What makes you think that hasn't already been done? The folks at Wright-Patterson AFB have already said that the Roswell debris wasn't of this Earth.

Yes, and the 1950s documents remain unrefuted to this very day! The debunkers have tried to paint UFOs as natural phenomena, only to be shakened by the truth after scientific analysis were completed of the events in question.

A reality check, you understand!!

Scientist have had decades to do their investigations and they have been attacked for not doing so, and when they decided to investigate, in the case of the Condon Study, they got caught trying to deceive the public with outright deceit and needless to say, the media had a field day as a result.

So is it any wonder as to why mainstream science has been attacked over the years in regards to their to their seemingly lack of interest, at a time when other scientist were documenting their own flying saucer sightings in space and within the Earth's atmosphere?!

Seems that ET was looking for the White House lawn to land on.

Life Magazine, August 4, 1952, Pages 39-40

Washington Post, 1952

New York Times, 1952

And, other major publications in 1952.

http://foia.abovetopsecret.com/ultimate_UF..._to_20_1952.pdf

http://ufologie.net/htm/usa1952.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc892.htm

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washingt...C._UFO_incident

http://science.howstuffworks.com/ufo-government5.htm

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc823.htm

http://www.ufocasebook.com/washingtondc1952.html

http://www.ufo-reports.com/WashingtonDC1952.html

I bet it wasn't tracked on radar! Speaking of radar!!

Here is something to really crack your side and the amazing thing about it, it is a true story!

_______________________________________________________________________________

DEBUNKERS: The flying saucers that flew around and trailed JAL flight 1628, which were confirmed on radar as they were doing so, were Jupiter and Mars.

When the facts came in later that the objects were tracked on radar as they followed the B-747.

DEBUNKERS: Oops!! The UFOs were ice clouds.

The response after it was determined that meteorological conditions during the incident, excluded ice clouds

DEBUNKERS: No response as the sound of crickets are evident in the background.

Radar/visual UFO cases are very impressive and the 1952 Washington D.C. UFO incidents were such a case.

Here is an incident that is common around the world, but not reported in the press everyday.

You expect me to weigh in on whether someone is likely to be lying or delusional, but you don't see the need for me to have even met the man?





Good, at least we agree on this.





For the majority of scientists to fully support the ETH (notice I said majority) more evidence of an empirical nature is going to be necessary.





Yeah, and we can also debate on when the color 'dark grey' finally becomes black and when the color 'light grey' finally becomes white. Come on, you're obviously a very smart person...you know exactly what I mean by those terms.



Actually, not a bad idea for another thread. However, what constitutes just about *anything* is up for grabs when one enters the realm of philosophy.






Hypothetical Scenario:

"*Clang*, seems pretty solid to me...did you see that sucker come in for a landing?" "Man, I can't wait for the guys from MIT to tell us about it's construction and propulsion...Say, you don't suppose it has any occupants?"





No, that's how we get from "unidentifiable" to "might be extraterrestrial". The crux of the issue here lies with the "might be".

Ellsworth UFO Case



Important Radar-Visual UFO
On August 5 and August 6, 1953 the US Military investigated a UFO incident in Bismarck, North Dakota. What has become known as the Ellsworth Case is one of the most significant radar-visual cases in the annals of UFO sightings.
The event was witnessed by almost forty-five agitated citizens along with military Air Defense System personnel. The object was first sighted by Miss Kellian at 8:00 P.M. on August 5. The description was of a red glowing light making long sweeping movements.

Erratic Motion Observed
The information was transmitted to the Bismarck, North Dakota, Air Defense Filter Center. Sometime later Sergeant Harry spotted the objects from the roof. He observed, paying close attention to the irregular movement, as it danced between telephone lines. Others on duty saw the moving light which would be visible in the night sky for approximately three hours. Sergeant Harry described his observance in the following manner: It would remain stationary--then hop up several degrees very quickly--almost simultaneously. Another witness commented, It would stop...move to the left and then swerve down in a sort of slanting motion, repeating these maneuvers several times.

