The Thing about UFOs...

[SkinWalker]

You see, your post itself in the second paragraph seems to be colored with sarcasm and prejudice. Space Aliens? Flying Saucers? Come on.

Hey, then I'm with you. I don't think they're space aliens either. But lots of people do, so I was trying to be inclusive of them.

It is true that MANY noteworthy scientists, certainly not just those that I googled inside of a 15 minute time frame, [...]

Yes, but I was interested in the set you posted. I hadn't realized that you just googled them but was under the impression that these were people you were familiar with along with their work. If that's not the case, accept my apologies.

So the issue becomes one that begs real objective research. Research that allows great minds to juxtapose their ideas with respect to speculative hypothesis.

Real objective research. That's the spirit. I like the sound of it.

[...] the UFO phenomenon, are best made by outlining irrefutable facts. Such facts are:

1) UFOs having been a major influence as documented throughout the last several thousand years time in mankind's history.

Fact? Major influence? Sorry, but this is a subjective interpretation of a very subjective observation. I've yet to see anyone successfully show where "UFOs" have "been documented" as such prior to the 1950s or so.

True, there are historical accounts of "flying machines" and "aerial" phenomena in various pop literature, but the modern UFO concept is a recent cultural phenomenon that emerged just prior to the 1950s, coinciding with modern communications technology like the radio, the television, and the cinema.

These post 1947 accounts are the ones that are culturally equated with "space aliens." Let's not quibble about this: extraterrestrial intelligence is the working hypothesis for most UFO enthusiasts and it is this wild speculation (one that hasn't any credible supporting evidence) that is at hand. You can admit to it or not. Side with it or not. Favor it or not. It doesn't matter since this is what typically comes to mind when most people think of UFOs. And the reason is the cultural explosion of "Flying Saucer mania" in the 1950s.

With regard to pre-1950 accounts, this is generally a matter of the 'cart before the horse' fallacy, where there is already a conclusion and a claimant looks for data -however obscure- to support it.

Point #1 is discarded as invalid.

2) Countless examples of highly scrutinized film, photographs & video evidence.

And not a single one passed any scrutiny that allows it to exclude the many prosaic and less fantastic hypotheses (including but not limited to: Venus, the Moon, birds, insects, airplanes, satelites, swamp gas, comets, metors, headlights, balloons, hoaxes, military aircraft, etc.).

But, by all means, share with us the single most compelling example. For purposes of discussion. Perhaps we overlooked something. If the "300 different cameras" example is it, I'll go back over the thread to look for it when I get the chance (of course, you'd save time if you could tell me which page it was -or the post #).

Without a clear example of what you mean, we can safely discard #2 from your list.

3) Eye witness testimony by HUNDREDS of high ranking individuals of every walk of life.

Which amounts to about a hill of beans. Eyewitness testimony is fallible. There are, perhaps, far more people who have been eyewitness to ghosts and spirits in recent history than UFOs. From all walks of life. That doesn't make ghosts real. The same can be said for all manner of paranomal and supernatural nonsense.

We can safely discard #3 from your list.

4) [...] If UFOs bear no real recognized potential with respect to the United States Government, why are all this pieces of paper that they release via the "right to know" act, to scientific pests like Stanton Friedman, always majority blacked out? Why would we classify and give a priority secrecy status to something that's not real?

This is a good and fair question. The answer is that just because something is classified doesn't mean you have the right to know it. And just because you don't have the right to know it doesn't mean that it's about UFOs and space aliens.

Governments (and most major corporations) are bound by confidentiality when they release documents and information. You wouldn't want your credit card company to release information that included your personal data. Nor would the government release information that included the information and data of other nations, institutions, and individuals lest they be held liable for negligence.

That is but a single reason to redact a document being released under FOAI. If you make a FOIA request to your local school district about their lesson plans, odds are very good you'll get a redacted document that blacks out personal data, data to institutions, etc. that they aren't at liberty to release because of confidentiality agreements, etc. It doesn't imply that your local school board is hiding flying saucers in the basement of the gymnasium.

