The best evidence for aliens on Earth

[skyeagle409]

The radar, if it is even a ufo is not proof, but only evidence, and weak evidence at that. Since it could be a many different things.

The data depicted an artificial object. Different things produce difference radar returns just as a basketball and a large rock produces different sounds when thrown against a brick wall and it doesn't take any special training to differentiate between the two.

The performance characteristics exclude ALL aircraft, so the question is; was it ours? The answer is no, because the object also exceeded the speed-of-sound and didn't produce a sonic boom. So here is where you have data proving the object is artificial, but not an aircraft, yet it conducts fantastic maneuvers at velocities that aircraft are not capable of.

If you look in your Aeronautical Information Manual and FAA Regutions (AIM/FAR) Part 91, 817, and Appendix B, sections 1, 2, and 3, you will see that we haven't solved the sonic boom problem and why aircraft are still regulated in regards to supersonic flight, yet UFOs can fly at hypersonic speeds within the earth's atmosphere and not produce sonic booms.

Little clues that point to objects that are clearly not ours.

Edited February 11, 2008 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Has nothing whatsoever to do with what the data depicts.

In fact, it does. It depicts an aerial vehicle that clearly is not ours by the fact of its maneuvering characteristics. We don't have aircraft capable of 40+ G maneuvers that can exceed the speed-of-sound and not produce a sonic boom.

It is not reproducible, and that closes that matter in a scientific sense. To quote some folks at Yahoo answers:

Actually, the data can be examined again and again and is a record that can be admissible in a court of law. In fact, the FAA and the NTSB use such data in its investigations to verify events as they happened. In case you missed it.

Professor Peter Sturrock has done an excellent job in detailing hard scientific evidence that supports the existence of UFOs. Most of the material is derived from a meeting of scientists, both UFO supporters and skeptics, in which the evidence was presented in an even-handed manner.

And that is in essence the requirement any data must meet in order to have a place in science. And that leads directly into why we don't need a piece of a black hole to prove it's existence, whereas we do with the UFO phenomenon.

So here is where you will accept sparse data on Black Holes, but reject concised ELINT and radar data from a multitude of airborne and ground-based sensors, photos and videos, official government UFO docments, credible eyewitnesses accounts from those who have never seen a Black Hole, and physical trace evidence left behind at UFO landing sites that has been examined in labs and found to have no earthly explanation.

Repeatability and independent verification being the key concepts that must be understood before one a even begin to think about putting this in a scientific context.

There are tons of data that can be examine and re-examined on UFOs and there are physical trace evidence recovered from UFO landing sites as well, which is something we don't have on Black Holes.

Even astonomers and scientist have recorded their own UFO sightings of artficial UFOs, in some cases, as they hovered some 200 miles above the earth, and NORAD tracks them as they fly into earth's atmosphere. In case you missed it, here it is again.

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

All kinds of data and other information that we don't have on Black Holes.

Edited February 11, 2008 by skyeagle409

[Tommyo]

skyeagle you are way oversold on the radar as difinitive proof. But I'm sure you're going to reply with a link to some radar thing again or some 3rd hand information. Don't bother, because its like listening to a broken record and I'm tired of argueing the same points with you constantly. You're sold that they are here, and I'm sold that people jumping to that conclusion are inately weak minded. Trace evidence is a joke also, at this time at least. All you have really is a few radar locks, some from space entering earth's atmosphere, which can easily be meteors, space junk or small comets material. Oh and those infamous blurry pictures which show no detail, or are clear hoaxes. But I can expect you to say that Im just being a skeptic without reason, my only standard is proof which at this time, not just you, but all the hysterical people out there within the ufo community, has not one shread of.

[doesnt_matter]

You're sold that they are here, and I'm sold that people jumping to that conclusion are inately weak minded.

No need for insults.

[skyeagle409]

skyeagle you are way oversold on the radar as difinitive proof. But I'm sure you're going to reply with a link to some radar thing again or some 3rd hand information.

The data and other information were presented by the Air Force at an international press briefing, so it wasn't like I heard it on the streets.

You're sold that they are here,...

Of course I am! After all, I saw one for myself, and my compatriots were stationed at RAF Bentwaters, the general area of the Rendlesham UFO incidents of 1980. In fact, here is an official U. S. Air Force document on one of the Rendlesham incidents from the website of the Department of Defense.

