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.

 

Skeptics say none of it is real

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
HAL9000, I don't think you would've relayed the Malmstrom page to me for evidence had you actually read the declassified pages that are available there.

I suggest you read the actual SECRET pages that were classified and then released under the FOIA in 1995.

In particular, I'd suggest you read pages 34 and 38. They are significantly at variance with the assertions made by Salas and Klotz.




posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   
HAL9000 said:

"This was the case I was refering to. The FAA Head of Accidents John Callahan, which is the first witness on the Disclosure Project Press Conference, had a vidio and printout of the radar returns in hand ready to testify in front of congress. Unfortunatley their request was denied."

Well, where is this video and this printout now? Do you have a link to it?



posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
OTS, well you really have it in for me don't you?

I take it your referring to Page 38.



Rumors of Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO) around the area of Echo Flight during the time of the fault were disproven. A Mobile Strike Team, which had checked all November Flight’s LF’s on the morning of 16 March 67, were questioned and stated that no unusual activity or sightings were observed.

But if you watch the Disclosure Project press conference video, Capt. Robert Salas who is around the fourth witness ready to testify under oath in front of Congress, is stating otherwise. I will take personal testimony over a government document any day.



Well, where is this video and this printout now? Do you have a link to it?

Why don't you try looking for it yourself? I'm not trying to change your mind, just pointing out things I think are credible. If you want to go through this case by case, we're going to be here for a long time. What is it that I said that has you only scrutinizing me?

[edit on 4/23/2005 by Hal9000]



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 07:25 AM
link   


"I'll readily admit to no "proof", but evidence? The evidence is all over the place. There is plenty."

Do you call fuzzy photographs "evidence"?


No, throughout my posts you'll see that due to modern techniques of photo and video editting, I never consider them credible evidence. Instead, I prefer looking at the government's own documents, and the testimony of high-ranking military officers and/or pilots, and former government project scientists... THAT is evidence.



"And oddly enough, far more evidence supporting aliens than the God that brings so much meaning to your life."

I don't know if it's "far more"; certainly a similar amount. Belief in a diety, like belief in Spaceship Guys, is really a kind of religion. It can't be proven -- or at least it hasn't been, yet. And as far as "evidence' -- The flying saucer photographs I've seen are pretty much like the "miracle" of the Blessed Virgen's face on a tortilla. It just doesn't resonate with me.


Again, you can poke fun at the photos, but that's not what I'm talking about. I don't recall numerous government programs, covert and overt, to study the phenomenon of "does God exist and does he pose a threat", or sergeants to generals coming forward stating they saw and tracked God, or have handled pieces of his robe, so yes, "far more" evidence.



"Interesting then, that UFOlogy gets the ridicule, while another unproven belief with far less evidence is treated seriously. But, we've gone down that road in another very long thread..."

So the God Squad has better PR than the Spaceship Guys....


Seems so, but then the government doesn't seem to have much to lose if God is proven or not....not so with the other subject.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
HAL9000 says:




"OTS, well you really have it in for me don't you?"


HAL, you make a comment that I take issue with, I'm going to call you on it. Thats's what debate is about. There's nothing personal here; I'm taking issue with your data and your logic, not you as an individual. If you don't like anyone questioning your assertions, you shouldn't make them in the first place.



"I will take personal testimony over a government document any day."


And yet you use those same declassified government documents as evidence -- when the evidence happens to agree with what you want. I find it rather odd that these same people that you quote use those declassified documents too.

You can't have it both ways. If you don't trust the governmet documents, how can you trust the people who quote those same government documents?




Well, where is this video and this printout now? Do you have a link to it?

Why don't you try looking for it yourself?


You haven's seen it either, have you? Are you telling me you're giving credibility to a guy who waves a videotape around and you've never seen what's on the tape?




I'm not trying to change your mind, just pointing out things I think are credible.


Well, I'm pointing out things that you show me and I say they're incredible. So far you've pointed me at several sites, and none of them are the "proof" or even good "evidence" that you intimate they are.




If you want to go through this case by case, we're going to be here for a long time.


Nort necessarily. Just give me something that really is evidence, HAL, and I'll accept it.

