UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, December 05, 2015

The Ramey memo and other “little” UFO enigmas

The ongoing debate at Kevin Randle’s blog about the decipherment of the Ramey memo in the Roswell debris photos of 1947 remains contentious.

The goal – to decipher the contents of the memo seen in the hands of the general who dismissed the Roswell incident as a “weather balloon” – is a small mystery in the UFO canon that needs to be addressed and put to rest if possible.

It’s a niggling item that haunts people who hate unresolved aspects of things they’re interested in; in this case what the Roswell episode was all about.

The “memo” should be seen as tantamount to what Sherlock Holmes dealt with in his cases, such as the dog that didn’t bark in the night: a irritating detail that needs an answer.

I want to know what the Ramey memo’s contents are, just to get the damn thing off the roster of tiny mysteries that becloud an assault on explanations of enigmas that haunt some of us.

There are many such minute enigmas in history and life, but in “ufology” (which I’m dealing with here) there are these:

The Trent/McMinnville  photos of what?

The Rhodes photo of a shoe heel?

The symbol seen and drawn by Lonnie Zamora from the Socorro event…

The Robert Taylor “attack”…

Et cetera, et cetera….you get the gist.

The Ramey memo sticks in the mind of those who want to know what the Roswell incident was all about.

The memo, if deciphered, may tells nothing or may tell us much.

It’s an “irritation” for the curious that it cannot be read but is so close to being so, with today’s technology that Kevin Randle’s contacts (and especially David Rudiak, for whom the memo has been a “dog not barking in the night) need to get it off their UFO bucket list.

The memo can be read, if the fellows trying to do so, employ some of the techniques I noted in a piece here from a New Yorker article – if they want to contact persons or organizations listed in the magazine article.

That might cost a few dollars. Is it worth it? For them it should be.

If I were as interested as Rudiak and Kevin are, and Lance Moody and Isaac Koi are, I’d have my corporation – InterAmerica, Inc. – pay for the cost of decipherment. But I’m not involved and not inclined to get overly excited about a photo of a memo that impacts a story – Roswell – so botched by inept intrusions and imaginative forays, that the memo can’t possibly, as skeptic CDA has it, resolve anything of consequence. It’s an itch, one that I don’t care to scratch, or put up scratch for.

But for those who need to address the itch, I wish them the very best and applaud their efforts.

RR

50 Comments:

  • Yes, if only they could address their itch with an open minded approach. Despite claims by Kevin the attempt is only to solve the mystery of 'context' and the phrase containing 'victims', I still maintain Kevin and friends have an agenda of using their effort to not so much clarify but to continue to propagate the biological alien mythos that oozes from every nook and cranny of Roswellian belief.

    Kevin openly ridicules and despises other people's conjecture, yet he golden plates his own conjectures that the entire Roswell episode has something to do with aliens while touting "factual evidence" exists.

    That sort of investigative 'research' is flawed from the get-go. If it does say 'victims' we are left with nothing more than further need to conjecture what that means. For Kevin and friends that will be 'evidence' in favor of ET, yet there are other prosaic earthly potentials he and others refuse to consider.

    The mystery memo is unlikely to be solved by that sort of crowd. Besides, how long have they been working on this in secret and yet no advancement in their effort?

    One thing for sure about Kevin, if he thinks he's right about something and you point out he isn't, he's quick to delete any commentary pointing to his flawed thinking. That's sufficient enough to question their intention. If they do that, they will certainly skew whatever 'evidence' they find in their favor. Which of course, is the entire premise behind their effort despite their claims.

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Tuesday, December 08, 2015  

  • Brian:

    I'm rather surprised that you malign Kevin Randle. He gives you and other "skeptics" a lot of leeway at his blog, much more than he should.

    As for Kevin pushing the ETH with his Ramey memo effort, I don't see it.

    He, like some of the rest of us, would like to clarify what that damn memo says, which is the point of my post here.

    More importantly, Kevin has always acted civilly with me, even when I've gone off a deep-end about something at his blog.

    And more than that, I've read many of his UFO writings over the years and he's been judicious with his views, not jumping on to the ET bandwagon even when his journalism would allow that.

    There are a lot of goofballs in the UFO community, me among them, but Kevin Randle isn't one of them.

    Thank your lucky stars that he allows you, CDA, Gilles, Lance, et al a voluminous voice at the UFO table. It's a generosity that I don't offer.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, December 09, 2015  

  • I don't know about "much more than he should" since the role of skepticism is to cut through the baloney and get to the real meat of the "UFO" myth and delusion. You'd think that skepticism would be appreciated by all interested in the facts.

