Thanks Hazzard. I did read the entire thread thoroughly yesterday, and read what you quoted.

I mainly wanted SE's take on it.

Correct me if Im wrong here Sky, but isnt everyone that doesnt agree with your belief a
"UFO debunker"??

So true. Fear us, for we are....The Debunkers!

I find the UFO debunkers amusing and their so-called debunking routine, hilarious at times!

For an example,which I brought up before, metallic saucer-shaped flying machines that are maneuvering around aircraft and tracked on radar as they are doing so, as Venus, Mars, and Jupiter.

No, and I have stated in the past on many occasions, that I am also skeptical of UFO reports until I have examimed the report in detail. In fact, I have even slammed Billy Meiers UFO photos and even disgreed with those on the MJ-12 documents.

i doubt you could debunk this http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...howtopic=129130

Mainstream science hasn't made any effort to evaluate the evidence; therefore, their opinion is irrelevant. Secondly, since when has ridicule been part of the scientific method?

Venus,Mars,Jupiter. Like Larry, Curley,Moe!

In other words, mainstram scientists should blame themselves for the fact that the visitation hypothesis has failed
to sway them!?

Not only is this unfair, its misguided.

Sure, rather few researchers have themselves gone into the field to sift through the stories, the videos, and the odd photos that comprise the evidence for alien presence. But they dont have to.

This complaint is akin to telling movie critics that films would be better if only they would pitch in and get behind the camera. But critics can compose excellent and accurate evaluations of a movie without being participants in the business of making films.

The burden of proof is on those making the claims, not those who find the data dubious. The believers should present the absolute best evidence they have, and not resort to explanations, like the failure of others to be open to the idea.

My statement still stands: Mainstream science has not made any attempt to evaluate the evidence. I demonstrated before that the more scientists had read about the subject, the more they thought it deserved further study. The less they had read, the less they thought it deserved further study. I also demonstrated that scientists often perpetuate misconceptions that would easily be corrected had they taken even a passing glance at several of the large scale scientific studies done on the matter. They haven't. Wouldn't it make sense, for that matter, would'nt it be "objective," to evaluate the many large scale scientific studies done on the matter before coming to a conclusion? If they've read anything at all, it has been skeptic magazine and the like that only help to reinforce their false preconceptions. In order to find the data dubious, mainstream science has to evaluate it first. Proclamation before investigation is not a scientific approach!

You said it, so okay, we can start here because there's satellite data that also confirms this incident took place as reported, and afterwards, we can review several thousand similar reports, and remember, it only takes just one authentic incident and it is all over.

After reviewing all of the following information, I will once again, pose the question:

Were those objects ours? Or, those of someone else?

I will make it an issue once again if the UFO debunkers ignore answering the questions after what you posted above. This is just the first of a series of UFO incidents left to be examined.

_____________________________________________________________________

UFO Dogfight Over Iran Videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tYGhZ2X0I0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ9ptKAAwYA...feature=related


_______________________________________________________________

Ronald S. Regehr Presents The Iranian UFO Encounter

The presentation involves the account of a major 1976 UFO incident in Iran involving several unknowns, attempted intercept by two Imperial Iranian Air Force F-4 aircraft, and large numbers of civilian witnesses.

It includes an analysis of the technical parameters of the UFO's disabling mechanism that was used against the F-4s. The author presents U.S. Government documents corroborating the event and data showing that a U.S. DSP Satellite detected UFOs in this case, and the author's mathematical proof that the DSP was capable of detecting the objects
_______________________________________________________________


SATELLITES SPOT UFOs

A September, 1976 UFO encounter near Teheran, Iran may have been recorded by a secret DSP satellite. The incident involved two brilliantly glowing UFOs first reported by ground observers. One object, estimated to be 30 feet in diameter, reportedly went from ground level to an altitude of 40,000 feet, and was visible at a distance of 70 miles. An Imperial Iranian Air Force F-4 jet fighter was sent aloft and managed to aim a Sidewinder AIM-19 air-to-air missile at the target before its electronic systems failed. Apart from the visible light factor, this indicates that the UFO gave off enough infrared energy for the Sidewinder's IR sensor to lock on to it.
.

