The Thing about UFOs...

Unfortunately your appeals to "expert witnesses" are a red herring.
You will no doubt agree that for every "expert witness" UFO supporter there are 2 or 5 or 10 equally expert scientists who will point out flaws of logic in the pro-UFO testimony, or maybe indicate other explanations.
And then for every one of those people there are 2 or 5 or 10 who will state that the idea is so preposterous as to be not even worth considering.
So it comes down to the fact you personally have made up your mind which view you're going to take and are then using Cooper, et al, to back you up.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Moementum7,

You and I appear to see things much the same. Thanks for the comments and best of luck to you.

JA

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks for posting around these parts, jpappl. I hope you drop in from time to time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes jpappl you are very level headed and provide a truly neutral opinion which no one else seems to have.

 

Well lets think here. If they are alien why do we give a crap? I mean they haven't done anything harmful that CAN be proven to be linked to them. And even these so called experiments have never ended incredibly badly for the person or nutcase involved.

Also if it is govt why would they tell us? Are you guys seriously gonna want to put a pilots life on the line jsut because your curious? If you say yes u are an a-hole for sacrificing one persons life for something that bears no relevance to your own.

 

Agreed! Whatever the truly unexplained objects are, they just appear to either hang around for a few minutes or go zipping off minding their own business.

There's probably a clinical term that applies to all these - ahem! "people" - who are so fixiated with simple lights in the sky.

 

Fedr808,

One of the main things I uncovered during my research into the Stephenville ufo was the issue of national security. If the military starts to release radar data for example, it will not only tell us what our intercept capabilities are but our enemies as well. The problem with say the MUFON report is that without additional data, which you are not going to get because of the above national security issue. You can never prove what it was or what is wasn't.

The data which has this inherent risk may not provide anything of value on the ufo IE there was none (military knew who/what the non-transponder craft was and wasn't concerned). Or it could provide something interesting.

It is the FOIA Freedom of information act that is the tricky part here. When do you release data is very important.

The other points are that Crawford is still there, nobody got a clear photo of this monster craft, it was at night with 12 F16s doing maneuvers in the area.

By the way it was SkinW who first remarked to me the point of intercept capabilites being released.

 

Read-Only
How incredibly STRANGE that you would all of a sudden obtain the voice of reason "here". They are NOT just strange lights in the sky. They have been around for THOUSANDS of years. Not just the last 60. OF COURSE they an unidentified object, so what right? We can't possibly know (ever) who or what this phenomenon consists of.

What a load of rubbish! What you are stating here is the exact opposite of a healthy sense of scientific curiosity.

I really don't understand this:

I mean what is the context? Apathy? Put a pilot's life on the line? PLEASE explain this. What in the name of reality are we talking about here?

I will NEVER understand the skeptical mind. All you skeptics, why do you insist on dismissing so much real evidence just because you can't have dinner with ET?

Do you HONESTLY contend that a parallel human society has existed for thousands of years that has kept this technology from us?

How the hell could ANYONE make a legitimate scientific case for UFOs being explained as just another "this or that"?

Ludicrous. Completely and totally ludicrous.

 

As Arte Johnson used to say, Vaaddeee Intavesting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2RIbaHD3bE

 

If that is true, how can world governments managed to conspire to cover up the phenomenon, considering the phenomenon pre-dates the formation of many!

If they were aliens visiting, grandpappy would have told me about it, before 'The Men From The Ministry' had the ability to show up quickly and mind zap people!

 

First of all, I know of NO global effort to cover up UFOs. I know for CERTAIN the USA & Britain are, but I completely fail to see the logic of your reference in context. Is there any?

Your Grandpappy is no different than many others including yourself. Ignorance is no excuse nor is it that unusual. As far as the "mind zap" reference, that's just more of the pseudo intellectual comic book mentality that is often unfairly PROJECTED in heaps on a very real and legitimate concern that is UFOs.

 

Phlog,

"If that is true, how can world governments managed to conspire to cover up the phenomenon, considering the phenomenon pre-dates the formation of many!"

