And, in thousands of cases, the UFOs were visually identified as flyiing saucers, triangles, spheres, etc. I want to emphasized, visually identified because in many of those cases, the visual accounts were backed by radar and other data from optical instruments.

Scientist at White Sands, New Mexico were using such equipment in order to visually identify the UFOs as flying saucers, and radar recorded their perfomance characteristics as well.

Passenger Plane Sightings
Space 2001

Summary:
Statistics show that across the world UFO sightings occur at a rate of around one every two or three minutes. Not surprising then that pilots of commercial airliners should be high on the list of people to have most witnessed them.


Goose Bay Incident.

One of the most bizarre of these early passenger plane incidents occurred over Goose Bay Labrador. The year was 1954 . A B O A C, Strato Cruiser en route from New York to London was coming in for a refueling stop at Goose Bay when suddenly the pilot reported seeing something strange. In his own words: "I became aware of something moving along off our port beam at a lower altitude at a distance of maybe five miles, in and out of a broken layer of stratto cumulus cloud. As we watched, these objects climbed above the cloud and we could now clearly see one large and six small".

The pilot subsequently informed ground control who vectored a fighter plane to intercept. Before it could reach them however the pilot reported that the smaller objects "seemed to enter the larger", mother ship, before vanishing from sight. Captain James Howard later described the main object as the "the size of the Queen Mary"!

NOTE:

Notice that the above incident is very similar to this encounter involving an Air Force B-29



The Lisbon Incident.

Perhaps the most celebrated of all passenger airline sightings occurred in the 1970's in the skies just south of the Portuguese capital Lisbon. The crew of a British Airways Trident were alerted to the presence of a UFO after overhearing an air traffic control communication with another aircraft, a Tristar flying directly above them. Lisbon control had asked for confirmation of a strange object in that area, which the Tristar crew were immediately able to verify.

Alerted by this message the crew of the Trident then spotted a bright object in the distance that was soon joined by a brown cigar shaped craft that hovered alongside it. Casually the Trident captain then informed his passengers of the sighting. "Ladies and gentlemen, if you look on the starboard side of the plane, you will see what we believe to be a UFO!" At that moment a Portuguese airlines 727 also sighted the objects which were plainly visible to the passengers, some of whom were able to view them through binoculars.

On the return trip to London the British Airways Captain was able to establish radar contact with the craft! Although on this occasion no visual sighting was made, the magnitude of the combined objects was tentatively put as "the size of three large super tankers."


The Canadian Pacific sighting.

In 1966 a Canadian Pacific airliner en route from Peru to Mexico City was caught in the beams of a strange craft at a height of around 35,000 feet. It was around 2.am and the passengers were nearly all asleep. In the cockpit the object was observed by the entire flight crew.

The Captain, Robert Millbank later filed a complete report of the incident with the relevant authorities in Mexico City! Here are some of the most telling extracts from that report: "The copilot and I saw two white lights on the horizon to the left of the DC-8.....The lights were close together. They were twinkling and at first I thought they might be stars. But there should not have been two stars so close together. As we watched the two lights seemed to be gradually separating and they were getting closer to us. If it had been a plane, I thought, the lights might have been red and white or green and red - but these lights were both red."

Shortly after this the crew noticed the lights pulsate and change in intensity. It was at that moment according to pilot Millbank that, " we noticed two beams of light coming from the lights and shining upwards in a V - shape. The two main lights seemed to be descending and they leveled off alongside our aircraft. At one time the object shot off a trail of sparks like a rocket. I tried to convince myself that this object was only another aircraft - or a satellite re-entering the atmosphere, but it was pretty clear it was neither of those."

By this time the crew appear to have become decidedly edgy. Continues Millbank: "Then it seemed to be moving closer to us - and we could see a string of lights between the two white lights. It leveled off at our left wing tip and, in the light of the full moon, we could see a shape between the two lights, a structure which appears to have been thicker in the middle. It stayed there for a couple of minutes and then disappeared behind our aircraft."


Luanda, Angola.

In 1966, a Boeing 707 on approach to Luanda airport was followed by two disc shaped objects. To gain a better view of them Captain Henrique Maia banked the plane left and right, in a wide swinging maneouvre, that also afforded the passengers a spectacular sighting of the objects, which proceeded "to fly very close to the plane,"!


BOAC flight 703/ 027.

In 1973 the flight crew of a BOAC aircraft en route from Bangkok to Tehran suddenly caught sight of a brightly lit object a mile to port moving at an irregular speed. The crew later spoke of an object the size of " a rail road train "! According to their description it was enveloped in a thin cloud and glowed from an orange light that emerged from a long line of port holes

Passenger Plane Sightings
Space 2001


Intelligence networks.

In America the intelligence networks exerted considerable pressure on airlines to prevent pilots making any public announcement of these incidents. In 1954 for instance a meeting between the Military Air Transport Intelligence Officials and the Airline Pilots Association, reached an agreement that effectively muzzled pilots from reporting UFO encounters. And the reason? Because according to Military Intelligence, UFO's represented a serious problem for the government and the civil airlines were asked to "cooperate".

According to Frank Edward's in his book Flying Saucers - Here And Now, 'under the arrangements worked out at that meeting , the pilots were to radio any sightings immediately to the nearest airport control tower - and to make no public statements about the incident.