I've been reading science fiction probably long before you born. There's nothing I'd consider more thrilling and more of a watershed in Humanity's development to find out that there are interstellar visitors and that they have visited us.

But I'm not going to confuse what I want to be with what really is.
0



What is it that I said that has you only scrutinizing me?


Assertions as fact which I don't consider facts. Again, nothing personal, HAL; we're just trying to deny ignorance here, n'est-ce pas?


[edit on 24-4-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I've read over that 1986 Anchorage case, and while interesting, I don't see a lot of substance there. In fact, some of the details seem contradictory.

There were a few links that said the pilots saww strange lights, the FAA had an anomolous return (it happens a lot with radar), the JAL flight had 'something' on a dopler weather radar from one of the three objects, and the military radar had nothing. The military sent two aircraft who had a visual of the JAL flight but saw nothing else.

Then the Disclosure Project stuff where the FAA guy saus the CIA swore everyone there to secrecy and made them swear the meeting never took place. But there are also links that say the FAA is re-opening the case for another investigation. If the FAA was made to swear the meeting never took place and were told by the CIA to forget about the event, why did they re-open it?

I believe the military radar before above and beyond anything else there. I worked with radars a lot in the Navy and I have a friend who was an FAA maintenance tech for a while. The military radars are like night and day compared to the FAA radars. Remember all the talk about upgrading the FAA radars and infrastructure after 9/11 because they were so antiquated?

The airbases around Anchorage are some of the most modern we have. They are the ones who were the US's first line of defense against the USSR in the cold war and would be among the first to respond to any aggression by the USSR. And their radar had nothing there.

Sure the pilot's account is interesting and I believe him to be sincere and credible, but that is the only 'hard' evidence in this case. Seeing FAA radar video that shows a ghost image is not going to impress me. I saw my share of that in the Navy on a much more advanced radar than that FAA one.

As for the Mexican AF video, the lights remain evenly spaced through the entire video. They appear to be moving because the camera is moving, but they never move in relation to each other. When I first saw that video I thought "My god, this is it!" but it isn't. The oil wells fully explain this video and after reading all about the oil well theory and re-watching the video, I have concluded that the oil wells are what is on that video.


I saw a 'UFO' one night. Several of my friends saw it also. What I saw was strange and exhibited flight characteristics that are far beyond anything humans could achieve, yet I'm still kind of skeptical about it. Just because I saw a strange, bright light darting around other aircraft it doesn't mean it was a spaceship with aliens on it. I do believe there are life forms out there that are more advanced than us. However, I'm not willing to believe every quack who says he was taken aboard a mothership by big lizards and taught about the pinks who live on a planet orbiting Sirius. Sorry.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   
skeptics never go on to become inventors or pioneers
how could they invent something when they only believe in whats already been proved?
must be sad to live in a state of mind where you only believe and understand what's already been proven
me, i like to invent. i like to experiment. i like to discover. i like to learn.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   


You can't have it both ways. If you don't trust the governmet documents, how can you trust the people who quote those same government documents?


This is an EXCELLENT question. I'm surprised I've really never seen it asked before. To be frank, I'd kind of hoped it wouldn't be asked,


The answer is, all too often, the documents contradict each other. However, document after document, it shows the same thing. That to the public, the US government's interest in UFOs ended with Bluebook....yet away from public view, investigations continued, and with the purpose of identification and threat assessment, not debunking. I trust the documents released by the government because I trust that the government, at the time, had good reason to keep such a secret, and I still trust in that to a certain extent. Indeed, they likely still have good reason. That doesn't keep us from wanting to know the answers though.

[edit on 25-4-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   

by OTS
HAL, you make a comment that I take issue with, I'm going to call you on it. Thats's what debate is about. There's nothing personal here; I'm taking issue with your data and your logic, not you as an individual. If you don't like anyone questioning your assertions, you shouldn't make them in the first place.

OTS, I don’t have a problem with you asking about it, but can we do it with a little more friendly demeanor? I am a 43 year old electronic engineer, and not some young kid who thinks reptoids are living beneath our feet, so please don’t treat me like one. I can understand that you’ve probably have come across this a hundred times, so I know where your coming from. If we examine these cases, and they turn out to be questionable, it won’t be the first time, and I’ll be the first to admit it.


by OTS
And yet you use those same declassified government documents as evidence -- when the evidence happens to agree with what you want. I find it rather odd that these same people that you quote use those declassified documents too.

