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: 3
51
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: karl 12

I will definitely put Michael Sword's books on my shelf as soon as I can!

I take the recommendation seriously.

My apologies if I went off - topic a wee bit in an earlier post. Which should I get first?

- AB




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

This is how I think about it too. But unlike some of you guys who waited 70 years to say it is enough, it took me only several to walk the path from believing reptoids are beneath the mall(s) of Salt Lake City, the joint alien-human base in Dulce to the - everything is a lie for military or other gov coverup.

After seeing just recently the Moon Mona Lisa hoax, the Rendlesham forest incident again suggesting nothing out of this world, what really made the final strike? Bushman's 'DEATHBED confession' - after hoaxes of the moon and this guy with photo of alien doll. combined to not a single piece of evidence by anyone ever - I question the abductees, the 'unable to move while he ufo is above, to 'the aliens took my camera so I couldn't record them,'my picture got deleted somehow' ... enough is enough.

This is stories used for disinfo for military and other projects. I don't see a single case where one can say some technology may not be human. They say those who know do not speak - could be so, I stopped following any researcher today because if he claims 'yes there are aliens here' - I would question his credibility because no,' those who speak do not know' - so these researchers do not know.

The book that some memebers speak about is just another SCI FI - Ufology is becoming a sub genre of sci fi - buy books to read about sci fi, what makes it different is Ufology claims it is real, that makes you like the book more than Star Wars that you know is fiction,

All I can say:

- Nazi may have developed some new technology (or just technology invented by the West) (where they got it from idk), what you are seeing is this technology added to military technology and covering it up with alien stories - including abductions, ufo craft, aliens running ariound

I've never been a believer who hopes something is real, I don't care that these cases are not real, I am just objective, im not even a skeptic and as such I think it may be possible that such beings have been in ancient and older times if gods really came... but for 20th century cases I think all is a lie.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
It's nice to think that if all the data were properly organized and analyzed that "The Answer" to the whole UFO mystery would just appear. But that's simply unrealistic. Large scale analysis of UFO data has been done in the past, and it revealed some patterns, but those patterns turned out to be essentially useless.

After that, the idea that a single, well-documented case would also provide that elusive Answer is also very attractive. But if that had happened, we would know about it. There are no great hidden cases.

If somebody wants to take a run at all that faulty, noisy UFO data from the 20th Century and see if they can make heads or tails of it, then I wish them good luck. But it's a task that should be entered into with humility and the knowledge that there's a good chance that it will all add up to exactly squat. It's easy to point to the evidence and mock the most clueless skeptics, but unless or until you can demonstrate even what the evidence is evidence of (much less provide a solution or a conclusion), then it's a good idea to just shut up about it.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

We need new ways of looking at it.


Would be interested to hear what you think those new ways are Tangerine (maybe you can start a thread about it) because when it comes to unequivocable proof about UFO origin obviously there isn't any.

When it comes to other aspects of evidence dealing with unidentified flying objects then I think it's fair to say the subject is a very real one and an extremely serious mystery -the problem as I see it is that the vast majority of people are so conditioned, apathetic or just plain ignorant that they don't give a toss.




originally posted by: AboveBoard

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..



In a way we're all wide eyed newbies mate but did think some of the books on his recommened reading list were very good ones -below is his list with some free E-book links.



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



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: karl 12

I will definitely put Michael Sword's books on my shelf as soon as I can!

I take the recommendation seriously.

My apologies if I went off - topic a wee bit in an earlier post. Which should I get first?

- AB


Yep. Swords is quickly becoming the favorite Ufologist of many people. Me included.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gh0stwalker
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.


Yeah, kind of. But Ghost, when you say "who, or whatever holds the answers as to the true nature of UFOs doesn't want the information revealed" I am in complete agreement. But the question here is, just WHO or WHAT are they. No I don't think we should stop asking questions I just no longer think that we will find the answers in other peoples tales. Just as I would not expect you or anyone else to find an answer from my renditions of my sightings.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky

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..



