Nope. Taking my logic into consideration, you can take a car, study it and determine that it has wheels. You have physical evidence of this. On the other hand, if someone sees a red car driving by, no license plates or anything, not even having seen the occupant, according to your logic, he could say "Thats definitly my neighbour, because he has a red car!"



You can do that... me on the other hand, I will not just accept something someone tells me.

If I were to tell you that I am the president, would you take that at face value?

President of where? La La Land? (joke)

I see where you're going, and I'm not disagreeing--but in an internet forum, I wouldn't expect you to necessarily give up personal information just to make a point.

Besides the fact that I don't need personal information to make the judgement as to whether or not the poster makes a good argument.

And if you were the president, what the devil would you be doing posting on a forum?

None of the 'regular' posters got anything to say about the Paul Hellyer speech?

Personally, I would put it in the category of reliable circumstancial evidence......

I do, if they try to use one aspect of their job to make themselves out to be an "expert" on the subject like sky has done.

I'm just too nice for my own good then.

Seriously, IMO, Sky has no real credibility as far as I'm concerned. I have my doubts he's any more of a government insider than I am. And I'm not.

On the other hand, if he's willing to put his personal information out there so it can be checked, I sure am not going to stop him.

I'm simply saying that posting publicly available documents doesn't bolster an argument that he knows more than the average person who has time to look.

Let those who truly know about ET, if they exist, come forward with genuine proof of it, and not just testimony.

Don't want to repeat myself but see my own quote above. Testimony and circumstancial evidence is all
that is possible.......for now. Surely you can see that?

I know it's like everyone here wants Sky to produce an alien body or hand over technology from another planet. He can't because such proof does not exsist as far as we know. How ever Sky has put up a great argument that some UFO's seem to be under intelligent control and beyond any of man's inventions. I am not totaly convinced that aliens are visiting but I would like to be.

And that's the best evidence there is. Yes, I can see that. Can you see it's not good enough?

For all the claims that have been made over the last 50+ years (how many contactees in the 1950s said the aliens were about to reveal themselves?), disclosure never seems to happen.

It reminds me of the end of the world cults. Some prophet says the world end will on a particular date, then that date comes and goes, and the prophet says, "I made a miscalculation. It's this date!" And his followers gather together to wait for the end, and again the date comes and goes, and the world hasn't been destroyed. Repeat ad nauseum.

Edited for grammar.

It looks like more than a few in here have question about the real truth,but we may never get it from our gov, sky has done well to defend his opinion and IMO there are places in this country and others around the world that hide the truth.Do we just wait till more people ask the same millions of question about ufo`s? whos going to spill the grey and green beans? just DONTEATUS.

I know.....the fact is NOTHING can be proved beyond doubt on an internet forum.




See above....you will never get the level of proof you appear to need, here....so why do you
persist in demanding it? If you find the case for ETs unproven....that is fair enough. But asking
for the impossible will not further the debate.




I agree.

Hi Silver,

Obviously an alien body or the like would be great to be given to examine, but I think we all know that is not going to happen in the near future (from anybody). And I can respect the argument for why some UFOs could be under intelligent control, although I don't agree with it. However, the key words are could be (or in your wording, seem to be). It is the conclusion that it has to be ET that irks people, as we do not have the ability to exclude possibilities more Earthly yet. I think most people here would be delighted to actually find out that it was indeed ET - but so far we do not have the evidence to state that as a fact.

Cheers,
Badeskov

I persist in challenging believers because they keep making definitive claims. If it is indeed impossible for proof to be given, then let the believers admit that. Yet the claim is that UFOs are extraterrestrial, and I don't buy that claim yet. The way I see it, there're plenty of other explanations that are viable before ET.

Finally, can proof be produced on an internet forum? Maybe not, but this is a place of discussion, and I'm discussing it.

Is this place like a zero point reality? the facts ,or other assumptiions of facts,are being inspected dejected,and infected by a ton of speculation. some points are indeed valid,and to the point.some just of the radar.Like et he can be or not be .thats why we get to stay up late and talk about it.the best way to slove it is with great proof.Like a real ship to play with or bodys or the owners mannuels for the toys they fly.Just remember when the door opens dont shoot at them! and DONTEATUS

The scientist and engineers, commercial and military pilots, air traffic controllers, military and intelligence officials and many others, had determined that the objects in question, were in fact, artificial flying vehicles and that the recorded performance of those vehicles had proven they were not aircraft.

