Subscription Center
Aug 29, 2008 02:45 PM | 99
Move over Roswell. New Mexico's UFO Museum and Research Center may attract more than 150,000 visitors annually who are curious about the alleged 1947 alien crash landing there, but some residents of Australia's outback claim their skies are alive with unidentified flying object activity now.
In June, reports Northern Territory News, the town of Marlinja (population 112) was reportedly visited by three spaceships that hovered just a few meters over several homes. Residents were tipped off to their presence by a "strange, loud noise," the News reported. After running outside, several say they saw three red lights in the distance as the sound grew louder, causing the ground to shake. The encounter lasted "for what seemed like a couple of hours," residents reported, with the UFOs casting enough light to make them feel as though they were "sitting in a football stadium." The lights left as suddenly as they arrived, only to return briefly later that night as residents gathered to sip tea and discuss what they had just seen.
No abductions were reported, so it's safe to say that agents Mulder and Scully were not called in to investigate.
This alleged sighting, combined with a number of suspected UFO's in pictures snapped throughout Australia's Northern Territory, have outback denizens bracing for a possible influx of tourists: The area's unofficial UFO capital, Wycliffe Well, attracts "hundreds of visitors" each year hoping to catch a glimpse of a UFO zipping across the sky, according to a story today on the Northern Territory News Web site.
Other sightings (and photographs) in the Wycliffe Well area reveal a saucer-shaped object that appears in the background of a snapshot taken of an eagle in flight and an unidentified object that appears in the sky just over the shoulder of a man being photographed by his wife. The History Channel plans to send its team of experts to the area to shoot an episode of the cable television series UFO Hunters.
Of course, appearances by little green men aren't limited to Roswell and the Australian outback. The Sun of London reported today that U.K. UFO experts have been unable to identify the white and green lights photographed recently above a 24-hour convenience store in South London. Apparently, even aliens need milk and eggs in the middle of the night.
(Image courtesy of iStockphoto; Copyright: Michael Knight)
Tags:
UFO,
alien life,
Australia,
outback,
Roswell
More News Blog:
Next: XXX-Files! Agent Mulder can't get enough
Previous: McCain's Veep Pick Palin: Open ANWR to Drilling
See what we're tweeting about
gmusser The Trystero may become real, courtesy of Twitter. http://t.co/wu4cZhdN0R
Horganism Ishmael: "All men live enveloped in whale-lines. All are born with halters round their necks."
Dhunterauthor Nuevo Verdad: Geotrippin’ Parte the – Oh, Crap, I Forgot Cape Blanco!: Going through photos for the next insta... http://t.co/Sj3ldKqzuD
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
99 Comments
Add CommentWhy is it when unknown sightings occur, the so-called journalist has to revert to whacko stereotypes and derisive comments? I'm not a nutcase with a foil hat, nor do I believe in abductions, etc. But enough credible people (airline pilots, police officers, etc.) have viewed aerial sightings that fall into the "UFO" category. Can't you refrain from turning the news report into a comical article?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's probably turned into a "comical article" because the whole concept is, frankly, comical. Anyone "serious" about the possibility of alien visitation must, because of the utter dominance of crackpots within the contextual framework that contains UFOs, have a pretty good sense of humor regarding his or her belief. Argument from authority means nothing here, there have also been quite a number of airline pilots, police officers, astronauts, college professors, doctors (to expand the allegedly credible list a bit), etc., who have been completely sack-o-hammers. A person's position or job in no way implies credibility. The "comic" book version of little green men is 100 percent as valid and credible as, oh, say Edgar Mitchell. The comic book account has precisely as much actual proof of veracity as any reported sighting. So, yeah, "comical" works here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are an "authority" on this, then your opinion means "nothing" according to your philosophy. Impossible to have a rational discussion on this, as you are totally biased toward the concept itself. You thus denigrate it in one fell swoop with a closed mind. Does the possibility that machines or intelligent beings have visited us scare you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA: They are probably not, no.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhoever is picking out these articles to appear in the google homepage widget needs to be reassigned.
Three news stories up, and it's David Duchovny's sex addiction, UFO's, and political news. Great.
Where are todays discoveries? This is embarrassing.
And of course, once again, nobody managed to take a decent photo. Don't you think that it is quite a bit more than unusual that with countless millions of film, digital, cell phone, and video cameras worldwide that there is not a single photo that is either clear or convincing? There is definitely a conspiracy. I call it "The Lunatic Fringe".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi hotblack. the only thing i can say is "Too true!". SciAm has seemed to devolve.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKnurl, there's no way to tell someone who hasn't had one of these events that they are real, but they are. I saw a definite craft 25 years ago from about 200 metres in the middle of the day. There was no way in the world it was 'an unknown atmospheric event' - it had definite form and colour. Neither was it an hallucination - I've never suffered from any debilitating mental condition - and another person with me saw the same thing. It was not a balloon - it was self-powered and under intelligent direction as it moved low to the ground and in various directions. It was in full view for at least 60 seconds. Up until then - to me UFO's were a fantasy concocted by the wishful thinking of rabid minds. After that event, well, what else can I say? You won't believe it till you see one. Scepticism is necessary in today's world as there are so many shysters and frauds with so many agendas. But true scepticism requires that you are open to the possibility that you are wrong. So, I'd urge you to consider that this phenomena is real. If you find that difficult just sit on the fence about it and say 'I really don't know - but there are reasonable and reliable folk who say are convinced.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisnice one, Aussie Ross. I myself have never seen one hear in Australia. I think it would be a massive life changing event to witness something of that kind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI kindly suggest a movie based on the Travis Walton story. It's called "Fire in the Sky"
Details his experience and the accounts of others - polygraph tests etc.
Another 'Interesting' show is "Incident at Roswell" - Martin Sheen
It is v healthy to keep an open mind. We are taught and told by the govt. only what we are meant to know... and that's with regard to only the mundane things of life.
Someone who has experienced what you have Rossi, could never go back to blissful ignorance like the rest of us.
I would shit myself if I saw "the real deal" So many mysteries. Exciting times we live in.
Take care, and love to all beings.
"Open-minded" is one of those subjective terms. It seems to mean, anyone willing to believe my crackpot BS. The other word for this is “gullible”. Thus, people who question my blurry photos and movie-of-the-week account (paperback is due out for Christmas) are obviously close minded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact is most of us are very open-minded. It is simple, all we need is proof. Proof is not anecdotes (there is no way for me to tell how much you were drinking or smoking that night). Proof is not a person of esteem sharing your delusion. After all, Newton believed in the alchemist’s homunculi, George Bush believed in WMDs. Proof isn’t a movie, despite Hollywood’s flawless reputation for historical accuracy. And your assurances that you are not insane, though seemingly sincere, would not stand up in court. Look up the term “logical fallacy”. If you can come up with a hypothesis that doesn’t violate any of those, I’m sure you’ll be able find some government agency willing to sponsor your research. But that’s the problem isn’t it. It’s the government that’s responsible for covering it up. Because the government knows that if the truth got out, that we are not alone, there would be mass panic, what with everyone suddenly rushing out to by aluminium foil and air-sick pills for the flight to Alpha Centauri. We can’t handle the truth! Conspiracies are great. They are the ultimate non-falsifiable hypothesis. A lack of evidence clearly means that there is a conspiracy covering up the evidence. This is frightening because it means that the lack of evidence for tigers in my back yard not only proves that they exist but that the government, for some reason, doesn’t want me to know about it. The only problem with conspiracies is the premise that the only way for two people to keep a secret is for one of them to be killed (I think that’s the CIA’s mission statement).
Please remember that the U in UFO means unknown. Since when does unknown translate into “Visitors from another planet”? Although, it might finally explain some of the unknowns I find in left-over containers in my fridge…
"Little green men." ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"No abductions were reported, so it's safe to say that agents Mulder and Scully were not called in to investigate." ?
You think you are being cute, but you are just showing your ignorance.
Grow up.
