UFO Leak of the Century video.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Why shouldn’t write you off as delusional?

"Because you weren't there" and "because you don't know the witness personally" are, to me, the best reasons, and why I never write anyone off as delusional just because they say they saw something I cannot identify as true or false.

Yes, witnesses testimonies are not proof that things happened exactly as they say, but they give us an idea of what the person(s) witnessed or of what the person(s) wants us to perceive as witnessed.

a reply to: carewemust
Well, you are welcome. Glad to be of some use. Have a great week and as Dr. Sky says, keep your eyes to the skies!

originally posted by: Zelun
a reply to: abe froman

You sully the image of Matthew Broderick sir, unless you're actually Matthew Broderick, in which case you sully yourself. You don't find it suspicious that clearer images, likely from the negatives, of the slides in question surfaced days after the conference in question? Images which discredited Moussan and effectively marked his exit from the field? The originals of the slides which, days earlier, he basically staked his reputation on by claiming they depicted an E.T.? How stupid do you think the guy is? You don't do a cash grab then go out in a blaze of glory. That's not good business. It is my opinion that Jaime thought the slides were the real deal, and someone encouraged him to believe so, and that same someone leaked the originals, in a coordinated effort to publicly disgrace Moussan.

In any case, Dolan had nothing to do with it. From his perspective a colleague was asking him to do a quick blurb, a book plug, then announce the reveal. He stated in his blog that he was reluctant to accept the offer, but did it because what kind of historian would he be if he balked at being present for a substantial find. I tend to agree. And this sort of stuff happens all the time, the bait and switch. If Dolan is an historian specializing in the field of ufology, then even if it turns out to be a dud it is a matter of interest to him. You cannot deny that the Maussan pay-per-view is a significant event in the history of ufology. It was a scandal, and upset, an example of the lengths people will go to either keep the story alive, or keep the story quiet, or some combination thereof. As an academic, Dolan was exactly where he should have been. Surprised you don't realize that.

I tend to agree with you on Dolan but jaime not so much. Did you know he even refused to believe it was a mummy and continue to stand behind that the picture was an ET and that people were just trying to discredit it? He promoted hoaxes long before this incident. Dolan was as you say simply a speaker. I still listen to what he has to say but you should do yourself a favor and not defend Moussan.

THIS DOCUMENT IS TRASH.......

a reply to: ArMaP

I don't write them off either. Well I do initially then I look at the other possibilities of it being true, and finding for myself whether it's false or possibly true.
Because for me you can scratch something of as false but can never say for certain anything is completely true... Especially in a world of endless possibilities.

originally posted by: Lumenari
I do find it interesting though that a witness to something and a testimony is enough to throw someone in jail for life... But multiple witnesses of an incident should just be dismissed out of turn because of the subject.

Two different things. If people see somebody kill a guy, at least we're starting from the premise that people exist and it's possible to kill them, and there is enough evidence to link a dead (or at least missing) body to the perp.

With UFOs, though, after decades of sightings, the most we can agree on is that people thought they saw something unusual, but it's ultimately still unidentified. So taking the example above, rather than a somebody killing a guy, let's say they killed a 7-foot tall alien. But we have no evidence. No body. No blood. Just a few inconsistent eyewitness reports. Should the police go and arrest the alleged perp? For killing an alien? That may or may not even exist?

Eyewitness reports are not useless. They can be very compelling food for thought. But unless we can establish the hard reality of Point B, we can never connect the dots to it from Point A.

originally posted by: Visiting ESB

The "Anectodal witness stories don’t count as convincing" is simply a way to discredit legitimate experiences. It's an arrogant position and basically intellectually dishonest while masquerading as "hard science". What a joke. n thousands of courtrooms every single day, eyewitness testimony is often all there is to prove or disprove a claim. Eyewitness testimony is a legitimate means of getting at the truth and drawing conclusions.

Stop playing this ridiculous analogy game of comparing a yet proven occurrence to one that is. In a courtroom setting, facts are presented as evidence, fundamental established facts that need no proof. You need baseline facts to build any case upon. Meaning, human beings and crimes committed of course have a history of existing as facts that need no scientific questioning or scrutiny. But throughout the many decades and supposed opportunities of this phenomenon, there is nothing in the way of established scientific fact to build any case upon. UFO, in itself by definition, is unidentified. No place in a courtroom. You first have to determine if the person is being truthful of indentifying something that's yet to have a truthful factual basis. Again, no place in a courtroom setting.

