Exopoliticians reaching out to Presidential candidates.

[MikeJamieson]

Personally, I have no problem with the "high strangeness" element
associated with the UFO mystery. Don't forget where that element is
widely recognized, by the likes of say a Jerry Clark, there's a good
foundation for reports flavored with high strangeness. OTOH, we also
have "high strangeness" which solely exists only as "internal stimuli"
in some folks. AND, in the reports of many phonies like DB.

just want to say that although I think a lot of posters on this forum have a different view of the phenomena we're discussing, you still seem to be one of the better one's around for taking into account other views. Again - this whole field is bizarre and this is the primary reason for tolerance of views and not assuming we all have a direct conduit to the truth.

[David Griffin]

I was actually being serious above...in an effort to avoid the "nit-picking" label we've been pegged with before...I'd sincerely like to examine the evidence. Even if it's only testimonial, or testimonial combined with some circumstantial...hey - it's all good. Regardless of the numbers - even if David's "100%" would be, for us, 75%....that's still pretty good.

This is good - a degree of sanity in a field where we swing between devotion to space brothers and the equally deluded 'hard science' reality bubble.

Like I said, I'd be happy with something that convinces me anything above 50% certain of any of the items listed above.

You know some of this is about us. What do most of you on this forum want? Do you want to reach the conclusion that all this is in fact a psy-op? Do you want to find out that this phenomena is nothing more than some sort of psychotic, schizoid manifestation from the synapses? Because this is what you'll find if you want and nothing anyone else inputs will help the issue.

Me? I think we amplify by focus, careful focus, so for me personally I have seen sufficient data over the 20 years to know that this issue is so important that failing to come to grips with it - or to remain in at sceptic central station for a train is doing a dis-service to your fellow human beings. This issue is the only issue that can get us back from the f**cked state we find ourselves in. There *is* nothing else. So you take a side and by having an positive, organic agenda with regards absorbing, integrating and communicating this information you do a degree of good and continue to transform the world we live in.

The desire for the 'latrine from the saucer' is really more about you [or 'us'] than anything else. You will never get what you want. Everything we know about this phenomena says it involves and interface or merging of the alien 'Other' with our own consciousness and world view. You "get" what you focus on. Focus on unwavering demands for a piece of saucer - you won't get it it - because that is not "it".

Sceptics and debunkers should try a dose of ayhuasca or DMT. The latter only lasts 10 minutes. Surely they can spare 10 minutes. Meet the alien entelechy head on as shamans so all over the world then come back ask ask for your piece of saucer.

If someone turned up with tests stating that an artifact was rumoured to have come from some sort of craft, had been tested, was found to be non-terrestrial - I doubt whether many would be prepared to even add this to the internal database and tip it from 50% to 51%. This is despite numerous decades of data of witnesses, whistleblowers and contactees. So we're kind of at an impasse.

However - if you want the piece of saucer data - and it's not the [BEAM case] - I will post it.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

David,

I am still hoping that you are going to offer up something substantive to at least provide some inkling of backing for your strong numerical assessments above.

and the equally deluded 'hard science' reality bubble.

A bit troubling, that is. May I ask how familiar you are with the "hard sciences"? I often find that folks who don't understand science are predisposed to denigrating it because they don't understand.

What do most of you on this forum want? Do you want to reach the conclusion that all this is in fact a psy-op? Do you want to find out that this phenomena is nothing more than some sort of psychotic, schizoid manifestation from the synapses? Because this is what you'll find if you want and nothing anyone else inputs will help the issue.

People who trust the scientific method, and apply its rigors to investigation, avoid mixing up what they might WANT with what is really there. Could I suggest to you, since you bring this up, that it is quite possible that this tendency (believing what you want to be true) is what draws you to ExoPo?

This issue is the only issue that can get us back from the f**cked state we find ourselves in. There *is* nothing else.

I disagree. And this is highly sensational wording you choose. What are you trying to sell here?

So you take a side and by having an positive, organic agenda with regards absorbing, integrating and communicating this information you do a degree of good and continue to transform the world we live in.

