What [if anything] does the existence of unsolved cases really prove?

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
So "true UFOs" are actually identified as "non-terrestrial technology"? That makes sense now

Another excellent and thought-provoking contribution, Zeta!

You know darn well what it means: unidentified, with the usual 'true UFO' characteristics (as to appearance, performance, apparent intelligence, etc.), but without any implication as to the object's source... i.e., aliens from a different place, or aliens from a different time or dimension, or humans from a different time, and so on. Any of those, we're not sure which, BUT some apparent intelligence that's unknown to 21st century humans. It's simply a catch-all.

Clear enough?

It would avoid the whole "there's no proof it's aliens!" + "well what IS it then?!" mess that (much like you ;-) needlessly derails so many threads. But I'm almost positive the suggestion will go nowhere....

The deniers love semantics. I use the term 'aliens' because it fits on most aspects of definition:

Alien
1
a : belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing : strange
b : relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government : foreign
c : exotic 1
2
: differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility
3
:Extraterrestrial
: a creature that comes from somewhere other than the planet Earth

I get a kick out of the ETH, EDH, time travel argument, as if it matters much at this point on the discussion.
And from what I can tell, these alien beings may well be all of the above, and then some. So what's the argument?

Only once did they demonstrate to my family that they were privilege to certain facts that were still ten years in the future, But they did just that, only once.
One alien let it slip, and another alien got angry and told him to shut up.
Ten years later, it was in the headlines, at the time they told us, it seemed unlikely, but not impossible.

in fact as Oberg said the discovery of alien contact will be a significant milestone for humans.

Apparently not, as it seems to have been kept secret or overlooked by a large number of humans, including Mr. Oberg. The rest of us humans agree that it was, and is, pretty significant, however.

But you're talking about UFOs, which are unidentified flying objects. The existence of UFOs is well documented and not in question.

Are we really playing the "ufos just means unidentified" game, at long last?
We get it, we all know 'UFO' was a euphemism of propaganda created by the government to keep people from clearly discussing the term "alien ships".
So they created a term that was as vague as it possibly could be, even though "flying saucer" was a far more accurate description.

a reply to: Scdfa

No the term UFO was because the airforce. In 1953 an airforce aviator. Has nothing to do with the government hiding something. And flying saucer was coined by the press in 47 because Kenneth Arnold described them as a plate skipping off water. It was in refence to the movement as they appeared to bounce from one mountain to another. Now the reason people say UFO is simple we can't verify what it is This doesn't mean there isn't an explination.

This reminds me of religion For thousands of years makind saw things it couldn't explain. For example lightning well god causes that. Anytime man couldn't explain something it was god. Well thus same warped logic is used in UFOs if we can't explain it doesn't mean it's aliens. Many of the unknown sightings were in fact spy planes we know this now. I'd would love to think aliens are visiting earth it be so much more interesting but it needs to be proved. Ruling our other possibilities doesn't mean we jump to aliens as the cause. Well it shouldn't but a lot of people make that leap.

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets
The real question is...
Do you doubt that there are objects, seen in the air or on the ground, which we can't identify and which very much appear to be the product of some unknown, non-human intelligence?

Before I started researching UFOs in my spare time, I suspected some were probably alien. I certainly haven't ruled out that possibility, but what I can say is that the possibility that any of the cases I'm familiar with are actually alien now seems much lower than before I started my research, for a number of reasons.

The UFO in Salida Colorado is an example, where the person who observed and photographed it thinks it's an other-worldly object. This experience and conclusion really is exactly as Willtell describes in the post I replied to: "It seems to me that this UFO contact phenomenon is getting more like the religious experience". The conclusion of the photographer of the Salida Colorado "object" that it's other-worldly is exactly like that. I can offer a likely explanation of what was photographed in Salida that doesn't involve the photographers "religious experience", and in fact I'm quite sure what he photographed isn't really an "object" at all, which is why I like the UAP term better than UFO.

If there's a single UFO case that causes you to think it must be "the product of some unknown, non-human intelligence", which one is it? That's what I was looking for when I started my research, and I have yet to find anything that convinces me to draw that conclusion, though it's something I'm not afraid of finding; I'd really like to find it. I thought "where there's smoke, there must be fire" when looking at all the UFO books (the smoke), and I should be able to see better signs of the "fire" meaning cases truly involving aliens.

I never found the "fire" I expected. What I found instead was a wide variety of things, but mostly people jumping to the conclusion that they think they've identified something which hasn't been identified, and a number of people capitalizing on that by running around with "smoke generators" (meaning publishing UFO books where the research is less than rigorous) to make more smoke to make it look like there's really a "fire" and to line their pockets with cash from naive people all too eager to believe their distortions.

