"Back stepping?

We all know that UFOs exist. I have never seen a skeptic say otherwise."

If only that were true. Only those of a certain age remember some of the vilification of witnesses in the early days, both by the media and by science would say that. It was not uncommon for people to openly suggest that a witness was *mentally unstable* to even have claimed to have seen anything unusual in the sky, on the ground, or under the water.

It is only in the last 25 years that many have had the guts to report what they see in the sky. From my own experience i would hazard a guess there are some startling cases of landings that have gone wholly unreported becasue people think.

"Seeing things in the sky is one thing, seeing them up close and on the ground", is inviting a slew of trouble that people simply do not want in there life.

In the early days it was often said that UFOs simply did not exist, in any way shape or form whatsoever and that it was purely a 100% misidentification, of something totally mundane, or a hallucination.

I still gotta give to Skyeagle hes always going to be positive in his belieif Good for Him! good for us! Its the American way! now everyone Go vote for a new batch of smart @###%*$ so we can get our space program back in space!

Few questions, Sky:
a) what is exact name of the journal - "Aeronautics and Astronautics", or "Astronautics and Aeronautics"? It's a little bit strange - titles of the articles appear... only in UFO related sites
I searched AIAA database (AIAA journals), but couldn't find any of those scientifical articles (from A&A) you referred...
Quite mysterious... no articles, nor abstracts...

Once again, my friend, you are in violation of the rules here. It didn't even take five minutes to find the webpage you cribbed.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc597.htm

Plagiarist! Blasphemer! You don't even do any original research or investigation, do you?

By the way, it was post #2815 in this thread if you want to compare what Sky posted and the link.

Sorry, my fault!

It wasn't a journal. I forgot to highlight those words as a heading.

Of course I do research. After all, I was claiming that no Mogul balloon was involved in the Roswell incident while other UFOlogist still thought that a flight did take place, but was not responsible for the Roswell incident.

I know much more than I am revealing.

That is a pretty silly statement, when you can't even prove that the UFOs in question are those of mankind at the time when other countries have already ruled them out as ours.

Nothing to show for it??? Are you implying that these incidents never happened?

http://www.spartechsoftware.com/dimensions...OWashington.htm

http://www.project1947.com/fig/1952d.htm

http://www.ufocasebook.com/bentwaters1956.html


There are over 100,000 unexplained UFO case files on record and the numbers are increasing and will oontinue to grow right into disclosure time and look what you had posted!!!

And, I would like to underline, "back-stepping" as well.

And, that is a lot of sightings and I am expecting more reports to be released as well. To sum it up, I am very delighted that things are changing around the world.

There are still a lot UFO files that remain hidden, bujt eventually, they will be released as well.

I am glad you reposted that link, because it proved the skeptics wrong again, since there were some skeptics who had thought that UFO was not written in any science literature and look what you posted.

Thanks for your support in proving those skeptics wrong!! Once again, in the form of anti-debunker ammunition

Sky:
"Astronautics and Aeronautics" OR "Aeronautics and Astronautics"??? As I said, quite mysterious; compare references in http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc592.htm and http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc597.htm.
And if it's not a journal, so what kind of collection it is: secret documents for internal use?

Don't most believers (I have seen it said in here many times) that sightings are many over hundreds, if not thousands of years, even claimed to be in the Bible?

How did all those reports get through based on your statement?

Hi Aubrey

I see the skeptics (Like Hazzard, me) in here saying all the time



I don't think anyone denies UFO's, just LGM's.

Thats your "get out of a tight spot free card". Forget the balloon, or no balloon, at Roswell. A skeptic being wrong and you right about no balloon still doesnt make you right about ET.

Your , "I was right, no balloon were launched so then it must have been an alien starship that crashed" is just silly.



Please! If you had something real you would have shown us by now.


And, we are all waiting for you to show us were mainstream science state for a fact that the aliens are here...and then post a link to the source.

What are you talking about!? He posted a link to your cut/paste, like you should have done. How does that prove the skeptics wrong??

The problem here seems to be with the concept of 'definitive evidence' verses 'supportive evidence'. When one proposes a hypothesis, like the ETH, one needs supporting evidence. Now, there is actually quite a bit of circumstantial and anecdotal evidence that does support the ETH. However, the definitive hard evidence (aka, irrefutable *proof* type evidence) is lacking. This does not mean the ETH is wrong... this does not mean the ETH is right. Until such time as some definitive evidence can be found and openly presented any conclusion that anyone arrives at has to be personal opinion. There's really no other way (other than having the definitive/irrefutable evidence) to get around this issue.

