Betty Hill artfully debunked by Dr Simon & skeptics Phil Klass & Robert Sheaffer

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: IVANV

You don't understand the problem.

No, you are the one who does not understand the problem.

As an example: when a military radar recon aircraft pilot plus superior on board has radar contact in his cockpit and gets 3000pmh-0-9000pmh+directional changes+sees the craft, with non standard but excessive amounts of strive lights and no noise or sonic boom, with his own eyes+ gets a second pilot+ 2 copilots to visually confirm the crafts maneuvers+ second radar to confirm the object movement and speed. Then I think we can pretty much conclude that they have seen a proper extraterrestrial UFO.

Why extraterrestrial? All they have is contact with something they cannot identify. It is your bias that interprets it as extraterrestrial.
No, you don't understand the problem. If skilled limits familiar with all man made crafts and all man made strobe lights patterns, and the max speed limits, stopping/banking/etc of those crafts say that " it was not man made, then I will believe them. I'm not going to believe a skeptic arm chair debunker which laughs at the politia eyesight and throws around " anal probing" jokes.

Another example is when one of the top, maybe to 3-5 , scientists in the Western world, a guy working at the cutting edge of military warfare in collaboration with to secret projects and having top secret clearance says he saw objects which were not of this planet, then those objects are not of this planet.

Can you provide an example of this happening, or is it merely a hypothetical?
This happened. The guy's dead, major scientist, mile long CV.

It's time to accept that there are witnesses of such high calibre and qualification that you can't dismiss them. You just can't. Like if a guy says in the 50s that nobody has a craft pulling 300g , changing direction, then 300g on a different plane within seconds, and he's the go to guy when it comes to aerodynamics, then his words is solid gold.

Again, this is your fantasy, not an actual incident. If an observer is objective, all they can do isreport what they believe they saw, not interpret it.

It's the same guy as above.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Why would you respond to a statement that I used no source with a question asking me for a source?

www.quora.com...

This is what I found after a cursory google search. Now, in this study we're dealing with millions of people. But there's also the question of sleep paralysis - and if we want to be honest there there's also the question of what reality exactly constitutes. The holographic view of reality seem to be slowly gaining ground: these people may actually be experiencing abduction through other planes of reality.

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.” – Max Planck

“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.” – Nikola Tesla

“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” – Nikola Tesla

“The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real; they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.” – Werner Heisenberg

“We may therefore regard matter as being constituted by the regions of space in which the field is extremely intense … there is no place in this new kind of physics for the field and matter, for the field is the only reality.” – Albert Einstein

“The field is the sole governing agency of the particle.” – Albert Einstein

“Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” – Niels Bohr

Luck happens too, but luck isn't real either. It is just a way for us to explain the abnormal. You flip a penny 10 times and you call it correct every time, luck or normal process of percentages. BTW abnormal is normal just normal in small amounts.

This has absolutely nothing to do with anything I wrote.

I agree to a point, but it still doesn't make science mysticism, just science. A match stick was mysticism at one time, so are you suggesting that UFOs are still in the mysticism stage, also remember just because science may look like mysticism, most mysticism will never be science.

No, it means science is catching up with mysticism. Unfortunately it was hamstrung by the arrogance and rigid pseudoskepticism of pseudoskeptics.

You're wrong there. Certain mysticism IS science and have always been science because of it's repeatability. In fact in a lot of ways it is the mother of science. The only difference is in the axiomatic assumptions being made. Mysticism is based on the axiomatic assumption that reality is consciousness based. It is an inner science and the tool of exploration is consciousness itself.

Science on the other hand have had a material foundation but is now beginning to backtrack on that. Slowly recognising the role the observer(consciousness) plays.

Trace evidence that can not be found or checked in anyway. Once again we take only the words of humans to explain that aliens are real. What evidence is there that the "secret Government" hasn't taken or destroyed. 1938 was rather different than 2016, I would think we are ready, and you fail to put the whole world in play and assume it just the USA with the secret. The whole world can not get along but the whole world can keep this a secret.

