Followup: Ed Mitchell and UFO believers

By Phil Plait | July 30, 2008 10:45 pm

The post I wrote about Ed Mitchell the other day has really touched a nerve. In fact, in my mind it’s a perfect example of something that’s been happening on this very blog lately: people posting comments that precisely exemplify the type of antiscience thinking I am attacking. That includes global warming, antivaxxers, and to a lesser extent other topics.

To wit: in the Mitchell post, and in previous UFO posts (some of which are pretty recent), I make the simple demand of actual evidence of alien spaceships coming to Earth, abducting unwary victims, leaving bent cereal stalks, coring out cow anuses, and so on. I think this is a reasonable request. In fact, I think this is an an incredibly reasonable request, really just about the most basic thing anyone — scientist or not — can want, especially given what people are claiming about UFOs.

All I want is actual, y’know, evidence. I don’t want eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable. I don’t want shaky footage. I don’t want fuzzy pictures. I don’t want claims of redacted documents, or government seizures of evidence, or anything I can’t hold in my hand and examine.

You know. Evidence.

So I make this civil, intelligent, and reasonable request. What do I get?

1) Ad hominem attacks. While accusing me of being a debunker folks, you should understand that you can’t be a debunker without bunk to debunk. And after the insults, I ask, where’s that evidence I asked for?

2) Appeal to authority, which slays me. I am specific in my statement that just because someone walked on the Moon doesn’t mean they have any better claims about UFOs. So I ask again, where is Mitchell’s evidence?

3) Weird analogies. One commenter asked how we know tornadoes exist, making some really stretchy metaphor for UFOs. Um, really? Evidence for tornadoes? You mean like the tens of thousands of clear pictures, thousands of hours of detailed footage, documented examination of the aftermath, the scientific antecedent, and the close study by hundreds or thousands of scientifically experienced researchers?

That’s evidence. Now, please, show me the equivalent for UFOs.

<crickets>

4) Claims that the military has this evidence. OK then, show it to me. This is up to you to show me this, to verify it, and to show me why you have eliminated every single possible terrestrial mundane explanation, including hardware glitches, mistaken conclusions by the people involved, and advanced military craft — things we know exist and are common. Then and only then can you begin to postulate something more exotic.

I don’t think I can be more clear than this. I want good, solid, examinable evidence. What I get are insults, bad logic, and vaporware. That’s not helping your case, folks.

I certainly don’t have the time to sift through every single case, of course, and I’m pretty busy in general. But I’m always interested in what some might consider to be more solidly based cases. So given all this I’ve said, please feel free to leave your evidence for the best cases in the comments section below. Let’s take a look.

Comments (1,108)

  1. Monsignor Henry Clay

    But don’t you understand Phil? The evidence is all there if you want to see it! You just have to get Richard Hoagland to phone the president while standing on one leg facing in the direction of Mecca while pointing a finger towards Iaeptus wearing a Red Sox cap chanting “Blappety Flee” while Art Bell fires a flare gun and throws a pie tin while reciting the script of “Videodrome”. It’s all so simple! The burden of proof is on the person trying to prove me wrong!

    Of course, Curtis LeMay was buried with the secret documents in a lead lined casket, so we may never know. You’ll just have to take my word for it.

  2. David Crespo

    Above comment ftw.

    By the way, love the blog, Mr. Plait, from an incoming UChicago freshman physics major.

  3. Windyshrimp

    I really don’t like it when someone says U.F.O. and all of the sudden aliens are involved. It is one of those things that can be mistaken for another meaning. Just because an airline pilot saw a U.F.O. Does Not mean he saw an alien spacecraft.
    I believe in U.F.O’s, as in I believe in there are many Unidentified Flying Objects in the sky daily.
    As for tornadoes… do I even have to make fun of that? It is something that you read and your mind double takes. “Did he just compare alien spacecraft with tornadoes?” …. Yes, yes he did.

  4. mighty favog

    To all those who are attacking Phil for just being rational, I understand. I understand that it is very important to you that these things be true, though you yourselves know that you have no actual evidence. This is why you resent anyone who points that out. It would be easy for me to come here and just be snarky, and I don’t disparage those who do that, because it probably doesn’t make any more impact than Phil’s words or mine. You have to realize that what you have here is an article of faith. As religious extremists prove every day, faith utilized entirely for the purpose of attacking your perceived enemies helps no one. Just be happy with what you believe and quit the name calling, okay? Phil didn’t call you names, he just asked you to provide support for your claims, which means that you started it! You live in your world, we live in ours. Why are you reading this blog, anyway?

  5. I am still hearing crickets from UFO alien believers.

  6. Big Frankie

    Phil, you just rock. I grew up in Wyoming, and saw several UFOs but they were all later identified by my dad taking me to the Air National Guard base in town, and showing me where the lights were on the C-130 planes and UH-1 helicopters. (back in the ’80s we had an old-school 8′ satellite dish TV, and the c-130s would always jam the signal when they flew by the house on their training exercises.) Finding out the truth was way cooler to me than the mystery or listening to my friends make stuff up about what we saw.

    Reality is pretty sweet,
    Big Frankie

    P.S.: I’m the huge man in black from TAM6 that mentioned the Planet X/Thundarr the Barbarian similarities.

  7. Big Frankie

    …also, growing up in Wyoming, I saw a few tornadoes, they seemed pretty freaking real to me too. As you pointed out, there’s all that actual evidence that they exist, along with tested hypotheses of how they are formed.

    Reality is still pretty sweet,
    Big Frankie

  8. Ian

    But…what ’bout tornados caused by aliens? Huh? HUH! Ha!

  9. Daniel

    Phil…If the military has the evidence, you can be sure no one is going to see it.

  10. sdn

    The problem with asking for a flying saucer is that that’s exactly the kind of evidence UFO proponents won’t be able to provide. (I know that just sounds like a slam-dunk debunking, but hear me out.)

    It’s like telling a 9/11 conspiracist that they’re wrong “because look, here’s government footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon.” It’s meaningless to them, because if they’re right then the government is on the conspiracy and nothing it says can be trusted. In the case of UFOs and UFO proponents, it’s like giving them a copy of the Air Force’s report on Roswell and saying the matter is closed. For some so-called skeptics that kind of “evidence” will be enough, but I personally wouldn’t trust the government’s position on UFOs any more than I’d trust someone’s unverified sighting of something they couldn’t identify.

    Science won’t accept a claim without evidence to examine, I know—but in this context that isn’t exactly fair. If UFO proponents are right and the government is hiding everything, there’s pretty much no way for anyone outside the alleged conspiracy to get the kind of evidence that skeptics want. Of course someone could break ranks and come forward, but it’s a matter of debate whether that has already happened. I’m sure it’s a trivial job for whatever organization is allegedly flying UFOs around to discredit a former employee.

    In any case, the point is that while demanding a piece of a UFO is a reasonable and natural thing for skeptics to do, the situation makes it unlikely that kind of evidence can be produced (whether that’s because UFOs are not alien spacecraft or because the government keeps everything under lock and key.) It’s perfectly fair to say that UFO proponents are overreaching if they say that aliens are definitely here, but it’s absolutely not fair for “skeptics” to close the book because what evidence there is, whatever it is evidence of, is not up to their standards. There’s a big difference between “prove it” and “that isn’t true.”

    It’s not that skeptics are crossing that line—though a lot seem to be—but that in this case demanding perfect evidence is not exactly fair. It’s good science, and I’m not saying we should lower the standards of rigor, but we should recognize that what seems reasonable to skeptics may not always look so reasonable when we consider the situation from the other side.

  11. Utakata

    …speaking of which.

    You know for those asking for the evidence of tornadoes…tell them to stand in the path of one. They will clearly understand that they are very real..if they ever live to tell about it.

  12. DLC

    Hmm.. I have seen UFOs. lights in the sky I could not at that time identify.
    Yes, they were there and they were real. Usually in 2 ship formations, one which gave off a flashing green light and the other that gave off a flashing red light. Sometimes bright white lights emanate from a third spot in front of and in echelon with the other two sources.
    Sometimes I even hear a noise unlike any other noise I have ever heard . . .
    of course, I live in an area that could be described as the center of a triangle with a bizjet airport, an Air Force Base and a county municipal airport as the corners.
    (/humor)

  13. @Daniel: yeah, but why would the military hide for so long, besides it wouldn’t be able to hide something on this scale.

  14. baryogenesis

    You’re just a denialist. Denialists are blind to the truth which has been written (therefore it must be true) in a book that was published back in 1962 that gives us evidence (albeit anecdotal) of a story told by a friend of a witness who ‘s brother-in-law saw a secret document. C’mon, we all know Plait is in league with the Guv’ment, who will have to release details very soon of unquestionable eyewitness testimony and archival F-86 gun camera footage….oh crap, I give up….

  15. Daniel

    @Umair: Maybe in the interest of National Security and Sanity. IF we were being visited those beings logically would be looking for said evidence (unless they see how we treat our own people…id run past pluto as well!). However I don’t think we will ever know either way.

  16. Mulder

    Ok. You want prof of a UFO???? I have one.. This is the best and most importantly the most clear evidence of a UFO I’ve seen to date:

    http://flickr.com/photos/photo_guggi/377397950/

  17. Right on! Until we have some good solid hard evidence that it is a UFO, we simply don’t know what it is yes. … ;)

  18. Tom

    The evidence is so overwhelming. You have to be blind deaf and dumb to try and debunk this. I submit within a few years, with astronauts, officials from all government agencies, you will no longer be able to write such blogs. 1000 years ago, they would have told you planes and going to the moon are just fairytales.

  19. See Phil, I disagree with you on AGW (on the [b]interpretation[/b] of the evidence), but you’re exactly right here.

    And this is the lesson that needs to be clearly and firmly repeated. In Mitchell’s case, my first thought was, “oh, what special knowledge do you have that led you to this conclusion?” Of course he has none, he’s just one more person who has bought into the claim of aliens visiting the earth.

    His claim is immediately rebutted by simply, “Why don’t all the astronauts agree with you? Or at least (say) more than one?”. Just as you point out that astronomers don’t point out objects in the sky as UFOs, you can ask why astronauts haven’t seen significant evidence of aliens (especially those that went to the Moon).

  20. (Argh, I blew my tags. Is it bold like this?)

  21. Sam

    Ugh. This post is so smug and misguided, I don’t think I have the time or the patience to sit here and compose a full rebuttal to the whole thing. Wouldn’t do any good anyway, as you have your view — alien visitation is bunk — and clearly nothing short of full and deliberate revelation by an involved party will compel you to rethink that position. You pray to the god of “There Are No Aliens On Earth” and you will cling defiantly to the tenets of your religion like any other faithful religious believer in the face of contrary evidence (yes, evidence).

    I’m Sorry, Mr. Sciency-guy, but eye-witness accounts ARE evidence. No, not the kind that lends itself to replication in a lab, but the same kind that forms the basis for millions of criminal convictions — y’know, “beyond a reasonable doubt” criminal convictions — every year. People are put to death on eye-witness testimony in this country.

    Eye-witness accounts “unreliable”? Yes, some. So a witness who tells of seeing strange lights and says “I swear it was a flying saucer” — yeah, unreliable. A witness who says, “I was a colonel in the USAF and while I was the base commander at XYZ Air Force Base in 19XX, we had an incident in which …” Well, if his credentials check out and if the “incident” was sufficiently unambiguous to answer the “misunderstanding” or “misperception” arguments, and if the rest of the circumstances support the witness’ credibility…then it should be treated as credible EVIDENCE and should be believed unless and until a more credible explanation can be offered. That’s the kind of witness testimony that been convincing normal, rational, professional people like me that this subject needs to be taken seriously, and it has been piling up over the years: military officers, state troopers, FAA administrators, commercial airline pilots, air traffic controllers, astronauts! Mr. Sciency-guy, people like you who lump all witness accounts together and then brush them all off like they’re meaningless — you’re the charlatans, trying to pass off a relative lack of your preferred kinds of evidence for a total lack of any credible evidence.

    And BTW, there is evidence of other kinds too — a fair amount of it, actually. There are FAA radar records to support pilots’ accounts; radioactive soil samples to support witness accounts of sightings on land; polygraph test results that support witness accounts; and many, many, many photos and videos — true, many are grainy and meaningless, many others that are hoaxes, but a small portion remains that cannot be explained.

    It seems incredibly arrogant for anyone to presume to know enough about what’s going on in these unexplained encounters to suggest that there “should be” evidence of types A, B and C. If you start with the assumption — which you must, to perform a fair inquiry — that one explanation COULD BE extraterrestrial, then you must admit that you HAVE NO IDEA what kinds of evidence there “should be.” The answer to this question depends on many factors that we cannot measure or even estimate, including the actors’ intent, propensity and capabilities with respect to the leaving behind or the cleaning up of “evidence.”

  22. Tom

    By the way. Many astronauts are already and have been telling us for years about this subject. Here’s a sight you can real some real blogs. http://www.ufocasebook.com/ufpquotes1.html

  23. Tom

    ^^^ufoquotes1.html

  24. While I think this post is SPOT ON for the most part, I have to nitpick a bit.

    When people use the term UFO, a lot of people DO NOT necessarily mean “alien spaceship.” Also, an assertion you have made in the past that amateur astronomers don’t report UFOs isn’t entirely accurate. I know several who have seen things they couldn’t explain in the night sky (myself included), which they refer to as “UFOs.” However, none of them believe they actually saw an alien spaceship; just something they couldn’t identify, hence “unidentified.”

  25. Peter B

    Daniel said: “If the military has the evidence, you can be sure no one is going to see it.”

    And if they have *no* evidence, you can also be sure that no one is going to see it.

  26. ColombianKid

    (oo) “Phone home!”
    || /
    ———-
    | |
    ===
    || ||
    || ||
    (_) (_)

    Here’s your evidence!!

  27. baryogenesis

    As others have said before in these discussions, and as an amateur astronomer, thousands of hours have been spent observing the sky. I have seen a few things that have given me pause. Upon refection, I figured they most likely were bird reflections in a couple of cases and in one more spectacular instance, something being towed by a plane as a prank during the Perseids (prankster most likely assuming there would be more observers). Lights at night. Feh.

  28. Daniel

    @Peter: Which is why this thing with Ed is silly. Either way we will never know :(

  29. JHill

    Monsignor much love for the Videodrome reference.

    Phil, I think the reason you don’t believe aliens visit us is that you simply haven’t spent enough time looking at the sky.

  30. Tom

    UFOs in my experience behave an awful lot like pereidolia. We see what we think we are going to see. A tortilla becomes the Virgin Mary. Military flares become aliens. Same cognitive trap.

    The problem is we have irresponsible “journalists” and the like who constantly scream at their audience that aliens lurk everywhere in our skies. The uninformed draw on this bad information to assess what they are seeing. No wonder they coome to the wrong conclusion.

    It isn’t religion (for the average person). It is just bad and incomplete information. Thank you, Phil for trying to get the good information out there. Now, if only there was a skeptical TV network…

  31. Dave Hall

    Peter B Says:
    Daniel said: “If the military has the evidence, you can be sure no one is going to see it.”

    And if they have *no* evidence, you can also be sure that no one is going to see it.

    Isn’t that just about what Dick Cheney said about WMDs while trying to justify the Iraq War?

  32. Colin

    @Utakata: “You know for those asking for the evidence of tornadoes…tell them to stand in the path of one. They will clearly understand that they are very real..if they ever live to tell about it.”

    You could say the same thing about alien spacecraft. Mind you, you might have a harder time finding one to stand in the path of…

  33. MaW

    It’s either paranoia, or wishful thinking. Some people have convinced themselves that aliens are coming and conspiring with our governments (who they don’t trust, a trait they share with a lot of other people). Other people have convinced themselves that aliens are coming and could offer us the way out of the problems with our societies, leading us into a new era of enlightenment. They just want it to happen Right Now Please.