It's interesting that these types of articles on UFOs still get published. Since vanquishing EVERY remaining challenge to the Billy Meier UFO case by the best of the professional skeptics, the focus has now turned for many to his stunningly accurate prophetic information. Now there's a word that riles people...until they realize that it means projected outcomes based on known information. The real question may be, how do Meier and his alleged ET friend do it with such accuracy?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbrewbob
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen the same thing happens over and over, year after year, same old thing ...no proof...it becomes a joke. You should understand this and not be upset. This is for real science, not he said...she said...we said...you said.
brewbob
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen the same thing happens over and over, year after year, same old thing without reasonable proof, it becomes a joke. You should know this and not be upset. This is for real science, .... not, he said....she said....they said....and we said. These type of reports are funny.
"If what this Meier is saying is just a hoax, he's being cued by some very knowledgeable scientists. I've only discussed this Meier case with scientists who are fairly open-minded about interstellar flight, but I'll tell you, the majority of them think it's credible and agree at least part, or sometimes all, of the things talked about by the Pleiadians."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis statement was made by David Froning, an astrophysicist with lengthy and impeccable credentials. How come all the know-it-alls...don't know it?
The fact is that most people who talk about evidence actually don't understand either how much there is in the Meier case, freely available for review (www.theyfly.com), or don't understand what evidence is.
Nope, it doesn't. However, this is probably because they haven't. Well, unless you count Big Blue. But that one only really scared Gary Kasparov. I don't claim to be an "authority" on this subject. I do maintain an open mind. My mind is open to proof and verification. Things that are desperately lacking in this field. Just as with the cryptozoology crowd, those who claim "authority" in the study of UFOs posses expertise in absolutely nothing. The fact that someone might be a pilot (I am a pilot, so what), or a law enforcement officer, or whatever, brings no special credibility to the table. My dismissal of the subject is due solely to the utter absence of even the thinnest proof. Though, as I type this, my computer is happily scanning away at SETI files. I couldn't give a hoot about north American bipedal apes or Scottish plesiosaurs, but proof of extraterrestrial life? Oh, hell yeah! That would be BIG. So, I remain completely open minded about this subject. But, as the saying goes "you are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts." In all of the years of the "study" of UFOs there is a whole continuum of opinions from completely daffy to coldly rational. There is, however, one, lonely fact. No UFO report has EVER produced anything even resembling proof. Not even close. Given the current state of the "study" of UFOs, "comical" at lends a little entertainment to the discourse. Oh, and I like the science fiction too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUh... insert "least." You figure out where. Oops.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article is pathetic. I have nothing more to say to you "people" at SA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA response to Chris, have you done any homework, specifically into the Meier case? Just curious as the people that I encounter that run the "no evidence" line usually have never checked the case out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, about 30 years of it. Now, I have certainly not wasted 30 years on UFOs. There are a lot of things as stupid as that would be, but I haven't done any of those either. But, yes, I have been watching 'developments' in UFOs for a very long time. Anyway, the Meier case? Are you serious? I have, in fact, reviewed the Meier materials. All I can really say is "are you joking?" I have seen 12 year olds produce better effects. I produced better effects when I was 12 years old. Just to give you some perspective when I was 12 years old computers had names like Eniac. We did better stuff with a Kodak Brownie and a spray-painted Frisbee with B-Bs glued to it. This reminds me of a debate over 911 conspiracy. The other guy kept insisting that I see "Loose Change." "Just watch the documentary and it will all become clear. It proves everything." Being one of open mind, I watched the "documentary." I've never seen such unmitigated crap but It did indeed prove much. It proved that 911 consipiracy types are gullible fools. Debate over. I'm sorry, but Billy Meier's accounts are fiction and his photographs are fakes. He's just a little more creative about it than some of the other crackpots. Hey, crop circles are amazing and even incredibly beautiful, but they are not of extraterrestrial origin. And, one must be very, very careful of the "evidence" trap, my friend. The apparent presence of "evidence" does not necessarily mean diddly-squat. Homeopaths produce evidence and ghost hunters produce evidence, everybody with some outragious clam has a bundle of evidence. It isn't the presence of evidence that is going to convince the "no evidence" people. The quality of the evidence is where the whole thing lives. Theere is a huge gulf between the skeptics who require real, good evidence and the believers who will accept absolutely anything. While Meier's case might be compelling to a few, it is unconvincing and, to go there again, comical, to the critical minded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe ufos looks extremely like the images of accretion disk ~~~
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour response indicates, that as far as the Meier case is concerned, you are a skeptic...but not a scientist. Nothing personal but I am far more expert in this case in particular (30 years of research) and I encounter claims like yours routinely. Just as routinely they are, without exception, shown to be absolutely baseless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA few specific comments:
1. The first indication that you are quite a generalist, and also a bit careless, is that you were non-responsive to the quote by David Froning, which is enormously far reaching, considering both his expertise and the nature of the information he referred to.
2. Your generalized comments about Meier's UFO photos (you didn't mention his films, video, sound recordings, metal samples, etc.) and the use of the word "effects" indicate that you have no expertise in this area at all. If you'd taken my lead, and actually reviewed the current documentation at my site, you'd have seen that I've personally defeated every challenge from James Randi, Michael Shermer, CFI-West, IIG and Derek Bartholomaus in particular, all of whom have had nearly eight years to substantiate their "hoax" claims. Randi and Bartholomaus have since retracted their claims, Bartholomaus now can't, and won't, respond to the rest of his inconsistent and unsubstantiated blunders.
3. Special effects experts from Wally Gentleman (Kubrick's 2001) to the most recent comments from Uncharted Territory (Academy Award winners, Independence Day) lend enormous credence to Meier's claims. The latest attempts to duplicate Meier's films by a British skeptic - and his own admission of falling far short - are also linked from my site.
4. You were not, are not and never will be capable yourself (or with your friends, etc.) of duplicating even one of Meier's photos (let alone his films or video). Your reference to spray-painted Frisbees, etc. is a dead give away. If you'd like to actually prove me wrong, let me know, I'll guarantee you worldwide exposure for your efforts.
5. Despite what you may think, you are unaware of the vast amount of actual evidence in the Meier case and how it meets the criteria even for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I suggest that since you neither have the background, familiarity nor facts on your side that you avoid attempting to be dismissive about matters that you're not yet qualified to credibly comment on. The debate is not just over, it hasn't begun until you know what you're talking about, which you clearly don't.
Nothing personal at all in my comments, I just encounter quite a few armchair experts who, while obviously impressed with their own opinions, can't substantiate them.
For people with the penetratingly logical, objective, scientific, thinking abilities of a David Froning, for instance, there is sufficient - free - information available at my site (and other places) to illuminate an open, yet critical, mind.
I have never seen an aerial event, but I remain open minded, as SciAm, a "scientific periodical" purports to be. I am now re-evaluating my subscription. If I wanted sensationalism, I'd subscribe to "People"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have not seen an aerial event, but I remain open-minded. As a "scientific journal", as SciAm purports to be, you should stick to SCIENTIFIC JOURNALISM with a scientic mind (that's be OPEN). I am now re-evaluating my subscription. If I wantede sensationalistic crock, I'd subscribe to "People"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow. You have obviously mistaken me for someone who is really invested in this bit. I'm not. You are obviously a genuine true believer and will refuse to be swayed by such folly as critical reasoning. Ok, your prerogative. I didn't see it as necessary to go into tremendous detail about my understanding of this subject. Meier is a crackpot. I'm sorry, but ANY person who looks at the material critically will come to the same conclusion. The only bias that occurs is when critically is dismissed as naysaying. This is the fons et erigo of the true believer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should go and watch "Loose Change," you'll become a 911 conspiracy supporter. Read Dianetics, you'll probably become a scientologist. But hey:
1. Froning? Big deal. What, precisely, makes anything Froning says of any great import?
2. You are a legend in your own mind. You have personally "defeated" Shermer and Randi? Really? How do you figure? Typical, believer tactic, declare victory and go home. Works every time. This is the favorite refuge of the "psychics." I don't recall Randi handing over that million dollar check to you. Or maybe that was one of those things that happened but no one but you saw it.
3. Yeah, yeah. Nobody is able to duplicate the effects. Bullshit, pal. another of the declare victory tactics. Doesn't work.
