Most of us here on UM knows, by now, that talking to "the believers" about evidence of aliens on Earth, is like talking to a religious fanatic about God.

They just dont get it. (!)

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.

There is no valid hard scientific evidence of life els were in the universe at this time.

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.

The aliens on Earth believers loves to scream - There are aliens on Earth!!

What evidence is there that ET have found Earth?

If you ask me, Zero!

Hazzard,

The heart of the issue is "What" explains UAP and the 'unknowns' at the heart of the UFO Phenomena.

Why would aliens send us radio transmissions?

We got it! And, Tim Printy and "Access-Denied" got it from me as well because they didn't know any better, but they know what time it is now!.



Well, until you can prove those UFOs as those of mankind, what else is there to say???



For myself and many of my compatriots, it is not just a matter of belief on our part, but one of reality, based on our personal experience.



Looking at the past, do you mean like those who had declared in 1993, that a weather balloon was responsible for the Roswell incident in 1947, based on their own evidence? Or perhaps, a Mogul balloon flight that never was, based on their evidence? Or, test dummies and accident victims of the 1950s to explain alien bodies people saw in 1947, based on the evidence the Air Force told them?

Let's add their evidence of a UFO, which was tracked on airborne and ground-based radar systems as it maneuvered around aircraft above 30,000 feet, as a planet that was nowhere in sky during the time of the encounter.

It seems to me that such folks wouldn't know what the evidence really is even if it kicked them in their stomach.



Don't tell that to the scientist and engineers who have stated, based on their own encounters and observations, that some UFOs are extraterrestrial spacecraft.



You have been visiting another skeptical web site. If those skeptics at those web sites knew anything about radar, they would have found that the CAA and radar operators had determined that radar was reliable enough to be used for air traffic control purposes. That is why I have warned people about using flawed information from those skeptical web sites because they don't know any better and why Tim Printy got himself burnt and forced to admit that he was wrong on his own web site.




Hazzard,

Please past this on to those unknowing skeptical web sites so they can get up-to-speed on the facts!!

can we prove there is not any proof. or is it good enough to say there is no proof. humbug i say we need better math to prove it you must be able to disprove it ay.

How about they are unidentified objects and we don't really know what they are? Not sure why it is hard for you to say that.

Let's take a look at a typical intercept case.

Ground-based radars are tracking an incoming UFO at 4000 mph, which then slows down to subsonic velocities. Two interceptors are then scrambled toward the direction of the UFO by ground-based radar. Shortly afterwards, the pilots make contact with their own radars and proceed toward the UFO. Eventually, the pilots make visual contact with the UFO and identify the UFO as a "flying saucer."

The pilots then attempt to close in on the UFO, now identified as a flyng saucer, but the flying saucer speeds up to supersonic speeds, but the interceptors are still close behind. Shortly afterwards, the flying saucer zooms into a climb at 9000+ mph and leave the interceptors behind. The pilots estimated the size of the flying saucer at 100 meters in diameter and metallic.

So, as in many cases, the UFO has been identified visually, as a flying saucer, and not a weather balloon nor Venus, and airborne and ground-based radars confirmed the advanced performance characteristics as well.

Question now arises: Does mankind have such an exotic flying machine?

That sure sounds like a done deal. Is there a link with that story...?



You mean, if the story is true to begin with, right?

As you pointed out earlier, I visit skeptics forums (like BAUT) and you get your info from believer sites....How do we know that the "metallic, 100 meters in diameter, supersonic flying saucer" really happend?

So now your a statistician studying what typical cases look like? Can you link me your statistical studies of the "typical case"? Sky, lets face it here, you wallow in ignorance the way a pig wallows in mud.

As it is a UFO, how can you be sure that it is a machine?

I don't think that mankind has (or is close to) developed a ship that can
manuever like that. We would first need somesort of inertia canceller,
with out this any living thing inside the ship would be riped to shreds.
Now comes the means of propulsion, but that's so complicated that
I need to read up on the posible ways before I state what I think.

A great man once said,"You can not catch a UFO, for once you do it
is no longer what it was. Then it's just an ugly fact."

Has there ever been, though, anywhere, any actual hardware that can be seen and touched by human eyes and hands, that's the question? However many sightings there've been, however interesting and however many questions they may raise, has there ever actually been any actual tangible evidence of something of an extraterrestrial nature, though? Or is the answer to that the all-purpose one of "conspiracy": that there is actual hardware, but it's always been suppressed, whether by the official government, or the secret one, or whoever? There's nothing I'd like more than to have some actual proof of the reality of it, but after 60 years, surely there must have been something by now?