Point #4 is dismissed/discarded.

Your "irrefutable facts" weren't so irrefutable and even less factual.

As far as a single "best mind", "most definitive research paper", I'm not sure there is one. [...] There is a an excellent, well written book called The God's of Eden by an author named William Bramley.

What field of science does he work in? Is he even a working scientist? If not, then you're defeating yourself and your own argument. You implied that there were respected scientists who are doing research, or have done research on UFOs. This is a true statement. At least two in your list above have some very good things written and published in peer review. I was hoping you'd identify them and discuss them here.

I guess not.

 

[hypewaders]

I have some difficulty dismissing the awesome scifi and/or ergot trip in Ezekiel.

 

[SkinWalker]

Religious nuts in history "witnessed" all sorts of wild stuff. They had a belief system for which they sought to conform with various "miracles" and "angelic visitations."

The Ezekiel myth was discussed in this very forum in 2004 if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Carcano]

Never heard of that before, when is it going to be released?

They have a rough cut done so it should be out in a few months.
http://www.outofthebluethemovie.com/news/news.html

In the mean time his first documentary Out of the Blue is on Youtube in its entirety. I believe this is the best film ever made on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5JOP_OcIdc&feature=related

 

[nietzschefan]

Regarding UFO's I am starting to come to the same conclusions William "Bill" Cooper did (not Gordon Cooper). They are Military*, they are Man-Made, they are a major fucking secret.

Some points for the skeptics:

A) The sheer volume of sighting, the credibility of some of the witnesses (ATCs, Governors, Astronauts, and indeed some scientists), dictates that some intelligently guided craft that do not remotely resemble and known flying machines or space craft, have indeed been "spotted" operation in our atmosphere.

B) The "rarity" of physical evidence regarding these machines is NOT a reason to dismiss these claims out of hand. Notably "Advanced" aircraft do NOT typically ever wind up in the hands of the public, even after accidental crashes NOR is it publicized when they DO in fact wind up in the hands of "the enemy".

Examples :

- WWI: The Sopwith "Tripehound", after several months of operation on the western front a Tripehound was found intact on the German side of the lines and recovered to the hands of Anthony Fokker, whom in fact designed the famously Fokker DrI triplane from it(and indeed making the vast improvement of a camber wing design still used today). Anthony previously designed the interrupter gear used to fire though the propeller, which was in turn recovered by the allies and copied.

-Modern day: The lone crash of one f117 stealth fighter, outside the bounds of U.S Jurisdiction in the Kosovo war. was the first time is limited technology aircraft "fell" into the hands of an "enemy". No useful "Evidence" was found that could prove just how it was "Stealthy" by the serbs who recovered it.

My point: Even with these historical and confirmable examples of "Advanced" downed craft, we have the public largely ignorant that they occurred, they were not advised of what was done with the craft, and certainly gentlemen like Ophiolite and Skinwalker or their contemporary counterparts were NOT consulted on what to do, or even briefed about it in even the most tertiary manner (such as an almighty PEER REVIEWED PAPER ---GASPS!!!)

Some points for the Alien believers:

A) All supposedly downed alien craft are recovered by the military. As I made in my points to the skeptics - this is often the case with downed military craft. If they were alien and not affiliated generally or specifically with the military, indeed conducting rude abductions on the general populace, why do they always crash their shit on or around military bases. Particularly where we now know new experimental flying machines are developed and tested.

B) Other points I will not go into, limiting the discussion on "UFOs" only. Experiments with sensory deprevation, LSD and other fucked up CIA programmes that could easily explain a host of mental and physical trauma inflicted on the civilian populace in the glorious name of "National defence". I could go on and on to try to explain how these activities relate to the abduction experience and other reported phenomenon as it is often connected with "UFOs".

Now then, my own non-conclusive opinion.

