A challenge to the skeptics

[AgentAppleseed]

Hey Ignis Fatuus, you are a strange bird indeed! You have pulled the fastest turn around, I`ve yet to see anyone pull, so far, on this forum. Congratulations, its got to be a record. The other night, you made the following statement, in reply to my post, while at the same time proving that; bottom line, you just don`t get it!
"Have you read Cabansags statement?
What about Burans?"
What Id like to know is, according to you, , what is it you think the Cabansag and Buran statements prove, exactly? Judging from what little there is to go on in your post, and having read both statements, it would seem that you are implying that the statements are evidence to be held up, as proof that the event in the forest never happened. Well, that conclusion requires a leap of faith that no real investigative body would be prepared to make. All evidence has its place in an investigation, and that place is dictated by the kind of investigation being conducted, and what information an investigator feels may possibly be gleaned from a particular piece of evidence. The only conclusion that can be drawn from those statements when taken at face value is that they would seem to contradict each other, ie, the Cabansag statement, would seem to contradict the Buran statement. They do not necessarily point to dishonesty on anyone else`s part. That must be proved by other means, if it is possible to prove that at all! Those statements were made in an effort to report(a summary) to a higher authority what had happened during the airmen`s investigation into the incident. Given the contradictory nature of what was said in those statements, an investigator may be forced to ask a number of different questions about why the people who made those statements said what they said and if they left things out, why they did so. There are more factors that need to be considered than you are aware of. To anybody who were to become involved in a line of enquiry into the circumstances surrounding the original investigation, those statements are cause for serious concern. No line of enquiry may be ruled out, until such time as it can be ruled out.
Also, in the context of the thread that your comment was made under, what does any of it have to do with anything? I suspect that you cant keep up with the conversation Ignis. Anyway, you neednt bother answering any of my questions, I already know the answers.

Having seemingly claimed that Cabansag and Burans statement would point to the idea that nothing happened at all, you then jumped to the thread entitled-"A challenge to the skeptics", where you made the following observation-
"I've thought about the stealth side of it to, but not as a case of mistaken identidy...
I could quite easily imagine the UFO cover story as a big kooky rug to sweep any subsequent visits by the like of Nighthawk under. Giving the spaceship (that was beyond all human comprehension) a similiar silhouette as the real secret of the time...genius."

You then went on to contradict what you said above, by claiming-"I hadn't thought of the possibility of the seemingly conflicting UFO v Lighthouse stories serving the same overall purpose until I read the above."
Really Fatuus, for someone that`s been following this topic as long as you have, you would seriously claim, that the possibility never entered your mind?
Which was followed by-
"It worked for high alt balloons, U2 and SR-71.
How many people were fooled by the Blackbird's dipsy-doodle manouvre from front on and at distance?"
Hmmmm...Well, I dont know about the stealth, but your not bad at the old dipsy-doodle yourself Fatuus, are you?

You then felt it necessary to disrupt the flow of the thread, by pointing out the following-"are we not all sceptics somewhere along the line? If you believe in, for arguments sake, an ET visitation and nothing else...does that make you become sceptical towards other peoples ideas?"- Just what, exactly, made you feel that it was necessary to interrupt the flow of conversation, in order to make that point? More importantly who were you referring to, when you said-"If you believe in, for arguments sake, an ET visitation and nothing else". Well Fatuus, just so you know, I dont think anyone here believes in-"an ET visitation and nothing else". This is just you, projecting onto others, what you yourself do best, ie, jumping to conclusions based on "evidence" that is not even evidence of what you think it is, at all!

"an ET visitation and nothing else...does that make you become sceptical towards other peoples ideas? It would seem, that you might be better served, living by the latter, rather than being an example of the former!