Immense Luminosity Seen By F-84 Pilots
At midnight three additional objects appeared in the sky above Dakota. The employees of the Filter Center had a feeling like someone was watching them. Before they were seen in Bismarck, two F-84s had been vectored into the area over Blackhawk, South Dakota. The objects and the jets were monitored on radar. One pilot established visual contact for twenty to thirty seconds. His description could be heard over the intercom. It's brighter than the brightest star I've ever seen. When the pilot gave chase the light inexplicably disappeared.
Lieutenant Needham, the second pilot spotted one of the objects at 15,000 feet. It was below him and to his right. The object moved spasmodically up and down. The colors changed from white to green. In pursuit Needham climbed to 26,000 feet. He changed course to 360 degrees. After maintaining steady on 360 degrees for a brief time, his radar lock-on-light on the A-4 gun-sight came on and remained on. The object was ahead of him. It increased speed and moved rapidly ahead and up.
The chase was being carried on the radarscope at the control room. Radar indicated that the UFO was staying five to ten miles ahead of the Lieutenant and his F-84. Finally Lieutenant Needham gave up his pursuit and flew back to the Military base. The object continued on and was detected by the Filter Center in Bismarck.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellsworth_UFO_Case

Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports
The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the
Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York
September 29 October 4, 1997

Journal of Scientific Exploration







http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/ufo_reports/sturrock/2.html#5

I don't see the problem, given that we're talking about Gordon Cooper here, and so some very strange things would have to be true for him to have been lying or delusional.

Added: Indeed, there are much better ways to decide if he is lying or delusional than having met him personally. I'd say having met him would be almost perfectly irrelevant.



I think enough empirical evidence exists to provisionally support the ETH, and so do you.



No, seriously, I don't. I do know what terms like "irrefutable proof" mean. They mean something that doesn't exist in a rational framework.



This just puzzles me. The title of this thread as well as the content indicate that it is about what constitutes "evidence" of the ETH according to a "skeptical" viewpoint, and that is a philosophical question. Our discussion hinges on terms like "proof" and "empirical" and "logic." These terms come from nowhere else but philosophy.



I don't think so. The philosophy of science is rather well-established.



So touching the object and finding it solid would (by definition) indicate that it is tangible. That's a given.

But scientists conclude that things are tangible all the time without having to touch them. Are there other indications that an object is tangible? The way that it reflects light or other EMR, for example, or the fact that it leaves imprints in the ground?

Isn't it true that an object might be observed to behave in such a way that an observer would be very justified in treating it as a solid object and nothing else, even without touching it?

And supposing a scientist or other highly-qualified observer did touch one and told us about it. Would you believe him? Or would you have to touch it yourself?



So someone would need to see the object come in for a landing? Do I understand you correctly?



I think it may be asking too much to expect any rational creature to hand over its spacecraft complete with occupants for our analysis, and our government does not seem willing to hand over even photos and film of alleged craft, much less the craft itself, to anyone at MIT or any other academic institution. I think these criteria seem designed to be impossible to meet.

It may not be impossible to say with confidence that craft have been retrieved and analyzed by scientists. It's just that the results are not exactly submitted for peer review as in academia. This is for reasons that are well understood by anyone who is interested in the field. Indeed, the policy of secrecy has been articulated and rationalized right in the open by advisors to the US government in this matter. So we would be foolish to expect this kind of openness from those who are in a position to control the object and any information about it.

So would it be enough to show strong reason to think that craft have been analyzed by scientists? Or must we insist on what is currently impossible?



Needless to say, it is "might be." Certainty is flatly ruled out in any rational, i.e., skeptical, viewpoint. The question is, when and how does the ETH become a leading contender among explanations for a given case? When is it reasonable to entertain the idea, to treat it tentatively as true? It seems we both think that those criteria have been met in some cases, and so all we have to do is articulate how we came to that decision. Then we will have addressed the title of this thread.

We both know that in addition to unimpeachable eyewitness testimony, there are radar data and forensic evidence such as prints and radiation traces. If these are not evidence of something, then every person in jail is wrongly imprisoned, and many (if not most) propositions that are taken seriously in science are mere conjecture and nothing more.

