Sorry FireMoon, but...
Who apologized for anything?
I was perfectly clear, and there was no apology for anything.

Where does this skewed viewpoint come from???


It was another poster who played his game and twisted what I said in a pointless circular game.

Why don't you read what I said?




Again...
I know Gordon believed this stuff earlier...I never said he didn't. I speculated that his later life verbosity about the topic may have been a result of affliction. Do you understand what that means? Did you actually read it...or have you been reading Hamlyn's game and falling into that shallow trap of verbosity? What I said has absolutely nothing to do with his earlier life...



"Sceptics" are merely rational people that realize that there is no evidence of aliens. There never has been.
Belief is belief. Knowledge is knowledge...when you folks get the difference between hypothesis and fact, and the requirements necessary to take something from the former realm into the latter, you'll understand that if anyone...Col. Cooper, or Joe Blow, states that we have been, or are being visited by aliens, they are all expressing beliefs, not facts. None of them have any evidence to substantiate their conclusions.

Who they are or their status in life is irrelevant.

As I said...reading what was actually said, and understanding it in context is very important.
I am growing very tired of dealing with nonsensical extensions...

What I said was clear.



Let me make this succinctly clear:

Gordon Cooper believed that aliens were here, and that the government was dragging its heels on the matter.
Charlie Duke is a minister, and has devoted his life to Christ.
Jim Irwin did the same, and even risked his neck several times searching for Noah's Ark!

These men were, or are (in the case of Charlie) all intelligent, educated, talented, and brave men who lived a great scientific and technical adventure.

The fact that they were who they were lends absolutely nothing to the efficacy of their beliefs.

They are all beliefs. No evidence whatsoever...simply observations, and constructs based upon faith. Further, they're entitled to them, and I respect all of them no less for their faiths and beliefs.

If anyone wishes to think that because of who they were once that their beliefs are any more founded than any one else's (which is the premise of this thread...carefully covered by Hamlym through his obtuse ramblings), then so be it. It's not true, and it's irrelevant.

The point here was that since Gordon Cooper believed in aliens, and observed UFOs, that his observations and conclusions hold more credence because of his status than anyone else who believes such things.

That is a fallacy.


End of story.

Yes, D,

Over at Bad Astronomy, your tend to get your butt kicked in when you divert from topic, play games, and when you attempt to substantiate nonsense with belief...


It's sometimes painful to watch!


Here, we tend to be alot more tolerant...

Sceptics are rational people are they? Now which particular sceptics would they be? The ones that tell highly trained personnel, from the comfort of their armchair, they didn' and couldn't possibly have seen what they said they saw?

Lets take one case and have a look at just how sane the sceptics are..

Lonnie Zamora an aircraft mechanic for 7 years before becoming a police officer. We can therfore safely assume he knew one end of a plane from another...

So what did Zamora describe as seeing in quite plain eyesight?

An Oval shaped object that , on taking off disappeared from view about six miles in the distance at a spped that was calculated at an average of 1000mph, approximately.

The sceptics?? oh this is what they claim Zamora saw...

Now you tell me who the *believers* often actually are? Rational? If that's what they think Zamora saw, I'd say rational is the last epithet I'd use to describe them...

The truth is, many sceptics *rational* explanations make Meier's photo's seem rational...

No. In fact, more revelations are continuing to be revealed, revelations that we didn't know of until recently.

For an example, engineers at Aerojet have been revealing documents and data showing that NORAD has been tracking the objects from deep space and within Earth's atmosphere. In 1994, the Air Force finally admitted that a weather balloon wasn't involved in the Roswell incident after all.

Also in 1994, Congressman Steve Schiff stated that no balloon was involved in the Roswell incident.

Over the past few years, we have had the Disclosure Project, the COMETA report, the Belgian news conference on triangular objects that have been overflying its territory illegally, which radar data concluded that the ojbects were not aircraft due to their advanced technology as exhibited.

Now, more and more nations and government officials are coming out into the open and stating that the UFOs in question, are those of intelligently controlled crafts.

