James Carrion, Ghost Rockets, Roswell & the Hole in Ufology's Bucket

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

Honestly, that's why I got so excited about that book I read that I've been name bombing everywhere on the forums. I learned basically that a vehicle in the sky was captured on footage, showing a saucer flying sideways with energy surrounding it and extending behind it by X amount of feet. It caused a scientist to resign his post at a University and take a job through our military to attempt to recreate the propulsion of this saucer. Lights in sky + saucer + film footage + science. The funniest thing about this little story is that very few people are talking about it. Instead everyone is in their separate corners debating the validity of "are we alone?

Do you mean a young graduate student doing his master's at the University of Texas that saw Stanford's film too?

I see the equation this way: young student interested in UFO's meets Stanford, who's notorious in that area of Texas with his "space command suits" for their UFO hunter group [see Burnt's pic] + he sees footage from Stanford + gets the very naive idea this is something new + goes on to explore this idea in his own research + doesn't want the association with it being an ET UFO = UFO mythology.

Really, IF it was really a man made object, then this was just a test Stanford caught on film. Can you explain why it is anything more if you study 'very carefully' what Stanford said on the Paracast? Also, what makes you think this was a new idea about propulsion??? This is just this story you've been given by a UFO believer... Here's the probable truth...

These theoretical ideas were certainly being considered just after WWII. Experiments were probably beginning by the 1960's as R&D prototype tests. This was nothing new in concept. So, a young naive master's student had given Ray a talking point about the importance of his film. IMO. No big deal. Really.

Instead everyone is in their separate corners debating the validity of "are we alone?

Who is doing that on this forum?... are we alone??? I don't see that being debated, but you do?

 

[Constance]

@Open-Minded-Earthling, why don't you just read Lambright's book? It's available for Kindle and can also be read on your computer screen with a free Kindle app offered by amazon here:


Re your other questions and critiques of ufo research over the last 65 years, I wonder how much of that historical research you've read. You're free and loose with criticism of and contempt for the limitations of the civilian investigations of ufo sightings, photos, films, etc., since the late 1940s, but rather than recognize the sources of those limitations you dismiss them as unreal (no governmental coverup in your eyes). I don't know how you can defend that position, and you'd have to do so before I could take your point of view seriously.

You've referred several times to triangular ufos, and also complained that no one has thought to investigate triangle sightings [or other types of sightings] in terms of proximity to military bases. Are you unaware of the NIDS project concerning the triangles? That was exactly the kind of research you claim to be 'missing'. Bigelow provided the funds to pay the researchers to undertake that project, but who pays all the civilian researchers who have been gathering ufo information over the last six decades while science has been "in default" on the subject and information concerning ufos held by the US government/military/MIC has been hidden rather than shared with the public? You need to face these facts and read more of the civilian research to recognize that the questions you ask (re the reliability of witnesses and re possible military origins of some sightings) have been asked for years by career ufo investigators working on their own dime.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

You're free and loose with criticism of and contempt for the limitations of the civilian investigations of ufo sightings, photos, films, etc., since the late 1940s, but rather than recognize the sources of those limitations you dismiss them as unreal (no governmental coverup in your eyes). I don't know how you can defend that position, and you'd have to do so before I could take your point of view seriously.

Can you clarify your meaning of "unreal" and "(no governmental coverup in your eyes)", because I can't defend my thinking until I can understand how you think about my thinking.

Do we know any details about the Bigelow study, because everything with him seems to be on a 'need to know' and NDA basis??? Even Vallee has signed his NDA's. BS. This guy is trying to outdo his Vegas predecessor in paranoia, mystique, and intrigue named Howard Hughes... there's even a slight resemblance in appearance. He is a Vegas show in his own right with his media "secret agents" Knapp and Art Bell before that too.

I want to know the data sets and fields of entry, and then how that was analyzed. What statistical analysis was done about what?

 

[Constance]

Can you clarify your meaning of "unreal" and "(no governmental coverup in your eyes)", because I can't defend my thinking until I can understand how you think about my thinking.

Don't bother 'defending your thinking'. I'm not going to engage in a lengthy exchange with you involving critiques and defenses of generalized points of view. Re 'clarifying my meaning', I can't believe you don't understand what I was saying. Indeed, I spelled it out for you: governmental coverup of ufo data. If you don't believe it happened, you don't know much.

Do we know any details about the Bigelow study, because everything with him seems to be on a 'need to know' and NDA basis??? Even Vallee has signed his NDA's. BS. . . .

Yes 'we' do. It was available on the NIDS site a decade or more ago. You can probably still find it somewhere on the internet today, though the NIDS website has been inactive for years.. Give google a try.

I want to know the data sets and fields of entry, and then how that was analyzed. What statistical analysis was done about what?

