The dying NASA scientist videos

[BulgarianPride]

It's reported in the documentary. Just watch it for FFS. I am not saying its entirely true, but they do make quite a good claim. How did they work out that percentage? I don't know, but they've been researching the topic for over 15 years. I would think they keep track of how many sightings were total bullshit. I don't see why you are so aggressive with this topic. I haven't made up any bullshit. Nor have i made any personal attacks.

I didn't say you've dismissed evidence. The general population and others do.

Apologies, I thought you were talking about me.

Anyway, I cannot believe that anybody in their right mind could ever believe a statistic that states what percentage of UFO sightings are supposed to be flying saucers. If the number is greater than 0%, they are talking shit.

You actually have to prove the existence of flying saucers using the scientific method before you can give a statistic like that. You cannot have the statistic without it.

It's like me saying that 25% of earthquakes are actually caused by the Hulk Smash. For this to be true, I would first need to prove that the Hulk existed, prove that he performed the Hulk Smash and prove its causality on earthquakes. Only then could I perform statistical analysis. Otherwise, I'm just blatantly making shit up.

The statistic that they seem to be looking for, is that 95% of UFO sightings are actually later found to be perfectly explainable phenomena. The other 5% remain unexplained. Unexplained is not the same thing as a flying saucer.

Anyway, I'll watch the doc tonight.

The term flying saucer is given to a certain type of UFOs. Here is the definition from wiki.

A flying saucer (also referred to as a flying disc) is a type of unidentified flying object (UFO) with a disc- or saucer-shaped body, usually described as silver or metallic, occasionally reported as covered with running lights or surrounded with a glowing light, hovering or moving rapidly either alone or in tight formations with other similar craft, and exhibiting high maneuverability.

That's what i mean by flying saucer.

So if i say 23% of the universe is dark matter, would you call that total bullshit? Or that 72% is dark energy? Dark matter has only been observed, not actually proven to exist. It can't be reproduced in the labs, it can't even be recorded. It doesn't even interact with normal matter. By definition we know what dark matter is. Same goes with dark energy.
Both ideas are scientific and scientists are looking for answers. But they've already formed a "statistical analysis" without proving that those concepts are indeed real. So why are they ignoring the observed evidence provided by credible witnesses about these types of UFOs? Only difference between scientific observations and UFO sightings are that scientific observations are always there. You can get back to them anytime you want. Unlike UFOs.

I would love for there to be a scientific investigation of UFOs. The ones that were done were totally biased and as you know being biased is unscientific. What could be the downside?

So by me saying 5% are flying saucers is saying 5% of UFO sightings describe the UFOs as the quoted part in the beginning for my post. I think the documentary states that 5% are unexplained. If that is the cause, i misunderstood it.

But look at the way you respond with your Hulk example. It's ridiculing me. Trying to prove your point by indirect insult launched at my intellect. I don't even see where you are going with Hulk Smash. On any other topic you try to explain yourself, here you go straight to the insults. Please do explain where my thought process fails, as i really can't see it. If you start with insults my brain with shut down and go in defensive mode.

 

[ElanJo]

Apologies, I thought you were talking about me.

Anyway, I cannot believe that anybody in their right mind could ever believe a statistic that states what percentage of UFO sightings are supposed to be flying saucers. If the number is greater than 0%, they are talking shit.

You actually have to prove the existence of flying saucers using the scientific method before you can give a statistic like that. You cannot have the statistic without it.

It's like me saying that 25% of earthquakes are actually caused by the Hulk Smash. For this to be true, I would first need to prove that the Hulk existed, prove that he performed the Hulk Smash and prove its causality on earthquakes. Only then could I perform statistical analysis. Otherwise, I'm just blatantly making shit up.

The statistic that they seem to be looking for, is that 95% of UFO sightings are actually later found to be perfectly explainable phenomena. The other 5% remain unexplained. Unexplained is not the same thing as a flying saucer.

Anyway, I'll watch the doc tonight.

The term flying saucer is given to a certain type of UFOs. Here is the definition from wiki.

