person. I know I’ve spent hundreds of hours, at night, in the pre-dawn, both near cities and out in West Texas, stargazing, planet watching, and observing. I’ve seen interesting things, for sure, but unfortunately, I’ve never seen anything unexplainable.
Finally, as to the Foo Fighters, according to the Wiki page you offered, there are no less than 10 possible explanations for these phenomenon, and only 1 of them is extraterrestrial. If 9 out of 10 explanations are terrestrial, and there is no evidence, I’m going to go with terrestrial. The most likely reason, based on the evidence linked at the bottom of that page, is electrostatic discharge from the aircraft. If I was really curious, I’d probably start my research by talking to a few pilots.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Thank you for your post ManinAsia. I like the way you think.
Todd – “Regarding the first case you shared (the two red lights silently floating by). It may have been some sort of balloon or blimp. That would explain the large, domed shape you describe and the lack of sound. As for the lights disappearing from view, it is possible that it turned in such a way that the beacons were blocked from view. Just a suggested explanation, of course, since I cannot say with absolute certainty that that is what you saw.”
Good thinking but I need to clarify. The object, as I said, was visible because it blocked the stars. When we looked at it, it looked like black space. We were in a remote area where the sky was lit up with gazillion stars. The black object above us blocked those stars. As it moved away we could see not only the 2 lights but the absence of light and stars between those lights. When it vanished, not only did the red lights disappear, but the entire object disappeared, revealing the night sky above us again.
Your theory that it could have moved, thus obscuring the lights is a fine one, but doesn’t account for the fact that the sky provided us with the light which silhouetted the object. I also have to admit that I haven’t been able to accurately describe in writing its shape. Sure wish I can do some drawings for you all.
Squid – I wanted to throw in some thoughts to your question –
“Are we being protected or controlled by not being told the truth?”
At the National Press Conference in DC in which an international panel testified to their remarkable experiences, the press was invited to ask some questions at the end.
One question that was asked several times was “Why the secrecy? Why would our government want to keep this from the American people?”
A panelist answered, “Because they don’t want to scare us, they don’t want to create a panic.”
A CNN reporter then stood up and said “You say the reason why the Government keeps this a secret is because they don’t want to scare us, but they LOVE to scare us! With yellow alerts, and orange alerts, and red alerts, it seems every other day they are saying something to scare us!”
There were a lot of laughs and the recognition of some truth to that.
I don’t believe we are being protected by not being told the truth. But I do believe the truth is slowly coming out, and when it does, that truth will be used to control us.
Also… I have been thinking about time travel for many years as a possible explanation.
What if “they” are us?
August 4th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Well, shucks, Mr. Horn. You shure showed us, what with your fancy big words and researchin’ and stuff. Why, I don’t know why I ever doubted ya! I must be some kinda knucklehead, ’cause I can’t figure out where in all your wordin’ you actually have any evidence of your own.
Maybe you is smarter than all the rest of us. Here I thought that guy from Italy, Giovanni Schiaparelli or something, thought fer sure Mars had water back in 1877, when he did all that telescope lookin and map drawin. Turns out he was wrong about the canals, but that’s OK, cause he didn’t know any better. Accordin to you, this Meiers fellow must have been there already or something, cause that there Phoenix prober just found actual physical evidence only this year. Don’t matter that we’s been speculatin’ on this fer over 100 years, what’s proof is what Meiers says.
Thank you Mr. Horn, for learnin us all this UFO stuff. Now we’s don’t have to ask any more dumb questions that show how ingnorant we’s are.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
That’s a good lad, Greg. Next, read the 1,300 pages of the investigation reports and get back to me with something substantial.
Run along now little fella, youse got some reading to…did!
August 4th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Mr. Horn:
I couldn’t help but notice you didn’t ask to see my 8mm movies of flying saucers that I made when I was a kid. Too bad. They’re pretty neat.
August 4th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
@Maninasia
Thank you for the info about the Westfall case. Very interesting. I couldn’t help but notice the linked news story detailing Mr. Ryan’s investigation points out that numerous witnesses repeatedly contradict each other. Some said the “object” made a noise. Some said it didn’t. Some said it was followed by aircraft. Some said it wasn’t. Some said it burned the ground. Some said it didn’t. Some said it left marks, others that there were no marks. This, I think, is a good example of why eyewitness testimony by itself is often not very helpful. Did they see something? Undoubtedly. Can you say anything more than that? Not really.
One other comment I find telling, this coming from Mr. Ryan himself in another googled article in which he compares (paraphrasing) the marks supposedly (by some) left on the ground during the Westfall incident to “crop circles.” He seemed rather excited about that. I’m assuming the intent was to link the Westfall incident with the “alien-manufactured” crop circles in England, which were all the UFO rage a few years back. The fact that the perpetrators of the crop circle hoax have since come forward (repeatedly) and explained exactly how and why they were made, once again makes one speculate as to Mr. Ryan’s objectivity.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:44 am
Greg in Austin:
“My lines of thought are based on observation and historical evidence. ”
You are right. However, if what I, and many others, have said about our observations is the truth, then what we are observing is unpresidented. A UFO is not a new species of flora or fauna. It is not possible to bring back a sample from the field for testing. While I saw two phenomenon in 1976, I have not seen anything since. But others have.
Given the nature of the phenomenon, it may be that a new methodology must be created in order to analyze the available data, of which there is a great deal. That analysis will not be taken seriously, however, unless and until the scientific community is willing to risk ridicule by those who hide behind blind skepticism and call it science. The professional cost of going against the current “wisdom” on this topic is all too high.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:46 am
kuhnigget:
Re: Crop circles. While it is true that hoaxers have come forward, it is also true that not all crop circles can be attributed to them, and in fact, the hoaxers got the idea of making crop circles from the crop circles they saw.
Skeptics love to point to hoaxes as if they account for every phenomenon. They do not.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:49 am
@Isabell..thanks.
But using common sense and a good knowledge of up-to-date biology, astronomy, information technology and physics combined with similar witness testimony the world over of strange metallic objects doing unbelievable things (which have been tracked on radar) I think my conjecture has a good chance of being right.
@Greg
You have pointed out the standard scientific method well. You’ve also illustrated by doing that why it is not very useful for studying the topic of UFOs (as I explained in a previous posting). Considering most scientists wouldn’t touch this area with the proverbial bargepole make it doubly hard to do scientific research.
Yes my ideas about UFOs are conjecture, I never saw they were absolute truth Mister Black and White
I am well aware witnesses have varying impressions to an event. Why I picked the Westfall incident was to illustrate that a major event such as this could happen where there was a very unusual object sighted by hundreds of people which almost certainly touched down, yet again it was ignored, mainly because of the ridicule that comes with the UFO area. The principal told the teachers to stay quiet. The kids were told to stay quiet. The farmer told the kids to get off his field. RAAF officers visited the teachers at home, took reports and then the reports were never logged. The main witness, Andrew Greenwood, science teacher, does not want to talk about it now but stands by his previous testimony that he saw a flying disk/thin metallic objects moving rapidly.
The corn circles were almost certainly made by the object. I am also well aware most corn circles are fake worldwide. Just because the main investigator isn’t so up to date on corn circle faking doesn’t mean he’s doing a bad job and collecting witness testimony, putting the story together. The same goes for Mitchell, just because he believed his cancer was cured by remote healing (an idea not much different than catholics and their blessed saints, or Mormons and talking directly to God) his decades of works in the space industry and his personal background of growing up in Roswell should be ignored.
@Todd
I think you should do your homework on this subject more……
August 5th, 2008 at 1:56 am
@Isabell
What you describe is almost certainly a flying triangle sighting, slow massive dark triangular object, sometimes lit up at the axis points or from below. There have been sightings worldwide for decades. These may or may not be the same objects, almost certainly some of them are. I believe your account because it sounds so familiar to many other flying triangle reports I have read. I know another witness who described it as being like a giant ‘flying block of cheese’. He had it fly right over his bouse.
There have been many sightings in Belgium and the UK and the US. It is possible it is not an ET object but rather a LAV (lighter than air) vehicle operating NATO bases. The technology for this exists just about.
There are reports of triangles accelerating at tremendous speed although they seem to be the minority so that is why I would aim towards the idea that they are man-made (usually described as moving very slowly and low altitude).
August 5th, 2008 at 2:02 am
@Robin
Skeptics love to point to hoaxes as if they account for every phenomenon. They do not’
Excellent line!
August 5th, 2008 at 2:51 am
@Isabell
Glad you mentioned time travel. I believe that is something else which has been hidden from us for many decades. Understandably, to some extent, but if they had been more open about it in the beginning then people would perhaps have made their mistakes and got used to it by now. The powers that be seem quite happy to allow starvation, mass torture and genocide in certain cultures whilst allowing (or practicing?) mind control, devastatingly harmful primitive cancer treatments and generally confusing disinformation (leading to suicides and all kinds of criminality) in others. Knowledge is power, so I might disagree with you on one point – the more of the truth the masses learn, then the less easy we are to control, I think.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:12 am
@ManinAsia
Why do you say I need to do my homework? Because I have been asking for some credible evidence and am still waiting for more than stories? Well, point me the way!
@Michael Horn
I’m beginning to wonder if you can post even once without taking a superior air or calling or implying your interlocutors are stupid. Now, to your latest post:
Let me clarify. The objects were far enough away that any lines that may have been used would be very difficult to detect in a photo. Far away does not equal miles, or even half a mile, away. So, no, “fuzzy, far away” does not mean large objects a good distance from the camera. It means, poor quality film and/or iffy focus, of possibly a model that may be large or small, far enough from the camera for the support mechanism to not be seen.
Please clarify which statement you say is factually wrong. Thanks.
Please provide the quote this refers to. Is it about the photo of the alien? That’s the only part I can see in my post regarding anything close to “the word of one man”. Please clarify your point. Thanks.
Again, you try to distract from the issue by bringing up some supposed prophecy. My point in calling you out for your lie is that it speaks to your credibility. The fact that you have lied, and continue to dance around that lie, rather than admit you were wrong or that you did lie, particularly about something that is easily verified, casts a shadow of doubt on your other claims, many of which are more difficult to verify.
Ironic that you call us non-responsive. You have yet to answer our questions.
1) Did you apply for the IIG challenge? (Issuing your own challenge doesn’t count. I hope you can see why.)
2) What evidence have you presented, other than stories, fuzzy photos and fuzzy video, all of which are, at best, inconclusive? Where is the metal sample? Perhaps, since Mr. Meier is the contact for these aliens, he could arrange for them to show themselves to some of the skeptics?
3) What evidence do you have that the photo of the alien was tampered with? Is the photo available for independent analysis?
4) Why does the photo of the “wedding cake” UFO look surprisingly like a trashcan lid, with the handle not disguised or removed, with other objects attached to it to make it look less like a trashcan lid?
Calling people intolerably self-absorbed, stupid, etc….yeah, I’d call that kinda bullying.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Michael Horn
Are there any prophecies that have been made by Meier that have not come to pass yet? Anything that we should look out for? All these prophecies appear to be revealed after the events.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Isabell,
Regarding your first encounter, there is still no convincing evidence that it’s not man-made. The key think that’s missing is that you were not able to see any details of the object itself, except the red lights. What was the shape of this object?
Also regarding triangle ufos, the observer is most likely only triangular aspect of the object and missing out the other shapes. That’s just a guess based on the idea that’s it’s a dark object seen at night.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:59 am
@Todd
Sorry Todd, I was referring to the BLOG author Mr Bad Science. My bad.
@ND Regarding Isabell’s siting, these objects have been almost unanimously described as triangular, as sometimes the outline is clearly visible against the background of the sky and some have been observed in daylight/twilight. Of course it can also be affected by the angle of the observer but I think that’s not very relevant to the large number of similar sightings.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:00 am
My take on Micheal Horn is that he’s here on a fishing expedition, ruffling feathers and making up stories of defeated skeptics on his site. Very apparent from his childish comments. He started off very cortious when he first started posting.
As for the Meier video of the ufo flying around the tree, that did not look “actual size”. That model saucer was being dangled closer to the camera than implied. It never crossed in front of the tree. Even if it did, the tree and the saucer were silhouettes so one could not tell which was in front of the other.
As for the pictures and video of the saucer embeded in the tree, come on, that’s a small model tree rather than a real living one.
That’s the last I’m writing about it.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Todd W. says: “Calling people intolerably self-absorbed, stupid, etc….yeah, I’d call that kinda bullying.”
We really can’t expect much more from someone who promotes what is essentially “warmed-over” George Adamski.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:21 am
I find it more than a little telling that people here are automatically coming down on the side of the skeptics regarding the so-called million-dollar challenge, etc. Talk about prejudice.
First, a little something to contemplate. Million-dollar challenges tell you quite about the people that make them.
For one thing, it tells you that they are so sure about their view of reality that they’re willing to bet a whole lot of money on it.
(It also tells you that there just may be a bit of, perhaps unconscious, fear lurking beneath the surface, fear about things possibly NOT being exactly as they’d like them to be.)
Now, just how ready are they to have their reality – and their cash – separated from them? We can safely guess not very.
REAL scientists don’t make defiant bets on reality like that. They try to be as objective as humanly possible in determining what the facts actually are, whether they have prejudice, consciously or otherwise.
James Randi and his cronies ain’t no scientists. If you read the correspondence to me by Jeff Wagg, his General Manager, you’d think the guy was about 10 years-old (or maybe a not too clear-headed 85). The point here, that I jumped on with all my promotional vigor, is that James Randi (and his affiliated skeptics) are the ones who made the claim that Meier’s evidence, and the case itself, was a hoax.
Please THINK this through. An entity that has a million-dollar challenge preemptively claims that something is a hoax, then RETRACTS that claim and then…DOESN’T offer up the money? THEY are the ones who set the standard of proof, claimed that the Meier evidence failed it and then RETRACTED, i.e. failed to prove THEIR claim! THEY are the ones (the affiliated skeptics) who claimed that THEY could duplicate the evidence…and then couldn’t.
There was no need for me to apply for any challenge. THEY already published THEIR conclusions and then, as I presented my evidence and arguments…THEY WITHDREW THEIR CLAIMS.
Sorry for the caps but really, isn’t it obvious who you should be chewing out here? And I do mean OBVIOUS.
As for the nonsense questions regarding the Meier photos, films, video, metal, sound recordings, etc., sorry but they are just as off the mark as the lack of “reasoning” here.
Why? Well, let me answer it this way. If a teacher decided to give a class a test on some subject and the class protested, saying, “You didn’t cover any of this material in class!” and the teacher said, “Yes, I have but none of you were listening. However, I’ve posted all of the information – and answers – online and you can take as much time as you want to read it all BEFORE you take the test,” and, instead of going to where the answers could be clearly found, the students CONTINUED to protest, as if the teacher hadn’t clearly directed them to the answers…just how valid would their protest be?
Considering how well anyone here thought through the million-dollar challenge issue, I am not hopeful that you’ll get the point. Nonetheless, before giving any answers AGAIN, I leave you to ponder (ALL) of this.
That, my friends, is not “bullying”, it’s calling you out on your laziness, prejudice and inadequate scholarship and…thinking.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:49 am
@robin
While it is true that hoaxers have come forward, it is also true that not all crop circles can be attributed to them.
I’ll bite. Where is the evidence of crop circles that are not man made.
Skeptics love to point to hoaxes as if they account for every phenomenon. They do not.
That’s a flat out lie. Skeptics point to hoaxes along with other explanations to show there are more reasonable alternatives than alien visitation or lake plesiosaurs.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:51 am
@Michael Horn
Regarding the million dollar challenge, again, you make excuses for why you haven’t applied for it, and then complain that they didn’t give you the money. Let’s be clear. Their challenge is that if someone has some phenomenon that falls outside the realm of accepted science and reality (UFOs would be applicable here), they can apply for the prize, stating their claims clearly and undergoing testing to verify those claims. If you fail to follow the application procedures, they are under zero obligation to pay you anything. What part of that do you not understand, Mr. Horn?
You gave them a challenge, and they accepted. Your challenge said nothing about any prizes and did not obligate them to give you their prize monies.
So, the truth of my statement, that you lied, still stands. Complain all you want, it just makes you look worse.
Again, regarding claims. Your claims came first. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. Why do you keep failing to understand this?
As to the JREF not being scientists, I seem to recall James Randi readily admitting that fact, but also stating that they have a number of scientist colleagues who are willing to step up for any investigations, pending agreement by both the JREF and the applicant. So your statement brushing them off because they are not scientists is irrelevant.
As to your implication that scientists and prize money don’t mix, I recall this little, insignificant award called the Nobel Prize, which carries with it a modest bit of money.
Regarding your teacher analogy. If a teacher is asking the question of whether unicorns exist, and they produce photos, videos, and limited, non-peer-reviewed reports about hoof prints, horn material, etc., I think it would be a foolish student who says, “Yes, they do,” before asking to examine the original materials upon which the reports were based or examining the potential that the photos and videos could have been staged, not to mention the credibility of the sources. So, the photos and videos, again, are out as evidence. The reports, likewise, are out. Why? Because the original materials are rather suspiciously unavailable for examination by independent parties. This casts doubt on the reports you have provided.
Again, you have avoided answering the specific questions raised.
You’re right. That post was not bullying. It sounded a lot more like petulant whining and excuse-making.
Mr. Horn. Please answer one question for me. Why do you continually refuse to offer simple, straightforward answers to our questions, opting instead to go off on tangents that dance around the point but never hit home?
August 5th, 2008 at 7:55 am
@ND
“He started off very cortious when he first started posting.”
That’s Horn’s MO. He starts out sounding sane, but the moment someone disagrees with him, out come the insults, appeals to authority, and self-aggrandizement. If you take a look at the correspondence between him and the IIG, available on the IIG web site, you will see a similar mien.
Also, speaking of the IIG web site, they have an analysis that someone did of some of Meier’s prophecies. A crucial point identified by the author is that it is difficult to determine exactly when Meier wrote the prophecies down. Yes, he wrote dates on his notes, but he could be lying. The date of publication is the best we can do for confirming a reasonable timeframe for the prophecies.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:57 am
@Michael Horn
One quick question. Is it just a coincidence that Meier’s space ships to look exactly like ceramic bowls and garbage can lids? Doesn’t that bother you?
August 5th, 2008 at 8:08 am
@Jose
I predict he will not answer your question directly, but rather challenge you to replicate those photos using garbage can lids nd ceramic bowls.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:10 am
If anything would bother me it’s the fact that someone would post such a foolish, unthinking question in light of the above post from me that points out how putrid the thinking abilities here have been.
Then again, maybe you were gratuitously trying to emphasize that point.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:26 am
@Jose
Ah. I was wrong. He opted to only insult and not even challenge.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Ah well, what can we expect from someone who’s devoted his life to worshiping a fraud. Avoiding the obvious truth is too deeply ingrained.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Mr. Horn,
In the realm of science and reality, it is not up to me to look for holes in your “evidence.” It is up to you to show how your “evidence” is anything other than fiction. Based on the “evidence” you have placed in this blog, I have concluded that you and Meier are full of baloney.
You posted this tidbit:
“Semjase- 115/They will meet with surprises in many respects, as in the fact that Mars has much more water than earthly science had assumed until now.
116/ But there are also surprises in the character of the ground and the nature of the microworld.
117/The floric and faunic world can absolutely be found on Mars when the scientific instruments of these sondes are well enough to evaluate and store the concerned results.
Meier- Then “life on Mars” could prove true for our science?
Semjase- 118/It is in the compass of possibility, that the analyses could verify this, when the scientific instruments are qood enough, because faunic and floric forms of life are existing on Mars, even though this planet destroys other forms of life by its contrary to life nature.”
As of today, we have NEVER seen any plants or animals on Mars. In fact, the report that just came out TODAY indicates the presence of perchlorate, a toxin, was found by the Phoenix lander. This toxin was also found by the Viking landers in the ’70s. This is evidence that rules out any possibility that “faunic and floric forms of life are existing on Mars.” Therefore, Semjase is wrong, Meier is wrong, and you are wrong.
I am not interested in reading your fairy tales at the moment. Perhaps later, when I’m very bored and have nothing better to do, I might consider reading your 1300 pages of fantasy. As it stands, you have not been able to convince a single skeptic (some of whom are actually scientists) in this blog that the photos, videos, and alleged interviews with aliens are anything but total and complete nonsense. Your methods are flawed, your ideas are fanciful, and while you are adept at changing the subject and calling on the authority of others to make your case, you have failed to produce the one thing Phil and everyone else here have asked you for, over and over again: Evidence.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:47 am
Todd:
I think your expansion of the teacher analogy was flawed in a way that actually proves our point even more. No one would expect the average student to verify and test out the information provided by the teacher. Therein lies the entire problem. The average individual does not question Horn’s assumptions any more than a young student would question their teacher. It’s in the textbook and the teacher said it, so it must be right. It is up to those were are discerning and those that can detect the fallicies inherent in these theories that have a responsibility to the public to question extraordinary claims. Hence, the need for this site. Phil offers that sanity and attempts to lead the proverbial student down the path of how to approrpiately look at the evidence (or lack thereof) and scientifically make determinations based on accepted scientific principles. Again, as has been repeatedly stated, peer-reviewed articles, duplication of experiments and results are the way to verify evidence – not hearsay. We might want to also add the discernment of verifying that websites are authentic – anyone can create a webpage and put “information” out there. It is very important to educate the public in how to discern from an authentic website versus a marketing ploy, i.e., The Mayo Clinic vs. Kinoki foot pads….
Phil, as others have stated – you rock!! My sons and I routinely watch Ghost Hunters, and UFO shows so that I can teach them how to filter out the garbage that is abundant in the entertainment business (UFOs and ghosts sell tv time). You have assisted in dispelling many myths (the “moon hoax” being one – can’t wait for MythBusters, it’s one of our favs too).
August 5th, 2008 at 8:59 am
maninasia and nd -
The object was over the house. It was as maninasia says “lit up at the axis points”. It had an overall saucer shape to the approaching edge that we could see, closest to us, with a pointed top.
Draw a stretched out letter S, and connect a backward S beneath it, that is what it looked like. The lights were at the top of the first S and at the bottom of the backward S. Now turn the design 90degrees clockwise and that is what the front of it looked like. Couldn’t see the rest.
So I suppose it could have been a triangle. But that does not convince me that it was something manmade.
***NO ONE HAS ADDRESSED THE FACT THAT IT VANISHED, VAPORIZED, DEMATERIALIZED – BEFORE OUR EYES!!!***
Is this a technology that “we” had in ’83 or even today? …….. Anyone?
I would be very interested to learn more of a US Airforce technology that enables a vehicle to silently hover and then DEMATERIALIZE.
What sort energy would a craft like this use? Why wouldn’t, (given the current economic energy crisis that our country and the rest of the world are facing),our government develop this technology for market consumtion? It would certainly make a whole lot of people, very very rich.
One more thought…
If we do have cloaking device technology, how many flying objects are over our cities and towns right now I wonder? And what are they doing?
If we don’t, and these are not from here, how many flying objects are over our cities and towns right now I wonder? And what are they doing?
August 5th, 2008 at 9:00 am
@maninasia,
You said, “You have pointed out the standard scientific method well. You’ve also illustrated by doing that why it is not very useful for studying the topic of UFOs (as I explained in a previous posting). Considering most scientists wouldn’t touch this area with the proverbial bargepole make it doubly hard to do scientific research.”
If the Scientific Method is not a useful tool for studying UFOs, then by your definition, Studying UFO’s is not Science. Well, at least we can agree on something!
And Robin, you said, “Given the nature of the phenomenon, it may be that a new methodology must be created in order to analyze the available data, of which there is a great deal.”
I’m sorry, but changing the scientific method for the sake of studying paranormal activity is, how can I say this nicely… unrealistic. The whole point of this method is to ensure that when experiments are done, they are done in repeatable ways, and with certainty. If you cannot test your idea following this method, then it is not science. It may fall in the realms of philosophy, or fiction, or fantasy, but it would not be science.
And that’s what we are looking for here: scientific evidence. This is not about swapping UFO stories, or collecting eyewitness information, but solid, hold-it-in-my-hand, tested, retested, and confirmed evidence.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:16 am
To Isabell,
You said, “the object, as I said, was visible because it blocked the stars. When we looked at it, it looked like black space. We were in a remote area where the sky was lit up with gazillion stars.”
Can you recall about how large of an area of the stars were blocked? If you hold your arm all the way out, and make a fist with your hand, was the size of this object larger or smaller than your fist? Can you recall about how many stars were blocked at one time?
Later today, when I get some more time, I’ll work up some calculations to determine how much sky large objects would block when viewed from the ground. That would help give us a better idea of how large this object was that you saw.
Let me say again what I said many days ago: I do not doubt that you saw something. What I’d like to do is help determine if you could have seen something man-made.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:29 am
@ robin
And…could you please offer some justification for that statement? All the reports I have seen state the exact opposite: that once the crop circle hoax became a big media phenomenon, suddenly a whole bunch of old UFO case studies were updated to include them. (See the Westfall post, above.) You’ve got the sequence wrong.
@ Michael Horn
Can’t help but notice you STILL haven’t commented on my comparison of the Meier films to my old super 8mm home movies with their model flying saucers buzzing my house. I guess the only analysis you want done is by people who will back up your claims. Surprise!!!
August 5th, 2008 at 9:37 am
@Charly
Thanks for pointing out the flaw between my analogy and the average person. Not quite the point I was trying to make, but a very important and valid one, nonetheless!
August 5th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Isabell,
There really is no way for us to speculate on the vanishing aspect of it since there is no way for us to confirm that it actually happened in the first place. I’m sorry but this happened in the dark, away from light pollution to an object that was darker than the sky. And this is what’s frustrating is that there is no record of this object for us to look at.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Dr.Ed Mitchell is one of this nation’s heros one of the rare few human beings to have walked upon off world soil that went to the Moon. An now it is that American Hero that is telling the world the Truth!
Yes we know Roswell was real.
Yes we have been in ‘First Contact’ for 60 years and
Yes your Government is covering that up.
Along with stating that he was privy to the evidence because of his position.
Your not going to see ‘Evidence’ Phil because your Government is Covering it Up. Something every ‘UFO Believer’ Researcher, Investigator has been screaming for the past 50 years.
You can not dismiss the Statement from one of Americas very own Heros of “The Right Stuff” these were not just your average Joe off the street. They were “The Best of the Best” of NASA and Air Force choosen for those missions. Therefore Dr.Edgar Mitchell’s statements have a hell of alot of weight behind it. Saturn Five Thruster Weight.
To try to dismiss what he is saying makes you and every skeptic out there look like “Flat Earthers”
Now is the time for real Men and Women of Science to come forward and investigate phenomena instead of parroting denial of the phenomena.
Edgars F
Indianapolis, IN
August 5th, 2008 at 9:56 am
@Isabell
While Greg is working on calculations, mind if I summarise your case so far?
Summer of ’83 you were out with about 15-20 people at night. You saw two red lights in the distance, approaching your position. It came overhead, then headed off before vanishing. The body of the object could not be seen, but you could kinda make out the silhouette due to the object blocking out the stars.
Can I ask some clarifying questions? You mentioned in your first post that the two lights were at either end, but in a later post, that they were on either side. Which is it?
Also, you mention that it “had a domed shape to it”, but then later that it had “a pointed top”. Please clarify.
What time of night was it? Was the moon out, and if so, what phase was it in?
How long had you been out there before seeing the object? Were there any other lights in the area? If so, where were they in relation to you and in relation to the object?
Did you watch the object the entire time, without once looking away, even for a moment?
Was there talking? Music? A radio? Any other ambient noise around you?
Do you remember exactly where you were? What was the closest city/town? Were there any hills or mountains nearby? Trees? What was the landscape around you like?
The more details you can provide, the more likely we will be to approximate what it may have been.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:58 am
@Isabell
A couple other questions that I forgot about:
How bright were the lights on the object?
How large were the lights?
August 5th, 2008 at 9:59 am
@isabell
***NO ONE HAS ADDRESSED THE FACT THAT IT VANISHED, VAPORIZED, DEMATERIALIZED – BEFORE OUR EYES!!!***
There are 3 possibilities.
1. You saw exactly what you say you saw. In which case, aliens are as good an explanation as any other.
2. You and your friends have fooled yourself into thinking you saw something.
3. You’re making it up.
We have plenty of evidence that 2 and 3 happen all the time. If you’re going to prove 1, you need more evidence. You fall into the same category as thousands of other people. I hope that someday soon, you, or one of the other people succeeds, but given how common video cameras are these days, it’s seems likely this should have already happened. Instead we get the same old lights in the distance. Nobody has their camera handy when the giant mile long triangles appear. I’m sorry if that’s not satisfactory, but you’re going to have to live with that.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Greg-
the object was about the width of the large farmhouse it hovered above.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:09 am
“No one would expect the average student to verify and test out the information provided by the teacher. Therein lies the entire problem.”
As I said, a lot of lazy, self-satisfied poseurs here. Pardon me but isn’t it obvious that a test is based on the information presented and/or taught? Since “facts” in science (and other subjects, such as history, etc.) have certainly been amended as new knowledge is acquired, the purpose of a test is to determine how well the information at hand was comprehended by the student.
If a test includes essay, arguments, rebuttals, etc. that’s another story.
Since the overall tone here is one of snobbish superiority and prideful disdain for actually researching the material, it’s a clear reflection, again, on the prejudicial, very infantile attitudes of the “experts” here.
I am, however, still hopeful that one of your peers here will have the brain power to perceive and explain it to all of you, oh so sensitive types, who wince at any suggestion that you’re not the intellectual giants you’d like to think you are.
As for the foolish comments above, “This is evidence that rules out any possibility that ‘faunic and floric forms of life are existing on Mars.’ Therefore, Semjase is wrong, Meier is wrong, and you are wrong,” and about the Viking 1 Orbiter, pardon me but the pomposity of the author of those statements apparently obscured his thinking abilities sufficiently that he failed to note two things.
One, of course, is the well-advised use of the word “yet” regarding finding life there.
The other is that, at least according to what I have been able to find in the records (correct ME if I am wrong) the Viking 1 Orbiter landed on Mars on July 20, 1976…and Meier’s information was published on July 8, 1976.
That’s 12 days BEFORE it landed.
Refresher course: No internet in 1976 (though wouldn’t matter in this case since info was published before discovery); Swiss farmer living in remote rural environment publishes specific, prophetically accurate scientific information (the word is used because the information was published before events occurred and/or “official” discovery), same man produced six categories of still irreproducible physical evidence, all while on partial physical disability (loss of left arm) while raising family with three kids, working as night watchman, renovating run down farm house, no financial or technological resources or collaborators. Have a nice day, my dear know-it-alls.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Mr. Horn, you said, “If anything would bother me it’s the fact that someone would post such a foolish, unthinking question in light of the above post from me that points out how putrid the thinking abilities here have been.”
I bet all these direct, unanswerable questions are really getting to you.
Mr. Horn, why is it that you are unable or unwilling to answer even the most simple questions posed to you? Is it because the people asking the questions aren’t intelligent enough for you? Is it really because they haven’t spent enough time reading your alleged evidence?
How do you explain the hundreds of photos online that prove Meier’s UFO photos are simply painted trashcan lids?
How do you explain that the objects in Meier’s UFO videos have been recreated by others using ordinary objects, like hubcaps and lids tied to strings?
How do you explain the fact that most of Meier’s predictions are either false, or were made after the events occur?
How do you explain the disappearance of Meier’s alien metal, or the lack of actual scientific analysis?
How do you explain the evidence of toxins on Mars that further supports the evidence that no plants and animals exist on Mars?
I’m sorry if these questions are too simple. I know you’ve done a lot of “research” on this subject, so these should have been the first ones you asked yourself, and should therefore, be the easiest to answer.
By the way, to anyone interested, I gave this guy Horn the benefit of the doubt. I sincerely hoped he could bring something substantial to this topic. I didn’t look for any other claims against Horn or Meyer except for what was presented here, until today. I wanted to see for myself if what he said was true.
If you do a google search for ‘billy meier fake’ I’m afraid you will find an overwhelming mountain of evidence against their claims. There are not only articles, blogs, and copies of emails debunking this whole story, but also photos and some great videos on youtube.
I’m still hopeful that someone will have some real actual scientifically provable evidence for aliens, but I’m less than hopeful that it will turn up here, or anytime soon. I also hope that some “believers” out there will consider that the real “truth” can only be found by using the same scientific method we’ve been using for at least a thousand years.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Yes, Mr. Horn, I thought you’d bring that up,
“One, of course, is the well-advised use of the word “yet” regarding finding life there.”
We have yet to find life on Mars. We have yet to see purple monkeys fly out my butt, and we have yet to see any real evidence from you. However, the evidence is strong that there are no plants or animals existing on Mars at this time.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Mr. Horn:
Taking two sentences out of context is not a legitimate way of discrediting a statement.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Oh, and by the way, Viking 1 was not the first lander from Earth to land on Mars.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Hey Mr. Horn, you STILL haven’t taken me up on my kind offer to compare Mr. Meier’s films with my 8mm home movies of UFOs flying over my house. What gives? I’m offering you some expert help, here!
August 5th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Todd:
Summer of ‘83 you were out with about 15-20 people at night.
I: yes
You saw two red lights in the distance, approaching your position.
I:Yes
It came overhead, then headed off before vanishing.
I: It came overhead, stopped overhead, then moved on a short distance and vanished.
The body of the object could not be seen, but you could kinda make out the silhouette due to the object blocking out the stars.
I: yes
Can I ask some clarifying questions?
You mentioned in your first post that the two lights were at either end, but in a later post, that they were on either side. Which is it?
I: From the approach, one light followed the other. Overhead it appeared that each of the 2 lights were on either side of the object. The object was wider on the sides where the lights were.
Also, you mention that it “had a domed shape to it”, but then later that it had “a pointed top”. Please clarify.
I: When I first posted that report, I was at a loss as to how to explain the shape. I am a visual person, not so much a writer and can do much better with a detailed rendering than a written description.
The “S” example isn’t even a perfect description. If there was some way for me to post a drawing for you, I would.
What time of night was it? Was the moon out, and if so, what phase was it in?
I: It was about 10pm or so. I don’t recall any moon.
How long had you been out there before seeing the object? Were there any other lights in the area? If so, where were they in relation to you and in relation to the object?
I: We were outside for about 1/2 hour before seeing the object. There were no other lights around. This is a remote area.
Did you watch the object the entire time, without once looking away, even for a moment?
I: Yes
Was there talking? Music? A radio? Any other ambient noise around you?
I:No, except for “Oh my god, what is that, do you see that?” sort of exchange.
Do you remember exactly where you were? What was the closest city/town? Were there any hills or mountains nearby? Trees? What was the landscape around you like?
I: Of course I remember where I was. I’m not that brain dead yet! South Kortright NY located between Stamford and Delhi NY.
The more details you can provide, the more likely we will be to approximate what it may have been.
I:Thanks
August 5th, 2008 at 10:39 am
“Taking two sentences out of context is not a legitimate way of discrediting a statement.”
MH: The statements were made and the conclusions jumped to.
“Oh, and by the way, Viking 1 was not the first lander from Earth to land on Mars.”
MH: Is there published evidence as to what they found there? It would be interesting to know.
Again, the fact that the evidence (published documentation) is not being scoured, let alone that publishing some of it here isn’t knocking the dust out of people’s heads, demonstrates that people prefer to behave like adolescents, hurling challenges INSTEAD of doing actual research.
VERY adolescent.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:40 am
jose-
I can’t prove anything jose, just recounting what we saw.
And this happened when I was in my 20′s. 25 years ago. None of us had cell phones or digital cameras or even owned video cameras at the time. Alot has changed in 25 years!
Re:Vanishing aspect…
Anyone know of ANY such terrestrial technology?
August 5th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Greg in Austin says: “Mr. Horn, why is it that you are unable or unwilling to answer even the most simple questions posed to you? Is it because the people asking the questions aren’t intelligent enough for you? Is it really because they haven’t spent enough time reading your alleged evidence?”
He’s too busy calling everyone who disarees with him names.
“I sincerely hoped that he could bring something substantial to this topic.”
Nope…just flying hubcaps, trash can lids, and the like.
Mr. Horn, the problem you having is that posters here THINK FOR THEMSELVES, and are not going to be swayed by bulling, irrelevancies, or even your laughable insistance that the meier pictures are not faked…we all know they are faked.
…and if you can’t post without calling others names then perhaps you should post elsewhere.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:41 am
@Greg in Austin:
Greg said,
”
“By the way, Viking 1 was not the first lander to land on Mars
Ah, Greg, I assume you mean this one:
(A perfect example of the gullibility of conspiracy theorists. Alternative 3 was an April Fools joke broadcast on Anglia TV in the UK in 1977)
August 5th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Oops, I posted that wrong> Sorry BA!
August 5th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Todd-
The red lights were not too bright. They were about the size of my fist overhead.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:45 am
@ Greg:
According to Wikipedia, regarding Viking 1 Orbiter:
“The lander separated from the orbiter on July 20 08:51 UT and landed at 11:53:06 UT. It was the first attempt by the United States at landing on Mars.”
August 5th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Re: Billy Meier… There are so many more compelling UFO accounts. Move on.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:48 am
@Greg
I would suggest dropping the life on Mars bit. Meier’s purported prophecy leaves open both the possibility for there to be no life or for some sign of a different form of life to be found. Like all good prophecies, it leaves all options open.
@Isabell
A couple more follow-up questions.
How did you get to the location? If you drove, did you then walk to the spot? If you walked at all, how did you see where you were going?
How long did the object take to get overhead, from when you first saw it? How long did the object stop overhead, approximately? How long did it take to get from overhead to the point it disappeared?
What brought you to the location? Why did you go there? What had you been doing before you saw the object?
Can you provide a little more info about the terrain? Hills? Mountains? Trees? Streams/rivers? Also, at that time, about how big was South Kortright?
Thanks for your other answers!
August 5th, 2008 at 10:54 am
MH – 1) yes, you have proven irrefutably that if a simple statement is made, you will jump to conclusions without further ado; and 2) wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source for anything as virtually anyone can provide edits and, since it is not subject to expert review, much misinformation is posted there. It is possible to deliberately post bad information in Wikipedia and to tell someone else that “the informaiton must be true, it’s in Wikipedia….” yes, later the bad information got corrected, but for a while it was out there. Which is why you should ensure that your sources are legitimate and subject to expert review – and not self-defined experts.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:55 am
@Isabell
“Anyone know of ANY such terrestrial technology?”
Hmm…light switch? j/k
I personally haven’t heard of anything that could bend light in a manner required to make something vanish or appear to do so.
If there were hills, trees or anything in the area, it may have gone behind them.
Did the lights maintain the same apparent brightness between when it was overhead and when it vanished? Any dimming due to distance or orientation?
August 5th, 2008 at 10:55 am
@Michael Horn,
But we landed there with the Russians in 1962! Haven’t you seen the video? It clearly shows a landing taking place on the surface of Mars! You hear the join Russian/American crew talking with Mission Control! It’s just as compelling as you friend Billy’s photos! By the way, I have seen some of Billy’s photos. In one presentation, a scrapbook of pictures is shown. The presenter states that Meier was taken to Mars in a beam ship, where he took a picture of an orbiting “platform”. That “platform” was shown with an American flag emblazoned on it’s side. It shows a portion of the “platform” and it’s solar panels. It took me less that 5 seconds to identify it as the Viking orbiter. It was obviously a promotional picture from NASA that Meier had claimed as his own. The Apollo-Soyuz pictures, where Meier claims to have asked his “friends” to take him into orbit to let him see this event, were almost assuredly similar promotional photos from NASA. One of his pictures of the female Pleidian (Semja, I think), was identified as a performer on a popular Americam variety show from the 1970′s. Meier had simply photographed his television screen.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Wow, this thread is hotting up by the day. Good to see people interested in the subject no matter which ‘side’, if any, they’re on.
Isabell,
Have you reported your sighting to SETI? If not, I’m sure they’ll be interested. They will surely send someone round to get the story and will take you very seriously.
To anyone who is still demanding evidence which they won’t find any time soon, take a look at the new i-phone and compare it to a telephone from about thirty years ago. Erm…natural progression?? Who ARE these inventors?
August 5th, 2008 at 11:01 am
@ Michael Horn:
Hey, dude, I’ve been offering to research the nature of your filmed “evidence” for two days now. You’re not biting. Why is that? Oh, yeah, I forgot. Because I’m someone who might actually know a thing or two about flying saucer models on a string! Better to go find an expert in refrigerator repair or something equally non-germane and mine his opinion for nuggets that might look good on the back of a book jacket (only $20.00 plus shipping, available x-clusively from Michael Horn’s website!).
August 5th, 2008 at 11:02 am
isabell Says: “I can’t prove anything jose, just recounting what we saw.”
Then you should have no difficulty understanding why we are skeptical.
“Re:Vanishing aspect…
Anyone know of ANY such terrestrial technology?”
Why do you assume that what you saw was a product of technology? Have you considered that you may have witnessed an atmospheric phenomena that you simply were not familiar with?
August 5th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Isabell, your sighting, and the confusion as to the shape and placement of the lights on the object is a perfect example of how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be. Now, couple that with it being a night time sighting, and it could have been anything. I have seen helicopters at night, and mistaken then for something else because of the placement of their lights.
I would also bet that each of those people would describe the object somewhat differently. I’m not suggesting that you, or thousands of other people have not seen something that you could not identify, but be careful about jumping to conclusions concerning what you saw.
August 5th, 2008 at 11:47 am
@ Dude addresser:
RE: “Because I’m someone who might actually know a thing or two about flying saucer models on a string!”
When you can prove that your DEMONSTRABLE credentials are Academy Award-winning caliber…you bet I’ll give you the time of day. And, since you seem to have a very short attention span, the experts at Uncharted Territory (winners for the MODELS and effects in Independence Day) said THEY would need CG to duplicate Meier’s UFO films.
Remember they said, “But, to reflect on the statement that’s in the film, I also remember seeing a shot on the Super8 reel that showed a UFO circling around a fairly tall tree. According to that shot, we said that we can’t conclusively say whether it’s real or not, but it seemed impossible to stage that kind of a shot with a miniature (it would have to be hanging on a very tall crane, with wires – but even then the movements would be hard to achieve.) So, yes, in regards to that shot, we mentioned that we could definitely do it today with CG, but at the time these were supposedly shot – it would have been very hard, probably even impossible, to fake this kind of shot.”
Now, go ahead exert your own “expertise” above theirs.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
@Michael Horn:
You said: “When you can prove that your DEMONSTRABLE credentials are Academy Award-winning caliber…you bet I’ll give you the time of day. And, since you seem to have a very short attention span, the experts at Uncharted Territory (winners for the MODELS and effects in Independence Day) said THEY would need CG to duplicate Meier’s UFO films.”
I recently saw the whole Alien Autopsy debate once again (since proven to be a hoax), and I seem to remember them interviewing the same usual suspects, the Oscar winning sfx “experts”, who claimed it had to be real because there was no way they could replicate it.
Larry King recently aired an interview about the famous “peeping tom” alien. Same thing, trotting out the visual effects “experts”, claiming that it could not be faked. It has been shown it can be faked quite easily.
You really have to do better than that!
August 5th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Oh, another appeal to authority from Michael Horn. yay.
I find it quite interesting that modern technicians claim they can’t do the hoax as well as Billy did.
Kind of like the modern special effects guys who claim on Bigfoot shows that they couldn’t duplicate the Patterson film. Then along comes a guy who worked special effects in the 1960′s who claims to have made the suit.
Modern technicians aren’t up on the “old school” ways of doing things. I work with lots of old dudes who can do engineering formulas on sliderules faster than the young guys can on a calculator. Heck, the young guys can’t even use a sliderule. They think the things are magic or something.
Michael should give kuhnigget a shot, but that would mean actually chancing Billy’s hoax.
The fact that he won’t tells me he has something to hide. What are hiding Michael?
August 5th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
@Michael Horn
Let’s add some emphasis to that quote about the UT comment:
“But, to reflect on the statement that’s in the film, I also remember seeing a shot on the Super8 reel that showed a UFO circling around a fairly tall tree. According to that shot, we said that we can’t conclusively say whether it’s real or not, but it seemed impossible to stage that kind of a shot with a miniature (it would have to be hanging on a very tall crane, with wires – but even then the movements would be hard to achieve.) So, yes, in regards to that shot, we mentioned that we could definitely do it today with CG, but at the time these were supposedly shot – it would have been very hard, probably even impossible, to fake this kind of shot.”
Okay, so they couldn’t say whether it was real or not. Hardly a ringing endorsement that it was a real alien UFO. It seemed impossible to stage, but it was still possible. They did not say that they had to use CG, but that they definitely could achieve the same result with CG. And, in their estimation, which is at best guesswork and conjecture, it would have been difficult, probably (but not definitely) impossible.
So, that quote really shoots you in the foot. It does not definitively prove that the film was faked, but it certainly stops far short of saying that the film depicts an actual flying craft of alien origin.
So, again, this is proof of aliens how?
August 5th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
@ Michael L,
LOL! No, I wasn’t talking about that video, but I was hoping Bugs Bunny would pop his head up out of the ground at the end!
@ Mr. Horn,
If you can read, you will see that I said “Viking 1 was not the first lander from Earth to land on Mars. ”
The Soviet Union sent its Mars 2 and Mars 3 orbiters and landers 5 years before Viking, in 1971. The landers did not last long (Mars 2 failed at landing, and the Mars 3 only lasted about 15 seconds). However, the orbiters gathered much information in the three months or so of data collection.
From Wiki, where you got your Viking info:
“The Mars 3 orbiter sent back a large volume of data covering the period from December 1971 to March 1972, although transmissions continued through August. It was announced that Mars 3 had completed their mission by 22 August 1972, after 20 orbits. The probe, combined with Mars 2, sent back a total of 60 pictures. The images and data revealed mountains as high as 22 km, atomic hydrogen and oxygen in the upper atmosphere, surface temperatures ranging from -110 C to +13 C, surface pressures of 5.5 to 6 mb, water vapor concentrations 5000 times less than in Earth’s atmosphere, the base of the ionosphere starting at 80 to 110 km altitude, and grains from dust storms as high as 7 km in the atmosphere. The images and data enabled creation of surface relief maps, and gave information on the Martian gravity and magnetic fields.”
Simply from that data, anyone in Europe, especially someone in Germany, could very easily predict that there is some water on Mars, making life possible. And doing so a couple of years before the US was actually able to gather its own evidence would indeed seem amazing. However, any real scientist would hesitate to say with any certainty that life existed there until more data was gathered.
But I would think you would have already known this, considering how much “research” you have done.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Todd-
“How did you get to the location? If you drove, did you then walk to the spot? If you walked at all, how did you see where you were going?”
I: I lived there. Just walked outside.
“How long did the object take to get overhead, from when you first saw it? How long did the object stop overhead, approximately? How long did it take to get from overhead to the point it disappeared?”
I: It took a while, about 10 minutes to get from where we first saw it to overhead. It stopped overhead for about 3-5 minutes, then when it resumed moving it took about 2+- minutes before it vanished.
“What brought you to the location? Why did you go there? What had you been doing before you saw the object?”
I: I lived there. Before going outside we had dinner and cleaned up the kitchen.
“Can you provide a little more info about the terrain? Hills? Mountains? Trees? Streams/rivers? Also, at that time, about how big was South Kortright?”
I: It is a hilly terrain with trees streams etc. but the object vanished just beyond the front of the house. There were no trees or mountains between the house and where the object disappeared in the sky. And the object was above the house and tree line. South Kortright is a very small town. It is still small. We didn’t live near any stores etc. NO artifical lights around other than the lights in the house. (Which were off).
Squid-
No I have not reported this to SETI.
“To anyone who is still demanding evidence which they won’t find any time soon, take a look at the new i-phone and compare it to a telephone from about thirty years ago. Erm…natural progression?? Who ARE these inventors?”
I: Good question. Wouldn’t you love to be working in those back rooms?
From RAF-
“Then you should have no difficulty understanding why we are skeptical.”
I: Are you kidding? I’d have to be an idiot to assume that I’d be taken seriously by most of you here.
“Why do you assume that what you saw was a product of technology? Have you considered that you may have witnessed an atmospheric phenomena that you simply were not familiar with?”
I: I don’t know what I saw. Feel free to familiarize me, given the accounts I have posted here for you, to what sort of atmospheric phenomena I could have seen. I am not aware of atmospheric phenomena that involve red lights & large dark masses, silver hovering discs, or rotating “stars”. Get out your unabridged ‘Atmospheric Phenomena’ book and please explain.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Appeal to authority is what people rely on here…when it suits their purpose.
Then we get this, “Simply from that data, anyone in Europe, especially someone in Germany, could very easily predict that there is some water on Mars, making life possible. And doing so a couple of years before the US was actually able to gather its own evidence would indeed seem amazing. ”
…which, of course, begs the question if anyone DID make that prediction. Or the one about the toxins in the soil.
And, again of course, when was the first analysis done on the Martian soil…by anyone?
And since you are quoting – from authorities, no less – info on Mars from the Wiki source, at some future time I’ll be glad to post similarly specific info on Venus, from Meier, that was published one year before the first probe got there.
As for the challenges re special effects, models, etc. read the UC quote and do try to grasp what these guys, who know BOTH old and new school are saying. Try also to grasp the significance of the failure of CFI-West, IIG and JREF to debunk or duplicate Meier’s evidence.
Lastly, no one here seems to want to complain still about the million-dollar challenge. Did the logic actually sink in?
I’ll have to work out some complex formulas to calculate precipitation time.
May you all be held to the same standards of thinking (let alone evidence) that you display here.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
@ Mr. Horn,
Didn’t I already rip to shreds your claim from Uncharted Territory? That’s right, in this very blog topic, way up the page, on July 31st, 2008 at 10:50 pm. Maybe you forgot you already tried that here.
Your other statement makes me laugh: “When you can prove that your DEMONSTRABLE credentials are Academy Award-winning caliber…you bet I’ll give you the time of day.”
Guys, we are such FOOLS! Here we were this whole time looking for someone with Nobel Prize caliber credentials, when we should have been looking for someone from the Best Actor category! What foolish fools! It all makes sense! Let’s get the guys from the Special Effects department, some Cinematographers, and maybe someone from Sound and Lighting to come here and represent us! THEN we’ll get the time of day from Mr. Horn!
Oh, how foolish we’ve been.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
@horn
Now, go ahead exert your own “expertise” above theirs.
OK. Someone was even kind enough to link to a picture of the exact model of trash can lid Billy Meier used. You, with all your “expertise”, can’t even answer the most simple, honest, direct questions. Instead, you avoid the questions and hurl insults. If you can answer people’s questions, that’s great. If you’re just going to continue to whine and not answer questions that should be simple for a Billy Meier “expert” to answer, then go away.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Mr. Horn,
That would be amazing! You’re saying he predicted stuff about Venus, too? Wow! How much if it came true?
How much of it DID NOT come true?
August 5th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
@Michael Horn
Please see my post regarding the UT quote with emphasis added. You keep bringing up that quote, yet it concludes nothing.
Regarding the million dollar challenge, you are still a liar and have not addressed that issue, except to make excuses.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
@ Michael Horn
Wow. Nice try. I love the way you keep using the expression “special effects experts” as the source of your quote from Uncharted Territories. And Academy Award™ winners, too! Um…companies don’t make statements, people do. Now let’s look into this a little more… On your website you name the person who actually made the statements: Marc Weigert. Let’s have a look at the Uncharted Territories website, shall we?
So…someone who created computer based project management software is your expert? Hm.
I repeat my earlier assertion: why not just get a refrigerator repairman?
But instead, here’s a more helpful thought: contact a guy named Greg Jein. Greg, apart from being the premier model builder in Hollywood (there’s your argument from authority), is also a collector of old movie models and a historian of classic visual effects, including the so-called Leidecker shots on which model aircraft, spaceships, superman figures, etc. were suspended from wires and subsequently filmed. See, Greg would actually know something about how models were filmed before the days of digital compositing techniques, motion control cameras, and all the other neat techniques that today’s effects companies use.
But you know something? You won’t pick up the phone and call Mr. Jein, because he wouldn’t give you the statements you need to sell your books. Instead, you’ll stick with Mr. Weigert, who probably writes great project management software, but seems to have difficulty spotting a wobbly trash can lid hanging from a string.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
@Everyone else
Mr. Horn has proven, with every one of his posts, that he will not answer any of our questions with a straight answer. He has also proven that he will not produce the original items or their whereabouts for us to examine, despite the fact that he keeps asking us to do the research. He’s further shown that he will repeat, ad nauseam, the same arguments, adding nothing new to the discussion. And, finally, it has been shown that he is a liar (an accusation which he has yet to rebut), a whiner, and an arrogant prig. In case you don’t know the meaning of that word, Mr. Horn, it means:
I think the time has come to ignore any and all future posts by him. He will undoubtedly claim this as a victory of “the stupid skeptics”, yet another lie to add to his collection. It’s a small price to pay, though, if it will shut him up.
Mr. Horn, you can respond to this post all you want. You can rail against the heavens, insult me, claim that you have won, do whatever the hell you want to. But, until you actually produce some evidence to support your claims, I’m done with you. You are a sorry, sad little man clinging to a much-discredited delusion. I would laugh if I didn’t feel so much pity for you.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Michael,
I am not, or never was confused about the shape. It is clear in my mind, and has been for these 20+ years. What is unclear is the communication.
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.
I realize that you don’t know me, and are reading very carefully, to find weakness, deception or confusion in my accounts. Others are reading this who have had similar experiences and have seen similar unexplained phenomena and are realizing that coming forward and talking about it is okay. The fact is, you are in the minority. – The majority of Americans believe that UFO’s are not manmade. I assure you, for whatever it’s worth, that I’m being completley honest and forthright. I too tend to be a major skeptic and have a high reguard for science. If I hadn’t seen what I have seen, I probably wouldn’t believe it either.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
“Appeal to authority is what people rely on here…when it suits their purpose.”
Wrong. Whose authority did I appeal to?
See, the amazing thing about real Science, is that I don’t have to trust anyone else’s results. If they followed the correct methods, I can check the data myself, or even collect new data myself using their same methods. If I don’t believe what my teacher tells me, or what my textbook says (which is sadly more often than it should be) then I can do the experiment myself, and prove them right or wrong.
