Robert Hastings has a message for UFO non-believers.

Drew Hempel: So a "large round object" was seen in the sky. That is definitely a UFO! haha. Does it provide any evidence of aliens or extraterrestrials? No -- none what so ever. Does it indicate that something very powerful and unknown shut down the ICBMs? Yes and that truly is astounding.

RH: As long as I have been speaking publicly and writing about UFOs, I have said that a critical mass of evidence is currently lacking to *prove* the extraterrestrial hypothesis of UFOs.

That said, after researching the UFO “phenomenon” for 37 years, I must conclude that the technology involved is so advanced that a human origin for it can be automatically ruled-out in almost every bona fide sighting case. The radar data alone substantiate the presence of craft operating in our atmosphere whose capabilities are vastly beyond our own aircraft and which defy known aerodynamic principles.

Of course, the persons who pooh-pooh this idea have never examined those radar data, or done any other research on the subject. No, it's much easier to blog the day away, sharing one's "wisdom" with the world and patting oneself on the back for being so very clever. Beats doing anything resembling work.

One of the very few scientists to have actually *studied* the UFO phenomenon before opening his mouth about what it could or could not be (i.e. practicing the scientific method) was the late Dr. James McDonald, a physicist, who wrote:

“From time to time in the history of science, situations have arisen in which a problem of ultimately enormous importance went begging for adequate attention simply because that problem appeared to involve phenomena so far outside the current bounds of scientific knowledge that it was not even regarded as a legitimate subject of serious scientific concern. That is precisely the situation in which the UFO problem now lies. One of the principal results of my own recent intensive study of the UFO enigma is this: I have become convinced that the scientific community, not only in this country but throughout the world, has been casually ignoring as nonsense a matter of extraordinary scientific importance.”

After two years of rigorous research, McDonald tentatively concluded that UFOs were extraterrestrial probes, and stated as much when he was asked to address the U.S. Congress in July 1968.

--Robert Hastings
www.ufohastings.com

The problem with this approach is that Jacque Vallee discovered there was indeed a higher level CIA coverup of Bluebook and it's well recognized that Condon was also a coverup. Besides there's been TONS of military PROMOTION of the alien invasion, as Greg Bishop's book "Project Beta" documents. ufomystic.com...

The Stargate conspiracy by Prince and Picknett is another great read.

Messengers of Deception by Vallee is another one.

On the other hand there is a lot of evidence for secret military technology of craft going much faster than "current technology".

I, myself, had an equilateral triangle with no fuselage fly over our house. Military.

reply to post by Xtraeme

[edit on 24-1-2010 by Robert Hastings]

To finish a thought, here is an excerpt from my book UFOs and Nukes:

Scientists universally profess allegiance to the lofty principles comprising the Scientific Method, both in the pursuit of their own research, as well as when reviewing the work of their peers. Therefore, one might predict that they will indignantly dismiss the suggestion that, on occasion, they have temporarily abandoned those cherished principles. Nevertheless, as regards the subject of UFOs, very few scientists actually practice what they preach.

In essence, to engage in science is to search for knowledge. This exploration is conducted through the systematic collection and objective analysis of facts. If one aspires to understand the nature of an unexplained phenomenon, one must first assemble and evaluate data—or, at least, impartially examine the data gathered by others—before drawing conclusions.

Unfortunately, most scientists reject outright the validity of UFO research, refuse to engage in it, and deliberately ignore the intriguing data compiled by a handful of their more inquisitive, less-biased peers. If this were not enough, despite their profound unfamiliarity with the subject, many of these same intransigent individuals pontificate about UFOs in the most shameless and presumptuous manner. If they were to apply this same “methodology” to their own research, their colleagues might justifiably consider their conduct incompetent, if not fraudulent. Nevertheless, it is rare to hear a scientist speak or write knowledgeably about the UFO phenomenon, and rarer still to find one who has actually studied it.

