Umm ... yeah.
You laugh but it is more plausible than space aliens from outer space crashing their space ship from outer space, though, innit?
I mean, at least we know planes exist, Mengele existed and not only that Stalin existed but that he was certifiable, too. That's ... that's more evidence than there is for aliens. So ... I gotta believe it. I just have to. 
Was it, assuming there actually was an "it", a plane? Very possibly. Genetically engineered alien-looking children sent to the middle of nowhere to create a panic in the US? Probably not.
Well, I would assume that the actual target/goal of whoever was involved in whatever - be they US, Russians or Aliens - was NOT to crash in the sparsely populated desert at all.
But hey, s*** happens.
And thus the weather/spy balloon//alien spacecraft//Russian plane full of mutated children? Whatever it was ends up scattered all about.... Now add in a dose of Gov. secrecy....
And so, 60+ years later, the masses are still talking about it.
Yeah, they really just need to release the files already. Maybe we need to start a petition to get it released...
Or you could skip the petition and file a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
Yeah, they really just need to release the files already. Maybe we need to start a petition to get it released...
Or you could skip the petition and file a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
Yeah, you can see the documents they have released from that. They usually have one or two words with the rest covered in black ink. For instance the original document might say something like this:
We decided to cover up the alien UFO crash landing by calling it a weather ballon and explaining that it was an experiment to see if we could detect nukes going off in other countries.
The released document could looke like this (where * is blacked out text)
We decided to ***** ** *** ***** *** ***** ******** ** ***** ** * weather ballon and ******* **** it was an experiment to see if we could detect nukes going off in other countries.
So where there are only a few words left you can see how it might cause some misdirection and confusion...
Exactly. And the absolute last thing we want is conspiracy nuts using redacted documents as some sort of mad-lib to prove themselves right.
How bout fully declassified documents without censorship? I'm sorry but the evidence is there. You can make fun of 'conspiracy theorists' all you want, but when you have facts and evidence its no longer a conspiracy...
Then we can conclude that since it's still a conspiracy, that there are no facts.
Other than the un-impeachable high level ex-military eye witness testimony, recorded radar tapes, and declassified government documents no....no facts there...
... well, why not? It's about as believable as any of the other stories that get bandied about.
How bout fully declassified documents without censorship? I'm sorry but the evidence is there. You can make fun of 'conspiracy theorists' all you want, but when you have facts and evidence its no longer a conspiracy...
So we don't have fully declassified documents that aren't redacted but we somehow have evidence? At any rate, I've certainly seen no unimpeachable evidence so, to me, they're still conspiracy whackadoos (or attention seekers - some people just wanna be listened to). I'll gladly change my tune when presented with a reason to do so. Hell, I may even apologize. ;)
How bout fully declassified documents without censorship? I'm sorry but the evidence is there. You can make fun of 'conspiracy theorists' all you want, but when you have facts and evidence its no longer a conspiracy...
So we don't have fully declassified documents that aren't redacted but we somehow have evidence? At any rate, I've certainly seen no unimpeachable evidence so, to me, they're still conspiracy whackadoos (or attention seekers - some people just wanna be listened to). I'll gladly change my tune when presented with a reason to do so. Hell, I may even apologize. ;)
Except for the radar recordings that show something traveling at 1000+MPH and making a right angle turn. The videos from pilot cockpits showing these things zipping past them when they are going mach 2 and dancing around them and then flying off into space...
Except for the radar recordings that show something traveling at 1000+MPH and making a right angle turn. The videos from pilot cockpits showing these things zipping past them when they are going mach 2 and dancing around them and then flying off into space...
First, where are these radar recordings and videos? Second, you deny the possibility that they could have been faked (like the moon landing)? Third, supposing they do exist and aren't faked, what about them makes them 'alien' (evidence of a fast, maneuverable object is not necessarily evidence of extra terrestrial tech)?
Except for the radar recordings that show something traveling at 1000+MPH and making a right angle turn. The videos from pilot cockpits showing these things zipping past them when they are going mach 2 and dancing around them and then flying off into space...
ummmm none of that exist as far as I know otherwise our wonderfully desinged tourist trap called "The Internationial UFO Musem and Reseach center" would have it on display somewhere inside and then charge you to look at it and or listen to it.
As a side note I encourge all of oyu to come during the july 1-4 for the Internationial UFO Festivile simply as something to do.
Sustained space flight is impossible. As in "can't be done". Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional.
Except for the radar recordings that show something traveling at 1000+MPH and making a right angle turn. The videos from pilot cockpits showing these things zipping past them when they are going mach 2 and dancing around them and then flying off into space...
ummmm none of that exist as far as I know otherwise our wonderfully desinged tourist trap called "The Internationial UFO Musem and Reseach center" would have it on display somewhere inside and then charge you to look at it and or listen to it.
As a side note I encourge all of oyu to come during the july 1-4 for the Internationial UFO Festivile simply as something to do.
Yeah, did you even visit the site or watch the video? All you gotta do is visit the site and see it for yourself...
I can't believe people still think an alien spaceship crashed anywhere on Earth. The entire idea is completely absurd. Let me spell it out.
Sustained space flight is impossible. As in "can't be done". Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional.
Yeah except the motion engines they are testing that propel a craft without any expulsion of matter. All the tests of biospheres that show a contained ecosystem works. Your right sustained space travel is impossible, let alone for an advanced civilization...
Yeah except the motion engines they are testing that propel a craft without any expulsion of matter. All the tests of biospheres that show a contained ecosystem works. Your right sustained space travel is impossible, let alone for an advanced civilization...
Hey, that's a neat idea! How come no one ever tried it?
Except for the radar recordings that show something traveling at 1000+MPH and making a right angle turn. The videos from pilot cockpits showing these things zipping past them when they are going mach 2 and dancing around them and then flying off into space...
First, where are these radar recordings and videos? Second, you deny the possibility that they could have been faked (like the moon landing)? Third, supposing they do exist and aren't faked, what about them makes them 'alien' (evidence of a fast, maneuverable object is not necessarily evidence of extra terrestrial tech)?
1000+ MPH right angle turn: assuming it made that turn at that speed, then yeah, that is tech far and away from anything we have. It pretty clearly violates basic physics. [That whole "momentum" thing.]
Yeah except the motion engines they are testing that propel a craft without any expulsion of matter. All the tests of biospheres that show a contained ecosystem works. Your right sustained space travel is impossible, let alone for an advanced civilization...
