Come on and get real ok?? First of all I have never seen God but I believe that he exists, and I have never seen a million dollars in gold but I also believe that it exists. So give me proof there is a God and I will give you proof that there are ET's or UFO's or Aliens!

Whispering Eagle

And of course there may be closer connections between 'God' and 'ETs' than most people
could accept......??

Whats the saying....'killing (proving) two birds with one stone.'.........

(no offense intended)........nice post.......

No, if that day comes, when, lets say 20(!) world leaders, backed up by their space agency, scientists, claim it as a fact, they would probably have REAL evidence... that would draw my attention from whatever I was doing. I would wanna hear it from other people aswell. People like Kaku, Shostak, Michael Shermer,,etc.

Not from the Hoaglands, Friedmans and other "Skyeagles" thats for sure.

Thats just it. For some people believing is the whole thing. Ufology is the new religion. They dont need proof of God, or Aliens. They wouldnt want it proven or disproven. They need so badly to believe, so they do.

Skyeagle is a perfect example of this, cherry picking, "reading between the lines", ignoring the "uncomfortable" and the things that doesnt support his belief. It has been a work of art from Skys side in evading the pointy questions...

Nothing would change his mind, that there are intelligent life out there. He is probably right about that though...But if they have come here or not.(?) ..we need better evidence then the foggy stuff that has him sold.

WOw! Flawless logic! Have you ever seen a unicorn or a flying spaghetti monster aswell?

But, it is true that mainstream science has made a mockery of itself over the years and their are scientist who have distanced themselves from the mindset of mainstream science after they documented their own observations on UFOs.



Actually, they do since I have challenged them to refute my claims by providing evidence that the UFOs in question are those of mankind. So far, they haven't been able to do so and I know why.



Now wait a minute!! You can't deny ANY evidence if you don't understand what the nature of what that evidence depicts and that is a major problem with close-minded skeptics. They make claims that the evidence doesn't depict anything special, yet the real experts say otherwise.

A clear case of closed-minded skeptics, a.k.a., "armchair experts," with no experience whatsoever, telling the real experts with many years of experience that they don't know what they are talking about and I find that very amusing to say the least, which minds me of an old saying;

"Those who think they know it all, are annoying to those of us who do!"

QUOTE

A claim does not become true, or even reasonable, if a contrary claim cannot be proved to be true.

I heard that all before with the skeptics in regards to their "undenial evidence" that somehow in their minds, was far superior to mine that no weather balloon was involved, and you know where their "undeniable evidence" ended up in 1994! Right!!!

Chances are, no skeptic here is going to say what happened to their "undenial evidence" in 1994!

I find the "armchair experts" very amusing!

If a flying saucer landed on the White House lawn tomorrow, those same "armchair experts" will scream "foul ball" because they will simply say, it ain't real. Just like the skeptics denying the flight of an airplane was possible after the Wright Brothers had already made history.

Then, how about these folks who have stated that the UFOs in question, are those of ET?!

* Commercial and military pilots who have encountered them in flight, worldwide.

* Scientist, astronomers, and engineers who have experienced UFOs with their own eyes.

* Senior military and intelligence officials, worldwide.

* Military officers and enlisted personnel, worldwide.

* Police officials, worldwide

* Radar experts and operators

* And, millions of other people around the world.

LOL!!

It all comes down to knowledge, which the "armchair experts" have proven they lack. Now, the skeptics have mentioned that I ignored their "uncomfortable" things, but let's take a closer look as to why!

First of all, the skeptics introduced things that have already been excluded by the real experts with many years of experienced in their fields, and since you have no experience it those fields of knowlege, then who are you to tell the real experts they don't know what they are talking about?!

I have posted certain case files for a particularly good reason unknowing to the skeptics as to why I have been doing so. One of the reasons is, I expect the skeptics to come up with flawed explanations that have already been excluded by experts unknowingly to the skeptics as to why, in order to explain away those case files.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if those case files are still unexplained, then any explanation by the skeptics isn't going to change anything, especially since the experts in their field of expertise have already spoken.

The problem with some skeptics is because they haven't a clue as to what they are talking about and why their "undeniable evidence" has been shot down in flames on many occasions when the scientific data came rolling in, which eventually ran right over the skeptics and their so-called "undeniable evidence."

http://lilymichaud.files.wordpress.com/200...orns_csg010.jpg


or a flying spaghetti monster aswell?

http://www.venganza.org/

Yeah! Like:



Would you care if I answered each one of those so-called "pointy questions" above as a response that I tend to ignore such "pointy questions" of the skeptics?