Accuse a scientist of being closed-minded about UFOs and he or she will recoil: “I’m not closed-minded, but I am skeptical!” Because the former term implies inflexible prejudice and the latter one prudent caution, it is understandable that these UFO “skeptics” would prefer to view themselves in a more flattering light.

One scientist who has advocated a comprehensive, unbiased investigation the UFO phenomenon, astronomer Dr. Bernard Haisch, defines a Skeptic as, “One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity.”

By Haisch’s definition, very few scientists are true skeptics on the subject of UFOs. On the contrary, over the years, most have behaved as self-appointed experts, having all the answers, without first investigating any of the facts. Although scientists profess a deep curiosity about little understood or unknown phenomena, when it comes to UFOs, this assertion rings hollow. At the moment, the UFO phenomenon is a blind spot in most scientists’ field of vision. There is definitely something there to be seen, but they can not, or will not, bring themselves to take a look.

As noted above, the late Dr. James McDonald—one of the few scientists to have actually studied the UFO phenomenon before holding forth on the subject—once pointedly criticized the thoroughly unprofessional posture toward UFOs he observed among his colleagues and the scientific community at large.

Sad to say, some 40 years after Dr. McDonald’s lament, the same smug, dismissive attitude toward the phenomenon remains firmly entrenched in scientific circles, resulting in a pervasive, self-imposed ignorance about UFOs among those who supposedly seek the truth. At the beginning of the 21st century, it remains true that the overwhelming majority of scientists, if they consider UFOs at all, consider them to be beneath their dignity, and worthy of outright derision. With this self-righteous stance, they have effectively abdicated their collective professional responsibility in the most unscientific manner. This is not so much an accusation as it is an objective statement of fact.

Fortunately, despite the collective disinterest in UFOs exhibited by the scientific community as a whole, there have been a few brave pioneers. In the mid-1960s, Jim McDonald was well ahead of the curve, with his repeated, plaintive calls for a legitimate investigation of the UFO phenomenon. Seeking to review the available data for himself, he persistently demanded access to the Air Force’s UFO files—at least those held by Project Blue Book—and was ultimately granted repeated access to the ones that were not classified.

As noted earlier, following those reviews, McDonald wrote, “…There are hundreds of good cases in the Air Force files that should have led to top-level scientific scrutiny of [UFOs] years ago, yet these cases have been swept under the rug in a most disturbing way by Project Blue Book investigators and their consultants.”

Despite, or perhaps because of, the Air Force’s ongoing attempts to suppress the frequently high-quality data on UFOs it collected, McDonald began to investigate the phenomenon on his own time and at his own expense, while ignoring the very real risk to his scientific reputation. This diligence paid off and, by 1968, McDonald was widely regarded—although not among his still-dubious peers—as one of the world’s leading scientific experts on UFOs. Consequently, he was invited to address congress on the subject, during hearings held that year. McDonald’s full statement before the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, presented on July 29th, may be found in the U.S. Congressional Record, as well as on the Internet.

While acknowledging that the overwhelming majority of UFO sightings undoubtedly had prosaic explanations, and that a great many questions about the phenomenon remained unanswered, McDonald succinctly summarized his conclusions regarding the most credible of the unexplained cases: “My own present opinion, based on two years of careful study, is that UFOs are probably extraterrestrial devices engaged in something that might very tentatively be termed ‘surveillance’.” 4

Although this was merely an opinion, it was after all an informed opinion on UFOs, something very few other scientists could offer, then or now. Many of McDonald’s published papers, private research notes, and personal letters relating to his investigations of the UFO phenomenon are now accessible online, providing insight into the cautious, rational reasoning underlying his dramatic conclusions.

There is an old joke about the intellectual who sniffs, “Well, it may work in fact, but it will never work in theory.” While most UFO skeptics are quick to dismiss as impossible the idea that UFOs are alien spacecraft, very few of them will ever make the effort to learn whether any evidence exists to suggest otherwise. Instead, they merely continue to assert that, as an idea, it simply does not work. However, as the joke implies, the real question to be asked is whether it works in fact. That is, is there evidence in the real world which lends credence to the validity of the ET hypothesis of UFOs.


