• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

UAV or UFO?

I reckon its cgi or we're weeks away from the invasion.
 
Pehaps we should set up an 'FTMB sweepstake' - the winner gets to insult everyone on the board for a day with no repercussions!

I don't think it's for a film or tv series 'cos no-one could keep quiet about it for so long - so I'm going for...

'Some artistic individual whom is having a laugh!'
 
(raises hand)

I have a problem with Isaac's information.

The reason, apparently, for the net posted images we're seeing, is that the "cloaking device" on the ship is broken.

Have they been up there for a while and it's only now that the "cloaking device" (on numerous ships?) suddenly goes faulty? Hence the rash of photos.

Why has no one ever photographed these things before. We've been watching the skies for years for chrissakes! Right through the whole X-Files period of the 90's and no one ever saw one of these little beauties? I think the contract for the manufacture and delivery of the "cloaking device" has had it's budget cut.

Or are these the dicky prototypes?

Isn't Transformers out next week? Can it transforms into a logo....better still can it transform into a classic silver cigar shape please!

mooks

PS Having a re-read of Isaac's info would seem to indicate that these craft could be suffering from the same debilitating electronic problems as the humble bumble bee.

are equipped with technology that enables invisibility. That ability can be controlled both on board the craft, and remotely. However, what's important in this case is that this invisibility can also be disrupted by other technology. Think of it like radar jamming.

....these craft are becoming visible and then returning to invisibility arbitrarily, probably unintentionally, and undoubtedly for only short periods, due to the activity of a kind of disrupting technology being set off elsewhere, but nearby.

Bloody mobiles! :roll:

Either that or they're being jammed by someone nearby? :shock:
 
These things blink in and out of reality all the time. Now you see them - now you don't. Think of it as like some sort of head worn devise that can blank your vision at certian times, but not others. Like something made of a soft fabric that can mask your vision - like pulling the wool over your eyes. If you will. :shock:


EDIT - someone is having a laugh, and doing a very good job of it! Woolly hats off to him/her/them! (It's a him)
 
'Ufology' doesn't force us to choose between 'it's real' or 'it's fake' -we do that all by ourselves. As pattern-seeking, innately inquisitive beings, we tend to choose the risk of being wrong over the discipline required to simply suspend judgment. Humans dislike unfinished stories and willingly write their own endings rather than suffer the vacuum.

These are photos on the internet with accompanying witness accounts. They could be any number of things, with most of the usual suspects already mentioned: CGI, RC model, experimental but manmade craft, alien craft, etc.

Any number of additional scenarios could be thought up -imagine you are a research assistant at a university or an employee at a R & D facility designing drone vehicles for use as military, agricultural, law enforcement, space, whatever... applications. Were it me, I might surrepticiously snap some photos and present them as an internet mystery.

That brings another Doubting Thomas question: if you were the person who witnessed and photographed this object, where would you have gone with your evidence? Direct-To-Internet strikes me as more of a marketing ploy and lends to hoax theory.

Whatever, it makes no substantive difference in that we've all seen an endless parade of these 'mysterious' photos and videos. Whether the things depicted are 'real' or faked, in the end we have nothing more than what we had before we saw them. We already knew, have known for decades, that video and photographic evidence is virtually worthless without the actual vehicles or objects in hand. All you can do with the film is examine it for signs of hoaxing and manipulation. Examination will never prove it's 'real', only that, at best, there are no discernible signs of hoaxing, which tells us more about the examiner than the examined, and that is pretty thin gruel.

It used to be that anyone offering an account of a UFO would be seriously considered -until it was found that some people lie while others simply make mistakes of observation. So, we demanded 'credible' witnesses. Then it was found that outwardly credible witnesses could and would lie and could also simply be wrong. So, we demanded physical evidence. That we did not get -never get, but we got plenty of photographs. Then we found that people could and would fake photographs very well. And so on.........