So now, all we have to do is to look at the specifics of the data in regards to the performance characteristics and if they don't fit conventional aircraft, then they don't fit, conventional aircraft.

Of course you have doubts, but that doesn't change reality by any means!

As far as credibilty, all you have to do is to try and debunk the case files I'd presented. If you are unable to do so, then I rest my case! That woulld be a task since those case files remain officially unexplained terrestrial speaking, to this very day.

I do know much more than I have been revealing. After all, I did bring up the fact that there were no such thing as a Project Mogul balloon flight # 4 even before other UFOlogist had found out that fact.

Just a clue, you understand!

The government doesn't play fair in many instances.

The government has been releasing declassified UFO documents under the FOIA for years, which contain the same information that I have been providing on these message boards on the case files the skeptics have been trying to debunk.

Is it any wonder why the skeptics kieep finding themselves on the wrong side of the fence as evident in 1976, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1984, 1986, 1989, 1990, 1991,1994, and 1997, right up to the present as the facts were revealed over the years?

I listed some clear examples of how the skeptics made the wrong choices the other day when the facts were eventually revealed, but their claims were already etched in stone and I took the liberty to remember what they had claimed prior to rthose evelations that were related to the case files in question.

What the general public was unaware of in regards to another Air Force encounter.

[/b]

Woah Sky! A whole page just for you...thats just greedy! lol

Skyeagle409-

What value would UFO sightings of the "weird vogue" be to the USG? And, why would they hush them up? If they have no value, why assign value to them?

They would be a curiosity, instead. If they shed zero information, then that is their secrecy value.

Of course, people will assume the USG, in all of its ability, absconded with something of value from ET.

That is a logical progression in such a story- every idea is game, if we can imagine it.

But, that's just a game. Without clear records, who is to say what is what, in a meaningful way?

I think people give as much meaning to a "nothing" as they can- just to nurse it along. IMO.

And, if you believe NORAD, or blindly accept Aerojet "PR" (a govt. defense/aerospace contractor), then I have a bridge to sell you.

Oops!

Why??? It is not a matter of "blindly" accepting what happened since even skeptics acknowledged that there was an incident on that date and it has already been determined that the incident in 1984 took place as reported.

Even UFO skeptic Phil Klass acknowledged that an DSP satellite tracked an object on that date, but I disagreed with him that it was an SR-71 since the object maneuvered within miles of the satellite.

So yes, there was an incident in May 1984 that involved a UFO and one of NORAD's DSP satellites.

Question is: Why didn't you know that before posting that message???

I wonder why so many just cant belive that we are not alone? Keep -em- comeing Sky!

In other words, the U. S. government is to debunk UFOs at all cost, and do so publically.



But, there are clear records, and lot's of them in regards to the UFO enigma, and many of those records are of military and commercial airline encounters involving aerial crafts exhibiting advanced technology.

The reality being there still isn't explicit proof that ET exists, much less we've been visited.

Please, rest your case.

While at the same time releasing documents through FOIA that "proves" UFOs are ET.

It seems your position is heads I win, tails you lose.

I have often said to the skteptics that if they can't prove those objects as ours, then, throw in the ETH.



I will if they can't explain the UFOs in question, as ours.

Not only that, but government workers and former government workers are coming out in large numbers with what they know about UFOs. The Robertson Report suggested that UFOs be debunked, but the San Francisco Chronicle reported several years ago that the government was releasing declassfied UFO files and of course, we have the FOIA files, which show that the UFOs in question are quite real, and not ours.

And, some files were not easy to obtain since some UFO files were gathered after a court battle involving the government. A little insight as to what happened in 1978.



And, I have posted documents on the Iranian UFO encounter and even confirmations that one of NORAD's DSP satellite tracked the encounter from space, in addition to UFOs and our Minuteman missile systems and some skeptics thought the incidents never happened. Apparently, they were unaware of what was going on behind closed-doors until those incidents were eventually revealed after the court battle.

So here is a clear example of skeptics trying to debunk UFO incidents, which were history already because they didn't do their homework and when the facts were eventually revealed, what more could they say?!!

