is there evidence for alien abductions etc.?

If your suggesting contact with a hostile, superior race, then yes, I should imagine that they could put the boots to us fairly handily. But why would they bother messing around with more addictive drugs (that most of us will never even try) when they could just cut to the chase and wipe us out?

If the aliens are not hostile, then they’d respect our sovereignty. And that would mean submitting their little patents to the Food and Drug Administration, just like everyone else…

Hunter-gatherer type societies appear to be vulnerable if they the contact group brought diseases and such with them. Cramming superior military firepower down their throats didn’t seem to help either. Also, a lack of resistance to alcohol seems to have adversely effected indigenous groups. But more advanced nations (such as Japan or even China) didn’t collapse or lose their group cohesiveness, and I think this would be the case for aliens at the present time. A big story for 3 weeks, but then it would be back to other stuff.

Actually, I think it would reduce them.

This again implies a certain degree of hostility, or lack of respect of our sovereignty. If this were to be the case, then all bets are off. My comment was only meant for a situation where E.T. was cooperative and friendly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As a geologist I am accustomed to dealing with the fact that, in many cases, our laboratory experiments took place millions of years ago and we are now in the process of trying to interpret the scattered notes left behind in the ruins of the lab. The hard sciences do have the luxury of setting the experiment up just so, varying one factor at a time. Pity the poor geologist or the field biologist.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or the archaeologist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i like that very much
kinda poetic

can we similarly pity the ufologist?
after all, how hard must it be for the poor sap to reproduce a ufo sighting?

 

I'd agree, Gustav, but we aren't digging up alien bones or alien ships. We have pictures, accounts, and videos, and so many of them verifiably false, the ufologist is truly at a disadvantage.

The best anyone can do is hope to keep taking the pictures and shooting video and reporting their claims...but until something really major happens, mainstream science and society just won't buy it. It sucks for the ufo enthusiast and avid believer, because everybody who poo-poo's the UFO thing looks like an asshole to them. The fact of the matter is that science doesn't work that way; science is inherently skeptical.

And rightfully so! That is a natural defense to unfounded, false beliefs, such as fairies, deamons and dragons and fantasy creatures and phenomenon as such. If the UFO phenomenon is to be accepted, something has to happen; be it a real signal captured by SETI, a landing covered by major news media, a real crash landing, or some sort of--god forbid--invasion (!) something must take place before anyone accepts the story that intelligent alien life is aware of us.

 

Let us not forget, either, that extraterrestrials aren't the only theory behind UFOs. Some claim that they are time travelers, former inhabitants of Earth, current inhabitants of Earth via underground establishments, secret military aircraft, an unknown race from the North Pole, ect., ect..

My point is that even UFO believers don't have a decisive, singular theory behind the whole matter.

Anyway, the bottom line is that once something happens (alien visitation) We. Will. Know. There's just no way to hide it, and moreso, no reason to hide it. Despite what some fanatics claim, the world's oil conglomorates won't be filing for bankruptcy if ET lands, and the world's governments won't crumble, and chaos will not ensue.

If they are real, and they were visiting, we'd all know it. There would be no doubt.

JD

 

what i fear.....isssssss. that te powers that be will one day surpise d'youll WITH some kind of 'alien invasion.....which will be the ultimate 'ENEMY' that they have staged.....not meaning to change te subject. just tought i'd mention it

 

((((((((((((((((((*^*)))))))))))))))

 

I'm feeling pretty patient today, so let's discuss. Who says many are false? Have you read project blue book? Even our famed Roswell crash was proven to be a balloon.

And my only problem with agreeing that some are "unexplainable" is that I feel like I'm walking into a trap; when I say something can't be explained, or hasen't been explained, I mean that I have heard of no means to explain a certain situation. Many others, such as the UFO believer, takes "unexplainable" and instantly places the extraterrestrial/paranormal tag on it. In reality, to say something is enexplainable doesn't mean it's out-of-this-world, it just means that no one reporting or studying the thing/phenomenon/event can immediately explain it.