    None of these people are likely to be susceptible to such things as evidence and scientific rigour.

    Personally I think it’s so probable as to be utterly certain that somewhere, in our galaxy or another, there’s a planet which has life. Chances are, there’s another planet with intelligent life – after all, if we can evolve here, can’t another sentient species emerge somewhere else in a similar amount of time? Or a shorter or longer amount of time, too.

    The universe is so large, so incredibly big and complicated that the idea of this being the only planet with life is utterly absurd.

    Unless of course there is a God, and he’s playing games by deliberately leaving evidence that contradicts his own scripture.

  34. Chris

    You’re absolutely right, Phil.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

  35. Adhominem

    Don’t count pictures as evidence, even if they’re clear and sharp. Picture manipulation by computers has come very far. If you’ve got the skills and the time, manipulating pictures to the point where the manipulation cannot be seen any more is possible.

    Photos are not evidence any longer. You simply cannot assume that the photo shows what the camera saw (and I do hope they will become inadmissable in court some day soon).

  36. Daniel

    @Ad…good then they will throw out all the photo radar tickets…PHOTOSHOPPED

  37. Simon

    @Adhominem – Photos are fine as evidence, but as you say, the burden of proof must be higher, as Daniel alluded to. In other words, you need a photo *and* proof that it hasn’t been tampered with. There are ways to get this, but it’s a lot more difficult than just submitting a photo.

  38. DrFlimmer

    @ Ad..: This will be the problem, when human beings return to the moon. “They” will say, that the photos are faked with photoshop or what ever – even the photos of a satallite which will shot the remnants of the Apollo-missions will be “faked” (if we will have a satellite with enaugh resolution, of course…)

  39. jw

    Under the FOI, the FAA recently released Radar data in relation to the Stephenville, Texas, sighting which shows quite clearly unidentified craft (no transponder) accelerating to several thousand miles per hour in a fraction of a second, turning, and repeating the maneuvers.
    I would call that evidence. Something was there (with eye witnesses that you don’t seem to want to know about) performing in ways that nothing we have could do. If it’s not the US, China, or Russia who else could it be? Iceland?
    Also: Dr. Roger Lear has removed scores of implants over the last decade which have been studied at labs across the country. Consistently they are deemed ‘of non-terrestrial origin’! Comprised, in other words, of materials found somewhere other than this planet. These implants have a material lattice style matrix which is sub-nanoscale and beyond all of our present day technology.
    This is evidence you can hold in your hand, and send it for independent testing if you want.
    Strange that you have formed your opinion without knowing any of this.
    Condemnation before Investigation keeps your mind small and closed.

  40. andyo

    Hmm, maybe because the U.S. Government is so freaking competent about hiding the space aliens and spacecraft, is that they don’t have the resources or time for being competent about terrorism, drugs, national security (other than the one implied in Terrestrial Security), natural disasters, education, social illness…

    THANK YOU U.S. GOVERNMENT FOR PROTECTING EARTH!!!

  41. Joey Joe Joe

    >1) Ad hominem attacks. While accusing me of being a debunker folks, you should understand
    >that you can’t be a debunker without bunk to debunk. And after the insults, I ask, where’s
    >that evidence I asked for?

    Does calling anyone with questions over the science behind Global Warming a “denier” qualify as an Ad Hominem?

    Just askin’, is all…

  42. jw

    ALSO: About extraordinary evidence for such claims.
    If a ‘fuzzy’ photograph of a metallic craft of saucer configuration from 1939 doesn’t meet your standard of ‘evidence’ that something exists.
    OR: eye witness testimony of pilots, police, astronauts, generals, admirals, doctors, Harvard psychologists, etc. etc does not meet your standard of evidence……..
    Then when was the last time you questioned the existence of PLUTO?
    You’ve never seen that with your own eyes!
    All that exists are ‘fuzzy’ photographs.
    Anyone who has ever told you Pluto is there was just ‘testimony’
    Strange how you have a sliding scale of evidence when it comes to a subject that you clearly don’t want to believe.
    Your mighty pride pulls you away from every wanting to except that UFO believers, and your own ignorance of them, might actually be right!

  43. MCW

    How do I know that atoms and molecules exist? Because some scientist said so, not because I have actually seen them, and seeing them on the Discovery Channel doesn’t count, because it could be CGI, for all I know. I’m astonished that something so widely reported could be dismissed as nothing, just because no one has a UFO in their garage, and just as someone else pointed out, if the military got it’s hands on any kind of exotic, foreign technology, they would hold on to it like gold.
    One poster asked how Dr. Mitchell could know any more than anyone else, well considering the fact that NASA is a relatively tight-knit bunch and they are government employees, it would stand to reason that the astronauts would discuss things amongst themselves that they could not talk about in public. Also, Dr. Mitchell grew up in Roswell, New Mexico and would be the right age to know many of the people that were there when the alledged crash happened, in 1947. I also have a hard time believing that so many ex-military octogenarians would be just be messing with our heads and the deathbed confession of Walter Haut, the 509th P.R. man that actually isssed both press releases back in 1947, the first one claiming the army had a crashed disc, the second one essentially recanting the whole story.
    If you look at all of the testimony in The Disclosure Project and add the stories that Mercury astronaut Gordon Cooper had told until the day he died, I would call that a preponderance of evidence, although there is nothing there that you can hold in your hand or hit with a rock. If someone shows me a nuclear weapon, I don’t need to see it explode to believe that it can, I have blind faith that the proper materials and devices are there to make it work. Not exactly empirical evidence, just a belief.

  44. Phil, if you want evidences why don’t you look at the THOUSANDS radar RECORDINGS since the 50′s. We have ABSOLUTE proof that 1 mile wide spaceships came FROM space at incredible speed, stop on a dime and accelerate in a blink of a eye BACK to SPACE! It’s not because Mass Medias censor those RECORDINGS that UFOs dont exist, it’s PROVE the Mass Media TRAITORS. Come on when are you going to stop saying there is no evidences and PUBLISH them instead?! RADAR RECORDINGS record the SPEED, VELOCITY, ACCELERATION, DECELERATION, DISTANCES, where it come FROM AND where it GOES!!!!! What MORE do you WANT???? Almost all our sky is recorded by radar and there is ALSO radar in PLANES!! WE HAVE GROUND radar, GROUND visual, AIR radar and AIR visual confirming EACH others AT THE SAME TIME!!! What MORE do you WANT?????
    Stop hiding you hand in the sand and go to http://www.disclosureproject.org and try to PUBLISH those proof in the MASS MEDIA and NOW you will beleive us that the Mass Media are corrupt when they going to refuse you too!

  45. Perhaps sometimes we need to get a better balance between listening openly to people’s claims (many of whom are highly educated and with highly respected careers on the line) and our own perfectly valid skepticism and reservation. If people are frustrated because they haven’t been told things they think they should know, then perhaps they need to search more deeply inside themselves as to why they think they should know it. First of all, have they nothing better to do with their time? It should be reasonable to assume that things happen for a reason. If you are an individual to whom no satisfactory proof has been revealed then some humility is necessary at this time. It is often suggested that when the student is ready, then the teacher will appear. It is worth bearing in mind that people who know too much may be imprisoned or killed. The reality of this subject is much more serious than people want to admit. In most cases idle speculation is the result, because who really wants to become the enemy of some of the most powerful people on earth? Who, for example, would want to be in Gary McKinnon’s shoes right now? Some US officials say they ‘want him to fry’. Personally I like to play the piano and write fiction. I think it’s worth spending a little more time trying to find intelligent life in our own heads rather than simply looking outwards all the time. Be a man for all seasons, not a fanatic truth seeker who ends up with no friends, is my thinking. The richness of life is a blessing in itself. Who are we to demand anything of anyone? With patience our restless sense of injustice will be tempered, putting us in a better state for receiving more knowledge. Too much too soon could mean, very seriously, a death sentence or a mental breakdown depending on how the individual reacts, hence the need for a genuine teacher. But hey, what would I know? All the best, folks.

  46. Stephanie

    I really enjoy reading your blog and completely agree about the evidence part. You make some good points and I’m glad we have someone like you on our team… you know, the “smart people” team hahaha.

  47. Phil, when you hear the Mass Media and the FAA saying that the is the UFOs was NOT recorded on radar MOST of the time it’s a LIE! After we obtained them with the Freedom of Access Law the Mass Medias REFUSE to RETRACT themselves and PUBLISH those radar recordings!!! When are YOU going to?

    (sorry for my English, I’m French)

  48. Bobby Thomas

    +1 to Phil.

    -1 to the fellow who doubts the reality of tornadoes–or, at the very least, somehow felt his analogy involving tornadoes and aliens was spot-on.

  49. Lawrence

    There was one instance, quite a long time ago that I saw something above Boston harbor that I just couldn’t get my head around – certainly seemed strange and very unusual, but of course, I was only four years old at the time.

    As much as I would have loved this to have been an actual UFO, I think maybe a few hundred thousand people would have seen it as well.

    I agree with Phil – over the past sixty years since all of this UFO stuff started, you would think that someone, somewhere would have found some real evidence (materials, a real video, an interview with an alien on YouTube).

    If aliens did exist (and I’m sure they do somewhere up there), it probably speaks more to their intelligence that they’ve never contacted us – given the generally suspicious and agressive lot that we are (if I was them, I wouldn’t want to get anywhere near this planet – given our perchant for violence & tendency to want to disect things we don’t understand).

  50. Michelle

    I guess we oughta send that tornado guy to Kansas. Let’s say that lots of tornado pictures aren’t blurry and they are quite real, unlike UFOs.

  51. Michelle

    …ahem, ALIEN filled UFOs that is. Cuz we all know UFOs exist, it’s anything that flies that we can’t ID.

  52. madge

    @ Daniel
    That reminds me of the Bush rationale for invading Iraq
    WE HAVEN’T FOUND ANY EVIDENCE OF WMDs WHICH PROOVES THEY MUST BE HIDING THEM !
    Who can win against “logic” like that? :P

  53. Eric

    Have I seen UFOs? Yup. I have seen thousands of them. I can see one looking out my window right now. Its a loud sucker btw. Oh but the UFOs I see aren’t alien in nature. I just can’t make out what kind of planes and helicopters flying around at night. It sucks to live next to an Air Force base =(.

  54. I just knew that after the *ahem* EVENTS in Stephenville, TX, that it would spawn (or spore) a whole slew of UFO proponents coming back out of the woodwork and getting airtime on CNN (again, shame on Larry King).

    What really slays me is how often these people say things like “UFO is just that: an UNIDENTIFIED object…WE’RE not saying they’re alien!”, and then they make every possible connection to extra-terrestrial causations, and deny terrestial ones.

    I’ve always been curious as to what psychological mechanism is in place that makes the believer convinced of the shoddy non-evidence, and the skeptic not convinced. We’re both seeing the same thing, and yet it always seems like the credulous can’t see the strings holding up the UFO in place (thank, Billy Meier!)

  55. Andrew Jackson

    Two things.

    1) ‘bazillion’ is not a number.

    2) Your short bio says you are ‘a skeptic’, not ‘a scientist’. This statement is true and honest.

  56. MattGS

    For most UFO believers UFOs and aliens are nothing but a substitute for God. It is the basis of their religious fervour and therefore you can’t argue with them. In their minds, UFOs and aliens do exist and it needs no proof. They see the signs of them everywhere and that is enough. Not believing in them is a sacrilege. Demanding evidence of their existence is a sacrilege. Just like young earth creationists they can not be shaken in their belief, no matter how few (if any) evidence they actually can produce. They simply know they are right, either because God told them so or the aliens did when they abducted them.

  57. I’m starting to suspect that some UFO believers – not all, mind you – but some consider the aliens on a subjective, spiritual basis thus explaining away the lack of evidence.

    But things like that would be the realm of the supernatural,not actual, physical aliens.

    But you’re right, Phil. I’m tired of stories and experiences. I want hard evidence.

  58. Carl

    I was almost certainly abducted one night….had all the classic symptoms – loss of memory, not knowing where time had gone and waking up somewhere entirely different (at home, on the sofa) with a terrible headache. The last thing I can remember was leaving the pub at about 11.30.

    The aliens who abducted me had obviously done some very scary experiemtns because when I woke up I found I’d sh*t myself.

  59. The proof you are asking for is available to the general public. Thousands of eye witness reports, photographs, videos, radar recordings, trace landings, etc. It’s all there. Do we have one in a museum to show tourists? No, the reason for that is simple. Government cover up.

    Don’t think it’s possible? Our children are still taught the JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, with a single file, via a shot that’s been proven to have been almost impossible for the world’s best marksmen. Single bullet theory, that’s what people should be debating.

    If you want proof of this cover up, I ask you to research the Disclosure Project, for example. Military and government personnel coming forward and sharing their experiences, radar data, etc. Many of our world’s governments have begun sharing their UFO files from France to the UK. Ask yourself, why hasn’t the US?

    Let’s go back to some of this evidence you claim isn’t available. The Phoenix Lights sighting of 1997 was not flares. There’s clear video, thousands of people witnessed it, some have recently gone onto Larry King Live and described a giant craft, flying over the city that blocked out the stars above it. Silent, city sized boomerang shaped craft. We do not have anything that matches such a description, yet people still say it was only flares.

    Chicago O’Hare International Airport in November of 2006. Over a dozen United Airlines workers witnessed a saucer shaped craft hovering over the C terminal. It was reported to the tower and after several minutes, it shot straight up through the clouds, leaving a hole. It took weeks for the FAA to reveal that they had in fact gotten reports of it and confirmed the sighting.

    Stephenville Texas, late 2007 through 2008, hundreds of UFO reports have been made. MUFON now has obtained radar recordings that show a large object, performing unconventional flight patterns, with no transponder signal. The military first said they had no jets in the area. They later changed their story after the publicity grew and said yes, they had jets in the area. Guess what? The radar data shows the jets, along with this giant unknown.

    So let me summarize, the military and government has been lying to the public for at least 60 years about a phenomenon that truly scares them. These craft have been performing maneuvers that we cannot duplicate. They are silent, there’s no sign of exhaust, propellers, engines, etc; yet they can fly thousands of miles an hour and change direction or turn in an instant.

    If you want evidence, please do your homework before claiming there isn’t any available. I will quote the nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman, one of the world’s foremost experts on the Roswell crash and UFOs in general. “Don’t bother me with evidence, my mind is already made up.” You would be what I’d consider a “noisy negativist.”

  60. Correction, “single rifle.”

  61. Some people are just lost to logic and reality. What really puzzles me is why so many of these intellectually celibate charlatans are getting put on media, as well as in positions within the government!

  62. mk

    MattGS…

    This is exactly right. And it is true for conspiracy theorists of any stripe. There is a certain comfort that comes from their particular brand of conspiracy and a serious dearth of real, hard evidence shakes them not at all! From JFK to 9-11 to UFOs to any and all types of “belief.” It is in their world of belief, in their fantasy world, where they choose to remain. Good for them. Hope they enjoy it. But if on occasion they choose to pop into the world of reality they should at least expect to get smacked around a bit by that very reality. It is a cold splash of water. Depends on the individual of course as to whether or not that splash is deeply unpleasant or fresh and invigorating.

  63. Phil — I’ve said this before and I will say it again — You Rock!

    @madge — Yeah, you can’t win against “logic” like that, for sure.

