Analogue Boy
Bar 6
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2005
- Messages
- 13,529
Nick Pope. Britain’s Walter Mitty.
Go, Baroness!! You have to admire her confidence. Did she finish off by saying "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough" ?Baroness Goldie last month addressed the House of Lords and told them that the UK air defense will stop any air threat, and in 50 years there has been no UAP evidence or concerned.
It's the kind of rather foolish answer aimed at reassuring the populace rather than dealing with the UFO/UAP issue. We certainly know of a number of cases involving air defence in the 50s and 60s, interesting that she didn't say "in 70 years."Baroness Goldie last month addressed the House of Lords and told them that the UK air defense will stop any air threat, and in 50 years there has been no UAP evidence or concerned.
In The Sun, Nick Pope says that he himself is uncomfortable with Baroness Goldie’s UAP answer claiming the UK has to be more prepared.
Nothing to do with like or dislike. His claims have been thoroughly investigated and proven to be at best exaggerated and at worst fabricated.Nick Pope might not be popular in the UK, but in the U.S., the History TV channel gives Nick a lot of air time.
I guess like Bob Lazar, you either love them or dislike them which is a personal choice.
Give me the good old days when the History Channel was all Nazis all the time.Nothing to do with like or dislike. His claims have been thoroughly investigated and proven to be at best exaggerated and at worst fabricated.
As for the History Channel - well, they give a lot of people airtime...
At least we have freedom of choice - happened to be reading a news report earlier, where that remains an impossible dream for so many.I guess like Bob Lazar, you either love them or dislike them which is a personal choice.
A letter to Viz magazine some years ago read (from memory):Give me the good old days when the History Channel was all Nazis all the time.
I firmly believe in Unexplained Aerial Phenomena, having witnessed them multiple times (sometimes with other witnesses).It seems the disbelievers of UAPs out number the one believer which seems to be me, and maybe when feinmen was here.
What would it take for you to believe in UAPs ?
I am open-minded about the origin of UAPs, as I try to be about most other phenomena. To be honest, speaking as someone who has never seen one, I tend to believe there is more to them than we currently understand - and I do feel it is likely that there are things we are not being told. The reasons for 'non-disclosure' (of .... whatever) might be various and complicated, and in my experience any attempt to discuss them with an attitude of "what if?" usually results in people losing patience, because there's no "proof". Very frustrating. I imagine even moreso if you are someone who HAS had an experience.It seems the disbelievers of UAPs out number the one believer which seems to be me, and maybe when feinmen was here.
What would it take for you to believe in UAPs
This.I believe that most of us here are open to the idea of UAP and a great deal of us would relish hard evidence of Unidentified craft under intelligent control (I for one). However, the majority of evidence presented does not pass muster. It seems, unfortunately, that die hard believers are willing to accept anything as "evidence" and then just SHOUT IN CAPITALS when someone suggests that all may not be as it seems, labelling anyone with a counter argument as "non-believers". Just because we debate the evidence doesn't make us non-believers. We want to believe.
For instance, I do not take all witness testimony at face value. People make things up, misremember and some are just crazy. People lie. And regardless of the back story or how believable a story is, if the picture/video is obviously of a street lamp or a lens flare then the testimony is rendered irrelevant.
Some may have genuinely witnessed what they claim yet without evidence their stories are hearsay and inadmissable. The vast majority of images/videos presented are manipulated, misinterpreted or indeed just fabricated and so when somebody new turns up here, frothing at the mouth with excitement over AFOAF's video, we err on the side of caution rather than just believing everything we are told.
I believe that most of us here are open to the idea of UAP and a great deal of us would relish hard evidence of Unidentified craft under intelligent control (I for one). However, the majority of evidence presented does not pass muster. It seems, unfortunately, that die hard believers are willing to accept anything as "evidence" and then just SHOUT IN CAPITALS when someone suggests that all may not be as it seems, labelling anyone with a counter argument as "non-believers". Just because we debate the evidence doesn't make us non-believers. We want to believe.
For instance, I do not take all witness testimony at face value. People make things up, misremember and some are just crazy. People lie. And regardless of the back story or how believable a story is, if the picture/video is obviously of a street lamp or a lens flare then the testimony is rendered irrelevant.
Some may have genuinely witnessed what they claim yet without evidence their stories are hearsay and inadmissable. The vast majority of images/videos presented are manipulated, misinterpreted or indeed just fabricated and so when somebody new turns up here, frothing at the mouth with excitement over AFOAF's video, we err on the side of caution rather than just believing everything we are told.
With Fortean analysis, in the absence of concrete proof (which by definition such phenomena are) all potential explanations have to be considered, albeit with a sliding scale of probability assigned. When there are so many unknown variables involved, even the probability aspect is debatable, so all possibilities are on the table.I have argued some hypothetical possibilities in this thread, but the trip from "hypothetical" to "proven" is almost as far as from Kansas to the nearest stars, or perhaps even to parallel universes.