And we're here to answer these questions for you? Use the internet and your local library and bookstore to catch up on the reading and research you clearly haven't done for yourself.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

Re 'clarifying my meaning', I can't believe you don't understand what I was saying. Indeed, I spelled it out for you: governmental coverup of ufo data. If you don't believe it happened, you don't know much.

That's what I thought you meant, but I want to be certain. First, it's definitely not "the government". It is special interests within and without government that depend on defense contracts for their livelihood and existance.

Why in your 'right mind' would you ever suggest I don't think there are cover-ups??? About UFO's? Are you serious? Seriously?

And we're here to answer these questions for you? Use the internet and your local library and bookstore to catch up on the reading and research you clearly haven't done for yourself.

I was obviously posing rhetorical questions Constance. IF you think I think you know these kinds of answers, then think again. You obviously seem 'to know' the answers by thinking you've got the paydirt... you can share or withhold as you see fit, but don't think for a second I'm asking you "to fetch" anything for us here. You can help-out or not...

 

[Constance]

That's what I thought you meant, but I want to be certain. First, it's definitely not "the government". It is special interests within and without government that depend on defense contracts for their livelihood and existance.

It started out as a government-military coverup, and indeed soon involved the growing military-industrial complex (clear to Eisenhower by the end of his term). The MIC has effectively displaced the elected government of this country as the controller of ufo information, research, and development. I don't remember if you said something specific about the unimportance of the coverup as the major factor in the limitations of civilian ufology or merely implied that point of view somewhere along the line, but I foregrounded the coverup to suggest to you that your critiques and demands of the civilian research to date are unreasonable in the circumstances of the coverup. Surely you see that.

I was obviously posing rhetorical questions Constance. IF you think I think you know these kinds of answers, then think again. You obviously seem 'to know' the answers by thinking you've got the paydirt... you can share or withhold as you see fit, but don't think for a second I'm asking you "to fetch" anything for us here. You can help-out or not...

I told you where to look for the report on the NIDS triangle research after I informed you that it exists. You must be a newcomer to the field not to have been aware of it. Newcomers to this field should inform themselves about and reflect on the obstacles to self-supported civilian ufo research in this country over the last 65 years before they dismiss that research -- and especially before they broadcast recommendations to bury that which has been learned by civilian researchers despite decades of well-laid obstacles.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

1) The family history of the person to get an idea of some possible genetic components, and if there are any other family members with similar experiences. This might include interviews with other family members too.

2) Obviously, the mental health and personality of the person is of primary concern, so there has to be some screening and interview process that covers that too. There might be some traits that can be identified that lend to this type of experience. How fearful is this person? What childhood experiences may have "imprinted" this person with certain types of beliefs or lasting effects.

This is a very long list I could come-up with, but the objective is the truth. Not to label someone with some form of mental illness. Many of these people are very likely to be gifted, imo, but some differences and similarities and traits will be identified. Some might be abnormal and/or highly "X" = you fill in the blank.

3) I think there needs to be some testing about perceptual differences the witness may have that are unique or different. These might include brain scans and visual tests, etc. Sensitivity to sounds or electrical fields or ???

4) Obviously, a history and any testing necessary that checks for altered states this person may be experiencing. This might include a sleep study, and any other known tests that can detect altered states. And, a history about any drug use [legal or not] that may have been a factor.

5) The study would include people with other types of experiences that could be related to the UFO and ET experience too.

This was why I made the "loon" comment. Your list of what to ask the witness attempts to dig/uncover what could cause a witness to see something so extrodinary. I don't doubt for a moment that investigators look for these things in the more extrodinary cases. I think they wear many caps when talking to a witness. Having said all of this, it would be better if those people themselves spoke about their own work, I'm not trained in this field. But I can say that they do not have the resources to cover every phone call they get that remains unknown. They can easily get several hundred a month. I think Vallee' has done some long term work with cases following /checking in with witnesses.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

No way. Why?...

Where are these missing fields of data??? Where is the relational database to do the analysis?

1) Distance from any airport?

2) Distance from any MIC manufacturer?

3) Distance from any military base?

4) Distance from any military test range including an MIC or NASA R&D test area?

5) Was it flying or directionally moving within a known flight lane [path] for commercial or military traffic?

These are 5 fields of relational database "data sets" that are entirely missing. This is by no means a laundry list of all that is missing. It's just a very important example of what is missing.

Seriously, you need to think about this last point... IF you can shape the data, then you can control the outcome... to be crude... garbage in is garbage out.

You kinda jumped there from doing a mental health study to field of data? I'm not an expert here on how they do their studies. I wouldn't presume anything until reading how they conduct their investigations. Do you know for a fact that they don't collect the above?

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Is this the same scientist that Stanford met as a master's student at the University of Texas?

