Creature Captured in Texas Zoo Secy Cam

Post Reply New Topic

It's the front page of the first book I ever read on alien abduction by Whitley Streiber called Communion.



When I was having my UFO visitations in the 1970s I repressed the memories but after reading Communion in the 1990s I also recalled back in the 70s my sister constantly sleep walking somehow unlocking a double deadlock and finding herself waking up 2 suburbs away in a park in her pyjamas and my brother getting blood noses which he never had before or after these weird experiences. All coincidence perhaps? but the book made an impact on me.

I thought I was seeing UFOs in the early 70s. But I think that was because the house was near the Van Nuys airport.

I saw the movie with Christopher Walkin. And I read Majestic by Strieber which was about Rosewell.

Years ago I worked with an older woman who said her uncle was at Roswell and would talk about it. One thing I remember is she said he said "the smell was awful".

I tend to go with the an experiment went terribly wrong theory regarding Roswell. I came to that conclusion before ever hearing someone else expound on that idea. Using Japanese POWs for some kind of high altitude test.

The official US explanation finally revealed in the 1990s was that the so called Roswell "flying saucer" was Project Mogul which were high altitude spy balloons (essentially customised meteorological weather balloons used to detect Soviet nuclear tests. The story initially seemed plausible as the balloons were deployed over Soviet airspace so secrecy would be considered essential. Secondly the bodies witnessed by people were explained as crash test dummies.

The official explanation unravels when it becomes clear
1. Prior to the crash, many witnesses in the area around Roswell witnesses saucer shaped craft/lights in the sky
2. on the night of the crash there was an electrical storm and people in Roswell witnessed a fiery object crashing travelling across the sky suggesting propulsion before crashing in the area
3. weather balloons don't catch fire or crash in a fiery ball or fly longitudinally (they usually fall in a straight trajectory)
4, When farmer Mac Brazell saw the debri field the debri was scattered over a wide area, he didn't consider the debri to be a balloon and thought it was a crashed craft of some kind
5. He took the debri to the sherriff who didn't know what the material was so the sherriff called roswell Airfield
6. Roswell airfield sent Lt Jess Marcel who was working in air-force intelligence. When Marcel (an experienced WWII pilot) visited the crash sight he thought the debri was from a flying saucer. The idea that Marcel working in air-force intelligence couldn't tell a fallen weather balloon is farcical.
7. Marcel took samples of the debri which he said had unusual properties to base commander Colonel William Blanchard. The idea that a camp commander couldn't tell what a balloon looked like is even more beyond farcical than a Lt in Air force intelligence not being able to tell the difference.
8. Marcel reported to the newspapers that the object was a flying saucer with Blanchard's blessing and the news caused international mayhem
9. Eventually General Roger Ramey flew to Roswell and reported to the media that both Marcel and Blanchard made a mistake and that the disc was infact a balloon. The story was retracted in the international media.
10. Reports of the bodies in the crash site and in the airforce base were attributed to crash test dummies by the airforce.
11. The problem with the crash test dummy explanation is that crash test dummies were not used by the airforce till 1952 which was 5 years after Roswell. This is a pretty stupid mistake for the airforce to make. As to them being Japanese POWs the witnesses reported small bodies 3-4 feet high. The local mortician was asked to prepare coffins of a size fit for children.

The last thing to unravel is Project Mogul itself. There were a number of balloons released that subsequently crashed. When they crashed back in various parts of the US there was none of the security or fanfare as after all these were just balloons. Crowds were permitted to enter the crash zones. There was literally nothing to see.

I take it you've seen this before:

Climate change migration.

I read his books when I was in high school. It was like intellectual calisthenics to read his books ( I knew a lot about history and science so I could, and would debate him in my head as I read him).To me he was just an entertaining con artist. Considered him to be 99 percent BS piled on top of maybe one percent substance (in the form of real mysteries). And Ive read other books refuting him since. Even as a teen I was never bowled over and "mind blown" by him.

I also read "Atlantis, and the Antedeluvian World" by Ignatius Donnely. Who was the Van Daniken of the 1890s whose bestselling book basically substited "aliens" with "Atlantis" to spin a tale of an earth with two now lost continents (Mu in the Pacific, and Atlantis in the Atlantic) that had great civilizations that ruled the other continents of the earth. In some ways a more coherent book than any by Van Daniken. Entertaining. But ludicrous and laughable to a modern reader.

But apparently you are like Mulder in the X Files -who was a believer because of weird stuff that happened to him in his childhood (his sister got permanently taken away I believe. Your sis just got taken up, and then deposted miles away).