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/dep_ba1.pdf

Trace evidence is a joke also, at this time at least.

That's amusing considering that skeptics ask for physical evidence and lab test on that evidence has shown that such evidence does not occur in nature on Earth, and attempts to duplicate the results in the field have failed.

One of the researchers who conducted lab test on one set of physical evidence was interviewed on TV and one of the investigators was an associate of J. Allen Hynek.

Edited February 11, 2008 by skyeagle409

[doesnt_matter]

No need for insults.

but at least you are honest

[Hazzard]

You believe in science but not willing to accept the almost statistical probability of another intelligent species in the universe?

If you accept Darwins theory then you have to accept that Earth is not the only planet that harbors life. We are proof that intelligent life can evolve in the universe and if we exist there have to be more.

Now coming to Earth is a whole other ball game.

I absolutely believe that there are life on other planets in the universe, intelligent and other. I just dont se the evidence that they are or have ever been here on Earth.

Sorry, but newspaper clips, Skyeagles cut and paste, pictures of UFOs, eye-witness testimony from the President, the King of Sweden and his grandmother, wont do. Not even stories about cows mutilated butts or abductions will impress me.

I still await the compelling Exhibit A.

[skyeagle409]

I absolutely believe that there are life on other planets in the universe, intelligent and other. I just dont se the evidence that they are or have ever been here on Earth.

Sorry, but newspaper clips, Skyeagles cut and paste, pictures of UFOs, eye-witness testimony from the President, the King of Sweden and his grandmother, wont do. Not even stories about cows mutilated butts or abductions will impress me.

I still await the compelling Exhibit A.

Question for you Hazzard! Would you accept evidence from Tim Printy, and CSI, formerly known as CSICOP? How about The Skeptic's Dictionary and The Skeptical Inquirer?

Why is it, that skeptics dismiss the evidence I present, when such evidence is also available from declassified government UFO files under the FOIA?

Why is it, that skeptics, who have dismissed the evidence I have presented, eventually learn the facts the hard way down the road?

"Cut-and-paste' makes it convenient, so that way, you won't have to spend hours digging around the mirofilm room at the local library or going after the same official government UFO documents under the FOIA that have been presented here under the "cut-and-paste" program.

Attacking sources is the way so-called dunkers operate when they can't refute the evidence. (If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger).

Edited February 11, 2008 by skyeagle409

[Shere Khaan]

Of course I am! After all, I saw one for myself, and my compatriots were stationed at RAF Bentwaters, the general area of the Rendlesham UFO incidents of 1980. In fact, here is an official U. S. Air Force document on one of the Rendlesham incidents from the website of the Department of Defense.

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/ufo/dep_ba1.pdf

Skyeagle,

I found this communication the other day on the Rendlesham incident. How does this fit in with the story from your compatriots? I'm quite curious because I found it very compelling.

http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/67th-arrs-ufo-hoax.php

[Tommyo]

Skyeagle,

I found this communication the other day on the Rendlesham incident. How does this fit in with the story from your compatriots? I'm quite curious because I found it very compelling.

http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/67th-arrs-ufo-hoax.php

It cant fit his perameters of discussion because it contains way too much logic of reality of what really happened and not enough humdrum. Good article btw.

[skyeagle409]

Skyeagle,

I found this communication the other day on the Rendlesham incident. How does this fit in with the story from your compatriots? I'm quite curious because I found it very compelling.

http://www.rendlesham-incident.co.uk/67th-arrs-ufo-hoax.php

No one ever mentioned anything about a module. Some skeptics have suggested that a Russian satellite was responsible, but that was later debunked. Others suggested that a lighthouse and a police car were responsible, and they were debunked as well.

Those claims became a source of comedy relief for my second-in-charge, who was stationed there, and we talked about the incidents over the multiple nights from time to time in my office.

Another compatriot of mine, never mentioned anything about a module either and I was told they were still talking about the multiple incidents at the base years afterwards.

http://www.scifi.com/rendlesham/

Edited February 11, 2008 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

It cant fit his perameters of discussion because it contains way too much logic of reality of what really happened and not enough humdrum. Good article btw.

Logical thinking that drunken aircrews were misusing government property around the Christmas holiday without the commander's approval! I don't think so!!!