Anyone know what's happening with that Canadian (former) Minister of Denfense? Think he was pushing for disclosure...just wondering if he'd been in the media again recently

First of all, if it is a some sort of vehicle that flies, its an aircraft by definition. Second of all, these scientists, engineers, pilots, at controllers, military and intell officials and so on may be convinced they are ET craft and such, but that doesnt mean they have proof. If they have proof, lets see it. Failing that, you can not exclude the possibility that something else, unknown as of right now, is responsible for it.

Furthermore, atmospheric plasma phenomena demonstrates the same flight characteristics as some of your data there, so how can they exclude this as a possibility? They cant. If you have two phenomena that fit the data, even if one is a bit more likely than the other, you cant exclude the other.

Im sorry, but things are either explained or unexplained. To say that they're "unexplained terrestrial speaking" (Whatever that incoherence is supposed to mean), means that the case is unexplained, and therefor doesnt prove any sort of ET hypothesis.



And I think you may think that, but it seems to me you know much less.



Blue-white streak? Could be plasma. Nothing said in this dismisses that as a possibility.

Nope, because some of the scientific reports were of saucer-shaped crafts outside the atmosphere. And remember, the specifics of the performance characteristic excluded aircraft.



Is it any wonder why they have stated that the crafts they encountered were those of ET???

So now, you telling the highly experienced experts and with many years of experience I might add, that they don't know what they are talking about. There's this thing I have with armchair experts with no experience telling highly experienced experts they don't know what they are talking about.

It was that same mindset the skeptics used to claim that a weather balloon was responsible for the Roswell incident, because they didn't know what they were talking about either!

[

The data I posted was not indicative of plasma.

And, they can exclude plasma since the crafts they were describing were of artificial flying objects, in some cases, with rotating beacons and evenly-spaced portholes, and not anything to do with plasma and a case in point, those incidents remain unexplained terrestrially speaking to this very day by that very fact, which means that plasma is not taken seriously by the experts even today, in regards to those incidents in question since artificial machines that maneuvered around their aircraft, were described by those involved.

Besides, some of the cases reported took place outside the atmosphere. So much for the plasma theory, which is now considered the "new swamp gas" thing.

Nope! It was determined that the objects were those of maneuvering objects under intelligent control.

That is why that case remains unexplained terrestrially speaking, to this very day.

In the case of the UFO case files in question; unexplained in terrestrial terms.



I will follow up on that.

I think, that many believers go at face value and are easily lead. I don't think it's right they don't accept facts and only go on things others have said. Skeptists in my opinion are the sane ones. You just have to decide which you are.


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

That's funny cause Sky has presented facts, and you being overly skeptical refuse to believe them. Must be easy being so skeptical, I guess all one has to do to be a skeptic is to call someone not sane and not accept certin evidence. Sky has presented evience and lots of it. Just not hard core proof, hopefully one day we will have it. One has to think that with all this information one can't in the back of there mind think it could be possible. I for one think it is possible these could be alien craft, I'm not saying that they ARE alien craft but I must admit I'm open to the possibility. I guess I'm one of the less sane ones.

Hi there badeskov

I know what you mean to, when someone says that these anomalies are deffinitly alien controlled as the PROOF is still not rock solid or close to rock solid yet. These could be earthy happenings and we have yet to discover them, but with the technology we have today it would be funny that we havn't discovered them, or at least come up with a very compeling theory. I know the thought of aliens comming here to visit is a stretch at best but not imposible. I think the universe has ton's of secrets for us to discover and intellegent life, with a curios mind and the right technology would probably want to explore there back yard. Besides I to love the thought of aliens visiting but I am reserved enough and don't have the "certin" knowledge to say for sure we do have alien visitors. I find there is just to much evidince to come to a cunclusion alien vists are impossible. I hope time will give ud this knowlege.

Take care.

Silver

The speech, linked in the top post of mine.....is very recent....just 12 days ago....so I don't think
there will be too much more yet......but you never know......

Just the other day, I posted a list of explanations made by skeptics that lead to conclusions that had no basis for fact, and when the facts were eventually revealed, there was nothing more for them to say.



Not accepting facts is why I posted that list in regards to explanations made by skeptics. Go back and look at the list I posted where the skeptics said this, and said that, to where eventually, revealed facts proved them wrong.



I am on the record for stating that the majority of UFO sightings can be, and have been, explained. It's those other numbers that have no terrestrial explanation that I am interested in because they involved highly credit witnesses whose accounts were backed by other means such as radar, ELINT systems, etc. In other words, multiple sources of information all singing in harmony to the same tune.

