The end result is what I am interested in, because it has worked in my favor in the past against skeptics, time after time, or should I say, the armchair debunkers?!

Ask skeptic Tim Printy, since he is just one of a few examples where we went head-to-head, and he lost on both counts. Seems he didn't know what I knew, and as a result, he was forced to make a correction on his own website, and I have let other potential 'wannabe' armchair debunkers know as well!



Perhaps, you should ask some folks why they use sunblock and sunscreen, and wear sunglasses using UV protection.

It seems important to you, to "kick skeptics butts". Im sure that you think you "won" over the guys over on BAUT also!?

May I remind you that "winning a debate" over King (or Queen) of all skeptics, means nothing in the UFO=ALIENS question. You think that the evidence is satifying enough to claim that ET is here.....the skeptics dont. The skeptics need more. It does in noway mean that you "win anything".

You seem to me,with every post like that one,to show a lack of objectivity. You have made this topic into "your own". Thats not wise.

I looked over those discussions. I see that you count it as a win if rational people eventually tire of arguing with irrational people. In that sense, you win this one, also, since I'm not willing to waste my time any more than I would talking to a wall. The wall won't gain anything from it, and I would just be frustrated.

I believe that debate must be framed between at least two rationally held and logically defended positions. Repeating baseless assertions as facts, as you have done, is irrational and not a logical defense. No amount of repetition will make it rational or logical. Therefore, I will not debate you on your points. Technically, you lose before the debate begins because your bases are unreasoned. Emotionally, though, I'm confident you will see it as a win. But it is a very hollow, unfulfilling victory. Friend, no matter how many of those you "score," you will never be fulfilled and your quest will go fruitlessly on.

The saddest part is that someday, ET and UFOs may be proven as real, but the spotlight will fail to find you. It will fall to those who have remained rationally skeptically, those who kept an objective view and maintained standards of proof. You will have none to blame but yourself.

I will be able to say confidently that I am not foolish enough to argue with a wall, nor was I foolish enough to be a wall. I claim that personal victory this very second.


OS

Just one question: Who do you consider to be the most credible witness alife or coming forward with something? Is someone from the "Project Camelot"(Holden, Dean, Mr.X, Ring and so on) among these persons?

Another question: What is your opinion about the "Project Camelot" including all other details?

Here's some notes to get him started. I don't really have the time or inclination to go into any more depth on the 'Camelot' testimoinies. My prelim. notes

I read them.

Here are some of the stuff you believe is the truth.












Why would these countrys be any different from the US, they all have their believers in Big foot, sea monsters and Ghosts.UM and Goodlike productions people. If I dont take the believers "evidence" over here why would these countrys believers beliefs impress me!??

Important people, all over the world, with impressive credentials have all seen things in the sky that they cant explain. But just because you dont recognize an areal fenomenon doesnt nean its an extraterrestrial visitor.

That requires additional evidence.

We need a crashed ship or an alien body to be absolutely 100% sure.

You know, it is not my intention to "kick butts," but to bring reality in on the scene. If the skeptics want to play hardball, then I will comply and the conseqences of their lack of knowledge will be evidently clear afterwards.

I wouldn't put it in that context. Tim and I was going 'head-to-head" for a very long time before he made his correction. I wanted to bring out what happnens when one thinks they know it all, but doesn't.

I went through the same mess with skeptics prior to the Air Force's 1994 announcement that no weather balloon was involved in the Roswell incident. The skeptics insisted that their "undeniable evidence" overruled my evidence. Well, in 1994, the Air Force trashed their so-called "undenial evidence" and the rest is history. The timing couldn't have been worst for them since we were right in the middle of that weather balloon discussion.

Needless to say, they now know what time it is!

Sometimes, I use unorthodox methods to make my point clear to the 'armchair debunkers' and in one case, I called in the gorilla. I arranged the argument in a certain way for 'armchair debunkers' to where they were arguing about the date the discovery of he gorilla. I let the argument go on for a couple of days and then revealed very credible sources that proved they were on the wrong side of the fence.

I did so to show that their lack of knowledge on the issues at hand and resulted in their demise. They were arguing with me because I was a believer so I knew exactly how to set the game plan in action and they fell for the bait, and the rest is history!!

The 'armchair debunkers' rejected my references and I knew they would, but all they had to do was to check their encyclopedias, which would have proven them wrong! Instead, they found out what I told them occasionally;

"Closed-minded skepticism does nothing but blind the eyes of the mind to reality."


