It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Professor Michael Sword's UFO Files.

page: 2
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Man this guy is organised! Cant wait to see his stuff. I like already that he has separated cases of probable earth lights and ball lightning and such.




originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
In the last 70 years we have discovered all those archaeology sites. When I was young all we had for ruins were basically Egypt Rome and Greece.

Not true. Archaeological circles have known about countless sites and ruins since at least the 1700s: Assyriology
Modern Website
Its just the general public has been ignorant of it, but the information has been available for centuries. Particularly the Germans and French were intrinsic to this. Ancient Aliens is a show that deliberately leaves out scholarly opinion and evidence to the contrary.




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

I've never heard of Professor Michael Swords - so I went and looked him up...



He's a bit of a legend mate and also did some great research obtaining the National Weather Service radar tapes for this very strange UFO incident (which he describes as 'fundamentally mysterious') - he also makes some mighty fine points below about the importance of reading serious UFO literature and acquainting oneself with the facts, documents and specific incidents surrounding the UFO phenomenon -too bad some folks disagree.




Q. What can a single individual do?


A. Decide to be an honest seeker-of-the-truth rather than an emotionally driven questor for concepts which "feel profoundly meaningful" to one's personal hopes and desires.

B. Read the few scholarly books available which present the history & most incisive, rational thinking in the field; and keep up with the most scholarly journal literature.

C. Find, if possible, one of the few scholars, & learn & help & make a personal effort to actually contribute something rather than just talk.

D. Don't expect an abduction under each bed, nor a true UFO hiding in every black helicopter.

E. If something serious, like CUFOS or BAE, still exists, make a commitment to joining its circle actively.

F. Try to resist the temptation that you have found the final answer, & that no one else makes any sense.



Q. Advice for newcomers?


This isn't easy. Aristotle told Alexander the Great that "there was no Royal [easy] road to Mathematics". The same is true for UFOs. There are a few essential books:

Jacobs, The UFO Controversy in America;
Ruppelt, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects;
Hynek, The UFO Experience;
NICAP, The UFO Evidence.

Others recommended:

Keyhoe's 1st 2 books;
Vallee's 1st 2 books;
Hall's Uninvited Guests;
Michel's 2 Books;
Clarke's Encyclopedia;
Greenwood & Fawcett's Clear Intent;
the 2 volumes of CUFOS scientific symposia;
a collection of the papers of James McDonald;
Bullard's large papers on CE4's etc.;
The Journal of UFO Studies;
Gotlib's BAE;
Paul McCarthy's thesis on James McDonald;
Alan Hendry's UFO Handbook;
Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects by 1968 House of Representatives;
Rodeghier's catalog of E-M effects;
Phillips' catalog of landing traces

CUFON Interview with Michael Swords


* Stanford Professor of Astrophysics Dr Peter A. Sturrock also gives some good advice in this related article about 'Doing Your Homework Before Entering The UFO Fray'.
edit on 26-1-2015 by karl 12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   
a reply to: karl 12

A huge problem when it comes to UFOs is limiting reading to books specifically about UFOs. Vallee's books are an exception to this. We have a plethora of data but little insight into the nature of the phenomena. That's what is lacking and more data compilation is unlikely to solve that problem. We need new ways of looking at it.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:09 AM
link   
I would love to have a huge collection of files like the ones posted in this thread. Talk about Christmas time.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Ridhya

Thanks Rid. I recall being taught about some of these Mesopotamian sites back then but did not know that they compared to the ones I mentioned. Do you know about when all the South American and huge sites in the western hemisphere were discovered? And do you know when they began finding the sunken ruins around the world?

Generally my point was that only recently have we begun to put together a picture of civilizations around the world that do not fit with the old general Mesopotamian origins of civilization. But I could be wrong here too.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

So we have a large collection of lore. Tales and stories, some pictures and so what.



Hi Terry, thanks for the post -quite a number of the cases listed do involve factors like radar confirmation, physical trace evidence, electromagnetic interference effects etc.. so I wouldn't just flippantly dismiss them as 'lore'.

I'm not suggesting you're being purposefully disingenuous btw and appreciate you sharing your sighting (also share your frustration at progress within the field) but there really are some fascinating UFO cases in the collection (oftentimes backed up by government documentary evidence).




originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

I'm sorry, Karl. I didn't mean to veer your thread off your intentions here it's just that I'm pissed we all haven't' got it figured out yet and all I see coming from research is just more of the same....