My point is that adjudications as to whether a given phot or video is or isn't 'real' are pointless without the actual physical object in hand. If you decide the photos heading this thread are 'real'.... what exactly of value do you then have in hand? Has knowledge towards the open question of UFOs been thus furthered? Is knowledge, in fact, the goal, or just belief? If mere belief is the goal, you don't need evidence, just faith. If knowledge is the goal, photos and videos just don't cut it.
 
Hmm, have you ever thought that this could be a government experiment?
Something along the lines of electrogravimetric or electrostatic/ion levitation/propulsion? ( I had to look that up, not knowing anything much about it! )

It's just a thought, but there have been rumours that experiments of this type have been taking place for years, and this is just the first time that people have seen a working man made aircraft of this type.
 
HopoUK said:
Hmm, have you ever thought that this could be a government experiment?
That was the first thing I thought of - with the emphasis on the could!

But that then raises the question (already raised here) that the experiments could be testing back-engineered alien technology from crashed UFOs... ;)
 
It's premature to offer answers (fill the vacuum; complete the story) when the question isn't yet formed. It is fun and entertaining however.

These are UFO photos on the internet and I'd venture a guess that 1 of 10 FT posters have a photoshop program capable of approaching their level. Like anecdotal accounts, and assuming one seeks knowledge (not belief), you can't do anything with them other than look at them and say, "OK. Very nice. Got any evidence?"

No matter what anyone suggests, there will be no eureka! moment unless, of course, someone links a page showing an identical model or mundane craft, or links to some other conclusive evidence of hoax. Linking or otherwise presenting evidence that the photos show something alien is literally unimaginable and would only extend the question by presenting something else the individual viewer must consider on faith.

Like with bigfoot we need a body. Not photos. Not videos. Not anecdotal accounts. A body. A craft or substantial portion of one. A alien body or substantial portion of one.

[EDIT: Found this on other FT UFO thread]

eureka!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRv3WAEnHMc
 
551166G said:
Like with bigfoot we need a body. Not photos. Not videos. Not anecdotal accounts. A body. A craft or substantial portion of one. A alien body or substantial portion of one.
Not necessarily.

In law, many cases are decided on witness testimony. If backed up by photos, videos, etc, so much the better.

So if the evidence seems to show that X stole, robbed, raped, swindled Y, then the jury is likely to bring a guilty verdict, because we all know that thefts, robberies, rapes and cons do happen. It may disappoint us, but it doesn't surprise us.

However, in the case of UFOs as Alien Spacecraft, many people would not be prepared to accept equivalent proof - the idea might run completely contrary to their world view. So much so that even 'alleged' bodies, craft, or parts thereof, would not be acceptable.


So all we can do is keep collecting, examining and presenting such evidence as we have. Maybe this will eventually result in a paradigm shift, and the accepted truth will then be that aliens do interact with this planet.

It's easy to think of evidence that would clinch the matter in this direction.

But it's less easy to think of evidence that would thoroughly disprove the ET hypothesis. Therefore we might be left with this controversy for years to to come....
 
The 'court' of science is far more discerning, with far higher standards of evidence and proof, than any court of law. Ask OJ Simpson, who continues to search America's golf courses, searching in vain for the Real Killers.

Courts of law also address mundane events, events that constantly repeat themselves, in slight variance case=to-case, meaning that courts of law are guided by precedence.

There is zero correlation between how courts of law are conducted and the 'court' of science is conducted, and this renders your analogy specious.

Science holds very high standards for evidence and 'proof' and it is totally irrelevant if some people refuse to accept conclusive scientific evidence on a given inquiry. The Catholic Church refused to accept that ours is a solar-centric planetary system, and yet the Earth did not cease orbiting the sun because of it. 'Acceptability' by the general public or any social agency within is an irrelevant concern. There are huge numbers of Americans who deny the fact of evolution despite mountains of confirmatory evidence.