Quite right Lilly. The best evidence we have for aliens is circumstantial. Granted, it's voluminous, but the fact of the matter is it hasn't been proven.

That doesn't mean (and other skeptics here have said it, and if I haven't in so many words, I will now) that ET does not exist. It simply means the jury is out, and while individuals have been convinced by the evidence, mainstream science has not. The Drake equation strongly implies that ET is a near certainty, but even that is not proof.

Is the question worthy of study? I certainly think so, in a number of disciplines, and who knows? Maybe with more serious study, we may find the definitive answer(s).

But as it remains now, we just don't know.

Placing the pieces together in regards to what we now have, I picture will emerge that they are not ours. We have more evidence on the existence of ET UFOs than we had on the existence of the CIA's A-12 before it was revealed.

Actually, I already have, but it seems the data I have been posting, which you were already aware of, couldn't be handled by the skeptics because they were not knowledgable enough to understand what the data depecited as evident by what they were posting, which was very amusing to me.



Hazzard, didn't you forget that mainstream science has made a mockery of itself in regards to past UFO investigations when it became involved and I am very sure that mainstream science has been coming under attacks for not getting involved.




You seem to forget that mainstream science would have to depend on those who have been claiming from their own experience, that the UFOs they ecountered, were those of ET.

Actually, it goes even further than that in addition to the test dummies and accident victims of the 1950s as well, which only took common sense, but the guy who was part of the test dummy experiments made it public that his operations were not responsible for the Roswell incident.

QUOTE

Dummies Weren't Classified, Says Retired Colonel

The Associated Press

GRANTS — A retired Air Force officer says he worked with high tech crash test dummies in the 1950s, and that there's no way they'd beconfused with aliens described in rumors arising from the Roswell Incident. Lt. Col. (Ret.) Raymond A. Madson said he isn't buying the latest Air Force explanation of what occurred in Roswell in July 1947.

The Pentagon issued a report this week saying the Air Force believes crash test dummies used in the 1950s were mistaken for the rumored 1947 aliens and suggesting that UFO buffs just got their dates mixed up. Madson, 66, who now lives near Grants, said he was project officer for Project High Dive at Holloman Air Force Base for four years starting in the 1950s. He told the Grants newspaper, the Cibola County Beacon, that the Project High Dive dummies were used to test problems pilots might encounter with the ejection mechanisms for bailing out of new generation jet aircraft.

Madson said he sent photographs of Project High Dive dummies to the Pentagon for inclusion in the Air Force document issued this week, 'The Roswell Report: Case Closed.' But he said the dummies do not match the descriptions of the very small, almost childlike beings purported to have been seen in 1947 near Roswell.

* There were those who were also claiming that UFOs were not written up in science literature, and they were proven wrong when I posted a list that prove that UFOs were written up in scientific literature.

* I told them that the Belgian UFO was not a the result of plasma, and they were proven wrong. Didn't they think that atmospheric conditions were already checked and found not to be a factor? And, it was obvious that the description of the UFO excluded plasma anyway!

* I've told them that it wasn't even an F-117 after they suggested that it was, and they were proven wrong, which only took common sense to dertemine that the object couldn't have been a F-117 anyway and the Air Force released more than enough information to prove that it wasn't a stealth fighter, but the nature of the strong radar returns was proof that the object couldn't have been any stealth fighter.

All it takes is simple common sense in that case as in others, to see that the objects are not ours.

* I've told them that the UFO that maneuvered near a DSP satellite, wasn't an SR-71 nor a satellite, which should have been evident, and now, Aerojets engineers are confirming that NORAD is in fact, tracking UFOs from deep space, and has been for a very long time. Dr. Carl Sagan was aware that the Air Force was also detecting UFOs at altitudes much higher than aircraft and made an appeal for that data from the Air Force at the UFO symposium before congress in 1968.



Dr. Sagan wasn't talking about weather balloons either.

* I've told them that the Washington UFOs were not the result of temperature inversion, but they didn't believe me, so I posted where the Air Force's own 1969 study proved that it was impossible for temperature inversion to have been responsible for those incidents, especially since mirages caused by temperature inversion can't be seen more than 2 degrees above the horizon anyway, which was a very big HINT that they were wrong.

