While I agree with you in general, I think you might be looking for the wrong things. There is never any perfectly indisputable evidence of anything like this - after all, show me the evidence that cannot be disputed in any way that once and for all proves that Evolution is correct.... and yet, every intelligent human accepts the theory of evolution....

Thereby lies the problem. IMO.

QUOTE (AstroPro @ Jun 23 2008, 04:48 AM)
You proclaimed to know how a visiting civilization would think and act and used this "logic" to argue the "improbability" of the ETH.






I feel the need to step in here in an official capacity. Please do not paraphrase the statements of others. Instead provide a link to the post where you read their opinion then add a direct quote. It may be necessary to ask the other person for clarification, or question the meaning of the other person's statements. Not following these guidelines can lead to the mischaracterization of the position of others (that's why there's a quote function easily available).

This would fall under the rules/guidelines here:

QUOTE (rules)

2d. Accuracy: Do not post material that is knowingly or intentionally false, inaccurate or misleading.

So, please quote the post in question and ask the other person to clarify their meaning/intent of the post.

Thank you,

Lilly (forum moderating team)

The tide has been changing over years and I might add, that mainstream science has been coming under attack from many scientist themselves for their close-mindedness on the UFO enigma.

Over the years, the reality of the UFOs in question has been revealing and cannot be ignored.

Now, those involved in UFO encounters have verified that the objects they encountered were those of exterrestrials and they have the data and other eivdence to back them up.

To sum it up, it has always been evident that the UFOs in question were vehicles of someone else, and the data backs up that claim.

You are incorrect, since many of the UFO case files in question were analyzed scientifically and that is why there are no terrestrial explanations for those crafts in regards to those encounters and sightings, and the 1976 Iranian aerial dogfighter is just one example of thousasnds of similar incidents.



Since the UFOs in question were visually idenitified, and in many cases, as flying saucers by scientist and verified by by their own data and other evidence, the question is:

Were those flying machines that have been verified, ours?

Keep them thinking Skyeagle,its all going to come out soon. Its like critical mass of the Human kindership with this world.We better start to listen to our inner selfs and open our eyes to the world .I.E. All the things around us!Get out and Vote a New Idea in our Gov! The last few havent worked. IMO I would even vote for a little Grey or Green Person. DONTEATUS

The UFO debunkers continue to ignore the fact that the UFOs in question, have been visually identified and in a particular case at Kirtland AFB, they were visually identified as saucer-shaped flying objects and afterwards, labeled as Unauthorized Aerial Objects (UAOs).

It was later revealed that the source of the military and civilian radar shutdowns in the area came from the landing site of one of those objects.

That is one case of many , which are now being revealed after all of these years hidden away in government secrecy.

Despite the considerable efforts of the few that believe they have seen or otherwise witnessed an alien starship. Not one has been able to show proof that what they saw was of alien origin. Of course there is always going to be some things unexplainable. That is only because we do not see well what it is.

Everything that is presented concerning this topic always comes down to "You either believe or you dont.". What we need are facts, not opinions and eyewitness testimony from an Ex this or that.

The "we dont have anything that can fly like that" get out of jail free card that Sky pulls out of his hat every now and then is funny...Just because we dont know of any modern aircraft that can mimic that performance does not prove that the US, or somebody else on the planet, dont have any aircraft that can mimic that performance.

Some of the UFOs could also be an unexplained natural terrestrial phenomena.

Skyeagle keeps telling us that he has this undisputed proof of aliens...But when asked for this he keeps refering to the Discovery channel, posting names of people that also believe, or start posting old reports from the 50s!?

When asked for the physical evidence, material that doesnt come from this starsystem, Skyeagles case falls apart.

Of course, his "proof" is nonexisting. If you believers understood the scientific method and its modus operandi, you would realize that the idea of Aliens on Earth is just that, an idea, which is completely unproven.


No matter what Skyeagle believe, or anybody else, life on other planets, any life at all, have never been proven scientifically to be real.

I guess its a Tie then Hazzard? You cant prove that Aliens are real so Im still waiting for that Exibit-A also.

Allow me, if I may, to defend my statement. Hazzard stated on page 256 of this thread,

QUOTE

Some have suggested that aliens would choose not to reveal themselves to us? However, Frank Drake estimated that at least 10,000 advanced civilizations exist in the Milky Way. Carl Sagan raised the estimate to 1,000,000. Would all those civilizations stay at home or choose to conceal themselves from us? It seems highly unlikely.

