Honestly, What More Proof Do We Really Need?

reply to post by Phage


Perhaps my mind is more open to belief than you guys. That's not to say you guys are wrong, and I'm right, because we don't know who's right or not.

At the end of the day maybe I'm just a little too easily swayed if watching an interesting documentary which claims to be throwing 'facts' at the viewers, but hey that's just me.

Also, forget about the word "documentary" and what a documentary is. What I'm focusing on is what the documentary 'consists' of, being all these eye witness accounts & videos/pictures etc of UFOs.

As for the Government and all the people who don't believe in any of this, it's as if they truely believe that 100% of the pictures/videos & eyewitness accounts of UFOs over the past several decades are lies. I myself just find that hard to believe. Even if 0.01% of the sightings etc are true, that's still truth at the end of the day. It doesn't matter how many people are lying, if just 0.01% of them are NOT lying, then there's your proof that they exist. Well, I say "proof" but I couldn't really think of a better word, sorry.

Also, to the person who asked me about the Phoenix Lights, no I'd never heard of them before, which is strange, not sure why.

For some people this issue isn't about proof, it is about "group think".

People have certain preconceived notions and "feelings" about this topic that prevent them from thinking critically or considering the evidence objectively.

If a person doesn't want to believe it is always possible to rationalize the evidence away.

Even a direct personal experience could be dismissed as an hallucination after the fact.

Once people feel that others who are similar to them are interested in the topic they too will think about it.

"Group think" prevents rational thought.

But in the end many people will claim "I always knew the were real..."

reply to post by Vanchatron


Hi Vanchatron about the phoenix lights watch this youtube video and tell me what you think. www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Vanchatron


Vanchatron.....

Also, to the person who asked me about the Phoenix Lights, no I'd never heard of them before, which is strange, not sure why.

That would be me.

It's just that in view of the truly massive profile of that case, I just find it very odd that you had not heard of it.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Vanchatron

 

Hi Vanchatron about the phoenix lights watch this youtube video and tell me what you think. www.youtube.com...

edit on 3-10-2010 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)

Thanks for that, just watched it. It's strange that the Government or Air Force didn't see this coming though. Surely they should have known that if this was at night and they were testing flares or whatever, that people would see them and claim that they were UFOs. You'd think they would let people know on the news before they tested the flares, even if it was just a quick 30 second "The Air Force will be testing flares tonight, good night" or what have you.

The phoenix lights are a great example of a mass sighting and yet the world being adequately convinced these people didn't see what they saw. It wasnt even the cover up, society mocked them, the governement didnt need to lift a finger. This happens alot throughout history.

For instance, when Capernicus was making claims the sun was the center of our solar system, and the vatican had him on house arrest. Most of the average population wasn't paying attention, it was true when the church said it was true. People weren't about to make up their own minds and possibly end up being wrong. Not demonizing anyone just showing our tendancy to ignore or ridicule rather than process the information ourselves and arrive at an independant conclusion.

We have the same situation today. Unless mainstream media says its true, its not. I am not trying to make it seem like every loony out there is right, merely pointing out our own resistance to new ideas even when they do not apply to something as touchy as UFOs.

As for the UFO debate as a whole, all I can say is if there were a murder trial with as much evidence as this subject has, someone would be doin hard time. Witness testimony, video, pictures, drawings, group sightings, physical traces, etc. The most important evidence in my humble opinion is the witness testimony, especially from those who were reluctant to come forward, or even regret coming forward. They made no money, their name isn't famous, they just told others what they saw or encountered, and were flamed on a societal level for it.

Surely not encouraging for others to add to the pool of information.

As for the documentaries, Phage has a great point. Most of the documentaries, if not all, create a mood more than relay any relevant information. I have seen the 'Ancient Aliens' documentary, I believe it was the History channel, and I enjoyed it for what it was. But it seems they always rehash old information, and add one tiny tidbit here or there thats new. For instance, I hadn't see the part about the Great Pyramid and the Cydonia region of mars sharing the star pattern for the Pleiades star cluster. But the entire show was predicated on Erich von Däniken and his book the chariots of the gods, hell it almost seemed like an ad. Far from accepted science. Kind of like saying that Jersey Shore is 'Reality'.