[DBunker]

skyeagle you are way oversold on the radar as difinitive proof. But I'm sure you're going to reply with a link to some radar thing again or some 3rd hand information. Don't bother, because its like listening to a broken record and I'm tired of argueing the same points with you constantly. You're sold that they are here, and I'm sold that people jumping to that conclusion are inately weak minded. Trace evidence is a joke also, at this time at least. All you have really is a few radar locks, some from space entering earth's atmosphere, which can easily be meteors, space junk or small comets material. Oh and those infamous blurry pictures which show no detail, or are clear hoaxes. But I can expect you to say that Im just being a skeptic without reason, my only standard is proof which at this time, not just you, but all the hysterical people out there within the ufo community, has not one shread of.

I could not agree more. The "evidence" for aliens on this planet is enough for skyeagle and other believers. We all know this. Dont bother posting the old stuff,its a no sale for us looking for REAL proof. Like hazzard named the thread,THE BEST EVIDENCE FOR ALIENS ON EARTH, were is it?

After all these years,are skyeagles radar thing or some 3rd hand information and old documents it!!?.

[Atheist God]

Excellent point AtheistGod. But why would coming to Earth be a whole other ball game? Because we can't go there? Thats rather anthropomorphic thinking , isn't it? But I know what you mean, thats another big leap because of our current beliefs about the univers's structure.

It's a whole other ball game due to several factors none of which involve travel problems. The universe is so vast and spread out that it would make it difficult to find Earth, species with our level of intelligence or even higher will be quite rare, lots of life out there but how many planets produce intelligent life. If we were found by a super advance species why would they even bother with us at all, we are simply far to primitive.

However , if they were coming here and are more intelligent than we are and don't want to be studied by us, then science becomes rather useless. They don't have to sit still long enough, like black holes, to give us any time to have professionals study them. I personally believe that this is why there is so much circumstantial evidence and no direct proof.

Circumstantial evidence = nothing

There is tons of data though that does prove the existence of UFO phenomena, this however is about as far as it goes in regards to something tangible. While UFO's could be alien there is no evidence to suggest this other then hearsay.

As for abductions there are several logical explanations and I am not convinced that this does and has happened.

[skyeagle409]

I could not agree more. The "evidence" for aliens on this planet is enough for skyeagle and other believers.

Don't forget to mention military services around the globe!

After all, military officials have also stated that based on the data, the UFOs were those of ET. Even the Iranians went on video.

We all know this. Dont bother posting the old stuff,its a no sale for us looking for REAL proof.

Actually, it is proof. That is why the Air Force stated in its Intelligence report back in 1952, that based on the maneuvers of flying saucers, they were not ours.

(Air Force Intelligence Report on Flying Saucer Maneuvers, Major Dewey Fournet, USAF).

Like hazzard named the thread,THE BEST EVIDENCE FOR ALIENS ON EARTH, were is it?

It is all around you!! What did I just say earlier about the phyical evidence linked to UFO landing sites?

After all these years,are skyeagles radar thing or some 3rd hand information and old documents it!!?.

Apparently, it doesn't matter how old or who presents the radar data since the data is available for examination time and again.

In other words, good data doesn't change in time, unlike the flawed and unfounded claims of skeptics that are dumped as the facts roll in and I have some very good examples, including my debates with skeptics where, when the facts came rolling in, I had to go to the local store to buy some more "I-told-you-so" tonic for those skeptics who became sickened afterwards!! Skeptic, Tim Printy and Joe Nickell, were two of those, and other skeptics bit the dust as well.

Apparently, Joe Nickell didn't understand the responsibiity of the Roswell AAF Public Relations Officer, so I sent him an e-mail years ago to set him straight that the Air Force 'PR' Officer would NOT have had the authority to release the Roswell press release on his own. I am very sure that he now understands that fact.

Sometimes, they just don't learn their lessons because they didn't do their homework!

Edited February 12, 2008 by skyeagle409

[SkepticalEd]

Are all these credible high ranking fine people with top secret clearance crazy or lying!?

[skepticalEd: Position has nothing to do with UFOs or "aliens."]

I dont know.

So? Maybe, maybe not.

Have you ever seen one jot of proof that any of whats been sighted, reported, filmed, or photographed has ever, in any way, been shown to be alien. I do not deny that some things might be alien. Im all for that. What I do deny is that there has been any proof of it.