(Bolding mine)

Pehaps I was wrong in my interpretation, but it sure seems as if hazzard is referencing the lack of global contact as evidence for nonexistence. In order to know such behavior would be "unlikely," one would have to have a good understanding of alien psychology: goals, motivation and intent. Anthropomorphosized theories will do us no good. A while ago I cited the reaction of the scientific community in relation to the discovery in 1966 of what scientists thought at the time was an untainted, ignorant and independent "Stone Age" tribe in the Phillipines -- the Tasaday Indians. This tribe, it was thought, was blissfully unaware that a more advanced civilization was just around the corner. In the early 1970's a consensus opinion was reached and it was decided that direct confrontation with the Tasadays would occur only after a period of acclimation. Slowly, over the course of months, anthropologists would allow the Tasadays to view them only at a distance until finally, when considered prepared for such confrontation, a face-to-face meeting was arranged. Preparation for such exposure was considered imperative in the opinion of the scientific community in this situation. Perhaps, with hazzard's apparently favored anthropomorphosized logic of alien psychology, such a visiting civilization would approach our more primitive civilization in just the same manner. We just don't know. What we do know, though, is that noncontact is not evidence for nonexistence.

I hope that helps clear things up. From here, I will respectfully drop the issue. I apologize for any misunderstandings.

It is shunned because it is misunderstood. As demonstrated earlier, from Sturrocks 1977 poll of the American Astronomical Society, the more physicists had read about the subject the more they believed it deserved scientific attention. The less they had read, the less they thought it deserved scientific attention. This is the apparent end result of cultural bias, which some might refer to the Robertson panel as the catalyst for its recommendations of "training and debunking" and the use of media to downplay the subject, and to demonstrate how easily the IFO's had been explained. As I also demonstrated, scientists don't speak out about the subject because it could threaten their career, or worse. Take a look at what happened to James McDonald. He lost everything. I also cited the poll taken by J. Allen Hynek that showed that all the astronomers he asked were afraid that they would be risking their careers by expressing interest in the UFO phenomenon. It has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of compelling evidence.

People often assume that mainstream science doesn't accept UFOs because science has investigated them before and found the claims to be without merit. This is unequivocally false. The most often referenced "scientific" study is the Condon report, which anyone who has done any research knows was a sham from the start. It does not appear Condon investigated any of the cases himself, and probably had the Summary and Conclusion section (which was apparently the only section of interest to the press) done before the project even started. Even the American Astronomical Society found Condon's bold dismissal to be unwarranted, with the fact that 30% had remained unidentified. Need I make reference to the Low document? In the August 9, 1966 memo to University officials, Low stated:

"..... Our study would be conducted almost exclusively by non-believers who, although they couldn't possibly prove a negative result, could and probably would add an impressive body of evidence that there is no reality to the observations. The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would appear a totally objective study but, to the scientific community, would present the image of a group of nonbelievers trying their best to be objective, but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer. One way to do this would be to stress investigation, not of the physical phenomena, but rather of the people who do the observing – the psychology and sociology of persons and groups who report seeing UFO's. If the emphasis were put here, rather than on examination of the old question of the physical reality of the saucer, I think the scientific community would quickly get the message....I'm inclined to feel at this early stage that, if we set up the thing right and take pains to get the proper people involved and have success in presenting the image we want to present to the scientific community, we could carry the job off to our benefit...."

An article written by John G. Fuller for Look Magazine on May 14, 1968 discussed in more detail the corruption of the Condon report. It was entitled "Flying Saucer Fiasco." The article can be read here.

Time and again you hear professional skeptics such as Michael Shermer denouncing the legitimacy of the phenomenon by inferring that the unknowns could simply have been missed knowns. This contradicts Project Blue Book Special Report 14 which showed, after a chi-square statistical analysis of all reported flight and appearance characteristics of the unknowns compared to the knowns, that the probability that the unknowns were simply missed knows was less than 1%. Shermer admitted his ignorance to a number of large scale scientific studies during a debate with Stanton Friedman on Coast to Coast AM. How can one come to an objective conclusion without reviewing the evidence first -- particularly the large scale scientific studies!? Another complaint is that the unknowns are simply those cases for which not enough observational data had been obtained to come to a reasonable determination (Insufficient Information); and once again, Report 14 proved otherwise, as there was a separate category for such cases which turned out to be 9.3%. Another argument is that most UFO reports are made by publicity seekers and hoaxers. Report 14 had a category for these cases as well, which turned out to be 1.5%. Another false claim is that the UFO reports that remained unknown were simply from unqualified observers. As it turned out, the better the quality of the sightings (more witnesses, closer proximity, longer duration, qualified observers etc.), the more likely it was to remain unidentified. Additionally, the unknowns on average were sighted for a longer duration than the knowns. These were not ambiguous lights in the sky.