Hey, that's a neat idea! How come no one ever tried it?
Takes too long. By the time I research all the neccessary techs, I can use my superior military to just bully everyone into electing me Global Dictator via UN.
Except for the radar recordings that show something traveling at 1000+MPH and making a right angle turn. The videos from pilot cockpits showing these things zipping past them when they are going mach 2 and dancing around them and then flying off into space...
ummmm none of that exist as far as I know otherwise our wonderfully desinged tourist trap called "The Internationial UFO Musem and Reseach center" would have it on display somewhere inside and then charge you to look at it and or listen to it.
As a side note I encourge all of oyu to come during the july 1-4 for the Internationial UFO Festivile simply as something to do.
Yeah, did you even visit the site or watch the video? All you gotta do is visit the site and see it for yourself...
do you mean the link to the article (Which i watched the ngiht it aired) or the crash site,which oddly enough is closer to Corna new mexico than to Roswell,as a side note my great grandma who was alive here when it happened belives it jsut some drunk air froce pilots lol
Can we aleast see how many of you have even been here to Roswell?
Can we aleast see how many of you have even been here to Roswell?
I had a wedding to attend there and did some site-seeing. There is way too much alien merchandise on sale, it's enough to make anyone disbelieve in aliens, or at least intelligent life on Earth.
Except for the radar recordings that show something traveling at 1000+MPH and making a right angle turn. The videos from pilot cockpits showing these things zipping past them when they are going mach 2 and dancing around them and then flying off into space...
ummmm none of that exist as far as I know otherwise our wonderfully desinged tourist trap called "The Internationial UFO Musem and Reseach center" would have it on display somewhere inside and then charge you to look at it and or listen to it.
As a side note I encourge all of oyu to come during the july 1-4 for the Internationial UFO Festivile simply as something to do.
Yeah, did you even visit the site or watch the video? All you gotta do is visit the site and see it for yourself...
do you mean the link to the article (Which i watched the ngiht it aired) or the crash site,which oddly enough is closer to Corna new mexico than to Roswell,as a side note my great grandma who was alive here when it happened belives it jsut some drunk air froce pilots lol
Can we aleast see how many of you have even been here to Roswell?
Oops wrong thread, I was talking about the www.disclosureproject.org that I posted in another thread and the video about them wanting to testify in front of congress, sorry...
I can't believe people still think an alien spaceship crashed anywhere on Earth. The entire idea is completely absurd. Let me spell it out.
Sustained space flight is impossible. As in "can't be done". Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional.
You mean that at our current technological understanding we believe that sustained space flight is impossible. We are constantly learning that we are wrong in our beliefs as we advance technologicially. There is no reason to think that we might not be wrong on that one. To simply state that it is flat out impossible is naive.
Was it, assuming there actually was an "it", a plane? Very possibly. Genetically engineered alien-looking children sent to the middle of nowhere to create a panic in the US? Probably not.
Depends. There is lots of evidence with different species of animals that changing a very small amount of genetic code can cause huge deformities. Heck that's exactly what most birth deformities are. ;) Anyways Russia probably didn't have that kind of tech back then so if they did mess with genetic code it was likely more accident. More likely they exposed children to toxins or had them undergo surgery if such were the case.
I can't believe people still think an alien spaceship crashed anywhere on Earth. The entire idea is completely absurd. Let me spell it out.
Sustained space flight is impossible. As in "can't be done". Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional.
space flight is very possible. If it wasn't for space flight you wouldn't be posting on this forum because doing such would be impossible!!!!
Except for the radar recordings that show something traveling at 1000+MPH and making a right angle turn. The videos from pilot cockpits showing these things zipping past them when they are going mach 2 and dancing around them and then flying off into space...
First, where are these radar recordings and videos? Second, you deny the possibility that they could have been faked (like the moon landing)? Third, supposing they do exist and aren't faked, what about them makes them 'alien' (evidence of a fast, maneuverable object is not necessarily evidence of extra terrestrial tech)?
1000+ MPH right angle turn: assuming it made that turn at that speed, then yeah, that is tech far and away from anything we have. It pretty clearly violates basic physics. [That whole "momentum" thing.]
Not really. With a proper propulsion system one could ideally make such a turn and not violate conservation of momentum. Even still who knows maybe advanced tech has a way to turn without turning (i.e. bending space to change direction but not direction of motion). But if it was a turn at that speed that is quite a few g forces. Any human trying that would be squashed.
I guess I really should apologize. I dangled a FET hook in the water (again) last night because I was bored. I have to say, I'm a little surprised at how many fishies took the bait. I would entertain myself by stating some FES theories like Universal Acceleration, Dark Energy, and such, but I have too much to do today to really get into the debate. Oh well. Maybe another day.
Aye, its baffling how many people took you seriously.
________
1At first I thought he was talking about long-distance manned crafts, which is an arguable standpoint. My response was to illustrate that you can have an alien craft crash land without it being manned.
I can't believe people still think an alien spaceship crashed anywhere on Earth. The entire idea is completely absurd. Let me spell it out.
Sustained space flight is impossible. As in "can't be done". Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional.
Yeah except the motion engines they are testing that propel a craft without any expulsion of matter. All the tests of biospheres that show a contained ecosystem works. Your right sustained space travel is impossible, let alone for an advanced civilization...
You mean the failed biosphere project where they were not able to have a sustained and contained ecosystem?
Exactly. And the absolute last thing we want is conspiracy nuts using redacted documents as some sort of mad-lib to prove themselves right.
How bout fully declassified documents without censorship? I'm sorry but the evidence is there. You can make fun of 'conspiracy theorists' all you want, but when you have facts and evidence its no longer a conspiracy...
Dude, you make it sound so easy. You seem to assume that all this information could just be released without a problem. Sometimes mistakes are made, and sometimes stuff isn't declassified when it is supposed to be, but for the most part classification rules are there for a reason. You are insisting that they release this information but you don't know what it is or why it's being held back. The unredacted documents could reveal a source working for a foreign government who could be executed for giving us information, or reveal some technological secret we've been saving for WWIII.
I guess I really should apologize. I dangled a FET hook in the water (again) last night because I was bored. I have to say, I'm a little surprised at how many fishies took the bait. I would entertain myself by stating some FES theories like Universal Acceleration, Dark Energy, and such, but I have too much to do today to really get into the debate. Oh well. Maybe another day.