Is it any wonder as to why commercial airline pilots protested against JANAP-146?


The Valencia Incident.

In November 1979 , a Spanish charter plane en route from Ibiza to the Spanish mainland almost collided with an unidentified object at 24,000 feet. Radar control advised the pilot of a potential emergency, but suddenly all communication between plane and ground was lost in a storm of static. At that moment the pilot was startled to see a bright object with powerful red lights heading on a collision course towards them. Immediately putting the plane into a sharp descent a collision was avoided, but for some time the object continued to buzz the aircraft in a series of sweeping runs.


Inside the plane, blissfully unaware of the unfolding drama the passengers were being served with dinner. Below, on the ground, the object was simultaneously tracked on radar and witnessed by dozens of people. Two fighter planes sent to intercept the objects were themselves buzzed by it, before managing to capture it on film.!


http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1779.htm

If any one of these possibilities could be true, and there is evidence somewhere on this planet that it is indeed true, then it is surely of the utmost importance. Of course there is atmospheric phenomena at play here as well, but if there is any intelligence behind just one of the seeminlgy "solid, craft like" object encounters, then I would think it of great importance. Human or alien intelligence, either would be a most profound revelation for humanity.

I agree that there are events that seem to have no explanation other than the non-human intelligence explanation.

Lot's of data also points out that the objects are intelligently controlled as they are recorded maneuvering around the sky and within close proximity of aircraft, where the aircrews report encountering a flying machine that they visually identified as a flying saucer.

I see this type of thing in the same manner you do. When I was 5 years old I had a bad case of Rubella (aka, the hard measles). While spiking a very high fever I must have hallucinated beautiful butterflies zipping around my bedroom. For years after I was convinced that butterflies had somehow entered my bedroom...then unfortunately I grew up. In some ways the magical thinking of our youth is very appealing.

Neither, really, or both. That is, I saw Strieber on David Letterman's show in 1987, when his book came out, about 17 years after I had my experience. He seemed quite serious and sincere and really frightened as he recounted his experience, and he was not talking about a vague "belief" or an ambiguous stimulus that could be misinterpreted. He also said that others could corroborate major points of his story. To me, this did not seem to be something that could be "sort of true depending on how you look at it." He was either telling the truth, or he was a fantastic liar, or he was irretrievably bonkers.

The clarity of it impressed me at the time, but I didn't relate it at all to my own experience until I picked up the book for myself about three years later. I was thinking, oh hey, it's that alien abduction guy, let's see how bonkers he is. As I read this thing, the hair on my arm literally stood on end. He was describing in particular detail the most frightening experiences of my childhood, which I regarded as hallucinations.

Then the movie came out, and there were my hallucinatory pals, right on the screen, as if I'd sketched the concept with my own pencil.

Now trust me, I knew about the "night hag," and even though I thought my munchkins had the same cause, the night hag stories never particularly scared me, much less raised my hackles. Only my munchkins did that. And Strieber described them perfectly, as well as other aspects of the experience that struck me as far more accurate than chance. Either we'd experienced the same external stimulus, or we'd had the same hallucination. It was very interesting to me.



No indeed! Look again! It only added something new to explain. It required an unfortunate new layer of thickness on the Razor.

BTW, if you haven't read Communion, and you are interested in the subject, then I'd recommend it. Not even Strieber rejects hallucinations in favor of Strieber without a serious struggle, and even Strieber isn't quite sure what Strieber thinks is going on. I don't mean to suggest reading it as objective truth but as a vivid subjective account of the experience.



It was, of course, not identical, but he described it accurately and precisely enough to justify the word "exact." It's like saying you saw Disneyworld, and I described the exact same sight. Of course we did not see everything identically, but the mouse ears and the big silver golfball and the fantasy castle and the $10 hot dogs and so on mean we either saw the same place or had the same hallucination, right down to the particulars.



You're telling me!

You might suppose that such ideas had occurred to me.

Acculturation, I've found, has very little power to explain the experience. The imagery was like nothing on TV or in the movies that I had ever seen, and it was certainly not anything I could relate to space aliens. At the age of five, I knew what space aliens looked like. They had large round heads, antennae, skinny bodies with silver space suits, and ray guns. They might fly around zapping things or taking over the world, but to my knowledge, they didn't crowd into a child's bedroom at night, whisk him off to some lab, and return him with only incomplete memories of the event. That was completely outside anything in my culture until I read Communion.

Yes, I related them to munchkins, but that was just the closest I could get at the time. They were not much like munchkins. Watch the movie and you'll see what I mean.

In short, lots of images of outlandish humanoids and their activities came into my mind from popular culture, but these were not among them. Acculturation, in any sense that I understand it, therefore fails as an explanation.

This is why I posited something along neurological lines instead. Or we may be dealing with something Jungian that is half objective and half created by us. Or we may be dealing with John Keel's semi-phantasmic "ultraterrestrials" and their trickster games. Or maybe it is some synthesis of these ideas, or something else entirely.

Of course, there is the possibility that Strieber and I actually saw the same actual things, but I'm hardly ready to invest any confidence in that explanation.

I've only scratched the surface of this puzzle here. Believe me, I enjoyed the glib explanations while they lasted, but they did not stand up to much scrutiny. I'm left thinking that this experience is caused by something we don't fully understand yet.