  64. DR.KATHRINE MARTIGNONI

    DEAR PHIL,
    DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF THAT GOD EXIST?
    SURELY NOT, BUT 95% OF AMERICAN PEEPLE BELIEVE IN IT. ARE THESE ALL STUPID AND
    ANTI-SCIENTIFIC PEOPLE?
    WHY DO PEOPLE BELIEVE IN GOD IF THEY CAN`T TOUCH HIM, SEE HIM,ETC…
    BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE “FEEL” THAT GOD EXIST. THEY “NEED” GOD.
    FOR UFOs IT IS THE SAME THING.
    WE BELIEVE IN THEM BECAUSE WE FEEL THAT THEY EXIST AND EVEN IF
    WE CAN`T TOUCH AN ALIEN SPACESHIP (FOR THE MOMENT!!!) WE STRONGLY FEEL THAT
    THEY ARE OUT THERE…FLYING OVER OUR HEADS. WE ALSO “NEED” UFOs AND ALIENS.
    SIMPLY FOR THIS.
    MR. EDGAR MITCHELL HAS SIMPLY INCREASED OUR ” COSMIC FAITH” THAT UFOs AND ALIENS ARE REAL …AND,BELIEVE ME, NO DEBUNKER AND ANY CRITICISM ON UFOs CAN
    REVERSE OUR BELIEF IN THEM (it`s more than 60 YEARS that the US authorities try desperatly to ridiculise
    this “problem” (UFOs and ALIENS) without any apparent result because the “ufo believers” are always more numberous and organised!!!).
    THE FACT IS THIS:
    WE KNOW- FOR SURE- THAT THEY ARE OUT THERE AND THAT US AUTHORITIES HAS ALWAYS COVER IT UP BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID OF THE PANIC AND MR. MITCHELL HAS ONLY CONFIRMED THIS SIMPLE THING WITH HIS GREAT CREDENTIALS OF BIG ASTRONAUT. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS…
    BEST WISHES,
    DR. KATHRINE MARTINEZ-MARTIGNONI (SWITERLAND)

    P.S: EXCUSE ME FOR MY IMPERFECT ENGLISH(THAT IT IS NOT MY FIRST LANGUAGE).

  65. Terry

    “The military is hiding it”? There’s no such thing as “the military.” There are only people. And people are notoriously bad at keeping secrets. There is an inverse proportion law regarding secrets. The bigger the secret, the shorter the life span of the secret. Aliens from space? That’s got a half life of about ten seconds.

  66. Don Snow

    @ Phil

    What I remember reading of your other recent article, was aliens are amongst us. Really? Here in Texas, that’s quite a controversy, because our aliens labor cheaper than the residents…only I guess, from your articler, that ED Mithchell was speaking of ETs.

    Naw, he meant, ET’s, I know. I don’t believe in ET’s, that much. Should I, or shouldn’t I? Shucks, I’m a closet comedian, what’s the harm in a good laugh? I do wonder about those Grays coming from…secret caves. They aren’t ET’s! They’re subterrestials: ST’s. Well, sometimes, I do wonder about that. However I have no evidence. My trips through caves were with tour groups, as a child, through Longhorn and then Carlsbad caverns. Did crawl a private cave, one time. No ST’s there. Skip it.

    This next is serious.
    About three or so years ago, one night, at work, I did see something. I was looking up, on a clear night, to see what constellations I could pick out.
    All of a sudden, it looked like a star started moving. The bright point of light covered 45degree of arc, in less than a minute, I’m sure. It looked awfully high. Continuing my foot patrol, I thought it over, in my mind. I could only think it was a test craft, turning on the afterburner (when it looked like a star started moving), and blazing across the sky at high Mach speed. We’re near JNRB Carswell, here. And, new jets are tested, there, I later learned.

    I’ve always prayed the Lord to spare me any UFO or experimenting ET’s. He ahs fatihfully answered my prayer (not joking).

  67. Charles

    Phil,

    When you mess with people’s long-held and cherished beliefs, they’re going to fire back with anything that they’ve got, or worse, think that they’ve got.

    Keep in mind the “UFO’s Are There and Hidden By The Government” crowd have been conditioned by books and television documentaries for decades to believe exactly that. Do they have real direct evidence of a cover-up? No, unless you count the latest “UFO Files” on some cable channel or something. But that will never stop them from believing. It’s like a religion.

  68. Todd W.

    @Some Canadian Skeptic

    You beat me to the point about the “Unidentified” part of UFO. To add to your comment, and before any of the UFO community come on here crying about how skeptics supposedly always equate UFOs with aliens, as I said in one of the other threads, we do that partly because that’s what so much of the vocal component of the UFO community talks about. Even if, like SCS pointed out, they highlight the unidentified part, they still build hype around the “it could be aliens” part. And, even though they might maintain that they are just saying any given case remains “unknown”, they tend to discount any rational explanation that is given.

    Another thought also occurred to me as to why skeptics might harp on the alien aspect of UFOs so much: because any mundane, terrestrial explanation has so much evidence to support it, that we really don’t care much about it. Mundane encounters don’t hold much potential to lead to significant scientific discoveries. They probably won’t have a significant impact on anyone but the person that experienced the event. And, they hold little potential to impact the way the public views science and what is possible or impossible. Think about it; if aliens are, indeed, visiting Earth, that has HUGE implications for all branches of science. It would also have a pretty big impact on lots and lots of people. That, I think, is a compelling reason to focus on the aliens = UFOs aspect and not care too much about the other claims.

  69. MattGS

    As Mike Collins said in the wonderful documentary “In The Shadow Of The Moon”:

    “I don’t know two americans who have a phantastic secret without one of them blurting it out to the press. Can you image thousands of people able to keep this secret?”

  70. Todd W.

    @Charles

    Ah, but see, the fact that they don’t have any evidence is proof of the conspiracy!

  71. Daniel

    @Madge & Jewel:
    Im not saying the military is hiding anything. I am saying that even if they were, You and I will never know about it. Why would the military want to reveal something like that anyway?
    This whole thing with Ed Mitchell saying he knows our government made contact is silly. It adds nothing for UFO believers, and the UFO Skeptics are having a field day saying show me proof, when you and I both know there is none.

  72. OtherRob

    Maybe the aliens are hiding in the tornadoes. I saw a movie once where a tornado sucked up a cow and we know how much aliens like cows. So there you go. :-)

  73. BMcP

    People have to remember that the X-Files was fiction.

    I honestly hope and believe (although I cannot prove it) that there is life elsewhere in our universe, including intelligent life. Say that though, I have never witnessed a UFO (as in an alien craft) ever in all my night sky gazing and I have seen no second hand evidence that isn’t circumstantial at best.

    Also always found it humorous that aliens always visit lonely, desperate people desperate to believe in something and desperate to be significant out in some abandoned trailer home to explain their message which is usually so vague, undefined version of “hope, peace, and salvation” and not show up to someone or someplace who would really matter when it comes explaining their motivations for visiting Earth and desires for contact, like at say, the UN building in Manhattan.

  74. Todd W.

    @BMcP

    They visit out of the way spots because they’re shy.

  75. Charles

    Maybe the aliens are hiding in the tornadoes. I saw a movie once where a tornado sucked up a cow and we know how much aliens like cows.

    Yes, I saw that too. I was quite impressed with the traction and power that the red Dodge pickup had in that movie — it was able to keep all four wheels on the ground while tractor-trailers were picked up and sent flying. Incredible.

    Come to think of it, that truck was trying to get into a tornado. Wait, wait, I have it now! The red pickup was actually an alien spaceship and that container of cut up soda cans it was carrying were actually released within the tornado to signal the mothership.

    Ah well. If Helen Hunt is an alien, she can come abduct me.

  76. Monti0

    Hey man. The Truth is, like, out there, man.

    The sky is *full* of alien spaceships just scooting about. It’s the mind-control fluoride that the government puts in the drinking water that causes us to not be able to see them!

    (FYI, I actually heard said by a David Icke follower)

  77. firemancarl

    Lets see here. Hmm, there are tornadoes that attack trailer parks. The aliens land in trailer parks. Meh, maybe the toradoes transport aliens to trailer parks???

  78. Sir Eccles

    Phil, while I agree with you, you should probably calm down a bit otherwise you might end up sounding like the very people you are trying to debunk. To wit here is a slightly edited version of your third paragraph:

    “All I want is actual, y’know, evidence of evolution. I don’t want eyewitness testimony. I don’t want shaky footagefossils. I don’t want carbon dating, which is notoriously unreliable. I don’t want claims of redacted documents, or government seizures of evidencepeople descending from monkeys, or anything I can’t hold in my hand and examine.”

    Remember that their arguments seem just as logical to them as ours do to us.

  79. Jim

    Conspiracy theorists always like to talk about how the government is hiding things from us, whether it’s UFOs, the Kennedy Assassination, or 9/11. To them, I always like to toss out a line from Tom Clancy’s “The Hunt for Red October”, “The likelihood of a secret being blown is proportional to the square of the number of people who’re in on it.”

    So when they expect me to believe that the same government that can’t keep a President’s illicit, under the Oval Office desk, blow-job a secret is in collusion with nations around to globe to successfully keep secret the single biggest story of all time, a story which any reporter would gladly gnaw off their own arm to get the scoop on, I say, “Um, no.”

    All sorts of special pleadings will follow, “You don’t understand…”, “That’s what they want you to think…”, etc.

    I’d call their attention to Occam’s razor, but in their world the razor is a bit dull and is need of some serious honing.

  80. Don Snow

    I KNOW what the flying saucers are looking for: flying cups.

    [quoting QD](run and hide)

    heh heh heh

  81. llewelly

    If the US military had evidence of visiting ETs, a soldier with a cell phone camera would have put pics of a naked alien being pointlessly tortured on their unsecured flicker page.

  82. Daniel

    @Sir:
    As the old saying goes, “Methinks Thou Protesteth Too Much” lol

  83. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Sir Eccles

    I hear what you’re saying… but I think maybe your analogous comparison to evolution is a bit of a stretch. There are literally “mountains” of physical evidence to back up evolution, and none of it is really anecdotal. It can be observed in action, it has predictive power, it’s actually quite tangible…

  84. @Eccles, there’s plenty of extremely well-documented evolution happening around us, especially in the bacterial world (because bacteria multiply so quickly that cumulative effects of mutations become visible much quicker than in other living creatures), but not only. I’d advise you to visit PZ Meyers’ Pharingula more often.

  85. @Sir Eccles:

    “All I want is actual, y’know, evidence of evolution. I want eyewitness testimony”

    I get your point, but the thing is we have that! We can put selective pressure on bacteria and observe them evolving over many generations.

    There’s nothing even remotely like that demonstrating – or even strongly suggesting – the existence of intelligent ET life. And I know, because once upon a time I really, truly wanted to believe that ETs were visiting us, so I looked very hard for anything that could really support that idea. I found very little, and what I found was mostly either faked or so inconclusive as to be useless.

  86. Meeee

    @Daniel

    “Im not saying the military is hiding anything. I am saying that even if they were, You and I will never know about it.”

    The US military can’t even keep a top secret submarine propeller from appearing on Microsoft’s Live Search:

    http://dreadnaught.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/us-ohio-class-submarine-visable-on-microsofts-live-search/

    To claim that they, nay, *any* organisation on the planet, could keep evidence of aliens from the public is just silly. It’d involve a coverup of gigantic proportions with no one *ever* leaking actual evidence (ex-military members coming forward and saying “I saw this in x base but I have no proof and you can’t go and check yoursel” doesn’t count), which is, frankly, insane.

    Seriously. Consider the amount of dirt about various high ranking politicians that gets exposed to the public, in some cases ruining their careers. I know it’s not exactly the same thing, but it shows that even high ranking government officials can’t keep secrets about their personal life. It’s extremely doubtful that any organisation, military or otherwise, could keep such amazing evidence (alien life visting earth) secret.

    Hell, in the 1960s, soviet astronomers announced that they had found proof of an advanced alien civilisation (look up Quasar CTA 102) to the press. Imagine that. The soviet government, not known for being open and honest with facts and ideas, found some unusual readings in the sky and immediately announced that they’d found alien life. That’s how exciting the idea of alien life is to those who study it. The idea that anyone would find actual, solid proof of aliens and then never tell anyone about it is laughable.

  87. Sir Eccles

    Guys, I’m not disagreeing with you.

    We are all rational people here and know good evidence when we see it. But remember that Creationists/moon hoaxers/alien believers/etc think there is an equally large mountain of “evidence” (I put it in quotes to differentiate it from what we might call “real testable evidence”) for their argument too. What I’m saying is that we must remain calm when presenting it otherwise we come across like the lunatics we are trying to convince.

  88. Peter B

    Daniel said: “If the military has the evidence, you can be sure no one is going to see it.”

    I said: “And if they have *no* evidence, you can also be sure that no one is going to see it.”

    Dave Hall said: “Isn’t that just about what Dick Cheney said about WMDs while trying to justify the Iraq War?”

    You’ve lost me. Did he say that? What’s that got to do with aliens?

    For me, the more relevant comparison is with a story I read a few years ago about allegations of Satanic ritual abuse of children (in the UK IIRC). If I remember the story correctly, a *police officer* said the lack of evidence of abuse was proof of how effective the Satanists were at hiding their activities.

  89. Celtic_Evolution

    Right… I know that, Sir Eccles… you’re point is noted.

    My retort was to make the very point that, if you’re going to make that comparison in the way you did with evolution, it’d be pretty easy to argue and show faulty. So the two are not really comparible in that way.

    And, that having been said.. I read Phil’s post again, and I have to say, I don’t see it as being as overly emotional or displaying a lack of calm, and I think it was fairly proportional given the contents of the comments on the intitial Ed Mithell post. Given that context, I think Phil’s post was both necessary and properly toned…

  90. Jim Shaver

    Sir Eccles:

    Celtic_Evolution is being kind. Your comparison of ET Skeptics to Evolution Deniers is way more than a bit of a stretch — it’s a complete non-sequitur, and it’s insulting to biological science. Also, I suspect that the intersection between the “UFO equals ET” crowd and the anti-evolution crowd is near zero. ET, if proven to exist, would shake the already squishy foundation of the YECs.

    Which would be a great thing! If only ET were here, he would be a great boon to science! That’s the irony. Scientists, who rightly complain about the dismal quantity and quality of ET evidence, would love it if the world could meet ET for real. (Assuming of course that ET is nice to Earth scientists.)

  91. Jim Shaver

    …and Sir Eccles, I wrote that before I saw your reply to Celtic_Evolution. No hard feelings intended, anyway.

  92. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Jim Shaver

    I’m being kind, indeed, because I know from past comments where Sir Eccles is coming from, generally… and while I understand the point he’s trying to make, I don’t really agree with it in the way it was framed, with the example given.

  93. Jim Shaver

    Thanks, Celtic. I think we’re in agreement here.

  94. Jammer

    OMG…these UFO nuts are almost as bad as young earth creationists!

  95. UmTutSut

    Thousands of people (not me, BTW) over several thousand years have seen strange things in the sky, not ALL of which appear to be explainable as natural phenomena or human artifacts. If you accept that admittedly broad statement, then there is a phenomenon/phenomena occuring that is deserving of dedicated, careful, WELL-FUNDED, scientific study. I don’t believe that’s being done — at least not openly, not for peer review.

    Why would a skeptical scientist argue with that?

    (I only skimmed thru the comments, so I hope I’m not repeating someone else’s message….)

