National Press Club Conference on UFO's

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby ryguy » Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:46 pm

murnut wrote:Of course, your source could be lying, right?



By the way murnut...I'm really impressed by your ability to immediately question whether a person is lying about something without the claim being "proved wrong" beforehand. All you need to do is conduct yourself in the same manner with people like GK, Lear, and others who make claims even more wild than this little matter...and you'll make an ace researcher yet...

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension


Postby murnut » Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:09 pm

I would like GK to prove his claims. He has been asked repeatedly.

I have doubts of his claims, just not ready to call him a liar.

I have seen video's of his that show the ISS and the space shuttle.
They look real.

Then he shows a video that he claims is a repitlian copter pilot.
I see no reptile.
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Postby ryguy » Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:16 pm

murnut wrote:I would like GK to prove his claims. He has been asked repeatedly.

I have doubts of his claims, just not ready to call him a liar.


Of course, your source, GK, could be lying right? :)

(I just want to see you write it as quickly as you did in response above...)

Do you see the bias within your differing responses? We should entertain the claims of folks who are willing to provide details. Those who don't answer questions about names, places, events and other details and ignore questions and requests for evidence - should be deemed liars. Dirty, rotten ones at that. :)

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby murnut » Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:28 pm

Gk could be lying


Edit to add

Yes, I am biased.
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Postby ryguy » Fri Jan 11, 2008 4:49 pm

murnut wrote:Gk could be lying


Edit to add

Yes, I am biased.


LOL....I'm really starting to like you. haha!

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Access Denied » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:34 am

ryguy wrote: Our source indicated that Bruce was in fact there, and that he was the one who made the statement that the event never happened and took all of the materials. Our source indicated that he assumed Bruce simply wanted to "scoop" the story before anyone else.

This is interesting because regardless of who took the materials, the implication here from the source is that the material was somehow exclusive to the alleged meeting and depending on how you look at it, could still be interpreted as being somewhat supportive of Callahan’s claim. This would seem to be in contradiction with what Bruce Maccabee stated early last year here…

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread ... 668&page=3

[note that the sighting was in November of 1986]

Bruce Maccabee wrote:Klass' first explanation, by the was, was "extraterrestrial." In Feb 1987 CSICOP (now CSI) published its extraterrestrial explanation: Mars and Jupiter. It was only after my report was published in the IUR that Klass advanced his second theory.

Which was then corrected to…

Bruce Maccabee wrote:The first explanation was presented in a press release by CSICOP in Feb. 1987 if I recall correctly (see my paper). The second explanation was published in the CSICOP journal.

This perhaps establishes that he didn’t really “scoop” the story per se, only that he had a different interpretation of it and that he feels his report caused Klass to advance a revised theory. However in this statement here he seems to imply he paid for (or is admitting it was readily available to anyone) the FAA report (that presumably includes the same radar data that Callahan is seen waiving around in the Disclosure Project press conference video)…

Bruce Maccabee wrote:If you send email address to brumac@compuserve.com I can email you a few scans. However, the raw radar data takes dozens of pages since it gives several readouts per minute. There are numerous other documents. The FAA sold a complete package for over $100 back in March, 1987.

A point which the apparently very knowledgeable individual Maccabee is talking to seems to highlight in this response…

Aether wrote:I still haven't seen any numerical radar contact data records, but I no longer have any doubt that those records (the numerical radar contact data records that were released to the public in the 1987 FAA report) will be shown to be consistent with the FAA's explanation when we finally see them. I will comment more on this issue later after I have reviewed the FAA's original numerical radar contact data records. I would also like to compare the numerical radar contact data records contained within John Callahan's computer printout with the records released by the FAA in their 1987 report; however, I'm not sure how to obtain a copy of John Callahan's data.

I could be wrong but given the above I sense some sort of “jockeying for position” is going on behind the scenes between our feathered friends and at this point I’m still not convinced anyone is being entirely truthful yet.

At any rate, I feel confident that regardless of what did or didn’t happen, Callahan’s claim is thoroughly debunked and if you read the rest of the thread at the above link, you might be convinced (if you weren’t already) that the JAL sighting and subsequent analysis isn’t as interesting as some might like you to believe.

