Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Fila

The best evidence for UFOs

266 posts in this topic

How about we set ourselves a challenge and actively seek credible cases, proving we are unbiased, by taking some time out to question our own conclusions.., and at least attempting to look at both sides objectively.

- We will not find proof. Just forms of evidence

- UFO does not equate to ET. You will not see any documents proving ETs are real

* For the purpose of this thread.., UFO refers to objects in reports that are still unidentified.

(I.e. Large, metallic object, with no wing, fuselage, tail, exhaust, cockpit, that out-performs any known object, silently etc)

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please start with your own contribution. I've been searching for years and I'm yet to see anything that even remotely suggests an extraterrestrial UFO :(.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/12/2017 at 11:35 PM, I'mConvinced said:

Please start with your own contribution. I've been searching for years and I'm yet to see anything that even remotely suggests an extraterrestrial UFO :(.

I'm just getting back into the whole UFO scene now (day 3) Just looking for some now.., but I'll probs go to bed cause it's 5 to 12... Nite.

 

Here's a few links to help get you started too.

http://www.nicap.org/760919tehran_dir.htm

http://www.ufocasebook.com

https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/ListingReports/ItemsListing.aspx

Have fun!

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fila said:

Here's a few links to help get you started too

Thank you, I'm aware of most of these cases. I would beware sites that still list cases like Betty and Barney Hill as they have been thoroughly debunked already. The Shag Harbour incident is another.

When you have finished looking, and have time, it would be great if you could post what you consider the best single case and we can discuss, thanks.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/12/2017 at 2:14 AM, I'mConvinced said:

Thank you, I'm aware of most of these cases. I would beware sites that still list cases like Betty and Barney Hill as they have been thoroughly debunked already.

I cannot visit library databases, national archives? We better take down those PBS videos explaining meteors too.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2306tufos.html

http://www.library.unh.edu/find/archives/collections/betty-and-barney-hill-papers-1961-2006

https://archive.org/details/CEIVAnAudioHistoryOfAlienAbductionAndAnimalMutilation19571976Guide

That's cool if its been proven wrong. But I'd need to see the proof first (like a true sceptic). Perhaps we can start a new thread for each case to discuss its potential to be added to this list. (If that's okay with the mods. I don't want to be kicked for spamming threads) Perhaps we can re-open the case by attacking it from a different angle.

"Thoroughly debunked" is okay.., but I prefer scientifically debunked.

Rather than just conjecture and assumptions (which is all I have read so far for the argument against). I am totally open to looking into it again though if you want to also.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Fila said:

I cannot visit library databases, national archives? We better take down those PBS videos explaining meteors too.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2306tufos.html

http://www.library.unh.edu/find/archives/collections/betty-and-barney-hill-papers-1961-2006

https://archive.org/details/CEIVAnAudioHistoryOfAlienAbductionAndAnimalMutilation19571976Guide

That's cool if its been proven wrong. But I'd need to see the proof first (like a true sceptic). Perhaps we can start a new thread for each case to discuss its potential to be added to this list. (If that's okay with the mods. I don't want to be kicked for spamming threads) Perhaps we can re-open the case by attacking it from a different angle.

"Thoroughly debunked" is okay.., but I prefer scientifically debunked.

Rather than just conjecture and assumptions (which is all I have read so far for the argument against). I am totally open to looking into it again though if you want to also.

It's irrational to debunk a case. The issue is to substantiate the case and show that it has merit. Most UFO believers or paranormal believers or chemtrail believers come with the position that it is true unless shown 100% to be false. That's not how science works. It is not correct unless shown to be correct. A story like Betty and Barney Hill is just a story unless it is shown to be true or have some possibility it is true.

You wrote "That's cool if its been proven wrong. But I'd need to see the proof first (like a true sceptic)." That's not how it works. Here is how it works:

"That's cool if its been proven correct. But I'd need to see the proof first (like a true skeptic).

A skeptic does not accept something without evidence. To accept till proven wrong is being gullible, not skeptic.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/12/2017 at 9:34 AM, stereologist said:

It's irrational to debunk a case. The issue is to substantiate the case and show that it has merit

I disagree. The first thing people should do is check to see if the object is man-made, terrestrial or celestial first.., as this is most likely what it will be.

On 15/12/2017 at 9:34 AM, stereologist said:

Most UFO believers or paranormal believers or chemtrail believers come with the position that it is true unless shown 100% to be false. That's not how science works. It is not correct unless shown to be correct.

Not sure about "most"..,  I would need to see the figures. Although I do agree that many do. This is a problem I would like to solve also.