Aye, its baffling how many people took you seriously.
I realized it about 30 seconds after I hit submit post, but it wasn't worth the effort to remove what I said, so...
It's taking him seriously to dismiss him out of hand once I realize what he's actually talking about1?
________
1At first I thought he was talking about long-distance manned crafts, which is an arguable standpoint. My response was to illustrate that you can have an alien craft crash land without it being manned.
That's what I took it for as well. I didn't even consider that he was talking about unmanned craft.
I guess I really should apologize. I dangled a FET hook in the water (again) last night because I was bored. I have to say, I'm a little surprised at how many fishies took the bait. I would entertain myself by stating some FES theories like Universal Acceleration, Dark Energy, and such, but I have too much to do today to really get into the debate. Oh well. Maybe another day.
Aye, its baffling how many people took you seriously.
It's also baffling how many people actually truly believe dumb stuff like that.
It's also baffling how many people actually truly believe dumb stuff like that.
Yes but most of those aren't on the internet because they're watching your every move there.
Exactly. And the absolute last thing we want is conspiracy nuts using redacted documents as some sort of mad-lib to prove themselves right.
How bout fully declassified documents without censorship? I'm sorry but the evidence is there. You can make fun of 'conspiracy theorists' all you want, but when you have facts and evidence its no longer a conspiracy...
Dude, you make it sound so easy. You seem to assume that all this information could just be released without a problem. Sometimes mistakes are made, and sometimes stuff isn't declassified when it is supposed to be, but for the most part classification rules are there for a reason. You are insisting that they release this information but you don't know what it is or why it's being held back. The unredacted documents could reveal a source working for a foreign government who could be executed for giving us information, or reveal some technological secret we've been saving for WWIII.
Oh so your saying that Russian spies are involved in UFOs now? They could declassify a lot of it without revealing anything. As far as I know all spies are refered to by code names anyway and they all use false identification in their OPs. So really that's not a consideration. Now if they've got tech that's been around since 1947 and they're holding it for WWIII somethings wrong...
Exactly. And the absolute last thing we want is conspiracy nuts using redacted documents as some sort of mad-lib to prove themselves right.
How bout fully declassified documents without censorship? I'm sorry but the evidence is there. You can make fun of 'conspiracy theorists' all you want, but when you have facts and evidence its no longer a conspiracy...
Dude, you make it sound so easy. You seem to assume that all this information could just be released without a problem. Sometimes mistakes are made, and sometimes stuff isn't declassified when it is supposed to be, but for the most part classification rules are there for a reason. You are insisting that they release this information but you don't know what it is or why it's being held back. The unredacted documents could reveal a source working for a foreign government who could be executed for giving us information, or reveal some technological secret we've been saving for WWIII.
Oh so your saying that Russian spies are involved in UFOs now? They could declassify a lot of it without revealing anything. As far as I know all spies are refered to by code names anyway and they all use false identification in their OPs. So really that's not a consideration. Now if they've got tech that's been around since 1947 and they're holding it for WWIII somethings wrong...
Whaa?
I'm utterly confused now. Where did those Russians come from? I mean in this string of posts, I know where Russians come from
Oh so your saying that Russian spies are involved in UFOs now? They could declassify a lot of it without revealing anything. As far as I know all spies are refered to by code names anyway and they all use false identification in their OPs. So really that's not a consideration. Now if they've got tech that's been around since 1947 and they're holding it for WWIII somethings wrong...
Way to pay attention. What I'm saying is we don't know who's involved, that's why they are UNIDENTIFIED Flying Objects, not Russian Spy Planes or Alien Space Saucers. And foreign government doesn't have to mean Russia. It could be something we stole from an ally, which could have potential political ramifications even now. So yes, it could be Russian, or something that we designed to be used in Russia or elsewhere. We don't know.
As for sources, you are again revealing your ignorance. Just because someone uses a code name doesn't make it ok to plaster everything all over the internet. Do you think no one can figure out who is using that code name if they are given enough information? Maybe only a few people worked on this project and so it wouldn't be too difficult to work through the narrow list of people who could have given it to us. Maybe we release this and some other stuff from the same source, and someone realizes that only one guy had access to every one of those projects. Anything brought in through a classified source is protected for a long time and for good reason.
On the technological note, maybe this stuff sparked an ongoing project (the way we started with the A-bomb and now have more advanced nuclear technologies, ICBMs, etc), or maybe that technology really is that bad (back to the A-bomb, that **** is even older but we still don't release its design to whoever wants it).
As for space travel it should be easier to have un-piloted probes. When ya think about the vastness of space and the great distances that would need to be traveled and the time it would take to do so it just makes more sense to use automated systems. Not to mention an automated system could probably be much smaller than a life carrying vessel and so could likely do a much better job at escaping detection and whatnot.
So basically point is unless aliens have been watching and visiting us for quite some time now with their unmanned probes i doubt they'd be sending manned missions to us. So either they're supper awesome at covering their tracks* or alien bodies is BS**.
--------------------------------------------------
*would make sense that someone that can travel thousands of lightyears in less than a lifetime would be high tech enough to stay out of view.
**basically very likely that alien bodies at ufo crash sites are not aliens.
Aliens would probably explore places first with unmanned probes. Kinda how we send unmanned probes to far away places in our own solar system before we think of sending manned missions and something that we're now even doing on the battle field or in disaster zones more often as our tech improves.
As for space travel it should be easier to have un-piloted probes. When ya think about the vastness of space and the great distances that would need to be traveled and the time it would take to do so it just makes more sense to use automated systems. Not to mention an automated system could probably be much smaller than a life carrying vessel and so could likely do a much better job at escaping detection and whatnot.
So basically point is unless aliens have been watching and visiting us for quite some time now with their unmanned probes i doubt they'd be sending manned missions to us. So either they're supper awesome at covering their tracks* or alien bodies is BS**.
--------------------------------------------------
*would make sense that someone that can travel thousands of lightyears in less than a lifetime would be high tech enough to stay out of view.
**basically very likely that alien bodies at ufo crash sites are not aliens.
Actually columbus had a close encounter, a roman general had an encounter during an important battle, there is evidence that people have been spotting and even communicating with otherworldly being going back millions of years. It would be funny if we are some kind of science experiment or something and they are checking up on us... 'Nope, its a failure...nuke me..."
Still; they seem to give that whole son of god thing a lot more publicity then the guy that saw aliens. Apparently they already those people crazy coots back then, too.
