I've noticed an awful lot of people saying that they "know the truth", or that they "have the proof" about UFOs and other topics. Now, this line of thought is fine just as long as one doesn't think that science deals with with the absolutes of "truth" and "proof" that most people think of when they hear such words.

You see, everything that is known by science is actually tentative...the knowledge derived by science is not so absolute as to not be possibly overthrown (at least in principle) by some other evidence. Also, all forms of evidence are not equally valid. The more removed any evidence is from direct observation and experimentation, the weaker such evidence becomes. This is why someone simply saying (without some other type of corroborating evidence) that they have encountered alien space craft and ETs is not going to be considered strong enough evidence to sway the scientific position on this subject. Now, this is not due to some big conspiracy by scientists to suppress "the truth", this is simply the way the scientific method works.

Naturally, everyone is free to decide for themselves what type/how much evidence is needed to support their opinion on such subjects. However, as far as science is concerned the amount and type of evidence needed to sufficiently support the UFOs = ET space craft is going to be set pretty high.

I`ve been thinking that scientists were covering up things or similar, but i dont think that anymore, because its stupid and non sense.

The UFO phenomena cant be reproduced in a lab and its totally aleatory.

I believe now that the answer is very simple: they just can´t study this phenomenom. It´s way beyond they knowledge, they can´t even sense it, its totally beyond they understanding.

With UFO´s that have the technology to do this kind of "masking":




http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/5928/ufocloudub4.jpg

Is there anything that a scientist can do?

I think not.

Sorry for my english.

EDITED:

Found some interesting info for that pic:

http://home.manyrivers.aunz.com/sting1946/jelly~04.htm

To be honest if anyone really is covering up anything, I doubt it's scientists. I can't imagine anyone of a scientific nature not wanting to find good evidence for things unknown. However, Orion437 you're correct in saying that UFOs are very difficult to study. This is a phenomenon that shows up, zips around, then disappears! Even among those who claim alien abduction, the aliens scoop a person up and *beam* them elsewhere, and then place them back without leaving any trace of their actions. This doesn't make investigating UFOs and alien abduction very easy at all.

Now, there is some evidence, don't get me wrong. But, definitive, irrefutable evidence that can stand up to scientific scrutiny showing that UFOs absolutely have to be ET related (at the exclusion of all other possibilities) just isn't available. Some will say that this type of evidence is being covered up, but this doesn't help matters any as far as scientific research is concerned. We can only address evidence that this is available, not other evidence that may, or may not exist! It's a bit of a dilemma alright.

That reminds me of J. Allen Hynek, the person who brought to us, his "swamp gas" theory. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he later saw his remark as a mistake.

___________________________________________________________________________


J. Allen Hynek

“Astronomy professor at Ohio State University, who went on to become Associate Director of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (1956), and chairman of the Astronomy Department at Northwestern University (1960).”

“He is best remembered, however, for his involvement with research into unidentified flying objects. This began in 1949 when he was invited by the US Air Force to become the astronomical consultant to Project Grudge, based at nearby Wright Field (later Wright-Patterson AFB), in Dayton. He continued in this position with the subsequent and much longer Project Blue Book, gradually shifting over the years from a position of extreme skepticism to one in which he believed that UFOs represent "an aspect or domain of the natural world not yet explored by science."

“ In 1973, four years after the cancellation of Project Blue Book, Hynek founded the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS), based in Chicago. He also served as technical advisor to the producers of the film Close Encounters of the Third Kind.”

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/H/Hynek.html

UFO "experts" usually take refuge in two explanations:

1. The material that would be convincing proof has been collected and hidden by the authorities. While appealing, this is an argument from ignorance, and perforce implies that every government in the world has efficiently squirrelled away all the best alien artefacts.

2. Scientists have refused to study this phenomenon. In other words, the scientists should blame themselves for the fact that the visitation hypothesis has failed to sway them. This is not only unfair, it is misguided. Sure, few researchers have themselves sifted through the stories, the videos, and the odd photos that comprise the evidence for alien presence. But they dont have to. This is akin to telling movie critics that films would be better if only they would pitch in behind the camera.

