UFO'S does not mean ET. You need to use the term ufo for what it means, because i think you are using the term "ufo" as an ET term, when clearly it is not.

I have always said in the past that if you can't explain the "UFOs in question" as ours, then the ETH is a logical assumption.



I am on the record as stating that the majority of UFO sightings can be explained, but the UFO case files that cannot be explained conventionally, are the cases that I am interested in.



With today's detection and tracking equipment, there is not much left to the imagination, especially when airborne and ground-based visual accounts corroborate the electronic data.



It is just a matter of understanding what the data evidence reveals, not a matter of faith.

I think its not imprudent to dismiss a "scientific" journal, that is not a credible scientific journal. Look up how many times something from the Scientific journal of exploration has been cited in say, Nature or Science. The fact that a bunch of "believers" came together to produce a publication of their best attempts at science, does not make it credible nor scientific. As I said before, Science can be reduced to 3 basic steps.

1. Observer phenomena
2. Hypothesize on the cause of the phenomena
3. Test your observation.

Publishings like the Scientific Journal for Exploration, stop at step 2. You can theorize or hypothesize that what the unexplained events are, are UFOs piloted by little Gray men. The problem is you cannot test this because there is no credible evidence.




Yes I note the dates which are irrelevant to the fact that SJE is not a credible scientific journal. Just as a website made in 2006 to provide evidence is irrelevant. What they lack is actual, concrete, indisputable, evidence. There is nothing scientific about saying, We observed something on a radar and a people saw it, therefore it must be an alien space craft piloted by little gray men.

That is step 2, where do you provide step 3?

So there is a spot on the ground where it is claimed aliens landed, this spot has unusual chemicals in the soil. We hypothesize that that the chemicals in the soil is residue left by an extraterrestrial ship. Show me step 3.

It has nothing to do with debunking, many a cases debunk themselves, but the ones that are actually somewhat interesting there is still no evidence in the world to make the jump to the conclusion that its and extraterrestrial ship.



I'm sorry, if military experience leads you to the belief that SJE is a credible scientific journal, then you are simply uneducated on what is scientific. Whether you believe someone is on a "debunking campaign" or not, the fact still remains that you and every other "believer" lack the ability to provide sound scientific evidence that any unexplained phenomenon is an alien craft.

Pay attention close here sky, I am going to attempt to teach you something.
In science when we come up with a test for our hypothesis, we repeat the test many times. After repeating the test, we we analyze the data with simple statistical distribution tests. From this data we can conclude if there is any kind of correlation in what we are observing and our test results.

In UFO science there is no such thing, you can't statistically analyze your data from tests on the UFO itself or on the aliens themselves. That means, you null hypothesis (which would be: UFOs are not of extraterrestrial origin) can not be accepted. Until you can come up with some kind of factual evidence that can be tested, then the null hypothesis will remain true and unopen to alternative hypothesis' (Your alternative hypothesis would be: UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin).



Karl, welcome to the conversation. Please see the above posts. Also, as someone in the scientific community, I can safely say that the majority of scientists do not believe that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origins. Many, including myself, admit there is a chance, this is often misquoted as a professed belief. Mainstream scientists feel as I do, until there is credible evidence, one can not draw the conclusion that UFOs are extraterrestrial. Probably the biggest name in science (credible science) in support of UFOs is the late Psychiatrist John Mack, a Harvard professor. Dr. Mack, attempted many times to validate UFOs to the scientific community. His work was rejected by sound scientific journals, drum roll please, for lack of scientific evidence. He came under investigation by Harvard for his lack of scientific data, the first time a tenured Harvard professor was ever investigated by his peers. Before his death he was shunned by his peers as a quack and believer in the supernatural. Sadly he died without leaving 1 piece of scientific evidence that UFOs are of extraterrestrial origins.





