They made their claims based on ignorance, and mine, on the facts.

So was that a Xenu X-5000 cruiser that buzzed us or A Galactic Empire d1-2000 convertible with the chrome rims?

Edit: How silly of me, I was actually under the impression radar told you nothing of origin. Huh, silly me.

But, many are not! After all, many UFOs were identified as saucer-shaped flying vehicles capable of hypersonic velocities as confirmed by a multitude of electronic systems that corroborated the visual accounts.

Which case?

People will dismiss witness testimonals,video,photos etc while coming out with the same old "venus, weather balloon, lighthouse" etc. And just like the "ET believers", these people need to back up the claim for these so called explanations that they are coming out with. If people see a disc shaped ufo hover above them, then shot off at amazing speeds, certin people will turn around and say they saw venus. Too me, in a case like this, ET would be more logical. The sad thing is some people refuse to believe that these objects could be ET, and thats where they fail, and thats where the stupid explanations start coming out. While at the same time, preaching the same old " burden of proof crap" that they hide behind.

...I'm sorry, I'm not even going to enter in radar debates as I know nothing about the subject.

--Jaylemurph

You sure? Seems like a lot of stuff bounces off you to begin with. JK.

??? Jayle is very knowledgeable about many scientific topics, which is much more than can be said for many people on this forum.

I'm not even sure what that means...

--Jaylemurph

So are you his lawyer or his monkey? Quit trying to use the gang tactics. I was just poking fun. Nothing malicious.

Sorry anyone who equates unidentified with extraterrestrial then attempts to "poke fun" of someone else's intellectual ability should expect it coming.

Anyone who sees something that can ONLY be classified as non Earthly in origin and not made by humans is left with BUT the possibility of it being Extraterrestrial.

In the end, all we have is someone telling us that they saw something, and your favorite "proof" radar. Now if radar were 100% error free we might have something here, but they are not.

People are interested in UFOs, perhaps for the wrong reason, but they are interested. I think it has more to do with Independence Day and Contact and The X-Files. Science fiction is motivating a lot of interest. And I dont think there is anything wrong with that, as long as people can think critically.

If aliens have been visiting the Earth for 50 years, you would think that it would not be so hard to convince a lot of people that that was true. Its convinced about 50 percent of the American public, so what, its convinced very few academics. The bottom line is that the evidence for extraterrestrial visitors has not convinced many scientists.

As an astronomer friend said to me, if I thought there was a only one percent chance that any of it was true, Id spend 100% of my time on it. In other words, if the evidence were the least bit compelling as the believers think, youd have lots of academics working on it because its very interesting.

To me that says that the evidence is weak from the scientists perspective.

Astronomers and other scientists are well aware of many instances in which something that was very radical turned out to be true. It happens over and over again in science, thats the way science makes the big steps. So I dont think they would all be scared off by the fact that its considered radical or non-mainstream. Continental drift was not very popular at the beginning, but it gained adherents rather quickly. As soon as you have a trickle of hard evidence, that trickle turns into a torrent, and then what was radical yesterday is today mainstream.

I dont see that happening with the UFO phenomenon.




*This however, could change at anytime, I just wish Im still around if it does.

Goes to show just how closed minded these scientists are. Anyone who says that the mountains of evidence present in the world and throughout history constitutes less than one percent "true" evidence is pretty frickin' strange.

Their is more than enough evidence that ufos are real, but they are still not taken seriously, which is a shame, but thats ignorance for ya!. No matter what you say, the subject is not taken seriously . It is still being linked with ET, and that gives certin people the chance to push it to one side. When arragonce and ignorance has been taken out, then we might learn something about this phenomona, instead of peopleignoring it and coming out with stupid explanations that, to tell you the truth, makes the ET explanation more logical.

Maybe they just don't believe the same things you do.
Funny how that makes them "close-minded" instead of differing in opinion.

--Jaylemurph

Not funny. Sad. For them.

Apparently, the radar data, which corresponded to the UFO case files in question, were found to be error-free after analysis were completed, along with the radar systems themselves. To further add, other dissimilar systems were also found to be error-free in those case files as well, so what we have here, are multiple, dissimilar radar systems all singing to the same tune, error-free, and that is in regards to the visual corroborations. In other words, not only were dissimilar airborne and ground-base radar systems in agreement, but they corroborated the visual accounts as well.



Science fiction really has nothing to do with it considering that the UFO enigma is centuries-old, long before the "X-Files" and the movie; "Independence Day." Besides, the Air Force was telling its own cadets back during the 1960's that the UFO enigma is 50,000 years old.



