The Return of Walter Bosley

[marduk]

Didn't professor Sarbacher or whatever his name was "confirm" the memo's authenticity as well?

I believe so.

http://www.noufors.com/images/Who's Who in UFOlogy/Scientists and UFOs/sarb1.jpg

 

[Walter Bosley]

LOL, I didn't say the memo wasn't authentic. I said that I doubt the validity of the info about UFOs being classified higher than the H bomb. Nice try,though.

Also, what I said refers to that sentence in the memo being the basis to argue that UFOs would not be used to cover something else, which was what was originally meant earlier in the thread whether subsequent quibbling admits it or not.

And regarding sharing classified information: Only certain info will be shared with allies no matter how close we're working on a project with them. Period. I have been in that world. I know wherefore I speak.

Guys, all I'm saying is that the memo doesn't hold water in the discussion about whether UFOs were or were not being used to cover something else. Arguing for the authenticity of the document is really "beside the point". The issue is with a statement inside the document being used in the original point.

I've said my piece here, but feel free to continue on your own with this...

 

[marduk]

LOL, I didn't say the memo wasn't authentic. I said that I doubt the validity of the info about UFOs being classified higher than the H bomb. Nice try,though.

Wait, what?

You think the memo was authentic, just wrong? Based on what?

Also, what I said refers to that sentence in the memo being the basis to argue that UFOs would not be used to cover something else, which was what was originally meant earlier in the thread whether subsequent quibbling admits it or not.

We agree there.

And regarding sharing classified information: Only certain info will be shared with allies no matter how close we're working on a project with them. Period. I have been in that world. I know wherefore I speak.

I'm having trouble connecting with what you are saying. Sure, just because you're allies working on a joint project does not mean that you automatically share everything.

But to take that to mean that nothing gets shared as an extension of that relationship is just silly. Hell, look at the stupid avro car we built for you guys.

Guys, all I'm saying is that the memo doesn't hold water in the discussion about whether UFOs were or were not being used to cover something else. Arguing for the authenticity of the document is really "beside the point". The issue is with a statement inside the document being used in the original point.

I've said my piece here, but feel free to continue on your own with this...

Sure.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Wait, what?

You think the memo was authentic, just wrong? Based on what?



We agree there.



I'm having trouble connecting with what you are saying. Sure, just because you're allies working on a joint project does not mean that you automatically share everything.

But to take that to mean that nothing gets shared as an extension of that relationship is just silly. Hell, look at the stupid avro car we built for you guys.



Sure.

Of course you're having trouble with what I'm saying. You disagree. And now you're playing the word-twisting game. For you I'll clarify: I'm saying that not everything gets shared. Is that better? And look what I've done, I jumped back in. Tsk, tsk. I shouldn't do that when I say I won't.

 

[marduk]

Of course you're having trouble with what I'm saying. You disagree. And now you're playing the word-twisting game. For you I'll clarify: I'm saying that not everything gets shared. Is that better?

I'm not playing any kind of game here.

I'm trying to understand what it is that you're trying to say.

Which I think is three points:

1) The Smith memo may be authentic but is likely factually incorrect when it says that UFOs are classified higher than the H bomb.
2) That if it were classified higher than the H bomb, it wouldn't have been shared.
3) That in any case, it's not indicative that the US was hiding anything they had using UFOs as a cover story.

Do I have it right?

If so, I'm asking why you think Smith was wrong in point #1.

 

[Walter Bosley]

I'm not playing any kind of game here.

I'm trying to understand what it is that you're trying to say.

Which I think is three points:

1) The Smith memo may be authentic but is likely factually incorrect when it says that UFOs are classified higher than the H bomb.
2) That if it were classified higher than the H bomb, it wouldn't have been shared.
3) That in any case, it's not indicative that the US was hiding anything they had using UFOs as a cover story.

Do I have it right?

If so, I'm asking why you think Smith was wrong in point #1.

I answered that already.

 

[marduk]

I answered that already.

Not really.

Smith himself said it was in context of sharing Canadian experimental data on trying to extract usable energy from Earths magnetic field, which he theorizes may power UFOs.

I could envision a tit-for-tat scenario easily, especially after just winning a world war together.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Not really.

Smith himself said it was in context of sharing Canadian experimental data on trying to extract usable energy from Earths magnetic field, which he theorizes may power UFOs.

I could envision a tit-for-tat scenario easily, especially after just winning a world war together.

Yes, I did answer it sufficiently, regardless what Smith said. The sentence I have a problem with is not defended by what you just said. This has become circular for the purpose of you feeling good about yourself, Dukie. But it's OK, you can interpret whatever is in that memo however you like. It's not a big deal.