The challenge, as always, is interpreting such evidence as exists. When it comes to cases for which you say the ETH is a pretty good hypothesis, I assume you are saying so because of the evidence. Is there another hypothesis that is just as capable of making sense of that evidence in those cases? If so, what? And if not, isn't that the same thing as saying the ETH is the strongest hypothesis in those cases, and therefore is likely to be true, in our considered judgement?

And isn't saying so a little different from "belief?"

(BTW, this process of questioning is called "skepticism!")

Yes. As a matter of fact, this was exactly the fate of all classified records pertaining to the Roswell incident. A congressional inquiry revealed that they had been destroyed by persons unknown and without proper authorization. No stronger evidence of an official coverup could possibly exist, except perhaps a videotape of the conspirators planning and executing it. The question is, why?

Why? Just because he was an astronaut doesn't make him any less prone to confabulation or delusion than anyone else.



Well, you're certainly free to use whatever methods you choose for guessing about the veracity and motives of others. Personally, I prefer more of a 'person to person analysis' in such situations.




Agreed, but the pro ETH evidence isn't so strong as to rule out the possibility of unknown natural phenomena, or even black ops terrestrial technology being involved.





Ok, how about some alien space craft hovering over major cities in the daytime. Alien scientists publically meeting with terrestrial scientists (on CNN, video at 10:00). Certainly would cover the meaning of 'irrefutable proof' for me anyway.





Ok, and this seems (to me anyway) to be exactly what we are presently discussing.





It's all evidence...some more compelling, some less. Touching an ET craft myself would certainly be darn right compelling for me.





Wow, talk about over analysis! It was just a humorous example of what I'd like to see happen in a 'perfect world'.





Short version: A cover up could be possible, but once again we're dealing with a 'might be', not a given.





For me the bottom line is the solid empirical evidence. Visible alien space craft hovering over a few large cities in broad daylight for all to see would clinch it for me. Remember, evidence in law isn't quite the same as evidence in science, and most certainly not anecdotal evidence that can't be independently corroborated.



Hey, question everything, it's healthy. However, at the end of the day it's the strength of the evidence that will determine the scientific take on all this. Actually, I think we're almost on the same page here...I'm just one of those annoying people who needs a great deal of evidence before I conclude it just has be aliens behind UFOs.

"[...]
A review panel was composed of nine scientists of diverse expertise and interests. The panel offered comments and criticisms concerning the investigations that were presented, and also prepared a summary of their overall response, with the following key elements:


Concerning the case material presented by the investigators, the panel concluded that a few reported incidents may have involved rare but significant phenomena such as electrical activity, but there was no convincing evidence pointing to unknown physical processes or to the involvement of extraterrestrial intelligence.

The panel nevertheless concluded that it would be valuable to carefully evaluate UFO reports since, whenever there are unexplained observations, there is the possibility that scientists will learn something new by studying these observations.

However, to be credible, such evaluations must take place with a spirit of objectivity and a willingness to evaluate rival hypotheses.

The best prospect for achieving a meaningful evaluation of relevant hypotheses is likely to come from the examination of physical evidence.

The chances of a significant advance are considered to be greater now than at the time of the Colorado Project that led to the Condon Report thirty years ago, because of advances in scientific knowledge and technical capabilities, and in view of the example of a modest but effective UFO research project provided by the French space agency CNES.
[...]"
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/a...sturrock/1.html

So... where is UFO=ET ?

Aint it great the fredom of speach! Now where`s the Beef? we are not getting older for any good reason.

Its all in his mind. Skyeagle never could tell the difference between UFOs and alien spaceships. To him, like you just figured out, a UFO is an alien craft till skeptics prove him wrong..

He keeps posting this stuff about physical evidence of alien activity on Earth, but in reality its just more of the same ol same.. inconclusive at best.

There has to be direct irrefutable evidence that any UFO seen in the sky, on the ground, or on radar, is indeed alien technology, at the exclusion of any and all other possible explanations.

He has been asked for this hard evidence many times before, and failed everytime.

He doesnt like the simple fact that science has not established one jot of empirical evidence for the existence of alien life in the universe, again, despite the fact that the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of it.Rather than realizing this fact, he prefer to go with the odds, and speculate about the idea that they are indeed here.(!)


