Top 10 Conspiracy theories

[Ken 119]

I think they were built by men. In terms of the ones at Giza they probably had tens of thousands of men working on them at any one time. As much as anything else, the lesser pyramids, constructed at times when the Egyptians were less rich and had less men at their disposal tends to back that up. It's also significant, imo, that at the time they were constructed, there was no knowledge on arches and flying butressesand so on. So the only way you build a structure higher was to start with a large base and pile stones on top - like a pyramid.

On top of which the weights you give for the stones are exaggerated about 100 to 200 times. The stones were about 2-3 tonnes. I'd love to the rest of the stuff on the site you got that info off. It was an incredible achievement but there's nothing that isn't explanable in their construction imo.

 

Do you have any ans for the questions btw?

 

Regarding labour they love to tell us the stones were rolled on wooden logs...Err where exactly did thousands of hardwood logs come from?

 

One of the myths is this hired labour lark. Most of the work in the official versions was done by farmers who at the same time were looking after their crops in the fields. There is no way with the tech they had (vine rope, pulleys, copper tools )and the official time line you could knock up the bigger pyramids in 20 years. I think someone worked out you'd need 100,000 men working 24/7 without sleep.

Parky, there's a lot of different theories about it by lots of different archaeologists. I'm not saying the construction methods are certain but there is evidence they had 10,000s of men at their disposal. I think this sort of thing is very interesting. Where it becomes boring (imo) is when stuff is just blatantly made up (like the size of the stones and that type of construction not being possible today etc) to push some half-baked theory that they used alien technology or whatever.

 

Look man. You get hung up about the crane thing there are stationary cranes that can lift 4,000 tonnes it's not important. The cranes example was just to show the average readily available tech today would have trouble with the pyramid stones. 10,000 men is just not enough.

 

The people making stuff up is the Egyptian Govt.

 

Like the Abydos temple. Unable to explain the erosion patterns and the fact it is on a lower layer (dating it at 10,000 BC ) they tell people the egyptians dug down specifically to build it, cause it doesn't fit in (nor does the Sphinx) with the dynastic timelines.

 

I don't know how or who built them, but I do know it wasn't the Egyptians.

Look man, you quoted something that exagerrated the size of the stones 100+ times

 

I'm casual.

 

 

The pyramids discovered under the sea near Japan can be carbon dated cause of the coral. Guess what? Yes they are 10,000 yrs old. There are similar pyramids in China (the Govt farmed over them to hide them).

 

The pyramids along with other important stuff in south american was built around 9,000 to 12,500 years ago. This is no coincidence.

 

 

The Egyptian Govt are just lying.

Unless you supply a source I'll just assume it's all off some crank site tbh.

The very crux of your argument was that modern technology couldn't even handle stones like the ones used in the pyramids because they weighed over 100 tonnes. They weigh 2-3 tonnes (there are helicopters that could easily lift that, let alone modern cranes - I realise they didn't have helicopters back then btw ). Hence my scepticism at the rest of the info. I'm not saying everything is explainable but it just kills my interest when blatant bollocks is used in stuff like this.

And there's a very obvious reason (which I've already alluded to) why you get pyramids all over the world. Before arches / flying buttresses etc were discovered it was the only method of constructing tall buildings.

I supplied a source. I don't supply sources for fun mate.

The university (whichever it was) made scientific analysis regarding the site. 13Kane has basis for an argument. Listen and learn Alex, listen and learn.

[Guest alex]

There was a programme on about 5 years ago where a bloke from the base claimed he'd hoaxed the whole thing.

I find it hard to believe it was just patrol lights from a police car when evidence suggests otherwise. Patrol lights or light from a lighthouse do not explain the high readings of radiation taken from a geiger counter in the area, the radar readings, the imprints left by the object, and witness accounts from civilians in the surrounding area.

 

And of course the testimony from trained and experienced military officers who not only saw lights, but a solid black, glassy triangle object which they were able to see a foot away from them. All but one person's story corroborated with one anothers, and he blamed his ridiculous story on being injected with some chemical by the CIA which fucked up his memory. Always a good excuse when you know you've dug yourself a hole you can't get out of.