Electra,

"I know for CERTAIN the USA & Britain are"

Read,

"There's probably a clinical term that applies to all these - ahem! "people" - who are so fixiated with simple lights in the sky."

When they first encountered the so called foo fighters in the mid 40's they were not in a cover up mode, they actually declared there was a phenomenon (shoot them down) but since they were ultimately chasing ghosts, there either was nothing there ( pilots and others were seeing things ) or whatever was there mean't no harm. Since they had nothing tangible to provide as proof of alien craft and since they did not engage us in combat there was nothing to hide and nothing to be concerned about.

Why have an official pursuit of something you haven't been able to corner and means no harm when you have real immediate concerns like the enemies we were facing here on earth.

Could they be covering something up ? I suppose so.
Are there reasons to cover it up ? absolutely, but many not to as well.
Is it very difficult if not impossible to keep it covered up ? absolutely, but they have covered up things in the past.

So anyone that claims to know these answers 100% either way in my opinion is not being honest with themselves, if you make these claims you know this how ? And you can prove this how ?

I just think that we need to keep searching for actual evidence and stop engaging in a bunch of innuendo about whether people who believe in ET's are idiots and nut cases and those who don't are NASA hired debunkers.

I have yet to see a single case that is proof. I keep looking at them though in curiosity because it would be one of the greatest discoveries in history if they are ET, don't you think ?

There are some incredible videos and photos etc but I think we will need more. Multiple sightings with clear photos/video from different angles might work as proof without a piece of a craft. But what is important here with regards to evidence is that extrodinary claims calls for extrodinary evidence.

 

eh, possibly basic human scientific curiosity? The chance for mankind to grow exponentially. How about an opportunity for mankind to realize the complete futility of it's militant minded stance in the face of something MUCH greater?

Well, for starters, how about all the documents released by those governments that have been covering such as is UFOs up for the last 50 years. Remember that thing called FOIA? Why do you think that half those documents are blacked out when they are released? Then, what about all the others that are clearly marked "Top Secret" "Eyes Only" Kind of seems like they were/are concealing information from the general public concerning the reality of UFOs to me.

Let me ask you this: How many cases have YOU seen?

There is a heck of a lot more than great videos and pictures my friend. There is physical trace evidence. There are countless sworn expert eyewitness testimonies. There are events that occur where 200 plus video camera's were present all capturing and recording the same thing.

See, this is what irritates me about "skeptics". What they are in reality is more likened to a "true believer" than one who scientifically waits on "facts" to make judgments. The world is FILLED with UFO facts. Facts that are ignored and discounted by skeptics the same exact way that true believers discount information that clearly points to adverse views. The truth: There is far more evidence pointing to the reality for non human originated UFOs than there is pointing away from them.

Skeptics are not those making logical hypothesis based on informations gathered without prejudice. Skeptics are those that stand firmly on the principles of doubt. They must touch, they must taste, they must CONTROL information in order to accept the logical premise for said information. Completely unscientific in relation to the basic motives that drive the forwarding motions of science itself.

It is only man's clumsy arrogance that "demands" anything. Thoughts, no as he might put it, fantasies, of life more intelligent, more advanced, perhaps just different, is surely that which must definitively constitute the extreme. Correct?

Ungraceful Hogwash!

 

Electric,

I understand your view. I know the evidence seems convincing to you and I agree that some of it is very interesting to say the least. There may in fact be and have been ET craft flying around and even landing on earth.

But I am not going to get into a discussion where I try to dis-prove or prove the impossible with you. I keep looking for cases that warrant further inquiry. I did a complete open minded review of the Stephenville case to the best of my abilities and with the information available. Guess what there was indeed a ufo caught on radar but it still didn't offer proof of ET. Did you scrutinize the report the way I did. Did you look for information that excluded the ET scenario as well as include it. Is there anything in my review that you would suggest I missed or got wrong with the information available ?

The problem is that without better information you can't make a 100% yes or no answer to them and we are not going to get that information for many reasons as I pointed out it may have nothing to do with hiding the existence of ET.