An impressive breakthrough in the confirmation of the Iranian UFO encounter was uncovered by researchers Lee Graham and Ron Regehr, of Aero-Jet in California. They confirmed that the UFO sighting over Tehran was, in fact, tracked by the United States military's DSP satellite. During their investigations, Graham and Regehr have located computer print-outs from the time frame of the Iranian UFO overflight, which show that the DSP definitely detected an "anomalous object" in Iranian air space.
_________________________________________________________________________


1976 Iranian UFO Encounter Documents from the National Security Agency

http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/ufo00017.pdf

_________________________________________________________________________


UFOs Over Iran

http://www.cohenufo.org/iranafjet.html

________________________________________________________________________


1976 Iranian UFO Encounter

What the Pilot Revealed


http://www.freedomofinfo.org/national_pres...i_statement.pdf




_____________________________________________________________________

ufo objects are every where, for now Laboratory technology still cant chase, capture and contain them for research. When one day we have such skill, people will understand it. But when the time come, the real star war will been not far away.

Visit my blog: http://ufo-spacelife.blogspot.com/

what makes you think that's not a bird?
Were there any extra characteristics?

they showed me their faces and bodies, there are many different species up there.
read my blog you will know that.

also here: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t=0&start=0

Skyeagle has been looking for scientific evidence like this for a looong time, Im sure he will find your blog most informative.



I wont.

Skyeagle: Post a story involving actual human contact with the entity inside the UFO and then I will assess it and give my opinion. JUST an alien story, no UFO need be involved.

Nice

It seems that you are side-stepping the questions again.

Physical trace evidence that has no terrestrial explanation and data evidence, which proves beyond any doubt the maneuvering objects were not aircraft, has been presented, including data evidence presented by scientist and engineers on flying saucers that proved beyond any doubt they do exist and that they are intelligently controlled flying saucers at that.

Dr. James McDonald said it well; "If UFOs are real, shouldn't they produce some real physical effects?" He said," yes they do and that there are rather "well-authenticated cases spanning a wide variety of physical effects." Amongst them, the lack of sonic booms eventhough the objects exceeded the speed of sound, which was also brought up in an offiicial report years later in regards to the 'Belgian Triangle' incident.

He brought that up at the U.S. House Committee on Science and Aeronatics, 1968 Symposium on UFOs, the same place where Dr. Carl Sagan expressed interest in obtaining space surveillance data on UFOs from the Air Force that he knew they had.


The question now arises, are you going to answer the questions posed to you and the other UFO debunkers?

False!

Some of the evidence came from scientist themselves and look what you posted!

Just answer the questions I posed to the UFO debunkers, and once again, you are trying to side-step the issue as well. The 1976 Iranian UFO incident has been verfied via satellite, airborne and ground-based radars, civilian and military ground observers, aircrews, and even by U.S. govenment officials.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=2364233

Now, are you going to prove my point that UFO debunkers are nothing more than all talk and nothing else, by refusing to answer the questions on the Iranian UFO encounter?

The case of the deaths of Miguel Jose Viana and Manuel Pereira de Cruz is, as far as i know, still open. Their bodies were found on a hillside after a woman reported seeing a UFO to the local police in Niteroi a suburb of Rio in Brazil. The causes of their deaths, as far as i know, has never been established and they were found laying on their backs whilst wearing Lead face masks, the sort used for electrical work.

Their personal effects included, several scraps of paper, or notebooks depending on the source on which were amongst a few simple maths formulae some diary notes talking of taking.. "A capsule at 4;30 with an orange" and "Wait for agreed signal"...

Both men were found arms neatly by their sides and traces of blood, but not their own, were found in the close vicinity. A watchman, Raulino de Matos, has claimed he saw the two guys arrive with two other men in a Jeep and ascend the mountain. As far as i know, the other two men have never been traced.

A local woman, Gracindo de Souza, also claimed, her and her daughter witnessed a UFO hovering over the site where the bodies were found on August 17, the same day the coroner concluded, the two men had died.

