I would hate for it to get lost in the move.

HEY! What about my 911 card????? ;)

Bring it along, Jeff. As long as you promise not to play it too often....lol

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

I would hate for it to get lost in the move.

HEY! What about my 911 card????? ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

OK folks. Time for another spawn since it was brought to my attention that things are loading a little slowly for some.

Matthew...if you would be so kind....would you please repost that link in the new spawn?? I would hate for it to get lost in the move.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Explanation of the Recent "Strange Craft" Sightings

CARET program in the 80's

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

Time to spawn a new edition of this thread methinks, homechunks..... :-)

Too many posts.

Hmmm...I was gonna wait till 700 posts like I usually do, but it does seem to be loading the thread a bit slowly.

I will respawn it tonight when I get home from work right before I post tonight's Coast to Coast program description.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Gotta race card to play

;)

I like that!

---

PROUD TO BE TFFE!

Time to spawn a new edition of this thread methinks, homechunks..... :-)

Too many posts.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Gotta race card to play

;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Didn't think I'd do it did ya... ;)

Ha ha ha!

Gotta race card to play, too? ;)

---

Capitalize on this good fortune, one word can bring you round ... changes.

Didn't think I'd do it did ya... ;)

LMFAO!!!! Nice, Jeff.

Well done....lmao

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Didn't think I'd do it did ya... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Yeah, I agree with that. This one guy comes to mind... the skeptic that offered an alternative explanation for what was seen at Rendlesham Forest. Can't remember his name.

So who do you believe? Charles Halt? If so, is it the story he told the first time, or the third time, or the fifth? Because at first he never touched the object, he just saw it from afar. Then, in the next generation stories, he got very close.

Or his story about how the light then exploded into several objects that zoomed off--a detail which, of course, he somehow forgot to mention on the LIVE tape he
was making, at the time. He was repeating everything into the tape, he just left that part out?

Then, eventually, (and now, I think) he tells the story that he touched the object. Now, of course, Jim Penniston and the other witnesses won't touch Col. Halt with a 10 foot pole--and they contradict him, now that they've seen what the lighthouse is capable of. So, where are we? Where is the proof? There is PLENTY of evidence that they saw a lighthouse and that they were scared silly--the tape shows that clear enough. At what point must we discard the 'obviously freaked out military-types in the woods at night' hypothesis, and replace it with the 'Col Halt says it was an alien ship so it must be' hypothesis?"

I'm more likely to believe that the first accounts were the ones that most closly represented what may have happened on the nights of these encounters near, and perhaps on the base. There's nothing that ever made me think of a lighthouse as being responsible for the very unusual things Lt. Colonel Halt described. I've seen these kinds of effects made by large beams of light in forrests on dark foggy nights. And while they can seem a little freaky sometimes, it's nothing that would actually make you think it's anything other than... beams of light. You can argue whether or not they were UFOs, but, based on the combined accounts of the events, whatever it was, it didn't seem to be caused by lighthouse effects.

---

Tonight on Coast to Coast AM airing at 1am EST


Tue 06.26 >>
Investigative reporter Randall Fitzgerald will present an update on the health emergency of mutations caused by synthetic chemicals, and the rise of toxins in personal care products and pet foods.

First Hour: Researcher Richard Dolan reports on a recent CIA release of information.




Free Streaming Radio courtesy of KFI in Los Angeles

Free Internet Stream for folks outside the US

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

I may be ' overgeneralizing " but you are using one particular story ( or versions of said story ) to discount ( it seems ) all of the rest. That also is a generalization.

Nope, I am using it as an example of the internal inconsistencies contained within one particular incident. I have not referred to all of the rest. Neither have I even referred to the idea that internal inconsistencies mar plenty of incidents.

I have read quite a bit of stuff about that particular incident. I happen to agree that the lighthouse very well could have cause what those people saw.

I also understand that some people have a tendancy to add more and more " details " to a story the more times they have to tell it.

I agree that it is possible that none of the sightings are alien craft. It simply isn't possible for me to discount that possibility.

Good.

I don't quite understand one thing....you said....

And you figure those are bought into, wholesale, by every single skeptic out there? Because if they aren't your statement fails.

To my understanding...people involved in this debate generally fall into one of two categories. They either believe that the sightings may be alien craft ( believers ) or they say there is a completely scientific explanation ( skeptics ).

You have reversed the descriptive term "may." "Believers," by it's very definition "believe" that they are alien craft--they believe, they have faith. "Skeptics," by it's very definition are skeptical of any explanation and subject them all to the same rigorous scrutiny, regardless of the outcome.

As an aside, there is *always* a completely scientific explanation--even if it is alien science. To think otherwise is to deny the very universe.

I have yet to hear or read a UFO skeptic's theory being discounted by another skeptic. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, I just haven't come across it at this point.

Then you aren't looking, at all. They fight like cats and dogs, just like believers do.

At no time have I argued against this point. I have actually said the same thing myself on several occasions.

Good.

I actually saw three UFO's a couple of years ago. I did a bit of research and found no explanation for what I saw. Even though there was no explanation that I could find, it didn't make me think they were alien craft. It was just something I couldn't explain. Hence the UFO tag.

Which is why I generally don't use the term, it's far too conflated with "alien."