    But that's not true of hard-core believers in the "flying saucer" myth, like the ridiculous Rudiak. Recently--even after being reminded that Joseph Kaplan, Edward Teller and many others on the AFSAB in 1949 thought the "green fireballs" were nothing but meteors and that Project Twinkle surveillance positively determined the very same, meteors--the ridiculously disingenuous Rudiak insisted there was no plausible explanation.

    Since the "green fireball" reports described meteor-like objects, how are real-world meteors not an obviously plausible explanation? And after a year of Project Twinkle's automated surveillance discovered nothing but meteors, how are meteors not only plausible, but the most plausible explanation for the "green fireball" reports? As scientists--those not possessed by cold-war "green fireball" hysteria--knew at the time.

    But seventy-five years later some ETH-possessed believer in the "flying saucer" myth insists that the "green fireballs" remain a mystery. A mystery that exists only in Rudiak's "flying saucer" fantasy land where no "mystery"--however completely debunked and nonexistent--is ever resolved.

    That one example of glaring dishonesty in a personal history of habitual dishonesty and name-calling and the fact that he's had decades to decipher the Ramey memo but has produced nothing tells us all we need to know about Rudiak's usefulness to any new effort at legible Ramey memo imaging. Absolutely None!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, December 10, 2015  

  • Rich -

    He may offer the courtesy of allowing skeptic's to post, but he does delete a lot of posts that no one ever sees. Some of these are direct factual responses to his commentary and frequent dismissal of key points that contradict his evidence. If they make him look bad he deletes them. I guess he's got a reputation to keep and heaven forbid he's ever seen as wrong about something in the UFO community.

    As far as Rudiak is concerned, I have to agree with Zoam. You really never see Kevin hold Rudiak accountable and he gives him cart blanch with supposed blog rules which exist only in Kevin's mind when and where he sees fit.

    But I guess if Roswellians need a high priest they have to have Kevin in the job. I suppose Rudiak plays a supporting role too.

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Friday, December 11, 2015  

  • Brian...

    Yes, he does allow Rudiak to ramble.

    But he also opens the door to many others who I'd never allow online here (Steve Sawyer, for example).

    Just be happy that he gives you (and other skeptical types) a voice, even one that gets cut now and then. After all, it is his blog and small venue on the internet, and should be edited and displayed as he wishes it to be.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, December 11, 2015  

  • Brian Bell said:

    "As far as Rudiak is concerned, I have to agree with Zoam."

    Which comes to demonstrate and reinforce the degree fringeness and weirdness of the way both zoam and you think.

    "You really never see Kevin hold Rudiak accountable and he gives him cart blanch with supposed blog rules which exist only in Kevin's mind when and where he sees fit."

    Very wrong as usual in you Brian. Kevin likes to delete messages from everybody, with no exceptions.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Friday, December 11, 2015  

  • Okay fellows...

    I don't see Kevin deleting comments indiscriminately.

    He allows comments to be added to his blog, then when he moderates, afterwards, will delete those that are incendiary or not relevant.

    Comments here come to my vision before they can appear at this blog. The material I usually delete is my own.

    Commentary from people I don't like go right to a spam or block file where they are deleted, often without me even seeing them.

    Kevin is exceptionally lenient with his visitors, as I've often noted. His patience, sometimes, is almost saintly.

    If persons go off on tangents, it's up to us bloggers (editors) to bring them back in line.

    Again, I think some of you are being unfair to Kevin. He's running an interesting blog (except for the Roswell stuff).

    Me? I'm fascistic. Toe the line here or your commentary won't see the light of the internet, not in this spot anyway.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, December 11, 2015  

  • I clarify that generally don't get angry when Kevin has deleted one of my posts. Messages sometimes get off-topic or words become too sharp and comments get deleted.

    My point here is NOT to attack Kevin, but instead pointing to Brian Bell that his notion that Kevin deletes only the messages from skeptics, is a silly notion.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Saturday, December 12, 2015  

  • Yes, Don...

    Kevin deletes ETers and skeptics both....when they transgress his "rules."

    He's trying to keep on topic(s) but many (CDA especially) like to go off track.

    It happens here, but I often find the detours interesting (just as I often find footnotes more interesting/enlightening than the material they refer to).

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, December 12, 2015  

  • Re the infamous Ramey memo, you need to consider whether the expenditure is really worthwhile. I don't know the financial costs or even the human costs (time/energy/effects on mental stability, etc) but I have to say that I very seriously doubt anything of value will be obtained.

