The Thing about UFOs...

[DwayneD.L.Rabon]

Well, I will still say I do not understand why a person can not build their own Flying Saucer.
The reason i say this is because you can build your own craft.
What is a requirement is a dedication to understanding the craft, and its operation.

You see, piolets of airplanes, cars, trains, boats ect... all of them only learn how operate these vechiles. very seldom do they learn how to build them.
In this case you are people that will not be given a instruction maunal on how to operate a flying saucer or for that matter it appears given even the flying saucer.
You are people that have a intrest in flying saucers or would like to have such flight capablity. given these circumstances you are put in a positon where you have to build your own.

In end your success is equal to your dedication to such a invention, for example you may achive flight but not supersonic flight. if you continue then eventually you will achive supersonic flight.

Flight/ flying is a activity that has wanted by humans for a very long time, it has been dreamed of and thought about quite deeply, animals of flight have been cheerished for thier abltiy of flight to such a exstent that almost every Royal FamilyEmbelm or Goverment on earth has a symbol of a bird, this is because humans desire that ablity.

It does not matter if it is aliens of humans that fly flying saucers, why because humans desire flight and dream of traveling the heavens.

Many of you use gravity and anti gravity every day, why do think you can you not use this same ablitiy to make your flying saucer.


DwayneD.L.Rabon

 

[Read-Only]

Many of you use gravity and anti gravity every day, why do think you can you not use this same ablitiy to make your flying saucer.
DwayneD.L.Rabon

Beside the fact that the emblems mentioned here are NOT images of flight at all but represent the concept of freedom AND all the numerous misspellings, what I've quoted above is THE most hilarious of all.

Exactly how many of you out there use "anti-gravity every day?" Let's see a show of hands, please.

What? Nobody at all all??? Gee, then I guess we must be living in a different universe than Rabon.

 

[SkinWalker]

Don't get him started. He's probably off the meds & won't stop.

 

[electrafixtion]

So far, nothing but OPINIONS on this "scientific" forum. Not one single shred of credible proof that UFOs are either (a) solely man made, (b) a figment of the imagination, or (c) the works of dubious sources of information. What we can CLEARLY say is that a phenomenon exists unquestionably that NO ONE understands one way or the other. The interesting thing to note is that not one "scientist" here, that claims UFOs to be something other than an alien form of technology, has ever witnessed them first hand. Interesting, predictable & ever typical.

 

[SkinWalker]

So far, nothing but OPINIONS on this "scientific" forum.

Untrue. I posted a detailed analysis which included many "facts" about memory, perception, and cognitive ability of people. Even though it wasn't incumbant upon me to do so since I wasn't making any positive claims.

Not one single shred of credible proof that UFOs are either (a) solely man made, (b) a figment of the imagination, or (c) the works of dubious sources of information.

I don't think anyone is positing that UFOs are "solely man made," this appears to be a position that exists in your mind. But, even still, you and others in this forum are the ones making unusual and extraordinary claims about alleged UFOs. Myself and others are questioning and criticizing those claims as is our right.

But this, my friend, is yet another example of logical fallacy, known as Shifting the Burden of Proof to the other side. You're the one with extraordinary claims. You're the only one with a requirement to show evidence.

What we can CLEARLY say is that a phenomenon exists unquestionably that NO ONE understands one way or the other.

Complete and utter bullshit. Moreover, this logical fallacy has been identified and pointed out to you time and again. Its the appeal to ignorance -just because you're ignorant about the cause of the alleged phenomena, doesn't mean that you can project your ignorance on others. There are no good reasons demonstrated to believe that UFOs that are perceived by various observers aren't merely man made or natural phenomena that simply cannot be readily identified because of some lack of data available to the observer. And many people do understand weather, aircraft behavior and characteristics, human psychology, etc. Just because you don't understand these things, doesn't mean you can validly project your ignorance on others. QED.

The interesting thing to note is that not one "scientist" here, that claims UFOs to be something other than an alien form of technology, has ever witnessed them first hand. Interesting, predictable & ever typical.