4. Worldwide exposure for dubious fakery? You should check out the "Roswell Rods" website. You people are just... sad. Any first year film student with a little model building experience can easily duplicate that Meier junk. It must be lonely in the world of delusion.
5. Actual evidence? You mean that actual evidence that has demonstrated undeniable, tangible proof to the scientific community? Or the actual evidence that is scoffed at by every legitimate scientist in the world? I'm just curious because the only controversary that is generated by the Meier stuff is controversary among the fringe and believer sects.
Gee, you're right. You busted me. I haven't wasted very much time on this idiocy at all. I'll leave that to the crackpots and the nitwits who follow them. When there is proof it will be obvious. It won't be some secret to which only a single individual is privy. UFOs have alway had all of the "red flags" associated with every pseudo science. Meier is no different.
Have fun with your delusions, dude. I'm done.
1. In the field of astrophysics specifically and science in general, your credentials are better than Froning's?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. To find out how I "figure" do the homework, which you again fail to reference.
3. Your evidence, please.
4. Please provide proof of fakery, I'd be most interested.
5. Yes, that evidence. Do your homework. And, if the scientific community is indeed important to you when it's convenient...the reason for your attempting to be dismissive of Froning is...?
So, apart from the angry, anonymous ad hominem attacks anything of substance to contribute?
I didn't think so.
Yesterday it was the XXX files. Today UFOs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this SciAm or the National Enquirer?
(checking my browser to be sure....)
Michael812, Meier’s “wedding cake” photos have been clearly shown to be fakes. They were likely constructed from garbage can lids from his farm, making ChrisJones’ comments about painted Frisbees not far from the truth. Once even a single piece of Meier’s evidence has been shown to be fraudulent, we can safely dismiss the remaining evidence until he can account for himself. Meier’s claims that the garbage can lids were based on early spaceship designs that had been - telepathically transmitted to German engineers - doesn’t do that. It just makes his claims seem even more idiotic. (More information available here, http://thebiggestsecret.online.fr/ufo/billy_meier_smoking_gun.htm.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurthermore, your reference to “metal samples” leads me to believe that you haven’t “done your homework” seeing that the initial analysis was never verified because the samples “mysteriously” disappeared. Unfortunate, as It would have been interesting to hear more about them since they apparently, "displayed the properties of cold fusion". Man, what does that look like!
So, what a surprise, yet another UFO fraud. But I guess it’s not really that surprising when there are scores of gullible people willing “to believe” these frauds unconditionally and folks like Michael812 willing to defend them. Maybe he hopes to be appointed head of Meier’s version of the church of scientology. As Henry Mencken said, "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
Oh Wha tagu SciAm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSometimes I have to check to see if I have been misdirected to Fortean Times.
Hi RS,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIncorrect, the whole "garbage can lid" bit was posted by...Meier, showing the similarities. As for beliefs, absolutely none are required in the Meier casebut an open, yet critical, mind is.
You apparently haven't read any of these:
http://theyfly.com/newsflash/newsflash2.htm
http://theyfly.com/newsflash5/tree.htm
http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/Top_Skeptic_Fixed.htm
http://theyfly.com/newsflash94/British_Skeptic.pdf
http://theyfly.com/newsflash92/Academy_%20Award_Fx.htm
...nor seen (and tried to duplicate) this:
http://www.steelmarkonline.com/media/Wedding_Cake_ship.mpg
Nor were you attentive to Froning's comments. The problem with people who already have their minds made up, the members of the Church of Skeptology, is that they not only ignore the evidence, they fail to understand it for its comprehensive, consistent and amazing totality.
Not a person here is capable of producing, let alone reproducing, any of the evidence presented by Meier over the past 44 years. All that is said here are merely repeats of already defeated claims by the skeptics and show, frankly, incredible intellectual laziness.
Criticisms that are expected, such as, "Well it's not worth my time, etc.", simply reflect the armchair expert state of mind. Let me put it a little more boldly, no one here would last 15 minutes in a debate with me on this, simply because no one here actually knows the facts of the case. And that, to a large degree, is because minds were made up way in advance, or swayed by truly amateurish nonsense from the skeptics.
And I challenged the the guy who posted his claims about the WCUFO o duplicate one of Meier's photos. He couldn't. So much for...theories.
P.S. Actually, based on past experience on these blogs and forums, I probably should say that I'm not interested in arguing with people who don't have a comprehensive knowledge of the Meier case. When I say that I've trounced ALL of the professional skeptics, I mean just that. So I'm more interested in introducing people to the information and letting them investigate it for themselves, if that interests them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf people want to asset that it's a hoax, or not worth looking into, etc. I already know that they have no actual knowledge of the case. I also know that the disinformation has taken hold based on the repetition of the same, long dismantled "arguments".
My suggestion, since (to the best of my knowledge) everyone here is anonymous and has no public standing in any field that would qualify them to credibly represent an opposing view, is simply to do the required research, made so much easier because of my (and other people's) diligent efforts over the past 30+ years.
That will not only better inform you of the facts of the case, it will better prepare you to pose intelligent challenges to it.
Mr Greenemeier, you omitted one other type of "little green man" in your blog, that being the little green man (as in green behind the ears) who wrote this decidedly unscientific piece of biased nonsense. If this article is indicative of Scientific American's utilization of scientific methodology, then I can only conclude that it must be an entertainment magazine and nothing more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr Greenemeier, you omitted one other type of "little green man" in your blog, that being the little green man (as in green behind the ears) who wrote this decidedly unscientific piece of biased nonsense. If this article is indicative of Scientific American's utilization of scientific methodology, then I can only conclude that it must be an entertainment magazine and nothing more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, aren't you just the center of your own special universe! Have you considered the possibility that many of us actually ARE aliens, put here to intentionally poo-poo the facts and keep all but the truly enlightened, such as yourself and Mr. Meier, completely baffled as a precursor to the coming invasion? If we keep the waters muddied up enough, surprise will be ours! Hey, prove it's not true!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"UFO Expert!" I've got to tell you, I LOVE that! It's funny on SO many levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael812, I have looked at the counter arguments and they simply don't hold up. For example, "The one that's been the hardest for me to explain is the WC craft at night with the out-of-focus car in front of it. I tend to assume that Billy had the diameter wrong -- it was the 14m craft, not the 7m craft. Then it would be about twice as far away from the camera than the car, and if the depth of field was narrow, as with a nighttime photo with nearly wide-open lens, that might explain the WC craft being in good focus and the car in very poor focus." In this case Michael Horn is actually changing Meier's account to try and cover for the inconsistencies. But regardless, given the distance to the subject, depth of field cannot account for the inconsistencies in the photo. In addition, Froning comments are not relevant to the issue of the fraudulent pictures so I don’t know why you bring him up here. What other people “think” about Meier is irrelevant. That other people haven’t been able to duplicate his fakes is irrelevant. I would not be able to “duplicate” the amazing images of dinosaurs in Jurassic Park but that doesn’t make them real. What is relevant is that the photos have been shown to be fakes and so far no convincing argument has been made to account for this. Case closed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are just doing as ChrisJones said. You are claiming victory based on evidence that has been shown to be fraudulent and rebuttals that don’t hold water. An open minded person is willing to change his mind when the evidence shows him/her to be incorrect. I once believed in UFOs but after many years of research I realized that there is no solid evidence for their existence despite the apparent large number of visitation that are reported to occur each year. We have more evidence for Neutrinos and they are virtually mass-less, have no charge, no spin, no volume, and we have to build detectors deep underground just to see the side effects of their interaction with regular matter. I liked the idea that we were not alone and that interstellar travel was possible, but I gave it up when I realized it was untenable. You, on the other hand, cling to your beliefs regardless of the evidence against them. That is the definition of close minded.
RS,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, you quote me...when that's not my quote. As you can see, if you were being the diligent fellow you'd like to represent yourself to be, these words precedes that, "And here are Deardorffs candid comments about the photo above,
Granted there are no quotation marks but what's with the selective vision on your part?
So I didn't change anything...YOU did.
