'No evidence' for extraterrestrials, says White House,....

The MD in that video you linked to is nuts. If you think she's credible, you are nuts too.

On being offensive, UFO believers are an offense to science. The term UFO is vague, and a rather dishonest term.

And we can't agree to disagree. Simply, you are wrong. That video shows the lights appearing, not moving.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

An offense to science? Give me a break.

And you should give the MD a break as well. You based her on being a nut because she said

''It felt [like] or [as if] an intelligence was staring back.''

How does this statement make her a nutcase? I feel a warm of understanding when I listen to beethoven. I feel soothed when I see fireworks exploding in the sky, indeed this is why the workers on Titanic shot fireworks near the end of her life. I feel at ease when down at the swimming pool.

These are subjective experiences. It doesn't mean that we necesserily believe this is the case. She is honest enough to state at the beginning of her documentary that it set her on a many year journey into the study of UFO's. She still doesn't know what was flying these things.

I don't think she's a nutter. She's just a very honest lady and you don't like this. I think you're a jerk. You'll hate me too for my honesty I presume.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also there are many credible scientists who believe in UFO's. Stanton Friedman is one of them, but I guess you think he's a nutter too.

This is all skeptics can do. Call their adversaries cranks and hoaxers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And I will stand my ground. I am not wrong. And one day this will be proven.

 

You'll be dead by then no doubt. But I will be alive hopefully. I've got many years to go.

 

Of course there is. Pilots still see UFO's today in many shapes and sizes. The MOD receives 100's of cases of UFO's a year. Many of these take either Saucer shaped, ciger shaped, orbs ect...

 

It's a ridiculous leap to assume something was flying them. She's a nutcase.

 

You miss the point entirely. More people are in the air now than there were during WWII, so we should see more. Those people going on holiday have cameras, video cameras, and mobile phones. Where are the pics of the 'Foo Fighters'? Where are the radar trails?

Oh, there aren't any.

 

Yes. He stopped being a reputable scientist a long time ago.

Here's his position:

"There is overwhelming evidence that planet Earth is being visited by intelligently controlled extraterrestrial spacecraft."

Let's see the overwhelming evidence then. If this statement were true, there would be no debate, he would have proven his viewpoint. He has not, so the statement is false.

Also he states:

"Friedman maintains that although arguments against these conclusions sound plausible, "when one examines them, they collapse, because of an absence of evidence to support them"

He should, if he were a good scientist, know it's impossible to prove a negative. Also, he should know the onus is on the claimant.

He seems to have made a living peddling his UFO, sorry, 'Flying Saucer' stories. There is a market for that, we have Nick Pope peddling such BS in the UK.

 

No I don't think you get it. The fact that the skies where almost bare then would make sense that another civilization with espionage on their minds to embrace that fact. Most of the time, if we are honest about this, UFO's must be ''hiding'' or being ''evasive'' most of the time. Otherwise, indeed, we'd see them all the time. When they do come into light, they make spectacular formations and appearances so that many will see them. It's a statement ''we are here, we are not attacking, go about your normal daily lives''.

You have it all back to front. Thinking we should see more now in the skies, defeats any idea that inbetween their shows in the night sky, they usually like to keep low key.

 

And there are pics of foo fighters. Actually many were taken. I just watched a documentary that showed some of them, with a professional host, might I add.

 

I can't speak for radar. Don't have that information. No doubt radar picked up very little, as foo fighters ranged in sized, from quite small to medium to large. Usually seen within the cluster of the reconnaissance group that had been dispatched at the time. So trying to discern it on radar might not have been obvious at the time. Many of these pilots also never reported their experiences it was stated, in fear of being denounced.

 

I have had many conversations with Nick Pope. You are certainly not a good judge of character outside of knowing these people!!!

Nick is an honest person, who is professional in his own right! And no doubt has a greater knowledge on the subject than a closed-minded skeptic like yourself.

 

You know phlog, your statements on ''flares'', ''chinese lanterns'' (though you seemed to back-track this one saying it was meant for the sighting 2 years before the Pheonix case, though you don't seem to realize your case in this fails as well, reasons given below with the asterisk), ''planes'' and now your statement on ''people being more in the air would seem to see more UFO's, but they don't'', just tells me three things:

A) You don't properly think your arguements through
B) You don't have the required knowledge of subjects to back up your statements
C) You clutch onto any conventional explanation one after the other if one has been demonstratably shown to be wimsy.