Or maybe the son of god was an alien? That might explain why there aren't anymore coming down.
Went looking for pictures, found this. Odd places on the internet.
www.mt.net/~watcher/new.html
Actually columbus had a close encounter, a roman general had an encounter during an important battle, there is evidence are stories that people have been spotting and even communicating with otherworldly being going back millions of years. It would be funny if we are some kind of science experiment or something and they are checking up on us... 'Nope, its a failure...nuke me..."
I fixed that for you. There are also stories of Gods and great heroes in every country. It doesn't make Thor or Hercules real. Hey look over there, it's a sidhe. Stories of aliens visiting thousands of years ago don't make it true then, and stories of aliens visiting now doesn't make it true now.
1000+ MPH right angle turn: assuming it made that turn at that speed, then yeah, that is tech far and away from anything we have. It pretty clearly violates basic physics. [That whole "momentum" thing.]
Technology you and I are not aware of != alien technology. Er, extraterrestrial alien tech - not 'alien' as in 'alien to you and I'.
Many years later in my early 20's, I was in a conversation about UFOs and I thought back to see if I had ever seen anything unusual and I found that memory. I realized then that a satalite would not have been zig-zagging like that and that my Dad's explanation for it was wrong. I had seen a UFO. Was it alien? I don't know. Was it a weather balloon? Not a chance.
I bring this up to show Lokiare that I have seen something strange in the sky, and yet I still demand hard evidence of aliens. I don't know what I saw. As far as I'm concerned, it's as likely to be some freaky weather phenomena as it is an alien. More likely in fact. Stories like mine are just that. Stories. They are not evidence and the people who see them are reliable, unreliable and in-between, but since there is no proof that what they saw is alien in origin, their stories prove nothing. It was still kinda cool to see, though
When I was young, my father took me to Panoche Creek, California for a camping trip. While we were there one night, I was lying down staring at the sky. Panoche Creek is essentially in the middle of a large flat land area, so you can see far in all directions. I was looking at one horizon when I saw a small light, about the same size or a bit larger than a large star coming towards us in the sky at great speed. It wasn't moving in a straight line, though. It was zig-zagging through the sky. Not at right angles or anything, but there were no gradual turns. I pointed at it and asked my Dad what it was, and he said he wasn't sure, but that it was probably a satalite. Being young, I was satisfied with the explanation and didn't think much more of it. The thing crossed from horizon to horizon in 5-10 seconds while zig-zagging the entire time.
Many years later in my early 20's, I was in a conversation about UFOs and I thought back to see if I had ever seen anything unusual and I found that memory. I realized then that a satalite would not have been zig-zagging like that and that my Dad's explanation for it was wrong. I had seen a UFO. Was it alien? I don't know. Was it a weather balloon? Not a chance.
I bring this up to show Lokiare that I have seen something strange in the sky, and yet I still demand hard evidence of aliens. I don't know what I saw. As far as I'm concerned, it's as likely to be some freaky weather phenomena as it is an alien. More likely in fact. Stories like mine are just that. Stories. They are not evidence and the people who see them are reliable, unreliable and in-between, but since there is no proof that what they saw is alien in origin, their stories prove nothing. It was still kinda cool to see, though
No your right. Eye witness sightings don't prove anything, however radar recordings, ex-military confessions, and declassified governmet files however do...
Aliens would probably explore places first with unmanned probes. Kinda how we send unmanned probes to far away places in our own solar system before we think of sending manned missions and something that we're now even doing on the battle field or in disaster zones more often as our tech improves.
As for space travel it should be easier to have un-piloted probes. When ya think about the vastness of space and the great distances that would need to be traveled and the time it would take to do so it just makes more sense to use automated systems. Not to mention an automated system could probably be much smaller than a life carrying vessel and so could likely do a much better job at escaping detection and whatnot.
So basically point is unless aliens have been watching and visiting us for quite some time now with their unmanned probes i doubt they'd be sending manned missions to us. So either they're supper awesome at covering their tracks* or alien bodies is BS**.
--------------------------------------------------
*would make sense that someone that can travel thousands of lightyears in less than a lifetime would be high tech enough to stay out of view.
**basically very likely that alien bodies at ufo crash sites are not aliens.
Actually columbus had a close encounter, a roman general had an encounter during an important battle, there is evidence that people have been spotting and even communicating with otherworldly being going back millions of years. It would be funny if we are some kind of science experiment or something and they are checking up on us... 'Nope, its a failure...nuke me..."
Just because someone wrote it down it doesn't make it true. (i.e. Stephen King's novels are not about true events)
Just because we think we saw something it doesn't mean we saw what we think we saw.
An example would be that we we look at something far away in the sky we're effectively looking at a 2-D plane. Basically due to having a lack of reference objects in the sky. Now lets say an airplane is moving to your left. It would be obvious that it is moving to your left. Lets also say it is far away enough that you can't really see any details. You can only see that something is flying in the sky. Now if the plane decides to turn and does so along your line of vision the object will appear to suddenly stop then shoot off very quickly in the direction it came from. It will look like it made a sudden 180 turn in mid air when actually it made a huge loop. Now make this at night and all one would see is lights doing this. We'd often call that stuff a UFO.
Just an example of stuff we see that isn't what we might think it is.
And you still haven't proven that they are aliens...
We need people like you on the Senate Budget Committee...
"I need to get this project approved... here's the reasoning behind it..."
"That doesn't make sense, you have several grammatical flaws, you only have 95% proof that it would be helpful, and your a conspiracy theorists. I'm going to pocket this and it won't leave my committee"
"But its a cure for cancer..."
Aliens would probably explore places first with unmanned probes. Kinda how we send unmanned probes to far away places in our own solar system before we think of sending manned missions and something that we're now even doing on the battle field or in disaster zones more often as our tech improves.
As for space travel it should be easier to have un-piloted probes. When ya think about the vastness of space and the great distances that would need to be traveled and the time it would take to do so it just makes more sense to use automated systems. Not to mention an automated system could probably be much smaller than a life carrying vessel and so could likely do a much better job at escaping detection and whatnot.
So basically point is unless aliens have been watching and visiting us for quite some time now with their unmanned probes i doubt they'd be sending manned missions to us. So either they're supper awesome at covering their tracks* or alien bodies is BS**.
--------------------------------------------------
*would make sense that someone that can travel thousands of lightyears in less than a lifetime would be high tech enough to stay out of view.