QUOTE

The Case for UFO Reality
The UFO Briefing Document, Don Beliner

Summary:If a close look is taken at the best available evidence, it is possible to deal with what is known about UFOs, and what may reasonably be assumed. The point we will make is that the evidence to support the conclusion that UFOs are unknown aircraft/spacecraft seems to be overwhelming.


In 1946, the Scandinavian countries reported many hundreds of "ghost rockets" which flew low and silently, and often slowly. Efforts to blame them on nearby Soviet tests of captured German missiles failed when it was learned that no such tests had taken place.

The first major American wave of sightings of "flying discs" began in the early summer of 1947. Within two weeks, at least 1,000 sightings were recorded of fast silvery discs seen in the daytime. The first military studies concluded they were real and of unknown nature and origin.2

From then on, UFOs seemed to fly at will over all parts of the world: fast and exotic, untouchable and unproven. By the 1990s, there had been over 100,000 reported sightings, many by airline pilots and military pilots and other qualified witnesses.

Visual Evidence

Most of what is "known" about UFOs comes from individuals' descriptions of what they say they saw. If the individuals are reliable and knowledgeable about the sky, the information stands a good chance of being useful. This is the source of the case's "credibility," one of the two primary criteria recognized by the late Dr. J. Allen Hynek, long a consultant on UFOs to the U.S. Air Force, and later the founder of the private Center for UFO Studies.

Radar Evidence

Radar has played a major role in UFO sightings, repeatedly confirming the presence of something unidentified which responds to radar much as an airplane does. Clouds and other weather phenomena show up on radar, but any experienced operator can tell the difference between weather and something solid.

One popular explanation for radar/visual reports is temperature inversion. This was first brought to public attention following two nights of UFO sightings over Washington, D.C., in 1952. Inversions, the cause of mirages, probably never caused these or any other UFO reports. According to a 1969 study by the Air Force Environmental Technical Applications Center, the conditions needed to produce the UFO-like effects attributed to inversions cannot exist in the Earth's atmosphere.3

The most thoroughly investigated recent radar/visual UFO sightings occurred in Belgium and Russia. Military jet interceptors were launched following observations from the ground. Ground-based and airborne radars then confirmed what was being seen visually, including high speeds and violent maneuvers far beyond the capability of the best modern warplanes. In both countries, high government officials admitted they were baffled.

While the human eye can be fooled, and radar can be fooled, it is considered extremely unlikely that both can be fooled, in exactly the same way, at exactly the same time. Thus radar/visual reports rate among the most convincing of all types of UFO sightings.

Physical Evidence

UFOs have been seen high in the sky, near to the ground, on the ground, and even rising from water. If some UFOs have landed, it is reasonable to suspect that some of them may have left traces behind, and indeed that is the case. Imprints, residues, charred and broken tree branches and rocks are among the bits of evidence claimed for UFO landings. Furthermore, under microscopic examination, some residues exhibit strange and unusual characteristics.

Perhaps the most well known example of a physical trace case in the United States occurred in 1964 near Socorro, New Mexico, where a policeman reported seeing an egg-shaped craft sitting on slender legs in an open field. When it had flown away, he and a second policeman inspected the area where it had been parked and found depressions in the dirt, as well as still smoldering, blackened shrubs. The sighting was investigated within two hours by men from U.S. Army Intelligence and the FBI, followed a day later by the chief civilian scientific consultant to Project Blue Book (the official Air Force investigation of UFO sightings). All agreed that the primary witness was highly reliable. Later, the final director of Blue Book called this case the most puzzling of the approximately 12,500 in his files.4

The best documented example of a physical trace case in Europe occurred in Trans-en-Provence, France, where a farmer reported seeing a saucer-shaped craft land on his property and then fly away after a short while. Physical traces left on the ground were collected by the police within 24 hours and later analyzed in several French government laboratories. Microscopic analyses revealed anomalous biochemical and electromagnetic effects on the soil and vegetation. The director of the Service d'Expertise des Phénomènes de Rentrées Atmosphériques (SEPRA, formerly called GEPAN) at the National Center for Space Studies (CNES) describes this case as the most puzzling UFO case in the French government files.5

Government Statements

The involvement of the American government in the UFO mystery has long offered its own set of questions. Known investigations have produced ambiguous results, and explanations offered for specific cases have frequently been at odds with scientific reasoning. Sometimes, little-publicized official statements have supported the position that UFOs are real and unexplained.