In short, culturally influenced UFO bias by skeptical scientists is born out of false preconceptions, not investigative effort. Once their opinion is met with hostility, it becomes a personal matter and there is no going back. The Brookings Report, on the impact of contact with a visiting ET civilization, noted that the egos of scientists would be greatly bruised by recognition of how little they knew.



I don't see where you're coming from with the whole "government coverup" argument. We know the government considers the subject to be a very sensitive one. We have documentation that spells that out quite clearly. We also know that secrets have been kept in the past, are being kept in the present, and will continue to be kept in the future. I made reference earlier to the 300,000 pages of classified material still present at the Eisenhower library, despite the fact that Eisenhower has been out of office for half a century. You seem to be picking and choosing with the rest of your argument there. And what is this "omission of explanatory data?" Enlighten me. Furthermore, explain to me why it is relevant to dwell on explainable cases.



Not all science is predictable and reproduceable. As I stated earlier in this thread, 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 to estimate velocity etc. The UFO phenomenon applies to this last category of science.

Actually, now that you've quoted hazzard's post, why not wait and see what his response is? It's the not discussion of various issues that's problematic, but rather that one needs to show (via direct quotation) exactly what others have said (verses just paraphrasing).

Personally, the issue herein seems (to me anyway) to be a version of the Fermi Paradox. I suspect that this might be what hazzard was getting at? I'll await some clarification from him.

The thing is, by your (il)logic, it's all a done deal. I mean, official government disclosure would be unnecessary and redundant. It'd be like the government coming out and saying "Hey, y'all! There's this thing, y'see, an' it's called 'gravity'. An' it works!"

I don't think that you are getting the message, so let's do another recap, and afterwards, I would like for you to answer these questions:

Since the objects are obviously intelligently controlled, were they ours? Or, those of someone else?

Review the incident here.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2355557

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case200.htm

That might well be partly how it is done. Let those who are that interested in the subject deduce from a gradual release of information that. When you add it all up it is tantamount to an admission , on a governmental level, that these things actually exist.

It is the sociological equivalent of relaxing the whole body before you hit the wall in your car. The chances are that the damage, as a whole, will be of a lesser degree.

This might well be a better way of dealing with such a huge issue. Over the space of a few years if a gradual majority are attuned to the idea that, yes it's real, when the final announcement is made a whole lot of people will simply say. " ah see, told you so|".."ah well, i kind of assumed that was true"

I would say that, the world's population is already way more primed, as it were, to learn that UFOs are a reality than it was 50 years ago. Back then i think there might have been a serious panic. Since then, via the media, people in the street have almost been immunised to the idea it is, automatically, a huge threat to our existence.

I can envisage something along these lines happening.

A video appears from a country seen as a *non aligned politically* state. Somewhere like Switzerland, Nepal etc. The quality will lead, in the beginning, to the usual brickbats about CGI. However, something in the corroborating evidence will suggest it isn't a fake. The media will pick up on it and it will become big news , pretty much worldwide.

A non superpower state will then make some comment about how they have files on these objects and that, as far as they are aware, they are not man made as the NATO and the old Soviet block have consistently, through diplomatic channels, denied they were invading the countries airspace.

An , essentially neutral, group of scientists, will then make some kind of statement about how they are convinced this might be the real deal. This will take place over a period of maybe a couple of months and will finally lead to the Russkis and the Yankees themselves, coming out and saying something like.

"In the light of all the recent speculation we would like to jointly admit that, to the best of our knowledge, we are being visited by intelligently controlled craft that are not man made". "We have been studying this activity for some 50 years and are happy to announce that. In our opinion these visits pose no real threat to the world's security or mankind's existence."

I only wish to see the face of the people from NASA and SETI if the extraterrestrials were proven a fact.

I mean, those people will be so **** screwed with all the lies they would have been told all these years...

I'm sure that not all "believers" demand these exemptions you claim. It is an unfortunate stereotype you have given to a considerable portion of people. Insult or mere propoganda? In either case, more mud in the water.

Surely there is enough evidence to postulate an hypothesis, but perhaps not enough for theory.

Oh yes, but as yet it is of course simply unexplained. However, something is going on in the skys of Earth that MAY be something of profound intellectual importance. As far as I'm concerned the ET explanation is a possible explanation to some events. I'm personally more concerned with the possibility that some events are of human creation.

But, there are physical and data evidence that proves the existence of the UFOs in question, and that is why nations around the globe have begun to release their own case files, which depict intelligently controlled crafts and government and former government officials and government contractors who were in positions to know those facts, have been revealing that the UFOs in question are not only real, but are intelligently controlled crafts and the specifics of the performance characteristics proves beyond any doubt, that the objects are not ours.

In other words, this has nothing to do with faith and hope, but of reality and I knew that back in 1968 when one of those objects passed directly over my base, and I saw it all.

