There are other books out there.


This one is pretty good... Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time

Check out 'the disclosure project' on youtube, not proof but interesting none the less

It all looks like hoaxes, confabulation, or governments in the past covering up missile tests with "ufo" news stories.

My sister dated a guy who collected ufo memoralbilia, like odd pictures and stories. He tried to talk with various so-called researchers. Then came the ufo detector experiment (omg). And, he supposedly saw and photographed a few odd lights or blurry things in the distance.

With the help of the internet, all my suspicions about his useless interets were confirmed. Every sighting and story he ever mentioned, they all amount to some kind of hoax.

Interstellar distances are not traversable by technological means. Just astrophysical means.

So, not much proof of ET astronauts, or anything else like that (time or dimension travel, etc).

no matter what its always gonna look like a hoax , no matter what pictures , even if one of us saw something today and had the pictures we'd be liars in alot of eyes , so its an argument that is never gonna end unless there is proof looking at all of us in the face at the same time .

When look'n at it from a neutral stand point, If one looks back over the last 60 to 70 yrs there could been so much 'cleverly orchestrated debunking' going on at the 'highest levels' slowly & carefully pumped out to the masses bit by bit with so much information followed by an equal amount of disinformation, ya know kinda stir up the boiling pot of bullsh*t as you go so to speak, making it rife for confusion(?)...

So;
''If'' they really do exist (ETs/UFOs) Then those in power at the very top, i mean those who are really control (large private corporations) stand to gain billion$ maybe even trillion$ from all the hi-tech back engineering etc (all compartmentalized of course) from the technology acquired once it's mass-produced...

''If'' they really don't exist (ETs/UFOs) Think of the billion$ made around the world annually from mags/books/dvds/toys for the kiddies lol!/etc etc etc in the Ufology market/industry anyway(?)...


So it's a gold mine either way ya look at it i guess eh? Hmm...Only speculation anyway.

You're totally correct that he's invested too much time in his justifying his crusade against 'the unbeliever'.
Unfortunately for Sky/Aubrey, part of the process for fairly assessing his claims, is to examine the facts as presented from other sources.
Thing with that, though, is eventually all roads lead you right back to Aubrey; and you see the same argument base for all arguments; be it the existance of God, the existance of one 'Noah's' ark and a single global flood or the existance of ETI visiting Earth in his spaceships.
And as you've mentioned that argument base is belief.
In this case it's a religious belief that 'science' doesn't hold any of 'the answers' that all skeptics outrightly reject the notion of ETI and, by proxy, the UFO phenomena (since skeptics are examples of smug, stupid and ignorant individuals put out of touch with reality by their belief in 'science'). Though I haven't quite grasped what this 'science' is, since in cases where the scientific evidence fits his argument, he's more than happy to show it...


Maybe, when there's nothing interesting on the idiot box, I might roll out some more 'vintage skyeagle' for the fans and critics



And that's something else I don't get. From skyeagle's very brief descriptions of his own UFO experience, there's nothing to support his claims that all radar/visual cases are machines piloted by ETI.
In fact his description is tends to fit the unadulterated example of the classic eyewitness account of UAS...
But I guess if he were to tone his answer down, then he'd have to accept the contradictory/contrary nature of the phenomena. And that would leave no-one to argue with, ridicule or belittle...

To take Vallee as a good example of someone who has invested a great deal of thought into the phenomena.
He had his own UFO experience as a young astronomer, witnessed the destruction of that evidence, and still managed to be very objective in his investigation of UFOs.

Personally, the only thing I can fault his hypothesis on, is that by extension, it can apply to all examples of the paranormal (skating dangerously close to the existence of god argument).

Of course the believers of ETH tend to argue that Vallee has it all wrong by ignoring his accounts of the physical nature of UFOs, and instead change the context of Vallee's theories by arguing that planes, trains and automobiles are very real (and only the deluded can convince themselves that reality is an illusion)...

