Buzz Aldrin admits seeing UFO

[orz]

He saw a UFO on the Shepperton soundstage where the moon landings were faked by Kubrick of course! <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :lol --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :lol --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :lol --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Cosmic Cowbell]

I have often wondered what the psychological impact on any Government would be if it were known by them that UFOs indeed exist and that said UFOs, piloted by entities unknown, continually buzzed their nuclear weapons facilities, disabled missiles in their silos, buzzed test flights and shot down missiles in middair.<br><br>All of the above scenarios have been reported by US servicemen and given that UFOs themselves demonstrate a high degree of technological advancement, precluding or at the least weakening the hypothesis that they are somehow interested in our own, for what other reason might they be so obvious?<br><br>Perhaps these actions were simply a message..."Don't think you will ever be able to use this stuff against one another again". Could it be they are suffering from a guilty conscience?<br><br>I'd like to think so anyway...<br><br>As an aside, I was priviledged several weeks ago to ask a few questions to a somewhat inebriated former Space Shuttle Avionics Engineer. I simply asked him if he had ever talked with any Astronauts. He replied sure, he had many times. I then asked if they had ever described anything odd. His eyes widened and he said " you mean like UFOs and stuff--"sure" he said, "they see weird shit all the time". He went on for a few more sentences, quite animated about it all. "We are definately not alone" he said. He paused and then, even half shitfaced, he realized what he was saying, clammed up and got all quiet.<br><br>But it was too late....I had already gotten what I wanted from him....hehehe.<br><br>~Cowbell <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=cosmiccowbell>Cosmic Cowbell</A> at: 7/25/06 2:40 am<br></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

"Admits"? Now there's a framing word. Why not "claims"?<br><br>Just look at<!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong> the enormous media role Aldrin has played</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> since his big adventure in the space weapons program called 'the moon landings.'<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004696/">www.imdb.com/name/nm0004696/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>And note the title of his book/movie <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>really tapped the Jesus emotional trigger with the title 'Return to Earth' in 1976-</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075135/">www.imdb.com/title/tt0075135/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>But maybe I'm just "paranoid." lol. <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

Jung is often misrepresented as believing that UFOs were all psychic projections. Which is not the case -- he stated, explicity, that there was a physical component to many UFO cases.<br><br>Sorry that I don't have the reference at hand. <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>And note the title of his book/movie really tapped the Jesus emotional trigger with the title 'Return to Earth' in 1976-<br><br>www.imdb.com/title/tt0075135/<br><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Yeah, that's it, Hugh. Nevermind that, well, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>he was in space and returned to Earth.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> Couldn't be that simple given the enormous control over book titles by the Mockingbird overlords. <p></p><i></i>

[nomo]

Granted, some of Hugh's views are a bit <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>out there</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, but I really do appreciate the possible connections he outlines, and the sense of humor he displays in spite of being almost constantly dissed. Keep it up man!<br><br>And yeah, while Aldrin really was in space and had to return to Earth, out of all possible titles they went with the Jesus-tinged one? Dunno. If nothing else, it's something to make note of.<br>Whatever <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>that </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->means. <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

I think most of the animosity to Hugh's ideas is born out of exasperation at his absolute certainty of his beliefs and his unwillingness to consider that he might be -- even occasionally -- wrong. And it's all compounded by his inability to produce a shred of evidence to support his theories, in spite of continued requests to do so, and his compulsion to ignore evidence that contradicts them.<br><br>As I and others have stated ad nauseum, if he proposed his theories as <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>possible explanations</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, rather than <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>absolute certainties,</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> he'd be given much more slack.<br><br>The parapolitical sea is deep, dark, and has a very strong undercurrent. The ability to honestly and skeptically analyze one's own biases and blindspots is a life-preserver. <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I think most of the animosity to Hugh's ideas is born out of exasperation at his absolute certainty of his beliefs and his unwillingness to consider that he might be -- even occasionally -- wrong.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Of course I'm wrong...sometimes...rarely...lol.<br><br>I'm not sure why the idea of keyword hijacking in our public relations-saturated culture is considered so wild.<br><br>PATRIOT ACT, anyone? The tactic is so common that some don't see it anymore hidden in plain view.<br><br>Prof Pan, you're reaction to my showing the connection of the Johnson Group to the Paperclip Project didn't seem like very solid refutation and it looks exactly like proof of what I'm talking about.<br><br>That thread I started on 7/7/06 is now on page 1 of this board again and I encourage everyone to read it.<br><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=5063.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...5063.topic</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 7/25/06 1:54 pm<br></i>

[Et in Arcadia ego]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I think most of the animosity to Hugh's ideas<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I could care less about his ideas, personally; it's the malignant narccissism that gets my goat as per the post above mine as a perfect example.. <p>____________________<br>Oderint, dum metuant</p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I could care less about his ideas, personally; it's the malignant narccissism that gets my goat as per the post above mine as a perfect example..<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Malignant narcicissm? Is "lol" meaningless to you? Need some smilies to telegraph that for you? Maybe I'm not sufficiently self-deprecating but so many already do that for me.<br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rollin --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>And if you aren't interested in my ideas, fine. But your hostility is unwarranted and counter-productive. <br><br>But then we all have different expectations of this board and you're welcome to yours, whatever they are.<br><br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :b --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":b"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>