The burden of proof is on those making the claims, not those who find the data dubious. If there are investigators who are convinced that craft from other worlds are buzzing ours, then they should present the best evidence they have, and not resort to explanations that appeal to conspiratorial cover-ups or the failure of others to be open to the idea.

But, there are scientist who have claimed that UFOs are ET vehicles and scientific studies have been used to validate UFO cases as authentic.

The bottom line is that the evidence for extraterrestrial visitors has not convinced many scientists and very few academics are writing papers for refereed journals about alien craft or their occupants.

It convinced those scientist who have investigated. You have Menzel and E.U.Condon who have investigated the UFO enigma and got caught distorting the facts.

Im sure it did. But to convince mainstream scientists all over the world, that requires additional evidence that, so far, seems to be unconvincing.

I wonder why many scientist are scared! Perhaps, they don't want to admit that they are not the smartest people in the universe but there are scientist who have already concluded that UFOs are extraterrestrial and there are even reports made by scientist themselves.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseView....=8&offset=0

True, but I don’t think anyone is questioning the correct scientific method when it comes to say analyzing a large solid sample. This is when you should dismiss witness testimony etc

But in my opinion the correct scientific method is not really designed to deal with this unique situation of the ufo/alien phenomenon at this stage. All it does is;
Dismisses all witness testimony and circumstantial evidence at the starting block.
Then we’re left with probability…improbable or highly probable etc..

This is a kind of paradox because if you ignore witness testimony, circumstantial evidence etc then obviously you’ll consider the idea ‘aliens are here’ as improbable.. If you don’t then you’ll get the opposite effect. This is central to the debate. Should we ignore it all?

Should we just ignore the scientific weak evidence? A thousand cups of weak coffee doesn’t make a strong cup of coffee. Or does it? If we know how to extract the coffee from the weak cups then we can make a strong cup. A lake of coffee is out there.

Or course, direct experience changes all and I learnt the hard way, I can say for a fact I did ignore some of the evidence so I’m not exactly in a position to be helpful but by the same token someone should’ve told Phillip Klass he was just using probability and ignoring the weakish evidence.

Why would they be scared? And scientists, astronauts, pilots and others with impressive credentials have all claimed to see odd craft. I think its safe to say that these witnesses have seen something. But just because you dont recognise an aerial phenomenon doesnt mean its an extraterrestrial visitor.

The second a comment like that is made, you lose the credibility of a reasoned and rational argument and descent to the playground level of calling the opponent a scaredy-cat. What's next, a double-dog dare?

Yes, there are scientists who believe in UFO's. No, UFO's are not considered mainstream science. It just hasn't gone that far yet. Perhaps in the future it will, just as evolution took a few generations to take root, and only did so as more and more data came forth to support it. Maybe it won't, and will gradually fade into nothing more than an interesting historical footnote, just like the stories of mythological animals in ancient Greece.

Prof Says Beings From Outer Space Have Visited Earth
Associated Press, November 26, 1962

LOS ANGELES. (AP) - Some of the best scientific minds in the country were stumped when a slender, dark-haired young man chalked on the blackboard this equation:

http://ufologie.net/htm/apsagan01.htm

There were scientist who refused the believe in the gorilla before its discovery, but we have astonomers who have reported their own UFO sightings as well.


http://www.xdream.freeserve.co.uk/UFOBase/Astronomers.htm

Great, and just like the gorilla skeptics, we are waiting for a body to decide, once and for all, that extraterretrials walk among us. Until then, we'll remain skeptical.

You do understand that we have learned several things about the universe in the past 44 years since this article first came out? Things that directly affect this equation? Heck, not even Sagan is recommending anyone take this equation too seriously.

Several years ago, a letter written by Carl Sagan was uncovered at the National Archives and published in the San Francisco Chronicle, which surprised the folks at the National Archives considering Dr. Sagan's public position on UFOs. It seems that he was interested in much more than we all knew.

Scientists and UFOs:
NIDS (National Institute for Discovery Science)


"The undeniable reality is that there are a substantial number of multi-sensor UFO cases backed by thousands of credible witnesses. In the physical domain there are many photos, videos, radar tracking, satellite sensor reports, landing traces including depressions and anomalous residual radiation, electromagnetic interference, and confirmed physiological effects. Personal observations have been made both day and night, often under excellent visibility with some at close range. Included are reports from multiple independent witnesses to the same event. Psychological testing of some observers has confirmed their mentally competence."