    We need not expect any contribution to science or our understanding of life in the universe. All we are going to get is a few extra dubious words which will be in dispute, of course, and will contribute nothing useful at all.

    There comes a point when this sort of thing, i.e. trying to decipher a scrap of paper, becomes pointless. You have to apply some common sense (sadly lacking amongst a few pro-ETHers).

    Simple questions: This memo CANNOT contain anything pertaining to ETs visiting the earth. If it did, where is the myriad of other documents, by numerous scientific committees and by the US military, on this subject? Where and what is the point of NASA, ESA, to say nothing of all the other international space programs? What are astronomers doing, wasting their time looking for life in the universe when it has been known about (to a select few in the US military) since 1947? The idea that this memo will unlock some great 'secret' of the universe is totally dotty and always has been. And the idea that such knowledge would still be locked up in some top secret vault after 7 decades is equally dotty.

    Yes, I know secrets CAN be kept if necessary, but NOT a secret of this type. After 68 years? Not the minutest chance.

    But, as Gilles would say, that's ufology.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, December 12, 2015  

  • But CDA...

    Don't you want to know what has enchanted Rudiak et al.?

    When the memo tells us that Ramey's order for a sandwich from the local deli is ready to be picked up, won't that be something to rag him about.....20 years of work to determine a lunch order?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, December 12, 2015  

  • RR:

    I wrote above: "There comes a point when this sort of thing, i.e. trying to decipher a scrap of paper, becomes pointless."

    You didn't spot my (unintentional) contradiction? How can there be a 'point' where something becomes 'pointless'?

    The Ramey memo will eventually fade and decline to the vanishing point. The whole exercise is pointless(!). Let's have some real ufology, if there is any.

    By the way, Ramey did not eat sandwiches. We have this third-hand from a subordinate who told Carey and Schmitt on his deathbed.

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, December 12, 2015  

  • Hahahaha....

    Well, maybe it's his laundry list or a note from his wife to pick up bread and milk on the way home.

    We have got to know!'

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, December 12, 2015  

  • > David Rudiak

    I had the temerity to state that the Ramey memo was completely unreadable. Rudiak insisted there was UNIVERSAL AGREEMENT (or some such phrasing) about certain words being readable. But Randle wrote in a 2002 paper and 2007 book about several investigators, some using high-tech equipment, who couldn't read Rudiak's pet terms (or any words whatsoever). Rudiak's response is that anyone who cannot read these terms is not a SERIOUS person. Rudiak has defined the problem in such a way that only Rudiak's reading of the memo is allowed.

    It's pure delusion.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Sunday, December 13, 2015  

  • Rudiak claimed a month ago: "That the Ramey memo is totally unreadable as-is is a myth promulgated by those with an agenda."

    So anyone who cannot imagine characters in smudges and words in groups of smudges in a virtual Rorschach has an agenda.

    A month before, anyone who thought the 1979 Kerman "UFO" CE story was simply a Vandenberg rocket launch had an agenda.

    After which, one who could utterly debunk the RendleSham as foolishness and hoax in a few paragraphs clearly has an agenda.

    Anyone, including astronomers, who thought the "Green Fireballs" of nuclearized New Mexico were just meteors had an agenda.

    And anyone who thinks the Kecksburg "UFO" crash myth is merely the product of the 1965 Great Lakes Fireball has an agenda.

    All real-world determinations based in facts and logic become a great "agenda" to the conspiracy-minded in "UFO" fantasyland.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, December 15, 2015  

  • Dear Chris;

    Yes, that's all true. It's an impossible conspiracy yarn and not much else. If there was anything the least bit otherworldly about Roswell we would have known it long ago--if not in 1947 then shortly after. As you've often correctly noted, there wasn't even a Roswell as we know the modern myth until Berlitz and Moore created it in 1980.

    The debris pictures always told and still tell the entire story and that is all any reasonable person needs to know. But, as RR says, I'd like to see the text enhanced to unambiguous legibility if possible just to show what we know it does NOT say.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, December 17, 2015  

  • Yeah— I wouldn’t hold my breath for any imminent revelations.

    I thought the IDEA of delving into this was a good one but unless someone connects with some currently unknown (to me) tech, I don’t think it’s gonna happen. I am still open to it and hope things change.