This was 1966 i would love to know what if anything, came of this case...

You are infuriating!!!

Post a story about a goddam alien, NOT a flying saucer and THEN and ONLY THEN will we talk.

Eslaf!

In other words, you have just proven my case once again, that when it comes to examining the evidence in detail, the UFO debunkers are all talk, and nothing else.

The fact that you failed to answer the questions posed to you and the other UFO debunkers, underlines my point.

__________________________________________________________


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!)

<> If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there is nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat."

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

If they produce some real physical effects, and have been visiting Earth for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, shouldn't they also leave, deliberately or otherwise, artifacts that can be held and examined?

This i really getting annoying. The same old people, who clearly don't care about the subject asking for people on this board to show them evidece of ET, when they know god damn well that no one on this board will have that hundred percent proff, why say it all the time??

Alot of the ufo's that sk talks about are unexplained, so if he believes they are ET, then whats the problem. Some de-bunkers will look at cases and put stupid explanations to them, but that is seen as ok, what a joke!

Okay, but you will then have to answer the questions I posed



Fort Dix / McGuire AFB Case


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

http://www.nicap.org/images/fortdix2.gif

http://www.nicap.org/images/fortdix3.gif

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case317.htm


You might want to take another look at the U.S. Army's Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit (IPU), which the Army has now confirmed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Whats the name of that song? " The Games People Play" Nah-n Da Da in Da-a-Da! the Games people play. I think we are the aliens look how well were treating our planet?? Not laughing now, but tears here. Maybe thats what we did to Mars? Or other life forms have evolved past mutual self destruction of there,or even soon our world. Think about it? We are in space zipping through it at unimagineable speeds and we think we are the only thing ? Pretty closed minded.IMO just DONTEATUS P.S. Lay off Skyeagle hes got the same right as anyone in here to post.

Still awaiting your response to my earlier post.



Once again, you're making an unfounded assumption. It's akin to asking "why won't they show themselves?" It's an unanswerable question that is absolutely irrelevant to the argument and seems more like an aversion for dealing with the evidence than anything else. It neither proves nor disproves anything, nor does it suggest improbability.

Ever wondered what Senator Barry Goldwater wanted to see at Wright-Patterson AFB?

Yeah! what Skyeagle Said about Wright Patterson AFB, Its long over due for a Look see there! Lots of answers await the Brave that unlock that place. You Go Sky! just DONTEATUS

It seems like a perfectly reasonable question to me.

What you're saying is not what I'm saying. Though it seems reasonable to assume the aliens would leave some sort of artifact (like we've left the plaque on the moon, or landers on the moon, Venus, and Mars, as well as Pioneer, etc.), that is speculation at best as to their motives.

No, the argument that aliens have been visiting Earth for nigh on 50,000 years strikes me as an unfounded assumption, especially when one considers the "evidence" of artwork (from von Daniken's "astronauts" on cave walls to religious depictions in medievel paintings). So the argument goes that we've been visited, and perhaps even shaped by these aliens, for millenia, and the only artifacts that can be considered proof have been gathered by the US government and locked away.

Unbelievable that the government(s) has/have been able to take every single shred of evidence, including crashed saucers, and hide them all this time. Evidence that goes back hundreds of years at the minimum.

So the believer's argument really comes down to the fact that various governments of the world have conspired, through the years (no, centuries), through various ideologies, through two world wars as well as countless other wars, and across the globe, to keep this from coming out.

Through all this time of people walking all over the planet, not once has anyone found a piece of a flying saucer (that wasn't handed over to the government). Not one piece of alien artifact, deliberately left behind or otherwise, was ever discovered and held even before there was a US government.

That's an anthropomorphosized theory of how a visiting alien civilization would or should act. It's not a relevant argument. Would they find it necessary to leave something verifying their presence here on Earth? You don't know that, and neither do I; therefore, the argument is irrelevant.