Tbf Ken, the above was bollocks too (according to the primary evidence anyway which is far more believable than stuff people added years later).

[Park Life 71]

Those pesky distances to the quarries...

 

Aswan (Assuan) lies 934km south from Giza up the Nile river (about 700 km air-line distance). The granite quarries lie south and southeast of the city of Aswan on the right side of the Nile and cover an area of about 20 km². The granite for the pyramids probably came from the northern part.

 

The Egyptians did not build the pyramids. Sorry.

 

Thing is I remember them doing one of those TV programs about moving stone by boat. Historically the big issue was that they couldn't build them big enough/strong enough, but when it was discovered they could someone decided it would make good TV.

 

Basically the only conclusion that could be accurately drawn from the program was that the people in question were shit at making piers/docks.

 

It's like I have no idea how they managed to make the Great Eastern in the 1850's with the technology they had, but somehow they did.

 

Well unlike you and Alex I am aware of th official version. But that is so ridiculous even thinking about it makes me laugh.

Grassy Knollington strikes again

[Ken 119]

There was a programme on about 5 years ago where a bloke from the base claimed he'd hoaxed the whole thing.

I find it hard to believe it was just patrol lights from a police car when evidence suggests otherwise. Patrol lights or light from a lighthouse do not explain the high readings of radiation taken from a geiger counter in the area, the radar readings, the imprints left by the object, and witness accounts from civilians in the surrounding area.

 

And of course the testimony from trained and experienced military officers who not only saw lights, but a solid black, glassy triangle object which they were able to see a foot away from them. All but one person's story corroborated with one anothers, and he blamed his ridiculous story on being injected with some chemical by the CIA which fucked up his memory. Always a good excuse when you know you've dug yourself a hole you can't get out of.

Tbf Ken, the above was bollocks too (according to the primary evidence anyway which is far more believable than stuff people added years later).

Oh come on now Alex, do you think the testimony recorded on tape was a complete misunderstanding on there part??

All jokes aside, you can't deny what they saw, and to downplay what they saw to lights from a lighthouse or from a police car makes them look like complete fuckwits.

Do you think they are all complete fuckwits?

Edited November 28, 2008 by Ken

[Ken 119]

"If erosion on the Sphinx was indeed created by flooding, then it blows apart history as we know it. I might be cynical here but Dr Zawi Hawass (Head of Egyptian Antiquities) hasn't really help in dispelling these theories either, actually you could argue he has flamed them more by refusing to take them seriously."

 

 

it could also mean he's sick of nutters and wants to get on withe job he's paid for I guess

Yes, that's a possibility, but he doesn't like the theory that technology, ideology, and customs may not be indigenous.

 

"Also on the subject of Atlantis while it has been speculated that it may lie in Bimini Atoll, Antarctica, or Thira another interesting place is off the coast of one of Japan's Southern most islands. It's one of those 50/50 topics where some argue it's man made, while others argue it's natural as the site is underwater. Some University in Japan has scientifically dated these structures to 10,000BC. Again, if true it blows apart history as we know it."

 

Well if Atlantis is off Japan it means the story was transferred to the Ancient Greeks by an early version of the web I guess

 

And you have to remember that sea level changes quite dramatically even around the UK - you could walk to Denmark a few thousand years back . Plus in an earthquake zone any buildings may have just been faulted down below water

Or it could mean there was a civilisation that rivaled Atlantis in the same time period. Mu, Lumeria?.. only in folklore currently but so was Troy not too long ago.

 

I'm well aware of changing sea levels. I'm also well aware of shifting geology, hence why it's possible that the structures off Japan are man made and are now deep below sea level.

 

 

Hawass and the Egyptian Govt are basically peddling lies.

Not telling lies, just not seeking evidence to dispel alternate theories. The only theory he has dispelled is the Pyramid/alien connection. But anyone with an ounce of knowledge about the subject would have known that that was bollocks. Aliens didn't create the pyramids, man did, Egyptians. But the watermarks on the sphinx theory has been avoided by Hawass. He's a nationalist, and a traditionalist. What has been written should stay that way.

