I just read about 20 books including Left at East Gate, all of Timothy Good's books and am waiting on a some Budd Hopkins. I love Stanton Friedman too and Jim Marrs and I got a subscription to Coast to Coast :)
Can't get enough of it.
never read any, fascinating subject though! I just looked up Timothy Good and a lot of his stuff looks pretty out there - is it a scientific assessment or does he have a bias himself?
The universe is way way too large NOT to have ET's...
IMHO
UFO stories make me wonder about human psychology: before aircraft, people used to get lost (have lost time periods) in "fairy mounds" which reminds me of the alien abduction stories reported today.
I haven't really read about it much.
(I used to watch X-Files tho.)
yeah Brad, but I suspect you didn't watch it for the storylines? ::)
Quote from: Gurtie on May 04, 2011, 12:20:51 PM
yeah Brad, but I suspect you didn't watch it for the storylines? ::)
Well, true, I was, er, fascinated with Agent Scully. Hey, at least I'm consistent!
Sorta back on topic: There is a sub-variant of the UFO/flying saucer theories that flying saucers were actually invented by the Nazis and that prototypes were captured by the Allies and flown around the US causing citizens to call the police with sightings.
Timothy Good is one of the UK's most respected researchers, apart from Nick Pope perhaps. He tries to stick to known facts and testimony and avoids speculation.
For science based arguments Stanton Friedman is excellent - and he has many great essays on his site.
http://www.stantonfriedman.com/index.php?ptp=articles&fdt=2006.11.10
His book 'Flying Saucers and Science' is brilliant and funny.
I always thought UFO visiting Earth stuff was a bunch of bunk until I saw a report about a British military police officer who saw one on the ground.
I remember believing him because he was the British version of a 'Good Ol' Boy'...very honest, very conservative, not the type to believe in metaphysical crap. He was the kind of guy who liked to fish and hunt and be loyal to God and his country. As a military police officer, he was trained in how to observe things and take descriptive notes. His notes were very specific; I remember him saying the surface was some sort of black metallic material that wasn't metal, but was 'smooth like glass'. He took a rubbing of the markings he found on the object and they were unidentifiable.
He was a huge bear of a man, not one to be afraid of anything, and I remember when he was looking at his notes talking about this thing, he was sweating profusely and shaking. This man was clearly scared...and not making it up.
The pyschology of belief is fascinating subject, and it is easy to dismiss a lot of the evidence as 'unreliable' without being in any doubt that the person really does believe that they saw what the claim to have.
However, there are clearly some observations of 'objects' in the sky that are impossible to dismiss - objects seen by many people from different locations - stuff that showed up on radar etc etc
I have no difficulty accepting that there are UFOs out there - in the literal sense, and with the emphasis on the 'U' for 'unidentified' - I have problems when people start making that jump to 'knowing' that they are the result of extraterrestrial activity. We need to keep an open mind on that one.
'The Disclosure Project' was quite famous, with military people testifying, but I understand the guy that put it together is now not completely respected all by his peers, which is often the case in this 'field' it would seem.
There was another quite recent news conference in the US that did a similar thing - lots of military people coming forward to give their stories.
I always have an open mind on most things but when both the British and US army discontinue the units monitoring UFO's granted due to cost and cut backs and say that nothing has ever been found or spotted then one starts to wonder is it the imagination of some people running wild
I though Paul the movie was very funny though :)
Earth hosting the only intelligent lifeforms in the universe?? pffftt! The odds would be off the charts on that. That said, I can't say that 'they' are likely to be humanoid nor travel in (what are now somewhat conventional) space vehicles. And what about time considerations? As eons go, the entire span of our existence passes in an instant. The same goes for 'them.'
<added>
I read last week that part of SETI was shutting down due to lack of funding.
>SETI was shutting down
Great news. They fit into the dictionary definition of a cult.
Also known as Silly Effort To Investigate
I have a hard time knowing how to deal with both UFO sightings and ghost hauntings too. With UFO's, especially those backed by radar, I suspect something was actually there to be seen but just 'unidentified'. Same with some hauntings - some people are experiencing something strange that we can't quite see, feel, touch or measure right now. Beyond that I can't say.
I've often wondered if UFO sightings and hauntings are not really aliens or ghosts, but are events where the separation of two layers of the Multiverse have gotten thin, or bleed over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Also: http://www.louisville.com/content/cosmologist-discuss-%E2%80%98multiverse%E2%80%99-colleges
I used to think Heinlein and Moorcock were just making up the idea of a multiverse. Didn't know it might be a theoretical possibility.
And my brain hurts.
I share the view that any 'aliens' more advanced than us are quite likely to see us as food, or at least a resource to be exploited.
