Area 51 Scientist's Deathbed Show & Tell!

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

You have got it - except I'm not asking why people are blind on both sides, I am asking why we got caught up in definitions and not in meanings... My original point, was that there is a spectrum with "believers of UFO/Aliens" on one end and "those that believe UFO/Aliens are unproven/unprovable bunkum" on the other. Most of us are in the middle, here, I think.

You have the meaning, ZR, so thank you for responding!!

I always appreciate reasonable discussions.

peace,
AB

It is here
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: AboveBoard

I think inform please read this thread

www.theoutpostforum.com...
a reply to: EnPassant

We can argue semantics all we want but the fact is that most people who present themselves as skeptics or debunkers of the ETH hypothesis fit squarely into the category that Stanton defines as a "UFO Debunker". Many, if not most, self identify by one of the two terms and most people who are involved on these subjects know exactly what is meant by the term Debunker in this context.

Maybe Denialist would be better? There are probably some derogatory terms that would work as well.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: ZetaRediculian

You have got it - except I'm not asking why people are blind on both sides, I am asking why we got caught up in definitions and not in meanings... My original point, was that there is a spectrum with "believers of UFO/Aliens" on one end and "those that believe UFO/Aliens are unproven/unprovable bunkum" on the other. Most of us are in the middle, here, I think.

You have the meaning, ZR, so thank you for responding!!

I always appreciate reasonable discussions.

peace,
AB

I "believe" as a result of personal experience, but I know I then need to apply a great degree of discernment as to what, specifically I do believe, what I'm open to and what strikes me as "bunk".

There are people who believe almost everything with little real evidence. There are people who not only believe none of it, but will ignore evidence of any kind that threatens their absolute disbelief. There are many who are open minded and have a fairly broad "gray basket", rather than being committed to absolutes.

And, yes, there are also many who spend a lot of time and energy doing everything possible to degrade debate, denigrate the subject and those who dare speak on it or even admit to open mindedness. They will offer mundane explanations, no matter how improbable or even deliberately false, in order to deflect attention from unknown phenomena that deserve study and research. They may hoax in order to poison the well of actual evidence with chaff. They may also resort to ad hominem attacks on the messenger, often in a very transparent, knee jerk manner.

Their motives are likely varied. Some may feel so threatened by the ETH that their sanity or world view depends on constant reinforcement of their own disbelief, shored up by the instilled disbelief of others. Some may just be incapable of open minded thought on the subject and feel a need to diminish those who are open. Some may foster a sense of superiority, looking at the open minded and the believers as silly, sad little creatures, pathetic in their resistance to being educated on their folly. There are also likely those who believe, or even know, but who have a desire or need to attack belief and deny knowledge to those that seek it.

What ever the definition is we apply, there are always a number of people involved in these subjects and active in these sites that devote a tremendous amount of energy and effort attacking belief or open minded evaluation of the subject. There has to be some seriously powerful personal or professional motivation for someone to devote their lives to a subject they openly regard as bunk.

There are a lot of things that some people believe that I do not, but I have never felt the need or motivation to track down discussion of those things on an ongoing basis and waste my time and energy attacking them.

The massive efforts of denial and debunkery surrounding the ETH really stink heavily of determined obfuscation that only makes sense if one of the core motives is to obfuscate a truth with inconvenient or dangerous implications for those doing the obfuscating.

a reply to: Totemic

This is the sentiment that plaques "UfOlogy". Friedman contradicts himself at every turn. "If you cant attack the data, just call them a debunker" and then lets debunk Bob Lazar and Corso. What you end up with is people more interested in calling each other names . We can safely dispense with the Friedman rhetoric.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Totemic

This is the sentiment that plaques "UfOlogy". Friedman contradicts himself at every turn. "If you cant attack the data, just call them a debunker" and then lets debunk Bob Lazar and Corso. What you end up with is people more interested in calling each other names . We can safely dispense with the Friedman rhetoric.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Must be "too inside baseball" for me.