You can't have it both ways. If you don't trust the governmet documents, how can you trust the people who quote those same government documents?

Good point, how about I change my statement to this, "I will take his personal testimony over that government document any day."

Why would I? First of all the documents are there to show that even the Air Force admits the event took place. Capt. Salas was in charge of the missile facility, and wouldn’t be there if he weren’t qualified. He is standing in front of God and everybody, ready to testify before Congress that what he says is true.

Furthermore, on that day they have this event where 16 nuclear missiles that where designed to run autonomously and not connected in any way, went to a NO GO status. I would say this was probably a very exciting day already, I don’t think they would need the addition of a UFO sighting to make it more interesting.


by OTS
You haven's seen it either, have you? Are you telling me you're giving credibility to a guy who waves a videotape around and you've never seen what's on the tape?

Well this is true, at the time it wasn’t available, and I haven’t looked to see if it is now. But even if I had, and said there was something there. Your next question would be, “Well are you qualified to determine if it’s real?” And the answer to that is of course is no. I will look for it when I have more time.

I would also like to add, that as far as the Disclosure Project goes, I don’t agree with some of the philosophy behind it, and others have pointed out that some of the witnesses are questionable. But I still consider the book and video of the news conference (after getting past the goofy intro), decent reference material. It has been a while since going over the material, but as far as I know, the cases we are referring to have held up.

Regards.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   

by PBandJtime
I believe the military radar before above and beyond anything else there. I worked with radars a lot in the Navy and I have a friend who was an FAA maintenance tech for a while. The military radars are like night and day compared to the FAA radars. Remember all the talk about upgrading the FAA radars and infrastructure after 9/11 because they were so antiquated?

Did you happen to find the video or printouts in question? Would you be able to make an assessment if we find them?


by PBandJtime
Seeing FAA radar video that shows a ghost image is not going to impress me. I saw my share of that in the Navy on a much more advanced radar than that FAA one.

Can you tell us, what can cause ghost images on radar? Thanks.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Medea says:

"skeptics never go on to become inventors or pioneers
how could they invent something when they only believe in whats already been proved?
must be sad to live in a state of mind where you only believe and understand what's already been proven
me, i like to invent. i like to experiment. i like to discover. i like to learn."


Medea, I don't think you and I have the same definition of skeptic!

I (and I think most other skeptics) believe that a skeptic is a person who is skeptical. We don't take your word if you say that there are Spaceship Guys; we want good, solid evidence.

And we also are skeptical of anyone who says that it's impossible for there to be Spaceship Guys, either.

Almost all scientists are skeptical; they don't accept others' pronouncements, and want to see evidence or else come up with evidence.

But I think that a person who accepts stuff like Atlantis or "chem-trails" without any evidence is certainly not a "pioneer", any more than someone who insists that something can't be done is a "pioneer" either.

It doesn't matter if someone blindly accepts what the textbooks say or if she blindly accepts what some website in the Internet says. In either case, she's not "open-minded" or a "pioneer".

She's just someone who is ignorant and will stay that way -- and who wants to be like that?

The only way you can really learn is to question everything.

In other words, you need to be a skeptic, too.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   


In other words you need to be a skeptic too


Very true. The only way the subject will defeat the ridicule factor is if we in the "believer" category tend our own garden and weed out those that are responsible for this stigma... The Billy Meiers, George Adamskis, etc. We need to be more carefull about how we evaluate cases, and address them first from the skeptic's point of view, to see what will and what won't stand up to scrutiny and the scientific process.



Can you tell us, what can cause ghost images on radar? Thanks.


There are many things that can do this. Temperature inversions, weather phenomenon, faulty equipment, etc. Of course, trained operators can usually discern this (but like everything else, there are always newbies...
) Thing is though, most of the "ghost" returns aren't stable, and are fleeting...they don't last long...whereas there are numerous cases of steady returns, etc. Also, most causes of this are not visual phenomenon, etc. This is why the '52 case for temperature inversions fell to pieces, and why it's still listed as "unexplained" in Bluebook. No doubt, ghost radar images can explain some cases, but certainly not the majority involving radar.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   
HAL2000 Says:




OTS, I don’t have a problem with you asking about it, but can we do it with a little more friendly demeanor? I am a 43 year old electronic engineer....