" There are over 3000 cases reported by pilots, some of which include interference with flight controls. On numerous occasions air traffic controllers and other radar operators have noted unexplained objects on their scopes. So too have several astronomers and other competent scientists reported their personal observations. Many military officials from several countries have confirmed multi-sensor observations of UFOs. The most senior air defense officers of Russia, Brazil, Belgium and recently a former Chief of Naval Operations in Chile all have stated that UFOs are real. These cases and comments are a miniscule fraction of the total body of evidence."


John B. Alexander, Ph.D

Science and the UFO phenomenon:

The following report is written by Dr Richard Haines, a Senior research scientist at NASA Ames and is the flagship report for the 2001 formed National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP).

"Dr Richard Haines, Ph.D., is a Senior research scientist at NASA Ames and has succeded in founding the 2001 formed National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP), as a consequence of his paper "Aviation Safety in America: A Previously Neglected Factor".

"Three kinds of reported UAP dynamic behavior and reported consequences are addressed in Haines report, each of which can affect air safety:

1. near miss and other high speed maneuvers conducted by the UAP near aircraft,


2. transient and permanent electromagnetic effects onboard the aircraft that affect navigation, guidance, and flight control systems,

3. close encounter flight performance by the UAP that produces cockpit distractions which inhibit the flight crew from flying the airplane in a safe manner.

"More than one hundred documented close encounters between UAP and commerical, private, and military airplanes are reviewed relative to these three topics. These reports are drawn from several sources including the author’s personal files, aviation reports prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration administered "Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)."

RICHARD HAINES

Ah, yes...NIDS

The End of NIDS

That aside...and assuming that letter did come from Sagan...so what? So he believes in extraterrestrials? Big deal, lot's of people do. I'm one of them. Again, so what?

Well, skeptics have used Dr. Sagan but when scientist do some real research, they tend to change their outlook on the UFO enigma and a classic case was the person who coined the term: "swamp gas," J. Allen Hynek.

Science and the UFO phenomenon:
A Scientist Who Had The Courage To Investigate UFO Cases And His Report

1956: RADAR/VISUAL JET CHASE OVER BENTWATER, UK:

Case 2
Lakenheath and Bentwaters RAF/USAF units
England
August 13-14, 1956

“The night of August 13-14, 1956, radar operators at two military bases in the east of England repeatedly tracked single and multiple objects which displayed high speed, as well as rapid changes of speed and direction. Two jet interceptors were sent up, and were able to see and track them in a brief series of maneuvers. According to official U.S. Air Force reports, the sightings could not be explained by radar malfunction or by unusual weather.“

“It began at 9:30 p.m. when Airman 2nd Class John Vaccare, of the U.S. Air Force at RAF Bentwaters, tracked one UFO on his Ground Controlled Approach radar (type AN/MPN-11A) as it flew 40-50 miles (65 to 80 km.) in 30 seconds, i.e. 4,800 to 6,000 mph (7,500 to 9,500 km./hr.). A few minutes later Vaccare reported to T/Sergeant L. Whenry that a group of 12 to 15 unidentified targets was tracked from 8 miles (13 km.) southwest of Bentwaters to 40 miles (65 km.) northeast, at which time they "appeared to converge into one very large object, according to the size of the blip on the radar scope, which seemed to be several times larger than a B-36 aircraft [the largest operational bomber in history, with a wingspan of 230 feet or 70 m.]." The single large blip stopped twice for several minutes while being tracked, before flying off the scope.”

“At 10 p.m., a single unidentified target was tracked from Bentwaters as it covered 55 miles (90 km.) in just 16 seconds. This works out to over 12,000 mph (19,000 km./hr.).
Then, at 10:55 p.m., the Bentwaters GCA radar picked up an unidentified target on the same east-to-west course as the previous one, at an apparent speed of "2,000 to 4,000 mph" (3,200 to 6,400 km./hr.). Someone in the Bentwaters control tower reported seeing "a bright light passing over the field from east to west at about 4,000 feet [1,200 m.]." At about the same time, the pilot of a C-47 twin-engine military transport plane over Bentwaters said, "a bright light streaked under my aircraft travelling east to west at terrific speed." All three reports coincided.”