Years later, General George Brown, confirmed the UFO overflights in 1968 over Vietnam.

http://www.af.mil/history/person.asp?dec=&pid=123006471

It does.

Im not claiming that "the lack of global contact is evidence for nonexistence". Im saying, like you do, we just dont know.


Yes, Lilly is right of course. My post on page 256 was written with the Fermi Paradox in mind. The apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations.

Here is a list of the various assumptions along with notes pointing to related problems and contradictions.
http://www.fermisparadox.com/Possible-answ...rmi-paradox.htm

Were are they?
http://www.fermisparadox.com/Where-are-they.htm

Data and documents on these objects have been revealed and are available under the FOIA and in fact, NORAD has been tracking them from deep space and Dr. Carl Sagan knew tha the Air Force was also tracking them in space and since his request was overlooked again, time for a recap.

____________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Sagan:
I just wanted to underline one point that Dr. Baker made. Congressman Roush, in his detailed presentation of the various Air Force systems, I am afraid that the main point won't come across to a lay audience, and that is that with relatively little expenditure of funds, it would be possible to significantly improve the available information.
.
Apparently what is now happening is that the Air Force surveillance radar is throwing away the data that is of relevance for this inquiry. In other words, if it sees something that is not on a ballistic trajectory, or not in orbit, it ignores it, it throws it in the garbage.
Well, that garbage is just the area of our interest. So if some method could be devised by the Air Force to save the output that they are throwing away from these space surveillance radars, it might be the least expensive way to significantly improve our information about these phenomena.

Source:

SYMPOSIUM ON UNIDENTIFIED
FLYING OBJECTS

HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NINETIETH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JULY 29, 1968

____________________________________________________________________________





Let's see what we do know in many cases.


* The objects are metallic and saucer shaped

* Have rotating lights and portholes

* They are capable of hypersonic flight without leaving behind sonic booms

* Capable of right-angled maneuvers which proves beyond any doubt they are aircraft.

* Some are larger than ships

* The objects were visually confirmed by aircrews and ground-based observers and their performance characteristics have been recorded via various electronic means.

So, the question at this point is:

Do we have such flying vehicles capable of the perfomance characteristics as noted above? If not, then obviously, they are not ours.

Everything that is presented concerning this topic always comes down to "You either believe or you dont.". What we need are facts, not opinions and eyewitness testimony from an Ex this or that.



Come one, Hazzard, what aircraft is capable of this kind of performance in 1952. You are nto even going to convince any scientist that the UFOs in question, are aircraft, especially those that scientist and astronomers were tracking in space back during the late 1040's.

Time for a recap.

http://roswellproof.homestead.com/files/Al...o_UFOs_8_47.gif

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


Washington D.C., 1952


"It was almost as if whatever controlled it had heard us, or had seen Pierman head toward it," said Barnes. "He said it vanished from sight in three to five seconds. But here's the important point: at that very moment, the blip disappeared from the scope.

"That means it must have raced out of our beam between ten second sweeps. It could have done this in one of two ways: First, it could make a steep climb at terrific speed, so that in ten seconds it would be above the vertical area swept by our M.E.W. set. [The beam's average altitude, at its highest point, is from 35,000 to 40,000 feet, far out, but it is much less near the airport. At 30 miles, it is about 8,500 feet, sloping to 1,200 at three miles.] Second, it could race horizontally off our 34 mile scope within ten seconds."

Considering the objects' relative position, just before they vanished, this last would require a speed of from 5,000 to 7,000 m.p.h. At the time, this seemed unbelievable to Barnes and the other controllers. But Captain Pierman later confirmed the objects' tremendous speed.

"They'd go up and down at terrific speed, or streak off and disappear. Between Washington and Martinsburg, we saw six of these fast moving lights. [Control Center showed them at the same position.] I don't know what they were, but they weren't shooting stars."

Another confirmation of the visitors' incredible speed came later that night, from the Washington tower. Operator Joe Zacko had been watching the A.S.R. scope when one of the mystery objects abruptly appeared just west of Andrews Field. Unlike the slower M.E.W., the A.S.R., with its 28-r.p.m. antenna, can track extremely high speeds. As Zacko watched, fascinated, the blips made a bright streak or trail, heading north- northeast toward Riverdale. Then the trail ended as swiftly as it had come.

Howard Cocklin, hastily called over by Zacko, also saw the bright trail. Together they figured the object's speed from its trace.

It had been making two miles per second -7,200 m.p.h.