Bottom line, right now, 2008, what evidence is there that there is other life in the universe?

Zero.

What evidence is there that this other life, if they exist, have come to earth?

Zero.



And thats why this UFO=aliens belief stays a belief.

Actually, precisely the opposite is true. As an accomplished test pilot and the most illustrious of the seven Mercury astronauts-- which is to say the best of the best, trusted to pilot the only US spacecraft in flight at a given time, solo!-- Gordon Cooper was thoroughly vetted from every medical and psychological perspective possible. In addition, he was among the most highly trained professionals on the planet. If anyone is less prone to confabulation or delusion than anyone else, it was Gordon Cooper. If he were psychotic, the fact would have been easily detected. If he enjoyed telling wild lies, his career would look quite different. His is not the biography of such a dysfunctional person.

So while we cannot be 100% certain that Gordon Cooper didn't make it all up, some very remote probabilities would have to be true in order for that to happen. He was not some Joe off the street. If there is such a thing as a reliable witness, then he is certainly it.



If we're discussing a witness's mental status, then I would prefer psychiatric evaluations over personal impressions. And Gordon had them out the wazoo.

In addition, I'm not aware that anyone who knew him ever characterized him as a liar or crazy! Was that his reputation?



In some cases, I think either explanation is practically ruled out, and I think you agree, or else you wouldn't have said that the ETH is a pretty good explanation sometimes. Again, we are not talking certainty. But there are cases where the "black ops manmade technology" theory (for example) would imply things that are even harder to believe than the ETH. That is when the ETH starts looking pretty good to a rational person.



OK, but you never answered the question, what evidence would convince you that what you are touching is an ET craft?



Again, what evidence would point to "alien?" Or at least would cast significant doubt on "manmade?"

Once we establish what makes an object "alien" or "probably not manmade" in our judgement, how about if independent witnesses on the ground filmed such objects hovering over the largest city in the Western hemisphere in broad daylight from more than a dozen different locations simultaneously? Would that be sufficient to say that a public display had occurred? Or is that not public enough?

Or how about the world's most advanced fighter jets chasing such objects over the capital city of the most powerful nation in world history, with Fox News and CNN reporting live on the scene? Would that be a public display?



Exactly.



It's not annoying, and we are virtually on the same page. Even if a flying saucer landed in front of me, and a little green man got out and said, "hello, I'm a space alien from Narxus IV," I'd be inclined to doubt him. It is definitely about the evidence and figuring out what explanations do and do not fit with it.

Skyeagle posted...










Skyeagle... We ask you for the best evidence you have of aliens on Earth........"AND LOOK AT WHAT YOU HAVE POSTED!!"



OOPS HE DID IT AGAIN



Thats a keeper...thx Sky.




Quote hazzard



Good post hazzard...I agree with every word.

Did you even read what it was that I saw!!??

It looked like a disc with little lights...but in reality it was a big round whole in the fast moving cloudsealing..and the lights were stars.

But sure...you just go ahead and believe that it was an alien craft...

I never said I thought Mr. Cooper was psychotic, I highly suspect that level of mental illness would have been noticed. However, how are we to know he wasn't fond of practicle jokes and/or story telling? Actually, this is something I should ask MID about. I'm not sure if MID was working at NASA during the Gemini program, but I can ask.




Well, when it comes to anecdotal accounts no ones account is considered proof positive, regardless of how many psych exams they've gone through.





In such cases either the ETH, or some exotic, unknown phenomena would appear to be the best explanation.





Seeing who was flying the thing. Stands to reason that an alien would be easy to recognize (hopefully).





Frankly, I'd rather like to see such an object with my own eyes (perhaps even touch the craft, meet the pilot etc.), then hear that ETs had made contact with various scientists.






Holy cow! you may even be more skeptical than I am. Honestly, if little green dudes came out of a flying saucer in my presence (and others were there to corroborate I was not having an hallucination) I'd be willing to support the ETH as the correct explanation.