 

 

Are you going by the dynastic time-scale for construction?

Yes. Pyramids built beginning 2500BC to match up stars in Sirius and Orion belt, to symbolise heaven on earth. You have to go back to 10,500BC for the sphinx, along with the pyramids to all be aligned. So there were priests with astronomical knowledge in 10,500BC and this was all a grand master plan to map out a heaven on earth. This was a very brief summary.

 

The stones weigh upto 1oo tons to some that are 200/300 tones. There are over two million stones in the biggest pyramids at an allignement (sat pics) which shows the center is 1/4 inch out...At that size it is something we can't do today. The biggest lifting land crane on the planet has a limit of 180/200 tons in 2008.

If you're going by dynastic build times bearing in mind we know the quarry was 3km away across the river and official build times were 20 years, they would have to be laying a stone every 5 min or something......You see it's a joke.

 

If they were burial chambers why was there never anybody inside....They were buried in the valley were they not?

Why in the slavishly accurate and covering every wall they could get hold of is there no story of the pyramids in the hyrogliphs of that period?

And why do they ignore Abydos?

Parky, the largest boulders weighed 8 tonnes maximum. As I've said, Richard Hoagland has no idea what the fuck he's going on about at times.

 

We don't know how the Egyptians did it, but they did somehow.

[Fop 1]

We don't know how the Egyptians did it, but they did somehow.

Or Aliens cloned them, maybe?

[Guest alex]

There was a programme on about 5 years ago where a bloke from the base claimed he'd hoaxed the whole thing.

I find it hard to believe it was just patrol lights from a police car when evidence suggests otherwise. Patrol lights or light from a lighthouse do not explain the high readings of radiation taken from a geiger counter in the area, the radar readings, the imprints left by the object, and witness accounts from civilians in the surrounding area.

 

And of course the testimony from trained and experienced military officers who not only saw lights, but a solid black, glassy triangle object which they were able to see a foot away from them. All but one person's story corroborated with one anothers, and he blamed his ridiculous story on being injected with some chemical by the CIA which fucked up his memory. Always a good excuse when you know you've dug yourself a hole you can't get out of.

Tbf Ken, the above was bollocks too (according to the primary evidence anyway which is far more believable than stuff people added years later).

Oh come on now Alex, the testimony on tape you think was a complete fuckup on their part??

All jokes aside, you can't deny what they saw, and to downplay what they saw to lights from a lighthouse or from a police car makes them look like complete fuckwits.

Do you think they are all complete fuckwits?

 

Oh come on, indeed.

Ken look at the primary evidence (i.e. the statements of the people involved at the time). In the first instance, the two people who saw the lights initially only one thought it was mechanical and he never got closer than 50 m (I think he embellished the story much later. Obvious to guess why tbh). And they saw a blinking white light in the exact position there should have been a lighthouse. Coincidence?

When a second party went out 2 nights later they followed a similar blinking light for quite a distance until (guess what) they realised it was a lighthouse They also saw some star-like lights. At night. What could they have been I wonder?

A Guardian journalist debunked the whole thing about 3 years after in happened.

The radiation readings and the landing site have been largely discredited too. There was nothing unusual there according to people who knew the area. The whole thing is a bit of a joke in all honesty. But UFO buffs ignore all that in general because they like to view as some really significant event.

 

And btw, if you have a look at the written testimony of the two people from the first night's 'sighting', they do indeed come across as complete fuckwits.

Edited November 28, 2008 by alex

[Park Life 71]

"If erosion on the Sphinx was indeed created by flooding, then it blows apart history as we know it. I might be cynical here but Dr Zawi Hawass (Head of Egyptian Antiquities) hasn't really help in dispelling these theories either, actually you could argue he has flamed them more by refusing to take them seriously."

 

 

it could also mean he's sick of nutters and wants to get on withe job he's paid for I guess

Yes, that's a possibility, but he doesn't like the theory that technology, ideology, and customs may not be indigenous.