* I've told them that the UFOs in questiion cannot be any secret aircraft because that is not how it is done in the real world when secret aircraft operations are taken into an account, but they argued with me regardless so I posted a message from the Air Force on the way secrets are handled involving aircraft when they crash.Besides, it only takes common sense to determine that if a secret aircraft crashes, you are not going to tell the whole world that the crash was that of an alien spaceship!!

* I've told them that a lighthouse was not responsible for the Rendlesham UFO incidents, but they didn't beleive me, so I posted a map and a close photo of that llighthouse to prove them wrong once again.

* I've told the others that no police car was involved in hoax involving the Rendlesham incidents, but they didn't believe me, so I posted where the policeman in question admitted that his police car wasn't involved. All it took was common sense to determine that the police car couldn't have been responsible for either the UFO in the forest nor the multiple UFOs in the sky over multiple nights.

* I've told them that the Lakenheath UFO wasn't a tethered balloon, but they didn't believe me, so I posted the report which shows the object traveling at hypersonic speeds, which by common sense alone, excluded a tethered balloon.

* I'veI told them the CIA was involved in the cover-up UFOs, but they didn't believe me, so I posted where the CIA was taken to court in the late 1970s to where a lot of UFO documents were released by the CIA after the court battle.

* I've told them that the CIA's claim that the U-2 was pushed off as a UFO, was false, but they didn't believe me, so I posted where the U-2 was actually explained away as a high altitude weather aircraft, not a UFO.

The list goes on and on, but I tnink by now, you've got the hint as to why the skeptics are on the wrong side of the fence in regards to UFOs.

What does "cut-and-paste" have to do with anything if they are factual? You see, Hazzard, that weak argument is used by skeptics who find themselves backed against the wall. "Cut-and-paste" makes it convenient to present those facts. Just thought that you would like to know that.

A skeptic brings up the "cut-and-paste" issue and the rest of the skeptics follow him over the same cliff.

If you don't like "cut-and-paste" routines, make an inquiry under the FOIA and obtain the same information, but it will cost you. The choice is yours.

For the record, Hazzard, are you claiming that UFOs were not written up in science literatiure? Please clarify your position for all to see.

Reading between the lines..like you told us to....That meens NO THERE ISNT ANY MAINSTREAM SCIENTIFIC CLAIM OF ET.... Thanks sky. That wasnt too hard was it.

There's nothing wrong with cut and paste, but as the guidelines at the top of the page say (and I'll post them for you again), (Bolding mine)

You tend to cut and paste large blocks of text, with no source. I speak for no one else, but to me, that's at the very least, annoying and bad form, and at the most, plagiarism. In the real world, people have lost their jobs for plagiarism, did you know that? Plagiarism is lying.

Try and focus sky...what hazz and nigel and me are saying has nothing to do with you cut and paste job...its has to to with you never posting a link to the source of info...And we all know why that is...believer sites, were you get most of your clips are not that credible...

But you knew this already...or else you would have posted them.

You also need to stop that handwayving routine...we dont care about how manytimes , or were, UFO is mentioned...All we are asking for is evidence to your claim that some UFOs are Alien spaceships.

LOL!!!

The same information is also avaliable under the FOIA, and look what you posted. In fact, you can go to the your local library and pull some of he same information from microfilms!!

Once again, the skeptics have proven they don't do homework!

Oh, did I tell you, that there are flying saucer reports made by scientist themselves?!

I do believe that I have been providing sources, which skeptics seem to ignore!

To sum it up, the skeptics don't like it when they have been proven wrong with the facts.

Keep-em-comeing sky! There are belivers and dis-belivers in every boat! Its like saying the Titanic sunk with all belivers on board only the disbelivers were saved. The unsinkble Titanic

No evidence and nothing to explain that but silly conspiracy theories, nah.

Post #2871....no source link at this time.

Post #2826...no source link at this time.

I find it very amusing that the skeptics continue to claim there is no evidence, yet they ignored the tons of data and physical trace evidence that have no terrestrial explanations.

They also ignore the accounts of pilots, radar experts, and many others, and testimony from government and former government workers whose testimonies are also backed by data and other evidence.

What I find amusing as well, is that now, they have brought up the "cut-and-paste" issue, not knowing the same informations is not only history already, but available from the original sources and under the FOIA, not to mention official government documents.

They also brought up pro-UFO websites to try and debunk the UFO reports from those websites, so I posted a government website that provided the same information onf another UFO incident that was presented at those pro-UFO websites.

Basically speaking, they must think that people were born yesterday.

Good...now we are getting somewere...Would it be to much to ask for a cut/paste and a link to the source??



