We are not alone!

[Anonymous]

Well, By *How* I am asking something a bit different. I'm not wondering about what they did at ground level to make marks on the earth; I'm wondering how they managed to envision what it would look like from the aire; How they managed to make such clear drawings when they were unable to view the canvus?

Intreging, isn't it?

[GregFL]

Not really all that intriquing. Take something similar on a smaller scale...crop circles. You cannot see them while you are making them but you can complete very complex designs.

The secret is in the layout beforehand.

[GregFL]

On 2004-06-24 12:27:00, Anonymous wrote:

"The erosion theory regarding the Helicopter and plane doesn't make sense to me.



Take Care,



vsp

"

But VSp, it isn't a theory it is known throut the entire community of people who study Egytptian artifacts. It is a language that can be specifically read , both the old and the new messages are clear and the practice was very common.  The resemblence to a helicopter is coincidental and the picture you linked us to is a shameless forgery.

The real question should be that if I, a very amateur skeptical hobbyiest, can find within 10 minutes the fact that the picture circulating the web and posted on numerous UFOlogy websites is a forgery, why is the picture still there? Why are forgeries not only ignored but actually embraced by the new age and UFo conspiracy crowd? Anyone searching for the truth would reject this immediately.

It should cause anyone who is interested in this stuff to take great care in believing anything they claim. Just in this thread alone the evidence for their lack of crediblity is overwhelming. Certifying twice a microsoft mouse as a real alien spacecraft?   Think about that for a minute.

[Anonymous]

You missed the point.  I agree about the picture, but the erosion theory doesn?t make sense.  I only posted the site from a picture search that's all.  I'm just questioning the picture itself. The old one or original that you posted, the picture is still there. Erosion or flaking doesn't happen like that.  And even the first picture still shows a plane clearly.  Look at the tail and wing? That?s not erosion it was carved.  It?s a specific picture.

Oh and by the way you trust the Egyptians and not the Mexicans?  What?s with that? Hell at least the Mexicans drink Corona and aren?t talking about Allah all the time and their suicide bomber friends.

LOL

Beam me up Spock,

vsp

[GregFL]

Lol. Hey, I trust no one explicitly. But I do think that if it indeed was a plane, a helicopter and a submarine, the people that have studied this stuff their whole life would be all over it. Instead they have pretty much ALL offered up a unfortunately begnin explanation that squelches the UFO fantasy prone embellishments.

VSP, it isn't EROSION per se according to the archeologists. It is a combination of a glyp that has been written over by another glyph and then the entire glyph has deteriorated and lost material.

You are thinking of erosion over time, similar to erosion caused by wind or rain that causes rounding of sharp edges. This is in a protected area and is different...
[ This Message was edited by: GregFL on 2004-06-25 06:01 ]

[GregFL]

Swtiching now to UFO and the space program....this is fun!

On 2004-06-23 13:32:00, VSP wrote:

"

Many people worldwide have sworn to have seen UFO?s.....


The astronaut?s that landed on the moon said Aliens where there watching them!  Why would they say that?  And not just one of them made this claim!


"

"Careful examination of each and every one of these stories (and they total more than 20 or 30) can produce quite reasonable explanations, in terms of visual phenomena associated with space flights. On a visit to the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston in July 1976, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, of the Center for UFO Studies, concluded that none of the authentic cases (as opposed to the majority of reports, which are fictitious) really had anything to do with the "real UFO phenomenon."

Skeptical investigators, while pleased that Hynek had dismissed all "astronaut UFO reports" as unreliable, have insisted that this body of stories has quite a lot to do with the major problems besetting the UFO community. How, they ask, can a body of stories so patently false and unreliable obtain such seeming authenticity simply by being passed back and forth among researchers without ever being seriously investigated? Is this a characteristic of UFO stories in general; and if so, the skeptics ask, can a study of how the "astronaut UFO" myth began and flourished help us to understand better the UFO phenomenon in general?"


http://www.debunker.com/texts/astronaut_ufo.html



 :grin:  :grin:  :grin:

[GregFL]

and the real truth about astronauts and UFos....