Froning's comments are enormously relevant because, as a top level scientist in a highly specialized field, he recognized that the information from a simple Swiss farmer indicated knowledge that was, by definition, restricted to some very, how shall I put it, non-farmers. Hence Froning's comment about the people advising Meier being "very knowledgeable". (Perhaps you remember when you first started making comments on above light speed tachyon propulsion, eh?) So Froning, in just a few sentences (some of which he spoke at a presentation of mine) revealed that he did what you, demonstrably, didn't: he THOUGHT things through, considered MORE than the (still irreproducible six categories of) physical evidence and deduced that there was indeed sufficient credibility to warrant him sticking his neck out as a mainstream scientist of some stature, which I take it you are not.
But those weren't the only comments of a scientific nature that Meier made - and published - long before "official discovery". In addition to the information referred to here http://theyfly.com/newsflash94/UFO_Skeptics_Throw_in_the_Towel.htm Meier published advance, previously unknown information about Jupiter, Venus, Saturn and the two planets beyond Pluto, again up to four decades before "official discovery".
As for the "irrelevancy" of others not being able to duplicate any of Meier's hundreds of UFO photos, films, video, sound recordings, etc. this also shows that you're just a tad out of the loop on a number of things...including the claims of the professional skeptics that not only were Meier's efforts an "easily duplicated hoax" but that THEY could indeed duplicate them, which has turned out to be quite embarrassing for them as they've failed and have had to admit it, retract their claims, etc.
Further, when a man does indeed back up his claims, when there is NO evidence of fakery, despite your unsubstantiated, glib claim to the contrary, then it shows either the prejudice, laziness or stupidity of those who hurl unsubstantiated charges and simply can't back them up.
As you can't and won't be able to.
So, while I truly don't mean to be abrupt or personally offensive, since you too don't have a clue as to what you're talking about, you should do as I've suggested to all of the failed skeptics, learn this phrase, "I don't know." It's one I use a lot about many things, so I freely recommend it. Then when you do know, i.e. can back up your own claims and position with solid evidence, by all means, let me hear it.
Until then, sorry, a failing grade.
Try again.
P.S. I realize that most people that come across this blog will either be unfamiliar with the Meier case or prejudiced by the extensive disinformation. Therefore, I sincerely suggest that you review all of the material at www.theyfly.com and then contemplate just how a one-armed man, with no technological or financial resources, and no collaborators (all of this documented duringhte eight-year long, on site investigation) was able to produce the abundance of still irreproducible physical evidence, plus 24,000 pages of specific information (typed with one hand at 60 words per minute) while working as a night watchman, renovating a rundown farm house, raising a family with three children and ostensibly going on day and even nighttime contacts. Then contemplate why he would even try to hoax something of this magnitude even if he could, especially when he never sought financial gain, celebrity or any other conceivable benefit. And add to all that the fact that there are 5 other photographers of the craft (including a skeptical neighbor!) and over 100 witnesses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo that BEFORE throwing theories that require the man himself to be a virtual superman and master of more than 30 different technologies, disciplines and fields of expertise.
In other words, do something completely unique in this age of anonymity on internet blogs and forums, apply the same standards by which YOU would like to be judged...in the remote likelihood that you (anyone) could possibly have accomplished a fraction of what this one man has.
Remember, unfounded accusations, theories, ad hominem attacks, etc. say far more about the author than they do about the man who is the subject of this conversation.
Good Grief!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegards to All,
Charlie Brown
Sack of hammers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose who still have doubts, please visit theyfly.com and steelmarkonline.com. Your doubts will evaporate.
It is little wonder that people who hold so strongly to these beliefs take it so very personally when questioned or doubted. It must be very lonely and unrewarding to be seen as a gullible fool by the rest of the world.
Even among those who try to adhere to the rules of calm and rational debate, there comes a point at which the argument reaches culmination. Ghosts, psychics, dowsing, the "shroud," take your pick, have all been debunked to the very limits of pointlessness. UFOs are no different. Gather 100 "UFO experts" and it is virtually guaranteed that 99 of them will be crackpots, want-to-believes and/or outright hoaxers. The remaining one, while possibly rational, will, oftentimes admittedly, be treading on the very ragged fringes of legitimate science.
Numerous scientists have entertained the possibility of extraterrestrial life, even so far as the possibility of intelligent extraterrestrial life. They are frequently entertained by such things as "sightings" and "the Meier case," but have never been swayed to seeing the babblings of the true believers as anything but amusing wish thinking. Like many people here I have always hoped that we would some day make contact with other beings, but it hasn't happened yet. You can rail and rant about your qualifications and expertise and the godlike qualities of David Froning and the world-shattering exclusive access of Billy Meier to the Plejarens, but to the scientific community it is all just silliness.
There are quite a number of believers out there who self-apply the word skeptic in order to grant themselves a degree of credibility, like hoax viral emailers have taken to tacking "verified by Snopes.com" to their junk. It doesn't work with rational thinkers. All it serves to do is make you look just all the more pathetic. Mostly it is harmless, but it all too often goes to a place that carves yet another little chink in the dam that holds back the superstition and pseudo science. ..."The candle flame gutters, the demons begin to stir" and it is no longer funny or entertaining. It poisons minds, particularly those of the young or impressionable and reality loses a little more ground. You people think you are doing some kind of good, but you are most decidedly not. It would be cool upon cool if aliens were real and were visiting the Earth. But there is no evidence of either. So my bigger wish is that you people would go away.
"...to the scientific community..." Of which you are obviously not a member.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf anyone found anything specific, or even reasonably responsive, in Chris' rambling, feel free to forward it to me.
Q.E.D.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInfact, it is the supreme ignorance of Humans to assume that we are unique in that we are 1. Alive, 2. Live on a planet with water and sustainable nutrients to prolong that life, and 3. are the most advanced race of anything, anywhere.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a good idea to try and hold the size of the known universe in our minds; that will tell you how small we truly are. Then attempt to contemplate the hypothesis that each planet in the vacuum of space is really atom-sized, and multiply that variable by the size of the UNknown universe. That should give everyone a fairly unfathomable idea as to how small we actually are.
The idea that we are alone in the universe is utterly ignorant and universally detrimental. No wonder we haven't been formally introduced by another space-being. (assuming of course that we are the bottom of the food chain, with respect to many of the speculations on this comment section) why would a superior race of life want to visit us? What is in it for them besides an archealogical expedition or something equivelant to visiting a history museum?
As for the controlling government comments, do yourself and the world a favor and watch Zeitgeist on video.google.com . Everyone should watch that movie. It's a very convincing theory. I'd go so far as to say truth.
I am in no way a sworn skeptic of anything, but in like fashion I do not swallow the zillion reasons why there is yet no proof (whatever the hell that means) in the matter of UFOs. I believe that only time and study will reveal the "truth" one day; either that it all is pure nonsense with a few natural facts mxed in, or that it arises from the desires of some to stand out and be recognized for a few minutes in the sun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of all, for now more than 60 years I have been told that I should believe that "government" is hiding the "real" truth. Ok, so where then is that secretive branch of government hidden, who works there, and if there is such a controlling entity? Then too, pray tell me how it has been able to keep ANY secret for all these many years, even though NO OTHER agency or group in American history has accomplished such a feat.
Speaking as a veteran of Naval Intelligence during the Korean War, I would suggest that the "hidden from us by the government" answers are as silly as speaking of "THE stock market" as though it is an existing and working entity over and above all the men who function in that business.
Paul
Its a shame there weren't any better pictures that could have been printed after having the "lights" be above their homes for 2 hours. Were they confiscated? Having lived high in the WV mountains for many years, my family and I have seen unexplained things in the sky both in the day and night. The most thrilling/chilling was the night my son and I were traveling down our mile long drive off our mountain and a triangular shaped vehicle stopped and hovered over us. It was well lit up. We were scared but curiosity got the better of us and we rolled down our windows and leaned way out to look at the thing. I kept my foot stretched out to brake pedal because I didn't dare put the truck in park! It stayed there about 5 more minutes then silently went on its way. True story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetter pictures?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee: http://theyfly.com/photos/photos.htm
All taken in the 1970s, before home computers, PhotoShop, etc. See articles about failed attempts by skeptics to reproduce them at www.theyfly.com.