Murnut has the right idea... trust no one... albeit biased in the wrong direction. 8)
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby Access Denied » Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:38 pm

Addendum to my post above: It occurs to me if this alleged meeting the source, Callahan, and Maccabee attended took place in the four months after the sighting in November of 1986 before the FAA released the data to the public in March of 1987 then that would be somewhat of a “scoop”… that is until any interested independent researchers were able to get the data.

I can’t find an exact date other than 1986 for this AP article announcing the FAA meeting that was to be held in Washington…

FAA investigates JAL Flight 1628 UFO Sighting
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1321.htm

ANCHORAGE (AP) -- The Federal Aviation Administration has stepped up efforts to determine the source of wavering lights that dogged a Japan Air Lines cargo jet across Alaska's night sky for nearly an hour in November. "We're looking at it to ensure that somebody didn't violate airspace we control," FAA spokesman Paul Steucke said Sunday. "We looked at it about six weeks ago, but since then we've gotten a lot of public interest, so we went back and re-interviewed the pilot. He provided us with additional information."

Veteran pilot Kenji Terauchi told investigators Friday through an interpreter that two of the lights were small, perhaps no larger than eight feet across. He said the third light was on an aircraft, a huge darkened globe with a diameter of perhaps two aircraft carriers placed end-to-end, Steucke said.

The pilot said the large UFO showed up on his cockpit weather radar. But images on military radar screens at the time were dismissed as "clutter," and a blip that showed up on FAA screens was analyzed as a coincidental "split image" of the aircraft, Steucke said.

Radar tapes, transcribed interviews and radio messages are to be sent to the FAA in Washington, D.C., later this week for review, Steucke said.

Seems kind of silly for anyone to say "this meeting never happened" when it was already announced in the press beforehand...
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Postby ryguy » Sat Jan 12, 2008 5:22 pm

The latest news is that Bruce has responded last week essentially stating that he doesn't recall being at "a FAA/CIA meeting with Callahan." However he admits the source above showing him the video reconstruction of the radar screen events. He also admits receiving the data package from the CIA person including air crew testimonty and radar computer printout, which he subsequently used to write the article. He writes: "I don't recall trying to 'keep the sighting hushed' since it was already widely publicized."

The source was willing to respond again later in the week by contacting Bruce via the telephone and helping his "recall" with the event details from material in his files.

He responded that he'd reminded Bruce of the event, and also stated that the meeting where Bruce observed the video was at FAA. This was a meeting Bruce requested and the source arraged with the FAA administrator. Callahan was present, and according to this source, all discussion regarding "delaying dissemination of information" was between Bruce and Callahan.

I think the issues are whether any meeting between CIA/FAA took place where Bruce was present and he asked that dissemination of the data be delayed, and also whether Callahan's quote distributed in the national media which implied the CIA was trying to "hush up" the sighting was actually referring to Bruce's efforts to delay dissemination of the radar/interview data until he could write his article based on that data (which at the time, I believe, no one else had access to).

The real question we're trying to get a handle on is whether Callahan's quote is referring to Bruce's efforts to delay dissemination of the data, or whether it refers to some other meeting where the CIA rep really said that. However, if the second case was true - then it wouldn't make sense if the CIA wanted to "hush up" the FAA meeting details, that the CIA itself would then assist with handing off all of the material to Bruce so that Bruce could write up an article for public dissemination....

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby lost_shaman » Sun Jan 13, 2008 2:21 am

ryguy wrote:CIA's only real interest in this case was whether an airplane or other aircraft was attempting to evade detection.


Oh, of course, I bet airplanes tail 747's at 35,000 ft ASL over Alaska all the time. :roll:

Well here is what John Callahan said...

"The CIA said it was a UFO. The CIA said we're not going to tell the public, because it would scare the public. They told me that."

Sounds just like this 1952 CIA recommendation that the CIA should help "develop...a policy of public information which will minimize concern and
possible panic resulting from the numerous sightings of unidentified objects."

Is that what the CIA did?

Yes, according to Haines.

"Haines argues that this suspicious silence was not a good strategy for the agency, but the established need for secrecy left the CIA with little choice while fervor over the government's role in "covering up" UFO information grew. Even though the agency itself "had a declining interest in UFO cases" by the late 1950s, it was still spending considerable resources looking out for "the more sensational UFO reports and flaps" in order to suppress them."

http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/phe ... t_818.html


Haines also tells us in his article that during the 70's and 80's the CIA was still actively interested in UFO sightings.