Dr. James E. McDonald

You seem to be digging yourself further and further into a "True Believer" mire. What is "real" research? For you it is research that supports your theory.

Also, you are, on the one hand, suggesting that "scientists" are somehow infallible and then suggesting that they are scared or not doing their jobs properly. The only difference seems to be whether they agree with you or not.

There are good and bad scientists (what exactly is a "scientist" anyway?)

And pleeeaaase don't trot out the old "they had good jobs so we should believe them" rhubarb. Why is a pilot or doctor less likely to be mistaken (or lie) than anyone else? Lawyers lie for a living and what of Doctors Crippen, Shipman, et. al.



We also had scientists who believed the world was flat. What's your point? Scince showed that gorillas existed and science accepted that and moved on. I can go and see a gorilla in a zoo.

There must be life elsewhere in the universe. I just don't think it's buzzing buildings in mexico city or been abducting middle america these last 50 years.

Now, why would you say that? The typical UFO skeptic dig themselves into mires and I can point out some very classic examples if you wish.
.



Of course because I do my homework.



When scientist get down to do some real investigations, then the UFO enigma becomes much clearer to them. J. Allen Hynek was once a hardcore skeptic but that changed when he got involved in his investigations.



Of couse there are good and bad scientist but what does the data evidence say?



Pilots have their careers to think about so it would be silly for them to lie about UFO encounters that never happened. In fact, most UFO encounters go unreported by pilots because they do not want to jeopardzed their careers.



But, lies do not affect lawyers as they would pilots as far as UFO encounters are concerned and that is the main difference.



But, did the evidence support their claim? I think not and that is where you do an indepth investigation to uncover that evidence. You can't do that by sitting behind a desk and wishing it so. You've got to get out there and get your hands dirty.



Before the gorilla's discovery in the 1800's, many scientist were in the same boat as some scientist are in today. They just sat back and ridicule that, for which they didn't understand as many UFO-skeptical scientist do today. There were those who said the man-beast of Africa existed and the closed-minded scientist just scoffed at such a notion of a man-beast. They didn't bother to take upon themselves to do any investigation and the rest is history. Closed-minded skepticism does nothing but blind the eyes of the mind to reality.



That isn't what the Air Force thinks. In reality, the Air Force knows that alien UFOs are reality, after all, the Air Force had ordered it's pilots to shoot down 'flying saucers' so that is one indication the Air Force knows more than what it has been revealing to the public and I can get down into further details as well.

"Of course it is possible that UFO's really do contain aliens as many people believe, and the government is hushing it up"

Comment by Stephen Hawking on C Span Television.

*****************************************************************************

TOP SECRET -------------- (downgraded to CONFIDENTIAL 15/9/69) D E P A R T M E N T O F T R A N S P O R T Intra-departmental Correspondence OTTAWA, Ontario, November 21, 1950 Place date

MEMORANDUM TO THE CONTROLLER OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS:

I made discreet enquiries through the Canadian Embassy staff in Washington who were able to obtain for me the following information:

a. The matter is the most highly classified subject in the United States Government, rating higher even than the H-bomb.

b. Flying saucers exist.

c. Their modus operandi is unknown but concentrated effort is being made by a small group headed by Doctor Vannevar Bush.

d. The entire matter is considered by the United States authorities to be of tremendous significance.

signed) W B S M I T H
(W.B. Smith) Senior Radio Engineer

************************************************************************


Hermann Oberth, U.S. rocket experts say saucers are real Date: Thu, 28 Mar 1996 22:30:47 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley

"[UFOs] are conceived and directed by intelligent beings of a very high order, and they are propelled by distorting the gravitational field, converting gravity into useable energy.”

************************************************************************

J. Allen Hynek

“Allen Hynek worked for US Air Force´s project Blue Book as a consultant astronomer. When he started his attitued against all who had seen UFOs was that, with his own words, only "kooks ans Crackpots" saw UFOs. But after a couple of years he started to notice that many of the reports wasn´t made up by kooks and crackpots, but highly credible militaries and civilians.”

