Yeah, I definitely agree with that logic.

The believe in Alien life today is much more mature then it was 50 years ago and most people deny even the possibility, but you have to look at the evidence before trying to debunk. Because most of the debunker's follow the rule of "if you cannot attack the evidence, attack the people" which is silly, they are mostly close minded and not interested in the truth about alien life. If you say there is no evidence you are actually dismiss most of the thousands of reports of trace cases, radar visuals , pilot sightings , witness testimony .

Just a small Story about how debunker's work:

--------------------------------------------------------------
John K. and his friends saw a flying disk in the sky and they report it. A skeptic named Charles C. comes forward and says that the witnesses are not credible. One year later the skeptic Charles C. was attacked by a unknown person but to his luck John K. was on the other side of the street and could identify the unknown man in his witness testimony. The unknown man was put in jail and Charles C. was very happy about the absolute credible testimony of John K.
--------------------------------------------------------------

The problem with humans today is the close minded run for physical evidence, but you have to remember that even in our oceans are creatures we didn't even know of. There are so many very educated people coming forward and look into this kind of subject for example. John Mack (Harvard psychiatrist) who was looking in the abduction phenomenon. As a normal person just look at animals and how we treat them, we must be alien to them with all of our technology which makes no sense to them. Thats for the most part the problem half of the earth population doesn't want to believe but that isn't scientific either because the evidence is overwhelming .

The question is why is it so extraordinary that there is more life in the universe than we think of. It is a wonderful message that there a beings not come to destroy us, but caring about us and our attempt to destroy the planet.

The most important case is still the Roswell incident , the newspaper that the RAAF captures a flying disk is a fact, that was first released by the army airforce before they began to get away from the flying disk to the balloon. The people who identify the saucer were also responsible for the nuclear weapons, they were no stupid retards making up stories to maybe even get fired for such reports.



I am currently setting up a website about the whole issue , with no commercial stuff just free information ( articles, documents aso. ). I don't need the Vatican to make me one of the believer's I just look at the evidence and that what scientist do. I want all the skeptics to be skeptical but that is not the same as close minded to such an important subject. And if you doens't know alot about the evidence do not look into this kind of subject or even try to debunk it.

Look at youtube.com for the names John Callaghan , John Mack , Stanton Friedman, disclosure project aso. Maybe you don't believe all of what they are saying but then prove them wrong. They set their careers on the line to get to the truth would anyone of those skeptics do that or even think of it , I guess not.

Fine, fine... you guys want to talk aliens, let's talk aliens...



Let me see if I understand this quote:

2 people see an event (the disk) and a 3rd person, not present, doesn't believe them.
2 people see an event (the beatdown) and both people believe it.

I'm surely not seeing what your point is here.



You are right and here is an example:
We didn't need physical evidence of WMDs to make a decision about Iraq... merely some people told us it was true and we believe them and that's the way it should be: you say it, I believe it. Perhaps thats the way it should be in all our human dealings... after all, things worked out pretty well there when we didn't have physical evidence, surely this tactic will work well in other aspects of life.



To all scientists, this is not extraordinary at all, merely unproven. Huge distinction: we allow for the possibility of alien life but don't count on it till we see it. Same with UFOs: no scientist alive can claim that there are NO UFOs without evidence... but no scientist alive will claim that there ARE UFOs without evidence.



This is why physical evidence is needed, so that subjective statements like these can be tested or dismissed.

How do you know they care about us? You don't. IF they exist, it is equally likely that they are here to harvest, destroy, or enslave as it is that they are here to save and advance us. Both opinions are just that, opinions, and thus not facts and thus not acceptable in a court of science.



The only fact is that it is a newspaper article. One which was retracted later. So I ask you, why do you believe the first article and not the second one? Same paper, same author, same subject.

So perhaps The Roswell Incident is real, perhaps not. But the only evidence you have provided merely proves that newspapers exist, not extraterrestrial UFOs.



I know of Friedman, the other two I had to research.


Friedman's site if full of "They are wrong", "UFOs are real", and "Conspiracy of science"...

