Wow, Dave...You Missed The X-Conference Grand Finale!

[valiens]

I think also Nick's perspective is shaded by the fact that he comes from the MOD and wouldn't want to think that he's being lied to by his (former) employers or else what was he there for?

 

[auntiegrav]

I think also Nick's perspective is shaded by the fact that he comes from the MOD and wouldn't want to think that he's being lied to by his (former) employers or else what was he there for?

Yeah, I think we would all like to think that the work we've done was useful, for decent people for honest reasons.
Now that I work for myself, that is all shot to hell. ;-)

 

[Tony2013]

I think also Nick's perspective is shaded by the fact that he comes from the MOD and wouldn't want to think that he's being lied to by his (former) employers or else what was he there for?

I think that'd be pretty good motivation for me to go after the truth; especially if I were that close and it was being withheld from me.

Overall I think the discussion here imitates what happens *out there* - a lot of squabbling and disagreement. Not that you all haven't made some good points. I'm beginning to think, however, judging from all the mixed messages and differences of opinions, that this "Ufology" phenomenon is ultimately going to be characterized by an inability to reconcile experiences from different individuals. It brings me back to something Jeff Ritzmann said once about a group of people staring up at something, in essence the same object, but each person seeing something different (at least that's what I remember... sorry Jeff if I'm completely mis-quoting you here, and feel free to straighten me out).

I'm amazed at how much of this resembles faith sometimes; some people choose to believe and have faith in a certain theory, while others (like Paul Kimball) seem to head in the opposite direction towards pragmatics and almost a Ufological agnosticism. Not that he doesn't believe UFOs exist, otherwise why would he spend so much time and effort on documentaries, blogs, interviews, etc? But what those UFOs are, what they represent, and who is controlling them... that remains completely to be seen and proved. Others look up at them and seem to *know* that they represent another intelligent being, other worlds, other dimensions perhaps.

Once again, it seems we're left at the crossroads of faith and science, and how to justify both of them. I remember abductee accounts of people standing in alien crafts, confroted by greys, and not knowing what any of it meant, or how any of it was supposed to work. Like a prehistoric man watching us go about our daily lives. I'm more inclined to believe this scenario because of the plausibility, and the idea that we simply can't comprehend a race that has this kind of technological prowess. My point is that if this is the impression someone is left with, what are mere mortals on the ground supposed to make of it? We can't duplicate interstellar travel on their scale (if it is an alien race in those crafts), so how do we prove any of it? How do you prove something you haven't discovered yourself?

The presence of nutjobs, thieves and liars only compounds the situation. Paranoia about government conspiracies and agency cover-ups supplies obfuscation and in-fighting. Famous cases are debunked and rebunked. Eye-witnesses, so-called, are discredited and recredited. As it is in the Book of Job; "Where shall wisdom be found?"

I don't believe we should proceed together on this. I think we should seize the opportunity to move forward as individuals, lending each other support and agreement along the way. Divided we stand, united we fall. Why? Because those who are here to confuse and lie to us have no power if each one of us searches in their own way. The only way to know anything for certain is to search for it yourself, and not allow someone else to do the work for you. Otherwise we're just going to have more madness, less truth, more conflict, less unification.

Besides, I think it's what *they* would want, and you can choose to believe who *they* are.

 

[auntiegrav]

Overall I think the discussion here imitates what happens *out there* - a lot of squabbling and disagreement. Not that you all haven't made some good points. I'm beginning to think, however, judging from all the mixed messages and differences of opinions, that this "Ufology" phenomenon is ultimately going to be characterized by an inability to reconcile experiences from different individuals.

Once again, it seems we're left at the crossroads of faith and science, and how to justify both of them. My point is that if this is the impression someone is left with, what are mere mortals on the ground supposed to make of it? We can't duplicate interstellar travel on their scale (if it is an alien race in those crafts), so how do we prove any of it? How do you prove something you haven't discovered yourself?

That's where my view comes in. I would like to discover something myself. I'm not so concerned with the exopolitics of it as with the technical. The exopolitics just happen to get in the way. If a scientist accepts the idea that we CAN travel faster than light, then he looks in a totally different way at the problems of HOW to travel faster than light compared to someone who denies that it is possible. If you have faith in an afterlife, but no belief in a mechanism to get there, then it's just a hobby. If you believe in the existence of a mechanism, it becomes a quest, whether science or faith-based.

The presence of nutjobs, thieves and liars only compounds the situation. Paranoia about government conspiracies and agency cover-ups supplies obfuscation and in-fighting. Famous cases are debunked and rebunked. Eye-witnesses, so-called, are discredited and recredited. As it is in the Book of Job; "Where shall wisdom be found?"

