Honestly, What More Proof Do We Really Need?

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by mirageofdeceit

 

Some say that the Bentwaters UFO story was a cover up for a drunken prank gone wrong.

And if you believe that, then you will believe anything!

Originally posted by The Shrike

Originally posted by Vanchatron
OK I'm a big believer of extraterrestrial life & UFOs etc, and it's not even that I'm a Sci Fi nerd who loves Star Trek/Star Wars and wants all that type of crap to be real. It's just that I do genuinely believe in Aliens & always have done. Anyway, I've been watching a lot of documentaries recently and the 2 that have really stood out to me have been "Ancient Aliens" & "Out Of The Blue" which both talk about the possibility of Aliens actually existing & visiting Earth etc.

The thing that frustrates me though, is that in these documentaries there's often SO MUCH evidence - snip -

First, belief is the result of mental conditioning. Since you say that you "genuinely believe" you are saying that you are mentally conditioned and evidence is not necessary for you. That's too bad.

Second, the TV shows that you quote do not include one iota of evidence for the reality of aliens - it is just speculation and require watchers such as you to make their efforts worthwhile. No human has any evidence for the reality of aliens and anyone that says they do is lying for no matter who claims it no one has made their "evidence" public for scientists or anyone to witness it and possibly put it through scientific scrutiny.

Evidence is not your source for frustration, it's your unquestioning and blind acceptance that does it.

So, this "mental conditioning" goes for believers? If you are a skeptic or de-bunker, then this does not apply to you?

Originally posted by Vanchatron
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.

They were LUU-2 illumination flares. If they fall to the ground like a rock, they won't do a very good job of illuminating, so that's why they are on parachutes. And the video Yeti posted clearly shows them winking out as they fall behind the mountain, so I don't see how you can say they weren't moving, they clearly were moving down and winked out from view one by one as they dropped behind the mountain. The further something is from you, the less movement you see in it. Ever notice how fast a car seems to move at highway speeds on the ground? Then look at the same car going at the same speed from several miles up and it looks like the car is barely moving. Those Phoenix flares were much further away than a few miles.

That video debunking the flare explanation can't even make up it's mind about what it's trying to say, first they say it wasn't flares, then they say there were flares which was just a diversion.So even that "flare debunking video" admits they were flares! Whether there was another incident earlier that night is a matter of some debate, but if there was an incident other than the flares, nobody got any good video of that one like they did the flares.

One of the documentaries I like that does a better job of telling both sides of the story than most is called "The UFO files". One case that people seem to think is interesting is the Belgian wave, even the Belgian military got involved. Many documentaries don't tell both sides of the story like the UFO files does starting at about 1 minute into this video:

The UFO files


What most people won't tell you about the Belgian UFOs is revealed at 8m20s and continues at the beginning of the next part:



The successor to the UFO files show was called "UFO Hunters". It wasn't as unbiased and Ian Ridpath pointed out they actually sort of lied in the Rendlesham Forest case, I'll have to re-watch it to confirm that, but it was very deceptive from what I recall, here is his post pointing out the deception:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by GeisterFahrer

not really. I know this may sound hokie, but I have an aunt that filmed the triangle in Phoenix. No, she will not release it. (for obvious reasons).

G,day GF if she wont release it, why don't you get a copy of it, Man if my aunt had a pic like that I would steal it . But in all seriousness, why don't you ask her for a copy, she stays anonymous, nothing hurt.


reply to post by Vanchatron


Op there will always be the explained and the unexplained we need more proof on the unexplained, You should hear the stories I get told on Min Min lights from indigenous Australians, they would blow you mind , but hey, they are stories, well stories I believe, but someone like Phage wouldn't.

Wal

We need far more evidence than "documentaries"(complete with pop up scares and eerie music) and the ramblings of "believers". It doesn't matter how many people believe they saw a UFO that night, or got abducted that other night, what matters is concrete evidence. Nor does it matter who claims aliens exist, no matter how long or high up they worked for the government or how many fancy titles they have after their name. What it boils down to is that these cases don't get much attention, and they don't get much attention because the insidious "Powers To Be" and the intelligent researchers and well funded agencies don't care. For example, the cases in which "alien material" is recovered from supposed crash sites which turns out to be non-terrestrial in origin. If new elements really were discovered in these places it would turn science on its head, scientists would be clawing at each other to get their hands on this stuff and experiment on it, no doubt governments would want to unlock alien technologies as well. No orchestrated cover-up, no "smoking gun", just plain old indifference to stuff which has been shown time and time again to be false.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Vanchatron

 

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.