Couldn't agree more with what you've said there bud and his blog has certainly taught me a thing or two about certain facets and specific incidents of the UFO mystery (also made me think) -as already mentioned, he's also conducted some great investigative fieldwork and it just goes to show how well respected he is when, in the Holland/Michigan radar visual case, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (who were 'scared to death' about being involved in a UFO case) refused to allow anyone to interview their personnel but actually compromised when the Prof turned up and allowed him in to study their reports and radar info.

Speaking of radar info, do you remember Orkojoker's lovely thread about the poll conducted of 1,000 government radar operators?



Lester did a much more ambitious poll than the one with the pilots. Taking a full month to accomplish it, he contacted 1000 government radar operators around the US and asked several questions: Had they seen UFOs? Did their radars track them? Were they "real targets"? What did they think about all this? Lester's results were far more stunning [for me] than the pilot responses. [By the way folks, the reason that you are getting this more detailed [than in FSR] info on this topic is that I have my 1959 chapter from the big history book in progress [with me here in WVA] and so can share little bits of it]. Lester of course summarized the general tenor of the 1000 radar operators in the article so I'll quote some of it.


"Traveling at fantastic speeds--sometimes thousands of miles per hour--these objects execute perfect 90-degree turns, steep vertical climbs, even abrupt, hovering stops in defiance of all known laws of aerodynamics, the radarmen report."

"When more than one are involved they fly in a pattern within a pattern."

"In addition, they invariably stay just ahead of Air Force planes sent up to intercept them."


Lester went on to state that "eight out of ten" of the 1000 operators polled felt that something was out there which couldn't be explained conventionally. This included the elimination of such explanations as meteors, cloud phenomena, balloons, aircraft, hallucinations or "anything else of this nature".


The UFO Poll You Probably Haven't Heard Of



That info would have probably been lost for good if it wasn't for Prof Swords so hats off to him.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 10:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Erno86

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..



Thanks Erno and I think you're right about that (from the accounts I've read anyway) - there does seem to be quite a few reports describing UFOs emtting a kind of buzzing / humming noise (good example being Portage County UFO which went up in pitch as the object accelerated) but no loud acoustic sounds as you describe.


UFO Sound - Hum




originally posted by: Erno86

--- 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.


Certainly some good healthy specualtion there mate and I don't know about origin but have read quite a few testimonies from radar operators and air traffic controllers who do claim to have tracked UFOs, sometimes with separately located ground/air visual confirmation as well.

Some statements here if you've not seen them already and always thought this guy was telling the truth.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: CollisioN
Throwing out hoaxes is a psychological warfare tactic. It kills two birds with one stone: it makes the believers more devout and makes the skeptics more exasperated. Thus both sides are easier to manipulate through one action.

Disinformation (like Serpo and Paul Bennewitz) serves as a shroud for the actual activities performed in secret. That shouldnt be taken to mean that some abductions arent real; just rather, who is actually doing it? Traumatic experience is a necessary element of dissociation (which is used in brain programming). Aliens become a convenient cover for traumatic testing.

The Nazis had a number of odd-looking unconventional aircraft that have yet to make it into standard textbooks. Paperclip brought Nazi scientists to America, granted them immunity from prosecution, and put them in high levels of government. No wonder MKultra developed so quickly. The stealth bombers were based off of WWII Horten designs. The luftwaffe also had trangular experimental aircraft - go figure



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: Kandinsky

.....

Lester went on to state that "eight out of ten" of the 1000 operators polled felt that something was out there which couldn't be explained conventionally. This included the elimination of such explanations as meteors, cloud phenomena, balloons, aircraft, hallucinations or "anything else of this nature".


That info would have probably been lost for good if it wasn't for Prof Swords so hats off to him.


We reached the point of realizing that decades ago. How has more unexplained data, albeit carefully cataloged, revealed anything useful about the nature of UFOs that we don't already know (emphasis on useful)?