Mmmmm. Sounds an awful lot like religion, don't you think? "Take a side" without due diligence in explaining a phenomenon. Let me use an example. Magicians use tricks of deceit. Furthermore, they have a "brotherhood" which hangs pretty tightly in not divulging the secrets behind how they do their tricks. So would you say that just because no one can "crack the code" and demonstrate in a verifiable manner how their tricks are done, we should just "accept it is real", "take a side", and then shape our beliefs and actions based upon the assumption that what they do is real? Seems a bit sloppy, to me.

The desire for the 'latrine from the saucer' is really more about you [or 'us'] than anything else. You will never get what you want.

This type of attitude has been proven wrong over and over again down through history. And again, this is what folks use to start religions! "You will never come to know God, so you gotta just believe...trust me!"

You "get" what you focus on. Focus on unwavering demands for a piece of saucer - you won't get it it - because that is not "it".

Do you see the contradiction in your own words? First you say "you get what you focus on". Then claim that if we focus on wanting to see evidence, we will NOT get it. Your story has quite a few holes. Better work on it a bit.

Sceptics and debunkers should try a dose of ayhuasca or DMT.

So modify reality, or manufacture a new reality, is this what you are saying? We can't figure this thing out sober, but certainly we can if we modify our brain chemistry. Don't they call them HALLUCINOGENICS for a reason?

If someone turned up with tests stating that an artifact was rumoured to have come from some sort of craft, had been tested, was found to be non-terrestrial - I doubt whether many would be prepared to even add this to the internal database and tip it from 50% to 51%.

I am still interested in how you quantify your numbers. I realize you might think I am being fascetious, but I assure you I am not. Once you start down a road to quantify something with numbers, the basis for that quantification is very important. It can lead to real facts, or it can lead to a "feel good" solution which is just smoke and mirrors (like magic).

However - if you want the piece of saucer data - and it's not the [BEAM case] - I will post it.

I am patiently waiting for evidence that backs up the numbers you quoted. I hope you don't think this is unreasonable, and then use this to paint me as some "unreasonable debunker". I am looking for facts, and my 22 years in my industry has proven to me quite readily that science works... much better than some religious movement. And the more I hear about ExoPo (esp. your takes on it) the more I see a new religious movement at its genesis.

Ray

[David Griffin]

Exopolitics: Discussions Related to Transitions Toward an Expanding Cosmology.

Really interesting that the OM lot have given this broad title to the study of exopolitics.

[David Griffin]

This issue is the only issue that can get us back from the f**cked state we find ourselves in. There *is* nothing else.

I disagree. And this is highly sensational wording you choose. What are you trying to sell here?

I really doubt I could sell you a dish cloth if I arrived at your door as a homeless salesperson looking to buy a cup of low-grade english tea.

[Max]

Exopolitics: Discussions Related to Transitions Toward an Expanding Cosmology.

Really interesting that the OM lot have given this broad title to the study of exopolitics.

What are you trying to say by this????

[You Can Call Me Ray]

I disagree. And this is highly sensational wording you choose. What are you trying to sell here?

I really doubt I could sell you a dish cloth if I arrived at your door as a homeless salesperson looking to buy a cup of low-grade english tea.

I didn't specify only myself as the target of a sales pitch, did I? Nice analogy, though. So was this the only statement I made that was worthy of discussion? I am attempting to engage here, but perhaps you are looking for someone who is more willing to "just believe". Is it not true that the skills of a viable "exopolitician" will have to be capable of dealing with all sorts of views on the ET subject? I mean, at least if "the movement" would work to integrate many disparate views then it would appear to be more like "politics" and less like "religion", don't you think?

Ray

[David Griffin]

Well I've spent all afternoon [when I should really be calling prospective clients] uploading this video for you Ray.

I call that engagement and dedication

"Proof" - the Proverbial Latrine from a UFO - Almost.

http://www.exopolitics.org.uk/index.php ... &Itemid=62

This is proof within one context. There are many other layers of proof and evidence - not just the doubting Thomas type.