So, as the years roll on, the more we are learning about the intelligently controlled objects that obviously not aircraft nor the result of natural phenomena, which was very obvious since the aircrews were describing flying machines, not clouds, not planets, and the radar data didn[t reflect any natural phenomena either.

Perhaps, we should ask the debunkers what is the range of that vehicle above. Since it couldn't stay airborne very long, I wonder where the debunkers think it flew from???

It was very clear what Lonnie Zamora had described, and look what the debunkers claimed was responsible!!

Sometimes, it becomes a matter of comic relief when I see their explanations that a planet was the UFO that circled an aircraft for over an hour at 30,000 feet, which was also tracked on radar.

Not long ago, another debunker claimed that the UFOs of the Rendlesham incidents, were Jupiter. Didn't the debunker even know that UFOs were also observed overhead and that the object in the forest was moving and had nothing to do with Jupiter?

Other debunkers claimed that a battered Air Force police car was responsible, and once again, does nothing to explain the object in the forest nor those in the sky. Later, the guy wnom the debunkers claimed was responsible, admitted that he had nothing to do with the Rendlesham incident, which left the debunkers out on a broken limb. One would ask, why would the Air Force allow any of its police cars to remain operational in a battered condition?

Still, there were other debunkers who'd claimed that a lighthouse was responsible for the Rendlesham incidents, which once again, doesn't explained the object in the forest since the lighthouse has a light-blocking backshield between the lighting unit and the base nor the objects in the sky.

The list goes on and on!!.

Seems the debunkers ignore that fact that scientific means have been used to verify many UFO case files as reported, but then again, that is just another reason of a few as to why they are armchair debunkers.

His assertions and observations in his field of expertise hold more weight than those of persons not similarly qualified, yes, of course. Why do you suppose expert witnesses are called to courts of law? Why do you suppose we even have such things as "qualifications?" Why do you suppose we seek the opinions of qualified people in everyday life? I'm sorry you don't see the point. It seems obvious to me, and it is perfectly obvious to you as well, whenever you seek opinions and observations on any matter that is important to you, such as plumbing or your health. You will probably ask a plumber or a doctor, as the case may be, and not any old Goober off the street.



Well, why didn't you say so? I agree completely. In fact, that was my point: we have scant reason to doubt that Gordon Cooper saw what he said he saw. Now we have almost nothing to argue about.

If I misunderstood you, then I apologize.

I do still differ with you on one point. I think what Gordon Cooper said he saw is utterly astonishing. If he did indeed see it, then the fact is anything but trivial. That is my opinion, and if I read you correctly, you differ. What Cooper saw strikes you as pretty ho-hum. I can certainly agree to disagree about that.



Observation is the process that yields evidence, as anyone trained in science understands.

The results of observation are scientific evidence.

Eyewitness testiony is also a type of evidence, as just about everyone understands.

So I don't know what you mean by "observation sans evidence."

Also, I think it's obvious that there are elements of the US government that are conspiring to sweep something under the rug, and that is, at the very least, their intense interest in the subject of UFOs.

But these points are either so uncontroversial or so trivial that they are not worth arguing about.

What is important to me is our answer to the question, did Gordon Cooper see what he said he saw? We have scant reason to doubt it. That we agree on this is more satisfying to me than anything I expected from this kind of discussion.

Nope, but one of experience!



Now, what did I say about highly experienced aircrews describing saucer-shaped objects in close-proximity of their aircraft, which were also tracked and verified by radar?

It was very obvious that the aircrews were describing machines, not clouds and radar data excluded natural phenomona as well. Also, the data I have beenposted had nothing to do with any natural phenomenon as stated by the officials who released such data and documents on the UFO case files in question.

__________________________________________________________________

"Inversion blips are always recognized by experts, we are familiar with what weather conditions, flying birds, and [other] such things can cause on radar."
Harry Barnes, Senior Radar Controller
________________________________________________________________

As I told other debunkers over the years, don't try to con me on the facts because I know better.

Where in the world, or out it, did you get that crazy idea???

Astronaut Ed Mitchell was also attacked by the debunkers in the same manner as debunkers had done to many others.