But, I'm still looking for that one case which really is convincing of "some unknown, non-human intelligence".

No the term UFO was because the airforce. In 1953 an airforce aviator. Has nothing to do with the government hiding something.

a reply to: dragonridr

Silly me, thinking that the Air Force a branch of our government's armed forces.





" And flying saucer was coined by the press in 47 because Kenneth Arnold described them as a plate skipping off . It was in refence to the movement as they appeared to bounce from one mountain to another."
a reply to: dragonridr

You are partially correct. Arnold did use a saucer to describe the movement of these ships, but he likewise described their shape as being a flying disc, here's a quote from an interview with Kenneth Arnold:

"Since my first observations and report of the so-called 'flying disks' I have spent a great deal of money and time thoroughly investigating the subject... There is no doubt in my mind but what these objects are aircraft of a strange design, and material that is unknown to the civilization of this earth."

Well thus same warped logic is used in UFOs if we can't explain it doesn't mean it's aliens.

Warped logic?
Let's see...

We have photographs of large metallic ships.
With windows, lights, and landing gear.
These ships fly, hover, land, and take off.
They fly at astonishing speeds, and out-perform our greatest military technology.
They are intelligently controlled or piloted, as evidenced by their actively engaging our defensive ships, and their interest in our military facilities and even missile silos.
The same ships described in the 1920s are still more advanced than any technology we have today, so the likelihood of these vehicles being human is remote as best. Unless we had saucer technology durning the era of WWI biplanes. Twenty years before the jet engine.

I mean, do I have to go on?
I certainly can, if need be, but it seems likes overkill.

I'm not even mentioning the perhaps millions of people who have seen non-human beings inside these vehicles, getting out of these vehicles, and people who have actually been taken on board these ships by these non-human beings like myself?

To proceed from these facts, to a conclusion involving alien beings is anything but "warped" logic.

Quite the opposite, alien beings are the logical conclusion.

originally posted by: Scdfa
..... it seems to have been kept secret or overlooked by a large number of humans, including Mr. Oberg. The rest of us humans agree that it was, and is, pretty significant, however.
....

Your own accounts might gain credibility if you could specify any other human being who believes they describe actual events. And as you claim felonious assaults ocurred, what's the attitude to the stories by local/state/federal law enforcement agencies?

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: Scdfa
..... it seems to have been kept secret or overlooked by a large number of humans, including Mr. Oberg. The rest of us humans agree that it was, and is, pretty significant, however.
....

Your own accounts might gain credibility if you could specify any other human being who believes they describe actual events. And as you claim felonious assaults ocurred, what's the attitude to the stories by local/state/federal law enforcement agencies?

My own accounts might gain credibility, mr Oberg?
My accounts are already credible, thank you.

But, mr. Oberg, I'm going to do you the courtesy of answering your question, but I must state that there are a good many questions that I have asked of you that remain unanswered. Perhaps you could occasionally show the same courtesy.

Now to your questions, number one, other human beings who believe my encounters were actual events:

I would start with my family, four of whom were taken themselves, often at the same time.

Then I would point to a dozen or more neighbors, who witnessed these alien ships as the hover over our house during abductions or returns.
One family next to us was having a picnic in the late afternoon when a saucer crossed over them to stop over our house, they were severely thunderstruck. It happened to our family too, once right during a picnic

Then I would point to investigators like Budd Hopkins, who spent some time investigating our abductions and concluded we were telling the truth.

In fact Budd Hopkins was discussing my family's abductions on CNN, until they ran out of time.

Then I might mention a cbs affiliate reporter, and the news anchor who declared my evidence on air as "convincing evidence".

There's some human beings for ya.
If you want their personal contact information, you have my permission to contact me directly and we can discuss that.

Now as to your second question, regarding the felonious kidnapping and assaults we endured at the hands of these alien beings:

I did recently discuss exactly what happened when we tried to report these incidents to both civilian law enforcement and the military.

In every attempt, we were told in no uncertain terms, "We do not take any UFO reports."

I would hope you are asking out of concern for our ongoing victimization, and the complete lack of help available to us and others who lived with the same experiences.

I hope these answers were as informative as they were forthright.

a reply to: Scdfa

So what evidence is there to prove this?? Or is it just eyewitness reports?? Just wondering why this news agency said your account was credible.

originally posted by: Scdfa
One family next to us was having a picnic in the late afternoon when a saucer crossed over them to stop over our house, they were severely thunderstruck.