Hi Eric 15, Im glad to see young people interested in science. What I like to see even more is young people practicing and supporting sound science. While your belief in "Government covers up anything under the sun" conspiracy theories is noted, I think it is blatantly obvious we have another case of teen years and pop culture. I see that you admire skyeagle for his unswaying belief in extraterrestrial origins of UFOs. I can only hope you are not easily bought off the rest of your life by stories like his. When a whole generation grows up with the belief that pseudo-science is in fact science, then that generation will only cause harm to our society.

while I agree with everything you say here about how science works and all, science is not the final word on everything, just off the top of my head I can think of at least two things right off the bat that science was miles off on, one the gorilla scientist said there is no such thing it was just made up until they were found, scientists said we would never fly that was wrong until we did. they were wrong because they dont know everything even though they think they do. Also science is too much politics now its about money and grants instead of about pure science. Science has given us a lot but scientists are not always right about everything. I know that I have 3 iguanas, now I have read as many scientific journals about iguanas as and they all state that the iguana is not a very bright creature working mainly on instinct, and I am here to tell you they are dead wrong just because it has a small brain doesnt mean no intelligence, I have been raising these animals for around 7 years and they are smart all three are potty trained when they want to go outside the go over to the door and scratch at it till I let them out, I have one iguana when he gets mad at me I can keep him outside all day and when he comes back in he will walk right up to me look me straight in the eye and poop they love to be petted and held and if you ignore them they will get mad at you. so there is more there than science sees even my vet said there is no reason to snuggle and pet lizards it does them no good so I just changed vets as his mind was made up and he didnt want to hear what I had to say. Sorry for getting so far off topic but I dont put a whole lot of stock in what scientist say is impossible they just dont know and have closed there minds to the possibility. Another reason I dont take too much stock in what scientists say about this is stated in your post if a scientist were to study ufo's the scientific community will shun them and it could be the end of there career so they wont touch the ufo phenomenon and if they do they keep it quite.

Sigh, actually it is a matter of faith for you. Simply because you cannot explain a UFO does not make the logical assumption that it is of extraterrestrial origin. Again your lack of scientific education is astounding if think that is how the world works.


Lets have some examples, in 1687 Isaac Newton published Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, in it he was correctly able to determine the law of universal gravitation. That formula we are all so familiar with from high school physics classes, . With this Newton was able to calculate the gravitational attraction between other planets. What Newton found though using this most basic concept was troubling. What the calculations show is a non zero net gravitational force that exists within the solar system. By this reckoning the planets should have long ago fallen into each other.

Now pay attention heres the important comparison.

The great Isaac, thought that it was only logical to assume that since the planets had not fallen into each other one could assume that God intermittently reset the system. It would not be for another 200 years that the mechanism was understood. It took another physicist named Hendrik Lorentz, to discover exactly how the planets stayed aligned.

In case you are lost on the significance ill summarize. In science there is no point it is acceptable to "assume" a supernatural reason based on the fact that you do not understand the observation. Also it should be noted that when assumptions are a must, that the most simple explanation is best explanation. Einstein said "The supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience", put bluntly means the A theory should be as simple as possible. A ship, that has crossed an unimaginable distance bearing intelligent life forms, that has eluded credible scientific evidence, by far from the most simple explaination.

So your statement is a fallacy for two reasons.
1. Not understanding something does allow for wild assumptions.
2. As any logician would tell, If you have to make an assumption, the simplest is often the best.

So not only does science disagree with you, but the study of logos (Greek for logistics) does as well.

I only mentioned it once..It's not like I keep going on about it..

Wow, punctuation?
Alright, so where to start.

First, let me say that science is wrong, all the time. Science constantly seeks to correct itself, thats why we do objective, secular, skeptical science. We don't include in our science supernatural explanations. Saying that because a scientist was wrong about something is a logical fallacy in your argument, one could just as easily draw the conclusion that the small percentage of scientist who believe UFOs are extraterrestrials are wrong for the same reason that you claim the majority is wrong. In logistics thats called a logical fallacy.

I'm sorry about your experience with your veterinarian. Though I'm not sure what this has to do with anything, many studies have been done that show even plant growth responds well to sounds and touch. Again though you have a logical fallacy, In this example you provide us with the UFO believers are akin to your veterinarian.

