such nonsense

[morrison1976]

The problem is automatically equating something that someone somewhere saw to a craft piloted by extraterrestrials, there is no evidence for this and to make that assumption you must make a huge leap of faith. I admit, people see things all the time. This does not mean its extraterrestrial ships that have crossed the vast gulfs of space to spy on us. For What Ill venture was thousands of years people thought Aura Borealis was from the gods, it was just not understood what it is.

Also I have admitted here numerous times there is a possibility some of these cases could be UFOs, however slight. The problem is the lack of evidence and the inability of people to distinguish credible evidence and faith based evidence.

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.

[skyeagle409]

The problem is automatically equating something that someone somewhere saw to a craft piloted by extraterrestrials, there is no evidence for this and to make that assumption you must make a huge leap of faith.

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 admit, people see things all the time. This does not mean its extraterrestrial ships that have crossed the vast gulfs of space to spy on us.

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.

For What Ill venture was thousands of years people thought Aura Borealis was from the gods, it was just not understood what it is.

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.

Also I have admitted here numerous times there is a possibility some of these cases could be UFOs, however slight. The problem is the lack of evidence and the inability of people to distinguish credible evidence and faith based evidence.

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

[camlax]

As a scientist, don't you think it is prudent to learn the facts relating to the evidence of a case before going on a debunking roll? So what you are now saying, all of those scientific journals, which have published UFO case files in their journals, are no longer relevant.

Note the DATES!

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.

Camlax, that is just another attribute of a debunker that I have seen over the years. Now, all of a sudden, scientific journals are irrelevant AFTER you had mentioned the LACK of UFOs in scientific journals. It seems that you think that people on this board were born yesterday. Note the dates.

Note the DATES!

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.

Military experience is how I am able to ascertain the facts and to determine when somesone is on a debunking campaign.

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).

With respect, you seem to show a great deal of ignorance about the UFO subject;theres a great many reasons why many prominent ,credible scientists and academics treat the subject seriously.

Expert eyewitness testimony,radar/sonar corellation,over 20,000 declassified government documents...

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.

You can't get the original document because its in the hands of the C.I.A and government.

Your not guna go to them and say ' Can see the documents to the reports of a ufo sighting over texas?

They would day ' No and if you ask again we through you to jail' Thats how secret it is. but the magazine has photocopies of the documents not the 'original'

And btw Skyeagle allready knows this stuff due to his work With the airforce.

I allready told you cant get the orignal.

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.

[dmurdock36]

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.

[camlax]

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.

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

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.

[Bill Hill]

Yet we constantly hear hillbilly in-bred goobers talking about them and their cattle being abducted and anally probed. It just seems absurd.

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

[camlax]

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.

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.

[skyeagle409]

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

What credibility have I lost? Thinking the disclosure project is just a cash cow makes me un-credible? How about the disclosure project producing squat and a picture of Dr. Greer with a friggin "rod"? How credible is that? "RODS"!

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.

The Malmstrom AFB UFO/Missile Incident 1967

When Figel spoke with the on-site security guard, he reported that they had not yet performed any maintenance that morning. He also stated that a UFO had been hovering over the site.

Figel recalls thinking the guard must have been drinking something. However, now other missiles started to go off alert in rapid succession! Within seconds, the entire flight of ten ICBMs was down! All of their missiles reported a "No-Go" condition. One by one across the board, each missile had became inoperable.

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/malmstrom/malm1.htm

Malmstrom AFB - UFO Sighting 1975

source: Department of Defense

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

N M C C

THE NATIONAL MILITARY COMMAND CENTER

WASHINGTON DC 20301

8 November 1975

0600 EST

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

Subject: Unidentified Sightings

1. 0308 EST FONECON from NORAD Command Director: at 0253 EST

Malmstrom AFB Montana received seven radar cuts on the height-

finder radar at altitudes between 9,500' and 15,500'. Simultaneously,

ground witnesses observed lights in the sky and the sounds of jet

engines similar to jet fighters. Cross-tell with FAA revealed

no jet aircraft within 100NM of the sightings. Radar tracked the

objects over Lewistown, Montana at a speed of seven (7) knots.

Two F-106 Helicopters from the 24th NORAD Region were scrambled

at 0254 EST and became airborne at 0257 EST. At the time of the

initial voice report personnel at Malmstrom AFB and SAC sites

K1, K3, L3 and L6 were reporting lights in the sky accompanied

by jet engine noise.

2. 0344 EST FONECON, same source:

Objects could not be intercepted. Fighters had to maintain a

minimum 12,000' because of mountainous terrain. Sightings

had turned west, increasted speed to 150 knots. Two tracks were

apparent on height-finder radars 10-12 NM apart. SAC Site K3

reported sightings between 300' and 1,000' while site L-4 reported

sightings 5NM NW of their position. Sightings disapeared from

radar at position 4650N/10920W at a tracked speed of three (3)

knots.

3. At 0440 EST, NMCC intiated contact with the NORAD Command

director who reported the following:

0405 EST: Malmstrom receiving intermittent tracks on both

search and height-finder radars. SAC site C-1, 10NM SE of

Stanford, Montana, reported visual sightings of unknown objects.

0430 EST: Personnel at 4 SAC sites reported observing inter-

cepting F-106's arrive in area; sighted objects turn off their

lights upon arrival of interceptors, and back on upon their departure.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0440 EST: SAC site C-1 still had a visual sighting on objects.

4.NORAD stated that Northern Lights will sometimes cause phenomena

such as this on height-finder radars, but their check with weather

services revealed no possibility of Northern Lights.

5. NMCC notified Washington FAA at 0445 EST of the incidents

described above. They had not received any information prior to

this time.

6. 0522 EST FONECON with NORAD Command Director: At 0405 EST

SAC Site L-5 observed one object accelerate and climb rapidly

to a point in altitude where it became indistringuishable from

the stars. NORAD will carry this incident as a FADE remaining

UNKNOWN at 0320 EST. since after that time only visual sightings

occurred.

(Signature)

WILMAN D. BARNES

Brigadier General, USA

Deputy Director for

Operations, NMCC

Copy to:

DDO

ADDO

CCOC

ALL AREA DESKS

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.

Edited July 12, 2007 by skyeagle409

[karl 12]

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.

[skyeagle409]

The problem is automatically equating something that someone somewhere saw to a craft piloted by extraterrestrials, there is no evidence for this and to make that assumption you must make a huge leap of faith.

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.

Also I have admitted here numerous times there is a possibility some of these cases could be UFOs, however slight. The problem is the lack of evidence and the inability of people to distinguish credible evidence and faith based evidence.

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

Edited July 13, 2007 by skyeagle409

[camlax]

(although for 'science' to not attempt to explain the unexplained seems quite irresponsible to me).

Science is not in the business of subjective guess work.

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[eqgumby]

Again, more of the same and no real response.

[mothman-man]

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.

[karl 12]

"

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

Edited July 13, 2007 by karl 12

[makaya325]

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.

[karl 12]

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.

[Archosaur]

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.

[lost_shaman]

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.

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.

Edited July 13, 2007 by lost_shaman

[skyeagle409]

Science is not in the business of subjective guess work.

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.

[skyeagle409]

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.

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

Edited July 13, 2007 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

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.

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."

Edited July 13, 2007 by skyeagle409

[SoldierOfPeace]

It is not surprising that you are a minority.

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

[skyeagle409]

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.

Edited July 13, 2007 by skyeagle409

[SoldierOfPeace]

;-) 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.

[Mr.United_Nations]

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.