"Physical trace evidence that have no terrestrial explanations"....Greate...cut/paste the good stuff, and then a link to the source.

Here you go!!


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

http://www.ufomind.com/area51/list/1997/jul/a06-004.shtml

Dont you meen...The Websites of Glenn Campbell...The UFO and paranormal database...Here you go!!

http://www.aliensonearth.com/

Here it is!

http://www.nicap.org/true-mc.htm


http://roswellproof.homestead.com/LIFE_1952.html




You can wait until the Discovery Channel presents it again, courtesy of a former associate of J. Allen Hynek.

Do you have any idea that you have been setup???

Goes to show just how easy it is, to do so because skeptics don't do homework.

Other than official Air Force documents available under the FOIA, another source:

"Unconventionnal Flying Objects - a scientific analysis",

Yeah, we heard it all before in the same context as those who are claiming that we never went to the moon because there is no evidence and such.

Now, we have this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21777913/

How the devil is that a source?!


The headline says "
Former pilots, officials call for UFO study
Panel calls on Air Force or NASA to reopen decades-old investigation"

But when I click the link, it says, "The page you are seeking has expired and is no longer available at MSNBC.com."

Good work bolstering your position!

Sky, I gotta give you props. You're too funny. I haven't had this much fun in a long time.

You STILL can't figure it out!!

All you had to do was to google these words:

"Former pilots, officials call for UFO study"


But, did you do so??? No!!

I knew it, but I was H-O-P-I-N-G that you would do some homework and obtain further information to provide us all, but all you did was to reconfirm my claim that skeptics don't do homework at all, or improperly if they do it at all.

Just to let you know that I already told Debunker about how easy it is to set-up closed-minded skeptics because their closed-minded blinds the eyes of their minds to reality so they are unable to see the lhand that slaps them upside their heads.

You know what? I have googled information when you've not provided it. Which is why I've provided links to articles and sites you didn't. So you're welcome, since I've done your work for you, even though I didn't do it for you.

Then, you could have done further checks on the orginal sources on the UFO case files I have been presenting, which were not those pro-UFO websites, but in many cases, from government sources.

That is why Debunker got slammed for ridiculing those websites without checking as to where the sources originated.

And you're certain I haven't, or am not checking further?

Actually, objective websites would be more helpful.

Just keep telling your self that. It is painfully obvious why you never post your sources.

Roswell again!! ....Thats it....A 60 years old story is the best "scientists claims there are aliens on Earth" you have!!??




So, the only "Physical trace evidence that have no terrestrial explanations" you have, is hidden away by the Discovery Channel!!??

Do you have any idea how silly that sounds??

Some of my surces were from the Department of Defense, The National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, NORAD, the Discovery Channel, The History Channel, the FAA, and other government sources.

Now, can you tie the case files in quesiton to which agency was the original source?

Just goes to show that some skeptics just ain't got what it takes!

Proof that that craft had nothing to do with anything of mankind.

We already have the Air Force's original report etched in stone, and balloons have been execluded as well as classified projects.

The Air Force reported the capture of a flying saucer, and scientist and engineers at the base also confirmed that they have also observed flying saucers over the area, and the amazing thing about it all, it is no secret!

We can do this dance for the rest of your life sky...In the end it is always up to you, who claims that the aliens are here, to supply the best evidence you have, not to the skeptics to prove you wrong, or explain what it was...A skeptic failing to prove, or show what it was, only leaves a UFO UNEXPLAINED...Thats it.

We are only looking at your "evidence", that is far from solid, thinking... If thats all you have, you have nothing.

As long as the information contained therein is accurate, the website itself isn't really the issue. Skyeagle is quite sly, in a good way. He knows that in most cases refuters will see the website as a "believer" website, and see any information that the website provides as biased. Check the info itself for accuracy, do not let the website put you off.


Skyeagle, it's nice to see you still fighting strong. Your efforts are very much respected.


Have a good day!

How many times have I told the skeptics that if they didn't want to use those websites, then they can expend some time and cash to obtain the same information from government sources under the FOIA???

As I've said before, it is very amusing reading atacks from the skeptics on those websites knowing, that they don't have any idea that those websites are not the original sources, but just passing along information that can be gathered from the National Archives.

I even posted where they can go to the local library and read about the UFO incidents over Washington D.C. in 1952 from microfilms and publications of that year if they didn't want to use those websites. I have already done so and the information I gather is exactly what those webstes were providing and they didn't have the internet back in 1952 like we have today.

To sum it up, just a show of silliness on their part.