As proof, look what you posted above, but let me bring it on down to Earth!


Tommyo, wrote:

("...actually the rabid believers")


Sometimes, the debunkers get so wrapped up in their own debunking campaign, they tend to lose track where they coming from!!

The end-result of the battle between myself and Tim Printy at "Bad Astronomy," was that UFO debunker Tim Printy was forced to make a correction on his own website. You can read his correction, which is written in red. Just scroll on down until you reach his correction.

http://members.aol.com/TPrinty/crews.html


And the other debunker, Access-Denied, took a serious beating after I revealed that not only the C-54 was capable of operating out of Kirtland AFB, New Mexico, but the larger and heavier B-29 had done so as well.

That was in regards to the Roswell incident.

I thought we were over the smears against Cooper, but I spoke too soon. Now we get to hear that his considered opinion, based on observation and expertise, is just so much "faith," no more rational than some a priori religious "belief." Well, that is just another unfounded personal smear. Cooper saw what he said he saw and arrived at his position via reason. Just because he reasoned differently from you does not entitle you to declare it "faith."

Honestly, this is disgusting. First you drag Parkinson's and "mental dysfunction" into the picture, and now, having backed off of that untenable point, you declare the man's opinion a matter of faith, nothing to do with evidence or observation or logic. That is bunk, MID. Cooper saw what he said he saw, and he made up his own mind about it. Oh, he disagreed with you? Too bad. That does not make it "faith."

What a load. I do hope you were telling the truth when you said you were done with me, because I don't think I can stomach any more hypocrisy.

I don't think that it could possibly have been meant as complimentary, that's for sure.

It was "a 73 year old astronaut in the throes of Parkinson's comes out and makes some declarations about aliens."

Hm, no, that doesn't sound like a tribute to the "hero's" sanity, does it?

How about that small error where Cooper supposedly never said anything publicly about his "beliefs" until the 2000s, after he contracted Parkinson's? OOPS, except that he did, as far back as 1978, over two decades prior. But don't expect a single acknowledgement of this glaring error, much less an apology. The tie was made between "mental dysfunction" and Cooper's "insistence," and the smear, after all, is the important thing.

Having found that effect cannot precede cause, we now get to hear how the accomplished research pilot's opinion on this somewhat aerospace-related matter is no better than Joe Blow's and is really just nothing more than "faith."

The reason you find it underhanded is because it is, transparently so.

You're right. Some "skeptics," if they are not comfortable with what the witness says, will attack the witness personally, again and again, like a dog returning to its vomit. It's discouraging. At least it's easy to see it for what it is.

It is not a means to say that UFO's are ET, I'm just pointing out that this quote is an assumption and not a fact as claimed.

Ok, there's certainly the possibility that somewhere, someone might have solid empirical evidence that UFOs=ET space craft. However, one could say this about all sorts of things. Possibility does not equal probability, and in science it's all about the probability and the empirical evidence in support of one's hypothesis. Even a hypothesis resulting from logical extrapolation will not suffice without some good solid evidence to back it up.

Basically, science is tough, really, really tough when it comes to *proving* (in so much as anything is *proven* in science) the existence of an unknown. If you're going to make the claim, "UFOs are ET space ships", science is going to need a space ship and an ET. If you're going to say, "Bigfoot and Nessie are real animals", science is going to need bodies. If you're going to say, "Ghosts are disembodied spirits", you're going to need these spirits to show up on cue to be studied.

The level of evidence required from a scientific perspective is a tall order to fill. This is why I suggested that Hamlyn give his hypothesis a shot over on the Bad Astronomy/Universe Today bulletin board. Oh, and if you think the guys over there are tough, a room full of scientists are even tougher (guaranteed).

I have a bit of a problem here. I've personally seen older people (ie, my own mother) with illnesses that affect cognition become increasingly *certain* of things that in the past they only held as being tentative speculation. I think that this is what MID has been saying all along.



If this is what MID sincerely thinks happened in regard to Mr. Cooper, then he's not being hypocritical...it's simply his opinion.



