The single most important issue in ufology.

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


You seem like a very informed person on this subject.

I'm interested in your thoughts on the "cover up" of advanced technology that could potentially solve certain world crises, such as our reliance on fossil fuels even though we should have recovered enough tech to be rid of that, Tesla's free energy grids (along with the "power towers" or obelisks of ancient civilizations, I believe the 2 are tied together but I won't assume that connection), among others.

Does all of that fall back on human greed/capitalism? Or is it also to prevent mass hysteria/panic? Or is there some other reason I have yet to think of?

Also, do you know/believe the theory of certain figures in Hollywood being fed information by our government on this subject to slowly introduce the public to the existence of E.T.? (Steven Spielberg mainly, but I'm sure there are others as well)

I do understand the necessity to keep the existence of E.T. under wraps to prevent mass hysteria/panic, as I definitely agree most of the public is not ready for this type of exposure and would react in the way we assume they would. I just can't understand why we would not use the technology we have found to help humanity, if that application is possible.
edit on 5-1-2013 by McGooferson because: grammar




posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Good point. But ufology is changing and there are new ways of investigating. It's still good to refer older stuff but lots goes on unheard of. People like Steve Bassett who constantly try petition for this and that are wasting their time. Anyhow he works for the Government.

Steven Greer is another one who should not be trusted at all. That guy charges thousands of dollars to go in his trips but for what? See some corn in a filed and meditate. Give me a break please anyone can do this freely. Has looked in the mirror lately and realised he is Bob Lazar lol!



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Here's the deal OP - Until someone produces an alien body, an undisputeable alien artifact, the government finally comes clean with what's really going on (don't hold your breath) or the they actually show themselves to the masses, all the video and photos in the world aren't going to change a thing. I see a UFO almost every night I go outside and look for them here in central Texas. Been watching the same stuff going on since I was in Oklahoma 35 years ago. It's bizzare and awesome to watch - to me, I KNOW they are there, just going about their nightly routine. It doesn't scare me too much - they just do their thing usually fairly high up, but sometimes they get close.
I could write a small book about what I've seen (I have started to keep some logs though). Oh, I don't bother trying to take pics or video, I don't have any good digital cameras anyway - but I'd love to. The answer is, they've been here probably for thousands of years & our gov't. either knows about or is controlled by them. Simple as that.
Case closed - until they want us ALL to know, they'll do their business on this planet as they always have.

edit: (by the way, I'm not in Houston anymore - permanetly moved to my bugout location in central Texas where the night skies are totally unpolluted by light.)
edit on 1/5/2013 by Bullshark012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   
The point of this thread is to show how simple the question of ufo reality is.
Just taking worldwide military eyewitness testimony alone, do you really think that every single individual is not telling the truth ?
We only need to have ONE out of a vast collection of accounts to be factual.
Or the alternative is that for the last sixty plus years the armed forces has had a constant stream of liars.
Which do you think sounds the most feasible ?



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by CrashRetrieval
 


False-dichotomy.

Why does it have to be one or the other?

1000 years ago, some people saw angels. 150 years ago: Fairies. Others have seen succubi and incubi. From the 1940's on -- in America -- it has been 'flying saucers" and little green/gray men.

They might all be experiencing something related, that others are simply not wired to experience. The phenomenon might be psychological, extra-dimensional, or even from a hollow spot under the earth. We just don't know.

Still -- the vast majority of witnesses might have had an experience that is not objectively real, AND are not "lying."

Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of testimony there is, after all.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Who cares what everyone else says or thinks? Do you have to wait for the government to acknowledge it? If you believe then that is all you need.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by CrashRetrieval
 




Still -- the vast majority of witnesses might have had an experience that is not objectively real, AND are not "lying."

Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of testimony there is, after all.


Eyewitness testimony is empirically based, therefore objectively real. Eyewitness testimony is essential to any scientific claim, whether it be a personal experience or for lab experiments.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by McGooferson
 


The Coverup was decided as a course of action well before the Roswell event although protocols were not at that time either known or properly developed and this led to the Newspaper Headlines.

Ike was tasked by President Truman to form a committee to develop such protocols and it was decided that House and Senate leaders as well as any other lawmakers would not be informed of such information. This decision was based on the idea that lawmakers would do just about anything to be elected or re-elected.

These Protocols took some time to be developed as well it took time to develop the Agency that would be responsible for all that was E.T. This Agency was not to have any ties with any political party as well as have an ability to operate independently of either the U.S. Military or any other Agency.