"Agency analysts from the Life Science Division of OSI and OSWR officially devoted a small amount of their time to issues relating to UFOs. These included counterintelligence concerns that the Soviets and the KGB were using US citizens and UFO groups to obtain information on sensitive US weapons development programs (such as the Stealth aircraft), the vulnerability of the US air-defense network to penetration by foreign missiles mimicking UFOs, and evidence of Soviet advanced technology associated with UFO sightings." - CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90

So have I somehow missed "the part about *why* the CIA would be interested(AD)?"

No, I haven't. :wink:

ryguy wrote:CIA's only real interest in this case was whether an airplane or other aircraft was attempting to evade detection. The analysis was actually handed off, overall, to a civilian UFO researcher...chosen for both his Navy experience and his tireless analysis of unknown aerial phenomenon. If this analysis showed any sign of a foreign attempt to illegally enter airspace, the CIA would be interested - otherwise...they simply allowed the civilian UFO organization to do whatever they wanted with the story.


Haines points out the Agency's "official" interests in the UFO Phenomena and UFO Sightings ran much deeper than that in the 1980's Ry.

ryguy wrote:With that said, this CIA officer's predecessor had a somewhat different approach and belief-set. It appears, just from looking at the behaviors of the men who dealt with this field for the agency through the 80's and 90's, much of the agency's interactions on the domestic front related to UFO's had more to do with the individual belief-set of the person sitting at the "weird desk" (whether the person was more of a skeptic or a believer), rather than any sort of overall agency "policy".


Who is the CIA officer's predecessor?

What 'different approach and belief-set' are you talking about?
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Postby ryguy » Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:08 am

You appear to have missed the point of the article you quoted.

The CIA remained interested in the subject post 1950's, however tried to keep that interest private because of the very reaction that even their interest alone would cause - an assumption on the part of most ufologists that if the CIA is interested - well then there must be something to it!

And your response above to even slight CIA interest in the Alaska case is an excellent example of that.

Oh, of course, I bet airplanes tail 747's at 35,000 ft ASL over Alaska all the time. :roll:


Excuse me? You state that the idea is rediculous, yet you quote it in only different words later in your post...

Haines also tells us in his article that during the 70's and 80's the CIA was still actively interested in UFO sightings.

"Agency analysts from the Life Science Division of OSI and OSWR officially devoted a small amount of their time to issues relating to UFOs. These included counterintelligence concerns that the Soviets and the KGB were using US citizens and UFO groups to obtain information on sensitive US weapons development programs (such as the Stealth aircraft), the vulnerability of the US air-defense network to penetration by foreign missiles mimicking UFOs, and evidence of Soviet advanced technology associated with UFO sightings." - CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90


Which is, precisely, what their current involvement appears to be related to even today - counterintel concerns, the vulnerability of US air-defenses to penetration by foreign missiles (or aircraft!), and evidence of advanced foreign technology.

All are legitimate concerns - and none are related to green big-headed aliens.

Well here is what John Callahan said...

"The CIA said it was a UFO. The CIA said we're not going to tell the public, because it would scare the public. They told me that."


"They" - That's the question we're trying to answer today. You seem to be assuming the same thing Callahan did - that the person who made the statement that data shouldn't be disseminated immediately to the public was speaking for, or a representative of, the CIA. Now....if that person was a guest of the CIA, introduced as an "associate" of one of the CIA officers...it's conceivable that Callahan could have easily made such a mistake.

Either way - we will be trying to obtain more details.

Sounds just like this 1952 CIA recommendation that the CIA should help "develop...a policy of public information which will minimize concern and
possible panic resulting from the numerous sightings of unidentified objects."

Is that what the CIA did?

Yes, according to Haines.


Yes...although I take that article a little different than you appear to. My impression is that Haines was saying they wanted to minimize the impression that the CIA was at all interested in the phenomenon. Not to "suppress" public stories related to UFO's, but to suppress the fact that the CIA had even a slight interest.