Other than visual confirmations by the pilots themselves, intelligence of their maneuvers that have been recorded by radar, airborne and ground-based.

If the pilots reported visual contact with metallic flying saucers, as has been the case in many instances, why paint them as anything else?

Maybe the technology is as complicated as some have said? The best scientists of 1604 wouldn't have a clue as to what a laptop is, what it's use would be, and so on. Besides, where would they get the energy to power it? Maybe it's the same thing with such a technology, if there is one on this planet?

That doesn't explain it as a machine. UFO's have a lot of strange properties, one which apparently includes morphing.

A machine can be anything.
We can be a machine too. In fact we are, just not a man made one, or so the scientists say this far.
It doesn't have to be solid and have screws in order to be a machine.

Here's one of many.



And, another.












The stories are well-documented.



My information can be obtained from government sources under the Freedom of Information Act and from official publications and microfilm. Some of the material I gathered on Project Mogul, was obtained by me from the U.S. Air Force, which is also available at those believer web sites as well.





But, that was nothing compared to the Alaskan flying saucer, which was as large as ships, and reported as such by military and commercial aircrews in 1989 and 1990 and confirmed on radar by the FAA and the Air Force.

Yeah, well, in the formal sence of the word.



Yes, well, a biological machine. But I think we use the sence "machine" in terms of screws and bolts, not as in living organisms.



We are not a man-made machine?



But we don't know that. We don't know if all are indeed machines, or if only some/many are. Like I said before, UFO's appear to have the capability to morph into all kinds of shapes. And where do we distinct between organics and machine?

Yes, just because it looks metallic, does that mean it has to be a machine? Even if it reflects radar, does it have to be a machine?
If it makes manouvers that would seem impossible for a man-made machine to make, we seem to be assuming that that means it must be a non-man made machine; but how can we be so sure that it is a machine?
That's the point here; I'm not disputing that there are UFOs, i.e. unidentified objects, it's the confident assumption that we know what they are - they're alien spaceships - that they're not longer Unidentified, in fact they're now Identified, that I'm not sure we know enough yet to be able to say that with certainity.
If it's not a machine, what might it be? i've no idea. But I think that makes it more interesting than saying confidently that we do know what they are.




.

Exactly! There's simply not enough evidence for us to arrive at the 'machine' conclusion quite yet.

Let's see! Pilots report a saucer-shaped craft about 100 meters in diameter, and it has a domed top and portholes. The craft reacts intelligently to aircraft inputs and is recorded on multiple radars as it maneuvers around the aircraft.

Sounds to me like a machine, and that is the kind of reports that I am talking about.



If it reacts to radar-lock-ons, the answer is; YES!




When a truck passes your car on the highway, are their any questions as to whether that truck is a machine? If no, then why questioned commercial and military pilots with thousands of hours of flying experience how have encountered flying saucers as to whether a UFO is a machine or not?

If a pilot reports that he has visually confirmed the UFO as a flying saucer, and attempts to close on the flying saucer, which then proceeds to leave hime in the dust, then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that it is a machine, just plain common sense would be sufficient.

Lilly,

If aircrews report the UFO they've encountered was a metallic, domed saucer-shaped flying manchine, whose performance characteristics exclude aircraft and which was recored on radar, then what y ou are saying is that there isn't enough evidence the object is a flying manchine even though aircrews with thousands of hours of flight experience reported the flying saucer as such.

Are you saying that this incident was not caused by a flying machine?



So basically speaking, you are implying there is not enough evidence that this object is a machine and could be the result of some unknown atmospheric phenomenon.

I agree with hazzard... And im starting to lose my faith that there are advanced alien civilizations in our galaxy... I think we might be alone in milky way

I don't think that, because I have already seen one, amongst other reasons!

Irrefutable evidence is not Radar tracking or eye- witness accounts, it is tangible physical eveidence. I think the OP made that quite clear.

Radar/visual are the most convincing because the data corroborates what the witnesses saw.

In many cases, there were visual confirmations from the ground and aboard aircraft of the objects at the same time and radar data, from airborne and ground-based radars, and from multiple locations, have confirmed that the objects were intelligently controlled.