The Megamouth shark and the Coelacanth were swimming in the oceans for millions of years and were discovered only in recent history and still, new forms of life are still being discovered, with another animal discovered recently in Laos. UFOs have been reported all over the globe for centuries, long before those animals were discovered by man.



Speaking of astronomers and UFOs.





There are scientist and engineers who've came out and stated that they have tracked flying saucers that were extraterrestrial.



UFOs have even been brought up before Congress by scientist.

SkyEagle, if I was a hot chick instead of a guy, I'd ask you to have my babies.

Relax. I just like how you've researched and present this stuff. I have a ton of materials on my comp but you seem to pull it off remarkably easy and quickly whereas it would take me days to sort through it all.

A lot of these things I have known about for years. The Air Force, behind close-doors, knows they are real and not ours, but they present a completely different picture to the public.

Do you think there is ever a reason mainstream science and academia look at 99.9% of all UFO encounters as a joke? Yet obviously, with your vast scientific knowledge you know better than them. All you people lurk on internet forums, proclaiming your indisputable evidence that UFOs are extraterrestrial, why not call up MIT or Berkley and let them know?

You have "mountains of evidence" take it too someone who can do something with it (I would not recommend you attempt the scientific method)?

Okay.

My belief is pretty skeptical although I have seen something.

I know what I didn't see at 10:30 at night while taking my dog into the backyard . It hung in the sky motionless for a few seconds. a circle of bright 'clean' white about the size of a quarter held at arms length and at about30 - 40 degrees in the sky.. clean unlike the moon where you can see features. before it in a arc took off without sound up into the very clear sky until no longer visible.

it wasn't the moon. it wasn't a plane ( or any other man made vehicle) , it wasn't a balloon , it wasn't a meteor. it wasn't swamp gas or ball lightning.

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? - Sherlock Holmes.

Aliens ? I didn't see any , but there may have been. unoccupied ? it may have been. we have flying drones ourselves.

we learn first by observation. Galileo made his discoveries by observation and was labeled a heretic among other things. But he was right.

I can't say what people are seeing is real. I think alot aren't . ( just look at all the crap cgi videos ) but there is quite obvious something that does not originate from this planet is buzzing our skies at the very least. to deny that is in itself to be in denial of fact. Countries have come forward and plenty of educated people have as well.

what did I see ? I don't know. but I know what it wasn't.

Don't hide behind the skirts of scientist.




Scientist have had their own problems with reality. The same kind of scientist with the closed-minds of other scientist who refused to believe eyewitnesses accounts that rocks were falling from the sky; rocks that we know today as meteors. The same kind of scientist with closed-minds who refused to believe that heavier-than-air machines were possible, which we know today as the airplane.

The UFO documents that you'll find on the internet, are also available from government agencies as well. If you don't like the convenience of the internet, then you'll have to spend some of your hard-earned money to aquire the same documents from the government under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA), but that is your choice.

Have you ever asked Stanton Friedman, James McDonald or J. Allen Hynek what they thought? What about other scientist who have documented their own sightings after tracking flying saucers in space and within the Earth's atmosphere? Ask them what they thought.



J. Allen Hynek was once a UFO skeptic, but that all changed as He investigated further into the UFO enigma.

....I'm not hiding behind anything. I'm telling you, as a scientist, if you bring your subjective beliefs into academia, you would be laughed right back out the door.



If your evidence was so solid no one would have a problem looking into. Look, obviously, many people here think scientists are these evil conspirators out to sequester the truth. This couldn't be farther from the truth, scientists love new knowledge and discoveries as much as you, maybe more, thats why many of them have invested their lives in this thing called science.

Heres the difference though, As a scientist our work is based upon logic and evidence that may or may not be manifest regardless of our opinion, hopes and beliefs. You are very good at recognizing opinions sky, unfortunately, not so good at discerning them from fact. It turns out, this logical ability to reason, is what sets apart our work from our opinion. If you are so sure that the great majority of academia is incorrect in their skepticism, then I implore you, go get a BS in a relevant field of science and study UFOs. If you bring solid data to the table you will get published in big name journals. If you bring garbage laced with subjective speculation...I imagine you will have wasted 50,000 dollars.

If the data and evidence was as conclusive as you say, there is not a scientist in the world who would not want first dibs on it. I believe that is why many scientist, against their better judgment, join in on the speculation, just the slightest chance to be the one who authors the paper, "We are not alone", is enough to make some jump at the chance. While we all can't for the day that paper is written, using our opinions to usher it here faster is poor science. Until we have that strong conclusive evidence, we only have unidentified objects of unknown origin.


