logo Sign In

Spartacus01

User Group
Members
Join date
22-Nov-2022
Last activity
18-May-2025
Posts
341

Post History

Post
#1647376
Topic
Religion
Time

Vladius said:

Spartacus01 said:

Vladius said:

Superweapon VII said:

*yawn*

Our concept of hell doesn’t have biblical origins

yawn yeah it does

Can you elaborate?

I’m not going to watch that video but at the very least the title is misleading. Hell comes up in the bible as either Sheol/Hades like the Greek concept as a place for dead spirits, or Gehenna, which is named after a valley in Israel and symbolizes fiery torment and burning. It’s worth noting for all the people here who are fans of sanitized 21st century-friendly hippie Jesus that Christ talks more about hell (Gehenna) than anyone else in the bible.

Of course different Christians have different interpretations of how all this works, who goes to hell, how long it lasts, what the nature of it is, what the difference between Sheol and Gehenna is, etc. but it’s clearly right there in the text. The imagery and the concept of a place of punishment is obviously biblical.

I have not watched the video either, but I am familiar with the arguments of those who claim that the popular concept of Hell is not rooted in biblical tradition. I have always been interested in the history and study of religions, so I am aware of the various interpretations and debates concerning certain concepts and words. I presume that the author of the video — and I repeat, I am saying this without having watched it — does not deny that those terms are used in the Bible. Rather, I believe they argue that the modern Christian interpretation, which associates those terms with the concept of Hell as it is understood in modern popular culture, is not necessarily correct. To be honest, I am not even sure I can completely disagree, considering that Jews, for instance, do not believe in Hell and interpret those terms in a completely different way.

Personally, when it comes to the Old Testament, I tend to agree more with the Jews than with the Christians. After all, the Hebrew Bible was written by the Jews, so I believe it makes more sense to follow their perspective when it comes to vocabulary, lexicon, and the exegesis of Hebrew texts. Of course, I am aware that Judaism is not a monolithic tradition, but there are certain points on which all Jews have always agreed. For instance, 99% of Jews have never believed in the existence of fallen angels, with the exception of a few small messianic sects that existed during the Second Temple period. So again, when it comes to the Old Testament, I prefer to follow Jewish interpretations rather than Christian ones, primarily for a matter of consistency.

Post
#1647323
Topic
The Machete Order Revised
Time

I honestly prefer either the chronological order or the machete order. I really cannot bring myself to watch the Original Trilogy first and then the Prequel Trilogy. To me, one should always end with Return of the Jedi, because the ending of Return of the Jedi is the most satisfying and fulfilling one. If you watch Revenge of the Sith as the final movie but have no desire to rewatch the Original Trilogy immediately afterwards, then you end the Saga on a depressing note. But if you watch Return of the Jedi as the final movie, you have a happy and satisfying ending and can conclude the Saga on a positive note. So again, I prefer either the chronological order or the machete order, as both orders allow you to watch Revenge of the Sith before Return of the Jedi rather than after, and I think it just makes more sense this way.

Post
#1647081
Topic
What Do YOU Think Star Wars Should Do Next?
Time

Personally, I believe that they should have the courage to touch the Old Republic, either with a series of films or with a TV show. As long as the stories are well-written and the characters are relatable, I think that fans would not despise them, even if they are not an exact copy and are not faithful to the original Old Republic stories.

Post
#1646944
Topic
What do you think of The Prequel Trilogy? A general discussion.
Time

Mocata said:

Yeah but everyone is two decades years older they need to mature and develop critical faculties by now.

Why should “maturing” and “developing critical faculties” coincide with having the same opinions as you on the Prequels? It seems like a rather biased reasoning on your part.

Channel72 said:

In contrast, the popularity of the OT can’t be as easily explained as entirely the result of nostalgia, because the OT films have many devoted fans among the younger generations as well, I assume.

As someone who has had the opportunity to speak with many people who were Star Wars fans during the 1980s and 1990s, I feel compelled to express my disagreement with this statement. After the release of Return of the Jedi, the Original Trilogy practically faded into obscurity. Yes, they were considered very good films, but Star Wars was essentially dead between 1983 and the release of the Special Editions in 1997. Without the Special Editions and the Prequels, Star Wars would have remained nothing more than an old trilogy of 1980s movies. Sure, many people would certainly still love it, but it would never have become the massive franchise it is today. Star Wars would have ended up like Back to the Future — a well-loved series, but not a cultural phenomenon. So yes, objectively speaking, the almost blind devotion to the Original Trilogy that many people exhibit today is primarily a product of the older generation’s nostalgia, because again, between 1983 and 1997, nobody really cared about either the Original Trilogy or Star Wars in general. Had it not been for the Special Editions and the Prequels, Star Wars would be dead right now.

NeverarGreat said:

Perhaps the prequels are uniquely suited to appealing to kids, which is why they are getting more love these days from people who grew up with them, as well as kids today who are seeing them for the first time. If that’s true, then perhaps the only cohort who can’t widely appreciate them are those who were already too old when the films premiered.

I genuinely do not understand where this reasoning comes from. I know many people who watched the Prequels as adults and still appreciated them. Sure, many people consider them inferior to the Original Trilogy, but they certainly do not dismiss them entirely, as many users on this forum tend to do. I, too, watched the Prequels for the first time when I was 18, and I had absolutely no idea that Prequel hate even existed until my sister mentioned it a couple of years later — after I had already seen the films. Even on YouTube, there are countless reaction videos of adults watching the Prequels for the first time and still being able to appreciate them. So I truly do not understand where the idea that “only children who grew up with the Prequels can appreciate them” comes from.

Post
#1645196
Topic
What do you think of The Prequel Trilogy? A general discussion.
Time

Personally, I do not think The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith are bad movies. I think they are fine, but I also believe they could be improved through fan editing.

I genuinely agree with about 99% of the lore and concepts introduced in the Prequels, and very little actually bothers me on a conceptual level. However, there are undeniably some scenes that feel excessively over the top, and a few others that do not really serve any meaningful purpose and could easily be removed. In my opinion, these films are fine, but they have the potential to become much better with careful and thoughtful editing. This is why I have always wanted to create my own fan edits of the Prequels. Unfortunately, although I did manage to somewhat complete a fan edit of Attack of the Clones with the help of Hal9000, I have never been able to work on edits for the other two films because I have never found anyone else willing to help me with the project.

Furthermore, I am convinced that many of the people who dislike the Prequels are influenced by a specific type of bias. A lot of fans who grew up with the Original Trilogy were disappointed simply because the Prequels did not reflect the backstory they had imagined for Darth Vader. And honestly, that is a very human and understandable reaction. I do not blame anyone for feeling that way. I have experienced the same kind of disappointment myself with other franchises, watching a film I loved and then later seeing a prequel that did not match the version of the past I had built in my head. So in the end, I think that kind of response is entirely valid on an emotional level. But I also believe it is still a form of bias, even if it is a natural and forgivable one.

There is also a similar kind of bias when it comes to specific plot points. I have seen many fans criticize elements such as the creation of the clone army, Anakin’s willingness to believe Palpatine’s lies about cheating death, or the romantic subplot between Anakin and Padmé, claiming that these things do not make sense or feel unrealistic. But personally, I have always been able to rationalize them and find a coherent logic behind those choices. Yes, some scenes are over the top, and the execution of some plot points can definitely be improved through fan-editing. But that does not mean the core ideas behind them are flawed. Many viewers, like myself, are able to accept and even appreciate these plot elements when they are not actively looking for flaws. I think some fans reject these story choices not because they truly make no sense, but because they conflict with the expectations they had developed over the years. Again, that is a very human reaction, and I do not condemn it, but it is still a bias.

In the end, I do not think the Prequels are perfect, but I do believe they are deeply misunderstood. With the right editorial touch, they can be transformed into truly great Star Wars films.

Post
#1643786
Topic
What do you HATE about the EU?
Time

darklordoftech said:

Spartacus01 said:

darklordoftech said:

The BBY/ABY calendar existing in-universe.

Why do you hate it? I do not mind it.

Why would the New Republic establish a new year 0? Isn’t that something totalitarian regimes do? Why not use whatever year 0 the Valorum-era Republic used?

The New Republic did not see itself as just a continuation of the Old Republic; it saw itself as a major improvement, something new and better. The Old Republic, especially in its final years, was bloated, bureaucratic, and too weak to prevent the rise of Palpatine. So from the New Republic’s point of view, there was no reason to go back to that exact model. Therefore, creating a new calendar, with a new Year 0, was a symbolic way of saying, “This is a fresh start.” It helped to draw a clear line between what came before — the corruption of the late Republic, the dark times of the Empire — and what they hoped to build. And if you think about it, choosing their Year 0 around the time of the first real victory against the Empire makes emotional sense too. That moment was not just a military victory; it was the first time in years that people across the galaxy had real hope. From the New Republic’s perspective, that hope was the foundation of everything they were trying to build. So starting a new calendar from that moment sends a message: “This is when things began to change.”

Post
#1638199
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

I was permanently banned from a subreddit and temporarily banned from Reddit for 7 days. And I am pissed off.

So, what happened? Let me break it down for you as simply as possible.

Basically, I posted some comments in a subreddit. Those comments got me banned from that subreddit for seven days. Now, just to be clear, my comments were not hateful, not racist, and not the kind of offensive nonsense that could justifiably get me banned from Reddit altogether. They were just a bit snarky, a little sharp — let’s say they had a bit of an edge to them. And apparently, that was enough to get me banned for “toxicity.”

Fine. I accepted it. No problem.

Now, here is where things took a turn.

Today, while going through my notifications, I noticed one I had not replied to. I clicked on it, and it turned out to be a comment someone had left for me in that same subreddit where I was banned. But this comment was in an entirely different thread, totally unrelated to the discussion that got me banned in the first place.

And then I had a lapsus. For a moment, I completely forgot I had been banned. So I tried to reply to the comment, but the system would not let me. I kept clicking “send,” but my response would not go through.

Now, because of this lapsus, my brain did not make the connection: “Oh, I cannot reply because I am banned.” Instead, I assumed there was some kind of system glitch preventing me from responding.

So, in my infinite wisdom, I thought, “Screw it, I will just make another account and reply from there.” That way, I figured, I could get my response through despite what I assumed was just a Reddit bug.

Well, bad idea.

Shortly after, I got a notification saying: “You attempted to evade a ban, so now you are permanently banned from this subreddit.” And then, about thirty minutes later, I got another notification: “You have been temporarily suspended from Reddit for seven days.”

That is when it hit me: “What the hell did I just do?”

Because I had not actually intended to break the rules. I had not tried to get around the ban on purpose; I had just had a lapsus and completely forgotten I was banned in the first place! When I made that second account, it was not to dodge the ban, but because I genuinely thought there was a technical issue stopping me from replying.

But, well… here we are.

Now I am permanently banned from that subreddit and suspended from Reddit for a week.

Post
#1633099
Topic
UFO's & other anomalies ... do you believe?
Time

PHILIP CORSO AND THE DAY AFTER ROSWELL, AGAIN

by Kevin Randle, published on January 22, 2014

Original Source: https://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2014/01/philip-corso-and-day-after-roswell-again.html?m=1


As everyone now knows, Philip Corso burst on the Roswell UFO scene in the summer of 1997 with the publication of his book, The Day After Roswell. It was Corso’s story of his involvement with the flying saucer crash at Roswell, first as an officer at Fort Riley, Kansas, and later as a staff officer in the Pentagon, the Eisenhower White House, and finally on the staff of Lieutenant General Arthur Trudeau. Corso claimed that he had been responsible, under orders from Trudeau, for leaking bits and pieces of alien technology to American industry for reverse engineering, duplication, and replication.

There is no doubt that Corso had served as a military officer and rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. He served in World War II and stayed on active duty until he retired, and did work for Trudeau. Although he did say that he had retired as a full colonel, there is no evidence to back up this claim.

It was during his assignment at Fort Riley that Corso was introduced, according to him, to the alien crash at Roswell. Corso, again according to him, was an above-average bowler, and because of his skill, was invited to participate on a Fort Riley team by then Master Sergeant Bill Brown (which is a name nearly as common as John Smith for those who wish to attempt to learn more about this guy). Corso was surprised because enlisted men were not supposed to fraternize with officers at that time, but apparently Corso’s skill was such that the master sergeant took a chance and breached military protocol.

The friendship that developed between Corso and the master sergeant, who he now called by the nickname Brownie, would play an important role in what would happen on the evening of July 6, 1947, after the arrival of a “secret” convoy. Corso was assigned as the post duty officer, in charge of security and, as he described it, the “human firewall between emergency and disaster.” As he walked his post, checking the security, he failed to find Sergeant Brown where he was supposed to be. Instead, Brown was in the doorway of the veterinary clinic. There was something inside that Corso just had to see.

Forget for the moment that Brown would have had no reason to enter the building unless there was some sort of a disturbance inside, or that the secret convoy of five “deuce and a half” (two-and-a-half-ton trucks) with its accompanying “Low boy” side-by-side trailers would have been guarded by the men who brought them to Fort Riley to ensure that the contents were not compromised. Forget also that the best evidence suggests that the material from the crash was shipped by air to its various destinations because it was the quickest and safest way to move it, and the 509th Bomb Group had access to a wide range of military aircraft. Corso, in his first-hand account, claimed that the convoy stopped at Fort Riley, and the Military Police assigned to it as guards were all armed, which, of course, they would be, so that was not unusual. These guards, once the material was secured in the veterinary clinic, apparently abandoned their posts to leave the guarding of the crates to the local soldiers. These guards would have had no reason to unload the cargo, so there is no reason that it would have been in the veterinary clinic — but without this wrinkle, Corso’s story collapses.

Those local soldiers, being curious men, began to search the material from the top-secret convoy. What they found so upset them that they risked the wrath of the post duty officer and court martial by telling him that there was something he had to see. Brown told Corso that he had to take a look at what the convoy was transporting. Corso warned Brown that he was not supposed to be there and had better leave. Brown, apparently ignoring this advice — which would actually have the force of a lawful order — said that he would watch the door while Corso snooped.

Inside the building, Corso found the crates but hesitated at prying open any of them, which would have been closed with a seal to expose any tampering. He searched among them until he found one that had apparently already been opened by the Fort Riley soldiers, so that the nails were loose. He opened that crate and then looked down inside. In a glass tube containing a blue fluid, floating, suspended, was what Corso thought, at first, was a small child. Then he knew it was not a child, but a human-looking creature with “bizarre-looking four-fingered hands… thin legs and feet, and an oversized incandescent light bulb-shaped head…”

Rifling the crate, Corso found an Army Intelligence document detailing that the creature was from a craft that had crashed outside of Roswell, which also does not make sense. The documents would not have been stashed in a crate carrying the body. The paperwork appeared to manifest the remains, first to the Air Materiel Command at Wright Field, and then to Walter Reed Hospital for what Corso believed would be autopsy (which is in conflict with data provided by the late and former Brigadier General Arthur Exon). Of course, such a manifest would have been in the hands of the convoy commander rather than stuck in a crate where he would not have easy access to it. Corso, realizing that he was not supposed to have read the document, seen the creature, opened the crate, or penetrated the security around the cargo, put everything back the way he found it and hurried outside. He told Brown that he had seen nothing and that he, Brown, was to tell no one.

