A Troubling Observation About UFO Reality

[marduk]

Is this like on a game show that is televised to the world or some darkened room filled with MIB who will never let you leave if you get the right answer?

I bet that's been done in Japan.

Only the MIB's have giant anime eyes and spiky hair.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Meanwhile here's a picture of 10 pairs of shoes hanging from a telephone wire with no sag or dip;

 

[victimized]

Meanwhile here's a picture of 10 pairs of shoes hanging from a telephone wire with no sag or dip;

Went on a drive last weekend, and saw many pairs of shoes hanging in a tree....does it have some sort of meaning to an occultist?

 

[Red]

Went on a drive last weekend, and saw many pairs of shoes hanging in a tree....does it have some sort of meaning to an occultist?

Might be indicative of the journey and that you are well into your own.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Went on a drive last weekend, and saw many pairs of shoes hanging in a tree....does it have some sort of meaning to an occultist?

In the ghetto they are used to indicate an area to purchase drugs.

 

[Trajanus]

Nice find.

To play devil's advocate, what surprised me is that the wires are only around 15 feet away from the camera. One would think that both a suspension thread and the object itself would show better detail. You can see grain in the wood on the far end of the garage, about twice the distance from the spot under the wires where the object was thought to have been hanging. There's similar detail on the metal fuel tank. But none on the object twice as close? Why? The way the object seems to fade into the background also makes it look farther away. Geometry is a powerful tool, but it is basically assuming that the object is under the wires to begin with, and they admit the evaluation isn't conclusive.

The investigation on KDR's blog was more recent. I never said the photos were proof of ET. I just said they hadn't been debunked. I'd have to concur that the photos, and other evidence (in the public domain) doesn't settle the question either way.

 

[Constance]

So if you and your family's life was on the line and they asked you to pick one, which would you choose? A) The Trent photo's are a hoax, or B) The Trent photo's depict a flying saucer from another planet.

Which would you choose?

Creepy Green, do you feel that your or your family's life is on the line depending on a choice between your A) and B) options? It appears from your persistent posts in this thread that you might feel this way (and if so you have my sympathy), but I doubt that anyone else informed about the Trent case and about modern ufo history as a whole feels that way about the Trent photos. The interpretation of those two photos is not a do or die issue, or even a significant issue in ufo studies. The only useful interpretation of the last 65 years of ufo data and research must be based on a comprehensive analysis of all of that available data. Let's all read all of that and meet here again in a year or two and try again.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Creepy Green, do you feel that your or your family's life is on the line depending on a choice between your A) and B) options? It appears from your persistent posts in this thread that you might feel this way (and if so you have my sympathy), but I doubt that anyone else informed about the Trent case and about modern ufo history as a whole feels that way about the Trent photos. The interpretation of those two photos is not a do or die issue, or even a significant issue in ufo studies. The only useful interpretation of the last 65 years of ufo data and research must be based on a comprehensive analysis of all of that available data. Let's all read all of that and meet here again in a year or two and try again.

Are you just funning around here, or are you coming off as literal as you seem to be taking CGL's post? I'm lost as to what your point is if you're not being literal. If you are being literal, how could we ever collectively determine an effective evaluation of all the data when at very least 70% of it is based upon the individual reporting of perception, interpretation, and remembered events? Not to mention the nearly impossible to quantify potential of sheer socially relevant influence.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Creepy Green, do you feel that your or your family's life is on the line depending on a choice between your A) and B) options? It appears from your persistent posts in this thread that you might feel this way (and if so you have my sympathy), but I doubt that anyone else informed about the Trent case and about modern ufo history as a whole feels that way about the Trent photos. The interpretation of those two photos is not a do or die issue, or even a significant issue in ufo studies. The only useful interpretation of the last 65 years of ufo data and research must be based on a comprehensive analysis of all of that available data. Let's all read all of that and meet here again in a year or two and try again.

Actually it is do or die. It's one of the two things I stated; a hoax or a flying saucer. Nothing else. Apparently Bruce Maccabee feels the same as myself.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Are you just funning around here, or are you coming off as literal as you seem to be taking CGL's post? I'm lost as to what your point is if you're not being literal. If you are being literal, how could we ever collectively determine an effective evaluation of all the data when at very least 70% of it is based upon the individual reporting of perception, interpretation, and remembered events? Not to mention the nearly impossible to quantify potential of sheer socially relevant influence.

Exactly. Excellent point.

 

[marduk]

Actually it is do or die. It's one of the two things I stated; a hoax or a flying saucer. Nothing else. Apparently Bruce Maccabee feels the same as myself.

Why do you feel so strongly that it's a A or B?

 

[marduk]

In the ghetto they are used to indicate an area to purchase drugs.

is that what they really mean?

Holy crap.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

is that what they really mean?

Holy crap.

Yes. #sadbuttrue

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Why do you feel so strongly that it's a A or B?

Because this is an object that shows structure vs. your typical smudge, blur, streak of light, orb, etc. Therefore it cannot be anything else (a bird, plane, Venus, etc.)

