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 One which was retracted later.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.