Ufology

[Phil H]

We need to demand just as much proof for the claim "I hoaxed a UFO" as we do for the claim "I saw a UFO."

Why?

Frankly, a statement like that REEKS of "conspiracy theory". I assume you are suggesting that Governments are covering things up by pretending its all hoaxes of "weather balloons"?

Where do you stand on crop circles btw?

Phil H

[Scorpio]

A mythology like the Rendlesham case will undoubtedly attract unreliable types, and some decent witnesses may become less so,within time, conciously or unconciously; but a kernel of truth lies within and can still remain. I believe this to be true of the Rendlesham case, as it is of Roswell.

[Phil H]

So what is the kernel of truth about Roswell and on which specific witness(es) or piece of evidence do you place reliance?

[Scorpio]

The kernel of truth that i mentioned need not be extraterrestrial in origin.
I regard the official explanation, remains of MOGUL apparatus, as the wild seed cast on fertile ground.

[Phil H]

Then, if I interpret what you say aright, we pretty well agree.
Something did happen, say at Rendlesham, but not UFO-related??

I wouldn't disagree that Mac Brazel found something on the ranch near Roswell, and it was hush-hush. But I have seen nothing that makes me think it was a UFO.

Phil H

[Scorpio]

All i can surmise at the moment is that an unusual sighting prompted the original incident; but the second incident, with Colonel Halt present, represents a change in the nature of the whole affair . After the News of the World article, the whole thing snowballs.

[Jonathan H]

The so-called Roswell Incident, which like Dr. Tumblety for 'Ripperology' appeared in no secondary UFO sources whatsoever until much later (a really Z-grade book in 1980 by the author-creator of the Bermuda Triangle hoax), is a fusion of several strands.

One is of course the Top Secret Porject Mogul, who lost one of their ballsoon trains testing for any Soviet nuclear tests.

The second is the bitterness of the unreliable witness Jesse Marcel who made up all sorts of stuff about his failed military career -- though, to be fair, he never stooped to bodies-of-little-aliens found among the 'wreckage'.

The third strand is the Crashed-Saucer hoax of 1950 involving two con man --who were convicted -- and who hustled Frank Scully to create the fun, trashy and enormously influential 'Behind the Falying Saucers' best seller. This book, though set near the town of Aztec rather than Roswell, nevertheless provided the mythos with a crashed spaceship and dead aliens and a full scale military/governmental cover-up.

I believe that Marcel's account, by the time he told it to Stanton Friedman in 1977, was contaminated by exposure to the Aztec hoax, to put it kindly.

That it was allegedly a crashed 'saucer' is a dead giveaway of course; for that shape was only created by a journalsitic error about the Kenneth Arnold sighting of June 1947. Therefore anything supposedly saucer shaped is an hoax or a mistake.

The aliens in the tall tales told of aliens only since 1980 -- about Roswell but inspred by the later Aztec hoax -- resemble the make-up and costumes conceived for the excellent 1975 movie 'The UFO Incident', a look which was codified in pop culture by 'Close Encounerts of the Third Kind' two years later (the earlier TV movie is much better in my opinion), rather than what Betty Hill originally claimed: the aliens were not that small, had hair and long noses.

[Phil H]

There are so many "flase leads" in the Roswell material.

The mortician (Glen someone) changed his story several times and named a nurse for whom no real identity could be found in the records.

But it was Jesse Marcel who was among the key factors that led me to dismiss the whole sad saga. An image has been built of him through books and TV films which is at odds with a man who falsified (and I use the term advisedly) almost every part of his military career, including claiming to have been at one time a key Presidential aide. not true.

Finally,where "evidence" is cited - the "log book" kept by sky-watching nuns is never pictured, the entry never shown or even transcripted. It is just referred to. Not good enough.

And one could cite many more similar cases.

Phil H

[kensei]

We need to demand just as much proof for the claim "I hoaxed a UFO" as we do for the claim "I saw a UFO."

Why?

Frankly, a statement like that REEKS of "conspiracy theory". I assume you are suggesting that Governments are covering things up by pretending its all hoaxes of "weather balloons"?

Where do you stand on crop circles btw?

Phil H

Actually no, government coverups were nowhere on my mind when I wrote the above quote. I was merely saying that I think anyone investigating a phenomenon should apply the same level of scrutiny to anyone who claims anything. Someone who says they saw a UFO might be lying. Someone who says they hoaxed a UFO might also be lying. Simple as that. Skeptics are always insisting that anecdotal evidence is not really evidence at all. Personally I disagree as it is used in court cases all the time as testimony, and while it is certainly not PROOF it is indeed one form of EVIDENCE. But for the purposes of this thread, if a UFO skeptic says anecdotal evidence has no value then why should that cease to be so if said anecdote describes how a hoax was pulled off?