For example, if I didn’t trust the source from Wiki, or Yahoo News or wherever, about the latest Mars Phoenix Lander data, I can get the raw data and analyze it myself. They have complete documentation on the lander’s equipment, their data collection methodology, the format that the data packets transmitted to Earth are in, and their procedures for analysis. If I had the time, and the money, I could repeat the entire process and see if my results match theirs.
The folks at NASA are not perfect, and they sometimes make mistakes (Phil has posted pictures of galaxies on his blog before containing simple errors, and even commented on it.) But by and large, I trust them enough to know they have the expertise to safely say they know what they are doing.
What I don’t trust is someone who claims they have evidence, but clearly cannot produce that evidence. Someone who, in the face of alternative explanations, refuses to accept any such explanations. Someone who, when asked point blank to explain themselves, instead twists words, avoids the question, and spews insults.
I guess the authority I appeal to is Science and Reality.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
isabel says: “Get out your unabridged ‘Atmospheric Phenomena’ book and please explain.”
You are the one making the claim that what you saw was some type of vehicle. There is no need for me to explain what you saw as the burden of proof is yours.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
You rely on scientists giving you the truthful information – all of it. And when it can be shown that that same information, which you trust, was already published by a simple person 32 years before NASA published it…you prefer to find a way to be right, instead of finding out what the truth is.
In that way, you’re exactly like the Million-Dollar man and his cronies.
Some “science” at work there.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
@Todd
You are, of course, correct, as was the earlier poster who identified Mr. Horn for the trolling huckster that he is. Every inch of blog space he gets is one more opportunity for him to sell his cheesy books.
My offer still stands, however. I’ll put my old 8mm flying saucer movies up against Herr Meier’s any day. Mine look better. Maybe Mr. Horn could put mine in a book, too? Then he’d have even more cheese to sell.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Oh, and Phil, I apologize if my final post regarding Mr. Horn sounded a bit harsh. Feel free to delete it if you feel it violates your commenting policies, but I stand by every word in it. I sincerely hope that your experiences with the man will be better than what he has shown in this thread.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
kuhnigget says: “Every inch of blog space he gets is one more opportunity for him to sell his cheesy books.”
I agree. Mr. Horn has made ZERO attempts at providing convincing evidence.
Of course with every inch of blog space, Mr. Horn also reveals his true nature, so he’s really not doing himself any favors by being rude.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Mr. Horn, where is the concrete evidence? All you have offered up are pictures of trash can lids with fancy metalwork attached. Good Lord, if I were a Pleidian, I’d be embarrassed to fly that damn wedding cake thing! If that were real, these poor people would be the laughingstock of the galaxy! Also, the ’70′s Variety show that Meier’s ET ladyfriend was photographed from: The Dean Martin Show. Oh, how convenient was Meier’s excuse when that fraud was revealed: someone stole the original photo and replaced it with that one to discredit me! This is laughable. You sir, are a huckster. Deceiving people with this kind of nonsense just to line your pocket is disgusting.
Again, produce concrete physical evidence, and we will believe it. In other words, “Put up, or shut up.”
August 5th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Isabell, I am not saying that you did not see something that you could not identify. However, just because you could not identify it, does not mean it has to have an otherworldly explanation. When people first saw the Stealth Fighter, or the B2 Spirit Stealth Bomber, I am sure many of them thought they were seeing a UFO, and may have attributed those sightings to alien spaceships. The fact is, there are many aircraft of various shapes and sizes in our skies that might look weird. The military is constantly testing new equipment, both manned and unmanned. My point is this: we should not jump to conclusions without solid evidence, and I’m sorry if this offends, but seeing something in the sky that you could not identify does not cut it as solid evidence.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Isabell,
When the object disappeared, did this happen slowly or instantaneously?
One thing that’s weighs heavily on your encounter, asside from the fact that we weren’t there is the lighting conditions. the object was not under any illumination and there for could not see any details. The movement you described in a previous post sounds rather consistent with a blimp to me.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
@Mr. Horn,
You have a hard time reading.
You said, “You rely on scientists giving you the truthful information – all of it. And when it can be shown that that same information, which you trust, was already published by a simple person 32 years before NASA published it…you prefer to find a way to be right, instead of finding out what the truth is.”
That is the opposite of what I said. I said I can gather the information myself if I don’t trust the person giving it, if it was done scientifically. Since neither you nor Mr. Meier can provide any evidence, there is no way for me to repeat his study. I will not take your word or his word for it, you must provide the evidence for analysis.
Publishing a document in no way becomes proof. For the umpteenth time, provide some testable evidence.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Sorry its taking so long to do some estimates for the sizes of objects as viewed from the ground. I need to go outside and take some data, and I can’t right now. So far, the only thing I’ve done is estimate the surface area of a couple objects.
An average farm house is probably around 2500 sq. ft. Assuming an ordinary rectangular shape, let’s say its 100 feet long and 25 feet wide.
The estimated surface area of a Boeing 747 as seen from below is about 20,778 sq. ft. That’s 232 feet long, with a wingspan of 211 feet, a tailspan of 72 feet, and the fuselage width of 36 feet. I’m ignoring the sweep of the wings and just calculating them as right triangles. That’s close enough for this experiment.
An acre is 43,560 sq. feet.
A football field is 360 ft. x 160 ft., or 57,600 sq. ft.
An average city block (in Manhattan) is about 264 ft. x 900 ft., or 237,600 sq. ft.
An imaginary UFO, triangular in shape (let’s say its an equilateral triangle), of about the same area as the farm house (2500 sq. ft.) would have sides about 76 feet long.
An imaginary UFO, triangular in shape, the length of the farmhouse (100 feet long) would have a surface area of 4330 sq. ft.
An imaginary UFO, saucer shaped (circular), 1 mile in diameter, would have a surface area, as seen from below, of 21,895,644 sq. ft. or about 502 acres, or the equivalent of 92 city blocks.
The next thing I need to do is go outside and measure some known objects at known (or closely estimated) distances. I live close to the flight path of the airport, so I can observe regular aircraft at fairly close altitudes (a few hundred to maybe a couple thousand feet). I also regularly see high-altitude aircraft, so I’ll assume those are at 30,000 feet. I even have a model rocket with an altimeter, which I can use to measure/gauge distances as well.
The challenge is depth perception. I’ve only scratched the surface of researching how our eyes gauge distances. Objects on the ground would seemingly be easier to gauge than objects in the air. However, I have had some water experience recently, and I know for certain that what looks like 200 yards on a road or track looks way different than 200 yards on the water. (Did some triathlon training and racing recently.
)
Hopefully, I should come back soon with some good data to help confirm or deny some of these UFO sightings!
August 5th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence. There is no tangible evidence to prove UFO’s exist, yet there is not one shred of evidence to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on Ufology, yet what constitutes testable evidence? Here’s a guess, Astronomy demands…. independance day (hollywood style) UFO’s hovering over a major city 1000′s of witnesses(all professional observers, day light conditions) expert photography (no camera shake or hokey pictures)of course Ufology cannot produce the goods… so UFO’s don’t exist.
Inaddition and as a matter of interest, scientifically of course could you analyse the string and multi-verse theories which are very up and coming in the scientific community (testable evidence, please)
And finally no Astronomer as ever witnessed a UFO? A recently inferred statement on this site, remember Jacques Vallee? but then again he must have been mistaken because UFO’s don’t exist do they?
August 5th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
“Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence.”
Sighhhhhhhhhhhhh.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
For anyone who’s been troubled by my responses here, allow me to point out that this was part of the first response to me on this board by Todd:
“Seriously, lying so blatantly does little to bolster any of your arguments.”
And, in addition to be greeted as a liar (without any proof, of course) from there the accusations that I was all wet re the million-dollar challenge from Randi, attacks on Meier, etc.
Sorry, you set the tone despite my attempts to be courteous and educate and enlighten. And, since I didn’t lie about anything, including my contacts with then Chair of Astronomy, Joseph Veverka, etc. perhaps the thin-skinned, potential burger flippers here who have shown zero scholarship abilities might look to see just how they came to be addressed as the less than noble souls that they present themselves as being.
I seem to remember something about Galileo trying to get the church of his time to just look through the telescope, without much luck.
The Church of Skepticism still suffers from similar prejudices, despite this more modern age.
And pardon me if I only entertain myself infrequently here, yesterday’s press release has already resulted in nearly 42,000 reads, worldwide.
The funny thing is, of all the people who’ve contacted me as a result, none display the same adolescent arrogance as the show boaters here.
Now I really have no way of knowing for sure but there’s something strangely…American in the snide, self-entitlement on display here. Just a thought, there certainly are other people who behave poorly but, it seems, so many coming from other countries, with good educations, aren’t so invested in parading their pathetic ignorance but much more devoted to simply…learning.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
@Stefanos
Let’s not start this silliness again. First, let’s address the “professional observer”, whatever that means. The whole point of Phil’s post is that it doesn’t matter who you are. If you make a claim, be able to back it up. It doesn’t matter if you’re a truck driver or the Mayor of Scienceville. And any decent video would be welcome. Instead we see lots of videos of dots moving in the air. The only videos we see of anything substantial are obvious fakes. With so many people that report seeing really incredible things in the sky, why can’t anyone get those on tape? They can even shake the camera. We can correct for that.
And this isn’t just what astronomers and other scientists demand. It’s what anyone who doesn’t believe fantastic things for no reason, demand.
As far as string theory goes, what do you thing the main criticism of it is from within the scientific community is? That’s right. It’s not testable. In addition, string theory is just a way to describe things that we really see in the universe. Things that every person in the world can observe like, “Why does my hand stop when I punch a brick wall”. String theory could very well be wrong, but it’s not a description of magical space ships that we’re not sure even exist.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Stefanos, the burden of proof lies with the believers. Speaking for myself, I see no evidence. I would love to believe. I want to believe, BUT, we have no concrete verifiable evidence.
I do not have to prove that UFO’s do not exist. If someone were to show concrete, verifiable evidence, that would settle it for me.
People such as Dr. Steven Greer, Billy Meier, Michael Horn and others cannot come up with that proof. Michael Horn was challenged by several people on here, and has strangely fallen silent.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
P.S. As further display of the infantile need to be right, Greg says:
“That is the opposite of what I said. I said I can gather the information myself if I don’t trust the person giving it, if it was done scientifically.”
All I can say is since you aren’t appealing to authority, please let me know how you’re getting to (and from) Mars to take and test those samples yourself.
These little holes, these little gaps in logic and thinking…isn’t there somewhere else that this level of discourse usually takes place, like in a bar or at a football game, etc.?
August 5th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
@Horn
I don’t care about the million dollar issue. Answer some simple, direct questions, or stop posting. It seems like the least an expert on the subject could do. Don’t respond by calling me names.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
@Michael Horn, show us the proof. The proof you have offered does not stand up to scientific scrutiny.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
@Jose
“With so many people that report seeing really incredible things in the sky, why can’t anyone get those on tape?”
I would avoid this argument. First, this assumes that a large number of people have recording devices, period. We cannot assume this. Second, this assumes that a large number of people not only have recording devices, but also go around with them ready and to hand a majority of the time. Third, it assumes that not only do people have recording devices that they carry around with them, but also that they know how to use them and that their batteries are charged.
It is certainly becoming more common, I admit, as cell phone technology advances and they become more ubiquitous among the populace. However, I think it is a bit premature to say that there should be an abundance of quality videos or photos.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Okay, this is getting very boring.
One last time, even though you don’t have the SLIGHTEST idea of how to determine or evaluate “proof”.
It can be found for free on my website and other places – but only if you have sufficient thinking and reasoning abilities, which is not a good bet so far.
It is contained in the 1,300 pages of the professional investigation reports, you know, those things that “don’t exist” because lazy imbeciles are too busy making demands and posturing to go read them.
The work has been done by others, myself included, so that it is available to those who trouble themselves to review it, much of it for free.
Finally, and this may come as a big shock to you, I don’t care if you find the information, research and analyze it or not. I found it. Millions more have found, and will find, it and in time it will be found and known by countless millions more.
I think the main value for me in hanging around here to the degree that I have is to finally present the rebuttal to the foolish prattling about James Randi’s completely bogus charade and lack of ethics. Other than that, to know that so many people who post on a science blog are simply contentious, rude, arrogant and ignorant isn’t exactly encouraging.
Of course I’m also not thrilled that it gives me an opportunity for yet another give-it-back-the-way-they-seem-to-want-it exchange.
Then again, with the disappearance of my, almost-but-not-quite, worthy opponents in the world of the professional skeptics, I almost missed the battles. The problem is, again, that the opponents this time created and entered a battle of wits far less than half-armed.
It’s too bad really, cause I’m basically a nice, friendly guy who loves to share the accumulated information and experiences of 30 years of research. I just do blame myself for wasting it, especially since I don’t recall even one sincerely interested person here.
Email me at my account if you have anything of genuine value to offer.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
@Todd
Thanks for recognising this post about recording devices. Has anybody on here tried to take a picture with a regular digital camera of a distant object or a moving object in the daytime. Then have you tried to do the same thing at night?
I can guarantee the results will be pretty terrible both daytime and night-time. Tiny object in the sky, blurry luminous object at night or not object picked up at all. My digital Fuji camera can’t even take a decent picture of the city at night without blurring!
@Isabell
Your story sounds very familiar to many others. I suggest you check ufoevidenceDOTorg or ufocasebookDOTcom to have a look at others, there are people who report similar sightings from the 1970s,80s,90s etc.
If your sighting was made in the last couple of years at a stretch I would say it was a lighter than air vehicle employing some sort of souped of ion propulsion with a nanotechnology skin and a camoflauge lighting device on its underside (that is a major stretch even in 2008). In 1983, it’s ET all the way…….
August 5th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
@Isabell
ufoevidenceDOTorg has a section devoted to triangular silent slow moving craft, it’s in the UFO cases part.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
@Todd
I disagree. I think it’s the main point to attack on. I’m not attacking any single person for not have having a camera at the ready, but when we have tens of thousands of witnesses and not one catches anything convincing on tape, it a huge problem. It also seems that many people who do record non convincing “evidence”, always just happen to miss the good part. It happens with Nessie, and it happens with space ships. A good example is the lights over Phoenix, which were recorded by many people. After the cause of the lights turned out to be very mundane, many more people came forward saying that it didn’t explain the huge triangular crafts that flew slowly overhead. Where were their cameras then?
August 5th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
One other note on videos and photos. A lot of people are not all that well-versed in optics, leading to common artifacts, blurs and overexposure being mistaken for UFOs, ghosts and the like.
For example, one video I saw (can’t remember where) that purported to be a UFO was a video using a night vision/low light setting, which doesn’t take as many frames per second as the normal setting. The video was being taken of some source of light that was either rather small or fairly far away. The small movements of the camera operator, probably unknown to the operator, resulted in what appears on the video to be very rapid, physics-defying movements of the source. It is difficult, because of this, to tell if the source was stationary or moving. Now, the people that took the video may well have believed that it was a UFO. Alternatively, they may have understood the properties of their camera and the effect that would be achieved.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
@Jose
I can see your point and appreciate your clarification. I think part of the problem, and I do not mean this as an apology for the UFO crowd, is that the majority of people who have cameras and record these events seem to be normal, everyday people, who probably do not have very high-end equipment. As the technology improves and prices drop, this will change.
I would, however, expect better quality stuff from those who bill themselves as serious, professional UFO investigators. From them, I would expect more videos/pictures of better quality.
As far as the normal, everyday people, though, I don’t expect that. I think it would be nice, though, if we could get the point home that unexplained does not necessarily equal alien.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
@Michael Horn,
I’ve read your website, and various others concerning the Meier case, and I’m sorry, I’m not convinced. I think you have displayed a high degree of arrogance. You have repeatedly been asked to show verifiable proof, and you have failed to do so, both here and on your website. Like I have said, I would love to believe, hell I would love to believe that Billy Meier has been contacted, but the evidence does not back up his claims.
You have failed to answer questions as to why some of these supposed “craft” appear very similar to trash can lids, widely used in Switzerland in the 1970′s. You have failed to answer the question concerning “Semjase”, and why Meier fraudulently tried to pass off an image, taken from a 1970′s variety TV show, as a Pleiadian? Yet we are the ones that do not know how to evaluate evidence? The fact that I mentioned a “Scrap book” of photographs, supposedly showing a “Platform” orbiting Mars with a US Flag emblazoned on it as being a photograph I easily identified as the Viking orbiter was conveniently ignored by you. Why? Same with the Apollo-Soyuz Mission. You can’t defend it because there is no defense. You are the one bilking money out of gullible believers, yet when you are challenged to put up or shut up, you scream at us.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Michael Horn,
There’s no reason to make this personal. Its just a blog.
That being said, every time you present “evidence” here, it gets slammed by all the skeptics (myself included), and we’re not even the experts. If your claims can’t pass our simple tests, no wonder actual professional scientists won’t take you seriously.
Please, stop the name calling and personal attacks. Give us your best evidence, and we will honestly take a look at it. Again, we want to believe. But so far, nobody here has provided anything that we can all agree is even plausible.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Michael Horn, here is the video, showing the “snap shots” supposedly taken by Meier on his “voyages” to Mars and other destinations. Please note, from about 31 seconds – about 2.25 minutes, he displays several pictures, supposedly showing a satellite orbiting Mars. Compare it with the still shot of the Viking 1 Orbiter. Notice the similarities? Notice that they are the same thing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHkSUUGfn6o
Now, here is a still image of the Viking 1 Orbiter:
http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/planets/gif/vik/vik01.gif
Now, I’m no expert, but it took me all of 2 minutes of searching to destroy Meier’s credibility in claiming that he had been in orbit around Mars and took a picture of an American satellite in orbit. It’s clearly the Viking orbiter, and these pictures were widely available in many science magazines and encyclopedias.
Care to comment?
August 5th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
MH says, “All I can say is since you aren’t appealing to authority, please let me know how you’re getting to (and from) Mars to take and test those samples yourself.”
All it takes is money. The US isn’t the only country able to send probes to Mars. But that isn’t the point now, is it. The method for gathering that proof is called the Scientific Method. I already explained it here once, shall I do it again?
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml
How did Meier get to and from Mars to come up with his information? What method(s) did he use? Where is his empirical data?
MH says, “The work has been done by others, myself included, so that it is available to those who trouble themselves to review it, much of it for free.”
Ahh. And how much of it is NOT free? Why would information that you claim will change the world not be given freely?
August 5th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
I ‘believe’ in the existence of a real phenomenon out there of UFO reports.
These UFOs don’t turn up on schedule or in the same area, they display almost random behaviour. I dont put much confidence in people who claim to have amassed pictures or video of UFOs on different occassions.
Personally I don’t even look at videos/pictures of UFOs posted on youtube as they could be faked and usually are artifacts. What are more important are the multiple witness statements.
August 6th, 2008 at 12:39 am
If you want proof, just simply go to MUFON website and examine the Stephenville RADAR report available there!!!!!!
August 6th, 2008 at 1:04 am
@Sylvain:
What “proof” is that that the object was an extra-terrestrial spacecraft? Yes, the radar tracked something. Yes, people saw something. Yes, the radar report and the eyewitness accounts seem to verify that there was some type of object in the area at the time. Where is the proof that this object was an ET craft? There is none. It could have been anything. It could very well have been military. It may very well have been civilian, although that scenario is unlikely.
I do not doubt that people in Stephenville saw something. The radar hits seem to confirm that, but again, I am not willing to jump to the conclusion that ET was at the controls just because people are saying that there is no other explanation.
August 6th, 2008 at 1:15 am
@ Jan
“He WON’T be in the history books because of what he says about alien UFO’s.”
He will be later, and the entire history of the second part of the 20th century will also be rewriten. I know this as I have knowledge of this, very much like Mitchell has knowledge of this. You don’t yet have the knowledge of this, so it’s expected for you to be sceptical, but you cannot say aliens aren’t visiting Earth as a truely accurate statement. You can accurately say there is no real physical evidence available to the public that aliens are visiting Earth, and that this means that none are likely to be visiting. But actually you just don’t know, and your available evidence may be lacking to make any real conclusion on the issue. What’s most likely is not always what is true. That is absolutely the same for any sceptic who wishes to make incorrect conclusions.
Yes yes you can make your simple analogy of this being the same for anything someone wishes to claim, like Santa Claus, but there are 3 differences that stands out dramatically – ET undeniably will exist on it’s own planet, large number of multiple witnesses to purported sightings, extraordinarily high levels of whistleblowers.
In the not so far future a large proportion of the human race will be asking themselves questions such as : “Why didn’t we expect them to be here? What about all those people who were saying these were real? How could we have been so stubborn as to ignore that many people?”
And yes I would also like a sceptic on here to give a valid explanation of the Stephenville radar report. Certain sceptics have been accusing others of avoiding questions on here, well on every recent ufo blog (must be at least 4) I’ve asked this same question. It’s either being ignored, or they’ve said they can’t be bothered or just don’t want to read it. By explaining this you will improve your credibility that all sightings are just mundane, so there’s no reason for you not to try.
August 6th, 2008 at 2:04 am
@John,
As far as the Stephenville radar report goes, I stated previously that it is more likely to be an object of terrestrial origin, i.e. military. If the military was testing some secret aircraft, they are not likely to have a transponder on it, and they are not likely to tell you that, yes, we had something over Stephenville that night. I do not question the fact that something was in the sky that night. I question what that object was, and I refuse to jump to an outlandish conclusion that it was an alien ship.
John made this statement:
“I know this as I have knowledge of this, very much like Mitchell has knowledge of this. You don’t yet have the knowledge of this, so it’s expected for you to be sceptical, but you cannot say aliens aren’t visiting Earth as a truely accurate statement.”
So you know that the history books will be re-written? What proof do you have? You cannot make unsubstantiated claims without being challenged.
We have no evidence that ET’s are here. We do have evidence from science that it is unlikely that they are here. For example: Vast interstellar distances. The barrier of the speed of light (Yes, I know that there are various theories that work around this, but they are just theories. I am not closed to the possibility that some alien intelligence could very well have done this.) The most intriguing evidence for me that they are not here is the fact that the stars are silent. We have been listening for signals for almost 50 years and have heard nothing yet. That does not mean that they are not out there, it just means we need to look harder. However, if we are being visited, surely we would pick up something. Anything. If there are as many alien races visiting Earth as some say, dozens of races, then surely life would be so prevalent out there that we would have heard something by now?
So, I put the question to you: Why the silence? Even if these races are so advanced as to be “radio silent”, surely there must be hundreds of other species that would be flooding interstellar space with all kinds of “noise”. Surely Astronomers would have detected evidence of vastly superior races possibly manipulating stars for energy? It’s all been theorized, but we see nothing. So, if they are here, where do they come from?
August 6th, 2008 at 2:08 am
One more thing John, if they are so technologically advanced so as to be silent to our radio telescopes, since they want to remain undetected, why, all of a sudden, when they get here, to they light themselves up like flying Christmas Trees all of a sudden? Imagine, flying all that way keeping themselves hidden, then getting to Earth and someone switches all the lights on. That makes no sense.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:09 am
@Michael L
“Yes, I know that there are various theories that work around this, but they are just theories.”
Let’s be careful about our terminology, here. They aren’t theories. They are guess, or at best, hypotheses.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:46 am
John says: “I know this as I have knowledge of this…”
Your personal stories are worthless.
Evidence. Credible, testable evidence. Nothing else will do…
August 6th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Michael horn says: “Email me at my account if you have anything of genuine value to offer.”
Here’s something of value…when you call those who disagree with you names, you undermine your credibility…
But you’ve already been told that and chosen to ignore it.
Are you really surprised that people here think of you as a joke?
August 6th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Thus spake St. John of the Church of the Holy ETs.
Pretty much sums it up…again. They so desperately want to believe. How empty must one’s life be before you need such fantasies to give it meaning?
Bless me, ET, for I am boring.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:32 am
@Sylvain,
Didn’t we go over this already?
For everyone that is so bent on “witness testimony,” here’s a report from a pilot that saw the lights from the sky, and he says the lights were flares:
http://www.nbc5i.com/news/15069744/detail.html
Nobody seems to have any evidence that what they saw was an ALIEN spacecraft. There are not even any verifiable photographs. The only video I’ve seen is a inexperienced videographer using a camcorder on the wrong settings. It happened right next to an airbase, during training exercises.
The MOST LIKELY explanation, based on the AVAILABLE EVIDENCE is military aircraft, dropping flares. If you believe it is something else, please provide your evidence for what you think it is.
August 6th, 2008 at 9:40 am
@John,
Where is your evidence that the history of the late 20th century will be rewritten?
Santa Claus is actually more likely to exist than ET. Millions of children all over the world believe in him. Santa has been seen by millions of people every year, standing on street corners, hanging out at shopping malls, and he’s been all over TV and movies. How many people in the world can swear that when they were children, they woke up one night and saw Santa in their living room, but didn’t tell anybody, for fear of being ridiculed? Who’s to say that Santa’s workshop is actually at the North Pole, but we can’t see it because he has a cloaking device, and the technology to fool radar and other instruments. Heck, maybe Santa IS an Alien!
People have been telling stories of Santa far longer than stories of UFOs and ET. There is far far more evidence to support the jolly old elf than there is to support aliens visiting Earth. Which one is more likely?
August 6th, 2008 at 9:56 am
@Greg
Don’t forget that Santa actually leaves evidence of his passing behind, in the form of presents and/or lumps of coal. Also, he eats cookies and drinks milk that are left out, and his reindeer eat the carrots that are left out.
But we must remember, he is a rather paradoxical man who both exists and doesn’t exist. There’s the existing Santa (St. Nicholas, an old, long-dead church guy that handed out presents, though was significantly leaner than the current incarnation), the existing Shopping Mall Santa, and the non-existing Santa that we use to threaten our kids into being good.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:11 am
@Greg, ET is likely to exist, given the number of stars, planets and galaxies, it’s just very unlikely he has shown up here.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Michael L, you are correct.
I do not doubt that there is a great possibility that other life exists out there, and our evidence to support that hypothesis is always increasing. (Yay again for science!).
I should have clearly written what we both mean, that based on the evidence, Santa is more likely to fly over Texas than ET, especially in December!
August 6th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
@Stefanos,
“And finally no Astronomer as ever witnessed a UFO? A recently inferred statement on this site, remember Jacques Vallee? but then again he must have been mistaken because UFO’s don’t exist do they?”
Who said no astronomer has ever witnessed a UFO? We’ve said no body (astronomer or not) has produced any evidence that UFO’s are aliens from outer space.
Vallee has definitely done a great deal of interesting work. He is also very critical of UFO=alien believers. His ideas of aliens traveling thru time and space (hence making them undetectable by modern equipment) is a different explanation than most, yet still lacking any actual scientific evidence.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Two things to say :
1. There will be testable evidence one day. Until then it’s perfectly fine for those that don’t know to say that they just don’t know.
2. Personal experiences allow me to have that knowledge, but not everyone has that. It’s just pure coincidence for it to happen to anyone.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
@ kuhnigget
“Pretty much sums it up…again. They so desperately want to believe. How empty must one’s life be before you need such fantasies to give it meaning?
Bless me, ET, for I am boring.”
Yes you are boring, since you spend your time on here insulting others. It is just something I’ve seen, not something I wanted to see, and the same is likely happening to many other people. Maybe some people make things up, there’s no way for you to know, but you can’t distinguish between the two. All you can say is you don’t know what I’ve seen, saying any more than that is an overestimate of your knowledge. And again it’s nothing to do with believing so I will leave the fantasies about aliens to you.
August 6th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
@John
“…you don’t know what I’ve seen…”
You’re right, that is all we can say, since you haven’t shared your experience with us, like Isabell and Robin have. Can you describe, in as much detail as possible, what you saw that makes you believe UFOs (in the sense of non-terrestrial airial craft or known natural phenomena) exist?
August 6th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
@ Michael L.
“if they are so technologically advanced so as to be silent to our radio telescopes, since they want to remain undetected, why, all of a sudden, when they get here, to they light themselves up like flying Christmas Trees all of a sudden?”
You could speculate all sorts about that… just because it doesn’t seem plausible it doesn’t make it impossible. So that’s a pointless argument, just stick to saying there’s no physical proof available.
@ Greg in Austin
It’s just American’s who believe in Santa Claus, no-one else is so gullible. If you think there’s more chance of Santa existing than et you are going to feel like such an idiot. There’s such a thing as saying you know ufos exist because you’ve seen one, or speculating on the possibility of et visiting if you haven’t seen a ufo before, which are both perfectly rational. But to say that Santa is more likely to exist, and make comparisons between eyewitness accounts shows you don’t even bother listening to what witnesses have to say. Yes go on say you’ve seen Santa yourself, that really must make it credible since you have said it. Just one problem that a poor analogy – where are all the other credible witnesses?!
Before you start to explain about witness fallibility again… I already know! I also know that if you want to get anywhere with this without waiting for physical evidence to appear, you will have to start paying attention to some witness statements.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Jose, Like many on this site you’ve made a claim… UFO’s don’t exist; back it up. You can no more prove UFO’s don’t exist, than i can prove they do. The difference is Astronomers riducle anything that is presented before them, a quick look at the comments on this site alone should suffice.
Greg from Austin says its great the possibility that other life exists out there and our evidence to support that hypothesis is always increasing, what evidence, if any do you have to support the notion that non of this ever increasing “potential” life there could be a intelligent space-fairing civilisation?
August 6th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Greg, (1) A UFO sighting does not necessarily imply the object is a Alien Spacecraft, (2) The comment was made by Phil Plait (Bad Astronomy) on the Universe Today site in a Video (Sorry if this was misleading in my original comment.
In May 1955, Vallée first sighted an unidentified flying object over his Pontoise home. Six years later in 1961, while working on the staff of the French Space Committee, Vallée witnessed the destruction of the tracking tapes of unknown objects orbiting the earth. These events contributed to Vallée’s long-standing interest in the UFO phenomenon.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
stefanos says: “Like many on this site you’ve made a claim… UFO’s don’t exist; back it up.
No one here is claiming that UFO’s don’t exist. What we are saying is that there is no credible evidence that UFO’s = alien spacecraft.
The term “UFO” has been misused for decades…used by the flying saucer community because they “think” it makes them sound respectable.
I’d respect them a hell of a lot more if they could present some form of credible evidence.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
stefanos…I see you corrected yourself…good.
Also…the claim that alien spaceships are flitting across our skies is an extraordinary claim…extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (he many times must this simple truth be stated??)
August 6th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
@St. John
Key word there being something, John. Seeing something does not equate to seeing an alien spaceship.
The reason why I and others on this site can get snarky at times is that we’re tired of people saying they’ve seen alien spaceships, when even they don’t know that.
Hell, I’ve seen UFOs! And at first, I didn’t know what the heck they were. But that didn’t make me jump to the exciting conclusion that I was one of the chosen ones witness to an alien visitation. As it turns out, one of my UFOs was a big old owl lit up by nearby low-pressure sodium vapor street lamps (and before I caught it in binoculars it really was a bright, unidentifiable something zig-zagging across the sky!). The other one was probably a trio of aircraft from the Yakima Firing Center, which was located about 20 miles from my house. I’m not sure of that, but that’s the most probably explanation.
All everyone is saying here, repeatedly, is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, even when the one that evidence has to convince is you, the person who had the experience. You think that’s insulting? Imagine how your brain feels every time you ignore its amazing capacity to reason by jumping to conclusions that simply aren’t logical.
Amen.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
@John 2
BTW, John, I’d like to take you up on that. Do you have a link or a source for the actual radar data? All I can find are references to it already “analyzed” by MUFON or some other UFOs-are-spaceships booster organizations.
I’d love to see the raw data. I suspect it would confirm that the Stephenville lights were flares dropped from Air Force aircraft, as a major land/air exercise was apparently taking place at the same time the lights were seen. Mind you, I don’t know this, and I will keep an open mind until I see the data.
August 6th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
John said:
“There’s such a thing as saying you know ufos exist because you’ve seen one, or speculating on the possibility of et visiting…”
Ah, now, that is different. Speculating on the possibility that ET is visiting is a far cry from saying “ET is visiting.” Many ufologists go beyond speculating and state is as a fact that ET is visiting. I can only speak for myself when I say that I am open to that possibility, BUT, I have been shown no concrete proof that can not be explained away. For me, ET visitation is probably the last thing on the list I would turn to. What bugs me is that UFO believers are for the most part closed to having their sightings explained in a rational sense. For example, I just saw some incredible pictures of lenticular cloud formations. One struck me in particular. It was a classic saucer shape, dome on top, glowing underneath because of the way the setting sun was reflected from it. Now, to me it was easily identifiable as a cloud, because the photographer was relatively close. However, from a fair distance, I see how I could be fooled. It was still a cloud. Arguing that it was an alien spacecraft, or believing that, does not, and will not make it so.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
@Stefanos
Jose, Like many on this site you’ve made a claim… UFO’s don’t exist; back it up.
As RAF pointed out, nobody has argued this.
You can no more prove UFO’s don’t exist, than i can prove they do.
Nobody’s trying to prove UFOs don’t exist.
The difference is Astronomers riducle anything that is presented before them, a quick look at the comments on this site alone should suffice.
You came here acting snotty and trying to sound smart. You spout made up arguments and incorrect analogies. If pointing out that your arguments are made up, and your analogies are incorrect is ridiculing, then I’m guilty. And all you can do is respond with more false, blanket statements. Many people here are skeptical of Isabell’s experience, but for the most part, everyone has been polite with her. But then, she’s been polite too.
Also, I’m willing to bet that most of the posters here are not astronomers, and many, myself included, don’t even have a scientific background.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
@Michael L
Who many RADAR recording did you analyse?
August 6th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
@Sylvain:
None. But I have not said there wasn’t a radar track of an object. I’ve seen the report and believe those who analyzed it. Obviously you didn’t read my post earlier. The fact that something was picked up is not in dispute. However, to say that it was an alien spacecraft is a leap that I am not willing to take, unless presented with more tangible evidence. Before you respond to people, please read what they actually say in their posts.
Sylvain, here is what I actually wrote:
“As far as the Stephenville radar report goes, I stated previously that it is more likely to be an object of terrestrial origin, i.e. military. If the military was testing some secret aircraft, they are not likely to have a transponder on it, and they are not likely to tell you that, yes, we had something over Stephenville that night. I do not question the fact that something was in the sky that night. I question what that object was, and I refuse to jump to an outlandish conclusion that it was an alien ship.”
Please do yourself and everyone else a favor, and make sure you understand what words mean, otherwise you come off looking really silly, as in this case.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
It’s most likely we are the aliens already in that we probably evolved from microbes that drifted/impacted onto this planet billions of years ago!
August 6th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
@ManinAsia,
I’m not saying I do or do not believe you, but can you guess my next question…
…
What evidence do you have that any microbes drifted/impacted earth billions of years ago, or that we evolved from them?
August 6th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
What’s your views on the Alderney lights in 2007 seen by two pilots on two different planes and various passengers? Is this not a good case where eyewitness accounts have valid reason for acceptance of some kind of unknown phenomenan existing? Why would someone like Dr. David Clarke say he thinks so, sell books perhaps? That’s a problem with these ufo researchers who sell books, they lose credibility but that does not mean we know for sure that’s what their intentions are.
When sceptics see something unusual and become what you would call believers, or what some people in the same boat would just call ‘knowers’ of some unknown phenomenon (but still sceptical of what it is ) – does that not make you people think just for a second that maybe something is going on, and it may be possible even without any physical evidence as yet turning up?
August 6th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
WIll they just snarl…or will they comprehend?
“Images of the ring of singly ionized sulfur encircling Jupiter, obtained on two successive nights in April 1979, show that the ring characteristics may change dramatically in about 24 hr.”
Science, vol. 207, Jan. 11, 1980, p. 181-183.
“…But you also said that the largest portion of all ejected material again falls back on the moon, as I already mentioned before. The rest, you explained, would be pushed out into space, while a part of it is drawn by Jupiter and very slowly densifies in its ring to a heavy sulphur-ion-combination. Is that correct?”
Billy Meier, October 19, 1978
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
“Io’s surface is radically different from any other body in the solar system. It came as a very big surprise to the Voyager scientists on the first encounter. They had expected to see impact craters like those on the other terrestrial bodies and from their number per unit area to estimate the age of Io’s surface. But there are very few, if any, impact craters on Io (left). Therefore, the surface is very young…Instead of craters, Voyager 1 found hundreds of volcanic calderas. Some of the volcanoes are active! Striking photos of actual eruptions with plumes 300 km high were sent back by both Voyagers (right) and by Galileo (bottom left image on this page) This may have been the most important single discovery of the Voyager missions; it was the first real proof that the interiors of other “terrestrial” bodies are actually hot and active. The material erupting from Io’s vents appears to be some form of sulfur or sulfur dioxide. ”
http://www.nineplanets.org/io.html (reporting on information published after March 12, 1979)
Semjase:
“In all things you have an admirable memory.
The moon, which you have just mentioned, is call by you, Amalthea.
The moon, Io itself, of which you said several things, moreover is the most volcano-active planetary body in the SOL-system…”
Meier:
“Aha, and will then perhaps also be discovered, that the ring around Jupiter, for the most part, consists of particles catapulted outward by large volcanoes of the moon, Io, which partially are captured by Jupiter while, however, the largest portion of all the outward catapulted material again falls back on Io, and practically closes all volcano openings again, but also the gigantic plateaus and mountains, which this moon, in contrast to the other moons of Jupiter, proves to have no carter landscape, but a fantastic evenness, despite the many craters?”
Billy Meier, October 19, 1978
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
29th Contact, July 7, 1975, and 31st Contact, July 17, 1975:
Contact involved specific information about Venus, unknown at the time, including composition of atmospheric gases, surface temperatures, depth of clouds, wind speeds, atmospheric pressure, coloration, variation in terrain, etc.
Corroborated: October 1975 and August 1976, confirmed by probes from the USSR and USA respectively.
Corroborated: February 1981; USGS [US Geological Survey] was producing a topographical map of Venus which, as discovered by the investigative team, further confirmed the details Meier had published five years earlier.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
1958, 1978 (also in published books copyrighted 1982) Meier predicts two planets beyond Pluto will be discovered towards new millennium.
Such discoveries were later confirmed.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Will they, who have predicted NOTHING accurately, claim that “anyone” could have done it? Will they then answer why…Phil didn’t, or anyone else they know, or even any…farmer that they know of?
We don’t hold our breath, we just drop the info in and let them display either genuine scientific curiosity, arrogant stupidity…whichever they prefer.
And, as said before, all this and much more is easily found – for free – exactly where it was said to be.
August 6th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
@ kuhnigget
“But that didn’t make me jump to the exciting conclusion that I was one of the chosen ones witness to an alien visitation.”
You’re right but it was definitely strange and unknown, all I know is that it looks like you would expect an alien craft to look like if one appeared, meaning just like on tv. I don’t know if it was actually et, but that sounds a reasonable theory. Many many people of sound mind have said similar things after having a sighting.
“All everyone is saying here, repeatedly, is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, even when the one that evidence has to convince is you, the person who had the experience. You think that’s insulting? Imagine how your brain feels every time you ignore its amazing capacity to reason by jumping to conclusions that simply aren’t logical.”
That’s fine that’s what I’d expect any rational person who hasn’t seen anything unusual enough to say, since there’s no actual physical evidence of alien visitation. I’m not trying to convince you, I probably can’t say anything to convince you. I just feel like saying what I know to contribute to the growing amount of people who feel exactly the same, which will be so large soon that you may realise something is going on.
You can be snarky if you like as I know it’s more fool you. But it just shows how you react to a witnesses opinions on what they could have seen, when you don’t know yourself, and even when the witness concludes they don’t really know what it was. When you see something that looks like a space ship I wonder if you will also conclude that it could be extraterrestrial, if you’re rational, you will.
And anyway what possible motivation could you have to be snarky when in reality you just don’t know whether aliens are visiting or not? You are not preserving scientific principles by being a noisy negative, and continuously asking for physical evidence which you know no witnesses can provide is just wasteful of your time. On the other hand I’ve already told you what my motivation is to post on here. As said earlier I would expect anyone rational who hasn’t experienced a really unusual sighting to require this physical evidence, I require this evidence also to confirm what this unknown phenomenon actually is or isn’t for sure.
If you saw a ufo which looked like an alien space ship on tv would you be able to retreive any physical evidence of it’s existence, say if it flew over you during a few minutes? (Buy an rpg maybe but come on, really!) Except for a photo or video there’s little else you could expect to have as evidence, or are we to scrounge on the floor looking for bits of the craft that may have fallen off. No I don’t think so! We all know how photos can be faked etc so you wouldn’t have any credible evidence, the same as anyone else. The range of photos which are unproven to be fakes do range from what you would expect if someone took a spurr of the minute picture or something moving fast, and of night time objects barely visible to a basic camera. Yes it is baffling that there aren’t any photos from professional photographers, or just none that I know of. I would also expect there to be more, but that does not mean a great deal on its own, but the longer time goes on without any such quality photo, does make it less likely of course. I would expect these to be appearing very soon especially with high-tech cameras getting cheaper. We will see.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Billy Meier made a prediction about there being a sulfur ring around Jupiter in 1978?
Wow.
Because sulfur emission was discovered in 1975.
I don’t have time right now to look through your voluminous claims, but the first one I did, this one, is clearly wrong, and trivially easy to uncover.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Now I ask this question to everyone.
If someone did have an authentic sighting of an alien ship, just for the sake of this example we will assume that they did, as it’s not impossible and we can use this as a hypothetical situation. The witness then writes his story on here, and describes what he saw and how he thought it looked like a space ship on tv. You ask him if he has any actual evidence of this. He then responds by saying he doesn’t have any physical evidence, and it flew over too fast for him to take a photo, and it left no trace at all. You sceptics may then get a little sarcastic if he proceeds to insist it happened.
Now tell me a simple YES/NO answer, has this above example or similar happened on here or other ufo blogs many times before?
I know this doesn’t prove anything but hopefully it may show you a different perspective on this at the least.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Phil’s right about Billy Meier, he’s very much like Nostradamus if you predict so many things just by chance one of them will eventually turn out correct. Not to mention some predictions can sometimes be so vague that it’s so called correct interpretation is usually only made after the event has happened. That’s hardly telling the future.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Okay, John, all snark aside, I promise.
Take a look at what you’ve just said there. “…it looks like you would expect an alien craft to look like…”
What do you expect an alien spacecraft to look like, John? More to the point, why do you expect it to look like that? How could you possibly know what an alien being, from a planet tens, hundreds or even millions of light years distant, with a completely different DNA structure, a completely different evolutionary history, a completely different technological history, a completely different social history…how could you even begin to guess what that alien’s spaceship would look like?
And the next part of the quote: “… if one appeared, meaning just like on tv”
John, please read my posts in the previous UFO thread, where I bring up the correlation between pop culture iconography and the UFO phenomenon. Briefly, “flying saucers” didn’t start to appear until after the media came up with the term in response to Kenneth Arnold’s report in 1947. Note that Arnold did not say he saw flying saucers! He said he saw something moving like a saucer skipping over water. It was the sensational pop media of the time that misquoted him and created the very concept of “flying saucer.” But after that, suddenly everybody was seeing flying saucers! Whatever unknown phenomenon they observed, real or imagined, was now a “flying saucer.” Hollywood made a ton of movies, good and bad, featuring them. But, they had not been observed until pop culture invented them.. Before that, concepts of spaceships were more likely to be based on earlier visualizations of rocketships and classic Buck Rogers craft.
Likewise with aliens. If you track the general descriptions of alien beings, you’ll find they closely parallel pop images in magazines such as Amazing Science Fiction, Weird Tales, and the like, with the magazine illustrations far in advance of the “real” sightings. Insectoid aliens from the early 20th century, BEMs from the 1950s, toand the wide-eyed and childlike aliens first popularized in Astounding and Fantasy and Science Fiction, and then movies such as Close Encounters of the Third Kind and books such as Whitley Strieber’s fiction, all follow this pattern.
“…just like on TV.” In other words, what you’ve already seen and have come to know as an alien spaceship through the impossible to ignore presence of pop media.
Think about that.
I’ll repeat what others have said here, and again, I’m not being snarky. I don’t know what you saw. But the odds are tremendously in favor of it not being an alien spaceship.
August 6th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Phil,
As you may or may not have considered, the information that you focus on regarding sulfur in Jupiter’s ring was published, in English, in a scientific paper in the PRE-internet era.
I wonder WHEN it was even FIRST available on the internet. I didn’t find it a couple of years ago when I did my search.
Now, surely, as a good scientist and not merely a skeptic, you’d want to show that the primarily German speaking Swiss farmer had access to this information – for some completely unknown reason – and waited a couple of years to publish it…within the body of even more significant information. However, before we get to that, why would someone, who was anything but a scientist with no scientific audience, publish such a thing as a scientific FACT when, as you state, the sulfur ring was theorized – but not proved – in 1975?
And, for some reason, while you certainly read it in the information above, you conveniently skipped over the fact that Meier published that Io was the most volcanically active body in the solar system…five months BEFORE that was announced by NASA and referred to as the MOST IMPORTANT discovery of the mission.
For someone who has taken a public position regarding UFOs and the so-called lack of evidence for same, and who’s asked to see proof of such claims as contact, I do find it a bit troubling that you’ve been both quite selective and, frankly, lazy in your thinking.
As it looks like you are destined to discover, the skeptics have to concoct more excuses for how Meier has accomplished what he has.
And, as I just mentioned before in my private email to you, NONE of this was publicized by Meier but is only being widely discussed now simply because I found this and more information (such as above, etc.) in the English language publications, relatively obscure as they may be.
And, in response to the “predict a lot of things and some will be right” theories, the problem is simply that, where anything Meier has “predicted” (preemptively published before “official” discovery) I have yet to find inaccurate information.
So, in plain language, that assumption, voiced by a couple of people here, is factually incorrect. And I would be interested to find evidence to the contrary.
Again, a higher standard of research and thinking skills is called for here, from Phil as well. Any honest person has to ponder just how and WHY a THEORETICAL scientific paper, in English, in pre-internet days should interest and end up in the possession of a Swiss farmer.
Then, of course – if we are being HONEST with ourselves – we still have to answer the question as to how he preemptively published the most important discovery of the entire Voyager mission, that Io was the most volcanically active body in the solar system.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:23 am
P.S. Anyone here know when (what date) it was discovered that Europa was covered in ice?
August 7th, 2008 at 12:51 am
@ Kuhnigget
You haven’t said anything I haven’t already considered many times before. When you see something yourself you’ll know what I mean, that’s about as much as I can say to you.
We could go on all day about the alien pop culture, but it doesn’t change what I saw and that makes other similar sightings very credible to me, but not to you. I, and many others as well, have stated that what they saw looked like something off the tv, they didn’t say they imagined something in the sky because they have an overactive mind and watched a great sci-fi film last night, as you are suggesting they did. Because that is what would have to be true in order for your massive assumption to be correct, and I can tell you, that it’s wrong.
How about pop culture on aliens originated from stories of what people saw in the early 20th century, although not every story was correct and so we have a pop culture of a variety of aliens, and some of which are only the product of the imagination. But of course until you have your actual proof of aliens then this theory will always be less likely to you. Quite frankly I’m not going to claim to have seen an alien, but with an open mind I will say this theory about the ‘greys’ is possible.
Now you will say what about these mythical figures such as faires and pixies which people saw many years ago, surely alien pop culture is just a derivative of this form of imaginary make believe. Well the same theory can also apply if you consider the possibility of alien visitation, that these were just the interpretation of alien encounters, and today these are just interpreted more accurately. I see no reason (after a sighting) if they turn out to be aliens, that this or a similar theory is plausible. But the problem with this line of reasoning towards you is that until you have any physical evidence you would never even think this kind of viewpoint been true is even possible, and so you would say the most likely viewpoint is yours, and so that must be right. But as soon as any such evidence of aliens arises, if it does, then automatically my viewpoint, or something along those lines would seem more likely. That is the dilemma of the situation, and without this physical evidence, you will say all of the evidence suggests in your favour, whilst as soon as some evidence appears then it all goes the other way. Since we cannot definitely answer the question of alien visitation, then your only real argument is the lack of physical evidence, and most other arguments of alien pop culture etc is mostly void.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Okay, John. I tried. I hope you someday discover what it is you saw, and it doesn’t disappoint you. Have a good one.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:00 am
@ Michael Horn
I may have made an incorrect statement about Meier, actually I don’t really know whether he’s a fraud or not. If what you’re saying is true I would be interested if you could get Phil to check that out and give his view on it all. After all I am what these sceptics on here would call a believer, when in fact I’m just a witness of something unusual like so many others, and being called irrational and illogical for just stating what I know to be the truth. In no way would I call myself a believer of anything, I’m quite sceptical of a lot of things, but when something so obviously unknown flys over you, and still remains unidentified to this day, then that’s called an observation, not a belief.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:04 am
@ kuhnigget
Ok, take care.
I want you to know I wasn’t just saying this to get the last word in, I really meant what I said.
The only thing that’s important is the truth to me, any disappointments about that will be considered later.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:27 am
RAF, If your not denying the phenomenon exists (but simply lacks proof)why is the subject being compared with Santa Claus?
The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis is but one possible explanation for the phenomenon (albeit the most popular one) yet you claim the term is misused
by the Flying Saucer community, since there is no definitive evidence for the origin of UFO’s and the fact they remain Unidentified does not rule out this theory.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:47 am
Jose, I have neither been discourteous or rude to anyone, further more nor have i come onto this site being snotty or smart.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:37 am
I sense a turning tide on here… the sceptics are either realising that some people are firm in what they are saying is an accurate observation of a inexplicable object, albeit no proof yet provided, they are starting to give in. Where are all the many eyewitnesses to sightings? Do most of you just read and not post? Start a revolution, bombard them with messages, make them listen. Don’t let the lack of evidence from insisting on saying what you think you saw, and if you have evidence then that would be very helpful, and try to be rational when explaining and don’t let their sarcasm annoy you too much. When they disregard your witness account, tell them they’re wrong and use logic to argue against their reasons for saying alien visitation is unlikely.
This is what we need to happen everywhere on the internet and worldwide, it will take a combination of events for the goverment to disclose what they have on these things. Probably a mass sighting in a city, combined with massive internet news and blog discussions about it, so it can overtake all other news on that day. Only until that happens will any kind of real goverment disclosure occur. People like astronauts and other whistleblowers will just be ignored unless they can provide such evidence. Alternatively someone could discover some evidence, and then in that case it will all come out. Are the goverment spies watching! (sarcasm…)
Soon the truth will have to be told, or at least what they can be bothered to tell us, and then they’ll make up the rest of it. All of you amaeteur sceptics will have to go back to your day jobs, and find another hobby.
This Friday is ‘Galactic Freedom Day’… well it is according to some citizens organisations, whoever they are. So USA & British goverments on the 08/08/08 we want complete and total disclosure of the UFO phenomenon please!!
August 7th, 2008 at 2:38 am
and yes… even if they’re planning to kill us all… the public should still be told the truth.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:19 am
Lets get the number of comments to 1000
August 7th, 2008 at 6:53 am
For those interested in Billy Meier’s predictions, here’s a link to some research into a few of them:
http://www.iigwest.com/investigations/meier/ike42report.htm
August 7th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Guys – I think we can all agree that the UFO phenomena is real.
We just need to quantify all the possibilities of what it could be.
Can I suggest that we create a list.
lets put ET as number 1.
Number 2 can be atmospheric phenomena (there may be a number of these but lets establish all the types we are aware of)
After those can be misidentifications.
Once we have a long list we can have a poll.
Or is this a silly idea?
August 7th, 2008 at 7:18 am
John,
You can’t argue with someone who got into believing something without any evidence (not including Michael Horn who is a liar). You’re so driven by belief that you won’t even let a lack of evidence stop you. You can’t help someone who’s stuck in their beliefs. And this belief includes a misunderstanding of where skeptics are coming from. One can’t take what they’re told at face value.
How can you argue by logic when there is no evidence. It’s pure speculation. Repeating it often will not make it true either. If by logic you mean the billions-and-billions-of-stars argument, then yeah I believe there is life out there because of that too. But I can’t prove it. It’s a gut feeling based on our limited knowledge of the universe.
“Probably a mass sighting in a city, combined with massive internet news and blog discussions about it…” You’re hoping for an actual definitive ET-UFO event here. Something more definitive than what’s come before it.
I’m not holding my breath. If the evidence comes out, then it comes out. If there really are aliens capable of visiting us from another solar system, then great (unless they’re not here in peace). It will be biggest event in human history. The problem has been that there is no definitive proof of this.
Here’s something to think about, if aliens do make contact in the future, that does not automatically prove any of the previous sightings as true. They could still all be confusions and mistakes by the observers.
We’re at a crossroads John, you want to take the path that says aliens are here and I’m looking at all the multitude of possible paths (and ones that we can’t see yet) and waiting for the right evidence to help me choose which one.
Best wishes to all of us in the paths we choose.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:21 am
shaun,
You need to define “UFO phenomenon” first. It has a very broad meaning. I never know what a person means when they say “UFO”.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:21 am
@shaun
Are you suggesting a vote on what the majority of cases are likely to be? I don’t think that we could take such a general approach. On a case by case basis, though, that might work. Be sure to include “Unable to determine at this time” on your list, though, since either the details of the case or the knowledge of the voter may be too limited to reach an accurate conclusion.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:24 am
@John
Maybe I missed it, but did you tell us in detail what it was that you saw, where you saw it, and when you saw it?
August 7th, 2008 at 8:03 am
@Stefanos
Jose, I have neither been discourteous or rude to anyone, further more nor have i come onto this site being snotty or smart.
Well, I happen to think that putting words in people’s mouths and making false accusations is snotty, discourteous, and rude. Don’t do that and I won’t have a problem with you.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:12 am
John, you can get as many people flooding this site with their sightings as you wish, but it won’t change the fact that you have no evidence that is testable. Eyewitness accounts are the worst form of testimony.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:21 am
errr, n/m I think the list is supposed to define what UFO phenomenon are. silly me. Thereby it’s definition is any sighting that puzzles an observer or gets the attention of one or more people.