On 15/12/2017 at 9:34 AM, stereologist said:

You wrote "That's cool if its been proven wrong. But I'd need to see the proof first (like a true sceptic)." That's not how it works.

I disagree, Otherwise I could just say Global Warming or NASA or anything I want is wrong.., and I don't need to prove why you are wrong.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fila said:

That's cool if its been proven wrong. But I'd need to see the proof first (like a true sceptic).

A quick forum Search will turn up a highly detailed thread for Betty and Barney. Please check it out and let me know your thoughts.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/12/2017 at 0:53 PM, I'mConvinced said:

A quick forum Search will turn up a highly detailed thread for Betty and Barney. Please check it out and let me know your thoughts.

Ok.., I will look into both sides of this case objectively. Let's not get bogged down by one case however.

While I am doing this.., how about you do the opposite and find a credible case yet explained. We can play devil's advocate.

I still don't think if a database contains a case that been solved.., does not mean its a database that should never be used (national archives, library databases, PBS etc)

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fila said:

I disagree. The first thing people should do is check to see if the object is man-made, terrestrial or celestial first.., as this is most likely what it will be.

Not sure about "most"..,  I would need to see the figures. Although I do agree that many do. This is a problem I would like to solve also.

I disagree, Otherwise I could just say Global Warming or NASA or anything I want is wrong.., and I don't need to prove why you are wrong.

Wrong. The first step is to find out if the story has any chance of being true. You pretend that a yarn spun by someone  is nonfiction. Then the next step is to determine if people saw something solid. You jump to the assumption that you are not being hoaxed. You jump to the assumption that there is an object. You are making the very mistake I warned about. You do not try to debunk a case which assumes the story is true until proved wrong. In science as you yourself suggested, a case is not accepted unless it is proved valid.

It is most. just hang out in this forum for a bit and you will see that most people do what you are doing. They assume an event is true unless it is proved false. That is an unscientific road to doom. It leads to all sorts of dumb ideas. The rational approach is to add to knowledge by checking and testing and rechecking evidence. Mistakes will be made but in general progress i s made. It isn't fast or glamorous, but it happens.

You wrote "That's cool if its been proven wrong. But I'd need to see the proof first (like a true sceptic)." That's not how it works.

Then you wrote " I disagree, Otherwise I could just say Global Warming or NASA or anything I want is wrong.., and I don't need to prove why you are wrong. "

Go ahead and deny anything you want. Then start the process of examining the evidence. Check and recheck the evidence. Make sure it is consistent. In science it is appropriate to check and test and recheck what people believe. Did you know that science has overturned 3 results that were awarded the Nobel prize? That happens because real science, not ding dong UFO wackos, test and restest ideas to get it right.

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fila said:

I disagree. The first thing people should do is check to see if the object is man-made, terrestrial or celestial first.., as this is most likely what it will be.

Not sure about "most"..,  I would need to see the figures. Although I do agree that many do. This is a problem I would like to solve also.

I disagree, Otherwise I could just say Global Warming or NASA or anything I want is wrong.., and I don't need to prove why you are wrong.

Hello Fila.

I have a challenge with your logic (bolded letters). For us (humans) to determine if the ufo is man made one has to touch and interact with an object.

And that is just it. Once we can interact with an object it won't be a ufo anymore.  My argument is that if someone claims they built it are you simply going to believe them? I for one won't, humans lie...so I want to see the designs...I want to see material used to built it and I want them to reproduce the first product...then I may believe they made it...now imagine if.someone comes forward and say they designed it first..... We will always have issues.

Global warming 'thing'.

We as humanity has questioned this...and we have been receiving proof of the statements made...hence it upholds.

We as humans don't just accept what is forced down our throats (well some of us) we are questioning everything and want proof and then we question the proof etc.

For me, evidence or proof of ufo's is problematic...heck Bigfoot proof...supernatural proof is problematic. 

A) videos or any digital recording can be edited. Whether the guy /girl taping it did edit is doesn't matter. It can be and has to be proven that it hasn't.

B) for every piece of evidence you will have a dedicated group of people trying to debunk what is found..until they aren't happy it will always have a cloud of wonder above the finding

C)the fact that we.might have an object that we (humans) feel can proof extra terrestrial life doesn't mean we will convince all...

D) extra terrestrial life doesn't mean Et...remember...if I find life of any form outside earth it is alien. Can be microbes...germs...etc. Doesn't have to be the conventional form we are taught about. So for humanity to accept alien life we need to agree on what we will accept as alien life...