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Good thread mate.

I never knew the guy had so much information collected together.

Although he really could do with getting more with the 21st century and using databases and spreadsheets in addition to digitising his documents. Although the way he has organised his files looks to me like that is an achievable objective.

Whether it will give us the answers we are searching for I don't know? Unfortunately in this topic too many have decided on what those answers should be before they even start.

Another observation that Swords makes is :


That turn-down of the Close Encounters [and almost ANYTHING which is really good as a case from the eighties on] MIGHT just be my unconscious fault as far as these graphs are concerned, but I don't think so, and the fact that Dick wasn't finding many good cases of his type either is just one more example that it's not simply some bias I have, consciously or not. [Other examples of these drop-offs come from long-term statistics of the stable-and-able Tasmanian investigating group TUFOIC, from MUFONs case receiving website, from CUFOS, from perusing Fran Ridge's NICAP site, from the fact that GEPAN could find very little after the late 70s despite having national cooperation, etc etc etc.]

Sure there have been tons of low-grade hit-and-run reports to NUFORC or things like Filer's Files, but even in the rare instance of a follow-up these cases are almost entirely mediocre. So, I believe that the turn-down of quality cases is real. That does not mean it will remain so, or that we should just pack it in as far as new investigations are concerned.



Link


Very true.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I feel the same, perhaps more so. I've seen some strange things in the sky that I could never find an explanation for despite great effort. I had some very odd synchronicity that happened while immersed in the subject. But it's been years. I don't think I'll ever get an answer to what I saw. I don't see any new information coming out but I haven't really paid attention in years. The subject seems boring to me now. I've just sectioned off my experiences into some part of my mind separate from my normal rational paradigm. I don't know what it was but my feeling is it wasn't nuts and bolts ET or military technology but of course I don't know and don't expect to ever know in this life.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: Erno86

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..



Thanks Erno and I think you're right about that (from the accounts I've read anyway) - there does seem to be quite a few reports describing UFOs emtting a kind of buzzing / humming noise (good example being Portage County UFO which went up in pitch as the object accelerated) but no loud acoustic sounds as you describe.


UFO Sound - Hum




originally posted by: Erno86

--- 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.


Certainly some good healthy specualtion there mate and I don't know about origin but have read quite a few testimonies from radar operators and air traffic controllers who do claim to have tracked UFOs, sometimes with separately located ground/air visual confirmation as well.

Some statements here if you've not seen them already and always thought this guy was telling the truth.


Good work Karl...if their should be a UFO Hall of Fame --- you should be one of the first one's in it ---Yet I Googled "Magnetic fields causing a hum," --- and I've come up with the speculation that the possible two magnetic shields surrounding the starship, cause the alien starship to vibrate and hum.

Thanks



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
With all the saturation over the past 10 years alone where would you even start and maintain a grounded approach. With all the supposed interactions with abductees,military,ufo flights,animal interactions,space footage,uso, eyewitnesses etc. there hasnt been to date one peice of concrete evidence put on a table in front of the world that says "its real, here ya go"



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant
With all the saturation over the past 10 years alone where would you even start and maintain a grounded approach. With all the supposed interactions with abductees,military,ufo flights,animal interactions,space footage,uso, eyewitnesses etc. there hasnt been to date one peice of concrete evidence put on a table in front of the world that says "its real, here ya go"


Correct. There is no testable evidence proving that ETs exist, have visited earth or abducted anyone. Seventy years has been devoted to finding such evidence. In my opinion, it's time to seriously explore other possibilities to explain these sightings and "abductions".



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: Tangerine

We need new ways of looking at it.


Would be interested to hear what you think those new ways are Tangerine (maybe you can start a thread about it) because when it comes to unequivocable proof about UFO origin obviously there isn't any.

When it comes to other aspects of evidence dealing with unidentified flying objects then I think it's fair to say the subject is a very real one and an extremely serious mystery -the problem as I see it is that the vast majority of people are so conditioned, apathetic or just plain ignorant that they don't give a toss.