Err...DEBUNKER, I think you're missing skyeagle's little joke there. Obviously if what you saw was just a hole in the clouds with stars in the backdrop, it wouldn't have showed on radar. See, it's a joke!

I find it odd that you find it difficult to accept the word of an All-American hero/astronaut....but
would (it seems) accept the word of MID, who I presume that you don't know personally....but just from his
posts here on UM....??

But in saying that....I too, would be interested in what he has to say about Gordon Cooper...

How would I know that they are not just a bunch of lying Elves?

Elves in space! (a rip off of the Muppets "Pigs in space!")

News Flash! Exibit-A Found! Earth has life! We are way out in space moveing at incredible speeds thru space and Time! We didnt just pop into here! So we know for a fact there is life in the universe! Lots of it!IMO I live in dallas lots of alien life here!

Maybe your right? Skyeagle has been known to joke around quite alot. What if hes just pulling our legs with all his "evidence".

Who knows...He may not even be the fanatic believer we all think he is!?

Seriously...he just used that oneliner to pump in some more radar "evidence".

Whoah, lets not be too hasty. First off, people make mistakes. A glint off a cloud could easly be mistaken by a pilot. Secondly, where has anyone ever claimed that on here, that "yes, the metallic looking disk that was seen by the fighter pilot when he was in persuit of it, while it was being tracked on radar, was actually Venus". No one. That was a pretty poor comment coming from you mulder. I'm surprised. In skyeagles case, a UFO means UNIDENTIFIED, not alien, too much of an assumption on your part, and Hazzard, I agree with Debunker, that was a good post lol, and it is all fact. Everytime he comes on, he pulls subjects from his magic hat, wants answers then ignores them when they don't agree with what he says, skyeagle will never gain answers if so stubborn.


Thanks, GUNNARYSEARGENTHARTMAN

I don't intend to just 'take anyone's word' at face value. I'm simply interested in asking MID if (in his opinion) Mr. Cooper was know for pulling pranks, or telling tall tales etc.



It appears that Mr. Cooper's beliefs about UFOs were quite likely sincere, not a result of pranking or any form of humour. Thanks to MID for informing me of this. Which leads me to wonder all the more!

WOW!

Thats the kind of real evidence we all have been looking for. One can almost see the alien pilot in that starship. Thx for posting Skyeagle.

OK...that makes three who are interested in what I have to say about Col. Gordon Cooper (rest his soul...).

Specifically, about the various discussions about his belief in aliens, and that he thought he'd seen an alien craft...I take it.

Here it is:


bee...

Col. Cooper was indeed an all-American hero, an astronaut.
There were alot of all-American heroes working at NASA during those days...engineers, scientists, technicians...people who sacrificed alot (sometimes more than anyone would accept as reasonable) for the goal. However, be assured that all of them were human beings, not some other-worldly celebrity-types who are infallible.

They swore, they drank, they smoked....they cried and laughed.

Hamlyn said, seemingly in support of the efficacy of Col. Cooper's statements....




This is utterly untrue.
John Glenn, largely through his ability to communicate with people (he was the spokesman of the Mercury 7), was considered the most illustrious of American astronauts at the time. All of the Mercury seven were entrusted with piloting the the only U.S. spacecraft at the time, and with the exception of dear Deke, all of them did...as much as piloting one was possible.

Now, Gordo did have some serious problems on his Mercury flight, and he pulled off some "stick and rudder" maneuvers that changed the way we did things from that point on with manned spacecraft, but if any of the others had had his sorts of problems, they'd have done the same thing he did. These were qualified research pilots all.

While medical testing did indeed determine that these fellows were normal in every respect, there is nothing that was done medically and most certainly psychologically, that made them super-human in any respect (their piloting abilities and skills had nothing to do with their medical and psychological conditions...save to say that they had their thing together as pertains to grace under pressure and will to succeed...but the barrages of medical and psyche testing they went through was quite frankly erroneous and in many respects, nonsensical).

While understanding the medical research done concerning space flight, the early medical and psychological criteria for U.S. Astronaut selection was borderline psychotic, and many an astronaut didn't like it, didn't understand it, and had a negative opinion of it...one which I agreed with then, and do today.