[edit on 24-1-2010 by Robert Hastings]

As Kurt Gödel incompleteness theorems demonstrate, truth does not require proof. Einstein conceived the theory of relativity using no experiments whatsoever, just the power of his mind and reason. In fact, his first attempts at creating mathematical proofs were badly flawed and failed. That didn't invalidate the truth of relativity, however. The math just had to be refined to prove what he intuitively knew to be true.

Endless debate with straw-man and ad-hominem arguments is a waste of time in my opinion. To me it's sufficient to argue that it's more reasonable to assume we're not alone than to believe mankind is the only form of intelligent life in a universe far older and more vast than most here can even imagine.



[edit on 24-1-2010 by Crito]

reply to post by Xtraeme


I appreciate your sane and measured response and I do try and remain as open-minded as possible, considering the huge percentage of HOAXES and the intrinsically unbalanced nature of many of the "true-believers".

That being said, you're asking me to believe one guys analysis of something astonishingly out side of mainstream thought.

As for RB47:

www.ufocasebook.com...

I do agree it sounds very reputably documented. but to me, this is probably evidence (of something not necessarily aliens, that's for sure), not definitive proof.

Evidence of something unknown is not evidence of alien intelligence.

I would also say that there are other, equally insane, theories:

ufocon.blogspot.com...

I'm not saying that explanation is true, but I am saying NO ONE KNOWS... which means saying something is definitively true about UFOs is definitively NOT true.

Ironic.

reply to post by Crito


That's ridiculous, because in Godel's case he was talking about mathematical theorems, not UFOs.

Talk about ripping something out of context.

Why must believers be sooo disingenuous?

Do you not think sceptics can possibly be intelligent people?

Relativity didn't have "proof", but it was based on a deep understanding of physics and was a theory.

Einstein never stated it was definitely true... go read what he wrote.

Neither of those examples are in ANY WAY good enough to justify believing a chosen explanation of a unexplained phenomena, just because the chosen arbitrary belief appeals to you.


[edit on 24-1-2010 by seethelight]

[edit on 24-1-2010 by seethelight]

Mainstream thought used to be the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around us.

I've given valid, rational reasons to believe we're not alone (billions of years older parts of the universe and a number of stars with more zeros than Bill Gate's bank account). I'd like the skeptics to give the reasons why I should believe mankind is the only intelligent life in the universe. Quoting Bible verses and because everyone else thinks so aren't valid arguments.

Here's a good "in plain english" version of what Godel said:

In brief, Gödel's Theorem says that in any axiomatic mathematical system that is sufficiently rich to do elementary arithmetic, there will be some statements that are true but cannot be proved (from the axioms). In technical terminology, the axiom system must be incomplete.


As far as I can tell, UFOs are not, "n any axiomatic mathematical system that is sufficiently rich to do elementary arithmetic".

And even if you replaced the word mathematical with scientific you wouldn't be talking about UFOs.

Originally posted by drew hempel
The problem with this approach is that Jacque Vallee discovered there was indeed a higher level CIA coverup of Bluebook and it's well recognized that Condon was also a coverup. Besides there's been TONS of military PROMOTION of the alien invasion, as Greg Bishop's book "Project Beta" documents. ufomystic.com...

The Stargate conspiracy by Prince and Picknett is another great read.

Messengers of Deception by Vallee is another one.

On the other hand there is a lot of evidence for secret military technology of craft going much faster than "current technology".

I, myself, had an equilateral triangle with no fuselage fly over our house. Military.

I've read the above referenced works and I'm a big proponent of the idea that we're seeing a large amount of "grand foul-up" mixed with "situational cover-ups." I think there's a very good argument to be had showing the military benefited by manipulating people in to believing that UFOs represent a non-human phenomenon.