 

"Also on the subject of Atlantis while it has been speculated that it may lie in Bimini Atoll, Antarctica, or Thira another interesting place is off the coast of one of Japan's Southern most islands. It's one of those 50/50 topics where some argue it's man made, while others argue it's natural as the site is underwater. Some University in Japan has scientifically dated these structures to 10,000BC. Again, if true it blows apart history as we know it."

 

Well if Atlantis is off Japan it means the story was transferred to the Ancient Greeks by an early version of the web I guess

 

And you have to remember that sea level changes quite dramatically even around the UK - you could walk to Denmark a few thousand years back . Plus in an earthquake zone any buildings may have just been faulted down below water

Or it could mean there was a civilisation that rivaled Atlantis in the same time period. Mu, Lumeria?.. only in folklore currently but so was Troy not too long ago.

 

I'm well aware of changing sea levels. I'm also well aware of shifting geology, hence why it's possible that the structures off Japan are man made and are now deep below sea level.

 

 

Hawass and the Egyptian Govt are basically peddling lies.

Not telling lies, just not seeking evidence to dispel alternate theories. The only theory he has dispelled is the Pyramid/alien connection. But anyone with an ounce of knowledge about the subject would have known that that was bollocks. Aliens didn't create the pyramids, man did, Egyptians. But the watermarks on the sphinx theory has been avoided by Hawass. He's a nationalist, and a traditionalist. What has been written should stay that way.

 

 

Are you going by the dynastic time-scale for construction?

Yes. Pyramids built beginning 2500BC to match up stars in Sirius and Orion belt, to symbolise heaven on earth. You have to go back to 10,500BC for the sphinx, along with the pyramids to all be aligned. So there were priests with astronomical knowledge in 10,500BC and this was all a grand master plan to map out a heaven on earth. This was a very brief summary.

 

The stones weigh upto 1oo tons to some that are 200/300 tones. There are over two million stones in the biggest pyramids at an allignement (sat pics) which shows the center is 1/4 inch out...At that size it is something we can't do today. The biggest lifting land crane on the planet has a limit of 180/200 tons in 2008.

If you're going by dynastic build times bearing in mind we know the quarry was 3km away across the river and official build times were 20 years, they would have to be laying a stone every 5 min or something......You see it's a joke.

 

If they were burial chambers why was there never anybody inside....They were buried in the valley were they not?

Why in the slavishly accurate and covering every wall they could get hold of is there no story of the pyramids in the hyrogliphs of that period?

And why do they ignore Abydos?

Parky, the largest boulders weighed 8 tonnes maximum. As I've said, Richard Hoagland has no idea what the fuck he's going on about at times.

 

We don't know how the Egyptians did it, but they did somehow.

 

 

I don't give a fuck about the weight of the stones, I just made those numbers up as Alex immediately realised.

 

Can you illuminate me on some of my other questions reg..

 

 

The quarry being 700 km away.

Abydos.

The Sphinx.

No mummies ever found in a Pyramid. (The kings were buried in the valley).

No hyrogliph talking about the building of the pyramids (ie we did it...it took this time and we like the designs etc..)

There are over 2 million stones in the Giza pyramid.

 

etc.....

[Fop 1]

No mummies ever found in a Pyramid. (The kings were buried in the valley).

Have any ever been found in any tomb that was effectively public access?

[Guest alex]

No mummies ever found in a Pyramid. (The kings were buried in the valley).

Have any ever been found in any tomb that was effectively public access?

There's a lot of conjecture about what they were for anyway but they are fairly easy to spot so some people may have looted them over the course of a few thousand years.

[Fop 1]

No mummies ever found in a Pyramid. (The kings were buried in the valley).

Have any ever been found in any tomb that was effectively public access?

There's a lot of conjecture about what they were for anyway but they are fairly easy to spot so some people may have looted them over the course of a few thousand years.

That's what I mean most of the tombs that contain much were pretty well hidden, they may have been looted, but generally reasonably recently after their intial use and then lost till modern civilisation found them.

 

The pyramids have always just been there, open to temptation, for 1000's of years.

[Guest alex]

No mummies ever found in a Pyramid. (The kings were buried in the valley).