Sometimes statements not intended for the public have been brought to the surface by UFO researchers:

July 30, 1947: "This 'flying saucer' situation is not all imaginary or seeing too much in some natural phenomena. Something is really flying around

Sept. 23, 1947: "The phenomenon reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious

Oct. 28, 1947: "It is the considered opinion of some elements that the object [sic] may in fact represent an interplanetary craft of some kind

Dec. 10, 1948: "It must be accepted that some type of flying objects have been observed, although their identification and origin are not discernible

.

Sky, you're doing a great job in shooting down these skeptics - keep up the great work!

Why do we have to prove you wrong? The burden of proof is on you, the claimant. We, the skeptics, don't have to prove anything.

In post #2512, you posted the following (in part):






In only one of those quotes is the possibility of interplanetary craft mentioned, and even then, it is not considered definite. In fact, there is considerable waffling there. Read it thoroughly, and it is not necessary to read between the lines, because according to your own quote, those statements were not meant for the public. If so, then why hide it? Certainly not for the bull**** panic excuse.

Simple! I made a claim that this is that, and that is this, and this is what is revealed based on the evidence of this and that. However, there have been some skeptics who have tried to used explanations to refute the evidence not knowing that what they have introduced to refute such evidence had already been excluded by experts with many years of experience after analysis were completed.

In other words, the skeptics attempted to use previously excluded explanations to try to explain away UFO case files that are still listed as "unexplained" terrestrially speaking, to this very day.

you forgot about astronauts

Thanks!! I will!

Oops!! I even forgot about the cosmonauts as well!

This goes both ways, like I said before, your claim of ET does not become true, or even reasonable, if a contrary claim cannot be proved to be true.

And how you can go from unexplained to ET spaceship!!?? . Just because some UFOexpert, astronaut, Pilot, King or President cant think of a terrestrial explanation doesnt automatically make the sighting extraterrestrial.

That requires additional evidence.

Im talking about physical evidence that can/has been examined by skeptical scientists.

If you have something like that in your files Id be interested to take a look at it!?

I know and this is what keeps the skeptics, going, just like the energizer bunny. Very little effort to actually research or read material on say subject and to just sit back and keep chantting we want a body. The skeptics job is oh so easy don't you think ! However a somewhat inlightend skeptic actually might want to prove what the said ufo was and not what it isn't. Try proving to us as to what the ufo was, plasma? prove it, atmospheric anomaly, prove it ! Yup must be nice to be a skeptic...

All I have to do is to post evidence that the UFOs were intelligently controlled crafts that were identified as such by highly experienced aircrews and radar operators, which exceeded the speed of sound and not produce any sonic booms, and then post evidence that we have no such vehicles capable of exceeding the speed of sound and not produce any sonic booms.

QUOTE

Dryden assists Northrop in sonic boom research

By Gray Creech
Aerospace Projects Writer

In efforts to reduce problems created by supersonic flight over land, Dryden researchers recently played vital roles in the airborne and ground measurement of a shaped sonic boom

"By having the near-field probing data from both the unmodified and now the modified F-5E aircraft, we can validate the design tools required for a new class of quieter supersonic aircraft," said Edward Haering, Dryden's principal investigator for the SSBD project. "The ground-level sonic boom recordings we gathered with the modified and unmodified aircraft validates that the shaped sonic boom theory works with real aircraft through the real atmosphere."

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMFDC03_562/PV2003_3575.pdf

http://www.answers.com/topic/sonic-boom?cat=technology

http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD...oc=GetTRDoc.pdf

,

I then posted the references from the AIM/FAR, Part 91, 817 and Appendix B, sections 1, 2, and 3, to show that we are not there yet, and yet, look what is in this Air Force report.





That is typical of the supersonic and hypersonic UFOs in question not to leave behind any sonic booms and we are not there yet.



Easy! Unexplained in terrestrial terms of crafts that are known to be intelligently controlled.



If the atmospheric experts and highly experienced aircrews and radar operators couldn't explain the intelligently controlled crafts in terrestrial terms, why should anyone take the word of an "armchair expert" who has no experieence in the field of those experts, some of which are scientist who came away with the conclusion that the UFOs in question are those of ET?