    Les (Friendly Airplane Asylum flack)

  96. RL

    Just a couple of points:

    1. I’m skeptical of a government conspiracy to hide UFOs.
    2. If I remember the articles and the interviews correctly, Ed Mitchell is relating what he says he was told by others. I don’t have a problem with that. Is that evidence? No. Is it interesting? Yes. Follow up on this point would be great. Who was he talking to? Why does he believe them? Before hearing that, I’d reserve final judgement on him. He could be honest and duped (or right), dishonest or delusional. No one on this blogs knows the real answer I suspect.
    3. The logic of the many doubters posting to this site is dubious to me and is too much like the logic that IDers or others use. Just because something may seem hard to you to believe is not proof one way or the other. For example, consider government secret keeping. I don’t think Watergate, Iran/Contra, Lewinski-gate or any of the other items are proof that government can’t keep secrets. It seems very evident to me that the government can do so. Some of these secrets come out decades later (like cold war activities, info on POWs, etc) but only when the government decides that enough time has past. Most, if not all, of the examples of failed secrets are “amateurs” doing illegal or illict things trying to hide them from professional investigators with the power of the federal government behind them (or a very interested press corp aided by a turncoat).

    4. That being said, I don’t think there is any direct proof of a conspiracy or visitations. Just losts of stuff that people think are circumstantial.
    5. Let be a cynic like everyone else on this site: I have to wonder about what I perceive as BAs anger or outrage to his initial blog. Just what were you expecting? Someone to jump forward with evidence? Or even less likely, someone to say, you’ve convinced me? Or is this just an attempt to whip up blog numbers?

  97. If you think about this, it is very similar to intelligent design. ID claims to be a science with evidence and all in a very similar way that UFO people claim there is evidence. Its just that you can’t SEE the evidence because it is hidden.

    This also reminds me of that guy in the movie Terminator that went back in time (this happened in another movie also). He couldn’t prove he was from the future because he had no clothes and stuff. Really, it’s kind of funny in a sad way.

  98. Charles

    I think that the argument that the military cannot keep a secret is a major red herring. They can and do keep secrets quite effectively.

    The F117a was operational for seven years prior to its release (planned BTW) by the military. For example. Yes, there were rumors of the airplane, but if you sift through what those rumors were and how they jibed with the reality that was eventually disclosed, you will find that an overwhelming majority of the rumors were complete bunk.

  99. Eric H.

    Well, maybe I missed this in the previous post as I didn’t skim through those comments, but seriously if the gov. had any kind of evidence then we would know about it.
    There are tons of hackers going after pentagon computers all the time, and really before the mid 90′s it was barely a chore for them to get access to everything on those systems. Even today it isn’t much of a chore as you can see from the recent news about the extradition of a British citizen to the US so he can be tried for hacking into the pentagon and NASA computers. What was this guy looking for? Oh… you guessed it, evidence of Aliens visiting the earth and the US government trying to cover it up.

    What did he find? Well, he claims that he found a number of things, but in all of this guy’s computer genius did he figure out how to save any of the information to his own hard drive? No, he couldn’t figure out how to save the “evidence” that he found.

    If you want to read up on this crackpot just go to Google news and search for “British hacker”

  100. Charly

    for Don Snow:

    What you saw could also have been a satellite. Go to the following website which provides data about satellites and when you can see them from various locations. I remember several years ago taking my children out to watch the Space Shuttle/ISS fly by several nights in a row. The coolest was after they had undocked and the one was slightly behind the other, looking like it was chasing it!

    I had a really strange experience as a child. My family were sitting on my grandmother’s porch at night and all of a sudden a bright light lit up the entire country-side, moving from north to south. We all wondered what happened and looked for information about what it could be. It wasn’t until about 30 years later that I was watching a show about meteor and saw footage of one that I realized that this was probably what we saw….while we doubted for a long time what it was, once I had a reasonable explanation, the mystery was gone. It was kind of sad when I burst everyone’s bubble….maybe that is why this is such an emotional topic for “believers.”

  101. Charly
  102. Brian T.

    To those who think “The Government” is covering up evidence of alien visitors:

    The supposedly monolithic, all powerful Government couldn’t fire eight attorneys for political reasons and sweep it under the rug. Compare something underhanded and relatively minor like that to the idea that thousands of current or retired military personnel, intelligence officers, politicians, federal bureaucrats, or state employees never let the secret about aliens slip. Not once.

    Governments are made of people, who make mistakes, and make them often. Open a newspaper. To paraphrase Lewis Black, you’re talking about “The Government” as if it were a building, walking around and doing sh**.

  103. Ade

    Is there alien life out there somewhere? Yeah, probably… it’s a big universe, after all. Are they visiting us? I think that falls into the realms of (to nick the X-Files phrase) extreme possibility. I doubt it, personally, much as I love the idea it doesn’t ring true. I think should an actual encounter occur it would be a much more tangible event. Why travel light years to see us and then hide-away in some farm land in Nebraska bugging the cattle? I’ll reserve judgement until I see the motherships a-coming.

  104. Ricky

    Hell yeah… To all those people who see UFO’s why don’t they catch them? huh? it should be really easy, just catch one and show it to me. Otherwise they didn’t really see anything. I rest my case. If you see it catch it. Hell, that’s how I know that stealth fighters exist. I saw one and, did I just pull my camera out? heck no, I got evidence, I shot it down with my super slingshot and it is now sitting in my basement. SO that ‘s how I know stealth planes are real. You say you believe stealth fighters exists cause you’ve seen them on TV? Video’s can be hoaxed. For all you know the Iraq war is just a long drawn out mini series. That’s stupid to simply believe what you see coming out of a TV screen. If you are so stupid to believe that, maybe I should sell you some beach front property in North Dakota lol. That’s not solid evidence. Until you catch one you can’t claim they exist, me on the other hand, since I have captured an F-177, I am entitled by the authorities of science and knowledge to say they are real. And if you don’t believe me, well, then you are not my friend. The same goes for nuclear bombs, the holocaust, jesus, and all other highly infrequent events and objects that people claim are “real”. To me they are not real until I can touch one or experience them first hand. I also believe it If I’m told by people that I think are super kewl.

  105. Todd W.

    Regarding the government keeping a secret, it depends on the nature of the secret, the evidence that there is, and who, precisely, is looking for that evidence. Military projects can, I think, be kept pretty hush-hush for a good deal of time. 60 years? Maybe not, but then, if there were aliens, they might not have started visiting at the same time the stories started popping up. So, the number of years keeping a secret rebuttal doesn’t exactly pan out.

    I think my biggest problem with the idea that the government is keeping it secret is this. Sure, the U.S. government, and maybe even some of the other governments around the world, could keep the secret. But every government? Maybe the aliens only visit the countries where the government can keep things hushed up. Uh huh. That must be it.

    So, governments around the world keeping it a global secret, possible, but not plausible.

  106. Brian T.

    Also consider the sheer financial incentive to revealing evidence of aliens.

    Whoever got that ‘scoop’ would suddenly become insanely rich. Every talk show on Earth would be falling over themselves to interview you. Hell, Oprah would make you co-host for a month. Your book would be a #1 bestseller for the next fifty years. You could sell the movie rights to your life story for fifty bazillion dollars.

    There are so many incentives to revealing evidence of alien visitors, and I find it very telling that none has surfaced so far.

  107. Celtic_Evolution

    @ RL

    The logic of the many doubters posting to this site is dubious to me and is too much like the logic that IDers or others use. Just because something may seem hard to you to believe is not proof one way or the other.

    I keep hearing this, but I don’t see it. The logic the “doubters” are using is simple: where is the evidence? This is not at all like IDer logic… IDer logic is to ignore the very real physical evidence presented and then continue to make the same claims and counter-arguments… please show me where we’ve used the same logic, RL…

    Let be a cynic like everyone else on this site: I have to wonder about what I perceive as BAs anger or outrage to his initial blog. Just what were you expecting? Someone to jump forward with evidence? Or even less likely, someone to say, you’ve convinced me? Or is this just an attempt to whip up blog numbers?

    Was there a point in there relevant to this discussion, RL? Phil’s initial post was to point out the silliness with Ed Mithcell’s claims. It’s perfectly acceptible to do in this forum and is certainly not the first or the last time. And to answer your question… yeah, someone jumping forward with evidence is exactly what we’re expecting in order to take any of the claims very seriously. What’s wrong with that exactly? And secondly, it is an important function of these discussions to provide answers and context for those that might be convinced to actually demand evidence for belief in extraordinary claims. Again… what is your problem with this?

    Or is this just an attempt to whip up blog numbers?

    I’d call you a jerk for using such a gratuitous ad-hom… but I bet you already know it.

  108. Brian E

    Every single Pro-UFO post here has failed to meet this one demand of Phil:

    “and to show me why you have eliminated every single possible terrestrial mundane explanation, including hardware glitches, mistaken conclusions by the people involved, and advanced military craft — things we know exist and are common. Then and only then can you begin to postulate something more exotic.”

    How many of you Pro-UFO’ers are actually in the business of trying to DEBUNK this evidence you claim to have, and to eliminate all other possibilities? That is what a REAL scientist does. You suffer from the same mentality and problem as the religious – you already have your conclusion, and you’ll take any little piece of ‘evidence’, no matter how faulty, to support your claim.

    Let me state this – it would be really cool if E.T. were coming to visit in cool super-advanced flying saucers; I think any of us could agree with this. But until you can address the subject OBJECTIVELY, no one will ever take you seriously.

  109. Essence

    skepticism is healthy, ignoring evidence, albeit intangible, isn’t.

    The problem with some UFOlogist isn’t the staunch resilience in search of truth, it’s the idea of trying to make everyone believers, yourself included. It’s almost like the matrix, once unplugged you tend to realize the nuances we obvioulsy ignore, daily.

    With that said, no evidence is required. A simple glance into the world of quantum physics explains logical probabilities. An infinite (to the best of our knowledge) universe with more earth like planets scattered across galaxies, it isn’t hard to speculate here about primordial soups boiling up elsewhere than earth. That is science, hypothesis isn’t based on evidence but the raw facts and * Observations empirically recorded to derive at a sound conclusion.

    Again, no need to beat folks over the heads with oceans of conspiracies and blurry pictures till concession. Simply point them in the direction of science.

    I find it disturbing how folks relate these UFO phenomena with covert government crafts. While now, it is increasingly possible to agree it may be terrestrial based crafts(our technological leap allows such speculations) but, how do we account for sightings witnessed several decades prior to earthlings breaking the speed barrier?

    It’s funny that eye witness testimonies are not concrete enough yet our justice system relies on these to compliment their facts when prosecuting individuals. The eye witnesses coming fort are no carpenters or donut bakers, these are highly credible professionals in the fields. I mean, an officer bestowed with the responsibility to safeguard and operate the state’s nuclear arsenal shouldn’t be considered loony. I’m sure he underwent series of psych evaluations… my point is, these individuals are housed in ranks that require a series of personal substantiation, mental stability, e.t.c, i would be less skeptic about what is said and more inclined to research and see how all these testimonies paint a picture.

    Two sitting presidents have been denied access to informations related to extraterrestrial phenomena. Bill Clinton is quoted as saying “within the government, there is another government that answers virtually to no one.”

    There, when we let hubris take over our attempts to seeking out truth, we lose every subtle hint to the idea of truth.

    If the aforementioned testimonies dosn’t spark a nerve to at least pick up some credible witness testimonials and read, research a little on the subject, then i’m afraid my friend… you are no longer objective in your arguments but subjectively clouding your deductive reasoning process with the ailing fears of an ignorant society.

    Again, these sightings predates our MACH 1 achievements. So, either prior sightings were fairies in the sky or some physical object defying all known laws of physics @ our primitive stage of advancement. It’s either this mass delusion is increasing and the public is hallucinating or the phenomena is real and should be addressed, scientifically.

    I fear of people who shred the little facts to a subject. I fear logic will fail them someday, an advanced civilizations to these individuals may be viewed as divine in nature. Ended up doing what i started out vehemently saying i wouldn’t do, try to convince people.

  110. Danniel B.

    I saw a UFO once, then I realized it was a helicopter, and it stopped being a UFO. If aliens exist out there (And the laws of probability say they most likely do) then why waste the enormous amount of time, effort and recourses to come to our little backwater planet, and then just sneaking about, dissecting cows, and generally being all secretive? Makes to sense whatsoever.

  111. Todd W.

    @Brian T.

    Not sure there’s really that much of a financial incentive there. I say this because there are a few considerations to be made (and I can’t believe I’m possibly defending the aliens exist crowd).

    1. The current climate of the topic is generally a “that guy must be nuts” attitude. This would deter a good number of people, even with financial incentives, unless:
    2. Significant, strong, credible evidence would be needed to convince the pertinent individuals (scientific community, some members of the media, etc.) and not come across as being a nut. Getting that kind of evidence would, I imagine, be rather difficult, even if it exists.
    3. What disincentives are there? Threats of personal physical or financial harm? Possible harm to family or friends? Legal problems?

    I’m sure there may be other points, but I think those are the biggies.

  112. chadgatlin

    I believe that the major problem with the topic of UFOs is that there is too much pseudoscience and malarky taking place around the topic for it to gain any credibility in the scientific community. While I don’t necessarily believe in all the stories of alien abductions, mutilations, or interference in nuclear programs, I do think that alien vistation to this planet once or twice in history is entirely plausible. I don’t think anyone would argue that it is presumptious to think that out of billions of planets we are the most evolved, most intelligent life forms in the universe. I also do not think it is too far of a stretch to believe that the technology for interplanetary travel exists in some form somewhere in the universe. I am inclined to think that is entirely possible that if an incident like Roswell was an alien spacecraft, it may have been a complete accident that it ended up here. Think for a moment about what would happen if one of our spacecraft was somehow shot into outerspace, had some kind of malfunction and drifted outside our solar system. (I’m not trying to go into the physics of this being possible or not, I’m just setting context) Eventually we would lose touch with the craft completely, the occupants would die, and who knows where it would end up? Another good point is to look at our own planet and how advanced we have become, and imagine a similar evolutionary path on a planet 500 years older. Back to my original thought (after having drifted nearly as far as the hypothetical spacecraft I mentioned), I think that all of the overly emotional “conspiracy theorists” and “UFO nuts” are detrimental to the study of what could be in rare cases a genuine phenomenon. Serious scientists most often won’t touch these cases, no matter the credibility of the circumstantial evidence, because ridicule is sure to follow. Scientists hypothesize about far out ideas all the time, only those ideas don’t have the pop culture surrounding them, so they are given consideration. My post is too long already, so I’ll leave it at that.

  113. Todd W.

    Actually, let me just add to my last comment. I don’t think there’s that much of a financial incentive for honest people with real evidence to come forward and be taken seriously. Now, if they really don’t give a fig about reputation or any of the other aspects, and are fine being relegated to the New Age section of the book store, then yeah, I’d agree there’s a huge financial incentive.

  114. The “UFOs are alien spacecraft” crowd used to respond to the “why don’t you have clear photographs or videos” question with “why don’t you have clear photographs or videos of plane crashes”. Of course, now that we do have such photos and videos of plane crashes, I don’t hear that argument anymore.

    My personal opinion on the matter? Are “UFO”s alien spacecraft? For virtually all of the ones people report — no. Does that mean that extraterrestrials have never visited Earth? Not necessarily — I’ve just never seen any evidence that shows they have.

  115. Jose

    @Andrew Jackson
    Your short bio says you are ‘a skeptic’, not ‘a scientist’. This statement is true and honest.

    I second that. Do you hear that, all you astronomers out there? You’re no longer scientists!

  116. Inertially Guided

    “Hello, Sport! Chet Mattingly…I work for the Government.”

    “The Truth is Out There”

    “No, Ma’am; the FBI does not have a sense of humor as far as we can tell…”

    “Now, I don’t think they flew 90 Billion miles just to pick a fight…”

    “Mr. President, that’s not precisely correct…”

    “Imagine it; Earth & Mars. There’s NOTHING we couldn’t do!”

    “Watch the Skies! Keep Watching the Skies!”

    “Oh, the things I’m gonna do for my country…”

  117. Inertially Guided

    Sorry about that…I left the TV on.