Which, here, are you now claiming are "scientists?" I'm assuming that your use of inverted commas indicates that you have some doubt as to the ability of others here to understand science, but I see no reason to accept that this is a qualification you possess to evaluate within others given your inability to think critically and avoid logical fallacy in your argumentation.

Having said that, I, for one, have witnessed two UFOs which I'm willing to temporarily or even continue to classify as such. Once, in 1974, I witnessed what appeared then to be a fiery disk moving very slow until it disappeared beyond the treeline behind my house. It was just after dark. A second time in 1996 during military maneuvers in White Sands, NM where I witnessed another disk, this time not illuminated and only visible through AN/PVS nightvision goggles. Neither disk made a sound.

Both events have plausible, probable and very prosaic explanations. They were mysterious at the moment, but I have since observed legitimate phenomena which explain both events in very logical and reasoned terms.

No longer are they mysterious. Interesting, but not mysterious.

Many scientists and science-minded types witness such events all the time. The difference is, they aren't significance-junkies or mystery-mongers and don't get bent out of shape when they see something.

 

[electrafixtion]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Maccabee

Some of the greater scrutiny that I mentioned the EVIDENCE (please note how this is not based on an "eye witness" account) having under went has been by this man. I think you will find his credentials in order.

Why is it that when a man argues in favor of a common sense interpretation of respected expert testimony, as opposed to the irrationally obstinate skepticism that is expressed by people who obviously are not up to date with respect to their research, that all of a sudden that person is impolite or not as "well rounded" as others posting on the subject.

Does this graceful correspondence make you any less wrong or right?

You say that I have made irrational claims and then you misquote me contending polar opposites. (duh!) Instead of truly accepting the fact that my personal position on UFOs as being being both of human and non human origin, you claim I am waving the space alien flag. That's a mockery and a purposefully forwarded misconception.

How is that you can even have an objective "scientific" position on the matter when all you site as research is grossly out dated? Some of which "research" having been publicly disclaimed as fraud to begin with. This being when you yourselves have no clue about which respected scientists that are presently proponents of the UFO phenomenon as that which is the result of non human technology.

I don't understand this form of unbiased, objective and well reasoned skepticism on the matter.

 

[SkinWalker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Maccabee

More appeals to authority. Instead of citing the supposed qualifications of inviduals, why not simply make a logical argument for whatever position you hold (you keep going back and forth, weaseling out of anything, it's hard to tell anymore). Feel free to cite the evidence of one of these authorities, but mere name-dropping is meaningless and doesn't make an actual arguement.

Some of the greater scrutiny that I mentioned the EVIDENCE (please note how this is not based on an "eye witness" account) having under went has been by this man. I think you will find his credentials in order.

Instead of demanding that I read a wikipedia article, perhaps you can cite the relevant evidence and summarize it's key points, concluding with premises that end with a truth statement.

Any of us can repspond back and forth with a plethora of links to websites and appeal to the authorities of individuals without considering their merits first hand. This only makes us look inane and unintellligent.

Why is it that when a man argues in favor of a common sense interpretation of respected expert testimony, as opposed to the irrationally obstinate skepticism that is expressed by people who obviously are not up to date with respect to their research, that all of a sudden that person is impolite or not as "well rounded" as others posting on the subject.

I have no idea what you're referring to. What "common sense interpretation" of which "respected expert testimony" are you referring to, precisely? Why should this "testimony" be exempt from the requirement of evidence that's put forth in all other areas of science?

You say that I have made irrational claims and then you misquote me contending polar opposites.

Please cite the misquotations. I provided the post numbers and the direct quote you made. If you've misrepresented your position, you had and still have ample opportunity to clarify. Yet you do not. You still hold to this ambiguous position that alleged sightings of UFOs are both "human and non-human." Well, no shit. That's no different than what I've stated. I've gone so far as to include delusion, hoaxes, lies, and psychological explanations, but these are all under the purview of "human."

Instead of truly accepting the fact that my personal position on UFOs as being being both of human and non human origin, you claim I am waving the space alien flag.

It sure seemed like it. Indeed, it still seems like it. Are you officially revoking your poll choice of "both" with regard to the binary choice of "man made" and "extraterrestrial?" If not, then you're suggesting at least one of the alleged UFO sightings to date are space aliens or the equivalent. If so, please state as much in your next post.