Astronauts were and are human beings, susceptible, as strange as it may seem, to the same things that the rest of us are susceptible to, physically and psychologically.

And despite the incredible testing they went through, we found that people like Neil Armstrong, first man on the Moon, had a heart rate of ~160 BPM during his descent to the surface of the Moon...big deal (I would too). Some guys, like Charlie Duke and Jim Irwin...got religion from their experience, while others, like Pete Conrad, exhibited no changes whatsoever...and continued their lives as if nothing happened at all...(dear Pete was killed in a motorcycle crash at the age of 69...rather fitting for a guy like Pete).

And medically...what did all that testing prove? Jim Irwin had serious heart arrythmias on the Moon durting Apollo 15...an astronaut...on the Moon, subject to barrages of medical testing, woops...they didn't uncover what were apparently congenital defects....and a man on the Moon was having arrythmias that would've likely placed him in an ICU on Earth (he didn't know it at the time, and they didn't re-appear until a couple years later,when he had a major heart attack). And dear old Ron Evans, Apollo 17 CMP...died at age 56 of a heart attack, and Apollo 13's Jack Swigert?


Died of bone cancer at 51 years of age...with all that medical testing...go figure! Stub Roosa, Apollo 14 CMP...dead at age 61 from viral pneumonia...a complication of pancreatitis....young fellows....

These were human beings...all different...all human.


What about Gordo?


Gordo was a wild man. He was a classic, and those who knew him knew someone who was energetic, talented, driven to be the best, and confident to the point of near cockiness.


In 1951...Gordo saw a UFO during his early Air Force career. In his mind he attached this to aliens. He wanted investigations, and thought that the government was sweeping it under the rug. This wasn't something that was publically discussed, but there's little doubt he felt it.

What's the big deal? Lots of people are so moved by seeing a UFO. I've seen them in my days of flying. Certain people see different things. For me, and many others, it's a UFO...we have no idea what we're seeing. For others, Gordo among them apparently, the idea of aliens crops into their minds and won't let go. Big deal.

I think that's what happened to Col. Cooper. Further, I think that his departure from the astronaut corps in 1970 may have been the result of too much harping on this point to NASA management. I don't know this for sure...and I don't actually know anyone who does....but there was some falling-out between Gordo and NASA in 1970. A man who is slated to command a lunar landing mission (which he was, he was the CDR of Apollo 13 at the time), doesn't just leave over nothing...

But up until the 2000s, Col. Cooper said nothing about this idea of his publically. In his later years, he came out and said that he'd seen an alien spacecraft in 1951 and at several other times (he never said anything about seeing a UFO or an alien craft on his NASA missions). He also stated that he thought the government was sweeping the UFO matter under the rug.

See [i]Leap of Faith[i], 2000


Now, you must understand something. Gordon's book came out in 2000...he was 73 at the time...and in the throes of Parkinson's disease, regrettably.


Parkinson's disease is typically associated with the motor dysfunctions that we often see...but it also produces high level cognitive difficulties, and symptoms such as depression, apathy, abulia, and executive dysfunction....(it's horrible....).

My take is that Col. Cooper's previous concerns about his impressions of his UFO sightings in the past were accentuated by his disorder in later life into the realm of declarations that he had seen alien craft and that he felt the government was covering it up. The pattern makes perfect sense if you understand what he was going through.

Gordon Cooper is remembered as an American hero, and it should stay that way. I've never known anyone to speak of him with anything other than highest regard...a regard which he deserves...and in my book shall always have.


But the fact that a 73 year old astronaut in the throes of Parkinson's comes out and makes declarations about aliens is not a fair assessment of Col. Cooper in my book.

We, and he, had and have no empirical evidence to sunstantiate such a claim. In the 1950s he had no evidence...he wanted more done about the reports. He felt there was merit in a full investigation. Me too. Nothing wrong with that. In the 2000s, he declared he'd seen alien craft. Unsubstantiated...belief...but understandable given the circumstances.

Don't assign more to Col. Copper than there is.