[David Griffin]

Incidentally - some people don't like Linda Moulton Howe - but anyone who travels 223 miles in a Jeep for hours on end to see a Mayan shaman/elder in the middle of the Amazon Basin is fine by me.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

David,

Well I've spent all afternoon [when I should really be calling prospective clients] uploading this video for you Ray.

All for little old ME? Gosh, golly David... I am so flattered. But let me state for the record (again) that "evidence" always seems to require watching a long video with lots of non-essential hob-nobbing and other usless time-wasting antics. Do you have some sort of aversion to simply stating evidence (it might save you some time...like "all afternoon") and providing links? But OK... I had nothing better to do after work, so I watched enough of it to know what was up. Interesting. And it APPEARS anomalous. But I've heard about this before, and you really could've saved some of MY TIME (and apparantly yours) if you had just spat it out.

I call that engagement and dedication

Again for the record: I call engagement actually having a discussion with me and not simply pointing me to videos where I hear nothing about what YOU, personally, have done to investigate claims. IMO, I call what you are doing "avoidance".

This is proof within one context.

This is no such thing, sir. And Ms. Howe even admits as much in her speech at the end, IIRC. Anomalous, yes. Proof, far from it. And finally, your follow-up statement gives me a perfect venue to introduce some interesting facts that were presented to Ms. Howe that she is apparantly not talking about publicly...

Incidentally - some people don't like Linda Moulton Howe - but anyone who travels 223 miles in a Jeep for hours on end to see a Mayan shaman/elder in the middle of the Amazon Basin is fine by me.

Perhaps one reason "some people don't like" her could be because she is very willing to talk about sources who FURTHER her story of the strange, and anomalous (and therefore the implication of alien origin), but yet she does NOT appear to ever discuss sources who would COUNTER her insinuations. Reporting only that which meets your needs (or agenda) is not fair & accurate reporting. And now I will show you precisely what I mean:

http://www.ufowatchdog.com/howeufodebris.html

In the report seen below, scientific technologist Nicholas A. Reiter examined the alleged UFO crash debris, he also successfully replicated the metal and presented Howe with a sample. ufowatchdog.com was told by Reiter that Howe reportedly scoffed at the results of the report because the replicated material was not 100% "exactly" like the alleged UFO crash debris Howe has been advertising as being mysterious. Reiter stated in a letter to ufowatchdog.com, " [Linda's] opinion was that what I had offered had no resemblance to her sample. But she never did make any detailed and accurate reference to it either."

Now THAT is some "evidence" for you, David! But wait, there is more!

Odd that Howe would report everything showing the piece to be unusual, yet not report on the conclusions of the report found below.

I'd call it more than odd. I'd call it disingenuous, and that is being polite (and everyone always says us "yanks" are not polite!) "But wait! There's more!" (No, I am not selling Ginsu knives):

Claims were made by a Tesla coil enthusiast in Alabama that the portion of the artifact in his possession acted strangely and tried to levitate in the presence of the electrostatic field of a Van de Graaf generator and a radio frequency source. We did perform a separate replication here, and found that our metal fragment danced about as well in the field of a Van de Graaf. And so did a piece of aluminum foil! Please understand that just about any small unattached mass will dance in the field of a 200,000 volt source!

At this point, I think I have cut and pasted enough. In the interest of me not wasting more time on this, I would suggest to you that you read the entire link I provided above, David. Don't worry, it will take MUCH less longer than one of your extended-length videos. It might even take a shorter period of time than one of your DMT and/or ayhuasca trips.

Ray

[David Griffin]

Well it was all afternoon as it was a DVD convert on top of an upload.

You know I just don't have the time. I know the fundamentals of science - i know that 2 micron layers a pretty hard [or were] to create perfectly. But why do I need to go into a science debate when Linda adequately covered this far better I than I could. Plus - she was at the core of the study - we are of course all sitting behind anonymous names and anonymous net monitors... we're detached somewhat.

Ray I admin 4 sites and do work work stuff on top so I can't do what you ask. Maybe forums are not the place. You can do this stuff in a multitude of ways. I don't see how posting a video is any less worthy than sitting and discussing something back and forth.