The Alien explanation for UFOs, flying saucers, and everything else unexplainable in the sky was first generally brought forth by the government itself. There is documentation, damning evidence of U.S military memos previous to 1947(that magical year) where the words of Ronald Regan are echoed:

"In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world"


Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, 42nd General Assembly

September 21, 1987

This is also a great way to cover up a completely new technology regarding gravity waves, advanced energy production and a MASSIVE black budget that still surrounds it to this day.

I think this quote describing Charles Forts work (A skeptic of scientist claims of absolute objectivity), is very accurate to describe both sides of the UFO question:

The feeling that no matter how honest scientists think they are, they are still influenced by various unconscious assumptions that prevent them from attaining true objectivity. Expressed in a sentence, Fort's principle goes something like this: People with a psychological need to believe in marvels are no more prejudiced and gullible than people with a psychological need not to believe in marvels

*U.S and perhaps Allies, who knows perhaps even operation under a U.N banner

 

[EndLightEnd]

Fact? Major influence? Sorry, but this is a subjective interpretation of a very subjective observation. I've yet to see anyone successfully show where "UFOs" have "been documented" as such prior to the 1950s or so.

Fact definitely was the wrong word to use. As far as documentation just do some research on the Sumerians and you will find they have many "rock pictures" (dont want to say heiroglyphs) clearly depicting the characteristic saucer shape of UFOs, and have MANY legends concerning people from the heavens.

A little quick to discard the point you were.

True, there are historical accounts of "flying machines" and "aerial" phenomena in various pop literature, but the modern UFO concept is a recent cultural phenomenon that emerged just prior to the 1950s, coinciding with modern communications technology like the radio, the television, and the cinema.

No just a new word describing an old phenomena. What were once "gods of the sky" are now just UFOs.

These post 1947 accounts are the ones that are culturally equated with "space aliens."

Again, in ancient times they were regarded as gods, not aliens. Just a difference in culture perspective, same phenomena.

Point #1 is discarded as invalid.

The only basis you have for this is that he mentioned "fact" when he should not have.

And not a single one passed any scrutiny that allows it to exclude the many prosaic and less fantastic hypotheses (including but not limited to: Venus, the Moon, birds, insects, airplanes, satelites, swamp gas, comets, metors, headlights, balloons, hoaxes, military aircraft, etc.).

On the contrary, there are many videos that defy explanation. The most pertinent is the mass UFO sighting known as the phoenix lights. Unless of course Venus is 5 seperate sources of light, birds started glowing, and comets and meteors learned to remain stationary. Only plausible explanation you listed was military aircraft.

But, by all means, share with us the single most compelling example. For purposes of discussion. Perhaps we overlooked something. If the "300 different cameras" example is it, I'll go back over the thread to look for it when I get the chance (of course, you'd save time if you could tell me which page it was -or the post #).

Just google the Phoenix Lights.

Without a clear example of what you mean, we can safely discard #2 from your list.

Not quite.

Which amounts to about a hill of beans. Eyewitness testimony is fallible. There are, perhaps, far more people who have been eyewitness to ghosts and spirits in recent history than UFOs. From all walks of life. That doesn't make ghosts real. The same can be said for all manner of paranomal and supernatural nonsense.

But you must admit by the rules of probability that at least ONE of the sightings was THE REAL DEAL. At least ONE person (according to probability) has seen something which by all means was a UFO.

We can safely discard #3 from your list.

Not if we acknowledge the probability that at least one sighting was real.

Governments (and most major corporations) are bound by confidentiality when they release documents and information. You wouldn't want your credit card company to release information that included your personal data. Nor would the government release information that included the information and data of other nations, institutions, and individuals lest they be held liable for negligence.

That is but a single reason to redact a document being released under FOAI. If you make a FOIA request to your local school district about their lesson plans, odds are very good you'll get a redacted document that blacks out personal data, data to institutions, etc. that they aren't at liberty to release because of confidentiality agreements, etc. It doesn't imply that your local school board is hiding flying saucers in the basement of the gymnasium.