"It was as if it had descended rapidly, almost vertically," Cocklin told me later. "That would bring it suddenly into the A.S.R. beam area. It seemed to level off for those few seconds, and then abruptly ascend out of the beam again."
________________________________________________________________

And, the Belgian Air Force also excluded aircraft by the fact it is impossible for aircraft to conduct the kind of maneuvers they recorded on airbonre and ground-based radar. The Colonel was specific when he stated in the Belgian report that the Air Force excluded aircraft and in the video interview, confirmed that no aircraft, even experimentat aircraft, cannot mimic the performance characteristics noted in the data collected, so we can exclude aircraft, secret or otherwise, as those UFOs.

Then again, the UFO enigma is centuries old, so how could those flyinng saucers as reported over Japan in 1122 and throughout the centuries, have been secret aircraft?

So, once again, you are incorrect.



Not in regards to the UFOs in question, since the objects were proven to be intelligently controlled flying machines.



Not only the Discovery and History Channels, but the use of the Freedom of Information Act as well. That is how we found about that flying saucer that landed near Kirtland AFB, which knocked out civilian and military radar systems for several hours. It was determined that the source of the shutdowns came from the landing site of that flying saucer.



Not likely at all since data has confirmed that NORAD has tracked UFO flying in from deep space up to 500 times per year.

http://www.nicap.org/walker.htm


FAST WALKER VIDEO

http://www.anomalies.net/ufo/gov/dsp/dsp-001.ram



So you see, your own statement just fell apart before your very eyes.







It is not a matter of what I believe, it is the reality of what the facts, data and other evidence depict.




Do tell that to those in govenment who knows otherwise.

General George Brown had an outstanding and extremely impressive career, no doubt about it.

Why did you mislead us by telling us the General confirmed UFO reports, then by linking to a bio page of him that does nothing to shore up your argument? And please, no weasling "read between the lines". If General Brown confirmed the UFO flights you claim, please point to it in the link you provided.

That's just it. They aren't "obviously intelligently controlled", just as they are not obviously "objects", although it is obvious they are to you. Just not to everyone else, which is the crux of our collective discussion.

I did so to bring attention to the position of General George Brown and to see if the UFO debunkers were paying attention since I posted this several times before, so it seems that you have been ignoring the facts all along. Hmmmmm!!! Once again, you have confirmed what I have stated about UFO debunkers not doing their homework.

Now, for the rest of the story that I had posted several times before that was ignored by the UFO debunkers.

__________________________________________________________________

General George S. Brown

General George S Brown (1918-1978) was commander of the 7th US Air Force and deputy commander for Air Operations, Military Assistance Command Vietnam from 1968 to 1970 - and so was in command of the Phantoms involved in the snafu. In later years he rose to chair the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington.

In 1973, he fronted a Chicago media conference held to discuss the North American UFO flap of that year, and while airing his views on UFOs at the conference he said:

"I don't know whether this story has ever been told or not [but UFOs plagued us in Vietnam]. They weren't called UFOs they were called enemy helicopters, and they were only seen at night and they were only seen in certain places. They were seen up around the DMZ in the early summer of '68, and this resulted in quite a battle. And in the course of this, an Australian destroyer [Hobart] took a hit ... there was no enemy at all involved but we always reacted. Always after dark. The same thing happened up at Pleiku at the Highlands in '69".

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case60.htm

__________________________________________________________________

Just goes to show just how easy it is to trap a UFO debunker and I will reiterate that some of my best support comes from the UFO debunkers and I have their own post as proof.

I wrote..








Thanks for that one Sky.

You are welcome and you can review official government UFO reports that clearly indicated that the objects were not ours. which the UFO debunkers seem to have overlooked time and again.

As far as life from other planets:

__________________________________________________________________________

NORAD Tracks UFOs Flying In From Deep Space

The Air Force NORAD facility, it has been convincingly reported,
observes these "fastwalkers" from its subterranean facility deep
inside Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, and tracks a rough average
of 500 of them (UFOs for the uninitiated) each YEAR as they
enter the Earth's atmosphere from deep space, maneuver around,
and then leave again.

This is not a fiction. It corroborates a similar report from
AeroJet General engineers Lee Graham and Ron Regehr, who have
revealed to the well respected UFO researcher Don Ecker documents
indicating that AeroJet's DSP satellite system, alone, routinely
detects UFOs flying into Earth's atmosphere from deep space... up to two to three times per month."


__________________________________________________________________________

Once again, time for another recap. Answer the question please, that I have been tryng for several days to get the UFO debunkers to answer:

Were those objects over Iran in 1976, ours? Or, were they those of someone else?


All of the informaton on that encounter can be reviewed here.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2355557

I want to take one of them and have you answer the question I have been seeking. From one of your links:

They were here and they left material evidence:

UFO's, alien artifacts, ancient astronauts. Problem: evidence for aliens is non-existent.


