One must always be careful when dealing with matters where a personal belief has a tendancy to supercede the evidence. I think that the scientific method is a crucial step to discovery!

The way I try to operate is from a strictly empirical/scientific methodology. The first thing I do with any hypothesis is to attempt falsification, thats science, not a conspiracy.

I myself do believe in life existing in places other than Earth, but it is a far better reward to have this idea proved via the scientific method than it is to simply state it as fact on blind faith. My personal belief is just that a belief, a hunch, a gut feeling of sorts. Future scientific discovery will dictate fact from fiction as it always does.

I think with UFO evidence there is a total lack of the peer review process, where as evidence is left for the public to decide. Snidbits of footage and photos are thrown to us like a proverbial bone to the dog. So there is a total lack of A)Scientific Method B)Peer Review, to sort out the fake from the actual. So it is because of this present situation that we all must remain our own skeptics.

The odds are stacked against those who believe or want to believe, for reasons such as lack of government support and lack of support from the scientific community.

Be aware of one thing though, we do have an entire billion dollar agency whos very inception is based on the search for life, this agencys motivation behind alot of their work is in search of other life. So there must be at least an inkling of belief on their part.........so like I said , future scientific discovery will dictate fact from fiction and as skeptics we shouldnt want it anyother way!

And in the end it does not matter how much people kick and cry, the matter of alien visitation will be decided by the evidence, not by the intensity of opinion. If more people understood this simple truth there would be less "believers".

Perhaps some of you would like the skeptics to replace the scientific method with faith, like you have!? Just one minor problem with that, it doesnt matter if every man, woman and child in the world believe in aliens, if they are not real.

I have ever denied the existence of UFOs, and I do realize that there are things that have been seen, that are somewhat unexplained...UFOs, in other words. But, Unexplained does not mean alien!! Never has. Of course, you may believe in aliens on Earth, ghosts, or even the tooth ferry all you want.

Me, I deal in knowledge. There is a BIG difference between the two.



I know that these aliens on Earth beliefs may be strongly held and are often tied in with self-image, passionate whishes or perceptions about the world around us. They can, however, be in the way when looking at the "evidence" objectively.

So, just for the record. I do what I always do, look for anything BUT the "aliens are here" explanation. Then, in the end, after all and every possible known theory is looked at, then and only then, might have something interesting left to take serious.

You see, we are all on the same team here. I think that we all would love nothing more then proof of extraterrestrial life. Proof being the key word here.

Some of you believe that in 1947 alien rocket jockeys made a last-minute navigation error and crashed in the desert. The putative victims are generally portrayed as humanoid, if somewhat shorter than us, and with bigger heads - like children. While not impossible, this is unlikely. I think that the Roswell aliens in the stories we all have heard resemble us because we relate better to anthropomorphic creatures. Any real aliens out there wont be so similar. They probably wont crash, either. Does proof of a coverup in Roswell=proof of aliens? YES to some, NO to me.

Did Buzz see an alien space craft on the way to the moon, maybe. But I believe that what they saw was a piece of the SLA (Spacecraft/LM Adapter), one of the 4 panels that was jettisoned prior to transposition and docking shortly after TLI, when the spacecraft was a couple thousand miles out on July 16.

And about the Disclosure Project.

Are all these credible high ranking fine people with top secret clearance crazy or lying!? I dont know. But again I have to ask myself.... What was that conference really about? It was about 2 hours of testimony by people largely describing the commonplace UFO sightings. There were also a couple folks who made outlandish claims of having seen extraterrestrial beings(!!)

So? Maybe, maybe not.

have ever seen one jot of proof that any of what's been sighted, reported, filmed, or photographed has ever, in any way, been shown to be alien. We do not deny that some things might be alien. I'm all for that. What we do deny is that there has been any proof of it.

You see, I do not deal in belief. I deal in knowledge. There is a vast difference between the two. You may believe all you want to. But knowledge requires a higher standard than that which propels belief.

There is no reason to get upset about it. What needs to be understood is the burden of proof that science and its method requires.