So as the final outcome in that debate with the skeptics over the date for the discovery of the gorilla, so as it will be with our debate over UFOs.

Military and commercial pilots, radar operators and experts, police officers, intelligence officials, military and other government personnel, engineers and scientist who know what is going on, but not afraid to further their knowledge on the issues at hand and let it be known to all on what they have determined. That is why I tend to disagree with UFOlogist from time to time because of what I have determined on the cases being discussed, and why I have disagreed with those on the MJ-12 documents because they had the hallmarks of a government-sponsored scheme to discredit the Roswell incident.



It is a good idea! Also, I expect more government workers, and former government workers, to come forward and reveal what they know about UFOs.

Just to let everyone here know, any *butt kicking* in these forums had better be civil/polite and within the guidelines of forum rules.

Cutting that short, but were you aware that science is beginning to take a look at 'Bigfoot?"

\

Believers belief?? I don't think so!! Besides, UFO reality doesn't depend on anyone's belief!

The reason other nations are coming forward is because their own Air Forces, commercial air traffic, and citizens have been encountering UFOs as well.



It would be nice, but not required, but there are phyical evidence taken from UFO landing sites that have no earthly explanation and tons of data proving beyond any doubt that the UFOs in question are artificial flying vehicles. Additionally, the recorded performance data figures prove they are not ours by that very fact.

"Closed-minded skepticism" is an oxymoron.



In order "to look about" and "to consider," one must have an open mind. If one's mind is not open to possibilities, then one is not a skeptic. Skeptics look for proof for and against, considering the possibilities versus the probabilities, and they necessarily discard the garbage information when it lacks empirical validity. Lacking empirical validity, data is not evidence and is meaningless. Your "evidence," as has been repeatedly explained to you, fails to pass the test of empirical validity. The real slippage occurs when one takes meaningless data and contrives an extraordinary speculation for causation without considering and testing the multitude of simpler explanations first. The point there is to discard the simpler explanations by disproving them through repeatable testing and observation.

One more time: meaningless data compounded by meaningless data will never add up to meaningful data.

Mindless believers line up on both sides of the fence, and can be just as foolish regardless of which side they are on.

"Mindless belief does nothing but convince the believer that fantasy is reality."

OptimisticSkeptic

Very nice.

I tend to see folks as being: Believers, Disbelievers, or Skeptics.

Don't you have some doubts due to some discrepancies in their explanations. What about stargates from Burish - this one belongs to "Project Camelot" - but it seems obviously the most incredible story. Considering all circomstances, can we have one unique and relaxed opinion about the ultimate existence of E.T.
For me the "Burish Case" is one case that I can not avoid having serious heavy lasting doubts.
What do you mean?

In regards to pilot reports, not when pilots report saucer-shape vehicles within 100 meters of their aircraft, which are also confirmed by radar.



I have to follow-up on that, but as of now, I haven't, but there are some things that are incredible in regards to UFO overflights that I haven't even revealed here, and the Air Force has been powerless to intercept them, and they are not reported in the press.

That is why those who've claim there are no evidence for ET vistitation, just don't know the rest of the story, but my prediction is; they eventually will.

Exactly, so why are there skeptics who've dismissed the evidence outright without knowing or even understanding what that evidence depicts? And, I have lots of examples to present. In some cases, they dismissed evidence that has been authenticated that any pilot would know is credible, but there are the "armchair debunkers" who apparently don't know what the experts know and why they tend to make serious errors in judgement that are brought to their attention when the facts are revealed.

That is how skeptics got slammed on the gorilla thing and I didn't hold back anything when I later revealed references from encyclopedias and universities. That is what has been going on in regards to the UFO debate, some of which you should be familiar with by now, and once again, I don't care whether they are skeptics or UFOlogist, if they don't have the rest of the story, then it is no point for them to continue to drive down a blind alley.

Another case in point is where I corrected the folks at the Federation of American Scientist (FAS) on the performance figures of the F-15 Eagle. They had posted flawed information that was related to the F-15 that I knew to be wrong, so I corrected them and the corrections have been made.

It is healthy to have an opened mind, but when one goes the distance blindly with a closed-mind, then that is another story.

Thank you, Lilly!

I agree with that observation wholeheartedly (now I just need some empirical data to back it up!)