... but I find no evidence presented on his site. There is some allusion in his wikipedia entry that he has tons of evidence in his book, but it is presented as "eyewitness" accounts which again are highly subjective. Perhaps I'm not finding it among all the noise so please point me to it Sebcrea if you can. However, as he is critical of SETI for reasons unknown to me, it is already hard to believe the objectivity of his thesis.



Couldn't find much on him. Some FAA accident guy?



Found a little more on Mack. I'd like to present some of his points as representative of the UFO movement if I may:

From a NOVA Online interview

"And in case after case after case, I've been impressed with the consistency of the story, the sincerity with which people tell their stories, the power of feelings connected with this, the self-doubt -- all the appropriate responses that these people have to their experiences."

These are the same thing to be said about religious experiences and mescaline trips. Thus to me this is not evidence that UFOs exist, but rather that humans WANT UFOs to exist.

"They return from their experiences with cuts, ulcers on their bodies, triangular lesions, which follow the distribution of the experiences that they recover, of what was done to them in the craft by the surgical-like activity of these beings. "

It strikes me as odd that in this day of Google Image and YouTube, when everyone has a cellphone, cellcamera, and video, when there are tons of news people that want to make news and tons of non-news people that want to be news, that this was the best that I could find under "UFO abduction Marks" and "UFO abduction lesions"... nothing under either in YouTube. If we have generated any amount of evidence in 50 years from 1945 to 1995, then shouldn't there be MUCH more evidence everywhere from 1995 to 2005, with the increase in our communication abilities (internet), hardware (cameras), and accesibility (cell phones)?

UFO abduction physical evidence

In each case, we have a "after" picture but only the subjects word that a "before" picture would be different. In each case, not knowing the individual (do they drink and blackout regularly? Do they do hallucinogenic drugs? Do they have a history of psychosis? Are they attention getters? Is there some financial gain to be had?), it is hard to merely take their word for it. If a stranger on the street is shouting "The end is near! The end is near! Repent!", you think him loony... but if this same stranger is on the streets shouting "I've been Abducted! I've been abducted! Believe!", then you have no problem believing him? This attitude that the hardcore "UFO Exist" have is why it is so hard to believe in what they say since they will believe just about anyone who says they had a UFO experience.

"And that the alien dimension is a part of ourselves, our souls, if you will even, from which we were or have been cut off over the centuries of human beings living on this earth in this densely embodied form. "

Notice that the alien reproduction program is on our soul. I suspect that is because it would be easy to dismiss a hybrid on genetic terms today, hence let's put it on the soul that can't be measured and thus can't be dismissed. I commented above how similar these viewpoints were to religion; I'll state that again now.

Conclusion: all the evidence that asserts that UFOs exist is subjective and individual, based on hearsay and testimony. To date, there is not a scrap of physical evidence anywhere to validate this assertion. To date, and in this ridiculously over YouTubed word, we still see nothing but lights and never structure, we still see lights but never beings on tape. Thus lacking physical evidence, you can thus choose to believe what you want, just like the US "chose" to believe in WMDs for their own reasons.

But it remains a personal choice and not a public reality.

I don't have an alien craft or a body or a black hole and your way of debunking is exactly how debunker's work ,” if they can't not attack the evidence attack the people” .

First of all what do you know about the evidence that there is ?
Come on how much have we discovered of the galaxy to assume we are alone ?
What happens in Area 51 which the US government still denies that it even exists ?

If you really think that there is freedom of every information you must be a fool, sorry but I find no other word for that.

In one case 65 children in Zimbabwe saw aliens that gave him messages about we doing harm to our planet, why would they make up such stories with a lot of important detail. They have no access to television , and even children under the age of 3 see those things. These die hard debunker's of everything don't what to know the truth about such subjects, they mostly doesn't care about it but every time someone reports such things they are there as the absolute debunker's of the phenomenon.

The little story was about credible witnesses and when we think they are credible, if it doesn't effect us in some way we can easily say that person is nuts. But if there is something that helps us we say okay lets roll thanks for your credible testimony.