You've been chewed on unfairly in my opinion. It's a fair question to ask and, like it or not, one that most people on this board should have asked themselves by now. Anyone who's quick to ridicule people with an interest in UFO phenomena should be asking the same questions. If they haven't asked the question...why give them the time of day? They've made their minds up already.

The 'proof' word is problematic...you'll likely never find *proof.* Men like Donald Keyhoe and Dick Hall went to their graves without having proof...just a lot of evidence. Chances are, we'll also see our deaths before we know anything more than we do today.

In spite of some well-known researchers making claims to have an understanding of the motivations or locations of aliens...they're exaggerating. Deep down, I doubt a single one would be prepared to bet their lives on it. They're as close to *proof* as we are...

Watching 'ancient astronauts' TV docs will take you further from the good evidence than you might realise. These shows are based on a false premise and use any means necessary to present them as plausible. James Fox' 'Out of the Blue' is one of the better documentaries out there. You might like Paul Kimball's 'Best Evidence' and Fox' follow-up, 'I Know What I Saw.' These are the only three out of hundreds that try to get a balance between entertainment and good cases....in my opinion.

Rather than the shows, there's more to be found in books and articles by credible researchers like Brad Sparks, Peter Sturrock, Dr Richard Haines or Michael Swords. These guys aren't promoting explanations for where UFOs come from or whether they are 'good or bad.' They provide strong arguments that the UFO phenomena is real. Individually, a couple of them make sensible points in favour of the plausibility of the ETH. I recommend also reading the MUFON 2007 'Estimate of the Situation' by Brad Sparks.

Appreciate it, thank you. I'll definitely check out the docs you've suggested, as I've heard a few good things about them, especially "I Know What I Saw". I guess it's just a case of trying to find it online somewhere now.

Originally posted by Phage
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.

Likewise, it doesn't mean it's not extraterrestrial. When dealing with an unknown, the ETH is as valid as any other hypothesis.

I don't know of any logical reason why it shouldn't be considered as a possible explanation

reply to post by MarrsAttax

Sure.
No reason they can't be visitors from our own past or future.
No reason they can't be advanced dolphins.
No reason they can't be fairies.
No reason they can't be angels.
No reason they can't be a complete fabrication.
No reason the witness can't just be flat out lying.


Rather than speculate, why not just leave it with "unknown" when there is not enough information to base a determination upon?

There's more than enough proof out there it's just that people either don't know about this stuff or they just don't care. Don't worry about it they'll wake up one day and don't argue with the debunkers on here because they're either trolls or paid agents to discredit anyone that comes near the truth. You should check out this guy on youtube named "duderinok", he has a lot of great videos about this subject, bro.

reply to post by Phage


Isn't that what any hypothesis is - speculation? It's part of the scientific method.

The point of making a hypothesis is to provide a model against which you can check the facts.

It's also possible to discuss the probability of any given hypothesis.

We know that intelligent life can arise on a planet and it can explore space. Therefore we can extrapolate that this may have occurred elsewhere other than Earth. The existence of paranormal beings such as angels or fairies has never been proved so it would be more of a leap to suggest these are responsible. Therefore, in my opinion the ETH is more probable than those two.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'advanced dolphin'. Maybe you could expand on your theory? I'm fairly certain no one has ever report a UFO landing and 'advanced dolphins' emerging or walking (flopping?) around. This hypothesis would have to assume a concurrent evolution on this planet of an aquatic species that has managed to remain completely hidden fom science. Lack of scientific knowledge of extraterrestrials can be readily explained by the fact that we've only visited a handful of planets within our own solar system. It's less credible to imagine that we would have missed another civilisation emerging on our own planet. Not impossible but less likely in my opinion.

As to time travellers, possibly but still less probable than the ETH. I would invoke Occams Razor here. Time Travel is more problematic than the idea that people have simply travelled here from another star system.

Witnesses may be lying but in the cases where multiple witness report the same thing, from different positions and the object is confirmed on radar, such as in the Ray Bowyer Guernsey UFO case, that probability approaches zero.

In summary, as a working hypothesis the ETH is a better fit of the evidence than your other examples.