August 7th, 2008 at 8:58 am
In case anyone missed it because it was held up in moderation, I posted a link to some research that someone did on Billy Meier’s predictions, up above at August 7th, 2008 at 6:53am.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:02 am
“I sense a turning tide on here… the sceptics are either realising that some people are firm in what they are saying is an accurate observation of a inexplicable object, albeit no proof yet provided, they are starting to give in. ”
I don’t think they are giving in. I think they are getting tired of trying to reason with people who are not reasonable.
It is like trying to move a brick wall by banging your head against it. You bang and bang and bang, but the wall does not budge and the only benefit to you is when you stop.
Take all the polls you like. Your OPINION does not change the fact one iota.
Oh, and I read all the posts by this Michael Horn person. He is a scam artist. He sells books to people like those who post here. He makes money off your gullibility. He might claim otherwise, but he is after your wallet, not your mind.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Putting words in peoples mouths?, false accusations? Don’t do that and i won’t have a problem with you? Get your facts straight. I neither have been discourteous or rude to anybody (unlike yourself) quoted somebody as saying something they did not, nor make a false accusation and yes you clearly do have a problem.
Fortunately i don’t have a problem with you, because your clearly not capable of putting together a legitimate argument without getting irate because somebody disagree’s with your views.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:24 am
@John
Based on this statement:
“I may have made an incorrect statement about Meier, actually I don’t really know whether he’s a fraud or not.”
…I’d have to say that you are the first person to exhibit any wisdom on this site. When a person says that they really DON’T KNOW it’s hopeful sign, indicating honesty and sufficient openness to discover what the truth is.
Unfortunately, to a person, the professional skeptics (and the amateurs as well) failed to utter that simple, powerful phrase even once in the nearly eight years that I have confronted them. That doesn’t speak well for any aspect of their intelligence, objectivity or integrity.
You’ll notice that I’m glibly called a liar here by people devoid either of thinking skills, or with sufficient knowledge of who I am and how I conduct myself to categorize me as such. To the degree that we have all lied, at one time, intentionally or otherwise, it could be said to be true of me as well. But the implication is that I have deliberately lied regarding the Meier case and that is categorically false.
(This will be a multi-part response due to length.)
August 7th, 2008 at 9:25 am
(Continued, for your reading pleasure.)
Regarding the following:
“If what you’re saying is true I would be interested if you could get Phil to check that out and give his view on it all.”
Let me say that I have been in touch with Phil and provided him with specific information and/or directions to where it can be found so that he could begin a scientifically sound evaluation of it. So far, I am more than disappointed, especially in light of his brief but enormously telling comment, reeking as it does of pomposity:
“I don’t have time right now to look through your voluminous claims, but the first one I did, this one, is clearly wrong, and trivially easy to uncover.”
Now, this is from a guy who presents himself as a scientist and expert, who has said that he hasn’t seen any evidence for actual UFOs and ETs and implies that he’d REALLY want to see and evaluate any solid evidence.
But this same fellow doesn’t “have time right now”, he now tells us – after taking the time to read through all this and post on this blog. And what he doesn’t have time for are my “voluminous claims”! Wow, some nobody shows up (with a bunch of other nobodies) and starts unloading “voluminous claims”, which he can’t immediately dismiss as bogus, wacky, unsubstantiated, etc. – if he did he’d give me great material for a zinger of a press release about “some poseur, wannabe scientist who doesn’t know the first thing about, etc.” And he doesn’t “have time right now”. Presumably, his time for such things is taken up with his latest groundbreaking astronomical discoveries, publication of which are imminent.
So our friend Phil suddenly doesn’t “have time to look through (my) voluminous claims”. But then he goes on to snidely say just how “clearly wrong, and trivially easy to uncover” they are. He cites an obscure THEORETICAL paper as his best evidence of that…while ignoring all the rest of the material submitted to him (here and privately). In fact, he is incorrect. Meier certainly wasn’t wrong and the confirmation of the sulfur ring didn’t occur until the Voyager got to Mars. And it was anything but “trivially easy to uncover” by Meier in pre-internet days.
But – and this is the painful part – he has zero sense of curiosity, let alone awe, that a man in Meier’s circumstances is publishing all of this information in the first place. I am not either encouraged or impressed, so far, by his lack of scientific curiosity – and the egocentricity that it indicates.
In contrast to Phil, who just may be a nice young guy aspiring to be this generation’s Mr. Wizard, or Science Guy or something, here’s some information on, and a direct quote from, a top level astrophysicist:
David Froning: At the time, Dr. Froning had already spent 25 years as an
astronautical engineer at McDonnell Douglas in highly classified military defense
and, in 1979, became interested in Meier’s accounts of Plejaren starship travel, which
mentioned tachyon propulsion. Dr. Froning found Meier’s account of tachyon propulsion
(which was only beginning to be discussed by a very small and select group of
theoretical physicists), and his calculations for above light speed travel to be amazing. In
1983, he was pursuing his Quantum Interstellar Ramjet idea (JBIS vol. 33, no. 7, July
1980; AIAA 81-1533, July1981; IAF-85-492, October, 1985) and plugged in his Quantum
Ramjet performance equations, assuming: a given starship density, vacuum energy
conversion efficiency (in transforming positrons and electrons within the quantum
vacuum into photons), and vacuum energy conversion scales of distance of the order of
the Compton wavelength. The resulting vehicle acceleration enabled achievement of
almost light speed in about 4.3 hours and deceleration from light speed in about 4.3
hours. Meier said that the elapsed time during the “hyperspace jump” took only several
seconds. Thus, trip time between the Pleiades star cluster and Earth with Froning’s
slower-than-light Quantum Ramjet Drive plus a hypothetical tachyon drive would be 8.6
hours, which was within 20% of the Plejaren trip time reported by Meier. But, while
Froning’s calculations were based on many arbitrary assumptions, and in no way proved
the truthfulness of Meier’s account (since it was a theoretical system he was working on,
only time will tell as to which are correct) Froning was somewhat startled that his
arbitrary flight time computations were within 20% of the flight time mentioned by Meier.
Regarding the Meier material, Dr. Froning also publicly stated that, “My colleagues and I
may have made breakthroughs in our understanding of possibilities and ways for
traveling faster than light from Billy Meier’s accounts of his encounters with the
Plejarens.” He also said, “If what this Meier is saying is just a hoax, he’s being cued by
some very knowledgeable scientists. I’ve only discussed this Meier case with scientists
who are fairly open-minded about interstellar flight, but I’ll tell you, the majority of them
think it’s credible and agree at least part, or sometimes all, of the things talked about by
the Pleiadians.”
Now the comment about him and his colleagues making breakthroughs in their understanding, etc. was made in front of 450 people at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles. These people were corporate clients of the hotel who were the INVITED GUESTS of the hotel for a presentation of mine on the Meier case. And Froning personally approved my posting of the information, for those who are already squirming as their self-bestowed “expert” status on all this is appropriately relegated to the garbage dump.
So, there appears to be a qualitative difference between the actual scientific standards (and credibility and stature) of Froning and Plait, based on the available evidence, i.e. their own statements. I doubt that anyone posting on this blog has made any presentations comparable to mine, with the possible exception of Phil, though I don’t know that he has for sure. That’s not bragging, it’s just my best guess and probably a correct one at that.
Now since nasty, inaccurate, personal attacks are what greeted me here for my troubles, I won’t be surprised if such is the case again after pointing out all of the above. But like it or not, the Meier case is here to stay. It’s absolutely jam packed with enough information to keep smart, curious people busy for years. Remarkably, very remarkably, it is devoid of not only outright false information but also of self-contradictory information – a test that Phil immediately failed by stating that he “didn’t have time” to review exactly what he specifically claimed that he was looking for.
I’ll also ask again if anybody knows when Europa was discovered to be covered in ice.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:27 am
@ Todd
I long ago posted a link refuting the IIG/Ike42 info.
I suggest a careful read also of my (lengthy) comments above.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:43 am
@Michael Horn:
“I’ll also ask again if anybody knows when Europa was discovered to be covered in ice”
I’m looking into it. Haven’t found much yet, but I’m assuming Billy knows…
August 7th, 2008 at 9:53 am
@ Michael L.
Thanks for looking into it. I think that it may be a better way to go, i.e. to ask regarding some of these things and see what the people here come up with.
It also shows that, even with the internet, it can be not exactly “trivially easy to uncover”, as Phil claimed.
But yes, I do have Billy’s dated info on that. Let’s see what we find and how close, if at all, he came to it.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:54 am
@Stefanos
Astronomy demands…. independance day (hollywood style) UFO’s hovering over a major city 1000’s of witnesses(all professional observers, day light conditions) expert photography (no camera shake or hokey pictures)of course Ufology cannot produce the goods… so UFO’s don’t exist.
An untrue blanket statement.
Jose, Like many on this site you’ve made a claim… UFO’s don’t exist;
You put words in my mouth. I never made this claim. Neither has anyone else.
The difference is Astronomers riducle anything that is presented before them, a quick look at the comments on this site alone should suffice.
A nasty, untrue accusation.
I have neither been discourteous or rude to anyone, further more nor have i come onto this site being snotty or smart..
See the preceding comment.
Fortunately i don’t have a problem with you, because your clearly not capable of putting together a legitimate argument without getting irate because somebody disagree’s with your views.
The correct word is irritated, not irate. And I have every reason to be irritated when someone argues by putting words in my mouth. I don’t care if you disagree with me.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Hey Michael L, what did you do to get a polite-ish response from Mr.Horn. I don’t think I can trust you anymore:)
August 7th, 2008 at 10:35 am
@ Jose
An answer from my perspective. He made a statement of fact, not an attack. He had a little bit of tongue in cheek, a friendly way of sparring and again, not an unnecessary attack.
I didn’t come here to fight…as much as I enjoy fighting, there is a time and place for it. Why fight unnecessarily? Disagreement is another matter, it’s healthy and to be expected.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Regarding Europa coverd in ice:
Gerard Kuiper discovered that Europa had a mostly water-ice surface in the 1950s, using spectroscopy analysis.
found at [openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=172257]
I haven’t been able to find, yet, a physical (i.e., non-internet) publication yet where that information was documented and available to interested public, but I think that answers the question of when it was first discovered. If I had Lexis-Nexus access or access to other publication search engines, I might be able to more quickly verify when printed evidence of this discovery was available.
August 7th, 2008 at 10:42 am
@Todd
I would be willing to bet Kuiper’s observations were noted in Sky & Telescope magazine shortly after their professional publication. Sky & Tel has been a popular magazine for decades, readily available throughout Europe.
What did people do before the internet? Read.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Okay, found a reference to water-ice on Europa in Science, Galilean Satellites: Identification of Water Frost, 8 December 1972.
There is also a section of the book Astronomy and Astrophysics, (c)1965, section 4.2.2 Physics of planets and satellites, by Kuiper, that I think might have something about ice on Europa, but I haven’t been able to find a full copy of this text online to verify that.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:04 am
@ Todd,
Thanks, veryu interesting,e specially in light of a response I just got from James Deardorff regarding the information Phil referred to.
I’ll post Jim’s response heere, since it is tied in with the point you made above:
“Yes, Semjase was usually careful enough not to let Meier know about something more than a few days in advance of its human scientific awareness. However, the reference Plait was referring to was one of Kupo et al. (1975) wasn’t it (see below)? Probably “I. Kupo”. But it wasn’t listed in the article’s list of references, so it needs checking up on if possible. It seems quite likely to me that, since Kupo’s finding was controversial at the time, and not listed as a reference in any journal or elsewhere, it had been reported only as an oral paper at a scientific meeting, perhaps summarized in the meeting’s schedule of events, but then never published in a journal because there was too much opposition at the time at the meeting. Otherwise, the article you linked to would have listed it at the end of the article, I should think, along with all its other references.”
Both what you and Jim are saying is, in my opinion, of huge importance to the truly interested, investigative mind. A little elaboration. You’ll notice on this blog (like many others) an UNDERSTANDABLE demand for certain proof, the kind we think would once and for all settle any questions about authenticity or hoax. How nice and tidy it would be if we just had the kind of proof that WE want, when we want it, how we want it, etc.
But instead we are presented, in my opinion, with numerous puzzle pieces, without a clear picture on the box of what it’s supposed to look like in order to put it together.
The inquisitive, investigative mind, the detective’s mind though, starts to notice things, starts to see an intelligent, tantalizingly clever situation that appears to absolutely demand and require that WE take full responsibility for determining the truthfulness or lack thereof of the Meier case.
And please note that there is no cop-out here, I am privy to lots of information and evidence in this case, much of which I’ve made available for free for others to scour through – and think through. Doing so will clarify this perspective.
We have been given a problem to solve, a very challenging, controversy-provoking one that is, if one thinks about it, a HIGHLY RESPECTFUL way for a more advanced party to encourage those who are truly interested, so that they will rise to the occasion and eventually be capable of interacting on a more equal level, not one of craning our proverbial necks, looking upwards as some kind of “inferiors” to yet another race of ET “gods”.
If these ETs exist, again IF they exist, they would be, by definition, far in advance of us in MANY ways. Not “perfect” but far enough in advance of us that a certain well considered approach (perhaps we can think of it as a game played primarily by their rules, which are hopefully not only intelligent but well intended) has been – very patiently – implemented.
I have a lot to say about this, if anybody cares, and no more time right now to do so. But taking Deardorff’s and your own comments into consideration, which tease us with this notion of how a Swiss farmer is publishing information that is, frankly, inaccessible to him (as well as accurate) we have a possible new and exciting departure point for anyone here who genuinely wants to look into this matter…and isn’t afraid to be wrong, or right, but only wants to know the truth.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:14 am
@Michael Horn
An answer from my perspective. He made a statement of fact, not an attack. He had a little bit of tongue in cheek, a friendly way of sparring and again, not an unnecessary attack.
I didn’t come here to fight…as much as I enjoy fighting, there is a time and place for it. Why fight unnecessarily? Disagreement is another matter, it’s healthy and to be expected.
Well, I asked a simple question. I did not make an unnecessary attack. You called it foolish and unthinking, and then talked about how “putrid the thinking abilities” are here. It was a question you must get all the time, and I would assume an “expert” on the subject should be happy to address. But you won’t or can’t. I’m sorry that my question wasn’t worthy of your enormous intellect.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Michael Horn says: “we are presented, in my opinion, with numerous puzzle pieces, without a clear picture on the box of what it’s supposed to look like in order to put it together.”
I hate to break this to ya, but a trash can lid stuck in a tree is more a jke than it is a “puzzle”.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Michael Horn says: “we are presented, in my opinion, with numerous puzzle pieces, without a clear picture on the box of what it’s supposed to look like in order to put it together.”
I hate to break this to ya, but a trash can lid stuck in a tree is more of a joke than it is a “puzzle”.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:21 am
sorry for the double post
August 7th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
@ RAF
The truly ethical, credible thing to do is to post your version of the WCUFO video and show us what a joke it is (either Meier’s or yours). Then we can put that to rest.
What may not be known here is that the whole issue regarding a garbage can lid was originally raised and publicized by…Meier’s group. I happen to know the guy in the photo holding the lid for comparison.
The funny thing is that no one, no skeptic, etc. has been able to put their money wehre their mouth is on any of that.
If it’s so easy…why haven’t they been able to do so?
See these at my site:
LOOK OUT FOR THAT TREE!
The Billy Meier “Hoax” Exposed? – Part One -
The Wedding Cake UFO Controversy
…and the video linked below that article.
August 7th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
@Michael Horn,
Here’s what I found concerning Europa, from NASA’a Planetary website:
“The Voyager and Galileo spacecraft were not equipped with instruments which could directly detect water or water ice. Observations of Europa show the geometric albedo is generally high, indicative of a reflective surface. Earth-based observations of the infrared spectra of Europa and the other Galilean satellites were made in the early 1970′s from ground and airborne observatories (4,5). The observations used Michelson interferometer spectrometers and showed that Europa strongly absorbs infrared light with wavelengths of 1.4 and 1.8 microns. This is a distinctive characteristic of water ice, and the strength of the absorption in these bands coupled with the otherwise high albedo is indicative of comparatively uncontaminated ice. ”
It doesn’t give a specific date, except to say early 1970′s.
I assume Billy’s date is earlier…
August 7th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
@Jose,
I decided to be nice and put on a happy face today… After all it’s 1/2 price appy’s at my favorite watering hole tonite!
August 7th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Michael Horn says: “The funny thing is that no one, no skeptic, etc. has been able to put their money wehre their mouth is on any of that.
If it’s so easy…why haven’t they been able to do so?”
Like most of your reasoning, you have this completely backwards. Why do you believe that skeptics have anything to prove? The onus is on those making the extrardinary claim to provide evidence, NOT the other way around…
We don’t have to prove that Meier’s photo’s are fakes, YOU have to prove that they actually depict alien spaceships…
…and so far you are failing miserably.
Still waiting for that evidence…
August 7th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
I’m still waiting for Michael Horn to answer some simple questions:
1. Why the does the “wedding cake” ship and a trashcan lid look so similar? In fact, why does the trashcan lid and the “wedding cake” ship have the same handle? What purpose does the handle on the ship serve?
2. Why did Billy try to pass off a dancer on the Dean Martin TV show as a Plejaran?
August 7th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
@Michael Horn
Regarding Photograph WCUFO 1. Genesis III/FIGU
The car is the closest object and is in focus.
The second closest object is the tree/bush, and is out of focus.
The furthest object is the space ship, and is in focus.
How do you get the both the closest and furthest object in focus, while the object in between the two is out of focus. The only way I can think of is by superimposing one photo upon another. Can you or Meier provide the original negatives? That’s all we need to confirm or deny it.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Oh gosh, let’s deal with these last too (for the umpteenth time).
The fact is, the actual, established FACT, is that first James Randi and then CFI-West/IIG claimed that Meier hoaxed his evidence. While it’s a claim that Randi then RETRACTED, CFI-West actually went so far to say that Meier’s UFO photos, films and video were – and this is not even disputed by them – “an easily duplicated hoax”.
It si further not disputed by them that they ACCEPTED MY CHALLENGE to duplicate just one of Meier’s UFO photos and one of his films.
Again, an undisputed matter of record.
It is also a matter of record that they have FAILED to be able to do so. And, in keeping with the way such challenges and claims work, they are the ones who have failed, not Meier. Plesae understand, CLEARLY understand, this before carrying on any more about it.
You don’t have to like it but you do have to understand and ACCEPT that these are the facts.
Further, since you claim that the object is a garbage can lid – that’s now YOUR claim – you should have enough integrity to prove YOUR claim and not try to slide out of it.
As for the question, “Why the does the ‘wedding cake’ ship and a trashcan lid look so similar? In fact, why does the trashcan lid and the “wedding cake” ship have the same handle? What purpose does the handle on the ship serve?”
The answers are as follows. Because it may be the opinion of some people that something “looks like” something else, that doesn’t in any way actually prove that the object is the thing that you think it looks like. Just like you’ve also assumed a “handle” where in fact none may exist.
Life is full of “things that look like (or remind us of) other things”. Please, really, understand the irrelevancy of that question. It would indeed be a whole other matter if it can be proved that the WCUFO actually IS a garbage can lid.
And that’s where you guys come in. You get to do the ol’ scientific method thing and reproduce that result with the garbage can lid and tree of your choice, have a go at it and you’ll have my respect for doing so, whatever the results.
As for the Dean Martin dancer claim, please read through this blog as I recall answering that question before by pointing out that Meier was forewarned about a coming problem with the photos, more than 10 years before it arose. BTW, there are also people who’ve pointed out that the photo attributed to Meier was absolutely NOT taken of a TV screen…and, additionally, Meier didn’t own or have access to one at the time. Before you jump on that, it was well established during the investigation, and not all that surprising considering where and how he was living at the time and all of the circumstances, etc.
Now going ahead with duplication efforts, posting a link to your won UFO films that are “better than Meier’s”, etc. is a good next step to settle out those parts of the argument. It’s certainly the honorable, credible and…scientific way to proceed.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
@Ray
Not to mention why the bleating Horn continues to launch into tirades and claim Phil is ignoring his evidence (He didn’t. He pointed out quite clearly that the very first prediction of Meier’s that he looked out was patently false!) while continuing to ignore himself the counters to every one of his own outrageous claims, instead going into the usual ad hominem nonsense. “Oh, you poor, poor, misguided souls, when will you ever learn?”
His method is simple: endlessly repeat a claim, then when it is shown to be false, endlessly repeat some other claim and ignore the rebuttal. Your points above are good examples, Ray. Phil’s ridiculously easy refutation of the Jupiter/Io sulphur ring is another. His continual trooping out of a project manager at an “Academy Award™ winning” effects house, whose expertise is database management, not miniatures, is still another. Here’s yet one more:
[put the usual "h t t p / / :" minus the spaces and replace the [dots] with [.] before this link…I don’t want to upset the moderators]
thebiggestsecret[dot]online[dot]fr/ufo/billy_meier_smoking_gun[dot]htm
On that site you will find the Billy Meier photos that the bleating Horn never shows you, the ones with the strings clearly visible and the miniature set-ups clearly explained, including why the supposedly distant saucers are in clear focus when other distant objects are not (Hint: it’s not because their Pleidian Hyperdrives exude pandimensional force fields that warp light, although that’s a good one…put that in the next edition of your books.) and how his ex-wife tesitified in a Swiss court of law that her husband was a fraud.
And on and on!
August 7th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Lastly, before I go to teach today, regarding questions about hte WCUFO photo this much has been established with CERTAINTY. Meier never processed ANY of his own photos or films and didn’t have access to anyone who did except at the camera shop where he brought everything in for processing, bought his cameras, film and tripod.
This was thoroughly investigated AGAIN by Gary Kinder, author of Light Years, who was, let’s remember, a skeptic. He went and interviewed the owners of Baer Photo about the entire matter.
While I don’t have time right now for a more detailed answer about the WCUFO photo you mention, I assure you that the issue can be settled by trying to duplicate the WCUFO video. If that indeed is a large object a good distance (a couple of hundred feet at least) from the camera, well, we do really have something to discuss…as I’m sure you’d all agree.
Later.
And thanks for the civility, it’s easier all the way around.
August 7th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Yikes, looks like the civility thing was premature!
Well, later anyway.
P.S. Wait until you hear the other side of the story regarding the claims by the guy linked above…and Meier’s wife.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
@Michael Horn,
I would like you to comment on the similarity of the pictures in the scrapbook, that Meier claims to have taken in orbit around Mars, and the Viking Orbiter.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Phil, I think it’s time to pull some strings and get a MythBusters episode. The challenge has been made……I am certain they can disprove Horn’s rantings.
On another note, there seems to be a clear misunderstanding of what scientific process involves.
1) It involves multiple, educated individuals from multiple established institutions repeating experiments which prove/disprove certain hypotheses.
2) It is not sufficient to say that so and so, with such and such experience said x and therefore it is true. Before something gets accepted by the scientific community, multiple investigators must come to the same conclusion REPEATEDLY. If the metal is truly other-worldly, numerous labs should be able to study it and should all independently come to the same conclusion. Without multiple, independent tests, you have a story, or a narrative, but certainly not established facts.
3) Anyone can get a book or an article published. For an article to have scientific value, it must go through a peer-reviewed process where multiple expert in the field at hand review the work/data and can replicate the work/data. References should only be to other peer-reviewed articles, not Newsweek or some self-publshed article/book. That is how we know that our technology has not been created by leaps and bounds, but we can show the slow, evolution of ideas that have progressed through time.
4) No, we didn’t have the Internet available with all of its wealth of good, scientific information (which we must discriminate from bogus, unscientific information), however, we did have something just as good – university libraries. These behemoths have had peer-reviewed journals available to anyone who could read. You don’t have to have a library card to browse the articles. Before JSTOR, EBSCO, graduate students spent all their time looking up articles in peer-reviewed journals. While they generally weren’t available for checking out, the were available for reading, reviewing. So, even obscure articles are available, and if a particular library doesn’t have something, there is the wonderful process of inter-library loan.
I did take the time to visit your site. I looked for factual details, peer-reviewed articles, repeated, independent experiments, and found none. No, I didn’t look through everything, but did spend several hours. Your “facts” consist of opinion and hearsay and do not qualify as documented truth.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Michael Horn said:
“As for the Dean Martin dancer claim, please read through this blog as I recall answering that question before by pointing out that Meier was forewarned about a coming problem with the photos, more than 10 years before it arose.”
Funny how Billy the prophet was forewarned and the picture was still allegedly switched. Doesn’t speak well of Billy does it?
The reality is far more simple – the photo was taken from the Dean Martin TV show and Billy was forced to come up with the lame “switched” story *after* he was caught out.
August 7th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Also, “Yes, Semjase was usually careful enough not to let Meier know about something more than a few days in advance of its human scientific awareness.” How convenient is that? Keeps any of Billy’s predictions from being “years” ahead of publications….
August 7th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
“Better than Meier’s”
Go to Flickr dot com. Search for kuhnigget under the “people” heading.
Flying saucer invasion, ca. 1974!!!!!!
Otherwise known as frames from an 8mm movie a couple of kids shot in their back yard when they were bored and had a sunday afternoon to kill. Imagine what people can do when they’ve got a lot of time on their hands and the desire to get a lot of attention and make some money!
Let the bleating begin. (Or…galactic reprint rights available…cheap!!)
August 7th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
@kuhnigget
Those could not have been faked! I think your story of childhood pranks is just a cover.
August 7th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Michael Horn says: “…looks like the civility thing was premature!”
You have the audacity to complain about “civility” after you’ve called people here names?
Your gall amazes me.
So when can we expect that evidence??
August 7th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
What a silly circular argument! And it’s gone on for days!
Either you bring to this debate an inquisitive mind willing to do some honest research on this topic, or you don’t. And since you don’t, those of us who have had a first hand experience bow to your implacable hardheadedness. You are the blunt end of the spear tip that keeps us moving slowly and methodically through the layers of an impressive mass psychosis toward irrefutable, verifiable, quantifiable truth. And for that, I salute you. Your stand in the face of all that you have been told is truly heroic.
And, if I may say so, a little sad.
Putting your fingers in your ears and saying “La, la, la, la, la.” is not the same as listening with an open mind. (Oops, sorry. That’s a bad word given how afraid you are of having your brains fall out.)
It has been amusing watching all the rational suppositions and explanations fly in the face of personal testimony. But your obstinacy has won the day. Good luck to you, I wish you well.
But you are wrong, you know. Quite wrong. You can’t explain everything that has been seen by attacking the witnesses credibility, however nicely put, or neatly rationalized. The evidence is mounting. Prepare yourself for inevitable defeat.
August 7th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
kuhnigget,
Awesome job! I don’t see a handle on your spaceship. Did you find it difficult to fly if the handle wasn’t there to channel the Q waves?
August 7th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
@ ND
“You’re so driven by belief that you won’t even let a lack of evidence stop you”
I agree with the rest of your comments apart from this believing stuff. I don’t believe in anything apart from what I’ve seen with my eyes, which I would call an observation. I’m sceptical of the whole ufo phenomenon, but the only bit of it I accept as probable fact is my own sighting. I don’t know about the rest of it, and neither do you.
My comments earlier were intended to help expose a cover up if one exists. If that’s true then I know it wouldn’t have much of an effect, but I never claimed that I could prove all of it was true. There’s a difference between a blind belief, and just trying to find the truth. All I am bothered about is what the truth is, whatever that is, even if no aliens exist that is perfectly fine. Even if some do exist and want to eat us, fine then we should know. There is no physical evidence of alien visitation, but there’s enough circumstancial evidence and personal experiences for me to still be interested enough to say that for a lot of these things we just don’t know yet. We can’t prove it, but it’s not going away yet.
You talk about different paths people take, I couldn’t care less what paths other people take apart from those I care about. That’s absolutely none of my business. I’m never going down the road of a believer, but I also feel that to denounce all eyewitness accounts just like that could turn out to be very foolish on the part of many people.
And just to reiterate someone can say they’ve observed something what they think is unusual, even if their description calls it a flying saucer. This does not make automatically a believer to say this, they may be highly sceptical of a cover-up and all other sightings. That is the problem with so many people they seem to think there are these total believers on one side and the sceptics on the other. There’s no such thing as black and white between the two.
And you should take note that in areas which are still unknown to us, including you and me, comments can be exaggerated to allow for speculative posts. It doesn’t make them automatically a believer in it.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Actually Robin, you fail to note that some of us did some research, myself included. It took all of 2 minutes to demolish Horn’s claim that Meier went to Mars. See above video, and I answered his question about ice on Europa. Now, Horn claims Meier was told that Europa was covered in ice, but hasn’t specified when he was told.
So, if you have legitimate questions, I am sure we can find answers. However, I think people are getting tired of the UFO wankers’ nonsense of not thinking rationally when confronted with questions about hard evidence. Stephenville for example, as mush as Sylvain and others appeal to radar hits as proving the object was alien in origin, radar hits cannot prove anything one way or the other, except that something was over the town that night.
You are right, not everything that a person sees can be explained, however, to jump immediately to an ET solution, just because you cannot identify something is irrational don’t you think… oh never mind, I already know the answer to that.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
I want to clarify. In my earlier post, when I said “I have been to your site…” I was referring to M. Horn’s, not Phil’s.
August 7th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
@Michael Horn
Can we agree that if we can prove that Meier faked some of his evidence, all his evidence is suspect?
If so, I need someone to explain how the WCUFO 1 Photo could be anything other than a fake. There are 3 overlapping objects. The closest object is in focus. The middle object is out of focus and the furthest object is once again in focus. The only explanation I can think of is that it’s 2 separate photos combined to look like one. If there’s a better explanation, let me know.
August 7th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
some redux:
http://www.iigwest.com/investigations/meier/ufopix.html
August 7th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
@ Ray
Q rays? That is so 23rd century! The aliens told me they had progressed to Illudium Pu-38 eons ago!
August 7th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Quick response. Please do as I suggest and watch the VIDEO of the WCUFO. Still that it’s a small model?
The guy in France/Holland who tries to make that point won’t back up his claims either.
As a matter of fact, he has a page somewhere where he claims that a UFO that dips behind a hill in one of Meier’s films is a 1′ – 3′ model. Physically IMPOSSIBLE. So much so that I challenged him some specifics and – again – he REFUSES to even try to duplicate the film.
There are only two possible ways that Meier could have faked his films, overhead suspension or with a pulley rig. I issued the same challenge, quite recently to the CFI-West/IIG people, since Derek Bartholomaus claimed that this segment was done by Meier with a model.
He has folded on this claim, as has JREF rep Jeff Wagg.
And the IIG pics, as well as ALL other attempts to duplicate Meier’s photos, fail for very simple reasons, as they are revealed to be small models CLOSE to the camera.
There is one skeptic with whom I have been in correspondence for months, ENCOURAGING him with his video attempts. I will be putting up a new article with a link to his numerous attempts, hopefully next week.
The article will contain the rebuttal points made by James Deardorff and me.
And I don’t have an unkind word to say about this guy since he put his money (and LOTS of time) where his mouth is. You will see the results of his efforts soon…and then you can compare them to Meier’s films and video.
Do you have an idea of how well I think he did?
August 7th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Would that be the video where the model is wobbling around in parabolic arcs, as if it were, oh I don’t know…hanging on string???
Are these people any better than the ones from Unchartered Territories, i.e. the guy who is an expert in project management software? I repeat my challenge to you, sir: why not ask someone who actually knows something about good old fashioned model work? Greg Jein is a really nice guy, I’m sure he’d love to do it.
He’s in the book.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
@ Robin-
I’m sorry, but I don’t buy one bit of your UFO story. I hate to be negative… but I’m going to stick to Iznoccam’s razor on this one and say that you are either making it up or misunderstood what you saw.
August 7th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
You really do need a lot of help…and attention. My first suggestion is to do something remotely productive with your life, in addition to this pass time.
No, wrong video…but you’re free to show us YOUR version of either.
And Marc Weigert just happens to be the co-owner of UC and, as I understand it, an Oscar too. Maybe he could use your help though, your investigative skills are truly incomparable.
Greg’s phone didn’t answer. I’d be delighted to be in touch with him…and I think the Myth Busters idea is a great one. Send them over whoever knows them…
August 7th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Actually, rereading this thread just made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. All I hear is whining from pro-UFO folk that can’t produce one freakin’ shred of evidence that’s actually worth a shiite. It’s truly sickening. Either post something tangible or go peddle your filth somewhere else. If you think anyone on this blog is going to subscribe to your beliefs based on any of the ridiculous photo’s posted thus far, or the stories of what you think you saw 20 years ago when you were loaded with some friend out in the woods, unfortunately, you are seriously mistaken. Most people on this blog have already learned the importance of critical thinking. This whole thread reminds me of why I don’t argue with fundamentalist Christian’s anymore… no matter what, they are always right. Nothing but a waste of damn time. Praise be to Jebus!
August 7th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Wow. Cut a bit close to home, eh?
Okay, Mr. Horn, I’ll take you up on the offer. I’ll see if I can’t make a video comparable to the “wedding cake stuck on a shrub” film of Herr Meier. No computer technology except for the upload to YouTube. An 8mm camcorder, a few physical props, and any flying saucers that happen by.
Give me a couple days. I have to find something productive to do with my life, first. Been thinking about starting up a website to sell cheesy books and DVDs. Know anybody who might know anything about that?
August 7th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Wow, I’ve been away from this for a day because of real work, and THIS is what we get:
# The same nonsense from Horn about his “research”, Horn calling people names, and Horn’s appeal to authority, including an Oscar recipient! Yea, because someone winning an Oscar is DEFINITELY the same thing as a real scientist…
# UFO=Alien fanatics claiming their arguments are winning, because 3 people have eyewitness testimony. Let’s go over this again: Eyewitness reports are not evidence, and have been proven OVER and OVER again to be unreliable.
# A blatant and obvious lack of any real physical evidence. Please let me remind EVERYONE HERE what Phil’s ORIGINAL statement was,
“I don’t think I can be more clear than this. I want good, solid, examinable evidence. “
I couldn’t take the photos I wanted to yesterday because it was cloudy and rainy here. It will be this weekend before I have something significant, but stay tuned. I have something really good in the works.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Well said Robin -
“The evidence is mounting. Prepare yourself for inevitable defeat.”
This blah-g is going nowhere extremely s l o w l y .
Its sort of like a broken record.
‘Show me the evidence’
‘Here it is’
‘Show me the evidence’
‘Here it is’……
These blahgers are really not interested in finding out the truth, they are upholding a science that cannot explain what they cannot comprehend.
Some of you just can’t grasp it, and thats okay, its not an easy thing to grasp. And Phil, I’m being respectful when I say that, but until they have something of value to add, and do some serious research into the matter this blog is heading nowhere.
It really is counterproductive.
August 7th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
@ Harold McTestes
You sound like you’re whining to be completely honest. People have every right to honestly say what their opinion is. People like you are as bad as the complete believers, full of nonsensical insults.
Seeing a ufo is nothing like a religion, in fact I would call it more of an observation that requires no beliefs in anything at all. A perfectly rational sceptic can make that observation, whilst not claiming to know what it was. If you don’t understand that a lot of witnesses aren’t instant believers in aliens then clearly you haven’t talked to many, and so don’t deserve to make insinuating comments towards any witness. If anything is sickening, it’s your failure to distinguish between honest people and those which believe in anything.
“loaded with some friend out in the woods, unfortunately, you are seriously mistaken.”
You don’t know what some people have seen and they don’t. Nobody can claim they have evidence of aliens just from a story, but to accuse some of being loaded in the woods as the explanation makes you just as deluded. But for a witness to speculate what it is – even aliens, then they can say that if they want, especially when their description funnily enough sounds like a craft of some sort. Why should someone be told what they can’t speculate on in the free world?
“All I hear is whining from pro-UFO folk that can’t produce one freakin’ shred of evidence that’s actually worth a shiite.”
So you’re saying anyone who cannot explain something they’ve seen is not allowed to describe what they saw quite clearly in many cases. Being rational a lot of people admit to just not knowing. If you don’t like people saying this then you can always go and read something else. Ask yourself how you would expect someone who’s witnessed something for a few minutes at the most in the sky to get any actual physical evidence of it’s existence, except for a photo. But then do you carry a camera around with you 24/7, even if you do, not many other people will.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:21 am
I’ve just finished reading a very interested declassified document on the NSA website.
This is the title if you want to go read it. I suggest you do if you have not already:
Report from Air Force Special Security Office – Subject: (Unclassified) UFOB NEAC Area
This is what I take away from reading it.
The air force definitely refers to the objects as aircraft
Those that where spotted by crew are described as the classic saucer.
The objects appear to be evasive in their manoeuvres. Crew report that they appear to have some sort of jamming technology and also move in erratic manner.
What makes me wonder now is, is this some foreign technology that seems to be ahead of the US- militarily and appear to breach US airspace seemingly at will?
August 8th, 2008 at 6:51 am
@John,
It has been said here, ad nauseum, that just because somebody sees something they cannot describe, there is no reason to believe what they saw was ALIENS! Unless someone comes forward with evidence, we can only speculate.
If we both see an object in the sky we can’t identify, and you say its an alien spaceship, I can argue, just as truthfully, that it was Santa Claus’s sleigh that we saw, or Puff the Magic Dragon. Since neither of us have evidence, there’s no way to prove its ET or Santa.
@shaun,
I’ll be interested to see exactly what kind of equipment failure the crew experienced, and if it can be replicated. Evasive maneuvers are typical of terrestrial aircraft that do not want to be attacked, but not evidence of ET.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:55 am
shaun,
link please, a search did not bring anything up for me.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:01 am
@Jose
Actually, I would say that it would be exceedingly difficult to prove that Meier’s photos, specifically, were faked, for a couple reasons I’ll note below. The best you can do is to show that it is possible to make pictures that are similar to his, using models or whatever other means were likely at his disposal.
Now, as to proving that the existing Meier’s photos were faked. This is extremely hard. Why? Because we do not have access to any credible witnesses who were around when the photos were taken. Anyone who was there may have varying motives for lying or telling the truth, so they cannot be relied upon, though certain elements of their testimonies may be indicative of something.
Second, we do not have access to any physical remains of any possible models. Even if we did, that would mean only that he had models, not that he used them to make the pictures. (A lovely “out” available to his supporters.)
Third, we do not have any photo or video evidence of Meier setting up a shot, where we can see clearly whatever rig he may have used to suspend the objects. But again, even if we did, it would just show him setting up some shot, and his supporters would again have an out that he may have just been trying to do some amateur model work, but that the “real” photos are still real alien craft.
Fourth, lacking any other physical evidence of his having faked the photos and videos, there is only Meier’s confession remaining. He is unlikely to say that he faked any of it, and even if he did, I’m sure his supporters would just claim that he was under duress or was doing it to get the assassins/nay-sayers to leave him be.
So, for the skeptics, there is no way to prove that those specific photos were faked. The closest we could come is to show that it would be possible to fake. Therefore, Mr. Horn’s challenge to prove that Meier’s photos are faked is meaningless and only serves as a way to trap the unwary skeptic into admitting that they could not definitively prove that the photos were faked.
On a final note, though, for very similar reasons as those facing skeptics, supporters cannot definitively prove that Meier’s photos depict real alien craft. Why? No credible witnesses to the photo shots with unbiased stories. No physical evidence, except for a piece of metal that has conveniently disappeared. Actually, that piece of metal not being available, if it were, indeed, alien in origin, would be a boon to his supporters to have available for independent analysis. Only the written report and video analysis (?) of someone who is not a metallurgist claiming that he could not replicate the metal using tools available to him. Somehow, that extrapolates to mean that no one could replicate it, but there’s a logical fallacy in that leap. So, no physical evidence that the objects in the pictures and videos are actually alien.
We have a photo of a supposed alien that turns out to be a dancer from a ’70s TV show. Ah, but that photo was tampered with, say his supporters! Yet, not evidence of such tampering has been presented. So, that photo is, at best, inconclusive.
We have comments made by a programmer and another member of UT, whose model-making credentials have not been verified, saying that, at best, “we can’t conclusively say whether it’s real or not”. So their analysis of the video also could not verify that the object was a real alien craft.
The way it stands, numerous people have shown that it is possible to create photos and videos that are very similar to Meier’s collection. The upshot of all of this? No one, on either side of the debate, can prove that the objects of interest are either real aliens nor models. The best that can be said is that we cannot prove anything about them, other than that it is possible to create similar pictures and videos using models and simple tools that would have been available to Meier.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:07 am
@Shaun
Was the encounter at night? My guess is yes (haven’t had time, yet, to read the report).
I would offer another possibility, other than aliens or terrestrial foreign craft. And I preface this, again, without having read the report yet or having knowledge of anything that is not in the report. It may have been a non-mechanical natural phenomenon…some weather event or bird/bat.
Why do I suggest this? Because we have stories of pilots taking evasive maneuvers to avoid colliding with what they thought was another object, only for what they saw to be a meteor or some other natural thing that was much, much further away than they thought and posed no actual risk.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:23 am
It seems to be multiple events over a period of time.
Very fascinating!!
I did not say the A word or the E word
Link to doc – http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/ufo00031.pdf
or just go to http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/ and find the title.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:27 am
The link gets blocked by the spam filter so I described below how to navigate to it.
It seems to be multiple events over a period of time.
Very fascinating!!
I did not say the A word or the E word
Go to the NSA website
Choose HTML site
Go to Public Info
go to Declassification intiatives
Go to UFO section
download and read: Report from Air Force Special Security Office – Subject: (Unclassified) UFOB NEAC Area
August 8th, 2008 at 7:43 am
I wonder if they have been sighting their own secret aircraft?
Note that on one of the pages they mention weather balloons
August 8th, 2008 at 8:15 am
@shaun,
You can post a link here. It doesn’t get blocked, only delayed by a few minutes.
If you don’t think this report is possible evidence of aliens or ET, then why bring it up in this discussion? Just curious.
August 8th, 2008 at 8:32 am
“Report from Air Force Special Security Office – Subject: (Unclassified) UFOB NEAC Area”
Seems consistent with soviet MiG-17 or MiG-19 aircraft, which by 1958 were stationed in Cuba.
I cannot PROVE this. But given the state of the world in 1958, given the location, the “evasive action” reported by the pilots, and the possible k-band radar jamming described, that would be my suggestion for most likely scenario.
Have you ever been in the military, shaun? stuff like this happens all the time.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:05 am
@Todd W
I think this picture specifically, is different.
http://www.theyfly.com/newsflash/images/image002.jpg
Let’s give Meier the benefit of the doubt and say that the car, tree, and space ship are 100% real (I know that’s a stretch), and he really photographed them. This image must still be a composite of 2 separate photographs. Because the objects overlap we can tell the order they appear relative to each other. If it was a genuine photo, the focus of the objects would follow the same order. There’s three ways it could look.
1. The car in focus, the tree out of focus, and the space ship even more out of focus.
2. The car out of focus, the tree in focus, and the space ship out of focus.
3. The car out of focus, the tree slightly less out of focus, and the space ship in focus
Having the car in focus, the tree out of focus, and the space ship in focus is impossible, so it’s a fake.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:10 am
@Greg
My post with the link is still awaiting moderation. So, sorry you will need to navigate to it on your own – unless you wish to wait.
I posted it because I think you all care and want to research the subject. Although I will agree that the whole report does not prove ET/Aliens.
Also Phil has asked for this type of evidence. I mean, it’s going to be difficult to prove anything when jumping to the ET conclusion. So this is the best I can do. Look for the unexplained and present it here.
@boosterrocket
Nope – no military exposure and I’d like to keep it that way. I’m a peaceful bloke. I’m sure this type of thing does happen often but wouldn’t they know who/what is perpetrating their airspace? I’m not sure I’m asking. Does this happen often where they can’t work out the origin?
I like your speculation though, it could be MIGs.
What do you make though of the crew members describing what they see? (the ones that did get a visual and not just radar returns. It doesn’t sound like any convensional aircraft to me.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Different airmen gave different reports. First one said it was “triangular,” which would fit the MiG. Also described silvery surface, again consistent with MiG. Couple reports from the air and on the ground thought they were looking at Venus at first, so who knows what they saw. Radar crew noted the temperature inversion was affecting things. Speed is consistent with MiG performance. The one altitude estimate of 35 thousand feet is twice what a MiG could do, but at that time the aircraft wasn’t dogging the craft, so that’s just a guess. Bottom line: who knows? Doubt it’s aliens, though.
And good for you being a “peaceable bloke”. Sometimes takes a big stick to maintain that peace. Don’t want to get into that argument. Cheers on ya.
August 8th, 2008 at 9:40 am
They also mentioned hovering. Maybe the British Hawker Harrier… I doubt it.
Is it a bird? is it a plane? No its not superman either. It’s just unexplained… lol
August 8th, 2008 at 10:30 am
A thought for the weekend, a prediction actually. Of course since I’m no psychic I could be very, very wrong but here it is.
I predict that Phil won’t touch the Meier case, despite my polite, lengthy request in a private email offering him access to lots of stuff.
Why won’t he, is it because – as some will rush to assume – that’s it’s “obviously” a hoax? No, not at all. The reason is that, first, he looked at the photos on my site…and realized that not only weren’t the objects hubcaps or dinner plates, he knew that he couldn’t make one of the things, with his own two hands, to save his life.
He read some of the info at my site, as he indicated in an email to me, one that questioned me about the Randi fiasco. He knew that Randi, CFI-West, IIG, etc. all have been humiliated by their failures and have had their hats handed to them…as the door hit them on their way out. He also knew that Meier’s prior knowledge of scientifically accurate information could only be attacked in a very superficial way, as it begs more questions than it answers.
We saw this in his very selective, and equally brief, comments regarding the Jupiter information. As “trivially easy” as he claimed it was to find – which was proven immediately to be wrong in itself – there certainly wasn’t a person blogging here that knew anything about it prior to this discussion. And I’d bet that Phil had to do some searching online to come up with…the information that was found online, now, and not available 30 years ago to a farmer living in the boonies in Switzerland. And no, he doesn’t and didn’t live anywhere near a convenient library. Meier wasn’t spending his days and nights in libraries but in raising a family and renovating a rundown farmhouse – as well as gathering physical and informational evidence from, and traveling the cosmos with, the Plejaren.
Phil knows something else too, i.e. that his own aspirations for celebrity status would be severely damaged by getting into a public debate about a UFO case that not only won’t go away after 66 years but gains more and more public interest and, with the recent Mars information connection, credibility. What would happen to his role in the limelight, and his facile presentations, when the focus wouldn’t be about him but about the most important story in all of human history, a story that he’s only now just finding out about?
There’s no desired pay off for him there, that is if he primarily desires some level of fame over significance. But let’s remember that he is the guy who, quite publicly and cynically, said he’d never seen ANY evidence of real UFOs and certainly indicated that he’d like to see any such evidence, if it existed.
So there in a nutshell are the basic reasons why Phil will probably maintain a very low profile and try to avoid discussing the Meier material. Now nothing could make me happier than being wrong, than putting my first impressions aside by necessity as he comes forward, publicly and opening, wanting to put the Meier case under good, objective, scientific scrutiny, which is something that the now very embarrassed, discredited professional skeptics should have agreed to do long ago.
Let’s see just what happens.
August 8th, 2008 at 10:45 am
@Michael Horn
I know, I know. I said I was done with you, but the whole jumping to conclusions thing is just…oi!
First off, to claim that Phil was being arrogant or dismissive earlier when he said he “didn’t have time right now” to look through your 1,300 pages of stuff didn’t come across to me as a brush off. Maybe there was something else in his e-mails to make you think that, but the comment, to me, sounded more like someone who is pretty busy (especially taking into consideration preparing to head off to the Galapagos Islands).
Second, as he noted in a recent post (not in this thread), he is now off to said islands, so it is a safe bet that there will not be anything new from him on Meier for at least a week.
You are presenting to us your interpretation of the e-mail exchanges, which is a bit unfair, as we do not have any of it to read for ourselves to come to our own conclusions about how he, or you, have acted or what conclusions were drawn and what questions were asked. Now, I would not ask you to post those here without Phil’s permission, but to take swipes at him like that is not rising to the level of respect that you want to receive from everyone else.
So, please keep your comments and speculations regarding Phil to yourself, since they contribute nothing to this discussion and present a very one-sided argument.
August 8th, 2008 at 10:45 am
@Michael Horn,
You’re right. Phil’s on his way to the Galapagos. He’ll only be posting pre-written stuff.
August 8th, 2008 at 10:47 am
@Michael Horn
Are you going to share with us the date of Meier’s ice-covered Europa tidbit, along with how the date of that prediction was verified, other than just taking Meier’s word for it?
August 8th, 2008 at 11:00 am
@Todd W
It looks like links are waiting moderation forever. Maybe this will work.
Actually, I would say that it would be exceedingly difficult to prove that Meier’s photos, specifically, were faked, for a couple reasons I’ll note below.
I think this picture specifically, is different.
http://www.theyfly.com/newsflash/images/image002.jpg
Let’s give Meier the benefit of the doubt and say that the car, tree, and space ship are 100% real (I know that’s a stretch), and he really photographed them. This image must still be a composite of 2 separate photographs. Because the objects overlap we can tell the order they appear relative to each other. If it was a genuine photo, the focus of the objects would follow the same order. There’s three ways it could look.
1. The car in focus, the tree out of focus, and the space ship even more out of focus.
2. The car out of focus, the tree in focus, and the space ship out of focus.
3. The car out of focus, the tree slightly less out of focus, and the space ship in focus
Having the car in focus, the tree out of focus, and the space ship in focus is impossible, so it’s a fake.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Todd,
Meier reported it in 1978, which is well after what you reported above. It’s in the same transcript with the other Jupier and Io information.
Good question regarding verification of that information. What happened was that Wendelle Stevens was in Switzerland on one of the trips connected to the investigation and was leaving to go back to the states. This was in March of 1979. Meier had already published the Jupiter information back in October of 1978. So Stevens wanted a copy of it to bring back to show others involved in the investigation, as well as some professional associated of his.
Meier told a woman there, Eva, to get a copy for Stevens (probably a mimeograph at the time). The phone rang and Meier went out of the kitchen (where most of the activities, meetings, etc. were held). Eva came back with a bunch of papers, gave them to Stevens, and Stevens stuck them in his briefcase.
He traveled back to the states with them. Here is an excerpt from Stevens on the whole matter:
“I have had the Contact Notes for 19 October 1978 (Meier’s 115th contact) in my possession since 9 March 1979, since before many of the items just mentioned had occurred. During this time I showed them to two trusted people, Major Rudolph Pestalozzi, USAF (Ret.) and Mr. O. Richard Norton, former director of the Flandreau Planetarium in Tucson, Arizona. This paper listed those events in their correct order and extends the predictions into our near future. We have promised to observe the ban on release of any information on future events until they happen. I should perhaps point out here that the Plejarans made these predictions on 19 October 1978. The 14th Moon of Jupiter (1979 J1) was discovered in October of 1979 from Voyager Mission photographs taken on 8 July 1979 by Voyager 2. The 15th Moon (1979 J2) discovered in May of 1980 was found on photographs taken by Voyager 1 on 5 March 1979. It can safely be stated that the Plejarans told Meier that there are in fact 17 Moons of Jupiter, but that it would be many months before we discover the next ones. They also observed that there are still 2 more planets in our solar system still to be discovered, both beyond Pluto and one well beyond.”
A few points, since they are certain to be asked.
Stevens is referring also to the fact that Meier was/is under orders to not publish certain predictions publicly because doing so can cause very undesired consequences. A prediction is said to be an event that must, and will, occur with 100% certainty. A prophecy is an event that will occur if people don’t make the necessary, positive course corrections in time. Some predictions deal with cosmic events that people couldn’t change anyway, even if they knew about them in advance.
The announcement by NASA that Io was the most volcanically active body in the solar system wasmade , as far as I could find out, on Monday, March 12, 1978, three days after Stevens had the notes in his possession…and five months after Meier first published them.
Questions that may be raised about the actual number of moons of Jupiter, may best be answered by noting that the Plejaren have their standards for determining what a moon is, as opposed to a non-moon. I don’t know those standards and dimensions off hand. Of course, whatever the number, Meier was usually told in advance about when additional ones would be discovered for a planet and/or just what the actual total is.
Meier had mistakenly thought that Jupiter had fewer moons than it did at the time he was informed about the claimed number. That conversation is somewhere in the body of the contact in one of the books.
The information about the two planets beyond Pluto was first published by Meier in 1958, then again in 1978, as I mentioned before, and reported here again by Stevens.
Another thing that lends credibility to all of this is the LACK of attempt to publicize the information by Meier. Even the fact that Stevens probably didn’t know that the information was confirmed – and specially about Io – because it also wasn’t the day of 24-hour news casts or the internet. And Stevens wasn’t that focused on the information to the extent that we are now. They were still primarily interested in the hard evidence, though that also changed as the investigators had their own experiences and as they were let in on other information about significant events before they occurred.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:23 am
@Jose
It appears to me that the tree is in front of the car, and very close to the camera, judging by how out of focus it is. So, assuming that the WCUFO is above the car, the focus point would be consistent. So, not necessarily two images superimposed.
What is unusual about that picture is that there are absolutely zero other features in the picture besides those three objects and what appears to be hair or thread in the upper left corner. Also, the lighting is peculiar. Light on the WCUFO appears to be coming from slightly to the left side of the photo, about even with the camera. If the object were at any considerable distance from the camera, the rest of the sky/landscape would have to be much more illuminated for the camera to capture the object with that much light. Using a flash on the camera would have the effect of making a nighttime background darker, but it would do the same to the UFO.
The car and tree are also surprisingly washed out by light. At night, a flash from the camera would not reach far enough to have that effect, judging by the apparent size of the tree and car, assuming a real, human-sized tree and car.
So, your focus argument I don’t think works, but an analysis of the lighting is pretty damning. But again, his supporters will probably trot out reasons to explain this away, and without being able to tell some serious detail on the car or tree, we cannot conclude that they were miniatures, though we may be 99.99999% sure.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Regarding my seeming to be precipitous in my email to/about Phil.
Fair enough. And also keep in mind that, while to most of you and perhaps to Phil as well, this is just another ho-hum matter, I regard it as the most important story in all of human history. I do so as a result of having spent some 30 years investigating it.