The Army Air force has got 4 Versions (Flying Disk, Weather Balloon, Project Mogul, new kind of aircraft with dummies) of the Truth about Roswell, so you are believing someone who lied at least 3 times thats okay but don't attack people who want to know what really happened back then.

So please study the evidence before writing something there is proof that implants (Dr. Leir) that were found in abduction patients were not of earth origin, so how did you explain that. Also a lot of abducties know details that are not in the media about their abduction, these people have no connection to each other so how do they know about that and then describing events very similar in detail.

Look up
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=yWSGTxyFUXQ
http://www.alienscalpel.com/book2.htm

Look also up Project Bluebook where 20 % of the sightings were unexplained ( not all UFO 's are ET but some.) also look up everything about J. Allen Hynek and the trace cases thats physical evidence. People get laughed at because they are coming forward to tell their story, you didn't even wrote about that, they put their careers on the line to tell their story. And that in a world where we think twice about every story we want to tell because don't want to get the laughter they are getting.


Also search for Astronaut Gordon Cooper, he was ones a hero in the US for orbiting the earth over 20 times but if he is talking about seeing one of those crafts landing the people laugh. Thats how people always react thats what we call mature , those are not interested in the Truth they want to get lied in the news, on the street and in everyday life.

You talked about John Mack like a typical debunker he is a Harvard psychiatrist and who are you to prove him wrong ? What you do is proclamation not investigation ,ones you haven't started to investigate you should not come the any conclusion because you believe it doesn't exists. So start your study you can even do some research on the Internet.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendlesham_Forest_Incident

So for me the debunker's always searching for excuses and what really bugs me is that they don't look into the evidence thats not scientific dude.

I really show you evidence and all you have to say it is not true whats makes you so sure ? For me I believe those people who doesn't want to get famous who just report their stories and also the designer of the look of the aliens must be the richest person on the planet, but in reality there is no copyright securing that look, seems very strange in a world where nearly everything has a copyright on it. But you can tell that the 3 year old child that saw those things and draw it that it didn't saw what it saw.

You should know the Phoenix case in 1997 thousands of people reported seeing a massive craft fly over their house and even the former governor of Arizona investigated this. Look at the Europeans they are opening their files UK, France aso about flying saucers thats what I call open minded. The people should know the Truth about this subject because it is a wonderful message that we are not alone.

And for SETI this is really the stupids research ever done in searching for alien life they are searching on one frequency across 100 Ly, its like finding a got Chinese restaurant in the galaxy.

In the end half of the earth population are believer's , the evidence is overwhelming that we are dealing with something extraordinary and whether you believe it or not those things will keep showing up.

So by debunking you mean "applying The Scientific Method".
Gotcha...



Trust me (or Ran Man or Dan Silverman or Doug or JCL), I have MORE than my share of experience with the whole "attack the person" technique.

I challenge you to show how my statements are therefore personal attacks against the personal and not a questioning of their conclusions? Go for it. The beauty of knee-jerk reactions is they are very easily proven wrong.



Unlike certain parties, I don't make gross generalization. Instead, I observe and report on patterns. And here is one: two people that do not follow the Scientific Method (Sebcrea and Why_do_I_die), engage in the same style of debate: answering questions with questions and staying as far away from an answer as possible. I propose a hypothesis and that is that lacking the Scientific Method, the only method of debate is one that generates more questions than it answers... that uses questions to side-track trains of thoughts and lead a discussion down a unprovable path... that to actually provide evidence is discouraged for then that evidence can be put to scrutiny, possible disproven, and both are bad when you are trying to make a case non-scientifically.

We'll see how this hypothesis holds up in the ensuing discussions.



Nothing except for what I have read, researched, and seen with my own eyes in over 25 years of being aware of "UFOs". So instead of asking me what I don't know, why don't you present what you know instead. Educate me since I'm here to profess ignorance on the current state of the subject. So spare me no MegaBytess: I eat up information so I can handle AS MUCH as you can throw at me.



I thought I had already stated that there wasn't any debate about this from any camp. Is there a point to restating this?