That all said, I'm sure there are reports of things that are "unexplained" and for simple reasons such as the video is too blurry to tell if the light on it is from a land vehicle or an air craft, or if the craft is legitimate or staged, or if the legitimate craft is military, commercial, or extraterrestrial.

I've seen that you consider yourself a very "earthy" person, and believe in the whole harmony between things, such as Man and his conciousness, and things of that sort, am I correct in that? There is something to be said for people who care more for the planet and their own bodies than they do for national pride or corporate conglomorates, and they are just as valuable as citizens as the rest of us.

But there is a common theme amongst people who think "against the group" and that is one of anti-establishment. Duendy, please don't get angry with my assumptions of you, but they are mine to speak, and they mean no harm. Those who are anti-establishment seem to lean towards believeing next to nothing of what any large, established group says. In this case, duendy, it seems you are dead set against the rules scientific method applies to it's practice.

In all actuality, one would not have to break down the materials found on a supposed alien craft to be positive it was of alien origin. All you would have to do is look at it, I imagine, or watch it move to know that it wasn't from the creative mind of a Human Being. (of course, this is speculation, but I'd imagine that it would be the case) Of course, if we had the chance to take apart a craft and study it, we'd be able to tell certain things about it that the naked eye would not, such as possible scenarios as to how the craft came from where it was to where it landed, but it would not require absolute proof in the sense of a peer review and case study to know that it wasn't from Earth.

But this thing you call "materialistic science" isn't the devil you make it out to be. Simply put, the call for evidence is a sound one, and a neccissary one. If we simply allowed photos and videos which could be easily (or painstakingly) faked into the realm of scientific fact, that would be a foolish way to go about business. It would hinder the search for truth and understanding, wouldn't it? If we simply believed the woman who claimed she was abducted by aliens and had a scar on her leg to prove it, is it impossible to believe that our fascination with the stars would diminish as the mystery would be taken out of it? On top of that, we might never look into the psychological reasons, the pathology, behind someone who would lie about such an experience. We would be losing on two fronts, as I see it.

Is that a scenario you believe could happen? I'm curious to know the reason you would even speculate that.

You're right, as we broaden the scope from extraterrestrials to the entire paranormal field. My point, though, I admit, poorly thought out and executed, was that the large outcry on this board is that the UFO phenomenon is credited to one or more alien civilizations, nothing more, when in fact the UFO phenomenon has many popular explanations by Johnny Believer, and the quest for truth in the matter (if what we know isn't the truth) is hindered in the fact that there isn't a singular front to the argument against what the government has told us. Basically, if everyone comes at this issue with 15 different "truths" as to what the UFOs are, you all just look like whackos.

Again, my point with my original statement was more of a negative commentary on the UFO believer, and not a well-concieved one at that.

Well, it is opinion, of course, and not fact. The world could crumble at the news of alien visitors from Alpha Centrauri, but chances are that it won't.

I don't know...oil is going to run out eventually, and the admission of knowledge of an alien race visiting our planet would do nothing to our world's oil companies. If the current state of alien visitation is as the believers state, then we aren't gaining anything from their presence; in fact, their presence--if as postulated by some is true--then they are the ones doing the research, not us. If abductions and cattle mutalations are real in the sense that they are acts committed by extraterrestrials, then they are obviously experiments by this superior species, not an exchange of information between us.

When you pick up an ant, do you leave a calculator?

JD

 

Hewy JDawg....notice how my previou reply to you just cuts off? tis is cause my system cant cope with too lon posts when i have to give indepth answers....if poss can you slie you post in two so as i can more easily answer your points?

ok continuuing then: Owill have to trpe quote you--typos are mine--of course)
jdawg: if we simply believed tyhe woman who claimed she was abducted by aliens and had a scar on her leg to prove it, is it impossible to believe that our fascination with the stars would diminish as the mystery would be taken out of it? On top of that we might never look into te the psychological reasons, the pathology, behind someone who would lie about such an experience. We wouod be losing on two fronts as I see it