 

[marduk]

Yes, I did answer it sufficiently, regardless what Smith said. The sentence I have a problem with is not defended by what you just said. This has become circular for the purpose of you feeling good about yourself, Dukie. But it's OK, you can interpret whatever is in that memo however you like. It's not a big deal.

Lol.

 

[William Strathmann]

According to what's online, Smith's memo was filed:

TOP SECRET

[downgraded in 1969] CONFIDENTIAL

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
INTRA-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE

OTTAWA, Ontario, November 21, 1950

------------------------------

Now, take a few minutes and read about Klaus Fuchs, the atomic spy:

Emil Julius Klaus Fuchs (29 December 1911 – 28 January 1988) was a German theoretical physicist and atomic spy who, in 1950, was convicted of supplying information from the American, British, and Canadian Manhattan Project to the Soviet Union during and shortly after the Second World War. While at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Fuchs was responsible for many significant theoretical calculations relating to the first nuclear weapons, and later, early models of the hydrogen bomb. [. . .]

Under interrogation by MI5 officer William Skardon at an informal meeting in December 1949, Fuchs initially denied being a spy and was not detained.[45] In January 1950, Fuchs arranged another interview with Skardon and voluntarily confessed that he was a spy.[46]​

So, even if Sarbacher admitted the memo was genuine, that would not mean the memo was not part of an intel operation to mislead or flush out Soviet agents. As interesting as they were and are, UFOs didn't destroy Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Oh. My.

How very...interesting

 

[Randall]

I'm up for reading your precision terminology, and if it already exists somewhere, you can point me to it.

We can start here if you like.

I'm not interested in being argumentative at all.

There's nothing wrong with working out differences of opinion in a constructive manner. If that's what it takes to advance our understanding, then it's worthwhile.

From my view of the world, I simply do not see enough convincing evidence of the ETH as it is commonly defined, and I wondered which cases convince you.

First, we probably have slightly different views on what the terms "UFO" and "ETH" mean. It might help to put this problem in perspective by asking: If the ETH is the answer, then what is the question? So we'll begin our reconstruction of that issue by defining those terms in a more precise way.

Most people assume the ETH simply means from space, but technically it's more of a catchall term for any non-Earthly location, and therefore other concepts such as alternate dimensions, realms, and universes fall under its umbrella. Theorizing UFOs are transports from Hell is one example.

Secondly, the term "UFO" in the context of ufology has never simply meant the literal interpretation of the words that form the acronym. This is what I call The Semantics Problem. To resolve it I took an in-depth look at the word history and usage ( see the link in my signature line ). In doing that the official and unofficial definitions and usage all boil down to the word being used as a reference to alien craft, and therefore the word UFO is synonymous with the phrase "alien craft" and it can be very simply defined as such.

That in-turn leads to the what the word "alien" means, and although it is also generally assumed to be something from space, a more objective meaning is that it is a reference to something not originating from within the environment in which it is found. For example an alien plant species might contaminate a farmer's field and alien bacteria can sometimes be found in our bodies. Those are biological examples of how the word "alien" is used. Politically, illegal aliens might be caught trying to cross borders, which is apparently no longer a politically correct way of describing "undocumented travellers" , but you get the idea. This means that the word "alien" doesn't necessitate ET or little green men.

Given the above, for the purpose of ufology, the word "alien" can best be defined as originating from outside the boundaries and constructs of known human civilization. So technically alien visitation might be originating from some terrestrial location. It doesn't seem likely that such is the case. But it is possible.

Another cause of confusion is failing to differentiate between a UFO and a UFO report. In other words the objects in UFO reports aren't always alien craft, yet they are usually referred to as UFOs anyway, and that causes people to make false assumptions about the context of the discussion and consequently what they think people mean when they refer to case material. This seems to be what may have caused you to assume that I am convinced the ETH is the explanation for UFOs. I am in actuality not convinced that the ETH is the explanation.

Here is the reformulated question: What is the most probable explanation for the objects described in some UFO reports?

My Answer: Most aren't UFOs. It seems likely to me that some are, but we can't be 100% certain at this point which specific ones are. For those that are, it seems to me that the Interstellar Hypothesis is the most likely explanation, but we can't entirely rule out other possibilities.

For example, I feel pretty confident that some kind of weird shizzle happened to Travis Walton, and to the fellow brush workers with him. But I am not sure that his experience is best answered by ETH. Maybe you know of cases that I do not know of, since I am no expert on the history of ufos.

