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.