People of centuries past would not have recognized such material, nor were there laboratories where one could take the material for chemical analysis. Additionally, I find it absurd that you once again assume that ET would purposely leave material evidence of their presence strewn about across the world. We have over 4,000 physical trace cases from over 90 countries, but very few contain material evidence. Does that mean nothing landed? Absolutely not. Perhaps I should point out that there is absolutely no reason to believe crashes occur frequently. It appears they have a far better success rate than our aircraft considering the immense frequency and scope in which they are reportedly seen across the globe. Additionally, the apparent spike in crash reports (although only one, in my opinion, that has been properly investigated) in the 40's and early 50's could potentially be the result of our recently developed radar technology that conceivably could cause problems for a magnetoaerodynamic propulsion system. This is purely conjecture, but considering the time period it is not out of the question. In addition, the fact that interceptors had been launched frequently with the intention of shooting down the UFOs could be another cause. Perhaps after some trial and error the visitors made the necessary alterations and became more cautious around our interceptors (as is evidenced by the fact that there was an increase in apparent hostile action in later years compared to earlier reports as well as an increase in the number of aircraft electrically disabled upon approach [Tehran, Iran as just one example]). Of course, this is all purely speculation, but then again, the argument proposed was one of pure conjecture as well.

Peoples of the past didn't recognize dinosaur bones for what they were, yet kept them (and yes, occasionally destroyed them) through the years for examination.

Reread my post. "They" may not have deliberately left traces, but accidently ("they" certainly didn't in Roswell). Over 4,000 physical trace cases, but not one iota of proof. They seem awfully careful about what they leave behind, but then aren't careful about landing pad marks, or damage to their surroundings.

I love how you dismiss my argument as speculative, and therefore irrelevant, yet you put your own speculative argument out there in regards to our radar causing problems for their propulsion system.

Dinosaur bones were very abundant. It is not likely that alien artifacts would be as abundant, if available at all. Thousands of years ago, only about 10% of the Earths surface was colonized. That leaves 90% of the Earths surface, roughly 75% of which is covered with water, where such material could have conceivable fallen. Considering the rarity of alien artifacts in this day and age, where nearly all land is colonized, it seems highly improbable, in my opinion, that individuals would frequently come across such artifacts centuries ago.



Roswell may very well have been due to military action. We don't know. As for there being no "proof," it depends what you mean. We have the tiretracks of the UFOs, we just don't have the front fender. You don't always have the peice of a car in a hit and run accident. For that matter, how many people own a piece of a Boeing 747?



If you beg unanswerable questions without considering other logical alternatives, it is necessary to express the omitted or unconsidered, albeit speculative alternatives. The speculative argument you provided wasn't logically persuasive considering the plausibility of relevant alternatives. Why not focus on the evidence we have, rather than the evidence we don't? Wouldn't that make sense? Decades ago scientists played the absense of evidence card for the existence of "rocks falling from the sky." They made no effort to investigate as a result of their arrogance. Normally when one does not look, one does not find.

This phrase gets my vote for understatement of the year!


Brazel picked up debris, and by channels it went to the military, no? Or do you mean the initial cause? I'm not following you on that point. For the tiretracks to 747 point, people have come across wreckage of planes, sometimes from decades before.

My argument wasn't persuasive to you, that's clear. Focusing on the evidence we have, I'm convinced that the best evidence of aliens on earth has been presented, and sorry, but it's not (yet) persuasive either.

I'm all in favor of being shown I'm wrong in my belief. In fact, I was amazed just this morning at reading the pH level of the Martian soil is suitable for harboring life! That doesn't mean life is there, just that the soil is alkaline enough to support life (as we know it). http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7477310.stm

http://www.geocities.com/area51/rampart/26...urywriteup.html worth having a read through these if you haven't seen them before. The Harry Sturdevant case from Trenton New Jersey is reputedly the first time a person was able to claim actual monetary compensation as a result of injuries received from a *close encounter* with a UFO.

Sharon Stull from Albuquerque in 1964, received 1st degree burns on the inside of her eyelids after sighting a UFO virtually identical to the craft Lonnie Zamora reported.