I don't believe we should proceed together on this. I think we should seize the opportunity to move forward as individuals, lending each other support and agreement along the way. Divided we stand, united we fall. Why? Because those who are here to confuse and lie to us have no power if each one of us searches in their own way. The only way to know anything for certain is to search for it yourself, and not allow someone else to do the work for you. Otherwise we're just going to have more madness, less truth, more conflict, less unification.

Besides, I think it's what *they* would want, and you can choose to believe who *they* are.

I think you are right in much of what you say. However, I also think that there is value in group discussions if only to hash out the things quickly that would otherwise stew around and come up in the middle of a conference and waste valuable time when key players are together. If we draw out the disinformation agents here, then responses to their points can be predigested and ready when a serious public discussion occurs. It is also important to discuss things in writing, where ideas can be refined somewhat compared to the public arena, where a slip of the tongue can segue into hours-long debates about evolution or dinosaurs.
I invite people to send me messages about technical points of sightings and abductions. How did you feel? What did you hear? What color transitions occurred? Did one ship seem to be responding to another? Did they seem to be concerned with any geographical feature or location particularly? What is the area known for geologically?
I don't care what the aliens looked like, how scared you were, who denied it or who wrote about it or who you reported it to or what you got paid for the book you wrote. Just features and behaviors of the craft themselves, and anything they might have been attracted to or responding to.

 

[David Biedny]

Fascinating discussion.

Look, it's clear that consensus is not something that is likely to happen with this topic, perhaps the "reality" of the UFO situation is subjective in ways that we are simply not equipped to understand. As I've mentioned on these forums, just having the ability and venue in which to air my thoughts about this stuff, is very useful, and cheaper than conventional therapy. I'm not interested in pushing a particular point of view or theory, for the simple reason that I don't currently have one that I feel can be successfully defended to any reasonable degree. In some very long discussions I've had with Jeff Ritzmann about this, we seem to agree that the quest is largely individual, with occasional useful overlapping of details and insights. It's not like this topic is part of the usual diet of human interaction - anything in the realm of mystical study is very difficult to wrap in conventional clothing - and the interpretation of individual experiences is largely up to the individual.

dB

 

[musictomyears]

I am impressed with the recent comments... How refreshing to follow thoughts that encompass concepts beyond the somewhat trivial question of "Are UFOs real?".

We are facing much larger issues than simple conspiracies, or questions of technological feasibility of deep-space travel, or time manipulation. A lot of people (unfortunately and almost inevitably) get unstuck in futile attempts to limit the alien and UFO phenomena by their particular interpretation of the world around them. For example, we have the self-proclaimed "rationalists", who are only ever going to be satisfied when they can touch a UFO, and take a live alien out for lunch. For some strange reason, they also seem to require governments (???) to validate the existence of aliens and UFOs, for otherwise none of this stuff could ever be real to them. To stay with the recent discussion, if Nick Pope or the MoD say UFOs are real, then it must be so. If they say "We don't know what they are", then nothing can ever be certain. These people desperately hold on to authority, even when it becomes counterproductive to do so. Throughout history, authorities (such as governments) have had such a terrible track record of deceiving their subjects, that it makes one wonder how there is any credibility left at all.

However, at the other end of the scale, we also have the "dreamers" - people who gladly believe in anything that promises relief from their daily existence. There is nothing too ridiculous or implausible for them to latch onto, no plastic laser-gun toy too silly to be mistaken for the real thing.

So, it is imperative to strike a balance. Let me put it this way: One needs to remain open-minded, without allowing one's brain to fall out.

But the real crunch comes when every genuine truth seeker eventually hits a kind of brick-wall at the outer limits of human experience and understanding. Much of what UFOs and their alien occupants are capable of appears to us like magic, and - worst of all - illogical. It makes no sense. It doesn't appear to fit into what anybody would "reasonably" expect from alien visitors. Anal probing? Experiments with human (hybrid) foetuses? Abductions? Warnings of impending environmental disaster? Shady deals with certain governments? All that can't be for real - surely? Haven't these aliens got anything better to do?

Unless we get our heads around the notion that aliens not only live on different planets (or so it seems anyway), but also have a different take on life, are we never going to move one inch closer toward solving the mystery. There are similarities to the way we live, but there are also huge differences - anybody who studied the anecdotal accounts knows that. (Anecdotes is all we are ever going to have, unless certain fundamentals change). I have seen a UFO - only once, but it was a striking experience. Consequently, since then my question has not been "Are they real?", but: "Where are they from, and what are they doing here?" I am convinced that answers to these questions are only accessible if one is prepared to open up to the concept of a Greater Reality, a reality where space, time, life and the afterlife, are fluid parameters that interact on levels that include the physical realm, but go way beyond it. Here is where the challenge lies.

 

[auntiegrav]

We are facing much larger issues than simple conspiracies, or questions of technological feasibility of deep-space travel, or time manipulation.