A government secret does not imply an extraterrestrial secret.
And as anyone familiar with the very public Lockheed Skunkworks and DARPA projects, there are some CEEERAZZZYYY things out there built from perfectly normal materials and components: robots, exoskeletons, Unmanned airplanes, electronic battlefield. So with all the wonder that is public and non-alien, how has any technology leap been so "quantum" as to defy rational explanation and give credence to the idea that we have access to alien tech at any level?



You resisted the temptation to insult me for quite I while. I commend you in taking this long to call me a fool. Most the other non-scientific method followers broke down much quicker than you. Congrats!

But to address your point, I would not be so -- what's the word, ah yes -- "foolish" as to believe that. The difference is that I don't believe in boogeymen and thus when I hear "US Secret!" my first assumption is not (nor my tenth) "Aliens!".

Do you deny the possibility that all your evidence can be taken to be of purely terrestrial origin? The 51 and Roswell are in fact government cover-ups, but of purely terrestrial issues?



Like Lourdes or Fatima, yes?



Yes, I thought as much. But that is where my comment kicks in:
In the disk scenario, everyone involved DID NOT experience the same situation: 2 people saw the disk and 1 person didn't. In the crime scenario, everyone DID experience the same situation. So naturally if the two people who experience a situation will agree on the testimony, will be credible. I'm sure the two people that saw the disk are ENTIRELY credible to each other. But for belief to cross from one person who experienced a situation to another that didn't (as in the disk scenario), we would expect some proof. I would expect some proof. I dare say most people would expect some proof. Otherwise, how can you stop yourself from believing everything without proof, from tooth fairy to UFOs to quarks!



Huh, what? (1) I have no context for this sentence... it just appeared.



Why attempt to explain that which you have not shown.
Let me see (in the broadest sense of the word) this implant and then we can talk further about it.



So people who are abducted know more about their own abductions than what they tell the media? Huh, what (2)????



Again, I ask you: is it not possible that these 20% can be purely natural phenomena?

After all elves and sprites were not explained until the late 80's eventhough people have been seeing them since we started flying. And if you know your photographic evidence of UFOs as well as I do (I'm not completely ignorant on the subject you see), then a lot of UFOs start looking like elves or sprites or some other of these "ball lighning"-esque phenomena.



Hello Mr Pot... my name is Mr Kettle and I call you black!
"if they can't not attack the evidence attack the people” .

I daresay that like religion, no one is able to prove him wrong. The sad part is... he can't prove he's right. ouch.



That's correct and why: "ones you haven't started to investigate you should not come the any conclusion because you believe it DOES exists." That is why eyewitness account are fallable: to some people it's UFOs, to other weather phenomena, and no way to tell the difference.




As it so happens, I've been researching this when all we had were books. I know, crazy. But all the same, I'll indulge and stick to the net.



Very well, let's I shall examine the evidence you provide me so as to not be accused of bias in my selecting the evidence. Furthermore, I will first classify the TYPES of evidence provided so we are in total agreement on the evidence set for your discussion.



11 articles under "physical evidence" in topics and articles.
All other evidence is photographic and eyewitness.
Correct/Incorrect?




Ahh yes, the British Roswell. Here we have a combination of eyewitness and a few memos and a tape. However, this article sites extraterrestrials as only one of many other explanations.
Correct/Incorrect?



I can see where you would have liked for me to say this, you may even have heard this in your minds-ear, but the evidence clearly shows that I have not said anything of the sort.

I have not denied your explanations, merely provided what are to me (and a many others) more likely explanations. Remember, I have never said "UFOs don't exist"... I have repeatedly said "UFOs can not be proven to exist". That is a huge difference which I trust you'll appreciate from now on.



If you knew how copyrights worked, this would not be strange at all. The Greys have been in the public domain for so long, they cannot be copyrighted.



Huh, What? (2)



Huh, what? (3)




And I also know that the pattern observed time after time is consistent with the dropping of flares from military training videos that admit to being there at the time.

"That's what they were, insists Lt. Col. Ed Jones, who piloted one of the four A-10s in the squadron that he says launched the flares."

He says its so, thus you must believe him. After all, you take abductees at their word, why not a Lt. Col.?



