Cookies, etc.

Only the most basic of data collection features are active on this blog. This is for amount of visitors, and where they visit from.

No other type of data is collected, or stored, to this blog author's knowledge. No cookies have been added by the author, for visitors to be aware of.

In certain instances, links to another web site may be provided to aide the reader. In these cases, the individual web sites might have different policies.


Sunday, September 25, 2011

All UFOs a Massive Hoax?

Currently on the UFO Iconoclast(s) Blog the idea of the whole UFO story being some type of hoax was brought up by Rich, as per my comments surrounding the coincidence of Adamski’s “crafts”, or identical ones, possibly being witnessed by others.

This theory cuts to the heart of one of the reasons I am interested in this subject.

For instance, many comments have been proffered by interested parties that the UFOs have always been sightings of man-made craft; that these objects have been actually secret experimental craft.

A problem with this scenario rests with the thought that this would have to mean that there is some sort of conspiracy to convince the people at large that we are being invaded by an “alien power”.

Air Force documents have demonstrated many times that many officials were of the opinion that we are NOT, and never have been, seeing evidence of some highly advanced technology from an “alien power.” This exact terminology was used in the paperwork generated by the Vandalia Airport sightings of March, 1950. In fact it was said that all sightings were misidentifications.
see last two pages of memo on subject here:


This can’t be the truth, though, based on many sightings by credible witnesses “of incredible things,” many of which do indeed seem to imply the existence of some other group, who have highly advanced technology at their disposal. This is why the ET hypothesis can not be ruled out.

If this was all a hoax, perpetrated by the government, wouldn’t they be the first to try and fan the flames…instead of the other way around?

That’s part of the problem.

8 comments:

  1. Hiya Bob, I agree with you that the 'experimental craft' hypothesis (ECH!) has been flogged to death since day one. It's as poor in usage as those applying ETH to everything else.

    At heart, the ECH ascribes an almost mystical level of technology to our militaries that haven't been demonstrated in the theatres of war. 'Ahhh well. They are actually x decades ahead of current technology.' Maybe.

    If so, why are our UAVs so utterly terrestrial in design and propulsion? Are they saving the radar-dodging Mach10 discs for something more important than the Vietnam or Iraq Wars? Kissinger's exploits and broad ideas of 'full spectrum dominance' were just lip-service whilst fleets of 'free-energy' craft rest unused in secret hangars?

    ECH is a definite value in ufology but there's no logical integrity when some folk extend it as a 'theory of everything.'

    Sorry if this is a bit 'ranty,' I'm venting a little. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Kandinsky, I couldn't agree more.

    If one ponders all of the moments that type of technology could have helped, including major disasters, the thought that "we" really have had it at our disposal should dwindle...somewhat;)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes, the ECH (heh) is generally bogus. Not that it's an entirely unrealistic presumption, in a small number of cases (Area 51 is a perfect example), but the evidence gathered over so many decades strongly suggests otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Sub

    The Area 51 example is good, as it represents one of the other major points...that is we don't test "secret" vehicles over people's cars, houses, or generally where everyone will see them. Hence areas such as 51, and others.

    Also, the debate about Socorro falls here as well, because it wouldn't make sense for them to fly out into public territory, then have some type of mechanical problems that forced them to land, then take off magically again?

    The debates go on.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The "ECH" was indeed there from day one after the Arnold sighting. It might have made a great deal of sense back then (e.g., government doing another secret project like the A-bomb), but after 60+ years it no longer could be considered a theory of everything UFO. As Bruce Maccabee has commented, what are they waiting for to use these advanced craft--Armageddon?

    Strong physical evidence cases like Socorro can ONLY be explained by man-made or not man-made (ETH). Socorro was a highly unconventional craft without an airfoil (like wings) to support it, no visible external propulsion, and flew off at high speed in a highly controlled way in dead silence. What aircraft do we have then or now that could do this? If man-made, it would have to be some back-engineering project of alien technology, which might explain why it is still under wraps.

    Either way, you are back to the ETH to explain at least some UFOs.

    Glad to have you back in the fight Bob. Hope your medical issues are done with.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi David, thanks for the cogent comment.

    The surgeon did a great job. I think the scar will be faint. Swelling and pain are shrinking each day. The best news, of course, is that it was benign.

    Good to be back. :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bob, glad to see your little problem was dealt with ... ok. Hope everything is well.

    And do please stop by Two Roads's new site. I'm sure your voice in the comments would be appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Sub.

    I'll "see" you over at two roads soon. Thanks again for stopping by, and thank you for your kind thoughts.

    ReplyDelete