A flying saucer (also referred to as a flying disc) is a type of unidentified flying object (UFO) with a disc- or saucer-shaped body, usually described as silver or metallic, occasionally reported as covered with running lights or surrounded with a glowing light, hovering or moving rapidly either alone or in tight formations with other similar craft, and exhibiting high maneuverability.

That's what i mean by flying saucer.

So if i say 23% of the universe is dark matter, would you call that total bullshit? Or that 72% is dark energy? Dark matter has only been observed, not actually proven to exist. It can't be reproduced in the labs, it can't even be recorded. It doesn't even interact with normal matter. By definition we know what dark matter is. Same goes with dark energy.
Both ideas are scientific and scientists are looking for answers. But they've already formed a "statistical analysis" without proving that those concepts are indeed real. So why are they ignoring the observed evidence provided by credible witnesses about these types of UFOs? Only difference between scientific observations and UFO sightings are that scientific observations are always there. You can get back to them anytime you want. Unlike UFOs.

I would love for there to be a scientific investigation of UFOs. The ones that were done were totally biased and as you know being biased is unscientific. What could be the downside?

So by me saying 5% are flying saucers is saying 5% of UFO sightings describe the UFOs as the quoted part in the beginning for my post. I think the documentary states that 5% are unexplained. If that is the cause, i misunderstood it.

But look at the way you respond with your Hulk example. It's ridiculing me. Trying to prove your point by indirect insult launched at my intellect. I don't even see where you are going with Hulk Smash. On any other topic you try to explain yourself, here you go straight to the insults. Please do explain where my thought process fails, as i really can't see it. If you start with insults my brain with shut down and go in defensive mode.

I've seen 2 (one metallic, one a light) tho I didn't bother reporting them.

 

[peacefrog]

The term flying saucer is given to a certain type of UFOs. Here is the definition from wiki.



That's what i mean by flying saucer.

So if i say 23% of the universe is dark matter, would you call that total bullshit? Or that 72% is dark energy? Dark matter has only been observed, not actually proven to exist. It can't be reproduced in the labs, it can't even be recorded. It doesn't even interact with normal matter. By definition we know what dark matter is. Same goes with dark energy.
Both ideas are scientific and scientists are looking for answers. But they've already formed a "statistical analysis" without proving that those concepts are indeed real. So why are they ignoring the observed evidence provided by credible witnesses about these types of UFOs? Only difference between scientific observations and UFO sightings are that scientific observations are always there. You can get back to them anytime you want. Unlike UFOs.

I would love for there to be a scientific investigation of UFOs. The ones that were done were totally biased and as you know being biased is unscientific. What could be the downside?

So by me saying 5% are flying saucers is saying 5% of UFO sightings describe the UFOs as the quoted part in the beginning for my post. I think the documentary states that 5% are unexplained. If that is the cause, i misunderstood it.

But look at the way you respond with your Hulk example. It's ridiculing me. Trying to prove your point by indirect insult launched at my intellect. I don't even see where you are going with Hulk Smash. On any other topic you try to explain yourself, here you go straight to the insults. Please do explain where my thought process fails, as i really can't see it. If you start with insults my brain with shut down and go in defensive mode.

I've seen 2 (one metallic, one a light) tho I didn't bother reporting them.

Metal and lights are earth inventions.

I believe both are used in the making of aeroplanes.

 

[MCFCinUSA]

When speaking of eyewitness evidence of course the crediblity of the witness is important. The testimony of a 50 year pilot is going to be more credible than most on the subject of UFOs.
Eyewitness evidence is important, we use it in court cases, but of course it's not enough on its own. That's why I am intrgued by the UFO incidents by pilots that coincide with radar readings. More evidence is needed but it's a fascinating topic.

As for the claim: "oh if there was any truth in X it would be all over the papers" Well, to say such a thing is to be pretty ignorant of history. So much shit that Governments have done have gone unreported, be it through censorship or mere self censorship by the journalists themselves. The latter is as clear as day on the subject of UFOs. On the occasion that UFO stuff does get into the papers or news they feel they need to treat it as a sort of joke. Smacks of insecurity.

