Revisiting Jaques Vallée - Beyond the Control Loop

a reply to: billydebunker

No.

a reply to: mirageman

a reply to: billydebunker

I was referring to the Cash-Landrum case which we were discussing earlier in this thread. The radiation poisoning was determined by a radiologist.

A truly fascinating case no matter which side of the fence you are on. I think the witnesses were definitely exposed to something. Although I remain open minded to what it could be.

But fellow ATS member Curt Collins (CardDown) has put a lot of time and expertise into uncovering the facts of this case.

Here is what Radiologist Dr. Peter Rank.actually said about Betty Cash's injuries.

Nonoperative investigative procedures have shown no serious abnormality and that includes all of her x-rays as well as her blood test.

Source : www.blueblurrylines.com...

The Texas Department of Health’s Bureau of Radiation Control produced a file on their investigation of site radioactivity which can be viewed here : app.box.com...

It concluded that no contamination from radioactive material above background level was found in the area.

The case is obviously more complex than this and the witnesses did suffer from symptoms similar to that caused by radiation. Even I have my suspicion's that the military were up to something that night. However if we dismiss these reports as part of a cover up we begin involving the Texas Dept of Health in the conspiracy as well.

originally posted by: billydebunker
So why haven't flying saucers changed since sightings in the 1920s?

You're right that the lenticular "saucer shape" has been around for a long time and flying saucers still pop up nostalgically every once in a while. However, prior to that, in the 1800's, UFOs were seen as "airships." And after a while, saucers themselves were swapped out with "cigar" shapes, and then "boomerang" shapes. These days we get a lot of "triangle" shapes.

This is something Vallee noticed in the data he analyzed. He's a computer systems expert, and he approached UFOs from a data analysis perspective. He also found in the data that the "flaps" -- rising and falling waves of sightings over time -- pretty closely matched what psychologists understand to be a standard teaching model. So he saw it as the "aliens" (whatever they are / it is) introducing a subject in a new form that would be, say, 50 years ahead of us so we could still recognize it for what it was, allowing us to contemplate it and absorb it into our society, and then introducing another one 10 or so years down the line. So now the Air Force is building flying triangles.

Again, I don't go along with him on this point. However, from my own limited research in a variety of fields, I can understand how people might interpret their own personal encounters -- whether it is with a "flying saucer" or a "grey alien" (which replaced the old-fashioned human-looking aliens) -- through a very heavy filter of their own expectations. People expect their weird flying machines to be advanced aliens, so that's what they see. Something a bit more advanced than what they're familiar with. Not too many people have the kind of imagination that would allow them to see that really advanced technology, something 10,000 years ahead of ours for instance, wouldn't look like anything. Aliens would have no reason to come here in person. And their probes would probably be tiny. They would look like flies, or a little seed. Or be completely invisible.

But in the end, I don't know. If there are actual aliens out there, simply visiting us with machines, then I can only guess what motivates them to do that since to my way of thinking it's not logical. I'm not an alien, so I can't know how they would think. I can anthropomorphize, and speculate that the same thing motivates them that motivates humans -- curiosity, a desire for knowledge, a desire to conquer, etc. But I wouldn't necessarily be right in any way.

a reply to: billydebunker

I was referring to the Cash-Landrum case which we were discussing earlier in this thread. The radiation poisoning was determined by a radiologist.

And I was responding to your comment about hypnosis.

a reply to: billydebunker

And yet with less effort than it took for you to complain in a post about it, you could have looked into it. Imagine that.

In all honesty, I have been trying to find some solid trace landing cases for a while. provide a link to the 3000 documented cases and I will concede that I didn't look hard enough.

The Texas Department of Health’s Bureau of Radiation Control produced a file on their investigation of site radioactivity which can be viewed here : app.box.com...

It concluded that no contamination from radioactive material above background level was found in the area.

The case is obviously more complex than this and the witnesses did suffer from symptoms similar to that caused by radiation. Even I have my suspicion's that the military were up to something that night. However if we dismiss these reports as part of a cover up we begin involving the Texas Dept of Health in the conspiracy as well.


Tsk, Tsk, mirageman, mirageman. Please don't play dumb, you know as well as I do that the entire stretch of road where this happened, and the earth beneath it, and the shoulders of the road, was completely dug up and replaced by the Army Corps of Engineers within a day of the incident. So really, man, you're a better debunker than that.

So is it your contention that they were bombarded by massive amounts of ionizing radiation somewhere else, like maybe at the waffle house, or starbucks? Rather than the site where independent witnesses saw 16 helicopters chasing the diamond shaped UFO.?

That song and dance may work on the amateurs.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Glad to see we agree on a few points, Blue Shift.