**basically very likely that alien bodies at ufo crash sites are not aliens.
Actually columbus had a close encounter, a roman general had an encounter during an important battle, there is evidence that people have been spotting and even communicating with otherworldly being going back millions of years. It would be funny if we are some kind of science experiment or something and they are checking up on us... 'Nope, its a failure...nuke me..."
Just because someone wrote it down it doesn't make it true. (i.e. Stephen King's novels are not about true events)
Just because we think we saw something it doesn't mean we saw what we think we saw.
An example would be that we we look at something far away in the sky we're effectively looking at a 2-D plane. Basically due to having a lack of reference objects in the sky. Now lets say an airplane is moving to your left. It would be obvious that it is moving to your left. Lets also say it is far away enough that you can't really see any details. You can only see that something is flying in the sky. Now if the plane decides to turn and does so along your line of vision the object will appear to suddenly stop then shoot off very quickly in the direction it came from. It will look like it made a sudden 180 turn in mid air when actually it made a huge loop. Now make this at night and all one would see is lights doing this. We'd often call that stuff a UFO.
Just an example of stuff we see that isn't what we might think it is.
Your example is flawed. It doesn't account for radar recordings that show these things traveling at 1000 MPH and doing right angle turns...
And you still haven't proven that they are aliens...
We need people like you on the Senate Budget Committee...
"I need to get this project approved... here's the reasoning behind it..."
"That doesn't make sense, you have several grammatical flaws, you only have 95% proof that it would be helpful, and your a conspiracy theorists. I'm going to pocket this and it won't leave my committee"
"But its a cure for cancer..."
Well I think instead we have people like you. "Here pass this law. I already looked through it and it's totally legit, so your don't even have to read it."
And you still haven't proven that they are aliens...
We need people like you on the Senate Budget Committee...
"I need to get this project approved... here's the reasoning behind it..."
"That doesn't make sense, you have several grammatical flaws, you only have 95% proof that it would be helpful, and your a conspiracy theorists. I'm going to pocket this and it won't leave my committee"
"But its a cure for cancer..."
While amusing, this is not an accurate characterization of the situation.
And you still haven't proven that they are aliens...
We need people like you on the Senate Budget Committee...
"I need to get this project approved... here's the reasoning behind it..."
"That doesn't make sense, you have several grammatical flaws, you only have 95% proof that it would be helpful, and your a conspiracy theorists. I'm going to pocket this and it won't leave my committee"
"But its a cure for cancer..."
Well I think instead we have people like you. "Here pass this law. I already looked through it and it's totally legit, so your don't even have to read it."
Oh, you mean congress. That legislative body that passed the healthcare bill at the same time as they admitted that nobody there knew all of what was really in it.
Your example is flawed. It doesn't account for radar recordings that show these things traveling at 1000 MPH and doing right angle turns...
His example is not flawed. It's an excellent example of someone thinking they're seeing something when really they're looking at something else.
Your example is flawed. It doesn't account for radar recordings that show these things traveling at 1000 MPH and doing right angle turns...
His example is not flawed. It's an excellent example of someone thinking they're seeing something when really they're looking at something else.
Sure, but it only explains some of the sightings, not all. It takes several seconds to turn, so the appearance of an object stopping and then moving again after several second can be explained by distant aircraft. What I saw didn't stop at all. Other accounts have the objects stopping for split seconds. The airplane explanation fails to account for those.
(Of course if I'm wrong then dirtyfrank should explain it himself ^^)
We need people like you on the Senate Budget Committee...
"I need to get this project approved... here's the reasoning behind it..."
"That doesn't make sense, you have several grammatical flaws, you only have 95% proof that it would be helpful, and your a conspiracy theorists. I'm going to pocket this and it won't leave my committee"
"But its a cure for cancer..."
Umm ... you really don't understand what it is you're doing, do you? Here's the simple math of your equation:
Something I don't understand + Nothing = Aliens. There's a massive leap in logic that you're taking to get from UFO to aliens. I mean, a huge leap. We'll say that the radar stuff is real and the witness confirmation is real - how does that equate to aliens? All you have is fast moving, incredibly agile objects. Nothing there - nothing at all - says 'aliens'. Can't you see that?
Your example is flawed. It doesn't account for radar recordings that show these things traveling at 1000 MPH and doing right angle turns...
Except that radar can and is sometimes accidentally put on the wrong settings. It's called 'operator error'. Doubt it? Check the Andrea Doria sea collision or, perhaps more apt, the mid-air collision of a Brazilian jetliner and a private jet. You just don't get to cherry pick the what-ifs. Well, you don't if you're being honest.
We need people like you on the Senate Budget Committee...
"I need to get this project approved... here's the reasoning behind it..."
"That doesn't make sense, you have several grammatical flaws, you only have 95% proof that it would be helpful, and your a conspiracy theorists. I'm going to pocket this and it won't leave my committee"
"But its a cure for cancer..."
Umm ... you really don't understand what it is you're doing, do you? Here's the simple math of your equation:
Something I don't understand + Nothing = Aliens. There's a massive leap in logic that you're taking to get from UFO to aliens. I mean, a huge leap. We'll say that the radar stuff is real and the witness confirmation is real - how does that equate to aliens? All you have is fast moving, incredibly agile objects. Nothing there - nothing at all - says 'aliens'. Can't you see that?
Your conveniently leaving out ex-military testimony and declassified government documents. While not 100% a smoking gun or whatever, they do lend enough credence to more investigation.
Your example is flawed. It doesn't account for radar recordings that show these things traveling at 1000 MPH and doing right angle turns...
Except that radar can and is sometimes accidentally put on the wrong settings. It's called 'operator error'. Doubt it? Check the Andrea Doria sea collision or, perhaps more apt, the mid-air collision of a Brazilian jetliner and a private jet. You just don't get to cherry pick the what-ifs. Well, you don't if you're being honest.
Explain to me how someone can misinterpret something moving at 1000MPH and making a right turn. Maybe it was a bird, no wait it was a bug, no,no it was an airplane and you forgot to convert feet per second to miles per hour.
I don't think he was trying to explain what you saw... just a general example of the difference between what you see and what you think you see.
(Of course if I'm wrong then dirtyfrank should explain it himself ^^)
I don't think so, either. He was in my opinion simply giving a possible explanation for such sightings. I was just pointing out that his explanation only covers a portion of them.