As far as the intelligence of Iguanas, I'm sure they appear smart. Ability to be trained, like using a litter box is not an indicator of intelligence. I suppose it requires some intelligence, but not much. You can train many animals. I think the problem is, many people want to attribute human emotion and characteristics to animals. This simply isn't the case. While the idea is romantic that your Iguana is "mad" at you, it is not really what is happening at all. Mad is a human emotion, expressed by humans. This idea is called Anthropomorphism, the attribution of human traits to non-human things. Its also a pathetic fallacy, not as in a derogatory way, thats just the name of the fallacy.

I agree! It seems that a post of mine was abducted, so I am reposting it here.




Steven Greer has taken hits, but the important UFO cases the Disclosure Project presents are very important case files indeed. One of those cases involving the Minuteman missiles are one of them because Hill AFB, UT, a former base of mine, was involved in that investigation and what many people were unaware of, was that a UFO actually landed outside the area. Years later, Malmstrom AFB experienced another round of UFO incidents and this time, Air Force F-106 Delta Darts were scrambled.


F-106 Delta Dart


While the Air Force says there is nothing to UFOs in public, look what goes on behinid closed-doors and documented by the Department of Defense.








Source: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/assort1.pdf


Eventually, Air Force personnel lost track of the UFO as it sped off into space.

Calmax,thanks for your reply-Obviously 'mainstream' science is just as reticent and fearfull as everybody else when it comes to making definitive statements about this subject (although for 'science' to not attempt to explain the unexplained seems quite irresponsible to me).
Many scientists state there is a climate of prejudice (and fear of mockery) in many universities for this taboo subject (and funding is dropped if the subject is broached)
For those academics brave enough to study the UFO phenomenon and use the scientific tool of arriving at judgement 'after' disassionately examining evidence,their conclusions are quite revealing.
Many concede that 'some' UFO cases are completely inexplicable to science and that the ET hypothesis is usualy the only viable, feasible explanation for events.
Of course you will learn very little about the subject watching media 'precision propaganda' pieces on your television and to truly hold an informed opinion you'll have to do some objective research.. but I'm sure you beleive that 'thinking for yourself' is far more important than' mindlessly acquesing to prejudice groupthink'
Heres some documentaries for you.
http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.js...d=1183768854865
Interestingly many academics after studying the subject for their respective governments have lost their initial scepticism and completely reversed their positions;who knows, if your serious about getting to the bottom of the subject you may join them,happy viewing.

I have always said that if you can't explain the "UFOs in question" as those of mankind, then the ETH is the most logical assumption.




While the military and the CIA provide false explanations on UFOs for the public, behind their closed-doors, the Department of Defense, CIA, the NSA, FBI, and the FAA are saying that UFOs are quite real and they have documented many of the case files that I have presented. Here's another where Iranian F-4 Phantoms encountered UFOs that resulted in system shutdowns on both aircraft. One F-4 attempted to shoot an AIM-9 infrared missile at one of the UFOs but its weapon system shutdown at that point.

The systems of both aircraft returned to normal ONLY after turning away from the UFOs, and you will note in the official documents in the distribution list, this case went all the way up to the White House and this encounter was also captured by one of NORAD's DSP satellites. I couldn't image page 1, so I linked the page.


IRANIAN UFO INCIDENT

http://www.nicap.org/iran25.htm






Sources: DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (DIA), DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD), NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY(NSA)

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/assort1.pdf

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


DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ROUTING SLIPS ON THE IRANIAN UFO INCIDENT

http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/ufo00020.pdf

Science is not in the business of subjective guess work.



If there was any sound evidence the funding would pour in. Inexplicable is not a reason to explain away with subjective speculations.



I dont watch TV, As a physicist and a practicer of science I would consider myself able in differentiating between dogma and science, guess which one UFOlogy is? I would gladly study any piece of sound evidence given to me. I would love to be the guy that published a paper in Journal answering the age old question; are we alone? As am sure any one of my peers would love to as well, unfortunately I think, propensity for fame clouds some of their judgments.



Well, that is your assumption to make. Science though, is not biased in its assumptions, meaning to make your assumption requires an incredible amount of bias.