Can you not see that this is just another way to explain the lack of evidence out there.

That is just another baseless assertion of yours. I speak of evidence not based on testimony and you talk of social phenomena. I speak of trace evidence and you completely ignore it and assert that it can't be found or checked out. When in fact it has been checked out thousands of times.

www.ufoevidence.org...

Here, go look.. there are thousands of cases like this.

Nowhere did I speak specifically of certain regions of the planet either.

You guys are completely hopeless. First you ignore the testimony of legions of actual whistleblowers.. then you turn around and say "The whole world can not get along but the whole world can keep this a secret.".. It's actually mindblowing how conditioned you guys are. This is pure cognitive dissonance..

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

So the best evidence you have of aliens/UFOs is testimonials?

I can show you testimonials of Santa, reptilians, unicorns, nazi bases on the moon and a whole load of other things.

Testimonials don't make something true. It just means that people are saying its true.

a reply to: TerryDon79

How can you respond to a post where I speak of thousands of cases with trace evidence and then accuse me of only talking of testimony?

How willfully ignorant is that of you? Is this type of thought process endemic when dealing with 'you people'? Xtrozero also completely ignored everything I spoke of except the personal testimony. Is it dishonesty, ignorance or are you literally blind?

Here you go:

www.ufoevidence.org...

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Like I said, testimonials. People saying they "saw something".

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod

www.ufoevidence.org...

Here, go look.. there are thousands of cases like this.

You guys are completely hopeless. First you ignore the testimony of legions of actual whistleblowers.. then you turn around and say "The whole world can not get along but the whole world can keep this a secret.".. It's actually mindblowing how conditioned you guys are. This is pure cognitive dissonance..

They just refuse to accept the unknown because it challenges their religion and they're also scared little kittens.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

So the best evidence you have of aliens/UFOs is testimonials?

I can show you testimonials of Santa, reptilians, unicorns, nazi bases on the moon and a whole load of other things.

Testimonials don't make something true. It just means that people are saying its true.

Go on ...show us testimonials for "Santa, reptilians, unicorns, nazi bases on the moon" from military fighter pilots, commercial pilots, police officers, scientists, judges, politicians.
Come on.... I expect no less that 100 testimonials.
Go on... Also I want at least 20 radar contacts to go with the pilots.
Also military witnesses with photos and casts of landing imprints.
Also testimonies of cases with damage to property.
You can start writing.
Thank you very much.

a reply to: TerryDon79

It seems you don't understand the meaning of trace evidence.

a reply to: IVANV

Agreed.. the implications may be too frightening for a lot of people.

In summary, the abduction phenomenon is of considerable clinical and scientific interest. No convincing explanation of the experiences abductees report is currently evident. We may learn from further research a great deal about the nature of the human psyche and expand our notions of psychological and physical reality. The phenomenon may deliver to us a kind of fourth blow to our collective egoism, following those of Copernicus, Darwin and Freud. For we may be led to realize that not only are we not physically at the center of the universe, transcending other life forms and rational masters of our psyches - we are not even the preeminent or dominant intelligence in the cosmos, in control of our psychological and physical existences. It appears that we can be "invaded" or taken over, if not literally by other creatures, then by some other form of being or consciousness that seems able to do with us what it will for a purpose we cannot yet fathom.

- John E. Mack

In the end these naysayers will be found on the wrong side of history. They think they're rational, they love to use words like empirical, and rational.. It's almost like an invocation - perhaps they think that using these words enough will imprint some rationality on themselves, or maybe they think using these words enough but will give them the appearance of credibility and wisdom. But in truth they're narrow-minded conformists and the double standards they display with regards to fortean phenomena would be thought of as embarrassing if they weren't also being backed up by legions of like minded drones in academia.