    Roswell is such a tawdry tale. Not one single contemporary bit of confirming evidence (but lots of disconfirming stuff) and yet these guys cling to this dumb conspiracy that is so iron clad perfect that nothing evidential (even tangentially) has surfaced in 70 years. Despite the magical perfection of the thing, these saucer nuts still entertain the idea that enlisted men, cooks and girls in the typing pool knew all about it even though the BASE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER (Jesse "let me make up a new lie" Marcel) never heard a SINGLE word about any effort to cover up the supposed saucer crash!

    It's so stupid just on the face of it.

    Happy Holidays!

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Thursday, December 17, 2015  

  • How can we have happy holidays, Lance with the monumental mystery hanging over our heads?

    Have a Merry Christmas, nonetheless, buddy.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, December 17, 2015  

  • Come on, the message most probably says "victims", and trying to deny it is like the wife deeply in love who does not want to admit her husband is cheating on her, despite everything pointing that way.

    The Ramey memo thing says victims, there are a lot of witnesses confirming the alien bodies retrieval for Roswell, real UFOs have been seen in the sky for decades, encounters of the third kind clearly indicate that visitors are from other planet. Basically, extraterrestrials are here, believe or not, and debunkers are only deniers, are only scientific wannabes, conservative people who stick to a status quo reality in which they live with some comfort, but who are unwilling to admit that their conception of reality and society is doomed to change time and time again in the future, in one way or another. Human science itself will find new knowledge who will change the notion of reality we have now. Great human scientists of the future will realize how wrong and even stupid some of their predecessors were, etc., etc., etc.

    And in the end of the human society, the Earth will be colonized by aliens. So yes, Happy Holidays!

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Thursday, December 17, 2015  

  • It appears that Don never learned in school that reiterating his catechism never convinced anyone of anything. Evidence, Don, the scientific method works on real-world evidence and reason. Got any? Of course not cause we'd all know it already!

    Here's a fact for you, Don: Decades of 24/7 full global surveillance by the United States Space Command (Strategic Command) has detected not one visiting spacecraft.

    The absence of evidence for visiting spacecraft is evidence of their absence.

    Comprende? Now it's your turn.

    Make an independently verifiable statement, a fact, about the world that supports your ETH position. Appeals to an evidenceless, nonfalsifiable worldwide conspiracy and the history of science are not allowed because they are inherently fallacious and so unscientific. No contrarian whining about skeptics!

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, December 17, 2015  

  • "It appears that Don never learned in school that reiterating his catechism never convinced anyone of anything. Evidence, Don, the scientific method works on real-world evidence and reason. Got any? Of course not cause we'd all know it already!"

    The typical method used in schools when I was a child was precisely that of reiterating things. Considering that you are older than me, the reiteration method was even stronger then, and therefore you learned your lesson very well, given that you always seems to reiterate until tiredness your unverifiable "psychosocial" charlatanism. Of course zoam, you also learned catechism very well given that you believe in a non-existent god.

    Here's a fact for you, Don: Decades of 24/7 full global surveillance by the United States Space Command (Strategic Command) has detected not one visiting spacecraft.

    Yes and if the boys at the Strategic Command see something strange in the atmosphere they will quickly going to tell Zoam, yes you are the great Zoam and a very important person. People at the Strategic command just can't stand knowing something without telling it to zoamchomsky! Hahaha!

    "The absence of evidence for visiting spacecraft is evidence of their absence."

    If your hands are empty of evidence it does not mean others don't have that evidence. You are not that important zoam.

    "Make an independently verifiable statement, a fact, about the world that supports your ETH position."

    Life arouse spontaneusly in this planet, WITHOUT the help of a God, therefore life can appear in other planets as well. This is, of course, verifiable, but just not now.

    "Appeals to an evidenceless, nonfalsifiable worldwide conspiracy and the history of science are not allowed because they are inherently fallacious and so unscientific. No contrarian whining about skeptics!"

    This is not a "worldwide" conspiracy, just a bunch of guys hiding what they know, and who probably get a good laugh with the debunker useful fools. History of science really predicts it strogly: most rigid world views will be inevitably destroyed sooner or later. People in the future always laugh loudly at negativists and arrogant deniers of the past.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Thursday, December 17, 2015  

  • Zoam said:
    "Don, the scientific method works on real-world evidence and reason."

    Yes, scientific method requires evidence and reason, and of course requires proofs and criticisms, but science also requires scientists being pacient, making guesses, witnessing rare phenomena within their field, making hypotheses, having creative thinking, revising previous conclusions, searching for anomalies, intense and passionate work , individual geniuses, painstaking efforts, tolerance, support by others, etc.