American Hero? yes.
UFO / Alien Beliver? Yes.
A guy we'll all remember fondly forever? Absolutely.
Someone with a belief...probably accentuated by executive dysfunction...probably yes.
Someone with empirical knowledge and evidence of aliens...no.


Let's leave Colonel Cooper as he is....

MID, thank you very much for your wonderful reply. Personally, I think that Mr. Cooper did indeed see something that lead him to his personal beliefs. Each and every one of us are unique human beings who in order to make sense of our world have to use belief to some degree. That said, none of our personal beliefs should be construed as being factual based on our status; be that of a hero, or just the guy next door. It sounds like Mr. Cooper was a great guy, I'm satisfied to leave it at that.

Same here...thanks for that post MID.

What we have here is not ET, at best, we have a serious mystery.

Or like Leon Davidson said...this is from your link, Sky...

I'd suggest Mr Davidson doesn't hold his breath. The Government has , apparently, been on the verge of admitting they have these craft, with these capabilities for over 50 years but somehow, they still remain totally secret and not one person has ever admitted to working on such a shaped craft, apart from Bob Lazar...

There is, in all probability, one project not yet made public. It leaves the *soap on a rope* contrails high in the sky and its' engines are described as, seemingly sounding like, * it is ripping the air apart ". However, as far as is known, it is a sub orbital craft, cannot manoeuvre at slow speeds whilst at low altitudes and is not circular in shape.

What Me Davidson is actually saying is that. Yes, these craft seem to be real objects and then goes on to make the assumption that. They are ours although he doesn't have a shred of evidence to back that up.

You will also note, he fails to mention in his summary that. Not only would these entail new technology asre, engines, it would also require, if manned, totally new technology vis a vie, inertial damping for any incumbent crew.

The truth is, we have been here several times in the past. Might be interesting to go back and ask a couple of the people who said virtually these exact same words in the 50s/60s/70s what they think stopped the Government from telling us what they are for another 30/40/50 years?

As it stands the guy is saying. "Yes i think they exist", but totally ignores the evidence that almost certainly suggests. Craft with exactly the same capabilities have been sauntering around the worlds skies, almost at will for over 50 years.


He also ignores data from Operation Mainbrace and Shag Harbour that strongly suggests these same craft can operate in water, as easily, as they can in the sky.

So, lets make that. The Government are about to announce that they have a flying sub that can accelerate to over Mach 2 in the blink of an eye, without a sonic boom, oh and they have had them for over 50 years.

As i said earlier.... don't hold your breath folks...

Let's take a look at what those crafts were doing, which clearly were intelligently controlled and not aircraft!

Yes, I did it again and apparently, the debunkers missed it again!!

From that same link!



The same radar experts and engineers who have been stating for years that the UFOs they were tracking, or knew of, came from outer space and/or exhibited advance technolgy that exclude ALL aircraft.

It seems the debunkers just ain't got it!! You know the old saying: "He who laughs last, laughs best!"

I read it and that was the reason why I told Hazzard that I bet it wasn't tracked on radar. I just couldn't resist!

Please explain how this had anything to do with electrical activity.

From the same link:





A simple question will answer that:

In regards to the silvery disk, did we have a hypersonic flying saucer in our inventory? If not, then your question has been answered; The craft wasn't ours.

I have told the debunkers the data that has been presented, was that of ET. So, is it any wonder why more and more government officials, contractors, former government officials and others, are revealing data and documents proving the objects are not ours?



Who do you know that has hypersonic flying saucers in their inventory? They exist as the Air Force stated back in 1948, so where is the evidence those hypersonic flying saucers are ours?

You see, the debunkers consistently fail to refute the fact that hypersonic flying saucers exist and those objects are been recorded on radar exhibiting advanced technology unknown to mankind.

Is it any wonder that NORAD has been tracking UFOs in space along with scientist, engineers and astronomers? Is it any wonder why government and former government officials have been revealing data and documents proving that the objects are not ours? That is what debunkers don't like to hear.

What it is, the debunkers can't accept reality for what it is and why they have been setup time and again by me to prove an example that debunkers just don't do homework, or fail to do it properly if they do.

