Robert Hastings...

[Drew UK]

So why the aloofness?..........

The ability to conceal and hide our weaknesses is an important consideration to make in the power dynamic?

Invisibility is king on the road to infallability.
Too much exposure can reveal too much about us, and can generate distrust, amusement and eventually disrespect. Once information is generated about one, it can be displayed (truthfully or not) and used against one's interests (Queens English).
For those in a power heirachy when was the last time your CEO came to visit you? - what was his interaction towards you? Did you sense the hide? did you sense "ok, I like you, but at a distant?".

I call this the "god scenario" - so long as he doesn't appear he has popular support, soon as he pop's out of his cloud he'll be front page news, ratings will go down and he'll be put to the cross: cause I know better, now that I know what you are - my judgement is superior now we are on the same level!!. (You don't have to be read a bible to get this point - the daily rag will be sufficient).

I could talk about this in depth, about the concealment of power and wealth and to "back seat drive" away from prying eyes - but this is more in the conspiracy arena than in the UFO arena.

So the last topic on the aloofness regarding the UFO arena is this ...
∆x∆p ≥ћ/2.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>

I will come onto your point CapnG

 

[CapnG]

Who's going to stop it some FOO FIGHTERS out of world war II?

If they wanted to, yes. They've already demonstrated that they can and do and will interfere with our nukes whenever the hell they damn well please.

Plus I don't get the WW2 reference. Are you implying that the craft that demonstrated THEN that they were superior to anything we have NOW are somehow antiquaited?

What do they care? they are referee's after all?

Well that's the mystery isn't it? Why are they here? What is their agenda? Clearly they have one but that's about all we know.

I'll say this though: in NO WAY would a global nuclear war be benefitial, so I'm kinda unclear what you meant by:

Listen, we need nuclear world war III or IV (depending on your attachement with the USSR). Its necessary, a learning curve on the resume of human history and fortunately we are most likely to see it!!

Since most of us will be dead and the rest slowly dying of radiation sickness, I really don't see how we can "learn" anything. In fact the only thing I recall learning about nuclear war was this: when the bombs start dropping, drive TOWARDS them. You're better off at ground zero, trust me.

 

[mike]

im not sure a even a MAD scenario would wipe humans from the face of the earth, there appears to be enough deep underground military bases in the world for versions of patrick tilleys Amtrak Wars style cultures to survive.
and nukes are not our only worry, the sun or climate might cause surface life as we know it to be impossible, as could a stray comet.
weve endured ice ages in history, and other diebacks of the species before, i think technology gives us more chance for surviving an extinction level event than we ever did in the past (as a species) and that enough of us and enough knowledge, technology and database systems would survive even a full scale nuke fest.
for all we know the greys may be a bunch of pacifistic data ants who having encountered an aggressive space going species, and having no natural inclination towards weapons, has simply found a planet of naturally aggressive but intellegent primates and has given them technology to see what destructive weapons their creativity can produce, in the hope they develop something useful.
nukes are probibly no more impressive than gunpowder on a galatic scale, but you never know given time we might develop sun snuffers, or black hole bombs.........

the events as described in this episode, may be no more than subtle prompts to tweak us. id imagine the govt would have spent some effort trying to sheild the systems perhaps replace analog with digital etc in an attempt to prevent these systems from being comprised again

 

[Rocketsauce]

not much more to add, just wanted to say the show was a great one and I"m glad the message board is back!

In terms of how to interpret the UFO's actions, I have no idea what to think. The one thing that can be deduced is they haven't taken over our species or planet overtly. Outside of that, I think the possibilities are quite wide.

I would be curious as to what Jaque Vallee's theories on the nuke stuff would be. Certainly the UFO's have a pattern of paying attention to nukes, so the Nukes are of some significance to them. As weapons of mass destruction maybe at some level we can deduce the UFO's are interested in the idea that we have the capability of using nukes.

Are they interested in the nukes because they are a great tool for the UFO's to demonstrate their power/control to us or are they trying to see how we would react to them messing with our nukes or are they actually trying to teach us something about using the nukes?

I would lean towards they are trying to see how we would react to them messing with the nukes because there are more effective ways to teach us things, although who knows, maybe in addition to having advanced technology they have super advanced techniques for mass behavior modification and this is part of that method. Maybe they were all listening to Motohead snorting crystal meth and decided it would be fun to go fuck with the humans for shits and giggles

Hastings insight into the Larry King show was pretty interesting, I hope he is able to get a real skeptic not a dubunker on that show with him. Bill Nye comes off as such an ill informed a-hole on the subject.