Further, IF it’s true, it certainly IS the most important story in all of human history. The difference is that such a prospect is, in itself, sufficiently compelling to prioritize an immediate, and as thorough as possible, investigation in to it…in my opinion.
And that would supersede all other priorities, etc.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Regarding the miniature theory for the WCUFO, no one has been able to even make such an object to date. To assume that Mieer could, would and wouldn’t have doen something more profitable with such stellar abilities is illogical.
Further, Meier took 63 three photos of the WCUFO, day, night, close-ups and distance shots. And then there’s the WCUFO video…with Meier in it. That ain’t no miniature that he zooms in on.
At even a couple of hundred feet the object has to be several feet in diameter, perhaps the 14′ that Meier claimed.
And there was absolutely no way that Meier could do such photo manipulation as would be required…for all 63 photos.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:38 am
@Michael Horn
Okay, so regarding Europa, the knowledge that it was covered in ice had been around for over a decade, close to two, by the time Meier reported it. So, that opens up a rather great possibility that he got the information from a terrestrial, rather than extraterrestrial, source.
Regarding Stevens, you quote him saying:
And then state, emphasis added:
Now, maybe you just typoed, but could you provide a link to where you found the information about NASA’s announcement? I will add, though, that a NASA announcement does not mean that it was unknown in astronomy or scientific circles before the announcement.
Furthermore, what is the evidence of the date on which Meier supposedly published these predictions? Are you going solely by the date he wrote on the contact notes?
August 8th, 2008 at 11:43 am
@Michael Horn
Simply because you have not heard of anyone who has yet made a similar object does not, therefore, mean that it is a real UFO. Second, regarding the “illogic” of Meier not putting such “stellar” miniature-making abilities to more profitable use, it’s not illogical at all. It may be a hobby. It could be he just gets a kick out of some aspect of it.
How do I come to this conclusion? Because I, myself, make miniatures from time to time and am often complimented on the level of detail. I do not put these talents to profitable use, though. It may not make sense to you, but it does to me.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:49 am
It was a typo, should be 1979.
The fact that we’re even asking for a link is telling, if this isn’t even common knowledge today, 30 years later, just how would Meier know – and WHY, we must ask ourselves if we are good detectives, would he even be interested in, look for, and find the information?
But wait, Stevens had it in his possession three days BEFORE the announcement.
Even the outside date reported by Stevens, March 9, is three days before the announcement. And, again, if all this somehow, miraculously, was a cunning hoax…why didn’t Stevens or Meier publicize it and do so then when it would get some attention to be sure?
While it’s good to be skeptical, one also has to be COMPREHENSIVE in their thinking. And, when I get into his publication of the information on Venus, one year before “official” discovery, the same questions will arise.
And let’s not forget the two planets beyond Pluto information…which I also have here in a book published a decade before that occurred.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Ho-hum is right.
MH says, “. It can safely be stated that the Plejarans told Meier that there are in fact 17 Moons of Jupiter, but that it would be many months before we discover the next ones. They also observed that there are still 2 more planets in our solar system still to be discovered, both beyond Pluto and one well beyond.” …
“Questions that may be raised about the actual number of moons of Jupiter, may best be answered by noting that the Plejaren have their standards for determining what a moon is, as opposed to a non-moon. I don’t know those standards and dimensions off hand. Of course, whatever the number, Meier was usually told in advance about when additional ones would be discovered for a planet and/or just what the actual total is.”
How convenient. The Plejarans only tell Meier information that will be published soon, even when that information is shown later to be incomplete or gets revised. Since there are 63 known moons of Jupiter, why didn’t the Plejarans tell Meier there are 63 instead of 17? Moon vs. “non-moon?” Give us a break. They apparently knew our definition of Moon to say there was 17…
If Meier only got his information from the imaginary beings from outer space a few days before it was published, isn’t it possible he simply called or correspond with someone from the publishing company? How hard would it be for Bob in Printing to call his buddy Meier 3 days before the magazine hit the shelves, and give him an inside scoop?
Oh, and how many planets are there? How many Kuiper-belt objects (including Pluto) do we know about? Did the imaginary beings from outer space tell Meier how many moons Pluto has?
Again, Mr. Horn, you bring up fascinating material, full of holes, with no physical evidence to support your claims, and expect us to think it is any different than the 100 other claims you have made? Please tell us you have something actually new to add to your highly questionable and unscientific claims.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Todd,
Regarding hobbies, may I respectfully suggest that if you had taken 10 trips to Switzerland in 9 years as I have done, let alone the eight years of on site investigation by the original team, you’d not want to offer up the theory that a farmer living in a rugged, very high maintenance environment, has the time talent and who knows what to make models the likes of which – I guarantee – exceed even your abilities to make, with one hand no less…and for this “hobby” to go undetected by EVERYBODY concerned.
Even one trip there now would disabuse you of this fanciful notion.
August 8th, 2008 at 11:55 am
@Todd W
I think you need a new monitor! At least I can see the car is clearly in front of the tree. Michael Horn agrees. Does anyone else want to weigh in.
@Michael Horn
Assuming we’re correct about the order (car, tree, space ship), can you address the focus issue?
For the sake of argument, I’ll concede that the WCUFO, car, and tree are real, large objects.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Jose,
All I can say from my perspective is that it looks to me that the WCUFO is behind the tree and car and in clear focus, the two other objects less clear.
I agree that they are all large objects…and this is where the it becomes interesting. Obviously, we must ask then, just what is the WCUFO?
August 8th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
@Michael Horn
“The fact that we’re even asking for a link is telling”
Not really. 1) I’m not an astronomer or an enthusiast. 2) Asking for sources is kinda demanded of any scientific inquiry. 3) Seeing your source allows us to verify your statements, as well as judge the quality of the source.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
@Michael Horn
All I can say from my perspective is that it looks to me that the WCUFO is behind the tree and car and in clear focus, the two other objects less clear.
Oh, you can’t get off that easy. This is what you said about the photo on your site.
Notice how out of focus that bush is in front of the WCUFO and compare it with how much less out of focus the car is in its photo.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Re the link, verification is super important, of course, but my point was, and still is, look at what we have to go through to find the info…and compare it to the availability to Meier 30 years ago.
Regarding the quote, yes, of course, and please forgive me but I am more interested in the best collective efforts concerning the WCUFO. It seems that, unless there is really credible evidence to the contrary, that it is a large object, which focuses us more on that part of the discussion.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
@Jose
I saved the picture so I could open it with Picture Manager, then zoomed in 200%. The rear end of the car appears to be obscured by the trunk of the tree, as well as some other discolorations on the car consistent with the out-of-focus branch pattern.
@Michael Horn
The picture Jose referenced still has the lighting issues I mentioned. The lighting is inconsistent with what it purportedly depicts, yet consistent with a model hypothesis.
As far as the quality of the model-making, the car could have been either a kit model or something like a matchbox car (not enough detail to determine). The tree (again, too blurry to determine) may have been a plastic one of the type used in model train sets. That leaves only the WCUFO to build. There really aren’t many minute details on it, making it rather easier to build.
Regarding the means of a one-armed farmer, we cannot determine, from what you have presented, whether he would have had anyone else helping him. There would be little motive on their part, and especially on Meier’s part, to reveal that it was all just a hoax, so using that argument to bolster your position doesn’t hold up. If the hoax is kept going, he gets minor celebrity status, people visiting him, possible financial returns from publishing rights, books, lectures, tours, etc.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
@Michael Horn
“Re the link, verification is super important, of course, but my point was, and still is, look at what we have to go through to find the info…and compare it to the availability to Meier 30 years ago.”
We do not know what resources he had available, either in terms of what publications he received or had access to, nor what people he may have known that could feed him information. The information may have been very easy to come by with the right resources, even 30 years ago.
“It seems that, unless there is really credible evidence to the contrary, that it is a large object, which focuses us more on that part of the discussion.”
You’re making another logical fallacy here. If there is no evidence that it is not a large object, that does not mean that it is a large object. Merely, that the size has yet to be determined. By your logic, we could just as well say that lacking any credible evidence to the contrary, that it is a small object.
August 8th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Todd,
Please see as many of the WCUFO photos as possible. There are some 100 or so light-like objects on the flat part of the rim. Then there are the various globes – the uniformity of the finish, whether silver or gold (two different colors, hmmm?) – the underside of the WCUFO and…the fact that there are 2 or 3 DIFFERENT SIZED WCUFOs.
Even more interesting, in my opinion, is something that I discovered that no one else seemed to notice in over 25 years.
In WCUFO 3 on my page about the WCUFO, notice that the object is tilted at an angle. If you carefully examine it you will see that there is a change in the dimensions, a difference in the height of the top portion from the lower portion, which is NOT due to the tilt of the ship. You can measure this by using WCUFO 4 in comparison.
Also, from Wendelle Stevens, the lead investigator in the case, regarding one of the technological challenges of Meier – or anyone else – making the WCUFO:
“I thought, if one was trying to make such a model, it would take a master welder to get all those shiny balls in perfect alignment, because they have to be welded ‘out of alignment’ so that when they cool the balls will be drawn into perfect alignment, and one would have to agree that the alignment is flawless. Certainly, Meier with one arm and no other equipment could not possibly have done the job. If there was another artisan involved, sooner or later he will be identified and blow the story. In 30 some years none has ever been identified.
It is true that that model is not my ideal of a spacecraft, but that does not make it any less real.”
August 8th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Todd,
The real error is yours, as you assume that “we do not know what resources he had available, either in terms of what publications he received or had access to, nor what people he may have known that could feed him information. The information may have been very easy to come by with the right resources, even 30 years ago.”
We DO know, and we know on the basis of not only the original eight-year investigation, and Gary Kinder’s subsequent investigation but the evidence (or lack thereof) that has arisen in the last 30 years.
And, to the point, you need to know that Lee and Brit Elders, the two other main members of the team were/are not only top level private investigators but they were…the SKEPTICS in the team.
Every conceivable connection, source, person, material, physical, financial, technical resource was THOROUGHLY checked out. And the findings, to date, refute your hypothesis. This is why I ask people to actually do some research into the case and the investigation.
There’s a reason why there are some 1,300 pages of it.
August 8th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Sorry to intervene in this discussion you are having the last few posts but did anybody have a look at the report I pointed out? except boosterrocket.
It’s obvious from these reports the objects where way beyond any aircraft that existed at the time and I’d like to hear your opinions on it.
August 8th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Booster rockets? Gimme a break! Next thing you know someone will say they saw some old guy practically levitating himself up without any visible assistance…when you KNOW it has to be done with some kind of ropes or pulleys:
http://www.youtube. com/watch?v=UcUa_02pvUU
August 8th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Okay then, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcUa_02pvUU
August 8th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
@Shaun
Sorry. Between the conversation with Mr. Horn and work (which I’ve already been neglected rather too much), I haven’t had time to look at that link.
August 8th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
@boosterrocket
Speeds are not consistent with MIGs. The MIG 15 top speed was around 650mph.
1500 knots = 1726 mph
The x plane launched in 1965 only clocked approx 1200mph. Today we don’t have aircraft that just stop either.
So these objects are clearly superior even in todays terms.
August 8th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
No worries. I promise it makes for exciting reading. When you get a chance.
August 8th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
@Shaun
I would say the reports are inconclusive. Many occurrences of “Unable to track object with this type of radar.” That doesn’t mean that the object was alien, it means that particular equipment was either not functioning properly, or did not have the capabilities of radar we have now. One of the goals of every major country is to design aircraft that challenges and hopefully avoids other countries’ detection.
Secondly, pages 20 and 21 are interesting. The log states that a known balloon was released in that area, that something odd appeared on radar, and that the pilot sent to investigate reported “nothing was seen.” My guess is, the radar picked up the balloon, and by the time the pilot got there, it had moved beyond his sight, or was obscured by the weather.
All of these reports look to me that someone at NSA did a search of all documents containing the letters “UFO.” So far, none of them detail any actual alien contact, only Unidentified. We cannot rule out the possibility of normal terrestrial sources for any of these reports.
That being said, it is indeed interesting to read. This kind of evidence certainly supports the hypothesis that the military has been investigating UFO’s for 50 or 60 years, and has been covering up many of the reports. However, the reasoning for classifying such documents may not be directly related to hiding what they saw, but simply to protect who was flying what aircraft, when it happened and where they were. To this day the military does not want each and every exercise they perform available instantly to the public, for reasons of national security.
August 8th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Go to my site, in the Archived Headline for 2005 you will find this document:
U.S UFO COVER-UP BEGAN IN…1915!
August 8th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Right. Is it a sheer coincidence that reports of unidentified flying objects started coming in soon after humans started flying in greater and greater numbers? Were there no aliens zipping around the skies 200 years ago?
Think of this, when humans first started traveling the oceans, stories of giant sea creatures and monsters devouring entire ships were common. Stories of whirlpools, mermaids, ghost ships, etc. were everywhere. As humans learned to travel around the globe, and more and more people spent more and more time at sea, more and more of these legends were replaced with completely reasonable explanations.
When the first humans traveled into space, initially there were many reports of strange little unexplained things happening outside the windows. Dust and debris sparkling in the sunlight were described as fairies. Small particles traveling very close to the orbiters were mistaken for large objects in the distance moving at incredible speeds. Over time, and with more and more humans spending more and more time in space, these strange little sightings are getting replaced with completely reasonable explanations.
Flying saucers (the ET kind) are simply fanciful imagination for the as-of-yet-unexplainable sightings for ordinary things.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
well, shaun, i’m not going to claim to be an expert in soviet aircraft. i did look up the MiG 19, however, (which was in Cuba at the time of your incident) and it could top out at over 900 knots. that being said, it’s important to note that the pilots were only visually estimating the speed of the other aircraft from some distance away. notoriously hard to do in the best of conditions, and several of the comments note how tough it was to see with the sun coming up.
“This kind of evidence certainly supports the hypothesis that the military has been investigating UFO’s for 50 or 60 years, and has been covering up many of the reports”
I don’t think you can use the expression “covering up” at all, Greg. The material was classified. lots of things are classified in the military, sometimes for petty reasons, sometimes not. None of it is “covered up” in the sense of some conspiracy to hide it without reason. Krikey, the air force used to classify how many latrines were on base because it might give someone an idea how many crews were stationed there. I don’t think that translates to turds from outer space.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
@boosterrocket,
I totally agree. It is not my hypothesis that the government is “covering up” anything. That is the claim of the conspiracy theorists on this blog and everywhere else. In my next sentence, I try to explain the possible need to classify information.
I should have made that more clear.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
@Todd W
I saved the picture so I could open it with Picture Manager, then zoomed in 200%. The rear end of the car appears to be obscured by the trunk of the tree, as well as some other discolorations on the car consistent with the out-of-focus branch pattern.
One more try.
I believe that the bumper disappears because the bush and car have the same level of brightness at that point.
Here are a couple of enhanced images if anyone wants to take a look. Just add the http and :// to the beginning of the URL to make the links work.
Here the picture is enlarged, sharpened and the colors are inverted.
farm4.static.flickr.com/3058/2744298239_9ef6bab3bd_o.png
Here’s what happens using find edges in fireworks. You can see the left edge of the tree stop as soon as it reaches the roof of the car.
farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/2744293781_03f1ef029c_o.png
In both images, the bumper remains a blob.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
@Todd W
I saved the picture so I could open it with Picture Manager, then zoomed in 200%. The rear end of the car appears to be obscured by the trunk of the tree, as well as some other discolorations on the car consistent with the out-of-focus branch pattern.
One more try.
I believe that the bumper disappears because the bush and car have the same level of brightness at that point.
Here are a couple of enhanced images if anyone wants to take a look. Just add the http, colon, and two forward slashes to the beginning of the URL to make the links work.
Here the picture is enlarged, sharpened and the colors are inverted.
farm4.static.flickr.com/3058/2744298239_9ef6bab3bd_o.png
Here’s what happens using find edges in fireworks. You can see the left edge of the tree stop as soon as it reaches the roof of the car.
farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/2744293781_03f1ef029c_o.png
In both images, the bumper remains a blob.
August 8th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
@Greg
Thanks for taking the time to read through it. Although – I think you need to read it again and more carefully.
Some of the reports are confirmed multiple times by different aircraft and crews, usually after being requested to – by ground radar controllers.
The weather balloon was refuted in the report.
The aircraft crews stated “very very fast”
The acceleration was instant in one case and in a zigzag motion.
The air force is admitting scrabbling jets that could not catch the object and then the object just stopped after accelerating to 1000mph. I checked the times on some of the reports and they monitored some of these things for many many hours. 100 yards away they disappeared from sight yet on radar they are still supposedly in the same spot. All the reports are signed and authorised by the director of intelligence. There are even reports of up to five smaller targets appearing. One pilot thought it was a star at first but the changing of direction quickly changed his mind (He described it as a bright light). One of the pilots in his own words stated it must be one of those flying saucers.
I like the fact there is so much data included and the government definitely takes this seriously. All the names of the people are included.
Dates/times locations.
The equipment was tested and confirmed to be working correctly.
These are highly skilled and trained military personnel.
It’s a treasure trove.
I’d be interested to see if anyone could take the data and model it in a computer sim – so we could visually see angles/rate of climb etc
There is absolutely nothing ordinary about these sightings.
The title on the one report stated “unconventional aircraft”
UFOs have been seen throughout history. Alexander the Great is just one of many examples of these tales.
Like I stated the X Plane that was launched years later – still was not nearly as fast as what was tracked in these reports.
Ultimately we need more evidence and I hope the government will continue to release previously classified information like this report.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I’m sorry but the speeds are also calculated based on the radar outputs and not just guestimates by the pilots. Most of them never ever got to see the objects. read it again.
At one point the object climbed at such a rate as to temporarily go of the radar scope. That is extremely fast! That is why they concidered the weather ballon.
August 8th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
@Michael Horn
Quick question. Do original negatives exist for Meier’s photos and films?
August 8th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
@Michael Horn
Also, are there higher resolution photographs than the ones you have posted on your site?
August 8th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
“One of the pilots in his own words stated it must be one of those flying saucers.”
Shaun, you are starting to sound like that michael horn character. The pilot decidedly did NOT say that. What he said was, “I also told them it was moving very rapidly something like those flying saucers.” (Top of page 14.)
Quite the difference, especially when you take a military pilot’s mindset into account. He was describing apparent speed, not the physical aircraft, which would have been impossible since he was 50 miles away. All he saw at that time was a bright light, a light which he later thought was a star, which appeared to move and then disappeared from view. The guy was probably joking about the flying saucer line. Unfortunately, typewriters can’t reproduce his tone of voice.
Here’s his last statement, verbatim: “The sky was fairly light on the horizon and by contrast the object appeared very bright. It was at its brightest when ‘enrage’ informed us that we were 18 miles from it. After the sky was getting lighter, the object became dimmer and more difficult to see. About 0900, it disappeared completely.”
Sounds like a perfect description of Venus setting into the twilight sky. My conclusion would be, they were confusing whatever the radar saw (speed anomalies not withstanding, I would say a MiG) with what they identified visually from no closer than 18 miles (or 20 million miles, if it was Venus. someone should look into an astronomical chart for that date to see where Venus was.)
I know that won’t satisfy the need for aliens visiting earth to steal our women or whatever, but that’s what I would conclude from the documents.
August 8th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Shaun,
How much do you know about radar and its limitations/capabilities?
August 8th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Re the photos, as I understand it, there are still some originals in the possession probably of one or more of the investigators (who I don’t think want to go through retesting, as they probably think that the real issue will be settled via other evidence and means). I think that they were referred to mainly as slide diapositives, I’d have to reread some stuff.
I do have some photos of about 1 -2 mgs. that I’d email to interested parties. as for higher resolution, the truth is that I’m not sure if the larger size necessarily equals higher resolution, nonetheless, if you send me your email address I’ll pull some together as soon as possible.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
@ Greg in Austin
“It has been said here, ad nauseum, that just because somebody sees something they cannot describe, there is no reason to believe what they saw was ALIENS! Unless someone comes forward with evidence, we can only speculate.”
I agree completely, there’s no reason for me to argue with you about that. I’ll leave that to those who are sure alien contact is real to argue with you.
“If we both see an object in the sky we can’t identify, and you say its an alien spaceship, I can argue, just as truthfully, that it was Santa Claus’s sleigh that we saw, or Puff the Magic Dragon. Since neither of us have evidence, there’s no way to prove its ET or Santa.”
If I think I’ve seen something truely amazing, I’d be stupid not to share it with anyone. I’d hope you and everyone else on here would do the same as well. If you ever see something really unusual you would be able to appreciate how condescending it is for someone to say it could have been Santa. I would challenge you to find some every day person who has claimed to see something that looks like santa’s sledge. To say a sighting looks like a saucer isn’t claiming little green men, it’s just how the person thought the object or whatever it was looked like.
I think with your santa analogy you have let logic dictate human common sense, in the same way a robot would, which would be very difficult to program as a set of true/false logic commands for a computer program.
August 8th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Shaun: in my last post I should have said it looks like Venus “disappearing” in the twilight sky, not “setting.” Obviously if the sun was rising, so was Venus. Wouldn’t want an angry astronomer chastising me.
August 9th, 2008 at 4:37 am
I was just making the point that it’s not ordinary.
I don’t know the limitations of radar but I do know that planets and stars are not visible on ground/air radar.
I also know that radar operators know the signatures of foreign aircraft.
They also never refer to these objects as hostile in anyway. As if they don’t think it is a foreign aircraft. It appears to be unknown to them as to what it is.
I know that the landscape of earth can sometimes cause disturbances but they confirmed that this was not the case.
The MIG assessment in my opinion is not possible due to the speeds. Like you so rightly state, the object was 50 miles away so it is incomprehensible that the pilot good make a good judgement on the speed of the object. I am assuming that they estimated the speeds using the radar. Remember – they stated that they can distinguish between cloud formations and the objects where confirmed solid. Although when some pilots came within 100yards they could not be seen with the naked eye? So are we saying that the MIG did not have stealth technology but could become invisible to the naked eye?
Again. We certainly need to see more data like this. I’d prefer more recent data with modern equipment.
Maybe it is some anomaly we are not aware of or know little about. eg ball lightning.
Anyway its been fascinating to talk a little about the report.
But let me just finish by saying. This object was definitely SANTA CLAUS or the TOOTH FAIRY. There can be no other deduction. LOL cheers ladies and gentlemen. I need to have a weekend away from the PC screen.
August 9th, 2008 at 7:23 am
@John,
My point is, without any evidence, its your word against mine. Maybe I say it is ET, but without proof, why should anyone believe me?
Logic does dictate science, which is what we are talking about here.
August 9th, 2008 at 8:52 am
“I also know that radar operators know the signatures of foreign aircraft.”
Only when they are clear. They aren’t always.
“They also never refer to these objects as hostile in anyway.”
Which simply means the aircraft weren’t hostile. MiGs flying reconnaissance would not be flying aggressively.
“Although when some pilots came within 100yards they could not be seen with the naked eye? So are we saying that the MIG did not have stealth technology but could become invisible to the naked eye?”
No, I’m saying what was on the radar was not the same as what the pilots saw, or didn’t see, in this case.
Have a good weekend away from your computer. Wish I could do the same…
August 9th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I BELIEVE!!!!!!
Check out the AMAZING REAL FLYING SAUCER FOOTAGE!
No way this can be fake! (’cause, you know, it’s the pixels!)
Check it out:
www (dot) cheapviagra
Oops, wrong address. Here it is:
www (dot) youtube (dot) com (slash) watch?v=hDg3l-88lJc
And for EXPERT ANALYSIS PROVING IT’S TRUE:
www (dot) youtube (dot) com (slash) watch?v=f4uI59vFfUk
Gosh! I don’t know how I ever could have doubted Mr. Meier!
August 9th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
(1) “A untrue blanket statement?”
Check this site by popular Astronomer Ray Villard: The Top Ten reasons why Flying Saucers aren’t real. If you state something is not real, its not unreasonable to assume your saying the subject matter doesn’t exist (use of the terminology here; Ray uses both the word Flying Saucer and UFO in relation to the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis) See No 4 of Ray’s citation. Furthermore “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” Carl Sagan’s popular quote on the scale of the evidence required.
http://blogs.discovery.com/cosmic_ray/2008/07/top-ten-reasons.html
(2) “You put words in my mouth. I never made this claim”
Since I have genuinely placed words in your mouth and you have thus never made this claim, I therefore stand corrected, although only so as far as a lack of irrefutable proof,
otherwise we both share the same belief in Father Christmas.
(3) “Neither has anyone else”
See Astronomer Patrick Moore‘s statement below.
(4) A nasty, untrue accusation?
“Anyone who believes in UFO’s must also
Believe in Father Christmas”
The above comment attributed to Astronomer Patrick Moore (The Sky at Night) in a television interview: “Breakfast with Frost” (3 August 1996)
Above is but one example by an Astronomer of the ridicule aimed at the subject of UFO’s. In addition, on Space.com see Senior Astronomer (SETI) Seth Shostak article on UFOs: Flying Emotions:
http://www.space.com/searchforlife/080807-seti-flying-emotions.html
Makes interesting reading, here Shostak freely admits many Scientists deride the subject of UFOs But Astronomers (and Scientists) aside, lets look at some of your previous entries on this site…
“In case there are any aliens monitoring this thread, I will restate what I said earlier. I would like to ride on your space ship. Although, I’m not looking forward to it, I will accept good probing as a trade off, provided no eggs or anything of that nature are implanted in me, and proper lubrication is used. We can work out a more formal contract when the time comes. I’m going to try and sleep now. I hope to see you soon.
Sincerely,
Jose”
“I think you almost got it. The real question is “Why do aliens put lights on the outsides of their ships.” The answer is of course that Federation law requires that all interstellar vehicles have external lights on at all times for safety reasons.”
“Because your “evidence” is still written in crayon.”
The Ridicule you heap on the subject is far from nasty and untrue, these are your statements nobody as put the words in your mouth.
In addition you state that this is the reason in your opinion that I have been discourteous and rude, in addition to coming onto this site being snotty and smart.
Fortunately I still don’t have a problem with you, because your still clearly not capable of putting together a legitimate argument.
August 9th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
A MESSAGE TO RAF, “King of Skeptics” :
I have read the entirety of your comments, and although I do not intend to get into a pissing match with you, I can most confidently say that, like me, you are contributing absolutely nothing to this forum.
You are not bringing any kind of research, expertise, or even the slightest iota of personal experience that might suit to benefit users who seek legitimate answers to significant questions.
I, off all people, understand the strength and necessity of skepticism, but what you seek is destruction- not answers. Perhaps that was your intent, or maybe in your little game of ‘devils advocate’ you just missed the point.
This forum gives an amazing opportunity to people with stringently palpable experiences to come forward, share their knowledge and, in the process, expand it- solely for the benefit of all.
No one here is trying to convince you or even cares what you choose to believe. You cannot make others listen to what they don’t want to hear, and you cannot forget what you did not want to see.
Some people have seen the unexplainable, felt the tingling shivers down their spine, and dealt with images that will last a lifetime. They are engraved into the mind, like a cartouche on the walls of a pyramid. The color may become faded, but what was written will remain throughout the ages.
Perhaps on some level, subconscious or otherwise, you feel hurt or left out, that you have been trying so hard to experience this kind of amazing majesty and have consistently seen nothing. Or perhaps, you are practicing to become a trial lawyer and wish to polish your antagonistic banter. Whatever the reason, you have my most amiable permission to remove your blind-fold of ignorance, and listen to those who have experienced what you have been, most appropriately, denied.
In defense of Isabel:
I was in her company, and saw the ball of fiery light as she described. Like her, I too have had numerous encounters over the years with objects and entities that humankind may never truly comprehend. I feel no need to talk about them; they are personal, they are always life changing, and I am not trying to convince anyone.
Take this how you will. This is my first and last post.
Thank you to all the people who in good faith have contributed positively to this forum, and forgive my voiced frustration with RAF and others.
August 10th, 2008 at 12:34 am
@ Greg in Austin
Sorry I forgot that most scientists & astronomers would never say they saw something they could not identify for the sake of their career, and not wanting the rest of the scientific community to think any less of them. It’s a good thing that other people don’t think like that.
“My point is, without any evidence, its your word against mine. Maybe I say it is ET, but without proof, why should anyone believe me?”
That’s simply not my problem, I don’t care if you believe me or not, but I can still state what I’ve observed, which was unexplained and not yet determined to be ET, but nothing mundane.
“Logic does dictate science, which is what we are talking about here.”
Yes you’re right a forum on ufos is not the place to talk about unexplained ufos sightings. But then again if physical evidence was found tomorrow my anecdotal evidence should become worthy of your attention, and by science would be considered possible alien visitation.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:13 am
@John
You keep saying that you saw something that was strange, and maintain that it was not mundane, but then you say it’s not yet determined that it was ET. Sounds like you’re pretty convinced that it was alien in nature. But, you have yet to share your experience with anyone here. You only bring up other cases. Why not share what you saw? I’m beginning to doubt you acually saw something.
August 10th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Hey Greg-
How are the calculations coming?
August 10th, 2008 at 8:37 am
GIDEON Says: “A MESSAGE TO RAF, “King of Skeptics” : I have read the entirety of your comments, and although I do not intend to get into a pissing match with you, I can most confidently say that, like me, you are contributing absolutely nothing to this forum.
Why am I the “King of Skeptics”? Is it because I require evidence before belief?
A real easy way to “shut me up” would be for someone to provide evidence that aliens are actually visiting Earth.
Still waiting for that evidence…
August 10th, 2008 at 8:56 am
I don’t know about anyone else, but that sounds kind of hot.
August 10th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
“You cannot make others listen to what they don’t want to hear”
I’d say that about sums it up.
By the way — kuhnigget (silly Englishman), please don’t ever consider an acting career.
August 10th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
@ Todd W.
Then you would be wrong if you thought that. Imagine if you were wrong just like that a thousand times or more.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Hi all. Just figured I’d pop in again and see if we’ve come across any worthwhile evidence from the “I know aliens and UFO’s are visiting Earth” community yet. Still nothing but a bunch of whining and excuses regarding the lack of credible evidence from pro-alien folk I see… so disheartening. I’ll try again next week, but I predict the end result will be the same.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:45 pm
@GIDEON,
That is what most people on blogs define as a “Troll” or “Trollish behavior.” You come on here without any evidence to support your claim, you make personal attacks on one or more of the people posting here, and you finish off by informing everyone that you won’t be back. Since there is obviously no reason to even attempt an open and honest debate with you, none of us will try, and you will brag to all your friends how you pwn’d all those who disagreed with you.
Good luck with that.
@John
No real scientist would ever present any information on any subject without evidence and expect it to pass muster. Its not about what they believe, its more about what they can prove. Most people on here are not professional scientists, yet they still expect real evidence to support any claims.
You say you don’t care if I believe you. That’s fine. I would like to believe you, and everyone else here who claims they have evidence of aliens visiting earth. Again, I would love to see real evidence. We just haven’t yet. And yet you still seem to think that anecdotal, eyewitness testimony will somehow someday prove all of us skeptics wrong.
@ Isabell,
Tomorrow I’ll have some pictures to help finalize my report. Thanks for hanging in there. I still believe you saw something. I also believe that without concrete evidence, it will be difficult to prove that what you saw was or was not something otherworldly.
An interesting part of my studies: How far could one see and object 1-mile in diameter, as suggested by the Stephenville UFO sightings? Depending on how high in the air the object was, could you see it from, say, 10 miles away? 50 miles? 100 miles?
And speaking of Stephenville, there are claims that the radar for that area picked up something large… If indeed true, then there should be reports from the surrounding areas that other radar picked up something just before or after the time of the reported sightings.
In other words, if an alien vessel that was traceable by radar came to earth, it would not just fly straight down from space to one location, and only picked up by one local radar. It would have to be seen by the global satellite/debris tracking system, by the FAA in multiple states, by people on the ground and in the air, etc. Has anyone looked to see if there were multiple large, unexplained radar blips by other cities across Texas (such as Dallas/Ft. Worth, Waco, Amarillo, El Paso, San Antonio, Austin,) or across multiple states at the same time as the Stephenville UFO reports?
Just wondering.
August 10th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Harold! You must have missed it! I HAVE SEEN THE ALIEN LIGHT and I have the evidence! See post above for the terrestrial web coordinates! I BELIEVE! (Book deal pending. All rights reserved.)
August 10th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Pages 276 & 277 of “And They Still Fly” by Guido Moosbrugger (Steelmark, 2nd Edition copyright 2004)
“According to Ptaah’s statements, more or less serious setbacks are also expected in the freedom efforts of the now-dissolved Eastern Block countries. A great deal of what has already been accomplished will most likely be destroyed. With great probability, everywhere in those regions where the population is not yet mature enough to sustain their newly won freedom, the people will behave so irrationally that their governments will be left with no alternative but to tighten the reigns again and take unpopular actions. Joined with this are the completely unlawful interferences and covert influences by western nations and their secret services. Altogether, these can lead to bloody conflicts, causing a chain reaction, which finally brings on the outbreak of a global war. So the danger of World War III is, unfortunately, by no means prevented.”
August 10th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
@John
“Then you would be wrong if you thought that. Imagine if you were wrong just like that a thousand times or more.”
Okay, so share your experience. If I missed it, then just point out where you related it. I’ve asked you a couple times now, quite sincerely, to share your experience with us. If you did indeed see something, then it was obviously something that was strong enough to convince you of the reality of alien craft. (And I make this assumption, that you believe alien craft are visiting, because of the general tone and attitude of your posts.)
August 10th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Correction: First in print on pages 330 – 331, in “And Yet They Fly!”, by Guido Moosbrugger, published by Steelmark, 1st edition – 2001.
August 10th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
@Horn,
Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, owner of this blog, clearly stated,
“All I want is actual, y’know, evidence. I don’t want eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable. I don’t want shaky footage. I don’t want fuzzy pictures. I don’t want claims of redacted documents, or government seizures of evidence, or anything I can’t hold in my hand and examine.
You know. Evidence.”
What are you presenting? A book from the “Body, Mind and Spirit” section? That’s not even close to a peer-reviewed research paper. Anyone can publish a book, on any topic. Nice try.
August 10th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Greg,
I’ve already entered into correspondence with Phil and it will be up to him whether he is up to the task of evaluating evidence. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, i.e. that he won’t actually say things that are as stupid as the ones you consistently post, which testify to the fact that you are completely ignorant of the facts in the Meier case. Of course, there is an old tradition among humans that ignorance has never stopped many from, proudly, displaying their own brand of it.
As an example, note that making inaccurate references and ignoring the existence of dated, copyrighted published documentation – which actually is one of the BEST forms of proving such facts – is further evidence of your aforementioned ignorance.
Such self-indulgence amounts to nothing more than, “Gee, I think it’s time for me to say something and marvel at myself for saying it.”
If you were actually employing any thinking ability, you’d see that the “argument” you are making translates as, “volumes of evidence is the same as no evidence at all.” Wow, what a good one.
You even don’t even understand the actual value of eyewitness testimony, confusing the idea of one or two people seeing something ONCE with dozens of people seeing something many times…with many of them, including trained observers, also photographing it. So I suggest that you don’t take your TV version of legal training too seriously, or yourself for that matter. You aren’t interested in finding out what’s true, only in trying to prove that something isn’t…by asserting your own, very ample ignorance, which makes you quite…uninteresting.
August 10th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
“Jim Shaver Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 8:36 am
Sir Eccles:
Celtic_Evolution is being kind. Your comparison of ET Skeptics to Evolution Deniers is way more than a bit of a stretch — it’s a complete non-sequitur, and it’s insulting to biological science. Also, I suspect that the intersection between the “UFO equals ET” crowd and the anti-evolution crowd is near zero. ET, if proven to exist, would shake the already squishy foundation of the YECs.”
Jim,
You might be right, about the YEC’s. However, in 1980, my dispatcher in Boston, MA asked me what I would do, if a flying saucer landed in front of me, and ET came out of it, and told me there were no God?
I answered, words to the effect, there can be only the same range of opinions on the ET’s planet, as on our planet: no God, maybe a God, and there is a God. That ET evidently belongs to its planet’s no God bunch.
I would tell the ET this, and advise him I’m with the there is a God bunch, on this planet, and he won’t change me.
Only if the Spirit moved me, would I try to convert the no God ET.
Nevertheless, I seriously doubt if a saucer will ever land in front of me; much less an ET come out of it; nor inform me there’s no God.
After what you folks put me through, that would be a piece of cake.
Don
August 11th, 2008 at 12:02 am
@ Greg in Austin
“And yet you still seem to think that anecdotal, eyewitness testimony will somehow someday prove all of us skeptics wrong.”
Sure it will, when there’s a mass sighting that is captured live on tv which passes clearly in front of the camera somewhere in the Western part of the free world.
I know this is only anecdotal evidence as well but it is worth reading – http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_10126653
I don’t know if what I saw was aliens, it’s just unknown to me. It was a group of 6 white/reddish lights that at first appeared still as points of light all quite close to each other, with three in a straight line and the other three in a triangular shape, and the sky was perfectly clear with no clouds in sight. This was in the UK around 3am, September 2007. After I saw them like that for about 30 seconds, they moved around each other swapping positions more quickly than I’ve seen a conventional aircraft move, and then around a minute later they shot towards the East and upwards so fast I could see a blurry motion following in that direction, and in that part of the sky where they dissappeared I saw two swirling cloudy patterns, which I could speculate as disturbances of the air as they passed thru’ it at high velocity, but may be unrelated to the ufos. During the hour before this happened and the 2 hours afterwards I witnessed around 20-30 jets mostly travelling in pairs, maybe military, going in an Eastern direction. These planes came from all directions in the sky, some from the western, southern and northern directions. Note that these directions are just an approximation, and are not exact. There were dozens of contrails lines from jets in the sky all parallel to each other at sunrise sometime around 5am, some of them criss-crossing, but most of them leading towards or from the eastern direction. Most of the jets I saw travelling over were in pairs, which I doubt any commercial or private jet would be doing, and I heard the engine roar as they passed over which sounded distinctly like I’ve heard military jets on tv sound like. I’m not sure if some of these jets were the same one’s which travelled back over my location or not, as I have no way to to uniquely identify each plane. I would also like to mention that just before I witnessed the strange lights there was a plane contrail heading right over my location from west to east which at first drew my attention, and that’s when I went to fetch my camera, and came back out the lights were there, which I took photos of. Unfortunately the lights didn’t come out on the photos, but recently I’ve discovered a way of using Adobe Photoshop to brighten the photo, and change the contrast levels, and there is clearly distinct lights in the same location and pattern in the sky that I witnessed, which are above background noise levels that the compression creates. Although these lights aren’t noticable on the original taken shot, as they are too dim to see. It is the same with the supposedly atmospheric apparition only being visible on the shot after I increase brightness and modify contrast levels. I would also like to point out that Venus is clearly visible in the eastern part of the sky at this time, and is clearly visible on the photo I took as well just below and to the left of the strange lights. I’ve studied Astronomy to an amateur level before and the sky that night was absolutely clear with many stars visible, notably the constellation Orion was further off to the South at that time. I have checked on star maps what would be visible in that part of the sky at that time, and there is nothing I can find to explain what I saw, and I can say with absolute certaintly that it was not any stars or other known celestial body. I am also certain this was not an hallucination, meteor and all other mundane explanation I have considered. Therefore I conclude this may be unknown to science. Could be unknown atmospheric, new military craft, time-travellers, aliens visiting or anything else unknown. I evaluate that the most likely is alien visitation from that list. But I just don’t know is the honest conclusion. But I doubt it is santa claus as you suggested as to what I and others have seen.
There that’s it, it took a bit of time to type that making sure it was as accurate and complete as I can possibly state. I hope you realise now I’m serious about what I’m saying.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:07 am
@ Greg in Austin
“And yet you still seem to think that anecdotal, eyewitness testimony will somehow someday prove all of us skeptics wrong.”
Sure it will, when there’s a mass sighting that is captured live on tv which passes clearly in front of the camera somewhere in the Western part of the free world.
I don’t know if what I saw was aliens, it’s just unknown to me. It was a group of 6 white/reddish lights that at first appeared still as points of light all quite close to each other, with three in a straight line and the other three in a triangular shape, and the sky was perfectly clear with no clouds in sight. This was in the UK around 3am, September 2007.
After I saw them like that for about 30 seconds, they moved around each other swapping positions more quickly than I’ve seen a conventional aircraft move, and then around a minute later they shot towards the East and upwards so fast I could see a blurry motion following in that direction, and in that part of the sky where they dissappeared I saw two swirling cloudy patterns, which I could speculate as disturbances of the air as they passed thru’ it at high velocity, but may be unrelated to the ufos.
During the hour before this happened and the 2 hours afterwards I witnessed around 20-30 jets mostly travelling in pairs, maybe military, going in an Eastern direction. These planes came from all directions in the sky, some from the western, southern and northern directions. Note that these directions are just an approximation, and are not exact. There were dozens of contrails lines from jets in the sky all parallel to each other at sunrise sometime around 5am, some of them criss-crossing, but most of them leading towards or from the eastern direction.
Most of the jets I saw travelling over were in pairs, which I doubt any commercial or private jet would be doing, and I heard the engine roar as they passed over which sounded distinctly like I’ve heard military jets on tv sound like. I’m not sure if some of these jets were the same one’s which travelled back over my location or not, as I have no way to to uniquely identify each plane.
I would also like to mention that just before I witnessed the strange lights there was a plane contrail heading right over my location from west to east which at first drew my attention, and that’s when I went to fetch my camera, and came back out the lights were there, which I took photos of.
Unfortunately the lights didn’t come out on the photos, but recently I’ve discovered a way of using Adobe Photoshop to brighten the photo, and change the contrast levels, and there is clearly distinct lights in the same location and pattern in the sky that I witnessed, which are above background noise levels that the compression creates. Although these lights aren’t noticable on the original taken shot, as they are too dim to see.
It is the same with the supposedly atmospheric apparition only being visible on the shot after I increase brightness and modify contrast levels. I would also like to point out that Venus is clearly visible in the eastern part of the sky at this time, and is clearly visible on the photo I took as well just below and to the left of the strange lights.
I’ve studied Astronomy to an amateur level before and the sky that night was absolutely clear with many stars visible, notably the constellation Orion was further off to the South at that time. I have checked on star maps what would be visible in that part of the sky at that time, and there is nothing I can find to explain what I saw, and I can say with absolute certaintly that it was not any stars or other known celestial body.
I am also certain this was not an hallucination, meteor and all other mundane explanation I have considered. Therefore I conclude this may be unknown to science. Could be unknown atmospheric, new military craft, time-travellers, aliens visiting or anything else unknown. I evaluate that the most likely is alien visitation from that list. But I just don’t know is the honest conclusion. But I doubt it is santa claus as you suggested as to what I and others have seen.
There that’s it, it took a bit of time to type that making sure it was as accurate and complete as I can possibly state. I hope you realise now I’m serious about what I’m saying.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:08 am
I know this is only anecdotal evidence as well but it is worth reading – http://www.eveningsun.com/ci_10126653
August 11th, 2008 at 12:41 am
@ all
Your patience with Michael Horn I find superb.
@ Michael Horn
You are not going to convince any of these people without neither solid logic nor verifiable proof. I have seen neither in your posts, and I accept anecdotal evidence. I believe people have seen things they cannot identify. I wonder about a subterranean (subterranean terrans = ST) source for a few of those things.
That’s an unproven speculation. The only reason I offer it, is to show another possible variation on what people may have seen.
In my mind, acutal UFO’s remain an unproven speculation, supported by anecdotal reports. Skeptics do not accept anecdotal evidence.
I do.
But only to the extent of admitting, there’s something there.
I submitted my ST speculation to show that even if there are UFO’s they don’t have to be ET’s.
You, sir, imho, and many others with you, are jumping to a whole lot of conclusions.
Don
August 11th, 2008 at 3:27 am
@Stefanos
So you’re countering my argument that you made an untrue blanket statement by making more untrue blanket statements? Nice.
Then you cherry pick my comments to prove that I don’t take the subject seriously. Poking fun at people who arrogantly make claims without evidence doesn’t mean I don’t take the issue seriously. But you already know that because you’ve seen the comments I’ve made that you decided not to cherry pick.
And did you read the article you linked to? It’s about how many people in the UFO community are indignant bullies, but you managed to focus on the single sentence in it that sort of (but not really) supports your argument? Here’s what you said again.
The difference is Astronomers riducle anything that is presented before them, a quick look at the comments on this site alone should suffice.
Here’s what the article says.
Yes, I’ll freely admit that many scientists are dismissive of the UFO hypothesis — often to the point of ridicule.
Do you see the difference? Many scientists are dismissive of extraterrestrials visiting earth, but saying that scientist ridicule anything that is presented before them is just dumb. If someone actually did present some good evidence, most scientists would pee there pants with joy. But that hasn’t happened yet.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Just a quick observation regarding the presentation of evidence. My guess is that a lot of the people who are posting on here are not professional investigators or UFO enthusiasts; that they have regular 9-5 jobs, families, friends and other activities that keep them pretty busy. I further suspect that many do not have the time, not to mention resources, to wade through thousands of pages of stuff, trying to sort out the wheat from the chaff, as it were.
This is what, I think, partly results in the general tone of exasperation from us skeptics. We want the Cliff’s Notes or Reader’s Digest version of the evidence. Take the best, most telling evidence, that which is physical, the raw data, the multiple replications of assays and studies performed, and so on, and let us take a look at it. We can’t look into every single case thrown up here, so give us the best, most detailed cases available, with their most credible evidence.
And remember, we’re focusing on the UFO = ET bit, here. The focus of the post is not on UFOs = gov’t projects. If the best the details of a case can do is lead to “unknown,” don’t jump to the conclusion that it’s alien, because you really just can’t know for certain. Let’s try to keep things focused. Yes, there are a number of things that are “unexplainable” in a number of these cases, but only if everything happened exactly as the sources say they happened, i.e., only if the sources were not mistaken in any aspect of their description of events.
I don’t know. It just seems like the arguments keep getting repeated over and over, with no one actually posting anything that can be adequately examined. The closest we’ve come so far is Mr. Horn, but even there, we are only getting single studies where the authors conclude that they don’t know what it is and that it would be difficult to fake or impossible for them to duplicate or where the authors are speaking outside their field of expertise (e.g., a programmer/project manager talking about model-making), as well as picture and videos, some of which appear very much like models, others where the details are just too fuzzy or blurry to come to any valid conclusion. The original materials are missing or otherwise not available for additional examination by independent researchers.
For me, the conversation feels like it is going nowhere. The UFO supporters keep making the same arguments. The skeptics keep critiquing those arguments and showing the flaws. And repeat. Maybe we just need to go back to the very beginning, wipe the slate clean, and start fresh.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Oops…forgot to turn off italics after “for them”. I need more sleep.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:29 am
Todd W.
I would love to provide you with proof, but just like everyone else I don’t have it. If I ever have any then I’ll put it online for everyone to see for free at the first instance. All this lark about saving evidence for books and documentaries that certain researchers do is complete bogus.
Google news search on ufos shows over the past week sightings have reduced to almost none at all. That’s in contrast to the amount of sightings in the UK alone adding up to 150 reported sightings so far this year, and worldwide there has been a few a day reported over the past few months. I wonder if this is due to the major news stories breaking recently keeping people indoors. A conspiracy theorist would claim that the aliens have left earth to leave us to destroy ourselves. I thought I’d be the first to say this… jokingly of course.
August 11th, 2008 at 7:57 am
@ kuhnigget
Is it too late for me to join you on this wonderful book deal? I’m convinced!!!
August 11th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Michael Horn says: “You aren’t interested in finding out what’s true, only in trying to prove that something isn’t…”
Typical pseudo-scientific mischaracterization of the skeptics viewpoint.
We’re not interested in your “opinion” of skeptics, we’re only interested in what you can demonstrate with evidence…so will you EVER be presenting evidence that the meiers photos actually depict alien spacecraft?
How many more times must we ask you?
August 11th, 2008 at 8:56 am
@ boosterrocket
Not consider an acting career? B-but…winning an Academy Award would make me an expert on UFO photography! Haven’t you been paying attention?
BTW, Incontinentia Galacticus (space babe from another planet) told me there would be doubters. She also told me Fred Phelps would win a gold medal at the Olympics. So, there you go!
I BELIEVE!
August 11th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Oh, you want evidence of alien intelligence! Well, if there’s ever sufficient earthly intelligence to comprehend that the same guy who said this in 2001:
“According to Ptaah’s statements, more or less serious setbacks are also expected in the freedom efforts of the now-dissolved Eastern Block countries. A great deal of what has already been accomplished will most likely be destroyed. With great probability, everywhere in those regions where the population is not yet mature enough to sustain their newly won freedom, the people will behave so irrationally that their governments will be left with no alternative but to tighten the reigns again and take unpopular actions. Joined with this are the completely unlawful interferences and covert influences by western nations and their secret services. Altogether, these can lead to bloody conflicts, causing a chain reaction, which finally brings on the outbreak of a global war. So the danger of World War III is, unfortunately, by no means prevented.”
…also said this in 1987:
“Far in the West, it will be different; the United States of America will be a country of total destruction. The cause for this will be manifold. With her global conflicts which are continuously instigated by her and which will continue far into the future, America is creating enormous hatred against her, worldwide, in many countries. As a result, America will experience enormous catastrophes which will reach proportions barely imaginable to people of Earth. The destruction of the WTC, i.e., the World Trade Center, by terrorists will only be the beginning…”
…then let’s hope that such earthly intelligence evolves in time for us to avoid what the presumably non-existent ETs, through Meier, have been trying to warn us about.
But you go ahead and whistle in the dark and make more demands to be shown…what’s right in front of your eyes.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Hey, Mikey. Can’t help but noticed you haven’t commented on my evidence.
Wait, I’ll do it for you:
[thumbing through index cards of indignant insults...]
“Your attempt to duplicate Meier’s video is laughably inept. I won’t even stoop to your level to comment.”
Translation: can’t make an argument against it that does not in turn cast doubt on Meiers, therefore I am ignoring it.
Oh, wait, that will of course be followed by this:
“You took the words right out of my head, therefore I have no need to comment.”
Or maybe this:
“Some of us are being serious and you resort to mockery. How typical of a skeptic. ”
Or maybe just…
BTW, Incontinentia Galacticus told me this would be your reaction last Tuesday.
BELIEVE!
August 11th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Greg-
Thanks so much for doing all of this. I really appreciate the time you are devoting to it. Of course I have no concrete evidence and can only report what I have seen. I don’t feel like I need to convince you or anyone else, but as you can imagine, having had these sightings, I have spent years of my life trying to get answers and seek some understanding as to what this is all about. Your willingness to actually do these calculations is again, greatly appreciated.
RE: The Stephanville radar: I think that you make a great point.
Investigations into other area radar reports would be wise. As I remember though, it took using the Freedom of Information Act to release those records. In addition, I think the report showed that object/s just appeared, traveled in a straight line, disappeared & reappeared again before finally disappearing. I bring that up because perhaps its point of origin (on radar) was actually where the Stephanville radar picked it up and it didn’t “fly there” in the same way that one of our aircraft would.
Greg says: “In other words, if an alien vessel that was traceable by radar came to earth, it would not just fly straight down from space to one location,
and only picked up by one local radar.”
Isabell says: How can any of us assume to understand what an alien vessel would or could do?
August 11th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Er, Mr. K, I suggest that you check out this article and the one linked from it BRITISH SKEPTIC TRIES TO DUPLICATE MEIER’S UFO FILMS at my site.
Check out the critique and see if your films might suffer from the same observable inadequacies before getting too confident.
Okay, can you do that please?
Good boy.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Michael Horn,
The 2001 statement that the former East Block countries would have problems isn’t exactly earth-shattering. Numerous commentators at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union said similar things. It only takes a little intelligence to figure out that new governments will have problems.
As for Billy’s 1987 statement regarding the World Trade Center, what evidence is there that he made the statement in 1987 and didn’t just postdate it for credibility?
August 11th, 2008 at 11:56 am
…and again, Mr. Horn ignores the request for evidence…
Typical…
August 11th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Umm…Mr. Horn. Regarding the World Trade Center, there was a plot to bomb the WTC that was uncovered in 1984. There had also been concerns about the WTC as a possible target for attacks reported in the media before 1987, so commenting on the WTC as a significant target for terrorist bombing, not exactly prophetic. No evidence that he got his information from aliens. Try again.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
@Isabell, those are very good points.
I’m not a radar expert, nor am I experienced in acquiring documents thru the FoIA. I’ll leave getting data from surrounding cities and states at the time of the Stephenville incident to those who are more knowledgeable and more interested. I know that NASA’s tracking system is not classified, and I don’t think the FAA records are either, so getting those shouldn’t be too difficult.
That being said, the laws of physics as we know it still apply. I would assume an alien vessel would still have mass, be made of matter, move thru the atmosphere using some sort of known propulsion, and leave traces of its visit. If it uses chemicals for its engines, there would be exhaust. If it moves thru the air, it will leave a wake or create turbulence.
To say that the aliens must have some unknown technology that allows them to pop in and out of space&time is sheer imagination. It makes for great science fiction (which is why we enjoy shows like Star Trek and Doctor Who so much) but there so far is no evidence to support it. We can speculate that their technology is so advanced that we can’t track them or see them, but that wouldn’t be very scientific.
The weather today is preventing me from taking photos. Perhaps tomorrow I can get what I need to prove or disprove my ideas.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Actually, my last post wasn’t quite “fair”. (even Mr. Horn deserves to be treated fairly.)
He’s not ignoring the request for evidence, rather he is “side-stepping” that request by posting “irrelevancies”.
Either way, the result is the same.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Ah yes, fiddling while Rome burns.
And isn’t it funny how all these people think that there’s nothin “earth-shattering” about these “trivially easy” statements…but aren’t on record as EVER having made any themselves?
This is obviously the place where I come to discharge a little too much energy.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
@Michael Horn,
You are very adept at throwing around insults at anyone who questions you, are unwilling to answer the simplest questions asked, and you are obviously incapable of providing any real evidence.