I am completely open minded to the idea of ET's and that they may be much more advanced then us, who knows we might be the ones to be the aliens far off in the future where we show up on their door step. Many here have expressed their skepticism but also their hope that one day we have contact. Do you not believe them ? Do you not believe me ?

Don't tell me you know ET's are flying around. You may believe that but you can't prove that. Because if you do, I ask you to prove it and you won't be able to. Period, end of discussion.

Now, if you can approach the subject with some humility and respect for why others want to be skeptical on such a subject then we can converse as fellow earthlings.

Again, extrodinary claims need extrodinary evidence.

In a court case, if I told you that Bill killed Joe. Many people knew Joe, they knew he existed. Even if they don't have Joe's body, Joe existed. Humans exist. Trying to prove Bill killed Joe doesn't require us to prove Joe existed.

With ET we are trying to prove something exists that was previously unknown to exists.

So the evidence has to be so undeniable that there can not be another explanation. That will be hard to do without the evidence I suggested would be needed at a minimum. Part of a craft or a craft would be preferred.

 

Electra, sorry not electric.

"eh, possibly basic human scientific curiosity? The chance for mankind to grow exponentially"

That would be great, if they would stop and talk to us, but they aren't. Maybe we are not ready in their opinion.

"There are events that occur where 200 plus video camera's were present all capturing and recording the same thing."

Can you be more specific ? What events ?

"The truth: There is far more evidence pointing to the reality for non human originated UFOs than there is pointing away from them."

Well I wouldn't agree or disagree with that. But again the evidence so far is not enough to prove they exist.

Every case from Roswell, to Malmstrom to Stephenville has enough gaps with leaps of faith required to fill the gaps that they are not solid enough for the claim. The claim is extrodinary and we can't use leaps of faith to replace needed evidence.

 

Thank you for your consideration. You are without question a reasonable skeptic, and that in and of itself is RARE.

I have examined the UFO phenomenon for the last 15 years pretty carefully. Let me be clear with you up front when I state that I do not base my contentions on my personal perspectives and research alone.

I have had an extremely real UFO experience and I assure you that what I witnessed was NOT a natural phenomenon, nor was it man made experimental aircraft. Not unless (and I do not excluded this possibility) we as the human race have more than one well established scientific paradigm with respect to aerial capability.

Even so, I discount the entire event and consider it peripheral in comparison to the testimony of expert pilots and astronauts that have seen this phenomenon first hand.

You are correct, we do not have enough information available to us to clearly identify and scientifically categorize ET life forms if there are any such thing. What we do have however is experts beyond refute that possess the highest level of understanding possible for that which is applied aerial/space mechanics and design technologies. These people, not you, not I, not Stanton Friedman, nor the late Carl Sagan are the sole individuals that are capable of accessing and determining irrefutably what these technologies are not. It doesn't matter what they are. It only matters what they are not, and they are NOT of earthly origin according to minds far and away worthy of acknowledging that claim as fact. Those people, unlike the THOUSANDS of other perfectly sane and credible witnesses, do most certainly provide extraordinary evidence in their expert testimonies.

First off, I do "believe" you are genuine as I do "believe" many others are as well. However, I hold a MUCH different perception of why we "see" what we see. Let me ask you a question: Do you "believe" in evolution? I do. I cannot prove evolution because I cannot duplicate the process. I cannot demonstrate evolution but I can understand it because it is a man conceived process. I can align carefully constructed analysis that agrees with this process. I can observe metamorphosis as a form of living evolution. I can read about our own personified artificial selection processes in the laboratory, but no one, and I repeat NO ONE can PROVE evolution. It's impossible. It cannot be controlled. It cannot be repeated. It cannot be mastered by humanity therefore it can only be believed and accepted as a logical conclusion based on formulated evidences as applied to the suggested reality for that which is the evolutionary process.

Sir, I can do anything you can, and yes, that includes being humble.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If the evidence had to be undeniable, an expert witness would never need to be introduced to make a legitimate conclusion. Your example is flawed. It is not necessary to prove the existence of anything when in fact you are deducing reality by expert means. The deductive reasoning of an expert witness to what something is not, is just as important and is as assured a form of proof as is proving what is held in contention.