Too afraid to think outside of the box these frauds perpetuate a system of belief that is in dire need of a paradigm shift - hopefully most of them won't have to die out before we can embrace a greater more encompassing science. A great deal of prominent and outstanding scientists were very unlike these narrow minded mediocre wannabes, they studied the ancient sciences and were greatly inspired by them. Their vision was not limited by these false constraints, they could see the profundity contained in the ancient scripts. This is what is needed for science to grow up and put on its big boy pants, a greater more encompassing framework. One that could bridge the gap between science and spirituality, one that would explain the contents of religion and that would also consequently render the twisted dogma of most religions null and toothless. This alone would change the world in a most profound way.

A complete science would place astral planes, parallel dimensions, synchronicities, consciousness, etheric fields, telepathy, vital energies, emotional energies, volition, hyperdimensional existence and timeloops all under the same framework. At present, these appear to be phenomena distinct from science, but that is because science as we know it is incomplete. It is not that these phenomena can be explained in terms of present science as reductionists and debunkers enjoy doing, but rather that present science must expand to accommodate these phenomena in terms of higher physical and metaphysical principles.

- Tom Montalk

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: TerryDon79

How can you respond to a post where I speak of thousands of cases with trace evidence and then accuse me of only talking of testimony?

How willfully ignorant is that of you? Is this type of thought process endemic when dealing with 'you people'? Xtrozero also completely ignored everything I spoke of except the personal testimony. Is it dishonesty, ignorance or are you literally blind?

Here you go:

www.ufoevidence.org...

from your link under Ted Phillips' Physical Trace Catalogue

This summary is based on only a partial listing of the catalogue as many of Phillips' cases appear extremely dubious in nature. Cases from the early 1950s are particularly unreliable because many of the early UFO books were written by people who automatically assumed that they were describing encounters with alien spaceships. Jenny Randles tells me that cases reported in the "hysterical" Spanish and South American media should be treated even more skeptically because these cases were often complete fabrications! Furthermore many of the early cases have no proper source, e.g. Phillips quotes Vallee describing cases which appear to have been anecdotally reported to Vallee. This means that we often have no idea whether or not a specific case was investigated by anyone, let alone whether it was a contemporary investigation or whether the investigator was in any sense someone capable of undertaking an objective scientific evaluation.

In addition to these problems we have a major definitional problem concerning cases which feature circular ground traces because of the current confusion which exists over the authenticity of the archetypal crop circle. Doug and Dave claimed to have actually created the phenomenon of a sharply-defined swirled circle, but they apparently based their hoax on the Tully reeds circles, which themselves were sharply-defined swirled circles. Given this regrettable fact, what do we include in our definition of a crop circle? Do we include roughly circular shapes of depressed but not swirled circles or do we stick to sharp-edged circles? How about burned circles or circles where the crop has been denuded or completely removed? Given these problems its probably wise to merely highlight all cases involving circular traces but not assume that they are necessarily caused by the same causal mechanism. It is quite possible that there may be several natural circle-forming mechanisms which all create different types of circular ground trace. One of these mechanisms could still be Meaden's postulated plasma-vortex but it is wise not to assume that any particular category of circular ground trace must be caused by the postulated plasma vortex. In any event we will be trying to track down case material referred to by Phillips and will report back in a future issue.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I picked the first link I found with a google search..

Perhaps this is more to your liking:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm sure the hysteria of these lunatics just conjured this radioactivity out of thin air.. yes, that's a great explanation. Let's go with that.

Want more? Here you go:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is a list of the top trace evidence cases:

www.angelfire.com...

KINDS OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE After some sightings, indications of the presence of something most unusual have been found.


1. PHYSICAL traces. Compressed and dehydrated vegetation, broken tree branches, and imprints in the ground have all been reported. Sometimes a soil sample taken from an area where a UFO had been close to the ground will be determined by laboratory analysis to have undergone heating or other changes not present in the control sample. CUFOS has a computer file of over 5600 such cases.


2. Vehicle interference cases. Sometimes referred to as E-M (Electro-Magnetic) cases, the UFO appears to cause a number of effects on automobile ignition systems. CUFOS has a computer catalog of over 500 such cases.


3. Physiological effects. Medical verification of burns, eye inflammation or temporary blindness, or other physiological effects attributed to encounters with UFOs, even healings of previous conditions, can also constitute evidence, especially when no other obvious cause for the effect can be found by the medical examiner.