That was not, of course, Corso’s last brush with the Roswell case. It was, however, more than a decade before he again saw anything dealing with Roswell. Instead, he had a number of military assignments, moving him to Washington, D.C., and then to Fort Bliss, Texas. At Bliss, he was trained in anti-aircraft artillery, then assigned as an inspector of training, and finally assigned as battalion commander for several weeks before he was reassigned to Europe. While at Bliss, according to Corso, he was assigned as the commander of the White Sands Missile Range. At least, that is what he told reporters in the summer of 1997 as he was describing his background for them.

In Germany, in 1957, he was a commander of a Nike battalion. In March 1959, he became the Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff at the Seventh Army Headquarters. In May 1959, he became an Inspector General at Seventh Army HQ and continued in that assignment for about a year. In 1960, he returned to the United States. In 1961, he was assigned as a staff officer of the Plans Division in Washington, D.C., and then as a staff officer of the Army’s Foreign Technology Division until April 1961, when he became the Chief of Foreign Technology. Three months later, he was reassigned as a staff officer at Plans, and less than a year later he retired.

It was during the tour in 1961 that he became involved, once again, with the Roswell case. According to an affidavit prepared by Peter Gersten, and according to Corso, “…In 1961, I came into possession of what I refer to as the ‘Roswell File.’ This file contained field reports, medical autopsy reports, and technological debris from the crash of an extraterrestrial vehicle in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947.”

Corso’s job, in 1961, was to parcel the debris into American industry hands for research and development, which does not explain why he was exposed to information that was irrelevant to his assignment and in violation of the “Need to Know” rule. The idea here was to suggest to various companies that the small artifact or metal had come from an unknown source — which, of course, shows that there was no need to provide Corso with the background of a UFO crash. The expertise of the scientists at the companies was supposed to unlock the secrets of the debris. This led, according to Corso, to the creation of the transistor, night vision equipment, fiber optics, lasers, microwave ovens, and a host of other recent developments, though the scientific papers and history of the times suggest that this is not accurate.

All of this was outlined in Corso’s book, which became news in July 1997. He appeared on NBC’s Dateline for an exclusive interview. About a week later, he appeared in Roswell for a press conference, a lecture, and a book signing. For three weeks in August, his book appeared on the New York Times bestseller list.

Corso was, in 1997, the highest-ranking officer to write a book about Roswell and to make public claims about the case — of what he had seen and done (Colonel Jesse Marcel, Jr. now holds that distinction). According to him, he had been a member of the NSC, had worked inside Eisenhower’s White House, and had served with the Army’s Foreign Technology Division. If he could be believed, then here was the truth about the Roswell crash. Finally, a witness with impressive credentials had gone on the record.

The stories told by Corso to friends and family are even more impressive than those detailed in his book. In a proposed chapter that was edited out of his book, Corso claimed that in 1957 he had taken command of missiles at Red Canyon, where he trained specialists in the management of sophisticated radar and range-finding equipment. It was here that Corso saw a series of radar contacts showing objects that could outperform the best Air Force interceptors. Corso, according to the details of the missing chapter, had been told to report all unidentifiable sightings and then, finally, was told to forget them. He also claimed that at “times of intense UFO activity during his tenure as commander… he is ordered to turn his targeting radars completely off because, he believes, the craft themselves are in danger from our missiles as well as from our high-energy radars.”

Naturally, the claims of Corso were subjected to intense scrutiny. Problems with his book began to arise almost immediately. For example, Corso had claimed to be a member of the NSC in the Eisenhower White House. Herbert L. Pankratz, an archivist at the Eisenhower Library, reported Corso was not a member of the National Security Council or its ancillary agency known as the Operations Coordinating Board. There was nothing to link Corso to the NSC.

Corso, in his book, told of how he had intimidated the CIA director of covert operations after Corso learned the CIA was following him. He told Frank “Wiesner” that he was going to start carrying a gun and if he ever spotted a CIA agent following him, they would find the agent’s body with bullet holes in the head. Corso then noted that Wiesner was found dead in his London hotel room in 1961. Wiesner had killed himself by hanging, which is not to say that Corso’s threat so unhinged Wiesner that he committed suicide.

The problem is that most of the facts used by Corso to support this story — from the claim that he had charged into the Langley Headquarters of the CIA, to the facts surrounding the death of Frank Wisner (note correct spelling) — are wrong. Corso could not have charged into the Langley headquarters because they were not opened when Corso supposedly entered the building. Corso could not have driven to Wisner’s office as he claimed because, in April 1961, Wisner was, in fact, assigned to the CIA’s London office. Wisner did eventually commit suicide, but it was with a shotgun, at the family farm, and on October 29, 1965.

In what may be the most telling of the events surrounding the publication of Corso’s book is the Foreword written by Senator Strom Thurmond. Here seems to be an endorsement for Corso’s book from a man who had served in the United States Senate longer than almost anyone. When the book was published, Thurmond objected, claiming that the Foreword he had written had been for a different book. The publisher, Simon and Schuster, issued an apology and pulled the Foreword from future printings of the book. Corso tried to explain it away, saying that Thurmond’s staff had written the Foreword and that “the old man knew it,” and that they had not really known the nature of the book. The whole flap, according to Corso, was a misunderstanding about the nature of the book and who actually authored the Foreword. As a matter of courtesy, given the controversy, Simon and Schuster decided to pull the Foreword.

Karl Pflock, who had been around Washington, D.C., in various capacities, decided to look into the matter himself, believing that his friends and sources inside the Beltway would give him a unique perspective on the matter. Pflock, it turned out, knew the senator’s press secretary and learned that, “Yes, it’s true the foreword was drafted by one of the senator’s staff… It was done at the senator’s direction on the understanding he had from Corso that it was to be for Corso’s memoirs, for which he and his staff were supplied an outline, a document which made no mention of UFOs.” Pflock added, “I know of my own certain knowledge the senator was and is mad as hell about the cheap trick that Corso pulled on him…”

Pflock continued, pointing out that Deputy General Counsel Eric Raymond demanded, “Recall all copies of the first printing — failing that, remove all dust jackets with the senator’s name on them; stop using any reference to the foreword by the senator in promoting the book; do not use the foreword in any subsequent printings of the book; issue a statement acknowledging the truth, ‘to establish for the public record’ that the senator ‘had no intention or desire to write the foreword to The Day After Roswell,’ a ‘project I completely disavow.’”

The apology issued by Simon & Schuster was not as bland as Corso had characterized it but was, in fact, damning in its wording. It was clear that Thurmond did not know the nature of the book and that the outline he had read was for a completely different book. The publisher did remove the foreword from all subsequent editions of the book.

This might seem as if it is an argument over trivia, but it does speak to the general attitude of Corso in constructing his book. If he was willing to mislead a United States Senator — one whom Corso considered a friend — why believe that he would not want to mislead the rest of the country? The evidence is that he played fast and loose with the truth.

For example, it was Corso who said that he had been the commander at the White Sands Missile Range, but a check of the Range’s website revealed that, with two exceptions, the Range had been commanded by a general officer. The first exception was Colonel Turner, who had been the first commander, and the second was when a full colonel took over temporarily when the commanding general died. Corso’s name did not surface as a commander. However, as noted, his records indicated that he had been a battalion commander at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas. The two organizations — Fort Bliss and White Sands Missile Range — share some facilities. So, it might be said Corso was a commander at White Sands, but not THE commander. Clearly, Corso was inflating his record when speaking to members of the press.

During those same press conferences, Corso made other statements that were quite revealing. He mentioned the Philadelphia Experiment, a hoax that began in 1956 when a man claimed he had witnessed, during the Second World War, Navy efforts to teleport a destroyer. The story is an admitted hoax, but Corso began telling reporters about the event, claiming that he had read the top-secret files about it.

Research into Corso’s claims showed that they were firmly grounded in the UFO community. Corso had read and reviewed everything that had been printed, published on the Internet, or shown in television documentaries over the last five or six years as it related to the Roswell case. There was nothing new in Corso’s book, except for his claim that he had seen one of the bodies at Fort Riley, and that he was the conduit for the alien technology to American industry. For evidence, he offered nothing more than his claim that it happened, and documentation offered as some sort of evidence had nothing to do with his claims. In fact, when Corso came into conflict with other witnesses, or information that was contrary to his point of view, he retreated. He appeared on a radio program with Frank Kaufmann, but at every point of disagreement, Corso deferred to Kaufmann as if Kaufmann were the real authority. Kaufmann’s tales have since been shown to be untrue — a fact which Corso should have known, if he had the inside knowledge that he claimed he had.

He was quick to suggest that his information might not have been the best. In other cases, it seemed to have been the worst. The caption over a photograph in his book read, “Lt. Col. Corso was never able to confirm the veracity of the following purported UFO surveillance photos which were in Army Intelligence files as support for material for the R&D project to harvest the Roswell alien technology for military purposes.” The first of the pictures is of a well-known hoax. The photographer, Guy B. Marquand, Jr., told various UFO researchers, as well as the editors of Look, that he was sorry, but it was a hoax. He had been young and foolish and thought it a great joke. It would seem that if Corso was on the inside, as he claimed, he would have been aware that this particular UFO photograph was faked.

Given the information available, given the mistakes in Corso’s book, and given his inflation of his own importance during his military career, it seems that the logical conclusion is that Corso’s claims are of little value. They added nothing to what was already known, and certainly have detracted from the whole of the Roswell case. When his claims break apart, those who know little about Roswell become convinced that the whole case is built on structures similar to those built by Corso.

Post
#1632987
Topic
UFO's & other anomalies ... do you believe?
Time

THE FLAWS AND CONTRADICTIONS IN THE U.S. AIR FORCE’S ROSWELL REPORTS

by Spartacus01

In an effort to dismiss the Roswell incident as a mere case of misidentification and public hysteria, the United States Air Force released two official reports: The Roswell Report: Fact vs. Fiction in the New Mexico Desert (1994) and The Roswell Report: Case Closed (1997). At first glance, these reports may appear to provide a definitive resolution to the Roswell mystery. However, a more thorough examination reveals numerous contradictions, factual errors, and logical inconsistencies that ultimately undermine their credibility. This analysis will therefore critically assess the inconsistencies within the official explanations presented in these two reports, demonstrating why they fail to account for the available evidence.

PROJECT MOGUL AND ROSWELL

According to the 1994 Air Force report, the Roswell debris originated from a Top Secret project, known as Project Mogul. Project Mogul was a classified operation carried out in the 1940s, intended to monitor Soviet nuclear tests by detecting the sound waves generated by high-altitude detonations. To achieve this, the project utilized long strings — or “arrays” — of high-altitude balloons equipped with various instruments, including microphones, radios, and radar reflectors called “rawin targets.” These arrays were massive and complex, sometimes stretching hundreds of feet in length, and were made up of several weather balloons linked together, with components made of neoprene, balsa wood, tape, and metallic foil. The Air Force report states that what crashed near Roswell was one of these arrays — specifically, a balloon train launched on 4 June 1947, known as Flight No. 4. The report claims that this flight was carried out from Alamogordo, New Mexico, and drifted toward the Roswell area before crashing on the Foster Ranch, and claims that the debris discovered by Mack Brazel was in fact composed of the radar reflectors, foil sheets, balsa wood sticks, and other components of the balloon array.

However, several issues undermine the credibility of this explanation. Most significantly, there is no conclusive evidence that Flight No. 4 was ever launched. The personal diary of Dr. Albert Crary, the scientific leader of Project Mogul, indicates that the scheduled launch for that day was canceled due to overcast weather conditions.

Out to Tularosa Range and fired charges between 00 [midnight] and 06 this am. No balloon flights again on account of clouds. Flew regular sono buoy up in cluster of balloons and had good luck on receiver of the ground but poor on plane. Out with Thompson pm. Shot charges from 1800 [6:00 p.m.] to 2400 [midnight].

While Crary did mention the release of balloons on 4 June, the entry makes it clear that this was not a full-scale Mogul flight, but rather a limited test involving a sonobuoy carried by a simple cluster of balloons. This rudimentary configuration lacked the defining features of a complete Mogul array — it did not contain radar reflectors, rawin targets, acoustic sensors (aside for the sonobuoy itself), or the intricate rigging typical of standard launches. Therefore, even if some equipment was briefly airborne, it could not have resulted in the sort of debris later described by Major Jesse Marcel and other witnesses. According to the official project records, the first documented Mogul flight was Flight No. 5, launched on 5 June 1947. Unlike the mysterious and undocumented Flight No. 4, Flight No. 5 was an operational mission with a known trajectory and documented construction. However, it too lacked certain components — namely, rawin radar reflectors. Furthermore, Flight No. 5 did not pass near the area of the Foster Ranch, eliminating it as a plausible source for the debris discovered by Brazel.

The Air Force’s 1994 report attempted to retroactively designate the balloon activity on 4 June as “Flight No. 4” and then attributed the Roswell debris to it. Yet this contradicts Crary’s own account, which stated that no full balloon flights occurred that day. The notion that a hastily assembled sonobuoy test — which did not include radar reflectors or other standard Mogul hardware — could have produced large metallic-looking fragments is not supported by the documentation or physical descriptions given by eyewitnesses. Thus, the foundation of the 1994 Air Force report rests on a speculative and unsubstantiated assertion: that a non-existent or partial test flight produced a debris field consistent with a full Mogul array. Since the array described in the report did not exist, and since no other Mogul flights match the circumstances, the explanation provided in 1994 collapses under scrutiny.

Some skeptics, recognizing the issues with Flight No. 4, have instead proposed that Flight No. 9, launched on 3 July 1947, might be the real Roswell culprit. This alternative theory was first proposed by Roswell skeptic Karl Pflock in his monograph Roswell in Perspective. Pflock hypothesized that Flight No. 9 could be the true source of the debris, as it was the only official Mogul flight that was never recovered. Since its final location was unknown, he speculated that it could have come down near Roswell. However, this hypothesis was later disputed by Pflock himself. As he explained in his book, Roswell: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe, he definitely abandoned the Flight No. 9 hypothesis after having a detailed conversation with Charles Moore — Albert Crary’s assistant — concerning the 3 July flight.

