Monday, May 22, 2006
[And no, this isn't the same Rick Nielsen, but it's a badass photo, no?]
The Current Situation: If We Can Defend Humanity, Let's Do So
There is much credible scientific research published with(This first paragraph is a mess...Of course "there is much credible scientific research published with accurately deduced conclusions". Like saying the sky is often blue. He then says he's listing the following because they are "reliable, concisely expressed, and freely available for public view". What exactly is "reliable" about any scientific conclusion? He ends by saying these qualities make it easy for him to "consolidate into a consistent whole". Man, I bet THAT wasn't pretty!)
accurately deduced conclusions. I list the following, not
because they are the only ones worth considering, but because
they are reliable, concisely expressed, and made freely
available for public review. These also make it easy for someone
like me to consolidate into a consistent whole.
In his standardizing works, Stanton Friedman (Thanks, Stan!) has
determined the following:
"As a nuclear physicist who has had a serious interest in flying
saucers since 1958, [he has] reached four major conclusions:
(First, why is it necessary to include the fact that Stan Friedman is/was a nuclear physicist? Does that background make him a more "legitimate" researcher of UFOs? Why do we not see..."As an ironworker who has had a serious interest in UFOs since 1958...? Means about the same doesn't it?)
1. The evidence is overwhelming that Planet Earth is being
visited by intelligently controlled extraterrestrial spacecraft.
In other words, _some_ UFOs are alien spacecraft. Most are not.
(This is an opinion disguised as an "accurately deduced conclusion".)
The evidence is overwhelming to a very few that Earth is being visited by ETs. To the vast majority some weird shit goes on sometimes, but not to the extent of "overwhelming evidence" of ET craft flying around.)
2. The subject of flying saucers represents a kind of Cosmic
Watergate, meaning that some few people in major governments have
known since July, 1947, when two crashed saucers and several
alien bodies were recovered in New Mexico, that indeed SOME UFOs
are ET. As noted in 1950, it's the most classified U.S. topic.
(Again, this is an opinion, not a conclusion. The evidence that supports this view is suspect at best, and relies on data from the very source of the "Cosmic Watergate". How can you trust data from the very body you most mistrust? And, whenever you learn that something is your governments "most classified topic", please consider for a moment that that is what THEY want you to believe...see the paradox?)
3. None of the arguments made against conclusions One and Two by
a small group of debunkers such as Carl Sagan, my University of
Chicago classmate for three years, can stand up to careful
(This is commonly called a "feint". No one can effectively argue that some UFOs are not of ET origin, or that the government isn't covering up knowledge about UFOs, because one is unable to "prove" a negative. Also, why is the fact that Stan and Carl were classmates relevant to the conclusion? If it isn't, then why the name-dropping?)
4. The Flying Saucer story is the biggest story of the
millennium: visits to Planet Earth by aliens and the U.S.
government's cover-up of the best data (the bodies and wreckage)
for over fifty years.
(My trouble here is that in Conclusion 2 it says that a few people in "major governments" have known since 1947 that some UFOs were ET, and then here it is the US Government which is covering it up. What about the other "major govts"? Is the "Cosmic Watergate" an American issue or does EVERY major government cover up the UFO truth?)
"The problem is _not_ that there is not enough evidence to
justify [his] conclusions; but that most people, especially the
noisy negativists, are unaware of the real, non-tabloid
(This statement is at best disingenuous...another way of saying that "if you don't believe me, you're simply ignorant of the facts". In other words, "only a fool could disagree with me". Tsk, Tsk...that hundreds or millions of people could look at the evidence extant for ET craft flying around our skies for at least 60 years and find it lacking is now "ignorance"? While many people believe that some UFOs are from elsewhere, it is quite a leap to say that anyone that doesn't agree simply hasn't read the non-tabloid literature. And here we have an example of Stan's creative euphemisms for those with which he disagrees..."noisy negativist". I can only presume that this moniker describes anyone who disagrees with the conclusions listed above.
Well then...where do I get my "NN" t-shirt? LOL)
Dr. David M. Jacobs' research has also brought us much
information. (Thanks, John Velez!) Speaking of the motives of
the TRUFO pilots, (Thanks, Dr. Maccabee!), Dr. Jacobs writes:
(Ok...so here we have already concluded that some UFOs are indeed of ET origin, so we can move right on ahead to the motives of the UFO "pilots"!! Whee!)