    Remember what Einstein said:

    “If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it.”

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Thursday, December 17, 2015  

  • Okay, fellows...

    In the spirit of the season, let's not go over a civil line.

    We're good so far, with the argumentation; it's not barbaric. But let's keep it that way.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, December 17, 2015  

  • > The Ramey memo thing says victims, there are a lot of witnesses confirming the alien bodies retrieval for Roswell, real UFOs have been seen in the sky for decades, encounters of the third kind clearly indicate that visitors are from other planet...

    Don, this is not logic. Each of the items in your list is undemonstrated. They cannot corroborate each other. You may as well claim a ghost riding on the back of the Loch Ness monster threw you a ouija board which spelled out the address of a Bigfoot who owns a crystal ball that picks out winning lottery numbers the day after the draw. It could all be true, but you have no real evidence.

    Produce a clear image of the Ramey memo text, retrieve us an alien body, track down an alien spaceship in its port, arrest an alien kidnapper...then you will have actual evidence. What you have are worthless assertions.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Friday, December 18, 2015  

  • > If your hands are empty of evidence it does not mean others don't have that evidence.
    > scientific method requires...making hypotheses

    Consider how these two hypotheses produce identical results:

    1) Aliens visited Earth but the US government is hiding all physical traces, including alien bodies and ships; this explains why we have no concrete evidence of alien visitation.

    2) Aliens never visited Earth; this explains why we have no concrete evidence of alien visitation.

    Given identical results, which explanation is most amenable to empirical testing? Let's see...

    UFO proponents assert the first explanation is correct, even though they have not proven it in almost 70 years or trying. In fact, this persistent inability to prove the assertion is, paradoxically, proof the assertion is true! In brief: the first explanation has not been proven, yet it cannot be disproven, either, if one is allowed to invoke conspiracy theories of unrestricted duration and power.

    UFO proponents assert the second explanation is incorrect, even though it could be disproved quite simply by producing an alien or its craft.

    So, Don, which hypothesis is more scientific, 1 or 2? The unfalsifiable theory or the falsifiable one?

    I'll wait.

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Friday, December 18, 2015  

  • 1) Aliens visited Earth but the US government is hiding all physical traces, including alien bodies and ships; this explains why we have no concrete evidence of alien visitation.

    2) Aliens never visited Earth; this explains why we have no concrete evidence of alien visitation.

    Given identical results, which explanation is most amenable to empirical testing?

    So, Don, which hypothesis is more scientific, 1 or 2?


    I think the hypothesis #1 is more scientific. There is nothing wrong with hypothesis #1: If I think the US government is hiding the evidence, I have the free option of trying to get some evidence independently. So why not let interested people just do that?

    The hypothesis #2 is full of holes and wrong assumptions. It assumes that somehow all humanity is "WE", who are searching for the evidence. Is really all humanity searching for the evidences? The word "WE" somehow excludes individual UFO witnesses and whistleblowers, but instead includes governments, for which there is not certainty that they would be sharing the evidence with Terrythecensor. It requires "concrete evidence" without defining it. It assumes that "WE" are in control of the situation, when it might be that the ones who are in control might be the visitors themself, etc. It assumes that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Everything is WRONG with hypothesis number 2.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Friday, December 18, 2015  

  • Don:

    I take Terry's side over this. His item 2 is far preferable to item 1.

    It is illogical to presume any one government (US or other) is hiding such important evidence from us, i.e. from the scientific world. True, not all scientists care about ET life but a great many do (and spend a lot of money researching into it) and it is these who suffer from the fact that a few officials in just ONE country are withholding it from them, and have managed to do so for 7 decades.

    You say everything is wrong with hypothesis 2. Not true; it is hypothesis 1 that has everything wrong with it. For 1 to be correct, you have to add in a lot of assumptions and presumptions. Also, you have not provided any logical motive for why the US government should do this, and continue to do it. Remember that it is NOT just one government, but each and every one since 1947, whatever their political persuasion, that has done this.

    A bit hard to swallow, don't you believe?

    I should add that you are in effect FORCED into this position (i.e. of being a conspiracist) due to the fact that you strongly believe ETs have visited us, at Roswell and maybe elsewhere, but no official announcement has ever been made to this effect. Therefore, by pro-ET logic, there HAS to be a cover-up somewhere.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, December 18, 2015  

  • I just don't know where to start on the thread above so here a few thoughts:

    1. Does the government lie?: Yes, make that Hell Yes!, for many reasons, some good.

    2. Would Strategic Space Command tell us if they had evidence?: Hard question. It depends on whether they wanted to (the "they" being the Generals and top career bureaucrats in terms of 'who trumps who' game?). Strategic Air Command (my dear old alma mater -funny that I was actually in the Mighty 509th) kept many secrets, "Just saying...I can neither confirm nor deny."