The stigma is slowly fading as science progresses but it has to be said that a number of people who are interested in UFOs don't do the subject any favours with their kookiness (tho of course those that are a bit mental are the ones most likely to be shown in the media, such is the way they treat the subject)

this whole bit that Mammutly posted (not the whole subject) is idiocy.

ElanJo - if you had some reason to share something with the world and you had the real goods, don't you think you'd painstakingly carefully collate all your evidence (the proper stuff) and build it up, and then take your dossier over to the Washington Post or The Times, or CNN, and blow the lid off it conclusively this way? Aside from making yourself a decent bit of coin in the process with perhaps one of the hottest stories of living memory, OR do you think you'd sit at home and make a half-arsed piss-take video like this and post it YouTube?

if there was REAL evidence and REAL people had it, who wanted to expose it, THEN we'd bloody well hear about it one way or the other - think about it.

we wouldn't be talking about a friggin video on YouTube that was breaking this news - get real.

get it now?

this isn't about newspapers - I mean just look at them.. we know they're full of shit to a large extent, it's about what would actually happen if someone really had something as big as this to break and they had the stones and evidence behind it.

(because as most people looking at this ridiculous 'dying NASA scientist' horseplay know, it's a total joke and they laugh at how it suckers so many people who should know better - this was the subject of the OP was it not? What do I think of them, a load of shit basically that actually demeans a potentially very serious and interesting topic that may or may not have merit)

 

[buzzer1]

BP, do not worry, personal attacks and falsyfying what you have actualy said is the norm when discussing a so-called outlandish claim and a thought outside the box, as Elanjo said, it smacks of insecurity and even though you were merely quoting what somebody said on the link, you still find yourself defending yourself, do'nt bother.

Oh come on, that's no fair. So if you use someone else's words to back up your argument you shouldn't be questioned on it?

Tbf, it matters if you are merely transfering information, but if you quote someone then yes, fair do's. Mate, it's the angst that i don't understand as there really is no need, you me and everyone that has ever been will only knoiw the truth about certain things when we pass over from this realm imo. :)

-- Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:13 pm --

When speaking of eyewitness evidence of course the crediblity of the witness is important. The testimony of a 50 year pilot is going to be more credible than most on the subject of UFOs.
Eyewitness evidence is important, we use it in court cases, but of course it's not enough on its own. That's why I am intrgued by the UFO incidents by pilots that coincide with radar readings. More evidence is needed but it's a fascinating topic.

As for the claim: "oh if there was any truth in X it would be all over the papers" Well, to say such a thing is to be pretty ignorant of history. So much shit that Governments have done have gone unreported, be it through censorship or mere self censorship by the journalists themselves. The latter is as clear as day on the subject of UFOs. On the occasion that UFO stuff does get into the papers or news they feel they need to treat it as a sort of joke. Smacks of insecurity.

The stigma is slowly fading as science progresses but it has to be said that a number of people who are interested in UFOs don't do the subject any favours with their kookiness (tho of course those that are a bit mental are the ones most likely to be shown in the media, such is the way they treat the subject)

this whole bit that Mammutly posted (not the whole subject) is idiocy.

ElanJo - if you had some reason to share something with the world and you had the real goods, don't you think you'd painstakingly carefully collate all your evidence (the proper stuff) and build it up, and then take your dossier over to the Washington Post or The Times, or CNN, and blow the lid off it conclusively this way? Aside from making yourself a decent bit of coin in the process with perhaps one of the hottest stories of living memory, OR do you think you'd sit at home and make a half-arsed piss-take video like this and post it YouTube?

if there was REAL evidence and REAL people had it, who wanted to expose it, THEN we'd bloody well hear about it one way or the other - think about it.

we wouldn't be talking about a friggin video on YouTube that was breaking this news - get real.

get it now?

this isn't about newspapers - I mean just look at them.. we know they're full of shit to a large extent, it's about what would actually happen if someone really had something as big as this to break and they had the stones and evidence behind it.