You amuse us every time you provide evidence sky eagle



Obviously a weather balloon wasn't responsible for the roswell incident. It is common knowledge to skeptists and believers alike, that the roswell incident was a phenomenal cover up!! Ok, so witnesses see an unidentified craft in the air, (it seems I am agreeing with skyeagle here ) and a description of what seemed to make a picture of a disc shape is given by almnost all of the witnesses, and the us government attempt to cover it up, and I quote wikipedia here:

In 1994, Randle and Schmitt published a second book, The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell.[22] While restating much of the case as laid out in their earlier book UFO Crash at Roswell, new and expanded accounts of aliens were included, and a new location for the recovery of aliens was detailed. Additionally, an almost completely new scenario as to the sequence of events was laid out.

For the first time, the object was said to have crashed on the evening of Friday, July 4 instead of Wednesday July 2, the date in all the previous books. Another important difference was the assertion that the alien recovery was well under way before Brazel went into Roswell with his news about debris on the Foster ranch. Indeed, several objects had been tracked by radar for a few days in the vicinity before one crashed. In all previous accounts, the military was made aware of the alleged alien crash only when Brazel came forward. Additionally, Brazel was said to have given his news conference on July 9, and his press conference and the initial news release announcing the discovery of a "flying disc" were all part of an elaborate ruse to shift attention away from the "true" crash site.

The book featured a new witness account describing an alien craft and aliens from Jim Ragsdale, at a new location just north of Roswell, instead of closer to Corona on the Foster ranch. Corroboration was given by accounts from a group of archaeologists. Five alien corpses were seen.[22](p.3-11) While the Foster ranch was a source of debris as well, no bodies were recovered there.

Expanded accounts came from Dennis and Kaufmann. And a new account from Ruben Anaya described New Mexico Lieutenant Governor Joseph Montoya's claim that he saw alien corpses at the Roswell base.

More disagreement between Roswell researchers is on display in the book. A full chapter is devoted to dismissing the Barnett and Anderson accounts from Socorro, a central part of Crash at Corona and The Roswell Incident. "...Barnett's story, and in fact, the Plains [of San Agustin, near Soccoro] scenario, must be discarded," say the authors.[22] (p.155) An appendix is devoted to describing the Majestic 12 documents, another central part of Crash at Corona, as a "hoax."[22] (p.187)

The two Randle and Schmitt books remain highly influential in the UFO community, their interviews and conclusions widely reproduced on websites. [9]Randle and Schmitt claimed to have "conducted more than two thousand interviews with more than five hundred people" during their Roswell investigations.

This shows, that the government could have given false information for the cover up, which may have suggested that a weather balloon may have passed over Roswell on July the second so the government changed the date of the from the fourth to the second with the passing of a weather ballon, i may be having a bit of an assumption here but it is food for thought.

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

P.S I don't think skyeagle is dumb. Ive never said that. I think that sometimes his evidence is a bit one sided, so i don't think hes dumb hazzard. I even agreed with the guy on this point!!!

No one here is arguing the existens of UFOs. Of course there are somethings flying around that people cant identify and/or explain...But that is just because we dont see very well what it is. Could be lots of things, there isnt just ONE explanation for UFOs. Some might be some weird natural fenomena, who knows.

But what is truly amaizing is that people like skyeagle, the hard core believers, set their standards of what constitutes evidence so low! When it comes to something as important as this, the evidence needs to be extraordinary.

Im sure that sky feels that his proof is extraordinary and just cant understand how something so obvious is cant be seen by everyone...

Like hazzard said, sky is not a dumb guy, he does his homework..but like you said shaman..he should tone it down a bit...

Its not good to close the mind and only look for stuff that supports your claim...Sure he has "debunked" som other fellow believers...That however does in no way make him and his claims anymore credible.


Were is he by the way?

I have seen it, and you are right about one thing, the "not proof" part.



And DEBUNKER...I believe that Skyeagle said he was going to Texas...?

Not to worry, he will be back soon enough. Just hope he brings back something new an exciting, instead of the same old "evidence".

But, the old evidence has yet to be refuted!

In addition, Aerojet Engineers have been releasing documents proving that NORAD has been tracking UFOs from deep space.

But, the radar data evidence provided, has already been verified as accurate by experts and those who were involved in those UFO encounters, so you don't have any argument in that regard.



And, many astronomers and scientist have documented their own UFO sightings as well, including those at White Sands, New Mexico and even technicians from the U.S. weather service.