Point #4 is dismissed/discarded.

Your comparing black-budget military programs to school districts and credit card companies? I doubt their methods are anywhere CLOSE to being similar to one another.

Your "irrefutable facts" weren't so irrefutable and even less factual.

Well no one can change your perceptions except yourself.

 

[Ophiolite]

This is going to be good. The End of EndLightEnd.

 

[SkinWalker]

As far as documentation just do some research on the Sumerians and you will find they have many "rock pictures" (dont want to say heiroglyphs) clearly depicting the characteristic saucer shape of UFOs, and have MANY legends concerning people from the heavens.

As it happens, I have done a fair bit of research on the Sumerians.
A little quick to discard the point you were.

The only basis you have for this [dismissing point #1] is that he mentioned "fact" when he should not have.

That and the assumption that people were actually "seeing" things in the sky or, if they were, that what they observed didn't have natural and what would be considered prosaic (by rational observers of today) explanations to what they observed.

There's absolutely not good reason to assume that people observed anything other than natural phenomena or nothing at all or that they were either deluded or hallucinating. These are all documented and expected human reactions to new or strange experiences that we can and do understand. The ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) hypothesis favored by many (not necessarily you) UFO enthusiasts doesn't have verifiable examples. This sort of extraordinary hypothesis requires extraordinary evidence by nature. Until then, it's dismissed.

On the contrary, there are many videos that defy explanation. The most pertinent is the mass UFO sighting known as the phoenix lights. Unless of course Venus is 5 seperate sources of light, birds started glowing, and comets and meteors learned to remain stationary. Only plausible explanation you listed was military aircraft.

What about parachute flares. I spent 12 years in the United States Army and observed this same, exact phenomenon many times. The flares will each disappear roughly the same time once they fall behind a land feature like a hill or (in this case) a mountain.

If this is the best example of video evidence, then the whole hypothesis is now scrapped.

Just google the Phoenix Lights.

No need. This was discussed and thoroughly explained in this very forum when it occurred. It has since been explained to the satisfaction of any reasoned individual with critical thought experience. Indeed recent issues of both the journals The Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic have revisited the topic.

But you must admit by the rules of probability that at least ONE of the sightings was THE REAL DEAL. At least ONE person (according to probability) has seen something which by all means was a UFO.

Why? Why must one of these be "the real deal?" I'm assuming that by "real deal" you mean extraterrestrial space aliens? Otherwise, if you mean at least one sighting was "unidentified" then, of course, that's the case. I see things all the time which go "unidentified." There's no reason for me to fully identify every light that reflects on my window or every low-grinding sound from the street. I'm reasonably sure they're probably cars, trucks, motorcycles or even airplanes (I live near an airport) so, even if I don't know for sure, there are some very prosaic and probable answers.

There is no reason to "admit" that any of the alleged sightings of flying objects (many are probably not "objects" at all, but reflections of light, etc.) are anything other than man-made objects, natural phenomena, or a combination of both (as with the case of headlights reflected in adiabatic fog).

Not if we acknowledge the probability that at least one sighting was real.

Of course "at least one sighting was real." Indeed, many if not most are "real." They just aren't space aliens, eti or anything that cannot potentially be explained by science if enough data were available. Unfortunately, many if not most of the "real" UFO sightings become space aliens, flying saucers, and secret military aircraft (some might be) and the observer's memory becomes tainted and fallible. Things that weren't present are introduced by the mind, etc. This is a well known psychological process and is discussed in many areas of human cognition outside of the topic of UFO sightings. Should this not also be seriously considered when dealing with eyewitness testimony?

To sum, there is no good reason to apply any meaning to "real" beyond the belief to the observer that an event occurred. The psychological and cognitive experiences were "real." In that case, my dismissal of the point stands.

Your comparing black-budget military programs to school districts and credit card companies? I doubt their methods are anywhere CLOSE to being similar to one another.