Further, what I see is that folks at either far end of the spectrum tend to think of themselves as "Us against everybody else," meaning that they only see 2 possible positions. They completely miss the near infinite number of positions the spectrum really contains. And then ego gets wrapped around it, "I can't possibly be wrong, therefore everyone else MUST be wrong," and rational examination gets tossed out. Nothing is more damaging to the ego than to realize that one is wrong, particularly when one's identity has been defined by a disproven or unproveable position. And nothing builds inertia more than ego.

Actually, not much is more damaging than for someone to rattle off without knowing the rest of the story, and their lack of knowledge on what it is, that is being discussed.

Should I provide some examples?

You fail or refuse to understand the meaning of "empirical evidence." Let's take a step back, and I'll ask you to answer one simple question: Simply stated, what do you believe the radar data your produced proves?

Actually, it goes much further than that. That is why the "armchair skeptics" tend to bit the dust because they don't do their homework.

Should I post some past examples over the years where the documented facts later PROVED that I was correct?

A straightforward answer to my simple question would suffice.

It proves that the UFOs in question, are artificial flying vehicles whose performance capabilities exclude conventional aircraft.

Here are some examples.



In the case of the F-86, ground-based radar detected the UFO and when the pilot was close enough, he reported that the UFO was a flying saucer. Eventually, the saucer outran the jet. That case was brought up at the U.S. Air Force Academy and was kept secret from the public until it was leaked.

QUOTE

Radar confirmed that one of the UFOs in the Iranian encounter was the size of a B-707.

Radar/visual cases result in radar data confirming what the aircrews saw, in which case, the UFOs were usually described as metallic, saucer-shaped vehicles.

Did you choose these examples as the best possible examples that back up your claim, or were they randomly selected from a collection of examples?

Also, would you mind citing the original sources for these examples? The ones you offer are heavily laced (tainted, even) with editorial comment, hyperbole, and faulty conclusions. Do you have access to the original reports, preferably with the eye witness testimony?

MOST IMPORTANTLY: Have you opened you mind to the possibility that other, simpler, more mundane explanations can account for all of them? Just now, with no more information than I have gained from this page, I was able to devise one hypothesis about the first example. That hypothesis allowed me to make a prediction about the occurrence. The prediction was then confirmed with information contained later in the very same example, and reconfirmed with a quick Google search that revealed more information about the event. This hypothesis, I assure you, is quite mundane and repeatable.

Random!

The radar data I would like to reveal here are not available to the public, and they are very chilling!!!



http://ufologie.net/htm/f86-52.htm

http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/ufo00017.pdf

http://ufologie.net/htm/coleman52.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc629.htm

But completely irrelevant to the discussion. Hidden information is no information. I have proof that the US federal government is completely controlled by psychics who bred in labs and are kept on LSD perpetually throughout their entire lives, but I can't reveal my source nor the information. Now, you have to prove me wrong.



Only one source in 4 that is not questionable. The NSA document is two pages of hearsay with data holes all through it. The other three have no basis for veracity, and are not sources. We have no idea how many times removed from the actual sources they are, and again, as I stated above, they are "heavily laced (tainted, even) with editorial comment, hyperbole, and faulty conclusions."

I repeat: You fail or refuse to understand the meaning of "empirical evidence."

Post these and other "sources" like them 10,000 more times, and they still will not resemble anything like empirical evidence.

This sounds promising....Is there a link,Skyeagle?



We all know that UFOs are real...What is debated is WHAT they might be. And like hazzard already told you...It doesnt matter who is telling us their story of aliens,ghosts,demons, etc...what matters is IF THEY CAN PROVE IT. REAL EVIDENCE.

Sure there are cops,pilots,astronauts, etc that believe in God. Does that mean that god exists...NO it does not. Same with aliens.


The kind you have posted over the years just isnt good enough, not in the world I live in. But hey,keep posting it if that is all you got.

If you knew me well, you would know why I chose them! You see, those case files are also well-documented and even the Colorado Study team was amazed at the Lakenheath incident that it placed; "possible genuine' in regards to that UFO, and with the background history of the Condon team, that is saying quite a lot!!



You might have something there!

Were you aware that the CIA, for 20 years, was using psychic spies under the Stargate program? Were you also aware of FAA actions reqarding American Airlines Flt 191 and Eastern Airlines Flt 401? It shows the government was involved in the paranormal, so you might have hit the nail on the head.

Heck, who knows what else the government is involved in!



I would probably agree somewhat because just last night on TV, it was shown that the CIA was involved in the experimentation of LSD, so once again, you might have hit the nail on the head again!

