Professor Michael Sword's UFO Files.

more disclosure, just a matter of time before the 'more advanced' stuff starts becoming mainstream
if someone can just build an affordable flying saucer for the average family then changes could start-up bigtime here on planet Earth and beyond in our little corner of space

a reply to: easynow

Hey brother Easynow, good to see you mate and that's a mighty fine link you've gone and posted there - many thanks for the Intelligent Motions page as well

Stanton also makes a few interesting comments here about Mr Sagan (and his not being too objective or knowledgeable about the UFO subject) and there's another article below which goes into further detail about Sagan's position concerning the 'strong probability' of the Earth being visited by ETs every few thousand years... and alien moon bases.

Prof Says Beings From Outer Space Have Visited Earth

Associated Press, November 26, 1962

LOS ANGELES. (AP) - Some of the best scientific minds in the country were stumped when a slender, dark-haired young man chalked on the blackboard this equation:

N equals R FP NE FL FI FC L.

The speaker was Dr. Carl Sagan, a 28 year-old assistant professor of astronomy at Harvard University.
His audience consisted of several hundred members of the American Rocket Society, gathered for his luncheon address.
The equation was his way of expressing the mathematical probability that intelligent beings from outer space have visited earth.
Sagan soberly explained that in his equation N Stands for the number of advanced technical civilizations in the universe possessing the capability of interstellar communication.

R is the mean rate of star formation averaged over the lifetime of the galaxy.
FP is the fraction of stars with planetary systems.
NE is the mean number of planets in each system with environments favorable for the origin of life.
FL is the fraction of such planets on which life does develop.
FI is the fraction of such inhabited planets on which intelligent life with manipulative abilities rises during the lifetime of the local sun.
FC is the fraction of planets populated by intelligent beings on which advanced technical civilizations rises.
And L is the lifetime of this technical civilization.

Sagan said information in his formula is based on current estimates by astronomers. In making calculations, he assigned each symbol an arbitrary numerical value.
As expressed in numbers, Sagan said, the formula means that at least 1 million of the 100 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy have planets which have developed civilizations capable of travel between the stars.
"Let's say that each of these civilizations sends out one interstellar expedition per year," he said.

"That means that every star, such as our sun, would be visited at least once every million years. In some systems where these beings found life, they would make more frequent visits. There's a strong probability, then, that they have visited earth every few thousand years.
"It is not out of the question that artifacts of these visits still exist or even that some kind of base is maintained, possibly automatically, within the solar system, to provide continuity for successive expeditions.
"Because of weathering and the possibility of detection and interference by the inhabitants of earth it would be preferable not to erect such a base on the earth's surface. The moon seems one reasonable alternative."

"Forthcoming photographic reconnaissance of the moon from space vehicles - particularly of the back - might bear these possibilities in mind."
At a news conference Sagan predicted man himself would be capable of interstellar flight at close to the speed of light "within a century or two."
Asked if he believed in flying saucers, he said: "I do believe there are objects which have hot be identified."

link

Also some nice piccies of Dr James E. Mcdonald at the link you provided and thought he made some very good points in this vid about 'UFO debunking' - Anne Druffel's book Firestorm also states that, in the months leading up to his death, Dr Mcdonald informed two close colleagues that he was 'very close to learning the answer to UFOs and was holding discussions at the highest level of government' - the mind boggles.

A few weeks before these hearings, McDonald had told two close colleagues in the UFO field that he was very close to learning the answer to UFOs, and was holding discussions at "the highest level" of government. He explained that he was not free to discuss the details, but would soon be able to reveal what he knew.

McDonald's handwritten UFO journals contain notations up to March 17, 1971. Project Blue Book had been disbanded, and the best of its radar-visual UFO files had been declassified. McDonald had promptly traveled to Maxwell AFB in Alabama to study and copy them. He was amazed at the of information they contained: empirical evidence, the precious seeds of proof, which seemed to have been ignored by the government for 24 years.

Cheers!