quite revealingthat jdawg as to your mindset about this......i dont see why investigating in a respectful and scinetific way an abudcutees claims would diminish interst in te stars.....? surely it'd DEEPEN the interest......and as for hr 'pathology' that very term is loaded in our culture and is referring to the accepted MYTH of mental illness
you see the major IRONY jdawg is tis: you people who caount yourselves very serious tinking materialsitc no-nonesense scientists have drastically been taken in by one of te most insidious scams ever. the myth of mental illness which is oppressing people in tis curent paradigm. so along wit everyting else that is an aboslute MUST to invesitgate, because not doing so you already havethe premise about 'mental illness' being a bilogical disease.
This is not to say that people dont have visions that ren't 'actual' as in say actually beng abducted, BUT there is most likely a CONTINUUM...tisis difficultto explain butni'll try, and it'll mean i have to start a fresh post for your other replies.
We are living in A paradigm. tis paradgim is BASED on materialistic science which demands any 'anamalous' experience, and/or vision, etc 'must be' a breakdown in the 'biochemical machine' orrr 'cybernetic-like machine'...right? THAT is the premise. tus ANY reports, or confession os experiences not ACCEPTEDby tha remit is immediately labelled by that materialistic mindset, 'pathalogical'. see he difficulty. but by 'continuum' i am meaning that there is a DEPTH of humanity that tis paradgm--as did previous pradigm of Church-that is suppressed and repressed-.....and this depth will include all the things that are being considered false by materialisticscience. so FIRSTwe have t de-construct the false myth we are under......as people did about te false literalist myth of the Christian faith. it would have been UNTHINKABLEto even CONSIDER such a thing in pevious paradgim as it is now with OUR myth!........phew need a break

 

last bit seemed vaguer than needs be, so to be more clear. as did the Church suppress and condemn experience not sanctioned by the authority of the Church....terefore such potential experience becoming suppressed and repressed.........SO it is now under sciencism. in fact in te history of materialistic science ANY behviour considered unaccepatable has been severely dealt with by its 'priests'---even 'homosexuality'!

jdawg: Is that a scenario you believe could happen. I am curious to know the reason you would even speculate that? about staged alien invasion

wellllll, we've seen first Atomic explosion, and HIROSHOMA haven't we. i wonder...do we take those events for granted now??.....and we hve seen 9/11.....so anythings possible, once you begin lookin behind the scenes

te people attop of pyramid will do ANYTHING to mintain power....anything. even shit tha might blow our minds if we knoew, so in tis spiri it is WISE TO spculate....so as not t be caught off guard
checkout: 'Cosmic Deception: The Hoaxed Alien Invasion Scenario'
http://www.educate-yourself.org/cn/cosmicdeception04apr03.shtml

& 'PuPPs'-ALIEN INVASION http://www.geocities.com/puppsfreestuff/aliens2.htm

ie., te pupose would be a 'typcial' ploy of power-weilders to create an 'ENEMY'....you know all this State 'war on...' abfukin c?...it is creating an 'enemy' so as o defelct awareess from teir own inherent corruptin and oppression. so tey create enimies--example the Church created their 'Devil'....ten U>S created 'COMMIES' and te war on drugs, and now war on 'TERRORISM'........etceteraaa

jdawg: basically if everyone comes at tis issue with 15 different 'truths' as to what the UFOs are, you just look like whackos

i say. BE flexible. dont specialize. cause if you specialize you may not b open to sudden twists of inquiry, and will also ignore INTERRELAIONSHIP

 

jdawg

I'd agree, Gustav, but we aren't digging up alien bones or alien ships.

non sequiter

We have pictures, accounts, and videos, and so many of them verifiably false, the ufologist is truly at a disadvantage.

already established. yet one must learn to compartmentalize. i make a sighting. i take pics, record on radar. what relevance do previous cases have on the current one i am investigating? am i not introducing extraneous info by considering unrelated cases at this point in time? especially those cases that have been falsified? should there not be a sequence to the investigation? ie: establish the validity of data collected, formulate an initial hypothesis. if you wish to compare with other cases, formulate another hypothesis.

what disadvantage is it that you speak of?

if any case has merit, it should be able to stand and be considered on its own.

but until something really major happens, mainstream science and society just won't buy it

*When someone produces purported physical evidence of alien technology, point out that no analysis can prove that its origin was extraterrestrial; after all, it might be the product of some perfectly ordinary, ultra-secret underground government lab. The only exception would be evidence obtained from a landing on the White House lawn--the sole circumstance universally agreed upon by generations of skeptics as conclusively certifying extraterrestrial origin!

you are however welcome to define "major" and "mainstream science." you can also tell me what it is not

It sucks for the ufo enthusiast and avid believer, because everybody who poo-poo's the UFO thing looks like an asshole to them. The fact of the matter is that science doesn't work that way; science is inherently skeptical.