That picture, while extremely cool, is the kind of thing I mean about solid evidence: that would seem, wouldn't it, to be the solidest evidence you could hope for; you couldn't hope for better evidence than that. Yet that's from, when was it, 1989? A lot of these triangular UFOs have been reported over the years; the descriptions of eyewitnesses seem to more or less tally; so clearly it must be something. But have there ever been any more pictures as good as that one since? Has there ever been any further tangible evidence? That's what i mean about the elusiveness of solid evidence that would confirm them as extraterrestrial craft, and not, say, some kind of black project; or a weather balloon* ?



(*j/k).

I agree. Some may be machines, some may be alien lifeforms (or domestic lifeforms?), some may even be interdimensional etc. In that case, ghosts and vampires and every other paranormal thing there is could just as well be aliens.



And it is to this point that makes ufology credible. We have photographies and witnesses that can confirm that there is "something" in our skies, and that it isn't something man has created.

There are photos that have been taken by the Air Force and released, including the UFO over Wright-Patterson AFB. Colonel Wendelle Steves has noted that they have been taking photos of UFOs over Alaska, and in one case, cameras were rolling when one of those UFOs pulled next to one of the aircraft.

´There probably are lots of life out there in our galaxy,both intelligent and somewhat stupid creatures. The million dollar question is - have they made it to Earth.

I dont think so.

It is still a UFO - not a machine. It can't be until one can determine how the thing functions.



That is not the same thing. We have evidence as how a truck looks, how it works, how to control it, all the in's and out's of it. We know how to build one, and what material it is made of. But we can not do that with a UFO. We have photographic evidence, at best, that something is flying around in our skies, but that's just about it.



I agree that experienced pilots have encountered "things" in skies all around the world, and what they saw was genuine. But they still witnessed "something", and by the looks of it, it is probably a craft, but we do not know.

The sun looks as if it is rising, but in reality, the ground I'm standing on is part of a huge rock going around the sun. The real thing can sometimes be a completely different matter.

Nice analogy, I agree with what you're saying...looks can indeed be deceiving.

Just maybe, but it could very well be so that we are the only advanced civilization on Milky Way. There are probably somewhere in the universe but in our galaxy? Maybe not... Im sceptical about it.

My belief system in general is a bizarre mixed-bag of goodies. Call me a "scientific spiritualist." Whatever gets you through the night, right?

For better or worse, I have read a buttload of material on this subject. It has always fascinated me - life fascinates me, really. There are some compelling anecdotes out there, but most of what I have read or watched on this seems to have been motivated by profit and not truth...so I have learned to listen to my own quiet, inner voice, which for whatever reason (reason?) tells me life is tenacious and ubiquitous. Consciousness being part of life's natural progression (when allowed). It seems clear to me that matter has found many wild and complex forms to take that we have yet to discover, and honestly, part of me maybe just needs to believe that humans aren't the end-product of this crazy universe. Whatever that says about me psychologically, I don't know...I guess I'm simply saying I don't need proof when I have faith.

...faith that there is other intelligent life in the universe. I have no idea if we are being visited.

It would probably require Faith to think there isn't other intelligent life in the universe, even the Milky Way, given that the universe is very self consistent and here we are.

I agree, this is a great pic isn't it.
The triangle craft seem to have emerged around the time the first stealth aircraft were being tested, which suprisingly have the same shape.

This thing accelerated into the atmosphere at an incredible rate witnessed by (Sky can confirm this - memory thing) 200 civillian witnesses? Astounding. It sure sounds to be beyond our current tech. All the strange manuvers indicate remote control, as organic compunds would have the consistency of a milkshake with those radical turns at such speeds. Unless intertia has been overcome somehow. So, if remote, is it impossible for this tech to be beyond our capabilities?

The reports Sky offers are just awesome. They sure exhibit feats that appear beyond us. There seems to be many, so why is no other evidence so easy to obtain? Why is there not good UFO doco's? Why is all this held up in archives? Conspiracy makes no sense, they'd just destroy it. Long term previous cohabitation is preposterous for a gazzillion reasons. WHy cant these reports be defined? Why the lack of interest from private enterprise, when s much is to be gained? Is there anything to this UFO stuff?

With all this proof lying around, why don't we have any proof?

And it requires faith to think that there are other intelligent life in our galaxy. Only proof can tell for certain. I agree that since we exists then there are probably other advanced civilizations out there in the universe, but whether it exists or not in our galaxy is a question of chance when we dont know whats out there. I remain sceptical.