Personally I have insufficient reason to believe that the Walton case is anything but a hoax.

I would still prefer a list of ten events that you think point to your definition of the ETH. Best.

There are no cases available to the public that contain sufficient scientifically valid material evidence to scientifically prove the material existence of alien craft. Maybe the PTB has such evidence, maybe not. This also gets us into what constitutes valid evidence. I don't think scientifically valid material evidence is the only evidence from which reasonable conclusions can be drawn. We do just fine on a daily basis making many decisions that aren't scientifically analyzed first. We can do this because we're intelligent creatures with the power to reason and think. Science is a powerful tool, but it's not the only tool at our disposal.

However, to best answer your question in more specific terms, the best specific cases IMO are known as Radar/Visual cases. The 1952 Washington DC Flap includes such an incident, but personally, I'm long past the point of trying to prove individual cases. What convinces me, apart from my own sighting, is the aggregate evidence of the unusual facets of all the better cases, of which there are literally thousands. It's not a case of a few large nuggets, but thousands of tiny flakes that add-up to what is to me the only reasonable conclusion one who takes the time to study the phenomenon can arrive at. Alien visitation is real. Exactly where they come from has yet to be determined.

 

[Walter Bosley]

I think a lot of people are at the point where all this effort at discussing the topic has become drab and wearisome and the words just blur in their eyes and ears.

 

[Randall]

I think a lot of people are at the point where all this effort at discussing the topic has become drab and wearisome and the words just blur in their eyes and ears.

Agreed. I think that's why those who have been in the field for a long time "want to believe" other explanations. It's not because they really think other explanations are any better. They're just really bored with the subject and anything that adds some color and makes it more interesting for them is better than hearing the same-old same-old over and over again. Plus it keeps getting harder to sell the same old story over and over again. Lucky for me I'm not in the business of entertaining or selling people on novel theories. Therefore I'm fine with the most reasonable explanation being boring for other people.

Personally however, I'm still fascinated with space exploration and think interstellar travel would be a truly outstanding accomplishment. But because Vallée got bored with the idea, his attitude somehow become fashionable among the ufology community. I dunno why. Maybe it had something to do with his French accent? Whatever the case, I don't think Vallée's reasons were substantial enough to warrant jumping to conclusions like alternate dimensions, fairies, and other mythological nonsense. IMO that's all interesting, but it's fringe stuff. It's not what we're trying to determine the truth about in ufology.

 

[William Strathmann]

Most people assume the ETH simply means from space, but technically it's more of a catchall term for any non-Earthly location, and therefore other concepts such as alternate dimensions, realms, and universes fall under its umbrella.

Okay, since you define more precisely your use of the acromyn ETH as ^^^, which is actually quite broad, then I don't have any further questions about a list of events. I may not be remembering correctly, but it seems to me that during the interview with Walter you were pretty keen to make sure that the typically defined ET subset of interstellar vehicular travelers was acknowledged. That's why I was interested in any events that point in that direction, if there are any.

 

[Randall]

Okay, since you define more precisely your use of the acromyn ETH as ^^^, which is actually quite broad, then I don't have any further questions about a list of events. I may not be remembering correctly, but it seems to me that during the interview with Walter you were pretty keen to make sure that the typically defined ET subset of interstellar vehicular travelers was acknowledged. That's why I was interested in any events that point in that direction, if there are any.

Yes that's right. Now that we're on the same page, I'd say that in the context of formal ufology ( as opposed to the usual informal fuzzy language ), that the most reasonable explanation for reports involving UFOs ( alien craft ) is the Interstellar Hypothesis. The reasoning for this is that the resource gathering, refining, processing, parts fabrication, and assembly of the kinds of craft reported ( especially mother ships ), would require an infrastructure and industrial base so extensive that it's not reasonable to believe it could have gone undetected or been kept secret for this long.

The next closest alternative is from someplace within our solar system, but there's not enough evidence for that either, and by now, if there was some civilization on a nearby planet, we'd probably have detected it by now as well. The next closest alternative is an interstellar location. For that there is evidence of many other planets around many other stars, and there's nothing unscientific about the plausibility of interstellar travel, so other star systems are the first locations that we know exist that could reasonably be theorized to have developed the extensive advanced civilizations and technology required to produce the kinds of craft reported.

 

[Walter Bosley]

I think the point about Vallee, for me, is that the 'something else' is just as present and should get as much attention. I know I've found it to be true so that's why I advocate for the 'something else' to be paid attention to. For what it's worth.