“ But after dismissing several credible witnesses at the Michigan sighting with the natural cause of swamp gas he resigned. Hynek led the investigation of the Socorro landing case in 1964 with the FBI. He went on with the at the time young Jaques Vallee and founded the Center of UFO Studies in Illinois in 1973.”

“ Hynek later become a member of the Robertson Panel. In 1986 Dr J. Allen Hynek died. Under his life time Hynek wrote theese books: The Ufo Experience: A Scientific Inquiry, Night Siege: The Hudson Valley Ufo Sightings and What You Should Know About UFOs.”

************************************************************************


"We cannot take the credit for our record advancement in certain scientific fields alone; we have been helped." By who? "The people of other worlds."

Dr, Hermann Oberth

************************************************************************

[b]Washington Institute of Technology Oceanographic and Physical Sciences
Dr. Robert I. Sarbacher President and Chairman of Board
November 29, 1983 [/]

1. Relating to my own experience regarding recovered flying saucers, I had no association with any of the people involved in the recovery and have no knowledge regarding the dates of the recoveries. If I had I would send it to you.

2. Regarding verification that persons you list were involved, I can say only this:
John von Neuman was definitely involved. Dr. Vannever Bush was definitely involved, and I think Dr. Robert Oppenheimer also.

Dr. Robert I. Sarbacher

************************************************************************

Skeptics do sometimes dig themselves into a mire. So does that mean that you are not or that you are?



As do many people who disagree with you.



And what form exactly is this real research supposed to take? Accepting the word of Hynek who was not all that popular or consistant in his time at the Blue Book Project or after:

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

And for every Hynek there are people who still believe that we just don't know. I still fail to see how Hynek is doing real research and the others are not. Aren't there people who spend all their time listening for radio signals from outer space who have yet to hear any? Is that not real research? Aren't there many people who have spent just as much of their time and effort investigating claims like Roswell and have determined that the evidence is just not conclusive? Is that not real research? What more can people do when they simply cannot find satifactory evidence no matter how hard they look? If I look for ten years and can find nothing am I not doing real research. Is it only real when I suddenly discover that you are right?



Yes it would be silly but people are sometimes very silly and that is not restricted to builders and postmen. If these sightings go unreported how can you possibly know they have been made? I hate to be pedantic but doesn't unreported mean that they haven't reported it? Plus i have clearly mentioned being mistaken as well as lying. I know pilots are trained at spotting things but they are not infallible. They are also open to the same human drives as the rest of us.



For a very long time, yes, it did. Now it doesn't as there is now evidence. Where is your evidence (the desperate cry of skeptics everywhere). There must be life somewhere in the galaxy and statistically some of that life must be intelligent. But where is the evidence that any of those beings have been here. The only evidence anyone can give is witness testimony and the age old theory that if 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5 then it must equal 29 (which I've said before, I know) - If you ask questions of science that it cannot answer yet then the only plausible theory left is that your theory is the truth.

This is a very well documented argument technique used by practically all "True Believers" as they invariably do not have any evidence to prove what they say just as, at this juncture, we do not have any evidence to disprove it. That is the difference. I am saying that you cannot prove it and you are saying you can (or rather that it has already been done). I, and most real skeptics are not saying we can prove it isn't so.



Again, where do you know this from? Can I see your source please? Do you have this from the pentagon itself?

All I, and other skeptics want is evidence not statement of there being evidence or a series of witness testimony with no concrete support.

The Gorilla wasn't accepted as *real * until 1912 i believe...

Actually, the Eastern mountain gorilla was recognized by the scientific community back in 1902 when Robert von Beringe brought back a body. Prior to that, gorillas were only known by skeletal remains. There was heavy debate as to the existance of the gorilla as a seperate species, as opposed to being simply a gigantic chimpanzee, till the discovery of a skull in 1845 in Gabon definitively settled that matter.

Like I said before, as soon as we get a body, we can move forward. Until then, we will remain skeptical.

I want to poke a caged alien at a zoo.

And I want an alien hand to use as an ashtray, but we'll just have to wait on that.

Any life form intelligent enough to travel the vast distances involved in getting here is more likely to be poking at us in one of their zoos!