By the way did you happen to catch "Taken" on the discovery channel tonight? You know that foot surgeon who had been taking "alien implants" out of abductees for years? Well they tested the composition of them, turns out to be regular old earthly metals, under the scanning EM they are just lumps of metals, nothing special at all. Only happened to catch it because I am up at 2 am still working on a small fish grant proposal and feeding a teething 5 month old!

Again, if you evidence is so fool proof, why is not taken up by mainstream academia? A great big conspiracy perpetuated by academia and the United states government? Or maybe your evidence is not as fool proof as you would believe?

What about the believers?

Changing stories, changing events, a multitude of hoaxes. I have seen very plausible explainations thrown out the window with no better debate than a believer says it is rubbish.
Docments for, documents against, rubbery evidence, government conspiracies with weak hypothesis, unbelieveable stories of massive undergroud installations. No tolerance for rational explainations are accepted by believers, if it's not ET, your are gullible and stupid. How dare you question the belief!!

The believers are far worse than the skeptics. Most explainations are "Beyond our understanding" or "too advanced" yeah, right. How convenient is that. Shame any produced physics don't work.

All the skeptics ask for is something real to believe in. Not ambiguous evidence. Something undeniable. If we have been chatting with LGM's for 50 or 60 years, shouldn't someone be able to prove something about anything? The early reports, and I would say Radar records may be good as confirming evidence, but, we only have speculation to confirm. We have threads in here saying the government has secret weapons and vehicles they are keeping from us.........but..............no way are they UFO related, them suckers got ET in 'em! How hypocritical is that? How do you know which is which? How can you confirm missiles or controlled drones cannot do a 90 degree turn at 40 G's, how do you know it is not experimental missiles? How do you know anything 30 years ago is accurate? How do we know hat the Belgium UFO was not Black OPs caught out, just like the U2. For many cases, ET is a possible hypothesis, but in many cases, belivers will argue something that has been confessed as a hoax, how many still believe in Alien Autopsy? While the rubbish continues, believers will have a harder case because more people who want to believe are stumbling on this rubbish for the first time, and around we go again. I accept some cases are genuine enigma, and deny rational explaination, but these are lost, as is their credibility in this massive wave of rubbish they ride on. While believers support this nonsensical claptrap, their credibility wil continue to decline untill such a smoking gun is produced. I have said it before, believers are their own worst enemy.

But just because some of these so called respectable believers are coming out with these explanations, then that means its alright, its not!

If someone says Bob Lazar I'm dead set gonna set Mostar and his Hentai army on you. Heaven help you then!!

Did anyone read this article here posted on this UM website?
http://mysteriousanomalies.blogspot.com/20...biological.html

Here's some of the bits I liked.....

"This methodology is simply a contradiction within the scientific field. The true scientists of our world are able to rid their biases on all subject matter and objectively research them. As a result, scientists are able to research many different subjects and expand the horizons to the mysterious. Isn't it the scientists' duty and nature to research these phenomenon thoroughly?

The UFO phenomenon demands serious consideration, for the evidence is overwhelming. There are hundreds of thousands of UFO sightings every year, though the majority of them never get reported. The ones that do get reported are either written off as hoaxes or thought to be of more earthly origin. Many sightings are never explained at all because the evidence surrounding the phenomenon is too great to be disregarded as something as ordinary as a weather balloon. Other examples of irrational explanations used to write off UFOs include, conventional aircrafts, flares, satellites, planets, and even swamp gas! If people think these absurd explanations are true, then everyone in the world is living a lie."

Having read many UFO books, people who witness these events usually have psychological problems for life. I for one find it hard to shake thousands of peoples photos and encounter stories off so easily.

Sorta waiting for the same thing from God.......

Exactly, I've seen something that seems to defy explanation but the "wave of rubbish" (I like that analogy!) has long ago washed over it.



Oh yeah, let's set "the dogs of war" upon the likes of Lazar!

I am a believer based on my own experience and those of my compatriots, and have on more than one occasion stated, that the majority of UFO sightings can be explained, but it is that small number of sightings that have no conventional explanation because the data shows that the crafts were under intelligent control whose performance characteristics exclude aircraft of mankind based on the fact the technloogy involved was outside the realm of our knowledge.

I have also slammed such people as George Adamski, Billy Meier, Bob Lazar and others for concocting hoaxes. I am a skeptic of every UFO report until I have examined the specifics and data surrounding a particular case and that is why radar/visual case files are very interesting to me because they corroborate one another. In other words, I don't jump on the UFO bandwagon every time a UFO report is made.

In a field where information mixes in so seamlessly with disinformation, I don't waste time debunking or slamming anyone, personally. I concentrate on my own research and don't particularly care to debunk or ridicule others. Lazar and Greer both have one thing in common: the masses of Ufologists dislike them. If they turn out to be right, there's going to be a lot of tails tucked in between legs.