Also, on an official note. Calling other posters "hypocrites" due to differing opinions walks the line regarding the forum rules about flamebaiting.

QUOTE (rules)

3e. Flamebaiting: Do not intentionally instigate "flame wars" or bait others in to making personal attacks.

3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members

Please, lets all stay within the rules of proper decorum here.

___________________________________________________________________________

HOW SCIENTISTS TRACKED A FLYING SAUCER
by Commander Robert B. McLaughlin, USN

An accurate plot of the object's course was recorded. Analyzing this data later, I can state definitely that:

1. The object, viewed in cross section, was elliptical in shape.

2. It was about 105 feet in diameter.

3. It was flying at an altitude of approximately 56 miles. (This was determined by a ballistics expert. An object at a lower altitude on this particular bright day could not have fitted the data taken. For security reasons, I cannot go deeper into this method of calculating altitude.)

4. Its speed was about 5 miles per second.

5. At the end of its trajectory, it swerved abruptly upward, altering its angle of elevation by 5 degrees -- corresponding to an increase in altitude of about 25 miles -- in a period of 10 seconds. Rough calculation indicates that a force of more that 20 G's (20 times the pull of gravity) would be required to produce this elevation in this time.

6. The object was visible for 60 seconds.

7. It disappeared at an elevation of 29 degrees.

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

_____________________________________________________________________________


Naval Commander Robert B. McLaughlin, head of the Naval missile program at White Sands unequivocally stated that the flying saucers being spotted by White Sands personnel, including himself, were not only real but extraterrestrial in origin.

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Alamogor...O_Aug_1947.html

____________________________________________________________________________


"The least improbable explanation is that these things are artificial and controlled. . .my opinion for some time has been that they have an extraterrestrial origin."
-Dr. Maurice Biot, aerodynamicist and mathematical physicist.

________________________________________________________

"I have absolutely no idea where the UFO's come from or how they are operated, but after ten years of research, I know they are something from outside our atmosphere."
-Dr. James E. McDonald, Professor of Atmospheric physics, University of Arizona. 1967.

_______________________________________________________

"I AM an American astronaut and a trained scientist. Because of my position people in high places confide in me. And, as a result, I have no doubt that aliens HAVE visited this planet.
Astronaut Edgar Mitchell

UFOs Are Real Video


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfYGhDqwWXc

I agree with you.

As with a jury in a court of law...we can only make judgements with the 'evidence' and 'information' that
is available to us.

A handful of people on this planet might be in possession of 'hard, physical evidence/proof' of ET
craft...heaven knows they might even have a body or two, of actual ETs.
Because of the intense secrecy surrounding this subject, we have no way of knowing.

One of the things, though, that we DO have is witness testimony....and some/much? of the eye witness
testimony comes from 'reliable' sources.....Gordon Cooper, in my opinion is one of these reliable sources.

I think that if Gordon Cooper was here he would thank you for defending his word and his honour.

On an interesting note, a few years back I conversed with Dr. Mitchell on his site forum about his thoughts regarding UFOs. Now, he's quite clear that he does indeed think that UFOs are ET space craft, but he does concede that he does not possess either first hand experience (he hasn't seen an alien himself), nor does he have in his possession any hard evidence supporting this thinking. However, Dr. Mitchell is indeed convinced that the ETH is correct, that in and of itself indicates we should (at the very least) be taking the subject of UFOs very seriously.

UFO's Are Real: Physical Traces

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yNg8yU0eUU&NR=1

Right now, we have government, and former government workers, commercial and military pilots, and radar operators, who were directly involved in UFO incidents, coming out publically on what they know about UFOs and I expect the trend to not only continue, but to grow as well.

Even government contractors are jumping on board and revealing that NORAD has been tracking them in space. The Boeing Aircraft Co. and other sub-contractors, in addition to my own base in Utah, were involved in the Minuteman missile shutdowns when flying saucers were reported over the missile fields by maintenance and security personnel. NORAD was also tracking the objects and there were times when interceptors were scrambled to intercept the objects.