If a UFO crashed and were retrieved and tests on mangled bodies found therein revealed DNA totally different than anything on Earth, or revealed tissue without DNA, there is hardly a scientist alive who would simply ignore it because he or she considered that an 'unacceptable' finding. It would be studied by many disparate scientific bodies, and if all found the same (replication), the finding would be accepted. Remember the meteorite found at the Antarctic that was thought to possibly hold the fossilized remains of some microbiological life? That possibility of evidence of alien life was certainly not rejected and was widely publicized. If anything, it appears that the majority of humans are eager for proof of alien life, but the bottom line is that the acceptance or rejection of it by the general public is irrelevant.

I am at a loss as to what evidence you are "collecting, examining, and presenting" that supports the notion that aliens are within Earth's environs. If you refer to photos, videos, and anecdotal witness accounts, those do not constitute scientific evidence. Though there exist mountains of that sort of 'evidence', it is weak evidence indeed. It's sort of like weak tea... even ithough you have 1,000,000 gallons of weak tea, when you pour it all into a vat you have a large vat of... weak tea. A large amount of poor evidence does not translate into strong evidence.

It is often said that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", but I don't actually believe this. I think the case for aliens-on-Earth could be made with the regular ol' amount of scientific evidence.

We need a body or a craft or sufficient pieces thereof. It is the only way to be sure. As stated, there are always people who will deny any evidenced fact. That and they are irrelevant.
 
But conspiracy theory has it that hard evidence does exist, but is being suppressed by the US government. ;)

Therefore all we mere groundlings can do is collect, examine and present the bits of information that seem to have leaked out, one way or another, and see if we can put it all together into a coherent and consistent picture.

And this picture seems to provide a stronger case than was made for, say, Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction! (A case in itself which is a prime example of governments hiding and distorting the truth - unless you go along with cock-up, not conspiracy theory! :twisted: )
 
Conspiracy theories about governments covering up UFO evidence are little more than apologetics for the dirth of evidence for UFOs. When faced with so many observations (UFOs) that are never followed by physical evidence, the wise reevaluate the accuracy and efficacy of the observations, while those who need or want to believe cogitate excuses for the incongruence and inconsistencies between what's being reported and what is being evidenced.

Make no mistake, governments cover up things all the time, but that fact alone doesn't establish any UFO cover up -that requires solid evidence of its own. Ufology, desperate for data, constantly misidentifies the nature of revealed cover ups. Case in point: UFO sighting(s) occur near US military base. UFO 'researcher' makes a FOIA request for any related data and receives 112 pages of mostly blacked out pages. UFO researcher declares "cover up!" UFO researcher is correct about cover up, incorrect about what is being covered up. Blacked out portions concern classifed aircraft, radar, weapons, etc., whatever. These blacked out portions constitute a sort of Rorshach test for UFO believers, who imprint their own interpretations totally out of whole cloth.

From the late 1960s through the early 1980s secret Russian military tests of rockets and nuclear bomb carrying satellites were routinely misidentified as 'UFOs' and the Soviet government, unable to reveal the truth, was more than willing to let Russian ufologists assume a cover up of UFOs.

Where there are cover ups involving UFOs, the UFO believers are willing if unknowing participants -the governments involved simply take advantage of their gullibility and tendencies towards rushes to judgment to hide classified projects.

The one major problem is that UFO-ers flatly refuse to accept any answer except "it was a 'real' UFO!" ('Real' UFO is ufological code for alien space ship). Every blank spot, every hole in knowledge, every black line on FOIA documents gets filled in with "it was a real UFO!" This is the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance and is a certain pathway to error.

I noticed you've changed your words from "collecting, examining, and presenting evidence" to "collecting, examining, and presenting information", an entirely different thing. ;)

Worry not. Given the dozens and dozens of reports of UFO crashes and hundreds of thousands of UFO sighting reports -and assuming these reports are at all accurate -it is just a matter of time before physical, testable, scientific evidence is in hand. After all, I'm pretty sure UFOs don't plan where they intend to crash and despite their apparent desires to remain secret, UFOs are nonetheless seen everywhere, so they're not too good at flying or keeping out of sight. This means the Government UFO Crash Retrieval Team will sooner or later fail to get there first to scoop up all that evidence. We've all seen airplane crashes and the widespread mess made. Sooner or later. ;)
 
I'm not sure, 551166G, that you understand the nature of this Forum.
Here, we read about Strange Phenomena, and bat around possible explanations, ranging from the Sceptical to the Woo-woo end of the spectrum, and branching off in other directions too!