As Duke Gildenberg pointed out in Nick Cook's documentary `UFOs The Secret Evidence` on the History channel,

"Every flight we flew generated UFO reports. In fact for awhile we were even using it as a backup tracking system. We would call up a town and ask, 'Did anyone see a UFO this afternoon? Yeah, one to the ... Okay, what direction, to the south? Okay keep an eye on it.' We allowed them to remain UFO reports, with the hope being once they got over the Soviet Union they'd still be registered as UFOs instead of as our reconnaissance balloons."

So the question becomes is public disinformation for the purpose of continued violation of friendly air-space using UFOs as a convenient cover? Or maybe the cover-up is due to continued lack of knowledge and fear of panicking the public in light of their lack of knowledge?

I think the memo the Acting Chief of the CIA's Weapon & Equipment Div sent out August 1, 1952 neatly illustrates this,

It is recommended that CIA surveillance of subject matter, in coordination with proper authorities of primary operational concern at ATIC, be continued. It is strongly urged, however, that no indication of CIA interest or concern reach the press or public, in view of their probable alarmist tendencies to accept such interest as "confirmatory" of the soundness of "unpublished facts" in the hands of the U.S. Government.

The fact that a cover-up can be demonstrated does not imply the government knows the whole kit-and-caboodle nor does it imply some nefarious end.

The only thing I can say with 100% clarity is there's no good ways to fake huge 1000 foot "crafts" over Phoenix sighted by hundreds of people.

So even though I know some USAF data has been intentionally poisoned, I think it's quite another to say it's all a plant (i.e. See 1000 foot aircraft over Phoenix noted above ).

It's just very difficult to distinguish truth from fantasies and lies.


edit: Fixed first-link ( woops )

[edit on 24-1-2010 by Xtraeme]

I'm not going to engage in your straw-man argument.

The fact remains that it's more reasonable to believe we're not alone than to believe mankind is the only intelligent life in the universe. Science is not a popularity contest or a democratic election process.


[edit on 24-1-2010 by Crito]

Drew Hempel: The problem with this approach is that Jacque Vallee discovered there was indeed a higher level CIA coverup of Bluebook and it's well recognized that Condon was also a coverup.

RH: Vallee did no such thing. The person who documented the CIA's control of the cover-up was W. Todd Zechel. In 1976, after the agency claimed that it had no--zero--documents on UFOs, except for the by-then declassified Robertson Panel Report, researcher Zechel and attorney Peter Gersten began legal action to prove otherwise.

In response, and under pressure, the CIA wrote a letter to Gersten in which it stated that a second search of it's files turned up some 15,000 UFO documents! But the agency pleaded for time to review those, before releasing them to the public domain.

Ultimately, the CIA changed its story yet again and claimed that it had only 900 or so UFO files, 57 of which it withheld, for reasons relating to national security.

Researcher Stanton Friedman has noted that while all of the released CIA files were "Secret" or lower in classification, one declassified National Security Agency document reveals that the CIA had shared "Top Secret" UFO files with NSA on at least one occasion. In other words, the CIA still has highly-classified UFO files in its possession but refuses to publicly acknowledge their existence.

Drew Hempel: Besides there's been TONS of military PROMOTION of the alien invasion, as Greg Bishop's book "Project Beta" documents.

RH: Bishop relied on the testimony of now-retired USAF Office of Special Investigations agent Richard Dody, who belatedly admitted to forging UFO files, to further a disinformation scheme. Doty led Bishop around by the nose. For a thoroughly documented exposé on the disinfo op, which resulted in the creation of the MJ-12 documents, read my article "Operation Bird Droppings" at UFO Chronicles.

Drew Hempel: On the other hand there is a lot of evidence for secret military technology of craft going much faster than "current technology".

RH: Current technology is not the issue. Thanks for proving one of my earlier points. Do you know anything about the early history of radar trackings of UFOs? For example, have you ever researched the UFOs that flew over Washington D.C. in July 1952?