(because as most people looking at this ridiculous 'dying NASA scientist' horseplay know, it's a total joke and they laugh at how it suckers so many people who should know better - this was the subject of the OP was it not? What do I think of them, a load of shit basically that actually demeans a potentially very serious and interesting topic that may or may not have merit)

Do you seriosly think that one of your suggested bum fukc newspapers would run a story of this magnitude,seriously? When certain parties own something ie the media,then it is they that dictate what gets released yeah? just look at the rags or the sky four, it's exactly the same.

People have sent in projects that they have been working on for ages, to various media types and yes, govts., and they have heard nothing back and in some cases even had a knock at the door, i hear the laughter now regs. Men In Black blah blah, but it's happened and continues to happen to this day, I KNOW THIS.

As Bulgarian Pride says, why the hell can't we have an unbiased investigation into this subject? with people from all sides doing the investigating, without predjudice, without aggression and just an open investigation with ALL files that the govt. have AND BEYOND and then let people come to their own conclusion? IMO, the answer is clear for all to see.

 

[ElanJo]

I've seen 2 (one metallic, one a light) tho I didn't bother reporting them.

Metal and lights are earth inventions.

I believe both are used in the making of aeroplanes.

Brilliant, but I've never seen an aeroplane like those.

Infact the metallic looking one was in close proximity to an actual plane. Maybe it was a small refueling drone or something? I don't know. As far as I'm concerned it was an Unidentified Flying Object.

 

[Skip Donoghue]

this whole bit that Mammutly posted (not the whole subject) is idiocy.

ElanJo - if you had some reason to share something with the world and you had the real goods, don't you think you'd painstakingly carefully collate all your evidence (the proper stuff) and build it up, and then take your dossier over to the Washington Post or The Times, or CNN, and blow the lid off it conclusively this way? Aside from making yourself a decent bit of coin in the process with perhaps one of the hottest stories of living memory, OR do you think you'd sit at home and make a half-arsed piss-take video like this and post it YouTube?

if there was REAL evidence and REAL people had it, who wanted to expose it, THEN we'd bloody well hear about it one way or the other - think about it.

we wouldn't be talking about a friggin video on YouTube that was breaking this news - get real.

get it now?

this isn't about newspapers - I mean just look at them.. we know they're full of shit to a large extent, it's about what would actually happen if someone really had something as big as this to break and they had the stones and evidence behind it.

(because as most people looking at this ridiculous 'dying NASA scientist' horseplay know, it's a total joke and they laugh at how it suckers so many people who should know better - this was the subject of the OP was it not? What do I think of them, a load of shit basically that actually demeans a potentially very serious and interesting topic that may or may not have merit)

they tried to, in i think it was 2001 a press conference was held at the national press club in Washington USA over a hundred top retired military, JPL, NASA and various scientist gave there accounts of what they know and have seen and agreed to stand before congress and tell them what they know and have seen. (by the way none of them have been taken up on this offer)

it was called the Disclosure Project and was led by Dr Steven Greer, the funny thing is that the press conference was for worlds media and international press but none of them showed up or took an interest.

i wonder why?

 

[ElanJo]

When speaking of eyewitness evidence of course the crediblity of the witness is important. The testimony of a 50 year pilot is going to be more credible than most on the subject of UFOs.
Eyewitness evidence is important, we use it in court cases, but of course it's not enough on its own. That's why I am intrgued by the UFO incidents by pilots that coincide with radar readings. More evidence is needed but it's a fascinating topic.

As for the claim: "oh if there was any truth in X it would be all over the papers" Well, to say such a thing is to be pretty ignorant of history. So much shit that Governments have done have gone unreported, be it through censorship or mere self censorship by the journalists themselves. The latter is as clear as day on the subject of UFOs. On the occasion that UFO stuff does get into the papers or news they feel they need to treat it as a sort of joke. Smacks of insecurity.