  118. With all the cries for evidence of extraterrestrial UFOs, allow me to provide the best there is – sans any questionable “abduction” content.

    Since I have offered Phil Plait, and other scientists, as much assistance as they need regarding the evidence, I further publicly extend the offer here.

    And please let me point out that all challenges from the professional skeptics, including CFI-West, IIG and JREF have failed, as one can read in the available articles.

    Further, when an Academy Award-winning special effects company uses words like, “…hard to achieve…very hard, probably even impossible to fake this kind of shot.” to describe UFO films taken by a man in the 1970s, then perhaps less knowledgeable people should take a serious look at the case.

    The real question in regards to the Meier is no longer whether it’s true or not but why you don’t know about…and why the unsubstantiated claims against it have persisted for so long.

    See http://www.theyfly.com for further information.

    P.S. For those who are already tempted to accuse me of financial motivation, etc. I represent this case voluntarily (as in for free) and conduct all my research (for the past 30 years) solely at my own expense.

  119. chadgatlin

    As for the government cover-up:

    First, I don’t believe or disbelieve it, I’m just offering a different point of view.

    Someone earlier said (paraphrasing) they couldn’t believe it because how could they keep this under wraps and “not one” person has talked.

    Several people have come out saying they worked for the government and were in on an alien conspiracy. And each and every one of them has been discredited by not the government, but US. We the majority don’t really want to believe them because it sounds so fantastical. Also each of their stories seem to be different and don’t always match up with each other.

    So if it were true, the Government would not have to work all that hard to keep it a secret, because WE don’t want to believe it in the first place.

    Once again, for all you would be attackers, I don’t believe this, it’s just a different angle.

  120. ChazInMT

    I don’t know if anyone has ever come up with this argument against seeing Aliens before, thought I’d throw it out there.

    Anyone doing a bit of honest research on space will know that distances are amazingly vast, if aliens were to come here to earth, they would need to be very advanced technologically to the point where they could somehow “cheat” the laws of physics as we know them to propel themselves here in days or hours instead of thousands of years.

    To an alien race that advanced, coming to Earth would be like us jumping in our cars and driving to the corner store for a loaf of bread. If they have interstellar travel figured out, I postulate that they would sure as heck have “stealth” or cloaking technologies working very, very well, to the point where I’m sure if they decided to, they could be sitting next to every one of us at every waking moment of our day and we’d never be the wiser. If aliens did not want to be seen by us, you can bet yer behind you’d never know they were here. No lights, no noise, no radio interference, no anything.

    Conversely, if they wanted us to know they were here, you can bet they’d set a meeting with the President, or Phil, or someone to break the news. I doubt they’d be putting on light shows in Texas to tantalize us with the possibilities……IMHO.

  121. Harold McTestes

    @ Danniel B-

    Precisely. They’d be so technologically advanced that they certainly wouldn’t be willing to let some bassackwards, primitive, corrupt government keep them “secret.” Retarded.

  122. RL

    @CE

    The example of what I’m referring to is all over the responses to this and the previous subject blog. To paraphrase, “How can there be a conspiracy? I can’t imagine how the government (or all governments) can keep a secret.” I think thats an argument of personal incredulity which is a logical fallacy whether or not its made by someone we agree with.

    Oh, and, sticks and stones. I had no problem at all with the first post by Phil. Ask for evidence? No problemo. I had neither either way. No post. After reading this second post, though, I had that reaction. Since I did not think there was any new points made, it appeared to me to just be an attempt to rehash and spin up the old arguments again.

  123. Harold McTestes

    What I love about this argument is that most skeptics (myself included) believe in life elsewhere in the universe, even though we don’t buy into the filth about Earth being visited, anal probation, and governmental conspiracies etc. You gotta love the Drake equation! So you can flush the “scientists and skeptics are close minded’ argument right down the crapper.

  124. Todd W.

    @DR.KATHRINE MARTIGNONI

    Please turn off your caps lock. All caps makes things hard to read and, in internet etiquette, means that you’re shouting.

    @Chris Augustin

    Thanks for the summaries of those claims. Now, where can we find the reports and published papers on those events?

  125. Staying away from YouTubes and the like and instead looking at real research, Phil, I don’t think you have enough under your belt to even comment about.

    Since you do not have any ‘good research’ under your belt you are not a skeptic because you failed to do any homework. Instead you are simply a debunker or better yet a lampoonist who has a ‘nut’ about trying to convince others that the rest are all crazy.

    That’s all I see.

  126. IBY

    @harold
    At least we don’t claim it as fact, just likely. ET people say they have real evidence, but all they have are grainy pictures and doubtful eyewitness testimony.

  127. Todd W.

    @Atrueoriginall

    So, Phil’s not a skeptic because he asked the people making the claims to provide evidence of those claims???

    Rather than resorting to name calling, why not work to either show Phil the evidence, or shed light on the specific flaws in any arguments he has made in his post?

  128. I agree; I would love to see some hard evidence. There are fanatics on both sides of the argument. I think most rational people will admit there are UFOs. The real debate comes down to the supposition on each side as to their nature.

  129. Essence

    skepticism is healthy, ignoring evidence, albeit intangible, isn’t.

    The problem with some UFOlogist isn’t the staunch resilience in search of truth, it’s the idea of trying to make everyone believers, yourself included. It’s almost like the matrix, once unplugged you tend to realize the nuances we obvioulsy ignore, daily.

    With that said, no evidence is required. A simple glance into the world of quantum physics explains logical probabilities. An infinite (to the best of our knowledge) universe with more earth like planets scattered across galaxies, it isn’t hard to speculate here about primordial soups boiling up elsewhere than earth. That is science, hypothesis isn’t based on evidence but the raw facts and * Observations empirically recorded to derive at a sound conclusion.

    Again, no need to beat folks over the heads with oceans of conspiracies and blurry pictures till concession. Simply point them in the direction of science.

    I find it disturbing how folks relate these UFO phenomena with covert government crafts. While now, it is increasingly possible to agree it may be terrestrial based crafts(our technological leap allows such speculations) but, how do we account for sightings witnessed several decades prior to earthlings breaking the speed barrier?

    It’s funny that eye witness testimonies are not concrete enough yet our justice system relies on these to compliment their facts when prosecuting individuals. The eye witnesses coming fort are no carpenters or donut bakers, these are highly credible professionals in the fields. I mean, an officer bestowed with the responsibility to safeguard and operate the state’s nuclear arsenal shouldn’t be considered loony. I’m sure he underwent series of psych evaluations… my point is, these individuals are housed in ranks that require a series of personal substantiation, mental stability, e.t.c, i would be less skeptic about what is said and more inclined to research and see how all these testimonies paint a picture.

    Two sitting presidents have been denied access to informations related to extraterrestrial phenomena. Bill Clinton is quoted as saying “within the government, there is another government that answers virtually to no one.”

    There, when we let hubris take over our attempts to seeking out truth, we lose every subtle hint to the idea of truth.

    If the aforementioned testimonies dosn’t spark a nerve to at least pick up some credible witness testimonials and read, research a little on the subject, then i’m afraid my friend… you are no longer objective in your arguments but subjectively clouding your deductive reasoning process with the ailing fears of an ignorant society.

    Again, these sightings predates our MACH 1 achievements. So, either prior sightings were fairies in the sky or some physical object defying all known laws of physics @ our primitive stage of advancement. It’s either this mass delusion is increasing and the public is hallucinating or the phenomena is real and should be addressed, scientifically.

    I fear of people who shred the little facts to a subject. I fear logic will fail them someday, an advanced civilization to these individuals may be viewed as divine in nature.

    Ended up doing what i started out vehemently saying i wouldn’t do, try to convince people.

  130. StevoR

    In general people would always prefer to believe they saw something special than something mundane.

    People like mysteries and the supernatural, it adds another dimension to their lives.

    Fighting against that is very difficult. Some people just won’t allow themsleves to accpet they didn’t see what they thought they did. (Plus usually thgememeory elaborates into more.)

    From the Greeks believing in odd omans and encounters with Gods,
    To Lowell’s canals on Mars
    From the various signs that foretold the deaths of Ceasers (many documented by historians such as Suetonius in “The Twelve Caesars”)
    To the Cold Fusion fables & cloned humans cult (Raleians?)
    From little faries inthebottom of the garden
    To little green men in the sky…
    Folks just wanna belive.

    Tellling them it justain’t so is avery hard thing todo &oiften fightinga losing cause.

    As longas we’re human we’llprobably have thatlonging for the exotic other from magical place X be that skygods, little green men aliens or whatever.

    Its interesting more in terms of what its tells us about human pyschology than any tangible physical reality.

    Ed Mitchall, Moon-walkerand scientific hero maybe wrong but he’s in the majority and I doubt that’ll change anytime soon.

    I don’t see Mitchell believing and having his say doing much harm either .. unlike say, President Bush the Moron believing that “God” told him to invade Iraq. :-(

    I’d say let this one go …Maybe. Because you (Phil Plait that is) may be right, you may be being perfectly reasonable but you’ll never get those who want to belive to stop wanting.

  131. Thomas Siefert

    It seems that people who like to write in capital letters are ready to believe in anything.

  132. StevoR

    @ Atrueoriginall for saying :

    “Since you do not have any ‘good research’ under your belt you are not a skeptic because you failed to do any homework. Instead you are simply a debunker or better yet a lampoonist who has a ‘nut’ about trying to convince others that the rest are all crazy.”

    We’re all crazy. True sanity is very rare – and soon swamped by the mass insanity of everyone else. Well I think so but then I’m crazy too!
    ——
    “The whole worlds mad but for me and thee and I ain’t so sure about thee!”
    - Somebody’s granny.

  133. Jose

    @ChazInMT
    If they have interstellar travel figured out, I postulate that they would sure as heck have “stealth” or cloaking technologies working very, very well, to the point where I’m sure if they decided to, they could be sitting next to every one of us at every waking moment of our day and we’d never be the wiser.

    I think you almost got it. The real question is “Why do aliens put lights on the outsides of their ships.” The answer is of course that Federation law requires that all interstellar vehicles have external lights on at all times for safety reasons.

  134. potterbro

    @Sam… I’m sorry but eye-witness testimony is unreliable, no matter how high your rank is or how important you are. We don’t think these people are liars… they just didn’t fully see what was actually there. You see, our eyes can deceive us… or probably more correctly, our brain deceives us. The human eye doesn’t take snapshots every 20th of a second and send these to the brain. The eye collects data and then our brains make sense of it, filling in blanks and making connections along the way. So when people say they see lights traveling in formation at night, looking like they don’t move with respect to each other, their brain may interpret this as one big moving object and look for shadows or something to make out the form of it. But these could just be helecopters or jets or whatever. It is the same explanation for why people see Jesus in their dogs morning turd.

    You then go on to talk about other “evidence” such as radar (which thinks a stealth bomber is a flock of birds), radioactive soil samples (why doesn’t every UFO landing site, including crop circles, have radioactive soil there?… oh thats right, because soil can be radioactive for many reasons and UFO believers cling to the cases where they happen to coincide… and btw, how radiactive are you talking… i have yet to see any results that are more than barely greater than the surrounding area.), polygraphs (which I covered earlier with my explanation of how they aren’t lieing when they say they saw what they saw), and quality photos and videos (which you have neglected to provide).

    And to finish it off you make one of my favorite arguments… that the skeptic can’t explain this “unexplainable event” so it must be a little green man. I put that in quotations because my point is that you readily admit that it is unexplainable but then use it as evidence of the possible existence of aliens. Let me tell you, lack of evidence is not good evidence of something else.

    Phil isn’t saying that little green men haven’t visited (from what i can gather) and neither am I… but forgive us if we are inclined to put more weight on more logical explanations for what has happened and hold off on jumping up and down celebrating the expansion of our galactic community until we, you know, have concrete evidence that they are here.

  135. McTestes is right!
    I am rather sick of these people telling me I am closed-minded (and in all-caps, of course). Ironically, all their ideas are inspired by the science they choose to ignore!

  136. Jose

    And relax about the ALL CAPS. Swiss law prohibits the use of lowercase enabled keyboards.

  137. StevoR

    @ Thomas Siefert :

    Just curious & Off-Topic but is there a link with you & or your family and the Siefert type galaxies – Which are a type of AGN (Active Galactic Nucelus) galaxy I think ..? Spirals with bright variable nuclei – like a smaller variation of a quasar or radio galaxy? Just wonderin’ …

  138. StevoR

    Potterbro said :

    “It is the same explanation for why people see Jesus in their dogs morning turd.”

    Now there’s a pareoilda (or however that’s spelt) I haven’t heardof befroe! Please tell me you’re joking & there’s NOT one on e-bay already ..!

  139. potterbro

    @DR.KATHRINE MARTIGNONI, 95% of americans think God exists? Where did you hear that? And either way, why do you think that the number of people believing in something has any bearing on whether it is true or not? For centuries many people thought the sun revolved around the earth… the quantity of people believing it didn’t keep them from being 100% wrong.

    Perhaps you should be analyzing why you are so sure that they exist and are here. You say that you are sure but provide no proof… so either you have some concrete proof that you haven’t shown anybody (which i doubt) or you just place a weak emphasis on having any sort of evidence of your beliefs (which isn’t going to get you very far when it comes to fully understanding a phenomenon).

  140. potterbro

    @StevoR, haha, what is even more telling is that you aren’t sure!

  141. potterbro

    and i hope that came across in the way i meant (speaking to the ridiculousness of their sightings in general)

  142. Harold McTestes

    @Pieter Kok-

    Thanks. I feel your pain. This might be a stretch, but I bet most proponents of UFO’s don’t even know what the Drake equation is. The funny thing is that it would be such a strong argument for their case. Maybe it’s good that they don’t know what it is… they’d just use it as fodder and still NOT provide evidence.

  143. I do want to add, for those who may come across my post above, that we took the unusual step of bringing in an expert consultant to the U.S. Army Special Forces, a specialist in reading body language, which can mean life or death to a soldier. We filmed him as he watches Meier speak on film, for the first time. And I should add we did it with the sound off and then with the sound on, just in case he could understand Meier’s Swiss-German dialect, which he couldn’t. Not only did we have him evaluate Meier for truthfulness, we had him do the same thing with the retired UN diplomat who also spoke about seeing the UFOs, and one of the extraterrestrials, in India years ago. In both cases, with Meier and the diplomat, he gave them a “thumbs up”.

    Now in case people don’t fully appreciate that, they should learn more about how science – as well as the U.S. Army – is relying on human “lie detectors” (http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/28-the-science-of-sniffing-out-liars/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=).

    Now, for anyone who is still skeptical of Meier’s truthfulness – and the huge implications of his actually being truthful – isn’t it time to wake up? Of course people who are familiar with the case already know that Meier, and about 15 other people, all passed lie detector tests (100% truthful – ALL of them!) many years ago when the original investigation was conducted.

  144. Jose

    It’s either this mass delusion is increasing and the public is hallucinating or the phenomena is real and should be addressed, scientifically.

    Mass delusion is a reality. It’s a cultural, and self perpetuating. One person says they see something, and others are sure to follow. The same goes for Bigfoot, Nessie, and the Chupacabra. They all started with one or a very small number of people saying they saw something, and then the sightings spread like wildfire. Despite the fact that no good evidence ever surfaces.

    Of course, things that are real can be discovered by one or a few people as well (see: mountain gorilla or the coelacanth). The difference is that if you have the means and the desire you can acquire hard, indisputable evidence of real things.

    I want to meet Bigfoot. I want to ride on an alien spaceship, even if it’s at the expense of a good probing. Sadly, there’s no reason for me to think that there’s the slightest possibility of either happening.