Again, from my book:

At the time, the Chief Civil Aeronautics Administration Air Traffic Controller at National Airport, Harry Barnes, publicly confirmed that multiple radar tracks of unknown targets had correlated exactly with pilot reports of various UFOs’ positions and flight paths. Barnes further confirmed that the UFOs had performed literally 90-degree turns, as well as 180-degree course changes—that is, instantaneous reversals of their direction of flight, with no turn per se. No known aircraft is capable of these feats, even today, nearly 60 years later. However they were achieved, it appears as if gravitational and inertial forces were suspended, resulting in no adverse effects to the craft or their presumed pilots. If this were not enough, one of the UFOs over Washington D.C. was tracked as it traveled at 7,000 miles per hour! At the time, the fastest American and Russian jet fighters could fly just under 700 m.p.h.

Although there now might be an experimental aircraft at some secret base in Nevada capable of these fantastic speeds and maneuvers, in 1952, humans had not yet built such a craft. After all, if we, or the Soviet Union, or any other nation, had our own UFOs decades ago—which were capable of executing right-angle turns at 1000 m.p.h., or instantaneously hovering in mid-air—why would we, or they, continue to manufacture fixed-wing aircraft which require, in some cases, a half-mile to turn in the air, and really long runways to roll to a stop?

Moreover, if either the U.S. or the Soviets possessed an advanced aircraft of the type that over flew the nation’s capital in 1952 then, at some point during the nearly 50-year-long Cold War, that aircraft would have certainly been unveiled in the most menacing manner possible, just as each country periodically flaunted its latest nuclear weapon systems, during that anxious era’s recurring episodes of mutual saber-rattling.

If either of the superpowers had an aircraft that could travel thousands of miles per hour, and literally fly rings around the other’s own airplanes, neither government would have waited until the nukes started falling to reveal such a weapon. Instead—if an American or a Russian UFO actually existed—the government possessing it most likely would have hoped that merely revealing its existence would be so intimidating that the enemy would stand down and reevaluate his own plans for nuclear war.

In an alternate, far more harrowing scenario, a superpower’s UFOs, if they existed, could have been used preemptively, as a low-altitude platform to deliver nuclear bombs. Such an unexpected first strike—involving neither ICBMs, whose launch would be detected by long-range radar, nor high-altitude strategic bombers which would also be tracked—could have potentially neutralized the other’s ability to launch its own nuclear weapons. Therefore, a nation possessing UFOs might conceivably be immune from nuclear attack.

In any event, neither the “flaunt-your-stuff” nor the “hit-‘em-first” scenario ever played out during the Cold War era, providing additional evidence, in my view, that the mysterious intruders we call UFOs are not advanced manmade aircraft.

Whatever their actual origin, the objects over Washington D.C. in 1952 were explained away by the U.S. Air Force as optical illusions and false radar returns caused by a weather phenomenon known as “temperature inversion.” However, this official explanation, hastily issued by public relations personnel at the Pentagon—and undoubtedly designed to calm public anxiety—was empirically discredited by meteorologists long ago.

Therefore, given the validity of the still-unexplained and utterly amazing radar data—in this, and hundreds of other UFO tracking cases—I suggest that bona fide UFOs are most likely piloted by beings from one or more technologically-advanced civilizations in our galaxy.





[edit on 24-1-2010 by Robert Hastings]

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

I appreciate your sane and measured response and I do try and remain as open-minded as possible, considering the huge percentage of HOAXES and the intrinsically unbalanced nature of many of the "true-believers".

That being said, you're asking me to believe one guys analysis of something astonishingly out side of mainstream thought.

As for RB47:

www.ufocasebook.com...

First I'd like to mention that BJ's ufocasebook, though a good website, has a number of mistakes about the RB-47 incident.

The incident extended over 2 hours not just 1.5 hours. If one tries to be smartalecky and only count actual minutes of continuous UFO encounter then that adds up to only about 1.3 hours.

Likewise the distance in which the UFO followed the RB-47 is erroneous. The RB-47 was at maximum speed of about 600 mph through much of the UFO chase, or at about 515 mph cruise speed at other times. If one counts only elapsed time of UFO encounter then we are cut back to about 1.3 hours and therefore about 700 miles distance traveled but not "well over 700 miles."