No probs and god knows what's going on when it comes to UFO origin - I personally suspect the world's oceans play a major role and do find it interesting that the Navy (and ONI) have never declassified any internal documents about the subject or their investigations but I could of course be very wrong.

Maybe the people to ask are the National Reconnaissance Office.



There is no doubt in my mind that today if not many times over the past fifty years we have had the surveillance capabilities to completely monitor the activities of certain UFO flights –and know exactly when they’re going, where they’re going, how they’re going, where they appear form and leave to, all the characteristics about them – we have radar based devices that will not only show the distance, direction and azimuth of an object and all that but will also how shape. We have devices the army has developed for tracking projectiles – they check the acoustic wave and when something crosses over they can immediately track that data and go back to the source. That’s how they track where a mortar is or a howitzer. We can use that same technology – and its portable – for tracking UFOs.

I don’t believe any of these things fly over our country today without being known and if somebody wanted the UFO mystery to completely disappear they could in five minutes release enough data to show exactly what’s going on and is not going on.


Interview

Secret US Intelligence Agency Holds UFO Answers



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

So we have a large collection of lore. Tales and stories, some pictures and so what.



Hi Terry, thanks for the post -quite a number of the cases listed do involve factors like radar confirmation, physical trace evidence, electromagnetic interference effects etc.. so I wouldn't just flippantly dismiss them as 'lore'.

I'm not suggesting you're being purposefully disingenuous btw and appreciate you sharing your sighting (also share your frustration at progress within the field) but there really are some fascinating UFO cases in the collection (oftentimes backed up by government documentary evidence).




originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

I'm sorry, Karl. I didn't mean to veer your thread off your intentions here it's just that I'm pissed we all haven't' got it figured out yet and all I see coming from research is just more of the same....



No probs and god knows what's going on when it comes to UFO origin - I personally suspect the world's oceans play a major role and do find it interesting that the Navy (and ONI) have never declassified any internal documents about the subject or their investigations but I could of course be very wrong.

Maybe the people to ask are the National Reconnaissance Office.



There is no doubt in my mind that today if not many times over the past fifty years we have had the surveillance capabilities to completely monitor the activities of certain UFO flights –and know exactly when they’re going, where they’re going, how they’re going, where they appear form and leave to, all the characteristics about them – we have radar based devices that will not only show the distance, direction and azimuth of an object and all that but will also how shape. We have devices the army has developed for tracking projectiles – they check the acoustic wave and when something crosses over they can immediately track that data and go back to the source. That’s how they track where a mortar is or a howitzer. We can use that same technology – and its portable – for tracking UFOs.

I don’t believe any of these things fly over our country today without being known and if somebody wanted the UFO mystery to completely disappear they could in five minutes release enough data to show exactly what’s going on and is not going on.


Interview

Secret US Intelligence Agency Holds UFO Answers



Welcome back Karl, and thanks for another interesting thread topic --- But I believe that the majority of credible UFO sightings have no reports of loud acoustic sounds related to the UFO --- So I tend to speculate that acoustic sound technology, in relation to tracking a alien starship in our atmosphere, would be difficult for us...because these alien starships might possibly absorb any hypersonic sound waves with a magnetically contained plasma shield surrounding the starship itself.

edit on 26-1-2015 by Erno86 because: added text



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: karl 12

Thanks!!

I am still a wide eyed newbie in some ways, though I have done what I guess could be called "preliminary research," in the sense of lots of book reading and online searching, but I would not consider myself to be anything other than a seeker of knowledge, based on having a non-debunkable sighting that remains so today. That is the fuel to the fire, but my life is full of many many many other things. Perhaps when I'm old and crusty I will have file cabinets from my own research too, but for now, I have a shelf full of books of varying quality, and hours of online research logged.

I appreciate the resources!!!!

I so appreciate a thread like this as for me, it is like stumbling across a gold mine that someone else has laid at my feet. Thank you!!

- AB



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

If it's not clear to you now, it may never be. It's clear to me that who, or whatever holds the answers as to the true nature of UFOs doesn't want the information revealed. Are you so nieve to think that if a question that's been asked for 70+ years isn't answered, we should just stop asking? Surely that's what is expected of us, which is exactly why we should never stop.

The truth will only remain hidden if we stop seeking it.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: karl 12

Good thread buddy


In my experience, he’s amongst the best examples of what ufology could have been if people had made more effort to get along with each other. He’s essentially become the curator of the most extensive collection of ufological, cryptozoological and esoteric files in Northern America. At the same time, he’s amenable to sharing documents and takes the role of ‘friendly professor’ for anyone willing to get involved and take the topics seriously. He entertains an ideal of making as many documents publicly available as possible.