If it's an effort to deflect by attacking my view by associating me with Freidman and attacking him, well, I find that just silly. I have no real opinion about him. The discussion was about semantics and trying to cut through them. Friedman's definition of a UFO debunker is the definition used earlier in this thread and understood by most here in context. Acknowledging that isn't an endorsement of everything Friedman, nor does one's opinion of him "taint" the discussion of the language.

To paraphrase your own point, "if you can't address points of discussion, then just dismiss them as 'Friedman-ian".

There are many views and many motivations for those views. Contemplating motive may be almost as useful as contemplating the views themselves. There is a lot of energy expended not only in opinion contrary to the ETH, but in attacking it via ridicule, hoaxes and ad hominem attacks.

Why? The answer may be varied, but it is a question worth considering.

a reply to: Totemic

To paraphrase your own point, "if you can't address points of discussion, then just dismiss them as 'Friedman-ian".

True. Call me a "debunker" and I will just call you a "Friedman-ian". works for me.

There are many views and many motivations for those views. Contemplating motive may be almost as useful as contemplating the views themselves.

If an argument holds up, then it holds up. I don't care if you are selling a book or are paid by the Gov't.

There is a lot of energy expended not only in opinion contrary to the ETH, but in attacking it via ridicule, hoaxes and ad hominem attacks.

"opinion contrary to the ETH" is absolutely acceptable. My issue is with labeling people "debunkers" or "shills" for having an opinion contrary to the ETH.

a reply to: AboveBoard

I think we just have two different definitions of a debunker. I don't place a debunker all the way into the non believers camp. A non believer would believe nothing at all. I typically write "skeptic/debunker/non-believer" when I respond because while they all share a common belief, there is a separation. I think a debunker can be more harsh and condescending than a skeptic, but still would admit, if presented with enough overwhelming scientific evidence, that aliens exist. A skeptic may need less evidence than a debunker. A non believer would be as blind as a believer.

Believer
Skeptical Believer
Skeptic
Debunker
Non Believer

^That's how I see it^. My convictions are strong, but I honestly have never placed a label on what I am.

Stanton Friedman is a believer. He may claim to use a skeptical eye, but doesn't give in when presented with evidence outside of what he believes. An example would be Betty Hills star map where the updated version shows the distances and several type of stars were wrong on Marjorie Fishs interpretation of Betty's map. He still gives talks about the Hills including this map. I think Friedman would gain more credibility if he were to concede to certain things, especially when scientifically backed up, and it would show he's sincerely in search of the truth. It seems he may take the same path as many television evangelists/ministers/preachers. They may begin with a sincere message, but as the years go on and they find a following, they become wrapped up in the power, fame, and fortune involved and that becomes a big part of the drawing force. Or possibly it's just his ego prevents him from admitting he's wrong.

The topic has skewed from the original. So I'll end my part of the conversation with my comments above.

Instead of debating semantics look for the facts.

Tellurides
Mercury Cadmium Telluride [HgCdTe] - is key component in development of Night Vision, infra red Detectors ie the 'Red Eye' Missile, night vision, all projects Boyd Bushman worked on. Here is one of the developers on this technology saying it came from ET craft.
Bismuth Telluride - thermoelectric material used for convert heat into electricity used in some space craft and either BiTl of PbTl is used in Lockheed's Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Program

Some Tellurides and also Germanium are transparent in the infra red, ring any bells? Bushman said the craft was see-through when the pilot landed and got into the craft. Convert the infrared to visilble light on the inner surface of the hull and you can see out.

He's not the first person to say night vision came from ET craft Col Corso said the same he also mentioned lasers and fiber optics. Well HgCdTl is key component in a lot of opto-electronics and can be used as and infra red laser sensor.

Also HgCdTe is a topological insulator which has some very interesting qualities. Unsurprisingly Lockheed is very proud of it research into one of the other very rare topological insulator's Graphene.