The facts are these:
# You are the only one on this blog insisting that Meier’s photos, prophecies, and publications are true.
# There are hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of people saying Meier is a phony. (You don’t have to believe me, just google ‘Meier fake’ and see for yourself.)
# None of the books you keep quoting are scientific journals
# Your research fails the basic steps of the scientific method
# You erroneously try to put the burden of proof on those that doubt your stories
If I were going to blindly believe what I read on the internet, I would most likely choose what 1000 people say rather than 1.
I foolishly keep hoping that you are going to provide real evidence to support your beliefs. I have given you more than enough time and consideration, and you have failed to convince anyone here. I am still willing to listen, but keep in mind, my tolerance for your name-calling and hypocrisy is wearing out.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Greg,
Oh thank you, I mean thaaaaaank you for being so patient with me.
Now, apply that patience to reading my earlier posts and everything on my (FREE) website.
Then, go look up terms like “circumstantial evidence”, “direct evidence”, “forensic evidence”, “expert evidence”, “expert witness”, preponderance of evidence”, “reasonable doubt” and the really BIG one…
“reasoning”.
And stop kidding us, we all know that you MUST be smarter than you’re pretending to be!
You can do it, Gregster, c’mon, make us all proud here!
August 11th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
@Michael Horn
Why do you keep taking such an insulting tone with people? Is it a compulsion? Your image would be much improved if you were to respond respectfully, even though someone may insult you or even appear to do so.
Regarding the terms you listed, those are all well and good where a courtroom is concerned, but they don’t pass muster for the scientific method.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Michael Horn,
I am on record as saying that the new East Block nations would have problems after the fall of the USSR. Wrote it down and dated it too. I can provide a copy if you’d like, just like Billy.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
That’s a good start there, Ray, ol’ pal.
Now let’s get on with some specific scientific predictions and hey, how’s about some nifty films and videos too (PLEASE make ‘em better than our valiant British lad did!).
August 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
@ Michael Horn,
Way to avoid/ignore the facts, there.
August 11th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Ha! Nice try, Horndog!
I want specifics, please!
PROVE I DID NOT HAVE A FLYING SAUCER HOVERING NEAR MY HOUSE!!
You can’t! Because it’s true!
BELIEVE!!!
August 11th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Y’all should take a hint from the Philmeister, who is, even as we speak, reviewing the information that I forwarded and directed him to.
Let’s see if he’s as quick to yell about “evidence” as some of the, er, less experienced, yes that’s it, less experienced people here.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Yep, I offered Michael Horn clear proof of my prophetic ability and he blew me off. So much for providing evidence.
As for specific predictions, I note that ol’ Billy made his prediction of east block problems in 2001, AFTER several of those nations had problems. For example, the breakup of Czechoslovakia, the wars in Yugoslavia, the economic meltdown in Poland, etc.
Nice job of postdicting Billy. Whats your answer for that Michael?
August 11th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Greg-
Thanks for the reply. Maybe someone out there reading this would like to do that radar research? Anyone?
I have another question for you though Greg…
You wrote:
“To say that the aliens must have some unknown technology that allows them to pop in and out of space&time is sheer imagination. It makes for great science fiction”….” but there so far is no evidence to support it.”
I: Couldn’t radar data be considered evidence? If not, why?
You wrote: “We can speculate that their technology is so advanced that we can’t track them or see them, but that wouldn’t be very scientific.”
I: Keeping in mind that the Stephanville object appeared and disappeared from radar several times, and assuming that radar data could be considered a scientific tracking method, then, scientifically – how do you explain what happened?
You know, I’ve read many accounts of pilots that claimed to have seen objects in their airspace that they could not identify. Often times, what the pilot saw, the radar didn’t. In those cases pilots have been told they didn’t see what they claimed because the radar didn’t pick it up. In this Stephanville case the radar data does correlate with the ground sightings.
August 11th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Oh Ray, my answer is that the book was PUBLISHED in 2001…in English.
But as a “trivially easy” internet search will reveal, the original book – in GERMAN – by Guido Moosbrugger was published in…1991.
To the best of my knowledge that information is in there BUT for certain the English translation was in the works in late 1998-1999.
Have a happy day…
August 11th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
ALL PLEASE NOTE!
Mr. Horn has once again IGNORED MY EVIDENCE OF ALIEN VISITATION!
I have asked repeatedly for specific proof of fakery…BUT HE CANNOT DO IT!
PROOF!!!! FLYING SAUCERS ARE REAL and visiting me! BUY MY BOOK! BUY MY DVD!
All of this is unfolding as Incontinentia Galacticus foretold! And buy the way, Incontinentia beat the crap out of Ptaah, yay, these many eons ago! She is now preparing to confront him again and drop him in a volcano where he and a bunch of roasting Thetans…oh, wait…wrong cult! Anyway…
BELIEVE!
August 11th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
So Billy made a “prediction” in a 1991 book that former east block countries would have problems.
This would be AFTER East Germany recombined with West Germany and the attendant economic and budgetary crisis it caused. Also AFTER Poland’s recession had already started. And not to mention Romania’s revolution which occurred in 1989.
Again, all one needs is a basic understanding of history and one could have made the same “prediction”. In fact, lots of people predicted problems for the newly freed east block nations way back in 1989.
Including me.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
@ Isabell,
Perhaps someone with actual military radar experience can explain this better. While I understand the principles of how radar works, I don’t have any experience using or interpreting the data. However, from my understanding, radar equipment does not give an actual 3-D view of an object. The radio signal is sent out by the transmitter, and when that radio signal bounces off an object and gets returned, it is interpolated by software and/or the operator. If the signature of that returned signal matches a known object (like a building or a 747 or whatever) then it is easy to say, “Yep, that’s a plane.” But if the signal does not match a known object, there is a level of uncertainty as to what the object is. Stealth fighters are not invisible to radar, rather they are designed to scatter that radio signal so not all of it bounces back to the receiver. It may be interpreted as a flock of birds, or something smaller than it really is.
In any case, my best guess would be that the radar in Stephenville probably picked up something unusual, but that is not enough evidence by itself to say with any certainty that the unknown object was alien. It could have been an unusually shaped balloon, a close group of fighters that looked like one big blob, or a large cloud of smoke caused by a large number of flares dropped together. I am completely speculating at this point. It could very well have been a stealth aircraft from our own military, or worse, from China or Russia. That would be far more likely than an alien craft, based on historical evidence.
It has also been proven that even pilots can easily mistake known objects for something unusual.
I have not seen the actual radar data, so I can only speculate as to what it was. I would have to see the data to confirm that yes indeed, something showed up, disappeared, then reappeared. But reports by other pilots who said they saw flares coincide with what observers saw on the ground, and is also the most likely explanation.
In science, we don’t think of an answer and look for the best evidence to support that answer. Instead, we look at all the evidence objectively, and determine the most likely explanation based on all new plus all previous data. Until we have proof of alien spacecraft, there is simply no reason to assume any unidentified object is alien.
August 11th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Okay, I covered how Meier’s pictures and videos and analysis of them really can’t prove anything, other than a picture or video was taken of something.
Looks like those have been dropped from the argument, and now predictions are taking the floor. I will say again, that the predictions are not conclusive proof of alien visitation. Why?
1. From what I’m getting from Mr. Horn, the supposed aliens only communicated with Meier. No one can corroborate Meier’s story.
2. We do not know with certainty what resources Meier may or may not have had available. Yes, I know that Mr. Horn will say that it was thoroughly investigated and the investigators found no possible connections, etc., at Meier’s disposal. But, I will point out, that just because they didn’t find anything is not proof that Mr. Horn did not have resources; it merely proves that they did not find any. Meier may have had access to various news and other print media sources, either directly or through acquaintances. He may also have had contact with other individuals who may have tipped him off to some events, assuming that his presumed date of prediction really was before the event’s publication.
3. There are other possible explanations, also rather difficult to believe, that the predictions came not from aliens, but rather from some manner of precognition. Just like UFOs, there is no proof of psychic powers of this, or any other, nature. But, if the argument can be made that aliens exist and are visiting, despite any conclusive evidence, similarly it can be argued that psychic powers exist. Ergo, his predictions, if truly made before the events described, rather than drawn from media, are just as likely from precognition as they are from aliens.
For these, among other, reasons, Meier’s supposed predictions cannot be used as evidence of alien visitation.
August 11th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Hmmm, “a picture was taken of something.” Well, not according to James Randi, Derek Batholomaus and all the great minds at CFI-West, IIG, etc. They were absolutely CERTAIN they were models…and said so. Bartholomaus is even features in our production making that claim repeatedly, at least he did up until the proverbial stuff hit the rotating blades.
Now neither Randi, CFI-West, IIG or Bartholomaus are making that claim. Heck, you can’t even BEG them to make that claim, such are their misfortunes, in part also due to UC not supporting those claims…and my little love notes to them in recent weeks.
Go ahead and try to get them to now claim that Meier used models, it would be fun to start that again. So that leaves us with, what, special/digital effects? Not even one of these astute, with emphasis on both symbols, fellas or their orgs will claim that, and at least there some wisdom is in evidence.
So, with ALL of these skeptics retreating from models (which includes hub caps, dinner plates and after dinner garbage can lids) what do we have here in these superlatively clear photos, films and videos of Meier’s? Go on, tell us…and substantiate your claims.
Now, on to:
1. Not so fast there, monsieur. We have at least 17 firsthand witnesses, including the retired UN diplomat who witnessed – and met – the alleged ET woman Asket. We also have at least five other photographers, including a local Swiss skeptic, who blew his own mind photographing Ptaah’s ship – and then apologized to Meier for the unkind things he’d said about him for so long. Hmmm, maybe a forerunner of what we can expect here?
(And see my comments above before you repeat that nonsense about “eyewitnesses not being reliable”.)
2. While I will let your typo pass (alluding to me having resources, instead of Meier) I must point out how painfully amateurish and, pardon me, incompetent, it is of you to offer such THOROUGHLY refuted assumptions, which would be OBVIOUS to you if you’d have troubled yourself to read the 1,300 pages of the report. After all, since a good number of people, spent a good amount of time, and a good amount of their own money trying to investigate every angle and possibility, doncha think that affording yourself the necessity of actually KNOWING what’s in that investigation would be REQUIRED before you float long dismissed “theories”?
Allow me to suggest that simply being suspicious of something, when all evidence and research into already eliminated those suspicions – just how well do you think all of the presumed resources and people could remain hidden in a Swiss village with about 16 houses – doesn’t reflect well on your THINKING and REASONING abilities, despite how exalted you may consider them to be.
3. No comment necessary beyond suggesting that your two points above were sufficiently flawed to send you back to your room without dinner.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Hmm….STILL no specifics from Mikey.
Gosh.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Specifics, oh sorry, how careless of me:
UFO SKEPTICS THROW IN THE TOWEL – HOW DID MEIER BEAT NASA TWICE BY 32 YEARS?
ACADEMY AWARD-WINNING FX EXPERTS ON MEIER UFO FILM: “PROBABLY EVEN IMPOSSIBLE TO FAKE”!
SOME VERY “INCONVENIENT TRUTH” FROM MEIER…1951!
AUGUST 25, 1958, MEIER: TWO U.S. IRAQ WARS – LEAD TO “UNBELIEVABLE DISASTER!”
BRITISH SKEPTIC TRIES TO DUPLICATE MEIER’S UFO FILMS
5,100 YEAR-OLD ICEMAN PROVES MEIER UFO CONTACT CASE TRUE!
TOP SKEPTIC RETRACTS HOAX CLAIMS -
HELPS PROVE MEIER CASE REAL!
LOOK OUT FOR THAT TREE!
The Billy Meier “Hoax” Exposed? – Part One -
The Wedding Cake UFO Controversy
See Video! http://www.billymeier.com/
archives/
Wedding_Cake_Ship.mpg
Photo Gallery
Movie Footage
UFO Sounds
Documentation from IBM on Marcel Vogel’s Patents
Scientific Experts’ Comments on Meier’s Evidence
Analysis of Meier’s UFO Photographs
Report on UFO Sound Recordings Meier’s Pre-Iraq War Warnings
Scientific Experts’ Comments
Analysis of Meier’s UFO Photos
Report on UFO Sounds
Regarding Saturn’s Moons
Planets beyond Pluto
Earthquake Warnings from 1976
Regarding Other Planets in Our Solar System
In Meier’s book, Existing Life in the Universe (copyright 1978 and 1992), he said:
“Just as the small planet Vulcano moves in its extremely fast and extraordinarily close orbit around the sun, the planetoid UNI rushes around the central star in the most remote reaches of SOL and outside of Pluto’s orbit. UNI is so far removed from the Sun that it hardly reflects any sunlight and, hence, cannot be seen from the Earth, at least not yet at this point in time.
Towards the coming turn of the century, however, or perhaps shortly thereafter, this solar satellite might be discovered if the improved outer space research techniques allow for this.
One may not expect too much from the planetoid UNI, since, on the one hand, it is practically an *ice world like Pluto’s moon, Charon (as it will be called, according to the Pleiadians), and on the other hand, it is so small that one cannot really speak of it as a planet but only as a planetoid as this is also the case with the Sun’s neighbor satellite, Vulcano.”
…and remember, I can’t CHEW your food for you.
August 11th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
A lie, and you know it.
Furthermore, I have not retreated from this assertion, despite your attempts to ignore me.
And since you cannot seem to produce any specific evidence that my own flying saucer encounter was faked, you are foolish to continue this claim unless you are willing to extend to me the same respect you heave at your beloved Herr Meier.
I repeat yet again: PROVE THAT A FLYING SAUCER DID NOT HOVER NEAR MY HOUSE!
August 11th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
First, please prove that there’s any credible skeptic left who claims that Meier used models…and is prepared to substantiate the claim.
DO that BEFORE you call people liars, okay?
Specifics, oh sorry, how careless of me:
UFO SKEPTICS THROW IN THE TOWEL – HOW DID MEIER BEAT NASA TWICE BY 32 YEARS?
ACADEMY AWARD-WINNING FX EXPERTS ON MEIER UFO FILM: “PROBABLY EVEN IMPOSSIBLE TO FAKE”!
SOME VERY “INCONVENIENT TRUTH” FROM MEIER…1951!
AUGUST 25, 1958, MEIER: TWO U.S. IRAQ WARS – LEAD TO “UNBELIEVABLE DISASTER!”
BRITISH SKEPTIC TRIES TO DUPLICATE MEIER’S UFO FILMS
5,100 YEAR-OLD ICEMAN PROVES MEIER UFO CONTACT CASE TRUE!
TOP SKEPTIC RETRACTS HOAX CLAIMS -
HELPS PROVE MEIER CASE REAL!
LOOK OUT FOR THAT TREE!
The Billy Meier “Hoax” Exposed? – Part One -
The Wedding Cake UFO Controversy
Photo Gallery
Movie Footage
UFO Sounds
Documentation from IBM on Marcel Vogel’s Patents
Scientific Experts’ Comments on Meier’s Evidence
Analysis of Meier’s UFO Photographs
Report on UFO Sound Recordings Meier’s Pre-Iraq War Warnings
Scientific Experts’ Comments
Analysis of Meier’s UFO Photos
Report on UFO Sounds
Regarding Saturn’s Moons
Planets beyond Pluto
Earthquake Warnings from 1976
Regarding Other Planets in Our Solar System
In Meier’s book, Existing Life in the Universe (copyright 1978 and 1992), he said:
“Just as the small planet Vulcano moves in its extremely fast and extraordinarily close orbit around the sun, the planetoid UNI rushes around the central star in the most remote reaches of SOL and outside of Pluto’s orbit. UNI is so far removed from the Sun that it hardly reflects any sunlight and, hence, cannot be seen from the Earth, at least not yet at this point in time.
Towards the coming turn of the century, however, or perhaps shortly thereafter, this solar satellite might be discovered if the improved outer space research techniques allow for this.
One may not expect too much from the planetoid UNI, since, on the one hand, it is practically an *ice world like Pluto’s moon, Charon (as it will be called, according to the Pleiadians), and on the other hand, it is so small that one cannot really speak of it as a planet but only as a planetoid as this is also the case with the Sun’s neighbor satellite, Vulcano.”
…and remember, I can’t CHEW your food for you.
August 11th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
ME. I claim that. And I don’t have to prove that I exist because I have testable evidence that I do. And I’m not the only one. A quick google search will find several examples of Meier’s photographs that clearly show the bloody strings on his models! I, myself, look at his so-called wedding cake pictures and can reproduce the exact set-ups he used! I did so already, when I was a teenager making freaking 8mm movies!.
Over and over I say this, and yet you continue to ignore it. Why? Because it points out the inconvenient truth that your cash-cow is a fraud!
Yet again, in your last post, YOU IGNORE MY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND UNAMBIGUOUS CHALLENGE: Look at the video I took of the flying saucer hovering near my house. Now prove to me it is not the real thing! If you can’t, then you must admit it is real and I, like Billy Meier, have been visited by space aliens.
That again??? Scroll upthread about a week. Been there! Demolished that argument from authority…and the “authorities” writes project management software!
As to your pathetic switch to Meier’s “prophesies,” ALL of these have been shown to be based on material readily available in popular news magazines, periodicals, and the media. Some of them even quote these reports verbatim…including the mistakes!!!!
So, okay, maybe you’re not a liar. Maybe you are just farking stupid!
In any case, I challenge you again, PROVE MY VIDEO IS NOT A REAL ALIEN SPACESHIP! YOU CAN’T!
August 11th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Gosh, he he sure gets excited. Yellin’ an’ screamin’…why?
For you it’s not true. Let that be just fine and dandy for you…we’ll see if Phil (perhaps one of YOUR authorities) echoes your hysterical rant or not.
Send a viable link to your little movie already.
And, so I’m not redundant, I’ll spare you AGAIN refuting your ignorant claims.
Why?
Because I’ve discharged enough excess energy into this sink hole for at least today.
And, just for good measure, there is absolutely no proof here that “you”, whoever “you” think that “you” may be, actually do exist.
And please don’t appeal to authority to try to prove that you do…
August 11th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Odd, how you always have an inability to find other people’s links, when they prove you wrong.
Repeating, yet again:
www (dot) youtube (dot) com (slash) watch?v=hDg3l-88lJc
And:
www (dot) youtube (dot) com (slash) watch?v=f4uI59vFfUk
You’ve never refuted them once.
So go ahead, run and hide.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Repeating, yet again:
www (dot) youtube (dot) com (slash) watch?v=hDg3l-88lJc
And:
www (dot) youtube (dot) com (slash) watch?v=f4uI59vFfUk
Seriously laughing my arse off here at those clips… freakin’ classic.
August 11th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
@Michael Horn
Thank you for pointing out my typo. I did, indeed, mean Meier.
“We have at least 17 firsthand witnesses, including the retired UN diplomat who witnessed – and met – the alleged ET woman Asket.”
Would you mind providing me with a link to the specific document (and approximate page) where I can read this information?
Again, please dispense with the rudeness. In my last post, I was not rude to you, and I would ask the same in return.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Re the clips, well, er, I, uh…thanks anyway. Please see the ones submitted by the British skeptic for, how shall I say it, a slightly more impressive attempt.
Now, as for Todd’s request, to which I shall indeed be delighted to respond with the utmost courtesy, here are some links:
http (colon and slashes) tjresearch (dot) info (forward slash) witness (dot) htm#pc
http (colon and slashes) www (dot) tjresearch (dot) info (forward slash) Phobal (underscore) plain (underscore) text (dot) htm
http (colon and slashes) www (dot) tjresearch (dot) info (forward slash) witnessa (dot) htm
The next thing someone’s going to come up with is a video of an old guy who claims he can partially levitate, defy gravity, etc. But I’ll be that someone’s probably helping him with ropes or something:
www (dot) youtube (dot) com (slash) watch?v (equal sign) UcUa (underscore) 02pvUU
August 11th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
I tried posting some interesting links, but they are probably in the moderator’s queue. Until then, please help yourself to some internet searching…
Go to Wikipedia dot org and search for Billy Meier
Scroll to the bottom (after reading all the entertaining stuff there) and follow the External Links. I especially like “2004 skeptical report on Meier’s claims,” and “James Randi on Billy Meier,” which just so happens to contradict most of the things Horn has been yelling to us here.
Some of the Youtube videos are just fantastic. Google “Billy Meier fake” and see some of the more interesting forums. You think the conversations here are whacked…
Every claim that Horn makes here has been debunked over and over many times, by masses of people, for years. I’ll admit, he has become very good at preaching his “research” avoiding direct questions, and making abusive verbal attacks on those who question him. He’s become so good, he’s almost believable.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
I realized today why the conversations with Mr. Horn have been so… entertaining…
@Michael Horn,
What are your scientific credentials? Specifically, which field of science did you major in at college? Have you ever published a dissertation or thesis? Do you have a Degree (Undergraduate or Graduate) in any science related discipline? At least an Associates Degree?
Surely you have at least taken a Freshman level Chemistry or Physics course, right? Tell me you can do math…
Or were you *snicker* a Liberal Arts major?
August 11th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
I apologize for that last post. I hope I didn’t offend any talented Liberal Arts majors out there, but if I did, I’m sorry!
August 11th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Once again, MICHAEL HORN FAILS TO PROVE GUMBY VIDEO IS A FAKE!!!!!! He can’t claim one fault with it! Not one!
Ladies and gentlemen, there you have it. Michael Horn substantiates Gumby’s claims! Gumby has become the new Billy Meier! Check out the DVD, coming soon! (For a slight fee.)
Wait…this just in….Gumby’s telepathic communication with Incontinentia Galacticus reveals Michael Horn will be swallowed by a giant sinkhole caused by the massive implosion of his own vacuum-filled head. This disaster will only be averted if it doesn’t happen, in which case….PRAISE BE TO INCONTINENTIA GALACTICUS!
Seriously, dude, I stumped you, right? Or are you just too embarrassed to realize that the everyone thinks you’re an idiot for believing that silly old man’s garbage lids and christmas balls were flying saucers?
August 11th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
At some point, maybe tomorrow, I’ll go and see what Randi said…and when he said it. Since he retracted his claim that the Meier case is a hoax, and since neither he nor the other skeptics came out to answer the bell for the challenge re one of Meier’s films, I’m sure to be entertained.
As for all of those questions regarding my “credentials” (what was all that stuff before about “appealing to authority”?) I have none…other than the ability to do, to think, to accomplish (which is one reason I was granted a teaching certificate – ooops, I guess that IS a credential! – by the state of California).
You see, Greg, you don’t mind if I call you Greg, do you? Well, as I was saying, you see, I’m one of those guys who’s simply enormously logical and creative, a good combination. My little ol’ resume, filled as it is with many (not all) of my accomplishments in various fields of endeavor is the result of my marrying my abilities to my highly energetic entrepreneurial and investigative spirit.
For what it’s worth, I’m an INTJ in the M-B cosmology, I thnk that we’re about 1% of the population.
I don’t wait for “experts” to tell me what to think, since I know HOW to think. I’m not intimidated by anonymous (or identified) snipes and people of lesser accomplishment…even if they are (or just think they are) of high “intelligence”.
And, while it may have escaped your notice, some of the most “credentialed” people in the world are big bozos, and others are not. And some of the greatest discoveries were made by people, well by people like me, without tons of credentials.
So whether it’s spending 30 years investigating the most important story in all of human history (and suffering laggards mainly to see if there still are any real issues to resolve in the case, which there aren’t) or mastering difficult physical feats, being a published songwriter, prize-winning painter, etc., etc. I just take joy in that I do.
I think that irritates a lot of people.
As my faux condescension might also.
(Oh, about doing math, I’ve got a few little tricks with numbers that are really quite impressive, if I don’t say so myself, especially since I run it all VERY quickly in my head, generally faster than someone can with a calculator.)
But the internet seems to have a way of bringing out mean-spiritedness as well as intellectual laziness in people, what with the ease that they can come on and vent their spleens about their, often, lonely and meaningless lives.
Generally, I kind of feel for people but when pompous know-nothings appear who feel, for no earthly reason, that they’re up to the task of attacking something (and someone, or two) that they know nothing about, well, I lose some of my warm and fuzzies for them.
But that’s okay, I vent off extra energy here…though I never approach the opportunity looking to attack people, as a read of my earliest posts will show.
Anyway, time for something more entertaining, bye.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Ha! Told ya! Can’t prove it’s a fake, or is too embarrassed to admit it, because it shows “the most important story in all of human history” is bollox!!! So off he goes, to find some fresh fools to annoy.
Buh-bye, Mikey! Don’t let the beamship door hit ya on the way out (up?)
August 12th, 2008 at 1:43 am
@Isabell
Radar evidence is “evidence” but the sceptics here brush it off because its “unknown” and they don’t like us jumping to the conclusion it is ET.
The report I pointed out was full of verifiable multiple radar evidence and pilot reports of these objects doing the impossible (Military data). yet on this blog I was told its just a MIG or Venus or something else. Something which even today our technology cannot produce, so I don’t understand how they can brush it over so easily. I understand their point though that we cannot jump to the ET conclusion, but its so difficult not to think this when what is being documented is clearly “intelligent” or appears to be under intelligent control and doing things we only wish we could do.
You see there is tons of evidence proving UFOs are real (the phenomena). So now the sceptics want us to now prove that it is ET (convenient and to be expected).
In my mind I suspect that it can only be ET as I have never seen or heard of anything that we know of that does these things. We are still going to have to prove it though, somehow. I would like to know what could do this if not ET?
I believe you! I also believe there is some truth to the Meir photos. I’m not sure about all the predictions. Mr Horn is doing a good job getting the information out even if some of it is not 100% accurate. I mean when is anything ever truly 100% accurate.
I guess this all boils down to the quality of the evidence. The only way we all going to truly be convinced is with a body or physical debris left over from a crash or something along these lines. So I don’t really see the point anymore to this blog without this. I keep coming back in the hope someone has posted something groundbreaking but I am doubting this will happen.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:31 am
Shawn says: “I keep coming back in the hope someone has posted something groundbreaking but am doubting this will happen.”
Perhaps there is no “groundbreaking” evidence because there are no aliens visiting the Earth.
August 12th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Michael Horn says: “…please prove that there’s any credible skeptic left who claims that Meier used models…and is prepared to substantiate that claim.”
You’re a slow learner, Mr. Horn…how many times must you be “instructed” in how a scientific investigation is actually conducted?
YOU have made the extrardinary claim, and it is up to YOU to provide evidence validating that claim…
You are incapable of doing that because you KNOW that the pictures are fakes.
Go ahead…lie some more…it’s become fun watching you make a fool of yourself.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:25 am
Re: The links provided by Mr. Horn
In the first link, the account of the diplomat says nothing about her actually meeting the supposed alien, merely seeing Meier walking across the yard with a woman in a “type of spacesuit”. The admittedly brief description of the woman sounds rather human, lending to a suspicion that it may very well have been an accomplice in a costume.
Also in the first link, the following line caught my eye: “In brief, the article stated that those who have knowledge about this case must keep it a secret for the rest of their lives.” If people are to keep it secret, why did this air force person just show even more information to Erwin Murner? Why is Mr. Horn blurting out this information instead of keeping it secret?
In the second link, the description of the woman visiting at night sounds rather susipciously like it may have been sleep paralysis, but without some other details it’s hard to say for certain. The description of seeing Meier walking along with the woman sounds like it could have been set up, knowing ahead of time something about these visits the girl supposedly had. The “transmission” of thoughts is also more readily explained by a vivid imagination combined with a desire to believe. (I speak from experience on this one. When I was younger, going through various phases of religious belief, I was “visited” by a spirit guide and “talked” with God. Once I learned to think more critically, I figured out that all that was just a product of my own mind.) Also keep in mind that the experiences shared were from when she was around 9, living in a country and culture filled with various superstitious beliefs. It’s a very impressionable age. (I’ll relate again a story of when I was little, I saw lights in the sky that I thought were a UFO, but turned out to be the Northern Lights.) Overall, her story strikes me as a rather fanciful tale of a child. She may fervently believe her story, but there are other earthly explanations for her experiences. By itself, and considering the other possibilities, her story does not prove that UFOs = aliens.
The third link starts with a report by Jacob Bertschinger, a farmer and friend of Meier, seeing a light, but no distinct craft. The description of the light sounds an awful lot like it was some manner of fireworks rig, but, given the writer’s predisposition toward an alien explanation, his interpretation and recounting are likely incorrect in some of the details. Further casting doubt as to what actually happened is that Meier went off alone and was unobserved, leaving open the potential to start his ruse. The second account in that link is of a very similar nature. Scanning the rest of that link suggests more of the same (fireworks).
As for the youtube link, what does that have to do with any part of this discussion?
August 12th, 2008 at 7:26 am
I’m curious to hear other people’s intrepretations of the links provided by Mr. Horn, as well.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:37 am
Anybody notice that Michael Horn didn’t answer the question about whether he has any credentials? Oh, he said he has a teaching certificate from California, but that doesn’t tell us what he’s certified to teach. A quick look at the credentialing authority in California indicates that one can be certified by filling out a form and paying a fee. Depending on the desired certification, actual competence and education may not be required.
So, Michael, what are you credentialed to teach in California?
And did anyone notice that his bio on his website is suspiciously free of educational accomplishments?
As for him being an INTJ, I’ve often heard those types unofficially referred to as “jerks” and other words not fit for this board. He seems to be living up to that rather well.
August 12th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Regarding Isabella’s sighting of a black triangle. Please go to ufocasebook.com and you can find at least two posters on there from the UK who independently saw over different time periods what ‘seems’ to be the same thing- Skeptik and Aliennationsam….. In fact from my recent perusal of this area it seems black triangle sightings have been quite ommon in NATO countries.
@Greg in Austin
Because we can’t easily post links here (they just zap my posts which is very frustrating) I can’t give you more interesting cases to look at than Meir’s. All respect to Michael Horn but it points to a fake more than anything…. I read some of this guys supposed info about aliens and it’s all very obtuse stuff that could be taken to mean this or that.
To see interesting cases you should do a search for daylight sightings of metallic saucer or cylinder shaped objects. There are thousands of such reports worldwide. How can they be explained away? Recently due to the more open discussion about this subject many reports have come in from people who witnessed objects decades ago, it really indicates the majority of witnesses never report what they have seen.
Lastly there have been reports of strange celestial phenomena going back through the ages, the bible is full of this kind of thing, rotating wheels in the sky.
In the middle ages there was an event over nuremburg Germany, you can search for it on google.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:12 am
@ Ray:
Mr. Horn is a new agey eastern quack martial arts wellness consultant, “teaching” among other things, eastern “medicine”. See www (dot) vegetarianusa (dot) com/feature_articles/sports/chigung (dot) html.
As has been amply demonstrated above, he is the type of person who will bombard blogs such as this with the same crap over and over again, annoy everybody, drive up the traffic to his website for a brief while, then go away. He is also a documented liar. Here is my favorite, vis. the stupid “wedding cake” UFO of Herr Meier:
Liar, liar pants on fire!
Horn’s behavior is typical of these folks. They toss in just enough sciency-sounding gibberish to fool the rubes and the people who “want to believe,” they name drop a bunch of “experts” who may or may not have anything to do with them, then they repeat their claims over and over again, turning arguments against their claims against the people who raise them (e.g. claiming Randi and others are the liars, when it is in fact they who lie, repeatedly) and then start making ad hominem attacks when those people stand up for themselves.
Several people have quite plainly explained exactly how Meier made his silly photographs, and even most UFO freaks claim that they are fakes. I mean, come on! Just looking at the damn things makes you giggle! As I said repeatedly to Horn, I made better fake UFO pictures when I was a kid, and I posted them on Flickr to prove it! Of course, as soon as he is forced to examine such evidence against his beloved Billy, he runs away, claiming that it’s our loss.
I honestly can’t imagine how pathetic he must be. Either, A) he’s an outright liar and swindler and knows his cash-cow is threatened, or B) he genuinely believes those stupid pictures are alien spaceships and now must face up to the fact that they are not and he has been making a complete ass of himself all these years.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:31 am
@Michael Horn
Noticed that your “published songwriter” credit appears to be a single self-published CD, “More Than Just Survival”. I don’t believe that self-publishing stuff really counts as being a “published artist”, at least in the sense that most people understand the phrase (i.e., someone else putting money down on you). I’ve had a poem of mine published, but I don’t go around claiming that I’m a published poet, since the journal my poem appeared in was associated with the class I wrote the poem for. I haven’t listened to any of the songs, so I won’t comment on that aspect.
I won’t comment on the “prize-winning painter” bit, as I couldn’t find anything out on that front. You may very well have done so. Similarly, I won’t comment on the “mastering difficult physical feats”. Given enough training and hard work, anyone can master such things. Nothing unusual there. I would ask, though, what you are certified to teach. I’m guessing martial arts, based on the non-UFO google hits I’ve found.
Not that any of this has any bearing on the conversation at hand, though. But, you brought it up for whatever reason. It just sounds like you’re trying to get attention and show that you are better in some regard as compared to the rest of us.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:40 am
The reason I asked about Michael Horn’s credentials was not to shame him, but to explain why we’re having so much difficulty getting our points across (from both sides.)
Without a background in science, Mr. Horn is unqualified to discuss in any real detail the topic of discussion. That does not mean he’s unintelligent, only that he lacks the particular education necessary. He’s not a scientist, has no training in the scientific method, and has not shown the knowledge or ability to perform scientific analysis.
Now, he may be educated in art or philosophy, and definitely has a great deal of knowledge and experience concerning Meier. Its probably safe to say that few people, if any, know more about Meier’s story than Horn.
That being said, the original question that started this whole ordeal was, “Is there real scientific evidence of aliens from other planets visiting earth?” In order to answer that question, someone would have to have some real science experience under their belt. Michael Horn is not that someone.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:51 am
@Greg
Duly noted.
BTW, Mr. Horn, my post about your publishing claims, etc., was also not meant to shame you, rather just to question what it has to do with the discussion.
August 12th, 2008 at 8:58 am
I, on the other hand, have no trouble shaming Mr. Horn.
As someone posted on the Flat Earth thread a while ago, liars should be ashamed of themselves, whether they are scientists or not.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Oh, by the way, I’ve sent an e-mail to James Randi inquiring about the hoax claim. Since he is also likely in the Galapagos, it may be a while before I hear back from him.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I think it’s pointless arguing with him, guys. As someone stated, all this is doing is driving up the hits to his website, and it’s just promoting his Meier crap. He never did, as far as I can see answer my question about the supposed visit Meier made to Mars. When I told him NASA discoverd the surface of Europa was ice covered in the early ’70′s, he quietly ignored that point until someone cornered him on it, and he admitted Meier came up with that date in 1979. I’m not even going to bother with this post anymore. If you guys want to keep up the discussion, good luck, but I don’t think you’ll win the argument with Horn, not because he’s right, but because he’ll just keep throwing out silly “proofs” i.e. wedding cake UFO pics and videos.
August 12th, 2008 at 9:35 am
@Michael L
Yeah. I should’ve stuck to my guns before when I said I was done with him. However, my concern is not so much convincing him to change his argument as it is to make sure that anyone else coming by here isn’t taken in, though there have been enough posts already that anyone taking the time to sift through them should be somewhat better informed than if they only went to his web site.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:11 am
@ Todd:
Regarding Randi and Meiers, one thing I did note in his post debunking the whole thing–turns out that Vogel guy from IBM (whom Horn claims analyzed the alien metal) does have a bunch of patents in his name, unlike what Randi quoted. However, this just goes to prove how poor the argument from authority is, as the same Vogel also became well known for promoting woo-woo crystals as healing agents, life force energizers, etc. Apparently he was quite obsessed with them. Once again, being intelligent doesn’t automatically make you smart. Unfortunately, this type of misstatement from Randi is the sort of thing that Horn and his ilk seize upon to “prove” their opponents are in error.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:50 am
@kuhnigget
Yeah, I read that bit about Vogel on Randi’s site, but haven’t had an opportunity to search the USPTO for his patents. But, again, patents don’t mean squat. The USPTO hands out patents for things that don’t even function. A patent doesn’t mean something works or is a big step forward scientifically. It just means no one else gets to market your idea.
Vogel certainly did do a great deal for computers, but his other ideas regarding crystals are, to put it simply, a bit out there.
August 12th, 2008 at 11:23 am
This has been at times an entertaining thread and at other times a boring thread. I found Michael Horn often boring and the rest of ya’ll sometimes entertaining and sometimes seriously trying to deal with this man.
I’ll always favor a local unknown technology as first explanation to UFO’s.
I live about a two hour drive from Stephenville. I heard a lot about those reports on the radio, and saw photographs in the local paper. In my layman’s opinion, the photo I saw in the local paper could have been too easily hoaxed. It just didn’t look right. I wanted to drive down there and nose around out of curiousity. But, I have a life here, where I live.
You guys are really patient. Thanks for your patience toward me. This is the last time I’ll check out this particular blog.
Don
August 12th, 2008 at 11:57 am
@maninasia
There are thousands of such reports worldwide. How can they be explained away?
Hasn’t this been answered 50 times already? There are over 6 billion people on earth. People have faulty memories, and are prone to seeing things that aren’t there. This can and has been proven. Is it more plausible to think that UFO witnesses are mistaken, or that we’re being visited by beings from another planet? And that doesn’t even take into account liars and hoaxers.
Nobody ever noticed anything odd in Loch Ness until 1933, when two people saw a plesiosaur cross the road in front of them and slide into the lake. Since that time, thousands of people have reported seeing similar things. Despite being more scrutinized that any other body of water in the world, the only evidence we have is are ripples in the water. Could all these witnesses be wrong? Absolutely. Aliens are no different.
August 12th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Well my friends, as John McCain would say, I guess you all are real smart and satisfied that you know what’s true and what isn’t. There’s obviously no tampering with that through any contrary facts or reasoning, which is just fine, as this little grouping is probably not only a small clique but also relatively harmless. Ah yes, the mob mentality at work. Keep in mind that old (correctly phrased) saying, “Judge not FALSELY, lest you be FALSELY judged.”
That may be a little difficult in the case of many of the people here, who probably have little accomplishment to be judged on, falsely or otherwise. And, of course, even in my own humble case, you’ve offered inadequate research and partial truths, for the purpose of…attacking someone who came here to inform. How…scientific of y’all.
Of course, again, you’re all a bit selective with the facts. Regarding the forestry professors, this from their general counsel in response to my offer to him to have any of the professors EVALUATE THE TREES IN MEIER’S PHOTOS…AGAIN:
Mr. Horn:
Thank you for your prompt response to Dr. Jensen’s email. We would like to take you up on your generous offer to go forward without further assistance from us. Good luck in your work.
Charles Fletcher (General Counsel, OSU)
Regarding my past songwriting credits, they include:
Carly Simon
Dennis Wilson of the Beach Boys
“Listen America” TV pageant, two years running
Second City, Chicago’s famed improvisational theater
“Brother River” (winner of the Woody Guthrie Award for Songs of Social Significance)
Song for The Silent Revolution of Truth
Regarding my paintings, they’re in international collections and have been displayed in such stellar places as the Art Institute of Chicago.
Regarding my therapeutic work:
I taught my stress relief program to corporate and government leaders in Europe, such as BASF, Eurochemie, Rabobank, KLM, Cyco Software, ING Bank, Meta Visie…at the invitation of a consultant to Princess Diana.
From clients in the states:
“I found “Standing in Spirit” to be a remarkably easy and painless process for resolving personal issues on the spiritual and emotional level.”
– AF, publicist for Dr. Deepak Chopra, Marianne Williamson, etc.
“‘Standing in Spirit” is a powerful and unique experience that truly unifies mind and body for creative change.”
– BK, DSW, LCSW, BCD
“The work I’ve done as a therapist and as a client seems single dimensional and limited compared to the experience I’ve had with “Standing in Spirit.” I believe that it is a leap forward from traditional insight oriented psychotherapy in that it recognizes, supports and utilized the mind, body and spirit in the goal of growth and healing.”
– LS-B, MSW
My teaching credential wasn’t bought but awarded based on my life experience and ability to perform.
Regarding Chi Gong, while I’m no “master”, I’m in pretty good company with about one billion Chinese who practice these arts, and have done so for centuries. While I’m sure that many of you here are proficient in playing with your cell phones and posing as “experts” in gosh knows what, I’ll content myself with more ancient, proven activities in the pursuit of health for myself and others.
My additional credits include:
One of the first creators of digital online book publishing (ebooks), film, music and video producer, science researcher, national and international lecturer, frequent media guest, published writer, credentialed teacher, humorist, pioneer in commercial water purification applications (Starbucks), set designer, health care professional, creator of the Future Self interactive therapeutic video technique, volunteer work with children and seniors.
Now since you all are the cream of the crop in your respective fields, whatever they may be, I predict more selective bashing of course. But I must really laugh at the nobodies here who want to attack Marcel Vogel, genius that he was! As I said, mob mentality at work. No matter, the truth will win out. Let’s hope that it doesn’t include this (from 1987):
“The USA will set out against the Eastern countries ahead of all other financial states and simultaneously she will have to defend herself against the Eastern intruders. In all, America will play the most decisive role, when in the guise to strive for peace and to fight against terrorism she invades many countries of the Earth, bombs and destroys everything and brings thousandfold deaths to the populations. The military politics of the USA will likewise know no limits, as neither will their economic and other political institutions which will be focused on building and operating a world police force, as it is the case already for a long time. But that will not be enough, and, in the guise of a so-called peaceful globalisation, American politics will aspire to gain absolute control of the world concerning supremacy in economy.”
“…Far in the West, it will be different; the United States of America will be a country of total destruction. The cause for this will be manifold. With her global conflicts which are continuously instigated by her and which will continue far into the future, America is creating enormous hatred against her, worldwide, in many countries. As a result, America will experience enormous catastrophes which will reach proportions barely imaginable to people of Earth. The destruction of the WTC, i.e., the World Trade Center, by terrorists will only be the beginning.”
“…As already mentioned, enormous natural catastrophes and rolling walls of fire and violent hurricanes will rage all across America, while, in addition, all the terrible effects of war will bring thousandfold deaths, destruction and annihilation. America’s largest cities will be absolutely destroyed, and firestorms will cause great disaster and misery. Severe earthquakes and volcanic eruptions will also belong to that time, and these will cause much suffering and misery and deaths besides enormous destruction and devastation, as all of nature and the planet itself will rise up against the insanity of human beings on Earth. However, tornadoes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions will not only rage in America, but also in Europe and in the rest of the world.”
“…Yet the misery on Earth will continue, as two terrible civil wars will break out in America, whereby one will follow the other. Afterwards, the United States of America will break apart and deadly hostility will prevail among her, which then leads to the division into five different territories; and it cannot be prevented that sectarian fanatics will play a dictatorial role.”
Of course such things are thoroughly impossible with such astute, alert and knowledgeable folks as yourselves. After all, the guy just used dinner plates and garbage can lids…what could he know about anything, let alone the future?
Okay, ready, set, attack! And why not start with, “How do we know he predicted that in 1987?” or even “What’s that got to do with science, etc., etc.”
August 12th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Yes, Michael, how do we know he wrote that in 1987? Please cite an independently verifiable source, not another entry on your website.
As for “Judge not FALSELY, lest you be FALSELY judged.” Thats very interesting. I judge TRULY that Billy is a fraud taking pictures of tarted-up garbage can lids, films models hung on a string, puts forward pictures of dancers on the Dean Martin TV show as aliens and makes “predictions” that are often shown to be made after the event happened.
Shill for him all you want. You lack the intellectual integrity to admit the truth that has been pointed out to you numerous times. I hope Billy pays you enough to sleep well at night.
Oh, and I thought you said you were done with this topic? Lying again?
August 12th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Ray, you really all are just to smart for me. It kind of conjures up the picture of some people asleep in a very big house at night. A neighbor walking his dog notices the beginning of a small fire at one end of the house. He goes to wake the people. They come to the door, angry that they’ve been awakened.
They don’t immediately see the fire so they accuse the potentially helpful guy as…lying. But while they denied a fire had started…it didn’t change the truth of the matter, unfortunately.
BTW, I think that y’all forgot to attack David Froning, the astrophysicist who said, among other things that whoever was advising Meier was “very knowledgeable”. Must be another farmer, eh?
I’ll give you one thing, I should be done with this topic but couldn’t resist pointing out how ineptly even my own resume was attacked here, not exactly the kind of scholarship that bespeaks competence, or intelligence.
And so, as I really do my best to extract myself from a place where I’m not welcome, I’ll also point out that you, in particular, and consistent with your rather mean-spirited temperament, again make claims you’ve never bothered to substantiate and deliberately imply that I do my work in this case on anything but a voluntary basis, as noted long ago.
It is the mark of the rather dishonest, materialistic mind that seeks to discredit others through innuendo and implication that there must be a profit motive, especially for taking a strong stand and trying to shed a little light for the willfully ignorant.
I admire Meier all the more, not only for never quitting in the face of all the attempts on his life but for enduring the character attacks that spew forth so easily and consistently from the never ending supply of bottom feeders on our quaint little planet.
And, instead of just gathering in a village square as was popular some time ago, the envious snipes have found the internet to afford them a quick release for their venom…and sufficient anonymity to embolden themselves in their irresponsibility.
Good day.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
@Michael Horn
First off, again, tone down the villification. Only kuhnigget took an aggressive tone with you.
I admittedly did a cursory search for your songwriting creds, seeing as I’m at work and should really be doing things other than paying attention to this thread. All that came up was your new age CD. That said, you have quite a list of accomplishments. It still has no bearing on the topic at hand, but if you feel the need to share…
A quick note regarding chi gong. Your “ancient, proven” comment speaks of the “if something has been used for thousands of years, it must work” fallacy. Length of use is not proof of efficacy. I haven’t studied it in depth, but as a breathing, stress-relief activity, I’m sure it is quite effective. At any rate, tradition =/= proof of efficacy. Clinical trials or some other form of well-controlled study can provide proof. Now, it may actually have some effect beyond placebo/stress-reduction, but without the studies it is just anecdotal. I’m not going to get into the topic of “chi”, though, as that’s a whole different subject and is even less relevant to the UFOs = alien discussion than meditation and breathing exercises.
Regarding Marcel Vogel, as far as his accomplishments with computer technology go, I would agree, he should be respected and praised. However, his thoughts on healing crystals so not rise to the same level. Everyone can have reality-based, insightful accomplishments that deserve praise and respect while also holding beliefs that are just plain silly and unsupported by anything. Just like with Ed Mitchell. Great, courageous man for being one of the few to walk on the moon. That doesn’t mean that we must respect any wacky ideas he may spout. We’re not attacking him as a person, we’re just calling him out on his ideas. Same with Vogel. Same with you; we’re calling you out on your claims and (some of us) trying to keep things from sliding into invective and ad hominem attacks.
I would point out, though, that you did not say what you were certified to teach.
August 12th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
@Michael,
The #1 rule when you are stuck in a hole: STOP DIGGING!
Nothing in your “resume” makes you even remotely qualified (or even taken seriously) as a scientist.
My suggestion to you would be to go to your local community college and enroll in a basic Physics course. Not only would you learn about the scientific process in general, but you would learn a great deal regarding properties of matter, circular motion, light and optics, etc, which would help you understand where we are coming from regarding the photographs of alleged alien UFOs. Heck, some of the basic principles in physics, like momentum and force, action/reaction, etc. would even help you with your martial arts.
You may even learn that the main reason that none of here are likely to believe you is because none of your claims can be repeated or independently verified, which is the underlying foundation that real science is built upon. It doesn’t matter what you know, or what others have said. If someone else cannot repeat your experiments, independently, then they will not be accepted as fact. Look at the claims for cold fusion, anti-gravity, or long ago of turning lead into gold. They were unaccepted because they could not be proven.
That’s what we’re looking for: Either the actual physical evidence of alien material, spacecraft or life forms, or at least the confirmation by multiple, reputable scientists that the physical evidence exists.
I know this is your life’s work, and you are obviously very passionate about it. However, if there’s even the slightest possibility that you are wrong, you may want to prepare yourself for that. Who knows, maybe you’ll be the first one to finally prove, with scientific evidence, that Meier’s UFO stories are all a hoax.
Good luck to you.
August 12th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Mikey, didn’t you say goodbye?
August 12th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
A little more wasted time on the March 18th 1975 video. Here’s what Michael Horn says about it.
The motion of the spacecraft looks suspiciously like it is tethered from above as it appears to circle the tree and then to swing back and forth over the tree, except that on three occasions the spacecraft changes its motion abruptly with no change in the tilt of the vertical axis of the ship. If it was in fact tethered, one would expect the vertical axis to tilt as the tether point above was moved.
Not only does it appear to tilt, when it changes direction, but it wobbles.
In another measurement it was found that the tilt angle of the vertical axis in one oscillation sequence was sufficient that the axis crossed within the frame and would have put the tether point within the picture. No tether point source was revealed.
To disprove this, I took the UFO from five different frames and superimposed them on to a single frame. I then extended a perpendicular line upwards from each instance of the UFOs in order to see where they intersect. Here’s that image.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/29406061@N06/2756278052/sizes/o/
As you can see, the tether point is well above the top of the video.
Also, if someone has a stop watch, you should be able to determine the length of the tether by measuring its period. Then all we need to do is compare the length of the tether to the width of the UFO, and we’ll have an approximate size of the model Meier used.
In one of the final oscillation sequences the object appeared to pass directly over the top of the tree, and it is clearly seen that the tree was swept over in the direction of the spacecraft, or appeared to follow the spacecraft as it passed.
The tree does move, but a bit too late to have been influenced by the UFO. The movement is also rather odd looking. To me it looks like someone is standing behind the tree and giving a yank on a rope tied to the top of the tree. It doesn’t look like how I’d expect a tree to move if it was disturbed by a gust created as a large object passed.
August 12th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Nice try Michael. Yet again you do not address the hoaxes that have been pointed out to you. We have provided numerous links and other evidences of Meier’s fraud and you refuse to address them.
“Ray, you really all are just to smart for me. ”
Yes I am. I have pointed out the garbage can lid found in a photo from Billy’s farm and how it looks just like the base of the “wedding cake” ship. I even provided links to the analysis of the photos. I have pointedly asked you to explain several other things, such as the ships on wires that Billy filmed and again provided links to them. Also, I have pointedly asked you to explain the photos Billy tried to pass off as aliens that were in fact dancers from the Dean Martin TV show. Lastly, you have been asked to explain the multitude of “predictions” from Billy that in fact have been shown to have been made after the fact.
It is grossly apparent that you haven’t the intellectual integrity or capacity to actually address any of the above in an honest manner.
You continue to stonewall and attempt to turn the argument against the questioner – attempts that fail primarily because we see thru them.
Since you aren’t going to answer our questions nor examine our claims honestly, your credibility is zero. Have fun being Billy’s shill. Have fun ignoring the obvious fake photos and sham predictions. Have fun somewhere else. Liar.
August 12th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Jose, What is your argument? There’s nothing to counter, what’s actually untrue in Ray Villard’s Statement? Here’s another statement…
British physicist Stephen Hawking writes in (The Universe in a Nutshell, 2001):
“If Extraterrestrials had come already, we would necessarily know about it -things would have happened like in Independance day rather than in ET”….
What, if anything is untrue in this statement? Where’s the untrue aspect in this allegedly blanket statement I made, given these expectations? Nice try (actually its not, its quite feeble).
Whilst on the subject of cherry picking or more appropriately highlighting your misdemeanours, the candour of your previous statement leaves a lot to be desired.
In another feeble effort on your part you try justifying poking fun at people who make claims without evidence by denouncing them because in your opinion they’re arrogant.
With regards to Seth Shostaks’ (Seti) factual statement (not, sort of) the length of the statement is irrelevant, its content makes the point, the article itself is quite interesting
and it cuts both ways, but Shostak is hardly going to give a large amount of credence in the article to the other side of the fence.
To say Scientists’ ridicule anything presented before them is dumb?
Yes, I’ll freely admit that many scientists are dismissive of the UFO hypothesis — often to the point of ridicule.
Do you see the connection? When its presented before them many Astronomers, Scientists and Sceptics Ridicule the subject which according to you is a nasty untrue accusation?
August 12th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
@Stefanos
I see what the problem is. You don’t understand what a blanket statement is. Let me try and define it. A blanket statement is broad generalization made about a group of things or people. An untrue blanket statement is broad generalization made about a group of things or people that is incorrect. Let me apply this to one of your comments.
Astronomers ridicule anything that is presented before them
It’s a blanket statement because you’re talking about a group of people, in this case Astronomers. It’s untrue because astronomers don’t just ridicule anything that is presented before them.
Together, these two traits form an untrue blanket statement. Do you get it now?
Back to this quote.
Yes, I’ll freely admit that many scientists are dismissive of the UFO hypothesis — often to the point of ridicule.
Here’s 3 reasons this quote doesn’t support your assertion that astronomers ridicule anything that is presented before them.
1. It’s just one mans opinion. That doesn’t make it true. You can’t use it to label scientists in general.
2. Even if it is true, “many” could be 5% of scientists, or it could mean 80%. Whatever the number is, it’s not “all”, so you can’t use it to label scientists in general.
3. Scientists may ridicule and be dismissive of the UFO hypothesis, but that’s only because it’s a hypothesis with very little or no good evidence to back it up. If someone were to present scientists with good evidence, they wouldn’t dismiss or ridicule it. That’s a far cry from blindly ridiculing anything that is presented before them.
Now, before you respond by once again telling me how feeble my arguing skills are, please slow down and take some time to actually comprehend what I’ve written.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
This forum is the crappest one sided rubbish I’ve ever seen. Anything genuine on a sighting doesn’t get past moderation, they only accept msgs from people who claim false evidence is real, which in turn can be mocked, leaving real stuff that would have to be taken seriously out of the blog. That’s the poorest form of discussion anyone can participate in.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
@John – Wrong.
Phil doesn’t moderate unless you post videos, or use profanity. The profanity doesn’t make it to the blog, and the videos just get caught in the spam filter until they are approved. With Phil being in the Galapagos, vids and pics may not get on for awhile.
The only reason you don’t like it is because you can’t win your arguments because you have no verifiable proof. Plus, you are throwing a temper tantrum because none of your believer friends showed up to support you.
August 12th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
@ Jose
You write off physical evidence from 100s of cases that were tracked on radar both from ground and air and multiple witness reports. Sometimes these reports have photographic images also.