You are absolutely right, and I apologize for the tone of my comments.

I have spent many hours responding to woo-woos, and you are obviously not one of them. I may disagree with what you consider good evidence, but the stuff that you (and Brother Gazrok, too) present is sound and coherent data.

And remember, if we find out that there really are extra-terrestrial visitors here, I will be as excited and thrilled as anyone else!

"They're sorta like ping-pong balls, only smaller, and thery jiggle back and forth or something." -- Logistics engineer, when asked to explain the concept of electrons.

[edit on 25-4-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Apology accepted, Thanks.


Originally posted by Off_The_Street
And remember, if we find out that there really are extra-terrestrial visitors here, I will be as excited and thrilled as anyone else!

If there are, then lets hope their freindly, then I will be thrilled.


Later I plan on doing some digging, let you know what I find.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000

Did you happen to find the video or printouts in question? Would you be able to make an assessment if we find them?


I didn't dig deep enough into Google to find anything that showed the videos. Most of the sites I saw were the same two stories, verbatum, over and over.

I would be more than willing to look at them and have some of my co-workers analyze them as well. I'm a defense contractor and work on the Navy's Aegis Weapon System, the most advanced radar the Navy has. I know some of the Navy's top radar engineers and operators, and the people who write the computer programs for the radars as well. I also know a lot of people who analyze radar tapes for a living in order to make the radars better. My job is to work on the software that runs the Aegis system, including the radar programs. I spent six years in the Navy proir to this job and spent a lot of time in the CIC sitting at the MSS (Missile System Supervisor) console staring at the radar displays. I had several weeks worth of radar theory, 8 hours a day, when I was in the Navy. Radar theory was on the advancement tests for my job so I had to continuously study it.



Can you tell us, what can cause ghost images on radar? Thanks.


Sure, I'll try to be brief. I have a tendancy to type too much.

Ghost images are usually called clutter or 'zoomers'. They are anomolous radar returns that are often caused by atmspheric conditions or a radar that isn't tuned properly. Radars pick up all kind of things besides aircraft. Dust, insects, blowing sand in the Persian Gulf, sudden changes in atmospheric pressure or air density, etc., can all cause ghost images. Clouds can cause ghost images. The US weather office in Norman, OK has a radar that originally came from my site that they use to track storms that have the potential to cause tornadoes. I saw an interesting quote from the chief meteorologist with the radar who said something like 'We realized the Navy could track clouds with their radars. They call it clutter and filter it out. We are interested in that stuff so we look for it and filter out the aircraft.'

Ghost tracks can also be caused by a far away target. This will require a little radar theory to explain. A radar transmits rf frequency EM waves. The waves strike an object and are reflected back to the radar. The radar then has to listen for any returns before transmitting again. The ratio of transmit time to 'listening', or recieve time, is called the duty cycle. A radar with a 25% duty cycle spends 1/4 it's time transmitting a signal, and 3/4 it's time listening for a return. The longer the listening time, the longer the range you can achieve, limited by the power output of the radar. It obviously takes longer for the EM waves to strike a far off target than it does a close one. Duty cycle has to be constantly tuned based on the radar's output at that time, the atmospheric conditions, etc. If the duty cycle is adjusted wrong, it could be possible for the radar to recieve a return that is one or more cycles behind. That is, the radar transmits, listens, transmits again, then receives a signal from the first transmission, but mistakenly thinks it is from the second transmission, so it displays a return where there is none.