It's not a dead alien that we need, but rather a large contingent of lives ones (complete with a large number of their space craft within full view) that would will settle this question nicely.

I want to corner the market on large hats to help Aliens integrate successfully into the community.

Oh...., and the jumpers my gran always knits with the arms too long would probably finally have a use too.

In the bizarre world we live in, any alient would surely be interrogated and locked in a prison style cage until it finally dies with science and media having not extracted answers to all their questions.





EDIT - fat fingers and little keyboard

And then, of course, we have the plethora of ideas proposed by Hollywood and the Role-Playing game industry, namely aliens who are intelligent, but parasitic in nature, and aliens whose intelligence seems to be mere instinct used to back up savagery. It would be interesting to see what we would do with evidence of such creatures existing in space.

Frankly, I think it would only help to unify mankind, a la Robotech.

Photos are no proofs?
Testimonies are no proofs?
Videos are no proofs?
Documents are no proofs?
More than 50 years and thousands of testimonies are no proofs?

This is where the scientists fail.
They expect the proof of this phenomena, in their hands. A flying disc in the white house grass. A mother ship in the 5th avenue. Thats never gonna happend.
Sorry for my english.

Correct. Photos, testimonies, videos, and documents are not proof. They are supporting evidence for an existing phenomena, but they are not foundational evidence that the phenomena exists to begin with.

Particularly with the quality most of these display. Even if you were to consider them foundational evidence, at most all you could prove was the existance of little dots of light that move strangely.



Nonsense. Scientists expect it to appear after a great deal of hard work and research. Serendipity is nice, but extremely rare in the world of science.

At last, someone who shares the same opinion as me, or is it just that we both understand the difference between evidence and proof. Now I shall await that all too common question - "what is proof?"

Ok, I'll ask it... What is proof? To answer this one I really like to use this link.

Unfortunately proof is a personal thing, no two people are the same. Yuor question could be looked at in two ways.

Are you asking what is proof enough for me, or what would see a paranormal phenomenon widely accepted as proven? Both are incredibly difficult questions to answer.

On a personl level some require no proof at all, personally I would need to be convinced 100% that what I'm seeing or hearing is real, then I may well believe. What would convince me 100% I can't answer. I could go to bed tonight and see what I believed to be a ghostly figure and that could be it for me, proof.

Regardless of each individual's threshold, proof is very real and I personally believe that until I see proof I should stand by my beliefs.

Your right it is up to those making the claims to back up what they say.
Everytime I have disagreed or questioned beleivers of the cover up here I am often ridiculed and asked to proove them wrong. Another thing they say is do your homework well realistically I don't have to. I am not the one trying to push an out there idea.

It seems reasonably logical that they could have came up with something relativly scientifically solid by now. I mean it's been like what 60+ years since this whole thing started. People just want so much for their fantasy to come true that they will not listen to reasonable doubt or logical thought. People are called debunkers by the beleivers and because they don't beleive them they become a part of the ever growing conspiracy.

Are you talking about something specific?

Actual science cannot study this phenomena, its beyond them.
There are radar records of UFOs flying at 20.000 miles per hour.




A great deal of hard work and research?
Name two or three "hard works and researchs" done by scientist about the phenomena.
Let me guess...proyect BlueBook and Condon.

Exactly. They really prove nothing. Except that UFO's are seen and filmed everyday. people need to differentiate between "evidence" and "proof". I understand what constitutes as proof, and what does not, and the proof people beg for, is simply not available to the public at this time. A lot of evidence is, but the proof is seemingly nowhere to be seen.

No, not quite. There are thousands of close-up encounters that people have reported, and filmed in some cases(and I'm sure there are more to come). Some with a defined 'saucer' shape, others with a 'cigar' shape, the triangles, and whatnot... By no means are they just dots flying around erratically...

But extraterrestrials? Here is where science is non-excepting. Understandably so, IMHO. This is a topic of gigantic importance to history, and mankind as we know it. For mainstream science to accept this based on nothing but concrete proof would be illogical. People can draw their ideas as to what might be the deal, but it will remain that way until the time comes... and it will... IMO

I tend to think that at least most of the UFO sightings we hear about are from a source more close to home... But that's just me. Do I think that there are extraterrestrials flying around, visiting us? Yes, I will openly admit that. But I will also admit, people jump the gun on just about anything weird they see in the sky these days. They catch a bird on camera at just the right time, so the shape appears saucer-ish (it's really motion-blur mixed in with the shape of the bird), and they claim to have proof that there are aliens on Earth... It hurts the credibility this subject deserves.