That's a mockery and a purposefully forwarded misconception.

Admittedly, it is well-deserved mockery, but no purposeful "misconception" forwarded or otherwise (one is left to wonder what, precisely a "forwarded misconception" truly is) unless it's on your part.

How is that you can even have an objective "scientific" position on the matter when all you site as research is grossly out dated?

I don't see where you have either the right nor the qualifications to criticize any research prima facie. But I'd be interested to see you take on the research I presented in the essay I wrote, and refute it. The majority of it is research published in peer review, so I doubt there's much you can say, legitimately that either hasn't already been said or valid.

Moreover, research doesn't have a expiration date. It is only trumped by new research that either adds to it or invalidates it with improved methodologies.

If nothing else, and assuming that you bother to read and comprehend any of my posts, and in spite of my occasional mockery of your poorly constructed arguments and attempts at riposte, you can potentially walk away from this thread with an education.

I'm betting nothing has sunk in, however. And that's unfortunate since you obviously have a curious nature and a willingness to engage in discourse.

Some of which "research" having been publicly disclaimed as fraud to begin with.

If I cited any research that has been demosntrated as fraudulent, then you have a duty to expose it as such. I, then, have a duty to either admit its fraudulent nature or defend the research. I assure you, I will not defend any research that is fraudulent and happily revise any statement or position I have that depends solely on that research.

Please cite that research and the evidence of its fraudulent nature.

This being when you yourselves have no clue about which respected scientists that are presently proponents of the UFO phenomenon as that which is the result of non human technology.

I'm aware of several. Indeed, you or someone else in this thread was asked to discuss their research and present their most convincing arguments and evidence. I've yet to see anthing but continued appeals to authority. Its as if, to you, the very fact that there are some people in science who are interested and give more than a passing glance to UFOs, this alone is enough to validate whatever position you have on UFOs. That's complete and utter bollocks.

I don't understand this form of unbiased, objective and well reasoned skepticism on the matter.

Clearly.

Here's your homework in order for you to make any attempt to participate sensibly, logically, intelligently and reasonably in this thread:

1. Cite the best example(s) of scientific research from one or more of your favorite scientists who have researched the UFO phenomenon
2. Cite the "fraudulent" research you imply I or someone else has cited that we might either address it or revise our position, perhaps even in your favor
3. Cite the invalid nature of the research I used in the essay I wrote within this thread, which you make the fallacious claim of being "outdated."
4. And, most importantly, tell us in your own words, what your positition is on UFOs that we might more effectively discuss it: do you still regard one or more sightings as "extraterrestrial" as indicated in your admitted poll choice; or do you now revoke that poll choice and have another position?

 

[electrafixtion]

Untrue. I posted a detailed analysis which included many "facts" about memory, perception, and cognitive ability of people. Even though it wasn't incumbant upon me to do so since I wasn't making any positive claims.

irrelevant. You CANNOT apply average perceptive law to above average witnesses. Period. That's why expert testimony is 100% admissible and honored in a court of law. Don't give me that BULLSHIT that no one really knows what we are dealing with either. It's flight beyond our commonly perceived level of technological capability. Plain and simple.

I don't think anyone is positing that UFOs are "solely man made," this appears to be a position that exists in your mind. But, even still, you and others in this forum are the ones making unusual and extraordinary claims about alleged UFOs. Myself and others are questioning and criticizing those claims as is our right.

But this, my friend, is yet another example of logical fallacy, known as Shifting the Burden of Proof to the other side. You're the one with extraordinary claims. You're the only one with a requirement to show evidence.

Funny, for a position that exists in my mind, it was one of the four options on the pole that thus far 7 people have voted for.

"shifting the burden of proof" is no logical fallacy. That is unless you can't meet the respectable counter demand for proof of your contentions. Why not be honest like myself and admit that it is quite possible that UFOs are real and of non human origin because frankly, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY BETTER CLUE or UNDERSTANDING THAN I. Period.