I might add that a former associate of J. Allen Hynek has been examining physical evidence from UFO landing sites over the years.

If the broad definition of sceptic is.....'one who is inclined to disbelieve'.....then I don't know
if a 'sceptical' scientist is possible, professionally speaking.....wouldn't a scientist set out to
prove or disprove a theory/hypothesis...and shouldn't their own beliefs have little to do with it....
if it was done scientifically.....





Well said!

"We want a body"........"We want a body."........that made me smile.

Yes....what a cop-out......the burden of proof is on the claimant....da di da di da....well sceptics make
negative claims all the time....and can't prove a thing....

Also....I think that believers are essentially skeptics who have made a judgement on a matter....not
someone who goes around believing absolutely everything.

Here's an interesting thought, well i think it is

In all my years, of at times being quite deeply involved in the subject of UFO's i have come across a fair number of people who in private have admitted to me that they are nowhere near as sceptical about the subject as their public persona would suggest. This ranges from scientists to high raking military officials.

The words "Of course if you ask me that in public i would totally deny it".. Are a phrase i have heard on numerous occasions. The reason given being always the same. "It's not worth risking my career to break ranks on the subject"

On the other hand i have to yet come across a sceptic who has said to me. "Actually in private, insert name of believer, told me they don't believe any of it, at all"

See, one of the problems with being a sceptic is this. Over the years the sceptics have shown absolutely no regard for people's private lives or careers in their attempts to debunk sightings. That is, by and large, they just don;t know how to keep their mouths shut. The moment they sniff a prospective witness to back their claims they *Out the person*.

Given that, is it surprising that those who may, in public say one thing, but in private say something very different, never confide in these people?
part of the reason i know what i know about some sightings is becasue i have kept what was told to me in private. That means, over the years, people have felt they can tell me details in private knowing that i am not going to go running to the press, internet to say.. "Look so and so actually thinks this.. i know they told me personally"..

Yes, it is frustrating at times not to be able to offer up some, at times, startling testimony from these people. However, i know that there will reach a point where one sighting might well tip the balance and these people will come crawling out of the woodwork to say.." Actually , yes i can now say what i always wanted to about the subject"...

This something i think, someone like SkyEagle will probably understand only too well, as will, many of those who have actually taken the subject seriously, study wise, and not simply sought to make a nice little career from it for themselves at the expense of the facts

Many skeptics have and do investigate to find out what happened. Phil Klass, Robert Schaeffer, Jim Oberg (UFOs), Joe Nickell (the Shroud of Turin), Lawrence Kusche (the Bermuda Triangle), etc.

You the believers are the ones making the claims, and so yes, it is up to you to back up your claims.


Considering it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist.....


I can't claim to know which examples you're thinking of, but do you expect, in reporting an event, to black out the person's name? That's done in official reports, and believers cry foul because the gov't is withholding information. Again, you want it both ways.

That's right!

So an out and out sceptic can only say....'I don't believe such and such exists.

So we're all believers........

Not really, most skeptics doesn't really make any claims. I have not seen anybody say that it is definitely not ET visiting. Most skeptics actually state that it could be ET, but that we cannot state that as a fact as there are still more Earthly explanations available to us (there are probably still atmospheric phenomena we do not know about and certainly some we know very little about). Thus most are actually satisfied for the time being just to keep the label unexplained on it, until it can be explained by the elimination of all other options.

And, 40 year old reports excluding temperature inversion and ghost angels does not eliminate phenomena that were not really understood at that time.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Acutally, they do exclude temperature inversions, ghost angels, and other phenomena since aircrews and radar operators described flying machines, not atmospheric phenomena, especially those flying saucers described by scientist, astronomers, and engineers that were observed outside the atmosphere, so I have problem with skeptic's claims that they are the result of temperture inversion of the atmosphere or any atmospheric phenomena.

Desciption of the crafts were of metallic, saucer-shaped crafts with rotating lights and portholes, and along comes a skeptic who makes very minor changes to the descriptions of the highly experienced experts and says that their descriptions were of a blob of light if not Venus, Jupiter, or Mars.

Apparenty, the skeptics also missed the descriptions where the aircrews and radar operators observed the objects making intelligent maneuvers around the aircraft, sometimes for long periods of time before zooming off at hypersonic speeds.

This must be why so much info is coming out now.....when people have retired and/or are no longer
bound by 'national security' laws.