"Haines argues that this suspicious silence was not a good strategy for the agency, but the established need for secrecy left the CIA with little choice while fervor over the government's role in "covering up" UFO information grew. Even though the agency itself "had a declining interest in UFO cases" by the late 1950s, it was still spending considerable resources looking out for "the more sensational UFO reports and flaps" in order to suppress them."


By the way....the "in order to suppress them" was the reporter's words - not a direct quote from Haines. Pretty poor paraphrasing too...if you actually read the CIA report itself you'll see what he actually wrote.

Haines points out the Agency's "official" interests in the UFO Phenomena and UFO Sightings ran much deeper than that in the 1980's Ry.


I disagree - but if you quote from the actual CIA report where it says that, I will then stand corrected.

But read this statement from the report again:

Like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the UFO issue probably will not go away soon, no matter what the Agency does or says. The belief that we are not alone in the universe is too emotionally appealing and the distrust of our government is too pervasive to make the issue amenable to traditional scientific studies of rational explanation and evidence.


In effect - Haines laments that the Agency could not openly reveal any interest they had, however slight - because the public is so freakin' paranoid and unscientific...

Who is the CIA officer's predecessor?

What 'different approach and belief-set' are you talking about?


If you're familiar with the names in the "aviary", just look for the person who was at the CIA "weird desk" from 1979 or so, up until about 1985.

I've written enough about him over the past few months on this forum, so it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out - but I'm trying to write about him less this year (New Year's Resolution)...so I would rather not outright name him.

However even today, post 2000 - he can be found leaning support and providing positive comments on email lists and privately to various UFO stories and folklore that get published, such as "Serpo". He will never outright say he believes the stories - but he will say that "to the extent that the story is true...it would be a multi-billion dollar operation." Or..."the consistency of the story over time argues against delusion" (as though delusional folks don't consistantly have the same delusions over long periods of time? Okay then....)

The person down the line who took his place at the CIA "weird desk" would simply take one look at the story, point out the individual who it's coming from, and then look at you like you have three heads for even considering that such a story could be true. Rumor has it he's also the person who gave the Remote Viewing program the kiss of death in the mid 90's (that's still unconfirmed).

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby cgreen » Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:05 pm

Ryan is absolutely right. This is a fair summary of a lot , over time, of what I have said:

""He will never outright say he believes the stories - but he will say that "to the extent that the story is true...it would be a multi-billion dollar operation." Or..."the consistency of the story over time argues against delusion" (as though delusional folks don't consistantly have the same delusions over long periods of time? Okay then....) ""

But ""Delusional Disorder" {multiple, interlocking, non-systematic, usually life-hampering paranoid delusions} is different in medicine than Paraphrenia {a single, well-circumscribed system-based delusional belief that does not interfere with ADL..."activities of daily life"}...at least in degree, if not kind.

In fact, I am willing to say as a corollary that MOST of the stories are delusional, and SERPO is not only a hoax, it does often contain delusional beliefs över long periods of time." And, that while the persons who hold the delusions over a long time can not ""legally"" be diagnosed by a practicing physician such as myself as being ""Psychotic"" they most assuredly can be diagnosed as Paraphrenic...by definition NOT psychotic, but otherwise normal except for holding one persistent delusion over time.

Epidemiological studies have shown that in BOTH Western and Eastern populations Paraphrenia has a Prevalence of about 0.4 to as high as 0.6 in some medical reviews. {I have even been fairly accused of being paraphrenic because I often wax and wane that there may even be [I am still not sure]a ""Core Story"" that has some elements that are ""true.""}

Most mental health professionals (not all, thank god!) have no sense of the ineffable...so would say that such a person...otherwise holding a Day-job and being successful at life and having a sense of humor...is therefore by definition...Paraphrenic. Since I have held at least a ""partial"" belief that many health professionals would label as delusional...I must admit some of them may label me, too, as Paraphrenic. In the Olden days...pre the new British Nosology of Psychiatry in about 1965...this was called a "Neurosis."

This is a non-trival distinction, however. In medicine it is not any longer [since 2004] medicolegally possible to make a ""diagnosis"" of the DSM IV-TR or ICD-2006 code of a psychiatric illness being an Axis 1 Mental Illness (or Psychosis) such as having ""Delusional Disorder" which unlike "Paraphrenia" has a low Prevalence: about 0.03:

""Delusional Disorder, previously known as Paranoid Disorder, is a type of serious mental illness—called a "psychosis"—in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined. The main feature of this disorder is the presence of delusions, which are unshakable beliefs in something that is untrue. People with delusional disorder experience non-bizarre delusions, which involve situations that could occur in real life, such as being followed, poisoned, deceived, conspired against, or loved from a distance. These delusions usually involve the misinterpretation of perceptions or experiences. In reality, however, the situations are either not true at all or highly exaggerated.