If that is the case, then why do we have thousand and thousands of case reports on flying machines that exhibited technology not found in our science books?

In fact, why do we have data and other evidence of flying machines that can fly circles around our latest jet aircraft; some larger than ships?

This is all in your mind Skyeagle. You are "traping" noone. You are, AGAIN, forgetting that its up to the one making the claim to come up with the evidence. Even if a skeptic is wrong, or cant think of a terrestrial explanation for a UFO..That still doesnt make you right.

For believers, extraordinary reports can be considered to be valid data until disproved, and, in the most devastating departure from scientific methodology, believers reject the concept of "falsifiability" of scientific theories.

The most regrettable aspect of this current unscientific state for believers is that it is not a judgment on the actual validity of many of the published speculations about what might be behind the "true UFO/Alien" sightings, if any exist.

Alien spacecraft could be visiting Earth, and there might be at least a dozen valid reasons why "they" might decide not to make overt contact, while allowing Earthmen to catch glimpses of them. Who knows!?

For all we know UFOs might well represent some other phenomenon, such as psychic projections, time machines, a terrestrial but undiscovered civilization or life form, or many other similarly bizarre possibilities.

Could be ET, could be something else!? At this time we just dont know what some of these bizare UFOs are, or were they come from.

It is very simple to do, and the UFO debunkers continue to side-step the question I posed; in other words, they are cornered!



Not just me, but:

* Commercial and military aircrews

* Astronomers

* Scientist and engineers

* Radar operators and experts

* Senior military and intelligence officials

* Government officials from around the world

* Astronauts and cosmonauts

And, many other credible people from around the globe.



There is no "IF" ab out it at all that they are wrong, and besides, haven't you even been paying attention??? I posted many accounts where they were undeniably incorrect, wrong, and everthing else, and look what you posted!




Of couse it does if you knew as I do, about what the nature of the data evidence involves, which you have made it clear, that you don't.



When the extraordinary data were examined, it reconfirmed the fact the UFO case files involved highly advanced flying machines, which cnfirmed the visually accounts of those who were directly involved.



Apparently, you haven't been paying any attention at all. Scientific analysis and other scientific investigations have confirmed the UFO case files in question, accurate as reported



They do, which reconfirms my statement that you haven't been paying any attention to what has been presented.



Not, "could be visiting Earth," but have been visiting Earth.



Knowing the facts, none of the above had anything to do with the UFO case files in question.

____________________________________________________________

Zen, the Art of Debunkery

<> Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.

<> Equate nature's laws with our current understanding of nature's laws. Then label all concepts such as antigravity or interdimensional mobility as mere flights of fancy "because what present-day science cannot explain cannot possibly exist." Then if an anomalous craft is reported to have hovered silently, made right-angle turns at supersonic speeds or appeared and disappeared instantly, you may summarily dismiss the report.

<> When someone produces purported physical evidence of alien technology, point out that no analysis can prove that its origin was extraterrestrial; after all, it might be the product of some perfectly ordinary, ultra-secret underground government lab. The only exception would be evidence obtained from a landing on the White House lawn--the sole circumstance universally agreed upon by generations of skeptics as conclusively certifying extraterrestrial origin!

<> Practice debunkery-by-association. Lump together all phenomena popularly deemed paranormal and suggest that their proponents and researchers speak with a single voice. In this way you can indiscriminately drag material across disciplinary lines or from one case to another to support your views as needed. For example, if a claim having some superficial similarity to the one at hand has been (or is popularly assumed to have been) exposed as fraudulent, cite it as if it were an appropriate example. Then put on a gloating smile, lean back in your armchair and just say "I rest my case."

<> Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)

http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html

See, that wasn't in the link you provided. So again, you trapped yourself and provided misleading information. Perhaps I should start reporting your posts when you do that? It's in violation of rule 2d of this forum's rules:

It may be up to the mods to determine if that would be intentionally misleading, but I'm of the opinion you've been around forums long enough to know if you post a person's position (in this case, General Brown's supporting the idea of UFOs), then link to a bio that has nothing to do with that position, that's misleading. You should know enough to post a link supporting your claim.

And I did answer your question. My question to you: if they are "someone else's", who is that "someone else"? The Russians? Chinese? South Africans? Pervuians? Amoeba? Tarantulas?

Edit: The post I'm claiming is misleading is #3868 in this thread:

As I've said in my prior post, I brought attention to General Brown and to see if the UFO debunkers were paying attention since I posted it before and it is very clear you weren't paying any attention at all.

Now once again, get with the program and start doing your homework.




Extraterrestrials! What did those who were invovled in that incident, say?