Oh yes, there's many things he claims that on reflection are far-fetched. His book is the progenitor of the subsequent hit TV series "Ancient Aliens". My reason for mentioning his publication is that to my 18 yr old mind what he was claiming completely re-organised my thinking. Yes he and some of his predecessors like Thor Heyerdahl make claims that are difficult to substantiate. But...he poses some interesting questions that I never posed to myself before. It kind of kick started my journey.

BTW simply debating an idea with the sole purpose of debunking it is not scientific. It's important to weigh up the pros and cons before coming to a decision.

The antediluvian hypothesis has been well and truly updated since the 1890s. The main proponent of this theory in the 1980s/1990s was the writer Graeme Hancock. Hancock made three claims that were laughed at and lampooned by conventional archaeologists who have labelled Hancock a pseudoscientist and more a dangerous loon. Hancock has had the last laugh over four of his claims

1, Hancock claimed archaeology would find evidence of advanced civilisations older than the last ice age in the 1980s, A decade later In the mid 1990s German archaeologist Klaus Schmidt found an advanced civilisation in central Turkey in a place called Gobekle tepe. What shocked the archaeological community is that the site was dated to 12000BC. Up to this point it was assumed hunter gatherers didn't create cities till 5000 years ago. This date corresponded to Hancock's date for Egypt where he proposed that the Egyptians built their structures to align with star constellations that matched the sky at precisely 12000BC, What was even more shocking is that the site exposed was only 1% of the total area buried underground and Lidar suggests the people would bury their temples after use. When estimating the depth of buried temples Schmidt thinks the site was used for 24,000 years. Other examples of pre-diluvian civilisations have now been found in Indonesia and India, however permission to dig has been delayed plus the Indian civilisation is underwater.

2. Hancock claimed America was settled long before 13,000 years ago. Again archaeology has proven old dogma/paradigms over the settlement of the US by Clovis people being first were false and pre-Clovis people were entering America long before
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ed/524301/

3. Hancock claimed some type of great cataclysm caused sea levels to rise being the cause of stories like Atlantis. Once again archaeology showed Hancock was right
https://theconversation.com/new-evidenc ... rth-118244

4. Hancock claimed the sphinx is older than 5000 years old. In 1991 geologists Robert Schoch demonstrated that weathering on the base of the sphinx was caused by heavy rains that have not been seen on the plains of Egypt for 10,000 years.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

While many of Hancock's theories on their own need more investigating, taken in unison it suggests conventional archaeology is need of revising.

My sister's sleepwalking (like my brother's blood noses) appear to only have taken place while we lived in that house. My sister has no recollection of how she ended up several km away in the morning in her pyjamas. The doctor had no idea how she was able to unlock padlocked doors in a sleep state. cross the road and walk the streets somehow avoiding early morning traffic and end up miles away. He shrugged his shoulders and just said it was sleepwalking.

Thats what I mean. They weigh both sides and find him full of it.

Who is "they"? I am saying you should weigh up the pros and cons. Don't rely on others (including me)

The they are various book authors.

And I just got through explaining to you how I was more intellectually self reliant, and more even handed, as a teen than you are even now because I would mentally debate Van Daniken when I first read him in HS ...and that was even before I read the authors who refuted him (refuted him BY wieghing both sides). You really should learn to read English before you dispense advice, AND you should stop being so credulous an uncritical yourself, and start TAKING your own advice.

Before I accept your gracious advice, who are the authors who refute him?

What I tend to find is that many of the authors who attempt to debunk ancient aliens, UFOs or other phenomena tend to not actually look at the data but rather only scan for information that provides holes and create a refutation around that.

Like seeing a door that's slightly ajar but convincing everybody to not open the door but look at ways to convince people to shut the door, lock it and never open it again.

You have to write a book the length of the encyclopedia Brittanica to refute everything in a book like Chariots of the Gods. It cant be done. Van Daniken doesnt play by the rules of scholarship, and admits that he doesnt play the rules.

All you can do is examine claims one at a time. I read many experts demolish the Nazca lines as being airports for alien space shuttles for example.

I agree, (one at a time) but it doesn't help when people who propose new ideas are simply labeled "nutjobs" e.g. Graeme Hancock. When their ideas turn out to be correct the same people who did the labelling quietly pretend nothing happened.

This is what's happened in the case of UFOs. Did you know many people have committed suicide over experiences like alien abduction. Perhaps if they weren't stigmatised they might not have chosen to jump off a bridge.

The Nazca lines have been studied for decades now. The archaeologists who are deemed the experts will write books on the topic are actually no closer to knowing what their purpose was than when they were first studied.

One interesting fact is that the lines appear to be mean't to be seen from the sky. We know this because the same creators of these lines also created similar images on cliff sides on the coast of Chile that can only be seen by ships at sea who are a mile or 2 from the coast. If you stand next to the lines on the beach the images can't be interpreted.