Remember, I am also skeptical of every UFO report as well. It is the specifics that surrounds a particular UFO sighting or encounter that is of interest to me.



The fact there are over 100,000 reports on record, tons of data and other evidence, not to mention that other countries have begun releasing their own UFO files where some government officials have stated that the UFOs were those of extraterrestrials. shows that UFOs are quite real.



In many cases, radar tracking were confirmed visually, so there was no question about the validity in regards to those case files. Military and commercial crewmembers reported flying saucers flying in the vicintiy of their aircraft, which were confirmed by ground-based radars, in many cases, dissimilar airborne and ground-based and ELINT systems at well, all confirming the same contacts.



The military does keep secrets, and keeps them quite well. After all, how long were the A-12 and the F-117 stealth fighter flying before they were revealed to the public?



Some missiles can turn on a dime, but they had nothing to do with flying saucers that were larger than aircraft carriers flying circles around and tracking military and commercial aircraft. Also, missiles have a limited burn cycle and cannot hover silently, which means that none of the UFOs in question, were missiles. Can you seriously state that this incident was an errant missile from the Nellis Test Range?

http://www.ufocom.org/UfocomS/usbariloche.htm

Can you seriously state that these incidents were caused by errant missiles?

http://www.project1947.com/fig/1952d.htm

It is obvious that the Air Force didn't think they were dealing with missiles either.





You can watch the "Military Channel" and listen as World War II vets recount their own war experiences in great detail.



Because, there is a reason why black projects are highly classified, which simply means that the Belgian UFO was not a part of any black project. After all, there were lights blazing on the craft, it was in Belgian airspace illegally, it hovered over a major city and seen by thousands over a period of months as it was video taped and photographed and it exceeded the speed of sound but left no sonic boom signature, and if you check the FAA regulations, you will find that we haven't solved the sonic boom problem.

UFO debunker Phillip Klass as to
whether there could be any validity to explain the Hudson Valley
and Belgian flaps with Secret military aircraft, Stealth or
otherwise.

"In my opinion the answer is absolutely not,"
responded Klass, adding that only those sightings "in the
vicinity of Nellis Air Force Base" in Nevada could be caused by
military aircraft tests. "If there were a secret airplane,"
continued Klass, "for goodness' sake, the last place in the world
you'd want to fly it is in Duchess County, where people have been
alerted to look for objects."

There are places where secret aircraft are flown and to suggest that we hover them over a major city with lights blazing so that thousands of people can see what we got when the aircraft is suppose to be a secret in the first place, and do so illegally in the airspace of an ally, is not the way it is done in the real world. Who is going to be responsible for our classified aircraft if it malfunctions and crashes in the middle of that city? Now, our former classified aircraft is in the hands of thousands of citizens of a former friendly ally without security clearances and our national security and friendly relations with an ally has now been seriously affected.

I noticed that RAF Bentwaters was mentioned. That is where some of my compatriots were stationed, and they became believers.

Some of the disinformation has been concocted by the government and a good case was the U-2 aircraft.



But, here's the real story.

Hi Morrison, I really like your post.

I believe as you do about this topic. I won't even waste my time on debunkers any more. I had a short discussion on another forum with a debunker, and after I presented the material he went on and on arguing, and he was actually upset that I wouldn't argue with him. Instead I posted

"I won't waste my time with debunkers. If you don't believe the material presented, you're most welcome to check previous posts on this subject and also you can use the internet or listen to live interviews or read books on the subject. I could argue with you until I'm blue in the face and you still wouldn't believe what I have to say."

This is why in the future, I've decided to post controversial threads and let the ____ go at it. I won't get involved in their ongoing attempts to disprove the material presented and to argue maliciously. I feel it only adds to bad feelings, and that's not the idea or intent of the original posters who post these threads. And I have seen many many times that these debunkers(and sometimes skeptics too) can be very disrespectful in their responses.

And many of these people don't take the time to do their homework. They're just very quick to say "You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong." Even after they're asked to do their homework, they refuse to do it, and continue to say "You're wrong, you're wrong."

I personally also believe there's a fine line between being a skeptic and a debunker. I still have yet to meet a skeptic who is presented with articles and photos who then believes. Other than tangible proof, which is what many debunkers require(if that at all), I'm not sure what else would convince a skeptic. I've even asked a skeptic what it would require to believe, and received no response back.

I think it's healthy to have a certain amount of skepticism but let's say we're talking about a creature that existed a very long time, unless they have the bones to prove it, they may be reluctant to believe, although the creatures bones may never be discovered; whereas, someone else may believe based on stories of ancient tribes(of peoples throughout the world who have not had contact with each other), as well as ancient artwork.

