Alien Spacecraft - Best Evidence

[Trapped]

The only speculation I made, was that it was possible the UFO was hostile. That is the only speculation I made based on the evidence he went missing during the encounter.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I'm not actually speculating anything. Based on the flight recordings just before he went missing (which is evidence that could be used in a court of law), states we have an air craft which could not be identified. It also hovered right above his craft.

I am not making any speculations, I made a statement saying this was evidence.

As is often the case, heat of the moment eyewitness testimony cannot be taken at face value: it requires scientific interpretation. In this case:

1. "Aircraft" is a conclusion by the pilot, not a description of what he saw.
2. "Hovered" is clearly wrong: he was flying, not hovering, so something keeping station on him was flying as well.

Indeed, it is wrong conclusions - disorientation - that often causes such crashes. The reason such crashes have gotten less common is pilots have more instruments to help fight the disorientation.

 

[Trapped]

As is often the case, heat of the moment eyewitness testimony cannot be taken at face value: it requires scientific interpretation. In this case:

1. "Aircraft" is a conclusion by the pilot, not a description of what he saw.
2. "Hovered" is clearly wrong: he was flying, not hovering, so something keeping station on him was flying as well.

Indeed, it is wrong conclusions - disorientation - that often causes such crashes. The reason such crashes have gotten less common is pilots have more instruments to help fight the disorientation.

Brilliant, case closed. You hit it on the nail. That must be what it is. Disorientation.

I suppose the same explanation could be given to the several fighter pilots over washington in 1952.

I am so glad the community has you here, to bring us back to Earth.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Neither sarcasm nor putting words in my mouth I didn't say are evidence.

My challenge/invitation at the beginning of the thread remain open, should you ever find scientific quality evidence.

 

[paddoboy]

The mainstream scientific position is that alien spacecraft are probably not visiting earth. There are many reasons why, but that's really neither here nor there. What is important is that that's the position and the position that aliens are among us is an extraordinary claim that isn't mainstream and therefore requires strong proof (in addition to the fact that in science you can only prove positive assertions, not negative ones).

Many Believers seem to believe that a mountain of mediocre evidence, a coverup, or a thousand unexplained events and a probability calculation add-up to convincing proof of alien spacecraft being here. It doesn't work that way. Probability can make predictions, a coverup tells us *something* was covered-up (but not what), but proving something requires strong evidence and only strong evidence is strong evidence.

So with this thread I would like to dispense with the mountain of mediocre evidence, the conspiracy theory allegations and the probability calculations and just see alien spacecraft advocates' best evidence. Don't show me ten incidents that are not well backed by evidence, just show me one that is.

And a note regarding qualifications: they are irrelevant. The evidence must be proven here, so prior knowledge by skeptics such as myself is not required. However, of course, scientific knowledge is important to be able to evaluate the evidence.

Any takers?

[Edit]. And no flooding either. Real evidence is easy to recognize and digest. So don't post 10 links or an hour-long video and tell me to go find the facts for myself.

While fervently believing that ETI exists somewhere, sometime, I see time and distance as the two great barriers to contact between any species.
I also see any species that did arrive in our vicinity, would be hundreds, maybe thousands of years ahead of us.
I don't believe they would be aggressive and would not want or need any Earthly commodity, as most of that anyway would be elsewhere in the solar system/Universe.
I also don't believe they would secretly land, kidnap and anal probe any individual.
I see their intelligence and non aggressive nature, wanting to and easily achieving contact with the Earth as a whole and eventually landing.

They would certainly not be afraid of us...I don't believe they would be aggressive...I do believe they would be curious and logical.

 

[Trapped]

Neither sarcasm nor putting words in my mouth I didn't say are evidence.

Well don't offer less than par explanations then if you don't want sarcasm. This man was an experienced pilot and you make him sound like a rookie.