This evidence is part of the ongoing continuum of data thrown up since humans first decided to be brave enough to leave the sanctuary of the cave. Or at least some of us were.

It might even take a shorter period of time than one of your DMT and/or ayhuasca trips.

Dunno - time does weirid sh*t in those shamanic spaces.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

David,

I honestly did not think we would get to this point so quickly. However, your inability to face reality (in its entirety, rather than just those pieces of reality that support your worldview) is something I cannot change about you. But I can continue to point it out so that others will see just how barren your "evidence" is. Moreover, I'm afraid I also have the opportunity to show how your continued support for Ms. Howe also permits me to reveal your hypocritical nature.

You know I just don't have the time.

Using excuses like this, I don't expect you to respond to any of my salient points. In fact, you've already done a pretty good job of ignoring my bigger points and just cherry-picking the statements I make that are irrelevant to your "evidence". While you have enough time ("all afternoon") to upload questionable evidence to your site, it is odd you don't even have 20-30 minutes to address the points that impeach your evidence, and the source that delivers them. That is truly sad, David. Hiding behind a rock when faced with the truth is not going to get you very far in Exopolitics or any other facet of life. But for the sake of completeness, let's dissect this whole issue, shall we?

But why do I need to go into a science debate when Linda adequately covered this far better I than I could.

The reality is that she did not cover it adequately. The blatant reality shows that she only chose to report expert, scientific analyses that supported her motivations to pass this off as anomalous. Given that Ms. Howe admits she is not a scientist, only a reporter, why does she feel qualified to dismiss certain scientific analyses...oddly enough, those that would call into question her conclusions? And let me point out that this is NOT the first time Ms. Howe has applied such tactics:

On a sidenote, the scientific technologist that compiled this report at the request of Howe is the same scientific technologist Howe used to examine the bogus Brazil UFO Abduction. Howe wasn't apparently satisfied with those results and chose to use someone else to examine the materials after Reiter and another scientist concluded there was nothing unusual about the evidence. Howe went on to champion that case in spite of an analysis done by two scientists she has used in the past without question.

That's twice she has only told partial truths. And this brings us to your hypocrisy. Here are your own words from another thread:

A prime example of not only a truth embargo - more like an instant light-switch.

So if Ms. Howe is only telling PARTIAL truths, that would certainly constitute her imposing a "truth embargo" of her own, now wouldn't it? If I were you, David, I would be ashamed to have ever paraded Ms. Howe as an advocate of truth, given that she does not reveal the WHOLE truth, and allow her readership/viewership to come to their own conclusions. Quite honestly, she is doing nothing more than spoon-feeding you what SHE wants you to believe... and you are swallowing it hook, line, and sinker. But we are not done with your hypocrisy yet, David. Elsewhere in this thread you used the words:

...on current western court / legal processes this case is done.

Inasmuch as you have elected to apply the "western court/legal processes" to your "evidence", I would now like to call your attention to the oath that a witness takes prior to them giving testimony on a witness stand. I will even use the version that is applied in the UK/Wales so you don't think I am being biased to the USA legal system:

I swear by [substitute Almighty God/Name of God (such as Allah) or the name of the holy scripture] that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Emphasis mine, of course. So, David, I am afraid that if Ms. Howe were given this oath that she would be guilty of committing perjury. Beyond this I must point out to you that your "star witness" for this "evidence" has now been impeached. In a court of law, David, you would now be toast. Plain and simple.

This evidence is part of the ongoing continuum of data thrown up since humans first decided to be brave enough to leave the sanctuary of the cave. Or at least some of us were.

The evidence is clearly incomplete, and has now been shown to be something less than it has been touted to be. And your arrogant statement regarding how "brave" you are for "leaving the sanctuary of the cave" looks to be quite shameful at this point.

Certainly I cannot change your beliefs, David. But once you deign to "sell" your beliefs to others based on false/incomplete testimony, this now leaves you open to be shamed for beliefs that are shown to be lacking. So was this your "best evidence" or did you save better stuff for later? I'd hope that this little exercise would at least teach you to remain a bit more humble in your pronouncements until such time as others have had the opportunity to examine and refute your "evidence".