This is what I meant some time back in this thread when I said that I could see the darned things with my own two eyes and still not "believe" it!

I go on the assumption that everything has a rational explanation. If I'm a believer in anything, it's that.

It's good that you could find where your imagery came from. I still don't know the source of mine. We sure couldn't rent any movies back then. One of our two TVs was still black-and-white. I remember watching Star Trek, Lost in Space, and lots of cartoons. I can't identify any of these concepts as originating there. Nor can I recall having any similar experience that was informed by these industrial culture products.

So I'm still wondering what it's all about. Maybe it's just something the brain does. If so, we'll figure it out sooner or later.

And for a few lucky, or unlucky, depending on the experience, that "magic of our youth" stays with them their entire life.

Flyihg saucers are a reality that have nothing to do with magic. That is just another weak debunker tactic that has long been realized over the years.

Yea, yea...And they are abducting millions of people every year, and they are playing around in our fiealds making symbols, and they are cutting up farm animals, and the military has all the evidence hidden away, and that there are alien artifacts on Mars. And that ESP is real, and that they found Noahs Ark. We all know that you believe in this stuff.

Me, I dont.

I need to see some good evidence first.

Im in complete agreement with, Hazzard there... but I would also like to know how some of these people can make a leap from reality,, to believing that there are aliens on the moon,, mars.. and venus.. and of course earth,, underground cities, mass abductions.,..Im talking Lear,, Young,, and some other so called professionals?

For several quality cases, (RB-47 as one example) there are only two possible origins:

1. Military
2. Extraterrestrial

These are cases where the sightings are of close enough proximity to determine that the object in question has a definite shape and surface texture that implies definite manufacture, an object with the ability to hover and stop on a dime, to make 90 degree turns, often without visible external engines or air disturbance, whose shape, speed and manuevaribility strongly implies an origin that is off the Earth. Why make the leap? Because it would be irrational to assume that human beings had manufactured such craft before we had even mastered chemical rockets or made it to the moon.



The same approach of knowledge over evidence was assumed by scientists decades ago when it came to the idea of "rocks falling from the sky." How silly that notion was, they often snickered. The idea itself was what prevented the scientists from investigating the claims as they should have. The lack of physical "proof" of such a rock was all the justification they needed to ignore the "silly" stories by unintelligent village folk.

Usually, when one does not seek out the evidence, one does not find such evidence.



The 4,000+ physical trace cases from 70 countries are nothing but hear say? Some of these cases imply a definite environmental disturbance, and we're not talking about crop circles. I cite the Trans en Provence case as an example of one such solid case. These cases don't provide the piece of a saucer, but they undoubtedly corroberate the sightings of eye witnesses, and there are several characteristic similarities in weight distribution in relation to size in these cases that point away from coincidence.

The UFO phenomenon is not an experimentally testible hypothesis without the piece of a flying saucer or alien body which would undoubtedly be confiscated by the government if a crash were to happen. This is not a conspiracy theory. A January 31, 1949 document stated the U.S. government considered the subject of UFOs to be Top Secret. It's called following the law. The justification for withholding such evidence from the public might be in question, but what is not is the fact that such classified material may not legally be turned over to the public.

There are several different kinds of "science." There is the experimental science, where experiments are done and reproduceability is key. There is the science of measurements based on consistent observations, where one cannot control all the variables but can predict some, that allow for the theories such as the cause of a solar eclipse. Another form of science involves events that can neither be predicted nor controlled, such as earthquakes. All one can do is be ready to make measurements with an array of seismographs if something does happen. Another example is collecting radiation from a solar storm with a balloon that has a block of nuclear emulsion attatched to collect the particles released by the sun.

But then there is science that applies to unpredictable events, accidents, such as plane crashes, car accidents, murders, rapes etc. Like the UFO phenomenon, we cannot predict nor reproduce these events. All we can do is collect the residual evidence and make an evaluation. In the case of a car accident one can determine, after the fact, whether the driver had high levels of alcohol in his or her blood, whether the brakes failed, whether visibility was poor. One can also measure skid marks. You would determine where they started, where they ended and measure the thickness of such marks etc. Trace cases apply to this category.



Exactly. Evidence. We don't claim to have verifiable scientific proof; i.e. the piece of a flying saucer or an alien body, but we do have the evidence necessary to make a reasonable determination. I wouldn't call it guessing, though, when the probability is as high as it is.

Just out of curiosity, I looked at a few videos about the Belgium UFOs to see what all the flap was.

Part 1

Part 2

and this one

Part 1

Part 2


I'm sure most of you know all about these, and have read about or seen documentary pieces. As I understand, the leading theories are coherent plasma phenomena, mass hysteria, technical or meteorlogical issues, or something yet to be explained.

What is to be made of the one video taken by a witness? People have faked UFO films for decades. I wonder if this was looked into.

I liked the way unsolved mysteries did that story... it was pretty amazing at the time.. but it reminded me of one thing.. The so - called crashed flying saucer stories.. for one thing.. its big news when we earthlings crash our flying machines.. because it doesnt happen all the time.. but for a machine that supposedly can travel light years in space.. crashing here on this planet, I find very difficult to believe. It would be like crossing a 10,000 lane super highway blindfolded.. then get finished take off the blindfold.. and having a child run you over with his tricycle..