Cheers

reply to post by Vanchatron

No.
I don't, and I don't think most skeptics think all of the reports are lies (though there are more than enough deliberate hoaxes to go around). People see things that are outside of their experience. Sometimes (rarely) there is no easy explanation for the what is seen (as the witness describes it). But peoples' eyes play some very good tricks and it is the nature of the human brain to fill in the blanks when there are gaps in understanding. Just because something has not been explained does not mean it is unexplainable and it certainly does not mean it is extraterrestrial.

Originally posted by Maybe...maybe not
reply to post by Vanchatron

 

Vanchatron.....

Also, to the person who asked me about the Phoenix Lights, no I'd never heard of them before, which is strange, not sure why.

That would be me.

It's just that in view of the truly massive profile of that case, I just find it very odd that you had not heard of it.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

edit on 3-10-2010 by Maybe...maybe not because: Spelling

I would have been 9 years old at the time this happened. I didn't even start watching the news properly until I was around 16 years old, and only really started researching about Aliens/UFOs when I was about 16 aswell.

Also, at the time I was living in the Middle East, so perhaps it wasn't shown over there for some reason, I don't know.

Hmmm, What More Proof Do We Really Need?
How about your average city,, Lets say Here in the US,
Having about 10,000 people witness a craft,
and a reliable news channel getting it on film,Not shakey, in focus, clearly unmistakable,..
Or maybe see a live ET step out of a craft onto US soil type of proof
Is that honest enough for you

reply to post by Vanchatron


Vanchatron.....

I tell you what.....

If you are truly interested in this & you want something "reasonable" & "easy" to read, buy Leslie Kean's new book, "UFOs".

It's not a bad start, albeit I am not stating I "agree" with all that she postulates.

The documentaries are as Phage states.....fun, but "fluff"......almost every time.

I guess if I recommended any documentary at all, James Fox documentary, "I Know What I Saw" is interesting.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by JunoJiveAs for the UFO debate as a whole, all I can say is if there were a murder trial with as much evidence as this subject has, someone would be doin hard time. Witness testimony, video, pictures, drawings, group sightings, physical traces, etc. The most important evidence in my humble opinion is the witness testimony, especially from those who were reluctant to come forward, or even regret coming forward. They made no money, their name isn't famous, they just told others what they saw or encountered, and were flamed on a societal level for it.

edit on 3-10-2010 by JunoJive because: Spelling

This is perhaps one of the best posts I've read in a while. You're absolutely right, and seem to have the same mindset as me in regards to this. You've basically said what I should have said, but forgot to.

Thanks.

reply to post by Vanchatron


OK so if you accept these look like flares falling behind the mountain range that means the documentary you watched claiming they were "UFOs" hasn't been honest with you. Unfortunately the more time you spend looking at ufo cases the more you find ufologists misrepresenting cases or leaving out info that might point to an ordinary explanation. This is how alot of them operate.

Thats why its not a good idea to take anything they say at face value and to look into the case yourself.

reply to post by yeti101


Regarding the Phoenix Lights incident. I've just watched a few more videos, and the lights hover in the sky at the same altitude for ages. If they were flares, wouldn't they be dropping & therefore be visible as losing altitude? But they don't, they just hover there until eventually they disappear.

I'm all for theories getting debunked like that video about the Phoenix Lights being flares, but come on, I haven't even been in the military or the air force, and I know that flares don't just hover in midair for ages at the same altitude & THEN decide to just drop all of a sudden.

10,000 people supposedly saw them aswell. Wouldn't a small percentage of those people have seen them fall BEHIND the mountain? Even if they did fall behind the mountain, that still doesn't prove that they were flares. What's to say the UFO or UFOs didn't themselves go behind the mountain?

EDIT: Found a video that debunks the flare theory aswell - www.youtube.com...

I guess there's videos out there to suit the skeptics and videos out there to suit the believers

reply to post by Vanchatron


the flares are on parachutes , theyre also over 30 kilometers away so they appear to fall slowly.

the video you posted is poor, those flares are not filmed from over 30km away.

all the major ufologists now concede the video of the phoenix lights are flares. (stanton friedman etc) Only the lunatic fringe claim otherwise. But dont worry if you want to beleive in a ufo that night they changed the story to an 8:30pm sighting of a giant craft and say the flares are a coverup attempt

No videos or photos exist of the 8:30pm sighting. Only witness reports.

reply to post by Vanchatron

No.
He is not right.
Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable and is, in most cases, used only to substantiate physical evidence. When used in the absence of physical evidence it often results in wrongful convictions.
www.middletownpress.com...
www.grimesandwarwick.com...
www.crimereportusa.com...