To further add, scientific means were used to verify UFO case files as reported.

Another is the physics book from the U.S. Air Force Academy used in its science program, which detailed actual encounters by the Air Force and the Soviet Union where attempts were made to to shoot down UFOs, and flying saucers are mentioned.

Who do you know that flies saucer-shaped flying vehicles the size of ships? In fact, who do you know that flies such vehicles at hypersonic speeds?

Is it any wonder as to why crewmembers of a B-52 stated that the saucer they encountered in regards to the Minot AFB incident was that of ET? That incidentl is listed in official records.

Who do you know that flies saucer-shaped flying vehicles the size of ships? In fact, who do you know that flies such vehicles at hypersonic speeds?

Is it any wonder as to why crewmembers of a B-52 stated that the saucer they encountered in regards to the Minot AFB incident was that of ET? That incident is listed in official records.

http://www.ufocasebook.com/minotafbufo1968.html




Incidents such as those have taken place more often than has been reported and in fact, most occurrences are not made public, which I am very aware of.

I don't think UFO and alien are real because I believe in science and the world of reality, science are based on the five senses of human. True, observation is one of our senses but the "UFO" pictures posted online doesn't mean anything!! Scientists are based on theory!! they are not sure it's real or not. Flying saucer, hypersonic speed? The only aircraft I known have this amazing speed is the X-15 but its used a rocket to be able to reach this incredible speed. Flying saucer? ummm don't think so!

I would love to get my hands on the NASA recordings of all the sightings by Astronauts on various missions. Maybe then I'd be convinced.

believers, mainstream scientists and skeptics can both agree on one thing: their a good chance we arent the only life in the universe.

Yes, and we know this, but the topic is not on whether we think alien life exists, because we all think it does. What the question is, is whether aliens have been to earth, not whether they exist or not.

Please, read the topic name more carefully.

Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

From the MAGONIA Supplement No.36 Link


And for those who want to beat a dead horse, the next article on that page is Roswell. But that's not the point...

From MAGONIA Supplement No. 48 Link



...So, the point is, if we're to consider the seriousness of the ETH (as the single explanation, to the exclusion of all others), then some of these ETs are only a few decades ahead of us (at best) based on the descriptions of some of the propulsion technology witnessed. Seriously, jet/rocket propulsion?!
So what do we do? Debunk the credibility of these witnesses?
Or ask why it was that what they saw was wierdly presented in a concept they were capable of comprehending?

Ya'll might as well break-mode, DO IT NOW!!!

"You'll know they're HERE, when I put a bullet hole in 'em, and show yun's".

For Real

We have to take a closer look at Project Blue Book files. Many of those explanined files are seriously flawed and there have been reports of some UFOs leaving behind trails.

We should be taking a closer look at Project Blue Book and those explained files.

My favorite is Project Blue Book's explanation that a propeller-driven DC-6 was the UFO that was flying circles around and trailing an RB-47 jet bomber for 1 1/2 hours over several states, which was also cruising far above the airspeed and altitude limitations of an DC-6

This is also a question I've had on my mind for a long time: in the 1890s, UFOs were described as airships with propellors (!). This was just a few years before the Wright Brothers flew, so the method of propulsion was known.

But it seems that through the years, ET's technology has juuuuust been out of our reach. Strange, that.

The X-15 was no match for even the flying saucers of the 1950's. They were tracked up to 18000+ mph in 1956 over the UK, and 7200 mph over our nation's capital in 1952.

Flying saucers without visible propulsion means have been described for centuries around the globe and triangular UFOs were reported in the 1970's.

For an example, the Japanese were reporting flying saucers back in 1133, which was centuuries before the Wright Brothers flew.

Which goes back to a question I asked earlier, and I don't believe there was an answer. If there was, I apologize, but I honestly don't think so (from the believers I mean).

That question was: where is the definitive, absolutely incontrovertible evidence of that? I won't accept that governments through the centuries have buried said evidence, because I don't believe governments are that efficient. There should be something, anything, even the equivilent of ET's cigarette butts.