 

[Hoffmeister]

Ok, I've had another way of thinking about it in response to my last post where I was blithering on about how we can't use human reasoning to work out why they would turn our Nukes off.
So lets try thinking about the scenario using completely human reasoning...
If a load of our nukes were turned off, and we conclusively found out it was the Russians, what would be our first conclusions??

I believe that we would think they were testing out our reaction times to getting the nukes back online so they knew what it would be when they started a nuclear attack, much like how criminals often put in fake police calls to places to test reaction times before they rob a bank etc.

Now lets hope the aliens werent turning off the nukes for the same reason... because you can be damned sure that if they were hostile and an impending occupation was coming, the first thing they would reccie would be our nukes. This would give the government good reason to cover it all up as well.

But don't worry, i'm sure they're not hostile...

 

[CapnG]

Now lets hope the aliens werent turning off the nukes for the same reason... because you can be damned sure that if they were hostile and an impending occupation was coming, the first thing they would reccie would be our nukes.

But don't worry, i'm sure they're not hostile...

Ah but you're forgetting they have also ACTIVATED nukes, taking them to prelaunch conditions. That means they can not only disarm but also detonate our weapons at will, suggesting that (were they hostile) they could simply blow us up with our own missiles, almost zero effort required on their part.

 

[Hoffmeister]

Also, what are peoples asssesment of the possibility that perhaps the Malmstrom case actually was the Russians. An insider turns the nukes off somehow and then another insider or perhaps the same one comes up with the UFO story (they would want to turn them off for the reasons in my last post).
Is suppose only Bob whats-his-name (was it Salas?) would be the only person who could answer that. Wouldnt it be ironic though, the Russians using the Americans own cover story against themselves...

 

[CapnG]

Also, what are peoples asssesment of the possibility that perhaps the Malmstrom case actually was the Russians

If the Russians could have pulled something like that off at the height of the cold war it would have been checkmate. It wasn't, so I put the odds of it being the Russians pretty low...

 

[Drew UK]

War unfortunately is a part of our psyche - we have not erradicated that predicament, and in someways its irrationally.

Be it a global adventure or a street fight in the mall - we seek to precipate out a sense of respect in which we feel hard done by or wronged.

I look at the position in the world whereby the US/Europe/Israel has built up and provoked Georgia into attack on to South Ossetia (Russia) and Russia has decided to react very harshly. Substituting a few words and swapping the angle around the same could be said in Yugoslavia - Bosnia/Serbia and Kosovo whereby the West decided to react very harshy.

I cannot put it more succintly than Von Klauswitz, On War "The purpose of war is to serve a political means, the true nature of war is to serve itself".

This event in the balkans may or not be the ball that gets rolling, but it demonstrates one thing - building up reasonable relationships can take years but destroyong them takes weeks/days. What happens now, does Russia increase its sponsership towards Syria, Iran?

Just as the street mall disagrement - you are always taking a risk where you may end up dead - but out of anger and pride you take it anyway. A nuclear conflict will just be the same.

There is many things we need to learn, "the true nature of war is to serve itself" is one we keep on forgetting.

Anyway, I have removed from my original speculation "what do ET's have to do with this" - I will try to get onto this at a later date.

 

[Hoffmeister]

Ah but you're forgetting they have also ACTIVATED nukes, taking them to prelaunch conditions. That means they can not only disarm but also detonate our weapons at will, suggesting that (were they hostile) they could simply blow us up with our own missiles, almost zero effort required on their part.

My theory was based ono the malmstrom case only. Personally I dont think there is enough compelling evidence for the activation case. It might have happened, but i dont think there is enough evidence to consider it in my mind.
but you're right, if they can turn them off, i am sure they can activate them also, but that would spoil the nice planet they want to occupy.
Anyway it was just a theory

 

[Drew UK]

Visitors are here, with the ability to breach nuclear systems - friend or foe / Peaceful or Hostile.

The physicist S.Hawkin, states the following and it has got much support in the science fraternity and its related fields.

"Any advanced intelligent being, who came here would immediately be hostile - so it's all a load of " - I think this detracts from the form of thinking -
1. War and conflict are a catalyst for technological advancement, and any being that would possess intelligent devices would also have the appetite for destruction.
2. Human history has always favoured aggresivity over peace and colonisation or initial discovery of lands was always followed by the "advanced" peoples over the "developing" peoples.