So, it is imperative to strike a balance. Let me put it this way: One needs to remain open-minded, without allowing one's brain to fall out.

I am convinced that answers to these questions are only accessible if one is prepared to open up to the concept of a Greater Reality, a reality where space, time, life and the afterlife, are fluid parameters that interact on levels that include the physical realm, but go way beyond it. Here is where the challenge lies.

I trimmed out a lot of good comments to shorten the quote. This is where we divide up the tasks to figure out the paths that will be productive. Paul K and Nick P would be good at gathering facts from sources that are rational. Push the envelope of what is disclosed by governments, which disclosures are factual or disinformation, etc. Others may want to explore the realms of paranormal thinking and multidimensions.
The common links I am interested in are these: What conspiracies have been used to hide terrestrial technology and connections? What characteristics of the universe would allow the things that seem like magic to happen? Which theories of the universe fit hard data, which paradigms are self-delusional statistics, and which paradigms are fed into the unsuspecting world to divert investigations along certain paths? If we explain some manifestations of paranormality through alternative physics, do those explanations apply to UFOs? Would those explanations have been found previously by government researchers and then covered up? (I've been thinking about many of these questions for many years, so in my self-deluded world, I have a head start...;-)

Everyone meet back here in 6 months and report your findings.
meeting adjourned. (well, you get the idea). Pick your own topic, try to follow it through, whether illogically or logically, and see where you end up with it.
Trust No One, The Truth is Everywhere. It has to be or we wouldn't exist.
If you build it, Will They Come?

 

[valiens]

Sorry to beat a dead horse but I just listened to Jesse Marcel Jr.'s interview on Dreamland. Dude, Roswell was a spaceship. I'm sold. And it dawned on me, the simplest answer to the biggest criticism of conspiracy theory - namely that "they" couldn't keep a secret for this long....

If you believe that the Air Force came clean with their 1990's Case Closed report then you believe that they kept a cover up for about 50 years of a terrestrial secret project. If you believe they lied when they presented Case Closed then you believe the conspiracy lives on. In either case, you have to believe that it was possible to cover up the truth for 50-years.

So...case closed.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Sorry to beat a dead horse but I just listened to Jesse Marcel Jr.'s interview on Dreamland. Dude, Roswell was a spaceship. I'm sold. And it dawned on me, the simplest answer to the biggest criticism of conspiracy theory - namely that "they" couldn't keep a secret for this long....

If you believe that the Air Force came clean with their 1990's Case Closed report then you believe that they kept a cover up for about 50 years of a terrestrial secret project. If you believe they lied when they presented Case Closed then you believe the conspiracy lives on. In either case, you have to believe that it was possible to cover up the truth for 50-years.

So...case closed.

Jeremy:

Not quite. Apples and oranges. People were actively investigating the UFO angle to Roswell for years; Project Mogul came about late in the game, and was discovered fairly quickly once people started looking in that direction.

It's easy to cover something up if people aren't looking for it. But people have been looking for crashed flying saucers for decades now. I just don't buy that they could cover it up for that long, particularly when there is so little good evidence to support the claim that these things exist (i.e. crashed flying saucers).

As for Dr. Marcel, yes, he's a credible guy NOW... but remember that he wasn't a doctor, or an Air Force officer, when he saw the Roswell material so many years ago - he was a child. Most people who know anything about the relative value of witnesses will tell you that children do not sit at the top of the food chain, qualitatively speaking. That doesn't mean that one should discount his story - but one must always view it in its proper context.

Paul

 

[Paul Kimball]

We are facing much larger issues than simple conspiracies, or questions of technological feasibility of deep-space travel, or time manipulation.

I trimmed out a lot of good comments to shorten the quote. This is where we divide up the tasks to figure out the paths that will be productive. Paul K and Nick P would be good at gathering facts from sources that are rational. Push the envelope of what is disclosed by governments, which disclosures are factual or disinformation, etc. Others may want to explore the realms of paranormal thinking and multidimensions.

The problem with this is that it pigeon-holes people. Nick and I, contrary to what seems to be popular opinion, are both interested in the more paranormal aspects of the phenomenon as well.

Paul

 

[valiens]

Paul, I have an excellent long-term memory but my short term is crap. I remember things from childhood vividly. Yesterday is kind of a blur.

I don't know if it's the same with Marcel but I've got to think that, being a doctor, he has to have pretty good recall. Sure, he was a kid, but do you really forget something like that? Your dad comes home with flying saucer parts that have strange writing on them...I've got to think that's memorable. I could see arguing that he wouldn't remember the exact shapes of the exotic symbols but that they were there, I'd think, is a given--along with various other properties that made these seem not only otherworldly to him but to his dad who should know better. Much, much better, in fact.