In early 1994, when I was writing Roswell in Perspective, I strongly suspected that the next numbered flight was the Roswell culprit. At that time, no information was available for Flight 9. It was missing from all the NYU/Project Mogul documentation I had gathered. Professor Moore and former Mogul project officer Trakowski told me they could recall nothing about it. However, Moore said he remembered that several flights were “classified out” of the NYU Project 93 reports and reports on subsequent balloon programs in which he was involved. He thought Flight 9 might have been one of those. It was the only flight in the NYU project’s Alamogordo numbered launch sequence of July 1947 that was missing from the project reports, and it seemed likely to have been launched on Friday, July 4, or possibly the day before, making it a good Roswell “saucer” candidate. Moore and Trakowski were firm in their recollections that Friday, July 4, was not a holiday for the NYU and Watson Labs Mogul teams at Alamogordo. Theirs was a crash project, and they worked very long hours, seven days a week. The mystery of Flight 9 is now resolved, as I will explain below.
[…]
Six years ago, I thought NYU Flight 9 was the Roswell culprit. This Mogul service flight is missing from the Project 93 reports on the NYU team’s July 1947 operations, and it seemed likely to have been one of the flights lofted with the new polyethylene balloons, which I thought could account for Major Marcel’s mystery material. Information recorded in the field diary of Alamogordo Mogul group chief Albert Crary deflated this idea.
In the spring of 1994, Professor Moore was able to obtain, from Dr. Crary’s widow, a copy of the portion of the diary covering the period from May 24 through July 15, 1947. He kindly furnished me with a copy and a transcription he had prepared from the handwritten text, offering the following in his cover letter: «The diary provides an explanation for NYU Flight #9 and a reason for its absence from the flight summary. When the need for the instrumented flight vanished with the further postponement of the V-2 firing [due to an accident] at WSPG [White Sands Proving Ground] on the evening of July 3, 1947… the balloon cluster (probably of meteorological balloons) was released without instruments. After the cancellation of the V-2 firing, the balloons inflated for the hastily cobbled-together second flight on July 3 would surely have been stored inside North Hangar for later use if they had been made of polyethylene, since they were in short supply. The fact that Crary recorded they were released with a dummy load suggests to me that those balloons were of the meteorological sounding variety, of which we had a large supply. Crary’s diary and the NYU report both indicate that Flight #8, launched that morning, was tracked somewhat by radar. From these, I would conclude that radar targets were probably also included initially in the devices to be carried by Flight #9. However, I think that we would have removed the radar targets from the flight train if there was to be no tracking.»
Moore told me that this also explained why Flight 9 was not written up in the NYU project reports. Only those flights from which useful performance data were obtained were summarized in those documents. Since no data were gathered on Flight 9, it was ignored. However, a photographic record remains, preserved by Eileen Farnochi. Some of these photos appear in this book. They confirm Moore’s thoughts about the flight. It was a small cluster of neoprene sounding balloons, with no instrumentation and carrying no radar targets. It included nothing unusual or mysterious, used no then-exotic polyethylene. My Flight 9 notion had been shot down.

Thus, whether proponents of the Mogul hypothesis point to Flight No. 4 or Flight No. 9, the same fundamental problems persist: a lack of radar targets, an inadequate volume of debris, and materials that do not match the descriptions provided by the witnesses.

A second major flaw in the Air Force’s explanation concerns the exaggerated level of secrecy attributed to Project Mogul. While the project’s ultimate objective — detecting Soviet nuclear tests — was classified, the balloon launches themselves were not. These balloons, along with their radar reflectors, were released in broad daylight and were frequently observed by the local population. Although the public may not have been aware of their precise purpose, they were certainly cognizant of the military’s frequent balloon launches. Furthermore, the designation “Project Mogul” appears in documents as early as 1946 and was referenced in multiple reports classified only as “Confidential” — a relatively low level of secrecy.

Crary, in his diary, mentions the name “Mogul” more than once. On December 11, 1946, Crary wrote, “Equipment from Johns Hopkins Unicersity [sic] transferred to MOGUL plane.” On December 12, 1946, he wrote, “C-54 unloaded warhead material first then all MOGUL eqpt with went to North Hangar.” On April 7, 1947, Crary, according to his diary, “Talked to [Major W. D.] Pritchard re 3rd car for tomorrow. Gave him memo of progress report for MOGUL project to date…” A report from Wright Field on August 25, 1947, classified only “Confidential”, concerned a suspected hoax crash disc from Illinois sent to them by the FBI for analysis. The term “Project Mogul” was explicitly used, saying that the object had nothing to do with it. Another FBI memo a month later, referencing the Wright Field report, uses the term “Operation Mogul” four times even though this memo also had a low classification.

If a Mogul array had crashed, there would have been no necessity for an elaborate cover-up. Indeed, other Mogul balloons did crash in New Mexico during that same period, yet none of these incidents required suppression. None of them resulted in contradictory official statements, heightened military secrecy, or implausible explanations. Most importantly, none of these crashes occurred within the appropriate timeframe or in the correct location to be associated with the Roswell debris.

JESSE MARCEL AND ROSWELL

A third critical issue is the testimony of Major Jesse Marcel, the intelligence officer who personally handled the debris recovered at the Foster Ranch. Marcel described the material as exhibiting “memory metal” properties and stated that it could not be cut or burned. If the wreckage had consisted of something as mundane as Mylar — which, incidentally, did not exist in 1947 — there is no conceivable way he could have mistaken it for something extraordinary. Marcel was an intelligence officer trained to handle classified military technology. He was widely respected by his peers and superiors. Those who worked alongside him, such as Sheridan Cavitt, described him as highly competent and meticulous in his work. Lieutenant Colonel Payne Jennings, who served as the base operations officer at Roswell Army Air Field, regarded Marcel as one of the most skilled intelligence officers he had encountered. Colonel William Blanchard, Marcel’s direct superior and the commanding officer of the 509th Bomb Group, placed great trust in his judgment, regularly assigning him to handle classified intelligence assessments. Captain Edwin Easley, the base Provost Marshal, confirmed that Marcel was known for his keen attention to detail and ability to identify even the smallest anomalies in recovered materials. Major General Clements McMullen, who oversaw intelligence operations at the time, had sufficient confidence in Marcel’s abilities to later approve his transfer to Washington, D.C., for high-level intelligence work. If the Roswell debris had been nothing more than the remnants of a Mogul array, Marcel would have recognized it immediately. There is no plausible scenario in which an experienced intelligence officer would have mistaken the wreckage of a balloon for something extraordinary.

ALIEN BODIES AND CRASH TEST DUMMIES

The Air Force’s 1997 report sought to address accounts of alien bodies by asserting that the witnesses had mistaken crash test dummies from high-altitude parachute experiments for extraterrestrial cadavers. However, this explanation is riddled with inconsistencies. First, the anthropomorphic dummies used in Project High Dive and Excelsior were not deployed until the 1950s — several years after the Roswell crash.

Operation High Dive (also known as Project High Dive) was a secret project carried out during the 1950s by the United States Air Force. It tested high-altitude parachutes using anthropomorphic dummies. The dummies went into a 200 rpm flat spin, which would be fatal to a human.

Project Excelsior was a series of parachute jumps made by Joseph Kittinger of the United States Air Force in 1959 and 1960 from helium balloons in the stratosphere. The purpose was to test the Beaupre multi-stage parachute system intended to be used by pilots ejecting from high altitude. In one of these jumps Kittinger set world records for the longest parachute drogue fall, the highest parachute jump, and the fastest speed by a human through the atmosphere. He held the latter two of these records for 52 years, until they were broken by Felix Baumgartner of the Red Bull Stratos project in 2012, though he still holds the world record for longest time in free fall.

The Air Force’s claim that the witnesses confused events from different decades is wholly unconvincing, particularly given that many testimonies describing small, humanoid bodies were provided by individuals who were already adults in 1947. Such individuals would not have mistakenly conflated an event they personally witnessed with unrelated tests conducted years later. Moreover, the dummies utilized in these experiments bore no resemblance to the beings described by the witnesses. They were distinctly human in appearance, outfitted with standard military jumpsuits and harnesses, and did not resemble the smooth-skinned, small-bodied entities described by the witnesses. Additionally, even if one were to entertain the implausible notion that trained military personnel and civilians alike misidentified test dummies as extraterrestrial beings, this would still not explain the military’s concerted efforts to recover and conceal the bodies. Crash test dummies were standard military equipment, and their retrieval would not have necessitated an extensive cover-up operation.

CONCLUSIONS

One might argue that the inconsistencies within the two Air Force reports do not necessarily imply that the object that crashed near Roswell was an extraterrestrial spacecraft. And, in principle, this is a reasonable objection. However, the problem is that there is no alternative scenario — apart from the extraterrestrial hypothesis — that adequately explains why, even after the Cold War had ended, the military persisted in fabricating implausible explanations rather than simply disclosing the truth.

If the debris discovered by Mack Brazel had been the wreckage of some kind of experimental vehicle, why would it still require secrecy to this day? In the immediate aftermath of the incident, it would have been strategically logical for the military to obscure the crash of an experimental vehicle by disseminating both the cover story of a downed weather balloon and that of a crashed flying saucer. However, in the long term, there would have been no rationale for perpetuating this deception by introducing the fabricated Mogul balloon explanation in 1994. By that time, the Cold War had ended, and there was no longer any strategic imperative to manufacture yet another misleading narrative to conceal an event that had long ceased to be relevant. Why continue issuing contradictory official accounts for over sixty years instead of simply revealing the truth? By the 1990s, the U.S. government had already declassified numerous controversial Cold War programs, and an admission that Roswell involved the crash of an experimental aircraft would not have provoked widespread public outrage or disbelief. Thus, if the debris found on the Foster Ranch had been of terrestrial origin, there would have been no reason to maintain the secrecy.

It is only by postulating that the object that crashed near Roswell was a flying saucer of extraterrestrial origin that this logical contradiction is resolved. The extraterrestrial hypothesis remains the only explanation that accounts for the military’s persistent obfuscation and repeated issuance of implausible explanations — long after any potential Cold War concerns had become obsolete.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  • The Roswell Report: Fact vs. Fiction in the New Mexico Desert by United States Air Force
  • The Roswell Report: Case Closed by United States Air Force
  • Roswell in the 21st Century by Kevin Randle
  • Understanding Roswell by Kevin Randle
  • There Was No Flight No. 4 by Kevin Randle
  • The End of Project Mogul by Kevin Randle
  • Mogul Flight No. 4 - The End by Kevin Randle
  • Roswell, Sheridan Cavitt and Project Mogul by Kevin Randle
  • Roswell in Perspective by Karl Pflock
  • Roswell: Inconvenient Facts and the Will to Believe by Karl Pflock
  • Roswell & Major Jesse Marcel’s Postwar Service Evaluations by David Rudiak
  • Operation High Dive (Wikipedia page)
  • Project Excelsior (Wikipedia page)
Post
#1631940
Topic
UFO's & other anomalies ... do you believe?
Time

MAJESTIC TWELVE: ONE OF THE GREATEST HOAXES IN UFO HISTORY

As evidence that the Roswell incident was the result of the crash of an alien craft, many UFO enthusiasts often cite the so-called “Majestic Twelve” documents. The history of these documents is complex and multifaceted. Since no one has ever attempted to write a single, unified post containing all the available information about them, I thought that it would have been worthwhile to do so myself. In my opinion, it is important for people who are new to this topic to have a comprehensive reference. Therefore, I will write a single essay, explaining how the documents came into the hands of UFO researchers, what is their content, and why I believe they should be regarded as a hoax.

There are many documents associated with Majestic Twelve. Some of these documents were allegedly leaked in the early 1980s, while others were supposedly leaked in the 1990s and sent to UFO researcher Timothy Cooper. This essay will focus exclusively on the original Majestic Twelve documents that surfaced in the early 1980s. These early documents are the only ones worth discussing in detail, because they were the first to introduce the concept of Majestic Twelve and the entire lore surrounding it. Proving that the first documents to reference Majestic Twelve are forgeries would mean proving that the very name “Majestic Twelve” itself is a fabrication. Which, in turn, would automatically demonstrate that all subsequent documents referencing Majestic Twelve are fraudulent as well.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the documents sent to Timothy Cooper have never been considered authentic by UFO researchers. Even Stanton Friedman, one of the most vocal advocates of the authenticity of the original 1980s documents, firmly rejected the Cooper documents. In fact, in his pro-Majestic Twelve book Top Secret/Magic,, Friedman devoted several chapters to systematically debunking the documents Cooper received. For this reason, not only is it unnecessary to examine the 1990s documents in detail, but it is also reasonable to assert that their fate is inextricably tied to that of the original documents. If the 1980s documents are discredited, then the entire narrative built upon them inevitably falls apart.

THE HISTORY OF THE DOCUMENTS

The Majestic Twelve documents first appeared in December 1984, when a package with no return address and a postmark from Albuquerque, New Mexico, arrived at the residence of television producer Jamie Shandera in North Hollywood, California. The package contained a roll of 35mm film. When developed, the film revealed a classified memo dated September 24, 1947, in which President Harry S. Truman authorized the creation of “Operation Majestic Twelve.” It also contained a document dated November 18, 1952, which purported to be a briefing document written by Vice Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter and destined to President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower. The document outlined the nature and purpose of Operation Majestic Twelve, describing the Roswell crash and other related events. The text of the Eisenhower Briefing Document is reported below:

Operation Majestic-12 is a top-secret research and development/intelligence operation responsible directly and only to the President of the United States. Operations of the project are carried out under the control of the Majestic-12 (Majic-12) Group, which was established by a special classified executive order of President Truman on 24 September 1947, upon the recommendation of Dr. Vannevar Bush and Secretary James Forrestal.

Members of the Majestic-12 Group were designated as follows:

  • Adm. Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter
  • Dr. Vannevar Bush
  • Secy. James V. Forrestal
  • Gen. Nathan P. Twining
  • Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg
  • Dr. Detlev Bronk
  • Dr. Jerome Hunsaker
  • Mr. Sidney W. Souers
  • Mr. Gordon Gray
  • Dr. Donald Menzel
  • Gen. Robert M. Montague
  • Dr. Lloyd V. Berkner

The death of Secretary Forrestal on 22 May, 1949, created a vacancy which remained unfilled until 01 August, 1950, upon which date Gen. Walter B. Smith was designated as permanent replacement.

On 24 June, 1947, a civilian pilot flying over the Cascade Mountains in the State of Washington observed nine flying disc-shaped aircraft traveling in formation at a high rate of speed. Although this was not the first known sighting of such objects, it was the first to gain widespread attention in the public media. Hundreds of reports of sightings of similar objects followed. Many of these came from highly credible military and civilian sources. These reports resulted in independent efforts by several different elements of the military to ascertain the nature and purpose of these objects in the interests of national defense.

A number of witnesses were interviewed and there were several unsuccessful attempts to utilize aircraft in efforts to pursue reported discs in flight. Public reaction bordered on near hysteria at times. In spite of these efforts, little of substance was learned about the objects until a local rancher reported that one had crashed in a remote region of New Mexico located approximately seventy-five miles northwest of Roswell Army Air Base (now Walker Field).

On 07 July, 1947, a secret operation was begun to assure recovery of the wreckage of this object for scientific study. During the course of this operation, aerial reconnaissance discovered that four small human-like beings had apparently ejected from the craft at some point before it exploded. These had fallen to Earth about two miles east of the wreckage site. All four were dead and badly decomposed due to action by predators and exposure to the elements during the approximately one week time period which had elapsed before their discovery. A special scientific team took charge of removing these bodies for study. The wreckage of the craft was also removed to several different locations. Civilian and military witnesses in the area were debriefed, and news reporters were given the effective cover story that the object had been a misguided weather research balloon.

A covert analytical effort organized by Gen. Twining and Dr. Bush acting on the direct orders of the President, resulted in a preliminary consensus (19 September, 1947) that the disc was most likely a short range reconnaissance craft. This conclusion was based for the most part on the craft’s size and the apparent lack of any identifiable provisioning.

A similar analysis of the four dead occupants was arranged by Dr. Bronk. It was the tentative conclusions of this group (30 November, 1947) that although these creatures are human-like in appearance, the biological and evolutionary processes responsible for their development has apparently been quite different from those observed or postulated in homo-sapiens. Dr. Bronk’s team has suggested the term “Extraterrestrial Biological Entities”, or “EBE’s”, be adopted as the standard term of reference for these creatures until such time as a more definitive designation can be agreed upon.