It's rare for a commercial airliner or military jet to crash as well, but it happens. People make mistakes. No matter how advanced a given civilization may be, they will never reach the point of perfection wherein they never make mistakes in judgement. Freak accidents happen from time to time as well. Is it impossible for a civilization able to travel between the stars to crash at their destination? Of course not. Is it likely? Who are we to say? We don't know how their craft operate. We don't know how stable they are. To assume such crashes couldn't happen is only an excuse to avoid evaluating relevant information. The smaller craft attributed to such crashes as the Roswell incident might not be the ones that got them here in the first place. Another thing to note is the fact that jets sent up to intercept such craft in the past have been ordered to shoot them down (1952).

I think Stanton Friedman covered the question well in the article published on his website entitled: "The UFO "WHY?" Questions"


"WHY would saucers crash?

Usually this is accompanied by a comment that it makes no sense that a sophisticated vehicle coming from many light years away could possibly crash. Please note that the vehicle could have come from a base on the back side of the moon, in the asteroid belt, on Mars or some alien “coaling station” in the local neighborhood. I once did 25 college lectures in 35 days in 15 states. I was gone all the time from when I left home until I returned rather than going back and forth to home after each lecture.

A. In the first place, there are many indications that what crashed at Roswell and in the Plains of San Agustin in New Mexico in early July, 1947, were small Earth excursion modules rather than the interstellar, very large vehicles (space carriers? mother ships?) which would have brought them to Earth just as our large aircraft carriers carry 75 or so small airplanes whose mode of propulsion is distinctly different from that of the carrier.

B. Secondly, when we examine major efforts by the Transportation Safety Board to determine the cause of aircraft crashes, we often find, after much effort, that it was simple unexpected things ranging from loose bolts, to ingested birds, to faulty wiring, to pilot error, to ice in the wrong place. It could have been very high atmospheric electricity levels because of storms or the great dryness of the desert air. Or unexpected high altitude hail. We know a radar set was on over at White Sands because of an impending rocket launch and the fact that it used vacuum tubes. This was a tracking radar pointed North. Crossing the beam might have led to a small hiccup in the control system for a magnetoaerodynamic propulsion system leading to a collision and subsequent collision of the lead saucer and its wingman’s saucer. Perhaps a US military rocket launched in the neighborhood might have inadvertently homed in on a saucer. Perhaps there was a momentary loss of attention when the Trinity highly radioactive site, at which the first atomic bomb was tested, was noted. We certainly have no reason to believe that aliens never make mistakes, or never run into the unexpected. Some day perhaps the government will release the report that was undoubtedly written as to the causes of the crashes. Just because we don’t have that report, it doesn’t mean the event didn’t take place."

but to compare alien craft with earth technology..is like comparing the cadillac to a wheelbarrow, I dont think that argument flies at all.. excuse the pun.. And another thing that bothers me.. is where they crash.. and how fast can the militairy get there to recover them.??? whenever that happens with air craft the last ones to get there are the ones to investigate it.. by that time ,,, usually hundreds of civilians have seen it..It sounds to convenient for me to believe that they just happen near the militairy ???

I wasn't comparing alien technology to human technology, but I find it even more absurd to claim to know enough about the performance capabilities of their craft to argue that such a crash is improbable. There is no evidence or data, or even circumstantial evaluation of performance characteristics that could defend your position on why crashing is unlikely. As for your argument on how fast the military arrives on the scene, if you look into the Roswell incident you will see that the military did not react quickly at all. In fact, they didn't at all until Brazel brought the material in to town. It would also seem reasonable to consider the location of the crash. How would you expect many civilians to see it way out there? You might argue this point to be in your favor as well, "how come they never crash in populated areas??" Well, that would be because they seem very much interested in our manufacture and use of nuclear weapons. The first atomic bomb was tested at Trinity Site, now White Sands Missile Range, in New Mexico, which, I might add, was out in the boondocks for a reason. The testing of the atomic bomb also seems to coincide with the increased frequency in which UFOs were seen in the area during that time.

However, perhaps it would be relevant to point out that the Roswell witness total is now over 600 (Witness to Roswell), since you seem so concerned about the fact that "so few people" saw anything.

I think your position is pretty well-reasoned, and I often find myself saying much the same thing.

The thing that gives me pause is the evidence that seems to point away from strictly nuts-and-bolts craft and flesh-and-blood aliens and toward something more ill-defined and seemingly fantastic, like John Keel's idea of ultraterrestrials.

What do you make of cases like the Mothman flap or the events depicted in Hunt for the Skinwalker (if you take any account of them)? I mean events where UFO and alien encounters seem to coincide with an incoherent mess of other paranormal phenomena.

I also puzzle over eyewitness accounts of UFOs shifting their shapes or appearing and disappearing, sometimes along with "tunnels" in thin air. Indeed, the phenomenon often seems to be characterized by an otherworldly quality.

Do you think such reports cast any doubt on the more straightforward versions of the ETH?

Just wondering how others make sense of it.

I've heard it all before, and it was just the other day that I'd said: " what you don't know, can hurt you."
Never ridicule that, for which you have no understanding.