There is evidence of UFOs existing, it is incontrovertible, they do exist. What they are, we don’t know.
Knowing that a) they do exist b) the daylight sightings have reported disc/cigar shaped objects moving at tremendous speeds, hovering and zig-zag type motions, am I the crazy one when I suggest the possibility that they are possibly ET in origin?
Just because they have not been physically captured or accurately imaged does not negate the strong possibility of their existence.
Here is an excellent link for you and similar ‘blanket UFO skeptics’ to chew on Jose. Go to news.bbc.co.uk and Seach ‘cloaking’(21st century technology, imagine for a second what a civilisation a 1000 years beyond us could acheive!).
Your thinking is simply too narrow-minded. Right now we could hypothesise we are in a period similar to Europe in the middle ages. Because thinking was just starting to open up scholars could start to entertain the possibility of the earth around the sun, the moon and planets being a physical object (telescope). But at that time if you said humans were descended from apes you would have burned at the stake. There just wasn’t any way to collect good evidence for the theory of evolution (the best places were galapagos islands, Hawaii etc)., that had to wait until the mid 19th century with better sea-faring and navigation techniques and more open scientific questioning without the risk of being accused a heretic.
With the latest discoveries about bacteria, physics and planetary systems it will be you who risks looking foolish 50 years from now.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:19 am
@ManinAsia,
“There is evidence of UFOs existing, it is incontrovertible, they do exist. What they are, we don’t know.”
What makes you think they are aliens? How do you know that the Unidentified Flying Objects are not man-made? How do you know its not Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? WHERE IS YOUR PROOF?
“am I the crazy one when I suggest the possibility that they are possibly ET in origin?”
No, you are not crazy. You are just as hopeful as the rest of us that aliens are visiting Earth. You are just not as skeptical, nor do you demand actual physical testable evidence.
We’ve also been bombarded with Science Fiction stories for the last hundred-and-fifty years or so, therefore, naturally, the possibility in aliens visiting us seems plausible.
August 13th, 2008 at 8:29 am
@John,
This forum is the crappest one sided rubbish I’ve ever seen. Anything genuine on a sighting doesn’t get past moderation, they only accept msgs from people who claim false evidence is real, which in turn can be mocked, leaving real stuff that would have to be taken seriously out of the blog. That’s the poorest form of discussion anyone can participate in.”
Who is “they”? What “real stuff” have you tried to post? If you have a link, just tell us where the link goes (say www dot badastronomy dot com for example) If you want to reference a book, journal, or scientific paper, just tell us the title and the publisher. We can find it if you just tell us your source of information.
The only messages currently not getting thru are ones that include hyptertext links, which I just showed you how to get around that. You posted that last message, so apparently you are not being blocked.
Are you complaining because you can’t post your real evidence, or are you complaining that nobody here has been able to produce any real evidence?
August 13th, 2008 at 9:35 am
@ManinAsia
You write off physical evidence from 100s of cases that were tracked on radar both from ground and air and multiple witness reports. Sometimes these reports have photographic images also. There is evidence of UFOs existing, it is incontrovertible, they do exist. What they are, we don’t know.
I don’t think I’m writing of any evidence. I’m just assigning a more realistic value to the evidence. Radar is like a series of really blurry photographs, and is easy to fool. Eyewitness testimony is just as suspect. Some people lie. Others fool themselves into seeing what they want to see. If you don’t believe me, give the David Blaine levitation trick a try. It’s amazing how many people will think you’ve actually levitated.
Your thinking is simply too narrow-minded.
My thinking isn’t narrow-minded. I grew up believing there was a strong possibility earth was being visited by aliens and things like bigfoot might exist. When I was in the 4th grade I made my mother take me to see a Champ (the Lake Champlain monster) hunter speak. I even got the guys autograph. But, as I got older I started to realize that all these things share a disturbing lack of real evidence that I could no longer excuse. If anything, my thinking has gone from uncritically open minded to critically open minded.
With the latest discoveries about bacteria, physics and planetary systems it will be you who risks looking foolish 50 years from now.
One of the great things about requiring good evidence to base your beliefs on is that there’s no way you can end up looking foolish. If the evidence changes, my beliefs may change.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
@Jose
I’ve encountered people like you before Jose. You start with a very open curious mind,then get diasppointed when you see the vast majority of ‘weird’ phenomena ideas are a load of cr%pm (usually around the time you are 17 or so). And yet the existence of UFOs has much stronger evidence for it than fairies, big foot, the loch ness monster or any of the other stuff it’s lumped into. There is photographic evidence, radar evidence and multiple witness sightings. I am well aware radar can give false signals sometimes but so can almost any technology. However you can read reports come in from people all over the internet of sightings of discs and solid objects pacing airplanes, what can they be. Are they natual phenomena? I don’t think so, because no biological organisms we know or could even imagine display these capabilities. There are certainly electromagnetic phenomena that are poorly understood (earthlights, ball lightning), can they be mistaken for a rotating metallic object in the daylight. NO.
The vast majority of UFO reports are nothing more than blimps, stars, airplanes. But some of them are simply impossible to explain. Regular people report seeing these objects but rarely for fear of ridicule.
The last reason why I think it’s a strong possiblity UFOs may be connected with ETs is it just MAKES SENSE. The odds are very very strong life exists
in other places and has evolved at different time intervals than us. Knowing the characteristics of life on earth and it’s great diversity , we know that it is competitive and species constantly seek out new niches and environments, especially bacteria. There is no distance barrier that is often postulated by skeptics, that is utter rubbish. Bacteria can live for millions of years, easily travelling across the entire milky way seeding planetary systems. Star systems such as ours have regularly crossed paths of other star systems over the history of the milky way, we are not just sitting there suspended in space, rather we are moving extremely rapidly through space and so are other stars around us.
Finally any type of AI based intelligence has absolutely no limit placed by mortality.
The possiblity of ETs having visited or currently visiting earth..it’s logical.
August 13th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
One more point.
The idea of Earth and Space being two different things is also illogical.
It’s akin to saying Hawaii and the World are two different things. It’s shaped by our limited technological and scientific ability at present. We create an artificial barrier in our heads preventing us from thinking of the idea that Earth is just another island in the ocean that is the Milky Way. Why we don’t openly see ET’s now. It could be we are designated as the local ‘Stone Age’ tribe akin to the remaining stone age tribes in the Amazon. It could very well be for other reasons we can’t understand.
All these ideas of ETs visiting us don’t even need to invoke theories beyond our current grasp such as interdimensional travel, faster than light travel. If that is really possibly, all bets are off!
August 13th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
@ManinAsia,
“And yet the existence of UFOs has much stronger evidence for it than fairies, big foot, the loch ness monster or any of the other stuff it’s lumped into.”
Yes, there are definitely more fuzzy photographs of UFO’s than fairies. This probably has something to do with the fact that cameras were not invented yet. Since the invention of the camera, how many actual fairies have been photographed? Other than photographs and film (which are both easily faked) and eyewitness accounts (which have been scientifically proven unreliable), what “stronger evidence” have you seen?
“However you can read reports come in from people all over the internet of sightings of discs and solid objects pacing airplanes, what can they be.”
All over the internet? Well, if its on the internet it must be true! Sorry for the sarcasm, I couldn’t resist.
“I don’t think so, because no biological organisms we know or could even imagine display these capabilities. “
Not even Aliens? Wouldn’t aliens be “biological organisms?”
“The vast majority of UFO reports are nothing more than blimps, stars, airplanes. But some of them are simply impossible to explain.”
The first statement is correct. The second statement is incorrect. Some of them do not have sufficient information to fully explain. That does not mean they are impossible to explain.
“The last reason why I think it’s a strong possiblity UFOs may be connected with ETs is it just MAKES SENSE. The odds are very very strong life exists in other places and has evolved at different time intervals than us.”
I totally agree that the odds are in favor of ETs existing in the universe. I’m saying there’s no solid evidence yet that they are visiting earth. I’d like to think so, and I’m willing to believe, IF we ever actually get real evidence.
“The possiblity of ETs having visited or currently visiting earth..it’s logical.”
Maybe. But until there is real proof, we can only speculate.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
@ManinAsia
Re: People seeing “discs and solid objects pacing airplanes”, just a couple notes to consider:
1) Some cases, as you mentioned, can be explained by various natural forces (electricity, fire, sunlight, clouds, meteors, planets, comets, etc.).
2) Others can be explained by man-made objects (balloons, helicopters, airplanes, RC toys, satellites, and so forth).
3) Specific to video sightings, bugs, dust and rain can be particular bugaboos when the person is focusing on the screen of their camera, picking up something moving “way too fast” to be manmade, rather than looking with their own eyes. The video, on playback, would show something that is kinda blurry that appears to move faster than any terrestrial craft, but these can be bugs or other small objects close in to the lens of the camera (e.g., “rods” zipping around in the viewscreen).
4) Witnesses, as has been said repeatedly, often mistake what they see, in large part because they don’t get all the details or because what they do get does not connect with their understanding of reality. They also tend to fall into the pitfall of thinking that if they can’t explain it, and the people they ask can’t explain it, that it must be alien, or something equally unsupported by the evidence.
5) People are extremely susceptible to suggestion, particularly where the suggestion is coming from an authority figure that they, at the very least, do not distrust. Given a crowd, if enough people start saying that they saw an alien ship, others in the crowd will likely follow suit, even when the reality is quite different. Talk to people who have seen magic shows. Also reference the case in, I think it was Italy, where a whole village maintained that the sun moved about, rather than staying in its usual straight course.
6) A number of witness tales can be attributed to outright lies; people wanting to join the bandwagon and get attention, enjoy pulling one over on people, make an easy buck, or some other reason.
These are just a few problems with witness accounts, even where multiple people talk about the same event. Just because these people cannot explain what they saw as a natural or manmade phenomenon does not mean that it was alien. It only means that they could not explain it. I hope this makes clear what we have been trying to say about witness accounts. By themselves, they are not sufficient to establish that any UFO encounter is alien in nature.
We are not saying that aliens definitely do not exist or definitely are not visiting the Earth. We are just saying that the evidence that has been present so far is insufficient to reach that conclusion. The majority of that evidence is lacking in important details that would shed more light on the events, particularly where the phenomenon is outside the experience and training of the person evaluating the data.
In the end, I think the basic difference between the UFO=alien crowd and the skeptics is that the skeptics are willing to say “We don’t know what it is,” while the UFO=alien crowd make the jump from “I can’t explain it” to “It must therefore be aliens” without adequate evidence to support that leap.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
@ManinAsia
The problem is I can’t find a single case that comes without major question marks. I have no problem with someone like Isabell not having any evidence of her triangle UFO. I wish she did have evidence, but not having it doesn’t kill her credibility.
But take a look at the Belgian black triangle UFOs sightings of 1989-1990. It’s one of the best documented UFO cases in history and one ufologists often point to as impossible to explain away. You have radar, scrambling jets and sightings that lasted for several months. Now here’s the problem. There were over 13 thousand eyewitnesses, many of them armed with video cameras. Yet the best evidence we have are a few blurry photos which could have easily been faked.
A ufologist will argue that so many eyewitnesses couldn’t be wrong. To me, it defies belief that so many people could have witnessed giant, slow moving triangles in the sky, but not a single person or news team was able to catch it on film.
UFO believers like to claim that skeptics demand an unreasonably high level evidence, but all we demand is the same level of evidence we would for anything else.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Rub your hands together people.
In the news which I’m sure you have spotted.
FAA is starting to release their Radar data for UFO researchers.
www(DOT)opednews(DOT)com/articles/2/FAA-Release-of-Radar-Data–by-Michael-Salla-080718-180(DOT)html
“A more plausible explanation for the FAA’s release of the radar data is that senior national security officials are signaling that the Stephenville UFO sighting was not part of any classified program, nor does it belong to any other national government. The FAA and more senior officials are directing the general public to contemplate a genuine enigma over the UFOs’ origin. Consequently, it appears that the goal of the shift in FAA policy on UFOs is that a program to acclimate the American public to the reality of UFOs, and the possibility that they have something other than earthly origin is well underway. It can therefore be predicted that in the months ahead, more persuasive empirical data by the FAA and other government agencies will be allowed to emerge into the public arena increasingly pointing to the reality of UFOs and the possibility of an extraterrestrial origin. “
August 14th, 2008 at 3:53 am
LOL – This ones for you Jose
In the news… living(dot)oneindia(dot)in/insync/2008/bigfoot-body-found-georgia-sasquatch-140808(dot)html
These guys are claiming they found a body of Bigfoot! hahahaha no ways I can’t wait to see this…
August 14th, 2008 at 6:37 am
@shaun
That article was a laugh! Full of conspiracy theory opinions and speculating that the FAA released data to prepare the public, rather than the simple fact that someone filed a FOIA request, compelling the FAA to release the data. If there was no classified info in it, no need for redaction. Furthermore, for the account of the FAA saying that there was no radar data to support a claimed sighting, even the author of that opinion piece affirms that the FAA told the truth, yet somehow they’re part of this big conspiracy to silence the reality about alien UFOs.
A fluff piece of yellow journalism. Just like a lot of the UFO=aliens crowd, the author makes jumps of logic that are unsupported by the evidence. Now, maybe, maybe he had access to more info and his writing just couldn’t get the pertinent details across, but it seems more like he went around to some of the pro-alien web sites on the Stephenville case, quote mined them, and developed his article around that. Such shoddy reporting.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:32 am
These guys are claiming they found a body of Bigfoot!
It is my sad duty to report that the Georgia Bigfoot has already been thoroughly debunked. They didn’t even make it to the press conference. Oh well, back to the chupacabra/raccoon that washed ashore in montauk!
August 14th, 2008 at 9:41 am
@Jose
Spoil our fun….*sigh*
August 14th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Consequently, it appears that the goal of the shift in FAA policy on UFOs is that a program to acclimate the American public to the reality of UFOs,
By the way, I’ve never understood the argument that governments are hiding evidence of alien visitation because they think the general public is not ready for it. Are we supposed to believe that all governments of the world think people would hear the news and not show up for work in the morning? What exactly would we need to acclimate to?
August 14th, 2008 at 10:14 am
@Todd W.
Spoil our fun….*sigh*
Don’t worry. Yesterday I found a cassette recording I unintentionally made of Satan while I was in high school. Now if I can only find a cassette player.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
@Jose
“Don’t worry. Yesterday I found a cassette recording I unintentionally made of Satan while I was in high school. Now if I can only find a cassette player.”
Hmm. Save it for when Phil runs a post on ghost hunters.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
@Jose
Even if the governments of the world were hiding ANY evidence, someone in that capitol is going to realize that in that nations best interest and security, disclosure is a bad idea. I have a hard time believing that this would be about the public…religion…blah blah blah.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Did he just say “pubic region?” Wha? Oh. Never mind.
August 14th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
@Todd W
On second thought, I’ve decided not to release the recording, but I can assure you it exists. The general public is not yet ready to learn about Satan’s meddling in high speed dubbing.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
@Isabell and others,
I’ve done some observing, and as soon as I can, I’ll have some pictures up online as examples of what I saw. My basic question was, “How much sky would a UFO block out when flying overhead, at different altitudes.”
I couldn’t find any alien UFO’s to use in my experiment, but I did get some great shots of birds, planes, helicopters, and probably a bug or two. I used a city skyline, as seen from an overlook, as the observation area.
I saw lots of aircraft, at various elevations. Most were very easy to identify and follow. However, there were two very interesting observations:
1) When watching an airplane with both the naked eye and with the camera, there were several instances where the airplane seemed to disappear. I mean, completely there one moment, and completely gone the next. I’ll tell you later what I think that was all about.
2) There were at least 2 occasions where there was suddenly a bright object far up in the sky, which only lasted about a second or two. The object was cigar shaped, moving quickly, and then it too “disappeared” suddenly. I don’t think I was even able to get any video of it, it happened so fast.
This was done only in the daytime for now (as a control group.) If I can fit it into my schedule, I want to go back and do the same thing at night. The reason I chose this particular spot is it gave me a great view of an average-sized city (similar in size to Phoenix, AZ), where I could see for many miles, and still have objects of known sizes and distances for comparison.
This should be interesting.
August 14th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
@Greg
I look forward to your results. Very cool that you’re taking the time to do this.
August 14th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
The difference is Astronomers riducle anything that is presented before them.
Since the general consensus of Astronomers and Scientists is that there is no irrefutable evidence for extraterrestrial visitation……
Jose Says
3. Scientists may ridicule and be dismissive of the UFO hypothesis, but that’s only because it’s a hypothesis with very little or no good evidence to back it up. If someone
were to present scientists with good evidence, they wouldn’t dismiss or ridicule it.
Question: Is there any credible evidence which as been presented before Astronomers or Scientists which as been deemed acceptable?
Since there is no good evidence to back it up, guess what…..
Astronomers riducle anything that is presented before them.
Which part of this statement is untrue?
Either there is good evidence (in which case the statement is false) or there is no evidence (in which case the statement is true), which is it going to be?
August 14th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
@Captain Semantics
This one’s too easy.
Either there is good evidence (in which case the statement is false) or there is no evidence (in which case the statement is true), which is it going to be?
Here’s good evidence about UFOs that scientist don’t ridicule.
1. Scientists have good evidence that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable.
2. Scientists have good evidence that radar can be unreliable.
3. Scientists have good evidence that many pictures touted by ufologists are fake.
I didn’t have to take this route, but I couldn’t help it. Here’s the less fun way I could have gone.
The videos of the lights over Phoenix were good evidence that scientists didn’t ridicule. Instead, they examined them and discovered that they were flares disappearing behind mountains.
And you still don’t seem to understand what a blanket statement is! What do I have to do to get through to you?
August 14th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Wow, Jose…you really win the Tolerance Award for today.
August 14th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Wow, Jose…you really win the Tolerance Award for today.
Yes, I’m all about tolerance. I even met my wife at the museum of tolerance in LA. Where do I pick up my award?
August 14th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
@Jose
1. Scientists have good evidence that eyewitness testimony can be unreliable.
2. Scientists have good evidence that radar can be unreliable.
3. Scientists have good evidence that many pictures touted by ufologists are fake
Yes, we could use this type of thinking on my area of expertise, molecular biology, for example.
1. Scientists often discern things that are not there or ignore things that are there due to their own prejudices.
2. Our tools such as PCR, microarrays, labelling often give us spurious results. They are sensitive but also prone to errors that are of several orders of magnitude.
3. Scientists routinely fake/modify pictures/redo experiments to get the pictures they want for their papers.
Why does all this stuff happen, because molecular biology is damn complicated and it deals in molecules produced in living things which are very un-cooperative in terms of studying in controlled experiments.
However it’s still clear from the advances around us that molecular biology has come on in leaps and bounds in the last few decades.
Regarding UFOS, the real dataset (if it truly exists) is very small, almost random and contaminated with massive amounts of crud and spurious testimony. I can understand why career scientists are afraid to go near this topic, yet it’s disappointing that scientists laugh off this subject without at least taking the time to do a bit of fundamental research, something which at least ‘UFO enthusiasts’ have often really done. To me, the ET hypothesis provides the simplest explanation for some of these reports
@Greg in Asia
I know ‘thousands of reports coming in from all over the internet’, it’s an easy target. And yet recently I have seen 100s of reports coming in from more elderly people who had sightings decades ago. They didn’t have anywhere or anyone to mention to before but they are getting onto the internet for the first time, see something mentioned in the newspaper or BLOGs and realising they are not the only people who saw these things.
I appreciate you take the time to go and check things yourself regarding visual effects and giving estimates of distances, keep us updated.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
@ManinAsia
I can understand why career scientists are afraid to go near this topic, yet it’s disappointing that scientists laugh off this subject without at least taking the time to do a bit of fundamental research, something which at least ‘UFO enthusiasts’ have often really done.
Scientists/skeptics aren’t afraid to go near the subject, and many have investigated UFOs very thoroughly. Most just come to the conclusion that there’s no reason to believe we’re being visited by aliens. Most UFO enthusiasts seem unable or unwilling to accept this.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:53 am
@Jose
Where I take issue with your statement is the fact that
a) A lot of UFO skeptics blanketly deny there is anything at all unusual involved in UFO reports.
b) When they do accept there is something that is unusual they utterly refuse to allow for the possibility that they could be related to ETs, when this in fact would be one of the better options to account for the phenomena given the facts.
UFOS are not neccessarily anything to do with aliens, but the possibility IS there.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:46 am
ManinAsia said,
“1. Scientists often discern things that are not there or ignore things that are there due to their own prejudices.
2. Our tools such as PCR, microarrays, labelling often give us spurious results. They are sensitive but also prone to errors that are of several orders of magnitude.
3. Scientists routinely fake/modify pictures/redo experiments to get the pictures they want for their papers.”
Scientists are human, and make mistakes. But this is why we have peer-reviewed journals, and have independent experimentation and testing. If all scientists were as sloppy with their work as you claim, we would still think that putting cheese in a jar overnight creates rats.
You also said, “And yet recently I have seen 100s of reports coming in from more elderly people who had sightings decades ago. They didn’t have anywhere or anyone to mention to before but they are getting onto the internet for the first time, see something mentioned in the newspaper or BLOGs and realising they are not the only people who saw these things.”
Or, more likely, they think they can make claims without providing any evidence to a much larger audience, therefore more people are likely to be fooled into thinking that ET is here. Again, I’m not arguing that they saw something they could not explain. I’m saying that there’s no evidence that what they saw was ET. It was lack of real evidence that prevented them from proving it to scientists before, so why should that change with the invention of the internet?
August 15th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Oops.
In that last paragraph, only the word they was supposed to be in italics.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
@ ManinAsia
A lot of UFO skeptics blanketly deny there is anything at all unusual involved in UFO reports.
I almost agree. Here’s what I’d say. Many UFO skeptics do not see any evidence that UFOs are the result of alien visitation.
When they do accept there is something that is unusual they utterly refuse to allow for the possibility that they could be related to ETs
I think most skeptics have no problem allowing for the possibility of ETs. I certainly don’t.
when this in fact would be one of the better options to account for the phenomena given the facts.
Here’s where the big disagreement is. To me and many other skeptics, linking UFO sightings to ETs is a huge, unwarranted leap. I’m not trying to be mean here, but it’s like saying “My keys are missing. It must be leprechauns”. I think ETs are about as bad an option as you can get to explain UFOs.
August 16th, 2008 at 3:45 am
@Jose
‘I think ETs are about as bad an option as you can get to explain UFOs.’
Why?
Taking our own civilisation as an example it’s perfectly plausible we will have the capabilities of interstellar flight, cloaking, light speed/close to light speed/interdimensional travel in the next few hundred years. We will almost certainly have artificial intelligence that supersedes our abilities.
To think that WE are the only civilisation in this vast universe or in the milky way and also that civilisations would not be able to make the leap to occupy the space around them over the last few billion years…….that’s strange.
UFOs may not be aliens, yet if craft exist which are not figments of people’s imagination I can’t imagine who else will be making them?
August 16th, 2008 at 10:21 am
@ManinAsia
“UFOs may not be aliens”
Which is the main point we’re trying to make. In nearly every case, the evidence is insufficient to make the leap from “unexplainable” to “must be alien”.
“yet if craft exist which are not figments of people’s imagination I can’t imagine who else will be making them?”
Supposing that we get past that “if”, there’s still the question of whether or not the performance was exactly as people described. And even then, there is still the possibility that it is man-made. We really have no reason so suppose that any other civilization out there is so incredibly advanced that they not only have interstellar flight, but that they also have all these gadgets to hide them or have such astounding atmospheric capabilities (cloaking, inertial dampeners, sound cancelling, etc.).
In order to get to the conclusion that aliens with interstellar flight, cloaking, noiseless flight, inertial dampening to make those tight turns at immense speed, gravitational cancelling (to keep non-aerodynamic saucers afloat), we have a number of IFs to get past. If life has developed on other worlds (probably likely, but we have no proof yet). If that life is intelligent (again, likely, but no proof yet). If that intelligent life has developed physical means to manipulate tools (likely). If they have made enough advancement to get to space travel (possible). If they have found a means to travel through space at speeds approaching light speed. If they have a means to sustain the crew for decades or even centuries, depending on where they are coming from (possible, but very difficult). If they have discovered us (possible, but again, tough, considering how many worlds there actually are – would take some it of luck). If their interstellar ship has smaller atmospheric ship (assuming they’ve made it this far, likely). If those ships have the appropriate technology to perform as described (possible, I guess). If, despite such advanced technology, they have allowed themselves to be seen or detected (possible).
So, yes, it is possible, and no one here is denying that. But given the sheer number of IFs (and I’m sure I probably missed some) that need to be overcome, it is not very likely that aliens are visiting us. Even secret military craft that is that advanced is still unlikely at this stage in our scientific development. For these reasons, scientists are rather hesitant to make jump to “it’s aliens”. There needs to be more reliable evidence than just witness stories and fuzzy photos and videos.
August 16th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
@ManinAsia
To think that WE are the only civilisation in this vast universe or in the milky way and also that civilisations would not be able to make the leap to occupy the space around them over the last few billion years…….that’s strange.
Who’s arguing this?
Taking our own civilisation as an example it’s perfectly plausible we will have the capabilities of interstellar flight, cloaking, light speed/close to light speed/interdimensional travel in the next few hundred years.
You can’t look back on how far humans have come in the paste few hundred years and project that foreword to whatever science fiction can dream up. The progress we’ve made has come as a result of better understanding of how the world works. And as we learn more of how the world works, some things become less likely.
Things like traveling close to or faster than the speed of light*, and traveling through wormholes have gotten the misleading label “theoretically possible”. It’s misleading because most people think this means the same thing as “will one day be possible”. In fact, these things rely on some very speculative physics that require incredible amounts of controlled energy we have no way to produce. And I don’t mean the amount of energy fusion power might one day provide. I mean amounts of energy that require breaking the laws of thermodynamics. Are they possible? Maybe. Are they inevitable? Absolutely not.
That, along with a total lack of supporting evidence, is why ETs are about as bad an option as you can get to explain UFOs.
*Yes I know about particle accelerators. The key word is “particle”.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:01 am
@Todd
Yes there are a lot of ‘IFs’ attached to the idea aliens are visiting or have visited earth. Yet you must factor in the enormous size of the milky way and universe and also factor in the age of the universe. Taking these factors in it must be an almost mathematical impossibility NOT to have some civilisations roaming around. We know from our own example here that life is possible and tenacious (having hung around for 4 billion years or so). It seems from our limited example that is difficult to evolve multi-cellular life and get off the planet, however we are on the cusp on interstellar travel capabilities now with robotic probes.
You again fall into the modern era earthcentric trap of thinking UFOs should be piloted by biological beings, when all rational thought would point to them being machine based.
@Jose
By refusing to take the extra-terrestrial hypothesis to explain UFOs seriously you negate the argument that life should be prevalent in the universe. If life is prevalent in the universe and UFOs display characteristics of solid objects that don’t match with anything we can produce how can we avoid the inevitable hypothesis, UFOs could be from ET civilisation.
It’s could be, not are, and yet many skeptics just refuse to recognise the genuine ‘could be’ component.
Also , modern discoveries and advancements almost entirely add weight every year to the idea that the conditions for life exist elsewhere in the milky way and that the vehicle of life (Bacteria/advanced civilisations such as ours) offer a way to spread it around the universe.
The type of energy to build an ion-drive spaceship and push it to half the speed of light is not outside capabilities of the next 100 years. You don’t need to travel at the speed of light when you are not affected by short mortality. It’s a very simple concept guys. Interstellar travel across the whole milky way is a piece of cake for a slightly more advanced civilisation than ours with artificial intelligence. It doesn’t even need the crutch of light speed/faster than light speed.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:29 am
@ManinAsia
First off, we are not saying that UFOs definitively “are not” aliens. What we are arguing is that it is highly unlikely and that, to date, there is no evidence to come to the conclusion that UFOs are alien in nature. That’s the whole point of this thread: that there has been no solid evidence presented yet by the UFOs = aliens crowd. Without that evidence, it is, at best, speculation.
“We know from our own example here that life is possible and tenacious (having hung around for 4 billion years or so).”
You make a good point. Look at just how much time it has taken for life on Earth to get to the point of even rudimentary space exploration. And that’s after making it past all the chance directions life could have taken. It is far from guaranteed that life will have developed on any given planet that has conditions right for it, and likewise far from guaranteed that intelligent, tool-wielding life will develop. Now, given the sheer number of star-planet systems out there, I think that it is likely there are at least a few intelligent civilizations out there, or that there will be at some point in the future. Most astronomers would probably agree with that. Keep in mind, though, that just because we have reached the point where space exploration is possible does not mean that any other life out there has reached that point yet.
Okay, so I assumed biological, rather than machine, pilots. There are still all of those other IFs leading up to that point that need to be overcome. Supposing that aliens have made it that far, there are still the questions of power supply for the AI craft, potential for breakdowns, and so forth. Then, once such a ship makes it to Earth, we still have the IFs of undetectable orbital ship, atmospheric craft, and so on. But we have a new IF to introduce: unmanned atmospheric craft technology. We currently have UAVs that are remote controlled. So, it’s possible. But, we also have very good knowledge of our atmosphere and how aeronautics works on Earth. That same knowledge does not necessarily translate to other planets’ atmospheres, and the same problem would apply to any alien civilizations. So, they would need to have good knowledge of that before sending any ships to a planet, or their craft would crash and burn pretty quickly. Now, let’s suppose that they have gotten to the point of knowing our atmosphere well enough to have designed craft that will work in our airspace. How are they controlled? There would very likely be some sort of signal, even if it is only between the somehow undetectable orbital interstellar transport; some signal to tell the unmanned craft what to do and where to go. So, why aren’t we picking up that signal? Wouldn’t projects like SETI have found something?
So, even with unmanned craft, the likelihood of alien visitation is still so unlikely, compared to terrestrial explanations, that it is still reasonable assume a non-alien explanation for UFOs encounters, barring any other evidence.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Todd W. said:
“You make a good point. Look at just how much time it has taken for life on Earth to get to the point of even rudimentary space exploration. And that’s after making it past all the chance directions life could have taken.”
How true. Even if intelligence does arise on other planets, there is no guarantee that the particular species would have developed the capability of expressing that intelligence. Look at the Dolphin, here on Earth. Dolphins are widely believed to be the second most intelligent species on Earth, yet they have not evolved in such a way as to be able to achieve tool-making skills, let alone space travel. There is no guarantee that evolution will deal the right cards in every case. No matter how intelligent a species may be, if they have not evolved in a way as to be able to create the things an intelligent species needs to create in order to communicate with other intelligent species in the universe, then it’s all for nothing.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
@Maninasia,
Again, we’re not questioning the possibility of ET. We are asking for real solid evidence that ET has been here.
So far, we’ve seen none.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
@ManinAsia
By refusing to take the extra-terrestrial hypothesis to explain UFOs seriously you negate the argument that life should be prevalent in the universe.
First of all, I’m taking it seriously. If I wasn’t, I would have stopped posting a long time ago. There’s just no evidence to support it.
Second, using ETs to explain UFOs has no relation to the argument that life should be prevalent in the universe. Just about everyone agrees there’s a strong possibility life could be very common throughout the universe. Can we leave this out of the argument?
If life is prevalent in the universe and UFOs display characteristics of solid objects that don’t match with anything we can produce how can we avoid the inevitable hypothesis, UFOs could be from ET civilisation.
Again, I see no evidence of solid objects that display characteristics that don’t match with anything we can produce. All we have are eyewitness testimony, radar, obvious fakes, and videos of lights at night that appear very terrestrial. If somebody has something more convincing, I’m all ears. I’m not setting the bar very high either. I’ll be happy with some clear video that corresponds to radar. Heck, I’d be happy with some clear video.
The type of energy to build an ion-drive spaceship and push it to half the speed of light is not outside capabilities of the next 100 years. You don’t need to travel at the speed of light when you are not affected by short mortality. It’s a very simple concept guys. Interstellar travel across the whole milky way is a piece of cake for a slightly more advanced civilisation than ours with artificial intelligence.
Your reason for believing ETs might be visiting earth is that you see evidence of things flying around that defy the laws of physics as we know them, but to get here the ETs are now reduced to using conventional physics? You don’t see any logical inconsistency there? Either aliens have an understanding of super magic physics, or they don’t. I’m arguing that the technological advances humans have made in the last few hundred years have been a direct result of better understanding of how the universe works. A consequence of that knowledge is that there’s no reason to think that alien super magic physics exist.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
@Todd
Given current rates of technological advancement it’s not anything special to suggest AI machines will be a whole lot smarter and more independent than us. You can google Von Neumann probes for one idea….
@Jose
I used the idea of ion drives to tell you we could manufacture millions of probes within the next 100-200 years and set them off into space if we really wanted to. That’s just in the next 100-200 years. Imagine how much more advanced a 1000 years from now with AI capabilities.
It doesn’t require alien super magic physics. A stealth fighter would probably appear as an alien craft during WWII. It’s not visible on radar, flies at night usually with nocturnal vision capabilities, painted black so very hard to pick up and hardly emits any thermal heat, flies at incredible speeds, can destory aircraft out of sight of enemy with guided missiles, laser guided missiles for precision bombing. A stealth fighter without advanced electronic systems would immediately crash to the ground, it’s aerodynamics are unstable without constant adjustment much as the new generation of fighter aircraft are. They cannot be piloted manually.
If not in WWII the stealth fighter would cetainly have been beyond anything people imagined in WWI! That’s only a difference of less than 100 years.
I’m sure there are ways around the sound barrier, current flight capabilities based on drag/lift ratios. A few years ago people probably thought it was impossible to cloak an aircraft, now you can see lots of reports saying it could be a reality in a couple of decades with new metamaterials.
I’m not saying UFOs=ETs, but from the balance of the big picture it’s got to an option that could be considered fairly seriously, a lot more seriously than you equalising it to the same chance as leprachauns existing.
Finally you are asking for clear video, but as we know from current technological developments it MAY be a function of these craft that they are impossible to resolve clearly or they are aware when you are aiming an electronic device at them (I still believe that due to the natural errors of systems simple or advanced there will be some clear videos that come out in the future, the problem then is of course that computer graphics fakes get better at the same time).
August 17th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
@ManinAsia
I find it interesting that you say that I am being “earthcentric”, and then use our own advancements to justify your ideas for alien AI craft.
At any rate, you can’t use human advancements to claim that life on other worlds is more advanced. You are tossing aside all of those other IFs that I raised, the most basic of which is the question of whether any other life has actually developed to be both intelligent and capable of making and using tools, leading to advanced aerospace technology. Rather than addressing those questions, you seem to have a need, or at least strong desire, for alien visitation to be a real, and likely, possibility.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that it is a likely possibility. Again, we are not saying that it is impossible. It could be that aliens are, indeed, visiting Earth, but without any evidence, we cannot rank that as a high probability, from a scientific approach. Should the evidence come up, then we’ll change our tune, adjust our theories, and reevaluate.
Since you didn’t like the leprechaun analogy, how about this one. People have been suffering strange, unknown afflictions. Some people in the town have come forward, saying they witnessed a particular member of the community staring at the victims and speaking unintelligble words just days before they fell ill. The maladies haven’t sounded like anything you have ever heard of. Is it reasonable to say that that one person cursed or cast some spell on the victim? There is no evidence to suggest that magic exists, but perhaps with future advances in science, we will be able to detect some new force that is rare, but definitely active. I mean, there are so many aspects of the human mind that we still don’t understand, and there are thousands of stories throughout history, from eyewitness accounts, that point to magic as a real phenomenon.
I am not trying to poke fun at or make light of the UFO = alien claim, which is the point of this entire thread. I hope that the analogy shows where the “aliens as a likely possibility” argument is going wrong.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
As absurd as it seems, by denying the reality of the reports, brushing aside witnesses – including pilots and/or military personnel – and treating them like fools, the skeptics are actually demonstrating to the public that science is impotent at studying the phenomenon. As the ‘belief’ in UFOs grows among the population along with evidence perceived that a real phenomenon exists, people naturally tend to turn away from science in their search for answers, and that is a very dangerous trend.
The appearance of a vacuum that has been created by academic neglect is getting filled by all kinds of irrational belief systems, often linked to conspiracy theories and political paranoia.
Yes, the burden of proof should be on the believer, not the skeptic. However, there’s much at stake …
August 17th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
http (colon) (double forward slash) theyfly (dot) com (slash) newsflash94 (slash) British (underscore) Skeptic (dot) pdf
= End of skeptical claims and challenge.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Michael Horn,
I watched the video, and read the pdf file and responses from Tony, and I have to agree with your assessment of his work, there were obvious shortcomings in his efforts. I also agree with his comments about his belief that this is a hoax, and I agree with that. I also agree that just because someone says it’s a hoax, it does not mean that it is, and until someone can reproduce those films, the only person that can reveal this as a hoax is Billy himself. As I have stated previously, I want to believe, but the claims are to fantastical to be believed, without testable, evidence and there are some obvious discrepancies in some things, such as the photos of Billy with his Pleidian “friends” on other planets. In my opinion, if one thing can be brought into question, then that undermines the whole thing.
I just hope that when it is revealed as a hoax, you say, “Oops!”
August 17th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
@Michael Horn,
Or eat Billy’s Wedding Cake UFO. I bet it’s good with that creamy Pleidian filling!
August 18th, 2008 at 12:57 am
@ Todd
Ok, we are closer in thinking than you might imagine. I just like to see the actual possibility accepted, given the lack of current evidence the (evidence based) possibility rightly looks low. Given my understanding of other parts of science, I probably rate the possibility a bit higher than the actual current evidence suggests (we don’t have any material evidence).
I would say it is based on a balanced viewpoint even though I do think it would be cool that we there are other civilisations out there.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:23 am
@ManinAsia
I used the idea of ion drives to tell you we could manufacture millions of probes within the next 100-200 years and set them off into space if we really wanted to. That’s just in the next 100-200 years. Imagine how much more advanced a 1000 years from now with AI capabilities.
Believe me. I understand the argument. And I’m saying, you can’t look back on how far humans have come in the paste few hundred years and project that foreword to whatever science fiction can dream up. Stealth fighters might look incredible to someone a hundred years ago, but they don’t violate the known laws of physics. You can argue that some great discovery is going to be made that will throw everything we know about physics on its head, but then we’re back to speculative magic physics.
Finally you are asking for clear video, but as we know from current technological developments it MAY be a function of these craft that they are impossible to resolve clearly or they are aware when you are aiming an electronic device at them
So now aliens are just messing with us? We can see them, but any time we try and record them, they turn on their cloaking devices? You don’t like the comparison to leprechauns, but I’m pretty sure this is what they do too.
I’m not saying UFOs=ETs, but from the balance of the big picture it’s got to an option that could be considered fairly seriously, a lot more seriously than you equalising it to the same chance as leprachauns existing.
Why? Show me something that should make me think that, and I will.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:59 am
@ Michael L.
Now that the argument about Meier hoaxing his UFO films has been put to rest (for any thinking person) let’s address this:
“As I have stated previously, I want to believe, but the claims are to fantastical to be believed, without testable, evidence…”
There is no need to believe anything in or about the Meier case. It is either true or it isn’t. If it isn’t, it shouldn’t be believed. If it is true, belief isn’t necessary, as knowledge supersedes beleif.
The most important evidence is indeed testable. That evidence is to be found in the information and in what I call the “prophetically accurate information”.
It is simply up to interested parties to do the necessary investigation and logical thinking to see what has been provided to us – by people far more inteeligent than we are – for the purpose of helping us to assure and secure our future survival…without direct interference from these same, more advanced people.
Complaining and criticizing just how this has been approached and done by them is pointless; they have played the game on their own terms but with our welfare in mind, whether we like or can perceive it or not.
The responsibility now to “prove” anything more is not on them, nor on Meier or me. It’s on each individual who cares to do the necessary work and thinking.
Perhaps even the esteemed Mr. Plait will now consider prioritizing his own investigation into the matter, rather than thinking that either it – or the underlying necessities that it addresses – will go away if he ignores it. Such a position is what has helped to get humanity even deeper into a hole that at least some well intended parties have tried to help us get ourselves out of.
August 18th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Ya gotta love my misspelling “intelligent”. Yikes!
August 18th, 2008 at 11:49 am
@Michael Horn
The most important evidence is indeed testable. That evidence is to be found in the information and in what I call the “prophetically accurate information”.
You’re right. It is testable. Just give us some Meier predictions for the next year. The predictions have to be specific, and about things Meier could not possibly know or guess without the help of Pleiadians. Then we’ll just wait and see what happens.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
UFO believers need to establish a high standard for the data they publish or else, as we’ve seen, the entire field suffers. It becomes easy for skeptics to claim that the phenomenon only appears before “cranks and weirdoes,” as astrophysicist Stephen Hawking stated. This is exacerbated by the increased credulity of the public and its blatant exploitation by the media. It seems that people – including some highly educated folks – are ready to believe almost anything they see on the internet or on Larry King.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Don’t worry Luis. We can look past the “cranks and weirdoes”, even if we allow ourselves to be entertained by them for a while. We’re still waiting for the data that reaches a “high standard” though.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Yes, high standards to either prove or disprove would be great.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
@Jose
Gotta be careful in how you word your challenges. The information would also need to be something that is not in any published form (internet, newspapers, even very obscure journals). Also, Meier would need to be observed by independent investigators during the supposed communication and writing down of his prediction.
I’m sure there are some other control refinement needed for such an experiment, but that’s where an organization like the JREF would come in. This would, of course, apply to new predictions only, as old predictions were made without any manner of controls to prevent cheating, as it were, however remote such behavior may seem to be.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
@Todd W.
Nah,
You’re being too hard on him. The Pleiadians obviously don’t talk to Mr. Meier when normal humans are around. I’m happy with my standard of specific things he could not possibly know or guess unless the Pleiadians told him. It’s not very scientific, but I’ll live with it.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
@Luis
As absurd as it seems, by denying the reality of the reports, brushing aside witnesses – including pilots and/or military personnel – and treating them like fools, the skeptics are actually demonstrating to the public that science is impotent at studying the phenomenon.
Science and skeptics have taken eyewitness testimony very seriously. Unfortunately, it turns out that eyewitness testimony is very unreliable. Everybody wishes this wasn’t the case, but it is. It’s ufologists that are guilty of brushing aside science.
As the ‘belief’ in UFOs grows among the population along with evidence perceived that a real phenomenon exists, people naturally tend to turn away from science in their search for answers, and that is a very dangerous trend. The appearance of a vacuum that has been created by academic neglect is getting filled by all kinds of irrational belief systems, often linked to conspiracy theories and political paranoia.
One thing your right about is the appearance of academic neglect. But it’s not the fault of scientist and skeptics though. It’s caused by people who don’t like the answers scientists and skeptics give them.
Yes, high standards to either prove or disprove would be great.
Please explain how scientists skeptics need to use a higher standard? It sounds like your asking us to lower our standards to placate people who don’t require high standards.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Please explain how scientists skeptics need to use a higher standard? It sounds like your asking us to lower our standards to placate people who don’t require high standards.
I wasn’t referring to scientists/skeptics.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
@ Jose
Regarding “It is testable. Just give us some Meier predictions for the next year. The predictions have to be specific, and about things Meier could not possibly know or guess without the help of Pleiadians.”
I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, Jose, but Meier’s been publishing this information for the last…57 years years. Much of it is very specific, and provably so. To know – or to disprove – this, one has to do their own research.
It’s also a real good idea to get a tiny sense of perspective, i.e. no one, certainly not Meier or the Plejaren, are interested in jumping through hoops for people who are demanding, unreasonable and lazy (or for anyone else, of course).
If you would like to know what seems to definitely be on the horizon, especially for America, just click on the Prophecies link on the left side of my home page and read the Henoch Prophecies. You might also read the documentation right before them, in the same article.
Hopefully, and at the very least, you may come away with a little sense of how irrelevant and immature it is to make demands, especially when one is ignorant of the already existing evidence and information.
Then again, you may also come away with just a tad more insight into your own responsibility, now that you will have been amply warned of what may occur, and get about the serious business of waking yourself up…as well as possibly a few other people, whom I’m sure you, and who have been equally unaware of the information.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
@Luis
Sorry. It seemed like a subtle dig.
August 18th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
@Michael Horn
I already spent far more time than was healthy dissecting Meier’s kindergarten level fake photos and videos.
Still, unbelievably, I’m willing to consider more evidence from Meier. You’re the one who says “The most important evidence is indeed testable.” Of the predictions Meier has already made, I can’t confirm when they were made, and/or they were of things he could have easily known about or guessed. So, in other words, they’re useless for testing.
Now give us some specific predictions for the future that Meier could not possibly know or guess without the help of Plejarens, or stop pretending there is testable evidence. I’m not asking anyone to jump through hoops.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
@Michael Horn
I don’t understand your purpose here. On one hand, you seem to present yourself as an ambassador for Billy Meier, and on the other hand, you seem to be here solely to call people ignorant and act like a child. You pretend like you want to have a dialogue, but any time anyone offers any criticism or asks a hard question, you go right back to name calling. Until you can stop doing that, you’re just a fraud and a hack.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Here’s the problem with the supposed predictions that Meier has already published: there were no controls to prevent fraud and to verify that everything occurred exactly as claimed. Lacking proper controls, they become suspect, regardless of how much Mr. Horn or anyone else says that they are genuine. The only way to credibly show that Meier can predict something is for him to make a new prediction under proper controls to prevent fraud.
Because of the suspect nature of Meier’s photos and videos (as we, and others, have already discussed), this is not an unreasonable request. To claim that putting such controls in place is “jumping through hoops” or that they are “unreasonable” is the same argument that fundamentalist creationists, psychics, and others use when confronted with the scientific method. So, Mr. Horn, if you wish to be lumped in with such other fanciful people, by all means, go ahead and complain that such controls are out of line, unreasonable or ignorant. All I can say is, tough. Science demands certain levels of rigor, to which you seem loathe to adhere.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
To all concerned,
Part of the problem is indeed expressed here: “Here’s the problem with the supposed predictions that Meier has already published: there were no controls to prevent fraud and to verify that everything occurred exactly as claimed.”
To be clear, the problem is the ignorance of people who make these and other demanding and INACCURATE statements. The word ignorant, oh sensitive ones, means to not know of, essentially.
It’s already been pointed out to you, time and again, that many of the key prophecies and even predictions are in copyrighted, dated published books; there’s nothing ambiguous about them or about how to establish their authenticity.
As for: “Because of the suspect nature of Meier’s photos and videos (as we, and others, have already discussed),…” Apparently no one troubled themselves to see the work of the British skeptic, Tony Wharton, who at least had the integrity to make a VERY thorough attempt to duplicate Meier’s films. He also had the integrity honesty to admit that he couldn’t do it. the “suspect nature” here is solely in the closed minds of the deliberately uninformed.
It seems that no matter how generous I am with my time, no matter how much information, or direction to where it can be found is provided by me, the intellectually challenged and lazy can only respond with absolutely meaningless and irrelevant “challenges” that only identify them as biased, insincere, close-minded and self-satisfyingly pompous. Oh no, did I say something…unkind about some precious little soul here?
Of course the question as to why I pop in here now and then is a legitimate one. And here’s my legitimate answer. I am involved in Meier-related work on my computer anywhere from 6-10 hours per day, much of it in correspondence with people from many other countries than my own, who seem delightfully devoid of the arrogance and lack of genuine curiosity that is consistently on display here, among other places.
I pop in and out of a number of places during my little interludes. In my work, make no public mention of this site as I will let it/you earn your traffic on your merit, which may relegate it to the remote testing ground that it seems to be. The test, however, is not on the credibility of the Meier material but on the evolution of the few, regular participants here who are at once highly invested in being “right” and “knowledgeable” while, ironically, remaining effectively anonymous. I now see that anonymity is indeed a very wise choice for them.
Talk amongst (and try to impress) yourselves.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Michael Horn,
I thought you were done here. You said so 3 times now. Yet you keep coming back for more abuse.
You said, “I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, Jose, but Meier’s been publishing this information for the last…57 years years. Much of it is very specific, and provably so. To know – or to disprove – this, one has to do their own research.”
How much of it is not specific? What is the exact percentage of “true” predictions versus “false” predictions? We’ve already shown here that Meier’s “predictions” were actually reported, almost verbatim, in newspapers and magazines within days of his “prophecy” even when the report was later shown to be incorrect!.
I like Todd and Jose’s suggestions. Have Meier give us new predictions, in front of witnesses, in a controlled environment. If more of his predictions than what you can contribute to random chance come true, then we might take him seriously. Otherwise, you’re just shoveling the same BS that we’ve already buried.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
@Todd
‘You are tossing aside all of those other IFs that I raised, the most basic of which is the question of whether any other life has actually developed to be both intelligent and capable of making and using tools, leading to advanced aerospace technology’
I have already argued at length on this case on why given the vastness of TIME and SPACE this is actually quite likely. Given infinite time everything is possible.
To give my analogy again, it’s like being stuck on a desert island with a coconut tree and thinking it’s the only cocunut tree in the world. Because we can’t get off the island we don’t know any better. However we know from our outside perspective that a coconut tree is integrally related to every other plant and living organism on earth. Until a coconut washes up on the shore our island-born Robinson Crusoe cannot ever be sure there is another coconut tree out there, when it does his whole world perspective would change and he would wonder how he was stupid to think he had the only coconut tree in the world.
There are a lot of people who say that earth is somehow distant from other parts of space. And yet those arguments don’t hold up. It’s possible earth is not distant at all and has a large amount of interaction with other star systems/interstellar dust/AI entities (at a stretch). The whole idea of earth being a lonely planet in space is more of a function of our short life span and limited technological devleopment.
I don’t like the idea of leprachaun being more likely than UFOs. Why? Because UFOs display characteristics that we or natural phenomena can’t replicate but an advanced machine based civilisation could. You say they display ‘super magic physics’. I’ve already told you a stealth fighter would fall out of the sky immediately if it’s active computer controlled systems shut down, they constantly adjust as the fighter is basically in a controlled crash all the time, it is not aerodynamic. If an engineer from world war II saw the shape and did the computations he would say he could not fly.
I’m not an expert on flight technologies but I’m pretty sure we’ll be far beyond jet based flight machines in 100-200 years. As for sound and light effect and electronic sensor detection, absolute piece of cake for advanced civilisation. I’m making a very reasonable assumption that future generations will have tech/capabilities we can only dream of.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Michael Horn,
You still haven’t addressed why Billy felt it was necessary to try passing off a picture of Dean Martin TV show dancers as Plejarans.
And why are you still here? You’ve claimed to be leaving at least 3 times so far. Why continue to lie?
August 18th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
@ManinAsia
The whole idea of earth being a lonely planet in space is more of a function of our short life span and limited technological devleopment.
I disagree. I think it’s a result of humanity getting a better grasp on the universe and how it works.
Because UFOs display characteristics that we or natural phenomena can’t replicate but an advanced machine based civilisation could.
Yes, and the only evidence of this it eyewitness testimony and unreliable radar readings, which puts them squarely in bigfoot/nessie territory.
You say they display ’super magic physics’. I’ve already told you a stealth fighter would fall out of the sky immediately if it’s active computer controlled systems shut down, they constantly adjust as the fighter is basically in a controlled crash all the time, it is not aerodynamic.
Yes, and this is all a result of conventional physics. You don’t realize it, but you’re asking us to throw out Newtonian Mechanics, Special Relativity, and a whole host of other things that do a pretty good job of describing the universe. And all this is based on no good evidence and “Look how far we’ve come in the last few hundred years.” That’s why it’s “magic”.
No matter how far we advance there will always be some things which will be impossible. Maybe the things you think aliens are capable of fall into this category, and maybe they don’t, but so far, no one has any good reason to suggest they don’t.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
“there’s nothing ambiguous about them or about how to establish their authenticity”
Except for the ambiguous question of how he came about the information, for which we only have his word. We’ve already shown how the information for several of his supposed “prophecies” was available, in some cases, years before he came out with them. From a scientific point of view, any predictions that Meier has already made are suspect and inadmissible. If you understand anything about the scientific method, then you will understand the need for controls to mitigate bias and outright fudging of data. But, like I thought, you immediately lambast the idea and lump yourself in with all of the “true believers” of the fringe that I mentioned before.
As to the others on this thread (Jose, Michael L, Ray), neither Meier nor his erstwhile ambassador, Mr. Horn, will ever consent to a controlled study of the predictions because they know that Meier would fail.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
@ManinAsia
I think you missed the point I was trying to make. Your entire argument for aliens as a likely explanation for UFOs hinges on speculation and conjecture. You keep making leaps of logic that are not supported by the evidence available. As Jose pointed out, the characteristics supposedly displayed by UFOs are subject to question as to whether the characteristics are actually real.
Now, if we were to have solid evidence that 1) the craft are real and 2) they do display characteristics as described by witnesses (i.e., that they defy all currently understood technology and knowledge of physics), then we would take a more serious look at aliens as a source.
Until then, however, just like “witches” causing strange illnesses or leprechauns stealing keys, UFOs being alien in origin is an improbable explanation for these events; the evidence just does not remotely suggest it.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
@Michael Horn
It seems that no matter how generous I am with my time, no matter how much information, or direction to where it can be found is provided by me, the intellectually challenged and lazy can only respond with absolutely meaningless and irrelevant “challenges” that only identify them as biased, insincere, close-minded and self-satisfyingly pompous. Oh no, did I say something…unkind about some precious little soul here?
Oh, I have to admit my feelings were hurt when I read this. I even cried a little bit and started to think that maybe I am intellectually challenged and lazy. But then it came to me. I realized you’re secretly trying to undermine Billy Meier by representing him so poorly. I must admit, I admire your commitment! Where can the rest of us sign up to discredit Billy Meier by claiming to be his ambassador and then just insulting people and by refusing to answer easy questions? I want to lie for a living too.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
@Jose
Tut, tut. Mr. Horn doesn’t lie for a living. He doesn’t get paid, remember?
August 18th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
If any ONE of Meier’s photos, videos, or supposed predictions are shown to be fake, ALL of Meier’s information is therefore suspect.
Again, Mr. Horn has failed to provide the one thing we’re asking for: Evidence.