    3. An interesting thought spawned by RR: Whoever has the best photo analysis software for reading such an image of a text such as this, if they were civilian and trying to sell their software, here would be a grand demonstration...but if they actually have it and can glean a probable translations (multiple) through computerized analysis of a text then such text would almost certainly have already been sold to the government (if not developed by the government-think high tech spy agency in just that business) and we're back to the answer: If they wanted to.

    4. There are Roswell zealots and there are the null people zealots. Rule for we agnostics: Beware of all zealots.

    My old favorite about the old scientist saying something is possible being more likely correct that the one saying its impossible applies.

    Note to the null people: Be clear, we all look for the "Extraordinary Evidence." I (we non-zealots) get it -but it could trickle in and be cumulative instead of the White House lawn refrain...Hence conjecture!

    To the believers: Don't take believe everything you hear/read/or even see. In fact question everything. - Important Note: Questioning does not equate to the null.

    5. One good point was raised: Yes, we have evidence of extraterrestrial life, it is terrestrial life -we are here so they are possible. One has to start a computation with that which which is given.

    6. I truely hate the whole Roswell thing but I keep going back to the question of why a military officer, in his official capacity, would publicly say/release 'we have a disk.' -Stupid error? Misinformation? Truth? I have think options one or two are most likely, I guess I'd have to go with number two...

    BD

    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Friday, December 18, 2015  

  • Yah, Bryan...

    That damnable Haut Press Release bugs me too.....

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, December 18, 2015  

  • ,"It is illogical to presume any one government (US or other) is hiding such important evidence from us, i.e. from the scientific world",

    Come on CDA, you are NOT the scientific world, you are NOT part of a scientific world, and you are NOT a scientist. Again, debunkers are abusing the word -WE-. See, private corporations also conduct scientific work, but they don't disclose they results to the other scientists. Some people just shut up things, even in science. Scientific world is not a unity, they don't agree on everything. Yes, I know you like to believe in an ordered world, but that is just an illusion. Things could just crumble in any moment.

    You say everything is wrong with hypothesis 2. Not true; it is hypothesis 1 that has everything wrong with it. For 1 to be correct, you have to add in a lot of assumptions and presumptions. Also, you have not provided any logical motive for why the US government should do this, and continue to do it.

    Please CDA, almost every ETH proponent up to now has proposed a good number of reasons to hide alien materials and discoveries. Saying that there are no reasons for secrecy at this point is pretty much dishonest from your part. Clearly there would a necesity to avoid public panic, and to investigate and develop discretely new possible technologies associated with aliens. So there are two good reasons. Remember what Stanton Friedman found about general C. Bollender stating that UFO sightings that could affect national security were handled by another agency different from the Blue Book system. Things were INDEED handled secretly. All is true. Aliens are here.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Friday, December 18, 2015  

  • Don:

    Your very last statement, "Aliens are here", reminds me of what Arthur C.Clarke once said. "Show me one (an alien spaceship) and I'll reconsider my position."

    Show me an alien, Don, and I'll be happy to reconsider my position.

    I predict that you will not, cannot, and never can or will, at any time. I further predict that nobody else will either.

    Now wouldn't you just love to prove me wrong.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, December 18, 2015  

  • cda said:
    "Your very last statement, "Aliens are here", reminds me of what Arthur C.Clarke once said. "Show me one (an alien spaceship) and I'll reconsider my position.
    Show me an alien, Don, and I'll be happy to reconsider my position."


    Things won't probably happen that ridiculous way CDA. If you, your sons, or grandsons are to meet directly with aliens, those aliens will probably not be in the form of dead bodies. They will be alive, and probably in control of the whole situation. There will be NO time to "reconsider your opinion", just to obey new rules, adapt to new state of things, and be shocked.


    I predict that you will not, cannot, and never can or will, at any time. I further predict that nobody else will either.

    As probably my avatar image suggests to you, I don't care about your useless and almost ridiculous predictions CDA. Alien bodies have already being handled by MPs, but obviously we can NOT expect that they will keep crashing forever in our desert places, such as to give chance to lay people to see and keep the bodies in their home freezers.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Friday, December 18, 2015  

  • I provided an obvious fact about the world that supports the Null hypothesis:

    "Decades of 24/7 full global surveillance by the United States Space Command (Strategic Command) has detected not one visiting spacecraft."