I agree that it isn't a " stretch " to believe the " other ten percent " aren't alien craft as well.

I just don't discount the possibility that the " other ten percent " actually could be.

Eh, some do, some don't. It's OK to discount such small probabilities sometimes, but people lose sight of that too.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I may be ' overgeneralizing " but you are using one particular story ( or versions of said story ) to discount ( it seems ) all of the rest. That also is a generalization.

I have read quite a bit of stuff about that particular incident. I happen to agree that the lighthouse very well could have cause what those people saw.

I also understand that some people have a tendancy to add more and more " details " to a story the more times they have to tell it.

I agree that it is possible that none of the sightings are alien craft. It simply isn't possible for me to discount that possibility.

I don't quite understand one thing....you said....

And you figure those are bought into, wholesale, by every single skeptic out there? Because if they aren't your statement fails.

To my understanding...people involved in this debate generally fall into one of two categories. They either believe that the sightings may be alien craft ( believers ) or they say there is a completely scientific explanation ( skeptics ). I have yet to hear or read a UFO skeptic's theory being discounted by another skeptic. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, I just haven't come across it at this point.

They're just unidentified, nothing more. And that, means nothing.

At no time have I argued against this point. I have actually said the same thing myself on several occasions.

I actually saw three UFO's a couple of years ago. I did a bit of research and found no explanation for what I saw. Even though there was no explanation that I could find, it didn't make me think they were alien craft. It was just something I couldn't explain. Hence the UFO tag.

I agree that it isn't a " stretch " to believe the " other ten percent " aren't alien craft as well.

I just don't discount the possibility that the " other ten percent " actually could be.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Swamp gas.....ball lightning....ice crystals....etc. etc. etc.

Again...there will always be an " explanation " no matter how ludicrous it is.

And you figure those are bought into, wholesale, by every single skeptic out there? Because if they aren't your statement fails.

One thing I might mention is that, I don't really think that all UFO's are alien craft.

Then you can understand, by extension, A) that none of them need be alien craft, and, B) that few (if any) real skeptics mindlessly throw out swamp gas and ice crystals as an explanation for anything. Those may work in a few limited situations, but that doesn't mean they work in any others.

I simply don't believe that those who offer the " explanations " have any more idea what they are than any of the rest of us do. They just ( it seems at times ) come up with anything to discount the very idea of alien craft.

I think you just like overgeneralizing because without it, you don't have an argument here. You aggregate explanations and use terms like "they" to cover an enormous number of individuals and discrete situations. Rocket thrusters DO blast ice crystals out of the way, just like they do dirt on a launch pad. But that doesn't mean ice crystals have any relevance to Halt's story in RendleSHAM.

As you said, you "don't really think that all UFO's are alien craft." So, OK, if 90 percent of the sightings are not alien machines, then it's no real stretch that the other 10 percent aren't either. Say you think 99% aren't alien, then it really is no stretch that the other 1 percent isn't either.

They're just unidentified, nothing more. And that, means nothing.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

[quote]Sceptics will always have ( no matter how ludicrous ) an " explanation " for any phenomena.

This statement is wrong on it's face, yet you seem to believe it.

Swamp gas.....ball lightning....ice crystals....etc. etc. etc.

Again...there will always be an " explanation " no matter how ludicrous it is.

One thing I might mention is that, I don't really think that all UFO's are alien craft.

I simply don't believe that those who offer the " explanations " have any more idea what they are than any of the rest of us do. They just ( it seems at times ) come up with anything to discount the very idea of alien craft.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Tonight on Coast to Coast AM airing at 1am EST


Mon 06.25 >>
Researcher Ann Druffel will discuss the nature of alien abduction as well as how para-physical phenomena could be responsible for global violence.

First Half-Hour: Tax protestors Ed & Elaine Brown will update us on their situation.




Free Streaming Radio courtesy of KFI in Los Angeles

Free Internet Stream for folks outside the US

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Yeah, I agree with that. This one guy comes to mind... the skeptic that offered an alternative explanation for what was seen at Rendlesham Forest. Can't remember his name.

So who do you believe? Charles Halt? If so, is it the story he told the first time, or the third time, or the fifth? Because at first he never touched the object, he just saw it from afar. Then, in the next generation stories, he got very close.

Or his story about how the light then exploded into several objects that zoomed off--a detail which, of course, he somehow forgot to mention on the LIVE tape he
was making, at the time. He was repeating everything into the tape, he just left that part out?

Then, eventually, (and now, I think) he tells the story that he touched the object. Now, of course, Jim Penniston and the other witnesses won't touch Col. Halt with a 10 foot pole--and they contradict him, now that they've seen what the lighthouse is capable of. So, where are we? Where is the proof? There is PLENTY of evidence that they saw a lighthouse and that they were scared silly--the tape shows that clear enough. At what point must we discard the 'obviously freaked out military-types in the woods at night' hypothesis, and replace it with the 'Col Halt says it was an alien ship so it must be' hypothesis?"

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Sceptics will always have ( no matter how ludicrous ) an " explanation " for any phenomena.

This statement is wrong on it's face, yet you seem to believe it.

Even when someone else commented on the flock of birds idea, "Although I can't be 100 percent sure it's not... just going by the video."

Sounds like someone is being a skeptic...

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...