In my personal opinion, if one ancient tribe says they saw purple frogs living in the trees, I'd seriously question the validity, but if you have people throughout the world who claimed purple frogs once lived in the trees, I'd take a serious look at the phenomenon.

I believe there are people out there who base their personal beliefs just on their personal opinion[and that's ok]. There are also people who base their personal beliefs based on research[and that's also ok]. The bottom line is to present this material and receive responses that are respectful and not demeaning.

Then, why are "scientist" and the "scientific method" being used in an effort to debunk the UFO enigma?



Not with the data I would provide. The data is straight-to-the-point and that is why a professor, who is an expert in radar technology and who teaches at a military institution, had stated on video that it was highly likely that the Belgian UFO was extraterrestrial.



What I am saying is that you can't argue with the data when the data from multiple and dissimilar sources was already scrutinized by the experts and added along with the visual accounts that corroborated that data. It is clear from the data that the objects were under intelligent control; objects whose documented performance exclude aircraft and missiles, but apparently, I still get this natural phenomenon argument despite the fact the data shows no such thing and that says a lot about the lack of knowledge regarding the issues at hand.



Ever wondered what turned J. Allen Hyneck as a UFO skeptic?

Perhaps, they are afraid they will discover that we are not the brightest beings in the vicinity of Earth, but on another note, scientist who have documented their own UFO experiences, were the ones stating 'flying saucers' are extraterrestrial.



How many cover-up stories do we have on the Roswell incident alone? Who'd concocted those cover-up stories? None other than the US government! Even Congressman Steven Schiff (R-NM) stated in the Washington Post on January 14, 1994, that there was in fact, a government cover-up on the Roswell incident.

Other than the government cover-up stories on the Roswell incident, we also have the cover-up on 1952 Washington UFO incidents, the U-2 and the A-12 aircraft, and of course, there was the Robertson Panel. The "War of the Worlds" panic of 1938, and the Brookings Instititute's report to NASA in 1960, are the fuels for the government to continue on with its cover on UFOs.

CNN say UFOs don't exist so I don't believe in UFOs.


/kidding

Speakinig of CNN.

(CNN) -- Nearly 50 years since an alleged UFO was sighted at Roswell, New Mexico, a new CNN/Time poll released Sunday shows that 80 percent of Americans think the government is hiding knowledge of the existence of extraterrestrial life forms.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9706/15/ufo.poll/

This proves as much as the rest of your evidence. It doesnt matter if the whole world believe in aliens, if there not real.

I think that the real problem in a debate like this is that we have different oppinions about what REAL EVIDENCE is.

I think it is rather a product of some people knowing what evidence is and how to interpret said evidence.

Howdy, Hazzard. Not really replying to the above, but this thread is quite interesting.
My biggest question is this: Why must it be either believe or not believe, this or anything else, for that matter? Not specifically a question for you, but for everyone.
Skyeagle posts compelling arguments, as does Hazzard. Eagle and I have had some differences, but it boils down to the fact that there are SOME sightings that are not explained. I maintain that some of the sightings are of human origin; Sky says that the pilots of those craft MUST abide by the regulations, and I maintain that is not necessarily the case. He's been around the flight line quite a while; I've been involved in quite a number of covert things, and I can say that regulations don't mean a damn in those cases; so, I claim that any craft capable of flight in the way a UFO does would not necessarily be bound by the FAA, regardless of origin.
I do NOT say UFOs are entirely of one origin or the other; I've seen several, and some of those would be very difficult to explain away, while others I would maintain were of human origin, but were NOT, definitely NOT, within flight regulations. Those were also, I'm convinced, not ET.

So why is it that there is this difficulty in reserving judgement about either the existence or the origin of such objects? All I can think of is that same lack of open-mindedness that comes from the "scientific method" when that so encumbers the mind that the method enslaves the thought process. Which, incidentally, happens more often than not.

The data evidence is very clear and in many cases, the data confirmed the visual accounts, so in many cases, what were commercial and military aircrews reporting? metallic saucer-shaped flying vehicles.

What was the data evidence depicting?

The 'flying saucers' the aircrews reported, conducted right-angled maneuvers beyond 40 Gs and sped along at hypersonic speeds without producing sonic booms. In regards to sonic booms:



In other words, the flying saucers that were visually confirmed by military and commercial aircrews, and tracked at hypersonic velocities within the atmosphere, yet leaving behind no sonic boom signatures, are not ours.

Covert operation over Washington D.C.?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washingt...C._UFO_incident