Please, allow me to copy and paste Phil’s original post from way up at the top of this page:
“To wit: in the Mitchell post, and in previous UFO posts (some of which are pretty recent), I make the simple demand of actual evidence of alien spaceships coming to Earth, abducting unwary victims, leaving bent cereal stalks, coring out cow anuses, and so on. I think this is a reasonable request. In fact, I think this is an an incredibly reasonable request, really just about the most basic thing anyone — scientist or not — can want, especially given what people are claiming about UFOs.
All I want is actual, y’know, evidence. I don’t want eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable. I don’t want shaky footage. I don’t want fuzzy pictures. I don’t want claims of redacted documents, or government seizures of evidence, or anything I can’t hold in my hand and examine.
You know. Evidence.”
August 21st, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Phil & Friends,
Man am I with you on this:
“…All I want is actual, y’know, evidence. I don’t want eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable. I don’t want shaky footage. I don’t want fuzzy pictures. I don’t want claims of redacted documents, or government seizures of evidence, or anything I can’t hold in my hand and examine.
You know. Evidence.”
So would you please be so kind as to put some…stardust in my hands, as an opener for “proof” that stars exist.
Thanks.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
“So would you please be so kind as to put some…stardust in my hands, as an opener for “proof” that stars exist.”
I don’t know about you, Mr. Horn, but I have been able to use my own eyes, my own observations, and my own hands to verify, without a doubt, that stars, planets, and comets exist. Not only can we see them, photograph them, and fling probes around the nearest one, we can mathematically prove that they exist. That is a lot more than we can say about your claims.
To use your own words, how lazy and ignorant are you?
http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/
What a stupid question.
August 21st, 2008 at 3:33 pm
“So would you please be so kind as to put some…stardust in my hands, as an opener for “proof” that stars exist.”
I don’t know about you, Mr. Horn, but I have been able to use my own eyes, my own observations, and my own hands to verify, without a doubt, that stars, planets, and comets exist. Not only can we see them, photograph them, and fling probes around the nearest one, we can mathematically prove that they exist. That is way more than we can say about any your claims.
To use your own words, how lazy and ignorant are you?
Oh, and Try genesismission dot jpl dot nasa dot gov for real life, hold it in your hands stardust.
You’re welcome.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:08 pm
And if that doesn’t satisfy you, Mr. Horn, let’s see if we can come up with 3 more ways we can “prove” that stars exist:
1) We can, by using thousands of years of recorded observations from thousands of astronomers, accurately predict the motion of the stars and planets. Not only can we predict where the stars will be tomorrow, with some very clever mathematical software, we can predict where the stars will be 1 year, 100 years, even 10 million years from now.
2) We can predict the gravitational effects of stars using complex mathematics and physics, and then prove, by observation with our own eyes, that those effects did indeed occur.
3) We can predict, observe, and measure the amount of light we see coming from these stars, especially when events such as occultations and eclipses occur.
Any questions? I can probably think of 10 more ways to prove stars exist, but I really don’t think its necessary.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Sorry, you are only “proving” that there’s observable phenomenon and that there is certain behavior that can be attributed to it.
Besides, Dr. Phil said that, “I don’t want eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable. I don’t want shaky footage. I don’t want fuzzy pictures.”
So, 1. above pertains largely to eyewitness accounts.
2. Still doesn’t put anything in our hands.
3. Doesn’t either.
And hey, don’t blame me for being consistent (and having the poor taste to point out the obvious) remember, he wants to hold it in his hands. Obviously, VERY little if any stardust has ended up in anyone’s hands, as opposed to their eyes.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:43 pm
And aren’t we also told that some starrs that we see…actually aren’t there anymore? So if they’re not there anymore, what are we looking at now and how – apart from eyewitness testimony, shaky footage and fuzzy pictures – do we know for certain what we’re…eyewitnessing?
We don’t.
So there will never be tangible, as in, “I don’t want claims of redacted documents, or government seizures of evidence, or anything I can’t hold in my hand and examine.” evidence for these stars, as you call them, it or whatever.
Surely intellectual honesty requires that we admit that.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Hi I complained earlier because after 3 days it still said awaiting moderation for some of my posts. So I had a fairly good reason to complain since some posts I made after that didn’t say that message, and this included the one’s without hyperlinks.
The problem with all this is sceptics ask for evidence, and when the eyewitnesses say they’ve seen something usual and don’t claim they have evidence and say they just don’t know what they saw, but as yet found no mundane explanation. The sceptics then pretend to be interested and say “well tell us what you saw”. So I felt obliged to explain in fairly good detail what I witnessed. This then takes over 3 days to get past moderation (without hyperlinks), which was annoying, and appears to have the intention to remove one’s interests in even bothering to tell people what I’ve seen. I then get accused of throwing a tantrum because I expect people to believe me. No, I don’t expect anyone to believe it without proof, I was only giving my account because one or two sceptics appeared interested.
Of course they weren’t and in fact haven’t said much since, apart from that eyewitness accounts are only anecdotal evidence, and may not be accurate. I ask you, why even bother asking people to tell you what they saw if you are going to just ignore what witnesses say and don’t even bother acknowledging that it sounds inexplicable? Instead you seem content with already having made your minds up that it sounds too extraordinary to be true, and rather than honestly say “well I don’t know what that was you saw if that is accurate”, you’d all rather just assume that it cannot be true.
There comes a point where it’s ridiculous to ask a witness for evidence, how exactly are we supposed to retrieve any physical evidence of something we just saw for a few minutes? And would you expect all the witnesses to just shut up because you want evidence put in front of you before you even try to listen. At some point you’re going to realise the traditional scientific approach is limiting the amount of exposure to this subject, and pay more attention to what witnesses are saying, or at least accept that what they saw is unknown at best description at this moment in time.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Well, speaking of evidence, here’s something else to toy with.
In a, let’s call it loose, version of the scientific method, the skeptics look at Meier’s films and say, “Those are models suspended on strings.” One skeptic, my hat is off to him, then attempted to prove HIS hypothesis. He didn’t simply claim that the objects were models, as many silly online experts do, he set about to test his hypothesis.
He had settled on the model hypothesis because he was reasonable enough to know that Meier didn’t have a (non-existent at the time) home computer, special effects, etc.
So, when the skeptic’s attempt fell – even admittedly by him – far short of the result, the substantiation for his hypothesis, he effectively eliminated it from consideration. And before anyone would be tempted to jump in too soon, we should also remember that three special effects experts effectively agreed that no models were used. It’s just tha thte skeptic came as close to proving it as humanly possible.
Now, for people with intellectual honesty and integrity, and who aren’t just wanting to make foolish, unsubstantiated statements, the model theory has to be dropped. Since no terrestrial parties have claimed and proved that they are the owners, operators, creators, pilots, etc. of the objects in Meier’s films, the remaining options are narrowed to the point of only one possibility, as far as I’m concerned.
So, again, the value of this small, obscure forum is probably more for just testing out one’s ideas and information to see how it’s received and what credible challenge can be raised to it.
The lack of suddenness in the responses to my two last posts regarding “tangible evidence” are telling, as the parties who want to argue for the sake of argument and showing just how smart they are, work to fashion some sort of response.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I put it to everyone that the majority of sceptics on here who haven’t witnessed anything unexplained to this day are not at all bothered about any of the ufo phenomenon, and are obsessed with telling people you cannot be right unless you provide the evidence. This is not at all helpful towards anyone, and it’s quite obvious that they have the wrong viewpoint that there are only sceptics who haven’t seen a ufo, and people who believe in aliens and such which they look down upon as crackpots. So what.. let some people believe that they are alien ships, as I’ve said much earlier, my sightings was much like I could guess what an extraterrestrial craft may be, or what future human spacecrafts may look like from experimental designs. Quite frankly for anyone who is a non-sighting sceptic with that attitude, it’s becoming more childish by the day, especially when we can say it’s likely intelligent life has evolved elsewhere.
Not all sceptics are like this, I consider myself a sceptic even though I say I’ve seen something I cannot explain until this day. This does not make me a believer as I’m only saying what I’ve seen with my own eyes and I’m not claiming to know what it was or saying it was aliens, and so I’ve just made an observation. Am I supposed to just ignore what I’ve seen just because I don’t have any evidence for it to provide to you, I don’t think so. Now I wouldn’t write an article for a science magazine about it, but I should be able to describe on a blog what I’ve observed, without being ignored, ridiculed or being called a believer who wants others to also believe in something, which is not true.
Again it makes me laugh at the narrow minded viewpoint of these non-sighting sceptics who think that they have the right to brush someone off on a public blog with some kind of supposed superiority, which will make others ignore what someone posts about their sighting, just because they cannot provide some evidence, and then brand them as a believer and place them with those who are claiming aliens are definitely visiting earth, and then somehow be content that they have informed the world that they are the rational people, and the rest are all irrational. With some sceptics this could be some kind of superiority complex that they have, and maybe covering some kind of inferiority they feel, and so find it reassuring to label all witnesses as believers, and so all witnesses are crazy by their stance. Whilst they may also think they know everything there is to know about the universe or just pretend to, which is also obviously incorrect.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:28 pm
@Michael Horn,
The great thing about science in general, and the scientific method specifically, is if you don’t believe me, you can test it yourself. Any freshman in a college (or even a high school) science class is taught that. Perhaps you still need to sign up for that science course.
I don’t have to believe Newton, or Galileo, or Einstein, because all of their claims can be tested independently. None of Meier’s claims can.
You say, “So, 1. above pertains largely to eyewitness accounts.” No, those are well documented, independently verified by scientists around the world, tested, and re-tested, and tested again and proven. And if you or I don’t believe them, we can test it ourselves. That is evidence. You have no evidence.
You say, “2. Still doesn’t put anything in our hands. 3. Doesn’t either.”Wrong. It puts mathematical equations in our hands, and then we can observe objects, moving telescopes with our hands and seeing with our own eyes, and take recordings in the future (one minute or 10 years in the future) and measure and repeat and confirm the data.
That is what Phil and the rest of us are talking about, and you’ve failed completely to show any evidence that remotely resembles anything we can test, measure, repeat, or confirm. Nice attempt to change the subject, but when all is said and done, you still don’t have any evidence.
You then said, “Now, for people with intellectual honesty and integrity, and who aren’t just wanting to make foolish, unsubstantiated statements, the model theory has to be dropped. Since no terrestrial parties have claimed and proved that they are the owners, operators, creators, pilots, etc. of the objects in Meier’s films, the remaining options are narrowed to the point of only one possibility, as far as I’m concerned.”
I call BS. First of all, you are not in a position to speak about intellectual honesty. You cannot show that the objects in Meier’s photographs are not models. We’ve seen pictures of models that look identical, or better to his. We’ve seen pictures of Meier’s objects with strings attached. You yourself have made the argument that all one needs is a crane to repeat the things seen in the videos. So, no sir, Mr. Horn, we do not have to drop the model theory, and we will certainly not take your word for it. But nice try.
Where are the negatives of the complete rolls of film or complete set of slides from one of Meier’s outings. Just to make sure he didn’t photograph himself or anyone else setting up his little hoax, we’d of course want to see the negatives.
Where are the metal fragments we can analyze and independently test?
Where are the new “predictions” that the aliens have told him that we asked for?
And finally, perhaps the lack of suddenness from anyone here has something to do with the fact that nobody here can believe you without evidence, and everyone else has quit listening to you.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:36 pm
@ Luis
“It becomes easy for skeptics to claim that the phenomenon only appears before “cranks and weirdoes,” as astrophysicist Stephen Hawking stated.”
That’s only because it’s assumed that all sightings cannot be accurately described by the witness, and that et visitation is impossible. That means all witnesses are cranks if you think like that, which is not true.
It’s just that it’s almost impossible for an average person to attain any physical evidence of something they saw for a few minutes which seemed to fly above them, or whatever they say the ufo did, except for a photo, which is going to be blurred in most cases for moving objects as the camera cannot focus fast enough, or in most cases during the night photos aren’t going to show a lot in comparison to what the person may have seen. Why is it not obvious to people that these ordinary intelligent people, where a few of them do speak out about what they saw, are not all cranks just because they cannot provide you all with the necessary evidence which would be impossible to obtain for 99.999999% of the worlds population in a hypothetical situation. If we were to assume that the hypothetical inexplicable sightings are rare then it’s highly unlikely that the few people who have the equipment to gather the evidence who would wish to give this to the public are going to be there at the coincidental time that a ufo was also there. And no, most amateur astronomers don’t have the means to collect this evidence either, and some amateur astronomers do report ufo sightings before you suggest that they don’t.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:40 pm
@John,
You said, “I put it to everyone that the majority of sceptics on here who haven’t witnessed anything unexplained to this day are not at all bothered about any of the ufo phenomenon, and are obsessed with telling people you cannot be right unless you provide the evidence. This is not at all helpful towards anyone, and it’s quite obvious that they have the wrong viewpoint that there are only sceptics who haven’t seen a ufo, and people who believe in aliens and such which they look down upon as crackpots.”
To put it simply, the main reason why skeptics demand evidence is that people lie. They create hoaxes for fun and for attention.
The perfect example of this is the recent Bigfoot reports. Check CNN dot com, or google Bigfoot hoax for the articles. Three guys go on national television claiming they’ve got bigfoot in an icebox. For days its all over the media. As soon as someone with real credentials looks at it, its proven fake. The same guys who swore they had bigfoot now admit they lied, and that it was a rubber suit.
I don’t know why your descriptions have not been posted here. Obviously you are able to post messages. But you’ve been asked in this post, as well as others, to describe your encounter. You still can, and we will look at it, and give it the same level of scrutiny we have given everyone else. Just because you cannot say what you saw does not mean that what you saw was ET.
Good luck.
August 21st, 2008 at 11:36 pm
@Michael Horn
You want proof that stars exist? Go outside at night when it’s not cloudy and look up. If all you see is you’re shoes, you’re probably looking down, so try twisting your head the opposite way. The stars are the twinkley pinpoints of lights set against a blackish background. You may also see a really large object that is either round or crescent shaped. Don’t panic! It’s probably just what close-minded elitist scientists refer to as the “moon”. It may look threatening, but it really poses very little danger outside of some coastal communities which it hates and tries to drown twice a day using its “moon force”.
Note: This is not eyewitness testimony, as you are actually seeing these wonders for yourself. If you run into any pesky star deniers who don’t believe your testimony on the existence of stars, just have them follow the same instructions I’ve given you.
Now please remind us again how we can prove that E.T. spaceships exist?
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:34 am
A few points, Greg is immediately glossing over the actual point that I made, i.e. that it was Dr. Phil’s criteria for testable evidence that was being addressed, and that was being shown to be quite lacking. He wanted something tangible, not theoretical. And while you can say that the existence of stars can be “proved” through these various measurements, we still don’t really KNOW what they are. They are still intangible to us. For all we know behind some (all?) stars is some invisible generator of pulsed light, etc. that creates
the image of what we call a star.
Do I believe that to be true? No. But I certainly don’t KNOW exactly what a star is, or that it actually is what we currently think it is, or they are.
And certainly for people who confidently dismiss eyewitness testimony, to say that “seeing it with our own eyes” means anything is for you to contradict your already erroneous statement about eyewitness testimony, one that you’d, hypocritically, like to employ to suit your own purpose.
But the real problem is in the area of the assumptions made by Greg and others that are carelessly and erroneously expressed as facts. Such statements include:
1. None of Meier’s claims can be tested.
2. You have/there is no evidence.
3. Meier’s object have strings attached.
4. Meier set up a little hoax.
5. Meier used models, probably a crane and better pictures exist, etc.
1. Of course Meier’s claims can be tested, it’s only because you’ve obviously been both too lazy and prejudiced to deign to do so, which is your loss, not mine. For instance, we know and can PROVE (legally) that Meier published specific, accurate information long before “official” discovery. Everything from the Mars information, two planets beyond Pluto, 5,100 year-old man, Io being the most volcanically active body in the solar system, ionized ring of Jupiter (I of course still include this one because the example dismissively offered by Phil was indeed so obscure that it wasn’t even available on the internet in 2005 when I did my research on it), to the Russia-Georgia scenario, etc. is documented, again to a legal standard.
As I said, since these items were in published, dated, copyrighted documents and books prior to discovery or public knowledge, and because there are so many of them in a wide variety of different fields, we are dealing with things far beyond mere chance. An INTELLIGENT, objective person would be quite interested in this and, utilizing the scientific method, they will be able to do exactly what I’ve done, i.e. take any given item and do an internet search to see if it happened, when it happened, what the details were and what the earliest known publication of the information was.
Since Meier is often not only years but decades in advance of the event’s occurrence, it will therefore require that a curious person finds a way to calculate the probabilities involved in not only each but all of the items being accurately foretold (should they discover that it’s true regarding his advance knowledge/publication).
The actual – not imagined, as is so popular here – circumstances of the man’s educational, technological, financial and time (work, family, etc.) resources – and limitations – would have to be determined. Fortunately, this has been done by the investigators and is available in the 1,300 pages of the investigation reports. And isn’t it a funny thing that this evidence CAN be held in one’s hands and tested, as I and others have done and continue to do? (Isn’t it even funnier that the skeptics here have more in common with the church that wouldn’t look through the telescope than they do with Galileo himself??
Trying to refute all of that (and more you certainly know nothing about) when one is completely ignorant of the facts of a case that has gone on for 66 years, and withstood every skeptical challenge, merely indicates inexperience, ineptitude and a very biased state of mind. Read the material, all of it, and then get back to me with your expert opinions.
2. That isn’t what the scientists and experts who tested Meier’s evidence, or the investigators who examined it, determined. Obviously, when an astrophysicist like David Froning (who, I suggest probably knows, gosh, almost as much about the scientific method as anyone here) states his opinion about the value to him and other scientists of Meier’s information and that Meier is obviously being provided that information by “very knowledgeable” people, it simply shows that your position is plainly ignorant of the facts, even though you’d like to broad brush it and make it all go away.
And please don’t be so amateurish and illogical to try to use the “appealing to authority” nonsense when your own pronouncements on how we know what we know about stars relies on the technologies and efforts of…experts. You’re real lucky though because you can be your own experts simply by doing the necessary work.
3. Regarding Meier’s objects having strings attached, this ONLY shows (again) that you’ve done no actual research but instead relied on a proven liar, Kal Korff, for your erroneous information. As I had the good fortune to meet the man that Korff enlisted in trying to falsify Meier’s photos (story on my site) I know that you’re parroting information that is inaccurate and unsubstantiated. And this from a guy who carries on about the…scientific method? Would YOU like to show us these strings? I didn’t think so. So why the gratuitous defamation? I know, so I’ll have something to write about, thanks.
4. Again, a defamatory statement as if it is fact. But what do you care? This is an internet forum, so there’s absolutely no personal ethics, resposibility or intellectual honesty required, and you’ve got no other way to claim expertise or fame so…defame someone, in your nice little anonymous way.
5. Regarding the models, etc. really, after a very devoted skeptic takes several months to make his best efforts at duplicating Meier’s UFO films, and fails, you’re STILL trying to float that? And that after ALL the rest of the skeptical challenges also failed, were retracted, etc.? Really, why the dishonesty, why the nonsense even trying to suggest that a one-armed man lugs a CRANE around the Swiss countryside and no one notices, is it really because you want me to exercise my patience and practice tap dancing on ignorant heads? Now don’t get bent out of shape, I know where I am, I know the kind of “thinking” that goes on here and I really wonder just what the skeptics (are there STILL any after all that’s transpired recently?) would do when it becomes INESCAPABLE to have to admit that Meier is authentic.
To answer the predictable challenge, as I say in the film, I’d just want to know how he did it.
And nothing personal but no one here is qualified to test anything. Except of course an abundance of evidence that is, and has been freely available and right under your noses, as pointed out above.
As mentioned before, eyewitness testimony is not so reliable in terms of a single event but in repeated events, witnessed by sufficient numbers of people, you have to admit that…unless you want to annihilate your own argument above pertaining to stars!
Okay, I admit it, I can’t resist working out my excess energy and cantankerousness here in this dark little corner of the internet. With four more screenings of the film coming up, and Q&As with each, why shouldn’t I practice a bit.
Don’t give up your day jobs though, there are no other skeptics left to tussle around with.
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:14 am
@Michael Horn
I seriously cannot believe you’re going to make me dumb this down even more for you. I’m not sure if it’s possible, but I’ll give it a go.
Say I enter a room and see an apple sitting on a table. The fact that I can see the apple does not make this eyewitness testimony. I can take a picture of the apple, and that is not eyewitness testimony either.
Now, say I leave the room and tell you about the apple. What I’ve just told you is eyewitness testimony. You might question my eyewitness testimony. Maybe you think I’m a liar. Maybe you remember that fruit identification gaffe I had back in ‘86. Whatever your reason, you’re well within your rights to ask me for some evidence to back up my claim.
One thing I could do is show you the photo of the apple. That’s evidence. But of course it could be faked (see: Billy Meier). The other thing I can do is take you in the room so you can see the apple for yourself. Now you no longer only have my eyewitness testimony to prove the existence of the apple.
Do you understand yet? Eyewitness testimony is only when someone tells you what they saw. If you’ve seen something yourself, that’s not eyewitness testimony.
Of course I’m not an English teacher, so I’m probably not qualified to explain this to you. My mother is though, so let me know if you want me to run this by her.
August 22nd, 2008 at 7:53 am
Michael Horn says, “Blah, blah, blah… Personal attacks… Avoiding direct questions… Blah, blah, blah.”
*yawn*
You still didn’t answer my questions. You still don’t provide any new evidence that hasn’t been blasted here a dozen times.
Meier’s claims cannot be tested by any one here because we don’t have the negatives, or access to the original films. The photographic fakery on your website is not evidence.
His published information has been shown to be incorrect, and to match almost word for word articles from real newspapers and magazines. And there’s still no answer to the questions we’ve asked about that.
And please, stop harping on the fact he was a one-armed farmer unable to do anything secretly. That is the perfect reason to doubt what you claim. If nobody was around to see these UFOs, then nobody was around to see his crane, or ladder, or anything else he used to stage his photographs. Its almost brilliant. Who would think that a poor, one-armed farmer living in a sparsely populated countryside would have the time, or the secluded areas to fabricate such an elaborate hoax?
Well, I for one think he had plenty of opportunities to do that. I bet there were places he could setup for hours, if not days, with no witnesses except a cow.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:21 am
Oh, and I forgot to mention, after the personal attacks and name calling, what Mr. Horn is left with is arguing semantics. Do we now have to discus what the meaning of the word “is” is?
If only he had real evidence that could stand on its own. Some bits of metal, perhaps?
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:09 am
@ Greg in Austin
“But you’ve been asked in this post, as well as others, to describe your encounter. You still can, and we will look at it, and give it the same level of scrutiny we have given everyone else. Just because you cannot say what you saw does not mean that what you saw was ET.”
Check the message from August 11th, 2008 at 12:07 am for the description, it’s there now, and took a number of days to actually appear after I wrote it. You may have missed it, there’s over a 1000 comments now so that’s likely. And I agree I cannot say it was ET, but I can say it’s remarkably similar to many other reports whether they are accurate or not. I can hypothesize what it was as I have done in the description.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:25 am
Not a real strong reply there, Greg.
People’s lives have depended on little things like notes, letters – WRITTEN evidence. And the fact is that Meier’s physical evidence remains irreproducible. If anything, it’s the attacks against everyone involved in the Meier case and its research, by skeptics who clearly know NOTHING about it, that is the real offense.
The point is, and it isn’t a “personal attack” from me, that dismissal and ignorance of what constitutes evidence is rampant from the skeptical side. It’s why what Prof. Phil said about tangible evidence is an easy target and got everyone here to go off on a tangent, suddenly changing the “semantics”, selectively endorsing “eyewitness testimony”, etc..
He said what he said and I properly addressed it.
So, to again be plain and clear, there’s tons of evidence in the Meier case – hidden in plain sight – and only accessible to those who free their minds of prejudice…without suspending their rational, critical thinking abilities.
If you truly want to discover it, evaluate and argue it, that’s fine. But to make blanket, uninformed statements, rely on internet rumors and deliberate disinformation, etc. is no way to go about it.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 am
@John,
I read your description, and at least you sound like you were really observing for some time, not just walked outside, saw something for 5 minutes then gave up and claimed it must be ET.
That being said, have you ever seen fire balloons, or homemade hot air balloons made with candles and plastic bags? They are small, bright, and can float for a long time. Since you did not say at what distance these objects were, its nearly impossible to say if they were large crafts far away, or small lights close by. But your description of the lights moving, possibly with the wind at currents, sounds just like these candle balloons. And when they burn up, there could be wisps of smoke, like you said.
Check out kickthefog.com /ufo.htm or google fire balloons.
I’m not saying this is what you saw, I’m just asking you if this is a possible explanation?
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:43 am
@ Greg in Austin
“To put it simply, the main reason why skeptics demand evidence is that people lie. They create hoaxes for fun and for attention.”
Well done for pointing out this obvious fact. I completely agree with you that around 90% of reported sightings are easily explainable or hoaxes or exagerrations etc. Just because some people lie does not mean everyone lies, in a similar way that just because some people are nasty (e.g. Russian Kremlin, Nazis, Saddam Hussein, Al Qaeda, Iranian Mullahs etc), does not make everyone nasty. There are those who are good people in the same sense there are those who are reporting exactly what their eyes saw.
When you said that it basically proved many of my previous posts about sceptics. Trying to be clever and telling me about hoaxes in way which implies that we all produce these hoaxes which are on a ridiculous scale as the bigfoot hoax, and is simply not true. Am I to assume you are a bad person since quite a lot of people on this planet treat each other like garbage, in the same way that you may assume all sightings are lies or hoaxes. To think of humanity of being such a failure in that way is akin to assuming someone you meet for the first time is a criminal, and living in absolute fear of what the bad people may do. But since you wouldn’t live like that as you know that it’s non-productive, the ridiculous expectations of all witnesses being loony, hoaxers or liars also unproductive.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:55 am
No, Mr. Horn,
“And the fact is that Meier’s physical evidence remains irreproducible.”
Meier’s physical evidence is nonexistent. Apart from the metal fragments, which cannot be found, none of his information is evidence. His photographs have been debunked over and over again. His wife testified that she saw his models. Investigators reported seeing photos of models on a table. Hundreds of people have reproduced the same effects with models in photos and on film. His “predictions” have been documented to have been available before he wrote them. All of that information has been debunked. Just because you refuse to accept the fact that his UFO photos HAVE been reproduced many times is not our concern.
You were the one who mistakenly tried to distract us from your own lack of evidence by questioning the existence of stars. It was you who started that tangent of conversation.
It is because of our rational, scientific thinking abilities (which you admit you have no training in) that we question everything you have said.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:57 am
@ Greg in Austin
“That being said, have you ever seen fire balloons, or homemade hot air balloons made with candles and plastic bags? They are small, bright, and can float for a long time. Since you did not say at what distance these objects were, its nearly impossible to say if they were large crafts far away, or small lights close by. But your description of the lights moving, possibly with the wind at currents, sounds just like these candle balloons. And when they burn up, there could be wisps of smoke, like you said.”
I’ve seen videos of those kind of balloons. What I saw was unlike the behaviour of balloons. I didn’t give a distance as it would only be a guess, but I would probably guess that it was very high. These lights moved much faster than it would be possible for a balloon to move, it was literally a second or two for them to swap places in the sky which happened several times. For them to move off in unison at a quick rate was also unlike the characteristics of balloons.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:23 am
@John,
I don’t recall calling anyone here a liar, but let me know if I did. I also never said that everyone here claiming they saw something is producing a hoax.
What I did say is that we have hundreds, if not thousands, of documented examples of people perpetrating a hoax, for the fun of it, as a joke, for the fame, or just because they can. (And I noted the most recent example.) In areas such as UFOs, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Aliens, Ghosts, Fairies, Leprechauns, the Abominable Snowman, and the like, there has never been repeatable, testable, independently verifiable, or otherwise tangible evidence.
That is why we have to question anyone and everyone who makes these fantastic claims.
If one astronomer says he saw a city of moon people in the crater of Tycho while looking through a telescope, but nobody else can see it, then we have no reason to believe him. However, if thousands of astronomers claim they see a city on the moon, and we can verify it with multiple, independent sources, and I can break out my telescope and see it for myself, then we can call it a fact.
I say its more like 99.999% of the claims have been either false, or there was not enough data to prove or disprove it. What else should we say? I saw something. I don’t know what it was. I have no evidence. It could have been ET. It could have been Santa zipping thru the sky on a holiday. But, most likely, based on all previous accounts, data, and documentation, it was something man-made. Unless someone has real evidence to show otherwise.
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:01 am
G: Meier’s physical evidence is nonexistent.
MH: For the two or three people who read this site, you’re incorrect. The sound recordings are physical evidence, a sample of them can be freely downloaded from my site and we’re going to issue a CD of about 25 minutes of them. They remain irreproducible with the technology available to Meier; a reading of the easily accessible analysis at my site will inform you better, not that I expect that you wish to be better informed.
G: Apart from the metal fragments, which cannot be found, none of his information is evidence.
MH: Maybe, hopefully, a miraculous realization regarding your own lack of understanding will not only occur but spread to similarly uninformed people.
A brief definition of legal evidence: “EVIDENCE – In law, various things presented in court for the purpose of proving or disproving a question under inquiry. Includes testimony, documents, photographs, maps and video tapes.”
A brief definition of scientific evidence: “Evidence presented in court that is produced from scientific tests or studies.
“Scientific evidence is evidence culled from a scientific procedure that helps the trier of fact understand evidence or determine facts at issue in a judicial proceeding. Under rule 702 of the FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE and similar state court rules of evidence, ‘a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education’ may testify and offer opinions in court if ‘scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.’
By both definitions, Meier has plenty of evidence. What bothers you is the fact that, for some unknown and possibly unfair reason (life is like that) YOU weren’t involved in either the original investigation (which involved various qualified experts in several fields) and your entrenched beliefs, as well as unfounded overestimation of your own qualifications and abilities, are at odds withe established facts in the case.
Please refrain from the “no evidence” argument since it’s erroneous.
G: His photographs have been debunked over and over again.
MH: By whom, pray tell? How do you KNOW this? The fact that you never substantiate your claims and simply parrot internet nonsense is not only typical of the skeptics but shows how biased and unscientific they are. That’s UNscientific, to be clear.
G: His wife testified that she saw his models.
MH: One of the dangers of repeating things like this is that it exposes your ignorance. The fact of the mater is that his ex-wife passed a lie detector test attesting to his honesty. She is on video record of supporting his claims (and those of some 16 other first hand witnesses of REPEATED events). Their sons support Meier’s claims…and are witnesses themselves from an early age. Lastly, believe it or not, it’s not uncommon for people who have acrimonious divorces to get a little…ticked off at each other. Hard as it may be for you to understand, some have even been known to…lie about their ex-mate.
G: Investigators reported seeing photos of models on a table.
MH: Okay, I get it now. I’m simply dealing with another amateur and taking it just a wee bit too seriously, even for amusement’s sake. Listen carefully, Meier was given a model by friends. He kept it in full view. He also tried to make one but it sucked. So the INVESTIGATORS went to the trouble of having special effects expert Wally Gentleman (Kubrick’s 2001) make TWO models at MGM studios. We show them in our film.
G: Hundreds of people have reproduced the same effects with models in photos and on film.
MH: “Effects” is the trick word that CFI-West/IIG tried to hide behind when they couldn’t actually duplicate Meier’s photos or films. Similar “effects”, i.e. an object flying n the sky, can be seen in lots of sci-fi films but they pale in comparison to Meier’s. The most energetic of the skeptics to try to duplicate Meier’s films admitted his failure. Derek Bartholomaus of IIG retracted his foundational claim about model trees and model UFOs. Is there something else that you’d like to add that no one knows about?
G: His “predictions” have been documented to have been available before he wrote them. All of that information has been debunked.
MH: You suffer from ADD, clearly. What part of “information in dated, copyrighted, published documents and books before ‘official’ discovery” don’t you understand? None of it has been debunked. Please provide proof that it has. Our dated, copyrighted, published books trump your ignorance, pardon me for having to inform you of how that works.
G: Just because you refuse to accept the fact that his UFO photos HAVE been reproduced many times is not our concern.
MH: Are all the skeptics on this site this goofy or has this guy cornered the market? Okay, I’ll play along. Er, first the word is duplicated and, second…please post, link or refer to them. Please, okay, not too much to ask, etc.?
G: You were the one who mistakenly tried to distract us from your own lack of evidence by questioning the existence of stars. It was you who started that tangent of conversation.
MH: “Tried to distract”? Oh, you mean by simply reproducing Herr Phil’s quote that…you, yourself then quoted! And then my shredding it with an obvious, yet entirely accurate, argument.
G: It is because of our rational, scientific thinking abilities (which you admit you have no training in) that we question everything you have said.
MH: I know that any intelligent person reading this thread will wonder WHY I even bother when the world at large is now slowly coming to terms with the amazing Meier case. And I do have to wonder myself. The obvious “answer” to the last silly statement is this: Obviously, your implied “training” didn’t result in producing a mind that was fully capable and qualified to use its education properly. Equally obviously, the facts in the Meier case, which are plainly discoverable, even to someone who demonstrates only marginal understanding and thinking and researching abilities such as you do, remain consistent and span nearly six decades.
Back to school, pal.
August 22nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Youtube.
“fake ufo” video results 1 – 20 of about 1,850
These look way better than Meier’s, and they are known fakes.
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
@Michael Horn
G: His photographs have been debunked over and over again.
MH: By whom, pray tell? How do you KNOW this? The fact that you never substantiate your claims and simply parrot internet nonsense is not only typical of the skeptics but shows how biased and unscientific they are. That’s UNscientific, to be clear.
I think I proved that at least one of the photos is a fake, but you ignored my post. I’ll try again. Click on my name to see a blowup of one of the wedding cake UFO photos. My comments with links are not even getting into moderation, so hopefully adding the link in the website text box will work. If it doesn’t, I’ll try something else.
Anyway, one of the images has the colors inverted. The other image has the edges highlighted. I think it can be clearly seen that the order of the objects from near to far goes car, tree, and then spaceship. If this is the case, then the photograph is a fake. Why? Because the car is in focus, the tree is out of focus, and the spaceship is in focus. The order of the objects and the focus of the objects contradict each other. It’s impossible for both of these things to be true without it being a composite of at least 2 images.
I’ll try one of your arguments now. If you want to prove this photo isn’t a fake, take a single picture with three overlapping objects where the order of the objects and the focus of the objects aren’t in sync with each other. That shouldn’t be too difficult for a man of your stature.
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Hey all,
Adding a link to the website box works. So if you want a post with a link in it to appear immediately, you can do that.
August 22nd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Hey, Michael Horn is back. I thought he left? Or was he lying *again*?
Anyway, he keeps digging the hole deeper. Here’s a really good one:
“G: His “predictions” have been documented to have been available before he wrote them. All of that information has been debunked.
MH: You suffer from ADD, clearly. What part of “information in dated, copyrighted, published documents and books before ‘official’ discovery” don’t you understand? None of it has been debunked. Please provide proof that it has. Our dated, copyrighted, published books trump your ignorance, pardon me for having to inform you of how that works.”
Really, now this one is too easy. In fact, a recent *new* link on MH’s own website proves the lie.
w w w.theyfly.com/newsflash94/Meier_Warned_About_Russia_Georgia.pdf
The above URL purports to prove that Billy predicted the recent Russia-Georgia conflict way back in 1991.
Nice try. Billy doesn’t mention Russia or Georgia in the whole prediction. Instead, he leans on events that had already happened between the fall of the Berlin Wall and 1991. Any reasonably intelligent person with a high-school education could have predicted the below:
“According to Ptaah’s statements, more or less serious setbacks are also expected in the
freedom efforts of the now-dissolved Eastern Block countries. A great deal of what has
already been accomplished will most likely be destroyed. With great probability, everywhere in those regions where the population is not yet mature enough to sustain their newly won freedom, the people will behave so irrationally that their governments will be left with no alternative but to tighten the reigns again and take unpopular actions. Joined with this are the completely *unlawful interferences and covert influences by western nations and their secret services. Altogether, these can lead to bloody conflicts, causing a chain reaction, which finally brings on the outbreak of a global war. So the danger of World War III is, unfortunately, by no means prevented.”
I would note that Billy “predicted” trouble in the former East Block nations in 1991, AFTER there had already been problems with the newly freed nations. Such as the economic problems that followed the reunification of Germany, the recessions in Poland, the splitting of Czechoslovakia (which started in 1990 with the renaming of the country and Parliamentary actions intended to create separate entities).
In fact, many people in 1989 predicted problems for Eastern Europe after the wall fell. Billy didn’t need an alien to help, he just needed to read the paper.
And there’s lots of other predictions that seem to be based on knowledge current at the time of the prediction. Like Billy saying Jupiter only has 17 moons. Yeah, 17 moons in 1978. But 63 today. Ooops. Might wanna go back and edit that “prediction”.
Lots of other fun things that Michael refuses to answer. Here’s a few:
Garbage can lids painted silver or gold and passed off as the “wedding cake” ship. Why exactly would a spaceship have a handle just like a garbage can lid Michael?
Pictures of Dean Martin TV show dancers passed off as Plejarans. Why did Billy attempt such an obvious fraud?
Billy supposedly travels in time and takes pictures of various things. Like a really cool looking pterosaur – too bad it came from a book published before he produced the picture.
I doubt Michael will answer any of the above honestly. He has no intellectual honesty at all and has lied so many times it no longer matters what his answers are.
August 22nd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Are you frustrated that your questions about the Billy Meier case don’t seem to be answered to your satisfaction?
Would you like to personally interrogate Michael Horn and get him to admit that he’s a Communist pinko disinfo agent?
Are you tired of being deducted by extratorrentials when you’re just about to dose off for some much needed sleep?
Well, if you’ve answered yes to any of these questions – you’re in luck!
That’s right, now you can be among the first people to take a crack at getting the definitive, much needed information that YOU so desperately want.
Just tune in this Sunday, August whatever, at 7:25 PM (PST) to www. UFOTV. com
for UFONAUT “LIVE Internet Radio” and ask our guest, the inimitable, warm and friendly Michael Horn, the pressing questions that YOU want answered. Call in…it’s the next best thing to water-boarding!
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
“Would you like to personally interrogate Michael Horn and get him to admit that he’s a Communist pinko disinfo agent?”
Not particularly. Michael doesn’t strike me as intelligent enough to get the job done.
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:16 pm
I’m in! I can’t wait for you to lie, avoid answering questions, and insult me live! Thanks for the heads up!
August 22nd, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Ray,
What’s wrong with you? Clearly you were too lazy, to read through Mr. Horn’s impressive list of qualifications.
August 22nd, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Yeah, I got kinda busy looking up a few of Billy’s “predictions” and never got around to reading Michael’s self-masturbatory resume.
So I went to his site a minute ago and read his “qualifications”. Ever notice that the longer the list of pseudo accomplishments the more of a blowhard the individual is?
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I’ve refrained from getting back into this discussion with the deplorable Michael Horn, and his last post gives me all the re-inforcement I need to remind myself why he is to be simply ignored. Ray challenged him to provide answers to the myriad of lies, misdirections, and inconsistencies with Meier’s claims over the years, and you can see above the great lengths Mr. Horn goes to, to evade the questions and skirt the issue, using personal attacks and insults as if we will simply forget that some serious questions about Mr. Meier’s credibility are out there, unanswered. Tell me again how, based on the examples Ray gave you, this guy is any different from the bigfoot scam losers of last week?
No… you won’t answer that one either. I will not call in to your disgusting publicity craving internet talk show, nor would I encourage anyone else here to do so. Giving you a platform to speak and a reason to do so is simply a means of boosting your own agenda, and I’m not interested.
You’ve been exposed here, many times over, Mr. Horn. Just go away and peddle your nonsense elsewhere.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Wow. Go on vacation with sporadic internet access and miss so many posts.
“What part of “information in dated, copyrighted, published documents and books before ‘official’ discovery” don’t you understand?”
Michael, it may be a surprise to you, but information and speculation about new discoveries is often around a fair bit of time before the “official” announcement. Because we, here, cannot directly confirm what, if any, sources Meier may have had for his predictions, your claim above holds little weight. All you are giving us to go on is second-hand information. We cannot confirm the accuracy of that information, because we do not have access to the original source data, such as talking with Meier himself.
And really, that’s the problem with everything you are providing us. It’s all, at best, second-hand. That’s the difference between Meier’s claims and your star analogy. Sure, with the stars, I, personally, cannot confirm that they are indeed fiery balls of gas, rather than galactic spotlights, but at least I can make observations of the stars themselves. Thus far, you have not offered any source evidence that I, or anyone else on here, can evaluate. Again, it’s all second-hand, rather than direct evidence. Where are the complete negative rolls of the photos he took? Where is the metal fragment?
Regarding Meier’s supposed prophecies, again, they were made without any manner of scientific controls to prevent fraud or bias. We don’t have access to the original prophecies in their pre-published form. We don’t have access to direct, as opposed to second-hand information, about potential sources of information. You seem to have conveniently dropped the ice-covered Europa prophecy from your list after we showed that the information had been around for more than a decade before his pronouncement.
You put forth “expert” opinion on one of the videos, one of whom has already been shown to be a programmer, rather than a model-making expert. Yet, even if that statement was made by people who specialize in filming model effects, their statement was not that the video was definitely an alien craft, nor that it was definitely impossible to fake, nor even, as you interpreted, that the “experts” would need CGI to duplicate it. Instead, their statement was that it would be difficult to fake and that they could do it with CGI. That, Mr. Horn, is not evidence that it is an alien craft.
And that keeps happening with everything you present. At best, Meier has photos of something, but you have yet to provide anything that definitively proves that those somethings are aliens.
So, here’s a challenge to you, Mr. Horn. Provide us with a straight answer, free of personal attacks or condescending tones, in which you provide us with a direct link to specific data that conclusively proves, without any shadow of a doubt, that anything Meier says is alien actually is alien.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Let’s start with just a wee bit of logic, shall we?
Do any of you have access to ALL of the authors of ALL scientific, historical and other information that YOU’VE studied )and based much of your own beliefs on) so that you can…”talk to them”? If you can’t talk to them personally, perhaps because of little inconveniences like their being dead, do you not study and research their material, do you dismiss, ignore or attempt to discredit because…you cna’t “talk to them”?
I refer to quite a bit of information PUBLISHED years, even decades before the events occurred.
This information was published in…books. With copyright dates (keeping in mind that the information was first published in transcript form from which the books were made, in days in which it took a significant amount of time to convert texts into books).
Such books include Message from the Pleiades Vols. 1-4 and And Still They Fly, all available at www. theyfly. com
Earlier editions such as Und Sie Fliegen Doch, was published in German in 1991 and And Yet They Fly, published in English in 2001.
Please refer to the definitions of evidence above.
As far as the expert owners from UC, both have been involved in everything from model making to CGI. Please, their company won an Academy Award for their work.
Do you really, I mean REALLY think that a farmer in rural Switzerland is just…tricking everybody, you included, for some 58 years? L0gically, do you really want to credit him with ALL of the necessary skills and abilities, as well as the time, resources, etc. – and all that just so he can entertain some armchair experts who demonstrate, time and again, that they are unable or unwilling to THINK comprehensively…and to put THEIR theories to the test?
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:45 pm
@Michael Horn
Answer the questions.
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:48 pm
@Michael Horn
“As far as the expert owners from UC, both have been involved in everything from model making to CGI. Please, their company won an Academy Award for their work.”
Again, their conclusion was not that it was aliens, nor was it that it was absolutely impossible to fake. How many times must we point this out to you?
August 22nd, 2008 at 9:57 pm
Quote from Michael Horn’s website
“especially now with the fulfillment of Meier’s prescient foretelling of the disastrous U.S. war with Iraq, and other events – that he published in 1958!”
Has he predicted anything coming up soon, or are all his predictions things which are now in the past. How complete was his prediction of the Iraq war, or rather how vague was it? Do you have any actual documents which were printed in 1958 – could you link to this please!
Since you claim he spoke to aliens did he ask how the future can be predicted? Is it possible even to predict any event, even small events? Surely predicting the future is just a guess, as there’s no way anyone could know what decisions someone is to make for sure. If for every decision a parallel universe exists you could predict the future since there’s an infinite number of universes, but you are not necessarily predicting the future of our universe.
If these guesses are vague without dates, then surely they may eventually come true. That is not future-telling it’s just predicting a likely event to happen soon. For example many people seem to think they’ve predicted World War 3 just because a conflict with Iran has been suggested for 5 years, presuming this does occur sometime. Conveniently they keep changing the start date of this, I wonder when the world doesn”t end in 2012 how they will explain this and probably revise it up to 2015, with some excuse.
Similarly conflict between Russia and Georgia, and now maybe Ukraine in the nearby future was predicted by intelligence agencies as a high possibility. That’s just making an educated guess. If I were to predict Russia turning off the gas to Ukraine in the coming months and then invade Crimea under the pretence of peace-keeping to protect Russian citizens from goverment persecution, when in fact Russia is arming the Crimeans to fight Ukranian people. If this came to pass, would anyone call me a prophet, or just someone who keeps up to date with the news and global politics.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:04 pm
“Do you really, I mean REALLY think that a farmer in rural Switzerland is just…tricking everybody, you included, for some 58 years?”
Nah he’s just tricking you mate. Sorry I couldn’t resist that one.
August 22nd, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Since you’re an expert on Billy Meier can you tell us why some aliens chose to give this information about the future to a farmer from Switzerland. Did they expect this to reach the whole world as some kind of realisation or were they just telling one person so they could laugh at him after the rest of the world didn’t believe him and his tin-foil looking photos. For each possibility there is no point at all in aliens doing this, or they’ve failed to achieve their goal. If aliens know humanity is about to almost destroy itself why don’t they intervene, or just show themselves in the sky. The communists would soon forget about global domination when they see that. Do these aliens you refer to actually respect human life (even communists), as it seems if they’re willing to let us nuke ourselves to oblivion, and they don’t have the same values that good human beings have, as they’d save those people, if they did have those values.
Quote from wikipedia on Billy Meier
“Billy Meier has repeatedly warned of an impending Third World War beginning in November 2006, 2008, 2010, or 2011. He has also denounced the terroristic activities and vigilante behaviours of various Muslim extremist groups, which he says only foments the possibility for war. At one time, Meier reported November, 2006 as the most likely start of World War III. This has since been revised to November 2008. In any case, Meier states that in an upcoming year, four world leaders will die within seven days of one another as a sign that within merely 2 years of these events the long-feared world war will indeed erupt, unless terrestrials finally gain mastery over their reasoning to stop all these ills. He states that these are all prophecies, however, and subject to change, as opposed to set-in-stone predictions.”
That’s so funny as I just described this behaviour in a recent previous post. Anybody can say things like this. It’s just making an educated guess, which always requires revisons and changes to be made.
August 22nd, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Actually, I think these questions above are definitely worth exploring.
Regarding UC, consider what they said, i.e. that it would be “very hard, probably even impossible to fake.” Consider that Derek Bartholomaus has backed away from the model premise. Consider that Tony Wharton gave it his best efforts and admitted he couldn’t do it.
And since no one else has in 44 years, it’s reasonable to say that the model theory is dead. Obviously the CGI theory is out of the question. So, at the very least we have, what? We have UNIDENTIFIED OBJECTS that are…FLYING. So, in the Meier case, we do have UFOs.
Alright, I AGREE, that doesn’t automatically make them of alien origin. What are the other possibilities? The ones that come to mind are that the objects, the UFOs, are the product of some terrestrial parties (governmental, black ops, secret services, etc.). The questions that then come to mind are, who could those parties be and has ANY party CLAIMED (let alone proved) that they are the source of these objects?
So far, we don’t have any evidence that they are of earthly origin and, to the best of my knowledge, no one has claimed to have produced them, nor proved it, of course.
How then are we to deduce their actual origin and ownership?
Well, we have other interesting physical evidence, several categories actually, none of which has been shown to be reproducible, and all from the same man. But the most interesting (to me) of the evidence is the information, such as we are debating here.
I’ll post another response to the questions John raised, which also deal with this evidence, as soon as possible.
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:59 am
To answer the questions regarding Meier’s predictions, I’ll clarify a few things that will be useful to know in evaluating Meier’s accuracy, etc.
First, I use the term “prophetically accurate” simply to state that Meier published specific information about something before the event occurred (sometimes decades before, as I’ve mentioned). Now, in some cases, either Meier or the Plejaren gave specific prophecies (events LIKELY to occur based on the law of cause and effect, should we not correct them in time) and predictions, events that they say will happen with 100% certainty.
In other cases, the information was told to Meier conversationally, along with other information not necessarily foretelling a special event, discovery, etc. It was this information that first caught my attention and caused me to start to do internet searches on literally dozens of specific things that they told him – conversationally – that either hadn’t yet occurred or hadn’t been discovered when he published it. If you go to the Prophecies link on my site you’ll see a number of them itemized, right before the start of the Henoch Prophecies.
The reason I started to look into this was that I had read an article, in 1988, about a new discovery by Lawrence Livermore Labs connecting A-bomb testing to the ozone damage. The problem was that the information WASN’T new to me at all, I had read it in 1986 in the first 1,800 pages of the Contact Notes. These transcripts covered a period roughly from 1975 – 1978.
So when I wondered how I could already know the details of a new discovery from a prominent laboratory, the thought popped into my mind to look in the Meier material, which is where I found it. But there was one other problem, Meier mentioned (in the 1975 or 1976 transcript) first being told about the ozone damage in 1951. Well, in both his 1951 and 1958 letters he does indeed mention this, as well as many other things that you can read for yourselves. Many haven’t happened…yet. Maybe they never will but if you start to see certain specific things occurring – that no one else indeed had specifically predicted – it might cause you to rethink the whole matter.
But that was just the beginning of the corroboration of his information for me. Within the next couple of years, as you will see in those items I’ve referred you to in the Prophecies section, more was confirmed, including the connection between the extraction of oil/natural gas and earthquakes and volcanic activity.
When you read Meier’s own prediciton regarding the Iraq War(s) in the 1958 letter, you’ll see that he was quite specific, right down to who the president would be…and what the, perhaps yet to occur, result will be, though some already see the war as a complete disaster. Since the government has a complete blackout on the actual news and photo/film reports of the war, it’s certain that the horror and brutality of it is being kept from the sleepy masses for a good reason, such as they learned from the Vietnam war.
Actually, the two recent Mars discoveries, both alluded to in the same paragraph published by Meier in 1976, are other good examples. So is the Russia-Georgia SCENARIO, as I deliberately titled it. A rereading of what was said there should prove interesting to a thoughtful person, specifically key words and phrases that I emphasized in my article. What those who are quick to try to point to as a generalization – still a rather curious subject for a farmer to be writing about in 1989 (when he first published the transcript, two years before Moosbrugger included it in his book) – they gloss over the lack of the following being talked about at that time, “Joined with this are the completely unlawful interferences and covert influences by western nations and their secret services”. There is now ample information about the presence of U.S., Israeli and NATO personnel being involved in the attack, which was indeed first launched by Georgia, not Russia.
And again, not only is it curious that a farmer published this (and everything else that he has) but that neither you, nor I nor anyone we personally know published it, along with the rest of the volumes of Meier’s information.
When I have time I will answer the other questions that actually go to the heart of the matter and that will, for the thoughtful person, cause them to want to find out what IS in the Meier case, not just what they think SHOULD be there, or how htey think that they should be catered to to satisfy whatever curiosity they may have without doing any real thinking.
I will say this. This entire case, the information, purpose, etc. has been set up in a certain way to deliberately cause us to think, debate, disagree and do everything to determine the value of the contents on our own – without forcing us to believe anything. Obviously, if these people exist, if they are the ones behind the UFOs in Meier’s evidence, then they are sufficiently advanced to know something about us, our psychology, fears, etc. And, while they are demonstrably NOT perfect or all knowing, they are choosing to play the game by their rules. And those rules include absolutely NO direct interference or interaction with us…largely based on the well calculated understanding that we (as the collective of humanity) are not mature enough for such an interaction. They know with certainty (and not only from events of the distant past) that we would end up in chaos at this time, with massive panic, suicides, murders, as well as also massive, misplaced worship of them as gods, and also significant military attacks.
Since this in, in my opinion, to a great degree about our future survival, the question then about their seeming lack of compassion, etc. is best addressed taking into consideration the aforementioned reasons, as well as the plain facts that we, the people of earth, are RESPONSIBLE for the abysmal mess that we’ve made and immersed ourselves in…not them.
They know equally well that if someone comes along to “save us” from ourselves, the lessons not only won’t be learned, but a new, even more deadly, irrational religion will come out of it.
And the other hard lesson, that manifests right down to the micro level, even here, is that this thing about contact and what an alien race should do isn’t about what we “like”, think should happen or demand to be. It’s about the way it si and what WE are going to do with the information.
The Meier case is either authentic or it’s not. If it’s not, it raises as least as many questions as if it is. But one of the hugest obstacles is to be found in the individual’s often unconsciously held beliefs about just HOW something like this is SUPPOSED to occur. That’s what’s behind a lot of the attacks here. If that wasn’t the case there’d be a much more matter of fact process of examination of the information that would have been undertaken. Instead, the attacks, derision,etc., which started from people here, came out virtually right away.
But I would suggest that if it was any of you who first found this information nearly 30 years ago, and who decided to find out the truth about it – without prejudice and without suspending your own critical thinking – and who did everything you could at your own significant expense, including meeting all the principals, going to the places where the events occurred (and STILL occur) and then found that it all was completely consistent, totally lacking in self-contradiction, logical, accurate, etc. and etc. – you’d probably be as passionately involved in trying to open other people’s eyes as I am.
And who knows, maybe you’d be doing it in a more agreeable, less confrontational way than I do, at times.
The real issue now isn’t so much about the proof in this case (though I’ve made clear how ample I know it to be) it’s about the character, thinking processes, egos and attitudes of people who are certainly intelligent enough to be able to figure this “puzzle” out when the pieces are dropped on the table in front of them. And it’s also about thinking a moment before just attacking and considering that, as unlikely as it amy be from one’s CURRENT perspective, there is something going on that has been “gifted” to us, over a period of decades and by one man who HASN’T run around trying to prove his experiences to anyone, who HASN’T sought fame and fortune from it and who HAS endured some pretty hellish times to carry out his own, self-obligated mission in life, which is to make his experiences, evidence and information available to people can decide for themselves what value it has.
