Is This Damning Evidence Of Aliens And UFO’s?

The deal is this. Posting snippets from well-known incidents in the field of ufology and making them sound sensationalistic is not terribly helpful. The fact that Jimmy Carter saw a light in the sky is well known, but it isn't exactly definitive. He saw a light in the sky he could not explain. End of story. It's not a particularly notable sighting. It is notable only because it is Jimmy Carter. Otherwise, it would be filed with thousands of other light-in-the-sky reports and no one would ever hear about it again. Some of the stuff you've put up is better. Some of the stuff you've put up is totally uncorraborated heresay, if not outright fantasy. It's a hodge podge of stuff of miixed value. Just like an orchestra is only as good as its worst player, an argument is only as good as its worst point. You've got too many weak points to prove anything. Not answerin previous issues and putting up even more stuff dilutes the entire issue. We already know Carter saw a light in the sky. Putting that up without addressing the Armstrong/anonymous professor conversation does not bolster your case. It gives the impression you are avoiding answering.

We've got book after book of this stuff that is far better compiled and organized and far better explained. Timothy Good's "Above Top Secret," for example, or the acclaimed "UFOs and the National Security State," by Richard Dolan. These books, and many more, 'make the case' in a cohesive and well-reasoned fashion. This thread does not. Forums are a difficult medium for discussion because they require focus to be useful. You're not focused. You just keep throwing stuff on the wall to see what sticks.

Take ONE of these incidents and make it into a thread of it's own. Discuss said incident. Repeat. It would be a lot more useful and waste a lot less time.

Originally posted by schuyler
The deal is this. Posting snippets from well-known incidents in the field of ufology and making them sound sensationalistic is not terribly helpful.

France's X Files-100,000 documents of UFOs and sightings of other unexplained phenomena that the French space agency is publishing on the Internet.

28 percent of cases are ‘inexplicable’.
Only 9 percent of France’s strange phenomena have been fully explained, the agency said. Experts found likely reasons for another 33 percent, and 30 percent could not be identified for lack of information.

Other cases were impossible to crack. The most baffling were labeled “Class D aerospace phenomena” — which the agency defines as “inexplicable despite precise testimonies and the (good) quality of material information gathered.” Some 28 percent of sightings fall into this category.

So why, with all the resources at their disposal, did the French fail to solve a staggering 28% or 28,000 sightings and labelled them 'inexplicable'? Sheer incompetence? Isn't it evidence in itself that there's something strange going on that we just cannot decipher? Why?

Or probably you would like to try? I reckon you may have answers to at least some if not all of these 28,000 unexplainable sitings where the French have failed to solve? Check out their web site and pick any one. I'll be waiting for your analysis.

Cheers!

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Originally posted by mikesingh
Isn't it evidence in itself that there's something strange going on that we just cannot decipher?

Yes, but its certainly not "Damning Evidence of Aliens and UFOs".

You're doing it again. Starting a thread with one premise, then simply spamming it with more content without explaining or exploring your original opening post.

Originally posted by MrPenny

Originally posted by mikesingh
Isn't it evidence in itself that there's something strange going on that we just cannot decipher?

Yes, but its certainly not "Damning Evidence of Aliens and UFOs".

You're doing it again. Starting a thread with one premise, then simply spamming it with more content without explaining or exploring your original opening post.

Thanks Mr Penny. I've noticed that you're habitually addicted to stuffing this thread and others with over exuberance of your verbosity which I find offensive and hilarious at the same time!

It does seem that your grasp of the English Language is less than satisfactory. Because if you notice, you'll understand that the title of the thread ends in a question mark like this '?'. So what does that mean? It means that the stuff put out by various sources on the Internet about evidence of UFO which I have reproduced here, is either the evidence we're looking for or it isn't. But yes, I tend to hedge my bets on the former. That it most likely IS evidence of UFOs.

And don't give me that usual crap that the title having a question mark is actually an attempt to smokescreen intent. Now let's have something worthwhile coming out of you than banal arguments that do nothing but waste bandwidth. Earlier, I thought of you as a person who had some valid, scientific arguments. But after reading your comments and snide remarks in this and other threads of late, I think you're a waste of time with nothing positive to contribute. This seems to have become a habit of yours.

Cheers!

[edit on 12-5-2007 by mikesingh]