Did they take any pictures?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scdfa

So what evidence is there to prove this?? Or is it just eyewitness reports?? Just wondering why this news agency said your account was credible.

Well, I'm hesitant to say too much more, or I will reveal my identity, and I'd rather not open myself up for that type of harassment. You can contact me privately if you like, we could discuss it privately.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Scdfa
One family next to us was having a picnic in the late afternoon when a saucer crossed over them to stop over our house, they were severely thunderstruck.

Did they take any pictures?

I don't think they did.
Hence the term thunderstruck.
People do not think about getting a picture when they are faced with such an extreme event, unless the event is lengthy enough.

a reply to: Scdfa
Have you considered making a thread to talk about your and your family's experiences?

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Scdfa
Have you considered making a thread to talk about your and your family's experiences?

I'm simply responding to questions posed to me here by the creator of this thread. Thank you, though, I will consider it, but I am writing a book.

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scdfa

So what evidence is there to prove this?? Or is it just eyewitness reports?? Just wondering why this news agency said your account was credible.

Well, I'm hesitant to say too much more, or I will reveal my identity, and I'd rather not open myself up for that type of harassment. You can contact me privately if you like, we could discuss it privately.

So then why did you bring it up?? And do you not stand by your story?? I honestly don't see any reason to not back your story. And judging from your statement I'm guessing there's no physical evidence. But a big red flag for me is when I start hearing excuses when I ask about an event they witnessed. Do you actually believe your right or are you unsure??

a reply to: Scdfa


Personally, if I were routinely being abducted by aliens, a camera would be at the top of my list. But that's just dumb ol' me.

If your neighbors were frozen in disbelief, at least you have the corroborating accounts by these witnesses for your book that can be verified, correct?

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8
a reply to: Scdfa


Personally, if I were routinely being abducted by aliens, a camera would be at the top of my list. But that's just dumb ol' me.

I don't get what makes people think this would be so simple.
If you were an advanced species and wanted to remain inconspicuous, don't you think that precautions would be taken to disable or disrupt simple electronic devices to remain that way? There are reports of ufos capable of disabling nuclear missiles and weapon control systems so simple gadgets like that shouldn't be a problem.

On top of that, who's going to accept a photo like that to be valid? Out of all the alleged photos presuming to be images of either craft or aliens, what has ever been validated? If he posted that on here I can see everyone rushing to play the Phage debunk game. And that's if the photo will ever see the light of day to begin with without being confiscated after being brought to whatever local intelligence agency or media outlet.

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
I don't get what makes people think this would be so simple.

Because setting up a camera is extremely simple. You can buy commercial nanny-cams that are hidden and hard to detect.

You are questioning if the effort would be successful, and it's a valid question given that I know nothing about the capabilities of aliens.

However, bringing up that question is still no reason not to try. Now if the repeated abduction victim tried it and the answer was "I did have a camera set up to try to record the ongoing abductions, and when I tried to play it back it was _____" fill in the blank with some problem, it came out black or fuzzy or whatever, then at least they tried. Not being sure if it would work or not wouldn't stop me from trying. It's so easy to try, why not try?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
I don't get what makes people think this would be so simple.

Because setting up a camera is extremely simple. You can buy commercial nanny-cams that are hidden and hard to detect.

You are questioning if the effort would be successful, and it's a valid question given that I know nothing about the capabilities of aliens.

However, bringing up that question is still no reason not to try. Now if the repeated abduction victim tried it and the answer was "I did have a camera set up to try to record the ongoing abductions, and when I tried to play it back it was _____" fill in the blank with some problem, it came out black or fuzzy or whatever, then at least they tried. Not being sure if it would work or not wouldn't stop me from trying. It's so easy to try, why not try?

Yes hard to detect for the average human.

Maybe so, but repeated abductions have been a common occurrence throughout the years. You would think this has already been tried by now. I doubt this is a new idea. Assuming that's the case, it could be the reason we've never had any authenticated photos like that. To go along with that, the problem I outlined in the second paragraph of my previous post further complicates the issue as well.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Scdfa

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: Scdfa

So what evidence is there to prove this?? Or is it just eyewitness reports?? Just wondering why this news agency said your account was credible.

Well, I'm hesitant to say too much more, or I will reveal my identity, and I'd rather not open myself up for that type of harassment. You can contact me privately if you like, we could discuss it privately.

So then why did you bring it up?? And do you not stand by your story?? I honestly don't see any reason to not back your story. And judging from your statement I'm guessing there's no physical evidence. But a big red flag for me is when I start hearing excuses when I ask about an event they witnessed. Do you actually believe your right or are you unsure??