-----------

[I don't know why "quote" shows up during this edit but my post appears as part of Karl 12's post. In any event, the .....distinguishes my response from his post]

I think we need to explore how memories are inherently unreliable and can be manipulated by trauma and hypnosis and expectations. I think we need to explore similarities between reports of ETs and Terrence McKenna's and other's experiments with dimethyltryptamine. The users apparently consistently reported encounters with seemingly intelligent entities with purpose existing in a "world". I think we need to explore temporal lobe epilepsy and Persinger's helmet experiments. I think we need to explore the role of deception and mental illness on the part of SOME people reporting experiences. I think we need to explore the possibility of interdimensional events/encounters and the paranormal. We also need to consider the role that government is likely playing in either generating these experiences or controlling our interpretation of these experiences. I doubt that any one of these things explains all UFO sightings or so-called ET encounters. A combination may be involved and something that I haven't (perhaps none of us have) imagined is behind this stuff.
edit on 28-1-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I might have to get in touch with Professor Swords, see if I can't pin down something Keel and Sanderson investigated...

I'd like to see him get together with Vallee. Jacques seemed pretty enthused about modern data analysis capabilities compared to what he was working with back in the 1970's. Sword's would know where to get the materials if he didn't already have them.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
Good thread mate.

I never knew the guy had so much information collected together..


I didn´t either mate until I started looking through his blog -he´s also done a great deal of sifting through Ivan Sanderson's Crypto Archives (link) and has quite a collection of ´UFO Light-beam´cases which are pretty interesting to say the least.






There are many reports of strange "beams of light" emanating from UFOs. Some have been described as "searchlights, which would turn in a sweeping motion, shining light opposite to the direction the UFO is moving". Other beams are described as "laser-like" (focused, seem to exhibit no dispersion with distance - collimated light), but may also appear "almost solid", propagate (extend/retract) slowly, and stop abruptly in mid-air. Such luminous beams directed from the UFO towards the ground could be columns of ionized air, related to or a byproduct of UFO propulsion. Certain beams seem to be used for inspection or transportation. Some may be weapons, having as a purpose the projection of heat, the disruption of electric and electronic equipment, and even the temporary paralysis of individuals. Finally some could just be powerful beaming spotlights, to light up the terrain.







Bill Chalker wrote the other day. He's contemplating making a review of so-called "solid light" UFO cases, and I welcome that. Bill's a hard-science-trained UFOlogist and might just be able to make some sense of a real puzzlement in this field. He asked me if I'd scour my files for such cases (since I'd foolishly admitted to having around 44 of such things), and so I did, making a list for him to pursue and build his analysis more robustly (Bill already had a bigger bunch than that).


UFO Light Beam Cases.




originally posted by: mirageman

Unfortunately in this topic too many have decided on what those answers should be before they even start.


Well said there and I´d say that definitely applies to both camps (´cynics´ and ´believers´ alike) -was reading on a separate topic something called Horseshoe theory which states that both extremes have far more in common than they like to think.



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: karl 12

originally posted by: mirageman
Good thread mate.
......

I never knew the guy had so much information collected together..


I didn´t either mate until I started looking through his blog -he´s also done a great deal of sifting through Ivan Sanderson's
Unfortunately in this topic too many have decided on what those answers should be before they even start.


Well said there and I´d say that definitely applies to both camps (´cynics´ and ´believers´ alike) -was reading on a separate topic something called Horseshoe theory which states that both extremes have far more in common than they like to think.


True believers and debunkers do have much in common. They both take positions without bothering with testable evidence. I'm not sure what you mean by cynics. If you mean debunkers, I agree with you. Skeptics are another matter. Skeptics simply want testable evidence. I think that's entirely reasonable, don't you?



posted on Jan, 31 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

shouldnt something TRULY tangible be testable? I know it's a stretch




top topics



 
51
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join