DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Your opinion of what a "fact" is is also not something others have to buy in to.No. it's a solid fact.
How about we stick to the thread topic.
Your opinion of what a "fact" is is also not something others have to buy in to.No. it's a solid fact.
Your opinion of what a "fact" is is also not something others have to buy in to.
Your idea of what constitutes a "fact" is incorrect.A fact is fact. It doesn't depend on others "buying" into it.
Your idea of what constitutes a "fact" is incorrect.
I deny that there are ignorant ones who avoid studying any of the cases.No it isn't. It is simply self-evident fact that in the field of ufology you have the knowledgable ones who actually study the cases over many years and you have the ignorant ones who avoid studying any of the cases. And they both reach conclusions. There's no way you can deny this.
Such as?I know the British Air Force has tested several different saucer shaped aircraft
So far as I'm aware no one has managed to fly any circular aircraft capable of VTOL, let alone "several".several of which are capable of VTOL operations.
So far as I'm aware no one has managed to fly any circular aircraft capable of VTOL, let alone "several".
There was the Canadian (tested by the US) Avrocar (circular and hovered rather than "flew" since it was massively unstable outside of ground effect altitude), the US also flew the V-173 (circular, not VTOL, large propellers - not really "flying saucer") and proceeded to the XF5U (also circular not VTOL etc but never flew).
Avro Canada planned the WS606A (aka/ linked to/ derived from Project Y, Project/MX 1794/ Silverbug) which (in SOME stages of design) was circular, VTOL capable (but also varied between flat-riser and "point it into the sky edgeways before launch") but didn't get past the mock-up stage in any version.
You might be thinking of the Flying Bedstead. You'd need to be charitable to describe that thing as saucer-shaped.My apologies - I erroneously attributed John Frosts works with the RAF - I recall he had been a pioneer in British Supersonic aircraft technology, and thought that Project Y and Y2 were RAF - they look to have been USAF. Several of his patents were filed in Britain.
I recall (perhaps incorrectly) that there had been a saucer prototype as part of the Harrier project that was a VTOL testbed... I'll have to dig around to see if I can find what I am thinking of though.
You might be thinking of the Flying Bedstead. You'd need to be charitable to describe that thing as saucer-shaped.
Yes. Well it did get airborne.....a bit.......Wasn't that thing more a skeletal framework with some engines attached? If it's what I'm thinking of, calling it an aircraft is being charitable lol
Yes. Well it did get airborne.....a bit.......
leaving trace evidence
have capabilities far exceeding that of humans.
Why would alien beings taking tissue samples from abducted humans be so unlikely?
Officially the Thrust Measuring Rig (i.e. not intended to be an "aircraft" per se, merely a proof of concept "breadboard" for jet lift).
Essentially it showed that not only were "flat-risers" eminently feasible but that they were really the way to go for VTOL.
The problem with this hypothesis is that skeptics, in general, don't do that."Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public."
The problem is that people don't like to think that they are capable of making mistakes, or acting stupidly. They get all embarrassed. So, it is understandable when people choose to ignore plausible alternative explanations of their experiences that they feel may result in embarrassment for them.People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown." (Vallee, J., Confrontations, New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.)
It is considered evidence. But time and again, on close examination the house of cards fails to stand up. The so-called "evidence" so often turns out to be misinterpreted, flawed, or simply faked.John Alexander, NIDS, “Refuting Fermi: No Evidence for Extraterrestrial Life?”
“The undeniable reality is that there are a substantial number of multi-sensor UFO cases backed by thousands of credible witnesses. In the physical domain there are many photos, videos, radar tracking, satellite sensor reports, landing traces including depressions and anomalous residual radiation, electromagnetic interference, and confirmed physiological effects. Personal observations have been made both day and night, often under excellent visibility with some at close range. Included are reports from multiple independent witnesses to the same event. Psychological testing of some observers has confirmed their mentally competence. Why is none of this considered evidence?
Apparent intereference. Reported interference.There are over 3000 cases reported by pilots, some of which include interference with flight controls.
Scopes have their own set of problems.On numerous occasions air traffic controllers and other radar operators have noted unexplained objects on their scopes.
Sure. Some things are unidentified. The problem is jumping from there to "It's an alien spaceship! Run for the hills!"So too have several astronomers and other competent scientists reported their personal observations. Many military officials from several countries have confirmed multi-sensor observations of UFOs.
Argument from authority now? Is there nothing better?The most senior air defense officers of Russia, Brazil, Belgium and recently a former Chief of Naval Operations in Chile all have stated that UFOs are real.
When did this large metallic flying disc show up? Details, please! Where's the evidence for the rays, the speed, the disciness, the metallicity, the landing, the small beings, etc? Or is this just another anecdote?Right. A large metallic disc that flies at high speeds silently in the sky and shoots rays out of itself and even lands in fields with small beings that exit it isn't of extraterrestrial origin. How could you know that? What else COULD it be?
But there are just so many other explanations. There's no lack of other explanations, in most cases. That's not the problem.Like I said, the simple lack of any other explanations makes the alien hypothesis quite logical.
Why would they need to keep doing it, over and over and over again? And why all the sneaking around and hiding? Why not be open about what they want? Why abduct, when you could simply ask?Why would alien beings taking tissue samples from abducted humans be so unlikely?
Why has nobody studied them, then?UFOs DO repeat, and can be studied, if we're in the right place at the right time.
Most such evidence is of disputed origin, or else its identification is disputed.Yes there is extant evidence of ufos. You claim there isn't. There are over 3500 ufo landing cases that left trace evidence.
No. The evidence is flaky, just like all the other alien spaceship evidence.And it was studied by scientists in many cases. All that data is available online. This is solid scientific evidence for the existence of ufos.
More anecdotes.Ofcourse not all ufos land in farmer's fields. Some actually hover over nuclear missile sights and shut down operations.
Indeed. It doesn't have to be in a lab. But there must be agreement on what the facts are and how they are best to be interpreted.Repeatability in a lab is not the standard for deciding if something happened.
There are certainly many hundreds of unreliable anecdotes. Nobody disputes that.And if you think encounters with ufo occupants are rare or hoaxed events, here's a database of hundreds of accounts of such encounters gathered over the decades.
http://iraap.org/rosales/#cufos
I have to laugh if you are claiming you have "studied" UFOs for years, Magical Realist.Right. There are the conclusions of those who have studied this phenomenon for years. And there are the conclusions of those who haven't. Knowledge vs ignorance. It's the same for every field of study.
Vallee was a charlatan. His advocates were low grade morons."Skeptics, who flatly deny the existence of any unexplained phenomenon in the name of 'rationalism,' are among the primary contributors to the rejection of science by the public. People are not stupid and they know very well when they have seen something out of the ordinary. When a so-called expert tells them the object must have been the moon or a mirage, he is really teaching the public that science is impotent or unwilling to pursue the study of the unknown." (Vallee, J., Confrontations, New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.)
Every time you're faced with the prospect of actually studying any of your favorite anecdotes, by which I mean looking into them with any level of skepticism or prudence, you run away as fast as your little legs can carry you, only to produce the next shiny bauble that briefly captures your attention. You have no idea what studying something means. Or so you would have us believe.