You implied "magic' in order to debunk UFOs, but should I list a number of examples on debunkers who have, it seems, been dealing with magic in the way they were trying to debunk UFOs? The objects are a reality that can't be denied, especially in light of tons of data, physical trace, and other evidence as well.

Perhaps, the debunkers were trying to rewrite the laws of physics in order to make those UFOs what they claimed them to be.

Credible witnesses testimony that are backed by the data, and other facts and evidence.

Not to mention that I have also experienced a real saucer-shaped object as well, so for me, one question as already been answered, and I just missed another opportunity the very next year at another base in Vietnam by just a few months.

Then, came my compatriots who were stationed at RAF Bentwaters, and who later confirmed the 1980 UFO incidents to me personally.

Most people do, hazz. To believ in all the things you just listed, with the "evidence" the believers have, take a special kind of person... Someone that is desperate to believe.

Id like to add one to the list of Skyeagles beliefs... -The alien spaceships has left physical materials on Earth, material that dont exist around our sun...the ultimate proof.

Why Skyeagle cant show us this "evidence"??.



..the Discovery channel wont air that show again(!!)

The aforementioned argument is a demonstration of cultural bias and stereotyping.

Crop Circles, Cattle Mutiliations, Cydonia, ESP, and Noah's ark are by no means comparable to the quality and volume of corroberative evidence attributed to the UFO phenomenon. No serious, credentialed Ufologist takes the above mentioned supernatural events seriously (only a few [very few] Ufologists take Crop Circles seriously, while Cattle Mutilations are debatable, but of little interest to serious Ufologists). Contrary to popular belief, Ufologists do not get their leads from tabloid magazines such as the National Enquirer or Weekly World News. I don't find Crop Circles, Cattle Mutilations, Cydonia, ESP, Noah's ark, or even God for that matter to be legitimate. Why? Because there is a distinct lack of physical evidence in all of these sub-categories of the supernatural.

The great majority of UFO-related material on the web and elsewhere is complete garbage. It's worthless. We're well aware of that fact. But there are many terrific cases that are avoided because of the stigma that accompanies the phenomenon. In other words, because of the hoaxes and erroneous sightings of natural phenomena, the scientific community (for the most part) has avoided the subject, much the same way they avoided the idea of "rocks falling from the sky" decades ago. "It just sounds silly." Dr. J. Allen Hynek once referred to the Air Forces approach to the phenomenon as, "It can't be; therefore it isn't." That is not science. It's also important to consider that the question isn't "are all UFOs alien spacecraft?" The question is "Are any?"

Instead of openly investigating the phenomenon, scientists take pot-shots from afar without jumping into the fray, without even making an effort to educate themselves on the subject through the many large scale scientific studies undertaken to evaluate the UFO phenomenon. In almost every case, the skeptics prove their ignorance either directly, by stating having not read such studies, or indirectly by making proclamations that contradict the facts. They think they know, before they know. A combination of ignorance and arrogance spearheads the effort of unscientific debunkery by credentialed scientists of the UFO phenomenon.

As Project Blue Book Special Report 14 showed, the better the quality of the case, the more likely it was to be classified unknown. The average unknown was also sighted for a longer duration than the average known. There were separate categories for cases with insufficient information and "Psychological Manifestation," which included probable hoaxes and publicity seeking individuals. All observed characteristics were stored on punch cards for statistical analysis by the primitive computer systems of that time. These characteristics included size, shape, speed, color, duration of observation, and number of objects seen. It was thought that comparison of the unknowns with the characteristics of the knowns would show a statistical correlation; ergo, some unknowns may simply have been missed knowns. However, the chi-square statistical analysis showed that the probability that the unknowns were simply missed knowns was less than 1%. Clearly, the unknowns were not simply missed knowns.



Let's get something straight: Proof we do not have, evidence we do. The piece of a saucer or an alien body would certainly be confiscated by the government. This is not a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy is a tabloid term. A January 31, 1949 FBI memo specifically stated that the subject of UFOs is considered by the Army and Air Force to be Top Secret. It's called following the law. The justification for withholding such evidence from the public might be in question, but what is not is the fact that such classified material may not legally be turned over to the public.

There is a preponderance of quality evidence pertaining to the subject matter. Normally, when one does not look, one does not find. Let's drop this unfounded accusation of a "belief" system. It's not about belief. It would be if the basis of such conclusions were based on mythology, and purely anecdotal accounts devoid of corroberating testimony or trace evidence. That is not the case. The evidence may not constitute an absolute scientific proof, but there are enough quality reports and corroberating evidence to make a reasonable determination as to the origin of some UFOs.

As I stated previously, for several quality cases, there are only two possible origins:

1. Military
2. Extraterrestrial

These are cases where the sightings are of close enough proximity to determine that the object in question has a definite shape and surface texture that implies definite manufacture; an object with the ability to hover and stop on a dime, to make 90 degree turns, often without visible external engines or air disturbance, whose shape, speed and manuevaribility strongly implies an origin that is off the Earth. Why make the leap? Because it would be irrational to assume that human beings had manufactured such craft before we had even mastered chemical rockets or made it to the moon.