Since it is virtually certain that these craft do not originate in any country on earth, considerable speculation has centered around what their point of origin might be and how they get here. Mars was and remains a possibility, although some scientists, most notably Dr. Menzel, consider it more likely that we are dealing with beings from another solar system entirely.

Numerous examples of what appear to be a form of writing were found in the wreckage. Efforts to decipher these have remained largely unsuccessful.

Equally unsuccessful have been efforts to determine the method of propulsion or the nature or method of transmission of the power source involved. Research along these lines has been complicated by the complete absence of identifiable wings, propellers, jets, or other conventional methods of propulsion and guidance, as well as a total lack of metallic wiring, vacuum tubes, or similar recognizable electronic components. It is assumed that the propulsion unit was completely destroyed by the explosion which caused the crash.>
A need for as much additional information as possible about these craft, their performance characteristics and their purpose led to the undertaking known as U.S. Air Force Project Sign in December, 1947. In order to preserve security, liaison between Sign and Majestic-12 was limited to two individuals within the Intelligence Division of Air Material Command whose role was to pass along certain types of information through channels. Sign evolved into Project Grudge in December, 1948. The operation is currently being conducted under the code name Blue Book, with liaison maintained through the Air Force officer who is head of the project.

On 06 December, 1950, a second object, probably of similar origin, impacted the earth at high speed in the El Indio-Guerrero area of the Texas-Mexican border after following a long trajectory through the atmosphere. By the time a search team arrived, what remained of the object had been almost totally incinerated. Such material as could be recovered was transported to the A.E.C. facility at Sandia, New Mexico, for study.

Implications for the National Security are of continuing importance in that the motives and ultimate intentions of these visitors remain completely unknown. In addition, a significant upsurge in the surveillance activity of these craft beginning in May and continuing through the autumn of this year has caused considerable concern that new developments may be imminent. It is for these reasons, as well as the obvious international and technological considerations and the ultimate need to avoid a public panic at all costs, that the Majestic-12 Group remains of the unanimous opinion that imposition of the strictest security precautions should continue without interruption into the new administration. At the same time, contingency plan MJ-1949-04P/78 (Top Secret - Eyes Only) should be held in continued readiness should the need to make a public announcement present itself.

Although the envelope bore no name or identifying marks, Shandera presumed that the package had been delivered by his friend William Moore, a prominent UFO researcher and the co-author of the very first book about the Roswell crash, titled The Roswell Incident. However, when Shandera showed him the envelope, Moore denied having seen it before. Nevertheless, when Moore had the opportunity to read the Eisenhower Briefing Document, he quickly discerned a connection between the document and his own Roswell research. After receiving both the Truman-Forrestal Memo and the Eisenhower Briefing Document, Moore and Shandera, together with Stanton Friedman, embarked on a meticulous effort to determine the authenticity of the documents and validate their content. This endeavor involved extensive research and fact-checking, which led them to spend significant time at the National Archives, combing through government records and declassified materials. Their goal was to uncover any circumstantial evidence or corroborating details that could indicate the authenticity of both documents.

In March 1985, Stanton Friedman visited the National Archives during a trip to Washington, D.C. While there, Friedman was informed that Air Force intelligence files were undergoing a classification review, which might yield information related to UFO phenomena. This promising lead prompted a return visit in July 1985 by Moore and Shandera, who meticulously searched through the records identified as Entry 267 of Air Force Record Group 341. After painstakingly reviewing over 120 boxes of documents, Shandera stumbled upon a peculiar memo dated 14 July 1954, addressed to General Nathan Twining and signed by Robert Cutler, then Special Assistant to President Eisenhower. This memo, known as the “Cutler-Twining Memo,” stated:

"The President has decided that the MJ-12 SSP briefing should take place during the already scheduled White House meeting of July 16, rather than following it as previously intended.”

The document was an administrative note, devoid of substantive details, but its reference to "MJ-12 " was groundbreaking. The memo was typed on onionskin paper with a watermark and bore a red pencil mark through its security classification, consistent with archival practices for declassified materials. The discovery provided the first tangible link to the existence of Majestic Twelve.

Following this significant find, Moore, Shandera, and Friedman undertook further efforts to authenticate the Cutler-Twining Memo. By 1987, Moore, Shandera, and Friedman had gathered enough evidence to confidently present their findings, and decided to officially and publicly release the documents in a press conference. The release ignited intense debate within the UFO research community and the broader public. Some researchers hailed the documents as conclusive evidence of extraterrestrial visitation, while others questioned their authenticity, claiming that Moore and Shandera were the perpetrators of a hoax.

THE AQUARIUS DOCUMENT AND “MJ-TWELVE”

Contrary to what one might think, the first mention of Majestic Twelve does not come from the Truman-Forrestal Memo or the Eisenhower Briefing Document, but rather from a 1981 teletype, commonly referred to as the “Aquarius Document.” However, in order to understand the history of the Aquarius Document, one must first thoroughly understand the history of the Bennewitz affair. The Bennewitz affair has a very complicated history, but I will attempt to summarize it as clearly and comprehensively as possible.

In December 1979, Paul Bennewitz, a physicist and businessman from Albuquerque, began observing, photographing, and filming unidentified flying objects over the Manzano Weapons Storage Area, a highly sensitive nuclear weapons depot located just east of Kirtland Air Force Base and directly bordering his neighborhood of Four Hills. Concerned by what he had witnessed, Bennewitz reported his observations to various authorities, including the Air Force, members of the UFO research community, and even the media.

Because the presence of unidentified flying objects over a nuclear weapons site posed a potentially serious issue for national security, the Air Force feared that Bennewitz’s claims might attract unwanted scrutiny. Rather than addressing the situation openly, they launched a covert effort to discredit him. The goal was to feed him sensational and exaggerated information so that he would disseminate it and, as a result, come across as unreliable and unstable. This, in turn, would ensure that no one would take anything he said seriously, and people would entirely disregard — if not outright dismiss — the genuine UFO sightings he had reported in December 1979.

In early 1980, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) assigned Special Agent Richard C. Doty to the Bennewitz case. Doty was instructed to establish contact with Bennewitz and lead a carefully orchestrated disinformation campaign. This effort began almost immediately after the Air Force learned of Bennewitz’s initial reports. Soon after Doty’s involvement began, Bennewitz started receiving strange electronic signals at his home. These transmissions, which were engineered and transmitted by the Air Force itself, contained intelligible messages that Bennewitz interpreted as communications from the occupants of the UFOs he had seen. The messages conveyed claims such as “the number of our crashed saucers is eight,” “our race is dying on home planet,” and “women of Earth are needed.” Convinced that these transmissions were authentic, Bennewitz came to believe that an alien presence was operating near the base and attempting to contact him directly.

In 1981, Doty approached William Moore — a prominent UFO researcher — and recruited him into the operation. According to what Moore himself admitted later, the Air Force — through Doty — offered him a deal: if he collaborated with them in managing the Bennewitz affair, spied on other UFO researchers, and spread disinformation on their behalf, they would grant him access to classified documents about UFOs. Moore accepted the deal and began working with the Air Force.

Through Doty and Moore, the Air Force gradually convinced Bennewitz that he was on the brink of discovering a large alien plot to conquer the planet. According to the narrative they constructed, the signals he was tracking were linked to the activities of the so-called “Greys,” small humanoid beings who, he was told, came from the double star system of Zeta Reticuli. Bennewitz was led to believe that these extraterrestrials were operating from a concealed base deep within Mount Archuleta, near the town of Dulce, New Mexico. To reinforce his beliefs, the Air Force installed fake ventilation shafts on the mountain and airlifted old storage tanks, jeeps, and equipment shacks to remote locations around Dulce, creating the illusion of an underground facility. Bennewitz was persuaded that the Greys stationed within the base were responsible for the cattle mutilations that had been reported in the area and that they were conducting horrific experiments on human prisoners, implanting devices that would allow them to control and monitor their test subjects.

The deception had a profound impact on Bennewitz. He began conducting frequent aerial surveys of Mount Archuleta, searching for evidence of the supposed alien base. During one of these flights, he discovered a site that appeared to be the scene of a crash. Seeing an opportunity, the Air Force reinforced his belief in an alien presence by feeding him further disinformation, this time suggesting that the crashed object was a nuclear-powered craft — an experimental vehicle allegedly built through the reverse-engineering of alien technology. As the operation became more complex, Bennewitz was further misled to believe that the Greys had established a clandestine pact with the U.S. government. This alleged agreement, he was told, granted the aliens permission to abduct American citizens for medical experimentation in exchange for providing advanced technology to the government. He was also persuaded to believe that the aliens had later broken the treaty, leading to a violent underground battle between the U.S. military and the Greys stationed within the Dulce Base. According to the story, the nuclear-powered craft that had crashed on Mount Archuleta had been shot down by the aliens during this conflict.

Over time, the sustained stress and anxiety took a severe toll on Bennewitz’s mental health. His growing paranoia led him to suspect that his own wife had been implanted with an alien device, and that extraterrestrials were entering his home at night to inject him with unknown substances. He eventually suffered a breakdown in 1988 and was hospitalized for several months. Tragically, his mental health never fully recovered, and he passed away in 2003.

As UFO researcher Robert Hastings eloquently explained in a letter to Robert J. Durant dated October 2005:

Despite Richard Doty’s recent public “explanation” regarding the reasons for the campaign against Paul Bennewitz, I am of the opinion that Bennewitz may have actually photographed and filmed bona fide UFOs over the Manzano Weapons Storage Area, which is located just east of Kirtland Air Force Base. It was this nuclear weapons depot, now decommissioned, which directly bordered Bennewitz’s subdivision, Four Hills. If you are familiar with some of the nuclear weapons-related UFO sightings — including those at intercontinental ballistic missile sites and weapons research laboratories — then you may also be aware that a few of those sightings have occurred at Weapons Storage Areas.
In view of these facts [about other UFO sightings at various Weapons Storage Areas], I have suggested the following scenario to other researchers: Bennewitz — a reputable businessman whose company held contracts to supply engineering components to various government agencies — photographed bona fide UFOs above the Manzano Weapons Storage Area and then talked about it to anyone who would listen, including the Air Force, ufologists, and the media. Because nuclear weapons-related UFO incidents were — and are — extremely sensitive, a decision was made by the Air Force to undermine Bennewitz’s credibility. Consequently, the Office of Special Investigations at Kirtland Air Force Base formulated a disinformation scheme whereby the talkative Bennewitz would be provided with outrageous stories of alien visitations at Kirtland, underground alien bases in the Southwest, secret U.S.-alien treaties, and all the rest of it.
Once this “inside information” had been passed along to others by the increasingly paranoid Bennewitz, the legitimate media — as well as the more rational members of ufology — would quickly lose interest in his claims, leaving only the most gullible to “oooh” and “ahhh” at these amazing “revelations.” The net result? The initial, bona fide UFO sightings at a highly sensitive nuclear weapons facility got lost in all of the hoopla and were only rarely, if ever, mentioned in the articles and news stories about Bennewitz’s claims.

If you want a comprehensive overview of the Bennewitz case, I highly recommend you to read Project Beta by Greg Bishop and X Descending by Christian Lambright. These books provide an in-depth analysis of the events, how they unfolded, and their implications.

You might wonder: what does the Aquarius Document have to do with the Bennewitz case? And the answer is: the Aquarius Document is one of the forged papers handed to Bennewitz by the Air Force. Specifically, Doty gave it to Moore, who then passed it on to Bennewitz. Of particular significance is a line within the document that marks, in essence, the very first mention of Majestic Twelve. This pivotal sentence appears near the end of the document and is quoted below:

Results of Project Aquarius are still classified Top Secret with no dissemination outside official Intelligence channels, and with restricted access to MJ-Twelve.

This sentence is extremely important, because the Aquarius Document was handed to Bennewitz in March 1981, three years before the Eisenhower Briefing Document and the Truman-Forrestal Memo arrived at Shandera’s house. It resets the clock on these matters, and suggests that Moore had seen a reference to MJ-Twelve in 1981, which is something that has now disappeared from the discussion of the Majestic Twelve documents.

LINDA HOWE AND MAJESTIC TWELVE

In early 1983, Linda Howe — hot off the success of her regional Emmy Award-winning documentary on cattle mutilations, A Strange Harvest — had been tapped to produce an HBO special with the proposed title of UFOs: The E.T. Factor. On April 9, 1983, Howe met with Richard Doty at Kirtland Air Force Base, an incident that seems lifted straight out of a spy novel. As Howe recounted in An Alien Harvest:

I sat down with my back to the windows. [Doty] sat behind the desk. “You know you upset some people in Washington with your film, A Strange Harvest. It came too close to something we don’t want the public to know about.” That began a brief discussion about my documentary. I asked him why extraterrestrials were mutilating animals. Richard Doty said that the subject was classified beyond his need to know. He told me I had been monitored while I was making the film. […]
[Doty] reached with his left hand to a drawer on the left side of the desk and opened it. He pulled from the drawer a brown envelope. He opened it and took out several standard letter sized sheets of white paper. "My superiors have asked me to show this to you,“ he said, handing me the pages. “You can read these and you can ask me questions, but you can’t take any notes.” I took the papers and I read the top page. It was entitled “Briefing Paper for the President of the United States of America” on the subject of unidentified aerial craft or vehicles.
Richard Doty then stood up and said, “I want you to move from there.” He motioned me toward the large chair in the middle of the room. “Eyes can see through windows.” I got up and moved to the big chair, confused. I didn’t know what was happening. As I looked at the pages in my lap a second time, I wondered why he was showing them to me. I was very uncomfortable, but I wanted to read and remember every word…

The documents given to Linda Howe detailed four distinct saucer crashes that were said to have occurred in Roswell, Aztec, Kingman, and Mexico. The Roswell incident reportedly involved a lone survivor referred to as “EBE,” an acronym for Extraterrestrial Biological Entity. EBE was described as being four feet tall, with gray skin and no hair, possessing a large head and prominent eyes that were likened to those of a child, though he was said to have the intellect of “a thousand men.” EBE was allegedly held captive at the Los Alamos Laboratories until his death in 1952.

According to Howe, the documents stated that Project Blue Book was a public relations operation that was supposed to divert attention from the real investigative projects. In his conversations with Howe, Doty mentioned MJ-12, but suggested “MJ” stood for “Majority” rather than “Majestic.” Whatever the real name, it was a committee of twelve high ranking government officials, scientists, and military officers who set the policy for the cover-up and the dissemination of disinformation about UFOs and government interest in them.

One of the documents claimed that extraterrestrials had, approximately two thousand years ago, created a being who was placed on Earth to teach humanity about peace and love, a reference that strongly implied a connection to Jesus Christ. According to the documents, after EBE’s death, other extraterrestrials, identified as EBE-2 and EBE-3, arrived on Earth as part of an exchange program. Doty informed Howe that EBE-3 was still alive and indicated that she might have an opportunity to interview him. Furthermore, Doty claimed that high-level intelligence officers were in possession of classified materials, including film footage of a UFO landing at a military base and other photographs, which he suggested could be used for Howe’s documentary. He assured her that he would contact her in the future using the code name “Falcon.”

Several months later, however, Doty told Howe that he had been removed from the case and referred her to other intelligence contacts. These individuals also delayed providing the promised materials, continuing to string her along for many more months. Ultimately, the prolonged delays led HBO to withdraw from the project, leaving Howe without the necessary resources to proceed with her documentary.