There is a difference between legitimate alien artifacts, which would be in the possession of the government, and hoaxed artifacts or honest confusion of conventional material. I have seen only a few highly unusual peices of material that were analyzed by laboratories (Ubatuba fragment as one example). If you have a more expansive case file to prove that such artifacts are indeed quite frequent discoveries amongst civilians, without confiscation by government authorities, I'd like to see the source. In order to declare that such artifacts are common would also require you to admit their legitimacy, which would counter your argument to begin with.




I was rushing, so it was poorly worded. I apologize. What I meant was that the cause of the crash may have been related, directly or indirectly, to military action. Of course, if it had been purposely shot down, you would think they would have put up more of an effort to find the crash site, so that possibility seems unlikely. Or, they may not have known that the damage inflicted was enough to bring it down; it may have been fired upon hundreds of miles away, although there is no evidence to suggest this is the case. Or, perhaps a US military rocket launched in the neighborhood might have inadvertently homed in on the object. Another possibility, which I proposed previously, is that radar could have affected the magnetoaerodynamic propulsion system, which resulted in the crash, unbeknownst to the military. These and many other potential causes would not have been possible centuries ago.



It was the civilians that first came across the Roswell debris field as well. Other instances of poorly investigated, and possibly fabricated, cases of UFO crashes also involved civilians.



As long as we've established the following facts I have no problem with your personal hypothesis:

1. There is undoubtedly a government cover-up, regardless of what the government really knows.
2. Unidentified Flying Objects of obvious manufacture and intelligent control have invaded U.S. airspace and buzzed sensitive military installations with impunity.
3. They are not our aircraft.
4. There is physical evidence to verify the validity of some UFO reports that include radar traces, electromagnetic effects, physical and chemical effects on the environment, and phsyiological effects on witnesses in the immediate vicinity of the craft reported. (Note: I said nothing of verifying origin of craft)
5. The media and scientific community have not made a reasonable effort to evaluate any of the quality evidence and have done more harm than good in perpetuating misconceptions.

As long as we can agree on that much, you're free to form whatever hypotheses you like.

it annoys me when people say that the reason aliens are not presenting themselves to us is because our goverment is covering it up and capturing them etc etc
i mean cmon if a species has the capabilty to tavel across universes then surely they could overpower a few slightly evolved primates

but then the question is, Why Would they want to present themselves? maybe they dont want to. i mean, we Are a pretty dangerous and violent race.
just like we dont go run up to a pack of lions and say hi and try to study them, we do it from afar (save for people like steve irwin r.i.p.)

I would substitute the word "could" for "would" in your first sentence, so it'd read: "There is a difference between legitimate alien artifacts, which could be in the possession of the government..." because I don't believe the government would have every single bit of alien artifact, if they exist. I'm not claiming any alien artifacts are common at all, in fact, quite the contrary, since I don't believe we've been visited to begin with. I'm just playing the odds: IF we've been visited by aliens over the course of hundreds or thousands of years, the odds would be in the favor of artifacts (be it wreckage from an accident or art (or the equivalent)--accidental or deliberate, in other words). Since none have been proven in the history of science leads one to believe in the improbability of it all. Not impossibility of course.

Rushed is forgivable, as long as it's cleared up (and you have). We all rush on occasion. See, the problem I have with what you're proposing is it's all plausible--once you've accepted the pro-UFO stance. I'm not there.

Leading to my thought that civilians (rather than a concerted government search and recovery mission) often discover "treasures", be they dinosaur bones or other rarities. Sometimes the civilians deliberately look for these "treasures" (and I'm thinking of Louis Leakey or others like him), sometimes it can be someone just walking across a field and they find something by chance (meteorites are sometimes found like this).

1. I will agree the government has covered up incidents (Watergate, Iran/Contra, etc.), and apparently the incident at Roswell was initially a coverup.
2. By definition, I can accept that; in that UFOs are unidentified. Edit: in some cases, they may be obvious manufactured objects. Obviously, not all cases are explained that way. Some are without doubt natural phenomena, or other prosaic explanations.
3. Here's where it gets dicey. Some may not be our aircraft (depending on how you define "our"--American, Soviet, some other nation's, or extraterrestrial)
4. Prosaic aircraft can leave radar traces, probably electromagnetic effects, physical and chemical effects on the environment (a plane crash certainly qualifies for that), and as for physiological effects, I can agree. For instance, hearing a jet take off at close range hurts my hearing, which can certainly be considered a physiological effect.
5. Opinion. To whose standards are the evaluations "reasonable"? When presented with evidence such as Firemoon presented in his/her link, evidence such as




and


http://www.geocities.com/area51/rampart/26...urywriteup.html

You have to admit that's pretty crappy evidence.