Hence me trying to post their video here. Which can you believe it was made by Nick Cook the ex Jane's journalist who originally brought Bushman into the limelight.
More on my thread on the Outpost forum

originally posted by: Impodog

He's not the first person to say night vision came from ET craft Col Corso

Col. Corso... isn't he the guy that invented fiberoptics, Kevlar, lasers, and the integrated circuit by looking at Roswell wreckage?


That guy is awesome! Too bad we didn't have any scientists dedicated enough to put in the hard work required to develop such things over a period of decades.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

I appreciate the reply. It is a challenge when folks are working from different definitions, but I totally take your meaning, which is the point.

My last thought is "what is overwhelming scientific evidence?" Who defines that? Anyway - I'm not going to get into that here...just food for thought.

Yes, we have strayed vastly from the topic, and this conversation might have been better in another thread.

*Now back to our regularly scheduled thread programming...*

- AB

He only ever said he passed samples on to seed them in industry, never invented them.
It doesn't mean there has been a colossal amount of work done on these technologies by scientists or disputes any work done by the vast majority.
Don't forget he had very impressive credentials as well.
a reply to: draknoir2

originally posted by: Impodog
He only ever said he passed samples on to seed them in industry, never invented them.
It doesn't mean there has been a colossal amount of work done on these technologies by scientists or disputes any work done by the vast majority.
Don't forget he had very impressive credentials as well.
a reply to: draknoir2

Impressive in what way?

The history of the development of everything for which he claims responsibility is easily searchable and verifiable. Or we can just take him at his word and pretend that's the way it happened.

His military career who he worked ie Foreign Technology Desk at the U.S. Army's Research and Development Department, reporting to General Arthur Trudeau.

Do you expect this kind of thing to be right there in the open so you can look it up on the internet? He never claimed to invent the transistor that predates Roswell. He said the printed circuit board. If this is all true it is the most classified secret on the planet.

What about the Tellurides? Bushman was there when they were developing that?
Lockheed wants this information out there..Why?
a reply to: draknoir2

a reply to: draknoir2

Col. Corso... isn't he the guy that invented fiberoptics, Kevlar, lasers, and the integrated circuit by looking at Roswell wreckage?

The REALLY odd thing is that he takes no credit for zip lock bags! I swear I have run across about 10 people that invented that and Velcro and the little twisty things.

originally posted by: Impodog
His military career who he worked ie Foreign Technology Desk at the U.S. Army's Research and Development Department, reporting to General Arthur Trudeau.
[/post]

He occupied that desk for just over a year at the very end of his career.

Not that impressive.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Impodog
His military career who he worked ie Foreign Technology Desk at the U.S. Army's Research and Development Department, reporting to General Arthur Trudeau.
[/post]

He occupied that desk for just over a year at the very end of his career.

Not that impressive.

Two years and four years on the staff of President Eisenhower's National Security Council.
Under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, the National Security Council system evolved into the principal arm of the President in formulating and executing policy on military, international, and internal security affairs from Wikipedia
Practically a nobody.
Eisenhower was Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and lead the successful invasion of France and Germany in1944-45. He was ordered to oversee 'Operation Paperclip' Which brings us back to Nick Cook who claimed the US may have along with Werner Von Brown and all the rocket scientists they put to work at White Sands they may captured the famous Nazi Bell and brought that back to. Eisenhower must have overseen elements of this.
He helped reorder the US Military under Truman and then became president in 1952. In that time period the CIA was formed and Dulles became it's head, the CIA paid for the U2 which was built at the Skunkworks by Lockheed Martin.
The kind of information Eisenhower was privy to no wonder he warned 'we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist'

a reply to: Impodog

Yeah...

greyfalcon.us...

Yea I've read it before and read some of it again today.
Corso was loose with his tongue but was it all made up?
But Brad C. Sparks isn't quite right the CIA was formed in 1947. And Bissel was very closely associated with Dulles and had to resign with him after the 'Bay of Pigs'.