Why does the comparison not hold? In fact, the disparity between the significance of the institutions provides support for my contention. If lowly credit card companies and school districts have legitimate concerns of privacy, then surely a nation's government is allowed to as well?

Well no one can change your perceptions except yourself.

Being skeptical and reasoned in thought with regard to things like UFOs doesn't mean that I'm don't want to discover extraterrestrials or that I wouldn't be completely in awe and wonder if actual, valid evidence of the ETI hypothesis were shown to exist.

 

[SkinWalker]

This is going to be good. The End of EndLightEnd.

"I hate being predictable." -Clint Eastwood, The Eiger Sanction (1975).

 

[EndLightEnd]

As it happens, I have done a fair bit of research on the Sumerians.

So you should know what Im talking about.

That and the assumption that people were actually "seeing" things in the sky or, if they were, that what they observed didn't have natural and what would be considered prosaic (by rational observers of today) explanations to what they observed.

And we dont have rational explanations EVEN TODAY for some of the things people observe. Whats your point?

This sort of extraordinary hypothesis requires extraordinary evidence by nature. Until then, it's dismissed

How many times must I say, THERE ISNT ANY EVIDENCE (available to the public). If there were this would not be an issue. Everyone would know the truth.

What about parachute flares. I spent 12 years in the United States Army and observed this same, exact phenomenon many times. The flares will each disappear roughly the same time once they fall behind a land feature like a hill or (in this case) a mountain.

According to the eye-witness testimonies, the object the lights were on "blocked out the stars behind it". Since when do flares block out stars a considerable distance on either side in a symmetrical "V" shape?

If this is the best example of video evidence, then the whole hypothesis is now scrapped.

I would advise you to look up the NASA STS videos filmed in the 60s, which were released to the public before they realized what the tapes actually contained (a mistake you can bet they never made again). Here is a video where they are trying to find the MIR space station, but there are so many moving points of light they cant find it! (its actually quite comical) Now tell me if there was that much "space junk" in space how do astronauts survive this shooting gallery?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCQLMRvr_jc

And here is a video showing two ufos traveling at amazing speeds over an ocean.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxpJBOzD79E&feature=related

And finally a UFO intelligently avoiding an incoming object (ignore the title of the video about ground based energy pulse weapon, I question this myself, but it is a projectile nonetheless)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN0XnDJKdWo

There are MANY more NASA STS videos showing UFOs, I wont post them all here but many are on Youtube.

There is no reason to "admit" that any of the alleged sightings of flying objects (many are probably not "objects" at all, but reflections of light, etc.) are anything other than man-made objects, natural phenomena, or a combination of both (as with the case of headlights reflected in adiabatic fog).

I will try to find a link (I saw this on a special on either Nat. Geo or History Channel) but one sighting in particular is very intriguing. It was a pilot. He was flying through some clouds and noticed a bright light below him, he checked with the control tower and they reported no other craft in the area and he was probably just seeing "lights reflecting off fog". Well the pilot decided to turn around and then flew under the lights and reported the lights ABOVE him, so there is NO WAY it could have been a source from the ground. Now was that a flare reflecting off the swamp gas? (or insert other incredulous claim here)

Of course "at least one sighting was real." Indeed, many if not most are "real." They just aren't space aliens, eti or anything that cannot potentially be explained by science if enough data were available.

To sum, there is no good reason to apply any meaning to "real" beyond the belief to the observer that an event occurred. The psychological and cognitive experiences were "real." In that case, my dismissal of the point stands.

Well by this argument we cannot say ANYTHING we observe is real, since our senses are fallible. And your main bias here is whenever I mention UFO you automatically think Im talking about ETs. As Ive said before I believe most UFOs are from our government.

Why does the comparison not hold? In fact, the disparity between the significance of the institutions provides support for my contention. If lowly credit card companies and school districts have legitimate concerns of privacy, then surely a nation's government is allowed to as well?