I have also stated that I am skeptical of UFO reports until I have examined the reports in detail and I even dismissed conclusions of other UFOlogist as well.

Yes, I am a skeptic to a certain extent, and there is nothing wrong with being skeptical, but when closed-minded skepticism gets in the way, then that is another thing.

If this was a discussion about possibilities concerning extraterrestrial life, it would be interesting, but the mistake made is the assumption that ETs exist, and in fact are here. This thread is based upon a declaration based upon facts which are completely unsupported. Thus, I simply point out that fact, and it is a fact...perhaps the only absolute present here.

You believers want to argue based upon a complete lack of data?

Thats unwise.

Ok fact is all these reports, sightings, radar signatures and documents from the goverment can not conclude it WAS plasma. I know Achems Razor lol but that still does prove anything. Hazzard you are right, to prove that aliens are infact here is impossible to prove absalutly with our curent information, if it could be done it would have already been done. Absalute proof does not exisit to the general public in anyway yet

Edit: tweaked it abit

Good to see ya still pluggin away sky,we need to findsome of that exhibit-a stuff buzzard is always talking about,lol but we do need to get the general plubic to start reading about more of the current news and earth problems,not to change this topic,just keep the skeptics looking at stuff like local news then we can talk about ET`s and the many accounts they bring us. Keep-em-comeing. DONTEATUS watching your back

I really don't think that you understand what is happening around the world.



Please clarify what you meant by "lack of data" when we have all of this data from just one encounter involving an Air Force bomber?



And;

Thanks!!

I have more coming!

HAVE WE VISITORS FROM SPACE?

The Air Force is now ready to concede that many saucer and fireball sightings still defy explanation; here LIFE offers some scientific evidence that there is a real case for interplanetary saucers.

LIFE Magazine, April 7, 1952
by H. B. Darrach Jr. and Robert Ginna

For four years the U.S. public has wondered, worried or smirked over the strange and insistent tales of eerie objects streaking across American skies. Generally the tales have provoked only chills or titters, only rarely, reflection or analysis.

Last week the U.S. Air Force made known to LIFE the following facts:

• As a result of continuing flying saucer reports the Air Force maintains constant intelligence investigation and study of unidentified aerial objects.

A policy of positive action has been adopted to find out, as soon as possible, what is responsible for observations that have been made. As a part of this study, military aircraft are alerted to attempt interception, and radar and photographic equipment will be used in an attempt to obtain factual data. If opportunity offers, attempts will be made to recover such unidentified objects.



INCIDENT 3

On April 24,1949 at 10:20 a.m., a group of five technicians under the general supervision of J. Gordon Vaeth, an aeronautical engineer employed by the Office of Naval Research, were preparing to launch a Skyhook balloon near Arrey, N. Mex. A small balloon was sent up first to check the weather. Charles B. Moore Jr., an aerologist of General Mills Inc. (pioneers in cosmic ray research) was tracking the weather balloon through a theodolite -- a 25-power telescopic instrument, which gives degrees of azimuth and elevation (horizontal and vertical position) for any object it is sighted on.

At 10:30 a.m. Moore leaned back from the theodolite to glance at the balloon with his naked eye. Suddenly he saw a whitish elliptical object, apparently much higher than the balloon, and moving, in the opposite direction. At once he picked the object up in his theodolite at 45 degrees of elevation and 210 degrees of azimuth, and tracked it east at the phenomenal rate of 5 degrees of azimuth-change per second as it dropped swiftly to an elevation of 25 degrees. The object appeared to be an ellipsoid roughly two and a half times as long as it was wide. Suddenly it swung abruptly upward and rushed out of sight in a few seconds.

Moore had tracked it for about 60 seconds altogether. The other members of his crew confirmed his report. No sound was heard, no vapor trail was seen. The object, according to rough estimations by Moore and his colleagues, was about 56 miles above the earth, 100 feet long and was traveling at seven miles per second.

http://www.nicap.org/life52.htm

When elderly and respected astronomers report UFO sightings?

One of the great debunker urban myths is that astronomers never see UFOs. In fact, no fewer than 150 famous astronomers have reported UFO sightings and provided details.


A List Of UFO Sightings By Astronomers

http://www.xdream.freeserve.co.uk/UFOBase/Astronomers.htm