Staying within the order you made your statements, you then latched onto the discussion covering the subject of Mind Control. Tell me Fatuus, if the Cabansag and Buran statements can be held up as being examples of evidence that contradicts the idea that the incident took place at all, how then, does one adapt the position that the incident could have been the result of Mind control?
Playing with some of those mind kontrol possibilities sure sounds like an express ride to a dark and lonely place. Could make a person even question whether anything actually even took place the way you all remember it. Everyone thinks they're in the woods, but instead there's a hangar full of tranced out base personnel receiving their hypnotic reprogramming
Please tell me how, if, as you claim, one theory is as worthy of consideration as the next, how is it that, according to you, McKennas theory of timewave zero doesnt qualify, or the alien theory for that matter, or whatever else you object too?

Here's the paradox appleseeds, I'll type slowly so you can understand, the Time Travellers come back 40-50k years because apparently that avoids changing the timeline. So what do they do when they get here? They partake in activities specifically designed to change the timeline. What happens back in the future where they came from? Are all their woes suddenly cured like magic?

Well apparently, the odds are stacked against these people(whatever that means, I don`t pretend to know!) It sounds to me, like these folks may be desperate. You have misinterpreted what seems to have been explained to Jim Penniston. According to current mainstream thinking, paradoxical events can be large or small. What seems to have been explained to Jim Penniston, was that they didn`t want to effect the timeline in a way that gives rise to a large, chaotic paradox of some sort, the results of which, may be too unwieldy and outside their ability to correct. The logic, would seem to be, that the consequences which result from changes that are made, have less chance of resulting in unwieldy paradox events, the further back in time, one goes. This is not to say that there is less chance of paradox the further back in time one goes, instead, the results of small changes are less likely to result in large significant paradoxical events in the immediate aftermath of those changes being made. Small changes are controllable, or result in what may be deemed, acceptable collateral change. Maybe, whatever changes need to be made now, affect some upcoming event in a big way, or even a small way, which then has a knock on effect on the timeline after the fact, which in turn, leads to a more subtle or more highly significant effect, further down the timeline where these people come from.
Here`s a question for you, if you were from the future and you had some mission to accomplish, what would you tell Jim Penniston, and John Burroughs, when they asked you what you were, where you came from, and what it is you wanted from them? More importantly, what other questions does this question give rise too? I don`t want answers, I want you to think about it yourself.
Going back to what you said, your logic defeats itself Ignis, what do you want from me? Its not me that pretends to know the ins and outs of time travel, and what it involves, whereas you expect everyone to listen to your version despite the fact you cant even keep up with the conversation, never mind figure it all out.
If you had bothered to read back through this thread, you would understand that it became an opportunity for people to put forward various ideas, in order to try and give John Burroughs something to go on, something that might help contribute to his search for answers. It is not a debate on the merits of one theory, over another. Read back over, what you yourself asked; are we all not all skeptics somewhere along the line? It seems you are unable to lead by example. I`m beginning to think you just don`t want to bother reading or understanding what it is, other people have to say, if you were I wouldn`t have to bother writing any of this! The question is, why is that? If you`ve merely made up your own mind, then why would you feel the need to disrupt this thread in the fashion you have?

Funny how you call Dave Clarke a master of cut and paste when that seems to be your MO.
Again, you miss the point completely! Maybe if you had the decency to read what exactly it was I said, you might not have opened your mouth just so you could your foot in it. Tell me Fatuus, at what point does it become necessary to take that foot from out your mouth, and stamp it down on the floor, in an effort to call people out and have them answer for their part, for thirty years worth of damage, both to the case and the reputations of the people at the center of it. And to what level exactly, should ones anger be made known? Dont bothering answering by the way, I already know the answers.
Lets clear something up so I dont have to repeat myself again.
I myself walk a fine line between both camps, allowing me to see clearly what`s going on, and what`s happening around me. There are others that would like to think they do too, but its quite obvious that they don`t, they aren`t capable of that. To them, this entire matter, is, and always will be; a battle between two camps, one saying it was alien, the other saying it was man made. They would jump down the throat of people, assuming and proclaiming all kinds of crap, accusing a person to be a devoted enthusiast of one camp or the other, all without having neither read, or understood what that person has to say. If a person they have labeled a UFO proponent brings up a point, which would seem to poke a hole in the current idea being discussed, these people would have it that a UFO is being brought into the discussion. Of course all of this works both ways but the bottom line is, people cant seem to get over their prejudice. Its all in the mind, perhaps that`s the reason why I`m hopeful for some, while at the same time realize, that others are a lost cause. Now, there is also another kind of person who is deliberately doing all of the above, and deliberately causing all of this to happen, knowing full well what the outcome will be, and knowing full well what this outcome will help ensure. Those kinds of people will inadvertently expose themselves, Give them enough rope and they`ll hang themselves, all of which is fine by me. I love to expose them, but I love it even better when they do it themselves. However if people cant contain their prejudices, I don`t want to interact with them, and I certainly will not contribute to their mess!! Good luck with that route!

