UFO Theories

[paulb2b2]

Hypothetical chat between a supporter of Nick Cooks ideas and a supporter of Robert Hastings ideas. I would really like to hear peoples opinions on this.

HASTINGS SUPPORTER: Hey guess what,anti gravity technology didnt exist in the 1940s because it doesnt exist now.
COOK SUPPORTER: Antigravity technology existed prior to the 1940s therefore all of these UFO sightings are human designed anti-gravity craft.
HASTINGS SUPPORTER: So your telling me that a technology as valuable as antigravity has been kept out of open society for god knows how long... and that it has been used by America against American national security in the sense of nuke deactivation?
COOK SUPPORTER: Well Nick Cook didnt say that there were huge discs capable of deactivating nuclear weapons although he did talk about craft able to travel at remarkable speeds (beyond what you would believe possible for 1940s designs) and able to hover silently as far back as the 40s. Maybe you are just wrong about the nuclear facilities.
HASTINGS SUPPORTER: No, Hastings has interviewed 120 U.S. military personnel over the years. So I put the question to you... why would the U.S. render their own nukes useless?
COOK SUPPORTER: I dont believe they would. But I dont accept what you are trying to make me believe. I think that the whole phenomenon comes down to Operation Paperclip. Theres photographic evidence of the German Nazis working on disc designs and then following the capture of dozens of top German Nazi scientists by America guess what happens?... flying discs are observed throughout the United States from 1947 onwards. Coincidence? I think not!
HASTINGS SUPPORTER: Come off it. Maybe there was antigravity research going on in the 1940s but craft that exceed the capabilities of what we know about openly now? I think not!

 

[Randall]

Personally I think it's pretty obvious that if the USAF or any other advanced aircraft manufactrer on Earth had figured out antigravity we'd all have flying cars, jet planes would be obsolete and so would rockets, and we would have at least been to Mars and beyond by now.

j.r.

Note: We have built enourmous craft that can hover silently ... they're called lighter than air craft. What they can't do is maneuver like UFOs. So giant slow moving objects can and have been built by humans, and until you see it do an instant accelleration to supersonic speed, there's no reason to think it isn't one of ours.

 

[paulb2b2]

j.r... thanks for responding. Much appreciated because I am really interested in peoples views on this.

Paul.

 

[boomerang]

A serious debate between the "break away culture" vs. "extraterrestrial" factions would be interesting. I think Cook kicks over some interesting rocks in his search for advanced propulsion technologies. But the baggage that goes along with the notion that "we" possess antigrav is hard to reconcile.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

Nevertheless, regarding Cook's take on the subject, the question would be: if the US had anti-gravity technology since the end of WWII, what useful purpose has it served until now? They should have perfected it quite a bit in more than 60 years and, in terms of military technology, we still see the same types of propulsion being used over and over again. That kind of technology would allow the US Air Force to have a colossal vantage over its adversaries and, to my knowledge, current wars are still being fought with jet propelled aircraft (they still use B 52's in Afghanistan). Besides, developing anti-gravity technology would represent a huge expense in military budgets. Why wouldn't they capitalize it by actually using it on the field or eventually applying it to commercial uses? As we all know, high-tech always extends its reach beyond military applications - that's where it often becomes extremely profitable. Though I'm not foolish enough to believe that we know every advancement in secret military projects, I find Cook's theory very hard to believe.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Stranger things have happened through history and Nick Cook just added another aspect to the puzzle. Mind you if the Allies had got their hands on some high technology gear? Maybe read the "Puppet Masters" (2004) and maybe Keeping a open mind on the secret technologies aspect what was Ben Rich words? Operation Paperclip/NAZA and the current financial troubles

 

[trainedobserver]

I think Alexander makes excellent arguments against these ideas in his book, UFOs Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities. One of the more compelling arguments is that Disclosure would have been used to one party's political advantage or another by now. This goes pretty much double for any advanced propulsion and energy technology. Therefore, there appears to be no real knowledge about UFOs that can be shared or exploited for political, military, or commercial ends.

I think there are two big aspects of UFOs. One is the physical reality that is tracked on radar, pursued by fighters, recorded on film, and seen by commercial pilots. The other is the idea of UFOs contained in the complicated mythologies that are used by various groups and individuals to their own ends. Genuine UFO phenomena, in my opinion, leave no suggestion of origin or intent. Stories that involve claims of points of origin, nature and motivation of occupants, and other such details historically have proven to have a much lower likelihood of representing actual events.

 

[paulb2b2]

Instead of the skeptik or potential debunker having to believe in ET when hearing a lecture by someone like Richard Dolan on the scrambling of military jets to chase UFO’s - - - we instead need to create an environment where the skeptik listens to someone like Dolan and then thinks that military jets have chased Unknown Intelligently Controlled Craft (UICC). As for ET’s (and for that matter… human time-travelers and interdimensional beings) the UFO Phenomenon is put on HOLD as far as those theories are concerned. The UFO Phenomenon would progress and move forward if it could just get people to accept position 1. (i.e., that unknown intelligently controlled craft are seen). That is only the starting line but many people refuse to even go as far as the starting line. Why? Because they think that if you sign up to the position that military jets have chased UFO’s then you have signed up to believing in ALIENS! <O</O
The following should equate to the new Rationale: The Skeptik listens to someone like Dolan lecturing about military jets being scrambled to chase (1) Unknown Intelligently Controlled Craft OR (2) Birds, Carrier Bags and Balloons.
<O</O<O</O
<O</O<O</OSEE HOW MUCH BETTER WE CAN DO IF WE DON’T INSERT OPTION 3… ET’s.

Paul Budding.

 

[trainedobserver]

I agree Paul. It may be that the jargon we use needs to change. UAP is an excellent term that is even more agnostic than UFO or UICC. An object is seen in the air and no suggestion is made about its mode (flying.) I also like UICC as it suggests a viable reason to use military assets to investigate them without the pop culture taint of UFO or heaven forbid, flying saucer.

 

[Facius_Cardan]

A thing that has always fascinated me is the fact that the way the phenomenon is described appears to have an influence on what people report seeing. Let's take Kenneth Arnold's sighting for instance. The reporters described the objects as flying saucers, indicating a circular shape. From then onwards everybody started to see flying disks. The fact is, when we go back to Arnold's original report. what he saw were crescent shaped objects that flew like a saucer skipping over the water. That's something completely different. The question is: if the reporters actually described what was seen with more accuracy, would we have, instead of flying saucers, flying crescents?

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Although Mr Kenneth Arnold's suggested in one of his historical interviews "the UFOs were shaped like a saucer plate cut in half " with a triangle top?