Explain to me how someone can misinterpret something moving at 1000MPH and making a right turn. Maybe it was a bird, no wait it was a bug, no,no it was an airplane and you forgot to convert feet per second to miles per hour.
I think it was a bug. In the software. Or a case of PEBCAK.
Explain to me how someone can misinterpret something moving at 1000MPH and making a right turn. Maybe it was a bird, no wait it was a bug, no,no it was an airplane and you forgot to convert feet per second to miles per hour.
I think it was a bug. In the software. Or a case of PEBCAK.
Care to explain? that also doesn't explain the radar recordings of eye witness sightings... You know when 20-30 people see something and there are several recordings that correspond to what is seen. [snark]Your right though that can't possibly be anything but a bug in the software[/snark]
Care to explain? that also doesn't explain the radar recordings of eye witness sightings... You know when 20-30 people see something and there are several recordings that correspond to what is seen. [snark]Your right though that can't possibly be anything but a bug in the software[/snark]
Swamp gas.
(What? It's about as viable as any of your explanations. Cookie if you get the reference.)
Your conveniently leaving out ex-military testimony and declassified government documents. While not 100% a smoking gun or whatever, they do lend enough credence to more investigation.
Ok, we'll conveniently add that stuff. Now the equation reads: Something I don't understand + Ex-military testimony + Declassified gov't documents + Nothing = Aliens. Feel better?
You're still making a jump. What does any of these say to make it mean aliens? Where's the proof of aliens? Taking all of the equation as true - every single element is real - it still doesn't add up to aliens. It adds up to UFO, yes, but a UFO is not necessarily an alien. Leap in logic is leap in logic. And that means it's very flawed.
Hell, now I'll even say 'ok, there's credence for more investigation' if you say 'there's no proof whatsoever it's aliens'. Sound good?
Explain to me how someone can misinterpret something moving at 1000MPH and making a right turn. Maybe it was a bird, no wait it was a bug, no,no it was an airplane and you forgot to convert feet per second to miles per hour.
Did you look up the Andrea Doria incident I mentioned? The radar was on the wrong setting leading the operator of one of the vessels to believe the other vessel was about ten times as far away as it actually was. Let's see, 1000mph/10 = 100mph. Damn, that doesn't look impossible in the least, does it? Now I'm not saying this is definitely what happened - it could be closer to the case of that Brazilian crash where the tower controller fell asleep and so, potentially, a case of fatigue causing a misreading of the numbers or even a dream - but it is possible. We have evidence of something incredibly similar happening. You can't just dismiss that cuz ya feel like it. It has to be considered until it's proven wrong.
Care to explain? that also doesn't explain the radar recordings of eye witness sightings... You know when 20-30 people see something and there are several recordings that correspond to what is seen. [snark]Your right though that can't possibly be anything but a bug in the software[/snark]
Swamp gas.
(What? It's about as viable as any of your explanations. Cookie if you get the reference.)
Reminds me of this part of Dark Science.
Care to explain? that also doesn't explain the radar recordings of eye witness sightings... You know when 20-30 people see something and there are several recordings that correspond to what is seen. [snark]Your right though that can't possibly be anything but a bug in the software[/snark]
Swamp gas.
(What? It's about as viable as any of your explanations. Cookie if you get the reference.)
X-Files? Will o' Wisp? Those swamp guys from the reality gator hunting show?
Here is the Wikipedia article, it cites the different reports, the corroborative eye-witness reports as well as radar recordings.
Have you read that article? It says
There is no evidence that alien life was involved.
edit: i fixed it for you. ;)
Here is the Wikipedia article, it cites the different reports, the corroborative eye-witness reports as well as radar recordings.
Have you read that article? It saysThere is no evidence that alien life was involved.
edit: i fixed it for you. ;)
Yeah, I know. I was responding to people saying that UFOs don't exist because peoples eyes and brains can't be trusted.
The ex-military and declassified files prove the alien involvment or at least lend credence to it...
Its cool if you want to argue semantics but we both know that its just a stall tactic because you can't refute the evidence presented...
Care to explain? that also doesn't explain the radar recordings of eye witness sightings... You know when 20-30 people see something and there are several recordings that correspond to what is seen. [snark]Your right though that can't possibly be anything but a bug in the software[/snark]
Swamp gas.
(What? It's about as viable as any of your explanations. Cookie if you get the reference.)
Dr. Hynek (sp?) blamed sightings in Michigan on swamp gas in the mid-60's (65? 66? something like that). If I recall correctly, he was misquoted by the media.
If you're referencing something that referenced that, then you've lost me.
Here is the Wikipedia article, it cites the different reports, the corroborative eye-witness reports as well as radar recordings.
Have you read that article? It saysThere is no evidence that alien life was involved.
edit: i fixed it for you. ;)
Yeah, I know. I was responding to people saying that UFOs don't exist because peoples eyes and brains can't be trusted.
The ex-military and declassified files prove the alien involvment or at least lend credence to it...
Its cool if you want to argue semantics but we both know that its just a stall tactic because you can't refute the evidence presented...
I think you missed my point. Wikipedia is hardly a trustworthy source. For all we know, you just made that article up to support your own arguments. Some people seem to overlook the fact that anyone can edit wikipedia articles.
Aliens would probably explore places first with unmanned probes. Kinda how we send unmanned probes to far away places in our own solar system before we think of sending manned missions and something that we're now even doing on the battle field or in disaster zones more often as our tech improves.
As for space travel it should be easier to have un-piloted probes. When ya think about the vastness of space and the great distances that would need to be traveled and the time it would take to do so it just makes more sense to use automated systems. Not to mention an automated system could probably be much smaller than a life carrying vessel and so could likely do a much better job at escaping detection and whatnot.
So basically point is unless aliens have been watching and visiting us for quite some time now with their unmanned probes i doubt they'd be sending manned missions to us. So either they're supper awesome at covering their tracks* or alien bodies is BS**.
--------------------------------------------------
*would make sense that someone that can travel thousands of lightyears in less than a lifetime would be high tech enough to stay out of view.
**basically very likely that alien bodies at ufo crash sites are not aliens.
Actually columbus had a close encounter, a roman general had an encounter during an important battle, there is evidence that people have been spotting and even communicating with otherworldly being going back millions of years. It would be funny if we are some kind of science experiment or something and they are checking up on us... 'Nope, its a failure...nuke me..."
Just because someone wrote it down it doesn't make it true. (i.e. Stephen King's novels are not about true events)
Just because we think we saw something it doesn't mean we saw what we think we saw.