We dont know much about the average lifetime of technological societies, other than the fact that ours has, so far, managed to survive for a century. We also dont know at what rate sentient societies spring up in the Galaxy. But we do know that this rate is surely tied to the frequency with which stars are born. Clearly, a greater flux of new stars will ultimately produce a larger number of planets, with thinking beings.(?)

What is the star formation rate? Well, there are roughly 300 billion stars in the Milky Way, and that means that the average rate over the last 13 billion years has been about 15 new stars per year. Anyone whos used a radio telescope to study galaxies knows that when you examine a big spiral like the Milky Way, you find that the total amount of interstellar gas is typically a few percent of the mass of all the stars. Since interstellar gas is the stuff from which stars are built, its obvious that theres little material around today for constructing new ones. Clearly, this must affect the number members for our club of intelligent beings. And not to the possitive.


And about this "cover up" mentality. It is dismaying that many people assume proof that were not alone would cause governments to cover up the facts. Consider the 1938 radio broadcast of War of the Worlds. Some Americans mistook the fictional Martian invasion for news, and fled their homes. Would a real discovery of extraterrestrials occasion a breakdown in public order?

This seems highly unlikely. Picking up a signal from space is different from watching aggressive aliens land in the pastures. Its difficult to imagine galactic beings would ever charge across the dark deserts between the stars merely to harass the inhabitants of a small planet.

To detect a signal from other worlds would be wondrous. It would show that the appearance of life on this world and its slow, uncertain path to us - creatures that can comprehend their own existence - is not some improbable miracle, but a frequent occurrence.

But like I said earlier, I need evidence to believe.

Heck, bacteria on Mars would do just fine...Something to show us that life on Earth is not just a lucky shot in the dark.

If an Airforce pilot says he saw something I tend to take his or her word for it, why?

1. He or she will be of above average intelligence.
2. Trained and trusted with millions of dollars / pounds of equipment that is extremely complex..ie they are not a 'grunt'.
3. Be of a good mental state
4. It's not in their best career interests to say they saw a UFO so when one does it's pretty important.

You know that Star formation rates today do not effect the number of potential civilizations present in the Milky Way today. It would be Star formation rates billions of years ago that would determine the number of potential current civilizations.

In a perfect world, yes. Then, just when you think it's safe to assume the above, a space shuttle astronaut goes off their rocker.'
These are people, and not usually above average intelligence, they suffer from the same mental health problems as anyone, and actually often have character flaws unique to military personnel.

As I have said before, if you can't prove the UFOs in question as those of mankind, then we must look at the ETH

Never assume that alien beings must think in ways as mankind.



Never assume that alien beings communicate in ways as mankind.

It is not likely that commercial and military aircrews all suffer mental health problems at the same time, especially when their UFO reports have been corroborated by airborne and ground-based radar, and other electronic systems.

Now, this is a perfect example of a false dilemma. Since we don't know exactly *what* UFOs are (even if we're certain they're not of human origin) then the ETH would still be only one of any number of possible hypotheses that might explain UFOs. Saying what UFOs 'aren't' doesn't serve to prove what UFOs 'are'. Sure, this can serve to narrow down possible explanations, but it's not proof in and of itself.

Let's look at it another way by taking a typical UFO report.

Ground-based radar tracks an incoming object at 4000 mph, 56 miles above the Earth's surface as it decends and then, the UFO slows to 700 mph at 5000 feet above ground level.

Ground cotrollers then scramble two interceptors toward the direction of the UFO and as the aircraft close to within range, the aircraft's own radar detects and tracks the UFO. Upon closing the distance further, the pilots report that the UFO is a metallic "flying saucer" with a domed top and rotating lights in an arrangement not used by the international aviation community.

As both aircraft try to close the distance, the object, now identified as a "flying saucer" zooms off into a climb at 9000+ mph. The high speed climb is confirmed by the pilots and the radar systems record the performance of that "flying saucer."

In such case, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the "fllying saucer" was not a B-36.

I dont.



I dont.

But we can only use the technology that we do have in the search for them, right. Not everyone gets to play hide and seek with a gigantic supersonic alien spacecruser.

There may be more to that story than has been released in official government UFO files.

We already know, from pilot reports and radar and other electronic data, including data from military and civilian sources, that the UFOs in question are very real, as noted by senior military officers and intelligence officials over the years.