4. Radarscope photos. A series of photographs of a radar screen on which a "blip" of a UFO appears is a powerful adjunct to a visual sighting because it provides quantitative evidence of the UFO's motions and velocity.

Either way the assertion that there is no physical evidence or that testimony is the only evidence is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Oh, UFO landings marks? Shame you used the examples that have been debunked.

As for that angelfire site? It's just a list with no links.

Next?

Why don't you show crop circles? I'm sure they're proof of aliens too LOL.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

I picked the first link I found with a google search..

Perhaps this is more to your liking:

yes, I am well aware that there are some interesting cases but you were talking about "thousands of cases" and provided a link along with some choice words for the people whos point of view seems to be supported by said link provided by you. its listed under "key articles, documents & resources".

I'm sure the hysteria of these lunatics just conjured this radioactivity out of thin air.. yes, that's a great explanation. Let's go with that.

you seem to be conjuring up a pretty hefty straw man there. please continue, I'm sure I wont be able to stop you anyway.

Want more? Here you go:

Could you please provide my explanations to those in advance? I'm too scared to read them. Thanks!

a reply to: TerryDon79

As for that angelfire site? It's just a list with no links.

It appears to be a listing of the Ted Philips cases.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: TerryDon79

As for that angelfire site? It's just a list with no links.

It appears to be a listing of the Ted Philips cases.

Ah, ok.

I'm on my phone and every time I tried from zoom in it was opening another page trying to sell me something lol.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: ZetaRediculian



Want more? Here you go:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: exdog5

The Bob White appears to have been explained.

2012 bump. Has there been any update on the Bob White object?

I reluctantly offer....

THIS...

here is the police report for the second one www.ufocasebook.com...
I heard one theory was that he was drunk and fell onto a grill. Since there was no actual radiation detected, that's seems plausible.

There are also plausible explanations for the Zamora case. It just takes an open mind and the ability to accept that there may be no aliens involved with these cases.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I don't believe you, you're intellectually dishonest enough to claim that the only evidence that exists is testimonial. So if you want to claim that these cases have been debunked you would have to prove it.

It's a list of cases, you could easily google them.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I'm sure there actually are thousands of cases, this does not mean that all of them have been rigidly scrutinised, or that information about all of them are even available in English. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Either way we look at it the reality of the phenomena - unknown craft flying in our atmosphere - is undeniable.

But like I said in my first post, trying to understand what is going on by looking at individual cases is mostly pointless. A holistic perspective encompassing all the different kinds of evidence and taking them all into account would be the way to get at the truth.

Thinking nothing is going on here is foolish in the extreme. Thinking our government is clueless about this is even more foolish.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

I don't really care if you believe me or not. A simple google search will show you those cases have been debunked.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I don't really trust your judgment to be able to discern such things. Some "skeptics" are very easily convinced, they'll believe in stories of weather balloons, Venus and swamp gas.

You've already discredited yourself by claiming that the only evidence is testimony. If you're this clueless about the situation I would be foolish to trust your flawed judgment.

You can huff and puff about this to your hearts desire but there is no escaping the fact that we are dealing with intelligently controlled craft. The witnesses shows this, the radar shows this, the whistleblowers shows this, the military and intelligence officials willing to speak shows this, the trace cases shows this. The abduction phenomena is just icing on the cake.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I don't really trust your judgment to be able to discern such things. Some "skeptics" are very easily convinced, they'll believe in stories of weather balloons, Venus and swamp gas.

You've already discredited yourself by claiming that the only evidence is testimony. If you're this clueless about the situation I would be foolish to trust your flawed judgment.

You can huff and puff about this to your hearts desire but there is no escaping the fact that we are dealing with intelligently controlled craft. The witnesses shows this, the radar shows this, the whistleblowers shows this, the military and intelligence officials willing to speak shows this, the trace cases shows this. The abduction phenomena is just icing on the cake.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

And I don't trust the judgement of someone who uses known debunked claims as their proof.

Go figure.