Complete and utter bullshit. Moreover, this logical fallacy has been identified and pointed out to you time and again. Its the appeal to ignorance -just because you're ignorant about the cause of the alleged phenomena, doesn't mean that you can project your ignorance on others. There are no good reasons demonstrated to believe that UFOs that are perceived by various observers aren't merely man made or natural phenomena that simply cannot be readily identified because of some lack of data available to the observer. And many people do understand weather, aircraft behavior and characteristics, human psychology, etc. Just because you don't understand these things, doesn't mean you can validly project your ignorance on others. QED.

I will ignore the above emotional outburst. It's just a fit of denial that suites you're pseudo position on the matter. You don't have any evidence whatsoever that UFOs are solely man made and yet you claim that I should such evidence because I believe it more sound of reason to agree with Astronauts, Pilots and Aviation Experts that have witnessed the phenomenon first hand. You got nothing. Go fish.

Which, here, are you now claiming are "scientists?" I'm assuming that your use of inverted commas indicates that you have some doubt as to the ability of others here to understand science, but I see no reason to accept that this is a qualification you possess to evaluate within others given your inability to think critically and avoid logical fallacy in your argumentation.

That's called satire or sarcasm. The quotes indicate anything but an objective "scientific" mind. You and others like you are merely prejudiced and have nothing to back up your denial or positions. Just more miss perception based psychobabble.

Having said that, I, for one, have witnessed two UFOs which I'm willing to temporarily or even continue to classify as such. Once, in 1974, I witnessed what appeared then to be a fiery disk moving very slow until it disappeared beyond the treeline behind my house. It was just after dark. A second time in 1996 during military maneuvers in White Sands, NM where I witnessed another disk, this time not illuminated and only visible through AN/PVS nightvision goggles. Neither disk made a sound.

Both events have plausible, probable and very prosaic explanations. They were mysterious at the moment, but I have since observed legitimate phenomena which explain both events in very logical and reasoned terms.

No longer are they mysterious. Interesting, but not mysterious.

Many scientists and science-minded types witness such events all the time. The difference is, they aren't significance-junkies or mystery-mongers and don't get bent out of shape when they see something.

I would like to better understand the "plausible, probable and very prosaic explanations" that you have in mind.

On this note, I believe you have accepted, and in fact agreed, with my point. There is no logic here whatsoever. You REALLY don't have a clue what you saw, however, you have chosen to BELIEVE what you saw.

I personally find far more logic in believing expert testimony and well scrutinized film/video/digital images.

In reality, we are both just believers. Where is the logical fallacy in that?

 

[jpappl]

Hi Skin,

Thanks for the response.

I think we are thinking the same on some of these issues, and we have some disagreements.

You are correct that my experiences with seeing fighter jets up close was during the day. I agree that a night sighting would be quite different. I was trying to understand that if they were used to seeing military craft and were sure this was very different to them, that made me curious.

You stated " that this wasn't a typical exercise and they should have been happy to see the show " How do you this wasn't a typical exercise ? Why was a unique exercise being performed over the Stephenville area ?

You have provided me with the only valid reason for the USAF not to release the data they have. So I appreciate that because I hadn't really thought of it as a national defense issue if our enemies could the radar data and then understand what our capabilities are. This is the only area that in my mind I am stuck on.

I don't have enough information to be able to make an intelligent decision here. Is radar gathering a fast moving science ? Is it evolving at a rapid rate or have they used the same principles for many years ?

If the later is the case than we aren't exposing very much with the data as long as we do not release the data of the F16s. Just focusing on the ufo. Maybe that is not possible, and that would again create a problem in looking at their data without at the same time releasing information to our potential enemies that they should not have.

However, I couldn't disagree more that they are untouchable when it comes to releasing data. That is a very dangerous precedent. What you are saying is that we should never know what they are doing for national defense reasons, you are opening up the door that something could happen where the military will hold all the strings. We as a society are then on a need to know basis and they rule and control us.

They are not supposed to be in charge, we are. The president is not the king, we are.

I am unwilling to accept that they should have that much power over the information. I feel the FOIA (freedom of info act) is toothless currently and they know that. This is something that I want to change and it's not just related to this incident.

So I think in the end, I will have to respectfully disagree on a few points.