[sE: What's been sighted, reported, filmed, photographed, videotaped IS alien evidence since it is NOT evidence of humanness.]

You see, I do not deal in belief. I deal in knowledge. There is a vast difference between the two. You may believe all you want to. But knowledge requires a higher standard than that which propels belief.

[sE: You are contradicting yourself. You obviously deal in "belief" since you do not understand "belief" and say that knowledge propels belief. Actually, knowledge cancels belief. Knowledge replaces belief. Belief is the product of mental conditioning.]

There is no reason to get upset about it. What needs to be understood is the burden of proof that science and its method requires.

As believers begin to build the case about UFO = Aliens, the foundation of this is built on hear say, speculations, theories, guess work, assumptions, beliefs and emotions.

But there are no real scientific evidence or Facts.Until we can prove 100% that these are not earth based ships - we are guessing. So, what it all comes down to is EVIDENCE..!!!

[sE: Why don't YOU provide evidence that "these" are earth-based ships?]

Were is it!?

[sE: Were is what?]

No BS, I want the undisputed hard scientific proof that there is other life in the universe...!!

[sE: And who are you that undisputed hard evidence has to be supplied to? There is NO evidence that there is other life in the universe. At least not in another planet or location that we know of. The only evidence we have, so far, is that there are objects that are obviously not of human construction being seen, etc.."]

****Skyeagle.....Dont post any of the old stuff, please!!!

[sE: Finally, a comment that makes sense!]

[Hazzard]

SkepticalEd, that last post, wrapped in my quote, made no sence what so ever.

Why don't YOU provide evidence that "these" are earth-based ships?

And as far as me showing you evidence that all UFOs are terrestrial crafts, well, lets just say logical fallacy and leave it at that.

You are contradicting yourself. You obviously deal in "belief" since you do not understand "belief" and say that knowledge propels belief. Actually, knowledge cancels belief. Knowledge replaces belief. Belief is the product of mental conditioning

If you are going to quote me then do it right....I said "You may believe all you want to. But knowledge requires a higher standard than that which propels belief".

Skyeagle wrote...

Don't forget to mention military services around the globe!

After all, military officials have also stated that based on the data, the UFOs were those of ET. Even the Iranians went on video.

I agree that there are people all over the world that believes in Aliens and that they are here...Still, and the bottom line, the foundation of this is built on hear say, speculations, theories, guess work, assumptions, beliefs and emotions.

But there are no real scientific evidence or facts Sky. If there were, we would have that incredible date of First Contact tought to our kids in schoolbooks all over the world, an I dont see that happening.

Even you have to wonder, if this is such a no brainer, why is it that the biggest scientific discovery of all times is ignored!!????

[skyeagle409]

But there are no real scientific evidence or facts Sky. Even you have to wonder, if this is such a no brainer, why is it that the biggest scientific discovery of all times is ignored!!????

You have to ask these questions.

Why is it, that military and intelligence officials are around the world are now saying that ET is here? In fact, why is it that scientist can't duplicate the results in the field or even in the labs regarding physical evidence that were taken from UFO landing sites?

Those cases are stamped: "unknown," because there are no earthly explanations, since such formations do not occur in nature anywhere on earth and cannot be duplicated even in the labs.

[Hazzard]

physical evidence that were taken from UFO landing sites?

Link to these "military and intelligence officials around the world that now are saying that ET is here"... No old document.

A LINK.

[skyeagle409]

Link to these "military and intelligence officials around the world that now are saying that ET is here"... No old document.

A LINK.

Haven't I linked enough for you?! After all, you've consistently slammed me for my "cut-and-paste" program!

What did I link just the other day in regards to Chile and Canada? If you had checked the Belgian Video, you would have heard from that Professor who threw in ET as an explanation for that incident in March 1990, and another video shown on one of the science channels, presenting an Iranian military official who added ET as well. And, the following are just a few of others from around the world.

India to annouce UFO's are REAL

http://www.bestofindya.com/news/story.php?...e_UFOs_are_REAL

Chile announces UFOs are for real:

On 2nd April 1997, Chilean newspaper "La Cuarta" has the following headline: "UFO Sighting of Arica is Confirmed by La Direccion General de Aeronautic Civil." Chile did start to join the small number of countries who officially stated that the nature of UFOs is of intelligent driven flying machines.

http://www.cohenufo.org/Chile%20UFOs.htm

Brazilian Air Force Opens Its UFO Files to Public

They were talking about UFO files and UFO reality and their research of UFOs, how they are not able to fully understand because of the technology involved is far beyond their comprehension. They were speaking openly for about 15 minutes on national television.