You can go here.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/physicaltracecases.htm

In addition, you might want to keep tabs on the science channels because I am sure they will bring the UFO 'physical evidence' segment back, which went into the little details in the field test and lab test.

One lab technician was kind enough to reveal findings of the lab test.

Just a reminder to all to keep the discussion civil and on-topic.

The data evidence is why some nations are coming forward and saying that the UFOs in question are those of intelligently controlled vehicles. Since we don't have hypersonic flying saucers, it is clear they are not ours.

The data evidence can be examined, and re-examined time and again, and the physical trace evidence can examined as well.

Ok, that's confusing. They were randomly chosen, but chosen for a reason?


P.S. I am known as being very credible. Were I to report a UFO sighting, the chances are extremely high that I would be believed. I won't report one or make astounding claims about their existence unless I have good solid proof to support my claim. Until then, I will be clear that anything I say is denoted as speculation. That is why I people consider me "very credible." It's a self-reinforcing cycle.

But I was lying about the LSD-pumped psychics running the government. I don't beleive that, nor do I have any proof of it. It was an absurd example of absurdity. Maybe I'll head over to Stephenville tonight. They seem to be partying well over there.

That they can be verified.



I am on the record for saying that the majority of UFO sightings can be explained. In fact, I revealed where a KC-10 that was attached to my Wing was misidentified as a UFO one night in Northern California. Years ago, my own aircraft was believed to be a UFO over the San Francisco bay area. I also brought attention to a blimp that was reported to be a UFO. I knew the time that it was scheduled to fly from Oakland, CA. to Sacramento that night, and as it was, it was later revealed that the object was in fact, that blimp.

I like radar/visual UFO cases because radar can verify the eyewitnesse acounts.

Not sure this has been posted anywhere yet.

February 13, 2008 at 19:47:46

Source at U.N. tells of secret UFO meeting February 12, 2008

by Michael Salla, Ph.D. Page 1 of 2 page(s)

http://www.opednews.com

I received the following email from two trusted colleagues (Clay and Shawn Pickering) regarding a reliable source informing them that a secret meeting occurred yesterday morning (Feb 12) at the New York office of the United Nations concerning the recent spate of UFO sightings. It appears that a number of nation states are concerned about the impact of increased UFO sightings and wish to be briefed about what is happening. Their source, who currently works in the diplomatic corps, had to travel for an early morning off the record meeting at the UN. Their source revealed that a secret UFO working group exists that is authorizing the release of such information to the public, in an effort to acclimate others to what is about to unfold. A date of 2013 was given as the time for official disclosure and/or when extraterrestrials show up in an unambiguous way. In the interim there will be acclimation related releases of information. Importantly, the source revealed that the events leading up to official disclosure will involve more ethically oriented extraterrestrials, and they will not pose a military threat to the world.

Cont:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mi..._u_n__tells.htm

I know that this is enough for you to believe Sky.... But all that link gave me, was more stories and lots of dead grass.

Here are some clips from the different cases.












To me, this is far from hard scientific evidence of aliens on Earth.

There's a whole lot more from where that came from!

It always has been enough for me in the past, especially when the facts came rolling in at a latter date, which eventually, proved me correct. In other words, it is just a matter of knowing what is going on in the world.



As I have been asserting for years, the data evidence is that evidence, which eventually, people will find as to why it depicts only alien technology!

It is just a matter of time before everyone knows what we know about UFOs.

Sheere, pardon the late response, but that tends to happen in the transition from Sunday to Monday (these days are quite busy).



Actually, I partly agree and partly disagree with you. We have proof of something behaving as black holes as we currently theorize them to be, and I just saw that a new theory was out. Nonetheless, there is plenty of data to prove that something behaving like black holes exists, and not only gamma ray bursts.



I completely agree and I am playing the devil's advocate in this respect. I have no beef with that we cannot expect ET to adhere to our wishes and show up repeatedly. On the other hand, that is also why I say that we cannot say that it definitely a weather phenomena or the like. I have no problems acknowledging that it might be ET. My beef is just that we cannot exclude other possibilities. In my opinion I would rather be positively surprised one time in discovering that it is actually ET instead of constantly being disappointed because the explanation, again, was benign.



I don't agree with that comparison, to be honest, but I understand where you are coming from. To return to the black hole analogy and the UFO phenomena, I find it like comparing apples and oranges. Black holes have a predictive behavior and we can observe that, UFOs do not.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I will extend the same apology to you as I did to Sheere in respect to the long response time. I wasn't putting my head in the sand, but had to take care of my day job which these days is a night and day job due to conference and project deadlines.