The Big Study blog is saturated with thoughtful insights, open questions and almost devoid of the conclusions that others tend to favour. He supports his own notion of the ETH whilst not being confined to it and suspends judgement. In general, comments are warmly welcomed as long as they remain polite and avoid taking affirmative stances.

The Big Study has become a point of contact and the shop-front that most people know him by. For those who read more widely, he’s published articles in most of the MUFON Journals throughout the 1980s. There are also excellent papers available through the JSE portal. His books have already been mentioned so I won’t add much more than advising people to buy them. ‘UFOs and Government’ is a great academic tome on the early history of the UFO phenomena, but ‘Grass Roots’ is one I keep returning to.

His work has become influential in my own thoughts for many reasons; sometimes he’s generated ideas and, at other times, I’ve had my own ideas and found he’s already been there. ‘We Know Where You Live,’ ‘Ufology: what have we learned?’ and ‘Could Extraterrestrials be Expected to Breathe Our Air?’ are a few papers I consider particularly interesting.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

So we have a large collection of lore. Tales and stories, some pictures and so what.


...
Hi Terry, thanks for the post -quite a number of the cases listed do involve factors like radar confirmation, physical
Welcome back Karl, and thanks for another interesting thread topic --- But I believe that the majority of credible UFO sightings have no reports of loud acoustic sounds related to the UFO --- So I tend to speculate that acoustic sound technology, in relation to tracking a alien starship in our atmosphere, would be difficult for us...because these alien starships might possibly absorb any hypersonic sound waves with a magnetically contained plasma shield surrounding the starship itself.


What alien starships? Where's the evidence that they're alien starships?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: karl 12

Good thread buddy


In my experience, he’s amongst the best examples of what ufology could have been if people had made more effort to get along with each other. He’s essentially become the curator of the most extensive collection of ufological, cryptozoological and esoteric files in Northern America. At the same time, he’s amenable to sharing documents and takes the role of ‘friendly professor’ for anyone willing to get involved and take the topics seriously. He entertains an ideal of making as many documents publicly available as possible.

The Big Study blog is saturated with thoughtful insights, open questions and almost devoid of the conclusions that others tend to favour. He supports his own notion of the ETH whilst not being confined to it and suspends judgement. In general, comments are warmly welcomed as long as they remain polite and avoid taking affirmative stances.

The Big Study has become a point of contact and the shop-front that most people know him by. For those who read more widely, he’s published articles in most of the MUFON Journals throughout the 1980s. There are also excellent papers available through the JSE portal. His books have already been mentioned so I won’t add much more than advising people to buy them. ‘UFOs and Government’ is a great academic tome on the early history of the UFO phenomena, but ‘Grass Roots’ is one I keep returning to.

His work has become influential in my own thoughts for many reasons; sometimes he’s generated ideas and, at other times, I’ve had my own ideas and found he’s already been there. ‘We Know Where You Live,’ ‘Ufology: what have we learned?’ and ‘Could Extraterrestrials be Expected to Breathe Our Air?’ are a few papers I consider particularly interesting.


That's all fine and dandy but has his massive collection produced any testable evidence proving that his ETH is behind UFOs? No. In the first article he talks about ET fly boys without proving that they even exist. In the third paper, he makes an argument that ETs could breathe our air without first proving that they even exist and have visited earth! A paper published by MUFON is hardly impressive. There's nothing remotely scientific about MUFON.
edit on 26-1-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine



That's all fine and dandy but has his massive collection produced any testable evidence proving that his ETH is behind UFOs? No.


Cheers for your insight! Duly noted! Thanks!




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Tangerine



That's all fine and dandy but has his massive collection produced any testable evidence proving that his ETH is behind UFOs? No.


Cheers for your insight! Duly noted! Thanks!



Instead of sarcasm, why don't you offer a more thoughtful answer? This is one reason we haven't made progress in this field. Are you dismissing my claim? Do you wish to debate it? Do you agree with it?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Honestly? I wouldn't waste my time.

Walk on and all the best to you



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Tangerine

Honestly? I wouldn't waste my time.

Walk on and all the best to you


I have no intention of walking on.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Hello Tangerine,

I've seen you post many times about wanting "testable" evidence and proof. Please define "testable evidence" for me (I suspect I know but I want to be clear). Is "testable" evidence your only criteria for evidence, or are other forms of evidence acceptable, and if so, what kinds?