McDonald's characterization is also misleading because he keeps referring to the ELINT equipment as "ECM" gear, which was merely the cover story for ELINT. That may not have been so bad if he had phrased what it did correctly.

The UFO was EMITTING a radar beam, i.e., transmitting a radio signal. It was NOT merely "detected" on "ECM monitoring gear aboard the RB-47" as if the ECM was some kind of radar that actively sent out signals and listened to returns.

These aren't minor mistakes.

Like I said in my first reply to you. Please read Brad Sparks' 30+ page dissertation on this case. It's an extremely technical analysis, well sourced, and it's withstood debunking for some 12 years now.

I'm by no means saying you should accept his work as implicitly true.

Rather I encourage you to give an honest appraisal by checking his numbers, reviewing the evidence he uses for the basis of his work, and see if it all checks out.

I've done this myself, after many months of careful scrutiny, and what I can tell you is Brad's work is entirely on the level.

I do agree it sounds very reputably documented. but to me, this is probably evidence (of something not necessarily aliens, that's for sure), not definitive proof.

Evidence of something unknown is not evidence of alien intelligence.

I'd urge you to read the full write-up before coming to a prearranged conclusion. The most anomalous aspect of the observation is that the object paced and overtook the RB-47. It also strangely enough blinked-in & out which was corroborated by numerous independent channels monitoring the object. This demonstrates it was faster than the RB-47, extremely maneuverable, and whatever it was it followed the RB-47 in trail over several states as the RB-47 made course corrections.

I wouldn't claim ET intelligence, but I think it's highly indicative of some form of intelligence. I've discussed this with several people who vehemently oppose this statement.

in·tel·li·gence
–noun
1. capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

7. interchange of information: They have been maintaining intelligence with foreign agents for years.

I find it hard not applying the most basic definition "capacity for learning, ... facts."

To completely mimic the RB-47's movements, in trail, epitomizes "interchange of information." There is no known natural phenomenon capable of these types of maneuvers.

I'll be the first to admit this doesn't stipulate biological understanding or consciousness, but at a minimum it does exhibit intelligence on the order of what's possible with robotics and computer learning techniques.

I would also say that there are other, equally insane, theories:

ufocon.blogspot.com...

I'm not saying that explanation is true, but I am saying NO ONE KNOWS... which means saying something is definitively true about UFOs is definitively NOT true.

Ironic.

I follow the RRRGroup and I'm open to any theory, but a hypothesis is worthless without tests to try and invoke it.

Frankly we need to cut the crap and restart actual scientific UFO investigations. Not this haphazard, amateurish bull- that's been going on for the last 40 years.

[edit on 24-1-2010 by Xtraeme]

reply to post by Xtraeme


Honestly, if most people on ATS were as reasonable as you, this place wouldn't be such a joke.

The only other thing I'd say without reading that dissertation first is that you assume intelligence from coincidence.

I swear that's not an insult, and I hope you see my point.



[edit on 24-1-2010 by seethelight]

Gortex: Could you please tell me what is the most compelling case/evidence you have come across in your investigation so far and do you think we are any closer to disclosure given President Obama's recent executive order on freedom of information.

RH: "No" to your second question. As regards the most compelling incident I have investigated, the Big Sur case ranks high. There is a 24-page article on my website about that, however, a shorter summary follows here:

The highly-classified Big Sur UFO Incident—according to the former U.S. Air Force officers who publicly revealed it—involved the inadvertent telescopic filming of a UFO that had suddenly appeared near a dummy nuclear warhead in flight. Both men say that the unknown object approached and circled the warhead and used beams of light to shoot it down.

Then-Lieutenant (now Dr.) Robert Jacobs and then-Major (later Dr.) Florenze J. Mansmann, Jr.—both of whom were highly-decorated by the Air Force and eventually became distinguished academicians—are adamant that the nearly unbelievable incident occurred and say that the amazing film was quickly confiscated by the CIA.