Mainly that I feel at the very least the FAA radar data should be reviewed to see how much or how little MUFON steered the report. To see if they agree with the potential flying capabilites of the ufo on the report based on the radar data, and lastly the witnesses. We should question if there is a better explanation for it, but should not treat them as unreliable just because some have been in the past. They simply stated what they thought they saw.

Thanks for the input, you have at least offered me something that I had not thought about with regards to the USAF data, I will look into that in greater detail and think about the implications the release of the data could produce.

JA

 

[SkinWalker]

Since the rest of your post merely repeats much of the same fallacious nonsense (shifting the burden of proof is, however, a logical fallacy. Its a special case of argumentum ad ignorantum), I'm not going to bother with it. It's all been said and we're beginning to get inane.

I will, however, respond to this:

I would like to better understand the "plausible, probable and very prosaic explanations" that you have in mind.

On this note, I believe you have accepted, and in fact agreed, with my point. There is no logic here whatsoever. You REALLY don't have a clue what you saw, however, you have chosen to BELIEVE what you saw.

I'm hesitant to give you the information you request, mostly because it will do little to disuade you from your preconceived notions and conclusions. For such people, only that data which are supportive are considered. But I suppose its possible that others might be interested. Momentum7 has read this before:

The 1974 incident was, very likely, a Harrier Jet. I lived in an apartment next to the NASA base (Wallops Island Space Flight Center at the time) my father worked at. I was leaving my two story apartment at dusk to feed a pet rabbit at the treeline. There was an arc of perhaps 25 degrees of sky visible and, just as I stepped out of the back door, the "ball of light" silently passed directly overhead and disappeared beyond the treeline.

My dad said it was probably a jet. I was about seven years old and didn't believe him because UFOs were a huge pop-culture thing at the time and I didn't hear the jet engine. My dad thought the whole thing was funny. I was a true-believer in UFOs until 1984 when I was a young soldier stationed at Palmerola Air Base in Honduras.

It was in Honduras that I was working as a Military Policeman, patrolling the flightline at just after dark (the Sun's light was barely visible in deep reds on the horizon) when an illuminated disk of light passed nearly directly overhead, to eventually land at the far end of the flightline. It was a Harrier Jet! I couldn't hear a thing until after it passed overhead and reached a particular angle from my vantage point, at which time the engine noise steadily grew louder. I never waited for the jet in 1974 to reach that angle since I dashed inside out of fear. The rabbit went hungry that night too.

That began the point at which I started questioning UFO sightings and realized that most were probably not space aliens. I still thought some were. Like you, I was dazzled by the likes of Stanton Friedman, Hynek and others. I even believed Whitely Striebman at that time.

In 1996, at around 23:00 hours (+/- 2 hrs), I was the track commander of a Multiple Launch Rocket System valued at $2.2 million dollars. Between my military police training and several non-commissioned officer courses, my skills of observation is easily considered "expert." After all, I had to make battlefield decisions in real life on whether or not an aircraft was friend or foe. I've been deployed to numerous training missions that invovled multiple service branches and two combat operations and several "hot" ops that weren't officially combat.

On this particular training mission in White Sands, NM (just down the street from the infamous Roswell, NM), I was wearing NVGs (night vision gogles) in order to navigate my driver along a dirt road in search of our firing, hide and reload points.

Moving silently from left to right from my direction of travel, I observed a disk that appeared to move swiftly and silently with *no* illumination. I could not see it without the NVGs and I tried. I said aloud, "what the fuck is that? What IS that?" several times. My driver said he was getting scared just by the tone of my voice.

I described what I saw to him and we kicked around several possibilities. The first was weather balloon. UFO believers hate this explanation, and I was still, somewhat, a believer. I reasoned that it could not be a balloon since there was no wind that I could detect and it was moving far too fast for a slight, imperceptable breeze.

You know what it was?

A weather balloon. I checked with our MET detachment and they released several balloons and said that they can easily get caught at a thermal layer in the lower atmosphere where the wind is actually blowing and move horizontally for miles at a time. I was near the MET (meteorlogical) detachment for division artillery at the time of the sighting. MET data is vital to rocket artillery (MLRS) in order to provide accurate firing solutions for the rockets and balloons are frequently used.