I'm sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I really want to know to further communication, if possible.

Thanks!

- AB



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Tangerine

Hello Tangerine,

I've seen you post many times about wanting "testable" evidence and proof. Please define "testable evidence" for me (I suspect I know but I want to be clear). Is "testable" evidence your only criteria for evidence, or are other forms of evidence acceptable, and if so, what kinds?

I'm sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I really want to know to further communication, if possible.

Thanks!

- AB


Testable evidence is evidence that can be tested via the scientific method. Yes, testable evidence is my only criteria for evidence because, until tested, it's pretty meaningless. As you may know, the scientific method requires repeated, independent testing to confirm a conclusion. Let's take the example of a rock and someone's claim that it contains uranium. Without testing it, the claim is not confirmed. To be absolutely certain of the reliability of the test results, it should be retested under identical circumstances by another qualified party and the same results reached.

Your question is not off-topic at all. It's entirely pertinent. In the case of Michael Sword's UFO files, there are all sorts of claims and probably some evidence such as radar findings and indentations in the ground, etc. It is his hypothesis that UFOs are extraterrestrial craft controlled in some manner by extraterrestrials. How would someone test the evidence?

Surely, an indentation in the ground can be scientifically measured and proven to exist. Radar findings can be independently documented to exist. The problem is that his claim that these were produced by extra-terrestrial craft can not be tested because he hasn't yet proved that extra-terrestrial craft exist. He may as well say the radar findings were caused by flying unicorns and the indentations were the butt impressions of unicorns who had landed and were resting.

I hope this answers your questions.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bloodydagger

Michael Swords has an excellent book out titled UFOs and Government: A Historical Inquiry . It will end up being a classic in UFO literature.


Good call on that one mate and that book certainly is a classic, there are some excerpts at this post (and also here ) and found it very revealing that the book focuses solely on the contents of the government's own official UFO documents (and how the military and intelligence communities approached the UFO problem internally) -quite a bit different from the usual pap the authorities spout to the general public about the subject.

One of the members of the "The UFO History Group" once stated that "I don't think there is any way to read this scholarly work without concluding that the Air Force lied, that the phenomenon is real and that the extraterrestrial hypothesis is on the table" and another journalist also speculated that 'few people will bother to read it' - I think they're both right (maybe we should all just give up UFO research and 'go and sit on our couches' as Terry suggests).




originally posted by: Bloodydagger

His other book Grassroots UFOs: Case Reports from the Center for UFO Studies is excellent as well.



Haven't got my hands on that one yet but here's what Barry Greenwood (a man who I respect very much) said about it.




At one time books about UFOs were collections of facts and figures on sighting details, altitudes, azimuths, and all of the nuts and bolts visual specifics. These were relayed with the intent of convincing the reader that the reports were evidence of at least a new area for scientific inquiry, or at most proof of aliens from another planet, visiting the earth in flying saucers. Now UFO books are largely about highly sensational stories about crashed saucers, alien contacts, conspiracy theories, or alien philosophies, full of wild claims and speculations.

This new book by Dr. Michael Swords, a newly retired educator from Western Michigan University, harkens back to the days of UFOs far removed from the confusing complexity that presently dominates UFO research. This complexity seems to be the result of the ever-increasing one-upsmanship of radical claims that has tired the reading public and virtually knocked the subject from bookshelves and newsstands, according to semi-interested readers with whom this reveiwer has spoken..


PDF File



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Yes, it does. It is pretty much what I expected you to say. Thank you very much for your reply.

My next question is this: Is testable evidence, as you have defined it, EVER going to be able to be applied to a UFO sighting, even one by highly reliable and technically grounded witnesses?

I'm guessing the answer is "no" because there is no physical evidence to take into the lab and put up for peer review.

UFO sightings are unique events that are not able to be "called up" on command for testing. Does this make them irrelevant?

So, how would you approach a strange crime scene of, say, a robbery, where something was stolen from within a locked room? What kinds of evidence would you collect? What methods would you employ? How does "testable evidence" as you've defined it apply? Obviously, a search for physical evidence would be first on the list, but if it was minimal? Say no fingerprints? The only person with a key was out of town? I am puzzled as to how using scientific method in the context you've given would lead to any possible conclusion. Logic, ala Sherlock Holmes, seems to be a better method, combined with whatever forensic evidence is available, to reconstruct what happened, when, and was done by whom.

Anyway, thank you again for answering my question.


peace,
AB
edit on 26-1-2015 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
51
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join