Both these criterias are falsehoods.
True, wars do motivate us to design things quicker and faster but are not necessarily a function for intelligent design - I don't think we were under threat during the computer revolution of the 80's/90's. Progress has been made also, in enhanced communication, teamwork, building of civilisation and society than walking around in cavesuits bashing each over the head with wooden clubs. Intelligence is by it's nature peace and patience - without the need for arrogance.
It's the politicians who hijack all the spadework done by our intelligent people and then go and put warheads on it.
- I hope I don't sound too hippyish

On the second issue - let us use America as an example and go back to the 1500's. Our european ancestors did not come to these shores with the goal of wiping out the American Indian population - in fact most of the decimation was carried out by the inadvertent transmission of disease. The motive was to obtain land, get rich and find gold,silver,sugar and tobacco to transport it back to the motherland at good profit. Unfortunately, the pressure of greed and survival (in an unknown territory) and other lands created the obliteration and extermination of the native peoples. Religion just helped to rubber stamp it "heathen".

On this issue, we have to look at a different paradigm.
A paradigm of an advanced visitor, and I would expect that with such advancement a relevant need of material essence is no longer appropriate.
Why fight if there's nothing worth fighting for?

People appreciate peace if they have abundance of the things they need. Technological advancements bring abundance. Who knows maybe one day, us Homo Sapiens might be satisfied?

Unfortunately - here is the credit crisis. See my previous post on the coming international conflict.
Was it Clint Eastwood who said in one of the spaghetti westerns after recieving a reward and the fear that he may commit more violence. "People appreciate peace, when they have money in there hands."

This is my opinion, These Visitors do not have hostility towards us.
My second opinion, These visitors do not have friendships either. - I can elaborate another time.

 

[Drew UK]

Theres no I in team but there is in Friend.

Friendships always have the idea involved "Whats in it for me?"

All reasonable relationships are based on some form of payback in return for generosity or mutual need.
See what happens when your next down the pub with your mates and decide that you won't buy them any drinks - usually the opposite will soon take form - a downward spiral of enmity and a continuous reciprication of "getting one over" your fellow being - see previous post.

So what do we offer? What can we offer? - can we really engage in any possible meaningful relationship - the answer is absoultely NO.

This "relationship" - more appropriate to call it an interaction - is asymmetrical and the words and feelings "enemies,foes, friends, hostility,peace" - serve no purpose, other to reinforce our human sentiments and clouds our judgement in getting further into this topic - and should be extinguished from this debate.

The more I hear about this phenomenon the more I get the impression of a "Doctor and Patient" or "Scientist and Specimen" interaction, again the terms friend and foe have no bearing on such an interaction.
But I do not rule out a duty of care/domestication as we do with our "lesser" organisms in the animal kingdom. If I believed the contrary, we are a pest that needs to be eradicated - I think we would know by now, and I would not be writing this email.

So, Why the Aloofness?............................................

 

[CapnG]

So, Why the Aloofness?

Stanton Friedman has been adding a new line to his schpiel lately "There are squirrels in my backyard but I don't try to have a conversation with them..."

 

[Mothra]

Stanton Friedman has been adding a new line to his schpiel lately "There are squirrels in my backyard but I don't try to have a conversation with them..."

I talk to the squirrels in my yard, doesn't everybody?

 

[schticknz]

I talk to the squirrels in my yard, doesn't everybody?

I live in New Zealand ... so only if they have a cell phone .. brmmm tschhh

However I did used to talk to the wasps that used to hover around the bush at the bottom of the garden when I lived in a house in Wales ... strangely enough it was always a one way conversation ... wasps are not very talkative creatures 8).

Now back to your scheduled Paracast thread topic thing ...

 

[noddwyd]

My take on this is that it is a simple warning. Why would they bother? Maybe nuclear missiles bring up bad memories, like

'hey, remember that time we totally destroyed our planet and had to move to a new one, and how it totally sucked?'

'Yeah, why the hell did you have to bring that up again?'

'Check it out. These idiots have the capability to do the same thing.'

'Great.'

'Let's mess with their heads and activate one of them.'

 

[Drew UK]

So, why the Aloofness?......

Concealment and Secrecy has many advantages.