The stigma is slowly fading as science progresses but it has to be said that a number of people who are interested in UFOs don't do the subject any favours with their kookiness (tho of course those that are a bit mental are the ones most likely to be shown in the media, such is the way they treat the subject)

this whole bit that Mammutly posted (not the whole subject) is idiocy.

ElanJo - if you had some reason to share something with the world and you had the real goods, don't you think you'd painstakingly carefully collate all your evidence (the proper stuff) and build it up, and then take your dossier over to the Washington Post or The Times, or CNN, and blow the lid off it conclusively this way? Aside from making yourself a decent bit of coin in the process with perhaps one of the hottest stories of living memory, OR do you think you'd sit at home and make a half-arsed piss-take video like this and post it YouTube?

if there was REAL evidence and REAL people had it, who wanted to expose it, THEN we'd bloody well hear about it one way or the other - think about it.

we wouldn't be talking about a friggin video on YouTube that was breaking this news - get real.

get it now?

this isn't about newspapers - I mean just look at them.. we know they're full of shit to a large extent, it's about what would actually happen if someone really had something as big as this to break and they had the stones and evidence behind it.

(because as most people looking at this ridiculous 'dying NASA scientist' horseplay know, it's a total joke and they laugh at how it suckers so many people who should know better - this was the subject of the OP was it not? What do I think of them, a load of shit basically that actually demeans a potentially very serious and interesting topic that may or may not have merit)

My point wasn't really to do with this "dying NASA scientist" video (I only watched a bit of it anyway). It's a general point about the UFO subject - specifically "Flying Saucers". It's simply not a good argument to say "well the media hasn't reported it so..."
If this 'dying scientist' has evidence then yes he should show it. If it's just anectdotal then it's not really worth much, and people would be utterly foolish to be taken in by it, even if he could prove he once worked at NASA.

 

[buzzer1]

Metal and lights are earth inventions.

I believe both are used in the making of aeroplanes.

Brilliant, but I've never seen an aeroplane like those.

Infact the metallic looking one was in close proximity to an actual plane. Maybe it was a small refueling drone or something? I don't know. As far as I'm concerned it was an Unidentified Flying Object.

Ha ha,a mate of mine seen what appeared to be a pulsing object almost parallell to the East Lancs rd, obviously in the sky and it was doing a bit of darting about until it seemed to completely change shape,(aeroplane like) and start heading back to whence it came from at the first sighting by my mate, steadily as in 'plane like mode, then it changed again and started darting to and fro, i don't know if my mate had his night vision's with him as he was just visiting his mums house. Shapeshifting ufo? who knows.

Apparently they have been known to.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTJsRi-4wdk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTJsRi-4wdk</a>



<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7jrmkeU78I" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7jrmkeU78I</a>

 

[BulgarianPride]

When speaking of eyewitness evidence of course the crediblity of the witness is important. The testimony of a 50 year pilot is going to be more credible than most on the subject of UFOs.
Eyewitness evidence is important, we use it in court cases, but of course it's not enough on its own. That's why I am intrgued by the UFO incidents by pilots that coincide with radar readings. More evidence is needed but it's a fascinating topic.

As for the claim: "oh if there was any truth in X it would be all over the papers" Well, to say such a thing is to be pretty ignorant of history. So much shit that Governments have done have gone unreported, be it through censorship or mere self censorship by the journalists themselves. The latter is as clear as day on the subject of UFOs. On the occasion that UFO stuff does get into the papers or news they feel they need to treat it as a sort of joke. Smacks of insecurity.

The stigma is slowly fading as science progresses but it has to be said that a number of people who are interested in UFOs don't do the subject any favours with their kookiness (tho of course those that are a bit mental are the ones most likely to be shown in the media, such is the way they treat the subject)

this whole bit that Mammutly posted (not the whole subject) is idiocy.