Peru Sets Up Official UFO Office

The Miami Herald, Wednesday, January 23, 2002 LIMA

Peru's air force has set up a nationwide system to track alleged UFOs, ...

http://www.labyrinthina.com/ufo4.htm

Vatican Admits On National TV That ET Contact IS REAL

http://home.wanadoo.nl/mufooz/engels/vatican-ET.htm

UFOs are real - Former Canadian Defense Minister

(PRWEB) - OTTAWA, CANADA (PRWEB) November 24, 2005 -- A former Canadian Minister of Defence and Deputy Prime Minister under Pierre Trudeau has joined forces with three Non-governmental organizations to ask the Parliament of Canada to hold public hearings on Exopolitics -- relations with ETs.

By ETs, Mr. Hellyer and these organizations mean ethical, advanced extraterrestrial civilizations that may now be visiting Earth.

On September 25, 2005, in a startling speech at the University of Toronto that caught the attention of mainstream newspapers and magazines, Paul Hellyer, Canadas Defence Minister from 1963-67 under Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Prime Minister Lester Pearson, publicly stated: "UFOs, are as real as the airplanes that fly over your head."

Airline Pilots In Close UFO Encounter Over China

A shimmering blue and white object hovered past the cockpit window of the Xiamen Airlines plane as it started its decent into Nanjing. It drifted across the path of the passenger jet, the pilot later told officials, then accelerated sharply and disappeared at lightning speed into a bank of cloud. His story might have been dismissed as a delusion had it not been for the fact that two other pilots in different planes hundreds of kilometres apart independently radioed similar reports to air-traffic controllers within minutes of each other. One was flying a Shandong Airlines plane 120 kilometres north, also over Jiangsu Province. The second was flying 300 kilometres south over Tonglu, Zhejiang Province.

There are more UFO sightings over China than anywhere else in the world, with one in every five "flying saucers" reportedly seen over the mainland. In 1998, a Chinese jet fighter reportedly played a game of cat and mouse with a UFO picked up by four radar stations as it flew over a military training base near Changzhou. More than 100 people watched from the ground as the two-seat Jianjiao armed interceptor chased the UFO, which was described as a mushroom-shaped dome with rotating bright lights underneath it. The pilot said it looked "like the UFOs in foreign sci-fi movies". With the air force jet about 4,000 metres away, the UFO shot upwards, leaving it trailing in its wake. A request from the pilot to fire on the UFO was refused by ground control, official media reported.

UFOs exist, says Japan official

By Chris Hogg

BBC News, Tokyo

Mr Machimura's comments might not have been serious

Japan's chief government spokesman has announced that unidentified flying objects (UFOs) exist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7150156.stm

Director of CIA, Vice Admiral R.H. Hillenkoetter

It is time for the truth to be brought out in open Congressional hearings. 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. To hide the facts, the Air Force has silenced its personnel.

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

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

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.

UFOs real and present danger, pilots to tell press Monday

Airline pilots, aviation experts, military and government officials are people we frequently trust with our lives, so wed prefer not to think of them as kooks.

Yet, on Wednesday a group of people carrying those weighty credentials admitted to the world they had each either witnessed a UFO incident or investigated a UFO case that concerned aviation safety and national security.

'UFOs Are Not Only Real - They Are Already Here'

Interview with University of New

Hampshire Professor Dr. Ted Loder

By AMANDA MILKOVITS

Staff WriterFoster's Sunday Citizen

From Tony Craddock

http://www.cseti.org

UFO DISCLOSURE PROJECT: Over 400 Witnesses Want to Testify!!

youtube.com Over twenty military, intelligence, government, corporate and scientific witnesses came forward at the National Press Club in Washington, DC to establish the reality of UFOs or extraterrestrial vehicles, extraterrestrial life forms, and resulting advanced energy and propulsion technologies.

http://www.digg.com/space/UFO_DISCLOSURE_P...Want_to_Testify

Edited February 12, 2008 by skyeagle409

[SkepticalEd]

SkepticalEd, that last post, wrapped in my quote, made no sence what so ever.