But you saw the aliens coming here in metal ships is not logical.
First of all, you mean logical for present day humans. Why would you expect an alien race of beings to behave like humans?

And second, since when is acquisition of land and resources not logical? Of course it is.
What do you think Columbus did?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: billydebunker

And yet with less effort than it took for you to complain in a post about it, you could have looked into it. Imagine that.

In all honesty, I have been trying to find some solid trace landing cases for a while. provide a link to the 3000 documented cases and I will concede that I didn't look hard enough.

Actually, I'll just concede right now that you didn't look hard enough.

a reply to: Blue Shift

No, people see flying saucers not because of their expectations, but because that is what they are in reality. If they were not real, they would not show up on film. It is as simple as that.

A flying saucer stopped all air traffic in the middle of the day at the nations busiest airport, O'Hare, in 2007. Not expectations, simply tangible reality. It is impossible to pretend otherwise.

a reply to: billydebunker

A flying saucer stopped all air traffic in the middle of the day at the nations busiest airport, O'Hare, in 2007. Not expectations, simply tangible reality. It is impossible to pretend otherwise.

Were you there? Please describe what you saw.

originally posted by: billydebunker

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: billydebunker

And yet with less effort than it took for you to complain in a post about it, you could have looked into it. Imagine that.

In all honesty, I have been trying to find some solid trace landing cases for a while. provide a link to the 3000 documented cases and I will concede that I didn't look hard enough.

Actually, I'll just concede right now that you didn't look hard enough.

That makes no sense because you would have had to make the argument that I did look hard enough first and then concede the point that I didn't after I argued that I didn't. In fact one could make the argument that you didn't look up the definition of concede before using it incorrectly.

Anyway, its a really lazy argument to tell someone to look up your points that you declare as fact and then say they didn't look for it when they disagree. This is the foundation ufology is built on. Like I said, I have looked into trace landing cases and there aren't any actual traces unless you count crop circles. Sure there are a few interesting ones but even the best cases don't amount to much. Like everything else, they are stories.

a reply to: billydebunker

A flying saucer stopped all air traffic in the middle of the day at the nations busiest airport, O'Hare, in 2007. Not expectations, simply tangible reality. It is impossible to pretend otherwise.

Someone reporting they saw something that wasn't there would have the same effect. Try screaming "FIRE!" in a movie theater.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: billydebunker

A flying saucer stopped all air traffic in the middle of the day at the nations busiest airport, O'Hare, in 2007. Not expectations, simply tangible reality. It is impossible to pretend otherwise.

Were you there? Please describe what you saw.

Let us get this straight please.

Are you saying that a flying saucer did NOT hover over O'Hare airport, in broad daylight, on Novermber 7, 2006?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: billydebunker

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: billydebunker

And yet with less effort than it took for you to complain in a post about it, you could have looked into it. Imagine that.

In all honesty, I have been trying to find some solid trace landing cases for a while. provide a link to the 3000 documented cases and I will concede that I didn't look hard enough.

Actually, I'll just concede right now that you didn't look hard enough.

That makes no sense because you would have had to make the argument that I did look hard enough first and then concede the point that I didn't after I argued that I didn't. In fact one could make the argument that you didn't look up the definition of concede before using it incorrectly.

Anyway, its a really lazy argument to tell someone to look up your points that you declare as fact and then say they didn't look for it when they disagree. This is the foundation ufology is built on. Like I said, I have looked into trace landing cases and there aren't any actual traces unless you count crop circles. Sure there are a few interesting ones but even the best cases don't amount to much. Like everything else, they are stories.

I'm not telling you to look up my points, I assure you. You asked about a point I made, and I suggested you look into the matter. That's all.

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: billydebunker

A flying saucer stopped all air traffic in the middle of the day at the nations busiest airport, O'Hare, in 2007. Not expectations, simply tangible reality. It is impossible to pretend otherwise.

Someone reporting they saw something that wasn't there would have the same effect. Try screaming "FIRE!" in a movie theater.

Let me get this straight with you too.

Are you saying that a flying saucer did NOT hover over O'Hare airport?

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: billydebunker

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: billydebunker

And yet with less effort than it took for you to complain in a post about it, you could have looked into it. Imagine that.

In all honesty, I have been trying to find some solid trace landing cases for a while. provide a link to the 3000 documented cases and I will concede that I didn't look hard enough.

Actually, I'll just concede right now that you didn't look hard enough.

That makes no sense because you would have had to make the argument that I did look hard enough first and then concede the point that I didn't after I argued that I didn't. In fact one could make the argument that you didn't look up the definition of concede before using it incorrectly.