And rightfully so! That is a natural defense to unfounded, false beliefs, such as fairies, deamons and dragons and fantasy creatures and phenomenon as such. If the UFO phenomenon is to be accepted, something has to happen; be it a real signal captured by SETI, a landing covered by major news media, a real crash landing, or some sort of--god forbid--invasion (!) something must take place before anyone accepts the story that intelligent alien life is aware of us.

you are now ranting on your soapbox

*Equate the necessary skeptical component of science with *all* of science. Emphasize the narrow, stringent, rigorous and critical elements of science to the exclusion of intuition, inferential, exploration and integration. If anyone objects, accuse them of viewing science in exclusively fuzzy, subjective or metaphysical terms.

*Characterize your opponents as "uncritical believers." Summarily dismiss the notion that debunkery itself betrays uncritical belief, albeit in the status quo.

*Although science is not supposed to tolerate vague or double standards, always insist that unconventional phenomena must be judged by a separate, yet ill-defined, set of scientific rules. Do this by declaring that "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"-- but take care never to define where the "ordinary" ends and the "extraordinary" begins. This will allow you to manufacture an infinitely receding evidential horizon; i.e., to define "extraordinary" evidence as that which lies just out of reach at any point in time.

*Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my case."

adding to that, you assume that simply because joe public has no knowledge of something, that something does not exist. a simple example.... a biotech company is a few months away from releasing its cure for cancer. r&d has extensively tested and pronounced it a success. joe public/mainstream science claim there is no cure for cancer

are they correct?

Let us not forget, either, that extraterrestrials aren't the only theory behind UFOs. Some claim that they are time travelers, former inhabitants of Earth, current inhabitants of Earth via underground establishments, secret military aircraft, an unknown race from the North Pole, ect., ect..

My point is that even UFO believers don't have a decisive, singular theory behind the whole matter.

strawman
why must there be a single theory? why can't the ufo be a balloon/test jet/et ufo/weather? i see a lack of discernment and judgement on your part. an inability to separate the wheat from the chaff. out of your listed "claims," i have discounted all but "secret military aircraft". why? the rest have been falsified in no uncertain manner. (i cannot comment on time travel due to lack of knowledge)

*Hold claimants responsible for the production values and editorial policies of any media or press that reports their claim. If an unusual or inexplicable event is reported in a sensationalized manner, hold this as proof that the event itself must have been without substance or worth.

Anyway, the bottom line is that once something happens (alien visitation) We. Will. Know. There's just no way to hide it, and moreso, no reason to hide it. Despite what some fanatics claim, the world's oil conglomorates won't be filing for bankruptcy if ET lands, and the world's governments won't crumble, and chaos will not ensue.

If they are real, and they were visiting, we'd all know it. There would be no doubt.

strawman
i am really at a loss. i note an emotional outburst and am wondering at my next course of action.
should i bust your balls or let it slide

 

Gustav quoting someone; caught my attention:

No. You. Would. Not.

What makes [him] think that the alien people would wish to be unhidden? [He] and his ilk always spin from the same vista: their own. It's absolutely obvious that the main feature to this plot -- if true

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

rolleyes?: -- is one of stealth. So shouldn't [he] try to extrapolate from that unveiled condition? Or perhaps [he] doesn't like the implication of being a member of a species who is best to be avoided?

And, no one would crumble? Imagine that the alien people wouldn't be using oil to zip across the planet, and that they don't answer to elected officials -- wouldn't people question their own lifestyles then? Humans, after all, are prepared to nuke each other and everything else on this planet simply because of contrasting political views.