  145. RAF

    What does the existance of Pluto have to do with the lack of evidence regarding visiting alien spaceships???

    Where is the evidence that Phil asked for??

  146. Sully

    Somebody always brings up the argument that aliens would be so advanced they would have cloaking devices and other technologies to use to hide their activities.

    The problem with that argument is that mistakes always happen no matter how smart or sophisticated someone is. The human suit leaks green light when someone brushes their eye, or someone short-circuits the whosis and the cloaking device goes off-line just as you’re passing over Dallas, or some lab tech miscalculates the dosage of oblivium necessary to make the human subject forget all about the anal probe.

    Deal with it. If the aliens are here we would only know about it because of such chance occurrences of error. And if the aliens are not here a lot of people will still think they’re here because countless sorts of events could be chance occurrences of error.

  147. Cory -

    It was big and yellow!

    Seriously, never argue with fools – those watching/reading/listening might not be able to tell the difference.

  148. RAF

    That last comment should have quoted jw from earlier in this thread where he stated “when was the last time you questioned the existance of Pluto”.

  149. Thomas Siefert

    @StevoR: No as far as I know, there’s no link between me and Carl Keenan Seyfert, but I have from a reliable source that the name invokes the same association for BA. :-)

    I took my wife’s name when we got married, so any connections with Siefert of any spelling would be on her side. I had a very common Danish surname before I got married that didn’t turn cool until the Matrix was released.

    My wife raises eyebrows in her proffession because our name invokes associations to the architect Seifert.

  150. Bad Science??

    As far as I know, most of what “science” thinks it knows about say the BIG BANG as an example is based on fundamental assumptions that have never been proven. The real problem is that you people that call yourselves real scientists take somethings as assumptions as true but when there is overwhelming evidence to support something as trivial as ET life visting the earth as total nonsense. I read all sorts of articles saying for example that a study has found that no you shouldnt drink 2L of water a day or scientists have found a way to beat cancer using tabacco. Untill real “science” stops contradicting your messages we still going to believe that there may be some truth to all this. Maybe you should prove to us that it isn’t real instead of always asking us to prove it is. Then maybe we can get some serious investigations going to get to the real truth. I’m unimpressed with what real “science” have been saying of late

  151. IBY

    To people who cite Pluto, we already have enough info about it to know about its orbit, composition, brightness, size, etc. What do you know about ET? Nothing, except the fact that they only show up in grainy pictures. We aren’t saying UFOs don’t exists, it is just that most of them has been explained as being natural or artificial phenomenom.

  152. Todd W.

    I think the Pluto analogy is covered by point #3 in Phil’s post.

  153. Question to moderators, not submitting as a post.

    Is the long approval process for posts mainly because I’m a new contributor? Just for the record, I’m not here to be contentious, I simply represent the only scientifically proven, still ongoing UFO case and want to inform people about it.

    Of course, I can answer any challenges and do so within the accepted standards.

    Thanks,

    MH

  154. astrophotographer

    The problem with looking at “best UFO cases” is that it is like fighting the Hydra. In that myth if you chop off a head, another two grew in its place. The same can be said for disproving a UFO case. The instant you demonstrate one of the cases as a misidentification or hoax, UFO proponents will substitute another and say “well, what about this one?”
    BTW, back in 1997 some of UFOlogy’s best minds presented their best cases to a panel of scientists. There was no skeptical side offered. It was a one-sided UFO proponent presentation. The scientists would eventually conclude:

    “It was clear that at least a few reported incidents might have involved rare but significant phenomena such as electrical activity high above thunderstorms (e.g., sprites) or rare cases of radar ducting. On the other hand, the review panel was not convinced that any of the evidence involved currently unknown physical processes or pointed to the involvement of an extraterrestrial intelligence.” (Sturrock – The UFO Enigma – P. 121)

    That in itself indicates the evidence is not very strong.

    Depending on which people you talk to, 90-95% of all UFO cases can be explained as misperception/misidentification and, in some cases, hoaxes. With so many cases of people misidentifying things, what does it say for the remaining 5-10%? Are these simply misperceptions that are so distorted or poorly reported that a positive identification of what caused them can not be done or are they truly something unknown to science?

  155. Celtic_Evolution

    @ RL

    The example of what I’m referring to is all over the responses to this and the previous subject blog. To paraphrase, “How can there be a conspiracy? I can’t imagine how the government (or all governments) can keep a secret.”

    The problem is that your “paraphrase” is a complete mis-characterization, invented by you, and then presented as truth. Bah. What we are saying, and quite correctly, is that history has shown that it’s really unlikely that our government would be able to keep the lid on something this huge, and as an added problem, do so in concert with other governments over the course of 50 + years, some of which have collapsed completely. And, if you disagree with that charge, then once again… put your money where you mouth is and prove an example of something on this scale that has been kept completely hidden and secret for this length of time. Show the evidence. So, it’s not an argument of incredulity. It’s an argument of lack of evidence to support the claim. And for like the “bazzilionth” time… the honus is not on the skeptic to prove your claim is false. What part of that do you still not get? So your characterization is totally without merit.

    Oh, and I don’t care what you think was your justification. Making the statement you did at the end of your first post just showed your willingness to make baseless attacks that don’t touch upon the subject matter… making you a jerk. There’s your stick and your stone.

  156. PG

    Wow.. What a conversation/slap fest we have here. I think that DR.KATHRINE MARTIGNONI was correct in ONE respect. USING ALL CAPS REALLY HELPS TO GET YOUR POINT ACROSS!

    Just kidding- I mean her point that UFOs/Aliens have become equivalent to a modern religion. They each rely on faith without evidence, they even fulfill many of the same psychological needs we have as human beings (somebody more powerful is watching over us, there is a greater purpose to life than what we see here on Earth, etc.).

    I can respect people who think they’ve seen something unexplainable in the sky. I’ve even taken people up on their requests to come to my university and show me their “evidence”. It’s usually footage of a meteor, or something they filmed very close to a military research base in southern California. Then they usually come to some conclusions that have no basis in what they saw, such as “You see, a dimensional door just opened up and it disappeared through it!” (actual quote from person with video footage).

    I, like Phil, encourage anyone who believes they have hard evidence that incontrovertibly proves the existence of Aliens to bring it on! I would LOVE to see it. So far, all I’ve ever seen is speculation, heresay, and emotional attacks on “non-believers” with no real content. Most of the commenters to this post have done nothing but prove Phil’s case in the original comment.

    Remember Carl Sagan’s comment on this issue: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” He was talking about the results from the chemistry experiments performed by the Viking lander on Mars, where they initially were claiming to see evidence of extraterrestrial organisms.

  157. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Michael Horn

    *sigh*… the ol’ Billy Meier thing. Right.

    Michael, I’d love to have some mettalurgists I work woth have a look at the metal alloy samples that were reportedly given to Meier and then tested… what happened to those?

  158. @ PG

    Please read my posts above, review the suggested material and then raise any specific challenges, questions, etc.

  159. Jose

    @Sully Says:
    Somebody always brings up the argument that aliens would be so advanced they would have cloaking devices and other technologies to use to hide their activities.

    In all seriousness, why would alien interstellar vehicles have lights on the outside? They’re not spotlights. The only reason I can think of is to say “we’re here”. But if that’s the case, why don’t they just come down and say hi, or even let somebody take a picture of them that doesn’t look like a dinner plate covered with aluminum foil? Are they just messing with us like they do when they flatten our crops?

  160. jaramilr

    Phil, the sudden increase in antiscientific comments after moving the blog shows two things. First, you aren’t used to getting so many comments of that kind anymore because you were so good at educating your original audience. Second, you have been successful enough to gain a much wider audience. Your work is cut out for you now, but I have no doubt that after a while, the n00bs will learn from you and this kind of commenting will dwindle. If you can educate just a few of these folks, you will have done a great service.

    Congratulations and keep up the great work!

  161. Todd W.

    @Michael Horn

    I noticed the same old cannard in one of the articles on your site regarding the JREF Challenge that the money doesn’t exist. The JREF web site provides info on how to get legal proof that the award money is there. Seriously, lying so blatantly does little to bolster any of your arguments.

  162. Viewer 3

    As over 150 posts have already pointed out thus far, the comparison of UFOs to religion is a valid one. Absolutely nothing can change their minds, because they each have one overpowering argument that they have convinced themselves of that nullifies anything we can throw at them.

    Religion: “I don’t need evidence, I just have faith, and that means I’m right no matter how much scientific proof you can ever show me.”

    UFOer: “We have no evidence because the government goes to the most extreme lengths to keep it a secret. Thus no matter how much science you throw at me and talk about having no proof, that still doesn’t explain it so I’m right.”

    As far as government conspiracies go, that would mean that all governments in the entire world have made a secret pact to never reveal UFOs. Unless, that is, the aliens have only decided to fly over, crash, and leave evidence in North America. I can’t imagine EVERY country would share the same “keep it secret at all costs” mentality that the US government SUPPOSEDLY has, in which case you’d see some other country come out and say “Hey check this out, these aliens just crashed in our country, we just think it’s cool”.

    The many many unlikely things that would need to happen globally in order for any type of government conspiracy to be a reality is just too far fetched for me and for most here.

  163. Greg in Austin

    “Then when was the last time you questioned the existence of PLUTO?
    You’ve never seen that with your own eyes!”

    HA! That one was almost as good as the twister analogy in the previous blog entry.

    Why don’t we question the existence of Pluto? Um… let’s see… because it was mathematically determined based on observations of the other planets that it might be there decades before it was finally discovered in 1930? Could it be because we have evidence of Pluto besides fuzzy photographs? Maybe its the fact that we have a whole slew of astronomers specializing in Kuiper Belt objects that just might possibly be able to provide, um, I dunno, VOLUMES of information on the subject?

    I don’t want to call people names, but good grief, if you’re smart enough to use the internet to post to this blog, are you not smart enough to spend 5 minutes doing a Google search for “Pluto?”

    And people wonder why UFO skeptics get tired of the UFO=Alien believers…

    8)

  164. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Jose

    In all seriousness, why would alien interstellar vehicles have lights on the outside? They’re not spotlights. The only reason I can think of is to say “we’re here”. But if that’s the case, why don’t they just come down and say hi, or even let somebody take a picture of them that doesn’t look like a dinner plate covered with aluminum foil? Are they just messing with us like they do when they flatten our crops?

    God put them there to test our faith…

    Oh wait… wrong conversation…

  165. Jose

    @shaun
    Maybe you should prove to us that it isn’t real instead of always asking us to prove it is. Then maybe we can get some serious investigations going to get to the real truth. I’m unimpressed with what real “science” have been saying of late.

    Scientists apply the same criteria to the possibility of alien visitation as they do to everything else. Things like evolution and the big bang hold up pretty well. Alien visitation fails. It’s that simple. You should understand what “real science” is, before you criticize it.

  166. @ Todd

    First, there are no ies whatsoever regarding the case that I am aware…at least not from our end.

    Please read the articles documenting the retraction of claims by the skeptic from CFI-West/IIG.

    Then do know that the following was received by me from Jeff Wagg, official spokesman for James Randi, “If there’s not enough evidence to support the model claim, the model claim is suspect.” That should be clear enough.

    Read the comment from Uncharted Territory – given at the request of Bartholomaus from IIG who was seeking to get them to refute what we quoted them as saying in the film.

    @ Celtic

    I feel your pain…I’d love to have the samples too. However, read what Vogel (and other scientific experts) said about the evidence (and then read Vogel’s patent record also posted on my site).

    BTW, I have in my hot little hands a book, published in 1982, with info from Meier (originally published by him in 1958 and 1978) on the two planets beyond Pluto that would be discovered around the time of the new millennium. And there’s a lot more of the scientific info that should interest you…and Phil.

  167. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Michael Horn

    I knew this rang a bell for me. I remebered reading about this on Randi’s site. I think it’s been addressed pretty adequately there, and I’ll not bore any of you with the details here… i’ll just point you to Randi’s handling of Micheal Horn and Billy Meier… enjoy!

    http://www.randi.org/jr/032604why.html

  168. IBY

    @gregin
    I don’t think Pluto was discovered thanks to the influence on other planets. Well, they looked for it because they thought something was making Neptune go a little weird, but Pluto is so small that its influence on other planets is negligible. The disturbance on Neptune was eliminated after Voyager 2′s flyby, by correcting the mass of Neptune.

  169. BTW, a few days ago I emailed Phil offering him a copy of the new film on Meier for his review, critique, etc.

    He gets a lot of email so probably hasn’t even seen it yet but, for the record, since he wanted evidence, I’m glad to provide it.

  170. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Michael Horn

    I feel your pain…I’d love to have the samples too. However, read what Vogel (and other scientific experts) said about the evidence (and then read Vogel’s patent record also posted on my site).

    Right, but I’ll fill in the blank for the rest of us here… you don’t have them because they “conveniently” disappeared off the entire face of the earth before they could be independantly inspected and verified. You can understand why that might induse a certain level of incredulity, hmm?

    Read the bio on this Meier guy… it’s a hoot.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Meier

    Does anyone else see parellels with Joseph Smith? Oye.

  171. Michael Barry

    I believe Phil was asking for evidence. I see a lot of people attacking him for being ‘naive’ but no one has supplied any evidence. Do you people just not understand the definition of evidence? There is no need for personal attacks. Either produce evidence or just go away.

  172. Matt

    Comedian Larry Miller had a great quote about Conspiracy Theorists the other day on Adam Carolla’s morning show:

    “You’re really too crazy to be in public.”

    I always get a kick out of the CTers when I ask for the actual names of the people that are hiding the evidence or responsible for certain actions in the cover-up. For example, ask a 9-11 “Truther” who actually conducted the attacks and they’ll always say, “the government” or “the military” or “Bush and Cheney” but when you ask them the actual name of the person who pushed the button for the “controlled demolition” or personally fired the supposed missile at the Pentagon, they come up with a blank.

    Same goes for the UFO crowd. If there’s evidence being covered up, and you have as much proof as you say you do, start naming names. Real names, of real people, not shadow agencies or vague references to governmental departments. Think of this as a court case, and you as the righteous UFO crusader are acting in the role of prosecutor. What individuals will you name in the complaint? What evidence will you present that will convince a jury that those individuals hid the existence of extra-terrestrial visitations? The rules of law are not even as stringent as the rules of science, but most conspiracy theories cannot even meet that standard. Just ask Jim Garrison.

  173. Todd W.

    @Michael Horn

    Quoting from the article “Photo Analysis Ends Challenge by Skeptics”, emphasis mine:

    Certain parties, such as CFI-West of Los Angeles, and James “Amazing” Randi, also offer fake challenges with non-existent financial awards promised to anyone who can provide evidence of the “paranormal”. Such disingenuous offers are based on the cynical assumption by the skeptics that, since no such things exist anyway, no such monies need be available to back up the challenge.

    PDF of the prize account balance as of 1/31/08 held at Goldman Sachs available here: http://www.randi.org/challenge/goldmansachs_jan08.pdf

    The article quoted above clearly states that the prize money is “non-existent”. I have shown that it does exist. Therefore, you are lying.

    As to your quote from Jeff Wagg, says to me exactly what it says. That sentence, in and of itself, does not sound to me like any manner of denial or refusal. Perhaps if you provided more context.

  174. Greg in Austin

    @Sam

    “I’m Sorry, Mr. Sciency-guy, but eye-witness accounts ARE evidence. No, not the kind that lends itself to replication in a lab, but the same kind that forms the basis for millions of criminal convictions — y’know, “beyond a reasonable doubt” criminal convictions — every year. People are put to death on eye-witness testimony in this country.”