Anyway, its a really lazy argument to tell someone to look up your points that you declare as fact and then say they didn't look for it when they disagree. This is the foundation ufology is built on. Like I said, I have looked into trace landing cases and there aren't any actual traces unless you count crop circles. Sure there are a few interesting ones but even the best cases don't amount to much. Like everything else, they are stories.

The cases that DO amount to much are just cases that YOU have dismissed. Fortunately, there are lots of people who understand the difference between reality, and what you have convinced yourself is reality.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: billydebunker

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: billydebunker

And yet with less effort than it took for you to complain in a post about it, you could have looked into it. Imagine that.

In all honesty, I have been trying to find some solid trace landing cases for a while. provide a link to the 3000 documented cases and I will concede that I didn't look hard enough.

Actually, I'll just concede right now that you didn't look hard enough.

That makes no sense because you would have had to make the argument that I did look hard enough first and then concede the point that I didn't after I argued that I didn't. In fact one could make the argument that you didn't look up the definition of concede before using it incorrectly.

Anyway, its a really lazy argument to tell someone to look up your points that you declare as fact and then say they didn't look for it when they disagree. This is the foundation ufology is built on. Like I said, I have looked into trace landing cases and there aren't any actual traces unless you count crop circles. Sure there are a few interesting ones but even the best cases don't amount to much. Like everything else, they are stories.

The cases that DO amount to much are just cases that YOU have dismissed. Fortunately, there are lots of people who understand the difference between reality, and what you have convinced yourself is reality.

Great post, great point. So I'm new here, is this website always so clearly biased?

I know the great John Lear regards this site as a clearing house for disinformation. And what kind of legitimate UFO discussion site would ban John Lear?

This guy's never heard of any physical trace cases? That sounds disingenuous. I could name ten right off the top of my head.

a reply to: billydebunker

I could name ten right off the top of my head.

Please proceed.

ETA: Background on me:

-Been here longer than you, although you are another incarnation of yourself as am I.
-Bitter towards those that would have me believe what my tenure at ATS has taught me is not true.
-Realizes that we have dealt with you "before"

Go on then.



P.S. Am also the guy starring your posts.

originally posted by: billydebunker

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian

originally posted by: billydebunker

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: billydebunker

And yet with less effort than it took for you to complain in a post about it, you could have looked into it. Imagine that.

In all honesty, I have been trying to find some solid trace landing cases for a while. provide a link to the 3000 documented cases and I will concede that I didn't look hard enough.

Actually, I'll just concede right now that you didn't look hard enough.

That makes no sense because you would have had to make the argument that I did look hard enough first and then concede the point that I didn't after I argued that I didn't. In fact one could make the argument that you didn't look up the definition of concede before using it incorrectly.

Anyway, its a really lazy argument to tell someone to look up your points that you declare as fact and then say they didn't look for it when they disagree. This is the foundation ufology is built on. Like I said, I have looked into trace landing cases and there aren't any actual traces unless you count crop circles. Sure there are a few interesting ones but even the best cases don't amount to much. Like everything else, they are stories.

The cases that DO amount to much are just cases that YOU have dismissed. Fortunately, there are lots of people who understand the difference between reality, and what you have convinced yourself is reality.

Great post, great point. So I'm new here, is this website always so clearly biased?

I know the great John Lear regards this site as a clearing house for disinformation. And what kind of legitimate UFO discussion site would ban John Lear?

This guy's never heard of any physical trace cases? That sounds disingenuous. I could name ten right off the top of my head.

The celebrity debunkers have pretty much created a schism by their implementation of ridicule and preposterous explanations for even the most famous and documented cases. One guy I saw, forget his name, claimed the equal-distant cylindrical holes in the ground within the forest at Rendlesham were simply rabbit diggings!

So what the truth is up against is not only complete stupidity, but complete lack of respect for our highest military officers in charge of nuclear weapons, which goes show how far America has fallen because of the truth embargo related to the UFO phenomenon, and it's multi-million dollar annual counter intelligence budget, which the most vocal debunkers pay absolutely no attention to, which mirrors the same lack of attention they give the rest of the subject.

I think half or much more of all the UFO so called documentaries are simply a way for NSA/Military/CIA to insert misinformation about real cases where something unexplained happened, and tell the stories within a framework that can easily manipulate public perception about UFO's and alien visitation.

And yep, unfortunately because of this, this site is mired quite deep in misinformation, derision, and every other negative aspect encountered whenever we attempt to find the truth about anything deemed sensitive to national security.

On Lear, I think he is still a member, not banned, but he got sick of the "Romper Room" behavior of 98 percent of the membership here, so he doesn't visit the site anymore. I think that shows just how successful the counter intelligence programs world wide have succeeded. I would really hate to think that people could be this stupid without help, but then people always follow the pied piper without much looking where they are being led to.