You do not need to post me all of your "evidence" every time you make a claim, I think at this point I can concede you will have some link to back up what you say. What I wont concede is that your link is evidence. I salute your heart in an argument and your ability to uphold your beliefs, but at this point I would consider it rather obvious that it is a belief we are talking about. Sound, credible evidence is non-existent.

Again, more of the same and no real response.

Why are people so quick to debunk anything about aliens. They would have to be in my opinion one of the more "Explainable" Unexplained Mysteries. Honestly all this talk about "no physical evidence" is a load of bs in itself. There has been physical evidence found and there has possibly been physical evidence hidden. How skeptical do you have to be to not even consider the possibility of extraterrestrial life when there is all of this evidence to sudjest that there is extraterrestrial life.

A good example would be crop circles they can be made half plausibly by humans now but 50+ years ago when they started no one had any idea how to even come close to replicating them and yet skeptics refuse to believe their eligibility.

"[quote name='camlax' date='Jul 13 2007, 01:38 AM' post='1771578']
Science is not in the business of subjective guess work."

Science can (and should) be used a tool to impartialy attempt to explain any given phenomena-with regard to 'some' UFOs it has failed utterly.
To deny that some UFOs are inexplicable to science is to show ignorance of the subject in general.
Speculative hypothesis and objective reasoning has led many scientists to conclude the ET hypothesis is the only viable explanation for 'some' UFOs.
Although it does exist,it is not bias conjecture by ufologists which is the issue,its supposed adherents of the scientific method failing spectacularly to acknowledge an actual inexplicable phenomena.


"If there was any sound evidence the funding would pour in. Inexplicable is not a reason to explain away with subjective speculations".


There is sound evidence ,just not unequivocable evidence-I have great respect for the scientific method but the ignorant,myopic way mainstream science has attempted to brush off the UFO subject is more akin to creationists blatantly ignoring tectonic plate evidence(ignorance is bliss).


"I dont watch TV, As a physicist and a practicer of science I would consider myself able in differentiating between dogma and science, guess which one UFOlogy is?"

As a physicist your probably in the best position to judge certain,relevant cases.There are (quite a few) radar corellated reports in which objects have been captured and plotted travelling at over 3000 mph and executing right angle turns without slowing down. I would be interested in your opinion/speculation as to what those objects might be.


" I would gladly study any piece of sound evidence given to me."

Glad to hear it, it would probably be wise to view the videos at the link in the last post and familiarise yourself with the startling number of objects captured on ground radar ,air radar,sonar and gun camera ;all corellated by credible witnesess.
Then,learn about the huge number of declassified government UFO documents that exist(over 20,000).
Good comprehensive (objective) literature on the subject include works by Jaques Vallee,Timothy Good,Richard Dolan,Dr J Allen Hyneck and Nick Pope.
Once you've digested all this,hopefully you will gain an informed opinion and a well rounded overview of the subject.
Its interesting that according to a report by the UN,since 1947,more than 150 million people have been witnesses to UFO sightings throughout the world,more than 20,000 of them have been documented landings.
For mainsteam science to keep obstinately maintaining this is a non subject is puerile -perhaps,you could persuade them they are all misinformed and wilfully ignorant
Regards Karl

when i see " alleged evidence of ufos", i try so hard not to laugh, its funny that people are seeing this evidence as true, and risking their reputations. the phenomona of ufo's is interesting as a fictional subject, but its surprising people even study this topic.

Nice to see your trying to keep an open mind, I was going to try a witty retort about you resembling an ostrich with it's head in the sand (but it helps noone).
Hopefully one day you'll actualy look into the subject for yourself instead of unquestioningly accepting what others tell you to beleive.

People had seen meteor impacts for centuries. Nonetheless, when some scientists postulated that rocks fell out of the sky, they were considered nuts. Today, we have many meteor samples that have been studied by scientists around the world, telescopic data of asteroids, and a theory of solar system formation that they fit into. If you want people to accept extra-terrestrials than that is the level of scientific evidence that must be provided. First hand experience by any observer, no matter how well trained and credible, will not be considered scientific proof. The evidence for a scientific proof must be available to all scientists, repeatable, able to withstand every single counter-claim in peer review, and be the most logical choice given the evidence. In short, before you can reasonably expect everyone to believe in extra-terrestrial visitors you would need the world scientific community openly examining an alien, or an alien spacecraft, or for there to be public alien contact.