ElanJo - if you had some reason to share something with the world and you had the real goods, don't you think you'd painstakingly carefully collate all your evidence (the proper stuff) and build it up, and then take your dossier over to the Washington Post or The Times, or CNN, and blow the lid off it conclusively this way? Aside from making yourself a decent bit of coin in the process with perhaps one of the hottest stories of living memory, OR do you think you'd sit at home and make a half-arsed piss-take video like this and post it YouTube?

if there was REAL evidence and REAL people had it, who wanted to expose it, THEN we'd bloody well hear about it one way or the other - think about it.

we wouldn't be talking about a friggin video on YouTube that was breaking this news - get real.

get it now?

this isn't about newspapers - I mean just look at them.. we know they're full of shit to a large extent, it's about what would actually happen if someone really had something as big as this to break and they had the stones and evidence behind it.

(because as most people looking at this ridiculous 'dying NASA scientist' horseplay know, it's a total joke and they laugh at how it suckers so many people who should know better - this was the subject of the OP was it not? What do I think of them, a load of shit basically that actually demeans a potentially very serious and interesting topic that may or may not have merit)

The media treats UFO sightings and evidence as jokes. Nobody, maybe one or two small papers would actually publish the story. But i doubt the general public will have knowledge of such things. There were people with stones and evidence, but were just laughed at. Ridiculed and insulted from left and right. Judging the validity of evidence based on it being on youtube and not on the press is wrong. For this video, its quite fake, not because it wasn't on the press, but just because its fake. His whole story makes no sense. That is it.
You would find that these videos are what hurts the whole argument about UFO, flying saucers in particular. Attention seeking whores, thats what they are. The general public are not really interested in learning something new.

-- Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:33 am --

Brilliant, but I've never seen an aeroplane like those.

Infact the metallic looking one was in close proximity to an actual plane. Maybe it was a small refueling drone or something? I don't know. As far as I'm concerned it was an Unidentified Flying Object.

Ha ha,a mate of mine seen what appeared to be a pulsing object almost parallell to the East Lancs rd, obviously in the sky and it was doing a bit of darting about until it seemed to completely change shape,(aeroplane like) and start heading back to whence it came from at the first sighting by my mate, steadily as in 'plane like mode, then it changed again and started darting to and fro, i don't know if my mate had his night vision's with him as he was just visiting his mums house. Shapeshifting ufo? who knows.

Apparently they have been known to.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTJsRi-4wdk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTJsRi-4wdk</a>



<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7jrmkeU78I" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7jrmkeU78I</a>

What the hell? I've never seen things like that. It's like a liquid in space.<br /><br />-- Mon Sep 20, 2010 9:34 am --<br /><br />

this whole bit that Mammutly posted (not the whole subject) is idiocy.

ElanJo - if you had some reason to share something with the world and you had the real goods, don't you think you'd painstakingly carefully collate all your evidence (the proper stuff) and build it up, and then take your dossier over to the Washington Post or The Times, or CNN, and blow the lid off it conclusively this way? Aside from making yourself a decent bit of coin in the process with perhaps one of the hottest stories of living memory, OR do you think you'd sit at home and make a half-arsed piss-take video like this and post it YouTube?

if there was REAL evidence and REAL people had it, who wanted to expose it, THEN we'd bloody well hear about it one way or the other - think about it.

we wouldn't be talking about a friggin video on YouTube that was breaking this news - get real.

get it now?

this isn't about newspapers - I mean just look at them.. we know they're full of shit to a large extent, it's about what would actually happen if someone really had something as big as this to break and they had the stones and evidence behind it.

(because as most people looking at this ridiculous 'dying NASA scientist' horseplay know, it's a total joke and they laugh at how it suckers so many people who should know better - this was the subject of the OP was it not? What do I think of them, a load of shit basically that actually demeans a potentially very serious and interesting topic that may or may not have merit)

they tried to, in i think it was 2001 a press conference was held at the national press club in Washington USA over a hundred top retired military, JPL, NASA and various scientist gave there accounts of what they know and have seen and agreed to stand before congress and tell them what they know and have seen. (by the way none of them have been taken up on this offer)

it was called the Disclosure Project and was led by Dr Steven Greer, the funny thing is that the press conference was for worlds media and international press but none of them showed up or took an interest.

i wonder why?

Me too.