Here is another one of those patterns I observed between people who eschew the scientific method: they always want YOU to do the legwork and get the evidence instead of providing it. So instead of saying "here is my evidence, all nice and tidy", they say "have you heard of?" or "look into this person or that" or more often "Who are you to not believe a Harvard Professor" So in this case, it's "Europeans are opening files"... a flat fact with no context or reason why it should support UFOs or negate one of my points.. oh and of course with no references to this fact. I believe this is tied to my earlier observation where in both cases, both people answered questions with questions and don't present evidence but rather question your knowledge of the evidence. There is something here, something connecting the way non-scientific method people go about their arguments, be it with relgion or UFOs... I just can't put it into words right now. I shall certainly be studying this pattern more.

Great they are opening their files. Surely the conspiracy theories will die out. Who am I kidding? The government is releasing misleading information in order to hide truth. These reports either never existed or have been modified to hide any tangible proof. Wiley government!



It's a wonderful message that we are ignorant and don't fully understand everything. To date, all evidence presented to support UFOs has been subjective, unmeasurable, and unrepeatable. In other words, unscientific. Thus there is no physical evidence of UFOs and no scientific evidence. This means UFOs are a religion: a personal belief that assumes a more advanced power watches over us with zero scientific evidence to support it.

So I'm fine if you want to call UFOs your personal belief, but please don't try to present it as public belief, as science, for it's not.



Didn't you say "So please study the evidence before writing something"? It's worse if you can't even get the facts straight.

Only one frequency; Someone told you this?
Only 100 ly swath; You read that somewhere?
That's all SETI does?; You're positive about that?



Interesting fact. Where is it?



Just not scientific. And as elves and sprites showed us in the 80's, there are still PLENTY of explanations that have to be discovered and discarded before Aliens become the more prevalent one. For now, the evidence is exactly like religion and carries exactly the same weight in science.

Thus all I'm saying is that UFOs remain a matter of personal choice based on anecdotal evidence and not a scientific fact based on measurable results.

I really look for scientific evidence but the problem is we as humans are still very limited, without modern technology we wouldn't even prove Einsteins Theory of relativity right. Now we can, but physicist today are looking into a more advanced theory (M-Theory) just technology will prove if this theory works. So these crafts maybe even interdimensional travelers if the M-Theory assume 11 dimensions. Of course the ET explanation is just a possibility, there maybe other explanations but if a witness reports a flying disk and those skeptics say it was swamp gas that has nothing to do with science either. I am not a part of some religious group I just want to get to the bottom of it because that is what scientist do.

I was ones a skeptic but I looked into the evidence and if we have no other explanation maybe we should have a look into the impossible.

SETI is searching just of the frequency of hydrogen and the search is limited to 100 Ly distance because if you are watching (listening) for ET you have to limit your search, but that means you can even set the wrong limits and don't find anything, so we could be in a interstellar conversation and we wouldn't even know.

(Area51)
I know of these two companies (Lockheed Skunkworks and DARPA projects) of course they are developing new weapon systems out there but why does the government denies, that this test side even exists ?

About Phoenix yes they drooped flares that night , but before that happened thousands of people including governor Fife Symington saw a physical craft no sound 1 mile across, why should they all lie? Of course they dropped the flares but what happened before thats what interesting.

The Rendlesham Forest case is one of the best documented we have audio records, a craft that landed in the forest with symbols on it that were drawn in the notebook (one the day it happened) of Jim Penniston one of the Airforce personal. The British MOD also said it was proven that the radiation level was higher than normal, which is reported in a lot of cases around the globe. Why should all these Airforce officers make up a hoax ?

Did you know that the Airforce regulations for handling UFO's was last updated in 2004 and not like they said they haven't touch the topic since Bluebook.

What is a military radar sighting of such objects for you ? Is it scientific or not ? Or is science also sorting out what they except and what don't ? I mean a lot of scientist use pseudonyms to work in that field not the get ridiculed and dropped out of the scientific community. So in the end you have to ask yourself who you choose to believe but just waiting for the breakthrough scientific clue is a wastes of time.