But if you're talking about a people reporting flying saucers (your term, which I'm defining as being controlled by aliens from a planet other than Earth), there has to be some form of tangible evidence, not written anecdotes.

Dated 1859 - Plenty of time for someone to build one for the 1890s.
graphic

Actually, you would be surprised just how efficiently the government, particularly the military, can hide things from the public. THe public was unaware of what our submarines were doing on their missions nor were they aware of our secret aircraft until they were revealed. The public was also unaware that the Air Force stated in the late 1940's that flying saucers were real and that they were "interplanetary spaceships."

Through leaks is how the public generally finds out what was hidden from them such as the 1976 Iranian UFO encounter, and the fact that a DSP satellite tracked the UFO incident. In fact, it was through a leak that NORAD has been tracking UFOs as they fly in from deep space and enter earth's atmosphere and that has since been confimed by the DSP engineers at Aerojet, the company that builds DSP satellites.

Expect more leaks in the future.

I wish you would make up your mind Sky... you cant have it both ways!



And then..IN THE SAME POST!!









This is a good demonstration of your thought process in this matter.

I have always stated that the Air Force has said that flying saucers were real and that they were not of this earth, and that NORAD has been tracking them from deep space, whcih has been confirmed. Nothing changed on my part!




"Mr. Reality" doesn't change with the seasons so expect no changes.



Looking at the track record, I have been proven correct when the facts were eventually revealed and that is what really counts.

The government was hiding the facts from the public when the leaks were made, but it has been very effective in hiding other things until they were officially revealed to the public. For some examples, the U-2, the A-12, SR-71, "Have Blue" F-117, B-2, "Tacit Blue" the Glomar Explorer, and in the Naval publication, Proceedings, declassified missions of its submariines that were a long-held secret from the public.

Ships also had propellors long before...in fact, the propellor is a screw, a simple tool known for thousands of years. My point was that air ships with propellors don't jibe with being examples of interplanetary craft.

Sky Eagle, are you saying the US government has covered up all the evidence (except that which has leaked), including your famed nearly-900-year-old Japanese sighting?

seems like youre trying to make something out of nothing.
basically, he was saying, they can do a real good job of hiding things from the public. but sometimes they get out.
my water filter on the tap does a great job of cleaning crap outa the water. but i know some stuff Still slips through.
i think it can go both ways, on this one.

Hey NigelTM,

If you look at some of those reports the witnesses usually didn't describe propellers, the sightings (not the known Hoaxes of the time) are typically indistinguishable from modern day sightings. Sightings also date back much further at least several hundred years, these again are basically indistinguishable from modern day sightings.

yeah, but if you read more, alot of those cases with the airships people describe seeing other 'people' i guess, on the ships. not greys really. but men with hats, and overalls. sometimes speaking engilsh. almost looking like a train conductor or w/e.
while some other incidents have them as being more ET like.

Crop Circles, millions of eye witness accounts <- hard evidence. Now what evidence is there that other planets couldn't support life?! none.

Some people thinks so...and they are wrong.

Hard evidence is physical evidence that can be examined by skeptical scientists. Some part of an alien ship, or a body, and the discovery that it contains isotopic ratios that arent present around our sun, elements that dont exist in this starsystem.




Logical fallacy, and in this case irrelevant. Most people here believe in extraterrestrial life. That still doesnt prove that they are here on a visit.

Even other UFOlogists, who don't neccessarily subscribe to the so-called 'nuts'n'bolts ETH, have expressed similar opinions to skeptics, regarding the ETH Ufologist approach to investigation-
From MAGONIA Monthly Supplement No. 22 December 1999 Link

It's worth following the link and reading the article before going into attack mode.