And when they don't risk loosing their jobs/income.

All true.

If someone tells me that they believe in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, alien visitations, astrology and other claims that I see as unlikely to be true on scientific grounds, I dont care, its fine with me. But when someone claims for a fact that something like that is real, they can expect people to be skeptical, and want to se some evidence of the claim.

If then the "evidence" shown is anecdotal, ambiguous, or, in some cases, artifice, unconvincing, whos fault is that!?

The burden of proof is on those making the claims, not those who find the data dubious. If there are UFOinvestigators who are convinced that craft from other worlds are buzzing ours, then they should present the absolute best evidence they have, and not wine or resort to explanations that appeal to conspiratorial coverups or the failure of others to be open to the idea.

Again, Im talking about physical evidence that can/has been examined by skeptical scientists, by that Im trying to exclude the pseudosientists...the Ikes, Greers and Hoaglands.


If anyone out there have something like that, Id love to take a look at it!?

Whew! Thank goodness I'm not a skeptic.

I'm actually a cynic.

I'm a cynic too. But I ride a Schwinn. What kind do you ride?

The bus, unfortunately...

I'd love to know where atoms go when you are not observing them. Ask any physicist that question and see them squirm. Does that mean i don't believe atoms exist outside of those observing them and are, therefore, nothing more than a construct of those viewing them? Nope

There was no tangible proof for quantum theory that anyone could observe, let alone touch, until they managed to reach almost absolute zero and Hydrogen, if memory serves me right, reacted in the way predicted by quantum theory.

My point being that, these were the best fit theory for many years and accepted by most scientists before there was any absolute proof. There a certain UFO sightings where that best fit theory can only be a craft under non human control. That for me is enough proof to go searching for the actuality of the situation. Too many sceptics simply say "That's just total bunk nothing worth investigating".

The reason they do that probably is rooted deep in their psyches and has something do with being total control freaks.

And therein lies the big difference between, those who seek the truth behind these occurrences and those who wish to merely dismiss them out of hand. Those with open minds have nothing to lose, those with closed minds are scared it will be just another thing to add to the list of things they have no say over..

Is it any surprise, whatsoever, that Politicians who, almost to a person, are total and utter control freaks, would seek to hide away evidence they actually are nowhere *in control* as they would like to make out? The exact same mental mindest goes for members of the military and the scientific world.

The truth is, that clinging to the idea of the "Clockwork Universe" , which was the bed rock of all science for over 200 hundred years, is still holding us back from a true understanding of our *reality*. The control freaks will have to be dragged, kicking and screaming into the light, before they accept it.

That doesn't mean UFOs are Ets, but to deny they actually exist at all, as many sceptics do, or they are all misidentified natural occurrences, is just plain crazy, given the huge amount of data available for study.

What can possibly show that aliens are the best fit theory and not humans from the future? None of the data can distinguish between those.

So would I hazz... and im sure that if poor sky, or anobody else had some documents of that, he would have shown us, along time ago... Sadly we are stuck with the fuzzy "evidence" that takes faith to believe in.

There is no real faith involved when a guy seeks you out and tells you a story like the following...

Some 20 years ago 3 friends and i were driving home from a night out and saw this strange light in a field by the side of the road. Thinking something was happening we slowed down and sitting there all lit up on the grass was i can only describe a craft of some sort. We didn't stop but drove on , not one single person in the car saying a word, but everyone having witnessed the sight.

It was fully a week before anyone even mentioned the incident, as everyone assumed, they were the person seeing things cos they simply don't really exist outside of films.

It took nearly 28 years for that person to admit that happened and they only did so because, for the first time, they didn't feel they would be ridiculed by those listening. The guy involved and the 3 fellow witnesses are simply not the sort to either. Go seeking that sort of experience or, ever think that sort of thing actually ever really happens to people. The upshot of this is now have, including Rendlesham, 3 reports of a "craft" landed in England over the space of less than 8 weeks in the winter of 1980.

Now here's the real sting in the tail..

The first incident was recounted to me over a month before Rendlesham and the person described seeing a "craft" that was pyramidal in shape. Not a flying saucer, but pyramidal. When the person told of the second incident i gave them some links to read up on the Rendlesham incident. Without any prompting on my behalf that same person then contacted me to say. That is strange the "craft" described by those at Rendlesham sounds remarkably similar to the one i witnessed.