So UFO's are not alien. That would make them ours right? Well, at least the sightings in our airspace. That would mean that we have all our amazing crafts over in Iraq right now, fighting this war. *Sits by Youtube, waiting for the mass of Iraqi UFO videos to come pilling in... still waiting... tapping foot now*

how many outter planet probs have we crashed into those many planets,and moons?Its highly possible to send a craft across the depths of space to crash on our little planet.Were not perfect,nor are they,what ever they may be.IMO

Don't tell that to the following folks who have encountered the UFOs directly or who have been involved in the investigations.

* Commercial and military pilots

* Astronauts and cosmonauts

* Scientist, engineers, and astronomers

* Radar operators

* Senior military and intelligence officials

* Police offiicials, worldwide

* Meteorologist

* Military officers and enliisted personnel, worldwide

* Millions of other people around the world



I have already presented data that proved the objects are artificial, advanced vehicles who performance levels by far, exceed anything known to mankind.





If you can't find it on the Discovery Channel, then do your homework and make an inquiry under the FOIA to obtain the same declassified government UFO files that I have been presenting for years, which proves that the UFOs in question are not our aircraft. It will cost you, but at least you won't have to depend on the Discovery Channel nor the internet, which provide the same information for free.

DITTO!!!

Debunkers have shown a great amount of ignorance, which is clearly evident in their responses. I find it truely amazing that even though highly experienced aircrews described advanced flying machines in regards to their encounters, the debunkers will still throw in natural phenomena; known or unknown, to try and debunk those incidents.

Is it any wonder as to why debunker, Phil Klass and the skeptics at CSICOP, were sent to the burn unit after they tried to explain away the JAL incident as planets, even though the objects were captured on radar as they maneuvered near the aircraft?

After they discovered their mistake, they then changed their explanation to ice clouds, which also crashed in flames after meteorological conditions were checked.

Laughable, isnt it. If skyeagle had such evidence, he would have used it by now. "The Discovery channel cover-up" is only one of many silly explanations the believers have pulled out of their tinfoil hats. They cant show us real evidence of aliens on Earth, for one simple reason, there is none.

Think about it. There isnt a space exploring agency on the planet that have found evidence, anywere, that there is, or ever was, life out there.

But these believers are of course smarter then all of them, they not only "know" there is life out there, they "know" that many types of aliens are here flying all over the place in their space ships abducting millions of people every year, cutting up cows butts, sending us messages by stamping out formations in our fields, etc...(see my last post.)

But if you tell that to the believers, how weird it all sounds, they explain that "we cant even begin to imagine how these aliens think".

And in the same breath they say that "these aliens are only doing what we humans are doing"! In other words... The skeptics shouldnt pretend to understand the motives of these aliens, but the believers seems to understand them perfectly!!??

Go figure!?

Are delusional? Or just stupid? Because I'm sitting on the fence right now.

I ALWAYS believed in Flying Saucers, I don't believe that they are piloted by ET's.

WTF? WHEN DID I ONCE SAY WHALES? I NEVER SAID WHALES! I said a deep sea species. YOUR TWISTED MIND said whales. Octopi are very intelligent, prehaps a very smart species flys those saucers?

Why are ET's better than any of my theories, hm?

It really is unfair, how the happy days of childhood must end.

What is really laughable is that the debunkers have been unable to refute any, and I do mean, ANY of the data and the case files that I have presented. Now, why is that?



Now, now, Hazzard! Once again, there is more than enough evidence that the objects in question are not our aircraft and even the Air Force stated back in 1948 and again, in its own intelligence report, that the objects are very real. Now, why is it that the debunkers continue to ignore the real evidence that even the Air Force accepted decades ago?



I never said anything of the such, but I find it amusing that debunkers have claimed that:

* Flying objects that zoom off at hypersonic speeds, are weather balloons.

* Flying objects that are tracked on radar as they maneuver around aircraft, are planets and clouds

* Flying objects that maneuvered around satellites in space, are aircraft

* UFOs that flew circles around a jet aircraft for 1/1/2 hours, was a propeller-driven airliners on a scheduled flight.

* UFOs that hover silently, are meteors

* UFOs that maneuver at right-angled turns, are also meteors

* The Roswell crash site that left an debris field 3/4 of a mile long and hundreds of feet wide, was a tiny weather balloon.

* When the Air Force admitted that no weather balloon was involved, the debunkers then claimed that a Mogul balloon flight that never was, was responsible.

* The debunkers claimed that test dummies and accident victims of the 1950's, were responsible for the Roswell incident in 1947



In that regards, the real engima bigger than the UFOs themselves, are the mindset of the debunkers.

Stupid???

I have repeatedly challenged the debunkers to refute any of the case files and data as presented, and they have failed the challenge. I've made claims on the data and other evidence, and still, the debunkers have failed to to measure up by refuting my claims. Instead, they pull things out of thin air, thinking it is going to stick, but in reality, their responses becomes a source of comic relief when you look at thei explanations!

That calls into question, the mindset of debunkers.

Suspending judgement until further evidence comes forth is neither stupid nor delusional. I would caution everyone not to go here, it will only serve to inflame the discussion. Tolerance for the opinons of others is necessary.


Ok, leaving 'official moderator mode' now.



At this point all we really have are hypotheses. There just isn't sufficient evidence for any particular hypothesis to rise to the level of theory (at this point in time anyway). Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but remember this doesn't apply to having ones own facts.