Have any ever been found in any tomb that was effectively public access?

There's a lot of conjecture about what they were for anyway but they are fairly easy to spot so some people may have looted them over the course of a few thousand years.

That's what I mean most of the tombs that contain much were pretty well hidden, they may have been looted, but generally reasonably recently after their intial use and then lost till modern civilisation found them.

 

The pyramids have always just been there, open to temptation, for 1000's of years.

It was sarcastic understatement btw

[Ken 119]

There was a programme on about 5 years ago where a bloke from the base claimed he'd hoaxed the whole thing.

I find it hard to believe it was just patrol lights from a police car when evidence suggests otherwise. Patrol lights or light from a lighthouse do not explain the high readings of radiation taken from a geiger counter in the area, the radar readings, the imprints left by the object, and witness accounts from civilians in the surrounding area.

 

And of course the testimony from trained and experienced military officers who not only saw lights, but a solid black, glassy triangle object which they were able to see a foot away from them. All but one person's story corroborated with one anothers, and he blamed his ridiculous story on being injected with some chemical by the CIA which fucked up his memory. Always a good excuse when you know you've dug yourself a hole you can't get out of.

Tbf Ken, the above was bollocks too (according to the primary evidence anyway which is far more believable than stuff people added years later).

Oh come on now Alex, the testimony on tape you think was a complete fuckup on their part??

All jokes aside, you can't deny what they saw, and to downplay what they saw to lights from a lighthouse or from a police car makes them look like complete fuckwits.

Do you think they are all complete fuckwits?

 

Oh come on, indeed.

Ken look at the primary evidence (i.e. the statements of the people involved at the time). In the first instance, the two people who saw the lights initially only one thought it was mechanical and he never got closer than 50 m (I think he embellished the story much later. Obvious to guess why tbh). And they saw a blinking white light in the exact position there should have been a lighthouse. Coincidence?

When a second party went out 2 nights later they followed a similar blinking light for quite a distance until (guess what) they realised it was a lighthouse They also saw some star-like lights. At night. What could they have been I wonder?

A Guardian journalist debunked the whole thing about 3 years after in happened.

The radiation readings and the landing site have been largely discredited too. There was nothing unusual there according to people who knew the area. The whole thing is a bit of a joke in all honesty. But UFO buffs ignore all that in general because they like to view as some really significant event.

 

And btw, if you have a look at the written testimony of the two people from the first night's 'sighting', they do indeed come across as complete fuckwits.

So you are not taking into account the fact they knew they would be ridiculed by telling the truth. You are not taking into account the fact the military hierarchy, for whom they were answerable to would not like exotic descriptions like these. Alex, you aren't even thinking of these possibilities. This is a faux pas officialdom has avoided throughout history.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Ken

[Fop 1]

No mummies ever found in a Pyramid. (The kings were buried in the valley).

Have any ever been found in any tomb that was effectively public access?

There's a lot of conjecture about what they were for anyway but they are fairly easy to spot so some people may have looted them over the course of a few thousand years.

That's what I mean most of the tombs that contain much were pretty well hidden, they may have been looted, but generally reasonably recently after their intial use and then lost till modern civilisation found them.

 

The pyramids have always just been there, open to temptation, for 1000's of years.

It was sarcastic understatement btw

It always is.

[Park Life 71]

No mummies ever found in a Pyramid. (The kings were buried in the valley).

Have any ever been found in any tomb that was effectively public access?

There's a lot of conjecture about what they were for anyway but they are fairly easy to spot so some people may have looted them over the course of a few thousand years.

 

The old looted rubbish.

 

The Kings were buried in the 'Valley of the Kings'.

[Park Life 71]

There was a programme on about 5 years ago where a bloke from the base claimed he'd hoaxed the whole thing.

I find it hard to believe it was just patrol lights from a police car when evidence suggests otherwise. Patrol lights or light from a lighthouse do not explain the high readings of radiation taken from a geiger counter in the area, the radar readings, the imprints left by the object, and witness accounts from civilians in the surrounding area.