That is the two independent reports saw something pyramidal in shape not the classic UFO. That, to me, suggests that those people were not lying or simply misidentifying something natural If they had done that i would expect something far more along the lines of a classic saucer shape. They simply didn't have the anthropological social backgrounds to suggest otherwise. It's was embarrassing enough, in those witnesses eyes, to even have had the sighting let alone infringe any further social "taboos" by claiming to see a "craft" that didn't conform to the typical stereotype.

If you studied UFOs in depth, you would know that. Many sightings are reported as a result of people seeing something, apparently, saucer shaped, they assume must be a "flying saucer". That is a wholly different psychology to witnessing something that seems, unusual and yet doesn't even conform to the stereotype of what that unusual event should look like.

If it isn't bad enough that you have an experience that is outside the bounds of socially acceptable behaviour in the first place. Very few people are willing to compound that, by then going on to claim that, furthermore, the said incident did not even conform to the accepted "norm" within the l realms of the phenomenon as reported in the media.

The only faith involved was on my part, in that, i trust my own ability as a trained and qualified interviewer, to spot people are lying by their body language and to know when people give too much detail it is often to disguise that they are making things up.

I don't need hard evidence, although it would of course, have been supremely useful to have had it, in the form of photographs or the ash tray from the craft, to know that. This was a very significant period in the history of this phenomenon and that something very strange was going on in England in the winter of 1980.

What i do know is this. In virtually any other field of the sciences 3 such similar, seemingly unique, incidents reported by those witnesses would have a number of scientists clamouring for research funds to investigate them. However, as it's UFOs we are talknig about, all we get are the same old tired hacks pontificating on it from, often, 3000 miles+ away saying. "Well they were obviously mistaken". That isn't science, that is the same mentality as the Spanish Inquisition.

Actually, you wouldn't know what to look for in the data.

Because the future isn't here yet, and we are talking the present and the past.

Fuzzy only to the closed-mined skeptics.

Their near-sightedness didn't allow them to see clear enough to connect the dots on reality, which has been evident over the years as new evidence became available, which proved the skeptis wrong.

Should I list some examples to make my point very clear?!

Oh dude that was funny, and damn I was close to a bus to, my car broke down and would cost way to much to fix, I drive a 91 plymoth chrysler right now. Bought it for 500 bucks LOL the bus might have been better

Ok a quote from NigelTM

"You the believers are the ones making the claims, and so yes, it is up to you to back up your claims."

So a skeptic can claim it was a plasma event or an atmospheric anomaly or some other sort of phenomina? You make that claim now suppot it ! Wow it only works one way now, go freakin figure....

everyone is a skeptic and everyone is a believer.

mcfoogle believes that belief is simply persuasion.
believing in something means you are persuaded.
having faith means you have persuasion.

believing in everything you hear, you are easily
persuaded. but mcfoogle knows that people are
easily persuaded not only by hearing, but by getting
info from many sources... people have many sources.

a skeptic, however is a person who goes against
persuasion.

but everyone must be persuaded in something.
so, skeptics are simply persuaded in different things.

therefore, there is no true skeptic. everyone is either already
persuaded and if they are not, they want to be.

this is what mcfoogle thinks.

Interesting point of view, but that seems to cover all aspects of everything. What you just said could be used to say religion is nothing but Persuasion or that Santa clause is nothing but Persuasion or that any belief is due to Persuasion.

Ufo and intelligent control is not a Persuasion... It is a recordered fact, that of these examples are not plasma, not due to climate or weather not balloons ect ect. I don't need to be persuaded. If Persuasion was the norm we would all be religious zealots, we would all know that ufo's were man made or weather incidents and over all we would all eat the other white meat.

Ufo's can not be explained by conventional science, but they can be recorded and shown as evidence as not being man made or capable of being man made, yet metallic hmmmm

How is that an argument against what I said? So what if the future isnt here yet... that's not an argument because I proposed that it is also possible that they are time travelers *from* the future, not from the present. These time travelers may have traveled into our present and our past and may have been spotted and are responsible for all these UFO accounts...

By what you had said, means that you have finally ackknowedged that the UFOs in question are real.

The Rendlesham case is very interesting indeed.

Are you saying that you have such cases, were there is real physical evidence, but you wont show us?

There has always been physical evidence. I fact, a former associate of J. Allen Hynek has been revealing results of physical evidence taken at UFO landing sites. In addition, radar data is also concidered evidence, which can be used in a court of law.