In a war scenario it can be used as a precursor to the suprise attack, or simply used as a mode of defense.
Although, as I already stated I do not think that war is relevant to dicuss on this subject, current episodes in the world offer an ability to get an insight into asymmetry (which I think is key to understanding what is happening here).

The USA currently spends more in its defense budget than the summation of all the other ministries of defense in the world. It's technological demonstration - Nimitz carrierships, Los Angeles Class Nuclear Submarines, its strategic deployment all over the world is an example of super advanced superiority that no other power could rival.
Yet, despite this it still struggles to "win wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan. A bunch of bandits with rocket launches and AK47's..
This is the problem with asymmetrical engagement - that technology is not necessarily a function of success.

Technological advancement is best kept as a symbol of power, not as a tool to win wars. This, is why here in the UK our defense budget is mainly aimed at our class of Trident Submarines - the nuclear submarine is probably one of the most effective designs in warfare to date. Hidden, Out of sight, Out of mind, but with the capabilities to bring countries in the world to there knees in minutes.

If America is to retain its dominance in the world it needs to move back to strategies of concealment and secrecy -changing regimes from within and at a distance, instead of peacock "shock and awe!!" tatics which will only create indifference and gradually wear american influence (power) away in the world.

Although, I have drifted of topic and I repeatedly suggest that I do not think that the above as anything to do with the phenomenon - I just want to keep this in mind as I go further.

 

[Drew UK]

So, why the aloofness? (partIII)........

dPdX >/= h/4(pi) [Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle]

From my previous analysis, I tried to explain the asymmetrical patterns regarding the UFO phenomenon. Discarding the valence as irrelevant in this topic and moving towards experimentative purposes surrounding this issue. Underlining this, from more reliable sources (in an unreliable background) I want to move to the aloofness in which so many of these examples manifest - the bearing will be -

How can observation affect the outcome of an experiment?

To perform a legitimate experiment experiment or scientific project, the observer must observe the results of a system in motion without influencing those results.

On Measurability and observation.
All tools of measurability are rated to the same scale on which they aim to measure - hence looking through a telescope to detect bacteria will not yield much information.

Consequently, for anything to visualise us "in our world" it must also enter into the same dimensional frequencies and parameters "of our world".

HUP.
"In any attempt to observe an electron or subatomic particle using light, you must scan that essence at the same frequency and energy of light to determine any value of the position or momentum of that particle or electron. However, by using that light or energy it ultimately has the effect of interfering with the particle that the precision becomes inaccurate- hence uncertain. The solution? - not yet put into theory/and not tested to my knowledge is to "mask that energy".

This although identified with the Quantum level can also be brought into our classical existance when studying "in vivo"

SQUIRRELS??
When studying the wilderbeast in the safari, to observe them in there natural state and habitat it is necessary to get close enough to see whats going on, but not too close enough to reveal ourselves - unfortunately, we got spotted by the dominant male and this lead to the whole herd making for us. Luckily we was in our 4x4 and we outpaced them no problem - one got too close, so I had to tranquilise it. This is the nature of the beast and a function of there primitive characteristic. We will go back next week to a different herd and try to be more careful about being spotted.

OUT OF THE CAGE.
The head of the herd has decided that the dominant males will not make for us any more, and the herd choose to ignore us more from the pressure of the dominant males , something tell us given the history of this beast it's a trap to bring us in closer?

So, what is the study about?.........................................

 

[mike]

Stanton Friedman has been adding a new line to his schpiel lately "There are squirrels in my backyard but I don't try to have a conversation with them..."

there is something in that line of thought, i have a very smart rottweiller (hed want to be for $1,500) he uses tools and creates artifacts, in that he will bounce a tennis ball and catch it all by himself. if an upstairs window is open he will bring the ball and drop it out and watch it bounce, he creates earthworks in the back yard, but even if i could speak to him in his own limited language, even if i could do it mind to mind, he will never have the "framework" for me to be able to explain a trip to the vets and all the things including the transport such an event would entail.

looking at hubble's deep field images im convinced the universe is teeming with life, and that interstellar space flight is so old and common, that those species who dont have it, do in that context fall into a similar category as my furry friend. for all that he seems clever with his ball and bag of doggy tricks, hes not ever going to be driving himself to the vet

a chimp/human hybrid might one day be able to

 

[Drew UK]

for all that he seems clever with his ball and bag of doggy tricks, hes not ever going to be driving himself to the vet


So, let the veternary surgeon come to him.