 

[Constance]

Actually it is do or die. It's one of the two things I stated; a hoax or a flying saucer. Nothing else. Apparently Bruce Maccabee feels the same as myself.

What I meant to say is that no single photo or case is all that significant given the extensive ufo research history and data gathered and available in many countries over the last seven decades.

 

[Constance]

Are you just funning around here, or are you coming off as literal as you seem to be taking CGL's post? I'm lost as to what your point is if you're not being literal. If you are being literal, how could we ever collectively determine an effective evaluation of all the data when at very least 70% of it is based upon the individual reporting of perception, interpretation, and remembered events? Not to mention the nearly impossible to quantify potential of sheer socially relevant influence.

Not "funning around"; I've taken the ufo phenomena very seriously for 19 years and have read an extensive amount of the published ufo research available in English during these years. To reach "an effective evaluation of all the data" -- if one ever is reached -- will require a continuation of the collaborative efforts by many researchers already carried out in this country and a number of other countries. Yes, eyewitness testimony has played a significant role in what has been hypothesized about the material nature of many ufos, and in many cases has been backed up by radar and ground trace data and by unambiguous and anomalous physical effects generated by some ufos on military craft in pursuit of them and on numerous close encounter witnesses. I don't share your apparent doubt about most humans' perceptual abilities or capacities for remembering what they've seen in their sightings, encounters, or interactions, nor do I think most people would lie about such matters. I do see your point about "socially relevant influences" but, again, I don't think they are as influential as you do.

 

[Constance]

Actually it is do or die. It's one of the two things I stated; a hoax or a flying saucer. Nothing else. Apparently Bruce Maccabee feels the same as myself.

I gather from your last post that you think the Trent photos captured a material ufo and you cite Maccabee as agreeing. From the last writing of his about Trent that I read, that was my impression as well. I personally also think the Trent photos captured a material 'flying saucer', and I've seen one or two photos from elsewhere that are very similar to the Trent object.

 

[Constance]

Why do you feel so strongly that it's a A or B?

So far as I know, the two options Creepy Green has postulated re the Trent photos have been the only two options debated since the Condon Report of 1968.

 

[victimized]

Not "funning around"; I've taken the ufo phenomena very seriously for 19 years and have read an extensive amount of the published ufo research available in English during these years. To reach "an effective evaluation of all the data" -- if one ever is reached -- will require a continuation of the collaborative efforts by many researchers already carried out in this country and a number of other countries. Yes, eyewitness testimony has played a significant role in what has been hypothesized about the material nature of many ufos, and in many cases has been backed up by radar and ground trace data and by unambiguous and anomalous physical effects generated by some ufos on military craft in pursuit of them and on numerous close encounter witnesses. I don't share your apparent doubt about most humans' perceptual abilities or capacities for remembering what they've seen in their sightings, encounters, or interactions, nor do I think most people would lie about such matters. I do see your point about "socially relevant influences" but, again, I don't think they are as influential as you do.

As the UFO condition has been reported before on Earth, and occultist/scientific practice practiced before on Earth, then we already know by experience, being physically affected, seeing the atmosphere affected and also the stone of Earth affected, that the UFO condition is a human caused condition.

The only way a human being can cause change to creation is to convert it. Conversion is an occult practice that states...transformation through destruction.

Therefore the human mind has always been aware that the applications of scientific conversion is a purposeful act to destroy natural creation.

Creation as a natural review belongs to the conditions of evolution, self evolving.

Earth is a self evolved planet that belongs to its own history.

When you review evidence about creation, Earth demonstrates that its own stone condition is a fusion. Stone from out of space demonstrates it belongs to a different fusion.

FU SION, SION a condition of ancient occult cause and effects.

We know as science on Earth that nuclear dust was considered holy by the ancient occult review, as was the atmosphere, the Christ review and the Heavenly body.

Holiness is stated as a condition statement identifying a reason to "not change the condition of".

If out of space stone is different in its fusion, this would imply that out of space particles as nuclear particles are also different.....larger.

The occult review already stated after the human male population gained attacked...stigmata/irradiation effects that the smaller particle on Earth defeated the larger particle (called a giant). It was a realization that Earth's atmospheric body was the only reason why the particle from out of space was defeated in an occult review.

Because modern occult practice is to remove the holy nuclear dust, convert it into a fuel and then burn the fuel, the out of space nuclear particle began to manifest an unnatural metallic orbital in our atmospheric body as a condition called cause and effect.

Cause and effect states that if you alter a natural condition you will cause changes and then see the effects, therefore what is to argue about the effects that human life has witnessed since this unnatural form of occult practice has been applied...nuclear fuel power plants?

 

[Trajanus]

I gather from your last post that you think the Trent photos captured a material ufo

Creepy thinks it's a truck mirror.

I personally also think the Trent photos captured a material 'flying saucer', and I've seen one or two photos from elsewhere that are very similar to the Trent object.

Including Rouen France 1954, but I understand there are provenance issues.