Yes except the governments black-budget is in the billions, have good reason to hide this technology from the public, and are intent on doing so. They have much more sophisticated methods than a credit card company or school district, FOR ANYTHING.

They also have classifications like "TOP SECRET" which means the public will NEVER find out about it. I wasnt aware school districts have top secret clearance that can get you arrested if you happen to stumble upon it. Hence the comparison does NOT hold.

Being skeptical and reasoned in thought with regard to things like UFOs doesn't mean that I'm don't want to discover extraterrestrials or that I wouldn't be completely in awe and wonder if actual, valid evidence of the ETI hypothesis were shown to exist.

Skeptical yes, reasonable no. I think your comparison to black-budget military programs to school districts shows this.

This is going to be good. The End of EndLightEnd.

The end of one thing is just the beginning of another.

 

[KennyJC]

Just google the Phoenix Lights.

That's the single best example for aliens or some top secret alien-like government technology? That has already been proven to be military flares disappearing out of view behind a mountain.

If anything, this is one of the best examples to show why there is no merit to the whole alien thing.

 

[EndLightEnd]

That's the single best example for aliens or some top secret alien-like government technology? That has already been proven to be military flares disappearing out of view behind a mountain.

If anything, this is one of the best examples to show why there is no merit to the whole alien thing.

Oh they PROVED that huh? Link please. Your word is no good.

 

[KennyJC]

Oh they PROVED that huh? Link please. Your word is no good.

Well your claim is that the lights were stationary, and that they all went out one after the other. However, when you superimpose daylight footage over the night time footage you can see more clearly that the lights were falling and did disappear based on where the light falls behind the mountain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0We40rEs0ZY&feature=related

I think my evidence is a far more realistic than your OMFG ALIENZ suggestion.

I would also add that we have pilots on camera saying that they were running tests in the area when the footage was taken, but I'm pretty sure I know where you stand when it comes to people in uniform.

 

[EndLightEnd]

I think my evidence is a far more realistic than your OMFG ALIENZ suggestion.

I dont remember ever saying this particular case was aliens.

Just goes to show how you categorize things without even paying attention.

And the UFOs couldnt have flown behind the mountains? This proves nothing. And youve completely ignored the testimonies and footage showing the lights directly over the city before they even got to the mountains.

 

[KennyJC]

I dont remember ever saying this particular case was aliens.

Just goes to show how you categorize things without even paying attention.

And the UFOs couldnt have flown behind the mountains? This proves nothing. And youve completely ignored the testimonies and footage showing the lights directly over the city before they even got to the mountains.

What I'm saying is that the footage is entirely constistent with flares being dropped and disappearing behind mountains.

At least I'm offering an explanation as to what they could be... What are you offering? If you are saying it's not aliens, are you saying it would be top secret alien-like military technology? Then you would have to explain why the military would exhibit top secret technology for 10,000 people to witness.

 

[SkinWalker]

So you should know what Im talking about.

No. Actually, I have no idea. If you're suggesting that because some Sumerian pictographs and reliefs have circular shapes in them, then I do. The Sun played heavily in their art and writing. If you're saying that they depicted "flying saucers" and space aliens, I say complete and utter bunk.

The fallacious habit of UFO enthusiasts and UFO cranks and crackpots that believe we're being visited by aliens and extraterrestrials to apply their own beliefs to the artist depictions of antiquity is well known. I've commented on it extensively in this very forum, providing in-depth analysis and citations to assorted documents.

But the habit *is* a fallacy and poor demonstration of critical thought. It helps to read translations of Sumerian texts as well as other contemporary texts of Mesopotamia and then examine their art and architecture in that context. Otherwise you're only guilty of projecting your own cultural biases on a culture that's been dead for centuries.

And we dont have rational explanations EVEN TODAY for some of the things people observe. Whats your point?

On the contrary, we have an abundance of rational explanations, but mystery-mongers and significance-junkies reject the rational in favor of the extraordinary and irrational.