If it isn't from this earth friend, it's got to be from somewhere else.

 

Check this out.

http://www.projectprove.com/Arts/114u/114u.php

Now at first glance it's like whoa, what is that it could only be one thing.

But as you look at it in greater detail as they tried to do here, the question I ask is.

Why is the ufo appear the same size as the debris in all views, negative and 3d included ?

If that is not debris that the ufo flies through, than are they ALL ET craft ?

If so we should be able to point telescopes up and see them all the time ?
And we are in deep Sh^t.

We know that NASA says it's debris blown around, this one really challenges that but does not mean it's not a possible explanation.

In the end they even say " what is it ? " and they leave it up to you.

So it could be ET or not but proving it is another thing. You can get a longer view on YouTube NASA STS 114 and we have all seen these NASA vids and the objects all look the same.

Blips of light.

So would you bet your life on these images ? I won't

Electra,

Here is a link you might find valuable and I am being sincere, hope you are not affended it is not my intention. I thought it was cool and reflects from what I can tell what you want to have happen with regards to the ufo/ET subject.

http://www.worldufodisclosure.org/index2.php?dil=en

 

Well, Build your own Flying Saucer and you will have all the proof you want.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

Electra,

Somehow my last post bounced in after yours it was not intended as a reply. I also spelled offended wrong.

The two statements below is where I personally draw the line between acceptance of ET visiting earth and reasonable doubt.

"do most certainly provide extraordinary evidence in their expert testimonies."

"Your example is flawed. It is not necessary to prove the existence of anything when in fact you are deducing reality by expert means."

It is necessary to do so. My example was not flawed and unfortunately is the biggest hurdle. I'll put it another way.

A man claims he was attacked by a bear in the park, others saw the bear as well. The park is miles away from the woods. The first call that would be made in that instance is to a local Zoo or wildlife shelter etc to determine if a bear is missing. They will assume there is a bear on the loose.

If the same man claims he was attacked by an ET, they have no basis for what that would be or where to even start looking, even with a description, they have no prior evidence of anything to draw anykind of conclusion other than the witness testimony. We have no proof that can substantiate it's existence the way it can for the bear, because we know not believe but know bears exist.

The closest I can relate it to is a court case trying to prove someone is guilty of a crime. If you are the prosecutor and you know there is not enough infomation to convict do you go to court. No. I am not ready to commit to that level of a belief yet.

In the court case you would make sure that you have all your ducks lined up.

This is unique because we are trying to prove something which requires extrodinary proof, we might get that tomorrow, or next week, or not for years. But that is what is required.

I understand and can feel your frustration especially after 15 years of research that with all the expert witness testimony such as radar techs, photos and vids and more that it should be enough to make every one jump. But it hasn't.

Sorry but unfortunately, IMO it's going to take something more tangible. The good news is that everyone has video cameras and digital cameras so the likelihood of photos/vids from different angles is going to increase which will only strengthen the case.

The difference between this and the evolution scenario is that we have the bones to examine and can be examined over and over. Also, they didn't have to cross the vastness of space to get here which is a challenge based on our current laws of physics.

But I can't think of anything cooler and in a way scarier than an ET encounter. I am jealous of yours.

I fully respect your opinion on the subject, I have just taken a position where I want proof that IMO we haven't yet come across.

I am not skeptical of you or what you saw nor am I questioning other witnesses. I am only skeptical of the evidence we are offered thus far. To many leaps need to be made to make the case of an absolute yes they exist.

 

Electra,

I want to say state something which I feel is very important to our conversation.

You had an experience, I have not.

So it could be very real and clear as day in your mind. But since I haven't it would be impossible for me to know what you experienced and how powerful that would be.

But there is no way you can prove it to me or anyone else. So I can understand if you are frustrated by that fact.

It's more productive to focus on obtaining more evidence that removes any reasonable doubt and makes the claim undeniable.

IMO