 

And of course the testimony from trained and experienced military officers who not only saw lights, but a solid black, glassy triangle object which they were able to see a foot away from them. All but one person's story corroborated with one anothers, and he blamed his ridiculous story on being injected with some chemical by the CIA which fucked up his memory. Always a good excuse when you know you've dug yourself a hole you can't get out of.

Tbf Ken, the above was bollocks too (according to the primary evidence anyway which is far more believable than stuff people added years later).

Oh come on now Alex, the testimony on tape you think was a complete fuckup on their part??

All jokes aside, you can't deny what they saw, and to downplay what they saw to lights from a lighthouse or from a police car makes them look like complete fuckwits.

Do you think they are all complete fuckwits?

 

Oh come on, indeed.

Ken look at the primary evidence (i.e. the statements of the people involved at the time). In the first instance, the two people who saw the lights initially only one thought it was mechanical and he never got closer than 50 m (I think he embellished the story much later. Obvious to guess why tbh). And they saw a blinking white light in the exact position there should have been a lighthouse. Coincidence?

When a second party went out 2 nights later they followed a similar blinking light for quite a distance until (guess what) they realised it was a lighthouse They also saw some star-like lights. At night. What could they have been I wonder?

A Guardian journalist debunked the whole thing about 3 years after in happened.

The radiation readings and the landing site have been largely discredited too. There was nothing unusual there according to people who knew the area. The whole thing is a bit of a joke in all honesty. But UFO buffs ignore all that in general because they like to view as some really significant event.

 

And btw, if you have a look at the written testimony of the two people from the first night's 'sighting', they do indeed come across as complete fuckwits.

So you are not taking into account the fact they knew they would be ridiculed by telling the truth. You are not taking into account the fact the military hierarchy, for whom they were answerable to would not like exotic descriptions like these. Alex, you aren't even thinking of these possibilities. This is a faux pas officialdom has avoided throughout history.

 

ET has been here for about 10,000 years.

[ChezGiven 0]

I do enjoy reading Graham Hancock's work, doesnt he conclude something about a cataclysm in 2012 as 'what the ancients were trying to tell us'?

 

Looks like it'll be a good film too, if you like that sort of thing.

[Fop 1]

I do enjoy reading Graham Hancock's work, doesnt he conclude something about a cataclysm in 2012 as 'what the ancients were trying to tell us'?

 

Looks like it'll be a good film too, if you like that sort of thing.

 

Not to host the London Olympics?

[Park Life 71]

I do enjoy reading Graham Hancock's work, doesnt he conclude something about a cataclysm in 2012 as 'what the ancients were trying to tell us'?

 

Looks like it'll be a good film too, if you like that sort of thing.

 

 

Olympics no less.

 

But this time it ain't the good guys.

[Ken 119]

There was a programme on about 5 years ago where a bloke from the base claimed he'd hoaxed the whole thing.

I find it hard to believe it was just patrol lights from a police car when evidence suggests otherwise. Patrol lights or light from a lighthouse do not explain the high readings of radiation taken from a geiger counter in the area, the radar readings, the imprints left by the object, and witness accounts from civilians in the surrounding area.

 

And of course the testimony from trained and experienced military officers who not only saw lights, but a solid black, glassy triangle object which they were able to see a foot away from them. All but one person's story corroborated with one anothers, and he blamed his ridiculous story on being injected with some chemical by the CIA which fucked up his memory. Always a good excuse when you know you've dug yourself a hole you can't get out of.

Tbf Ken, the above was bollocks too (according to the primary evidence anyway which is far more believable than stuff people added years later).

Oh come on now Alex, the testimony on tape you think was a complete fuckup on their part??

All jokes aside, you can't deny what they saw, and to downplay what they saw to lights from a lighthouse or from a police car makes them look like complete fuckwits.

Do you think they are all complete fuckwits?

 

Oh come on, indeed.

Ken look at the primary evidence (i.e. the statements of the people involved at the time). In the first instance, the two people who saw the lights initially only one thought it was mechanical and he never got closer than 50 m (I think he embellished the story much later. Obvious to guess why tbh). And they saw a blinking white light in the exact position there should have been a lighthouse. Coincidence?