However, what we don't have are complete explanations for some of the things people observe. Nor should we be expected to since we cannot possibly gather complete data on such observations. If a man sees a reflection of headlights on a cloud and reports it, no manner of investigation will ever be able to demonstrate that what he saw was headlights on a cloud. And, yet, headlights on a cloud is a very rational explanation. The investigator cannot reproduce it (clouds aren't easy to recreate in precise humidity, temperature, saturation, altitude, velocity, etc.), and yet the explanation is infinitely more rational than that favored by the significance-junkie and mystery-monger.

How many times must I say, THERE ISNT ANY EVIDENCE (available to the public). If there were this would not be an issue. Everyone would know the truth.

The ever-elusive "truth," eh? If there's no evidence, why the insistence that there is a "truth" that isn't being told?

According to the eye-witness testimonies, the object the lights were on "blocked out the stars behind it". Since when do flares block out stars a considerable distance on either side in a symmetrical "V" shape?

I'm not interested in discussing such a non-issue. It remains an issue only to those that lack critical thinking skills, to the mystery-mongers, and to the significance-junkies. Those who think critically and rationally find this to be a non-issue, interesting only in its effect on believers. Anthropologically, this effect is fascinating, but in the end, it was a military exercise. One the Air Force admitted to.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/03/23/phoenix-lights-again/

I would advise you to look up the NASA STS videos filmed in the 60s,

No need. I've seen these videos and, again, I'm not swayed that there is anything significant going on. Interesting, yes, since the vacuum of space and the laws of inertia are depicted and demonstrated. NASA scientists and others have provided reasoned and rational explanations for these, available to anyone not already looking for undo significance or mystery.

And here is a video showing two ufos traveling at amazing speeds over an ocean.

Of the YouTube videos you linked I saw nothing significant. But then I'm viewing them from a perspective of someone with an understanding of the velocities, maneuvering thrusters, and other satellites and particles in orbit around the Earth. Earth orbit isn't "clean" and points of light on a video can be particles a few millimeters in diameter just centimeters from the camera or meters in diameter several hundred or thousand meters from the camera.

But you're point is valid: mystery-mongers and significance-junkies will put value on such video all day long.

And finally a UFO intelligently avoiding an incoming object (ignore the title of the video about ground based energy pulse weapon, I question this myself, but it is a projectile nonetheless)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN0XnDJKdWo

"Ground-based energy pulse weapon?!" Where we watching the same video? Even if you're just quoting the video's title (it seems we did view the same link), you're ready to claim there is a "projectile?" "[N]onetheless?" Can you describe the mechanics and calculus of the effects of particles due to maneuvering thrusters? Are you aware that space is cold and that ice is present? Small amounts actually, but present. There are other particles that range from foam bits to tiles, etc. The Shuttle is actually a very messy spacecraft.

There are thrusters that fire, completely on computer control and in varied degrees or amounts of thrust, which maintain, adjust, or stabilize the shuttle's orbit. The effect is a pinball machine of particles (Newton's law and all).

I'd be willing to bet that nearly each and every one of the videos you linked to or can find with these "UFOs" would be shot at around sunrise or sunset (from the Shuttle's vantage point). This should be an empirically testable hypothesis, by the way, so feel free. If so, then the rational explanation is that sunlight is illuminating the particles we already know to exist, behaving in a manner we would expect (the videos confirm that expectation). They should streak and blur and seem to zip along at amazing speeds. They are scant centimeters from the Shuttle.

There are doubtless objects the shuttle's camera will also capture, also illuminated by sunlight which have a similar effect. Satellites, for instance. The shuttle's orbit is one direction, the satellite's another: the effect, blinding fast speeds. And should the orientation change slightly of one or the other during the camera shot? Wow. Good thing none of your links caught that! Then we'd have "UFO makes banking maneuver to avoid collision!"

There are MANY more NASA STS videos showing UFOs, I wont post them all here but many are on Youtube.