It is the same leap to an unfounded conclusion. It clearly shows something that is not ours (to the best of our knowledge), but that doesn't make it ET either!! Again, to quote some of the data from the Hessdalen reports:



So they move fast, in highly erratically trajectories.



Can move extremely fast!



And reacts to external stimuli. That is why your data is not exclusive. It is only a small part of the puzzle and in no way conclusive!



Sure, you can examine the data over and over again, but you only have that one data set for that one event. That is the problem, and that is why it can never be scientific proof.



See, this is the crux of the matter. We have something on the theory of black holes, and we can predict the behavior of black holes and observed data correlate very well with what we know so far. As mentioned in the previous post to Sheere, a new theory just came out where back holes is treated as a bubble rather than a singularity and that could very well be true, I do not contest that.

The problem with the UFO = ET phenomena is that we have NOT excluded earthly explanations. I honestly don't know where you get that from, as I have referenced onserved, natural phenomena that exhibit the exact same characteristics. That is the beef I have with this whole thing. Again, I do not exclude ET, I am just saying that we can neither conclude that it is ET nor weather phenomena.



Highly questionable data, thus rendering it irrelevant.



I never disputed that. But that still makes them UFOs



Nonsense. Again, apples and oranges.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Indeed, and in my honest opinion everybody should be skeptics.

Cheers,
Badeskov

In regards to the description of the UFOs in the documentation the scientist produced, did we have saucer-shaped vehicles capable of hovering 200 miles above the earth?

All kinds of data and other information that we don't have on Black Holes.



Do we have airborne and ground-based radar data on Black Holes? What about ELINT data? We have all of that for UFOs!

In that regard, it is not nonsense at all!

No, but why does that make it ET?

Cheers,
Badeskov

Easy!!

The saucers those scientist observed, tracked, and documented, were objects that mankind didn't have in his closet at that time, which simply means, the saucers the scientist observed, tracked, and documented, were those of someone else other than mankind.

And why can't that be a naturally occurring phenomena? Let me quote from the Hessdalen work again (pp. 19):




So if we have rectangular shapes in naturally occurring phenomena, why can't we have saucer shaped?

Cheers,
Badeskov

Because it is impossible, as concluded in the Air Force's 1969 Study.

Besides, the objects were those of intelligently controlled vehicles, which excludes natural phenomenon.



Apparently, they have nothing to do with the UFOs in question. Read the reports.

Besides, you can go to any international airport, or domestic airport for that matter, and see all kinds of different lights floating around in the night sky.

I couldn't agree more with Hazzard.

Skeptic: "You need to prove that these things exist."
UFO Fanatic: "YOU need to prove to ME that they DON'T."

This argument is as immature as the childish "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" argument. The UFO fanatic has the burden of proof. The skeptic isn't the one running around telling people that UFOs DON'T exist. If he was, the burden would rest upon HIM. Whoever opens their big fat mouth is the one who must provide SOLID proof of their claims.
You'd think that with all the mini cameras, cell phone cams, Digital cameras (I saw one offered FREE on a cereal box) SOMEONE would be able to provide a CLEAR and UNDENIABLE picture of one of these creatures.
As for me (like you care) I totally believe there's aliens out there. One would have to have a very narrow view of our universe to think otherwise. It's in the numbers. Statistically, there is a FAR better chance of winning the Powerball Lottery hundreds of times CONSECUTIVELY then there is of us being alone in our VAST (I mean VAST) universe.

Sorry for the double post.

Now, you know why I have been presenting data evidence.

I think you might have something there!

Over and over again I have quoted newer results than those presented in studies from he 1960's. So can we agree that the conclusions those studies reached are practically invalid now? Bring me some post 1998 results and studies, and we can talk.



I did and I would suggest you do the same.



And? We cannot cheery pick results. Either atmospheric phenomena have the same characterstics as your ET vehicles or they don't. Obviously they do and thus we cannot make the conclusion that they are ET! Show me a recent scientific study that says that some atmospheric event cannot do what you say is ET!

Cheers,
Badeskov

Data evidence of aliens on Earth to you, not to the world wide scientific community.

Are you telling me that you are better then all of them!? And dont give me that "scientists all over the world is with me" crap.

Its embarrassing.

Indeed! i don't think haz or anybody else disagrees with you, stastically, ET should be out there somewhere. The question is whetherhe/she/it is visiting Earth or not, and here the numbers stack against it...

Cheers,
Badeskov