Indeed, some of them are the classic lights in the sky, others are cigars, discs and spheres. And others are just plain weird, like these two from the MAGONIA database ( Link )-

Jul., 1868 Copiago (Chile). A strange "aerial construction"
bearing lights and making engine noises flew low
over this town. Local people also described it as a
giant bird covered with large scales producing a me-
tallic noise. Although not an actual landing, this is
the first instance of close observation of an unknown
object at low altitude in the nineteenth century.
(Fort 638; Anatomy 11)

1880 Aldershot (Great Britain). A strange being dressed in
tight-fitting clothes and shining helmet soared over
the heads of two sentries, who fired without result.
The apparition stunned them with something de-
scribed as "blue fire." (FSR 61, 3; Magonia)


But were Blue Book's explanations meant to debunk the phenomena or provide a calming explanation?
Remember that the evidence indicates that in the early years of the modern UFO phenomena, ordinary people tended to either believe that the phenomena was connected with US or Soviet 'secret' weapons, or didn't believe at all.
Likewise the Cold War tension was quickly building up. So what may have seemed ridiculous from a modern/critical point of view, probably was the preferable to providing no answer at all.
After all these were people of a similar mindset to those who were advocating the teaching of duck and cover drills in schools, should the reds decided to send some nukes stateside.
Seriously all one has to do is look at the devestation unleashed on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and later the footage of the tests against buildings and vehicles) to realise that hiding under your desk isn't going to do much if a strike lands in the immediate vicinity of your building...
So they go from calming explanations, to no scientific value or threat. And the government has no desire to re-examine those old cases, since they've been beuracratically stamped 'case closed'. Add to that the political perception that the voting public would view this as a frivillous waste of tax dollars...
So we're left with calming explanations and FOI (if anyone has the time, inclination and resources to go through all those old cases).

Interesting read evangium, thanks for the link.

You're welcome Hazzard.
I thought it was probably time to present some balanced articles to the debate, since no-one is going to come forward with the irrefutable proof.
I must say, from my skimmings through the MAGNOIA archieves, that they are quite right in that both camps have a tendency to dismiss those cases which have no logical explanation, but, due to their extreme 'wierdness', don't fit their particular arguments for or against ET.
It's also been a revisitation of those UFO books I used to read in my childhood; since I do remember reading about some of those more random encounters with strange aeronauts in books borrowed from my local library...

There are astronomers and scientist who were skeptical of UFOs until they experienced the UFOs firsthand to where celestrial bodies, natural atmospheric phenomena, and conventional aircraft were proven to have not been responsible.

If someone were to ask you to provide physical evidence of the so-called "Aurora," what could you provide in the way of physical evidence? In fact, what physical evidence could have been provided in 1962 that proved the existence of the CIA's A-12 "Oxcart," which was eventually revealed by the government?

What I am driving at is this; just because you not have the evidence, doesn't exclude those who do.

Just like the majority of paranormal topics, skeptics will not believe until they have a personal experience.

Looking at some of the explained files in Project Blue Book, you would think it was there to debunk UFOs and the RB-47 UFO case files is a prime example. Is it any wonder then, that back in the 1960's, there were questions raised about Project Bluebook even in front of Congress?



But, the UFO enigma is centuries old, so there is no reason to believe that it had anything to do with secret aircraft or projects of other nations. Many people of the 1950's never believed the UFOs had anything to do with projects of the U.S.A. nor the Soviet Union because the technology demonstrated was far too advanced. We did't' have hypersonic flying saucers at the time.



There is more to that story.

After the Robertson Report of 1953, which suggested that the government debunk UFOs at all cost, things began to change, and then, there was JANAP-146, which angered commercial pilots and indicated a trend in the way the government was to conduct business on the UFO enigma afterwards.

In the late 1940's, scientist at White Sands, New Mexico were those who were reporting tracking UFOs.



Radar data has made that determination on many occasions, and the the 1942 "Battle of Los Angeles" and 1952 Washington D.C. UFO incidents are prime examples where radar corroborated the eyewitness accounts as reported and even the Belgian incident where multiple airborne and dissimilar ground-based radars all confirmed thousands of eyewitness sightings of that UFO.



Once again, that is where radar comes into play to confirm the eyewitness accounts.



If the object stops in mid-air and maneuvers around an aircraft, then it is a logical assumption that the object wasn't a meteor. It is also a logical assumption that the Lakenheath and Rendlesham UFOs were not meteors either.



You know the old saying: "If the shoe fits..."



Which brings us back to the Air Force B-52 aircrew who stated on video that the UFO they encountered as extraterrestrial, so even today, Air Force personnel are still stating that some UFOs are those of ET.

As in unidentified flying objects...not extraterrestrial space ships!