[Et in Arcadia ego]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>But your hostility is unwarranted and counter-productive.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Counter-productive to <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>what</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, exactly? Accepting your highly questionable version of reality?<br><br>If so, good for me. <p>____________________<br>Oderint, dum metuant</p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

The astronauts have generated a huge pile of published books.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.boggsspace.com/astronaut_autobios.htm">www.boggsspace.com/astron...tobios.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Why, look. There is a 1977 book about the astronauts that doesn't look as flattering as Tom Wolfe's 1979 book 'The Right Stuff.' Might this be another counter-intelligence-style theme hijacking to preserve the astronaut=Uberman myth?<br><br>Can you read the jacket of 'All American Boys' by Walter Cunningham?<br><!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>"An insider's candid look at the space program and the myth of the super hero."</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.boggsspace.com/images/all_american_boys_cover.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>And then in 1979 we are blessed with Tom Wolfe's 'The Right Stuff' which is made into an iconic movie with the title reinvigorated as pop vocabulary for macho can-do American dynamism.<br><br>http://www.tomwolfe.com/RightStuff.htmlThe Right Stuff<br>by Tom Wolfe<br>Published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux<br>1979<br> <!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.tomwolfe.com/images/covers/Right-Stuff.gif" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>Looks exactly like a hijacking to me. This is an important national myth to protect. <br><br>Cunningham's book was reprinted and <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>rereleased but with a much more myth friendly cover; the subtitle has been eliminated and the myth instead reinforced by the photo.</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> Few people buy books or see a given movie. <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The cover and title is the front line for social engineering since it gets the most viewing.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.boggsspace.com/images/db/1990.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br><br>This is the book with letters from the children of America to John "Jesus Santa" Glenn I was referring to-<br><br><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://www.boggsspace.com/images/ps_i_listened_cover.jpg" style="border:0;"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--><br>"P.S. I Listened to Your Heart Beat: Letters to John Glenn" by John Glenn, Jr. Published by the World Book Encyclopedia Science Services in 1964. The book consists of letters written to Glenn after his orbital flight and his comments. Out of print. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=hughmanateewins>Hugh Manatee Wins</A> at: 7/25/06 4:27 pm<br></i>

[professorpan]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Looks exactly like a hijacking to me.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I'd like to see a list of things that <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>aren't </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->hijackings to you.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Few people buy books or see a given movie. The cover and title is the front line for social engineering since it gets the most viewing.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>So book covers are not designed to sell the books themselves, just to reinforce behaviors?<br><br>No comment necessary -- you're debunking yourself with aplomb.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>So book covers are not designed to sell the books themselves, just to reinforce behaviors?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Selling and social engineering use exactly the same psychological receptors. <br><br>Exactly the same. What a perfect 'plausibly deniable' coincidence.<br>This is why either/or thinking derails understanding. Both things can happen at once.<br><br>Just like Sirhan Sirhan being programmed as a Manchurian Candidate to be near RFK shooting 8 feet away to RFK's left but having fake bodyguard Thane Eugene Cesar do the actual murder by firing point blank into the right rear of RFK's head as reported by LA Coroner Thomas Noguchi who wasn't allowed to testify at Sirhan's trial.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://mamma8.mamma.com/Search?evid=CE0070178928&eng=Teoma&cb=Mamma&dest=http%3A%2F%2Ftmsyn.wc.ask.com%2Fr%3Ft%3Dan%26s%3Dmp%26uid%3D2456b8867456b8867%26sid%3D3456b8867456b8867%26o%3D0%26qid%3DB31F1B7767A42DA1AA0AE3952D9BEEBD%26io%3D1%26sv%3D0a30056b%26ask%3DKennedy%2BThane%2BCesar%26uip%3D456b8867%26en%3Din%26eo%3D1%26pt%3DProbe%2BV2N5%253A%2BThane%2BEugene%2BCesar%2527s%2BGun%2BFound%26ac%3D24%26qs%3D0%26pg%3D1%26u%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.webcom.com%2Fctka%2Fpr795-2gun.html&engid=1701&gid=2370&af=0&qtype=0&qw=Kennedy+Thane+Cesar&ts=1153867815&cs=df88a/2&idx=0">mamma8.mamma.com/Search?e...8a/2&idx=0</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>And therein lies the covert power of "two things happening at once." <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>You can get away with it, </strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END-->one of the most important elements of crime. <br><br>Does that seem reasonable? <p></p><i></i>

[bvonahsen]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>ET's aren't doing shit as far as we know.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Kind of leaves thigns wide open doesn't it? I mean, they could also being doing a hell of a lot, as far as we know. Since we really <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>know</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> almost nothing.<br><br>I value your contributions to the forum Hugh. I think you go to far in your assumptions though. For me, that is a matter of disagreement. Professor Pan feels other wise> Thought I do think PP you could use a little tact. Name calling and the constant bickering doesn't help any, it doesn't advance any argument and only cheapens the forums in the long run.<br><br>Since I am being the nag here I might as well go for it. In my experience it is best to stick to arguments and stay away from personalizing the discussion. It never helps, the parties involved never "win" or have some sort of epiphany. It only serves to drag down the forum and get us side tracked in useless debates. State your opinion or your argument and if people don't agree do your best to promote your side. But if you can't convince someone that your beliefs are the true word from on high then drop it, kay?<br><br>There, now I'll shut up about it. Thank you for listening. <p></p><i></i>