Human beings notoriously make poor witnesses. Even in courtroom cases, facts and scientific evidence (DNA for ex) are presented along with testimony that a crime was committed. Statistics show that 75% of wrongful convictions were by eyewitness testimony. Convictions exonerated because scientific evidence showed how the human mind can misidentify and even create false memories at times.

Compare eyewitness testimony of UFOs to any other in a similar unknown category. Don't try to make it more legitimate by comparing it to factual situations like a courtroom.

originally posted by: Slinki
a reply to: Woodcarver

You have absolutely no way to prove that anything Lumenari said was "faked". That is your opinion.
As far as I am concerned, anything is possible, and to write someone off as a kook simply because they haven't provided pictures and crystal clear video and blah blah blah the second you demand it - is ridiculous.

It's like this...

I remember my 8th birthday vividly. I got a nice red bike from my Grandma, I had friends and family there.

The birthday cake was my favorite... strawberry cake with vanilla icing.

I remember being worried that I would not blow all the candles out and I was happy that people were singing.

A long time later, I post online that I had strawberry cake with vanilla icing on it on my 8th birthday.

Someone replies...

As far as your claims. They are not credible in the slightest bit to me. I call shenanigans and i insist you prove them, or i will simply dismiss you as someone who can’t distinguish fantasy from reality. There are plenty of those people floating around making absurd claims without the means to back them up, or the education to convice me that you are credible.

Now, I cannot prove that I had strawberry birthday cake with vanilla icing for my 8th birthday.

I have no real means to do that... the few birthday pictures do not show the cake.

I can ask my parents to back me up on that, but sadly witnesses do not mean anything either in this case.

So not only am I delusional and cannot distinguish fantasy from reality, I do not have the education to back it up.

The education part of the "slam" I found particularly funny though.

But here we are...

To :Lumenari....

Yo cannot teach logic and most people now a days just don't have it

it is a lost art even though it is really a survival skill..

Think about that...

Thank you very much for that video.

originally posted by: Lumenari
Now, I cannot prove that I had strawberry birthday cake with vanilla icing for my 8th birthday.

This reminds me of a close encounter during the 1950’s. Not sure if it was cone or scoop, but they said that the alien liked strawberry ice cream. I was wondering if that meant that the alien had a tongue. Or maybe he put the whole thing into his mouth?

Does this mean that the Grey is a living being? Or does it just imply that the Greys may have sensors in their mouth for scientific testing?

www.youtube.com...

Richard Dolan talking about the Wilson memo and reactions to the leak.

I largely agree with him on this. Especially about his assessment about all the people around this, from Bigelow to Dr. Kit Green. What I don't like and agree with him is his attitude towards Greer.

In general he is right, let's wait a week or two, don't rush to judgement on everything.

Dolan predicts the leaker will be outed in a month, one way or another.
He knows who leaked it, but won't name him/her.

Interesting article from Keith Basterfield about Grant Camerons source :

On the Cameron copy of the Davis notes I have successfully located the person who first obtained the document, and spoken to him; and he has admitted obtaining the document, and of giving it to Grant Cameron. This individual is, or was, active in the aerospace community. I asked my source if he had ever met Dr Edgar Mitchell? He replied that he had met him, briefly, on several occasions. However, that the Edgar Mitchell meetings may have nothing to do with the source of the documents. The person I contacted, wishes to remain anonymous for the moment, as he believes that the document is the real story, not how he got hold of it. He has no wish to be involved any further. This individual wishes it to be known that he had nothing to do with the dropping of the document onto the Internet. He was just as surprised as everybody else when it dropped, as he thought it was some time off. He also, has no idea who dropped it on the net, or who sent it to Richard Dolan. He states, it wasn't him. My source says, categorically, that Grant Cameron did not drop the document either. My source adds, that he would neither confirm nor deny, that additional documents were given to Grant Cameron.

ufos-scientificresearch.blogspot.com...

a reply to: Woodcarver

Why would you not think anything is possible? I don't limit myself to only things I can see or touch. And my imagination is very fertile.

Also, not concerned about the validity of my opinion in your eyes. It is, after all, only an opinion. I need not form opinions to fit your (or anyone else's) narrative.

originally posted by: Slinki
a reply to: Woodcarver

Why would you not think anything is possible? I don't limit myself to only things I can see or touch. And my imagination is very fertile.

Also, not concerned about the validity of my opinion in your eyes. It is, after all, only an opinion. I need not form opinions to fit your (or anyone else's) narrative.