I have to agree with Constance on this, you need to read this book.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Who is doing that on this forum?... are we alone??? I don't see that being debated, but you do?

Didn't mean this forum, I see this being tossed around at other forums which is why this is the only forum I blog at.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

You kinda jumped there from doing a mental health study to field of data? I'm not an expert here on how they do their studies. I wouldn't presume anything until reading how they conduct their investigations. Do you know for a fact that they don't collect the above?

I'm advocating in concert with Vallee's ideas something very different than a "mental health" study. Imo, you are characterizing my thinking incorrectly. On the fields of data: there is no relational database that I'm aware of collecting that kind of specific information. MUFON and Davenport does not specifically collect it, since you can read their reports online too see for yourself. You claim to have read a vast number of the pilot reports too, so it's obvious that is also not specifically collected there either.

Why do you continue to question whether this information is missing? You've read plenty of these reports it seems for possibly years now, right???

Constance says there is a NIDS report about the triangles, so I will find it to read. I can only say I"m highly skeptical of anything UFO etc. Bigelow does, because everything is "need to know" and signed with NDA's. He is a control freak with the information he collects, so he is not really offering you or I a pubic service freely giving away what he learns.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

I have to agree with Constance on this, you need to read this book.

Why? Just to answer 'one' yes or no question I asked you two times? Can't you just simply answer that? You know this already, and it's just "yes" or "no".

I suggest that is what a forum is for. To share information when possible, rather than avoid answering the simplest of questions you can be asked. I think it is being very uncooperative when people start doing this. There is an agenda, when someone starts doing this too. Imo.

Also, you are ignoring commenting about that photo that Constance posted. Why? Please go back and read my post to you about that. Why won't you comment about it? You could answer in one or two sentences easily, so I"m not asking you to "fetch information". I'm asking a simple question. Again, I think it is very telling when someone withholds sharing this kind of exchange of opinions. Hmmm...

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

[...] I foregrounded the coverup to suggest to you that your critiques and demands of the civilian research to date are unreasonable in the circumstances of the coverup. Surely you see that.

If all you can come-up with is an old NIDS report about the association of Triangles to airports and whatever else may be in that report, then I'm definitely not impressed about the kind of information that is missing from the reporting and documentation methods since the late 1980's. Especially, that no one has organized what information there is into a publicly known and searchable relational database.

Despite the NIDS report you referred to, you cannot come-up with anything else. Btw, I already knew Bigelow studies these subjects for his own extremely deceptive and private purposes that are not meant to be shared openly with anyone else. He has his agendas to definitely promote mystique, his men in black, Skinwalker, Art Bell and now Knapp, along with a long list of very notoriously infamous UFO people he has supported and/or consulted with.

Like I said, Bigelow already 'is' the next Vegas Act of Howard Hughes.

To address your point at the top of this post specifically too: I've already posted these reasons before... Why would the MIC or military want to cooperate with any of the civilian UFO reporting services? It's not helpful for their agendas to reveal anything about classified flying aircraft to any civilian group, period, ever. So, why do you think you're entitled to this information? Seriously? These are the most protected secrets within the military that force them to use deception and disinformation... Why? I already posted this... These craft fly in our skies, so it's advantageous to let people think these are ET UFO's and not human made.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Why? Just to answer 'one' yes or no question I asked you several times? Can't you just simply answer that? You know this already, and it's just "yes" or "no".

I suggest that is what a forum is for. To share information when possible, rather than avoid answering the simplest of questions you can be asked. I think it is being very uncooperative when people start doing this. There is an agenda, when someone starts doing this too. Imo.

Also, you are ignoring commenting about that photo that Constance posted. Why? Please go back and read my post to you about that. Why won't you comment about it? You could answer in one or two sentences easily, so I"m not asking you to "fetch information". I'm asking a simple question. Again, I think it is very telling when someone withholds sharing this kind of exchange of opinions. Hmmm...

Your trying to have a dialogue where the people you talk with do all the work and you sit back and pump out the questions. Not really working out for me. Since your not really interested in reading X-descending, which is of course ok, why not just skip around that part instead of dialoguing, opining on something you've not read? As to the first picture, it's similar to a series of photos in the book. The second picture is just cool. As to the questions you posted on what to ask a witness, we'll have to disagree on that. I think it's an admission form to a state mental health facility. But I also clearly state that I do not know the specific questions investigators currently ask. It's easy enough to find a form MUFON uses to fill out a sighting report, but I do not know what they ask after that and how they base who to ask once reading the form. As to an agenda, when you respond to my posts you load up on questions and fire away leaving me to wonder whether your more interested in playing a game here and less interested in learning something new. So if I, or as I've seen in Constance, seem guarded and unwilling to load you up with links to each reply, well.....that's life bud.