This information is significant, as it strongly suggests that Doty had a deep and deliberate involvement in the creation of what would later become the Eisenhower Briefing Document. In fact, the documents that were shown to Linda Howe contained a great deal of the same content that would eventually appear in the Eisenhower Document. For example, the acronym “EBE” can be found in both documents. Similarly, the document that was shown to Linda Howe referenced a UFO crash that allegedly happened in Mexico. This crash is a clear allusion to the so-called “Del Rio crash,” which the Eisenhower Document specifically places near the border between Mexico and Texas, in the El Indio-Guerrero region. Therefore, just like with the Aquarius Document, we are faced with a situation where information that would later appear in the Eisenhower Document had already surfaced before that document was ever sent to Shandera. Which, much like in the case of the Aquarius Document, resets the clock on these matters.

75 MILES? NO, 62 MILES

In both Brad Sparks and Barry Greenwood’s paper, The Secret Pratt Tapes and the Origins of MJ-12, and later in an article adapted from the paper and published in the MUFON Journal under the by-line of Brad Sparks, there is a discussion of what they regard as a fatal error in the Eisenhower Briefing Document.

To explain what they mean by a “fatal error,” they quote Stanton Friedman, who had stated that one way to determine whether “the document is a phony is on the basis of any mistaken information in it.” Both William Moore and Jaime Shandera echoed this concern at various times by suggesting the same principle. Erroneous information in a document strongly indicates that it has been forged. All of them, including Sparks and Greenwood, argue that such fatal errors would demonstrate that the Eisenhower Document, at best, constituted disinformation and, at worst, was a hoax designed to divert attention from more significant areas of research.

The error identified by Sparks and Greenwood in the Eisenhower Briefing Document pertains to the distance to the debris field near Corona, New Mexico, which is so significantly inaccurate that they consider it a major flaw. Brad Sparks asserted that “the Eisenhower Document wrongly claimed that the Roswell crash site, which refers to the Mack Brazel debris field, was approximately 75 miles from the Roswell base, when in fact it was only 62 miles away.” He has been highlighting this error since 1987. Sparks calculated the actual distance to be 62 air miles, while the distance by road exceeds 100 miles, further emphasizing that the 75-mile figure mentioned in the Eisenhower Document is incorrect. Such an error, even over something as minor as the distances involved, should throw the entire document into question, because those creating such a report for review by a president would not commit an error of this nature.

Sparks suggested that the 75 mile figure originates from The Roswell Incident, published by William Moore and Charles Berlitz in 1980. It is, at best, an estimate that is not based on the facts that should have been available to an aviation unit. Their navigation needed to be precise, and even a miniscule error made at the beginning of a flight could result in missing the destination by dozens of miles. The staff of Roswell Army Air Field would have known the precise distance to the Brazel debris field, and this information should have been reflected in the Eisenhower Document.

A MAJOR FLAW

As previously mentioned, the Eisenhower Briefing Document refers to two UFO crashes: the Roswell incident and another crash that allegedly occurred on December 6, 1950, in the El Indio-Guerrero area near the Texas-Mexico border. This second crash is relatively obscure, but its inclusion in the document is significant, as it serves as additional evidence that the document is not genuine.

In fact, the story came to light in the late 1970s through the efforts of W. Todd Zechel, a UFO researcher who claimed to have discovered a 1968 newspaper article referencing a UFO crash. Building upon this vague lead, Zechel contacted Robert B. Willingham, who described himself as a retired Air Force colonel. In 1977, Willingham signed an affidavit in which he recounted visiting the crash site, observing unusual debris, and even recovering a piece of metal that he described as having a honeycomb-like structure and being resistant to extremely high temperatures.

However, as the years passed, Willingham’s story began to change in significant ways. Initially, he claimed that the crash occurred in 1948, while he was flying an F-94 jet along the Texas-Mexico border. He stated that he had been alerted to a UFO on radar and that the object subsequently crashed south of the border. Over time, the date shifted multiple times, with Willingham later asserting that the event took place on December 6, 1950, then in 1954, and finally in 1955. The location of the crash also changed, moving from the El Indio-Guerrero area to a site closer to Del Rio, Texas, and eventually to a region south of Lantry, Texas.

Willingham’s credibility was definitively undermined when various researchers started looking into his background. While he presented himself as a retired Air Force colonel, investigators discovered that he had never served in the Air Force at all. Instead, he had been a member of the Civil Air Patrol (CAP), a civilian auxiliary of the Air Force, where he held the rank of lieutenant colonel. His military record showed that he enlisted in the Army in December 1945, achieved the rank of E4, and was discharged in January 1947. Furthermore, no evidence has ever surfaced to corroborate his claims, and no additional witnesses have come forward to support his account.

Since the story of the Del Rio UFO crash relies entirely on Willingham’s testimony, and since Willingham has proven to be an unreliable witness, it is clear that there was never any UFO crash in Del Rio. This, in turn, means that the inclusion of this alleged UFO crash in the Eisenhower Document represents a significant flaw. An authentic presidential briefing document written in 1952 cannot, by definition, include a demonstrably false story that was created in the 1970s. Therefore, the inclusion of the Del Rio UFO crash in the Eisenhower Document proves that the document was not created in 1952.

THE SMOKING GUN

A significant controversy surrounding the Majestic Twelve documents concerns the unusual date formatting they exhibit, which appears inconsistent with the standard practices employed by the United States government during the late 1940s and early 1950s. During that period, government documents typically used a specific date style: the day written as a number, followed by the fully spelled-out name of the month, and concluded by the complete year written numerically (e.g., “2 March 1948”). Although, on rare occasions, a comma might appear after the month, this was exceedingly uncommon. In one examined sample of 600 pages, only three instances of this anomaly were identified, all originating from a single individual in Air Force Intelligence.

Philip Klass, a well-known UFO skeptic, drew attention to the fact that the Eisenhower Briefing Document deviated from this conventional style. He highlighted that it not only included an additional, uncommon comma after the month but also added a leading zero before single-digit dates (e.g., “07 July, 1947”). Klass noted that such formatting was absent from authentic government documents of the time, but was present in the personal writings of William Moore. Consequently, critics raised the question of whether Moore had been involved in the creation of the Majestic Twelve documents.

In 1990, Barry Greenwood received a letter from Jun-Ichi Takanashi, a respected UFO researcher who has since passed away. In this letter, Takanashi claimed to have discovered five government documents concerning Green Fireballs that exhibited the same peculiar date formatting as the Majestic Twelve documents. Green Fireballs were mysterious luminous objects reported in the late 1940s and early 1950s, often seen streaking across the skies near sensitive military installations, particularly in New Mexico. Some researchers speculated that these phenomena might have been related to classified military projects, while others suggested a possible extraterrestrial origin.

Initially, Greenwood considered the possibility that the dating style in the Majestic Twelve documents might have genuinely been used by the government. However, Takanashi made an important observation. He noted that out of the five documents he had examined, only one appeared to be a direct copy of an original government document. The other four had been retyped, presumably for better readability, and all of these retyped documents were included in William Moore’s 1983 publication, The Mystery of the Green Fireballs. Recognizing the need to verify the authenticity of these documents, Greenwood embarked on a thorough investigation. He located the original versions of the retyped documents in the Project Blue Book microfilms stored at the National Archives, specifically in Roll 88, which contained the OSI Chronological Files. Upon comparison, Greenwood discovered that Moore had modified the date formatting during the retyping process. Moore consistently added the uncommon comma after the month and, in one instance, inserted a leading zero before a single-digit date that had not existed in the original document (e.g., “9 February 1949” became “09 February, 1949”).

It became evident that Moore had a habit of retyping government documents to improve their legibility. However, in doing so, he inadvertently introduced his distinctive style of date formatting into these reproductions. Moore referred to these retyped documents as "faithful reproductions” in his publication, but the alterations in date formatting created a strong resemblance between these documents and the Majestic Twelve documents. Which, in my opinion, definitively proves that the Eisenhower Briefing Document, the Truman-Forrestal Memo, and the Cutler-Twining Memo were fabricated by Richard Doty with the assistance of William Moore, whose consistent use of this unusual date formatting across his personal writings implicated him in the creation of the documents.

CONCLUSIONS

Let me make one thing absolutely clear: nobody is attempting to deny that the Roswell incident resulted from the crash of an alien spacecraft. On the contrary, I am utterly convinced of the extraterrestrial nature of the event, as well as of the fact that other UFOs have crashed on Earth in subsequent years, both in the United States and elsewhere.

Similarly, there is no intention on my part to deny the the existence of a highly classified committee, tasked with overseeing the flow of UFO-related information and with managing the crash retrieval operations that are conducted within the United States. The issue is not to dismiss the existence of such a secretive group, but rather to ascertain whether the Majestic Twelve documents are authentic and whether the information contained within them is genuine. After conducting thorough investigations, I have concluded that these documents are fraudulent, and that they were created by Richard Doty and William Moore under the direction of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.

Why these documents were fabricated and disseminated remains an enigma, but if I were to venture a guess, I would be inclined to suggest that they were part of a disinformation campaign designed to sow confusion among UFO researchers, steering them away from more credible lines of inquiry and redirecting their attention toward a fabricated narrative. By focusing the efforts of serious investigators on chasing the phantom of Majestic Twelve, the campaign would have effectively neutralized their potential to uncover genuine evidence regarding a real, highly classified committee managing UFO-related operations. This strategy, if intentional, would have allowed those in positions of power to obscure their true activities behind false leads and endless speculation.

In any case, whenever you come across a reference to Majestic Twelve (or MJ-12, or Majic-12, or Majority-12), remember to approach the subject with extreme skepticism, as all evidence strongly suggests that such a group does not exist. Whenever you see a reference to Majestic Twelve, think of Richard Doty, of Paul Bennewitz, of the Air Force. And every time you see someone mentioning Majestic Twelve, send a link to this post. It is important for people to know where this story originated from, and why it should die, once and for all.

MY SOURCES

  • Top Secret/Magic by Stanton Friedman
  • Project Beta by Greg Bishop
  • X Descending by Christian Lambright
  • Important New Revelations About the Paul Bennewitz Affair by Robert Hastings
  • Crash: When UFOs Fall From The Sky by Kevin Randle
  • The Myth of MJ-12 by Kevin Randle
  • Case MJ-12 by Kevin Randle
  • The Secret Pratt Tapes and the Origins of MJ-12 by Brad Sparks and Barry Greenwood
Post
#1629514
Topic
Explain Your Username / Avatar / Title / Signature
Time

My username is Spartacus because, being a radical socialist and a Marxist, I see Spartacus (the historical character) as “A great general, noble character, real representative of the ancient proletariat,” as Marx called him. The 01 in my nickname comes from the fact that I was born in 2001.

I have the habit of changing my Avatar very often. But whatever, if I had to explain the avatar I have right now, I put it simply because I like astronomy, I like space, and I like cool wallpapers that have astronomy and space as a theme.

Post
#1629372
Topic
The Prequel Radical Redux Ideas Thread
Time

G&G-Fan said:

There is a difference between those examples and a whole 5 minute stretch of time where we’re supposed to feel nervous for the droids because they’re in a dangerous wasteland.

The Jedi are mentioned quite a bit in the Original Trilogy, and they come across as mysterious because you have no real sense of how their Order was structured, what their rules were, or what their temple looked like. Watching those films, you are left with a sense of mystery surrounding the Jedi simply because you know so little about them. If you watch the Prequels first, they take that mystery away.

The same applies to the Empire. It is not mysterious in the sense that we do not know what it is, but rather in the sense that we do not know how it came to be. How was the Empire established? Who is this Emperor we see in the films? What connection did he have to the Old Republic? These are all unanswered questions when watching the Original Trilogy, and the Prequels take away that mystery by giving us all the answers upfront.

So, if we were to follow your logic and remove everything in the Prequels that diminishes the sense of mystery in the Original Trilogy, there would not be much of the Prequels left at all.

As for Tatooine, the Prequels do not ruin it. They only show a very small part of the planet, just like the Original Trilogy does. The Prequels never take us deep into the desert, nor do they explore its dangers. The story stays within a relatively civilized area where you have a clear idea of what to expect — exactly like in A New Hope. When the droids wander into the desert in A New Hope, the tension remains, even if you have seen the Prequels, because the desert is still an unknown. The Prequels only show the parts of Tatooine that are full of people, places where there are no real surprises. The desert, on the other hand, remains an unpredictable and dangerous place, no matter how much you have already seen in the Prequels.

Post
#1629265
Topic
The Prequel Radical Redux Ideas Thread
Time

G&G-Fan said:

When watching A New Hope, and the droids are trekking Tatooine, there’s meant to be an air of mystery. You don’t know what you’re gonna find.
The Prequels ruin that.

Not if you watch the movies in release order, like almost everyone does. Don’t take this as a personal attack, but by following your logic, the Prequels should not exist in the first place, because almost every single element of the Original Trilogy feels like that. The Jedi, the Dark Side, the Empire, Alderaan, and so on. You need to remove some of the mystery surrounding these things if you want to watch the Prequels first, that’s just inevitable.

Post
#1629249
Topic
UFO's & other anomalies ... do you believe?
Time

MY PERSONAL OPINION ON THE AZTEC UFO CRASH

by Spartacus01

The Aztec UFO crash was first introduced to the public through Frank Scully’s book Behind the Flying Saucers, and remains one of the most debated cases in the history of Ufology. Published in 1950, Scully’s book purported to be based on information provided to him by multiple scientists who were working for the U.S. government and studying the propulsion system of the saucers. According to the book, three flying saucers crash-landed in three different locations of the United States between 1948 and 1950. The largest of the saucers crash-landed in Hart Canyon — which is located approximately 12 miles from Aztec, New Mexico — in March 1948, and was retrieved by the U.S. military along with the bodies of its 16 occupants. The book also claimed that the three saucers operated on advanced electromagnetic principles, offering a glimpse into alien technology.

In 1952, however, a journalist named J.P. Cahn published a series of exposés in True magazine, revealing to the world that Scully’s main sources were, in reality, two fraudsters known as Silas Newton and Leo GeBauer: a wealthy oil magnate and a purported scientist, respectively. Both individuals claimed to possess insider knowledge of extraterrestrial phenomena and military operations, but their credibility was completely destroyed when Cahn revealed they were involved in fraudulent activities, most notably their promotion of a bogus “alien” device allegedly capable of detecting oil deposits. After the exposés published by Cahn, the Aztec crash has been considered a hoax by most UFO researchers. Nonetheless, there are several clues that suggest that the truth could be much more complicated than it seems. In fact, while the information presented by Scully originated from sources with questionable credibility, I do not think that the entire story can be dismissed as a fabrication. Instead, I am more inclined to believe that Scully’s book could be a mixture of factual details and deliberate embellishments.

On the one hand, several elements of the account detailed in Behind the Flying Saucers raise serious doubts about its reliability, starting with the description of the propulsion system of the saucers. According to the book, the retrieved saucers operated on principles of electromagnetism. This idea in itself is not inherently implausible, yet the technical details provided are inconsistent with known physical laws — as noted by the scientists who reviewed the book at the time — which suggests that either Scully’s sources lacked real knowledge of physics, or that they intentionally embellished the story for dramatic effect. Furthermore, the book omits any reference to the Roswell UFO crash, implying instead that the Aztec incident was the first crash-landing of a flying saucer on the territory of the United States. The absence of such a pivotal event is highly suspicious, as one would expect military insiders to have referenced Roswell if they were indeed sharing genuine information with Scully. Finally, the depiction of the extraterrestrial beings recovered from the Aztec craft is difficult to reconcile with other well-documented cases. The beings are described as human-like, differing only in stature, with their burned appearance attributed to the malfunctioning of the craft’s internal systems. This portrayal starkly contrasts with the more familiar descriptions of the aliens from Roswell, which include large heads, almond-shaped eyes, and grayish skin, further undermining the credibility of Scully’s sources.