 

[Trapped]

I'd understand the explanation of disorientation, if Valentich's sighting wasn't backed up with decades of evidence of UFO's. His encounter is not spectacular in the sense it is a first of a kind. This was an experienced pilot, been flying for years, and somehow he saw an object, fly around him and above him, in such a way he could identify it wasn't a conventional aircraft. Yet you'd just say it was disorientation.

Forgive me if I can't be enthusiastic about your theory.

 

[Trapped]

My challenge/invitation at the beginning of the thread remain open, should you ever find scientific quality evidence.

I have under my belt reports dating back to the early 1900's, even before then of UFO encounters. I have official military reports, interviews from generals, previously secret air force memorandums on the subject.

What have you got? What have you offered? You haven't offered any reasonable expanations, no body of ''proof'' against and little to no evidence it is our own crafts.

You want to be taken seriously, but you don't have even a depth of knowledge on sightings. Your thread was a joke before it started.

 

[Russ_Watters]

A few more I missed this afternoon. Note: I've quoted and responded to what is evidence/proof discussion in the thread I created for that purpose.

Michio isn't scared to talk about the possibility of contact

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

Nor am I. But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about evidence that we have been/are being visited. Kaku neither claims we are, much less attempts to prove it in that video.

Here Kaku admits that some UFO's are real. Here he makes it clear we need some physical evidence... a 5% of the sightings do give scientists the ''willies.'' That is not mediocre

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDO8DoGPUHs

You mean "claims". He's not an alien, so he can't "admit" it. And no, he doesn't. He says: "5% remain totally unexplained."

And again, as others pointed out: I'm not looking for a 3rd party's opinion - you already acknowledged that you recognize that this isn't the mainstream scientific view. I want the evidence itself.

There is plenty quality evidence.

Then post some! Why make us wait? Are you trying to convince us you are a crackpot by behaving like one instead of just posting the evidence?

But it's difficult for me to even talk with a skeptic who doesn't even realize that the phenomenon is real.

I'm not sure what "phenomenon" you are talking about (is it the one I posted this thread to ask about?), but this thread is about evidence. If "the phenomenon is real", show me the evidence! The statement that you can't discuss it unless I accept a prior that it is real is a statement of religious belief. I'm not signing-up for the religion of UFOology, I want proof that alien spacecraft are real.

...there are scientists who clearly believe there is something in our skies which really is strange.

That is so broad and vague that it is both universally accepted and completely useless.

Keep your panties on, I'll try to be more accurate.

This is not a "try" issue: you are doing it on purpose, so just stop!

You aren't just using the terms "UFO" and "alien spacecraft" interchangeably, you are deciding after-the-fact which definition you want to apply where, shifting from one to the other and using both at the same time. That's not accidental, that's purposeful misrepresentation. Here's how that went:

... pilots have went missing intercepting them...

"Them" in that context was a direct response to my statement - and indeed the whole point of the thread - about alien spacecraft. Then when challenged for the evidence, you provide this:

Of course I have evidence, I just explained to you it has been documented in history. Here is a case for you to read

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Moncla

In that case, the object was at best a temporarily "unknown object". But either way, there is no assertion made anywhere nor any evidence presented that it was an alien spacecraft.

So what you do is intentionally shift from "planes have crashed chasing alien spacecraft" - which is not proven - to "planes have crashed chasing UFOs" - which is.

And of course, this is all setting aside the fact that you're berating others for their lack of expertise while claiming you are making what would be really stupid rookie mistakes yourself. You're clearly not dumb enough for that.

If I wanted to include personal opinions of sightings, I would need to interview the observers and ask them what their opinions are.

Ehem, that's exactly what you are claiming as facts here:

This man was an experienced pilot and you make him sound like a rookie.

And by the way, I did no such thing. Again, putting words in my mouth that I didn't say is still not evidence. And that makes a good segue into the other thread, where we can discuss you distorted concept of what "evidence" is.