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

Your trying to have a dialogue where the people you talk with do all the work and you sit back and pump out the questions. Not really working out for me. Since your not really interested in reading X-descending, which is of course ok, why not just skip around that part instead of dialoguing, opining on something you've not read? [...] As to an agenda, when you respond to my posts you load up on questions and fire away leaving me to wonder whether your more interested in playing a game here and less interested in learning something new. So if I, or as I've seen in Constance, seem guarded and unwilling to load you up with links to each reply, well.....that's life bud.

I have never asked anyone to load-up on links, ever, so, again, it is very frustrating when people like you still refuse to answer just simply: YES or NO. Now, can you do that or not, or will you 'just' continue to write this BS just above 'again' ? Heidi, it's either Yes or No... nothing else is required to answer my question. I don't need to read a book for 'that' kind of answer - yes or no! Lol.

I've learned plenty from Standford and Lambright. I've known about his before you, X-Descending, and I've been to his website and listened to hours of both Lambright and Standford, so what am I "missing" -just his book? I've already posted plenty of detail about Stanford's theory, so there is plenty 'there' for you to debate about it without me reading the book too. It should be easy to "shoot down" what I've said if you think the book has "the answers". I'm just asking you to discuss what seemed to be of great interest to you. You posted you're wanting to discuss his theory taken from Standford. Are you suggesting you won't discuss this unless I read the book first? I already have formed my opinions about it, and I might be right or wrong or mistaken too. I could care less about that outcome really. In fact, I would be most appreciative if I could learn I'm mistaken. That's just part of the learning process, so I'm not trying to be argumentative "to play games" or not learn something new, as you directly suggest.

I find it extremely condescending, when people start to judge you by the media device or type of content that gave you some good information. As far as Constance is concerned, if she can't read it, then she is extremely bias and dismissive towards anyone else if the same subject matter is obtained from an audio source. Lol... That's bizarre, imo. Why? Because people shoot their mouths off and tell a lot more 'inside information' than you will ever find in their books. It is amazing how one can and will learn something new well beyond their book in an interview about it. Too bad you seem to fall in-line with Constance here about this "reading stance" vs a damn good interview by Gene and Chris or elsewhere. It creates an amazing blind spot in your understanding, when you do this too! It certainly shows, this blindness, as a "house of cards" that is religious thinking about the UFO. It is definitely not rational or a scientific approach, imo.

 

[Constance]

Your trying to have a dialogue where the people you talk with do all the work and you sit back and pump out the questions.

. . . and also pump out repetitive unreasoned judgments concerning 65 years of productive ufo research performed despite daunting circumstances which you blindly refuse to recognize. What you present is a shallow and uninformed tirade. Who needs it?

 

[Open-Minded-Earthling]

. . . and also pump out repetitive unreasoned judgments concerning 65 years of productive ufo research performed despite daunting circumstances which you blindly refuse to recognize. What you present is a shallow and uninformed tirade. Who needs it?

Here's how you characterize my thinking: "shallow" "uninformed" "tirade".

My thinking is almost precisely in-line with Burnt State and Jacques Vallee, so I guess I can conjecture you call their ideas "shallow" "uninformed" and on a "tirade" too. That's a problem more to do with your thinking flaws, example, dismissive of the type of information media, audio vs book, and you use that extreme bias to label and be dismissive and condescending too.

 

[Constance]

To address your point at the top of this post specifically too: I've already posted these reasons before... Why would the MIC or military want to cooperate with any of the civilian UFO reporting services? It's not helpful for their agendas to reveal anything about classified flying aircraft to any civilian group, period, ever. So, why do you think you're entitled to this information? Seriously? These are the most protected secrets within the military that force them to use deception and disinformation... Why? I already posted this... These craft fly in our skies, so it's advantageous to let people think these are ET UFO's and not human made.

Ah, I see. The MIC has an agenda that trumps the agendas of all other individuals and organizations living in this country and on this planet, whose humbler agenda is to find out and comprehend the actual conditions of their existence and the existence of their children. You would have made a well-adjusted Nazi.

 

[Constance]

My thinking is almost precisely in-line with Burnt State and Jacques Vallee, so I guess I can conjecture you call their ideas "shallow" "uninformed" and on a "tirade" too. That's a problem more to do with your thinking flaws, example, dismissive of the type of information media, audio vs book, and you use that extreme bias to label and be dismissive and condescending too.

Please don't confuse the issue by bringing others into it. Both Burnt and the great Vallee commit their thinking to texts (Vallee only some of the time these days, and formerly often in fiction). You seem to recognize the importance of written sources, texts, in ufo research but not where new theories are being proposed concerning the interpretation of ufos and other phenomena (along with the recommendation that we jettison the body of texts constituting existing ufo research). What justifies this inconsistency?

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

Professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute named Leik Myrabo. I honestly can't figure out which of the questions you need a yes or no to. There's many.