When a second party went out 2 nights later they followed a similar blinking light for quite a distance until (guess what) they realised it was a lighthouse They also saw some star-like lights. At night. What could they have been I wonder?

A Guardian journalist debunked the whole thing about 3 years after in happened.

The radiation readings and the landing site have been largely discredited too. There was nothing unusual there according to people who knew the area. The whole thing is a bit of a joke in all honesty. But UFO buffs ignore all that in general because they like to view as some really significant event.

 

And btw, if you have a look at the written testimony of the two people from the first night's 'sighting', they do indeed come across as complete fuckwits.

So you are not taking into account the fact they knew they would be ridiculed by telling the truth. You are not taking into account the fact the military hierarchy, for whom they were answerable to would not like exotic descriptions like these. Alex, you aren't even thinking of these possibilities. This is a faux pas officialdom has avoided throughout history.

 

ET has been here for about 10,000 years.

Probably much longer. But Parky, you think pyramids were made by ETs, no?

 

Explain all the evidence recorded that points toward a contrary viewpoint.

[Guest alex]

There was a programme on about 5 years ago where a bloke from the base claimed he'd hoaxed the whole thing.

I find it hard to believe it was just patrol lights from a police car when evidence suggests otherwise. Patrol lights or light from a lighthouse do not explain the high readings of radiation taken from a geiger counter in the area, the radar readings, the imprints left by the object, and witness accounts from civilians in the surrounding area.

 

And of course the testimony from trained and experienced military officers who not only saw lights, but a solid black, glassy triangle object which they were able to see a foot away from them. All but one person's story corroborated with one anothers, and he blamed his ridiculous story on being injected with some chemical by the CIA which fucked up his memory. Always a good excuse when you know you've dug yourself a hole you can't get out of.

Tbf Ken, the above was bollocks too (according to the primary evidence anyway which is far more believable than stuff people added years later).

Oh come on now Alex, the testimony on tape you think was a complete fuckup on their part??

All jokes aside, you can't deny what they saw, and to downplay what they saw to lights from a lighthouse or from a police car makes them look like complete fuckwits.

Do you think they are all complete fuckwits?

 

Oh come on, indeed.

Ken look at the primary evidence (i.e. the statements of the people involved at the time). In the first instance, the two people who saw the lights initially only one thought it was mechanical and he never got closer than 50 m (I think he embellished the story much later. Obvious to guess why tbh). And they saw a blinking white light in the exact position there should have been a lighthouse. Coincidence?

When a second party went out 2 nights later they followed a similar blinking light for quite a distance until (guess what) they realised it was a lighthouse They also saw some star-like lights. At night. What could they have been I wonder?

A Guardian journalist debunked the whole thing about 3 years after in happened.

The radiation readings and the landing site have been largely discredited too. There was nothing unusual there according to people who knew the area. The whole thing is a bit of a joke in all honesty. But UFO buffs ignore all that in general because they like to view as some really significant event.

 

And btw, if you have a look at the written testimony of the two people from the first night's 'sighting', they do indeed come across as complete fuckwits.

So you are not taking into account the fact they knew they would be ridiculed by telling the truth. You are not taking into account the fact the military hierarchy, for whom they were answerable to would not like exotic descriptions like these. Alex, you aren't even thinking of these possibilities. This is a faux pas officialdom has avoided throughout history Alex.

Ken, I don't quite follow your logic but it sounds like it came from something like a tv show sensationalising what happened. They made statements at the time whereby they saw something they couldn't explain. Their superior believed them and made further investigations. He went out to what he thought was a landing site and told the police who also investigated it. Nothing was covered up at the time.

What I do question is the embellishments made later. I think the bloke who saw what he described as 'mechanical' altered his story because it made him a UFO celeb as it were. Nick Pope made a lot of it later but the 'Inquiry' he spoke of turned out to be little more than a rather dreary handwritten sheet of A4 which he wrote.

I wouldn't totally discount what you say but the body of evidence just doesn't back it up man. The trouble is, because UFO enthusiasts view this as so important they don't want to look at the facts.