In an effort to debunk these dramatic revelations, Kingston A. George, a former civilian colleague of Dr. Jacobs, has written two articles for Skeptical Inquirer magazine, in which he makes demonstrably factual errors, easily-refutable claims, and unfounded, libelous personal attacks on Dr. Jacobs. George claims that Jacobs “concocted” the Big Sur UFO Incident, despite Mansmann’s unequivocal written endorsement of the former lieutenant’s account, in which he says that it is “all true as presented.”

Regardless, George claims that the UFO was actually a group of decoy warheads sailing along near the genuine article. He further claims that the resolution of the telescope’s recording system was so poor that the missile, the separated dummy warhead, and the decoys all appeared as points of light, with no resolvable detail, thus accounting for Jacobs’ misinterpretation of what was actually on the film.

However, retired USAF Major Florenze Mansmann, the officer who actually analyzed the film at Vandenberg AFB in 1964, has written: “The [UFO’s] shape was [a] classic disc. The center seemed to be a raised bubble...the entire lower saucer shape was glowing and seemed to be rotating slowly. At the point of beam release—if it was a beam, it, the object, turned like an object required to be in a position to fire from a platform...but again this could be my assumption from being in aerial combat.” Mansmann said that the craft was assumed to be “extraterrestrial,” given its appearance and amazing performance.

Moreover, the highly-experienced Air Force photo-analyst said that the footage clearly showed that the domed-disc UFO *came into camera-frame* before shooting beams of light at the dummy warhead; it did not show the release of decoy warheads *emerging from* the missile’s payload package itself, which then flew along near the warhead, as George claims.

Obviously, there is a wide gulf between Kingston George’s more recent claims about the missile launch in question and the statements of the person the Air Force officially tasked with examining the film footage, frame-by-frame, immediately after the alleged UFO incident.

Interestingly, but not widely known, the individual who twice published George’s attempted debunking of the Big Sur UFO Incident, Skeptical Inquirer magazine editor Kendrick Frazier, worked for over two decades as a Public Relations Specialist for Sandia National Laboratories, which has been involved in manufacturing many of the U.S. government’s nuclear weapons since the 1940s.

Curiously, one has to search diligently to discover this highly-relevant fact, given that the magazine has consistently referred to Frazier only as a “Science Writer” in its Publisher’s Statement, which appears in every issue. Moreover, for some reason, Frazier chose not to mention his day job as a spin-doctor for the U.S. government’s nukes program in his online biography, even though an earlier editorial position with Science News magazine was readily acknowledged by him. It was left to me to point out all of these rather interesting facts to ufology and the general public in my well-documented Big Sur exposé, “A Shot Across the Bow: Another Look at the Big Sur UFO Incident,” first published in International UFO Reporter in 2006.

--Robert Hastings

www.ufohastings.com

reply to post by drew hempel


Now this explains your presence on my thread about morningmayan's frequency and manifesting class. You were debating believers of ufos, so I can deduce without reading this thread that you're a skeptic. Of course I will read this entire thread. I've starred and flagged it, it looks wonderful, but I have to say I've been an experiencer since I was 4 years old, my family as well. The classic, abductions, missing time, even involved a driving partner for my brother when they experienced it during a truck run for more produce for the farmers market, ie. in a semi or the 5 ton, can't remember which. And have had contact all my life with non terran humans as well, my own star family.

Really complicated mess it all becomes especially when the elite have been conspiring with greys for quite some time, I call that Vrill. I know two people I've written to with connections to underground bases that are linked to this program throughout the world and in the US. This is connected to the eugenics, abductions and depopulation agendas. But this is also connected to more negative controlling type ets, the primary ones being zetans. In these abductions, children were worked with long term in kind of M'Kultra type programs as well.

Moving along. There is another force here, and when you talked about the Cosmic Mother, or Divine Mother, you're talking about something real, something that my pleiadian angelic walk in friend discusses alot of.