As believers begin to build the case about UFO = Aliens, the foundation of this is built on hear say, speculations, theories, guess work, assumptions, beliefs and emotions.

But there are no real scientific evidence or Facts.

Until we can prove 100% that these are not earth based ships - we are guessing.

Actually, the odds are the other way around! After all, it hasn't been shown by the skeptics that the gigantic flying saucers, which have flown circles around our aircraft, are ours. On another note, many believers are scientist and engineers, and in some cases, they experienced their own UFO encounters as well.



We definitely know that it wasn't a balloon. Currently there are four stories relating to the Roswell incident, and they are:

A. Recovered Flying Saucer

B. Weather Balloon

C. Project Mogul Balloon

D. Test Dummies and Accident Victims of the 1950s

The Air Force has already admitted that a weather balloon ( wasn't involved. We already know that no Project Mogul balloon was involved either, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that test dummies and accident victims of the 1950s couldn't have been responsible for an incident that took place in 1947, but the Air Force managed to put the wool over the eyes of those who allowed the Air Force to do so.

So what we have left that has not been refuted, is the first original press release of a recovered "flying saucer," and military personnel and civil servants who were in prime positions to know, have stated that the Roswell incident involved extraterrestrials.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287643,00.html



Some of those cases as presented by the Disclosure witnesses are very well-documented and one case involved Hill AFB, UT, a former base of mine, which was involved in the investigations regarding the Minuteman missile shutdowns because Hill AFB had a special responsibility toward Minuteman missiles in the field. Flying saucers were reported in the area during the time the missiles were shut down and we didn't have the technology in the field for shutting down those missiles in the way it was done from outside the shielded cables, but it was very clear to the Air Force that someone had the technology with such capabilities.



Why is it that UFO debunkers continue to dismiss all of the spaceborne, airborne, and ground-based data and physical trace evidence that proves beyond any doubt that some UFOs are not ours?

Your right about impartiality and objectivity,perhaps the best place to put yourself is somewhere between hysterical prejudice cynicism and hopeless naive gullibility.
Wilfull ignorance is so often a problem with this subject as many folks just assume its all nonsense (then find it difficult to hold informed opinions).
There have been some cases where UFOs have been witnessed by trained military observers and captured and plotted on ground and air radar over military installations/nuclear facilities.
One case in particular where UFOs were sighted the same time 19 nuclear missiles went off line-so it pays to actualy look into the subject.
There is a mountain of declassified UFO literature(over 200,000 government documents) and a huge number of high ranking military officials/defense who seem to think the subject is a real one.
I think if a person looks extensively into all the many well documented ,radar corellated cases then they cannot help but conclude that 'some' UFOs are intelligently controlled unknown objects which seem to defy rational explanation.
Many military chiefs and aviation professionals have specualted that the ET hypothesis is the only viable,credible explanation for 'some' of these cases and they are probably in a better posisition than us to judge whether this subject has any validity or not.

An eyewitness testimony, or a thousand, isnt hard scientific proof of extraterrestrials on Earth.

A picture isnt proof.

A radar record isnt proof.

A video isnt proof.

A high ranking military testimony isnt proof.

A leaked "top seceret" document isnt proof.

All you can find on the Internet about it is pretty much what you might expect, UFO afficianadoes postulating that it was an alien craft. A little scetchy information has been built into "evidence" of ET craft, which is rather normal for the people who get this information.

Pilots, police officers, astronauts, and others with experienced eyes and impressive credentials have all claimed to see odd craft doing some wilde flying in the skies. Its safe to say that these witnesses have seen something. But just because you dont recognize an aerial phenomenon doesnt mean that its an extraterrestrial visitor.


Also, and this is why I started this thread, there seems to be some confusion about what constitutes "scientific proof" verses "personal proof" here. The standards for what I call proof in science (in so much as anything can be really be proven in science) is very different from saying you (personally) have seen enough evidence to prove something is valid. I just doesnt hold water in the scientific comunity, never has and never will, and rightfully so.