That is literally the stupidest thing i’ve ever heard. And i’m on this site every day.

originally posted by: Zelun

originally posted by: Woodcarver
As far as your claims. They are not credible in the slightest bit to me. I call shenanigans and i insist you prove them, or i will simply dismiss you as someone who can’t distinguish fantasy from reality. There are plenty of those people floating around making absurd claims without the means to back them up, or the education to convice me that you are credible.

There seem to be an equal if not greater number of people with just enough knowledge of the scientific method to become rabidly contrarian. If you consider eyewitness testimony to be inherently unreliable then most people in prison need to be set free. The testimony of a witness is evidence. Sure it needs corroboration, but it is not inherently unreliable. And we're not exactly talking about scientifically repeatable experiments. Look at it this way:

We can't predict earthquakes. We can identify areas that are more prone to earthquake activity, based upon the fault lines predicted by the plate tectonic theory of geological change, but as far as the where and when, we simply have no clue. So we set up seismometers all over the planet to measure seismic activity. It is only AFTER the earthquake that we can analyze the data our seismometers recorded and refine our hypothesis as to accurately predicting where and when an earthquake will occur, and ultimately what causes earthquakes. This is the state of ufology.

We can't predict where and when sightings occur, and we have no flipping clue what they are, but we know that people see them. Even highly trained, depressingly sober military pilots see them and report having seen them. Military optics, to include radar, have recorded them flying in our skies, with eyewitness pilot accounts corroborating the recorded data. It is a real phenomenon, make no mistake.

When you say things like "As far as your claims[,] [t]hey are not credible in the slightest bit to me. I call shenanigans and [I] insist you prove them, or I will simply dismiss you as someone who can't distinguish fantasy from reality." I get the feeling that you are the one who is deluded. What you are doing is called an Argument from Ignorance, a classic logical fallacy. It boils down to saying "what you say is impossible because I have no knowledge of its possibility." That's not how knowledge works though. You can't prove a negative, and in your mind because you have no knowledge of it, you've proved it to be impossible. It's a scary place to be, in my mind. It means you're shut off to possibility, and are limiting your existence to the meager offerings available via our crude sensory organs.

Let me ask you, honestly, what is it about the possibility of UFOs that offends you so much, to the point that you're willing to talk rudely to people insisting that they didn't see what they saw? Is it your level of education? Or is it hubris? It speaks to a certain insecurity, in that you've constructed for yourself a model of the universe in your mind, and yet have the gall to assert that your mind has a sufficient capacity to engulf it all. None of us have such a mind. We're primates. We eat bugs if that's what's available. Get over yourself.

Yep, it’s all attack, deflect and bla bla bla... school bully kinda crap. Whatever.... sure I will cop a little dose of my own now lol.

Just wanted to say, that I wish I had the nous to write my opinion like that. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and couldn’t agree with you more. So thank you!

a reply to: MarsneedsGuitars

You are welcome. It bugs me too, the "put up or shut up" crowd. We've put up. They won't shut up. It's a little creepy, how insistent they are for proof, then more proof, then more proof...I think the term is shifting the goalposts. I feel that radar data plus pilot eyewitness testimony equals your turn. They say extraordinary evidence is required. Well here it is. Ball's in their court.

a reply to: Woodcarver

If you watch Dolans latest live stream he gives his opinion on Greer, stating that he respected the fact that he had the meeting (Although he refutes the fact that Greer said it was a formal meeting). Richard also said that there are other things Steven Greer has done and is currently involved in that he doesn’t agree with.

any chance we could put the pointless, decades-old back and forth about "ohh you can't trust witnesses" "ohh you can't know everything" and ESPECIALLY the bit about who's a shill or not this week on ice for a bit and deal with some of the specifics here?

what i'm interested in, since apparently the provenance of the notes can't be doubted, is why this top brass guy sat down with the dude taking the notes and told him all this stuff. I'm pretty sure Dolan didn't cover that, though i will admit it's been a long day and there were a couple of moments where i zoned out a little.
Can we get the ATS brains trust going on some stuff that's, you know, tangible?

a reply to: Blue Shift

With UFOs, though, after decades of sightings, the most we can agree on is that people thought they saw something unusual, but it's ultimately still unidentified. So taking the example above, rather than a somebody killing a guy, let's say they killed a 7-foot tall alien. But we have no evidence. No body. No blood. Just a few inconsistent eyewitness reports. Should the police go and arrest the alleged perp? For killing an alien? That may or may not even exist?

Or gives then room for poetic license, or right out lie for social media attention and book sales...

Just look at the leaders of flat earth. Or study the young ladies from the Cottingley Fairies hoax.