My take on it is this - a very bright meteor (documented on said night btw) was mistaken for an aircraft that crashed. Two men who went out to investigate saw lights (the smaller ones haven't been fully explained btw, I accpet that). The main light was a white/orange light that appeared to move when they approached it. It blinked at a frequency of about 5 seconds (just like the nearby lighthouse) in a position where the lighthouse is. Because the forest is above sea level the lighthouse beam looked to be at a level fairly close to the ground. They also heard what sounded like a woman screaming and farm animals going a bit crazy. The nearby farm was an arable one but both of those things can be explained away by muntjac dear and the noise they make when distressed / disturbed. Basically the two blokes were shitting themselves in a wood in the pitch black (minus the lights) and hearing stuff. Their imagination went wild.

[Ken 119]

I do enjoy reading Graham Hancock's work, doesnt he conclude something about a cataclysm in 2012 as 'what the ancients were trying to tell us'?

 

Looks like it'll be a good film too, if you like that sort of thing.

No cataclysm. This thing has happened before in human history, and fuck all happened. Just another day is all; December 12th 2012.

[Park Life 71]

There was a programme on about 5 years ago where a bloke from the base claimed he'd hoaxed the whole thing.

I find it hard to believe it was just patrol lights from a police car when evidence suggests otherwise. Patrol lights or light from a lighthouse do not explain the high readings of radiation taken from a geiger counter in the area, the radar readings, the imprints left by the object, and witness accounts from civilians in the surrounding area.

 

And of course the testimony from trained and experienced military officers who not only saw lights, but a solid black, glassy triangle object which they were able to see a foot away from them. All but one person's story corroborated with one anothers, and he blamed his ridiculous story on being injected with some chemical by the CIA which fucked up his memory. Always a good excuse when you know you've dug yourself a hole you can't get out of.

Tbf Ken, the above was bollocks too (according to the primary evidence anyway which is far more believable than stuff people added years later).

Oh come on now Alex, the testimony on tape you think was a complete fuckup on their part??

All jokes aside, you can't deny what they saw, and to downplay what they saw to lights from a lighthouse or from a police car makes them look like complete fuckwits.

Do you think they are all complete fuckwits?

 

Oh come on, indeed.

Ken look at the primary evidence (i.e. the statements of the people involved at the time). In the first instance, the two people who saw the lights initially only one thought it was mechanical and he never got closer than 50 m (I think he embellished the story much later. Obvious to guess why tbh). And they saw a blinking white light in the exact position there should have been a lighthouse. Coincidence?

When a second party went out 2 nights later they followed a similar blinking light for quite a distance until (guess what) they realised it was a lighthouse They also saw some star-like lights. At night. What could they have been I wonder?

A Guardian journalist debunked the whole thing about 3 years after in happened.

The radiation readings and the landing site have been largely discredited too. There was nothing unusual there according to people who knew the area. The whole thing is a bit of a joke in all honesty. But UFO buffs ignore all that in general because they like to view as some really significant event.

 

And btw, if you have a look at the written testimony of the two people from the first night's 'sighting', they do indeed come across as complete fuckwits.

So you are not taking into account the fact they knew they would be ridiculed by telling the truth. You are not taking into account the fact the military hierarchy, for whom they were answerable to would not like exotic descriptions like these. Alex, you aren't even thinking of these possibilities. This is a faux pas officialdom has avoided throughout history.

 

ET has been here for about 10,000 years.

Probably much longer. But Parky, you think pyramids were made by ETs, no?

 

Explain all the evidence recorded that points toward a contrary viewpoint.

 

 

You ain't my questions yet fatty.

[Fop 1]

I do enjoy reading Graham Hancock's work, doesnt he conclude something about a cataclysm in 2012 as 'what the ancients were trying to tell us'?

 

Looks like it'll be a good film too, if you like that sort of thing.

No cataclysm. This thing has happened before in human history, and fuck all happened. Just another day is all; December 12th 2012.

 

 

You obviously don't remember The End Of The World at 00:00 01/01/2000.

[Park Life 71]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap081119.html