Personally, I like to consider all possibilities, without feeling I have to plump for just one to 'believe' in.

You won't find hard proof of anything here, because, when that proof has been revealed, that particular topic enters the mainstream of human knowledge, and is no longer Fortean.

Strange Pheneomena exist at the fringes of accepted knowledge, where we Forteans are forever nibbling away at the great unknown. And the beauty of it is, that as the circle of known things expands, its boundary with the unknown expands too, so we should never run out of weird stuff to wrap our brains around!

But all this has been debated elsewhere, and at much greater length.

Let's get back on topic - what are the objects shown in the photos on these threads?

Photographic or computer hoaxes?
Secret robot drones under test?
Robot drones using ET technology such as cloaking and anti-gravity techniques?
Alien craft (from space, or other dimensions)?
Alien drones?

Other explanations?
(At least we can rule out Orbs or sightings of Venus here! ;) )
 
My money is on some talented person taking the p*ss! But then I'm usually wrong, 'cos I look at things from the other end of the spectrum!

Woo woo we shall see! :shock:
 
I'm fairly sure that if given a tenner to bet with and told he could keep the winnings if he got it right Rynner would plump for the clever piss taking cgi wizard, but that doesn't mean he, or indeed I, have to rule out any other explanation or theory as I haven't seen anything that proves this or many other cases are false, just an easy mundane chances are, in the great scheme of things, bet that it will be. As long as physicists the world over carry on believing in the possibility of the ETH being correct I won't rule it out.

If electro gravitics work would that make faster than light travel possible, by changing the gravity part of the equation, genuine question.
 
Oh, I understand the nature of the forum.

Here's your mystery craft:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRv3WAEnHMc

Re: 'possibility'... There is very little indeed that is not possible, so much so that to say a thing is possible is to say practically nothing. Is it probable? That question gets us somewhere.

It is possible for every dog* on planet Earth to bark at precisely the same time -nothing in physics prevents it. However, is it probable?



(*Excluding deaf-mute dogs, of course. ;) )
 
551166G said:
No, that is
NOT REAL!... CG mock up of the cross shaped UFO.
(according to the poster). Which doesn't get us much further.

And one thing I would bet on, Crunchy, is that the US military is heavily involved in this, aliens or no aliens.

This idea is reinforced by this piece, which I don't think has been mentioned on here before. 'Mr. Smith' is comments here
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1 ... nvironment
on reaction to his 2005 sighting in Birmingham, Alabama:
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1 ... nvironment

Subject: Birmingham, Alabama, "Drone" Above Power Line
Date: May 26, 2007
To: [email protected]

"Dear Ms. Howe,

I saw your info on your site and appreciate it. Now today I see we are back to fake, so can you get me a job in Hollywood? What I saw is what appears on my photo (Birmingham, Alabama). I do not have time to play. I will go over details again for the Photoshop doubters.

I work on a military base near the Alabama Georgia border and live on the Alabama side. I have a very small side-business of construction site clean-up and disposal. We usually have a small crew of part-timers
who clean up for contractors. Sometimes people recommend us for projects of various sizes. I go and look the site over and take pictures of the site to show to my crew to see what they think. This is why I was taking pictures that day. I realized that the site was too big for our small crew and for our experience. The poles were part of the site. Power poles that were to feed power to the site and building.

I heard a sound like a transformer and looked up. I saw something
that looked like a fancy street light that I thought was part of the pole, just like a light would be. I moved a little to get a shot of it to show the guys. When I did I noticed that the thing was not attached to the pole, but was maybe attached to the wires, it did not move at all. It was stationary.
I thought this is something new from Alabama Power. I'll take a picture and show the guys back at work when I see what they think about the job.