The government cannot keep the secret of UFO reality from the public forever, because its own employess are now jumping ship and confirming what professional pilots and radar operators around the globe have been saying for decades.

Since then, the U.S. government has been releasing its declassified UFO files under the FOIA and what those government documents have revealed, the objects are flying machines under intelligent control and the advanced technology as demonstrated, is documented on paper and on data tapes, which exclude aircraft. The occurrence of many of the encounters, exclude secret aircraft, as in many cases, the objects violated airspace regulations and created hazardous situations to aircraft, which is why the FAA became involved.

There is a battle going on in government between those who want disclosure to take place now, and those who do not wish to have such disclosure made at this point in time, but it is just a matter of time before full disclosure is made.

As the years roll on, the more were know about UFOs and I am predicting that full disclosure will not be made at the White House, but by the President at the United Nations.

So what!? A C-54 could land at Kirtland AFB. Long runway, short runway, we were talking about ET.

Tell us how your "evidence" of aliens did over at BAUT!

While endlessly appealing, this is an argument from ignorance, tantamount to saying "we cant show you good evidence because we havent got it", and perforce implies that every government in the world has efficiently squirreled away all alien artifacts. Unless, of course, the extraterrestrials only visit the U.S., where retrieval of material that falls to Earth is supposedly a perfected art form.

Tim Printy and other debunkers were using the C-54 and Kirtland AFB in order to discredit one of the Roswell witnesses, and it didn't work, obviously.

A before the absolute zero experiments, just what concrete proof could you offer for Quantum Theory?

Again, so what!?

Tell us how your "evidence" of aliens did over at BAUT. Id like to see if Hamlyn does a better job then you did. God knows, he cant do worse.

To my knowledge this is why it's called 'quantum theory' not 'quantum law' (as in a scientific law).

Actually, in the court of science we cannot make any judgements without any conclusive evidence. We can all decide on what we believe based on that, but the only scientific conclusion we can make is that we simply don't know and we will have to leave it at that until we obtain said evidence.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Look how long the gov,kept the Bob Balard seceret about the funding for the therasher sub storie. The gov,is more powerful than you think still! IMO

Sure, science was used to verify that the various cases looked either had an Earthly explanation or it was impossible to explain at the current point in time and it therefore remains unknown. So, all we have are UFOs and perhaps ET, but it could just as well be something more Earthly.

Cheers,
Badeskov

No....we on UM can't show you physical evidence ie. an alien craft or a dead/living ET.

That doesn't mean that that 'hard' evidence does not exist somewhere.....

But circumstancial evidence and eye witness testimony from numerous areas is fast building up to the
point where lots more people are going to be questioning this whole ET business.

And the questions they'll be asking.....' Is it all real?' and 'Why was it kept secret?'

But this isn't a 'court of science' or 'a court of law'.....this is a discussion forum where the 'rules'
are different.....we, like the general public.....can and WILL make judgements in accordance with
the information that we have....or are 'allowed' to have.

But virtually the whole scientific community was quite happy to live with the whole of science being based on a theory? Which actually proves my point. Science as a discipline actually does settle for the best fit theory in the absence of ultimate proof where the current evidence suggests that is the *probable* answer..


What many are saying is that . In the case of some UFO sightings the most legitimate theory, given the facts and mathematics commensurate with those sightings, is that they are the product of a technology we simply do not have in this reality, as yet.

Given the nature of the interaction between mankind and these objects, it is up to science to prove that the seemingly intelligent nature of these *craft* is purely a natural phenomenon, not under the aegis of some outside intelligence.

I Personally, accept that they could be deliberate hallucinations placed in our reality for some unknown reason. Hallucinations that are so powerful they can appear of RADAR screens and on film. Even if that is the case. That still leaves us with the conclusion that someone, or something, is manipulating these sightings so we see what they want us to. Again as yet , to the best of our knowledge, mankind does not possess such technology.

If these *craft* turn out to be a life form , as yet undiscovered, as they might well be for all we know. We have already discovered ET, as these life forms have been registered outside our atmosphere. meaning that, they can exist almost anywhere in our universe.