E) don't you think if aliens and people have met before it stands to reason there would be tangible proof? This lead to two scenarios...they are hiding the evidence to protect the aliens or themselves (cause we as a race experiment on what we don't understand)... They are still here...disguised...and we don't know it.

My point...when looking at best evidence one has to decide what is seen as Evidence...

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/12/2017 at 2:10 PM, stereologist said:

Wrong. The first step is to find out if the story has any chance of being true. You pretend that a yarn spun by someone  is nonfiction.

I will try to be more literal from now on. I do use terms quite loosely. For me, de-bunking includes checking credibility (in my interpretation of the word.) I.e. "That UFO case was de-bunked due to a lack of witness credibility".

On 15/12/2017 at 2:10 PM, stereologist said:

You wrote "That's cool if its been proven wrong. But I'd need to see the proof first (like a true sceptic)." That's not how it works.

Then you wrote " I disagree, Otherwise I could just say Global Warming or NASA or anything I want is wrong.., and I don't need to prove why you are wrong. "

Go ahead and deny anything you want. Then start the process of examining the evidence. Check and recheck the evidence. Make sure it is consistent. In science it is appropriate to check and test and recheck what people believe. Did you know that science has overturned 3 results that were awarded the Nobel prize? That happens because real science, not ding dong UFO wackos, test and restest ideas to get it right.

I need to see proof of something being correct or incorrect. Nothing you say will change that.

There are ding-dong wacko's out there.., don't get me wrong. I agree. However you are being very angry and emotional.., and irrational with your thinking.

There are real scientists doing what little they can to try and get data from very random events, For examples:  http://www.ufodata.nethttp://www.hessdalen.org/reports/hpreport84.shtml

I will find more for you as I slowly get back into the UFO scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fila said:

Ok.., I will look into both sides of this case objectively. Let's not get bogged down by one case however.

Thought I'd offer some links to the B&B Hill case from threads I am aware of on this forum:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/310376-betty-and-barney-hill-case-debunked/#comment-6193669

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/305123-barney-betty-hill/#comment-6089950

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/199765-betty-and-barney-hill-survey/#comment-3761797

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/195290-betty-barney-hill/

If you would like to know a case I find at least interesting then please take a look at the classic Falcon Lake incident:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/falcon-lake-incident-book-anniversary-1.4121639

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/12/2017 at 9:21 PM, I'mConvinced said:

Thought I'd offer some links to the B&B Hill case from threads I am aware of on this forum:

Oh wow. The first 2 pages of everything is just "believer" bashing. I won't take it so personally anymore. Wow, just wow guys. Wow.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/310376-betty-and-barney-hill-case-debunked/#comment-6193669

Betty's map did not match perfectly.., therefore its fake (Memory is not infallible. Especially if I showed you a sequence of dots then made you redraw them exactly to scale on paper). Then lots of "I think this..." (hoax, tired, drugs). Nothing substantial. And no facts or tests. Just conjecture.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/topic/305123-barney-betty-hill/#comment-6089950

Nah. I can't do it. Sorry. These threads are 90% off topic. I'm scrolling through pages of just utter hatred, personal attacks and jokes.

I got to page 2 of this one and.., nah. So much negativity.

 

What I might do, is pick the thread with the least amount of trash talk.., and do some necro-posting to resurrect the dead thread. I'll just check with a mod first to see if this is acceptable.

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fila said:

and do some necro-posting to resurrect the dead thread. I'll just check with a mod first to see if this is acceptable.

It's perfectly fine as long as you have something constructive to add.  Many posts get resurrected this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/12/2017 at 10:03 PM, I'mConvinced said:

It's perfectly fine as long as you have something constructive to add.  Many posts get resurrected this way.

Thank you. I will do that tomorrow sometime.


Here is another few more links to search if people want to look up some reports: 

http://www.ufoevidence.org

http://www.cufos.org/

http://www.project1947.com

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Fila said:

Here is another link to search if people want to look up some reports: http://www.ufoevidence.org

No.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/12/2017 at 10:44 PM, toast said:

No.

ok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fila said:

I will try to be more literal from now on. I do use terms quite loosely. For me, de-bunking includes checking credibility (in my interpretation of the word.) I.e. "That UFO case was de-bunked due to a lack of witness credibility".

I need to see proof of something being correct or incorrect. Nothing you say will change that.

There are ding-dong wacko's out there.., don't get me wrong. I agree. However you are being very angry and emotional.., and irrational with your thinking.

There are real scientists doing what little they can to try and get data from very random events, For examples:  http://www.ufodata.nethttp://www.hessdalen.org/reports/hpreport84.shtml

I will find more for you as I slowly get back into the UFO scene.

