Believe in UFOs? This editorial's for you!

Oh boy, LamarkNewAge, should have known the source. Look, it's bad enough I have to fight the Nazi menace my ancestors supposedly took care of eight decades ago, now I also have to keep the dogs of New Age naivety from nipping at my heels, something I thought was over back in 1979 when I left California for good.Did it ever occur to you that there is an unusually high correlation between the location of Bliss, WSMR, Kirtland, Sandia, Hollis, Holloman, Lancaster, and UFO sightings?To paraphrase the Church Lady, "Could it be...... DARPA?" aka my teachers at Belvoir back in 1984.Now I will leave you to muse over that relatively simple sentence, since I have an appointment today with 300mg of THC via edible gummies. However, I don't want you to leave empty-handed, so let me regale you with a few local tales.First up, the Roswell Incident, or as the stripper "Christal Powers" puts it "the Gospels of UFOology." Now, we all know their "official" take is that a "flying saucer," a term first used in reference to the lenticular cloud that forms over Mt Ranier half the time every morning, just the penultimate source of this nascent "religion.". So this "flying saucer" supposedly crashed on some ranch outside of Roswell, it had magic "space metal" and "undecipherable writing." After 1980, the story also includes "alien bodies."Well, hate to disappoint you but the truth is more mundane, the UFO was a Helium balloon sent up by Dr. Charles B. Moore, "space metal" was the recently invented Mylar, and the "alien writings" were the tape from a children's toy factory used to tie the Helium balloon together. Read all about it here. As to the "alien bodies" do a lit review. Show me any mention of alien bodies recovered in the Roswell incident prior to the release of Hangar 18. Do me a solid and let me know because I have been looking for any reference prior to 1980 without success since 1980.The second incident, aka the Socorro "saucer" one, also has a mundane explanation. Here are some. Personally, I tend to favor the prototype lunar lander over the tech student prank although given my past both hypotheses are far more plausible than any "grey aliens."As to why the DoD appears reluctant to "come clean" by telling you everything they know about DARPA, well, there is another DoD Agency called DSEC. Don't bother looking for their website, they don't have one and they don't want you to know about a damn thing. So what is DSEC? Well, what is given can also be freely taken away, as in a security clearance, that is DSEC. Fuck up and blab secrets, clearance gone, 10 years Leavenworth minimum so freedom gone too. That is why they don't speak up when the likes of you wallow in conspiracy theories.There is a lot more to life, the universe, and everything beyond your philosophy, Horatio, than you can begin to imagine.Disclaimer: most of the various references to the sources in the Wikipedia articles, are or were personally known by the author of this post.Will the real skeptic please stand up - What's My Line?

Old soldiers never die, anglagard.

Dammit Jim, I'm a librarian, not a doctor.

I have known of absolutely zero UFO researchers who feel that the Roswell (aka Corona, New Mexico story made up decades later by Jesse Marcel jr.) or Fire In The Sky events (Arizona 1976 story) are any actual UFO events.(Stanton Friedman was the loner who stuck with Roswell for decades too long, perhaps due to his 1977 book Crash at Corona being held too close to his chest)UFO researchers were extremely grateful to Philip Klass for his detective work on the Fire in THE SKY incident. Klass was an arch nemesis of UFO researchers and buffs, but all acknowledged that we would be in the dark if not for his invaluable work. The hoax is clear.But, again, why are we still obsessing over the Piltman Hoax?What about the scientific inquiry currently underway?Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

If you mean the Piltdown Hoax, who's obsessing over it? It was exposed a ling time ago. Into Piltdown?

Respond to (my) post 113, from a few years ago(My last post before the one a few day ago)It already anticipates the Roswell/Piltman mold I just read.(My point is that this current AATIP/ Elizondo Senate hearing is an issue grounded in SCIENCE itself, not some historical account of speculation and/or blunders from a half century ago. This is not about the mid 1970s and not about the infectious obsessions that lasted well into the early years of the internet age)( This is not an anthropological look back at blunders from the past. Creationism is built around surgical techniques that zoom in on the history of being wrong. The Piltman Man is a ghost from the past. Keep it in context or run the risk of being totally irrelevant in 2021)Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

I have no clue what you are talking about. "the Roswell/Piltman mold"? I tried googling it and got nothing useful. Still no clue. What does creationism have to do with UFOs? And what does Piltman Man have to do with anything? Once again, are you talking about Piltdown Man and what does that have to do with UFOs?I cannot understand a single idea you are trying to communicate. I'm beginning to think you are messing with me.