This last explanation nearly cinched my advancement from significance-junkie and mystery-monger to rationalist. The writings of Carl Sagan finally pushed me over the edge, particularly A Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

I realize you will probably dismiss these stories, but perhasp they're useful for someone else in the intertubes that find their way here from Google or random clicks.

And, true enough, I cannot be 100% sure that the explanations I've given are what actually occurred. But they introduce the fewest new assumptions and ready examples exist.

I don't need to rely on "non-existant technology" as a reason (which is code for space aliens, don't kid yourself).

 

[nietzschefan]

Good Post Skinwalker, certainly lets us know where you are coming from.

Some UFO sightings are far different from what you just described, however.

 

[SkinWalker]

How do you [know] this wasn't a typical exercise ? Why was a unique exercise being performed over the Stephenville area ?

I suppose I don't for sure, but I am inferring it based on a couple of assumptions. Dogfight-type maneuvers are inherently dangerous and only conducted after reaching a certain level of training; fuel is expensive and has to be accounted for, and the more turns introduced in a flightplan, the more fuel used -thus "dogfight" maneuvers are fuel intensive; flares are expensive and accountable -particularly those in missile countermeasures; most of the flight practice in the area that I witnessed was air-to-ground attack (I drove a bobtail tank truck once and it seemed to be a favorite target!).

I've watched dogfight maneuvers (the Air Force has a specific name for this type of exercise but it eludes me -I was in the Army) several times -they used to do it over the training grounds of Fort Carson (probably from Peterson AFB) and it was a spectical.

Is radar gathering a fast moving science ? Is it evolving at a rapid rate or have they used the same principles for many years ?

I'm not an expert on radar by any means, but it stands to reason that it might be given that radar defeating technology is advancing at a rapid rate and we typically look for counter-measures for any new weapon or tactic we develop.

If the later is the case than we aren't exposing very much with the data as long as we do not release the data of the F16s. Just focusing on the ufo.

What if the "UFO" isn't a UFO to the Air Force but an aircraft, either new or (more likely) with new capabilities? By releasing the radar data, they AF then releases the limits and capabilities of new technology since when, where, and how the aircraft is able to defeat radar is evident.

They are not supposed to be in charge, we are. The president is not the king, we are.

I wouldn't argue that point one way or the other. I would, however, say that there are some things worth keeping secret. I had to believe that in my former positions in the military -regardless of my innate curiosity. I've been privy to many things that I cannot reveal and will not which have nothing to do with secret alien conspiracies and the like, but I can see how if a portion of that info were revealed it could create such a speculation -particularly when I and others refuse to reveal the full details due to loyalty and duty.

T

hanks for the input, you have at least offered me something that I had not thought about with regards to the USAF data, I will look into that in greater detail and think about the implications the release of the data could produce.

JA

Thank you for your input and questions. I'm starting to have an appreciation for the perception that even mundane secrets can have upon the public.

 

[SkinWalker]

Good Post Skinwalker, certainly lets us know where you are coming from.

Some UFO sightings are far different from what you just described, however.

Which is why I don't assign the explanations of Harrier Jets and Weather Balloons to them

The rest are swamp gas (that's a joke electrafixtion).

 

[electrafixtion]

No matter what you have posted so far SkinWalker, to this very point, you don't offer anything of substance either way. I pointed out the fact that I accept and consider the opinions and interpretations of expert eye witness accounts as being more so valid than your own or MR. O's.

How have you shown me the value of not accepting said testimony as most accurate and with standing?

Who are you compared to Gordon Cooper? Stanton Friedman, Bruce Maccabe, etc.?

Who's word should I take logically speaking?

Incidentally, the perception that is cast of "Space Aliens" comes from the notion that these beings are traveling great distances when they do come to earth. This is what is commonly meant by the term "extraterrestrials"

I only voted for the "both" option because it should have been worded Human and Non Human. Beings that navigate dimensions may even now be an arm's length away observing us. So no, ET and human beings are NOT the only possibilities. See Jacques Vallée for more information. This would make a GREAT deal more sense than "Space Aliens" coming from light years away. It would also more so hold up with respect to the very same type of craft and described beings as documented via wood cuts/paintings and written languages throughout history.