An example would be that we we look at something far away in the sky we're effectively looking at a 2-D plane. Basically due to having a lack of reference objects in the sky. Now lets say an airplane is moving to your left. It would be obvious that it is moving to your left. Lets also say it is far away enough that you can't really see any details. You can only see that something is flying in the sky. Now if the plane decides to turn and does so along your line of vision the object will appear to suddenly stop then shoot off very quickly in the direction it came from. It will look like it made a sudden 180 turn in mid air when actually it made a huge loop. Now make this at night and all one would see is lights doing this. We'd often call that stuff a UFO.
Just an example of stuff we see that isn't what we might think it is.
Your example is flawed. It doesn't account for radar recordings that show these things traveling at 1000 MPH and doing right angle turns...
Your link to the "radar recording proof" 1) doesn't seem to have radar recordings on them and 2) the youtube video embedded in the link has been removed from youtube.
And as others have said if radar is on the wrong setting it will give us bad data that we can then miss interpret.
Heck scientists accidentally found the microwave background radiation of the universe and thought it was noise caused by pigeon poop.
Your example is flawed. It doesn't account for radar recordings that show these things traveling at 1000 MPH and doing right angle turns...
His example is not flawed. It's an excellent example of someone thinking they're seeing something when really they're looking at something else.
Yes exactly. One of the least reliable pieces of evidence is always a first person account. 10 people can all witness the same accident and all will tell a different story. There will be some similarities but in the end it will sound as if they saw 10 different things (if they are not allowed to collaborate before they talk about the event).
Humans often see what they want to see not what they actually see. And what we see is often limited by the limit of our knowledge.
Your example is flawed. It doesn't account for radar recordings that show these things traveling at 1000 MPH and doing right angle turns...
His example is not flawed. It's an excellent example of someone thinking they're seeing something when really they're looking at something else.
Sure, but it only explains some of the sightings, not all. It takes several seconds to turn, so the appearance of an object stopping and then moving again after several second can be explained by distant aircraft. What I saw didn't stop at all. Other accounts have the objects stopping for split seconds. The airplane explanation fails to account for those.
Have you seen planes make turns as i have explained? Quite a few UFO sightings turned out to just be distant air ports that the observer was not aware of. Airports where planes have to make turns before landing or as part of their take off. The result is a zig-zag that appears to be much faster than any human made craft can recreate. But that is in 2-D. Add in the 3rd dimension and it is very possible by humans.
Now if we got something like a jet going say mach 1, 2 or 3 making turn after turn to observers in the right spots it will look like spontaneous zig-zags at ungodly speeds.
As for your radar examples I've yet to see this proof.
Also I've not been saying that UFO's don't exist (heck if you don't realize that many of these zig-zags are caused by air craft turning then what you are seeing is an "Unidentified Flying Object") but rather what i've been trying to point out is that just because we don't recognize something and rationally explain it away it doesn't mean that an alien or a monster or a wizard or jesus is responsible.
And as I've said above if they are alien craft they are likely unmanned which would make them able to much more highly maneuverable as well as harder to detect. Although it would be probably pretty hard to avoid detection since we do have satellite arrays now days that are able to track most of all the space junk in our atmosphere (almost completely) regardless of size.
Well I think instead we have people like you. "Here pass this law. I already looked through it and it's totally legit, so your don't even have to read it."
And here I thought that he was paranoid about against this practice.
Yes exactly. One of the least reliable pieces of evidence is always a first person account. 10 people can all witness the same accident and all will tell a different story. There will be some similarities but in the end it will sound as if they saw 10 different things (if they are not allowed to collaborate before they talk about the event).
Humans often see what they want to see not what they actually see. And what we see is often limited by the limit of our knowledge.
On the flip side of that, if they are allowed a chance to talk and corroborate, their stories will change to match each others'. It's usually not intentional either, it's just the power of suggestion. Someone might say they saw a clean-shaven man snatch a purse and run but if you say "Are you sure he didn't have a mustache? Bob thinks he did," a lot of times they will think it over and say something like "Yeah, you know what, I think he did have one." That's why whenever you question multiple witnesses, the first thing you are supposed to do is separate them and don't ever reveal details from one person's account to another person and don't ask any leading questions (also why you can't ask leading questions in court).
Well I think instead we have people like you. "Here pass this law. I already looked through it and it's totally legit, so your don't even have to read it."
And here I thought that he was paranoid about against this practice.
When he isn't a conspiracy theorist, he's a believer.
Well I think instead we have people like you. "Here pass this law. I already looked through it and it's totally legit, so your don't even have to read it."
And here I thought that he was paranoid about against this practice.
When he isn't a conspiracy theorist, he's a believer.
Ah, that explains why he thinks a petition will work.
Your right, I'm either totally wacko and willing to believe anything or I am so rigid I can't take any position but the one I currently have.
Its not possible I'm somewhere in the middle of the two...
No your all completely right. I couldn't possibly be a person that is looking at evidence and trying to remain neutral while also trying to convince others that something just might have the merest possibility of having a chance of being true.
Your right, I'm either totally wacko and willing to believe anything or I am so rigid I can't take any position but the one I currently have.
Its not possible I'm somewhere in the middle of the two...
Yes. Smack dab in the middle if nutjob and bull-headed. I'll agree to that.
No your all completely right. I couldn't possibly be a person that is looking at evidence and trying to remain neutral while also trying to convince others that something just might have the merest possibility of having a chance of being true.
Your right, I'm either totally wacko and willing to believe anything or I am so rigid I can't take any position but the one I currently have.
Its not possible I'm somewhere in the middle of the two...
Yes. Smack dab in the middle if nutjob and bull-headed. I'll agree to that.
Ah yes, and now since you can't refute my facts you resort to name calling, nicely played sir...
No your all completely right. I couldn't possibly be a person that is looking at evidence and trying to remain neutral while also trying to convince others that something just might have the merest possibility of having a chance of being true.
Your right, I'm either totally wacko and willing to believe anything or I am so rigid I can't take any position but the one I currently have.
Its not possible I'm somewhere in the middle of the two...
Yes. Smack dab in the middle if nutjob and bull-headed. I'll agree to that.
Ah yes, and now since you can't refute my facts you resort to name calling, nicely played sir...
I was merely agreeing with you. You were the one that called yourself somewhere in between a wacko and rigid.