On the other hand, there are compelling reasons to believe that the Aztec crash could be more than a fabricated tale. In fact, independent testimonies gathered by Scott Ramsey, Suzanne Ramsey, and Leonard Stringfield lend significant weight to the possibility that a genuine event might have taken place in Hart Canyon. For instance, oil field worker Doug Noland recounted seeing a large, smooth metallic disc with mirrored portholes and charred bodies slumped over what appeared to be a control panel. Rancher Valentin Archuleta described witnessing a wobbling craft that scraped against a mesa, producing sparks before continuing northward. Law enforcement officer Manuel Sandoval corroborated these details, noting that he had followed a disc-shaped craft that appeared to be in distress. Moreover, the swift arrival of military personnel at the crash site was confirmed by Fred Reed, a member of a military cleanup team, who described how the site was meticulously re-landscaped, with every trace of the event removed to ensure no evidence remained.

Further corroboration comes from the testimony of Frank Scully’s wife, who was interviewed by William Moore in 1979. According to Mrs. Scully, a curious comment was made to her and her husband in late 1953 by Captain Edward Ruppelt, who had just retired as head of Project Blue Book, the Air Force’s third public attempt to deal with the flood of saucer sightings that continued to sweep the United States after the initial flurry in 1947. “Confidentially,” said Ruppelt, “of all the books that have been published about flying saucers, your book was the one that gave us the most headaches, because it was the closest to the truth.” This perspective is further reinforced by the testimony of Dr. Robert Sarbacher, a physicist and a consultant to the U.S. Research and Development Board in the 1950s. He was interviewed in 1950 by Wilbert Smith, a radio engineer who worked for the Canadian government, and during the interview he stated that the information contained in Scully’s book was substantially correct. In November 1983, Sarbacher wrote a letter to UFO researcher William Steinman, confirming what he had stated in 1950. In the letter, dated 29 November 1983, Sarbacher claimed that recovered flying saucers were being studied in various facilities across the United States, and reiterated that the information contained in Scully’s book was substantially correct.

Given this combination of conflicting elements, I propose that the most plausible explanation is a hybrid theory. Perhaps, Newton and GeBauer were provided with genuine information by military insiders, but chose to exaggerate and distort certain elements of the story they have been told to serve their own interests, such as promoting their fraudulent oil detection devices. This would account for the blend of credible and dubious claims in Scully’s book. While the core event — the crash of a UFO and its retrieval by the U.S. military — may well have occurred, many of the specifics described in the book should be treated with caution. Instead, greater emphasis should be placed on the independent testimonies gathered by researchers, as these accounts provide a more reliable foundation for understanding what transpired in Hart Canyon.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  • Behind the Flying Saucers by Frank Scully
  • UFO Crash Retrievals Status Report I by Leonard Stringfield
  • The Aztec UFO Incident by Scott Ramsey and Suzanne Ramsey
  • The Roswell Incident by William Moore and Charles Berlitz
  • The Wilbert Smith Papers by David Rudiak

UPDATE (March 22, 2025): I have recently reassessed my position regarding the Aztec UFO crash. Previously, I maintained that, while many details contained in Frank Scully’s book were factually incorrect and likely the result of deliberate disinformation, independent research by Scott Ramsey and Susan Ramsey had uncovered credible witness testimonies that supported the occurrence of an actual UFO crash at Aztec. However, after further investigation, I have come across new information that calls into question the validity of the testimonies presented by the Ramseys in their book, The Aztec UFO Incident. Several articles, written by Monte Shriver, Jerome Clark, Paul Kimball, and Kevin Randle, have provided a critical analysis of their claims, raising concerns about the reliability of their sources and the overall foundation of their research:

Aztec in Perspective – Part 1
Aztec in Perspective – Part 2
Aztec in Perspective – Part 3
The Aztec Incident – A Review by Jerome Clark
Fred Reed & Aztec: A Red Flag
Aztec, Scott Ramsey, and Fred Reed

Given these revelations, I can no longer support the notion that a UFO crash occurred in Aztec. While I remain open to further evidence, the weight of the current information suggests that the incident is more likely a fabrication than a genuine event. I still endorse the authenticity of the Roswell crash, but I can no longer promote the reality of the Aztec crash. Unless the Ramseys can address the criticisms raised against their research and provide a solid rebuttal, the Aztec story should, in my opinion, be regarded as a hoax.

Post
#1628976
Topic
The Unpopular Film, TV, Music, Art, Books, Comics, Games, & Technology Opinion Thread (for all you contrarians!)
Time

Except for the first couple of seasons, Family Guy is extremely bad. I have never understood why people like it so much. Honestly, I never liked that kind of humor, and the more the show went on, the worst it got. I am sorry, but watching Peter fart in Meg’s face, Stewie killing people, Chris acting like a creep, and Quagmire literally raping women is not funny. The episode where Meg snaps and tells everyone to go to hell is the most realistic one. And I am not one of those overly sensitive people who gets offended by everything. I enjoy black humor, I enjoy action movies where characters kill each other, and I am the first to laugh at my own disability. But Family Guy jokes about things I have absolutely no desire to laugh about.

Post
#1628791
Topic
UFO's & other anomalies ... do you believe?
Time

A RESPONSE TO THE “WHY EARTH?” ARGUMENT AGAINST EXTRATERRESTRIAL VISITATION

by Spartacus 01

Many people who oppose the idea of extraterrestrial visitation argue that it is highly improbable that, out of all the planets that extraterrestrials could have visited, they would have ended up on Earth. However, I have never truly understood the logic behind this argument. Why would it be improbable for extraterrestrials to decide to visit Earth? On what basis is the assumption made that such a scenario would be unlikely? What specific parameters are being used to determine the probability of such an event occurring?

Even though we are, by all reasonable standards, a relatively primitive civilization, we have already developed the capability to detect potentially habitable planets beyond our solar system. For example, we are able to observe the atmospheres of exoplanets and identify the presence of gases such as carbon dioxide or methane, which may indicate biological activity. In the near future, as our technology advances, it is highly likely that we will develop instruments sensitive enough to detect even more subtle signs of life. We may even reach the point where we are capable of identifying clear indicators of technological activity — such as artificial illumination or industrial pollutants — originating from distant exoplanetary civilizations located light years away. Now, let’s consider a hypothetical civilization that is a thousand years ahead of us in technological development. Such a civilization would likely possess capabilities that far surpass anything we can currently imagine. If we, despite being a species that has only recently begun to explore the cosmos, are already on the verge of detecting exoplanetary biosignatures and technosignatures, it stands to reason that a civilization with a thousand-year technological advantage would have already mastered such detection methods to an incomprehensible degree of precision.

Consequently, the idea that extraterrestrials would have needed to “stumble upon Earth” purely by accident is a fundamentally flawed assumption. If an advanced civilization has developed the ability to systematically scan vast stretches of space for signs of life, then they could have identified Earth as a biologically active planet long ago. They may have detected signs of intelligent life, and subsequently made the deliberate decision to come and investigate. The notion that their presence here would be some kind of extraordinary coincidence is based on an outdated and anthropocentric perspective that fails to account for the likely capabilities of a far more advanced civilization.

A possible objection to my argument could be: If extraterrestrials are capable of detecting habitable planets from great distances and have the ability to choose from a vast number of such planets to explore, then why would they have selected Earth specifically? What would make our planet more worthy of their attention than any of the countless other habitable worlds scattered throughout the galaxy? However, this objection is based on an unspoken and unnecessary assumption — namely, that extraterrestrials would be restricted to visiting only one habitable planet at a time. There is no logical reason to believe that an advanced civilization, or even multiple civilizations, would be compelled to focus all of their exploratory efforts on a single world while ignoring all others. On the contrary, if a civilization has developed faster-than-light travel, and has the technological capability to detect habitable planets across vast cosmic distances, then it is entirely reasonable to assume that they have also developed the means to explore multiple worlds simultaneously.

After all, even we — despite being a species that is still in the early stages of space exploration — do not limit ourselves to studying just one planetary body at a time. At this very moment, we have multiple robotic probes operating on or around Mars, the Moon, Venus, the Sun, and several outer solar system bodies, all engaged in simultaneous exploration. If we, with our comparatively primitive technology, are capable of investigating multiple planets at once, then it follows that a civilization far more advanced than ours would have the capacity to conduct large-scale, coordinated exploration efforts across an entire region of the galaxy. For all we know, the extraterrestrial civilization — or the coalition of civilizations — responsible for visiting Earth may possess entire fleets of spacecraft, consisting of thousands upon thousands of massive motherships and hundreds of thousands of smaller exploratory vessels. Such a fleet could be systematically surveying multiple habitable planets within our galactic neighborhood at the same time, rather than singling out Earth as their sole focus. In other words, our planet may not have been “chosen” in the way that some skeptics assume; rather, it may simply be one of many worlds currently under observation by a civilization with the capability to explore on an enormous scale.

The notion that Earth must have been singled out among all other planets is, therefore, an anthropocentric assumption that fails to consider the sheer scale at which an advanced extraterrestrial species may be operating. Just as we send probes to multiple worlds throughout our solar system without restricting ourselves to a single target, they could be engaged in a widespread exploration effort, encompassing Earth along with countless other planets harboring life.

Post
#1628787
Topic
UFO's & other anomalies ... do you believe?
Time

A RESPONSE TO JACQUES VALLÉE’S ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL HYPOTHESIS

by Spartacus01

NOTE: If you compare the statements I have made in this essay with the statements I have previously made in this thread, you will notice a significant shift in my perspective regarding pre-1947 UFO sightings. Until last year, I took reports of UFO sightings that are said to have happened before 1947 much more seriously. However, for reasons that will be explained in the essay itself, I have become significantly more skeptical of those accounts. As a result, I have come to seriously believe that extraterrestrials arrived on Earth precisely in 1947 and that before that year, no alien spacecraft were present in Earth’s skies.

For those who might not know who Jacques Vallée is, he can be described as follows: a French-American scientist and a UFO researcher. With a background in astrophysics and artificial intelligence, Vallée was initially supportive of the extraterrestrial hypothesis, which suggests that UFOs are physical spacecraft piloted by beings from other planets. However, over time, he developed a more complex and unconventional interpretation of the phenomenon. He argues that UFOs are a paraphysical phenomenon originating from another dimension. According to Vallée, the so-called “aliens” that people encounter are actually interdimensional entities. These beings, he suggests, do not come from distant star systems, but instead exist parallel to our reality. He theorizes that these entities deliberately adopt the appearance of extraterrestrial visitors as part of a long-term effort to manipulate human perception, culture, and even evolution. Vallée worked closely with J. Allen Hynek and, over time, managed to convince him of the validity of his hypothesis, leading Hynek to reconsider the extraterrestrial explanation in the later years of his life.

In 1990, Vallée published a paper called Five Arguments Against the Extraterrestrial Origin of Unidentified Flying Objects, in which he raised several objections to the extraterrestrial hypothesis. Since I am a supporter of the extraterrestrial hypothesis and do not share Vallée’s theories, I have formulated responses to the objections he raised in his paper. So, without further delay, here are Vallée’s objections and my responses to them.

1. The sheer number of reported close encounters with UFOs far exceeds what would be necessary for any systematic physical survey of Earth by extraterrestrial visitors.

The vast majority of sightings can be explained as misidentifications, hoaxes, or natural phenomena, and this is something that every UFO researcher, regardless of their preferred hypothesis, acknowledges. The actual percentage of UFO reports that remain genuinely unexplained is much smaller, and if we focus only on those, the argument that there are “too many” to be extraterrestrial does not hold up. Vallée should not focus on the total number of sightings per year; he should focus on the percentage of sightings that cannot be explained through conventional means. But even if we were to set those numbers aside, there is no contradiction in the idea that an advanced extraterrestrial intelligence might visit Earth repeatedly over time. Consider a scientist studying an anthill. Would he observe it only once or twice and then move on? Of course not. He would return frequently, examining the colony’s behavior over an extended period. The same principle could apply to extraterrestrials observing humanity. If they are interested in our development — whether biological, cultural, or technological — it would make sense for them to conduct a great number of observations rather than limit themselves to a handful of visits.

Finally, it is worth noting that, although credible UFO sightings and close encounters involving humanoid beings were frequent between 1947 and 1997, such events have since become sporadic — at least in terms of convincing, genuinely unexplainable cases. Today, for example, we no longer witness the mass UFO sightings that were common in the 1960s and 1970s. Taking this into account, it would be entirely reasonable to hypothesize that extraterrestrials arrived on Earth in 1947, studied humanity for a few decades, and then sent a large portion of their fleet back home around 1997. If this hypothesis were correct, then Vallée’s objection would be even weaker, as it would suggest that the peak of UFO activity was confined to a specific historical window rather than representing a continuous phenomenon. In other words, the idea that “too many” encounters occur each year would no longer be a valid argument against the extraterrestrial hypothesis, as it would not reflect an ongoing presence but rather a concentrated period of study and observation. If, between 1947 and 1997, genuinely unexplained UFO sightings and credible close encounters made up 10% of all reported cases each year, then after the Phoenix Lights, that number may have dwindled to only a tenth of what it once was.

2. The beings associated with UFO sightings are often described as humanoid. It is improbable for intelligent life forms from distant planets to independently evolve such a similar physical form.

We lack the ability to explore alien ecosystems and to observe what forms complex life might take. Therefore, any assumption regarding the appearance of extraterrestrial beings is inherently unfounded. Vallée’s objection would hold more weight if we had sufficient data about the environments of alien worlds, and if we could use that data to make extrapolations about which forms of life are more likely to evolve on other planets. But since such data is currently beyond our reach, it is unreasonable to claim that the humanoid form is either more or less probable than any other. Without a comprehensive understanding of extraterrestrial ecosystems, any assumptions regarding the likelihood of specific biological designs remain purely speculative and lack a solid foundation. Thus, dismissing humanoid-looking aliens as improbable is illogical.

If you wanted to determine which ingredients were used to prepare a traditional Indian dish, you would need to observe the dish up close and actually taste it. If, on the other hand, you could only see it from a great distance through binoculars and had no way of examining it closely or tasting it, identifying its ingredients would be nearly impossible. This is because making solid extrapolations about the ingredients used in a dish requires direct observation and firsthand experience. The same principle applies to habitable exoplanets. In order to make reliable extrapolations about which forms of life are more or less likely to evolve on those planets, we would need to observe them from close range and study their ecosystems in detail.

3. Many abduction reports detail behaviors by these entities that are illogical or contradictory if their intent were scientific study or genetic experimentation. For instance, repetitive and invasive procedures lack the methodological consistency one would expect from an advanced civilization conducting research.

This argument is valid, and I fully acknowledge its relevance. However, it does not necessarily disprove the notion that some UFOs might be extraterrestrial spacecraft. Rather, it challenges the idea that alien abductions are genuine extraterrestrial events.