From a scientific point of view a theory is the very best explanation for an event that has been observed. Scientists first create an hypothesis to try and explain the observed behavior of something in the world. This needs to be an explanation that can be tested and potentially falsified by some means. If there is a lot of evidence that supports the hypothesis, then it will probably accepted that the hypothesis is a pretty good explanation.

If the hypothesis survives more testing, it may become an accepted theory.

The UFOs=alien space craft hypothesis, while not inherently a bad hypothesis at all, simply defies the potential for experimentation and falsification needed for it to become a scientific theory.

Now, this could all change at any point in time, but right now the UFOs=alien space craft hypothesis is not definitive from a scientific point of view.

Naturally, everyone is free to say that this hypothesis presents enough for them personally to think this is the case (that UFOs do indeed indicate alien visitation), but its not considered as scientifically "proven". Invoking conspiracy and clandestine activity may, or may not, have something to do with the available evidence.

But, from a scientific point of view, my point of view, one deals with what hard scientific evidence we do have...not what evidence may be suspected to exist somewhere else.

sry, double post.

Actually Sky, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof lies upon those making the claim. If you want to say that some UFO is of extraterrestrial origin then you need to have the evidence to support such a claim, otherwise you are only making known your opinion. Unfortunately the world does not work on the opinions of a few people. We can end this the way we end all of our conversations, Ill ask you to show me an alien body of one of the pilots or baring that produce a craft for me. You will post some rantings from "ufobelievers.com" type websites and continue to pass off your opinion as fact.




Because you don't know what "data" in this instance is. Ground based radar showing something of unknown origin, shows something of unknown origins. What it does not show is extraterrestrial origins. Thats wishful thinking on your part and a logical fallacy in your conclusion. For some asinine reason you think the words Unknown and extraterrestrial are synonymous. Also your data always seems to be coming from websites like "freeET" and "UFObelievers", which is not credible sources. My favorite of your links is your geocities pages, as if it were proof of something.

The undenial data collected on the UFOs in quesiton over the years, are in fact, extraordinary in themselves. That is why I posted data in the past to prove beyond any doubt that the objects were not aircraft nor the result of natural phenomena.



And, why I posted the irrefutable data.



Believe me, I am very familiar with what the data depicts!



The radar data can be used to eliminate all man-made objects and when the data is used in conjunction with visual accounts of objects that we don't have in our closet, then you have your extraordinary evidence.



I find that very amusing given the fact that those making such comments are those who have claimed that a weather balloon was responsible for the Roswell incident, that is, just before the Air Force admitted in 1994 that no weather balloon was responsible after all.

Actually, radar data can be used determine whether an object is a conventional aircraft or not.

I have seen a real UFO with my eyes, but have never seen Pluto, so what can you supply that proves its existence? Data? Photos? If you throw in data, I won't accept your data unless you accept mine, and if you add photos, I won't accept photos of Pluto if they are fuzzy.

We've been over this, I think if you had the extraordinary evidence you would have shown it by now, all you have shown is your usual subjective suspect claims.




The only thing any of your data has remotely shown is an object is unidentified and you don't know how to tell the difference between opinion and fact.




Your data does not prove extraterrestrial origins, most of the time all your data proves is your willing to believe anything you read on the internet.




What are you talking about? Have you no ability to comprehend the subject at hand? Why does it seem that believing in UFOs also requires lack of mental capacities. I said ...


What you said makes absolutely no sense in response to my comment. Let me put it more simply. I am saying you can not equate unknown to extraterrestrial which is what you attempt to do.

I could care less if you believe Pluto is there. Its verifiable through independent review and experimentation. Your UFOs of extraterrestrial origin are not. You can choose to go out and observe Pluto. Furthermore photos and data allows us to conclude the size, shape and origin of Pluto. Your videos, photos and radar of UFOs only let us conclude they are unidentified objects. A radar of a UFO tells you nothing of its origin. A photo of a UFO on earth tells you nothing of its origin.