Paul, you're 100% wrong on all counts. Period. It's unfortunate that you have chosen to speak so forcefully about a subject that you clearly have little if any accurate information on. I suggest you do some actual reading on the subject before you make too big of a fool of yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, the Meier case has become mired in too much intrigue. I know for a fact that a few of the photos are fake and many of the claims smack of manipulation with an agenda.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Meier case was one of the first that I looked at back in the very early 1990s and have followed off and on since.
More likely than not, the photos and films that are real are of very terrestrial, yet secret technology currently in the hands of groups who are running a very sophisticated psyop for their own purposes, and using Meier to that end.
By better pictures, I meant this case right now. How could that many people run out and watch all that and not grab their cameras? I've seen pics over the years of so called UFO's, my family even has videoed some of the strange things in the sky. So if this article was going to be written as real, then why not get the pictures that the community that witnessed them, took? Just makes one wonder.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do extra-terrestrials find remote locations so fascinating? If I arrived from outer space I would be more interested in observing life in the more populated areas of the planet. It may be worth mentioning that here in Australia we have known problems with members of the community in remote areas of the Northern Territory sniffing glue and petrol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLex Luthor! The Legion of Doom!! KAOS!!! Oh my!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't help wondering why they make doodles in cereal crops and have such a keen interest in Cletus's butt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthose pics were quite interesting, to say the least!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease excuse this automated response but all unsubstantiated, unreferenced claims of fakes, hoaxes, etc. in the Meier case should be accompanied by that pesky little thing called evidence...as requested below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI lived in the Northern Territory for 20 years, and I can attest that the standard of journalism of the NT News (owned by Rupert Murdoch, no less!!) makes it fit only for the lining of bird cages, if you can find a budgie that would consent to use it as such.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd another thing: how is there is not a single credible artifact or photo of a UFO? There must be a jillion people wandering around at any one time with cameras of one sort or another.
Sure, there is a probability of alien visitors, though this probability is extremely small (approaching zero).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll UFO fans and "specialists" and "experts" are kindly invited to read some writings by late Artur C. Clark - he had enough knowledge and information, and brains. The latter is important.
As to Australian observers - causes of these observations may be many: boring evenings in town with 112 population, desperate wish to attract tourists, alcohol, hallucinogens, etc.
Well, skeptics must be persuaded by those who have evidence, data and documents - visual, auditory or otherwise.
And let's not forget the Great Maxim: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The town in question is a remote aboriginal community, and it is most unlikely there were any qualified astronomers in the viewing gallery. Plus, from the description, the object in question could have been a Chinook helicopter with a huge searchlight. Hey, Army guys gotta have fun, too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSure, there is probability of aliens visiting any part of our planet, though this probability is extremely small, negligible to say the least.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll UFO "speciaalists" and "experts" are kindly invited to read some of late Arthur C. Clark's writings dedicated to the subject. I think he was better expert...
As to us skeptics, we are open to any evidence, data and/or document; all those materials, which are scientifically verifiable.
Australian information is very thin - a town with 112 population is, probaably, very boring place and the means of evening passtime is obvious.
http://theyfly.com/PDF/Scientific%20Experts.PDF
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://theyfly.com/PDF/Documentation%20from%20IBM%20on.pdf (re Vogel's credibility)
http://theyfly.com/PDF/PhotoAnalysis3.pdf
http://theyfly.com/PDF/UFOSoundRecordings.pdf
http://theyfly.com/newsflash94/UFO_Skeptics_Throw_in_the_Towel.htm
http://theyfly.com/newsflash94/British_Skeptic.pdf
http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/5100_year_old_man.htm
...for starters.
http://theyfly.com/newsflash92/Academy_%20Award_Fx.htm
theyfly.com is as bad as the Weekly World News. This is just pathetic. It's like watching drunk people try to be serious - they're so very sincere and really, really think that they are spot on. But, they have no idea how totally stupid they really look. True believers are the same, so completely intoxicated by their delusions that they think they look really erudite and sophisticated to those outside the clique. But, they just look childish and silly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you have the intellectual capacity, please be...specific.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think I was pretty specific. Which syllables of stupid, childish, silly and pathetic would you like me to elaborate ... upon?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see the problem, you think that childish generalizations, such as one might find in the tabloids, etc., are sufficient evidence of your own limited intellectual capacity and illustrate your inability to pose specific challenges to decades of actual work and research. As such, I can't argue with how you choose to display your own ignorance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you think Tunguska incident was comical? I don't. So I back you Brewbob. I would recommend to those who believe it's funny to mock over the FBI. Just go to the web site of the agency, and search for "UFO". Let's see how funny it is!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI back you Brewbob. Let's see if someone think the Tunguska River incident was just funny. I suggest to those who like to mock ufology to visit the FBI website, search for "UFO" and read the documments. After that, try to make funny about what you learned.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, no, I am speaking directly to the pseudo scientific and, well, yes, childish specifics contained in the websites you seem so enamored of. Yet another of the warnings of debilitating pseudo science, you're a bunch of one-tune-Charlies. You never have anything new to bring to the discussion. Meier, Meier, controversy, blah, blah, bitty blah. Here is a little factoid about proof and evidence - Sometimes it starts out as controversial, but as soon as it is replicated or verified a few times the controversy goes away. That is how evidence works. The theory or observation is presented, controversy ensues, scientists or researchers get together and test it, its either verified or not. If it is, no more controversy. If it isnt theory goes away or is rethought. You people just keep regurgitating the same old crap. If Meier's so called evidence was legitimate, after 40 plus years of research there would be no controversy, none. The problem here is that there was no research. Nothing but a handful of crackpots making claims and speculations and rubberstamping it all as science. A collection of shiny cake pans and trash can lids dangling around on strings does not an invasion make. What you fail (refuse) to understand is that such outlandish claims must, absolutely have to, be vehemently questioned. The verification and proof absolutely must be utterly unequivocal. Any holes, even one single hoax or made up story or faked photograph and the whole thing comes crashing down in all but the most credulous minds. Several people here have posed "specific challenges" to your alleged decades of actual work and research. Your responses range from indignation to very loud self aggrandizement - and incessantly pointing people to those comical websites. Frankly, the only thing you have amply proven is that you are just another gullible dupe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisP.S. You having any trouble sorting through all those letters of support from the scientific community?
P.P.S. Tunguska River? What in blazes are you talking about? Yes, I resoundingly mock "ufology." May the mighty god Ufo strike me down in my blasphemous mockery. ... You should probably see about getting your meds adjusted.
Well - I would like to say - I am ac tually one of the people who took the photo.. and for the record I did not ever once say I saw a UFO.. i submitted the photo not expecting anything of it I neber once claimed I saw a UFO nor mention it at all. So for all you people who have said the photos not decent - bear in mind I was not out to take a photo of a UFO.. I was merely jsut taking a photo probably like every body else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this60-Second Science is Scientific American’s news blog, offering report and analysis on science and technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut why waste precious time and space on UFOs?
Could that not be just another hoax for tourist attraction?
Surely SciAm can do much better than that. Please focus on the original objectives.
