Great UFO debate on Fox News' Heartland between David Sereda and Bill Nye the Science Guy

How UFO's dissappear instantly and seem to peform magical stunts, is unknown to me, and I wonder if our understanding of physics could encapsulate it properly at this time.

However, if UFO's can do these things, theres one reason right there that no one can get a clear picture of these things. They can just disappear, or zip away at amazing speeds, whenever they want to; I mean, nothing else you would normally photograph can do these things. If more people could float around in the air on command then I bet we could get better pictures, but most of us are stuck on the ground and at the mercy of what the UFO itself will allow us to record.

Nye acts like UFO's are literally silver frisbees that move around just like a jet does and have all the flaws of man-made machines, when its been stated thousands upon thousands of times by witnesses and video evidence that they don't even make any noise and they certainly don't move like the technology we have does, and that its most likely that the UFO's that have crashed only did so because we shot them down or interfered with something.

Let's put this debate into context. Fox News who just had this debate on TV a couple days ago had it at a time when the US is at war with a couple countries already and might well be getting ready for a third war with Iran. Mysterious Lights/UFO's could easily be black projects the general public knows nothing about. If this is the case this phenomenon might be another example of goverment's intelligence agencies flexing their power. Seriously, how do you think the Iranian Government Officials feels about all of these UFO's appearing over the US right now, they are probably pretty scared about what the US Air Force is working on!(This explaination is the most practical and also explains why tWestern Media has been reporting UFO's much more the last couple months)

Is it just me or does it seem that Bill Nye knows something he isn't telling us from the debate?
When Janice Dean states at 6:43 remaining on the vid -
"The Air Force stated that this was due to new experiments."

I think Fox News is trying to tell us something and that is the UFO's seen are probably new air force projects.


[edit on 4-2-2007 by Low Orbit]

That could be Low Orbit,

but people have been seeing UFO's long before this war, 1900's-2007 plus or minus.

Some contend that people have been seeing UFO's since the time of the Biblical Jesus.

I bet a good lot of these ARE black projects, but I doubt all of them are.

I think we all need to comment to Fox on there footage, be it positive or negative maybe they will show more as time goes on.

If we all send an email I am sure it will help the cause.


[email protected]

Originally posted by FrozenthoughtHow elese would you describe objects that can only be seen & filmed in the upper bands of Light energy such as Infra-red and Gamma such as the Nasa footage and Mexico gov't footage?[edit on 4-2-2007 by Frozenthought]

This is why I said we don't need a scientist inspecting this. We're pretty much on our own until a big break of some kind happens. We just need to sit this one out, and it's probably gonna take a looong time.

I don't know why people are harping on Bill Nye for being skeptical, because nobody here knows what UFO's really are either.

I am not saying UFO's aren't from other planets/dimensions. The metallic ones could be black ops while the light ones can be orbs of energy. I mean we just don't know.

Science do not have the answers to these things. He never said that UFO's are definitely not from other planets, he just said he was skeptical. We need skeptics. Too many bad things happened in human history because there were a lack of skeptics [Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, Holocaust, Crusades, etc.]

We're 'harping' on him because he knew ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the subject. This is what happens when you pick someone purely on popularity. *CouggeorgebushCough* You get a totally nonsensical discussion ending in ridicule from the losing side, something I more or less proved. We need sceptics, just not totally illiterate skeptics. I'm not a scientist but I could've spewed out the crap Nye did any day.

Personally, I think Bill Nye knows more than meets the eye, however it's very difficult explaining all when you are only debating for 7 minutes and only a third of that is your time.

RR you are exactly right, we do need sceptics in this world aka the cartesian mind(descartes).

Even if Bill Nye is right 99.9999 percent of the time and Sereda is only right about UFO's from extraterestrials .000001 percent of the time Sereda still wins the argument. Sereda just has to be right once for him to win this debate, unfortunately as Nye points out, the evidence isn't that great.

At the end of the night I hope and pray David Sereda is right!

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Even if Bill Nye is right 99.9999 percent of the time and Sereda is only right about UFO's from extraterestrials .000001 percent of the time Sereda still wins the argument.

Err.. explain this please? 99.9999% is a big number, and if you're basing this on the scientists way of doing it, namely the probability of it all, then this argument is pretty off.

It's the same as prospecting for gold, a gold prospecter could say, "there is gold in those hills and I know it, and if he goes out say 10 times(instead of the big #) to look for gold, he only has to find gold once in order to prove he was right, he doesn't need to find gold everyday in order to prove "there is gold in those hills."

Same thing goes for Sereda's argument, if he just get's 1 solid source for UFO's and extraterestrials and that source can be varified,


I know what the scientific method is and I do understand how it goes against it's rules a bit since the facts have to be "varified" after the fact, aka, the experiment needs to be repeated to confirm results. What I am saying not to confuse you any more than big numbers do is that a "1 solid source" would be the same thing as "varified" it would be evidence already analyzed.