 

[Trapped]

A few more I missed this afternoon. Note: I've quoted and responded to what is evidence/proof discussion in the thread I created for that purpose.


Nor am I. But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about evidence that we have been/are being visited. Kaku neither claims we are, much less attempts to prove it in that video.


You mean "claims". He's not an alien, so he can't "admit" it. And no, he doesn't. He says: "5% remain totally unexplained."

And again, as others pointed out: I'm not looking for a 3rd party's opinion - you already acknowledged that you recognize that this isn't the mainstream scientific view. I want the evidence itself.

Then post some! Why make us wait? Are you trying to convince us you are a crackpot by behaving like one instead of just posting the evidence?

I'm not sure what "phenomenon" you are talking about (is it the one I posted this thread to ask about?), but this thread is about evidence. If "the phenomenon is real", show me the evidence! The statement that you can't discuss it unless I accept a prior that it is real is a statement of religious belief. I'm not signing-up for the religion of UFOology, I want proof that alien spacecraft are real.

That is so broad and vague that it is both universally accepted and completely useless.

This is not a "try" issue: you are doing it on purpose, so just stop!

You aren't just using the terms "UFO" and "alien spacecraft" interchangeably, you are deciding after-the-fact which definition you want to apply where, shifting from one to the other and using both at the same time. That's not accidental, that's purposeful misrepresentation. Here's how that went:

"Them" in that context was a direct response to my statement - and indeed the whole point of the thread - about alien spacecraft. Then when challenged for the evidence, you provide this:

In that case, the object was at best a temporarily "unknown object". But either way, there is no assertion made anywhere nor any evidence presented that it was an alien spacecraft.

So what you do is intentionally shift from "planes have crashed chasing alien spacecraft" - which is not proven - to "planes have crashed chasing UFOs" - which is.

And of course, this is all setting aside the fact that you're berating others for their lack of expertise while claiming you are making what would be really stupid rookie mistakes yourself. You're clearly not dumb enough for that.


Ehem, that's exactly what you are claiming as facts here:

And by the way, I did no such thing. Again, putting words in my mouth that I didn't say is still not evidence. And that makes a good segue into the other thread, where we can discuss you distorted concept of what "evidence" is.

It's clear what you are asking for, you want the smoking gun proof from me. I don't have it.

There is plenty evidence which I do have. I have been speaking about a lot of evidence for the last three days. If you haven't caught it all, read it again because I won't be going over it a second time for your thread...

...which was clearly designed as a ''gotcha thread.''

 

[Russ_Watters]

While fervently believing that ETI exists somewhere, sometime, I see time and distance as the two great barriers to contact between any species.
I also see any species that did arrive in our vicinity, would be hundreds, maybe thousands of years ahead of us.
I don't believe they would be aggressive and would not want or need any Earthly commodity, as most of that anyway would be elsewhere in the solar system/Universe.
I also don't believe they would secretly land, kidnap and anal probe any individual.
I see their intelligence and non aggressive nature, wanting to and easily achieving contact with the Earth as a whole and eventually landing.

They would certainly not be afraid of us...I don't believe they would be aggressive...I do believe they would be curious and logical.

I agree with all of that.

 

[Russ_Watters]

It's clear what you are asking for, you want the smoking gun proof from me. I don't have it.

Agreed.

There is plenty evidence which I do have. I have been speaking about a lot of evidence for the last three days.

Also agreed. But none of it is quality evidence that can be used to form a scientific consensus that alien spacecraft are here. That's fine for you, with your much lower bar that appears to look like religious devotion, but for scientifically-minded people it is not.

...which was clearly designed as a ''gotcha thread.''

No, it is most certainly not a "gotcha thread". The question is very straightforward and easily answered if one is open, honest and self-aware enough to answer it. You'd have been better-off just acknowledging that you don't have scientific quality evidence and leaving it at that instead of trying to pass-off mediocre evidence as scientific quality evidence. You shoot yourself in the foot with your tactics.