The question is if someone says he or she has captured a flying disk or alien body would you believe it?
And one more question are you a religious person ?

Define modern. Einstein was technologically proven about a decade after he publshed his theories; about 80 years ago. Is that what you consider "modern"?



Given how Radar works, this merely tells me that my EM waves bounced off of something. As I've tried to show with my Elves and Sprite example, here on Earth there are still many mysteries that could explain most (if not all) of UFO phenomena. Until we're pretty sure we've exhausted all "natural" phenomena then we can give "supernatural" phenomena a serious look.



Just to be clear:
If they only say it? So someone comes up to me, a stranger, and says they have captured an alien body, would I believe them? I'm not dismissing your point, just trying to clarify it.



Then you must abide by the tenets of the science, which include measurement and repeatability. So if you can do that, you are a scientist. But if you can't, then you aren't a scientist and (unfortunately) the model you most closely resemble is that of religion.



So if I told you that they were searching many other frequencies, over a larger swath of sky, and using more methods to prove or disprove ETsthan EM scan, would you call me a liar? And if true, how would that change your opinion of SETI?



I don't know for sure. I'm going to assume you don't know for sure either. So why Aliens? Why don't the other myriad of human and political behaviors suffice to explain the secrecy? Occam's razor,baby.. Occam's razor.

I assume you first look up the Seti programm (website for information) and Michio Kaku on that to find out what they really do, Iam not making claims here these are facts. But unfortunately you are not looking for facts you do confabulation.

My SETI references and your's don't coincide then. Could you be more specific on your reference please?

AFAIK Michio Kaku wrote a cool book about hyper-dimensions, but I don't know what that has to do with anything UFO-ish, Vatican-ish, or anything-else-ish. Could you expand on his relation to this thread?

All that really is, is simple talk to make something look more credible than it really is. As it's nothing more than circumstantial maturity, as in people coming together in more public places to discuss 'sightings' and theories and so on in a 'more serious' way.
Still, you can't deny that the 'evidence' they present consists of the same old blurry incredibly vague and dark pictures and movies together with a huge amount of conspiracy talk based on mostly hear-say and questionable references. So really, what exactly matured?

I'm not out to ridicule anything, but the UFO discussion hasn't outgrown the Bigfoot-like beliefs and stories.

Especially when it comes to evidence. I haven't seen one movies with a good resolution, even though 5 and 8 megapixel cameras are becoming more and more the standard nowadays.



It's the most discussed case, but it's certainly not the most important one when it comes down to actual evidence. If you ask me it's simply a mixture of two unrelated events. One being something that crashed and got recovered by the military (which happened pretty regularly in that area anyways) and the other being a man and women who reported having seen a flying saucer.

Now I don't know what exactly crashed down there, but if UFO-fans don't accept witness testimonials of people that were actually involved in recovering the crashed 'something' that they say was a weather balloon, then that's were conspiracy meets reality and facts just won't get accepted by definition.

It's very interesting to see how witness testimonials changed over time and how details were later added to give the whole thing more flavor, but if there's one story that leans heavily on hear-say, huge miscommunication and some pretty unreliable witness testimonials (just search for their later claims) it's the Roswell crash.



Didn't they write in papers that WMDs were in Iraq with photographs and all? Heck they even had a special on people that claimed to have seen and photographed Tupac on the Bahamas... if something is written in a newspaper it doesn't mean anything at all. It definitely doesn't mean it has to be true. In fact, if you read the actual article the person who wrote the story knows practically nothing as details about what exactly crashed weren't revealed yet.



I'd like to see how you've come to this conclusion, because there's really only one official story. Blame the 4 stories on the media and probably there are more versions.



Not really as all they've really changed is that certain classified information would stay locked away for yet another 50 years or so if I recall correctly.



It has to do with politics and plausible deniability. There's a good reason why they work on a need to know basis there as some of the technology and weapons can be a real danger if they would fall in the wrong hands. It has a lot to do with public opinion and they really wouldn't want people to interfere with the tests and so on. Apparently they think it's best if the general public simply doesn't know (for sure) and the government continues to deny.