Really interesting new entry from Professor Swords featuring some very freaky UFO cases.

Sort-of randomly, I picked up the pile that I call "Close Encounters of the Second Kind Everything Else" [distinguishing these things from "landing traces", electromagnetic effects, and physiological effects, since I'm too lazy and uncreative to come up with something better.]

The Big File of these CE2miscellani cases [the filing cabinet drawer] has things in it like "crashes" and "crash-intos" as well as "material stuff left behind [angelhair, slag fall, powders, alleged artifacts, Roswell debris et al]" but the chaos pile to be added to the cabinet was nearly entirely about forces felt by cars, planes, and in one case, water. So, that's where I'm headed with this entry.

UFOs and Force: Plowing Ahead?

Final installment of Professor Sword's UFO files

Slow Swan Song


Time to begin the final walk down these wonderful paths with you..

As a reminder of what these archives are, they consist of my personal files of course, plus the SITU/Ivan Sanderson files, the Ruppelt files, the George Hunt Williamson files, the John Timmerman files, the notebooks of Paul McCarthy [for his Colorado/McDonald PhD thesis], and a large quantity of the usual books, journals, documents, et al. It is a UFO-heavy archive, but a fairly substantial general anomalies archive as well.

ON UFOs:

People want to use the term Unidentified Aerial Phenomena [UAP] --- fine if that's their view. For me it's the coward's way out and almost useless for accomplishing anything but protecting one's butt. There are OBVIOUSLY unidentified aerial phenomena --- anything which seems off the ground that the viewer can't classify clearly fits that vague label. I have interest in some UAP reports like thunderbirds, mothmen, witches on broomsticks, strange atmospheric phenomena, flying men, ivory-billed woodpeckers, and on and on. But this is not about some useless vague category which then must have its subsets more strongly defined. My interest lies in the subsets. In this case: UFOs.

UFOs for me are, hypothetically, either physically-present aerial technology or the result of some such technology, the characteristics of which exceed what our Earthly engineering has accomplished. In short some form of non-terrestrial technology which we have nevertheless encountered here on familiar old Earth. And it is THAT hypothesis which I believe is nearly beyond doubt.

And I believe that it has been nearly beyond doubt for a very long time --- at least since 1952. Minds which cannot see, after reading cases like Red Bluff, Rogue River, Coyne, Boianai, Levelland, Arnold, Moore, General Mills, Nash-Fortenberry, RB-47, ... Lord, this list could go on nearly indefinitely .... are minds so fearful of error that they are crippled with paranoia.


ON UFOlogists and Debunkers:


To see the reality of this, one has to immerse oneself in cases. Few have done so. Not all who have conquer their own irrational enthusiasms and end up making the job of the scholarly student harder. I will let you in on a strange observation, however. I have found that it is EXTREMELY rare even among UFOlogists [especially public figures] to have actually done much work in the files. Translation: despite their "authoritative BS" they don't know UFOlogy. They usually know all sorts of sociology and gossip [just like the debunkers], but their assertions are the products of ego and/or an excitable wannabe mania, at best it is the product of extremely narrow interest in some small piece of the whole. As to the debunkers: they are a strangely bent lot. They seem to enjoy lifetimes of cockadoodle strutting, mocking other human beings, and trolling to get fun out of irritating people. There may be some worthy severe lifelong skeptics out there [Menzel, Klass, and Csicopians in general are NOT them], but the majority are just intellectual criminals.

One further thing: if the evidence is so persuasive, why are "we" as a culture where we are in our attitudes about UFOs? I've answered this so many times here that I can't count. But the thing which, in the majority, sets the foundation for any open-thinker to feel their way through this 50+ year sociology is: Read UFOs and GOVERNMENT!! OK, 600 pages. But as Aristotle said to Alexander the Great: "There is no Royal Road to Mathematics." Truth and clear vision often have a price.

................ That's my view of UFOs in brief. Everyone will have their own, of course. My own is the product of quite a lot of years not spent casually, so I feel that I've at least earned that opinion.