There is another atmospheric condition that affects RF energy called ducting. This is when the transmitted RF actually bounces off layers of the atmosphere and follows the curvature of the Earth. Have you ever been able to pick up AM radio stations from say, 500 miles away but not get one from 50 miles away? This is caused by ducting. Radars act the same way. When ducting is occuring you can pick up targets from great distances that appear to be relatively close. You can pick up surface targets that appear to be in the air because they are passed the radar's normal surface range. The radar's surface range is determined mainly by it's height above the horizon, just as our sight is. The higher the radar, the greater the surface range. If a target is over the horizon of the radar, it must be above the ground (above the radar horizon) to be detected. The further away a target it, the greater it's altitude must be to be detected. But when ducting is occuring, the RF energy follows the curvature of the earth instead of travelling straight, so you pick up all kinds of things you don't normally see.

The term 'zoomers' is used to describe anomolous targets that suddenly appear out of no where, travelling at hundreds or thousands of miles per hour, and sudenly vanish again. They only last for a second or so and are the result of the radar not being tuned for the atmospheric conditions it's in.

Radars are stubborn and require constant tuning. They rely on vaccuum tube technology because of the high powers involved. Thus heat generated by the radar's electronics can effect the performance of the radar. Radars have good days and bad days. Some days a transmitter may put out 8 megawatts, other days it may get no more than 2 or 3 megawatts. It's a difficult job tuning the radars and if you aren't skilled at it all kinds of weird things can happen. The Navy requires a radar operator (an actual tech) be in the CIC 24 hours a day when the radar is operating so the radar can be constantly adjusted to give the best picture possible. I've seen days at sea when the radar is all but useless because of all the clutter it is picking up.

I saw one of the sites about the Anchorage incident that had a quote from the FAA radar operators who said they occassionally had a glitch where every third sweep of the radar a false return would be displayed. They were having the problem that night and it just so happened that the false return was near the JAL airliner, so they thought they had the object on radar when they really didn't. Having seen similar occurances many times before, I can believe that explanation.

In fact, look at this website from the Anchorage Convention and Visitor's Bureau. See all the mountains in the backgrounds of the pictures? They will wreak havoc on a radar. Mountains produce thermal updrafts and inversions that will lead to anomolous radar returns. These inversions cause many of the tornadoes in the midwest, can cause small planes to crash, and are rode by hang gliders to get thousands of feet into the air. The inversions are caused when air passing over the mountain tops meets air on the other side of the mountain. You have cold air at the very top of the mountain that suddenly finds itself on top of much warmer air at the bottom of the mountain. The warm air passed the mountain rises up and the cold air at the top of the mountain sinks down, and a vortex is created by the moving air masses. This turbulence will cause some radar returns.

I'm not saying those ghost images on the radar were caused by thermal inversions because if they happened precisely once every three sweeps it sounds like either radar harmonics or something mechanical. But the pictures of the mountains show how harsh the radar environment around Anchorage is.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Thanks for the Radar 101 course...
Certainly earned an applause from me...


That information certainly helps in evaluating cases involving radar. One reason to look for multiple stations concurring, experienced operators, etc.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Yeah, there's a lot more that goes into operating a radar than simply turning it on.

As I stated, I've been working professionally with radars for over 13 years now and I have a lot of friends who know a lot more than I do about them. I'd be more than happy to have us all look at any radar video anyone can come up with, or any cases involving radar returns that have good information (like weather conditions, bearrings, times, distances, etc.).

I'm a skeptic, but that's not to say I don't believe. When I see a case I tend to try to prove it false first, rather than to believe it. If a case can hold up to my scrutiny then I believe in it.

In a post above, I said I saw a UFO one night. Here's the story:

I was either in 7th grade, or it was the summer before 7th and 8th. I was at my friend's father's house in Carrol County, MD. It's a real rural, hilly area and my friend's Dad rented an old farmhouse next to a huge cornfield. Me and three friends were out late one night playing army or something in the cornfield when we noticed a VERY bright light on the horizon over a hill. It seemed like the light was very far away because we couldn't make out a shape around it, only the light itself. It was pulsing, getting brighter then dimmer, and when it got bright we could see shadows cast on the ground from it. It sat hovering for a few minutes, then an airplane aproached it from the left side. It shot up and down in a 'M' pattern with tremendous speed and seemed to instantly accelerate. Then it shot up and disappeared so fast two of my friends couldn't see it move and thought it just vanished. We ran inside and called the police to report it. Of course we got laughed at by the operator. We went back outside and in that spot of the sky, that only had that object and one plane before, there were suddenly about a dozen aircraft flying, all in a part of the sky about the size of a yard stick held at arms length.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
Duty cycle has to be constantly tuned based on the radar's output at that time, the atmospheric conditions, etc. If the duty cycle is adjusted wrong, it could be possible for the radar to recieve a return that is one or more cycles behind. That is, the radar transmits, listens, transmits again, then receives a signal from the first transmission, but mistakenly thinks it is from the second transmission, so it displays a return where there is none.