Whoever decided to send that 'pioneer plaque' into space wants a good kicking IMO - a map of how to get here, and a representation of two naked humans -- WTF were they thinking??
I don't think they need a map.
I believe that some of these beings have been coming here for a very long time. Longer than we can even imagine.
There's a big story behind these vehicles and the CIA, NSA, US Military have a pretty good idea about a lot of it you can count on that.
There may be bases under the sea (mapping machines have captured images of ufos entering the sea - as well as the human reports of ufos entering lakes in Puerto Rico) and in the earth's mountains (captured on video by James Gilliland).
Some of their earlier visits here may have resulted in them being seen as gods or ghosts, why not?
A long time ago, I used to hang out at RAF Wattisham (as it was then), and we went off to airshows in a semi-official capacity. One time, at Duxford we met a USAF Captain, who had been stationed at Bentwaters as an A-10 pilot at the time of the Rendlesham Forest Incident.
For those that don't know, Bentwaters was a huge USAF base, and is geographically close to Rendlesham. There is / was a unit at RAF Woodbridge itself, but Bentwaters had a couple of wings sationed there, hence a lot of MPs, who were the ones mostly responsible for policing the incident itself.
He was one of the first officers on site during the alleged landing itself. He didn't get close enough to see anything directly, because the MPs, and mysterious apparent civilians who the MPs called "sir" wouldn't let anyone that close even by that point. He could see a lot of strange lights, and was directed to take his men and set up part of a perimeter a bit further out.
He also had a subsequent visit from some Military Intelligence types, as had all the men he talked to quietly after the fact. For an event that never officially happened, it sure got a lot of actually quite official attention
The History Channel has a series called something like 'Ancient Aliens' that consistently churns out convincing programming on the subject. I find it fascinating, as it really tries to make a historical case that many religions mistook aliens for gods and angels and when you interpret history in that light, things do seem to snap into focus. (Even Noah's Arc was discussed in this manner.)
For example, they show what looks to be a very old map of the known world. The continents looked out of proportion and out of position slightly, but you could easily recognize it as a map of the world. They then tell you the date it was made, tell you that they validated that date, and that the map of Antarctica that you see on the map is the actual landmass of that continent, not a map of the ice sheets that cover it, which is all you can still see if you actually go there. In other words, they basically say there was no way for the cartographer to know what the land actually looked like back then, since it was covered in ice and they didn't have the technology until recently that could see through the ice to accurately determine the shape of the landmass that has been covered in ice since long before man had boats (or even existed, for that matter.)
Granted, it isn't conclusive evidence, like a crashed spaceship, but if it wasn't possible for man to know what that land mass looked like back then, who told them? How did they know? They have a bunch of things like that that they combine into a convincing argument. It's definitely not a show about ghosts where they run around in a house with the lights off, get scared, and are sure something is there even though nothing showed up on their tin foil hats. This isn't really science in this sense, it's more interpretive history but they do make a good case and an entertaining show.
Got to say that it is a really fascinating subject. When I was younger I read a couple of pretty out there books called "Prehistoric Germ Warfare" and "Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon" that sparked my interest.
Can anyone recommend any other interesting books in a similar vein?
Given the sheer number of galaxies out there, the probability that the lifeforms on Earth are the only ones in existence in the whole of space doesn't seem to be a rational conclusion in my opinion.
Quote'Ancient Aliens'
yeah - I watch that - its pretty good.
I try to keep an open mind on the whole subject.
When I was in my twenties I read every book I could get my hands on, including all the Von Daniken stuff and got very enthusiastic about the whole thing.
Sadly, when I dug deeper, it seem much of the information quoted simply does not stand up to scrutiny - and this tends to mean that 'real' scientists avoid the whole subject, which is a shame.
It seems clear to me that there is LOADS of unexplained events and observations but ZERO conclusive proof that any of it is of alien origin - this means that only logical position for me to take is 'neither believe, nor disbelieve'.
I can come up loads of theories, both with and without alien involvement, that might explain the phenomena, but I can't prove any of them any more than I can disprove other people's theories.
I think part of the problem is that a lot of the 'pro-alien' writers use duff logic in their claims :
* I can present you with observations and phenomena that scientists can't explain
* I can present you with an argument that they are of alien origin that scientists can't disprove
* Therefore my theory is correct
.. whereas, of course, all it means is that have unexplained phenomena, and an unproven theory.
Again, this kind of looney-logic makes 'real' scientists frightened to be associated with the whole subject - sad really, cos there is stuff that needs investigating.
Just got Dark Mission by Richard Hoagland. Some amazing Nasa pictures. Really does look like there are ruins of buildings on Mars.
Speaking of Nasa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuFBUS0kiSA
And http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlLN_Jcg1pc