And as far as me showing you evidence that all UFOs are terrestrial crafts, well, lets just say logical fallacy and leave it at that.

If you are going to quote me then do it right....I said "You may believe all you want to. But knowledge requires a higher standard than that which propels belief".

Skyeagle wrote...

I agree that there are people all over the world that believes in Aliens and that they are here...Still, and the bottom line, the foundation of this is built on hear say, speculations, theories, guess work, assumptions, beliefs and emotions.

But there are no real scientific evidence or facts Sky. If there were, we would have that incredible date of First Contact tought to our kids in schoolbooks all over the world, an I dont see that happening.

Even you have to wonder, if this is such a no brainer, why is it that the biggest scientific discovery of all times is ignored!!????

Look, basically here it is in a nutshell. We are dealing with what are called UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) although not all UFOs are seen flying according to reports by witnesses. We don't know what "pilots" these objects and there may not be pilots in these objects or whether the objects depend on pilots. We have remote-controlled aircraft so these objects, whatever they are, could also be remote-controlled, no one knows for sure. What we have as far as UFOs is a total mystery.

As far as aliens, it would be normal to accept that UFOs are piloted or controlled by aliens, not humans. However, reports of aliens are not to be believed until evidence is provided and, so far, no human has provided that evidence. Reports are definitely hearsay. We have no way of knowing if the future will bring an answer to UFOs and/or aliens. I, for one, do not accept that aliens - if they exist and are in our midst - travel here from vast distances. They might in a different way than straight travel but this is future knowledge, not present.

Please excuse me for misquoting you, not intended.

Edited February 12, 2008 by SkepticalEd

[metricmaker]

Look, basically here it is in a nutshell. We are dealing with what are called UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) although not all UFOs are seen flying according to reports by witnesses. We don't know what "pilots" these objects and there may not be pilots in these objects or whether the objects depend on pilots. We have remote-controlled aircraft so these objects, whatever they are, could also be remote-controlled, no one knows for sure. What we have as far as UFOs is a total mystery.

Right, although many claim to have something for the public, they actually told us nothing, and it's maybe true..., if UFO crashes are real E.T.'s then everybody keeps it more secret than they let us believe. And that's may be the joke. A joke of how secrets are kept...

Edited February 13, 2008 by metricmaker

[doesnt_matter]

It's a whole other ball game due to several factors none of which involve travel problems. The universe is so vast and spread out that it would make it difficult to find Earth, species with our level of intelligence or even higher will be quite rare, lots of life out there but how many planets produce intelligent life. If we were found by a super advance species why would they even bother with us at all, we are simply far to primitive.

Absolutely all of this is based on your personal beliefs and nothing more. Theres no way to say one way or the other.

There is tons of data though that does prove the existence of UFO phenomena, this however is about as far as it goes in regards to something tangible.

Agreed, hence circumstantial evidence ( data ) does equal proof of the existence of UFO's. So circumstantial evidence does equal more than zero.

While UFO's could be alien there is no evidence to suggest this other then hearsay.

Agreed. However its the interpretation of the "data" that is in dispute. The belief structure of the individual is what dictates the outcome. It may be possible ( however improbable ) that some ( or even just one ) ufo is of a non human intelligence.

As for abductions there are several logical explanations and I am not convinced that this does and has happened.

Agreed.

Btw, your original post was excellent, I just disagreed with the "whole other ball game" statement.

Edited February 12, 2008 by doesnt_matter

[OptimisticSkeptic]

Those cases are stamped: "unknown," because there are no earthly explanations, since such formations do not occur in nature anywhere on earth and cannot be duplicated even in the labs.

Bingo. Slam-dunk for "logical fallacy" right there. Also, the term "strawman" comes to mind. The second clause of the above statement is a huge misstatement of reality based on extrapolation from questionable data, and a huge jump to an unreasoned conclusion. I will use the same methodology to make the following assertion.

Our sun is out to get us:

"Stellar nuclear fusion is an alien weapon because there are no earthly explanations for it, since such reactions don't occur in nature anywhere on earth and cannot be duplicated even in labs."

<yawn>

[Lilly]

Our sun is out to get us:

"Stellar nuclear fusion is an alien weapon because there are no earthly explanations for it, since such reactions don't occur in nature anywhere on earth and cannot be duplicated even in labs."

I just knew there was something *fishy* about the Sun!