Originally posted by seethelight
reply to post by Xtraeme

 

Honestly, if most people on ATS were as reasonable as you, this place wouldn't be such a joke.

I appreciate that.

The only other thing I'd say without reading that dissertation first is that you assume intelligence from coincidence.

I swear that's not an insult, and I hope you see my point.

I think you bring up a fantastic point (no insult taken!).

There's a guy here on ATS, goes by the handle of sirnex, who asked a rather apropos question, "Does probability really exist?" As a computer scientist I've professionally worked with cryptography, randomness batteries, and my specific training has to do with game development which requires a rather good understanding of physics & analytic geometry.

The more time you spend dealing with crypto the more you realize that randomness simply represents a really hard problem. Everything has symmetry. There are very few things in nature that actually produce asymmetric results. Humans are one of the few things we observe that are actually stochastic.

The way I evaluate "coincidence" versus an actual pattern is by what I call "counting coincidences." If you count up the coincidences in the case of the RB-47 incident the odds become overwhelming that something extremely bizarre was in the air and to try to come up with an explanation that doesn't invoke intelligence requires ignoring a great bulk of the evidence.

An "informed opinion" is still an opinion. Bring us some facts, something we can touch and test and verify beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, your informed opinion and $2 will get you a subway ride in Manhattan.

Originally posted by xfiler
reply to post by gortex

 

I've just read a very, very interesting article in the January 2010 edition of Share International Magazine that details the relationship between the UFO phenomenon and our Nuclear activities.

Not only are UFO's actively watching and monitoring our use of Nuclear Fission, they actually mop up the radiation as best they can within Karmic Laws. They have also been instrumental in helping to mitigate internationals conflicts that would have led to nuclear confrontation

The growing incidence of Alzheimer’s disease at ever younger ages throughout the world is a direct result of the high concentration of nuclear energy at the higher etheric levels, not registered by the instruments of our present-day scientists. This energy plays on the human brain, causing more and more Alzheimer’s, memory loss, disorientation, and the gradual breakdown of our body’s defence system.

The Space Brothers, mainly from Mars and Venus, are engaged on a spiritual mission to neutralize this nuclear radiation. They are not allowed to completely neutralize all the extant nuclear radiation, but within the karmic law they do, using various implosive devices. They neutralize the radiation that we are pumping into the atmosphere from every nuclear power station without exception, and from all nuclear experimentation. We are continually making more and craftier bombs that will be more deadly than previous bombs. All of that experimentation releases into our atmosphere clouds of nuclear radiation that we do not know about. We cannot measure it and therefore we deny its existence.

Our nuclear scientists believe they have total control of nuclear energy, which, demonstrably, they do not. They have no understanding of the four etheric levels of matter above the solid, liquid and gaseous levels and therefore a limited knowledge of what they know as nuclear energy. It is deadly and is increasingly damaging the health of the people of this planet.

There's also included an amazing photo of a huge extraordinary object in the sky over Peru.

Here's the link to this article:

www.share-international.org...

And these are the good ones, the confederation ones, along with those connected to terran bases here probably, and in our solar system. They also protect some of us from grey abductions and implants as well, and have removed implants from some experiencers.

reply to post by Xtraeme


I hear all of that, but human minds and groups tend to be self-reinforcing.

Once we believe in a pattern, everything falls into place.

The blinking in and out of the anomaly, for instance...

If when it disappeared, it reappeared in front of another human, that human would assume that they were its "target".

Not saying that happened, btw., but that when we start believing things our entire world-view tends to mould to our beliefs.

Not matter what reality actually ... well... is.

I understand you have developed methods you trust, when you evaluate information, and that's admirable, but unless this happens repeatedly we already have "all the available information" on this case. The rest is supposition based on our beliefs and our passions and our desire.

I'm not saying your wrong, per se, but that we can't know, probably ever, what "right" is/was in this case.

So that's not good enough for me to make "definitive" claims.

And that, at the core, is my problem with the OP.