Er, "ChrisJones", if your own credentials come anywhere within light years of those of the people below, please be sure to post them...as well as your own real name, credentials, accomplishments, etc. Unless that's asking too much of an obvious underachieving malcontent:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific Experts’ Comments on Meier’s Evidence
From Author Gary Kinder’s “Open Letter to the UFO Community”
David Froning: At the time, Dr. Froning had already spent 25 years as an
astronautical engineer at McDonnell Douglas in highly classified military defense
and, in 1979, became interested in Meier’s accounts of Plejaren starship travel, which
mentioned tachyon propulsion. Dr. Froning found Meier's account of tachyon propulsion
(which was only beginning to be discussed by a very small and select group of
theoretical physicists), and his calculations for above light speed travel to be amazing. In
1983, he was pursuing his Quantum Interstellar Ramjet idea (JBIS vol. 33, no. 7, July
1980; AIAA 81-1533, July1981; IAF-85-492, October, 1985) and plugged in his Quantum
Ramjet performance equations, assuming: a given starship density, vacuum energy
conversion efficiency (in transforming positrons and electrons within the quantum
vacuum into photons), and vacuum energy conversion scales of distance of the order of
the Compton wavelength. The resulting vehicle acceleration enabled achievement of
almost light speed in about 4.3 hours and deceleration from light speed in about 4.3
hours. Meier said that the elapsed time during the "hyperspace jump" took only several
seconds. Thus, trip time between the Pleiades star cluster and Earth with Froning’s
slower-than-light Quantum Ramjet Drive plus a hypothetical tachyon drive would be 8.6
hours, which was within 20% of the Plejaren trip time reported by Meier. But, while
Froning’s calculations were based on many arbitrary assumptions, and in no way proved
the truthfulness of Meier's account (since it was a theoretical system he was working on,
only time will tell as to which are correct) Froning was somewhat startled that his
arbitrary flight time computations were within 20% of the flight time mentioned by Meier.
Regarding the Meier material, Dr. Froning also publicly stated that, “My colleagues and I
may have made breakthroughs in our understanding of possibilities and ways for
traveling faster than light from Billy Meier's accounts of his encounters with the
Plejarens.” He also said, "If what this Meier is saying is just a hoax, he's being cued by
some very knowledgeable scientists. I've only discussed this Meier case
(Cont.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEric Eliason: U.S. Geological Survey in Flagstaff, Arizona, created image-processing
software so astrogeologists can analyze photographs of planets beamed back from
space, spent two years producing the intricate radar map of cloud-covered Venus
acquired by Pioneer 10: "In the photographs there were no sharp breaks where you
could see it had been somehow artificially dubbed. And if that dubbing was registered in
the film, the computer would have seen it. We didn't see anything."
Robert Post: JPL photo laboratory for 22 years, was the head of that lab in 1979, and
oversaw the developing and printing of every photograph that came out of JPL at the
time: "From a photography standpoint, you couldn't see anything that was fake about the
Meier photos. That's what struck me. They looked like legitimate photographs. I thought,
'God, if this is real, this is going to be really something.”
Dr. Michael Malin: Principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera on NASA's
Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft at Malin Space Science Systems (MSSS), San
Diego, CA. Analyzed Meier’s photographs in 1981: "I find the photographs themselves
credible, they're good photographs. They appear to represent a real phenomenon. The
story that some farmer in Switzerland is on a first name basis with dozens of aliens who
come to visit him ... I find that incredible. But I find the photographs more credible.
They're reasonable evidence of something. What that something is I don't know." Malin
also said, "If the photographs are hoaxes then I am intrigued by the quality of the hoax.
How did he do it? I'm always interested in seeing a master at work."
(Cont.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSteve Ambrose: Sound engineer for Stevie Wonder, inventor of the Micro Monitor
radio set and speaker that fits inside Wonder's ear, analyzed the Meier sound recordings
of one of the UFO’s as it hovered above him. Not only was he unable to duplicate the
sounds with synthesizers, he found they created totally unique patterns on a spectrum
analyzer and on the oscilloscope. Another sound engineer named Nils Rognerud
corroborated Ambrose’s findings. Think about this for just a moment, these experts,
using state-of-the-art equipment, were unable to duplicate the sounds and the unique
patterns they generated.
Wally Gentleman: Director of Special Effects on the Canadian Film Board for ten
years, director of special photographic effects for Stanley Kubrick's film 2001, had
viewed Meier’s 8mm film segments of the UFO’s. Showed that the manpower and costs
to fake the films were clearly beyond Meier’s reach: "My greatest problem is that for
anybody faking this" (referring to one of the photographs) "the shadow that is thrown
onto that tree is correct. Therefore, if somebody is faking it they have an expert there.
And being an expert myself, I know that that expert knowledge is very hard to come by.
So I say, 'Well, is that expert knowledge there or isn't it there?' Because if the expert
knowledge isn't there, this has got to be real."
Nippon TV: Did their own examination and also came to the conclusion that there were
no models, special effects or hoaxing involved in Meier’s films.
(Cont.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMarcel Vogel: Research chemist for IBM for twenty-two years, held thirty-two
patents, and invented the magnetic disk coating memory system still used in IBM
disk memories. A specialist in the conversion of energy inside crystals, Vogel probed
crystalline structures with the most complete optical microscopic equipment available in
the world - a system of scanning electron microscopes costing $250,000. Lieut. Col.
Wendelle Stevens, USAF (Ret.): One of the original investigators in the Meier case. In
1979, he sent Vogel crystals and metal samples Meier had received from the Plejarens.
Vogel reported, ”When I touched the oxide with a stainless steel probe, red streaks
appeared and the oxide coating disappeared. I just touched the metal like that, and it
started to deoxidize and become a pure metal. I have never seen a phenomenon like
that before.” Of another metal sample containing nearly every element in the periodic
table, Vogel stated, “Each pure element was bonded to each of the others, yet somehow
retained its own identity.” X-ray diffraction and spectral analysis revealed both Thulium
and Rhenium. “Thulium exists only in minute amounts. It is exceedingly expensive, far
beyond platinum, and rare to come by. Someone would have to have an extensive
metallurgical knowledge even to be aware of a composition of this type", said Vogel. At
1600 X Vogel said, "A whole new world appears in the specimen. There are structures
within structures - very unusual." At 2500 X he found that the sample was, “metal, but at
the same time ... it is crystal!"
Vogel put the full weight of his expertise in these summary comments: "With any
technology that I know of, we could not achieve this on this planet! I could not put it
together myself, as a scientist... And I think it is important that those of us who are in
the scientific world sit down and do some serious study on these things instead of
putting it off as people's imagination." Again, here is another top-level scientific
specialist who is unable to duplicate the material presented to him by Meier.
As I said, please do let us know just how qualified you are to do anything more than post anonymously on an internet forum.
And have a nice day.
if that is really true, why is it that UFO would not like to take a landing in australia?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUFOs of ET origin (as opposed to the majority of sightings that are secret military craft) are not the important issue anyway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIF ET UFOs exist, there must be a reason why they have appeared here.
The reasons can be found in the 24,000+ pages of the Meier material...for those who are interested.
However, it should be noted that actual extraterrestrial, space-traveling human beings are not only more technologically developed (which is all that most people are concerned with anyhow) but understand us well enough to know that few are mature or intelligent enough to handle anything remotely close to actual contact. So the information that they would like us to have and consider has been given to us...and is directly concerned with how we can assure our own future survival.
And it's up to each person who is interested to do their own due diligence. Obviously, there are plenty of people who have nothing to add to the discussion, nor are they interested in challenging their own prejudices, and resistance to new and challenging information, etc.
Yeah, yeah, I've already seen all of that stuff. Same stuff, same crap. Like I said, not a single new syllable. You keep pushing the same stuff, magical metal that has amazing properties, blah, blah. Dude, where the hell is it? Produce the freaking metal let some real scientists look at it and then we'll talk. Opinions, yes, even mine, mean absolutely nothing. But, my worthless opinion is NOT trying to prove something. My useless yammering is simply pointing out that YOU have proven nothing. Everything you say and do supports this contention. No, I cannot produce "evidence" that UFOs are not real and that Billy Meier is just another, albeit slightly more creative and dedicated, hoaxer, but do you even understand the concept of burden of proof? I... We, have been very clear about this subject, reasonable even. Few here are so completely closed minded as you have shown your self to be. Just about everyone here is totally open to the proof of alien visitation, but are unconvinced that it has happened. You, on the other hand are totally and immovably convinced that it has. I don't hold any prejudices at all. Refutation of questionable, often downright silly "evidence" is not prejudice. This is something you staunchly refuse to understand. Your credentials and history might be very compelling and impressive among those who are already believers, but among those who are either undecided or completely outside the believer realm, you just look like another crackpot. You take questioning very personally, why is that? I understand that you are personally invested in this subject, but if you are, as you claim, a rational person of science, you MUST understand that questioning of theories and claims IS the whole point of the process. If you do not understand this, then you cannot be a scientist. You attack my intellectual capabilities, refer to me as an "underachieving malcontent" and you don't even know me. Why would the anonymous questioning of your spurious beliefs generate such spleen? Post my credentials? Post my real name and achievements. Hey, here's one achievement, I, an underachieving malcontent, have managed, with just a few questions and jeers, to get a self proclaimed scientist pretty riled up. I think that's pretty cool. Hey, for all you know, dufus, I could be 12, and so much smarter than you it'd make you pee your panties. Is there ANYTHING that you don't just swallow hook line and sinker? I'm not trying to prove anything here, you are. And you're doing it very badly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you see one (I have.) it certainly relieves you of the responsibility to be measured in your response to such a dim-witted satirical approach.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can't say that this episode in my life led to anything other than a belief that those who "debunk" have little in the think-tank. It's a misfortune that this attitude of "I won't believe because it's not been experienced by me." is perpetuated here. If this story is true, no facts as reported herein are contrary, why is this not straight reportage.