Perhaps a derail, but how is this filtered out? Are returns from previous cycles just characteristically less powered? Radar operation is interesting to me, thanks for the great post above.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Skeptics vs Believers
Republicans vs Democrats
Nationalists vs Globalists
White vs Black
Spy vs Spy

Where's the foundation to humanity? Where's the center? Why does everyone run to one extreme or another?

I don't think humans have a stable philosophy. If you don't have stable ground to operate from you will swayed by whatever tickles your fancy. And there are enough labels for everyone to have one. Then you can feel a part of a group. Ahhhhh.

I suppose my philosophy is over simplified. But it works. Except for debates. Seeing the points of both sides kinda takes the kick out of debating. Anyway.

FWIW... My philosophy is, the universe is infinite therefore anything has the possibility to exist. I don't believe any particular thing without evidence nor do I throw out concepts due to lack of evidence. It's all possible. And if I find it interesting or relevant I'll see how it fits in real life.

Talk about feeling alone with your philosophy. All humans seem to be able to do is divide, label and compartmentalize.

"Those brown skinned people are radical extremists"

"Those white skinned people are devils"

"Those believers are living in a fantasy world"

"Those skeptics dismiss all the evidence"

I'm trully living in an insane asylum. I just can't figure out if I'm the one insane or everyone else. Should I be taking some side concerning some irrelevant concept? Should I be blaming continental drift on islamic extremists or the democrats? And did JFK really make it to the moon?

Ok, here's how I really feel. Until I get the UFO I have on backorder I could give a rat's posterior about the reality of UFOs and aliens. The majority of humans are still stuck in 2,000+ year old cults. Evolution is mental too. I guess that memo wasn't sent out. But that's why it's irrelevant until we each get our own UFO and alien butler. No amount of circumstantial evidence or lack thereof will change the mentality of the cult of humanity. The only time the immoral majority even hear of UFOs is in tabloids. These people are not going to order the disclosure project. They are not going to the MUFON weakend retreat. They get their daily sound bites from state sponsored media and go on happy to be wasting their lives away trying to get more monopoly money.

*Goes back to padded cell, locks the door and swallows the key*



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   
I think that a major problem with belief/disbelief in UFO's is the way in which one enters into the arena of thought.

UFO's by a myriad of accounts defy logic, so logic itself may be of little help.

Logic still cannot account for why we are here, and maybe more so why something else is here. But this where the other 'side' of our brains come in. Maybe where unquantifiable concepts such as 'love' and 'hate' reside.

Vallee concluded that "what is happening is a control phenomenon...that is an important part of the experience is the purpose of the effect it has on us. And what we are experiencing is higher intelligence communicating with us symbolically.

I think the word symbol is very important here. I do not as much subscribe to nut and bolt UFOS, as I do that higher aspects of consciousness, whether internal or external are trying to communicate something (which could symbolically be through flying machines)

I visited Roswell a few years back... Despite the alien underwear and 'grey' candy that permeates the town, the museum is a very interesting place, I would highly recommend it to the skeptic and believer alike.

To the skeptic, read Colin Wilson's 'Alien Dawn'. It's filled with a plethora of interesting case studies, as well as his own take on the phenomenon which is the essence of his thoughts on the left/right brain experience.

What's going on with all these people from all walks of life? Charlatans from different corners of the earth that report similiar occurences in detail?

Skeptics demand proof. Please define proof, because the second you have your proof there will be another person who won't believe it until they see/hear/experience for themselves.

So the thing is... What is there to be so skeptic about?

Because something has been going on for a very long time.

Back to Vallee: 'What is the purpose and what effect does it have on us'?

If it is in the minds of humans, then the mind is able to produce and actualize some very exciting things.

My 2.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join