 

Does this not happen already? The United States government itself opened a public investigation from 1951-1969. Was the purpose of said department to bunch these accounts together and dismiss them all at once? They could not find any conclusive--or even circumstantial--evidence that the sightings were of alien origin. What more do you want?

I must clarify that I decided to reply to duendy on a day that I had very little sleep, and I admit that I got a little preachy. The court of public opinion is the one that hangs the claimant of Close Encounters, not the people who research these incidents. I apologize for being so vague.

And they do. Again, Project Blue Book investigated such reports for nearly 20 years.

So what is the argument? Are you complaining that we want some sort of definate evidence, such as a public landing or something that can be realistically pointed to and agreed upon. Let me pull out my soap box again and say that people lie, and they lie about things to get attention. It's a fact. I don't dismiss every sighting, and would go to the length that the greater majority of the sightings are genuine and involve things in the sky that aren't normal to our everyday lives.

But that doesn't make them extraterrestrial.

I apologize; that was another broad, vague term with very little basis. I guess what I was getting at was that the scientific community and the general public won't buy into alien visitation without some major event, or a series of them, or something that we can all feel, see and taste.

A strong possibility. But that's how I get, much in the same way you feel obliged to verbally insult people who's views oppose yours. Not an insult, just an observation; I rant too much and you take this whole thing too personally.

Not fair. We currently have no evidence of life beyond Earth. We assume it is there; almost every scientist I've ever seen or read has stated as such. They have reason to believe that intelligent alien life would be less common than simple alien life, and in our neighborhood we'd be more likely to see the simple forms of life as opposed to the intelligent forms.

They base these theories on the fact that the galaxy is unbearably huge, and the universe's size is beyond comprehension. They base these theories on the fact that we haven't encountered an alien craft beyond our planet, be it on the moon (or on the way there and back) by our manned craft, and we haven't encountered them on our space stations, and we haven't encountered them with our probes that go to distant planets within our Solar System.

Extraordinary evidence would be proof, such as a piece of an alien craft, an alien itself, or something to show that the craft you see is actually out-of-this-world. What makes the evidence cross over from ordinary is the nature of the evidence; if you are trying to prove the existance of rocks, you would have countless exhibits to choose from, whereas with extraterrestrial visitation requires something visibily extraterrestrial.

And if this extraordinary evidence is out of reach, then so is the universal acceptance of the existance of extraterrestrials coming to Earth.

Who does this? The people on this board? They aren't all scientists! They aren't doing the research! They aren't writing the articles! They are merely people who have some free time to post on this board, not representatives of the scientific community.

That isn't true. I say that it's entirely possible that aliens are visiting Earth and leaving crop circles and abducting people. I just cannot say that they definately are. I can't say that they don't exist, I can only say that I have not seen them, and the people who do the actual legwork and research of these sightings and events agree with me.

Maybe so, but they also have not seen any evidence for such a cure. They haven't heard of nor read up on any of it, simply because it hasen't been published (or at least not in anything you'd find on a newsstand) "Joe Public" and "Mainstream Science" is right, because as far as they can see, there is no cure. And just to nitpick, there actually would be no cure in the practical sense. Could "Joe Public" buy this cure? If not, then it doesn't exist for them.

Get over yourself, would you please? You're gonna bust my balls? An emotional outburt? That's just rediculous. This isn't life and death; this is a conversation regarding things that hardly matter to our everyday lives, so stop letting it bother you. Go outside, kiss your girlfriend, have some lunch and calm down. The sun will come up tomarrow.

 

Maybe not. But if it's so blatantly obvious that every Joe Nobody "knows" that aliens are visiting us, then one could postulate that if it really, really were true, then it would be blatantly obvious.

Didn't you just say that we wouldn't know of thier existance? Anyway...

What, exactly, would these aliens be using to get here? I would assume it's not oil, but what's to say that we'd know what, exactly, they'd be using? Who's to say that that means of energy isn't twice the cost that oil is, or if it could even be manufactured on Earth? Who's to say that they'd share such information?

People questioning thier own lifestyles? So what? We do it every day, what difference would it make if aliens landed?