However, you are free to believe that UFOs are angels if you want to

reply to post by Human_Alien


I was working that night in west phoenix... well..near the I-17 which I guess would be more central.. Anyway, I remember hearing about it from different people during the evening.
I never saw the lights myself, but I did hear that people were getting upset, because some were saying they saw some ship, and nobody at skyharbor or Luke AFB new what they were.
Then later on there were some more lights, and Luke AFB says they were flares.

I don't really know alot about that, but being a night worker in Phoenix, you sometimes see some pretty odd craft in the wee hours of the morning...round about 3:30AM'ish....most of this was recent in late 2009 to 2010.

I saw that stealth bomber thing..V shaped. Like just a wing....flew overhead..fairly low....3:30AM'ish
Flew overhead..ed east. I think it is them that makes the little blueish contrail..like some missle, but real high up and shorter in burn. Like it's re-entering real fast and quick or something just before it zooms overhead at a lower alltitude than most commercials.
Thats the other thing, all these military craft fly lower than the others, and in the predawn hours.

Seen an odd looking triangular thing that was about the size of a small airliner, but thick... Like a rounded edge triangular brick......dull metalic glint to it...lights at the points. some kind of light in the middle bottom.. acted like a blimp tho. moved slow and quiet...with just a slight "whirr" like fans..... and a jerky turn.
Seen some other wedge looking thing. It was thick too, and moved slow. But it had alot of really bright lights on the underside, pointing down and foreward...must have had blimp tech, because it was too thick to stay aloft otherwise... too slow and quiet to be a jet. And with my binoculars, it looked for all the world like it had some kind of robotic arm or something, on the front end.
Other odd, yet actually jet shaped, jets that look military in nature. Some have strange teardropped shaped attachments on the bottoms, and some have long antenna looking things with lights on the ends sticking off.

I don't own a camera, so no evidence, just testimony..
I see other weird things...supernatural, but it's just too weird to talk about with no proof.
And personally I think there must be some time manipulation going on, otherwise you'd get the clear crisp pictures or solid evidence....at least once in a while.. But no....it's only the stuff that they know won't go anywhere.....(And how else would they know that?)

Just enough to make you go crazy if you don't keep an even keel on it....

(Just to add: I live in Noth phoenix under several flight paths, commercial and military. I think some planes can't land at Luke AFB for some reason, and have to go to Skyharbor. Maybe that is why I was able to see them.)

Originally posted by Phage
Here's a thought. To avoid frustration don't watch the "documentaries". Because they aren't.

You're flat wrong on that one, Phage. Robert Emenegger's documentary was produced with the cooperation of the US Air Force. No one knows why to this day--Emenegger didn't even know--except that they had orders to give him any information about UFOs he requested. Nothing like that had ever happened before.

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
Time Travel is more problematic than the idea that people have simply travelled here from another star system.

Why do you say that?

We don't know how to travel backwards in time but we know technically (though not practically) how it's possible to travel forward in time.

Many people presume that faster than light travel would be necessary between star systems (unless the star system was very close to us, relatively speaking, meaning say 10 light years or so, and there aren't many stars that close), and we don't really have a clue yet how to travel faster than light. We talk about wormholes but that popular notion leaves out the fact that first, it might take the energy output of a galaxy to create one of any significance, and second, they are unstable.

Since we know how to travel forward in time but don't have a clue how to travel faster than light, you might actually have the probabilities backwards?

It's also interesting you called the beings from other star systems "people" because when you look at the drawings of supposed aliens, they are nearly all bipedal humanoids which look way more like people than like aliens. Even on earth bipedal humanoids are rare, they've been around for a few million years out of the Earth's 4.5 billion.

I won't say it's impossible alien beings on an alien world would evolve to be bipedal humanoids like us, but I will say it's less likely than some people seem to think. At least Spielberg used a little imagination creating Jabba the Hutt, a giant intelligent slug-like creature.

Consciousness is universal and eternal. Anyone can see this through dedicated meditation.

"Aliens" can be found in this manner. It's already been done, is being done, and will always provide a means for anyone who so wishes to see the truth for themselves.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by MarrsAttax

 

Sure.
No reason they can't be visitors from our own past or future.
No reason they can't be advanced dolphins.
No reason they can't be fairies.
No reason they can't be angels.
No reason they can't be a complete fabrication.
No reason the witness can't just be flat out lying.


