I understand your view. I know the evidence seems convincing to you and I agree that some of it is very interesting to say the least. There may in fact be and have been ET craft flying around and even landing on earth.
But I am not going to get into a discussion where I try to dis-prove or prove the impossible with you. I keep looking for cases that warrant further inquiry. I did a complete open minded review of the Stephenville case to the best of my abilities and with the information available. Guess what there was indeed a ufo caught on radar but it still didn't offer proof of ET. Did you scrutinize the report the way I did. Did you look for information that excluded the ET scenario as well as include it. Is there anything in my review that you would suggest I missed or got wrong with the information available ?
The problem is that without better information you can't make a 100% yes or no answer to them and we are not going to get that information for many reasons as I pointed out it may have nothing to do with hiding the existence of ET.
Thank you for your consideration. You are without question a reasonable skeptic, and that in and of itself is
RARE.
I have examined the UFO phenomenon for the last 15 years pretty carefully. Let me be clear with you up front when I state that I do not base my contentions on my personal perspectives and research alone.
I have had an extremely real UFO experience and I assure you that what I witnessed was NOT a natural phenomenon, nor was it man made experimental aircraft. Not unless (and I do not excluded this possibility) we as the human race have more than one well established scientific paradigm with respect to aerial capability.
Even so, I discount the entire event and consider it peripheral in comparison to the testimony of expert pilots and astronauts that have seen this phenomenon first hand.
You are correct, we do not have enough information available to us to clearly identify and scientifically categorize ET life forms if there are any such thing. What we do have however is experts beyond refute that possess the highest level of understanding possible for that which is applied aerial/space mechanics and design technologies. These people, not you, not I, not Stanton Friedman, nor the late Carl Sagan are the sole individuals that are capable of accessing and determining irrefutably what these technologies are not. It doesn't matter what they are. It only matters what they are not, and they are NOT of earthly origin according to minds far and away worthy of acknowledging that claim as fact. Those people, unlike the THOUSANDS of other perfectly sane and credible witnesses, do most certainly provide extraordinary evidence in their expert testimonies.
I am completely open minded to the idea of ET's and that they may be much more advanced then us, who knows we might be the ones to be the aliens far off in the future where we show up on their door step. Many here have expressed their skepticism but also their hope that one day we have contact. Do you not believe them ? Do you not believe me ?
Don't tell me you know ET's are flying around. You may believe that but you can't prove that. Because if you do, I ask you to prove it and you won't be able to. Period, end of discussion.
First off, I do "believe" you are genuine as I do "believe" many others are as well. However, I hold a MUCH different perception of why we "see" what we see. Let me ask you a question: Do you "believe" in evolution? I do. I cannot prove evolution because I cannot duplicate the process. I cannot demonstrate evolution but I can understand it because it is a man conceived process. I can align carefully constructed analysis that agrees with this process. I can observe metamorphosis as a form of living evolution. I can read about our own personified artificial selection processes in the laboratory, but no one, and I repeat NO ONE can PROVE evolution. It's impossible. It cannot be controlled. It cannot be repeated. It cannot be mastered by humanity therefore it can only be believed and accepted as a logical conclusion based on formulated evidences as applied to the suggested reality for that which is the evolutionary process.
Now, if you can approach the subject with some humility and respect for why others want to be skeptical on such a subject then we can converse as fellow earthlings.
Again, extrodinary claims need extrodinary evidence.
Sir, I can do anything you can, and yes, that includes being humble.
In a court case, if I told you that Bill killed Joe. Many people knew Joe, they knew he existed. Even if they don't have Joe's body, Joe existed. Humans exist. Trying to prove Bill killed Joe doesn't require us to prove Joe existed.
With ET we are trying to prove something exists that was previously unknown to exists.
So the evidence has to be so undeniable that there can not be another explanation. That will be hard to do without the evidence I suggested would be needed at a minimum. Part of a craft or a craft would be preferred.
If the evidence had to be undeniable, an expert witness would never need to be introduced to make a legitimate conclusion. Your example is flawed. It is not necessary to prove the existence of anything when in fact you are deducing reality by expert means. The deductive reasoning of an expert witness to what something is not, is just as important and is as assured a form of proof as is proving what is held in contention.
If it isn't from this earth friend, it's got to be from somewhere else.