Some governments are disclosing some information:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16000752-13762,00.html
On 22 Jul 2005 at 17:32, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Stephan Vincent Johnson.- If the government does have evidence
>of UFO'S . When would they tell us.-the p
Stephan Vincent Johnson.- If the government does have evidence
of UFO'S . When would they tell us.-the people.
It seems we should be mature enough to handle it at this time.
If not now when?-Unless there are no Ufo's-GES
Jed sez:
> I wouldn't know, but perhaps intelligence surveillance
> equipment is not geared toward detecting UFOs, and perhaps
> innovative amateur equipment could do a better job. This
> is mere speculation, but suppose UFOs are common, so the
> big radars have been programmed to ignore them. Aft
At 05:04 pm 21/07/2005 -0400, Steven wrote:
> being mistaken for a bunch of
> ravenous Jihad Loving reptilian messengers
> spawned from Satan's loins - or several other
> colorful cultural interpretations many in our
> population passionately cling to.
Careful Stevey - or you'
I wrote:
However, if they have not observed them, it would not surprise me, and I
would not blame them. The government and the professional astronomers have
not observed or cataloged many of the large and potentially dangerous
asteroids. . . .
I meant to say that I suppose asteroids resemble
Jed sez:
...
> Along the same lines, I suppose the "highly sophisticated
> intelligence" organizations are busy just now, with this
> War on Terror in full swing. They probably do not have
> the resources or the skills to go looking for UFOs.
On this point I'm in agreement with you.
All the mo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely you're not suggesting that our nation's highly sophisticated
intelligence gathering instrumentation network (that probably DOES include
UFO-cams) has not verified beyond a shadow of doubt that certain kinds of
UFOs truly exist?
I have no idea. I know next to n
At 11:30 am 21/07/2005 -0400, Jed wrote:
>There have been a few instances in which irreproducible but high-sigma CF
>events occurred. The best examples are the 1985 explosion in Fleischmann
>and Pon's lab, and Mizuno's 1991 massive heat after death event. Even
>though these could not be reprodu
Hi Jed,
I'm probablly getting way OT here but I feel a need to follow-up on one
particular line of thought.
...
> Perhaps a theorist can work with a pencil and paper alone,
> but in experimental and observational science instruments
> are the only source of valid information. UFO-ology will
> n
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If acute intelligence, keen
> observation and astounding intuition were a reliable
> guide to nature, people would have devised starships
> thousands of years ago. People have always had these mental
> abilities, but they never did us much good until we harnessed
> them
At 12:23 pm 21/07/2005 -0400, Steven wrote:
.
> For example, it's often been my highly subjective
> and idle day dreams that spuriously flit across my
> consciousness like UFOs that have pointed me in the
> direction of another personal discovery, or how to
> conduct an experiment, or how to re
Jed,
Respectfully, some people need funding to hire HELP, otherwise they use a pencil and paper. It is not the fault of the discoverer that he ONLY discovered the breakthrough that a hard working professional data cruncher would never have bothered attempting, much less even think of. And how da
The continuing debate between [EMAIL PROTECTED] and Jed:
>
> > > If it only occurs once then it isn't scientific
> > > -- yet. You have to reproduce it. If you cannot
> > > reproduce it, then eventually you must conclude
> > > that you did not see it.
> >
> >Using your own words, that's absolutely
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
If it only occurs once then it isn't scientific -- yet. You have to
reproduce it. If you cannot reproduce it, then eventually you must
conclude that you did not see it.
Nonsense. If you cannot reproduce it you must conclude that it is very
hard to reproduce. Ther
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> If it only occurs once then it isn't scientific
> -- yet. You have to reproduce it. If you cannot
> reproduce it, then eventually you must conclude
> that you did not see it.
Using your own words, that's absolutely ridiculous!
Tell that to all those pesky UFOs that c
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Why won't those saucers just cooperate!
Neither did the "WOW" signal:
http://www.planetary.org/html/news/articlearchive/headlines/2001/Wow.htm
> From: Christopher Arnold
> So you agree that RV is real and some are better at it than others?
Without doubt. Dr.s Stuart Hameroff, Roger Penrose, and Jack Sarfatti have
theories on quantum consciousness involving neural microtubules which might
explain how ESP.
Jed Rothwell wrote:
Grimer wrote:
I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. Suppose you observe
some scientific phenomena which only occurs once and you are the only
observer.
If it only occurs once then it isn't scientific -- yet. You have to
reproduce it. If you cannot repr
Jed sez:
> If it only occurs once then it isn't scientific
> -- yet. You have to reproduce it. If you cannot
> reproduce it, then eventually you must conclude
> that you did not see it.
Using your own words, that's absolutely ridiculous!
Tell that to all those pesky UFOs that come flitting in a
At 07:12 pm 20/07/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>Grimer wrote:
>
>>I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. Suppose you observe
>>some scientific phenomena which only occurs once and you are the only
>>observer.
>
>If it only occurs once then it isn't scientific -- yet. You have to
>reproduc
So you agree that RV is real and some are better at it than others?
ChrisTerry Blanton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Christopher Arnold >Also, Hal Puthoff experimented on this topic with Ingo Swann in the early days of RV in attempts to manipulate machines from a distance.Actually, Pat Price
Grimer wrote:
I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. Suppose you observe
some scientific phenomena which only occurs once and you are the only
observer.
If it only occurs once then it isn't scientific -- yet. You have to
reproduce it. If you cannot reproduce it, then eventually
> From: Christopher Arnold
>Also, Hal Puthoff experimented on this topic with Ingo Swann in the early days
>of RV in attempts to manipulate machines from a distance.
Actually, Pat Price put effeminate Swann to shame. You should do a little
research on Price, his performance, and his fate.
>Experiment -- and experiment alone -- is only standard of truth. If there
>have not been many experiments in remote viewing, then no one knows whether
>it is real or not.
>
>- Jed
>
I have to respectfully disagree with that statement. Suppose you observe
some scientific phenomena which only occ
> From: Christopher Arnold
> There are people that actually refuse to believe that
> Remote Viewing is real too, despite all the evidence.
> Actually this article is based on the work of much older
> studies. Also, Hal Puthoff experimented on this topic
> with Ingo Swann in the early days of RV
Christopher Arnold wrote:
There are people that actually refuse to believe that Remote Viewing is
real too, despite all the evidence.
What evidence?
Has remote viewing been tested objectively, in depth? The only tests I know
of were performed by Hal Puthoff. I know little about them, althoug
There are people that actually refuse to believe that Remote Viewing is real too, despite all the evidence. Actually this article is based on the work of much older studies. Also, Hal Puthoff experimented on this topic with Ingo Swann in the early days of RV in attempts to manipulate machines from
> From: Jed Rothwell
> I cannot judge, but some of this research seems impressive.
I have been following Dean Radin for almost a decade now. Actually, he used to
work in the Princeton Psychology department and had a falling out over his
research. Where he now works, the Institute of Noetic Sc
Some issues and reactions similar to those of cold fusion:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68216,00.html
I cannot judge, but some of this research seems impressive. It is
statistical in nature and it has not been replicated elsewhere. That puts
it in the same category as the top qu
29 matches
Mail list logo