Do you see this? Do you understand what a logical fallacy or false assumption is?

The data is straight-to-the-point that the object was an intelligently controlled craft whose manverability was such that no aircraft of mankind can even come close to duplicate.



Look at the data! The data will eliminate any object of mankind and the fact that there were visual confirmations on what the object was, is just the icing-on-the-cake, because we have no such vehicle capable of those kinds of maneuvering characteristics nor do we have any vehicle capable of flying hypersonic speeds within the atmosphere and not produce a sonic boom, but apparently, the UFOs in question are capable of doing so and doing what mankind's vehicles cannot do. That is how you can ascertain whether they are ours or not.



The data is clear on the performance charateristics of that vehicle and I can put it in perspective by simply saying that if I don't have a red truck, then obviously, the red truck is not mine.

UFOs can be as well by examining the data that corroborates visual accounts.



It is just a matter of using the 'process of elimination' to make a determination as to whether they are ours, or theirs.



I have never seen Pluto with my own eyes, but I have seen a real UFO!



What data? If you are not going to accept my data, then what makes you think that I should accept your data? My data is just as valid and my data can be used in a court of law.



What helicopter of mankind is capable of hovering in-place, 200 miles above the earth? What aircraft of mankind is capable of hypersonic flight and not produce a sonic boom within the atmosphere? Check the FAA regulations to see if we are there yet. What aircraft of mankind is capable of right-angled maneuvers at over 40 Gs? If you can't produce any aircraft, then you are going to have to admit that mankind doesn't have such vehicles.

New here. Anyhow, I'm wondering who you mean as "we", since if it were me I wouldn't blindly trust any government official or scientist in regards to EBE disclosure. I can rely on the mountains upon mountains of hard evidence to base my own conclusions. Just wondering.

ok then show me a picture of the intelligent agencies controlling the craft and the problem is solved. Also provide a quote for me of one of these agencies stating their origin or baring that some form of indisputable evidence of their place of origin.




Actually the data only lets you ascertain it is an object that you know to be no man made object. Everything after that is opinion.




A fine example, Now we know the red truck is not yours because you have no red truck. So I think its safe to assume the red truck is a Mr. Bob Smiths from 12345 Wallaby Ln. Anywhere Oklahoma, your with me on that assumption right?

In fact, we have evidence a red truck exists.
Seen here in evidence piece A.


We also can conclude the country is a large place so there is likely to be a Bob smith in it. And we can conclude that since there is likely a Bob smith and the red truck is not yours, it must be his.

Personally, I just wish I had a buck for everytime someone has told him this. As for your valiant attempt at reason here making any real impression...I wouldn't even bet one buck on that (I've been around her for awhile).

If I did so, I wouldn't be here. I would be somewhere else.



Just for starters.






Radar can asertain much more information about an object than just presenting a blip on the screen. It can even identify individual aircraft models by the chracteristics of their fan and compressor blades rotating within their engine bays or nacelles, and it can provide other information as well.



Copy that! But with me as being (Mankind) and Mr. Smith as (ET), then it is clear that the red truck (flying saucer) isn't mine. Putting that in driveway, the red truck (flying saucer) can't be mine, (Mankind) because I don't own such a vehicle. The same can be said of hypersonic flying saucers that have been tracked by NORAD flying in from deep space into Earth's atmosphere where it doesn't produce any sonic booms, somethng that Mankind (me) has been working on for decades, but apparently, ET (Mr. Smith) has already solved that problem. The lack of sonic booms by UFOs was noted by the Belgian Air Force in 1990.



Here's the "red truck" of Mr. Smith (ET) that I have been talking about.

But the issue still remains; it's a nifty triangle ship for sure...but how do I know for certain that it's owned and operated by ET?

Im with Lilly on this.

Talking to Skyeagle about evidence of aliens on Earth, is like talking to a religious fanatic about God. He just doesnt get it. There just isnt any real valid hard scientific evidence of life els were in the universe.