 

[BrandonD]

Paul, I have an excellent long-term memory but my short term is crap. I remember things from childhood vividly. Yesterday is kind of a blur.

I don't know if it's the same with Marcel but I've got to think that, being a doctor, he has to have pretty good recall. Sure, he was a kid, but do you really forget something like that? Your dad comes home with flying saucer parts that have strange writing on them...I've got to think that's memorable. I could see arguing that he wouldn't remember the exact shapes of the exotic symbols but that they were there, I'd think, is a given--along with various other properties that made these seem not only otherworldly to him but to his dad who should know better. Much, much better, in fact.

Generally it's the emotional element of the event that lodges it in the memory. There are certain emotional events that occurred when I was a little kid that I remember absolutely everything about. I even remember things like the store I went to that day and what toy my dad bought for me. And I wouldn't be decribed as a fellow with a good memory.

Considering this, if my dad came home all excited and agitated and showed the family bizarre space wreckage, I would certainly remember the details even today.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Fellas:

Thos are anecdotal responses, not generally born out by the way things work in the real world (there is a very good reason why courts of law treat testimony from young children with great caution). Also, I'm not saying that Marcel doesn't recall his father bringing something home - merely that his recollection of exact details decades later (which is what it was when someone finally asked him) are suspect at best. Finally, his interpretation of what he saw is vurtually worthless.

Paul

 

[BrandonD]

Fellas:

Thos are anecdotal responses, not generally born out by the way things work in the real world (there is a very good reason why courts of law treat testimony from young children with great caution). Also, I'm not saying that Marcel doesn't recall his father bringing something home - merely that his recollection of exact details decades later (which is what it was when someone finally asked him) are suspect at best. Finally, his interpretation of what he saw is vurtually worthless.

Paul

The point I was making can be personally validated by anyone on the forum. The day my parents split up 20 years ago, for example - I can remember that day *crystal clear*, but the day before and the day after I can remember nothing of.

Emotional impact does indeed embed the details of an event in the long-term memory.

It is of course true that my point doesn't "prove" anything Marcel says one whit. I can't prove anything he says. But my point does support the idea that it is quite possible for a person to remember the specific details of an event many many years after the event.

So... memories of a distant event are not necessarily suspect at best. Just as that possibility should not be discarded, it should also not be assumed.

 

[David Biedny]

From my own life, I can clearly recall specific events from my childhood quite clearly - my sighting of the cigar craft in Caracas happened when I was 11 and a half years old, and I remember it like it happened yesterday, the scene on the street, the cars screeching to a halt, the look of that ship, the way it vanished right after the three disks fell into position, the sense of wonder and fear that I felt, the scene in the hotel of the lobby with everyone freaking out and talking about what we had all seen, late into the night. I have no doubt that Marcel has a decent recollection of seeing those fragments, especially given how his father woke him up specifically to show him the stuff before taking it away again. He was told that these were pieces of alien technology, it's not like that's something that ANYONE would forget. If there's one main impression I have of Jesse Marcel, Jr., it's that he's as sober and honest as any human walking on this planet. I absolutely believe him when he says that he handled something not of this Earth.

 

[Goody]

You just would not forget the details of an event like that. I believe him too David, it's not everyday someone hands you alien technology.

I remember my UFO sighting like it happened this morning.

Goody.

 

[valiens]

Maybe an 8-year-old wouldn't make a good witness. But an adult with memories from when he was 8 might?

 

[Goody]

Was your abduction terrifying Jeremy?

Sometimes I want to experience it all, but when I have trouble closing my eyes because I feel there is someone watching me & walking around my room; I tend to get nervous.

 

[auntiegrav]

The problem with this is that it pigeon-holes people. Nick and I, contrary to what seems to be popular opinion, are both interested in the more paranormal aspects of the phenomenon as well.

Paul

I was trying more to draw on your strengths of credibility in that area (government relations) for the purposes of this particular subject (government conspiracy and coverup) rather than to limit your interests in anything. It was a simple suggestion of dividing up the work into tasks to get it done; nobody put me in charge, and you guys probably have a better idea of the various tasks that could be specified....;-)
If you have three instruments to monitor, you put one person on each simultaneously, you don't divide 1 person's attention on 3 instruments for 1/3 of the time. The discussions here tend toward everyone trying to solve all the problems all the time in order to fend off nitpicking arguments against each little slip of the text-tongue. There are hundreds of threads on the forums and that makes it hard to keep track of discussions that might lead to decent inquiry.
As this one has segued from a facetious comment to Dave B, so most others also don't have titles that match the actual discussions. My brain is fried already just thinking about it.
Gotta go. Just picked up Nick's book "Open Skies, Closed Minds" at the secondhand shop....
Seeya!
AG