"Often astronauts are quoted about UFOs. Sometimes they are referring to experiences they have had before or after their roles in the space program. In other eases they are making general statements based on reading the news media. Many quotations are fictitious. Only one astronaut claims to have seen a UFO in space, and that is Jim McDivitt, who stipulates that his definition of a UFO covers the probability that his object was some other man-made satellite which has not been identified. He does not think it was an alien space vehicle or any such similar "real UFO" manifestation."

[Anonymous]

The Majestic Documents, evidence we are not alone.

Robert M. Wood, Ph.D.   E-mail: http://www.majesticdocuments.com/

Busy packing, but couldn't resist.  I'm going to visit Stone Hendge soon,

vsp

[GregFL]

Great! an appeal to authority. I am clicking now to read the evidence of aliens...get back to you after I read. Man, am I excited...EVIDENCE!!!!!

[GregFL]

Man, what a disapointment, but nevertheless expected result. Offical looking smoking gun documents that are alas...(drumroll please).......FORGERIES.

Check it out...

"One of the original MJ-12 documents released by Moore and his two partners (UFO lecturer Stanton Friedman and TV producer Jaime Shandera) purported to be a memo from President Truman to Defense Secretary James Forrestal, dated September 24, 1947, which authorized the creation of the MJ-12 group. My investigation revealed that the Truman signature was a pasted-on photocopy of a genuine signature-including accidental scratch marks-from a memo that Truman wrote to Vannevar Bush on October 1, 1947 (see "New evidence of MJ-12 hoax," SI 14[2], Winter 1990).

A second MJ-12 document released by Moore et al. purported to be a November 18, 1952, briefing for President-elect Eisenhower, prepared by Rear Admiral R.H. Hillenkoetter, who had been director of the CIA and, purportedly, was now head of MJ-12. There were numerous flaws in the "Eisenhower Briefing Document" (EBD), the most obvious being its reference to the (bogus) Truman memo of September 24, 1947.

Further, the EBD repeatedly used a very unusual date-format-a hybrid combination of civil and military formats with a superfluous comma, i.e., 18 November, 1952. This unusual hybrid date-format was one repeatedly used by William L. Moore in his personal letters - until I pointed out this "curious coincidence" in my first article debunking the original MJ-12 papers (see SI 12[2], Winter 1987-1988). The third of the MJ-12 documents made public by Moore et al. in mid-1987 purported to be a brief memo, dated July 14, 1954, from Robert Cutler to USAF Chief of Staff General Twining informing him of change of date to brief the President on the "MJ-12 Special Studies Project." Investigation revealed that on the date that Cutler allegedly wrote the memo, he was out of the country. Moore claimed that he and Shandera had found the Cutler memo in an unlikely location when they visited the National Archives. The memo, which had been double-folded, could easily have been carried into the Archives in Moore's or Shandera's coat pocket. Less than two years before Moore made public the initial MJ-12 papers-on April 16, 1983-he had confided to then-close friend and UFOlogist Brad Sparks that he was contemplating creating and releasing some hoax Top Secret documents-as first revealed in the March 1997 issue of my Skeptics UFO Newsletter. Moore explained to Sparks that he hoped such bogus documents would encourage former military and intelligence officials who knew about the government's (alleged) UFO coverup to break their oaths of secrecy. Sparks strongly recommended against the idea.

It was not until nearly seven years after release of the original MJ-12 documents that a new "MJ-12 document" surfaced on March 14, 1994. On that date, Don Berliner, a long-time pro-UFOlogist, received in the mail an undeveloped roll of 35 mm film from an anonymous source. When the film was processed, Berliner found photos of what purported to be copies of pages from a "Top Secret/MAJIC/Eyes Only" special operations manual (SOM 1-01) intended to inform military crews how to recover crashed saucers and their ET crews. SOM 1-01, purportedly printed in April 1954, contains many flaws. For example, it stated that crashed ET craft should be sent to "Area 51 S-4" in Nevada. But that portion of Nellis Air Force Base was not given the name "Area 51" until several years after SOM 1-01 allegedly was printed.