I've no interest in arguing this by the way. If deeper interest exists, the Blog is full of explanations, as are books like UFOs and Government, Grass-Roots UFOs, the Journal of UFO Studies, as well as lots of things done by others smarter than myself..

link

So many responses giving up huh ?
if we were to survey a Stone Age tribe from
100 miles up with satellites or even from
a stealth platform they'd never know we were there.
So if a civilization from another star can get here first of all
the ball as to whether they want to be acknowledged is
entirely in their court. They are here occasionally in my opinion
whether they make any facet of their visit known is up to them".

BlueBlurryLines on Prof Swords and the Cash-Landrum investigation .



www.blueblurrylines.com...

a reply to: karl 12

Just ordered the book UFOs and Government.

It looks like a lot to go through!!!

Do you have a personal take on that book, Karl?

Thanks again for this thread.

AB

a reply to: AboveBoard

You'll love it. Be ready for a long read!

a reply to: Kandinsky

Well, awesome! I appreciate the encouragement 'cause it looks like a beast!

I respect Mr. Sword - his research seems very extensive and well documented. Should be an exciting...month??? Year???

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I understand what you mean, but im the camera issues seems to always come back. But have you ever tried to take a picture of a plane or a bird with your cellphone? you cant even see whats on the picture. So by night? forget about it. Thats why picture are blurry, because zoom are still bad on most camera.

a reply to: AboveBoard

It's the best reference book on the subject by one of the few gentlemen in ufology.

I miss his posts on The Big Study.

You'd really enjoy his 'Grassroots UFOs' book because you can read it through or jump from section to section. There are reports in there that are so intriguing.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Ooh. Another good one to get when I can! I tend to collect more books than any human being could ever read in one lifetime, but dang, I can't help myself.

I will definitely check it out as a companion to the heftier tome...

THANK YOU!

- AB

a reply to: In4ormant

I was thinking along similar lines from the theories and hypothesis we have, why not set a "field trap" for ufos ?

originally posted by: LeChef
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I understand what you mean, but im the camera issues seems to always come back. But have you ever tried to take a picture of a plane or a bird with your cellphone? you cant even see whats on the picture. So by night? forget about it. Thats why picture are blurry, because zoom are still bad on most camera.

For sure Lechef. And that is my point. Why do people give credence to nothing but blurry pictures .

The ironic part is - it turns out that the blurry pictures have the highest probability of being the real deal!

Reason being - gravity lensing occurring between the craft and the camera.

originally posted by: A51Watcher
The ironic part is - it turns out that the blurry pictures have the highest probability of being the real deal!

Reason being - gravity lensing occurring between the craft and the camera.

That's a great insight.
I look through a lot of crap to find gems .
Seems to me the ego of hoaxers rarely could stand
having ONLY a blurry shot through out the ENTIRE video;
adding credence to the blur.

Yeah I discovered that by working with frames from Area 51 footage (mine and others).

They are pulsing voltage at a very high rate of speed and level, and the result is different shaped distortions from frame to frame.

Once in awhile during the cycle you get relatively undistorted images for example -


i1125.photobucket.com...


...but the rest of the frames exhibit image distortion due to gravity lensing -

(you can scroll through the rest of the images at these links)

i1125.photobucket.com...

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: karl 12

Just ordered the book UFOs and Government.

It looks like a lot to go through!!!

Do you have a personal take on that book, Karl?

Thanks again for this thread.

AB

Hey mate happy reading and I"d completely agree with Senor Kandinsky"s comments there - the book's an absolute winner.

Really don't see how anyone reading it cannot come away with the conclusion that the UFO subject is an extremely serious mystery and that governments take the subject extremely seriously.

Cheers!

a reply to: karl 12

Hey! I've got it and the Grassroots one too. I love his honesty and humility. He's got an amazing collection of stories! I will tackle the Big Book soon...

reply to: AboveBoard

Good stuff mate -above is a really interesting video interview with one of the co-authors.