In some cases, however, people with delusional disorder might become so preoccupied with their delusions that their lives are disrupted.

Although delusions might be a symptom of more common disorders, such as schizophrenia, delusional disorder itself is rather rare. Delusional disorder most often occurs in middle to late life and is slightly more common in women than in men."" { edits from: Cleveland Clinic, 2005}

So, in summary, as is often the case...Ryan pretty much said it all in two sentences.
cgreen
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 4:32 pm

Postby lost_shaman » Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:40 pm

ryguy wrote:You appear to have missed the point of the article you quoted.


I've already stated that I don't think the short article by Haines is completely accurate.


ryguy wrote:The CIA remained interested in the subject post 1950's, however tried to keep that interest private because of the very reaction that even their interest alone would cause - an assumption on the part of most ufologists that if the CIA is interested - well then there must be something to it!


Would it surprise you to find that there is something to the Phenomena?


ryguy wrote:And your response above to even slight CIA interest in the Alaska case is an excellent example of that.

Oh, of course, I bet airplanes tail 747's at 35,000 ft ASL over Alaska all the time. :roll:


Excuse me? You state that the idea is ridiculous, yet you quote it in only different words later in your post...


Sorry, but it was your 'source' that stated 'airplanes' and yes that was ridiculous.

ryguy wrote:Which is, precisely, what their current involvement appears to be related to even today - counterintel concerns, the vulnerability of US air-defenses to penetration by foreign missiles (or aircraft!), and evidence of advanced foreign technology.

All are legitimate concerns - and none are related to green big-headed aliens.


Counterintelligence concerns alone would be reason enough to mis-inform the public.

You seem to assume that my interests lies in proving the existence of "green big-headed aliens"! That just simply isn't the case, my interests are in UAP and the history of the UFO Phenomena.






ryguy wrote:
Sounds just like this 1952 CIA recommendation that the CIA should help "develop...a policy of public information which will minimize concern and
possible panic resulting from the numerous sightings of unidentified objects."

Is that what the CIA did?

Yes, according to Haines.


Yes...although I take that article a little different than you appear to. My impression is that Haines was saying they wanted to minimize the impression that the CIA was at all interested in the phenomenon. Not to "suppress" public stories related to UFO's, but to suppress the fact that the CIA had even a slight interest.


Of course I have a different take on Haines article than you do. For one thing it is very short and I don't consider it to be comprehensive. But here even Haines admits that the Air Force made "misleading and deceptive statements to the public" on behalf of the CIA under the guise that over half of all UFO reports were actually sightings of the CIA's U-2! Haines doesn't explore this important issue any further in his article, again because Haines article is not comprehensive.

Considering that the U-2 has the basic aircraft design and typically flies high enough to make it invisible to the Human eye, the idea that the U-2 accounts for half of all UFO Sightings seems quite ridiculous. Nonetheless Haines gives us this as the reason for the CIA to "mislead and deceive" the public on the UFO Phenomena via the Air Force.

This begs the question, to what extent did the CIA "mislead and deceive" the public via the Air Force?

Did this continue after Blue Book was abandoned by the Air Force?

Haines doesn't address or answer these questions.

ryguy wrote:
"Haines argues that this suspicious silence was not a good strategy for the agency, but the established need for secrecy left the CIA with little choice while fervor over the government's role in "covering up" UFO information grew. Even though the agency itself "had a declining interest in UFO cases" by the late 1950s, it was still spending considerable resources looking out for "the more sensational UFO reports and flaps" in order to suppress them."


By the way....the "in order to suppress them" was the reporter's words - not a direct quote from Haines. Pretty poor paraphrasing too...if you actually read the CIA report itself you'll see what he actually wrote.


Yes, that is why I posted a link to the Space.com article so you would know that it wasn't a direct quote from Haines article.

ryguy wrote:
Haines points out the Agency's "official" interests in the UFO Phenomena and UFO Sightings ran much deeper than that in the 1980's Ry.