I wouldnt consider a radar return from 2007 as proof of ET, so forgive me if I remain skeptical, as radars back in 1950s, or something, were less reliable. You still need to prove that the "unknowns" being seen by radar have to be alien space craft at the exclusion of any and all other explanations.


And you have not.

Like your radar numbers you so love to throw around as proof of ET......Its not hard scientific evidence of ET on Earth.
It is an alleged data set, with nothing to substantiate its authenticity.

Sure, we can do this all year, like the Jehovas knocking on my door every now and then......Nothing will change, nothing.

Until the day you or anyone else finds "a smoking gun" and goes public

How hard can it be, belief has nothing to do with science, nothing, I need REAL evidence.

Evidence is not something you can observe. That is called an observation.
Evidence is the establishment of a proof based upon the observation, a proof accepted by the scientific method.

If you want to believe, thats fine with me.

If an alien enthusiast simply came out and made it clear he wanted to talk about his or her beliefs, that would be fine.
But when you come out and state facts which are in no way facts...you can expect the empiricists in the audience to point out the fallacy in your position.

And we do, your just not listening.

The problem with the "smoking gun" is that the fired bullet already exists and the people responsible for firing the sucker to begin with are hiding the weapon from us. In other words, scientific proof probably already exists but we're not privy to it.

I know that's right..

We'd already captured one, and would be paying 15.00 bucks a ticket to go see it in a museum somewhere near the capital.

If we don't have "extraordinary evidence" now, there isn't any. imo

Iv heard this arguement before... The material that would be convincing proof has been collected and secreted away by the U.S. government. While endlessly appealing, this is an argument from ignorance, its like saying "we cant show you good evidence because we havent got it, and perforce implies that every government in the world has efficiently squirreled away all alien artifacts.

Unless, of course, the extraterrestrials only visit the U.S., where retrieval of material that falls to Earth is supposedly a perfected art form.

Then why don't you join the military, ace some nuclear physics course, kiss some major ass, and see if you become privy to what you seek in thirty years?

Examples of past reasoning skills.

A. Test dummies and accident victims of the 1950s, were responsible for an event in 1947

B. A weather balloon was responsible, despite the fact the debris field covered an area hundreds of feet wide and 3/4 of a mile long.

C. An experimental balloon flight that never was, as responsible for an incident in 1947, despite the fact that it was clear that no such balloon ever took place as noted in the record books.

D. The Belgian Triangle was an F-117 stealth fighter, despite the fact that the F-117 cannot hover nor was the size of the Belgian UFO much less, fly at supersonic speeds, but that didn't deter the skeptic’s one bit.

E. The gigantic flying saucer that was reported by commercial and military crewmembers in 1986 and 1989, was Jupiter, Mars, and ice clouds, despite the fact the flying saucer was tracked on the radar systems of the FAA and of the Air Force and aboard the aircraft and visually confirmed by all crewmembers involved, but that didn't deter the skeptics.

F. The UFOs over Washington D.C. in 1952, were caused by temperature inversion, despite that fact that it was impossible for temperature inversion to have been responsible for those incidents, but that didn't deter the skeptics.

G. The UFO that overflow Los Angeles in 1942, was smoke, despite the fact the object was first detected by radar 120 miles west of the Californian coast and maneuvered back over the ocean afterwards, but that didn't deter the skeptics.

H. Flying saucers were not reported until the 1940s, despite the fact that flying saucers have been reported for centuries, but that didn't deter the skeptics.

I. Scientist and engineers do not report UFOs nor have any interest in them, despite the fact that many scientist and engineers are believers based on what they know and their own experiences, but that doesn't deter the skeptics nor the fact that J. Allen Hynek was very interested in UFOs.

J. The UFOs that trailed an RB-47 jet bomber for an hour and a half, was an American Airlines DC-6 prop-driven aircraft that cannot fly at the altitude of the RB-47 nor at its velocity, but that didn't deter the skeptics.