Another thing: Get off the retarded semantics band wagon. That's childish. It's also childish to apply Chess game type rules to the exchange of intelligent ideas. That's like one little spoiled brat saying to the other "but I asked you first". WEAK!! I know you would like to think you are somehow superior intellectually here, but you are not. Not in any way. You're average, just like the rest of us.

 

[SkinWalker]

Who are you compared to Gordon Cooper? Stanton Friedman, Bruce Maccabe, etc.?

No one. Nor have I asserted to be. I do, however, point out that I definitely have an expert opinion. You can accept it or not. My opinion is probably not that valuable anyway.

Who's word should I take logically speaking?

"Logically speaking, you shouldn't settle for mere word on an extraordinary claim. You should demand some extraordinary evidence. Which is why I decline to offer you any extraordinary claims.

Another thing: Get off the retarded semantics band wagon. That's childish. It's also childish to apply Chess game type rules to the exchange of intelligent ideas.

I don't play chess, so I can only take your word for it that the "rules" apply here. Perhaps you can give an example of what you mean. Did I request something of you that was unreasonable? Will you address the four questions I posed? If not, what more would like to get out of this thread and the discussion at hand?

 

[electrafixtion]

Tell me, why should I be obligated to play a game in a thread that is not of your creating. The poster that made this thread is clearly coming from a position that UFOs may very well in fact be from non human origin. Would it not therefore be logical for you to be the obligated opposing party to exemplify evidence to the contrary.

I have made abundantly clear the following:

Many scientists (of which I am not) have done lengthy research and reports on the UFO phenomenon. It surrounds you in this overtly easy day and age of Internet mass communication. Ethically speaking, as an opposing view point that bases his/her interpretations on scientific evidence, is it not incumbent upon you that you soak out and objectively weigh the scientific alternative? If not, I would contend that in fact it disqualifies your participation in such a discussion as an opposing view point.

The place I would humbly suggest you start your research since the viable body of evidence is far too large to capitulate on a forum such as this, is the DVD venues.

These can be most affordabley accessed via Netflix, however you can also Google UFO DVDs for purchases.

 

[SkinWalker]

Tell me, why should I be obligated to play a game in a thread that is not of your creating.

You're not. You can leave at any time you feel.

Many scientists (of which I am not) have done lengthy research and reports on the UFO phenomenon.

Which of these scientists and their reports do you find the most compelling?

 

[phlogistician]

Who are you compared to Gordon Cooper? Stanton Friedman, Bruce Maccabe, etc.?.

Cooper claims the craft he said he saw were extraterrestrial. He could not have know that. He may have seen craft which performed manoeuvres that conventional aircraft could not, and he would be qualified to make that judgement, but to say that had to be extraterrestrial is going too far.

Even then, he's just a man, and our senses play tricks on us, especially under times of stress. This accounts for the disparity between eye witness accounts of UFOs, and what is actually captured on film.

Don't you find it odd, that most 'Foo Fighter' reports happened during times of stress, during warfare, but now civil aviation sees far more aircraft in the skies, carrying far more people, all with cameras, as they prepare to go on holiday, the phenomena has all but vanished? Where are the pictures?

You cannot rule out the human element here.

 

[Read-Only]

Just a note in passing, fellows.

This Electrafixtion dude actually has NO interest in debate, no interest in learning anything and has only ONE agenda - wanting people to buy into his fantasy.

He's no different from Paul Dixon or Walter Wagner. With nothing more than the skimpiest of evidence for his claims (just like those other two), he's out to sell HIS version of foolishness and absolutely nothing logical will ever sway him.

 

[electrafixtion]

Just a note in passing, fellows.

This Electrafixtion dude actually has NO interest in debate, no interest in learning anything and has only ONE agenda - wanting people to buy into his fantasy.

He's no different from Paul Dixon or Walter Wagner. With nothing more than the skimpiest of evidence for his claims (just like those other two), he's out to sell HIS version of foolishness and absolutely nothing logical will ever sway him.

That and 4.00 will buy you a cup of designer joe. Move along please.