It is entirely possible to argue that some UFOs are alien spacecraft without subscribing to the idea that aliens are abducting humans for experimentation. In fact, most alien abduction stories can be explained without needing to invoke any external intervention. Even pro-abductionist UFO researchers acknowledge that the majority of these accounts are the result of psychological conditions, such as hallucinations, vivid dreams, or sleep paralysis. These explanations are sufficient for most cases, and for those that do present enough evidence to suggest an external influence, there is still no necessity to assume the involvement of extraterrestrial beings. For instance, Martin Cannon suggests that certain abduction experiences could be the result of covert human experimentation, particularly involving mind control technologies developed by intelligence agencies. According to his research, agencies such as the CIA, through projects like MK-Ultra, conducted extensive studies into manipulating human behavior, exploring methods like hypnosis, brain implants, and remote manipulation via electromagnetic frequencies. Cannon proposes that this mind-control experimentation may lie behind certain abduction cases, where victims recount unusual sensations or memory gaps.

Thus, it is not necessary to invoke extraterrestrial intervention to explain the abduction phenomenon, and Vallée’s argument does not disprove the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

4. UFO-like occurrences have been documented throughout human history, long before the modern era of space exploration. This historical continuity implies that the phenomenon is not a recent development and may not be linked to extraterrestrial visitors.

One significant issue with using pre-1947 sightings as evidence against the extraterrestrial hypothesis is that, before the emergence of Ufology, there was no reliable method for fact-checking such reports. At the time, accounts of unusual aerial phenomena were published in newspapers or circulated in books, but there was no systematic investigation. There were no cross-examinations of witnesses, no radar detections, no physical trace studies — none of the things that modern ufologists use to separate solid cases from hearsay. It was only after 1947, when governments and researchers started actively studying the UFO phenomenon, that people began verifying and analyzing these sightings with real investigative methods.

Because of this, we have no means of determining whether many of the older reports were genuine occurrences, misinterpretations, or deliberate fabrications. Take, for example, the airship stories of the 19th century. Given the sensationalist nature of newspapers at the time, it is entirely possible — if not likely — that a significant number of these accounts were either hoaxes or exaggerated for journalistic effect. Likewise, when ancient Roman writers described “flaming shields in the sky,” we cannot assert with certainty what they actually witnessed. Many of these reports may have simply been the product of optical illusions, such as sundogs, temperature inversions, atmospheric refractions, or other visual phenomena unfamiliar to those who observed them, while others may have been embellishments inserted by the authors of those texts to add a sense of grandeur and drama to historical narratives.

It is also possible to hypothesize that some of the luminous phenomena observed by the Greeks and Romans were natural events whose nature remains unknown even today. In fact, many UFO researchers have proposed that numerous UFOs appearing as glowing spheres, reported both in ancient times and in the present, could be atmospheric phenomena that, while still unexplained, are entirely natural. For instance, Paul Devereux has suggested that certain locations — particularly those situated near fault lines or areas rich in minerals — may generate electromagnetic fields capable of ionizing the air, resulting in luminous, plasma-like formations. This hypothesis is supported by research indicating that quartz-bearing rocks, when subjected to significant pressure, can emit light. It is therefore possible that some of the unusual luminous phenomena recorded in antiquity, as well as some of the UFO sightings that occurred in 1945 and 1946 — such as the Foo Fighters that were sighted by many World War II pilots over Germany and Japan — may be attributed to this mechanism.

Therefore, Vallée’s argument does not hold up under scrutiny. The fact that people reported strange aerial phenomena before 1947 does not disprove the extraterrestrial hypothesis, because we have no way of determining whether those early sightings were real and truly anomalous in the first place. If anything, they are irrelevant to the discussion, since they cannot be properly analyzed or verified. Serious UFO research should focus on well-documented cases that have been investigated with modern methods, not on vague historical accounts that could mean anything or nothing at all.

5. Reports often include descriptions of UFOs exhibiting behaviors that defy our current understanding of physics, such as sudden appearances and disappearances, shape-shifting, or instantaneous movements. These capabilities suggest that the phenomenon might involve dimensions or realities beyond the conventional space-time framework.

The fact that UFOs can seemingly manipulate space and time does not necessarily prove that they originate from outside our physical reality. Rather, it simply indicates that they are equipped with extremely advanced technology.

For instance, the instantaneous appearances and disappearances of these objects do not necessarily imply that they are materializing or dematerializing in the literal sense. They could very well be moving at extreme velocities that exceed the limits of human perception. Given that the human eye requires approximately 13 milliseconds to register an image, an object accelerating to speeds of 50,000 to 100,000 km/h within that brief time frame would appear to vanish instantaneously. Conversely, an object decelerating from such speeds to a complete stop within the same timeframe would create the illusion of a sudden appearance. Therefore, the impression that UFOs materialize or vanish could be attributed to their extraordinary acceleration and deceleration capabilities, rather than to any form of interdimensional travel. Similarly, reports describing altered perception of time during UFO sightings — such as cases in which witnesses experience significant temporal discrepancies, perceiving hours passing when only minutes have elapsed — can be explained by assuming that alien technology has the capability, whether intentionally or unintentionally, to influence our perceptions, causing us to lose track of time.

Thus, the idea that UFOs operate outside the boundaries of conventional space-time overlooks more reasonable possibilities, and is based on flawed logic. The way something appears to us does not necessarily reflect its true nature, and the fact that UFOs seem to appear and disappear does not mean they are traveling to, or originating from, another dimension. It is necessary to consider more down-to-earth possibilities before jumping to conclusions.

Post
#1628785
Topic
UFO's & other anomalies ... do you believe?
Time

THE ETH AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF INTERSTELLAR TRAVEL

by Jean van Gemert

“If we at once admit the foolishness of these perennially suggested ‘impediments’ to star flight, we will be on our way to understanding that interstellar space does not need a bridge too far. Interstellar travel may still be in its infancy, but adulthood is fast approaching, and our descendants will someday see childhood’s end.”
— Dr. Eugene Mallove and Dr. Gregory Matloff, The Starflight Handbook, 1989.

The (un)likelihood of extraterrestrial visitation is probably one of the most debated aspects of the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis, and the answer is an essential component to the validity of the ETH. After all, the assumed unlikeliness of interstellar travel has become the cornerstone of those who resist the ETH as an explanation for UFOs. So, does extraterrestrial visitation necessarily require all sorts of “unlikely” science, or is it possible to accomplish interstellar travel using conventional wisdom?

CAN THEY GET HERE?

Opinions on the practicality of interstellar travel diverge, but the negative and positive opinions seem to stem primarily from the backgrounds of those conducting the studies. SETI researchers believe that the degree of dispersion of stars throughout the galaxy, combined with the limitations of interstellar travel as we understand General Relativity, effectively precludes the feasibility of extraterrestrial visitation. Thus, they conclude that any extraterrestrial intelligence would only be transmitting their love and good wishes to us. On the other hand, physicists and engineers involved in propulsion research tend to believe that interstellar travel is difficult but not a barrier—or not difficult at all once technology progresses [Mallove and Matloff, 1989; Forward, 1986; Crawford, 1990]. Not surprisingly, the latter choice appears to be the most defensible.

A number of clever designs have appeared in print, describing various methods of getting mankind to the stars. These include projects such as the star probe Daedalus, a robotic interstellar vehicle designed by members of the British Interplanetary Society, which uses nuclear fusion power, or interstellar ramjets that scoop up their fuel between the stars. Physicist Robert Forward, one of the leading experts on space travel, has also proposed an entirely different method of interstellar propulsion—using photon pressure to accelerate a vehicle to a significant fraction of the speed of light in a few years [Forward, 1984]. Such ships would appear as huge sails, using the output of space-based orbital power platforms (Beamed Power Propulsion) for acceleration, eliminating the need for an onboard energy supply [Mallove and Matloff, 1989; Crawford, 1990]. Hence, much less mass would need to be accelerated. The important point here, as astronomer Ian Crawford notes, is that we

“can already identify technological solutions to the problem of interstellar travel that are consistent with the laws of physics as we currently understand them. We do not need new physics” [Crawford, 1990].

Another factor relevant to interstellar flight is relativistic time dilation. Any object traveling close to the speed of light will be subjected to effects predicted by Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. An observer on board a spaceship traveling close to c would observe that time on Earth has sped up, while time on the spaceship, relative to an observer on Earth, would appear to have slowed down. For example, a one-way trip to Alpha Centauri—assuming a constant acceleration of 1g up to a high relativistic speed during the first half of the flight and a constant deceleration of 1g during the second half—would take only three years of spaceship time, while six years would have passed outside the spaceship.

Moreover, recent ideas on speculative space propulsion may bring us the breakthrough we’ve been waiting for. Some researchers propose making use of yet undiscovered “loopholes” in physical laws that would allow fast transit between widely separated points in space-time [Alcubierre, 1994; Visser, 1989; Crawford, 1995]. It might even be possible to extract large quantities of energy from the zero-point field (the vacuum) itself. If this can be done practically, then the energy available to a space traveler could be essentially unlimited, eliminating the need for an onboard fuel supply [Froning, 1986].

TOO EXPENSIVE?

Although it is impossible to precisely determine how expensive interstellar travel would be for a civilization about which no pertinent data is available, we can still make educated predictions. Interstellar travel appears not to be expensive for an advanced economy whose productivity has grown steadily for millennia. Therefore, alien contact by visitation is likely once these advanced economies implement interstellar propulsion technologies at insignificant costs relative to their wealth and capital stocks. Similarly, an interstellar transportation system may seem expensive from our perspective, but so would a 747 to the Wright brothers [Jones, 1995]. So, is interstellar flight as “improbable” as the naysayers claim? Only if we grant them their negative and self-defeating assumptions. As Ian Crawford noted in New Scientist (October 1996):

“It seems unlikely that interstellar spaceflight is impossible. Even today, we can envisage propulsion strategies that might make it possible to reach between 10 and 20 percent of the speed of light, permitting travel between nearby stars in a few decades. Any civilization with this technology would be able to colonize every planetary system in the Galaxy in about 10 million years, which is only one-thousandth of the age of the Galaxy” [Crawford, 1996].

WHERE ARE THEY?

Computer simulations and mathematical modeling suggest that the galaxy could be colonized in no more than a few million years [Hart, 1975; Jones, 1976; Papagiannis, 1978]. However, the galaxy is over ten billion years old, and second-generation (metal-rich) stars are up to nine billion years old. Thus, the time needed to colonize the galaxy is much shorter than its actual age.

O’Neill (1974) described large artificial space settlements capable of holding vast numbers of people, which he argued could be realized with existing technology in just a few decades. Scientists such as Frank Tipler and Michael Hart noted the relevance of these designs to the Fermi debate, suggesting that such habitats, equipped with propulsion, could also be used to colonize other star systems. The consequences should be clear. There is no need to invent fantastic propulsion systems such as “warp” or “hyper drives.” Current technology could theoretically allow for the colonization of the galaxy. Yet, despite calculations showing that an extraterrestrial species could have visited our solar system by now, there is no evidence of such visitation—leading to the famous Fermi Paradox. Hart and Tipler believe this paradox proves we are the only intelligent civilization in the galaxy, while SETI researchers argue that interstellar flight is entirely impossible. Other hypotheses include:

  • Extraterrestrial civilizations are short-lived. If the average lifespan of an advanced civilization is only 50,000 years, none would persist long enough to colonize the galaxy.
  • Most advanced civilizations focus on “more important” matters and have not developed an interest in space exploration.
  • Earth is a colony, because one civilization colonized the entire galaxy long ago and now exercises a form of benign paternalism over developing civilizations (Zoo Hypothesis, Ball, 1973).

The first two hypotheses require that every civilization follows the same pattern, which seems unlikely given a galaxy with potentially millions of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations. It only takes one civilization to colonize the galaxy. This author favors the third hypothesis—that there is a “galactic club,” an established network of old, advanced civilizations, and that Earth is under a form of quarantine. Thus, in my opinion, there simply is no Fermi Paradox. The only reason it remains a paradox to most scientists is their failure to recognize possible evidence of extraterrestrial presence in our own solar system.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility of interstellar travel suggests that it should be easily accomplished by an advanced society. Arguments that extraterrestrials have not had enough time to find us appear implausible [Hart, 1975; Jones, 1995; Hoerner, 1995]. Neither technical feasibility, energetics, economics, nor social factors seem sufficient to prevent interstellar travel or slow the colonization of the galaxy [Papagiannis, 1980]. The probabilities appear heavily in favor of aliens visiting Earth—perhaps they already have.

  • Alcubierre, Miguel, “The Warp Drive: Hyper-fast Travel Within General Relativity,” Classical Quantum Gravity, Vol. 11, 1994, pp. 73-77.
  • Ball, J. A., “The Zoo Hypothesis,” Icarus, Vol. 19, 1973, pp. 347-349.
  • Crawford, Ian A., “Some Thoughts on the Implications of Faster-Than-Light Interstellar Space Travel,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 36, 1995, pp. 205-218.
  • Crawford, Ian A., “Interstellar Travel: A Review for Astronomers,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 31, 1990, pp. 377-400.
  • Crawford, Ian A., “Where are all the extraterrestrials?,” New Scientist, October 1996.
  • Forward, R. L., “Feasibility of Interstellar Travel,” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 39, 1986, pp. 379-384.
  • Forward, R. L., “Roundtrip Interstellar Travel Using Laser-Pushed Lightsails,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 21, 1984, pp. 187-195.
  • Froning, H. D., “Use of Vacuum Energies for Interstellar Space Flight,” Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 39, 1986, pp. 410-415.
  • Hart, M., “An Explanation for the Absence of Extraterrestrials on Earth,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society," Vol. 16, 1975, pp. 128-35.
  • Hoerner, S., “The Likelihood of Interstellar Colonization and the Absence of its Evidence,” in: Extraterrestrials: Where are They?, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
  • Jones, E. M., “Estimation of Expansion Timescales,” in: Extraterrestrials: Where are They?, Cambridge University Press, 1995.
  • Jones, E. M., “Where is Everybody?,” Physics Today, August 1985, pp. 11-13.
  • Jones, E. M., “Colonization of the Galaxy,” Icarus, Vol. 28, 1976, pp. 421-22.
  • Mallove, E. F., and Matloff, G. L., “The Starflight Handbook,” Wiley Science Editions, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1989.
  • O’Neill, G. K., “The Colonization of Space,” Physics Today, Vol. 27, September, 1974, pp. 32-40.
  • Papagiannis, M. D., “Strategies for the search for life in the universe,” Dordrecht, D. Reidel Publishing, 1980.
  • Papagiannis, M. D., “Could we be The Only Advanced Technological Civilization in Our galaxy?,” in: Origin of Life, Japan Scientific Societies Press, 1978.
  • Tipler, Frank, “Extraterrestrial Intelligent Beings Do Not Exist,” Physics Today, April 1981, pp. 70-71.
  • Visser, Matt, “Traversable wormholes: Some simple examples,” Physical Review D, May 1989, S. 3182.

Original Source: https://nicap.org/papers/gemert-eth.htm

Post
#1626718
Topic
What is your personal Star Trek canon?
Time

JadedSkywalker said:

TNG made Klingon’s space Vikings.

I do remember some of the complaints around this a long time ago.