Take the first case: A woman felt sick after a UFO came within 25 yards of her. Yep, really believable.
Or the second: We know that headaches are never caused by anything other than UFOs.
And finally, the face of one witness went numb. It couldn't have been anything but a UFO....

I'm not saying those are the best cases, even from that site, but c'mon, why include those? If you tried to put that kind of case in a medical journal, the editor wouldn't even look at it. So given that standard of evidence, is it any wonder it's hard to take you (collectively, not personally) seriously?

Well, if you actually delve into the back catalogue you would find that when people describe having headaches we are. more often than not, talking about migraine level pain that , in some cases, has lasted for weeks and resulted in long term photo sensitivity.

The same with the nausea, we are not talking the people felt a little travel sick and politely barfed into a bag, but rather, spent some considerable time talking to god on the great white telephone whilst wondering if their stomach lining is next up for close scrutiny.

Ask a Lawer? He will tell you the Truth about UFO`s. LoL. That is what a great deal of upper Government officials were. Go finger?

Whether or not the object(s) that crashed near Roswell, New Mexico were ET in origin or not, we know it wasn't a weather balloon, and we know it wasn't Project Mogul. A mathematical analysis of the debris field in relation to the surface area of the Flight 4 and Flight 9 Mogul balloon trains by engineer Robert A. Galganski showed quite conclusively that the Mogul "glove" doesn't fit (see article here). We also know that previous flight had been left to fall on public land and recovered by ordinary civilians. There were reward tags and questionaires attatched as well for anyone who might recover one. It also turns out that Flight 4, the flight favored by debunkers as the cause of the Roswell debris field, never even flew.

If you're into alternative explanations, I think you might like Nick Redfern's hypothesis that a post-WW2 program used the deformed and crippled bodies of adults and children in biological and nuclear experiments. Although Redfern's hypothesis falls short in several areas, this is the only alternative I find logical.

As for the cover-up, all one need do is look at the documentation. A January 31, 1949 FBI memo specifically stated that the Army and Air Force considered the subject of UFOs to be Top Secret. There was also, of course, the formerly Top Secret Wilbert Smith memorandum that stated that, "Flying saucer exist." And that, "The matter is the most highly classified subject in the United States Government, rating higher even than the H-bomb." Need I also mention the acts of CAUS in taking the U.S. government to court over FOIA requests for documents pertaining to UFOs (I posted a brief overview of the matter in a previous topic viewable here).



I think it's rather safe to say they aren't ours, considering their unbelievable displays of manuevability and acceleration that are physically impossible for normal aerodynamic flight. During the war, foo fighters were seen by allied forces who speculated that the objects must have been German secret weapons. After the war, it was established that the objects were seen by both sides, with similar conclusions (it must be the enemies -- despite apparent neutrality and curiosity). It is illogical to assume that the U.S., or any other super power, possessed such technology when chemical rocketry was still in its infancy. We had yet to send a satellite into orbit when these sightings had begun. Additionally, the cost of manufacture and production at such a massive scale to be seen all over the world would have been astronomical. Hardly feasible for a country that just spent billions for the cost of war. Funny how these craft, with their incomparable manueverability and speed were never utilized in the war or everafter for commercial or military purposes. Any country that could produce such technology would have ruled the world. Why stock up on nuclear weapons in defense when you can simply, effortlessly invade Top Secret military installations with impunity and disarm your enemies ICBM's? Why harass your own aircraft with such objects? All countries have reported this harassment, not just one. If they were ours, why fly them over large cities and the like, and why fly in restricted air space where interceptors are launched to engage our own aircraft? Why risk the lives of dozens of individuals in a commercial airliner by not following flight regulations?

