PDA

View Full Version : Exopolitics Journal - Vol 1:1



A.DIM
2005-Oct-16, 01:20 PM
The History of Exopolitics (http://www.exopolitics.org/Exopolitics-Journal-vol-1-1-Salla.pdf)(pdf).

I'm interested in hearing people's opinions about this approach to the ETH.

R.A.F.
2005-Oct-16, 02:27 PM
The old "We don't have evidence of ET visitors because the government is hiding that evidence", excuse...

I don't think much of it at all.

Wolverine
2005-Oct-16, 02:54 PM
I think it's an utter waste of electrons. How they can bother to include terms such as empirical while referencing long-debunked and credulous sources completely escapes me.

catpain_kangaroo
2005-Oct-16, 02:56 PM
My original post was a impolite ad-hominem attack and has been removed according to good manners. I really should have known better, I apologize.

genebujold
2005-Oct-17, 12:04 AM
They may very well be crazy. But calling them crazy is no better an arguement than their calling us myopic.

And they may very well reference long-debunked sources. But what about those sources they reference which have not been long-debunked?

Time to start debunking!

R.A.F.
2005-Oct-17, 12:19 AM
Time to start debunking!

As long as the argument (government cover-up) remains the same, and as long as there is no evidence supporting that argument, (there isn't) then there is really nothing to debunk.

Wolverine
2005-Oct-17, 12:32 AM
They are crazy. You don't need reasons when you are crazy....
catpain_kangaroo, please review the FAQ (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845#post564845). Calling people "crazy" is an ad-hominem attack, which is against the rules.

A.DIM
2005-Oct-17, 01:29 AM
Let's start with this...

The ETH was first officially proposed as the most valid explanation for UFO/Flying Saucer sightings by a classified study initiated by the U.S. Air Force in 1948. The classified study of approximately 300 cases produced an ‘Estimate of the Situation’ in September 1948, whose conclusion supported the ETH. The study and its remarkable conclusion was moved all the way up the Air Force hierarchy to the desk of the Chief of Staff, General Hoyt Vandenberg who rejected it and made clear that acceptance of the ETH was not an acceptable conclusion for reasons related to national security concerns.


Was the "Estimate of the Situation" a real document?
And if so, was it singlehandedly rejected by Gen Vandenburg like this?

Also, and more importantly, has Keyhoe's material been thoroughly debunked?
Afterall, he's one of the earliest, if not the first, to suggest government cover-up and conspiracy.

catpain_kangaroo
2005-Oct-17, 10:46 AM
catpain_kangaroo, please review the FAQ (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845#post564845). Calling people "crazy" is an ad-hominem attack, which is against the rules.
I apologize, and I have removed the post. I still stand by my original sentiment, but acknowledge that it was not proper conduct to post it here.

R.A.F.
2005-Oct-17, 11:47 AM
Was the "Estimate of the Situation" a real document?

Yes...and it did reach the conclusion that flying saucers were real and that they came from outer space.


...was it singlehandedly rejected by Gen Vandenburg like this?

Yes and no. :) He did reject it, but not for the reason stated. He rejected it because the reports evidence was not sufficient to support its conclusions.


...has Keyhoe's material been thoroughly debunked?

Keyhole was biased by his belief in aliens. He had no "inside information" to confirm his claims. He was a writer after the BIG "story" and that caused him to "see" things that simply were not there.

It is interesting to note what Keyhole "thought" about the supposed aliens "motives". He felt that they were afraid of us because we were exploding H-bombs...and if we exploded a large number of these, the Earth would leave its orbit causing it to crash into Mars or Venus. (At that time, the "logical" home for these aliens.)

Obviously he had some very "odd" ideas.,

A.DIM
2005-Oct-17, 05:18 PM
Yes...and it did reach the conclusion that flying saucers were real and that they came from outer space.

Fascinating!
How do you now this for sure?
The FOIA?


Yes and no. :) He did reject it, but not for the reason stated. He rejected it because the reports evidence was not sufficient to support its conclusions.

I'd like to see some cited works that show this; do you know of any?
I ask because the report apparently passed up through the ranks and was considered supportive of the conclusions, until Vandenburg, no?


Keyhole was biased by his belief in aliens. He had no "inside information" to confirm his claims. He was a writer after the BIG "story" and that caused him to "see" things that simply were not there.

I've read none of his books, so how was he biased?
And how exactly do you know he had no "inside info?"

Also, I thought he started out as a skeptic of the UFO phenomena?


It is interesting to note what Keyhole "thought" about the supposed aliens "motives". He felt that they were afraid of us because we were exploding H-bombs...and if we exploded a large number of these, the Earth would leave its orbit causing it to crash into Mars or Venus. (At that time, the "logical" home for these aliens.)

From where does this info come?
His books?

R.A.F.
2005-Oct-17, 05:55 PM
(I knew not reading that Sitchin book was going to come back and "bite me" in the butt...:))


From where does this info come?

I got "nearly all" of my information from the very excellent book Watch the Skies: A Chronicle of the Flying Saucer Myth (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560983434/103-1661555-5925447?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance) written by avation historian Curtis Peebles.