The scientific community should be freaking enthralled, not dismissive. I suggest that the humorist be sent to the Outback and gather a complete rendition of what occurred and if he than wants to kill the reputation of those 100 or so residents, he'd be entitled.
It's understandable that at 12 you may not be familiar with some things so don't worry. I do suggest that you learn not to attack people because you don't know something as it won't help you to develop critical thinking...or credibility as you grow up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps the most important thing to learn is that proof is determined from the consideration of the evidence and by thinking through all of it and then arriving at one's conclusions.
Therefore, it is also important to understand what evidence is and to examine all that is available, including documentation of evidence by various experts who may have had access to things no longer available to each individual, as is historically the case for most of human history.
For those who glance over these posts and wish to determine for themselves the credibility of the Meier case, ample information can be found, for free, in the links provided, etc.
Factoids are repeated statements that do NOT have any supporting evidence. They are tid-bits repeated so frequently they become common 'knowledge'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince you want precision from others. please constrain yourself to the same principle. Thank you.
Wow, I guess that question is answered. Gulp! Want to buy a bridge, I have a lovely selection of bridges. Some of them are even from outer space. They have little alien sparkles all over them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMan, you are pathetic.
Moving right along: Ok, yes, I will concede MY misapplication of "factoid." All those things I said about evidence are indeed actually genuine facts. Yep, my bad.
However, erroneous information that is repeated over and over and over and& until you just want to SPEW& well, until it becomes accepted as fact, or nearly so, is more along the lines of this UFO crap. The problem plaguing the whole trying-to-be legitimate study of the possibility of extraterrestrial life is the very thing that this Michael guy is pimping so hard. Crackpots. It puts a blight on people like NASA and the SETI institute, who are trying to do real science. These people are often having to stumble all over themselves to disassociate themselves from nitwits like Meier. It isn't easy, because the forces of planet Moron are many and strong. Because of natives of planet M, Meier, et al, the largely scientifically undereducated public doesn't know who to believe. Too many end up believing the loud, pushy, splashy crackpots. I'll take the Sagans and Plaits and Tysons, thank you very much. They might not be as loud and obnoxious and don't get all pissed off when someone questions a claim. But, hey, they are (were) scientists who actually have a handle on how the process works.
Now, I realize that by continuously tossing fuel on this fire, I'll just invite more ire and insult - yes, I dish it too. But as annoying as these idiots get, someone has got to keep them at least irritated or else they might get comfortable. SciAm, shame! You should be helping to contribute to their discomfort not pandering to them. Nothing UFO should be allowed in the door until there is something compelling. Silly little lights in the sky and fevered fairytales kluged together by the Grizzly Adams of the UFO set cheapen the publication. I go all the way back to my original comments, stupid, bad, COMICAL article, best left to tabloid crap sheets. Come on SciAm, shake off the nutballs, we don't need 'em.
To those who say there is no reason for an advanced race from the stars to come here, consider this. If we discovered a colony of primates who had developed explosives & were using them against a neighboring colony of primates, I dare say, we would go there immediately to study them, just as an advanced race from the stars discovering a planet full of hairless apes who had developed nuclear weapons & immediately used them against another group of hairless apes would almost certainly go there to study them. You might want to consider the bigger picture before making these kind of statements in the future. You might look less foolish.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas anyone noticed the 'colour' of these strange lights that are now appearing in different parts of the world? Check out the Orange light that was photographed by a couple on an Island about 50 km east of helsinki, it was on their TV today and don't forget the lights just reported from Iraq.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke." Joel 2:30
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, please. This UFO baloney is bad enough without turning into biblical crap as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, SciAm, let me applaud the courage you showed by broaching the subject of UFOs. However, it would be enlightening to see a first rate scientific publication revisit the SAC missile base intrusions of the 60s & 70s. The base commanders & other personnel involved in these disturbing(?) incidents could give you much for analysis, perhaps even a multiple segment article. Now, as for the current back & forth going on @ this blog, it has been mentioned that there are those responding who have nothing relevant to add to the discussion, as their minds are closed to the relevance of the subject. Those of us who actually wish to discuss what is being seen in the skies with an intent to actually theorize what they might be & why they are here should do this in response to the detractors-NOTHING! Know that since they are agent provocateurs whose intent is only to detract from the discussion, that their bombastic pontifications should just be ignored & continue the discussion only with those of a like mind. So, you folks in the middle, lets talk about this subject, & let the rabid debunker crowd argue with the book of mormon crowd.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Know that since they are agent provocateurs whose intent is only to detract from the discussion, that their bombastic pontifications should just be ignored & continue the discussion only with those of a like mind."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis so totally sums it all up doesn't it? Never mind the remarkable similarity to a "bombastic pontification" but that last little bit, "...continue the discussion only with those of a like mind?" So, to put it less bombastically, unless someone just believes without question, they need not be heard from. Is that about right? You don't even really know what a "discussion" is do you?
Ok, now, I wouldn't even think of it, but I had a college professor who would have had no problem calling you an idiot.
You should just gather up your tarot cards and go home.
i hope this sticks in the back of your mind till i am proven correct but you will all see and those with a closed mind shall carry on ignorantly while the rest of us are intelligently enlightening ourselves you are fitting in to a plan of which you have no knowledge and believing every word you are told you think you know the facts because someone who has the power to talk to a lot of people tells you that makes me sick i cannot say who i am but i am involved and a message from me to you is research EVERYTHING that is disputed by authority for god's sake people don't you think the almighty god would begin his story with i in first person no it clearly sais we please listen to this and enlighten your minds
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi hope this sticks in the back of your mind till i am proven correct but you will all see and those with a closed mind shall carry on ignorantly while the rest of us are intelligently enlightening ourselves you are fitting in to a plan of which you have no knowledge and believing every word you are told you think you know the facts because someone who has the power to talk to a lot of people tells you that makes me sick i cannot say who i am but i am involved and a message from me to you is research EVERYTHING that is disputed by authority for god's sake people don't you think the almighty god would begin his story with i in first person no it clearly sais we please listen to this and enlighten your minds
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat the bloody hell was that? Do you have a shift key? Do you know what punctuation is? Why use spaces between the words at all? If you are going to be incoherent, why not be unintelligible as well? Ok, you did find the Caps Lock key for "EVERYTHING," but you missed it for the typical capitalization of "god." Curious.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisit is the MOST arrogant thing when people dismiss the possibility of life on other planets. to think that this tiny insignificant planet - one of millions in the milky way, a tiny galazy amongst a endless number of galaxies, galaxy clusters, super clusters, blackholes etc., that we could never in a thousand lifetimes number, or even discover them all - is the ONLY one to support life of any kind is not only something no one could possibly know but just so increadibly unlikely. especially when life, as we know it, need only water to survive and subsist. i mean, really? be it looked at from the viewpoint of chance and probibility the likelihood is so feasible. and if looked at from a religious perspective, to think an all powerful god would create a seemingly endless span of heavenly bodies, only to create someone to witness a tiny microscopic speck emasculetes the power, supremecy, creativity and ingenuity of God himself. furthermore, using comical, 1950s sci-fi saturated stereotypes to deflate this obvious possibility only undermines the author or spokesperson's clearely close-minded judgement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that people who are arrogant enough to dismiss the possibility that we are being visited by alien civilizations are very dangerous. It’s a cocktail of arrogance and ignorance on a cosmic scale. This is why the world is such a miserable place for most
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor millennia our wise men have thought that they knew all there was to know or we were on the verge of knowing it all, our best physicists today may just be as off as we now know Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were on some topics. If you lived in an isolated Amazon tribe what would you make of the airplanes flying overhead?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAround the world there are tens of thousands of creation stories. Stories that are as important to their people as the bible is to Christians. These beliefs mean a lot to their believers so much so that more people have died for this reason over the course of history than for any other. From human-sacrifice to suicide-bombings, including all the crusades and inquisitions between. I believe that this is one reason why the UFO subject is so taboo to some.