    Evidence for visiting ET spacecraft is nonexistent.

    And I asked Don not to default to the nonfalsifiable worldwide "UFO" conspiracy.

    Predictably, he ignored the obvious--there are no visiting ET spacecraft--and defaulted to conspiracy, the first two tenets of the Internet Woo-Woo Credo.

    As I said, Don never learned in school that merely reciting his flying-saucer litany over and over doesn't convince other people of anything except that he's irrational in its fundamental sense: he cannot reason or be reasoned with.

    We know for a fact that Space Command can detect and track an object the size of a few inches in nearspace. If Space Command ever detected a visiting spacecraft it would be the greatest discovery ever and it would be impossible to keep secret, period!

    As cda often points out about Roswell, and the same is true of the entire "flying saucer" myth and "UFO" delusion, if there were real "UFOs" of any kind we'd all know it already--it would be a fact in the world--not the subject of an impossible conspiracy.

    Don, appealing to conspiracy is a red herring, a phony rhetorical device, a worthless disingenuous dodge of the question presented to you--and we all know it.

    Statements of belief, however sincere, is NOT showing. Comprende, Señor?

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, December 19, 2015  

  • Zoam, this is tiresome, I have not found any source for your claims about that the Strategic Command has not ever seen something strange in the sky. Therefore, from this point on, I regard your claims about the Strategic Command as pure unsourced lies.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Sunday, December 20, 2015  

  • Here we go, default to incredulity: an obvious fact in the world is a "lie."

    It's also "tiresome" because it's fatal to Don's belief in "flying saucers."

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Monday, December 21, 2015  

  • There are no “obvious facts” here Zoamy. Bring your sources or accept the "Liar" label.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Monday, December 21, 2015  

  • Don,

    I can personally confirm some evidence of a report to Strategic Air Command of sighting of a UFO.

    I reported one while in service as a KC-135 pilot in the 509th Bomb Wing in Portsmouth New Hampshire in late 70's. When the net came out I put my experience out there.

    http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/020/S20008.html

    Note: I was never asked for a formal report and we were never briefed over any such reporting as pilots.

    The experience ultimately led me to this blog.

    BD

    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Monday, December 21, 2015  

  • Don:

    Zoam's actual words were that the SAC had never detected a "visiting spacecraft", and that they can detect objects a few inches in size. Zoam did not claim the SAC (or Spacecom if you prefer) had NEVER detected an unexplained object.

    To date Zoam is correct, SAC have NOT detected an ET craft from outside the earth. They will have picked up a myriad of aircraft, satellites, re-entries, rocket fragments, meteorites and such. But never an ET craft. At least nothing known as such.

    If you wish to postulate that the few unexplained objects they have discovered were visiting spaceships, that is your choice. But officially they have discovered NOTHING of this kind.

    But then neither has the USAF, RAF, or any other AF for that matter.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, December 21, 2015  

  • CDA lied:

    "To date Zoam is correct, SAC have NOT detected an ET craft from outside the earth"

    No, zoam is NOT correct, zoam is LYING, zoam DOES NOT KNOW whether any government agency has detected anything, because such agencies normally DO NOT disclose any information that may be related to national security.

    Record this in your mind CDA: Zoam only BELIEVES things, and then LIES in order to keep BELIEVING such things. DON'T defend him, he does not deserve it.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Monday, December 21, 2015  

  • Okay fellows...

    We're skirting incivility, and ad hominem inclined statements

    The blog is oriented (even comments) toward speculation and conjecture.

    Such imaginings can't be lies, and statements by you guys are seen as speculative, even Zoam's and CDA's.

    If I start to accept the idea that conjectural comments are falsehoods, that will curb the dialogue which is already rather fallow.

    So accept ravings, including mine, as personal views with no finality, just openings for [civil] discussion, nothing more, nothing less.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, December 21, 2015  

  • Bryan says, "sighting of a UFO."

    What's a "UFO?"

    "But if we can't identify a light, that doesn't make it a spaceship."

    Or anything extraordinary, or necessarily anything of much interest.