One option, should it not be someone’s cup of tea, is simply to ignore it. Another is to explore it. And, if one prefers to attack it, one should really familiarize themselves with the entire available body of work, which has been produced and gathered over so many decades BEFORE being too quick to draw conclusions.
August 23rd, 2008 at 6:38 am
“Do you really, I mean REALLY think that a farmer in rural Switzerland is just…tricking everybody, you included, for some 58 years?”
Well, he hasn’t tricked me. He’s a fraud and you know it.
We’ve asked questions that you have refused to answer and pointed out his “predictions” that were made after the fact or that were plain wrong.
You can continue to shill for Billy all you want. Those of us who are intellectually honest will continue to call you what you are. A LIAR.
And why are you still here?
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:52 am
@Michael Horn,
As we have told you here many times, you fail basic science. First of all, you start with an idea, then you search for data that supports your idea, and ignore anything that does not. That is Failure #1.
Secondly, you have not been able to convince anyone here that the objects in the photos are not models. You claim that they are not, but because you cannot prove that they are alien craft or anything else, the rest of your arguments for the pictures are bogus. That’s Failure #2.
Third, your hypothesis cannot be tested because the “experiments” are not repeatable. You say so yourself, “Well, we have other interesting physical evidence, several categories actually, none of which has been shown to be reproducible, and all from the same man. In order to validate your ideas scientifically, the data must be reproduced. The fact that one man’s information is non-repeatable does not make his claims amazing, it makes his claims scientifically worthless. That is Failure #3.
You don’t publish your conclusions in any peer-reviewed scientific journal or paper, which prevents any real scientist from even looking at you seriously, much less agreeing with your conclusions. That’s Failure #4.
If maybe you had some real scientific credentials, and had actually performed real scientific research, perhaps more scientifically minded individuals would take you seriously. And that’s the biggest problem you face when you post your ideas and opinions to a scientific blog. You will be called out on everything you say, and so far, its not looking good for you.
Let’s put it another way… You have a lot of information. Given that same information, most of us here come to completely different conclusions than you do. If what you claim was indeed reality, then we would all come to the same conclusions. Its that simple.
August 23rd, 2008 at 9:36 am
What up my homeskillets!! Just poppin’ back in to see if there had been any (quality) evidence posted over the last couple of weeks. Same ol’ bullshiite I see. Un-freakin-sat.
August 23rd, 2008 at 11:08 am
Greg,
I’m going to take the time to answer your, er, points but first a couple of suggestions for you.
1. I gather from reading your posts that you’re probably still in school somewhere and that it’s probably one that you pay to attend. I suggest that, at your earliest opportunity, you get a grown up to go with you and demand your money back from that institution of higher learning. It’s important that you don’t let them further mislead you into believing that you have gained or developed logical thinking abilities (let alone common sense) and certainly not to compound that deception by issuing you a piece of paper that would further your own illusion of having attained those abilities, or that you could misguidedly use to attempt to convince others of a level of intellectual competence that you don’t possess.
2. Learn useful phrases, such as, “Do you want fries with that?”
Now, for your “Failure #1″ notion. I have provided an abundance of varied, substantiated, factual evidence. It’s up to a thinking person to evaluate it and come to an informed, well thought out conclusion as to its validity and essential meaning, to the best of their abilities. While the implied standards in terms of thinking abilities may rule you out, trust that there are, and already have been, those who are up to the *task.
“Failure #2″, as you’ve put it, first presumes not only that you are in the position to speak for everyone here but that those who you presume to speak for are as illogical as you are. They may be but shouldn’t we let them demand to be recognized as such on their own? And would it be asking too much (as past evidence indicates is again, unfortunately, going to be the case) for you to actually present your own, SUBSTANTIATED argument for why you obviously still think that they ARE models?
Your “Failure #3″ is so mind-numbingly stupid that it truly is difficult to try to put the response to it in terms that you will understand. I will try nonetheless.
The skeptics said Meier’s UFO photos, films and video were “an easily duplicated hoax”…their words, not mine.
The skeptics accepted my challenge for them to duplicate one UFO photo and one UFO film.
They failed.
But by your convoluted and illogical distortion of the scientific method, by FAILING they proved that Meier’s evidence was a hoax. (Yes, that’s what you’re implying.)
Of course, you are conversely implying that had they succeeded in duplicating it, it would have validated the authenticity of his evidence since it would have been a “reproducible/repeatable experiment”.
While you’re mulling that over (and the scripted question about the fries, which I’m sure that you’ll master in time) allow me to point out that I’m pretty sure that we had an earthquake here a couple of weeks ago, though I can’t successfully repeat the experiment and produce the same extensive phenomena.
And, just so that it doesn’t go unmentioned, we’re not talking about one man’s “information” being “non-repeatable”, repeat it all you like. I think that what you’re attempting to say in your own uniquely quaint way, is one man’s “evidence”, the irreproducibility of which you have now redefined as invalidating it, against all logic and…common sense.
Addressing your “Failure #4″, allow my answer to first be in the form of a question. If the earthquake that we experienced here isn’t written about in a “peer-reviewed scientific journal or paper” (like 90%+ of the events that occurred on earth to date) does that mean it didn’t happen? Did Pluto exist BEFORE it was “discovered”? Take your time.
Part two of my answer to your little gem there shows that you’re not only capable of saying remarkably stupid things with great confidence, you’re STILL quite deliberately, ignorant of the aforementioned facts in the case and very qualified people who have reviewed them.
Example:
*David Froning: At the time, Dr. Froning had already spent 25 years as an astronautical engineer at McDonnell Douglas in highly classified military defense and, in 1979, became interested in Meier’s accounts of Plejaren starship travel, which mentioned tachyon propulsion.
Dr. Froning found Meier’s account of tachyon propulsion (which was only beginning to be discussed by a very small and select group of theoretical physicists), and his calculations for above light speed travel to be amazing. In 1983, he was pursuing his Quantum Interstellar Ramjet idea (JBIS vol. 33, no. 7, July
1980; AIAA 81-1533, July1981; IAF-85-492, October, 1985) and plugged in his Quantum Ramjet performance equations, assuming: a given starship density, vacuum energy conversion efficiency (in transforming positrons and electrons within the quantum vacuum into photons), and vacuum energy conversion scales of distance of the order of the Compton wavelength. The resulting vehicle acceleration enabled achievement of almost light speed in about 4.3 hours and deceleration from light speed in about 4.3
hours. Meier said that the elapsed time during the “hyperspace jump” took only several seconds. Thus, trip time between the Pleiades star cluster and Earth with Froning’s slower-than-light Quantum Ramjet Drive plus a hypothetical tachyon drive would be 8.6 hours, which was within 20% of the Plejaren trip time reported by Meier. But, while Froning’s calculations were based on many arbitrary assumptions, and in no way proved
the truthfulness of Meier’s account (since it was a theoretical system he was working on, only time will tell as to which are correct) Froning was somewhat startled that his arbitrary flight time computations were within 20% of the flight time mentioned by Meier. Regarding the Meier material, Dr. Froning also publicly stated that, “My colleagues and I may have made breakthroughs in our understanding of possibilities and ways for
traveling faster than light from Billy Meier’s accounts of his encounters with the Pleiadians/Plejarens.” He also said, “If what this Meier is saying is just a hoax, he’s being cued by some very knowledgeable scientists. I’ve only discussed this Meier case with scientists who are fairly open-minded about interstellar flight, but I’ll tell you, the majority of them think it’s credible and agree at least part, or sometimes all, of the things talked about by the Pleiadians/Plejarens.”
Now, when you read and then reread that entire information and comprehend that, compared to Froning, you and the rest of the folks here are scientific imbeciles, and when you reread these sentences in particular, “My colleagues and I may have made breakthroughs in our understanding of possibilities and ways for traveling faster than light from Billy Meier’s accounts of his encounters with the Pleiadians/Plejarens.” and “If what this Meier is saying is just a hoax, he’s being cued by some very knowledgeable scientists. I’ve only discussed this Meier case with scientists who are fairly open-minded about interstellar flight, but I’ll tell you, the majority of them think it’s credible and agree at least part, or sometimes all, of the things talked about by the Pleiadians/Plejarens,” two things can be guaranteed.
One, the jolt to your self-satisfied, illogical and inadequate thinking will be…only temporary.
Two, you will go right back to constructing yet further evidence of just how successfully an educational system can churn out uneducated, unqualified, unthinking people, while doing them the immense disservice of hiding that fact from them. Unfortunately, they will discover the truth of their own ignorance and incompetence as they watch their jobs, homes, etc. disappear, their country elect false, idiotic leaders, plunge itself further into war, debt and destruction, etc. – and they will long for the luxury of displaying their “knowledge” about science, the nature of reality, UFOs and other matters on internet blogs.
Posting on a science blog doesn’t make you a scientist, anymore than getting a piece of paper from a school makes you intelligent, as is amply demonstrated here and elsewhere.
The truth is that we’re all ignorant and stupid about things in life. The problem is when we’re defiant and proud of it and demonstrably uneducable, no matter how sincere, patient and devoted someone is who tries to inform us and stimulate our thinking.
And yes, I’ll post information about a coming prediction later.
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Hahaha. That’s funny. Keep digging, Mr. Horn.
You say the photographs are real alien spaceships. Prove it. Don’t waste any more time with your lame attempt of “expert” opinions regarding models. Prove to everyone here that they are alien crafts.
Has a single person on this blog shown any signs of agreeing with you? Show me one post on this blog where someone else supports your claim that the photos are not models, and are indeed alien spaceships. If I am wrong, then I will rephrase my comment to say, “You have been unable to convince nearly anyone here.”
In order to be repeatable, this is what would have to occur: Meier will have to invite 3 different independent scientific investigators to join him the next time he goes out to photograph these alleged UFOs. These investigators will have to have their own equipment, and using the same exact methods, come to the same conclusion that yes, the craft indeed are alien (or not of this world.) Until that happens, the photos are not reliable. Period.
Again, you fail to understand the basic principles of science. Its not good enough for you to say “One man has this information” and expect anybody to believe you. As we have said before, people are liars and hoaxers. But if you can have your information reviewed by real scientists (not actors or special effects managers) then that would go a long way toward your credibility.
“While you’re mulling that over (and the scripted question about the fries, which I’m sure that you’ll master in time) allow me to point out that I’m pretty sure that we had an earthquake here a couple of weeks ago, though I can’t successfully repeat the experiment and produce the same extensive phenomena.”
This is yet another lame attempt at avoiding the real subject by distracting your readers with poor analogies. Earthquakes are repeatable, measurable, and predictable phenomenon, Mr. Horn. We can setup measuring equipment, called seismometers, not just near the source, but on the other side of the world, and measure and record earthquakes. The technology to do so has existed for over 125 years. Not to mention the physical evidence like cracks in the ground, broken buildings, tsunami, etc.
“Addressing your “Failure #4″, allow my answer to first be in the form of a question. If the earthquake that we experienced here isn’t written about in a “peer-reviewed scientific journal or paper” (like 90%+ of the events that occurred on earth to date) does that mean it didn’t happen? Did Pluto exist BEFORE it was “discovered”? Take your time.”
Wow, this just gets dumber and dumber. The earthquake itself was self-evident. It was recorded by hundreds, if not thousands of labs all over the world. What would be printed in a scientific journal would be the cause of the earthquake, the effects on agriculture or transportation, or any of a hundred things that were the result of the earthquake (along with the actual data recorded at the time.) And the article or paper in that journal would include real scientific data.
Perhaps you need to actually pickup a scientific journal, and try to understand how that whole process works. Obviously you’ve failed to do that, as well.
As it stands, Mr. Horn, your third grade attempts at name-calling and verbal slight of hand do not distract the real intelligent readers from the fact that you have not been able to provide us with any real evidence.
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:12 pm
@Michael Horn
If the earthquake that we experienced here isn’t written about in a “peer-reviewed scientific journal or paper” (like 90%+ of the events that occurred on earth to date) does that mean it didn’t happen? Did Pluto exist BEFORE it was “discovered”? Take your time.
Pluto existed before it was discovered, and the cool thing is we can take a telescope and look at it!
If 20,000 people feel an earthquake, then yes, it probably did happen.
If only 1 person out of 6 billion can feel or see any evidence of an earthquake, then it probably didn’t happen.
If only 1 person out of 6 billion claims to he’s friends with future telling aliens, and all he has to back him up pseudo predictions, bad physics and photos/video that appear less real than the cityscape at the beginning Mr. Rodgers, then no, it probably didn’t happen.
And I can’t wait to hear the coming predictions, but why the change of heart? I thought we were too demanding, unreasonable and lazy?
August 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
@ Michael Horn –
Read Phil’s policy on commenting on this blog. Continued ad-homs, personal attacks, and outright jerkery not only continue to expose the weakness of your position, but they will get you summarily dispatched.
Answer the questions concerning Meier’s reasons for intentionally misleading the public by displaying “evidence” that was clearly a fraud. Displaying Dean Martin Dancers as aliens… the Pterosaur lifted from an earlier book… these are out and out examples of fraud proven against Meier. So why would he do that if his stories and evidence are credible? And why should any of us lend credence to ANY person who’s already shown themselves to be willing to perpetrate a fraud? And why would you allow yourself to be so easily manipulated?
You won’t answer that question of course. You’ve been asked it several times and haven’t yet. What you will do is continue to beat the drum of the “hoaxed flying saucer” experiment. We’re way past that, buddy. It can be hoaxed. It has been shown. Period. That your “academy award winning studio” wasn’t clever enough to do it means nothing to me. Others have shown that it can be done. Many times.
So answer the questions above, tell us why we should believe anything from this proven liar. Then look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself why you’ve wasted do much of your time, effort, and brain cells doing so yourself. I’m sure there are better contributions you could be making to society… I hear there’s a couple of bigfoot hunters in Georgia looking for new representation…
I seriously doubt it. If you had anything of substance you’d simply post it. So why the delay? Just give us a prediction. Do it with your next post or don’t bother posting.
August 23rd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
@ Celtic:
No worries. If Mikey gets the boot, he will only create multiple sock puppets, like he does on YouTube whenever someone criticizes his crap.
Still waiting for the “debunking” of Mr. Gumby’s flying saucer video. Guess I’ll have to call some Hollywood special effects experts. Uh-oh…this just in from outer space….Incontinentia Galacticus warns of incoming petulence from chronic huckster….
August 23rd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Michael Horn says: “Learn useful phrases, such as, “Do you want fries with that?”
At least those who work in the fast food industry do not “stoop” to lying and fraud…they make an “honest” living.
To bad the same cannot be said for you.
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I came here to provide info and from the beginning I was called a liar, as was Meier, and of course it continues from the low achievers here. Oh well, if you girlie-men can’t take the heat stay out of the kitchen. You feel insulted but I don’t, simply because I don’t respect anyone here enough to feel offended. Obviously, whether you know it or not, you respect my opinion far more than I respect any of yours. And the fact that your fearless leader, an astronomer, no less, says that he wants to hold tangible evidence in his hands…wow, talk about a genius.
Anyway, I’ve been kicked off of other forums for standing up to idiots, as have other people who simply were positive towards the Meier case. The main usefulness to me of being on any forums has been that I create new articles, press releases, etc. from my own writing in response to challenges, such as they are.
Okay, figure out the prediction from the information in the article about the Future San Francisco Earthquake in the December 2006 Newsletter archives.
And note this sentence, “I did see smaller cars with smoothly rounded corners and no external projections…”
Wendelle has commented on this several times, pointing out that he meant that no rear view mirrors were observed on the cars in the 11 photographs that Meier showed the three investigators in 1978 (he also mentioned this in the 2006 double DVD and in previous interviews).
So, look up: new Mercedes Benz SCL600 and figure the rest out for yourselves…if that isn’t asking too much.
And have a nice weekend.
August 23rd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
And there you have it folks. The only one here to make an accurate prediction is me. I predicted that Horn would not answer the questions about Meier’s credibility… and he didn’t. I predicted he would not give any future prediction as he promised he would, and he didn’t. And I doubt anyone else here is even the slightest bit surprised.
You are getting way too predictable.
And by the way… I knew you were an egomaniac, Horn… I didn’t realize to what level it rose. My goodness, but you are full of yourself.
You are a fraud and a liar representing a fraud and a liar.
Go. Away.
August 23rd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Hey Celtic!
You are wrong! Incontinentia Galacticus predicted a petulant comment would be forthcoming…AND IT CAME!
The prediction came true! Now you must believe! D M Gumby is in contact with space babes who tell him the future!!!!!
And, gosh darnit, but ol’ Mikey yet again didn’t explain how Mr. Gumby could have possibly faked that video! Could it be…he wouldn’t know a phoney flying saucer from a…uh…well…a trash can lid?
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Wait… I’m confused. Mr. Horn, when did I ever call you a liar?
I said you were uneducated in science and the scientific method, and by your very own admission have no scientific degree, but I never once, despite all of your name calling, appeals to authority, or lack of any testable evidence ever once said you were a liar.
Michael Horn said, “Okay, figure out the prediction from the information in the article about the Future San Francisco Earthquake in the December 2006 Newsletter archives.
And note this sentence, “I did see smaller cars with smoothly rounded corners and no external projections…”
Wendelle has commented on this several times, pointing out that he meant that no rear view mirrors were observed on the cars in the 11 photographs that Meier showed the three investigators in 1978 (he also mentioned this in the 2006 double DVD and in previous interviews).
So, look up: new Mercedes Benz SCL600 and figure the rest out for yourselves…if that isn’t asking too much.”
So again, I’m confused. What exactly is your prediction? That there was an earthquake in 2006? Or that a future earthquake was predicted in 2006? Or that there will be, at sometime in the future, an earthquake where 11 cars without mirrors will be observed? Or there will be an earthquake, and only 11 Mercedes Benz SCL6000 without mirrors will be involved? What? How unspecific can you be?
I want to believe, but your prediction is so vague it is impossible to understand. I might as well predict that sometime, in the next two years, a new president will be elected somewhere, and some folk won’t like it. Oooh, I’m on to something!
August 24th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Michael Horn says: “I’ve been kicked off other forums for standing up to idiots…”
No…you’ve been kicked off other forums because of your abusive behavior, and you have no one but yourself to blame for that.
Re. your “complaints”…
Misrepresenting the evidence against meiers makes you a liar. Promoting meiers pictures as depicting alien spacecraft makes you a fraud, so when you complain about being characterized as a liar and a fraud, you (once again) have only YOURSELF to blame.
Michael…your problem is that you’re obviously not stupid, yet you have chosen to believe in someone who is an obvious hoaxer. It is also obvious that the only reason an otherwise intelligent person would do that is if they thought they could make money by deceiving the gullible.
Anyone who would stoop that low just to make a buck deserves NO RESPECT from anyone.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:28 am
@Jose
Did you know that many scientists were convinced that heavier than air machines could not physically fly until they were shown working models? (BTW the Wright bros did not invent the airplane…).
You say people a hundred years ago would know that a Stealth fighter was not breaking the laws of physics. As I explained, if you did not know what a computer was and that computers can adjust flight characteristics millions of times faster than humans, the airplane itself had no way to stay airborne, so to all intents and purposes even an advanced engineer would look at it and say it would fly like a lump of lead if he had a model to work with. Also jet technology was only thought as realistic in the 1930s. In fact breaking the sound barrier was also thought impossible until a few decades ago.
I wish I had a better background in physics but I’m betting that you don’t even need to break special relativity to acheive anti-gravity effect, sudden stop-starting of objects if you had sufficient control of energy and matter at the sub-atomic level. You can also warp space around you if you have sufficient mass and energy available, there is no magic physics involved! It may also be that these things observed are not solid objects.
I think you need to check relativity more……Einstein himself postulated ways to travel at close to the speed of light in a spaceship if I remember correctly.
Anyway there are almost certainly large holes in our current understanding of the universe, we can’t even figure out if 90% of our universe is dark matter or a miscalculation yet.
August 25th, 2008 at 7:31 am
@ManinAsia,
Who did invent the airplane?
I don’t know how you would be able to prove that people 100 years ago would or would not think a Stealth fighter was breaking the laws of physics, since we can’t go back in time to ask them.
But you are mostly correct, science once thought flight was impossible, and breaking the sound barrier was impossible. Luckily for us, science and technology progressed by means of hypothesizing, testing, observing, retesting, and finally concluding, with evidence, that yes, those things can be overcome.
We didn’t suddenly jump from the Wright Bros. flight on a beach to the Stealth Bomber overnight. It took decades of hard work and real science to get to where we are today. Using the same scientific method that we keep insisting on using to prove or disprove ET. Some people here don’t seem to understand or appreciate that.
So far, on this planet, there has never been any means of faster-than-light travel, anti-gravity, or warping time and space. Science says its impossible because we have not done it yet. There’s theoretical physics, and then there is practical physics. Relativity may tell us that a wormhole is possible, but it does not even attempt to say how to get any matter, much less the amount of matter in an aircraft, thru one without completely destroying it.
And again, we have seen no evidence that these objects (the ones people claim to be alien UFOs, or even super top-secret military projects) are moving faster than light, creating anti-gravity fields, or warping time and space.
August 25th, 2008 at 7:59 am
@ ManinAsia
You are arguing from the wrong position, here, sir… the issue at hand and the debate surrounding it is not the possibility that inter-stellar is somehow possible, but that we, so far, have no credible evidence that such craft have ever been here. And that of all the possible explanations for the “sightings” described and witness acounts for UFO’s, alien visitiation is among the least likley of all possible explanations. And until we have some actual testible evidence to support it, we’re not going to lend credence to the least likely explanation for any given phenomenon.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:47 am
@Michael Horn
Okay. We’re getting somewhere. You at least admit that the photos do not prove that the supposed UFOs are of alien origin, however, your reasoning as to them not possibly being models is flawed. You say that Bartholomaus and Wharton have tried and failed [I haven't followed up on this by contacting them, yet. If I have time, I might in the future] and have subsequently retracted their claims. To you, this is proof that the objects in the photos are not models and that the model claim is invalidated. Your reasoning is wrong. What the example of these two men is, is merely that these two men were unable to reproduce the photos with models. Other people, however, might be able to, and kuhnigget actually provided a video with a “UFO” in it, showing that such actually can be done. So, the model explanation is still on the table.
Furthermore, many of the photos and videos you have provided are too grainy or of otherwise poor visual quality to determine whether or not any means of suspension were involved, so really, all we have so far are unidentified objects, that may or may not be flying or suspended from a line.
As to who may be the source of those objects, if manmade, and that no one is claiming responsibility for them, the only person making any claims associated with those objects is Meier, himself (and you, as his representative here).
So, despite your claim of no one being able to make UFO pics and videos using models, there actually have been a lot of them, with links to a few posted in this thread.
Regarding the picture of the alien/Dean Martin dancer, you claim that the photo was tampered with or swapped. Well, the negative from the roll of film should shed some light on what the “alien” actually looks like, no? So, letting us know how we might go about viewing the negatives would surely convince us.
Regarding the prophecies, see, again, my earlier posts, which you have yet to adequately address.
Finally, you seem to have missed my challenge to you, so I’ll post it again:
Thanks.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:53 am
@John
Just read your description. What part of the UK was that in? A nearby town? Also, do you remember what day, or at least part of September it was?
Thanks.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:16 am
In a classroom, a teacher presents a puzzle for the first time to students who’ve never seen one before.
The teacher puts all the pieces on the table…but doesn’t show them the picture on the box. The teacher says that all the pieces, when put together reveal a particular scene, object, etc.
Some students say that there’s no way that a big picture can be put together from small, oddly shaped pieces that don’t seem to show anything recognizable in themselves. Other students are willing to try and see if they can get all of the pieces to fit to reveal the big picture. Some students will try but just to prove that the pieces don’t fit, to prove a negative.
And there will always be those who will not try at all but stubbornly maintain that there is no picture so it’s a waste of time to try to put the puzzle together. Some may say that they’ll only do it if they can see what the big picture looks like first.
In another scenario everything is the same except the teacher shows the picture on the box and the class is one that the students *chose to take.
Some students will say that there’s no way that the same picture can be put together from small, oddly shaped pieces that don’t seem to show anything recognizable in themselves. Other students are willing to try and see if they can get all of the pieces to fit to reveal the big picture. Some students will try but just to prove that the pieces don’t fit, to prove a negative.
And there will always be those who will not try at all, stubbornly complaining that not only are the pieces cut in the wrong shapes, that there are too many of them, but that they don’t like what the big picture looks like to begin with so it’s not worth even trying. They will will say that the teacher is stupid for trying to get them to put the puzzle together in the first place.
They will claim that they really want to put a puzzle together – but only if they can decide in advance what the picture will look like, how many pieces there are and what the individual pieces should look like. When the teacher points out that the students don’t run the curriculum but have to solve certain problems in order to pass the class, those students will assert that the teacher, the curriculum, the puzzle and everything else is simply wrong and that they know better.
The teacher may remind them that they *elected to take the class.
Everyone can find a place in society. You just don’t want certain people entrusted with putting all the pieces together to try to figure out the big picture…even when they think that they’re the smartest, most qualified ones to do so.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:28 am
@Michael Horn
Again, answer the question. See my previous post.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:39 am
When the teacher points out that the students don’t run the curriculum but have to solve certain problems in order to pass the class, those students will assert that the teacher, the curriculum, the puzzle and everything else is simply wrong and that they know better.
The teacher may remind them that they *elected to take the class.
Everyone can find a place in society. You just don’t want certain people entrusted with putting all the pieces together to try to figure out the big picture…even when they think that they’re the smartest, most qualified ones to do so.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Another shoddy attempt at not answering any direct questions… but you opened yourself up to this one, so I will oblige…
Good analogy, Michael…
However, in your case, the puzzle pieces come from a box you provided, that no-one else has seen or knows the origin of, with no picture, and when put together simply don’t create the picture you insist it should. You create your own, imagined and invented picture because that’s what you WANT it to look like, and tell the students that’s what it is. When the students who try to piece it together but just don’t get the picture you insist is there, you simply call them lazy and uneducated, while at the same time, you take the pieces and your scissors, cut the pieces just right so that the picture does come out the way you want. And the dimmer, less critical, more credulous students look at their pieces and say “wow… my pieces don’t fit that way, but this guy says he’s an expert at puzzles, and his looks just the way he said it should. It must be that way.” Meanwhile the more intelligent, critically thinking students refuse to be told that their puzzle should look the way you say it should, and are really irritated that it appears as if you’ve altered the pieces.
There… i think that’s a bit more accurate as to how your “puzzle” analogy fits the actual facts as they compare to this “Meier” kerfuffle.
August 25th, 2008 at 10:51 am
@Michael Horn
Yet again, you dodge rather than answer the question, and a very simple one, at that. So, please, see, again, my previous post and answer the question.
As for your teacher-student analogy, you’ve got it a bit backward, in that you assume that you are the teacher.
Let’s try it this way: We (or originally, Phil) are the teachers. We ask the students to support their arguments with solid evidence and to provide succinct, to-the-point responses. A student that not only fails to provide such support for their arguments in a clear manner, but also fling insults at the other students and the teachers, gets a failing grade.
So, looking at the roles in that manner, Mr. Horn, kindly answer the very simple question that I posed to you. I’ll post it again here, so you don’t need to go scrolling up to find it:
August 25th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Michael Horn says: “Everyone can find a place in society.”
Actually, those who choose to commit crimes (such as fraud) are usually removed from society and placed in jail.
Still waiting for that evidence which will validate meiers alien claims…
August 25th, 2008 at 11:46 am
@Greg
Maybe I missed it, but did you finish the stuff you were working on for isabell’s sighting?
August 25th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
“We (or originally, Phil) are the teachers. ”
Bad analogy.
“Why?”
You have no credentials or experience in the field…neither does Phil.
But I do.
“Science is science though.”
Correct, see definition of evidence above. Then see evidence.
…or don’t and take a different class.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
@Michael Horn
Not a bad analogy at all. This is a class in science and critical inquiry, of which we do have pretty good credentials all around. You came here. You came to the class. Now, quit dancing around and answer the question.
Again:
August 25th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Helpful hint:
The teacher DIDN’T MAKE the puzzle. He only put it together, when all the pieces fit, the picture became…clear.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
@Michael Horn
You clearly are not reading my question. Give a straight answer. Your reluctance to do so does not speak well for your case. If you cannot answer the question, just say so.
Continued refusal to answer merely highlights the lack of credible evidence in support of the UFOs = alien claim that you and Meier are making. To make such claims and then not support them is, to quote you, “intellectually dishonest”.
Phil posed a request to the “class”: If you are making a claim that UFOs are alien in nature, provide the evidence.
Now, when you are asked to just answer the question in a simple, straightforward manner, you dance around, make silly analogies about this whole conversation and otherwise ignore the simple request. So, again, Mr. Horn:
August 25th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
When the teacher points out that the students don’t run the curriculum but have to solve certain problems in order to pass the class, those students will assert that the teacher, the curriculum, the puzzle and everything else is simply wrong and that they know better.
The teacher may remind them that they *elected to take the class.
But the students are free to leave the class.
…or they can call in to the radio show tonight at www. kevin smith show. com and complain publicly – while still remaining anonymous “scientific experts”!
August 25th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Michael…you’re no “teacher”, so stop repeating your crappy analogy and answer the question.
August 25th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Well, I tried. I posed a simply question, repeatedly, yet Mr. Horn continues to evade it rather than providing a straight answer. Apparently, he cannot answer the question, or else he would have done so by now. His only goal, it appears, is to waste everyone’s time and drum up traffic to his site and to some show he’s going to be on. Despite his best attempts at obfuscation, he has convinced not a single person on this blog, nor has he even addressed the very point of the post.
My challenge to you still stands, Mr. Horn. Just answer my request. Show me the proof, convince me that you actually have some shred of reality to back up your claims, and I will hop on the wagon and do my best to advance your efforts. So far, you’ve given us analogies, insults, condescension, tidbits of information that have no bearing on the argument, flawed evidence, statements from “experts” that, in reality, do not support your claims, and other various means of avoiding the very simple question.
So, for the last time, Mr. Horn:
August 25th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
And did the students really think that they’d get by with just ignoring this:
David Froning: At the time, Dr. Froning had already spent 25 years as an astronautical engineer at McDonnell Douglas in highly classified military defense and, in 1979, became interested in Meier’s accounts of Plejaren starship travel, which mentioned tachyon propulsion.
Dr. Froning found Meier’s account of tachyon propulsion (which was only beginning to be discussed by a very small and select group of theoretical physicists), and his calculations for above light speed travel to be amazing. In 1983, he was pursuing his Quantum Interstellar Ramjet idea (JBIS vol. 33, no. 7, July 1980; AIAA 81-1533, July1981; IAF-85-492, October, 1985) and plugged in his Quantum Ramjet performance equations, assuming: a given starship density, vacuum energy conversion efficiency (in transforming positrons and electrons within the quantum vacuum into photons), and vacuum energy conversion scales of distance of the order of the Compton wavelength. The resulting vehicle acceleration enabled achievement of almost light speed in about 4.3 hours and deceleration from light speed in about 4.3
hours. Meier said that the elapsed time during the “hyperspace jump” took only several seconds. Thus, trip time between the Pleiades star cluster and Earth with Froning’s slower-than-light Quantum Ramjet Drive plus a hypothetical tachyon drive would be 8.6 hours, which was within 20% of the Plejaren trip time reported by Meier. But, while Froning’s calculations were based on many arbitrary assumptions, and in no way proved the truthfulness of Meier’s account (since it was a theoretical system he was working on, only time will tell as to which are correct) Froning was somewhat startled that his arbitrary flight time computations were within 20% of the flight time mentioned by Meier. Regarding the Meier material, Dr. Froning also publicly stated that, “My colleagues and I may have made breakthroughs in our understanding of possibilities and ways for traveling faster than light from Billy Meier’s accounts of his encounters with the Pleiadians/Plejarens.” He also said, “If what this Meier is saying is just a hoax, he’s being cued by some very knowledgeable scientists. I’ve only discussed this Meier case with scientists who are fairly open-minded about interstellar flight, but I’ll tell you, the majority of them think it’s credible and agree at least part, or sometimes all, of the things talked about by the Pleiadians/Plejarens.”
…without even trying to attack a man, who unlike any of them, is a real scientist – and one who found sufficient “evidence”, even without my help?
Tsk, tsk.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Published, peer-reviewed, astrophysicist, risks the ridicule and says, “If what this Meier is saying is just a hoax, he’s being cued by some very knowledgeable scientists. I’ve only discussed this Meier case with scientists who are fairly open-minded about interstellar flight, but I’ll tell you, the majority of them think it’s credible and agree at least part, or sometimes all, of the things talked about by the Pleiadians/Plejarens.”
Now, as soon as your coffee breaks are over, turn your penetratingly incisive minds to your attacks on him.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Regarding, “Show me the proof, convince me that you actually have some shred of reality to back up your claims, and I will hop on the wagon and do my best to advance your efforts.”
Perhaps this shred is sufficient for professionals of your stature. If not, here are some more…shreds:
Mr. Froning received Bachelor and Master of Science degrees in Aeronautical Engineering from the University of Illinois andthe University of Michigan. His aerospace work has been in the development of the science and technology associated withadvanced vehicle development for future flight. This work has included integration of advanced microwave and laser systemsinto ad-danced vehicles for guidance, control, communications, and propulsion. In 1980, he was the first to propose thepossibility of a propulsive interaction with the quantum vacuum for relativistic starship flight, and since then he led numerousMcDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) studies that explored possibilities and problems of integrating advanced propulsionsystems—which included nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, and matter/anti-matter annihilation for future spaceships. Mr.Froning has continued this type of work with his current aerospace consulting firm (Flight Unlimited), performing nuclearfission propulsion studies for the European Space Agency, nuclear fusion propulsion studies for the NASA and laserpropulsion studies for the Air Force Research Laboratory. He has been closely affiliated with the NASA breakthrough propulsion physics program since being a participant at its first workshop, held in 1998, and his company has sponsoredexperimental and computational work to explore the use of specially conditioned EM fields for gravity modification and aerodynamic drag reduction. Mr. Froning has published over 100 technical papers on advanced flight systems. He is anAssociate Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and a Technical Committee member of the International Academy of Astronautics. ABSTRACT: Investigations of Specially Conditioned Electromagnetic Fieldsfor High Frequency Gravitational Wave Generation (paper HFGW-03-122)byH. David Froning, Jr. † and Terence W. Barrett †† The mathematical structure of fields which describe nuclear structure and gravitation are of “non-abelian” form and possess SU (2) symmetry or higher, while fields which describe electromagnetism are of simpler “abelian” form and U (1) symmetry. Itis, therefore, believed that ordinary electromagnetic (EM) discharges are incapable of causing gravitational disturbances that generate gravitational waves. In this respect, one of us (Barrett) has identified two methods of transforming EM emanations ofmicrowave and laser transmission systems into specially conditioned EM emanations of non-abelian form and SU (2)symmetry or higher. One method is continual change (modulation) of the polarization of microwave or laser radiation. The other is use of contra-wound toroidal coils through which alternating current is flowing at resonant frequencies. For either method, electric and magnetic field energy is accompanied by A-vector potential field energy. This paper summarizes theoretical and experimental work that has explored the possibility of A-vector potential wave energy to: generate high-frequency gravitational waves (HFGW) by disturbing ambient gravitational fields; and to give rise to unusual EM effects.Unusual EM effects measured in experimental work are: anomalous behavior of ferromagnetic aerosols when radiated bypolarization-modulated laser light; and formation of standing waves of very high magnetic field intensity over the surface of contra-wound toroidal coils that are operating at resonance.
It is highly recommended to NOT harass Mr. Froning. He has already had more than his share of unwelcome attention from critics of the Meier case, etc. As is the case with any professionals who dare to speak openly about the compelling evidence in the case.
Wonder why?
Read your won posts…
August 25th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
@Michael Horn
Just like the quote from the Uncharted Territory people, this one does not prove aliens. Again, it shows Dr. Froning’s opinion of Meier, but does not prove that anything Meier says is true. It should also be pointed out that tachyons had been discussed for over a decade by the time that paper you cite by Froning came out, giving Meier ample time to research or be tipped off about the subject. Furthermore, it must be pointed out that tachyons are an area of theoretical physics, rather than applied physics.
So, again, you have failed to provide anything that proves that Meier encountered aliens.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Think.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Somebody other than Horn please correct me if I’m wrong…
Did Michael Horn just give a long worded claim about this guy David Froning, and then warn us NOT to contact him to verify his statements? Appeal to… what’s that word…
August 25th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Uh, genius, Froning was referring to information published by MEIER…in 1975. His own paper came later.
Meier, a FARMER, writing about tachyons in 1975.
Have YOU considered farming? Think of what it might do for YOUR thinking abilities
August 25th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Your real question should be, since you imply that it would be important if Froning confirmed the statement attributed to him, “Doesn’t this give us sufficient reason to put our pomposity and arrogance aside and do what it appears this Horn fellow has suggested, oh so patiently, for almost a month, i.e. investigate the evidence for ourselves to see WHAT it means, what conclusions WE can draw from it?”
August 25th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Authoritaaaay!
August 25th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Mr. Horn,
Again… yet… still… your method is flawed.
What is your hypothesis?
August 25th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
@Michael Horn
Tachyons had still been discussed since at least the 60s. Try again.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
@ Michael Horn
If you were at all capable of following your own advice there, none of this conversation would even be necessary.
As it is, your last few posts just continue to show your propensity for dodging the questions, stroking your own rather massive ego, and attempting to distract from the points using insults and boorish behavior.
Any field in which you get to bestow your own credentials and invent your own experience isn’t one I’m particularly impressed with.
What Phil is credentialed in, and experienced with in a manner far beyond anything you will ever achieve in your lifetime, is a knowledge of basic scientific principal under which his well-founded skepticism over such claims as he discussed in this post is more than justified, based on his wealth of experience and education in the very fields that would serve to prove or disprove the existence of these phenomena.
I really doubt you want to get into a “credentials” war here… unless you’re really willing to take a critical look at what exactly your “credentials” are. And before you come back with the expected “well, what are YOUR credentials” reply, remember that I am not the one boasting about my credentials.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Michael,
OK, you have a “credential”. What is it? Be specific.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
For those who are interested in contacting Dr. Froning directly to determine the veracity of the quotes attributed to him and the opinions that Mr. Horn suggests (i.e., that Dr. Froning finds Meier’s claims sound and without possibility of being hoaxed), here is contact information that I found for him on the ISABE web site:
Mr. H.D. Froning, Jr.
President
Flight Unlimited
5450 Country Club Dr.
Flagstaff, Arizona 86004
Phone: 520-526-5916
e-mail:froning [at] flagstaff [dot] az [dot] us
This info is good at least back to 2006, though it may have changed since then.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Let’s see, you challenge my credentials but claim that…credentials aren’t important.
You try to dismiss Froning and his credentials but can’t because he’s so far over your heads.
A lot of catch 22.
Back to:
See definition of evidence above. Then see evidence.
…or don’t and take a different class.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
@Michael Horn
Here are just a handful of journal articles I found doing a quick search for tachyon research. Any of these, or any of the other journal articles that I haven’t listed, could have been sources for Meier:
1975 – V S Barashenkov , “Tachyons: particles moving with velocities greater than the speed of light”, Sov. Phys. Usp. 17 No 5 (1975) 774-782
1974 – E M Levin, “Duality, dual models, and experiment”, Sov. Phys. Usp. 16 No 5 (1974) 600-629
1972 – Boris M Bolotovskiĭ and Vitalii L Ginzburg, “The Vavilov-Cerenkov Effect and the Doppler Effect in the Motion of Sources with Superluminal Velocity in Vacuum”, Sov. Phys. Usp. 15 No 2 (1972) 184-192
1971 – T P Swetman, “Tachyons”, Phys. Educ. 6 No 1 (January 1971) 1-6
1971 – L. S. Schulman, “Tachyon Paradoxes”, Am. J. Phys. 39, 481 (1971)
1969 – K. H. Mariwalla, “On Tachyon Lorentz Transformation”, Am. J. Phys. 37, 1281 (1969)
August 25th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Michael, Micheal… dodge and weeve, but you fail yet again.
Our challenge to your credentials infers that your credentials aren’t important as to have any relevence in the fileds that you would need them in, in order to rationaly and properly evaluate the evidence from a scientific point of view. In other words, you created your own credentials and conferred tham upon yourself… so yeah… they are unimportant. The two are not contradictory, at all.
And second… who dismissed Froning and his credentials? I must’ve missed that. What we’d like to do is contact Mr. Froning directly and let him speak for his credentials and authenticate your claims. That you warned us ahead of time not to contact him gives me some insight as to what we can probably expect him to say.
Please… again, follow your own advice and try to gain some understanding of what scientific evidence is, as we’ve tried to get you to provide, and then for the love of science, PROVIDE it. You still fail to understand that little gem.
August 25th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Well, we COULD go thru all that trouble to confirm Mr. Horn’s claims regarding Dr. Froning, but why should we, when it was already done in 2004.
Please browse your web to IIG Investigations…
www dot iigwest dot com /investigations/
Specifically:
/investigations/meier/emails/08_27_04_DT_1.pdf
In fact, it seems IIG and Mr. Horn are long time associates. My favorite line from their website:
“1624 Days
That’s how long it’s been since we formally challenged Michael Horn to produce testable physical evidence to prove the extraterrestrial contact claims of Billy Meier.”
August 25th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Maybe, hopefully, a miraculous realization regarding your own lack of understanding will not only occur but spread to similarly uninformed people.
A brief definition of legal evidence: “EVIDENCE – In law, various things presented in court for the purpose of proving or disproving a question under inquiry. Includes testimony, documents, photographs, maps and video tapes.”
A brief definition of scientific evidence: “Evidence presented in court that is produced from scientific tests or studies.
“Scientific evidence is evidence culled from a scientific procedure that helps the trier of fact understand evidence or determine facts at issue in a judicial proceeding. Under rule 702 of the FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE and similar state court rules of evidence, ‘a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education’ may testify and offer opinions in court if ’scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.’
By both definitions, Meier has plenty of evidence. What bothers you is the fact that, for some unknown and possibly unfair reason (life is like that) YOU weren’t involved in either the original investigation (which involved various qualified experts in several fields) and your entrenched beliefs, as well as unfounded overestimation of your own qualifications and abilities, are at odds withe established facts in the case.
Please refrain from the “no evidence” argument since it’s erroneous.
That’s all for today, radio show tonight, new articles to write…
August 25th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Wrong definition, Mr. Horn:
Straight from Wiki:
“This article is about the concept of scientific evidence in pure science. For the legal term, see Scientific evidence (law).
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical and properly documented in accordance with scientific method such as is applicable to the particular field of inquiry. Standards for evidence may vary according to whether the field of inquiry is among the natural sciences or social sciences”
We are not talking about legal evidence, we are talking about SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!
August 25th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
So, Michael… in which court of law has your evidence held up to scrutiny? In which court of any kind has your evidence held up? You are barely a minor blip in the world of public opinion… if your evidence was so overwhelmingly convincing, then why are you known to almost no-one outside of your specific and very narrow circle?
Seems to me like someone with such overwhelmingly clear evidence would have had the vast majority of the public convinced by now… and yet it seems that at every turn, when your claims are brought under the light of public scrutiny, they wither and shrivel. Why is that, Michael? Do tell…
Maybe it’s just rather arrogant of you to believe that youare just smarter than… well… pretty much everyone else who’s ever investigated your claims. Then again, seeing your gigantic ego on display here, it actually sheds some light on exactly why you keep peddling this nonsense… it’s the very thought you have that you ARE, in fact, smarter than everyone else, and you are the only one smart enough to possibly understand what Meier has seen.
August 25th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Michael Horn says: “It is highly recommended to NOT harass Mr. Froning. He has already had more than his share of unwelcome attention from critics of the Meier case, etc. As is the case with any professionals who dare to speak openly about the compelling evidence in the case.”
What “compelling” evidence?? We keep asking you to provide evidence, so stop playing games and SHOW US THE EVIDENCE.
As far as receiving “unwelcome attention”, the old saying about “sleeping with dogs” comes to mind. Froning shouldn’t be surprised to find himself covered with fleas.
August 25th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
I dunno…still waiting for Mikey to prove Mr. Gumby didn’t see a flying saucer.
[[Tapping foot....waiting....waiting....waiting....]]
August 25th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
@Michael Horn
Stop insulting Farmers.
August 25th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
@ManinAsia
Did you know that many scientists were convinced that heavier than air machines could not physically fly until they were shown working models?
Yes, I am fully aware of that, as well as many more things you could say the same thing about. Let me use your argument against you.
Many scientists once thought it was possible to turn lead into gold using chemistry in a test tube. Many scientists once thought you could put garbage in a box and mice would spontaneously generate. Many scientists once thought the sun revolved around the earth. We could go back and forth with examples like this forever, but they still have no bearing on what will be possible in the future.
I think you need to check relativity more……Einstein himself postulated ways to travel at close to the speed of light in a spaceship if I remember correctly.
Nope. You just need to stop thinking that if science fiction can dream something up, that it will inevitably happen.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Relevant link.
August 25th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
@Harold
Brilliant.
August 25th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
@harold:
I think the other relevant South Park episode would be the one where Cartman sends off for the Sea People kit. Despite his most fervent beliefs, the Sea People were still just a bunch of brine shrimp.
August 26th, 2008 at 12:33 am
@Jose
I never said anything will inevitably happen. But I think there is a very good probability that other civilisations are much more advanced than us and ergo that their capabilities are far ahead of us.
But even we will be able to acheive speeds of up to 92% speed of light in space in less than 100 years possibly (google valkyrie spacecraft).
Another approach would be WEAV, a type of aircraft patented by University of Florida. It seems the key point is it needs to generate 10 times more thrust rather than anything wrong with their actual idea. You need a light-weight, high energy source of energy and there are no barriers to the operation of the craft. Once you had that energy (I’m not a particle physicist but I’m sure there are some ideas of how to do that, just not currently possible) then the craft becomes entirely viable, similar to the way a jet powered plane could not take off without it’s energy source, high powered jet fuel.
August 26th, 2008 at 12:35 am
BTW, both of the above examples do not break special relativity!
August 26th, 2008 at 2:33 am
I never said anything will inevitably happen.
OK. Maybe you didn’t actually use the word “inevitable”. I should have used “probably”. It doesn’t change the argument at all.
BTW, both of the above examples do not break special relativity!
And neither comes close to meeting the needs of the crafts that you believe are zipping around our atmosphere, so what’s your point? Very slowly approaching the speed of light is a far cry from the zig zaging, anti-gravity and space warping, you’ve been talking about. I’ve never said everything you’re suggesting requires magic physics, but these things certainly do. Why are you making a point of telling me that something that goes at 92% of the speed of light doesn’t violate special relativity like it’s a “gotcha” point? It’s a given.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:46 am
The point is that travelling at 92% of the speed of light would allow you to travel across the entire milky way in about 110,000 years. Now factor in the age of the universe and you see why there is no time/space/distance problem to getting around and populating the entire galaxy for an advanced civilisation.
October 27th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Holy cow, 1100 comments and the internet hasn’t broken.
October 27th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Now 1101 comments. Gordon Bennett!
January 29th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
After twenty five + years of studying ufo’s I alway’s get a laugh at these dolts who say “give me proof”.Sorry but what a complete waste of human skin…simply put…
what more “proof” does a person need than the testimonies of millions of people!!! daily!!! Every corner,nook,and cranny of this planet!!!from presidents to astronauts to police, even very young children who don’t even have the skills nessasary to tell a lie yet these people try to make you believe their liers!!lol How completly socialy retarded does one have to be to share these uninformed statements?You know who make these statments? People alive today who have no social skills. People who only remember and care about the bad news articles,the bad news events,who had issues growing up with bad people.People with no families floored by their sightings. And especially those that never take a few minutes a day or night to go even outside and study the heavens. Work a holics and socially stunted individuals who like to read their own words and imagine themselves as being informed.They only remember the news about the criminals,the liers.These people don’t realize that the majority of people alive today really are mostly good,honest people,who are forced into this subject and know what a bird and an airplane look like,and are very humbled and even scared into submittion in a similar way that these debunkers are.These folk are scared to go against the grain,scared to go outside and watch the sky’s,scared to come to grips with an alternative understanding.
All the photographic,video,radar proof anyone with a bit of sense could understand. It’s people like these that come running into the house red faced screaming I cant believe what I just saw,then sit down on their computers and contact people like myself who know whats going on.
July 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 pm
January 29th, 2010 at 11:46 am
Evidence, evidence – everyone is calling for evidence. The big problem with evidence, as already shown in other comments is to make it look acceptable to broad public. Presenting evidence to the one who says “Show me evidence and I am willing to believe” requires a lot of effort for almost nothing you get in return. IMHO the most effective approach is to keep your interests in this topic aim-oriented. I, for myself, want to build a so called UFO – so I am researching and searching for information that helps me reaching this goal. A beneficial side effect is to debunk myths by research. Many conspiracious theories have a weak point you can only catch when you are doing kind of research that refutes certain concepts. This takes a lot of time but sharpens ones senses, wether there are some true clues within a story or not. This is a strenuous but the only way to gain evidence. Most witness reports do not contain usable clues, but just tell a story. That doesn’t help us. But there are some telling us about surroundings and circumstances or effects that were caused by an UFO encounter. These have great value, as when you know, what doesn’t fit, you can on the one hand debunk it or find new aspects on how such a device must be working. E.g. car engine won’t start or no UHF wireless communication possible and so on. Keeping track on these statements develops a rather consistent image of functionality of UFOs. If everything were completely contradictory you wouldn’t get such an image. Once obtained this image, find it’s roots, what was the first reporting including these elements, were there people copying from each other or not?
Interestingly, all modern ufo phenomena start around the year 1889 (long cigar shaped objects) and have peaks in 1898, 1909, 1921 and 1944 (foo fighters) – then the disc shaped stories start in 1947. All public information after these dates refer back to or contain elements of reports before.
On military cases, as they are available due to the FOIA, the scenery looks slightly different. There are the projects bluebook, sign and grudge that aim to first show severe interest but second to disinform about and disavow the phenomena. On the other hand, besides any airforce and DIA information, there were CIA and (astonishingly) NSA reports that cover indeed unexplainable encounters in deep detail.
I suppose there’s no way of drawing a final conclusion – since no outstanding individual, that can’t revert to fifteen years experience or more, would know how to approach this topic in an appropriate way. Thats why those sceptics, who cry for “evidence” can’t be satisfied with whatever you present them. Recognizing evidence here is conjoined with labor, so when the initial writer states, he has no time to “sift tru every single case” because he is generally busy – he is not the one who should utter about UFOs. Neither are those believers, who got stuck on conspiracy theories, unable to dismantle them.
February 11th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Dr. J Allen Hynek , once a debunker, went to the other side and called the Air Firces UFO studies: Blue book and later Grudge etc. (25 years worth) cover-up efforts, not real scientific studies/ investigations.
We know pilots are not encouraged to report UFO sightings and their jobs are often at threat if they do. This makes me wonder how many people have really good sightings but keep quiet due to a percieved giggle/ kook factor. This is the most harmful and anti-itellectual / anti-science thing debunkers do. If they can’t attack the sighting they attack the individual by drudging things out of their past like Phil klass did and James O’berg does. We should all know enough to know that CIA and military have long taken flying disk reports very seriously so it isn’t a laughable subject. A late 1960′s RAND corp. report concluded more serious study is called for.
Also note, the only country to try (unsuccessfully) to block the UN resolution 33/426 (1978) to share info about UFOS was …usa of course.
February 9th, 2011 at 9:36 am
Ahh yes, conspiracy theorists. Always looking for something that isn’t there. Always looking for the most complex explanation for unknown phenomena. I have always used the scientific and philosophical rule of Occam’s razor: The simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities. My educational backround is in the social sciences, so I am only an amatuer astronomer and amatuer physics type geek. But, it still amazes me how how easily people can be misled. I remember having a very heated discussion with a colleague of mine concerning “crop circles”. This very educated person believed that crop circles were made by extraterrestrials and their purpose was to try to convey a message and communicate with us earthlings. I tried to point out the riduculousness of that logic by telling him why would an intelligent life form travel all the way to Earth and choose to communicate with us by making geometric patterns in crops. I asked him if we could travel to other worlds, would we choose to communicatethis way? Absolutely not! By the end of our discussion, I was convinced that many people choose to believe what they want to believe and see what they want to see. This reminds me of a quote from a book I read some time ago:
1. Wizard’s First Rule:
“People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.”
from Terry Goodkind’s book “Wizard’s First Rule”
April 28th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
I’m kind of skeptical of the whole skeptic thing.
Who really gets the peach promotions and makes all the money in the UFO field? The Skeptics! What incentive does a Skeptic have to step back and look at the entirety of the information available and make a discovery? Imagine the evidence the True Skeptic would require to decide that his spouse or significant other is cheating on him?
As a Skeptic of skeptics I contend that as an intelligent human you have decided that you are comfortable in your field of en-devour. You have probably concluded that you don’t want to hear about the truth, you want the truth to sit on your lap or offer itself for dinner or beam you up. Many skeptics have accidentally discovered enough of the truth to change teams or to at least work a bit of the truth into their analysis of historical and current events.
As people of conscience perhaps we should put our efforts into building rather than attacking and destroying? Think about it, which of the two takes the real intelligence?
September 15th, 2011 at 10:59 am
Evidence:
* Bentwaters/Lakenheath ’56 event (cf. 1969 Gillmor / Condon: 163-164)
* RB-47 incident (cf. 1971 AIAA UFO subcommittee notes chaired by Joachim P. Kuettner)
Radar, visuals, sustained contacts, recordings from numerous sets (passive radar detection, active pings, etc). What other data do you want? The acronym, UFO, doesn’t always imply little green men flying space caddies. It means something anomalous enough that we have no idea WTH it is and that we should be attempting to find out more. No different from how astronomers try to better understand TLPs. A good article on this can be found by googling for, “Is the subject of UFOs worth serious study?” (found on reddit)