I disagree - but if you quote from the actual CIA report where it says that, I will then stand corrected.


"During the late 1970s and 1980s,..." "Agency analysts from the Life Science Division of OSI and OSWR officially devoted a small amount of their time to issues relating to UFOs. These included counterintelligence concerns that the Soviets and the KGB were using US citizens and UFO groups to obtain information on sensitive US weapons development programs (such as the Stealth aircraft), the vulnerability of the US air-defense network to penetration by foreign missiles mimicking UFOs, and evidence of Soviet advanced technology associated with UFO sightings." - Haines

Note that which I highlighted is the same reason Haines gives us as the reason the CIA "mislead and deceived" the public via the Air Force during the '50's and '60's (U-2/SR-71). Also the same reason which prompted you to state, "Which is, precisely, what their current involvement appears to be related to even today". And again, Haines fails to discuss this important matter of "misleading and deceiving the public" further in his short article.


ryguy wrote:But read this statement from the report again:

Like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the UFO issue probably will not go away soon, no matter what the Agency does or says. The belief that we are not alone in the universe is too emotionally appealing and the distrust of our government is too pervasive to make the issue amenable to traditional scientific studies of rational explanation and evidence.


In effect - Haines laments that the Agency could not openly reveal any interest they had, however slight - because the public is so freakin' paranoid and unscientific...


A bit of editorial ignorance on Haines part.

Ry, the reason the UFO Phenomena won't go away is simply because year after year people continue to see UFO's/UAP in the skies.
User avatar
lost_shaman
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:56 am

Postby ryguy » Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:57 am

lost_shaman wrote:I've already stated that I don't think the short article by Haines is completely accurate.


Ok...fair enough.

Would it surprise you to find that there is something to the Phenomena?


Heck no. lol....have you read anything else I've written on RU? Check my posts in the Spirituality forum, and let me know if you still think I have an aversion to entertaining hypothesis that are a bit "out there". If there's an inkling of evidence to even partially support a hypothesis, however wild - I like it...and will explore it... (sometimes to the dismay of my more skeptical friends, I admit...lol)

So no...it wouldn't surprise me at all if it turns out some Aerial Phenomenon sightings could be any one, or multiples, of the following:

- geomagnetic/electric earth forces
- spiritual forces/entities (could even be the same "energies" as the electro-magnetic)
- experimental aircraft and/or aerial objects
- inter-dimensional craft (yes, carrying "other-dimensional" entities)
- angelic and/or demonic sightings

No conclusion would surprise me - provided...what's that magic word again? Oh yeah....evidence. Even just a smidgeon will do.

Excuse me? You state that the idea is ridiculous, yet you quote it in only different words later in your post...


Sorry, but it was your 'source' that stated 'airplanes' and yes that was ridiculous.


Mis-statement on my part, as the source could have said aircraft... please, if I'm paraphrasing a source, don't ever nit-pick over specific words...or I have no chance in heck of ever making any sense when I describe what the source says over the phone. Let's put it this way - the concern was that *something* could have attempted to evade radar by getting close enough to show up as *one* blip. As you can see from Maccabee's eventual article - the FAA folks certainly noticed that the airplane "blip" did appear to have two seperate parts...as though it was two objects close together.

Counterintelligence concerns alone would be reason enough to mis-inform the public.


Absolutely! You know...maybe both of us failed to get a better handle on eachother's prior beliefs before this exchange. I'm getting the feeling we agree on a heck of a lot more than we disagree.

You seem to assume that my interests lies in proving the existence of "green big-headed aliens"! That just simply isn't the case, my interests are in UAP and the history of the UFO Phenomena.


Same here...and it's very much my fault for not getting to know your specific hypothesis before this exchange.

Considering that the U-2 has the basic aircraft design and typically flies high enough to make it invisible to the Human eye, the idea that the U-2 accounts for half of all UFO Sightings seems quite ridiculous. Nonetheless Haines gives us this as the reason for the CIA to "mislead and deceive" the public on the UFO Phenomena via the Air Force.


