Oh! It was Bill Clinton btw who said his first two objectives were to find out who killed JFK and where the aliens were kept.
I actually thought it was funny, but some people might have thought it was worth a look since he’s they guy who had his finger on the button for eight years.
Reagan believed in UFOs too. While Governor of California he had his plane chase one until they couldn’t keep up any more. Thought that was funny too.
Jimmy Carter’s story isn’t as funny. He just said that he and a house full of people saw one once.
You see, you are looking at this from the wrong angle. The Lighthouse theory isn’t a lie; it is a reasonable response to the fact that at least two witnesses admit that they did actually chase the lighthouse for two miles. However it is not adequate to explain the entire chain of events, which went on for two nights (with a gap in between of two days).
My suspicion is that these events occured simply because the witnesses (or some of them) were spooked into taking a wide range of unusual phenomena as corroboration of a single alien visitation, The lighthouse was part of it- but so was the meteor that probably started the event, and the tractor in the night with lights blazing, and the stars and planets observed inexpertly with the Starscope, and the inadequate radiation meter.
Oh, and Penniston’s increasingly weird outpourings.
Yes. So what? Are you trying to say the fact that we’ve discussed your topic but not related subjects proves that your topic is a more valid line of inquiry? It doesn’t. It just means we’ve stuck to the topic. I’ll grant you that might be unusual because sticking to the subject might not be our strong suit
And I don’t like it when people call an objective evaluation of weak evidence “trashing” or say people who aren’t convinced are just frightened. That’s a really lazy excuse for an argument.
See now you’re the one being scary. These guys took armed precautions against what they believed was a security breach. They’ve spent the better part of their lives telling and retelling the story. Like I said before they’d have to be some pretty weird dudes to do that, which is not beyond the realm of possibility, but when you consider what their jobs were / are I hope it is aliens. At least then our nukes are still in capable hands.
Different story. I am talking about him and his family at their house after (can’t remember what kind) some party.
I do recall that he had more than one story, but that’s the one I remember. The tape I saw was of him at a book signing recounting the story to somebody. The story wasn’t in the book - don’t know why they asked him about it. Prolly just thought it was a funny thing for a President to say.
It is a pattern that repeats over and over again; for this reason it is advisable to take most notice of the earliest statements made while the memories are still untainted by imagination. Luckily we have the Rendlesham reports and the tape, and we can interpret them directly.
It sure was. Note that I said “UFOlogists”, not UFOlogists-which obviously indicates that I don’t think it’s to be taken seriously. You followed that be referring to them as if they had some sort of official status that should be taken seriously, which cause be to repeatedly ask what an authentic “UFOlogist” was.
Since you have yet to tell us where one gets such a degree or publishes their peer-reviewed findings, I’m still wondering.
No. I am saying that one has nothing to do with the other. Did I say “trashing” 'cause that doesn’t sound like me. And many people are frightened and wish for the world to remain as they believe it is. Outside of UFOs I talk to a lot of people about conspiracies etc and it becomes readily apparent that fear does make quite a few subjects taboo. I wish it weren’t so, but it is. And to be fair it’s no more of a blatant generalization than you’ve been tossing around. So, turn about is fair play.
Hmm. I suspect these are both the same story, mangled by time and bad reporting. But you may be right - some people do report more than one UFO. I’ve seen many things that might have been reported as UFOs by a different observer, but that s because I specifically look for them.
UFO is the name given to the exact same phenomena as was called “fairies” before the Twentieth Century. “Witnesses” did not begin associating these poorly-observed impressions with structural devices until the popular imagination has incorporated airplanes and space ships instead of magical beasts and beings.
As far as conspiracies go, that is a different matter- unlike ghosts and aliens, we have good evidence for them actually existing. But most conspiracies one encounters on the internet are tripe.
Exactly. Some (not all) witnesses start to exhibit the same symptoms as witnesses to paranormal phenomena - their stories become more elaborate, and include more extraordinary and supernatural elements over time.
I can’t say he was telling the truth in either case. I just happened to be watching something were they were following him around and as part of the movie somebody asked him at a book signing and he recounted that story. The narrator started off by telling it, but he repeated the same story. For all I know the narrator heard it when they filmed him. Anyway, not one of the accounts I say is very interesting. Had he not been elected President, I wouldn’t even know about that one.
Generalizations again. Unlike most people I tend to rely on human interactions and what their memory of the event is. I like current recollections of an old story. I know enough about human nature to tell when somebody is lying. That weeds out the complete morons. Then you’re left with those who believe what they’re saying whether they’re crazy, sociopaths, or telling the truth. There’s a thing about remembering a story though. People who want attention will usually add to the story or remember every single detail as if it were that very day. I don’t find those people to be credible. I like people who remember the big things and who couldn’t care less if you believe them or not. That tends to ring more true. Then again, I don’t claim to be studying this stuff. I just write about those who do.
He was almost certainly telling the truth as he remembered it - which, as Shaeffer points out in my link above, includes an error of several months in at least one of the cases.