Rather than speculate, why not just leave it with "unknown" when there is not enough information to base a determination upon?

edit on 10/4/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I suppose that has a certain superficial plausibility except that I've never heard of angels and dolphins flying around at high speeds on metallic craft that show up on radar and things like that. I think we can rule them out as "scientific" explanations for UFOs.

And no, I don't believe even for a second that all the witnesses are fabricating or lying, not the ones I've read about in declassifed documents who reported their sightings through "channels". Nor do I believe that all those dozens and hundreds of witneses at Roswell were lying-- and that's just for starters.

The only way anyone can make statements like these is if they haven't really studied the whole historical record on UFOs or haven't seen one themelves. I have done both.

reply to post by Vanchatron


UFO footage and UFO sightings are not evidence of aliens, they are evidence of UFOs. It is an absurd leap to jump from "There's something in the sky we can't identify" to "Aliens are here from other planets". There are lots of terrestrial explanations that fit the bill and this is why many UFOs are explained away as likely being one of the typical explanations. Of course there are UFOs that cannot be explained, they are, after all, unidentified.

What more proof do we need? How about ANYTHING that would constitute scientific evidence. Because thus far aside from grainy photos and images suggesting something is in the sky there is no evidence of alien life being here on Earth. In fact footage of a UFO, no matter how convincing, could never be counted as conclusive proof of alien visitation. You act as if there is a wellspring of evidence for aliens, there is no solid evidence of alien visitation.

UFOs are real and are in our skies... what are they, I don't know that's why they're UNIDENTIFIED. To suggest that the presence of some unidentified objects in the sky is all the proof we need for the wild conclusion that these objects are alien spacecraft is absurd.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
The thing you seem to be having a hard time doing is separating UFOs from aliens. Many skeptics will willingly admit that UFOs exist and prove to be a mystery. However, when one looks at all the available information the ET hypothesis is only one of many explanations, that as of now have nothing other than circumstantial evidence to support them. Unfortunately, the ET hypothesis is the easiest to swallow while still being sensational enough to capture people's attention, so it makes money. Thus, any of the big names in UFOlogy start from the premise that UFOs = ETs, which has not even come close to being proven.

Then how to you explain that declassified FBI document from 1950, based on information from the Air Force, that three crashed saucers with ET occupants had been found in New Mexico? No one can explain that one away so easily.

How do we explain Emenegger's information from the Air Force that UFOs had landed and made contact with the US government, and that there were even films of these events? This was not made up--the military told him about it and showed him parts of the films.

Now as to where these "occupants" really come from, that to me is more speculative, not the fact that they are here. Are they moving through time? Are they from other dimensions? I don't know. We have witnesses who say that they come from many different places.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Vanchatron

 

UFOs are real and are in our skies... what are they, I don't know that's why they're UNIDENTIFIED. To suggest that the presence of some unidentified objects in the sky is all the proof we need for the wild conclusion that these objects are alien spacecraft is absurd.

edit on 4-10-2010 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-10-2010 by Titen-Sxull because: the reason for this edit has been deemed above top secret

I would say that we have verified declassified documents from the 1940s and 1950s that these craft show up on radar, moving at speeds of 7,000, 10,000 or 25,000 miles per hour and that they could fly at 80,000 or 100,000 feet or more, that narrows the possibilities down quite a bit. Whatever they were, wherever they came from, they weren't dolphins or pelicans, that's for sure. No known aircraft on earth could do anything like that--not even close.

reply to post by Vanchatron


People have been reporting sightings for years and years, but the PTB actively and aggressively denigrated those who did. For every single sighting that has been reported by the mainstream media, there has been many,many more which have gone unreported, because of the tacit understanding of how the report would be treated in public.

Unless someone has seen one (or more) for themselves, it is only natural that people will remain extremely skeptical given that this is the "official" stance to take.

Don't even begin to get the uninitiated to think of an ongoing, and lengthy history of "contact" between people and ET's. Personally, I find it laughable when unelected arms of power, such as the U.N., self elects an "Ambassador" for any contact which may occur on an "official" level when the E.T.'s have been making their own choices in this regard for a very long time.

As for the Christian fundamentalist view that the occupants of U.F.O.'s are Satan's minion's I say, give me proof. If the E.T.'s have been destroying nuclear bombs, and reducing damage from nuclear accidents as was reported following the Chernobyl disaster, then I hardly see this as an action from Satan. Perhaps you should look closer to home to find the forces of Satan on this planet. I suggest you start with a history of pedophilia amongst the so-called elite.

