90b9e6bf
XPost: alt.alien.visitors, alt.alien.research, sci.skeptic
XPost: alt.conspiracy
From: GM@ga7rm5er.com
On Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:15:22 -0700 (PDT), Sir Arthur CB Wholeflaffers
ASA wrote:
>What We Know About UFOs, and Whether It Matters by Richard Dolan
>
>"It takes two to speak the truth?one to speak, and another to hear." ?
>Henry David Thoreau
>
>Truth in society is really a three-stage process. You learn it, you
>tell it, you act on it. None of those steps are easy, and there are no
>guarantees that one stage will lead to the next. One may know that
>something is true-for instance, the reality of UFOs-but so what? At
>the societal level, knowledge often fails to translate into action.
>Frequently, it can't even get an official acknowledgment.
>
>Pick a topic. Narcotics trafficking? Many detailed studies have linked
>narco traffickers to the global intelligence community. The JFK
>assassination? Eighty percent of Americans, supported by a mountain of
>well-researched evidence, believe there was a conspiracy to kill the
>President. The environment? Most scientists now agree that our
>civilization, within a mere century, has caused a rate of species
>extinction that rivals some of the most vicious in our Earth’s
>history. And, oh yes, we appear to be heating ourselves into the
>stratosphere, too.
>
>The result from such societal knowledge? Nothing much. Banks and
>spooks continue to launder drug money, official quarters explain away
>the public's so-called "need" to believe in an assassination
>conspiracy, and people continue to turn the natural world into a toxic
>suburban development. Knowledge doesn't always equal power.
>
>Such is the case regarding UFOs. There is an overabundance of data
>indicating that real objects with extraordinary capabilities have been
>the cause of serious concern by the "national security state" for over
>50 years. Many people, perhaps a majority, believe the phenomenon is
>real and unexplained by conventional means. Yet officially, UFOs don't
>exist. They continue to be ignored publicly by the world of science.
>
>The discrepancy between reality and official acknowledgment is great,
>even when compared with other areas of subterranean history. The
>phenomenon is real: why is no one in official (or public) quarters
>inquiring about it?
>
>Asking The Wrong Questions
>
>After all, even if one argues that the good UFO cases are the result
>of classified technology--which is the basic media response--we still
>have some important questions. Consider the triangles that are so
>often reported in North America and Europe. These objects are commonly
>described as immense and low flying, capable of motionlessness,
>instant acceleration in any direction, and no-radius turns. And they
>do all this silently. No one is arguing seriously that these things
>are hoaxes or misidentification of natural phenomenon?both absurd in
>the face of an enormous body of witness testimony. So, just what does
>that?
>
>The object seen in Illinois on January 5, 2000 is a good example. At
>least four police officers and three civilians in several nearby towns
>described with near uniformity a classic triangular UFO?enormous,
>silent, two stories high, and at low altitude, perhaps as low as 500
>feet. The witnesses were credible; there was even a Poloroid
>snapshot.
>
>Unable to dismiss the event, the media, predictably, blew it. Here was
>a golden opportunity to ask important questions, such as what kind of
>science can make those triangles do what they do. Instead, the media
>expended its energy disproving that aliens were behind it. "Probably
>military," is all the public learned, and that was that. Is it at
>least possible that there are staggering energy implications? Yes, I
>think so. No one bothered to ask.
>
>But, of course, we know how the media works. Just as in the world of
>science, gone are the days of independent investigation. Journalists
>are no better qualified than scientists to speak intelligently about
>the UFO topic, largely because there is no institutional authority
>granting them the permission (i.e., paying them) to investigate. It's
>tough to be a lone gunman.
>
>There have been a few sophisticated analyses of the event, such as the
>one done by the National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS). Its
>carefully worded conclusion referred to NASA scientist Paul Hill's
>monumental work on UFOs and stated that the craft's movements "can
>best be explained by the application of localized, directed
>acceleration fields, which serve to both propel the craft and modify
>the airstream surrounding it in order to eliminate aerodynamic
>friction. Such acceleration fields are just a manifestation of space-
>time metric engineering." In case you're wondering, NIDS did not imply
>that this was a current, classified (i.e., terrestrial) project.
>
>Within mainstream culture, however, the most accredited theory for the
>triangles seems to be the so called stealth blimp. Along these lines,
>one writer stated blithely that "even big-time UFO buffs have to admit
>that it’s possible the [Illinois] mystery craft was a top-secret, man-
>made experiment." Others have suggested the object might be powered by
>microwave energy from a satellite. This would, in theory, allow for
>such apparent impossibilities as instant acceleration. Such technology
>would demand absolutely leading-edge technology. Although no one knows
>for sure that there even is such a thing as a stealth blimp, let us
>acknowledge that it's possible.
>
>What no one seems to be asking, however, is whether it was also
>possible 20 years ago, when similar objects were described many times
>over New York's Hudson Valley. The stealth blimp explanation becomes
>more problematic the further back in time we go. We can push this line
>of questioning back 30, 40, and 50 years. The triangles were less
>common back then, but people reported disk-shaped objects doing the
>same things. Did our military secretly possess this type of technology
>back in, say, 1950?
>
>An objective review of the available evidence leads us to a resounding
>“no.” There is no evidence, not in the historical record, nor in any
>analysis of past or present technologies, to suggest a breakthrough in
>"flying saucer" technology back in the 1950s or earlier.
>
>Skeptics continue to argue there is no proof that UFOs are of alien
>origin. This is a correct answer to the wrong question. What we do
>have is excellent evidence that the UFO phenomenon did not originate
>with our military. Let’s deal with that.
>
>What We Know
>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