I then went to find someone to ask what the power company was up to. When I found nobody who had time to look, I came back and the
thing was gone. I thought, well, the power people got that out of here in a hurry. I figured they used a bucket, one was near, to move it. I thought that is weird and a little later I saw the trucks and trailers and thought that was weird again. I was impressed by the Dodge Rams and took a couple
of pictures from my car with my cell phone.

That is the end of the story until I saw a picture on the net that reminded me of the thing I saw. It might have been a balloon or kite or toy,
I don't know, but I saw it. I can't get involved with any crazy military stuff and there is plenty. I can understand why people just do not report things they see out here in the rural world because of the ignorant attacks. I do not even know what Photo Shopping is and do not want to know. My life is complicated enough.

This week I showed my info to a friend of mine who was in the U. S. Air Force and he said for me to shut up. This was a friendly suggestion. I got in touch with him about me talking with you and he said he would do a little checking. He did and got back to me. He said do not speak by any type of phone because this will fix them right on top of you. He said that e-mail was less of a threat to them because it could be dealt with!!?? By the way he has a fairly high rank and is retired so I guess he knows what he is talking about. Why would my friend say that 'they' had less problems with email and who are 'they'?"


Which, as is common in this subject, raises more questions than it answers.
But it does fit the pattern of many other reportees experiences - MIB by proxy, perhaps?

But what doesn't fit the pattern is the design of the craft itself, which is why this series of pictures, by different witnesses, in different places, is so interesting.

Of course, all these witnesses could be in cahoots with each other...

oh no, that'd be a conspiracy theory, wouldn't it? ;)
 
551166G said:
Oh, I understand the nature of the forum.

That question gets us somewhere.

Presuming that we want to get somewhere and aren't just engaging in idle chit chat and speculation on the basis that we disparate folk aren't in the position to "get somewhere". ;)
 
The problem is that if the guy who took the photo is genuine and reporting the facts as he remembers them, you get what he wrote to 'Dear Ms. Howe', posted by Rynner.

However, if the guy is a hoaxer, you would then.. get... pretty... much... exactly... what he... wrote... to.. Ms. Howe, that is, a deceitful denial of involvement in or knowledge of any hoax.
 
551166G said:
However, if the guy is a hoaxer, you would then.. get... pretty... much... exactly... what he... wrote... to.. Ms. Howe, that is, a deceitful denial of involvement in or knowledge of any hoax.
Oooh! What a suspicious mind you have!!! :shock:

Seems to me you are employing the same sort of rhetorical arguments you accuse the conspiracy theorists of!

No wonder this subject never gets any furthererererer.... :roll:
 
Aerospace company Northrop-Grumman's subcontract manager comments about the Isaac documents:

Brendan,

Please see my comments below which I sent to George Noory of Coast to Coast AM radio program where I first heard/saw Chad’s sightings and read Isaac’s letter and memo he provided which is what I am referring to below.

It just rings true from my experience in this industry, the format, the terminology, the way the subject matter is approached, pretty elaborate if this is a hoax. I do think this stuff is happening and our government knows all about what they are dealing with; in my opinion……Jack

Hi George,

Long time listener first time with contact. I just perused Isaac’s letter and scans. I have been in the aerospace/defense industry for over 25 years and while not currently on a “restricted” (black) program there are many people working such research programs as Isaac describes. He is taking a big chance sending this if he intends to maintain a security clearance but I assume he is probably retired.

After reading the formal report memorandum I can tell you this appears very authentic and seems to be written by a lead program manager or close to the top of a program engineering lead in the area described. In this industry we use fairly specific but still a very general format addressing certain items universally. This memorandum looks just like the memos written on all programs (even the paragraph numbering is standard in this industry from the DoD to the lowest subcontracted supplier when documenting for executive management describing what you are doing or intend to do with budget $.

The fact that it actually discusses “extraterrestrial extracted” technology is absolutely amazing and I am sure this is from a very high up, top secret source. It is also very common for this type of work to be compartmentalized so you do not have the whole story. George this may be the straw that breaks the camels back if this can get into mainstream media. I am sure the government will say this is a hoax, but it would be very elaborate and difficult, hell they are difficult when the things you are dealing with are real and doing this for a hoax would have no real motive and would be a lot of effort.