Debunking may include a statement about the past history of an  individual. There are plenty of people online that cannot be trusted at all. Scott Waring is a great example. Another example is the group called secureteam10.

I state that the starting point in science is that an idea is not accepted until it is shown to have supporting evidence. Only a fool accepts an idea and looks for evidence that it is incorrect. Someone has to be a blithering fool to accept something without evidence. LOL!

You are being very angry and irrational.

 Cool down and learn.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/12/2017 at 1:20 AM, stereologist said:

I state that the starting point in science is that an idea is not accepted until it is shown to have supporting evidence. Only a fool accepts an idea and looks for evidence that it is incorrect. Someone has to be a blithering fool to accept something without evidence. LOL!

OBSERVATION is first step, so that you know how you want to go about your research.

HYPOTHESIS is the answer you think you'll find.

PREDICTION is your specific belief about the scientific idea: If my hypothesis is true, then I predict we will discover this.

EXPERIMENT is the tool that you invent to answer the question, and

CONCLUSION is the answer that the experiment gives.

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html

 

Conclusions cannot be formed so hastily either. Please show your research, tests and experiments that allowed you to form such a strong conclusion.

I have made observations. I formed a hypothesis. I have made predictions.

"Experimenting" to see if UFOs exists is the hard part. This is what I would like to be doing with my time here.Trying to figure out how we can test, measure and record NEW live data. Not reviewing old stories and images (background research).

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem: "now everyone has smartphones and cameras on them, why don't we see a massive increase in sightings? thus they are not real etc." The answer: cameras with infrared or thermal filter that can zoom in far away, are needed and most people don't have them. See security video below for an example of recording and tracking an unidentified object. 

10 hours ago, Fila said:

"Experimenting" to see if UFOs exists is the hard part. This is what I would like to be doing with my time here

You can:

1. go UFO hunting using infrared cameras, lasers, and apps to track known objects like satellites and planes. I suggest getting equipment and experimenting yourself, or if you cannot do yourself, monitor those that do this, such as UFO Proof

2. join group who use consciousness and sounds to initiate contact with intra-dimensional ETs using a ET Contact Tool. Telepathic communication is an advanced form that ETs and humans may use in the future as science discovers the fabric of the universe deeper and the "supernatural" features of consciousness. 

If you choose to talk about ETs and UFOs here, you won't go far beyond the the usual banter. The skeptics won't accept anything other than a bodies or aliens or crafts to be examined and published in peer reviewed journals. Since places like S4 might hold such conclusive evidence, and other underground black project bases are unacknowedged and away from public access, we are not able to provide this evidence at this time. However you can do one of the top two methods yourself to solve the mystery. Talking about here, alone, is not sufficient and won't get far beyond "he's a proven fraud" "this is all fakes who want to make money, etc" nonsense. @stereologist @Merc14 

Security footage of UFO caught by homeland security camera in PR from 2013/14 and leaked to black vault 2016. 

This doesn't prove "extraterrestrial" aspect only the unidentified aspect. The owner of this channel is not sold on "aliens" per say, debunks videos left and right more than anyone here probably.

Skip to 8:14 for the video. Or watch from beginning to see dancing girl. Your choice ;)

 

Edited by Area201
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 Large-scale scientific studies provide substantial evidence that ETs are real

One of the most significant scientific presentations to members of elected government. It's kinda long. 

There is a list of specific locations where alien ET bodies and saucers have been kept in the past from witness accounts, along with supporting documents supporting the conclusion. 

The unacknowledged black nature of those who possess the conclusive evidence makes it even more complex and we see what we are dealing with today - managed Delogne disclosure, etc, which is half-truths at best. These circumstances give more ammo to skeptics as they have a legitimate argument that the bodies or craft are not in public possession to examine etc. They have a valid argument and we can see why they have their position. However the evidence for such black operations and secrecy on ufos is nonetheless compelling enough, and when added onto ones own personal encounters, one can only draw the conclusion that the ET phenomenon is real. 

@Fila if you have not yet seen, the single most relevant "video" of the subject I've encountered is this 4 hour lecture by Dr. Steven Greer. If you are serious about this I highly suggest watching it, may take several sessions as it's pretty long, but worth it. 


 

Edited by Area201
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Area201 said:

5 Large-scale scientific studies provide substantial evidence that ETs are real

Pls provide links to these studies. And no, I will not watch the vid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, toast said:

Pls provide links to these studies. And no, I will not watch the vid.

No, I will not provide links to those studies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NATIONAL PRESS CLUB

Edited by Fila

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.