[AgentAppleseed]

Its re-assuring to know that even old Stevie H can be wrong sometimes too. Hes got a fine mind, unfortunately hes become a bit of a politician since he hit the bigtime.
Its interesting to note, that what he said about Aliens, the last time he was in the news, was basically the same thing certain people in ufology have been saying for years.
Maybe therell come a time, when humans will live among the stars, the same way Hawking theorised Aliens would.
If they had bases in space, it would be a lot easier for them to get around, and they could come here from there and in so doing, eliminate the problem of having to travel an immense distance from their home planet to here, and back again.

[John Burroughs]

Frank
What are the signals and what is the noise! Is it not who said what when they said it and if its been proven to be true or not! Why were the dates wrong? Why did it first come out it all happened on one day! Why did it come out I went for a ride on a alien ship? Why was I not even out there on the 3rd night!Then I was! What happened to who on the 3rd night? If we were on alert status why was the flight line shut down and we were not in 12 hour shifts? When did the investigation start and who was in charge? Who let the cat out of the bag? Why is there so little attention paid to Halts tape by the debunker's?

[AgentAppleseed]

Seeing as Ignis Fatuus barged into the conversation with the intentions of disrupting and confusing this topic, not to mention the fact he misquoted Penniston and what he said, I`m going to add exactly what Penniston did say. Below, is what Jim Penniston related about time travel, in its correct context, and without misinterpretation. I have added a short passage in the middle, just so there is no confusion about what is said.

DOES THE GOVERNMENT BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT THEM COMING FROM THE FUTURE?

Oh yes.....This time, they(The time travelers) were having problems, but they got their machine off. They have to be out in space to travel. They need speed to travel.

TO TRAVEL THROUGH TIME?

To go backwards, they cant go forward!

THEY CANT GO INTO THEIR FUTURE?

They go to their past. Its impossible to go into the future. It takes too much energy.

HOW FAR INTO THE PAST CAN THEY GO?

These ships can go forty or fifty thousand years. They cant go back much further. They might not be able to get back

WHY DO THEY COME BACK SO FAR?

So it doesnt affect the timeline. The father it is the better, the least affect it has on changing the future......They cant control, its too cumbersome.

When they say they cant go into the future, they are talking about their own future. The future after whatever moment they left, to come back to 1980. Their past is the past between 1980 and the moment they started out, on their mission to come back in time. Our future is their past.
The line above which starts off "so it doesnt affect the timeline" is spoken in the context of causality, the farther they come back the least likely they are, to inadvertently cause a chaotic paradox outside their mission parameters, which is unpredictable and may result in a serious change to our future timeline. No bad science! No contradiction!


ARE THEY USING US SOMETHING LIKE BREEDING STOCK?

No, like band aids

DO THEY EVER TAKE FETUSES?

If it is tasked, they do. There are different ships for tasking. The government agents know about this....Thats why they want to contain the situation

THEY SEE YOU AS (REQUIRING) DAMAGE CONTROL?