But Im sure if you look around a little you might find one that believed it was ET.




Again UFOs, not ET. There is a difference.




So you go from NOT A METEOR to an ALIEN SPACE SHIP!? Quite a leap if you ask me!




And there are those who dont....We all know who you preffer to believe in.


Maybe this list wasnt so far off after all...

New title... How to investigate if some UFOs are Alien spaceships.







What Im saying is that for every eye-witness/believer there is going to be people that doubt it was ET. To blow the top of this mysterie we need REAL evidence. I told you this many times. Thats why I named this thread The best evidence for aliens on Earth.

If what you are presenting as evidence is all we have... we have nothing.

I agree with you on your last point hazzard.


There probably is for every one person five skeptists.

Over the years, there have been sightings after sightings after sightings, and in that time, ask yourself, have you heard of any massive breakthroughs. Apart from the roswell incident, there haven't been conspiracies as famous as a mass media debate over say photographs etc. And I'm going to say today what I have said again and again. Unless there is a worldwide 'viewing', for want of a better word, then there are always going to be skeptists.

I know independence day is a film, but if you think about it, because of the worldwide assault, skeptists were proven wrong. I think in the nineties more than half of the world's population were skeptists. Although they enjoyed watching the alien movies old and new, I think in their heart of hearts they thought ufo's were fantasies.

Things are now changing, and I beleive now that after the millenium over half of the world's population were believers. Things change in time. It is Inveitable. And no matter how long it takes, things will change about this topic all over the world. You just have to decide what you believe in.


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

More in response to GunnerySeargent's post about believers, but I found this interesting:

http://scifipedia.scifi.com/index.php/Rope...errestrial_Life


So if that is to be believed, the hue and cry of "Disclosure would cause widespread panic!" is most likely false.

Erm, firstly, I said that after the millenium (2000+) over half of the population believe in aliens, ufo's etc. so I don't really know what your getting at there, seeing as I said the exact same thing you just put, but you're saying I didn't. Please clarify.



Erm, I don't actually remeber saying that. Twisting words makes you look like an idiot.



Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

P.S I'm sorry, but I didn't really understand your post, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? Please explain it to me in your next post, thanks.

Let's take another look at a couple of incidents to make a determination of what it wasn't.

A saucer-shaped flying craft was confirmed by aircrews and tracked on airborne and ground-based radars. The craft trailed and maneuvered around the aircraft for a long period of time and the size of the object confirmed the aircrew's description of its size via analysis on the data in Washington D.C and the size of the object was confirmed as larger than a ship.

Other commercial and Air Force aircrews encountered the object in the same general location as well and confirmed the size larger than a ship. Documents and data were supplied to the Disclosure Project.

In the other documented case, a gigantic mothership speed off in a climb at over 9000 mph after a military aircraft encountered UFOs.

Since we don't have such vehicles flying around, than it is safe to say that the objects in those documented cases and confirmed via a mulititude of radar trackings and data analysis, then it is also safe to say the objects were not weather balloons and not ours.



And, there is a difference between a saucer-shaped craft the size of a ship that exceeds the speed barrier and not leave behind a sonic boom and a typical aircraft, so the question is; Do we have such a vehicle? If not, then the question has been answered as to whether that giganitic saucer-shaped craft, which was confirmed as larger than a ship, was ours or not.

I heard that all before in arguments with the skeptics, but when the facts became known, their arguments became history because they didn't know the rest of the story, or just didn't bother to do their homework. If they had done so, they would have found that there are many reports of flying saucers whose performance characteristics are far beyond anything known to man and recorded by a number of radar and other sensors so they can be analyzed time and again, and from around the world I might add.

Nah, there are no extraterrestrials, and you can't prove me wrong so get over it

My fault for not quite making myself clear--I wasn't insulting you, or saying you were wrong. It was tangentially related to your previous post, not a direct response. And I wasn't twisting your words, or ascribing to you things you didn't say.

What I was trying to say was "GunnarySeargent was talking about the number of people who believe in UFOs is growing, and here is an interesting link that's related to the number of people who report belief in UFOs."

The bottom line is I really wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with your post, just adding to it by posting the link about belief.

Hope that helps.