    It's simply a failure of perception under certain circumstances, and so a failure to identify.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Monday, December 21, 2015  

  • >> There are no “obvious facts”<<

    Sure there are, Don, and one is that there are no ET spacecraft visiting Earth until someone who claims there are, like you, shows that there are. But you can't do that, you can only recite your "flying saucer" litany and default to logical fallacies. So far you're only counting down the standard Internet Woo-Woo Credo:

    Ignore the fact that there are no visiting ET spacecraft and appeal to ignorance;
    appeal to a worldwide conspiracy; appeal to incredulity, you cannot understand or believe a fact that is both physically true and so agreed upon by science, logic and good common sense; and finally in your sad failure you default to ad hominem.

    I showed that you're irrational, Don, so your ad-hominem pronouncements mean nothing.

    Good work, I'm sure the invisible demons all around you admire your nonexistent defense of their reality. (g)

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Monday, December 21, 2015  

  • Zoam,

    The only thing sure here is that you made specific (finally false) claims about the Strategic Command and you were clearly unable to source your claims. Period on that.

    "Good work, I'm sure the invisible demons all around you admire your nonexistent defense of their reality. (g)"

    Don't speak about demons. I don't believe in god or demons; you are the one with such strange beliefs.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Monday, December 21, 2015  

  • Bryan Daum wrote:

    I reported one while in service as a KC-135 pilot in the 509th Bomb Wing in Portsmouth New Hampshire in late 70's. When the net came out I put my experience out there.

    http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/020/S20008.html


    Thanks for sharing Bryan. It is incredible that some people keep denying this kind of reports of enigmatic things in the sky.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Monday, December 21, 2015  

  • Don:

    So Brian Daum managed to report a UFO while he served in the SAC. But you recently wrote that such things were not revealed "because such agencies normally DO NOT disclose any information that may be related to national security."

    So Brian got around the restrictions and disclosed his sighting and has not suffered for this (so we believe).

    Therefore, by your own logic (or illogic) either Brian's sighting was NOT considered a true UFO, or it was considered a true UFO but did not affect national security.

    In either event it clearly was not considered an ET craft from outside the earth.

    It is up to you (as Zoam says) to provide an example of an SAC pilot, or pilots, having a genuine ET spaceship sighting. Of course you will never provide one. Until you do, you cannot claim the SAC has records of such craft.

    Unless, of course, someone confesses on their deathbed....

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, December 22, 2015  

  • You mean Bryan....CDA.

    (I wouldn't want anyone to think Brian Bell saw a UFO or thought he did.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, December 22, 2015  

  • Sorry CDA, but I really can't follow your "logic". It is frankly gibberish.
    See you in another posts.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Tuesday, December 22, 2015  

  • In any case, CDA, if your point was that the fact the Bryan reported his sighting implies that government agencies always release their information, well let me tell you NO, NO and NO.

    By Blogger Don Maor, at Tuesday, December 22, 2015  

  • Don;

    If ET were visiting Earth, the US Space Command would have evidence of it in spades. But decades of 24/7 full global surveillance by Space Command has detected not one visiting spacecraft.

    The absence of evidence for visiting spacecraft is evidence of their absence.

    The only possible objection to this deductive proof is a massive, international and so IMPOSSIBLE conspiracy of silence hypothesis--since there are other global space commands with similar capabilities.*

    "you made specific (finally false) claims about the Strategic Command"

    I made a completely logical deductive proof that destroys the "visiting ET spacecraft" hypothesis. And you cannot show otherwise. QED, Don!

    "Don't speak about demons."

    Your "demons" are the imaginary ET in your head!

    *other than the invisible, undetectable ET hypothesis! (g)

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Absence_of_evidence

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, December 22, 2015  

  • While I am loath to state that aliens or alien spacecraft have visited or are visiting Earth (for various reasons noted in this blog), one can't say categorically that U.S. Space Command or any other agency hasn't ever seen or detected such.

    How could we know?

    The whole U.S. government is a ball of secrecy, holding back information from the public. (And other countries likewise.)

    There is a possibility -- possibility -- that Earth has had extraterrestrial visitors....although I doubt it for reasons cited here.

    The government would not disclose that "fact" for many reasons.

    Speculating that UFOs (or anything alien) has been here or is here is open for discussion and can't be discounted because some of you don't believe it.

    It's, again, a possibility, no matter how intellectually remote.

    So, let's not besmirch the idea out of hand because it is anathema or silly to your way of thinking.

    One can't prove the idea of alien visitation, but others can't disprove it because there is no overt evidence (or seems ridiculous).

    It's a matter for dialogue and discussion, imaginatively and speculatively. Let's not shut it down because it offends one's sensibilities or common sense.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, December 22, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home