However, just because something has not met the extremely stringent standards of scientific proof does not mean that it is not there. It is certainly possible for someone to experience something absolutely real, and not be able to present evidence that meets stringent scientific standards. Many people see UFOs. I do not know exactly what they saw, but precisely because we do not know what happened, we should avoid making our own assumptions about such occurrences. Insulting someone's mental facilities or sanity will not change what that person experienced.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a month.

We ALREADY KNOW UAP exist. You might want to read up on the subject.

Apparently, there are those who are doing just that in regards to the UFO enigma. For an example, before 1994, they were claiming that a weather balloon was responsible for the Roswell incident, and after 1994, the same folks are now claiming that it was a Project Mogul balloon, that never was!

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make a determination that neither a weather balloon nor a Project Mogul balloon train could have created a debris field that was hundreds of feet wide and 3/4 of a mile long and be responsible for two crash sites, not one.

It is not surprising that you are a minority. If you had checked it out, not even the U.S. government considers UFOs fictional and you can see it in the number of declassified UFO documents that have been released over the years. Now, governments around the globe have begun releasing their own UFO case files.


CIA Chief Reports on UFO Cover-up in New York Times

"It is time for the truth to be brought out... Behind the scenes high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about the UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense.... I urge immediate Congressional action to reduce the dangers from secrecy about unidentified flying objects."

Former CIA Director Vice Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter, signed statement to Congress, August 22, 1960.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/600228nytimes

Apparently, many of those involved in the COMETA Report don't see it your way, neither did the President of Brazil when he went public after analysis of the Tridade UFO photos determined the flying saucer was authentic. I have no problem with the ETH.


"Only one hypothesis takes into account the available data: the hypothesis of extraterrestrial visitors."

You meant 'minority' as in 'member of a small number of people who think that way,' right?

Yes! Absolutely!

It is amazing that he would make such a comment when our govnerment has been pulling its hair out over UFOs over the years and it was no secret why JANAP-146 sholved down the throats of airline pilots by the military and not many UFO skeptics would go that far either.

;-) Just checking.

And I agree with you completely. To assume that we are alone in the universe is to be inexcusably close minded. There are countless, countless numbers of stars in the universe and well over 200 extra solar planets already discovered. As our technology improves and the number of surveyed stars increases, it is very probable that we'll not only find Earth like planets, but extraterrestrial life as well. Life thrives in the most inhospitable places on our planet. Scientists are also convinced that there is a good chance life exists on the moons of Jupiter. Probability suggests that we are certainly not alone.

Not to mention the authentic NASA videos from shuttle missions, or other sightings caught on tape, or the fact that more and more governments are devoting time and resources to what they deem a very real occurrence.

UFO to America means ' were under attack' so they scramble jets to shoot it down.
Maybe the UFO might be i new type of spy plane or a new geneeration of MIG.
UFO means aircraft that cant be explained by science and the governemnt.

Actually I have had the privilege to hear the thoughts of many of my colleagues on the matter. While no scientists doubt there are UFOs, meaning objects that are unidentified, The majority of them do not think they are of extraterrestrial origins.

Sorry if that bursts your bubble. If you cannot accept this I am not sure what else to say. The simple truth of it is, the minority of scientist say UFOs are of extraterrestrial origin.

No one is arguing that we are alone in the universe. The majority of scientists doubt we are alone. What the majority does not agree with is that UFOs are extraterrestrial. Again unexplained does not give precedence for the assumption that anything on earth is from an extraterrestrial origin.

And these scientists have done extensive reseach on the phenomenon, correct?

I highly doubt that any of your "colleagues" have studied the Phenomena. That makes their opinions basically worthless.

There is no evidence to do extensive research upon. Give me an alien body or spacecraft and we would do extensive research. Baring that there is only this; "I saw something that cannot be explained, therefore it is of extraterrestrial origin." This is a seriously flawed logic. It is ok in everyday life, but in science and in proving something you can not make this kind of assumption.