Ah yes, and now since you can't refute my facts you resort to name calling, nicely played sir...
WHAT FACTS?! Holy crap, man, you should put that in your signature because its your ****ing tag-line or something.
Ah yes, and now since you can't refute my facts you resort to name calling, nicely played sir...
WHAT FACTS?! Holy crap, man, you should put that in your signature because its your ****ing tag-line or something.
I guess you missed all of the links I posted in this thread and others... Its cool not many people are ready for the truth... I think people need to go back and read "1984" which was written in 1948 by George Orwell (pen name) you might be surprised how close it is to present day government...
there is evidence that people have been spotting and even communicating with otherworldly being going back millions of years.
Ah yes, and now since you can't refute my facts you resort to name calling, nicely played sir...
WHAT FACTS?! Holy crap, man, you should put that in your signature because its your ****ing tag-line or something.
I guess you missed all of the links I posted in this thread and others... Its cool not many people are ready for the truth... I think people need to go back and read "1984" which was written in 1948 by George Orwell (pen name) you might be surprised how close it is to present day government...
I don't think he missed anything. It's just a matter of your links and supposed facts not actually supporting your argument.
I guess you missed all of the links I posted in this thread and others... Its cool not many people are ready for the truth... I think people need to go back and read "1984" which was written in 1948 by George Orwell (pen name) you might be surprised how close it is to present day government...
Try going back and reading Atlas Shrugged.
Ah yes, and now since you can't refute my facts you resort to name calling, nicely played sir...
WHAT FACTS?! Holy crap, man, you should put that in your signature because its your ****ing tag-line or something.
I guess you missed all of the links I posted in this thread and others... Its cool not many people are ready for the truth... I think people need to go back and read "1984" which was written in 1948 by George Orwell (pen name) you might be surprised how close it is to present day government...
You post links and say that they contain other people saying things are true and other people say 'that link didn't even say that' and you come back with "refute the facts!" and I'm all like, "what facts are you talking about man!?" and your all like, read this fictional book that predicts what the world was going to be like the year before you where born, and I'm still all, like, "wtf you talking 'bout Willis? List your facts you want examined in, like, bullet list format or something with citations."
Then mabey you will get people adressing your points, if you give them in clear "point" form. Like this:
Fact: All berries are Red
Fact: People are claiming blueberries are berries
Fact: Blue'berries' are blue
Thus, people are lieing to you about blueberries!
Ah yes, and now since you can't refute my facts you resort to name calling, nicely played sir...
WHAT FACTS?! Holy crap, man, you should put that in your signature because its your ****ing tag-line or something.
I guess you missed all of the links I posted in this thread and others... Its cool not many people are ready for the truth... I think people need to go back and read "1984" which was written in 1948 by George Orwell (pen name) you might be surprised how close it is to present day government...
You post links and say that they contain other people saying things are true and other people say 'that link didn't even say that' and you come back with "refute the facts!" and I'm all like, "what facts are you talking about man!?" and your all like, read this fictional book that predicts what the world was going to be like the year before you where born, and I'm still all, like, "wtf you talking 'bout Willis? List your facts you want examined in, like, bullet list format or something with citations."
Then mabey you will get people adressing your points, if you give them in clear "point" form. Like this:
Fact: All berries are Red
Fact: People are claiming blueberries are berries
Fact: Blue'berries' are blue
Thus, people are lying to you about blueberries!
Well technically blue berries are so dark red that they appear to be blue, you get the juice on you and you can see that its actually a red color when diluted. Just kidding...
I don't know what to say. I've posted the links, they do say that. I guess I could go into each one and pull out quotes...
State the facts
Cite the source, and mabey add a quote if it is necessary
Make your argument for what these facts mean and why you think they mean that
Or just give up. As you may have noticed, noone is really taking you seriously. Thats because your arguments are being presented in such a way that figuring out just what the **** your talking about is hard, while mocking you is easy. Unless you change things such that the previous statment is reversed, they will just keep attacking you and ignoring your arguments.
Basically what I'm saying is 'give us your facts, not just links to people telling stories'. I do not like clicking on links to random websites I have never heard of.
That might help, but if you just start putting up quotes, people are just gonna say your just blindly following these people. Noone has claimed you don't have examples of other people claiming these thigns, they have accused you of having no facts and not making reasonable arguments. My best suggestion to you at this point would be:
State the facts
Cite the source, and mabey add a quote if it is necessary
Make your argument for what these facts mean and why you think they mean that
Or just give up. As you may have noticed, noone is really taking you seriously. Thats because your arguments are being presented in such a way that figuring out just what the **** your talking about is hard, while mocking you is easy. Unless you change things such that the previous statment is reversed, they will just keep attacking you and ignoring your arguments.
Basically what I'm saying is 'give us your facts, not just links to people telling stories'. I do not like clicking on links to random websites I have never heard of.
Wow... I think... I think I'm beginning to respect you now...
Yes exactly. One of the least reliable pieces of evidence is always a first person account. 10 people can all witness the same accident and all will tell a different story. There will be some similarities but in the end it will sound as if they saw 10 different things (if they are not allowed to collaborate before they talk about the event).
Humans often see what they want to see not what they actually see. And what we see is often limited by the limit of our knowledge.
On the flip side of that, if they are allowed a chance to talk and corroborate, their stories will change to match each others'. It's usually not intentional either, it's just the power of suggestion. Someone might say they saw a clean-shaven man snatch a purse and run but if you say "Are you sure he didn't have a mustache? Bob thinks he did," a lot of times they will think it over and say something like "Yeah, you know what, I think he did have one." That's why whenever you question multiple witnesses, the first thing you are supposed to do is separate them and don't ever reveal details from one person's account to another person and don't ask any leading questions (also why you can't ask leading questions in court).
Yep pretty much. Try not to imply an answer when asking questions and junk.
Ah yes, and now since you can't refute my facts you resort to name calling, nicely played sir...
WHAT FACTS?! Holy crap, man, you should put that in your signature because its your ****ing tag-line or something.
I guess you missed all of the links I posted in this thread and others... Its cool not many people are ready for the truth... I think people need to go back and read "1984" which was written in 1948 by George Orwell (pen name) you might be surprised how close it is to present day government...
I don't think he missed anything. It's just a matter of your links and supposed facts not actually supporting your argument.
I'd agree with this. They are either not supporting your argument or not linking to what you say they do. Like the link to radar evidence had no radar evidence. Bit disappointing.