When we sensor certain information because it does not gel with our beliefs we could put ourselves and those around us in danger.
At the turn of the last century most Americans including scientist believed that Martians lived on Mars. As evident by the panic generated by Orson Welles radio broadcast of a Martian invasion. When the “Flying Saucer” reports started coming in, every newspaper and media house covered the story seriously, CBS, NBC, etc all cover it seriously. The change to ridicule began when the “Contactee Movement” began. The claims made by these “Contactees” where seen as too outlandish by the main-stream.
If government scientist disclose that UFOs are alien visitors there will those that still won’t believe, just like some don’t believe when scientist say we are changing the climate or that we evolved.
The world is changing rapidly. The gap between those that know the fundamentals of what’s going on around us and those that don’t is growing, from how a micro-chip gets our cell phones to work to how Dr Craig Venter will create new life from scratch in his lab. As well as those that know why the aliens are here to those that don’t believe we are being visited at all. When this information gap is sufficiently large everything that those who don’t know or those who disbelieve hold dear could be in jeopardy including their freedom. The choice is ours.
For millennia our wise men have thought that they knew all there was to know or we were on the verge of knowing it all, our best physicists today may just be as off as we now know Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were on some topics. If you lived in an isolated Amazon tribe what would you make of the airplanes flying overhead?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAround the world there are tens of thousands of creation stories. Stories that are as important to their people as the bible is to Christians. These beliefs mean a lot to their believers so much so that more people have died for this reason over the course of history than for any other. From human-sacrifice to suicide-bombings, including all the crusades and inquisitions between. I believe that this is one reason why the UFO subject is so taboo to some.
When we sensor certain information because it does not gel with our beliefs we could put ourselves and those around us in danger.
At the turn of the last century most Americans including scientist believed that Martians lived on Mars. As evident by the panic generated by Orson Welles radio broadcast of a Martian invasion. When the “Flying Saucer” reports started coming in, every newspaper and media house covered the story seriously, CBS, NBC, etc all cover it seriously. The change to ridicule began when the “Contactee Movement” began. The claims made by these “Contactees” where seen as too outlandish by the main-stream.
If government scientist disclose that UFOs are alien visitors there will those that still won’t believe, just like some don’t believe when scientist say we are changing the climate or that we evolved.
The world is changing rapidly. The gap between those that know the fundamentals of what’s going on around us and those that don’t is growing, from how a micro-chip gets our cell phones to work to how Dr Craig Venter will create new life from scratch in his lab. As well as those that know why the aliens are here to those that don’t believe we are being visited at all. When this information gap is sufficiently large everything that those who don’t know or those who disbelieve hold dear could be in jeopardy including their freedom. The choice is ours.
For millennia our wise men have thought that they knew all there was to know or we were on the verge of knowing it all, our best physicists today may just be as off as we now know Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were on some topics. If you lived in an isolated Amazon tribe what would you make of the airplanes flying overhead?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAround the world there are tens of thousands of creation stories. Stories that are as important to their people as the bible is to Christians. These beliefs mean a lot to their believers so much so that more people have died for this reason over the course of history than for any other. From human-sacrifice to suicide-bombings, including all the crusades and inquisitions between. I believe that this is one reason why the UFO subject is so taboo to some.
When we sensor certain information because it does not gel with our beliefs we could put ourselves and those around us in danger.
At the turn of the last century most Americans including scientist believed that Martians lived on Mars. As evident by the panic generated by Orson Welles radio broadcast of a Martian invasion. When the “Flying Saucer” reports started coming in, every newspaper and media house covered the story seriously, CBS, NBC, etc all cover it seriously. The change to ridicule began when the “Contactee Movement” began. The claims made by these “Contactees” where seen as too outlandish by the main-stream.
If government scientist disclose that UFOs are alien visitors there will those that still won’t believe, just like some don’t believe when scientist say we are changing the climate or that we evolved.
The world is changing rapidly. The gap between those that know the fundamentals of what’s going on around us and those that don’t is growing, from how a micro-chip gets our cell phones to work to how Dr Craig Venter will create new life from scratch in his lab. As well as those that know why the aliens are here to those that don’t believe we are being visited at all. When this information gap is sufficiently large everything that those who don’t know or those who disbelieve hold dear could be in jeopardy including their freedom. The choice is ours.
i am not an expert, nor have i ever been contacted by an extraterrestrial visitor but it makes sense to me that if we were we wouldnt know about it. because of the mass hysteria it would cause the government would have every reason to cover it up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisif we were visited it would probably be by some kind of robot or probe. if it landed in the desert somewhere the probe may not pick up any life and think that there was no one here. after all, after over 6 years of our own rovers studying Mars, we only covered a small portion of the planet. its totally likely that space crafts have come and gone a million times with out us being any the wiser.
also, the resources it would take to travel thousands of light years from one galaxy to the next would be more than this planet could provide that i doubt they would come here to exterminate us, they would most likely just be comming to either study or help us.
anyway, i think its a very interesting thing to ponder. in my opinion, people debating in the forum with opposing viewpoints both make good points - to a degree. but the fact is that we dont know, we can only guess and formulate our own theories, so getting all pissed and angry about it, while entertaining, is pointless and silly.
no matter how convicted you may be about your stance, no one who is firmly resolute on either side is likely to concede until solid proof is evidant. and since there is absolutely no way to ever disproove the exsistance of alien life, i guess we'll all have to wait and see.
I thought the whole ufo debate had been answered years ago. The history channel pretty much stated that they were Nazi Germany's 'secret weapon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey were designed by German engineers based upon specs. given them by Thule psychics.
Ufos are basically German design, as are the "little green men" right? The history channel aired a broadcast stating that ufos were largely the brain child of Thule psychics working with Nazi engineers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissure blame it all on the nazis...then explain why there are still sightings...how many nazi engineers do you think are still doing this..?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not a believer but I also can not dismiss the possibility that we simply do not have the mindset to grasp something else's technology. A view that if we can't imagine how they could do it (traveling vast distances) then they can't do it, seems to be based more on inferiority rather than logic. Even SETI base their search with the idea that communication will be through radio rather than light due to the amount of energy required for the signals. Without knowing the capabilities of their technology our assumptions are so human. We know to harness the output of our meager sun would answer our power demands so who's to say their not ten steps ahead and harnessing a cluster? With so little scientific research and far too much pseudo science the subject is unlikely to be solved by our vigilance alone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have in the past shot video about curious events. One of the first videos I shot was a interview with a Hispanic couple about an strange occurring light in a small town in Ventura California. It is always difficult to believe what other people say about UFOs because, even those of us who have actually witness such events, it seems to be very personal and understood by the individual so it comes out as fantastic testimony when expressed to our fellow inhabitants. Regardless. I just saw very compelling testimony at google video... (currently posted at leecrismanradio.com)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverytime I see someone discuss these personal events in such manner, it only makes me believe in otherworld creatures that much more. The truth is once you witness strange craft, you know they really exist, until then it is speculation and intellectualized fodder.
What is to say this UFO thing is nothing more than a future Earth doing scientific experiments in time travel? What a perfect way of getting information to the future than seeing in news archive, paintings and so on as to where these science experiments have gone?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this