Why did I bring it up?
Hmm...Why would I bring up my alien contact in a thread about reported cases of UFOs and aliens?
Because I offer a first hand account, a perspective and insight into the issue which is usually debated largely on historical accounts.
Anyone truly interested in the topic should welcome my participation, at least as much as anyone else's viewpoints are welcome.

Do I not stand by my story?
I stand by my account, yes, but I feel the word story implies fiction.
But I'm not sure I follow your meaning, you want me to "back" my story, how exactly? By revealing my identity? By giving you my neighbors phone numbers?
I have to decline on both of those, of course.

You must realize I can't change your mind, no one can change your mind but you. Change is an inside job.
We each decide for ourselves what level of evidence we require before we change our mind and accept something as true. Proof about aliens is entirely subjective.
You might want to consider exactly what evidence would convince you, and seek that out.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
... but what I can say is that the possibility that any of the cases I'm familiar with are actually alien now seems much lower than before I started my research, for a number of reasons.... If there's a single UFO case that causes you to think it must be "the product of some unknown, non-human intelligence", which one is it? That's what I was looking for when I started my research, and I have yet to find anything that convinces me to draw that conclusion, though it's something I'm not afraid of finding; I'd really like to find it.

But, I'm still looking for that one case which really is convincing of "some unknown, non-human intelligence".

How interesting that you pick an extremely weak case that I've never even heard of to illustrate your point that a sighting is a "religious experience" for UFO witnesses.

I remember now that you're the one who thinks the JAL case can be explained by a cloud. As if the FAA in its months-long investigation back then never considered that weather could've been a factor... yep, they just forgot (before briefing the CIA, FBI, etc.) You didn't even know the wavelength of the radar used in the picture you kept posting, if I recall correctly....

Anyway, I feel no need or desire to "convince" you. (See below for some sources for you to consult, however.) I've learned that for certain types of people, no evidence (short of them seeing it themselves) would be convincing. You SAY you're not afraid and that you'd really like to find a true UFO. But... I'm doubting that. (No one should WANT to, anyway; they should simply let the information all fall where it may....)

But since you have no trouble telling witnesses what they could and couldn't possibly have seen, or what their inner motivations must have been for being such gullible "believers", you won't mind if we examine the psychology that's working in the other direction, right?

That deniers see no evidence, anywhere, is not due to them having superior intellect or a more refined sense of evidence than others; it's due to there being a block, or barrier, present in their thinking. One that exists primarily for self-preservation. It's very real, and I must admit that I was probably once a 'carrier' of this blind spot myself. It's nothing to be ashamed of though, and very natural -- a defense mechanism. This attitude of UFO denial that's so prevalent around here is rooted in the denier's need for security, his need for humanity to be 'special', a need to believe that humanity is 100% in control of its own destiny. Things like that. No shame in it. But at least people can recognize it in themselves?

Michael Swords (Professor, Ph.D. in biochem, student of UFOs for several decades, etc.) writes about the psychology of UFO denial over in his wonderful blog.

Here's part of the introduction:

[T]he staged reluctance that people have towards the UFO phenomenon [example: accepting none, or accepting some, or accepting anything regardless] kept coming up over and over. The stage at which a person would seem to "draw the line" seemed usually NOT to be data driven but rather some sort of deep emotional thing. That is, it seemed to depend on some quality of the person which had little to do with any particular case or group of incidents---subjectivity totally trumping objectivity.

Read the rest right here.

I find his thoughts very interesting. And he examines it from both sides, by the way, the true believer and true denier.

Anyway, people with this UFO block, go read about the Iran case... or the Minot B-52 case... or any of the hundreds of others I could name that you'll probably have seen mentioned in threads by members here (like Karl13 or Issac Koi, for example)... or go read the raw reports for the many multiple-witness radar-visual cases... or the thousands of trace cases... Hynek's Close Encounter (distance under 500ft) cases... or his "daylight disc" cases... and on and on. Any person who can truly familiarize himself with that material and yet still ask what cases seem to demonstrate non-human intelligence... well, congratulations, because you're probably a denier. So go see Dr. Swords' article again.

Arbitrageur, I'm almost certain you're a pretty decent guy (or girl). Probably the kind of person who it'd be entertaining to be around in real life, since you obviously know a thing or two about various topics. When it comes to UFOs, however, I'm afraid you seem to be (from what I've seen) what's called a "denier". Or perhaps, like so many others, you just haven't left ATS & YouTube and examined the real history of the topic? Neither of which is so shameful, really, in the whole scheme of things. It might, though, lead to some problems when discussing things in a UFO forum.