You've assumed so much in your comments that I will do my own assuming: I would assume that if we discovered that we had a viable means of producing an alternative energy source that the big business people would have the first dibbs on such a source. Oil companies would have the upper hand in producing and marketing such a thing because they have the resources and funds to accomplish it. Even if someone else got to it first, the vastness of the big energy producers would overwhelm the competition and dominate the market.

JD

 

it DOES matter to our lives. haveyou no sense of DRAMA????!!!!!!!!!

seriously. of course it does. materilistic science is an exceptionally heavy oppressive burden, and many are suffering, andmany are suffering terribly because of its 'religion' oppressing eveything--all of Nature

this subject is alla bout all that and challenging your materilsitic assumptions about reality. us and the 'aliens' are waiting.....waiting, waiting for you'll to wake UP

 

jdawg

Does this not happen already? The United States government itself opened a public investigation from 1951-1969. Was the purpose of said department to bunch these accounts together and dismiss them all at once? They could not find any conclusive--or even circumstantial--evidence that the sightings were of alien origin. What more do you want?

strawman
you gotta be kidding me! the point here is: the falsification of previous cases should no bearing on an investigation of a brand new sighting.

And they do. Again, Project Blue Book investigated such reports for nearly 20 years.

strawman

Are you complaining that we want some sort of definate evidence, such as a public landing or something that can be realistically pointed to and agreed upon. Let me pull out my soap box again and say that people lie, and they lie about things to get attention. It's a fact. I don't dismiss every sighting, and would go to the length that the greater majority of the sightings are genuine and involve things in the sky that aren't normal to our everyday lives.

well thats the just the point isnt it? what is "realistically?" would an et rendevous with the space shuttle count? we have anecdotes, radar, visuals, comm logs. no hard evidence yet. would that count?

I apologize; that was another broad, vague term with very little basis. I guess what I was getting at was that the scientific community and the general public won't buy into alien visitation without some major event, or a series of them, or something that we can all feel, see and taste.

nonsense. joe public was quite happy to buy into the moon landing with nothing but visuals and anecdotes as evidence. yet even today there are some pseudo skeptics that say it was faked. the point here is if the president and perhaps the joint chiefs of staff made an announcement of seti communications with et, joe public would buy it. we would have no real reason not to

Not fair. ...........Solar System.

strawman to the quoted text, yet i do not dispute anything you said

Extraordinary evidence would be proof, such as a piece of an alien craft, an alien itself, or something to show that the craft you see is actually out-of-this-world. What makes the evidence cross over from ordinary is the nature of the evidence; if you are trying to prove the existance of rocks, you would have countless exhibits to choose from, whereas with extraterrestrial visitation requires something visibily extraterrestrial.

And if this extraordinary evidence is out of reach, then so is the universal acceptance of the existance of extraterrestrials coming to Earth.

rather misguided. i could not care less about what joe public knows. if we were to base the extent of our knowledge on the lowest common denominator, we would be practically illiterate. going back to the et encounter with the iss, a single pic, astronaut anecdotes, a statement from nasa acknowledging ufo would be adequate enough for any sensible person. the demand that evidence satisfy all or some of our modes of perceptions would remove entire fields of inquiry into the realms of junk science.

Who does this? The people on this board? They aren't all scientists! They aren't doing the research! They aren't writing the articles! They are merely people who have some free time to post on this board, not representatives of the scientific community.

you did. when? the moment you trotted the the patently bogus "fairies, deamons and dragons and fantasy creatures" and compared it with entirely plausible concept of an et ufo. a belief in fairies or the easter bunny is qualitatively different from a belief in et ufos. one is grounded in fantasy, the other in statistical probabilities

That isn't true. I say that it's entirely possible that aliens are visiting Earth and leaving crop circles and abducting people. I just cannot say that they definately are. I can't say that they don't exist, I can only say that I have not seen them, and the people who do the actual legwork and research of these sightings and events agree with me.