It was also decided that a standing U.S. President would not have a clearance high enough to know about this Agency and the President would be on a Need to Know basis. Since Truman and Ike only George Bush Sr. and to some extent Ronald Reagan would have knowledge of the whole picture. Reagan was informed by his V.P. Bush who had also been the head of the CIA as a gesture of respect and this caused some waves in this Ultra-Secret Agency.

As far as Hollywood...I have no knowledge of any form of Slow Disclosure and I think that Sci-Fi Films have simply been written for the profits that are generated by such stories of public interest. The idea that the Agency dedicated to keeping the existence of Alien Races secret...slowly leeking out information...is unthinkable.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by trysts
 


Take any ten people and put them in the middle of an event in progress. Wait an hour and then ask them to describe it. You will get 10 different stories.

It is an experiment so old and well-worn at this point that it isn't even worth arguing. Eyewitness testimony is BS.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by trysts
 


Take any ten people and put them in the middle of an event in progress. Wait an hour and then ask them to describe it. You will get 10 different stories.

It is an experiment so old and well-worn at this point that it isn't even worth arguing. Eyewitness testimony is BS.


I will need eyewitness testimony for this experiment


In fact, any experiment will need eyewitness testimony. All hypothesis', and all theories need eyewitness experience of the variables involved in any claim. If a mouse goes through a maze in a laboratory, then I'll need to rely on eyewitness testimony of the event. Many, many crimes are committed with only eyewitness testimony catching the criminal.
A reasonable mind witnessing an event is as reliable a thing to give us history books.
edit on 8-1-2013 by trysts because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by 0zzymand0s
 


There is a big difference between the eye witness testimony of the average person and of testimony of a person who has been trained in the art of observation.

Testimony given by Astronauts or Pilots either civilian or Military can be counted on as fairly accurate. Also testimony given by others such as trained Agents or Soldiers or Airmen who have been specifically trained to observe any aircraft and trained to understand how to estimate such crafts speed, acceleration, altitude, angle of travel, manuvering capabilities, size, method of propulsion, geometry, Nav Light configuration, possible country of origin as such people have been trained to determine at a glance what an aircraft maybe such as if it is a MiG-29 or an F-15...and have the ability to determine whether an aircraft is of a known construction or not.

Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:53 AM
link   
I believe there are accurate eyewitness testimonies of people's observations, however a second problem arises from all the other false/manufactured testimonies.

It's simply the case of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". Many of the false eyewitness accounts as well as false manufactured evidence which is posted on YouTube, often poisons the opinions of the logical thinking fence-sitters who suddenly see a credible eyewitness account but conclude that their testimony is fraudulent like all the previous ones.

I am a true believer, as my handle suggests, but I don't believe 95% of the evidence I see. What makes me a true believer are the events which have happened to me. While I have never seen a GREY or a UFO, I have experienced other forms of strange phenomenon which absolutely defies logical explanation.

I am more inclined to believe the testimonies of Kernals and Air Marshall's and Pilots both military and commercial who made UFO claims back in 50's, 60's and 70's, because back then it wasn't easy to come forward about such information. Back then your profession relied heavily on your reputation, and if you lost your reputation you either lost your profession or were buried somewhere in paperwork, (desk job).

These days people are rewarded with how many likes
or dislikes
they receive when they post their fake evidence online.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by McGooferson
reply to post by SplitInfinity
 


You seem like a very informed person on this subject.

I'm interested in your thoughts on the "cover up" of advanced technology that could potentially solve certain world crises, such as our reliance on fossil fuels even though we should have recovered enough tech to be rid of that, Tesla's free energy grids (along with the "power towers" or obelisks of ancient civilizations, I believe the 2 are tied together but I won't assume that connection), among others.

Does all of that fall back on human greed/capitalism? Or is it also to prevent mass hysteria/panic? Or is there some other reason I have yet to think of?


Yes, it's because this amazing free technology doesn't exist. Or, it may have extremely bad side effects. Such as being able to make H-bomb yield weapons without expensive Special Nuclear Materials.

Remember, with great power comes great responsibility and weaponization potential.




sity to keep the existence of E.T. under wraps to prevent mass hysteria/panic, as I definitely agree most of the public is not ready for this type of exposure and would react in the way we assume they would. I just can't understand why we would not use the technology we have found to help humanity, if that application is possible.
edit on 5-1-2013 by McGooferson because: grammar


Help humanity? Somebody would want to make a whole lot of money. Remember the buying power of energy and transportation users around the world is much greater than that of petroleum companies. There would still be demand for petroleum, at about 20% of its current rate, for chemicals. A chemist once said that burning petroleum for heat and fuel is like heating the house by burning Picassos.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join