We thank you. They're interesting and fun to watch, but are meaningless with regard to "UFOs."

They also have classifications like "TOP SECRET" which means the public will NEVER find out about it. I wasnt aware school districts have top secret clearance that can get you arrested if you happen to stumble upon it. Hence the comparison does NOT hold.

The analogy holds for anyone with critical thinking skills and the ability to formulate logical arguments. A "philosopher" or someone who at least studied the rudimentary basics of philosophy would grasp the concept and understand. If you're mind and apparent preconceived notions of wild conspiracies that regards all redacted documents as "space aliens" and/or [insert wild claim], then I shan't waste additional time on it.

The other readers of this thread get it. Most of them.

 

[Ophiolite]

In addition to Skin Walker's points I found the following to be characteristic of your sloppy thinking.

I would advise you to look up the NASA STS videos filmed in the 60s, which were released to the public before they realized what the tapes actually contained (a mistake you can bet they never made again).

It certainly would have been a mistake to release videos before videos were invented and an even larger mistake if these were of a craft that did not fly until the 1980s. The truth is out. NASA can use the shuttle for time travel!

Here is a video where they are trying to find the MIR space station, but there are so many moving points of light they cant find it!

Oh, look! The Russians had a time travelling space station! Everyone is at it. Don't you feel rather lonely left on the outside.

I suggest you google Mercury, fireflies and NASA. John Glenn reported clouds of luminous 'fireflies' around his spacecraft during parts of his three orbit flight. It was left to Scott Carpenter to find the explanation for this when he generated clouds of them by accidentally striking the wall of the capsule and releasing clouds of frost. And yet, more than four decades later, you are looking at the same clouds and seeing faces of mystery. Don't you feel that's rather sad?

 

[SkinWalker]

That's not to say "sloppy thinking" isn't something we're all ever guilty of at some time or another. The trick is to minimize it and learn to evaluate the world critically, logically, and rationally.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's not to say "sloppy thinking" isn't something we're all ever guilty of at some time or another. The trick is to minimize it and learn to evaluate the world critically, logically, and rationally.

Indeed, since at least 'sloppy thinking' is a form of thinking: the perpetrator is half way there. Much better than 'vacuous vegetation'.

 

[electrafixtion]

Wait a minute, since when were the documented observation of UFOs throughout the last several thousand years limited to certain types of documents? Are not recorded documents facts? Is it not clear to state that an Unidentified Flying Object is in fact "unidentified"? Of course it is. The truth here is the fact that we find ourselves right back in the uniform quagmire of what is, and what is not, socially scientific "accepted thinking". Why don't we apply that same type of thinking to the concept of evolution? Oh, that's right we do. (NOT!) All (and I mean every single one) of the claims made by SkinWalker would EASILY be applied to the accepted notion of what is evolution. Precisely the same arguments could be used as a counter. Where does it end? The only difference is that when we arrive at those easily dismissed points where the process is "pieced" together, we find the hierarchy of our empirical scientific social order in agreement that these "scientific leaps of faith" are A-OK cause we sez so.

Great "scientifically correct" (same as in "politically correct") response in denial there SkinWalker. Now would YOU care to assert "facts", as I am certain you are able, in place of all those you refute? Or will you go on contending, or better put, PRETENDING, that UFOs should be dismissed based on a ridiculous lack of "empirical truth".

This type of thinking achieves a ridiculously slow and even far retarded (as in slowed down within) level of results with respect to scientific advancements. Please stop insisting that "healthy" reality must somehow align itself with "how we think" That in and of itself is an extremely flawed concept that places man's thought process before reality. The truth is that man can only observe, interpret, learn and process a reality that far and away proceeded him and said observations.

You simly CANNOT dismiss what is credible testimony and visually recorded EVIDENCE because of it being subject to observation, and thereby the powers of perception, to begin with. That's downright foolish and indeed circular logic to say the least.