The arc of lights often shown as being the meat and potatoes of the Phoenix incident, were flares dropped by the military.

The reason they dropped them, was in an attempt to confuse the issues, which together with constantly showing the flares in connection with this particular incident, is working quite well as a cover.

Well done mil-intel, you've managed to sucker the public yet again.

However, the lights shown on every video are a smokescreen, a distraction from the real events and MASS sightings that night. They have even managed to push the name of 'Phoenix lights' to describe this mass sighting of a silent, massive, triangular craft.

It would be more apt to name the event, the 'Phoenix triangle', although the craft was reported to have lights on it, the lights (flares) widely pushed and circulated were not part of the craft that was seen.

People (thousands of witnesses), including the governor himself who have reported the UFO over Phoenix that night, weren't (originally) talking about the arc of lights, although there were obviously many people that thought there was a connection with the arc of lights with what was witnessed earlier, and of course this was the intention and reason for dropping the flares.

What people report seeing, at very close range, was a MASSIVE delta/triangular shaped and completely silent craft that traveled low over the city, and into the valley. It was witnesses traveling over a very large area, over different towns and districts. It was estimated to have been larger than several football fields.

This was what was seen and reported, it wasn't a blimp, it wasn't a weather balloon, and it wasn't a group of Chinese lanterns...it wasn't the arc of flares, dropped as an obfuscation and confusion technique either.

If you're really interested in learning the facts of this particular sighting and not the subsequent military smokescreen, search around, you'll be barraged with 'The Phoenix lights' disinfo, but you will easily find the truth of what was seen on many different websites too.

Here's one;

www.ufoevidence.org...

Perhaps thousands, or tens of thousands, of witnesses on the ground witnessed at least one object pass and/or hover overhead which they described as being huge, gigantic, or unimaginably large. Many of the witnesses reported that they had the impression that a Boeing 747 could land on the back of the object they had just witnessed pass overhead their location.

'Witnesses saw at least one object pass and / or hover...Gigantic size...triangular shape that blocked the view of stars behind it'...flares do not do this.

The object apparently was capable of very rapid flight, probably even supersonic flight, although few witnesses reported any sound emanating from it. The object was reported heading generally to the southeast over Henderson, NV, at 1855 hrs. (Pacific), and was next reported heading to the south in the vicinity of Paulden, AZ, approximately 22 minutes later at 2017 hrs. (Mountain). Within approximately one minute of the sighting in Paulden, the object was reported from the vicinity of Prescott Valley, AZ, roughly 30 miles to the south. The object then appeared over Phoenix

Military flares can appear to hover, due to having an attached retardation parachute...they can not travel at supersonic speeds moving from one place to another however...

The object passed through the airspace of Sky Harbor Airport, where it was witnessed by air traffic controllers in the airport tower, and where it also was reported via radio by at least one commercial flight crew. They reported via radio that the object was passing directly overhead their aircraft, which was on the ground preparing to depart Sky Harbor. The object reportedly did not appear on radar, and it did not communicate via either radio or transponder.

The UFO(s) passed through commercial airspace, and was visually confirmed by ATC from the tower, it was observed by a commercial flight crew and reported via radio, as it passed OVER their aircraft while it was on the runway waiting to take off.

Military flights don't routinely fly over busy civilian commercial airports, and they certainly do not drop flares as part of a 'military exercise' over busy airports either!

And even in the cloud cuckoo, reinforcing ignorance land where Phage and his mates live, should the military have decided to fly over an busy, civilian commercial airport and drop flares overhead of the waiting, fully fueled up, crammed with passengers, civilian jetliners (!) the ATC would have been notified, which they were not(of course)

If you have an interest in finding out what the truth of this matter is, you would do a lot better to search out your own information on many different websites, and look at what those involved say themselves about that night, those who were actually there staring up at the behemoth flying overhead, a kilometer or more sized triangle which blocked out the stars in the night sky, as if a dark sheet had been pulled across and had covered the sky.

Or you could just debate the finer points of whether a UFO documentary is actually a documentary or not, and award stars of appreciation to Phage for his ONE line of drivel (against T&C btw)..and diversionary drivel it is by the way, according the the many definitions available for the meaning of the word documentary.

Up to you of course though.