Please ask them what they think was responsible for the Roswell incident. If they say anything about a balloon being responsible, then I rest my case that your colleagues didn't do their homework. I have had the privilege of being in the company of other military members who have confided to me their UFO accounts at RAF Bentwaters,and that, in addition to my own UFO sighting in 1968 in Vietnam.



They can believe that, but unless they can explain the "UFOs in question" as those of mankind, then they must take a look at the ETH.



Apparently, no bubble burst here! I can still remember when scientist with the same mentality as those who now claim that is nothing to the UFO reality, once claimed just two-hundred years ago, that "the best scientific minds of the era thought the idea of rocks falling from the sky was a bunch of hokum." The rocks the scientist denied existed, are known to us today as meteors. What about that "swamp gas" claim? Now, we know that UFOs have nothing to do with swamp gas.



And, it were those scientist and engineers who were the folks that were observing and tracking--in their own words--flying saucers with their tracking instruments, and claimed that the flying saucers they were tracking were extraterrestrial. J. Allen Hynek was once a hardened UFO skeptic until He opened the "door of reality" to where He was no longer the skeptic He once was. So what it all means is this, those scientist who have experienced UFO reality firsthand, are those who are no longer skeptical. Calling upon your colleagues isn't going to help you if they haven't experienced UFOs in the manner that many of us have.

Apparently, there are those scientist who are afraid to open that "door of reality" because they just can't fathomed the thought that they are not the brightest beings in the universe. Perhaps, they remember from past history.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<^>

Those Who Have Said, "It Will Never Work."

* Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), ca. 1895, British mathematician and physicist

* That is the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.
- Admiral William Leahy. [Advice to President Truman, when asked his opinion of the atomic bomb project.]

* That the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced.
- Scientific American, Jan. 2, 1909.

* This foolish idea of shooting at the moon is an example of the absurd length to which vicious specialization will carry scientists working in thought-tight compartments. Let us critically examine the proposal. For a projectile entirely to escape the gravitation of earth, it needs a velocity of 7 miles a second. The thermal energy of a gramme at this speed is 15,180 calories... The energy of our most violent explosive--nitroglycerine--is less than 1,500 calories per gramme. Consequently, even had the explosive nothing to carry, it has only one-tenth of the energy necessary to escape the earth... Hence the proposition appears to be basically impossible.
- W. A. Bickerton, Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Canterbury College (Christchurch, New Zealand), 1926.

Again, see my sig below.

There is nothing to study, Saying there exists radar data that shows something unexplained is just that. You look at the radar data and say, "We can not conclude what this radar was tracking." Because you do not have proof of what it actually was tracking, you can only conclude that what you saw or what you tracked is an unidentified object. That in itself does not allow you to make the statement "because we cannot conclude what it is, it must be of extraterrestrial origin."

This is terrible science.

For example, Y2K.

The majority of scientist that checked it out said "At this time we cannot conclude what the effects will be, it simply is not understood."

The bad scientist said things like this "We dont understand how exactly it will effect the world, but we conclude it will be disastrous, more dangerous than any event in history."

We know how the outcome of that went. Because you dont understand something does not give leeway to make assumptions or draw conclusions. Since being on these boards I have been called closed minded, Saying there is no conclusive evidence is not closed minded.

Closed minded is saying "We dont understand therefore it must be extraterrestrial" or it is saying "We dont understand therefore it cannot be extraterrestrial". In both of those remarks you profess ignorance as to the workings of something then presume to draw a conclusion from this ignorance. Seriously flawed.

The definition of science in your sig is incomplete.
"At it's most basic level, science is supposed to represent the investigation of the unexplained, not the explanation of the uninvestigated."

Science is the systematic study of something, unexplained or otherwise. In this systematic study, observable testable results are used to support or deny a hypothesis. Due to lack of results you cannot confirm your hypothesis because you hope its true or you believe its true. If you think that is the case you dont understand science and my advice would be go back to school.

There are thousands of UFO case files to examine, along with tons of data. President Kubichek of Brazil went public after analysis confirmed this UFO as authentic. The Brazilian Navy vouched for the UFO as well.

Maybe you should take a look at the book it came from.