Ray

[Access Denied]

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

You know I just don't have the time. I know the fundamentals of science - i know that 2 micron layers a pretty hard [or were] to create perfectly.

Really? Do you know for example what PVD, thin-film deposition, and magnetron sputtering is, how these processes work, when they were first developed, and what they are (and can) be used for?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_vapor_deposition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thin-film_deposition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputter_deposition

I do.

But why do I need to go into a science debate when Linda adequately covered this far better I than I could. Plus - she was at the core of the study –

Because obviously Linda didn’t do her homework. Did Linda provide any hard evidence to establish the provenance of this alleged artifact like verifying this anonymous whistle-blower’s (that’s an oxymoron BTW) credentials and employment history? I can tell you based on my experience and knowledge that in my opinion his story won’t check out and is in fact laughable (as in LMAO!) but I shouldn’t be the one to have to do the work. The burden of proof rightfully belongs with those making extraordinary claims… and also those promoting them as “evidence”.

BTW what makes you so sure an alien spacecraft crashed in Roswell in the first place?

we are of course all sitting behind anonymous names and anonymous net monitors... we're detached somewhat.

True but the beauty of this forum (RU) in particular I think is that there are some straight-up folks here who aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty and are willing to put aside (to the best of their ability) whatever their preconceived notions of reality may be and actually research and investigate claims like these to try and come to a logical conclusion and consensus regarding their validity. If you aren’t interested in uncovering the truth (i.e. you’ve already made up your mind) then maybe this isn’t the best place for you to discuss your theories.

Anyway, what does any of this have to do with “exopolitics” reaching out to political candidates? What do you expect them to do for you about something that is (in the absence of any hard evidence and reliable “intelligence”) based solely on your beliefs? In America we have a principle known as separation of Church and State.

EDIT: Oops, I see Ray posted his comments just moments before I did so please excuse my redundancy.

[You Can Call Me Ray]

EDIT: Oops, I see Ray posted his comments just moments before I did so please excuse my redundancy.

No redundancy whatsoever, AD. In fact, your comments are additive to mine.

BTW what makes you so sure an alien spacecraft crashed in Roswell in the first place?

Thank you, AD. I did not even "go there" yet because, as you pointed out, the provenance of the sample being purported to be "evidence" was not even proven to come from where it was claimed to have come from. It was ALLEGED to have come from the WSMR locale. That is the best we can say about it. But you are right to point out that, to-date, there has been NO concrete evidence to support the claim that a "crashed ET disc" (or was that "wedge-shaped"? They can't seem to decide!) was recovered anywhere in New Mexico. Furthermore, those "selling the story" always seem to conveniently ignore (and not address) the open fact that WSMR was the very "heart" of advanced US aerospace development in the post WWII timeframe. IMO, if one is going to "prove" there was ET activity in that area, in that timeframe, they are first going to have to do a VERY SOLID job of showing that any "evidence" they display is NOT related to known US aerospace development efforts. Without falsifying this possibility, one simply leaves major questions unanswered about the provenance of any such "evidence".

This is all quite silly to me, not to mention amateurish. If this is the quality of "evidence" that ExoPos wish for us to accept so that we buy-into their new religion, I am decidedly unimpressed.

Ray

[David Griffin]

BTW what makes you so sure an alien spacecraft crashed in Roswell in the first place?

Aha... the 'fog' of Roswell as we call it. No point even going there. Jesse Marcel was a liar - no he wasn't. Glen Dennis fabricated his part - no he didn't. Where do we move on from that sort of premise??!

Note there is a 60th Roswell UK event in Pontefract soon. I know it's Pontefract but I'm still probably going so get in touch if anyone wants to meet up there at some point. If you want the PDF promoting it - PM or mail me and I'll send a copy to you.

More soon... Just finished interviewing Alfred L Webre. Don't know if it will be received well here though. On that note does the copyright on the join RU/ATS video of ALW being interviewed still hold or can it be shared and copied?

Have a good weekend y'all.