The facts of the incident clearly indicated that the objects were none of the above, (Russians? Chinese? South Africans? Pervuians? Amoeba? Tarantulas?) which once again, reiterates my claim that UFO debunkers are some of my best supporters when proving my claims on them.

_____________________________________________________________________

Zen . . . And the Art of Debunkery

<> Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)

<> State categorically that the unconventional may be dismissed as, at best, an honest misinterpretation of the conventional.

http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html
_____________________________________________________________________


Now once again, plese answer the question I posed to you and other UFO debunkes in regards to the 1976 Iranian UFO dogfight incident.

I have provided more than enough information for you to answer the question.

It's difficult for me to give you the answer you want simply because life beyond the Earth has not (yet) been proven to exist. As I and others have often said, it's certainly possible/probable that life exists elsewhere, but that doesn't mean we've been visited by ET. Reports just aren't proof.

And I have the feeling that because it's not the answer you want, you won't accept it. But here it is anyway: If the Iranian incident happened the way it's been reported, then I'd admit I'll be damned if I can explain it.

That doesn't necessarily rule in or out ET.

See, a big argument against the visitation theory, IMO, is the fact that there is no incontrovertible evidence of it. If ET exists, and has been visiting Earth for as long as 50,000 years, then it stands to reason we'd have some artifact(s) they left behind. Instead, we have manmade depictions of space aliens, flying machines, etc. (according to some interpretations, like von Daniken). Personally, I don't accept them, and I think they're a crock. But that's neither here nor there.

The fact is we have reports of things, but not the things themselves. Forget the crashed saucers, or alien bodies. I'd accept something like the monolith dug up on the moon from the movie 2001. Or the alien equivalent of a gum wrapper or cigarette butt left behind. Instead, we got nuthin'. Nuthin' but anecdotal reports.

Actually, it already has, as contained in the fact that UFOs have been tracked as they fly in from deep space by NORAD.

______________________________________________________________________


A UFO the military tracked
May 5, 1984; USDSP Satellite detects "fastwalker"
Article by Dave Kauble

(Based on the Discovery Channel Segment, "Fast Walker")

"MAY 5, 1984, an alert was triggered at the North America Air Defense Command. Moving at 22,000 miles per hour, it was heading toward Earth and had been determined to NOT be incoming ballistic missiles, or any other type of conventionally explainable object. Once tracked, it was code-named "Fast Walker".

http://www.nicap.org/walker.htm



FAST WALKER VIDEO

http://www.anomalies.net/ufo/gov/dsp/dsp-001.ram


______________________________________________________________________

I have challenged the UFO debunkers to answer the question on the 1976 UFO dogfighter and they continue to side-step the question as to whether the objects are ours? Or, those of someone else? In addition, I have challenged them to prove the UFOs in question, as ours, and they failed in that regard as well.

Typical of the way the UFO debunkers try to get around the issue. In regards to my claim on UFO debunkers:

My Best Support Comes From UFO Debunkers

On the contrary, we have lots of data, including those on flying saucers in space, data of which were provided by engineers, scientist and astronomers, and there are physical trace evidence that have no terrestrial explanation that were found at the landing sites.

not to mention a vast majority of pilots have reported UFO sightings

skeptics don't have better judgement than a pilot would. anyone say otherwise?

"See, a big argument against the visitation theory, IMO, is the fact that there is no incontrovertible evidence of it. If ET exists, and has been visiting Earth for as long as 50,000 years, then it stands to reason we'd have some artifact(s) they left behind."

Why? that argument based upon the sub concious admission that "Humans are messy buggers, therefore, aliens must be the same".

You can just as easily argue that a civilisation intelligent enough to traverse the stars also uses a technology that results in virtually no waste whatsoever. That is, the whole project is a self contained almost infinitely recyclable based system. Those who travel to the Antarctic ,to work and study, are not allowed to leave anything at all behind , in terms of waste. Every last screw is meant to be accounted for. In some cave systems you are not even allowed to leave your own human waste behind, it has to be bagged and returned to the surface.

Imagine a intelligence with no concept of the word, *conquest*, trying to understand the ramblings of someone like Bubba Bush?

You can just as easily argue humans from the future, or invisible pink unicorns for that matter. Or human imagination, hoaxes, and misinterpretation of natural and artificial objects.

The difference between what you're saying in regards to Antarctica and caves is we know without any doubt that life exists there. We don't have that luxury in regards to ET.