Why not? After all, there are nations and married couples on Earth that don't even think alike.

A question, why did you ignore the facts in post #3527?! It is typical of debunkers to ignore the real facts and evidence.

Now, once again, stop flipping the switch into debunk mode and try to refute the case files that I have been presenting, and if you are unable to measure up to the challenge to refute my claim, then what more is there to say?!

There is a point to be made about the so-called, armchair debunkers, so we can start here and try to refute this case, and you know my claim!




You will note that I didn't go to the Discovery Channel for this information, but then again, you are only playing into my hands whenever you try to debunk such references when the same information is availabe under the FOIA, and I plan to take full advantage whenever the debunkers ridicule sources of information when the same information is available elsewhere in addition to the FOIA.

Okay, so it is the "Octopi" as a possible pilot for the UFOs in question.

Now, throw an "Octopi" into a Cessna 152 and see if that "Octopi" can takeoff and land the aircraft by itself. If not, then that presents yet another problem for your theory.

Lets not drag Sponge Bob Square Pants into the already confuseing UFO`s debate I`ll never be able to explane it to my kid If squiddiley can fly a saucer LoL just DONTEATUS

That is generally wnat happens when the armchair debunkers come up empty-handed with evidence to debunk the UFO case files in question. I have used references from the History and Discovery Channels, and the armchair debunkers use the Cartoon Channel.

After all, look at their responses!

The mindset of debunkers are indeed questionable

Applause for skyeagle

It's Octopuses, although , it really should be Octopodi.....

The British government have admitted UFOs exist, we are now down to ascertaining what they actually are...

I have seen footage of Squidbillies driving pickup trucks, but it never occurred to me that they might be piloting flying saucers.

Im with ya skyeagle its like talking to a wall in here some times,the skeptics and de-bunkers alike will probley not even belive it when one lands on them. First you finish then you finish first. Keep them comeing sky!

You are right...all those people..and others..have all seen or investigated UFOs..NOT ALIEN STARSHIPS!!! But then again..we all know you never could tell the difference.



So now...because you cant provide us with real evidence...you are telling the skeptics to help you look for it..

I think not...you are making the claim...you go find it!!


And wile your at it...how about you responding to hazzards -




Well...how come all these "space exploring agencies" have missed the SOOO OBVIOUS alien visitors!!??



Wait...let me guess..Its a coverup??

I posted the other day, the interview of the aircrew of that B-52, and what they thought they encountered, and look what you posted!!

One of the biggest mysteries of the universe is the mindset of the typical armchair debunker!

In their own minds, if an object zooms off at hypersonic speeds after flying circles around a jet aircraft, it was a weather balloon and if the evidence proves that no weather balloon was launched that day, then they will claim that it was a planet. After all, we have their own words to go by.

....or

Typical armchair debunkers,they are here to mess up...

Ahem.

From the Terms and Conditions:

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

Please stick to debating the evidence within the thread, rather than resorting to casting aspersions on the opposing side of the debate.

Thanks in advance,

Tiggs
[Forum Mod Team]

First of all, drop the tinfoil hat stereotype, it is irrelevant and immature.

Laughable? The very idea of alien visitation may sound like science fiction to some because of the cultural bias that has developed and the incompetency of the scientific community, which then results in a perpetuation of misinformation. Very few in academia have made any attempt to seriously investigate the phenomenon because it is so stigmatized. As a result of this, many arrogant scientists have openly demonstrated their total ignorance of the facts through their condescending statements and irrelevant philosophical arguments. Even professional "skeptics" who have an invested interest in debunking UFOs have displayed their ignorance by making statements that clearly contradict the facts gathered through the many large scale scientific studies undertaken to evaluate the phenomenon. You would think such studies would be the first place scientists and skeptics would check to investigate the phenomenon, but instead they head straight for the tabloids.

Sometimes I feel the debunkers don't even realize that the majority of serious Ufologists agree with the great majority of the debunkers arguments, because debunkers focus on easily explained cases of which we agree. It would make sense to assess the solid cases, not the weak ones, in order to come to a reasonable conclusion. Debunkers use those explainable cases to imply that the unknowns are simply more of the same, and again this is a demonstration of ignorance that contradicts the facts (See Project Blue Book Special Report 14), not to mention they are asking the wrong question. The question isn't, "Are all UFOs alien spacecraft?" But, "Are any?"


As for cover-ups, as I stated previous, a January 31, 1949 FBI memo specifically stated that the Army and Air Force considered the subject of UFOs to be Top Secret.




A fallacious argument. You act as if we have the necessary equipment to detect such life. News flash: we don't. The nearly 300 exosolar planets discovered up to this point have been detected using primitive methods. As Carl Sagan once said, "absense of evidence is not evidence of absense."

The provided argument is irrelevant and proves nothing.



See my last post. This is not a religious faith-based belief system, by any means. The majority of serious Ufologists don't take any of the supernatural events you mentioned seriously. At best, they would be in their gray basket. This is more of an emotional attack than an argument.

Arrogance.



The intentions of the visitors is pure conjecture. However, the difference between the researchers and the debunkers (if I understand your argument correctly) is that the researchers base their hypotheses off of interpretations of given events or associated evidence, but the debunkers base their assumptions on nothing more than their own opinion on how such visitors "should" act. To throw philosophical arguments out there on why aliens should be acting this way, not this way etc. is evasive and irrelevant.