Where do I stand on crop circles- It's fascinating and I don't have a firm stance on what they are. Certainly many of them are hoaxed, that's not in question. But in the fake ones made with boards and chains, the stalks are broken. There is another category of designs in which the stalks are not only not broken and in fact continuing to grow sideways, but also woven together in a spiral pattern. When analyzed, they show signs of having been irradiated. People sometimes report feeling ill or having electronic equipment malfunction when inside the patterns. A very elaborate pattern that appeared in a field next to Stonehenge appeared so quickly (and in broad daylight) that a pilot flying overhead passed by and the pattern wasn't there, but when he came back the same way in a half hour or so it was there. There were tourists at Stonehenge as usual, yet no one had seen anyone in the field. People have reported seeing small balls of light floating over fields as patterns were forming. All food for thought.

You might be surprised that I tend to doubt UFOs are the cause of crop circles (that is, the ones that are not man-made). There are other theories, just as paranormal and not likely to find favor here, but I haven't decided which if any I believe. It's a mystery. I traveled through classic crop circle country a couple of times while on vacation in England. A tour guide drove me from Glastonbury to Stonehenge and Avebury, but it was in September and the harvest was over. She did point to one field and say "That might be the remains of one there." Interesting area, and despite its rural pastoral setting it is one with unmistakable military presence. The army does maneuvers out there, and I had never seen "Tank Crossing" signs before. Not connecting that to the circles at all, just an observation.

P.S.- Bizarre coincidence, but as I write this I am listening to Stanton Friedman being interviewed on a radio program.

[Phil H]

There was a lot of interest in England at one time (70s/early 80s as I recall) in LEY LINES - supposedly ancient straight lines linking menhirs, church towers (often on very ancient sites) and other landmarks.

Some supposed Ley Lines reflected the magnetic currents of the earth, allowing power to be "stored" in such places as Avebury and Stonehenge. there were other rationales too.

But scientists subjected the claims and the alleged lines to mathematical tests. in fact the lines were perceptional only - they "missed" key points by yards and most of them represented chance not construction (the statistical probabilities of three or more objects being connectable by a straight line). This pretty well demolished the Ley Line theories.

Do you know whether Crop Circles have ever been subjected to similar testing or scientific analysis?

Phil H

[kensei]

I don't have the details in front of me but I have heard that samples of the crop taken from circles have been scientifically analyzed and found to be slightly irradiated.

[Jonathan H]

Here's the dodgy mortician, Glen Dennis, whose story is easily shown to be untrue and exploitative.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Dennis.htm

Crop Circles are by hoaxers.

[Abby Normal]

Here's the dodgy mortician, Glen Dennis, whose story is easily shown to be untrue and exploitative.

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Dennis.htm

Crop Circles are by hoaxers.

of course they are. I think the aliens would be smart enough to know not to land in crops/fields and leave such an obvious trace.

[kensei]

of course they are. I think the aliens would be smart enough to know not to land in crops/fields and leave such an obvious trace.

Actually, even among believers there is almost no one who thinks crop circles are literally made by landed UFOs. Also, I'd just like to reiterate the points I've already made about the cases that couldn't possibly have been man-made hoaxes, at least with the time constraints in which they'd have to have been made. (Though as I also said, it's not in question that many of the circles are indeed hoaxed, just not all of them.)

Also, whenever someone says "I don't think aliens would do this...", etc., you really can't put yourself into an alien mind and predict what they would or wouldn't do, because they are just that- ALIEN.

(And again, I tend to doubt that aliens/UFOs are responsible for the real crop circles at all, that some other paranormal phenomenon is at work. We have dual subjects getting mixed together here.)

[Scorpio]

Actually, even among believers there is almost no one who thinks crop circles are literally made by landed UFOs. Also, I'd just like to reiterate the points I've already made about the cases that couldn't possibly have been man-made hoaxes, at least with the time constraints in which they'd have to have been made. (Though as I also said, it's not in question that many of the circles are indeed hoaxed, just not all of them.)

Also, whenever someone says "I don't think aliens would do this...", etc., you really can't put yourself into an alien mind and predict what they would or wouldn't do, because they are just that- ALIEN.

(And again, I tend to doubt that aliens/UFOs are responsible for the real crop circles at all, that some other paranormal phenomenon is at work. We have dual subjects getting mixed together here.)

Well said Kensei.
If we can't accurately predict the motivations of one grubby human serial killer, then what chance the mind of a sentient alien. Sometimes these crop circles remind me of primitive artificial intelligence; the complex symmetry and repetitive nture is like a precocious child.