I stated the following in response to an argument put forth by hazzard that Ufology is "shunned" by the scientific community.

Hazzard stated,

QUOTE

Ufology has been, and still is, shunned by "traditional" science, a rejection which many participants in the movement see as a knee-jerk reaction to any new and unconventional idea. Believers in the UFO=Aliens regale themselves with anecdotes about Galileo, Charles Darwin, and future science."They laughed at Einstein", "How much of yesterdays heresy is todays science?" they say/ask knowingly.

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.



As for the media, I don't think I need to even argue the point. The inadequacy and bias of the news media is painfully obvious. It would help if the media didn't focus only on the sensational (i.e. Stan Romanek's "alien in the window" video, which is a money making scheme akin to the alien autopsy hoax, in my personal opinion). Only occasionally does the news media cover quality sightings, like the O'Hare airport sighting in '06. The problem is, they never follow up on these stories. They make no effort at all, which is reprehensible in my opinion. In a post 9/11 world, you would think an unknown object hovering over an airport terminal would be a serious and important problem -- regardless of whose it was! Instead, the media focuses on the lives of celebrity screw-ups like Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, and follow up on them endlessly all week long, or longer. It's pathetic, to say the least.

For a terrific overview of the inadequacy and complicity of the news media as it pertains to the UFO phenomenon, I highly recommend you read Terry Hansen's The Missing Times, which is available on themissingtimes.com. It is, in my opinion, one of the best books ever written on the subject -- by no means conspiratorial in nature.

Unlike the UFOs in question, aircraft have what the UFOs, do not; compressor, rotor, or propeller blades. What effect does that have on radar returns, especially doppler radars? The blades are a major contribution to an aircraft's radar cross section, (RCS)



Not even in the same class as the UFOs in question. One of the things that impressed scientist who had the courage to take a look at the UFO phenomenon, were the electromagnetic effects that UFOs had on vehicles.



Try to get a jet to hover silently, as in the case of many UFO reports, including the Belgian Triangle incidents that spanned over a long period of time.

On another note, if you feel pain or discomfort during loud noises, such as rock concerts, airports, etc, then that is a sign that damage is being inflicted on your ears and if allowed to continue, can result in hearing loss.

Also, UFOs tend to fly in Class A airspace, which is FL 180 to FL 600 (18000 to 60000 feet MSL) and do so without permission, which is a major violation of FAA flight regulations.

And then, there is the case of the sonic boom and maneuvering capabilities that obviously exclude aircraft.

And, I would just like to add to your statement, skyeagle. The typical debunker would probably waltz in here and say "Well, IT CAN IF IT IS SECRET MILITARY AIRCRAFT!". Then I pose this question to the debunker. Providing that these were supposed "military-based" secret aircraft, then why would they be hovering over cities populated by millions of people? That doesn't make any sense... if it was such a secret, then they clearly wouldn't be flying over huge cities. They would probably be conducting these experiments in airspace located in more desolate areas.

I couldn't agree with you more. The news media is positively *lame* when it comes to reporting well supported UFO cases; instead they tend to focus on things like the Jeff Peckman video . In a post 9/11 world one would logically think having many credible people reporting an unknown *something* hovering over a major US airport would be important, very important. Personally, this kind of thing makes me more than just a tad suspicious.

I agree. In a "perfect world" the UFO mystery would have been solved years ago.

The "sad" part for most of us, Skyeagle included, is that it might just NOT be ET related.

LOL. Still the same arguments put forward for the existence of god/ ET. It's cause they're godlike, that they're smart enough not to leave that all important hard evidence behind. Sort of the same argument my ISP decided to put forward as to why my non-existant connection actually did exist -
"Well we can see it, you're just not looking at the right data..." Sure, and pigs fly helicoptors too...

All that and a few weeks in a remote locality close to a military base and a few small towns. No yowies, bigfeet, dragons or aliens to be seen... In fact the closest we came to a UFO was a misidentification of a blinking star seen through a starlight scope by someone totally unfamiliar with that bit of kit I'm sure, despite the darkness, his face was rather red when he figured out what he really was looking at