    What country do you live in, ’cause in America, that is baloney. If you’ve ever sat on a jury for a murder trial, you would know that 99% of the evidence is physical (like, there’s a body, and a knife, and proof that it happened), and MAYBE 1% is witness testimony. Can you provide evidence of your claim that “People are put to death on eye-witness testimony in this country,” or is that something you saw on TV? The rest of your post has already been debunked, over and over.

    @JW

    “Under the FOI, the FAA recently released Radar data in relation to the Stephenville, Texas, sighting which shows quite clearly unidentified craft (no transponder) accelerating to several thousand miles per hour in a fraction of a second, turning, and repeating the maneuvers. I would call that evidence.”

    In light of the fact that Radar data is not perfect, and can be fooled, please show us the link that provides the data you speak of. I would like to know how YOU know that this radar data could not have been fooled by, say, flares from a military aircraft, as most of the reports I’ve read say they were.

    @Sylvain

    We have ABSOLUTE proof that 1 mile wide spaceships came FROM space at incredible speed, stop on a dime and accelerate in a blink of a eye BACK to SPACE!”

    “Stop hiding you hand in the sand and go to http://www.disclosureproject.org and try to PUBLISH those proof in the MASS MEDIA and NOW you will beleive us that the Mass Media are corrupt when they going to refuse you too!”</i"

    OR, you could start your own blog that IS NOT CENSORED, and provide your evidence yourself, thereby sidestepping any such corruption. OR, you could take your "ABSOLUTE proof" to a university, where dozens of undergrad and graduate students would be able to verify your data. OR, you could actually provide us here with your evidence, because we promise not to refuse you. We just want to see your evidence.

    It is amazing that still so many of the UFO=Alien believers use the same boring arguments.

    I've begun to repeat myself. To make it easier, let's just say this over and over and over until it sinks in:

    Show us the real evidence for your claims. Show US the evidence. SHOW us the evidence. Show us THE evidence. Show us the EVIDENCE!

    8)

  175. Greg in Austin

    … continued

    OR, you could start your own blog that IS NOT CENSORED, and provide your evidence yourself, thereby sidestepping any such corruption. OR, you could take your “ABSOLUTE proof” to a university, where dozens of undergrad and graduate students would be able to verify your data. OR, you could actually provide us here with your evidence, because we promise not to refuse you. We just want to see your evidence.

    It is amazing that still so many of the UFO=Alien believers use the same boring arguments.

    I’ve begun to repeat myself. To make it easier, let’s just say this over and over and over until it sinks in:

    Show us the real evidence for your claims. Show US the evidence. SHOW us the evidence. Show us THE evidence. Show us the EVIDENCE!

    8)

  176. Murgadroid

    JW – I have seen pluto with my own eyes through an ordinary (albeit moderately large) back yard telescope. Go to a star party near you and you might have the chance as well.

  177. I’ve said this before, but I’ll annoy you all with it again. The chances of not only a civilization with space travel but one who has then traveled to visit us is SO much smaller than the chances of just another intelligent species with a civilization, and even smaller than the chances of just another intelligent species who are, say, hunter-gatherers.

    Consider a species even 1000 times more intelligent than we are who has been around much, much longer. Assuming that they are intelligent enough, they still need so many things to be able to invent space travel: complicated speech, organized and motivated citizens and leaders (well, at least citizens), the necessary materials and fuels, and, the one we don’t think about as much, appropriate limbs and something similar to an opposable thumb, combining to create a grasping system. Or, of course, some form of psychokinesis or other method of making something as intricate as a space travel system.

    I’d say the chances of other species, probably far more advanced than we are mentally, is pretty high. At least, that is, the chances that they ever existed. You then have to consider whether they exist now and whether they have the qualities I mentioned, not to mention tons of others I didn’t mention or can’t think of myself. There could be super-intelligent gasses and fish out there (see dolphins) that couldn’t ever create even a city, much less a spacecraft.

    And, you can consider the example from Hitchhiker’s Guide, where there could be tons of species who live on parts of the universe where they see nothing in the sky and therefore they never even consider traveling into space.

    Those, in my opinion, blow Drake’s equation out of the water.

  178. impulse94

    Well, Phil… I bet this blog entry gets a few more comments than that one about your new stapler!

  179. Jim Shaver

    Greg, stop beating around the bush! Honestly, man, is there something you want from the UFO crowd? :)

  180. Ray

    Michael Horn,

    Using Billy Meier as an unassailable source is just asking for people to shower you with rotten vegetables.

    Are you talking about the same Billy Meier who tried to pass off a Swedish model as an alien? The same Billy Meier whose photos are obvious fakes, including a couple with visible wires? Or is there a different Billy Meier?

    If you’re going to convince me and a lot of other people you need to get a better shill.

  181. UmTutSut

    >I think you almost got it. The real question is “Why do aliens put lights >on the outsides of their ships.”

    I chuckle whenever I see video of a supposed “extraterrestrial spacecraft” with a flashing red strobe. Really is considerate of those E.T.s to do that for collision avoidance!

    I need a close encounter, plz. I have to check to make sure the strobe installation is FAA-certified….

    Les (Friendly Airplane Asylum flack)

  182. Also, @DR.KATHRINE MARTIGNONI Erm, Phil’s not going to use your arguments about “God” to any end you’d appreciate… I’m pretty sure he’s an atheist. So what you’re saying about god is exactly the same as the aliens… we require proof.

  183. @ Ray

    I notice that there are people who use inaccurate, unsubstantiated claims…rather than being responsive to the evidence, the scientific experts, heck, the admitted collapse of the skeptical challenges (which started eight years ago!)…by the skeptics themselves.

    Also, to save time an needless contentiousness, I am quite well versed n the evidence in the case, far more than anyone here, including Phil (as I’m sure he’d admit).

    So I suggest actual responsiveness, challenging how we know, for example, that Meier published specific, irrefutably accurate information about Jupiter, its rings and moons…moons before the probe got there to document, and confirm, Meier’s information.

    Even Prof. Joseph Veverka, Chairman of the Astronomy Department at Cornell University, admitted that.

    So, with no inappropriate humility or bragging, I know more about this than you do and I know – not believe – that the case is true and authentic.

    I do not know if everything in it is accurate, since there are some 24,000+ pages of information, most still in German.

    I suggest elevating the tone and substance of the challenge. And please notice, I don’t call anyone here “shills”, etc. simply because they are uninformed and/or don’t agree with me.

  184. Celtic_Evolution

    CredulousCat says:

    I can haz abdukshen plz?

  185. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Michael Horn

    Thanks for doing nothing to address any of the issues we’ve brought up here.

    I suggest elevating the tone and substance of the challenge. And please notice, I don’t call anyone here “shills”, etc. simply because they are uninformed and/or don’t agree with me.

    Before you go issuing “challenges” to any of us here, why don’t you explain your inability to meet either of the standing challenges presented to you at either JREF or IIG?

    Once again, it is not up to the skeptics to provide proof that your claims are false… it’s up to you to provide proof that they are not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. And before you go off on more bragging about how informed you are on the topic, I will simply say that your level of understanding of the claims or level of involvement in them is totally irrelevant. At the end of the day many people have given you ample opportunity to provide evidence, and so far you have not been up to the challenge.

  186. @Michael Horn:

    Billy Meier? The man who took a picture of a television program with a lady on a popular variety show, and showed that pic as evidence of a Pleidian?

    Oh, that Billy Meier.

  187. @Sylvain, ah yes, the “Disclosure Project.” You know, it’s really hard to believe in an organization whose founder, Dr. Stephen Greer, claims to be able to direct UFO’s to a landing site while waving at them with flashlights.

  188. Todd W.

    Too many posts in the queue. My rebuttal regarding the JREF challenge is still awaiting moderation.

    Oh, and CE, love the CredulousCat. :)

  189. ND

    Michael Horn,

    When did you get your hands on this book published in 1982?

  190. Celtic_Evolution

    Also, Mr. Horn…

    Living in Ithaca, and being involved in the astronomy community locally, I can tell you that Professor Veverka is not the chairman of Astronomy at Cornell… that distinction belings to Dr. Ira Wasserman.

    And, knowing Dr. Veverka… I can tell you that I find it highly unlikely that he made any such claim that irrefutable evidence of anything regarding discoveries in our solar system can be attributed to Meier’s “prophecies”. But, I will be speaking to him and ask him to clarify.

    But if you could, please… can you cite where Dr. Veverka has made this admission? I’d like to approach him with it before asking for clarification.

  191. Jose

    @Greg in Austin
    OR, you could start your own blog that IS NOT CENSORED
    Oh, come on now. Do you honestly thing the New World Order would allow him to have a blog. As soon as he tries to do that, he’s a dead man.

  192. @ Celtic et al

    Unfortunately, you are misinformed. The actual challenge was issued…by me, to CFI-West, in 2001, when they said that the Meier evidence was “an easily duplicated hoax”. They agreed, they accepted the challenge to duplicate just ONE of Meier’s UFO photos (see the Photo Analysis document at my site to understand what that means) and just ONE of Meier’s films.

    They failed to do either.

    And now THEY have retracted their claims of hoax. I provided links to my site so that you could inform yourself, which you obviously haven’t done, as yet.

    And now Uncharted Territory effectively endorses the authenticity of a Meier UFO film.

    Do you comprehend the meaning of all of these things?

    Please consider.

    Most online blogs, like this one, are not populated by people who really know anything about the UFO subject. It’s understandable because there’s not much useful information out there, with the exception of the Meier case.

    Now I’ve made an extraordinary claim, which does require extraordinary proof. There are only two possibilities, either the Meier case is the biggest, most impenetrable hoax, or the most important story in all of human history. There’s nothing in between.

    Neither my telling you that it’s true, nor someone saying that it’s not, means anything. The only thing that matters is how well the evidence holds up and you get to decide (and challenge) that for yourselves.

    One thing is for certain to me, neither the UFO skeptics nor the proponents actually think that they will encounter the truth…and certainly not on a blog. That is the (unconscious or otherwise) prejudice that is brought to the table…here included.

  193. Mike Hawk

    Same ol’ crap I see… a bunch of yakkin’ and STILL no evidence from the pro-UFO community. This is getting unbelievably mundane and tiresome. WTF is so hard to understand, here? Either post some evidence or go post comments somewhere else.

  194. @Celtic

    Dr. Veverka made the statement to me in a phone conversation in April of 2003 (or 2004) if memory serves me right.

    I quote it on the new film and I stand by it. Again, I suggest that you educate your self on the abundant factual documentation in the case, such as the Jupiter information, that you will find in this newsletter:

    http://www.theyfly.com/news2005/jan06/jan06.htm#skeptics

    Have a go at it.

  195. jdh

    Mitchell, Gordo Cooper, the disputed Majic documents etc. is all evidence… and there’s a vast well of it. some good, some dubious (Majic). What you are asking for is definitive proof. Which is hard to come by partly because video etc. is so easy to fake, traces in this case are minimal, documents can be forged, because ETs, if such they are, seem not to want to make contact, and because some governments (by no means all) apparently cover up evidence for some bizarre reason.

    I’m not convinced that we are being visited by aliens, but its plainly obvious that metallic-looking UFOs with irregular movement patterns, signs of intelligent piloting (escape from pursuing aircraft etc.) and technologically extremely impressive capabilities are appearing throughout the world on a regular basis. Recorded radar logs (apparently) and the quantity and quality of whistle-blowers which have come forward (for the Disclosure group, for example) make the case for ‘Flying Saucer’ existance almost impossible to ignore.

    The balance of evidence now suggests that this much at least is true.

  196. Sarcastro

    Even Prof. Joseph Veverka, Chairman of the Astronomy Department at Cornell University, admitted that.

    If he said that 3-5 months before, then all that I can say is that he’s right.”

    – Dr. Joseph Veverka, 2003

    That’s a pretty big ‘if’ even for a fallacious appeal to authority.

    We’re talking about a man (Meier) who claims the government broke into his home and PLANTED pictures that Meier later claimed to be of alien origin but were, actually, from SCIENCE FICTION BOOKS. A man who provided metal samples that according to the man who THEN LOST THE SAMPLES indicated “cold fusion” had to have been used in their creation. Cold fusion? WTF? That doesn’t even make sense. ALL elements heavier than HYDROGEN were created by fusion. All it needed to be was an alloy that could only be made in low gravity but they have to trot out COLD FUSION!? Hey, and how ’bout that global thermonuclear war Meier claimed the aliens told him would occur in November of 2006? Eh? Eh? Or Meier’s ex-wife who claims he’s a lying loon?

    Heck, I’m just like Mulder; I WANT to believe. But I am not a man of faith and I will NOT believe without evidence. And this garbage is not even close.

  197. Ray

    Michael Horn,

    Nice try. I note that you attempted to change the subject. Why no answers to the obvious cracks in the Meier facade?

    Like any good publicist, you attempt to stay on message. The problem is that your message is so flawed that no one with an ounce of intelligence will buy it.

  198. Todd W.

    @Michael Horn

    The actual challenge was issued…by me, to CFI-West, in 2001, when they said that the Meier evidence was “an easily duplicated hoax”. They agreed, they accepted the challenge to duplicate just ONE of Meier’s UFO photos (see the Photo Analysis document at my site to understand what that means) and just ONE of Meier’s films.

    They failed to do either.

    And now THEY have retracted their claims of hoax.

    Okay, so they have retracted their claims that that ONE particular photo and ONE particular film were not hoaxes. I haven’t looked into the specifics, yet, but saying that two items, out of however many you have, were not hoaxes hardly clears the bundle.

  199. Todd W.

    Durnit…hit submit before I finished my thought.

    So, hardly clears the bundle, but just because they couldn’t find that the one photo and one film were hoaxes (assuming that claim itself is accurate), that still leaves the possibility for misidentification or misinterpretation.

  200. To those concerned,

    I have placed a ton of free information at my site. You don’t have to buy anything to get it.

    You DO have to know what you’re talking about instead of rehashing disinformation. How do I know it’s disinformation?

    Well, I’ve formed an informed opinion after 30 years of researching, meeting Meier and almost all the other principals, etc. And of course, kicking the stuffing out of the pompous skeptics who’ve collapsed in irrelevancy (with the exception of the fodder they now produce for the case’s authenticity).

    So I avoid nothing, I simply expect that those who post internet-sourced disinformation and incomplete information do their homework.

    In addition to the courtesy of the blog and its moderators, I’m here at my pleasure. And, apart from running to teach some classes this afternoon, I’ll be glad to respond to intelligent challenges, which so far are not in abundance.

    And really, if there really were all these holes, faked evidence, etc. in the case…then why have the skeptics fumbled the ball so badly?

  201. @ Todd

    Homework time.

  202. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Michael Horn

    Misinformed? Really…

    So… Randi is lying. (Already linked to his site regarding this by the way… and I must commend you on your treatment of Randi, by the way).

    And IIG is lying…
    http://www.iigwest.com/investigations/meier/horn.shtml

    Your claim that they were unable to reproduce Meier’s photo’s in the lab is abjectly false, and the only person making that claim is you. There is far more evidence supporting this side of the story than yours. Again, see Randi’s site for more details of this.

    And now THEY have retracted their claims of hoax.

    Hogwash! They’ve done no such thing… please link to where this is cited… First of all, they never claimed that the photos were, wihtout question, a hoax. What they claim is that the pictures could be hoaxed, and showed exactly that. They continue to state that these photos can easily be reproduced, and you’ve shown nothing to prove that they can’t.

    And again… I’m unimpressed with your claims of authority on the subject of UFO’s based on your willingness to believe it. As am I unimpressed by your assumption that you know more than everyone here on the subject. Neither of those items is relevant to the issue of your complete lack of any tangible evidence. Which you still have yet to address… 1599 days and counting, Mr Horn…

    Neither my telling you that it’s true, nor someone saying that it’s not, means anything. The only thing that matters is how well the evidence holds up and you get to decide (and challenge) that for yourselves.