I agree. Accept hypotheses and then test them to pieces is all we can do.Ringo's post is really the gold standard for parsing this phenomenon.
Exactly so. You can accept subjective testimony as completely sincere whilst querying the perceived events as related by the testifier.It seems, unfortunately, that die hard believers are willing to accept anything as "evidence" and then just SHOUT IN CAPITALS when someone suggests that all may not be as it seems, labelling anyone with a counter argument as "non-believers".
"The Pentagon" is a catch-all label for DOD and the armed services. The US Space Force is one of the armed services, not something separate from "the Pentagon."According to Politico, the Pentagon wants the newly formed U.S. Space Force to take over tracking and investigating UAPs.
The Space Force is saying “ No “ because they feel like studying UAPs will make them a laughing joke for existence.
I don’t think you can say “ No “ to the Pentagon ?
Some 70 years of striving for proof and still none?
And despite such sheer incompetence, you are still in a job?
No... in all seriousness, it doesn't work like that.
I have eventually managed to upload 50 of the 200+ 'triangular UFO' reports I acquired with permission from the NUFORC some 20 years ago, with stated intention of evidencing a snapshot of that specific aspect of our UFO enigma.
The point being that none could be explained as a misunderstanding re, 'flying saucers', or stars, or anything which typically came to mind as a rational explanation, especially so, 'stealth aircraft'... made no sense given the accounts.
They are now online at:
www.forteanmedia.com/TR001.pdf
until:
www.forteanmedia.com/TR050.pdf
@feinman and myself share the intrigue, we differ on whether any evidence of ET involvement has been kept secret.
If it hasn't, then innocent people are being accused of heinous acts and that's surely unacceptable.
That stated, all I perhaps have to offer is that seemingly inexplicable snapshot.
And this.
View attachment 40597
Why?
Because I know the background and it's a judgement call.
Same as everyone else's on the subject.
This ticks all the boxes, a commissioned painting by a witness who I know was in such a senior position (think deputy District Attorney) he could never go public.
'Well, Scott, the interview panel believes we are about to make an imminent promotion appointment. Is there anything you would like to add?'.
'No... except did I tell you about the gigantic triangular UFO which silently came towards my car and then hovered over it, before departing at lightning speed'?
'Scott, we'll...erm...let you know our decision in due course'.
When I shortly upload the other 150, contemporary accounts and confirm, does that actually make any difference?
May I suggest it's a significantly further true reflection on matters?
There was a UK documentary, 'Billion Dollar Secrets', broadcast in 1999.
It featured research into US 'black budget' programmes which was undertaken by Nick Cook, a British aviation journalist and correspondent for 'Jane's Defence Weekly'.
The following is a transcript of discussions between Nick Cook (NC) and Lt. Gen. George Muellner (GM):
NC: General, I've just spent a couple of days in Southern Colorado, where a lot of apparently credible witnesses are reporting sightings of apparently unconventional aircraft, and I mean things like huge black triangles, silent helicopters, all kinds of extraordinary craft.
Should we be looking to the USAF for whatever is going on in this place?
GM: Well, the only programmes that I'm aware of that we have operating out in that environment... obviously are 117s operate out of Holloman... they're triangular shaped, obviously they're black and they operate at night quite frequently and so on.
All of the rest of the aeroplanes we have operating down in the Holloman area in particular are all conventional airplanes.
So, I don't know of any other development programmes or anything else that's going on down in that area or in southern Colorado in general, or for that matter in the New Mexico area.
We don't have anything of significance operating there.
I can tell you as an aviator though, quite frequently it's very, very difficult to discern what a platform is. B-2 for instance, if you're looking near co-altitude with it, it just seems to disappear into the background.
NC: But again, these people are describing things that literally hover over them sometimes, seemingly unmistakable sightings of these things.
GM: Well, I'll tell you, if they can get me the name of the contractor and whosoever operating, I'd love to put them under contract to develop some of these things.
(End)
UFOs are real.
There's no need for a cover-up scenario because they are intangible.
I corresponded with Stanton at length.The only person who asked the right question was the late Stanton Friedman who said we need to ask what do the UAPs want from us.
This is the question to ask !
As regards Nick Pope, there does exist an evidential choice.Nick Pope might not be popular in the UK, but in the U.S., the History TV channel gives Nick a lot of air time.
I guess like Bob Lazar, you either love them or dislike them which is a personal choice.
Have you told us about it? You won’t be able hear us screaming if that’s any encouragement.I been up close to a UFO when I was younger, but I never talk about this event because I still fear that people will run screaming away from me as fast as possible.