Some of the phenomena called UFOs are quite almost certainly natural happening caused by the movement of the Earth's crust leading to a discharge of luminescence. However, given the data available this does not seem to be the best fit explanation for all sightings...


The sooner science removes it's collective head from up its' own backside and get on to this question the better. Rather than the asinine and frankly insulting way, it is treated by people who, generally, speak from a stand point of complete and utter ignorance of the actual evidence.


That is, any truly open minded scientist who, looking at the evidence now available, would, in my humble opinion, come to the conclusion that. This is a phenomenon worthy of s serious scientific study free from the constant sniping of small minded over qualified lab technicians.

If that is what he is saying, then he is saying something that is counterfactual.

This has been stressed repeatedly, and he has never so much as acknowledged the argument.



It would be hypocrisy to call Cooper a hero and insist that we treat his memory with respect while simultaneously suggesting some false and unflattering things about him and the testimony he gave.

Decorum would be nice, yes, I agree.

That, is the understatement of the century. Here, at UM, we arent even close to "a court of law, or science."

Here at UM, anything goes.

I agree that the convictions of men like Mitchell and Cooper at least falsifies the idea, so often proposed by debunkers, that the ETH is just a silly instance of wishful thinking entertained by people who can't or won't reason or look at the evidence. These scientists and former astronauts are not saying these things because of "faith." They have given sound reasons for thinking as they do.

We often hear the stereotype that UFOs only appear to moonshine-swilling hillbillies in the middle of nowhere. When we say that they have appeared right before the eyes of the most qualified research pilots in the middle of active military bases, we get the response, so what? Their opinions are no more weighty than anyone else's! Which of course is false.

Added: but moreover, it's a transparent attempt to play both sides of the same question. It's like this: either the witness's status is relevant, or else it isn't. If it isn't, then don't bring it up. If it is, then don't reject it out of hand when the other side brings it up. Debunkers who fall all over themselves to impeach any witness who reports something they don't like have no business saying "so what?" when we argue that a witness is unimpeachable.

I agree that Dr. Mitchell's opinion is to be taken seriously. So, of course, are opposing opinions by qualified persons, as well as any sound arguments made by anybody. The fact that some of them disagree is just a feature of rational discussion. It does not entitle one side to portray the other as silly or irrational. But I will guarantee you that the moment you prove this by offering up a serious person such as Mitchell or Cooper, somebody will find a way to call him silly or irrational and thus dismiss the point! I would be surprised if nobody does that today to Edgar Mitchell in response to your post.

Set your watches by it, folks!

Why?

Im sure you remember Ed Mitchell? The American pilot and astronaut, the lunar module pilot of Apollo 14? Well, he too was a true hero and as right stuff as they come, right?

Well, Mitchells interests included paranormal phenomenon. During the Apollo 14 flight he even conducted private ESP experiments with his friends on Earth. Does that make him crazy, less capable, or, right.? Does ESP work? Are those the only three choices we get?

Mitchell also says that a teenage remote healer who lives in Vancouver helped heal him of kidney cancer at a distance.

Is that what happened?

I dont know, and neither do you. What Im saying is...Who cares what a President in Brazil or astronaut in the US believes! As long as there doing there job right, and Ed sure did.

Believe whatever you want, I dont care. We have scientists and doctors and engineers who go to church every Sunday, who believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God, right? No evidence of a God whatsoever, is there!?

I why would they need to show evidence? For these people believing is the whole point. To have faith.

Bottom line, if someone claim AS A FACT, that there are aliens buzzing around our planet in their spaceships I need to see some real evidence. Not the Skyeagle type.. Real evidence! Not to become a believer, but to know that we are not alone. What Sky, and other believers have, is fodder for speculation, and perhaps even material that should prompt thorough investigation.

I sure think soo. But, so far, I havent seen anything even close to a "smoking gun." One day maybe.


And one last thing, Sky...What if your wait, and prediction, for full disclosure of Aliens on Earth grows into infinity as your Noahs Ark disclosure did, then what?