( My phone is misspelling the crap out of my words. I lost a long post correcting the spelling errors) it deleted.Attempt again:Here is a short sociologicalGuess which televised show had the first ever scene that featured a black man in bed with a white woman.THe hint is that the male was James Earl Ray.What was the driver of the previously taboo presentation? Was it Captain James T Kirk, of the USS Enterprise (who was featured in a Star Trek episode doing the unprecedented: kissing a black woman, Lt. Aurora)?Nope.It was actually the 1960's couple, from New Hampshire, Betty & Barney Hill, who had a UFO abduction experience.It led to a 1974 movie, that was watched by a significant percentage of Americans.It was viral and pre internet st the same time.It was undoubtedly the motivation for the 1976 Fire In The Sky hoax( a long with the National Inquire million dollar offer for a good UFO story that facilitated the lie).It was surely the inspiration for the 1977 Stanton Friedman book, Crash At Corona (the town near Roswell) , which, in proper turn,led to further embellishments.Kinda like the mad old Piltdown firestorm.Now we have creationism making hay out of the P Man hoax, and the ideological cousins, of creationism, making hay - while the sun blinds - out of the old Roswell sensation.Who are these close relatives of creationists?They seem to be the large chunk of uncritical minded UFO skeptics? They might fashion themselves as critics but there is no way one can be scientifically "critical" if there is only a selective set of incidents that are used as subjects of investigation. That is problem number 1.Problemo Numero Uno is the pathetic apparatus.It gets much worse when one notices that Roswell is about as deep as the dig gets (that and ball lightening, as Klass used to use as the excuse for everything, in the 1960s, before he dropped the angle completely)The problem is the mockery of the scientific process generally, and the failure, on the part of the UFO skeptics, to openly disclose the pseudo scientific nature of their approach.What is your solution to the problem of unscientific techniques that UFO skeptics bring to prevent scientific inquiry?

This UFO issue might get a lot of attention, so I ask the skeptical community to avoid slight of hand techniques BUT INSTEAD present arguments using a scientific methodology that will be mindful of the teachable moment this opportunity presents to the larger society.The public deserves debate that is not only we worthy of the name "science", but one that respects the public generally.

You have an uncanny knack for trying to connect completely disconnected subjects to make some sort of obscure point that completely alludes me. What Piltdown firestorm? "Now we have creationism making hay out of the P Man hoax" What are you talking about? Who are you talking about? Who are uncritical minded UFO skeptics and what do you want them to investigate? Are they qualified to investigate whatever you want investigated? Wait, are these skeptics trying to prove that UFOs are extraterrestrial or that they are imaginary?Why don't you just tell us the "pseudo scientific nature of their approach"? I'm sorry, but I still don't understand the problem. What unscientific techniques are you talking about? How is scientific enquiry prevented.and why is it prevented?

Luis Elizondo says that the government has much more evidence of UFOs, via video ( in addition to other detection methods), than what has already been disclosed.The UFO skeptics are going to be ( hopefully) forced to deal with the evidence that matters, not the "evidence" that does not matter.The actual evidence ( as opposed to the UFO skeptic's selected "evidence" which is designed to delay the scientific process for the indefinite future) is what will be the subject of scientific inquiry .Science was dealt a setback around 300 to 500 CE, and there was a dark age for 1000 years. Science seems to move forward - eventually. It is a question of how long it takes.Now or later?Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Oh, OK, now I get it.

You do?Maybe I need more wine.To me this is just a dis-enjumbulated mess.

Sure, conspiracy theorist who doesn't know jackshit about science or bugfuck about evidence. There's always need for more wine. To me, too. A total failure to communicate.

Thank you.Sometimes it's hard to tell in this place if it's the post that slipped a knot or if I'm having another senior moment.