As a result of numerous flaws in SOM 1-01, a statement denouncing it as counterfeit was released on March 14, 1999. It was signed by Berliner and several other prominent pro-UFOlogists. By this time, a new batch of more than a dozen Majestic documents obtained from Tim Cooper had recently been made public by Robert Wood and his son Ryan at a UFO conference in Connecticut. They had strongly endorsed the authenticity of the documents, although Wood admitted that there were flaws in them. But he claimed that these anomalies "tend to indicate authenticity. . . . [Document] hoaxers generally try to make sure they are perfect."


http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-05/majestic-12.html

[GregFL]

Seriously, VSP...Im just fucking with you here. This is an old hoax that has long  since been  proven forgeries.

Ask yourself this. After this hoax was unveiled, why haven't the tv stations run a retraction,and why is the website still up. Why is it still referred to as genuine in the good ole UFO community?

THere is a problem with the information you are being fed, and the problem is the UFO "researchers" don't give a rats ass about legitimacy or honesty. Anything at all, be it forgery, fakery, microsoft mouse or altered photography is accepted as genuine. Even after proven false the proclamations continue.

Why? What is going on here?  Something certainly is and I suggest to you that the secret to the UFO "problem" lies within this phenomena, not in any actual alien spacecraft or conspiracy to hide actual information.

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter what I post you'll never believe it.  Even if I see one tonight and get abducted you won't believe it either.  What would you do if you saw one and no one believed you?  Kind of like the Straight stuff.  What if you were abducted and all your friends referred to you as the UFO nuts?  You can believe what you want it's a free world. I believe there is something going on.  I have not seen anything yet but I think there is something to it.  Using your own theory that usually the simple answer is correct.  With all the testimony out there I find it hard to believe it's all lies, fabrication, or dementia.  But I have to agree with you I don't have any physical proof.  The Majestic documents are some proof, and makes me wonder.  I bet you?ll say they are all bull shit too.  I know you to well.  We are only laymen and will never have access to the truth; you know that.  If a craft landed in your back yard the government would show up and take it away.  You would not have any proof that it happened.  

At what point do you wonder?  I for one hope it's true.  

You continually call anyone that has had something happen to them UFO nuts or on the fringe.  What?s with that?  Are you saying that every person that has had something happen is lying?  Delusional?  Ill informed?  Nuts?  You still haven?t dispelled all the testimony from the Disclosure project.  These are real people in high-level jobs in our government.  Why would someone want to make statements like that and possibly ruin their carriers?  It?s a simple answer just like you say.  They are firmly in the corner of UFO existence and are appalled at the cover up.  In their view they are doing this as a public service, to you and me.  The government has the solutions for renewable energy.  We don?t need OIL.  So if the truth came out we wouldn?t be fighting the war for control of OIL right now.



Take care,

Beam me up Scotty!

vsp

[Anonymous]

Anybody got any - Personal accounts, that is?
I'll tell you my UFO story. . . Back in the Seventies,
A buddy and I were sitting in his van in front of my house late one night talking.
The was a Very Bright light in the field behind the neighbor's house. I thought it was a street light and was puzzled as to why anyone would put a street light there. There wasn't anything back there - just empty fields for a long long way.
As we sat debating why anyone would put a street light up back there, it zoomed off.
It had been perfectly still - and very bright - then it went ZOOM! and was gone. I mean Fast.
Very fast. Not like an airplane - not like anything I have ever seen before or since.
Never made a sound.

[GregFL]

VSP, my friend, I would believe anything of substance you post.

This stuff is just not credible...none of it. It is fun, it is interesting, it is conspiratorial, among other things, but none of it hasn't been dealt with outside the fringe UFO community.