Yes, they see me and John Burroughs and they`re worried about Colonel Halt`. They know all about us.`

If this transcript is accurate, then there`s no problem, with the logic behind time travel, as it was explained to Penniston. It can of course, be made to appear otherwise by those skilled in doing so, just as well as it can be misunderstood by those who simply don`t understand it. Of course we can not know if time travel does indeed work the way its described above, until such time as that science comes into being. Some scientists say we can go to the future but not the past, I`m willing to bet right now they`ll change their minds about that soon. As John Burroughs pointed out, even Steve Hawking changed his mind on whether time travel was even possible or not. There is of course, the question whether or not, Penniston understood, or misunderstood what was explained to him, after-all, and with all due respect to Jim Penniston, the guy is an S.P, not a scientist, but he seems to have understood the concept of what they were explaining to him, pretty well, in my opinion.
There is also a possibility that all of the above was implanted by the government guys as a cover. If so, they did a good job, the logic as I say is good, and Penniston seems to believe what he was told was the real deal. At the end of the day, he should be the one to confirm or deny. He should know, because he was there

[Frank]

Source: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/mi6/penniston.html

"The problem here," says Penniston to Rayl after the videotape ends, "is I don't know if this information is real in any sense, if it's been planted in my mind or if any of it is actually rooted in truth as we know it."

OMNI asked David Jacobs, one of the country's leading abduction researchers, to view and comment on the videotape of Penniston's second hypnosis session. Jacobs, history professor at Temple University, has conducted more than 600 hypnotic regressions and has written two books on the phenomenon, Secret Life and a new book, tentatively entitled The Threat, due in June 1997 from Simon & Schuster. Based on his research, Jacobs believes that the alien abduction phenomenon is real, that people really are being taken aboard spacecraft and subjected to often cruel medical and genetic examinations.

"The hypnosis started out fine," Jacobs says of the Penniston session. "The psychologist didn't ask a lot of probing questions. She did ask a few leading questions, but he didn't bite. It was okay. I feel quite certain that they, the military agents, did get him up into the office for an interrogation and that they did inject him with sodium pentathol, put him on a table, and ask him all those questions. It was quite a striking scene, and it all had the ring of truth to me. In other words, it appeared that this is exactly what happened. It had a beginning, a middle, and an end and each part led logically to the next up until the sodium pentathol. Once that was administered, it was chaos as far as I was concerned.

"He zoomed off into a channeling mode, and the psychologist didn't recognize it," contends Jacobs. "He simply dissociated, which is what happens when people begin to channel. The information is coming from one part of his brain, and the other part hears it and think it's coming from the outside. And suddenly he knows the answer to everything, as the psychologist begins to ask him one question after another about the beings. He knew the answer to absolutely everything, and only one question was he unable to answer. This is a certainty of channeling. It's a psychological phenomenon, and all the information that comes from this is internally generated. If the hypnotist isn't real experienced and doesn't recognize this, they can easily fall into this trap, and this I believe was a classic situation of just that."

[AgentAppleseed]

Jim Penniston has had two hypnosis sessions, as far as I know. I dont know if the one I quoted, is the same one Jacobs commented on. As far as I know, the content in both is pretty much the same. So how do we explain inconsistencies like that? We cant, unfortunately! Hypnosis is such a controversial subject these days, it cant be relied upon. Psychiatrists have been back and forth over the years on the importance and reliability of Hypnosis.
David Jacobs himself has been disgraced in recent times by accusations of misconduct, which include such transgressions such as conducting hypnosis sessions with patients, trans-continentally, via the telephone line.(Lol) I shouldnt laugh, its no laughing matter. There is now much doubt in the minds of his past patients that what he diagnosed as abduction syndrome was really that, or some other disorder. Google Emma Woods. Everything went downhill for Jacobs from there. When you cant trust the person doing the hypnosis, and you cant trust the hypnosis, where do you go from there?

There once was a lady named Bright
Who traveled much faster than light.
She departed one day in a relative way
And came home the previous night.

[Frank]

When you cant trust the person doing the hypnosis, and you cant trust the hypnosis, where do you go from there?

.. you simply leave the hypnosis sessions for what they are, and first focus on the hard facts in my opinion.

1 - If there are serious logical issues with time travel (I haven't even discussed the problems with 'free will' yet, if you can change the future by changing the past, free will can be thrown out of the window - not a very nice perspective),
2 - And if there are serious logical issues with the time travel info in Jim's regression (see below),
3 - And if an experienced hypnotherapist says that this episode in Jim's regression is a classical case of dissociation (one piece of the brain does not know what the other piece is doing, see post above)

I think we can treat the time traveller hypothesis as very, very hypothetical for the the time being ..