This definitely documents the fact that this government and other high tech countries have recovered extraterrestrial aircraft and are experimenting with them and their technology right now, absolutely no doubt. The one question I have; how did our government obtain (somewhere Isaac said it was given to us) where are those extraterrestrials? Undoubtedly people from the DoD are communicating with them!

All I can say is WOW!

Jack A. Sahakian

Subcontract Manager

Northrop-Grumman

Space Technology

Advanced-EHF

source
 
You miss my point. The point is that hoaxers and sincere witnesses say the exact same thing.
 
The text on the underside of the craft....

Picture3-2.png


Reminded me of Aurebesh which was based on characters from the Japanese language katakana...

Katana.jpg


...which reminded me of the Halo typeface...
Picture4.png


So then I thought when is Halo 3 released?

Which lead me to look up some info about Halo 3.

Either Halo 3's marketing people are jumping on this top secret military/ UFO reverse engineering project to advertise their game...or indeed it's a clever viral for an ARG (Alternate Reality Game) based around the Halo mythos. Or perhaps the US Govt. are using Halo 3 as a smoke screen?

Now I can't make up exactly what is going on. There's a bit of a trail and possibly even a wee competition going on. It's all very cloak and dagger. There's some website's like...

this one

...that have some sort of trail to follow. Adding numbers or something.

This siteoffers something of an explanation but I'm going to have to go back in and track down all the links. And then try and make sense of them.

The marketing viral is looking to me more like an explanation the more information I'm coming across on the net.

Even IGN is mention these craft inconjuction with a Halo 3 ARG.

Here

Is this all part of some marketing campaign for the Halo 3 ARG? There's certainly a lot of discussion out there about these craft being related to it.

There's even people out handing out leaflets to promote it. The symbol on the placard does seem to resemble the symbol on the wing(?).

Picture2-4.png


Halo 3 isn't released until September I think...I shall wait and see.

mooks
 
Issac

I read "Isaac's" explanation of his Bob Lazar-like claim to have been part of a government alien tech reverse engineering program and came away with many more doubts than I had going in. I'll mention a few 'concerns', and leave the many more lesser problems aside:

1) To support his claim that he worked at a top secret, high security government technical lab, Isaac states that security was intense, with security guards holding machine guns everywhere -enough security "to invade Poland" in his words. So how did he get such sensitive documents -proof of alien technologies and human study of same, no less -out of the facility? He stuffed them down his pants. I think this is, well, bullshit.

2) To support the feasibility of his claim to have stolen what would be among the most top secret and most sensitive documents anywhere in the US government, Isaac claims that because he was 'in management' and more trusted, security became lax where he is concerned, while it remained high on rank and file employees. This too is bullshit, the opposite of how security is done. It is Basic Security 101 that you focus the greatest security on personnel with the greatest access to sensitive documents.

3) Isaac mentions his concern for the obvious danger in revealing what he has revealed and mentions having his life threatened by the military while being briefed at the beginning of his CARET involvement. He says he feels he has been sufficiently circumspect and evasive enough in what he says about himself to leave only a pool of 40-50 people as suspects. He feels like this is sufficient to prevent military intelligence from identifying him specifically. This is an absolute howler of an error. Presented with a pool of 40-50 suspects, military intelligence would identify him in about, oh, ten minutes. Given the sheer enormity of his claims -the revelation of the existence of aliens on Earth, of capture of their technology, and of the US government's ongoing reverse engineering of such alien technology -one could make a case that the government would simply kill all 40-50 if they couldn't identify a specific suspect as 'Isaac'. Police departments across the country routinely identify criminals from suspect pools of 40-50 people. This happens all day, every day. But, according to Isaac, the combined resources of the US government could not do the same to catch him. Bullshit.

4) By revealing supposed top secret material and information, Isaac is admitting to treason. Do we really believe the government could not identify, locate, and capture him?