If you are offended by me saying "UFO nuts", I apologize. My intention isn't to offend. I am not refering to individual believers but the established UFO community...MUFON, disclosure project,Roswell conspiracy people, Majestic papers, the people that propogate this stuff. They clearly aren't on a quest for the truth as evidenced by their acceptance of frauds, magical thinking.

For example, the son of the Majestic papers guy claims legitimacy for the second wave of majestic papers because  a remote viewer (physic) has deemed them real.  This is evidenced on the site you linked me too.  Real evidence? Hardly.


Here is an investigative journalists take, part one , you gotta search for part two and three.

http://www.roswellfiles.com/FOIA/majestic12.htm

professionals review the evidence outside of the "UFO movement"

http://www.etcontact.net/documents/doc842.htm

http://www.roswellfiles.com/FOIA/majestic12.htm


The evidence goes on and on for this to be a complete fabrication with the perpetrators writing books and being paid for speaking engagements.


My friend, you are free to believe what you want to believe. In my opinion, the UFO community is similar to a religion that seeks out information to prove what it already believes and rejects all information that discredits its belief system.

It is when you want other people to believe that you must provide credible evidence and the entire UFO community is lacking One legitimate piece of evidence, one confirmed alien, one even likely encounter. However, numerous forgeries and fabrications exist. Alien autopsy? Phoenix lights? I could go on and on...where does this leave their credibility?  In addition, they claim everything from the spynx to Peruvian lines to Egyptian writings as evidence of Aiens, procliaming Evidence where no evidence exists. Lack of explanations does not point to aliens.

And if we are using the "straight stuff" as an analogy then fine because I have always stated that we must be impeccible, understated, carefull and well documented. If there were forgeries in our research I would be bouncing off the walls. And here we have testimony backed up with court records, settlements, admission, film evidence of Motivating, admissions of restraints. I have yet to see a forged film of a kid being hit. You saw my reaction to the "child molester" website and erroneous information floating around.
When people claim things that aren't true I dissasociate myself from them. This is the way I am.

I don't fault you for believing in Alien spacecraft. I think they probably exist as well just like we have american spacecraft. I just see ZERO evidence that they have been to earth.  I hope they show up one day, that would be cool in the extreme. Why would they show up and then sneak around? How silly is that? And,  I do think your outright rejection of all evidence pointing to forgeries and rational explanations is interesting but that is your choice.
(like the egyptian Glyph  it can be read by archeologists and not egytians...one interpretation comes out of London..Is England in on this as well?)


Getting back to the subject at hand, you appeal to authority once again with the "disclosure project." I have read their website, watched the press release and frankly find more of the same...no evidence. They claim the energy thingy as well.. What specific evidence they have presented do you feel is credible? Which government officials are you refering to that are risking their jobs by providing information, and what does that information consist of? Lets review that.....

Also, VSP wrote:
"the government has the solutions for renewable energy"

There is a whopper if true. Provide some evidence for that claim and lets review it as well.


And don't take me seriously if it offends you! If it doesn't, carefully consider everything I say.

 :grin:

[GregFL]

I have at least two.

First, I was about 7 and on my neighbors swingset. Something went over real low and fast. I swore it was a flying saucer to my mom. To this day I am unsure of what it was.


Various lights in the sky that I haven't a clue as to what they were while growing up.

This one was last week. I was on a bus in Panama with my girlfriend coming from the pacific coast towards Panama City. We were passing a narrow canyon and a plane was flying thru it away from us. A small round object flew right near it, crossing just behind or under it at high speed (it seemed) and continued downward and across the canyonkind of towards us but right to left in my viewing field. I watched in amazement until the object started flapping its wings!

You see, due to the angle, the fact that the bird was diving and large, and the perspective of it against the canyon and airplane, I was fooled for about 5 to 10 seconds by an illusion of sorts.

Pretty cool I thought...