WHY DO THEY COME BACK SO FAR?

So it doesnt affect the timeline. The father it is the better, the least affect it has on changing the future......They cant control, its too cumbersome.

This is an illogical statement. If you go further back in time, your potential impact on the future will grow.

This may sound counter-intuitive, but the following example will help to understand it:

Just look at your family tree. You’ll see that the number of people on which your existence depends grows very rapidly as you go back in time. First your parents (2 people), then your grandparents (4 people), then their parents (8 people) and so on: 16 – 32 – 64 – 128 – 256 – 512 – 1024 - …

So if a UFO from the future goes back to our past and accidently lands on someone, the chance that your existence is directly affected because they kill someone from your family tree grows very fast as they go back further in time!

Not just your existence, but every single fact in our current world depends on a network of events that grows if you go back in time. So the further you go back in time, the bigger your potential impact on the future will be.

[AgentAppleseed]

1. As regards free will, well it might not be nice to think we may not have any, but niceties wont change that if its true. If that were true, would you want to tell people that?

2. To be honest I dont really put much credence in Dr Jacob`s or his work. I dont need him to tell me how shaky the ground is in relation to hypnosis etc. Ever thought of the possibility that his assessment of the hypnosis session might have been an opportunity to ply his trade?

3. Frank, I didn`t bring the hypnosis sessions into the conversation mate! We were having a conversation about time travel earlier in the thread. Then someone butted in merely for the sake of causing disruption. You know how much respect I have for sock puppets? Zero! How much credence I do, or do not give, to the actual hypnosis session, was not the point I was trying to make. Hard facts indeed Frank, I have no problem with that, what made you think I had?

So it doesn`t affect the timeline. The father it is the better, the least affect it has on changing the future......They cant control, its too cumbersome.
Well I believe they are talking about causality. I think you and others are taking it out of context. Kind of defeats the point if it was put in to Penniston`s mind as a cover story if it doesn`t make sense. Maybe Jacobs right, that Penniston is inadvertently making it up as he goes along. Maybe it is a matter of opinion. Hes done two Hypnosis sessions and the results were the same, as I said already.

So if a UFO from the future goes back to our past and accidently lands on someone, the chance that your existence is directly affected because they kill someone from your family tree grows very fast as they go back further in time!

Frank, I take my hat off to you for having the wit to be willing to consider all of thi, in the first place, and I know, and understand, what it is, you are trying to say, however, where I`m coming from, is that these people from the future, are deliberately avoiding taking actions outside their mission parameters so as to avoid causing the huge changes you speak of. These folks seem to have a mission and its logical to assume that they are willing to cause enough change to ensure their mission is successful. Your theory of exponential growth in change, is still valid. It all depends on what exactly they are doing. What did they do to Burroughs and Penniston, what changes did they cause, was it just information they gave them or did they change them biologically? "So it doesn`t affect the timeline" Penniston is trying to describe the situation in his own words. Its possible to go over it, and over it, and argue about what he said or how he should have explained it, but its counter productive, and I think we`ll just have to agree to disagree at this stage. Penniston may have misinterpreted what he was told, or repeated it in a way that wasn`t quite the right way to say it, or maybe he was correct about what he said, but in the end, it came out, the way it cam out! Lets leave it at that. As you said, If its all fabrication, then what does any of it matter anyway?!

[DeanF]

As I started to read the post by puddlepirate he's hit on exactly my way of thinking in relation to the static floodlights.

I can well imagine an accident with a nuclear device happening, and the military refusing to acknowledge it back in the 80's, - would have a massive outcry revealing we had nukes on British soil *before* the cruise missiles came to Greenham Common in 1984 (I think?) ( I recall seeing the construction of the silos/buildings at an airshow in I think '84).

I can imagine even today, the USAF not wanting to admit if there had been an accident back in 1980.

But how does a nuke or other item end up off the road and being someway into the forest itself?