And Mickeys big hand is on the 6 and his little hand is on the 12 ,So its Lunch time! Wahoo! Lets stop and eat B,B,Q, Do you ever get the feeling that were going around and around? How about we all try to look into NASA and the GOv,a little closer on the non-disclosed videos and pics. I was watching When we left earth last nite on Discovery ch,and there were two refferences on recentley disclosed NASA footage on the Challenger launch wow! you cant belive how much stuff were not privie too from there files. but any way they do have much ,much more that we ever get to see. Even the audio tapes are dubbed or altered from what we get. ITs all in the mind set of National securety LoL. Watch NASA ISS missions this week its got great new video`s and the best clarity to date . Still you have to wonder? NASA.GOV.ORG and DOD ? those are your tax dollars folks ask whats its doing for you?

With the "evidence" you have been posting, God knows you need all the support you can get.

No you can't and, that is just another indication that the UFO debunkers are against the wall, in other words, cornered because they are unable to refute the data and other evidence in regards to the UFOs in question. Besides, that is not what govenment and former government workers, are saying.



But, none of those were responsible for the UFO case files in question, and once again, that is another indication that the UFO debunkers are unable to refute the facts.

Since the UFO debunkers are unwilling to take on the 1976 Iranian UFO encounter, what more is there to say???



But then again, that can be expected when the facts and evidence can't be refuted, so once again'

My best support comes from the UFO debunkers, because their responses are etched in stone.



Now, once again, UFO debunkers, were those objects over Iran, ours? Or, those of someone else?

All these people maybe good at their jobs, that still doesnt make them experts on Alien spaceships. It might be safe to say that these witnesses have seen something. But just because you dont recognize an aerial phenomenon doesnt mean that its an extraterrestrial visitor. That requires additional evidence that, so far, seems to be as unconvincing as the trickeryfree saucer snaps.

It does when they fly in close-proximity of those objects, as noted in thosaudns of reports of metallic flying saucers that maneuvered around their aircraft, so once again, your statement falls flat on its back, because what was reported, were flying machines and the data confirmed that the flying machines were not aircraft and in fact, the data proves beyond any doubt, that the objects exhibited advanced technology unknown to us.

I doubt you would find any support in the scientific community that "invisible pink unicorns" are more likely to cause the reported phenomena than are potential ET visitors. That's just an intentionally silly remark intended to tabloidize the phenomenon. Natural phenomena and artificial, terrestrial objects have been effectively and indefinitely ruled out of the equation for a select few cases, particular those cases reported in the 40s and 50s, when we were just beginning to use chemical rockets as a means of propulsion -- not to mention the hundreds of thousands of reports made prior to any balloons or airplanes were ever flown, many of the sightings being by astronomers themselves (see here). Considering the age and size of the universe we are a part of, there is no reason to believe that we haven't been visited. In fact, as I demonstrated earlier, considering the age of Sun-like stars in the habitable zone of the Milky Way galaxy being a billion years older than the Sun, we should expect such visitation by now.

"How would they know we are here?" One might ask. Well, they wouldn't have to listen for radio signals, that's for sure -- a common misconception. Take the Terrestrial Planet Finder as an Earthly example of how to spot out areas of interest. The TPF will be launched sometime in the next 25 years. Surely, a civilization a billion years older than us would have created and utilized such technology many millenia ago. After all, look how far we've come in just 100 years, let alone a billion. You can count to 100 easily enough, but try to count to a billion. It would take you more than 30 years.

Another, more mathematically efficient way a civilization could explore and catalogue the galaxy would be with the help of self-replicationg probes, Von Neumann probes (Named after John Von Neumann, who devised the mathematical laws of self-replicating systems). These probes could be sent out to other stars to land on vacant moons and the like and use the raw materials available to them to make copies of themselves, which are then sent out to new destinations to continue the process. In this manner, a galaxy 100,000 light years across could be completely explored in about a half million years -- .05% of the billion year difference between the age of the Sun and the average age of the other Sun-like stars in the habitable zone of the Milky Way Galaxy.

Fact and evidence!? There is nothing to refute. If this case is real to begin with, its simply one of those unexplained. Thats it. The rest is only in your mind Sky..Only in your mind.

true.
but when a fighter pilot, or High ranking military officers reports something, ends up going public with it, saying 'wow. what is that? it sure aint ours'. what do you make of it? especially when Other countries are doing the Same thing.

You have read some eyewitness stories and seen some numbers, maybe even heard a tape from the CT. So what! You have, like the rest of us, no idea if that is real, fake or desinformation.

I think Hazzard thinks he`s got lock on you Skyeagle? drop some flares and bank hard to the right ! Good Luck convinceing him Im on his Six and ready for tone and Fox 1

Of course I know what is depicted, and so do my fellow military and commercial pilots.

What it is, you are attempting to back out of a difficult situation and I am not letting go of the UFO debunker's tail.

We have the 1976 Iranian UFO incident to contend with first, and many similar encounters afterwards.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2355557