I have always liked the idea, to be honest. But perhaps it is due to the fact that I watched The Next Generation first, and was therefore introduced to the Klingons through their The Next Generation portrayal. The same applies to the Borg Queen. The concept never bothered me, but I think it is due to the fact that I watched First Contact (and the other movies) before The Next Generation, and was therefore introduced to the Borg through their First Contact portrayal.

Post
#1626539
Topic
UFO's & other anomalies ... do you believe?
Time

THE LOGICAL TRICKERY OF THE UFO SKEPTIC

By Brian Zeiler

Skeptics in the scientific community resist the evidence for extraterrestrial visitation because of the implications it raises and the questions it begs. But should the integrity of the determination rely on the implications of a positive classification? Or should the classification of true or false be assessed in isolation from the implications? Which is worse — a false positive, meaning ruling in favor of the UFO as a unique phenomenon when in fact it does not exist, or a false negative, meaning ruling against it and missing out on its true existence? The answer, of course, lies in the incentive structure of the analyst. An equally intelligent non-scientist has no incentive nor predisposition to favor one type of error over the other, but scientists do. For scientists, it would open a whole new confounding problem domain, and it would make them look incompetent in the public’s eyes for missing out on this fact for 50 years.

That is why the incentive structure of contemporary scientists is such that they will not accept alien visitation unless they must — meaning when they get irrefutable physical proof. Their incentive structure prohibits them from making any such inference unless it is unavoidable, and they will strain the boundaries of logic and reason to no end to dismiss all evidence other than physical proof, no matter how powerful it may be. This scientific predisposition toward disbelief, rooted not in science and logic but rather in dogma and paradigm, brings us to the logical trickery of the scientific UFO debunker.

WHAT EXACTLY IS “EXTRAORDINARY”?

First, the scientific debunker will say that because alien visitation is an extraordinary claim, it thus demands extraordinary proof. Therefore, no evidence is suggestive of alien visitation unless it is accompanied by irrefutable physical proof — even if the observations directly indicate, within normal scientific evidential standards, the presence of a solid object under intelligent control with propulsion technology beyond human understanding. No matter how directly the observations indicate an anomalous vehicle of non-human origin, skeptics maintain that a prosaic explanation must be adopted unless physical proof is obtained. But such a stance, rigid beyond the normal standards of scientific methodology, is a direct product of the incentive structure, not of logic, as indicated above. Normal standards of science would require meeting the evidential threshold for each of the above conditions necessary to establish extraterrestrial origin; yet the same degree of evidence for physical substance is rejected for anomalous vehicles when it would otherwise be accepted for observations of more conventional vehicles.

Thus, the debunkers have failed to define the boundary of extraordinariness, which renders the declaration logically specious due to its wholly arbitrary implementation that is easily contaminated by individual and collective incentives. They exploit the arbitrary classification of “extraordinary” by applying absurdly rigid evidential boundaries to cases that clearly feature anomalous, physical vehicles that humans could not have built. Instead of assessing the case for physical substance on its own merits with the radar-visual observations, they merely apply a priori probabilities of nearly zero to the detection of anomalous vehicles, with no logical defensibility in the face of insufficient information to estimate the a priori probability, and therefore give themselves license to reject all evidence of any quality unless a physical specimen is obtained.

For instance, if SETI receives an anomalous repeating signal with intelligent content, such as a mathematical constant, and rules out all known causes of terrestrial and deep-space interference, do they need a chunk of the alien radio dish or a dead alien to attribute it to alien origin? It would be just as easy to apply UFO-skeptic logic and insist that the signal is nothing more than anomalous until we obtain physical proof of aliens; after all, why ascribe a radio signal to alien origin before we have physical proof of the existence of aliens? After all, we cannot rule out malfunction, fraud, or human error with 100% certainty, so the simplest explanation is an undetected flaw, not an alien message. Right? Or is it really just the case that the a priori probability assumed by scientists of alien radio detection is higher than that assumed for atmospheric detection? Is this a priori probability differential between radio versus atmospheric detection logically defensible? Or do we lack sufficient information to make anything but a wild guess, a guess contaminated by incentive, dogma, and mere habit?

Why do so many scientists, including Tipler and Fermi, argue that interstellar travel would be feasible for advanced civilizations whose productivity growth has created such vast wealth that journeys are less expensive than they would be for us humans? Do we know what alien energy resource stocks are? Even right now, we have the technology to mount a journey at 10% of the speed of light and arrive at the nearest star in 40 years. How “extraordinary” is it to consider that, several billion years ago, one culture might have mounted a gradual expedition that took them to our solar system and many others? We sure do not know whether this is “extraordinary” or the natural outcome of technological advancement, but many scientists wish to believe, simply due to heavily entrenched ideologies with absolutely no basis in logic nor fact, that such interstellar expansions are far less likely than the human interception of alien radio signals. So just what is “extraordinary,” aside from a word referring to a claim for which extremely low a priori probabilities of truth are applied? I consider extraordinary a claim that undermines fundamental precepts of physics. Alien visitation does not do this. And no matter the difficulty as we perceive it, interstellar travel does not violate the laws of physics. Neither do aliens. Therefore, alien visitation does not violate the laws of physics, nor does it require a straining of credible probabilistic expectations. We simply do not know how likely it is. And that is hardly a strong case for considering alien visitation an “extraordinary claim.”

Nevertheless, skeptics will insist on applying to alien visitation an a priori probability of nearly zero for some strange reason. Interestingly, many scientists, such as Fermi and Tipler, were skeptical of both UFOs and of alien life in general; they contended that interstellar travel would be easy for advanced civilizations, so the lack of overt contact disproved alien existence. Yet most UFO skeptics do believe alien life exists out in the universe — just not here. So they defend the near impossibility of interstellar travel, which contradicts a considerable portion of the scientific community. This a priori probability allows them to reject evidence arbitrarily that would otherwise confirm the presence of a solid object under intelligent control with propulsion irreproducible by human technology. For instance, when a certain degree of corroboration of physical substance for an airplane is obtained for an unconventional disk-shaped vehicle, this degree of evidence is accepted for the airplane but rejected for the anomalous vehicle. The only way to do this is to apply a priori probabilities of nearly zero to the detection of such an anomalous object. The problem, of course, is that, first of all, we do not have enough information to defend a low a priori probability, and second of all, this approach guarantees the automatic rejection of normal avenues of evidence. Effectively, what the skeptics are saying is that radar evidence is too “ordinary” to suffice for an “extraordinary” claim. They succeed in eliminating from review all types of indirect and direct evidence, except for physical proof.

This type of logic can be successfully applied to any claim. For instance, let us declare that dinosaurs are an extraordinary claim. This declaration requires no logical substantiation — just the way skeptics use their nearly zero a priori probability of extraterrestrial visitation to declare the claim extraordinary with no logical defense whatsoever, given the insufficient information to determine this probability. So, we have declared dinosaurs to be an extraordinary claim. The next step is to reject all fossil evidence for dinosaurs, since fossils are only acceptable for ordinary claims such as woolly mammoths; for extraordinary dinosaur claims, fossils are worthless. What we need, as dinosaur skeptics, is physical proof of an intact dinosaur. And, to make it even more similar to the skeptic approach, we do not need to defend the rationale of the demand for physical proof of dinosaurs; the fact that it is an extraordinary claim allows us to demand the very upper boundary of conceptually feasible modes of proof — but conceptual feasibility does not translate into practical feasibility. Sure, I can demand physical proof, but will I get it? Is it worth ignoring fossil evidence while I wait for physical proof?

We could extend the analogy further by applying more skeptic logical tricks. For instance, dinosaur articles are published in journals that already believe in dinosaurs; therefore, they are biased and one-sided, and hardly representative of truly critical peer review. We could assert that all fossils are best explained as hoaxes, misidentifications of known and unknown geological processes, and hallucinations and/or misinterpretations by overzealous paleontologists imposing their belief system on an anomalous rock. This, I can contend, is the “simplest explanation,” and I do not have to worry about using overly strenuous logic because, in the absence of physical proof of dinosaurs, any explanation is simpler — no matter how contrived and convoluted! This is the essence of the scientific rejection of UFO evidence: an overwhelming need to disbelieve coupled with a shameful lack of research into the actual evidence.

THE DEMAND FOR PHYSICAL PROOF

If aliens were visiting, I find the expectation of physical proof quite illogical, since it is going to be hard to obtain. In fact, it may even be impossible. But the skeptics do not mind, since they have already decided to disbelieve until they obtain the highest conceivable level of proof. In the discussion above, it was noted that anybody can apply this logic by insisting that dinosaurs should not be accepted until we find an intact, frozen, preserved dinosaur with the flesh still on the bones. And if that is impossible — well, too bad. Is it rational to reject fossils the way skeptics reject radar-visual cases and ground-trace cases, and then demand a preserved dinosaur specimen the way skeptics demand an alien and/or vehicle specimen? I contend that physical proof is an unattainable evidential boundary that guarantees rejection of the hypothesis of extraterrestrial origin.

Despite the table-pounding insistence by skeptics on physical proof, they have simply not been able to defend this demand — one which is far beyond the scientific rigor that standard scientific methodology would require. The UFO evidence has satisfied the evidential threshold of normal scientific protocols; unfortunately, the evidence has been rejected by dogmatic, specious demands for physical proof. For all these demands for physical proof, the skeptics have not been able to meet any of the following logical criteria necessary to defend the imposition of this arbitrary evidential threshold:

  • How can one declare a claim to be extraordinary without sufficient information to defend a low a priori probability?
  • Are there degrees of extraordinariness?
  • How does one relate a degree of extraordinariness to a fair and reasonable evidential threshold?
  • What is it about extraterrestrial visitation that implies the availability of physical proof?
  • How can we obtain physical proof?
  • How can an evidential threshold be imposed with no logical defensibility nor any rational expectation of actually meeting such a stringent threshold?

OCCAM’S RAZOR AND THE SKEPTICS

The UFO skeptics do not understand Occam’s Razor, and they abuse it regularly. They think they understand it, but they do not. What it means is that when several hypotheses of varying complexity can explain a set of observations with equal ability, the first one to be tested should be the one that invokes the fewest number of uncorroborated assumptions. If this simplest hypothesis is proven incorrect, the next simplest is chosen, and so forth. But the skeptics forget two parts: the part regarding the test of the simpler hypotheses, and the part regarding explaining all of the observations. What a debunker will do is mutilate and butcher the observations until they can be “explained” by one of the simpler hypotheses, which is the inverse of the proper approach. The proper approach is to alter the hypothesis to accommodate the observations. One should never alter the observations to conform with a hypothesis by saying:

“If we assume the object was not physical, despite the level of evidence that would imply the solidity of a conventional aircraft with near-certainty, then we can also assume the object was not moving, was not exhibiting the color orange, was not 50 feet in diameter as described, and then declare that it was really Venus.”

But that is okay for the skeptics to do, because it is an “extraordinary claim” being made that deserves to be explained away in a Machiavellian fashion as rapidly as possible, with the urgent zeal of a religious missionary. Now, to alter observations to force conformance with the preferred hypothesis — is that science? Or is that dogma? The answer, of course, is dogma. This practice is extremely poor science, and the approach undermines the very spirit of scientific inquiry. It is simply unacceptable to alter the observations that refuse to conform with the predetermined, favored explanation.

THE ETH AND FALSIFIABILITY

While a more thorough discussion of the formulation and potential falsification of the ETH can be found on the ETH page, one particular aspect is worthy of note as another logical trick. The skeptics complain that the ETH is not falsifiable, which is a condition that violates a necessary component of hypothesis formulation. This is not true, as explained on the ETH page. However, even if it were true, the skeptics fail to realize that their beloved SETI hypothesis of alien radio signal detection can be said to be non-falsifiable! Does a lack of detection disprove the hypothesis that aliens are beaming mathematical constants at us? Certainly not, since our equipment may not be strong enough to detect them. It has been 30 years since SETI’s beginnings, with absolutely no positive results whatsoever, yet the non-falsifiability allows the preservation of the project with hopes as high as ever.

SCIENCE VS. SKEPTICISM

Skeptics are skilled propagandists who appeal to base emotions just like seasoned politicians. Skeptics like to wrap themselves in the robe of science, declaring that their approach and conclusions are “scientific,” in just the same way that a politician will cloak himself in the mantle of “family values” and “doing what’s right for America.” But is skepticism really as scientific as the skeptics want people to believe? As has been explained throughout this essay, the clear answer is no. Their logical reasoning is rife with fallacies, from their arbitrary declaration of a claim as being extraordinary to their specious demand for physical proof, to their abuse of Occam’s Razor, to their erroneous complaints about hypothesis falsification. So why do they claim that they are the real scientific side?

Skeptics are mostly scientists, but that certainly does not mean they behave scientifically, as has been explained. Their behavior stems partially from their distaste for public opinions that contradict the consensus of the scientific community. When a public consensus does contradict the scientific opinion, scientists will mount a public campaign to discredit this opinion because such an opinion undermines the role of the scientist in society as the appointed knowledge-seeker and truth-gatherer. What good are scientists if mankind will only insist on believing in warm, fuzzy superstitions anyway? So, these scientists who are guilty of the logical infractions exposed in this essay are so consumed with the presumed validity of their opinions that, like zealous religious fanatics, they must convert the masses to the side of truth in order to salvage their own self-image.

The second stimulus of pseudoscientific skepticism is that these scientists, who do not represent all scientists but rather a rogue band of propagandists, feel that science is about the mastery of nature. When nature introduces an anomaly — a violation of expectation — to science, the anomaly must be crushed. How dare nature violate science’s laws and principles! The anomaly is supposed to indicate an incomplete framework or incorrect a priori assumptions, yet to the skeptical propagandists, it indicates misbehavior by nature that cannot be allowed to undermine their role in society. The anomaly is a threat to the validity of their work, so they must wish it away, convince themselves through wild logical fallacies that the anomaly does not exist, and return the public back toward the truths of nature that are approved by the scientific community. This tendency only changes when it becomes more work to deny the anomaly than to accept it; sadly, with UFOs, this is not likely to occur, because the scientific community will never deal with UFO reports.

CONCLUSION

The scientific community has vociferously resisted the acceptance of anomalies for centuries, with the Copernican Revolution being the most notable historical example. They threaten the paradigm and disturb the equilibrium. They undermine the community’s self-perception of usefulness and value to society by threatening to destroy the assumptions behind their work. For the purposes of emotional well-being, they will be protested and debunked until they can no longer be denied; with UFOs, the breaking point will be physical proof. Yet, as this essay demonstrated, the criterion of physical proof is a product of anomaly resistance rather than a rational assessment of a priori probabilities or a rational interpretation of evidence. Instead of applying fallacious reasoning to the evidence, applying normal scientific standards to the UFO evidence would long ago have enabled the scientific community to embrace the ETH.


Original Source: https://nicap.org/papers/zeiler2.htm

Post
#1626478
Topic
General Star Wars <strong>Random Thoughts</strong> Thread
Time

Hal 9000 said:

Did all the humans in Star Wars have a common ancestor on a planet or did at least some of them develop independently?

In the Expanded Universe, it is explained that humans originated on Coruscant, and that the Rakatan Empire — which conquered almost the entire galaxy and used to enslave many species — frequently transported humans from one planet to another for slave labour. As a result, humans became widely dispersed, and by the time the Republic was founded, many planets were already inhabited by them. I personally find this explanation very compelling, because it makes a great deal of sense.