you contradict yourself in the very next paragraph

Maybe so, but they also have not seen any evidence for such a cure. They haven't heard of nor read up on any of it, simply because it hasen't been published (or at least not in anything you'd find on a newsstand) "Joe Public" and "Mainstream Science" is right, because as far as they can see, there is no cure. And just to nitpick, there actually would be no cure in the practical sense. Could "Joe Public" buy this cure? If not, then it doesn't exist for them.

speechless

Get over yourself, ............will come up tomarrow.

nothing bothers me pal
appearances do deceive

 

What says that falsification of previous cases has any bearing on a brand new sighting? I would guess that it did not if even the government sponsored Project Blue Book lasted as long as it did. If they just dismissed each case at hand, then they would not have continued for as long as they did. And who does this dismissing? Again, you are merely blaming the scientific community for what people on this board say.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, yet you say it with every response. Please clarify.

We have visual, radar and comm log evidence of encounters with alien UFOs from the space shuttle?

To answer your question, though, a rendevous with the space shuttle would count, as it would with any other craft. I'd even take witness accounts from astronauts as opposed to some hick from Dewberry telling me that "That there thing there shore wuz from outter SPAYSE!"

B.S.
What about the amature radio operators who followed it's progress that night? You call that anecdotal? I'd call that pretty hard evidence.

Absolutely. But that would fall under the realm of "extraordinary evidence," bro. That would be beyond huge if NASA were to say that UFOs existed.

Entirely plausible? Based on what? We dont' even know if intelligent life exists elsewhere, and even though it is imagined to be a probability, who said it is "entirely plausible" that they are covering the vast distances required to reach Earth? And on such a consistant basis?

I would say that while it's possible, it's far from probable.

That was far from a contradiction, Gustav. I make the point in the first paragraph that nobody can say that they don't actually exist, then state that in a practical sense they don't exist to me. How is that a contradiction? Maybe a poor choise of words, but not a contradiction. In my little world here in Upstate New York, I have no UFOs. No proof, some fuzzy evidence, but no alien UFOs. They could be flying over my apartment right this second, but I am not aware of them.

If that were anywhere near the truth, I'd believe it. But it's not.

JD

 

Who's speaking for the majority? You are.
Who's speaking for the individual? Your invented "majority".

But there is no majority—just individuals coming forward on their own accord with their own individual accounts. And the stories are piling up. But since there is no specialised supervision or management in this area (key word: specialised) to sift through accounts for further consideration/determination/classification—and not for the sole purpose of debunking, as was the Project Blue Book's raison d'être—then all you will get for "evidence" is a huge bulk of stuff, all mish-mashed and incoherent. But I think that's how you like doing things in this area—it makes it simpler to dismiss the whole shebang.

I was proposing that "evidence" can also be connoted from the characterisation of a plot. To date, all accounts are consistent with the idea that extraterrestrials do not seek a social rapport with the rest of the human race. They seem to prefer the backstage—or the bar while the opera is being dramatised on stage in front of your audiences.

Several other characterisations: abductees will speak of being processed like guinea pigs. Rarely do we hear of accounts involving conversation. And most abductions occur under cover of night. Now, don't dismiss these simple, prominent characterisations too readily. You [and your ilks] dismiss abductees as liars, attention-seekers, story tellers, crazies, and whatnot. So then, why aren't their stories more hyped up? More spiced up? Where's the intoxication?

So my inference is that the alien people don't wish to contact the whole of the human race. What could be the reasoning behind that? My inference is that the alien people are not interested in socialising with the ego. What could be the reasoning behind that? My inference is that the alien people are laser-accurate when it comes to expediting their objective. What could that mean? My inference is that with some, the alien people will seemingly care enough about their subjects because they will be returned to their homes as though nothing happened, while with others, the aliens will make a sloppy job of returning them as though they were indeed the very guinea pigs they claimed to be—but why the discrepancy?

Why the discrepancy indeed. How is it that on the surface, stories of abduction that are otherwise so similar, also differ, sometimes dramatically? How do the Joe Nobodies differ from one another? What traits do the Joe Nobodies share; what is distinctly different? What is their history, their lifestyles, their skills, and why would alien scientists pick on them?

Such information may not be the quick-fix, instant materialistic evidence you seek, but it begins to put a face on the characters who are not present to reveal themselves.