Do I need to list examples to make my point very clear where the debunkers have found themselves on the wrong side of the fence when the facts came rolling in?

Debunker, you are very amusing to say the least!!

Once again, you have proven my claim that debunkers don't do homework, or do it properly if ithey do.

The information I have been revealing can be obtained from declassified government UFO data and documents under the FOIA and look what you posted!!



Reality Check Time!!!!:

You have proven once again, that you don't do homework! How many times have I stated for the record that I am a skeptic of any UFO report or sighting until I have examined the report in detail?

I seriously question the ability of debunkers to even debate the UFO enigma by the very fact they don't do homework or do it properly.

Debunker!! Now, let's get a grip on things. First of all, we don't have hypersonic flying saucers capable of such speeds and not leave behind a sonic boom. Why do you think I have been posting references from the Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM/FAR) Part 91, 817 and Appendix B, sections 1, 2, and 3? I did so to make a point that the UFOs, which have been tracked on radar flying faster than sound and not leaving behind a sonic boom, were not ours. That is why supersonic aircraft are still retricted to this very day, because we are still strugglinng over the sonic boom problem.

( The problem we had in trying to build a flying saucer that flies like an airplane, is the shifting center-of-gravity. The is why the semi-saucer shaped "Flying Pancake" had vertical and horizonal stabilizers in order to fly properly.

Another point, the flying saucers in question, do not use jet propulsion, which should have been evident that Mr. Davidson is not on the same track as Mr. Reality.
The radar data also clearly indicates that the UFOs in question are not jet-powered aircraft and jet engines have their own unique radar signatures as well, so in that case, it should have been evident to Mr. Davidson that the UFOs in question, are not of the same objects he is talking about because real flyng saucers in question don't use jet engines.

I must add that we don't have any jet-powered aircraft capable of 80-G accelerations, which is yet another nail in the coffin for Mr. Davidson, that the UFOs in question, are not the same crafts that I have been talking about.

To further add, we conduct secret flight test over specific locations, and controlled airspace around civilian airports and maneuvering around airliners within Class A airspace is not the way we conduct business with our classified assets, and I know that as a fact!

In fact, I even provided details on how such operations are conducted.

Let's take another look at one incident.



Ask Mr. Davidson what aircraft today is capable of such performance or even comes close to the performance of those objects that was demonstrated more than 50 years ago.!



Mr. Davidson doesn't seem to have the knowlege on the way we really conduct business with our classified assets nor where we conduct such flight test of such classified assets.

You should be careful the next time on who you use as a referenece.

And, I know as a fact, he doesn't have any evidence to back it up and he never did in the first place.



Well said, and should serve as a warning to the debunkers after this.

The UFOs in question, were not only tracked on radar, but ****identified visually**** by highly experienced military and commericial aircrews, as saucer-shaped crafts, which flew in close proixity of their aircraft.

It is obvious that debunkers do not understand what the issue is all about when they bring up lights in the sky or refections on clouds since reflections on clouds are not tracked on radar and large aircraft usually fly around, day and night, with their lights on, which do not match any descriptions made by highly experienced military and commercial aircrews of metallic, saucer-shaped machines with hypersonic capabilities as recorded by airborne and ground-based radars and not leave behind any sonic booms.

MID, I respect your knowledge and personal experience, but I think "utterly untrue" is overreaching just a bit.

We could argue about who was the most illustrious of the Mercury 7. I was speaking in terms of Cooper's accomplishments on his flight. I'm well aware that all of the seven were entrusted to fly the only US spacecraft solo because that's what Mercury astronauts did. If John Glenn was "considered the most illustrious" in your estimation, I'll concede the point. What's important is that Cooper was among the best of the best.

You go on to state that "there is nothing that was done medically and most certainly psychologically, that made them super-human in any respect."

First of all, nobody claimed that anyone was "super-human." I don't know why you feel the need to beat a straw man here.

The question was, as a member of the original Mercury 7, was Gordon Cooper less likely than anyone else to be sociopathic or delusional? You know as well as I do that the answer is yes, he is less likely than the average Joe off the street to exhibit such mental problems. NASA would not put a habitual liar or frank psyc