"The common goal is the physiological exploitation of humans for
the purposes of their breeding program [for the purpose of
creating a race of human/alien hybrids]. One must keep in mind
that people are physically missing from their normal
environments, other people some times see them being abducted,
and they [the abductees] often desperately wish that they are
never abducted again.
(If the purpose of UFO pilots is to create a race of alien/human hybrids, why would they need more than a few humans...high failure-rate? Incompetent aliens? If the hybrids are being created, why aren't they reproducing on their own? Sterile?)
We now have thousands of - alien - abduction cases. We know a
tremendous amount about them. We know that when an abductee
describes the shape of a certain instrument, what that
instrument is used for even though the abductee does not. People
do not tend to talk in terms of symbols. They describe real
events that have befallen them.
(We have thousands of abduction cases, and we know a tremendous amount about them...about the cases, the people claiming them, or the abductors themselves?
How do you know that the instrument the abductee describes is what you think it is? How do you KNOW? "People do not tend to talk in terms of symbols"...WTF? People talk in symbols every hour of every day...we build our whole lives around symbols...we dream in symbols, we teach symbols. What a ludicrous statement. "We describe real events that have befallen us"...yup, sometimes, except when we get really excited, or when we're sleeping, or when we are very upset, or when we're in a life-threatening situation, or when we're...uhh...breathing. Ask ANY attorney how reliably people tend to describe real events that have befallen them. You will find that WE are often the worst witnesses to what happens to US!)
We know that they - i.e., human/alien hybrids - are not here -
i.e., living on Earth. My guess is that the majority of them
live on some other planet or wherever. I also think that a
significant number of them reside on UFOs where there task is to
assist in the abduction and breeding program. It is also
important to say that the abduction phenomenon takes place in
real time without any time-space alterations as far as we can
see. But you have to remember that we are dealing with a
(Yikes...a phrase like "My guess". Geez whiz...you guess they live elsewhere. But some live in their saucers to help with the abductin' and breedin'. And this is a gem..."It is also important to say that the abduction phenomenon takes place in
real time without any time-space alterations as far as we can see. But you have to remember that we are dealing with a superior technology". My, my bullshit meter just went off-scale...If the aliens have superior technology, how in the hell could we presume to "see" whether aliens manipulate time/space"? This pair of sentences should illustrate the complete buffoonery afoot. Or, would someone please decipher the meaning of those two sentences...? "It is important to say that abductions happen in real-time as far as we can see. But you have to remember that we are dealing with a superior technology". Yes, and? Is there a point hiding stealthily in that vacuous collection of words?)
Aliens are piloting the TRUFOs and abducting and exploiting
human beings for their own purpose and benefit. We can conclude
that the aliens hate humans and should be seen as enemies.
(Rick's beverage of choice is apparently Koolaid. And, if we "abduct" and "exploit" cattle for our own purposes and benefit, can we conclude that we hate cattle, and are their enemy? Or should the cattle see US as enemies? Or...oh, holy crap...let's just move on.)
With all this in mind, shouldn't we humans unite to defend our
people and our planet, to the best degree possible? With all our
flaws as a people, including recent regional suffering and
personal hardships, even including the quibbling squabbles on
this list, speaking of all humanity, I still choose humanity.
(Well, thank heavens Rick still chooses humanity. The "hybrid-breedin TRUFO pilots" probably would throw him back anyway)
The aliens are attacking individuals in secret. Space-based
defense systems won't combat that. And aluminum hats only help
those who sell the foil. Since the attacks are individual, does
the defense have to be? I have no idea if such a defense is even
possible. But if an appropriate program can be developed, it
should be. And since secrecy is so important to the aliens,
exposure of some type might be a good line for development.
(Thanks, again, Dr. Jacobs!)
(OK...the aliens are attacking in secret, but we have thousands of abduction cases, and we know a tremendous amount about them...erm, ok. And since secrecy is so important to the ETs, we should expose them, dammit!! Wow Rick, you've really spent some quality time working this all out, huh?)
If there is a way to defend against the systematic invasion and
exploitation of human beings by aliens, let's find it and use it.
What say ye all?
( Well, I dunno...Koolaid stands...lucrative tinfoil sales...no-doze? *sigh* Okie Dokie, Smokie!)
[I imagine many out there will accuse me of "consolidating into a consistent 'hole", as well. LOL]