Yes there is something to study. The Phenomena is being studied as we speak. The fact that you're not aware of that just tells me you haven't done your basic homework.

That is where data from radar/visual UFO case files comes on the scene.

The data can differentiate between natural phenomena and conventional aircraft and the data can differentiate between conventional aircraft and real UFOs of the extraterrestial kind as well. That is why the military currently take UFOs seriously even though it has painted a different picture for the public. After all, UFOs have been known to dismantle our nuclear missile assets in the past, and that fact is no longer a military secret!

Wow thats scary, where did you hear this?

What they think is irrelevent, just as is the testimony of you and other military officials. What matters is the proof, without it you can not say one way or the other.



The burden of explanation is done through proof. You can not simply say "we dont understand so we must assume it to be extraterrestrial." If you think that is what science go back to school. I am tired of attempting to explain that most basic concept to you. Saying we dont understand what's falling from the sky therefore it cannot be rocks is as bad as science as saying we dont understand what we saw on the radar therefore it is extraterrestrial. If you cannot grasp this I am not sure what else to tell you, subjective hope is not science.




Again it has nothing to do with fear or belief, its a matter of proof. I am happy they tracked objects they dont understand and believe them to be extraterrestrial. That is still a belief not proof. Actually I was waiting for a good time pull this out. I have seen a UFO, 2 to be exact. Because I can not explain what it was does mean I will say it was of extraterrestrial origin, only that I observed something that at the time I could not explain, lack of explanation does not mean you can state conclusions.

Opening the "door of reality", what the hell are you talking about? You are ranting sky. All those examples you have provided only support what I have been saying over and over. Lack of understanding does not mean you can draw a conclusion. There logic was as flawed as yours is.

Radar data, witness speculation etc is not proof and hardly evidence.

By that reasoning I can argue that the earth is flat. Radar shows a flat earth, with topographical variations. People see a flat earth not a curved sphere, therefore the earth must be flat.

DITTO!!

You have made that fact very clear! Thanks!

Darn it, I missed out on another homework assignment!

Well since there is something to study, please provide to me the following.

1. Where are the unidentified flying objects, now identified as extraterrestrial craft being studied, precise location?
2. Where are the living or dead extraterrestrials being studied?
3. Where is the precise geographical location of skinwalker ranch?

Radar data, witness speculation etc is not proof and hardly evidence.

By that reasoning I can argue that the earth is flat. Radar shows a flat earth, with topographical variations. People see a flat earth not a curved sphere, therefore the earth must be flat.

Radar tracks aircraft or ships that have a code on that vechile. But if someone reports a ufo to a radar station and if the radar cant find it, then its either a stealth aircraft like the spirt Bomber or a alien ufo.

No one has determined that the Phenomena is Extraterestrial, that is a hypothesis. If you were aware of the current Scientific effort you'd know that.

Transponders are not locked on. Not everything has a transponder, not just secret military aircraft.

Actually, it is, and I am surprised that as a scientist, you failed to know that! Ask any NTSB or FAA investigator. Radar data is considered viable evidence and if you had done your homework, you would known that radar data is used in conjunction with 'black box' data to verfy chain-of-events as they happened.








Try driving in the Rocky Mountains, you will find that the landscape is not so flat in that part of the country.

I am aware of that, As I have said because you believe they are extraterrestrial does not make it so. You can not accept your hypothesis without proof and currently there is no proof, why you didn't answer my 3 points.

What I have been saying this whole time, is it is wrong to assume UFOs are extraterrestrial, there is no proof for that. Its just as valid as a hypothesis to say that they are United states spacemen from the future. Either way, when you start saying things like Sky does, you simply aren't aware of what scientific proof is or your hope and belief has blinded you to the fact, that you are making a huge assumption.


By the way, your statement is beautiful, finally someone can admit its a hypothesis, a hypothesis is not fact nor proof.

And do you have a black box from a space craft?




Ok, your an idiot, I have meet very few people in my life with such a limited understanding. If you do not see what the point of my original post was its not worth explaining it too you, I suppose "ignorance is bliss" is a wonder quote to end on.

Maybe you should get a book and learn the real definition of science?