People, human beings, are not good witnesses.

Another important point. In a murder case there is usually a body.

S&f now I know that maybe
Phage or someone else
Will call me out on this but come on guys the evidence for e.t. Visiting us is overwhelming. I know it's impossible to win a debate but to me it's obvious we have been visited!

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Vanchatron

 

the flares are on parachutes , theyre also over 30 kilometers away so they appear to fall slowly.

the video you posted is poor, those flares are not filmed from over 30km away.

all the major ufologists now concede the video of the phoenix lights are flares. (stanton friedman etc) Only the lunatic fringe claim otherwise. But dont worry if you want to beleive in a ufo that night they changed the story to an 8:30pm sighting of a giant craft and say the flares are a coverup attempt

No videos or photos exist of the 8:30pm sighting. Only witness reports.

edit on 3-10-2010 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)

Hadn't thought of them being on parachutes, and as I don't work for the Air Force, I won't question WHY they were. Although even if they were on parachutes, they'd still be losing altitude. In the video, they don't seem to be moving whatsoever.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Vanchatron

 

No.
He is not right.
Eyewitness testimony is the least reliable and is, in most cases, used only to substantiate physical evidence. When used in the absence of physical evidence it often results in wrongful convictions.
www.middletownpress.com...
www.grimesandwarwick.com...
www.crimereportusa.com...

People, human beings, are not good witnesses.

Another important point. In a murder case there is usually a body.

edit on 10/3/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

It's the "least reliable" but still holds some reliability, otherwise eyewitnesses would never be called to court in a murder trial.

I'm currently one of the main witnesses at a murder trial which I have to attend court for in November, having received text messages from the accused, regarding the murder the night it happened.

There was a body at the scene yes, but no weapons found, no DNA, nothing. One of the only things being used in the court is the text messages I myself received on the night of the murder, from the accused, and CCTV footage placing the accused near the location of the murder on the night it happened.

reply to post by Vanchatron


The UFO incident at RAF Bentwaters is one of the most compelling cases to date, in my mind. There are several reasons:

* The personnel witnessing it were highly trained military personnel
* Security staff (thus trained observers) from a then active nuclear base witnessed the event
* There is ample record of the incident
* Later inquiry detected elevated background radiation
* Markings and indentations were found that could not be explained as being created by any known equipment

Lord Hill-Norton summed up the events of that night brilliantly. In a letter to the British Government inquiry into the incident, he concludes:

Either the military personnel on duty that night, whilst in charge of a nuclear base, were either taking illicit substances and hallucinating, or they did in fact see what they have reported.

In either case, it is very serious indeed.

During the investigation it was also found that these personnel were so scared by what they saw, they took their weapons off-base with them, which was in direct violation of several laws and treaties (US personnel were walking armed on UK soil - RAF Bentwaters was a US base although it was referred to as RAF Bentwaters).

Personnel from RAF Woodbridge (also a US base) were also sent to investigate - the bases were only 1/2 mile apart.

reply to post by mirageofdeceit


This is interesting, as I've just watched Out of the Blue, which features Lord Hill Norton in it, and what he said about the military personnel hallucinating, I agreed with. If they were indeed hallucinating as the government or whoever it was claimed, what on Earth were they doing at a nuclear missle base?

Originally posted by Vanchatron
reply to post by mirageofdeceit

 

This is interesting, as I've just watched Out of the Blue, which features Lord Hill Norton in it, and what he said about the military personnel hallucinating, I agreed with. If they were indeed hallucinating as the government or whoever it was claimed, what on Earth were they doing at a nuclear missle base?

Exactly. As far as I'm aware, the personnel were tested, and none were found to be on anything they shouldn't have been. That only leaves the latter option to be true.

I found the argument that what they were looking at was really the lighthouse at Orfordness to be highly unlikely, not least because it is hard to mistake a lighthouse many miles away from coming from woods when you are stood in said woods, and the other evidence that was present, namely high background radiation.