K. The UFOs in question, are secret aircraft, despite the fact the Air Force doesn't not conduct such flights in such a reckless manner as depicted by those UFOs, but that doesn't deter the skeptics.

L. The UFOs in question, are the result of some natural phenomenon despite the fact that the data does not depict any such thing and the fact that scientific analysis had determined that no such phenomenon could have been responsible, but that doesn't deter the skeptics.

M. The UFO that made a U-turn and headed back into space near one of NORAD's DSP satellites, which was situated over 20,000 miles above the earth's surface, was an SR-71. Never mind that the SR-71 is an air-breathing fying machine.

N. The UFO that was seen in the Rendlesham forest in 1980, was:

1. A light house
2. A military patrol car

Never mind that the light house cannot be seen from the base due to an attached back-shield and obstructions between it and the base, and the fact that it was proven that the patrol car had nothing to do with the UFO in the forest, given the fact the person who concocted that story adimitted the story wasn't true and to further add, the patrol car couldn't explain the other UFOs seen by military personnel and civilians in the sky, but that didn't deter the skeptics.

O. The U-2 was explained away as a UFO, but never mind that the U-2 was actually explained away as a high altitude weather aircraft in 1956 and is not saucer-shaped.

I can go all the way to "Z" and beyond, but it is clear that when it comes to reasonable reasoning, I can't find it on the other side of the fence.

Considering all the people who are convicted of this hidden/protected evidence-- those same people with knowledge, persistence, & even access desperate to convince the world that it's all real.... Seems likely that one of those folks in there diligence would have turned up something by now--

Skyeagle doesn't get it!

Basically, that is what the skeptics told me back in 1993, when I told them that no weather balloon was responsible for the Roswell incident, but the skeptics laughed at me anyway because they had in their possession, their so-called, "undenial evidence" that it was a weather balloon. Guess who got the last laugh in 1994 when the Air Force admitted that no weather balloon was responsible after all?

Guess where the skeptic's so-called "undeniable evidence" went?

Actually, UFOs have been reported over more than 100 countries around the globe, and some of them have done what the USA has yet to do. Even a former President of Brazil went public on the Trindade UFO. Imagine President Bush doing the same by going on CNN and stating that UFOs are real.

$15.00 won't even buy you a ticket to see some of our classified assets, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, and besides, it is not that easy to see one anyway. As far as flying saucers are concerned, Senator Barry Goldwater tried to take a look, but was turned down.

Yea not really sure why I try.




Well Lilly, If I dont have a red truck then we are sure ET does.





Yea pretty much every time I talk to sky, I just smile to myself and think, "Man people like that sure do make the world a much more interesting place".

There is just no substitute for good-old-fashioned knowledge!

Proof is only what we accept to be proof anyway. One mans proof is another man's non-sense.

And, that is where knowledge comes in on the scene, and that brings me back again to Tim Printy, a well-known UFO debunker.

In an effort to discredit one of the Roswell military witnesses, He sought to present his proof that the Air Force's C-54 couldn't use the runway at Kirtland AFB because it was too heavy, and I had my proof that the C-54 was in fact, capable of using the runway at Kirtland AFB, so it was his proof vs. my proof.

Tim's proof was based on pure ignorance, and my proof was base on the documented facts and had Tim done his homework, he would have found that the C-54 was in fact, capable of operating out of Kirtland AFB and was used to fly components of the first atomic bombs from that base, and not only the C-54, but the larger and heavier B-29 as well. The end-result of that confrontation was that Tim was forced to make a correction on his own web site.

So once again, there is no substitute for good-old-fashioned knowledge.

Telling yourself you have knowledge, is lying to yourself

Let me put it this way! I KNOW when the skeptics are wrong!

Fortunately the most hard nosed debunkers are rarely that smart. They usually mess up somewhere in their conclusions and the way the data is gathered to begin with. For one thing, I find for the most part that they start off with their conclusion and work their way back from there.

You gave me a good chuckle there.

yea, keep telling yourself that bud.

Are you concluded now?