EDIT: typo...

If science cannot study the phenomena, then the phenomena remains unscientific until such time that it can be studied. It doesn't mean that the phenomena does not exist; it simply means that there is little scientific backing for it.

And RADAR, while reliable, is not fool-proof. If it were, we wouldn't need to send out planes to confirm a target.



The comment was: "They expect the proof of this phenomena, in their hands. A flying disc in the white house grass. A mother ship in the 5th avenue.". The response was that no, we do not expect the proof to come out of nowhere. It might, but it is far more likely that, like the vast majority of scientific discoveries, it will come through hard work and research.

In regards to project BlueBook (I haven't heard of Condon, since this isn't really my area of interest), that was most certainly hard work and research, but the purpose of the report, to my knowledge, was to determine if these UFO's where a threat to national security. The report determined that they were not, for whatever reason. I would not regard it as research into the UFO phenomena, as that was not its intent.

And, in many instances, when the planes made visual contact with the UFOs that were first tracked on radar screens. the pilots reported that the radar contacts were those of 'flying saucers.'



Project Blue Book was a joke to say the least.

That is a classic case where skeptics had dismissed that for which is well-known to us today. Instead of going out to investigate, the skeptics settled down and fomented ridicule over the table in much the same way they do in regards to the UFO enigma.

I seriously doubt that they still use that term, , and there are other things you have to consider before jumping up and down screaming FLYING SAUCERS like you always do.


-The man-made craft (Military flying saucers)
-The unknown natural phenomena e.g. ball lightning.
-The Earthlights/Tectonic Strain hypothesis.

It has been estimated from various studies that 50-90% of all reported UFO sightings are eventually identified, while typically 10-20% remain unidentified (the remainder being "garbage cases" with insufficient information). Studies also show only a tiny percentage of UFO reports to be deliberate hoaxes; most are honest misidentifications of natural and man-made phenomena.

If even one report defies conventional explanation, then it's extremely interesting.

What flying saucers did mankind have that could fly at 7200 mph through prohibited flight zones over our nation's capital in 1952? Remember, there were many UFOs involved in that incident. In fact, show us a flying saucer 100 meters in diameter that can conduct right-angled maneuvers at 40+ Gs.



Ball lightning does not even come close to explaining a 100 meter flying saucer that is flying next to an airliner in Postive Control airspace between FL 180 and FL 600. In fact, ball lightning doesn't come close to explaining any of the UFO case files I have been presenting.



Earth lights do not explain any of the UFO case files that I have presented either. You visit the approach path at LA International airport at night and see many maneuvering lights in the sky.



The U.S. Army's Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit, Project Moon Dust and Operation Blue Fly were placed into service to recover downed UFOs, not ball lightning, Earth lights nor meteors. I might add that the U.S. Army has now confirmed the existence of the Interplanetary Phenomenon Unit. Many UFOs were visually identified as 'flying saucers,' some as large as 2000 feet in diameter and confirmed via ground-base and airborned radars. Those cases are known as 'radar/visual' because the radar contacts confirmed the visual sightings and in many cases, radar contacts confirmed both airborne and ground-based visual contacts of what those witnesses have stated were 'flying saucers.

One good example was a case where radar contact was made of an object doing strange things and two jet interceptors were sent aloft to make visual contact as to what kind of craft was capable of making such wild maneuvers. When the aircraft reach the area of the radar contact, what was seen was a 'flying saucer' and that is what was reported. One of the pilots got to within 3000 feet of the flying saucer and attempted to shoot it down but was unsuccessful and he was later reprimanded by his commander for doing so. That incident was also revealed to cadets at the Air Force Academy back in the 1960s, so here is where a UFO was identified as a 'flying saucer.'

Yes, the term is still used. I'm sure it will be around as long as there are saucer-shaped craft flying around in our skies... It only makes sense. And enough with the " "... damn. You got lazy-eye or something? ...just kidding.