I find that 50% would be quite a high claim, but I don't see the U-2 as being the cause of a large number of sightings as being rediculous at all, considering that a large number of sightings during the 50's and 60's were from aircraft pilots who were flying between 10,000 feet and 20,000 feet. The U-2 could fly at 60,000 feet. It is certainly conceivable and plausible that many of the sightings from these folks could have been the classified U-2 flights.

This begs the question, to what extent did the CIA "mislead and deceive" the public via the Air Force?

Did this continue after Blue Book was abandoned by the Air Force?


I bet you and I could both agree on the answer to that question.... lol :)

Note that which I highlighted is the same reason Haines gives us as the reason the CIA "mislead and deceived" the public via the Air Force during the '50's and '60's (U-2/SR-71). Also the same reason which prompted you to state, "Which is, precisely, what their current involvement appears to be related to even today". And again, Haines fails to discuss this important matter of "misleading and deceiving the public" further in his short article.


I agree completely...although the first part of his statement should be highlighted as well:

"During the late 1970s and 1980s,..." "Agency analysts from the Life Science Division of OSI and OSWR officially devoted a small amount of their time to issues relating to UFOs.


Ry, the reason the UFO Phenomena won't go away is simply because year after year people continue to see UFO's/UAP in the skies.


Of course....and we don't really expect the phenomenon where people see things in the sky to go away....as long as we have so many things in our skies, do we?

The real *thing* which would be nice if it "went away" is the public tendency to jump to such immediate assumptions regarding what it is they believe they are seeing....and feeding the monster of paranoia and intrigue that has grown into a cottage entertainment/scam industry all on its own.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby ryguy » Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:34 am

Although delusions might be a symptom of more common disorders, such as schizophrenia, delusional disorder itself is rather rare. Delusional disorder most often occurs in middle to late life and is slightly more common in women than in men."" { edits from: Cleveland Clinic, 2005}


Maybe we should instead consider another disorder... related to these stories (like Project Serpo and MJ-12). It seems those much more relevant would be the Axis II category disorders? As I was reviewing a Psych 101 explanation of the various categories, one particular category that struck me as extremely fascinating in light of these stories (and their observed after-effects):

http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/psychology/unit_10.htm

The Antisocial/Borderline Cluster

Think of these as a pathological variant of extreme A-. These individuals lack a normal capacity for empathy and essentially view others as means to an end rather than ends in themselves -- as objects to be used, not as people to be valued. If intelligent and sufficiently socially skilled, they may maintain an outward demeanor that can take others in (e.g., the typical "con artist"). Underneath, however, they usually strike others who get to know them better as heartless, ruthless, uncaring, and hostile.


The psychology of the con artist...certainly more relevant in this area of the paranormal I think?

This removes the burden of possible mental problems from those who chose to believe in the possibilities - and instead places it on the backs of those who are laying out the fishing net, looking for their next "mark."

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Access Denied » Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:05 am

ryguy wrote:The psychology of the con artist...certainly more relevant in this area of the paranormal I think?

This removes the burden of possible mental problems from those who chose to believe in the possibilities - and instead places it on the backs of those who are laying out the fishing net, looking for their next "mark."

I was going to say… but then, as is often the case... Ryan pretty much said it all in two sentences.

[far better than I could]

Insanity defense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense

In criminal trials, the insanity defenses are possible defenses by excuse, by which defendants argue that they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law, as they were legally insane at the time of the commission of alleged crimes. It is important to note that the legal definition of "insane" in this context is quite different from psychiatric definitions of "mentally ill", also that the definition of insanity varies between jurisdictions.

[snip]

Insanity is a legal concept, not a psychiatric concept of mental illness. If a person has a diagnosed mental disorder is not sufficient reason, from the court's point of view, to relieve them from all responsibility for illegal acts they may commit. A person may have a mental disorder and be a competent person in many other ways, able to write checks, handle his personal affairs, hold a job and carry on a variety of behaviors despite the mental disorder. Likewise, a person may commit a criminal act, independent of the fact that he has a mental disorder. Depending on the jurisdiction, other elements need to be proven, for the court to accept that the mental disorder was responsible for the criminal act, that is, it must be shown that the defendant committed the crime because of the mental disorder. For example, the mental disorder interfered with his ability to determine right from wrong at the time the offense was committed.

Call me skeptical but, as usual, I'm not buying it...
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 19 guests

cron