Actually, it is medically factual that illnesses that affect cognition can indeed influence a person's judgement.




The possibility that Mr. Cooper's illness may have affected his judgement could be termed "unflattering", but it does not necessarily indicate a falsehood.



Good, I'm glad we agree here.

Yes, and that is not what I said is counterfactual.



Correct.

I never said it did.

I have repeatedly pointed out the false parts. I suppose it may not matter.

If you have to ask, then it is beyond my power to enlighten you.

I'll note for the record that you don't see the problem with "suggesting some false and unflattering things" about a "hero."



No.



An aside to Lilly: What did I tell you? Today. Set your watch by it.

The rest is just more mischaracterization of Cooper's remarks about UFOs as "faith." Anyone who examines the factual record will see a very different picture of Col. Cooper. Please do not take anyone's word for it. Cooper certainly did not petition the UN to act on his "faith." His was a rational position, arrived at by observation and judgement, even if it disagrees with some who fancy themselves rational.

I see here a very clear attempt to tar Cooper with the same brush as the Noah's Ark believers and other religious zealots. This is from a person who has to ask why it is hypocritical to say false and unflattering things about a person you call a hero.

The thing speaks for itself.

If you mean tangible physical evidence such as pieces of craft or their occupants showing (for example) isotopic ratios ruling out a terrestrial origin, then that's correct. None is available to the public or the academic community. Such evidence would clinch the case, for all practical purposes.



I am glad you put "scientific types" in quotes.

Why are believers so determined to persuade skeptics into believing that Aliens are visiting Earth when the evidence is obviously not sufficient enough to prove as a fact that they are here.

Do they think that the evidence is enough to make the whole world "welcome" the extraterrestrials with open arms.
It just sounds plain stupid to me if that would happen...

It appears that you haven't bothered to read the past several days' worth of this thread, or if you have, you're ignoring it, because you're engaging in a false dichotomy and a straw man that have both been addressed at length here.

I'd encourage you to engage actual points that are being discussed instead of imaginary ones. Otherwise, you're just posting the same broken record of namecalling and false assumptions.

This link was posted on another thread. It is, in effect, the British government admitting UFOs exist. Their explanation, in my opinion, is laughable without any research back up. However, it is an open admission that the triangular shaped UFOs reported over many countries are considered, by the British Government, a genuine unknown phenomenon.


Britsh MOD file

I skimmed the executive summary but couldn't find the admission about triangular objects. Can you point me to it?

I found their speculations about buoyant charged masses interesting and promising. If I were operating like a debunker, I'd say that they had "no proof" and only "belief" and "faith" to go by, and I'd just wave it off with contempt. But I'm willing to bet that these plasmas are an elusive something that science is going to learn a lot more about in the coming years, and there may be practical applications. They may even explain a large number of what they call UAP cases.

But I can't see that natural phenomena such as they describe or ordinary aircraft can possibly explain a number of cases. It seems as if the MOD report simply ignores cases that don't conform to these explanations.

Well pardon me, I havent read all the 230 pages, but I think my post relate well to the topic. I made a reasonable question about it all and theres no reason to get personal. But I can understand if I hit the nail on your head, sorry about that.

No need to read the whole thread. Just the past day or two would help you understand what is being discussed in the thread you're responding to.

It seems your mind is made up in advance of having done so. Not a very skeptical mentality!

Anyway, try it. You'll like it.

I see it's time for me to intervene in an offical manner:

If the available evidence isn't sufficient to persuade Mr.Dot (or others) to accept that aliens are visiting the Earth in UFOs, this is a perfectly acceptable/reasonable position for him (or others)to take.



It's not for you to determine what can, or can not be discussed here. If you feel anyone is breaking the rules of these forums please use the report button.

I vote Hazzard Supreme! Ruler Of U.M ! just DONTEATUS

I only encouraged him to read a few posts so that he could respond to what we're actually saying. I told no one what they can and cannot discuss.

I would like to know why you think this necessitates your official intervention.

If I have broken a rule, I would like to know so that I can avoid it in the future.