Debunker - Someone who displays an irrational tendency to need Hard Scientific Evidence before believing a claim may be true, and/or someone who feels a need to suggest mundane explanations for UFOs, crop circles, animal mutilations, etc., when these are all clearly caused by aliens.

Believer - Someone who is not afraid to embrace new or controversial ideas unquestioningly and enthusiastically, even if they are self-contradictory or founded on nothing more than the ravings of a lunatic.

I agree -- but this entire thread is worth it for this quote from Camlax: "The only thing any of your data has remotely shown is an object is unidentified and you don't know how to tell the difference between opinion and fact."

Succinct, canny and it has 1,000 uses here at UM.

--Jaylemurph

SkyEagle obviously knows his facts and has done his research as I have. Nice to make alliances so soon off the bat in a new forum. Make that 1,001 uses.

A regular pair of Isaac Newtons the two of ya.

no, i de-bunker is someone who refuses to believe photos, witnsess video etc. Even if the people are not stating ET, the de-bunker will always come out with some stupid and rather pathetic explanations to some cases. A skeptic is someone who needs scientific proof that what they are looking at is ET ( which is fair enough ) but at the same time will state that some of these ufo's are complete unknowns, which is how it should be. Too many people refuse to believe that some ufos cant be explained, and thats where alot of dodgy explanations begin to surface.

I think the problem is not too many people refuse to believe some UFOs can't be explained, I think too many think because they can't be explained that automatically qualifies them as extraterrestrial in origin.

That line, I agree with, and so far I havent seen any scientific proof that any of the UFOs are ET here on a visit.

Unless you can ABSOLUTELY ELIMINATE all other explanations, then to simply say "it must be an alien aircraft" is extremely biased and most certainly NOT the way an actual scientific investigation is conducted.

And skyeagle, that doesnt consitute proof. It constitutes, where it has been established to be true, personal observation and associated hypothesis--one either constructed by the observer, or in many cases, by others who have heard of the observation.

Hypothesis is not proof.

It is the basis for experimentation, but it is not proof. Proof eliminates hypothesis in favor of established, verifiable, and replicable fact. People who are not possessed of a particular agenda, who will acknowledge that what I say is simply a statement of the scientific method. As such I am correct.

There are many hypotheses floating around about UFOs and a possible alien intelligence connection, but that is all they are.

Hypotheses NOT FACTS.

This is obviously a mis-interpretation of the definition of the term "proof" as it is defined by the scientific method. I respectfully contend that the necessary skills to arrive at the conclusions you believers of aliens on Earth propose involve imagination and wishful thinking more than anything else.

Most UFOs stay unidentified. We have no idea what they were, if it really was anything at all. To believe it was an alien craft is not science. To insist that it was, based upon nothing, is silly.

Yes, many people out there believe that just because its unexplained then it has to be ET, and thats the wrong way to go about things. Too many people on here would believe in anything. But also, you just have to visit certin other websites and see that many de-bunkers would rather believe in stupid explanations, rather than say its unknown. Ufo's are real, and some of them are unexplained and the subject really needs to be investigated. I hear certin people say that alot of experts try to stay away from the ufo subject, just beacuse of the ET explanation that is attached to it. That is a sad excuse, and the subject should be looked at because of the simple reason that something unexplained is flying in our airspace.

Double post

So that makes it ok for some de-bunkers to bring up stupid explanations for some sightings? If something is unexplained then ET is just as plausible, if not more plausible than some of the lame explanations that have come out. But just because some of these so called respectable de-bunkers are comong out with these explanations, then that means its alright, its not!

Well, ask Tim Printy and His followers on that other message board as to why they no longer make certain claims anymore.

.....Your point?

Only if he had known that certain radars can in fact, identify individual aircraft models by their unique signatures and dfferentiate between a Ford truck and a Cadillac to where a crewmember can identify them as such.

So I have to ask; did mankind have such vehicles in 1952? Was the flying saucer that overflew Japan in 1133, a secret aircraft from the "Skunk Works?" If not, then it is evident they were not ours.