5) At one point in his account, Isaac states that the DoD wanted to create a lab atmosphere that most closely resembled that of private sector high tech industries so as to increase productivity to match the private sector's record of tech achievement, a record he spends some time establishing, and which he states far exceeds the record of military high tech labs. He includes himself as among those drafted from the private sector, among those the military is trying to put at ease with the more relaxed atmosphere of the private sector-style high tech labs. However, earlier in his account he describes himself as having completed graduate and post graduate work in his field, as having "taken the scenic route" among several private employers, and then to have been offered work with the DoD with whom he worked "for a long time". He makes it very clear early on that his career was almost exclusively with the military, the DoD. Why then does he include himself among those whom the CARET military hierarchy are trying to put at ease by mimicking the atmosphere of private high tech labs? Which is it? Perhaps hoaxers ought to employ copy editors as readily as they do CGI artists.

6) Read Isaac's account again. does this really sound like a Masters or PhD level electrical engineer with 25 years or more of experience and training in high level private and military technological research and development? It is poorly written, poorly organized, and for just one example, the section where he tries to explain the 'language' as self-executing software/hardware is essentially incoherent gobbledygook. Here's the operative paragraph:

"Here's an example of how complex the process is. Imagine I ask you to incrementally add random words to a list such that no two words use any of the same letters, and you must perform this exercise entirely in your head, so you can't rely on a computer or even a pen and paper. If the first in the list was, say, "fox", the second item excludes all words with the letters F, O and X. If the next word you choose is "tree", then the third word in the list can't have the letters F, O, X, T, R, or E in it. As you can imagine, coming up with even a third word might start to get just a bit tricky, especially since you can't easily visualize the excluded letters by writing down the words. By the time you get to the fourth, fifth and sixth words, the problem has spiraled out of control. Now imagine trying to add the billionth word to the list (imagine also that we're working with an infinite alphabet so you don't run out of letters) and you can imagine how difficult it is for even a computer to keep up. Needless to say, writing this kind of thing "by hand" is orders of magnitude beyond the capabilities of the brain."

Actually, if you have an 'infinite' alphabet, it becomes easy to avoid replicating already used letters. I'm no computer geek, but I'll bet there's a computer expert somewhere on FT who knows of an algorithm to apply here. No matter, the point is this: are these the words and the explanatory style and power of someone who claims the education, training, and top secret, alien tech career that Isaac claims for himself?

~*~

Bob Lazar, move over. Hoax.
 
551166G said:
You miss my point. The point is that hoaxers and sincere witnesses say the exact same thing.
Gotcha! So we ignore all reports (of anything at all?) because they could be hoaxes?

Not much point having this forum, then, is it? ;)
 
If you paid for an education I think perhaps you have a right to your money back.

To reiterate my point to you for the third time, it does no good to listen to and make judgments on the reliability of witness accounts because those who lie make great effort to sound just like those who are sincere. I'll outline the implication for you as well, given your difficulty with basic premises: what is needed is independent corroboration of a story.
 
I note you're resorting to ad hominem attacks (not a good sign on this board). I'll ignore those, and just comment on this:
551166G said:
...what is needed is independent corroboration of a story.
You may need independent corroboration, to bolster your own world view:

I and many other Forteans do not, and realise that perfectly genuine people can have experiences that, because of circumstances, cannot be verified. I am happy to hear their tales without passing judgement (for the most part!) and store them away for comparison with any other similar stories that may crop up in future. Maybe a pattern will emerge, maybe not.

But if you ignore the tales, and automatically write them off as nonsense, you could be throwing out the needle with the haystack (to mix my metaphors!).
 
551166G said:
If you paid for an education I think perhaps you have a right to your money back.

Steady on old chap :) AFAIK belief in UFOs or the ETH doesn't signify a lack of intelligence, last time I looked at the disclosure list there were quite a few very clever bods on board and I'm sure Stan Friedman could out debate you while having a fist fight with some other debunkers.
 
Back
Top