Mr. Peebles goes into great detail explaining the 'in-fighting" behind the scenes in the Air Force, and how "misconceptions" (at the time) lead outsiders to believe certain aspects about the AF's investigation that simply were not true. He quotes from various sources, detailing Keyhole's "involvement" and how Keyhole was instrumental in defining what the "Flying Saucer Myth" would become.

It would take WAY more space than is available here to go into enough detail to explain what made Keyhole "tick". The only thing I can say is...if you're interested, you'll have to read the book. (Now you understand the first sentence in this post. :))

A.DIM
2005-Oct-17, 06:07 PM
(I knew not reading that Sitchin book was going to come back and "bite me" in the butt...:))



I got "nearly all" of my information from the very excellent book Watch the Skies: A Chronicle of the Flying Saucer Myth (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1560983434/103-1661555-5925447?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance) written by avation historian Curtis Peebles.

Mr. Peebles goes into great detail explaining the 'in-fighting" behind the scenes in the Air Force, and how "misconceptions" (at the time) lead outsiders to believe certain aspects about the AF's investigation that simply were not true. He quotes from various sources, detailing Keyhole's "involvement" and how Keyhole was instrumental in defining what the "Flying Saucer Myth" would become.

It would take WAY more space than is available here to go into enough detail to explain what made Keyhole "tick". The only thing I can say is...if you're interested, you'll have to read the book. (Now you understand the first sentence in this post. :))

LOL, RAF!

I certainly won't argue against Peebles' work since I've not read it.
Are there any other sources of info that characterize Keyhoe as such?

And why do you keep calling him "Keyhole?"

R.A.F.
2005-Oct-17, 06:24 PM
Are there any other sources of info that characterize Keyhoe as such?

Nothing I can "put my finger on" at the moment...perhaps it will "come to me" later...but old age is a "harsh" mistress, and does lead to failing memory. :)


And why do you keep calling him "Keyhole?"

Thanks for pointing that out (I never would have "discovered" it, myself)...why indeed...I don't know. I guess when I type Keyho the "le" just happens. Chalk it up to sloppyness.

A.DIM
2005-Oct-17, 06:39 PM
Nothing I can "put my finger on" at the moment...perhaps it will "come to me" later...but old age is a "harsh" mistress, and does lead to failing memory. :)

OK, and while I realize I need to read Peebles' material, I'm not prepared to dismiss Keyhoe just yet.

I need more info.


Thanks for pointing that out (I never would have "discovered" it, myself)...why indeed...I don't know. I guess when I type Keyho the "le" just happens. Chalk it up to sloppyness.

Done.

R.A.F.
2005-Oct-17, 07:14 PM
...I'm not prepared to dismiss Keyhoe just yet.

I need more info.

Perfectly understandable...

A.DIM
2005-Oct-18, 02:03 PM
Since nothing more about the "history" of exopolitics, how about Former Canadian Defense Minister Speaks Out on ET Visitors and Government Secrecy (http://www.exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-38.htm)?

Anyone know anything about this?

Fram
2005-Oct-18, 02:40 PM
Here is some more info about this (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/09/11/1212477-cp.html). Apparently, all he has is unconfirmed information from a not identified US general. I.e. nothing.
The same guy is also giving interviews about the 9/11 conspiracy (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/292489.shtml).

As long as he has nothing more concrete, he is only an appeal to authority.

Halcyon Dayz
2005-Oct-18, 02:44 PM
He confirmed that senior political officials even at the rank of Minister of Defense, a position he himself occupied, are simply out of the loop when it comes to information concerning UFOs and visiting extraterrestrials.
So basically he is saying, he didn't know anything then,
and he doesn't know anything now.

[Edited to add:]
Considering the importance of Canada to the integrated air defence of North America,
the responsible minister not knowing anything is telling.

R.A.F.
2005-Oct-18, 05:09 PM
Hellyer's position on UFOs dramatically changed after watching the late Peter Jennings documentary special, "Seeing is Believing" in February 2005.

Well, he must be the only "one". That special had almost no effect on people's opinions. If you were a believer before watching it, then you were after watching it...same holds true for "skeptics".


He contacted a retired United States Air Force General and spoke to him directly to verify Corso's claims. The unnamed General simply said: "every word is true and more". Hellyer then proceeded to discuss the "and more " with the general and claimed he was told remarkable things concerning UFOs and the extraterrestrial hypothesis that interplanetary visitors have been here since at least 1947.

Unnamed General??? Is that suppose to be some "form" of evidence?? Consider this...the unnamed General "blabs" to Hellyer about what would have to be the biggest secret of the American government, and now Hellyer is "blabbing" about it at UFO conferences? Does anyone else have a major problem with that?


Finally convinced that the UFO phenomenon was real Hellyer decided to come forward and speak at Exopolitics Toronto...

I think that "says it" right there. Hellyer has become the "darling" of the UFO lecture circuit. He gets the "attention" he (for whatever reason) craves, and the UFO folks can say that they have a "former high ranking politician" who tells the "truth" about UFO's...everyone wins!

I noticed further down the page that Hellyer will be speaking at a conference in Hawaii. Heck, I'd give a speech at a UFO conference if it meant that I'd get an expense paid trip to Hawaii...

...and before anyone says it...I'm sure that the conference is paying his expenses...they payed for his "helecopter ride" so I see no reason why they wouldn't pay for his trip...they want him there badly...