The following argument by Dr. David M. Jacobs is particularly relevant to this argument: http://www.ufoabduction.com/thinking3.htm

I think Jacobs put it well when he said,

"...skeptics have suggested that UFOs and abductions do not exist because the aliens are not acting according to a model that the society has decreed they apparently should. If they were acting in the proper manner, the arguments go, they would have already either shown themselves in a formal display, helped humankind overcome its problems, or taken over the world long ago. At the very least, they would not go around covertly flying hither and yon with no discernible reason -- and they certainly would not be engaged in this behavior for over fifty years. Thus, their bizarre behavioral characteristics militate against their existence as an extraterrestrial phenomenon.

I can say with absolute assurance that these arguments are based on a total absence of knowledge of extraterrestrial life and motivations. Since by definition the critics are not persuaded that UFOs are extraterrestrial these critics can therefore possess no knowledge of aliens. Thus, their arguments are anthropomorphized theories based on culturally determined notions of how aliens should act. A mixture of science fiction, "common sense," and ignorance has produced suppositions that have, over the years, calcified into a sort of dogma that has become a litmus test of "reality." If the abduction phenomenon does not fit that dogma, it does not exist."

As I demonstrated earlier, in a select few quality cases the origin of the UFO in question is intuitively obvious. Proof is not easily attainable in this area of science wherein we cannot predict nor reproduce the observations. There are several different kinds of "science." There is the experimental science, where experiments are done and reproduceability is key. There is the science of measurements based on consistent observations, where one cannot control all the variables but can predict some, that allow for the theories such as the cause of a solar eclipse. Another form of science involves events that can neither be predicted nor controlled, such as earthquakes. All one can do is be ready to make measurements with an array of seismographs if something does happen. Another example is collecting radiation from a solar storm with a balloon that has a block of nuclear emulsion attatched to collect the particles released by the sun.

But then there is science that applies to unpredictable events, accidents, such as plane crashes, car accidents, murders, rapes etc. Like the UFO phenomenon, we cannot predict nor reproduce these events. All we can do is collect the residual evidence and make an evaluation. In the case of a car accident one can determine, after the fact, whether the driver had high levels of alcohol in his or her blood, whether the brakes failed, whether visibility was poor. One can also measure skid marks -- where they started, where they ended and measure the thickness of such marks etc. to estimate velocity etc. Trace cases apply to this category of unpredictable, unreproduceable form of science.


And once again, for several quality cases, there are only two possible origins:

1. Military
2. Extraterrestrial

These are cases where the sightings are of close enough proximity to determine that the object in question has a definite shape and surface texture that implies definite manufacture; an object with the ability to hover and stop on a dime, to make 90 degree turns, often without visible external engines or air disturbance, whose shape, speed and manuevaribility strongly implies an origin that is off the Earth. Why make the leap? Because it would be irrational to assume that human beings had manufactured such craft before we had even mastered chemical rockets or made it to the moon.





Once again: Proof we do not have, evidence we do. There is a preponderance of relevant supportive evidence. However, the necessary scientific "proof" -- the piece of a saucer or an alien body -- would certainly be confiscated by the government. This is not a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy is a tabloid term. A January 31, 1949 FBI memo specifically stated that the subject of UFOs is considered by the Army and Air Force to be Top Secret. It's called following the law. The justification for withholding such evidence from the public might be in question, but what is not is the fact that such classified material may not legally be turned over to the public.





Who are you to claim they have missed such obvious evidence? The government quite obviously finds the subject to be a sensitive one. To assume they would be so careful about their own treatment of the highly compartmentalized subject, but allow for space exploring agencies to go about their business without interference is absurd in the extreme. Again, this is not a conspiracy theory. We know for a fact that the government considers the subject of UFOs Top Secret. After that, it's called following the law.





The cover-up hypothesis, as demonstrated previously, is well-founded.

Yes, they t-h-o-u-g-h-t they encountered. There is no way they could k-n-o-w anything about the origin of that UFO.

I suggest that instead of reminding people of what they post, in all your posts, it would make you look less foolish if YOU looked at what you posted. You have made some serious woppers, in this thread alone. I know a guy thats keeping track of them all.

And again... There isnt a space exploring agency on the planet that have found evidence, anywere, that there is, or ever was, life out there.

But you are of course smarter then all of them, right!? You not only "know" there is life out there, you "know" that many different types of aliens are here, flying all over the place in their space ships, abducting millions of people every year, cutting up cows butts, sending us messages by stamping out formations in our fields, right!?

How this can make sense to ANYONE is beyond me.




And for me its the mindset of a typical fanatic believer, for reasons I just mentioned.

A joke, just like Skyeagles favorite expresion"typical armchair debunker".

If you have a problem with my posts in the future, take it up with the Mods. You are not the one here telling people what they can and can not post.

Well put Astropro,Skyeagle will be proud of your post,and to add The Gov is not in the bussiness of turning over any details about E.T`s forever ,forget a disclosure day its not going to happen. As far as the little green ,grey,red what ever color they are Lets just welcome them with open arms when they appear here. Look up cause thats where it all is. just DONTEATUS