(* The reason why your claim on the case 2 years before the pheonix lights using chinese lanterns as an example (sheesh), is that she states the lights where in a perfect close triangle formation of three lights. They maintined this state for a while passing overhead before dimming out. Now, as we have seen in your example with your little link to your video created to ''debunk UFO nuts'' as you call it, the chinese lanterns can't even keep a straight line formation for any more than 20 seconds, arguably it happens a lot faster. Your claims are extraordinary watered - if not, downright incompatible. Your video has actually served well for my cause, I actully appreciate this.)

 

They said the opposite about WMDs and were wrong...

 

I have not changed my position. I was CLEARLY talking about the earlier experience your flake MD had. No wonder you believe in little green men if your comprehension is so unsound.

 

That is totally a outragous statement coming from someone who thinks several planes flying a low altitude overhead of pheonix wouldn't be heard. Especially when we have over a hundred people witnessing the event from all over.

Pot, kettle, black.

 

In fact, you've made a number of laughable theories that only an incompetent scientist could make. Suggesting there was no photo's to foo fighters. That the earlier sighting in pheonix was almost definately chinese lanterns (which according to your video and the testimony are not compatible.)

As I said before, I'm surprised you've not gone as far to say it was birds with lights attached.

 

Here's my theory... I think when you began debating with me, you were expecting a typical crank. A crank who believes in UFO's but not really forming an opinion or investigating the facts to the degree required. These kind of cranks look at any old UFO picture, even the unbelievable one's by George Adamski and claim ''oh, there is ET. We have a photo so it must be true.''

So in all these years, I think your quality of arguements must have diminished... I mean, if your regular arguements are the one's I've seen from you, then you've never been a good arguer against the reason to believe in ET. So with a little benefit of the doubt, I would like to think there was one time you studied all the facts befor engaging in a debate. I'd also like to think you could lable a man or woman a crank, without remedial arguements against things like ''they felt a presence, so they are crank.''

Such a pathetic arguement and also extremely unscientific. Scientists tend to evaluate all the evidence before washing away something in light of how they might feel towards a person, no matter how incredible it may seem to your puny mind and existence first hand.

It is also not a matter in me believing ''little green men.'' I am with the scientific consensus that our universe is in fact (very most likely) teeming with life. I know that science states that all we need is one lifeform to have evolved a little earlier than us so that they have had the time to achieve intergalactic space and time travel. This is not psuedoscience. This is the real science behind extraterrestrial life. Thinking we are all alone in the universe is naive and selfish.

It's not that alone which makes me believe in them either. There are many UFO cases which baffle top scientists even today. The Washington 1952 case which I created a thread on in conspiracies proves this point in it's entirity. This case, in my mind, is the best UFO case there is. There is proof these things had an intellect behind them. There is remarkable evidence that the technology behind the objects which traversed the Washington skies over the White House was far too advanced for any country at the time. Indeed, Washington has been right up there ''as one of the most advanced superpowers in the world.'' It wasn't our own ships flying up there. We know this because the US Military even dispatched fighter planes to shoot them down, but failed every time because the objects were far to fast. I forget the exact speed now, but it was incredible nonetheless.

So this culture of thinking that just because you believe in UFO's must suggest some kind of bad intellect is what is shunned upon in the UFOlogist camp. This is simply not true. In fact, we argue anyone who does not understand the implications of events like the Washington 1952 incident, are feeble minded and unable to grasp evidence which normally cannot be refuted.

 

Perhaps. . .

Even if all of what you have said is true, and even if those on the other side of the issue knew this to be true? Perhaps the crowds they run with wouldn't speak above a whisper about it. Fool. You've just told the entire community exactly where you stand, that you aren't in any of those societies, groups or secret clubs.

Perhaps phlog is in a covert interest group and he doesn't actually believe anything he is typing. But then, I assure you, he would ridicule the very notion.

For I have long ago in this thread posted some factual evidence from credible government agencies, I believe you have as well . . . I'm sure he knows the truth, he is quite intelligent. It's all about plausible deniability see. It's all about where you stand, not about what the truth actually is.

But then, in the final analysis, perhaps you could be or I could be. I don't believe so though. People who tell the truth usually have no interest in being in a covert interest group. If they were in an interest group, they would tell the truth, wouldn't they?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

They generally have no bones about listing their affiliations unless they believe they are in danger from the covert interest groups.