    On this we are agreed, completely. So as soon as you provide some of that evidence that can be tested, we’ll do exactly that… still waiting…

  203. Todd W.

    @Michael Horn

    Would you mind providing direct links to the specific claims you’ve mentioned above so that we can get directly to the items pertaining to them? This will help us more efficiently manage our time, rather than wading through the various links trying to track down what you’re talking about.

  204. Celtic_Evolution

    Sarcastro said, regarding Dr. Veverka at Cornell -

    “If he said that 3-5 months before, then all that I can say is that he’s right.”

    Ahhh… thanks, Sarcastro… I knew Dr. Veverka would never had made such a claim.

    So, Mr. Horn… there’s the quote, and yet you mis-represented it as though Dr. Veverka stated a fact that Meier had predicted discoveries in the solar system far before they were confirmed.

    This is wilfull deception of the lowest kind… how do you pleas, Mr. Horn?

  205. Celtic_Evolution

    That should read “how do you plead, Mr. Horn”…

  206. Todd W.

    To everyone who is arguing against Michael Horn, could you please also provide links to support your arguments against Billy Meier/Mr. Horn? I’ve posted a link above (still awaiting Phil’s approval as I write this) showing how Mr. Horn has lied outright about one item. For those who want to check what I am referencing, if my previous post doesn’t show up soon, go to the site linked in Mr. Horn’s handle, click on Articles and scroll down to the one titled “Photo Analysis Ends Challenge by Skeptics”. In there, he states that the JREF prize does not exist. The link that I think made my post get picked up by the spam filter is to the most recent statement from Goldman Sachs indicating the current balance of the JREF Prize Account.

  207. Todd W.

    ah…the link is up there now.

  208. To all,

    As for links, I took the time to write, and to post, tons of stuff. You’ll find some key articles right on the home page.

    See also the Archived Newsletters and Headlines.

    If I wasn’t clear, here’s what I should have said. I called and spoke to Dr. Vereka and told him about Meier. He said to send him the info. I did. I called him back and started to discuss the Jupiter info (he was involved with the VOyager, as I recall). He said what I quoted him as saying and then…hurriedly got off the phone.

    I’d be glad to speak with him again.

    Let’s note that just because people have access to blogs and computers doesn’t mean that they either know what they’re talking about and/or have anything of significance to say. That’s okay, it’s part of the game. But we should keep that in mind.

    BTW, I’d be glad to debate Dr. Veverka, Phil or anyone else and, no, not to “ride on their coattails”, as they don’t know anything about a subject that I’m as close to an authority on as one can be, at least in English; I know lots of German speakers who know more about the info in the Meier case than I do. They’re among dozens of those “untrustworthy” eyewitnesses – and several other photographers – of the UFOs in this case.

    Our good friends mentioned above, and others, could learn a lot from this case. I’d be glad to help them. And isn’t learning what all of this should be about?

    Hope to rejoin you all this evening, if possible.

  209. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Todd W.

    Yeah… posts with links are held up for moderation… my information that I’ve cited so far comes from Randi’s site and from the IIG website under “investigations”…

  210. IBY

    Meier? That guy has some sort of delusional grandeur. If you ask me, his mind went bonker.

  211. chadgatlin

    Mr. Horn, although I’m no fan of James Randi (because of his arrogance, I have no problem with his work) I am curious as to why, if it is so indisputible, that you have not claimed the million dollars.

  212. Celtic_Evolution

    BTW, I’d be glad to debate Dr. Veverka, Phil or anyone else and, no, not to “ride on their coattails”, as they don’t know anything about a subject that I’m as close to an authority on as one can be, at least in English; I know lots of German speakers who know more about the info in the Meier case than I do. They’re among dozens of those “untrustworthy” eyewitnesses – and several other photographers – of the UFOs in this case.

    And thus is born the “argument from self-proclaimed personal authority”.

    I’ll have to remember that one.

    As for Dr. Veverka’s comment, I think it’s pretty clear to everyone here that you intentionally mis-represented him… a very low tactic. To even attempt to use his quote and try to assign it as support for your argument is transparent and sleazy, and I’ll not waste any more time with you.

  213. Meeee

    Just wanna throw something in here since I have some remote “expertise” that may be of use (I’m a psychologist. Don’t laugh.)

    What many people don’t realise is just how fickle and easily altered their minds and memories are. I mean *really* fickle. And I mean *everyone*. Not “crazy” people, not “stupid” people, not kids and not OAPs. Everyone.

    And I mean *really* fickle. I mean one or two words during an interview being able to generate false memories that are, to you, as real and true as your real memories (check out pretty much any of Loftus’ research).

    People think of memories as perfect mental “pictures” or “videos” of events they’ve experience. That simply isn’t the case. Memories are re-organised, re-interpreted and changed all of the time. Research into “flashbulb memories”, for example, which were previously thought to be the most perfect memories you can have (literally a “flashbulb” of memory that sticks in your mind perfectly) has shown that the memories themselves change quite drastically. However, the *belief* that they are real is intense.

    And once again, this is *everyone*. When people think of psychological research, they have this image or notion of it only applying to crazy people, or weak minded people. That’s not the case. It applies to everyone, including you and I.

    Memories, especially older memories, and especially again when you’re tired, drunk, drowsy, confused etc… are not perfect records. Older memories tend to be based on a rough check list which you then “fill in” with your mind. For example, someone asks what you did on Monday 20th March 1970 (don’t know if that was a monday or not, just a random example). You can’t remember exactly what you did, but you can “fill in” the details. It’s a monday, so I must’ve been at school. I was 10 years old so I must’ve been in Ms. Trancher’s class at the time. I was probably talking to Paul about my sister annoying me etc etc… This applies to pretty much all memories, to greater and lesser extent.
    In light of this, eyewitness testimony on things as incredible as alien abductions simply isn’t reliable. It doesn’t matter how much the person *believes* that they are telling the truth. To them, they may have absolutely perfect memories of being abducted by aliens. That doesn’t mean it’s what happened.

    If you take nothing else from this, I really want people reading this to understand just how easy it is for you to “trick” yourself into believing things that never happened. It happens to everyone, and I mean *everyone*.

  214. Jose

    You want proof?
    I’ve found this stunning footage Billy Meier took of a wobbly plate glued to a bowl spinning on the end of a string while slowly being swung around like a pendulum.
    http://www.steelmarkonline.com/media/06-12-75_Tree_Circling_Ship_Near_Hinwil_(Hi-Res).mpg
    Take that close-minded deniers.

  215. Thomas Siefert

    For some reason I can’t help thinking of the movie: Le Dîner de cons. BA you do have a mean streak in posting on this subject. :-D

  216. Todd W.

    @Meeee

    Thanks for the post! Very pertinent to the topic!

  217. IBY

    Cool post, Meee. I didn’t know that thing about long term memories. It is always a pleasure to learn new things. ^_^

  218. Harold McTestes

    @meeee-

    Excellent point, and I’d like to add to it. When I was around 10 years old, I decided to take up magic as a hobby. The thing that has stuck in my mind throughout my adult life (my interest in magic only lasted until about age 12 or so) is how easy it was to fool “adults”. I’m not referring to sleight of hand either, but solely the power of suggestion. Just by manipulating the english language I was able to convince people that they said and saw certain things that really didn’t happen. I can remember being dumbfounded and astonished (at age 10 mind you) of how simple the whole process was. The things I could get people to believe were ludicrous! I’m not saying that I’m smarter than anyone else, I’m still a sucker for a good mentalist.

  219. Ian

    Nothing like a call for evidence to being out the talkback manifesto posts. Yikes.

    Volume of text != proof.

  220. Ian

    Arg. being == bring.

    Can we get user accounts and editing ability here please? Thanks!

  221. potterbro

    Wow, I just watched a few of the Meier vids for the first time… what garbage. In one of the videos the ship is obviously tied up somehow (probably by the loop at the top of the “ufo” that shows up in some of the pictures) and pushed so that it oscillated in a circle. This is your evidence?… aliens with motion sickness because they can’t keep their intergalactic ship steady?

  222. Daniel

    @Meee:
    Why would the military or any government in their right mind reveal something like that? It could be used as a trump card for national interest. seems IF (big IF) anyone was hiding any sort of evidence that only a few people would know in a perfect world (and we know how WMDs went down lol)

  223. Wow, I figured it was a matter of time until Mike Horn showed up.

    Are you going to explain the Astrid and Neira fiasco? or shall I?

    How about the time(s) you repeatedly tried to bully Steven Novella and the NESS and the SGU into giving you an interview or you would interpret their refusal as an acquiessence on his part?

    If you don’t want to explain them (I wouldn’t blame you, it’s frightfully embarassing), I’d gladly give the run-down.

  224. mk

    Oh. My. God.

    I just had one of the best laughs of my life! Just came from Michael Horn’s site. Does he work for the Onion? Too, too funny.

  225. Davidlpf

    Just looked up Billy Meier on wikipedia and Stanton Friedman thinks his images are fakes, if Friedman thinks there are fakes they must be awful.

  226. Todd W.

    Looking at the photo gallery, I saw a lot of fuzzy pictures that are, at best, inconclusive. However, the pictue of the “UFO” apparently hovering above a van next to a tree made me chuckle. Looks an awful lot like a hubcap with some other stuff affixed to it to make it look more like a flying saucer. It is much closer to the camera than the van that I think is supposed to be directly under it. How can I tell? Well, the van is in pretty sharp focus, while the majority of the saucer is a bit blurred around the edges.

    I would agree, though, that the photos do not look like the film was altered or double-exposed, nor that there were paper cutouts used as the UFO models. So, the pictures are, I would say, real, but exactly what they are pictures of…hard to say, but probably not UFOs. If that close-up picture is any indication, then it’s likely that the photos are of models made by Meier or someone he knows.

    I also took a look at the two video clips on the site. Again, blurry, poor quality video. The object appears to be at some distance. Like with the photos, I would agree that the video itself has not been tampered with and that it depicts a real object being filmed. The movement of the object in the first clip is consistent with it being attached to a thin line running to a point just a bit outside the viewfield. The second clip is too short to really determine a pattern to the movements.

  227. Greg in Austin

    @Jeff

    Yea, because you can believe everything you read on wiki. The first 3 external links are basically repeats of the wiki article, revealing little if any additional information.

    Is it possible, or even plausible, that what the F4 pilots saw was indeed a 707 or 747 (as the radar suggested) with extremely bright lights and radar/equipment jamming technology, such as the Airborne Laser Lab? Did any US, Soviet or Middle Eastern military have such technology, and did they have any reason to fly into Iran at that time? Any why, if the UFO were really an alien ship, would it transmit a distress beacon on a known earthling emergency frequency? And why was there no evidence at the supposed landing/crash site? Who were the people at the garden house? Were they military? How many of them were there? Why would they have a beeper? Was it a military beeper? Could the cigar-shaped aircraft (which would describe nearly every commercial jet when seen from the side) have been a U2 spy plane? There are so many unanswered questions.

    Yes, it does sound intriguing, but if you cannot say what it WAS, then you cannot say what it WAS NOT. I say there’s not enough evidence to support this being alien in origin.

    8)

  228. Davidlpf

    Here is a link, the person takes on of the contacts and the predictions made by Meier,funny thing is that most of what he predicted actually was actually already published in newspapers.
    http://www.iigwest.com/investigations/meier/ike42report.htm

  229. Regarding Meier’s films, perhaps you failed to read what Uncharted Territory said. Anyone here in their caliber as special effects experts, especially with models. So, regarding the UFO circling around the tree that the “experts” here have pegged as a fake, here’s the quote from that Academy Award-winning company:

    “But, to reflect on the statement that’s in the film, I also remember seeing a shot on the Super8 reel that showed a UFO circling around a fairly tall tree. According to that shot, we said that we can’t conclusively say whether it’s real or not, but it seemed impossible to stage that kind of a shot with a miniature (it would have to be hanging on a very tall crane, with wires – but even then the movements would be hard to achieve.) So, yes, in regards to that shot, we mentioned that we could definitely do it today with CG, but at the time these were supposedly shot – it would have been very hard, probably even impossible, to fake this kind of shot.”

    Now, go ahead exert your own “expertise” above theirs.

    It’s true, as I stated before, that blogs are not the best place for serious discussions. I thought though that one connected to this magazine just might be. Oh well.

    Stanton Friedman, Dr. Mitchell…you name your expert. They simply don’t know as much about the UFO subject as I do.

    Now that some people figure that this was an egocentric statement, allow me to drop the other shoe. Anyone here who troubles themselves to actually read the content of my site will also, with sufficient thinking and reflection, know more than they do.

    If a ray of intelligent, objective interest manages to shine through here, I’ll be delighted to engage and provide additional information.

    And, should Phil Plait – or Dr. Veverka – read this blog, please note my offers as above. Certainly Phil hasn’t seen any of the Meier evidence or he wouldn’t say that he hadn’t seen evidence of real UFOs.

    And to the skeptics here, may I suggest that you contact CFI-West, IIG and JREF to offer your services, since they’ve proved themselves totally incompetent to show any hoaxing in the Meier case, despite your certainty that it exists.

  230. Still no evidence what so ever, you people are so hopeless.

    Any EVIDENCE? and for the matter, the government is not hiding any aliens. So all of you are saying that the US Government is hiding an entire extraterrestrial civilization, do you really think aliens have crashed or playing around on Planet Earth, and there rest of the civilization is still sitting out there?

    At Daniel: We will discover an extraterrestrial civilization in the near future, hopefully.

  231. Frankie Ginnifer P.

    why don’t we have more people like you phil? and to all of the people that say that the eye witness reports are evidence: there’s a little something in the world called LYING, and there are people that do it.

    you still don’t have any reliable evidence. i don’t care what you say

    (i love you phil)

  232. Ray

    Michael Horn,

    So I went to a couple of sites and looked at some of the pictures of the “wedding cake” ship. Funny how it looks an awful lot like a garbage can lid with some junk piled on top. The Pleiadians even went to the trouble of leaving the lid’s handle on it! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!

    As for the academy-award winning company that could do it with CGI, the problem they have is they don’t think in terms of yesterday’s technology. All they know is modern tech. They don’t think in terms of a small tree, long pole and some fishing line like Billy did.

  233. Davidlpf

    Here are images iigwest took and compared them to the ones meier took. I guess they can be faked easily and why did you not give sample of the alloy if you wanted to prove the metal was not of this world?
    http://www.iigwest.com/investigations/meier/ufopix.html

  234. Davidlpf

    Sorry BA for making moderating so many links.

  235. Ray, be a good boy and duplicate Meier’s films for us. Even simpler, duplicate the Wedding Cake video, freely available at my site. Use a garbage can lid, okay?

    And, er, by the way, having met and spoken personally with the guys from UC, allow me to tell you that, again, you simply don’t know what you’re talking about. They know models and cameras, Ray, that’s, as you put it, “yesterday’s technology”.

  236. Harold McTestes

    @ Michael Horn-

    I remember numerous experts being interviewed on Fox’s infamous Alien Autopsy with all of them claiming that there was no way the effects could have been created by special effects and FX artists etc; only to find out later that it was all a hoax. I realize that you aren’t affiliated with any of that nonsense, but I think it’s a good example of why NOT to believe in so called experts.

    Also, can you elaborate on the metal issue regarding IIG and JREF? Forgive me if it’s already been addressed on your site, it’s a lot of info to wade through. On IIG they claim that you won’t provide metal samples that you have in your possession so they can be submitted for third party analysis. Details? Again, I apologize if it’s already been addressed.

  237. Todd W.

    @Michael Horn

    From the quality of the video on your site, it is difficult to discern the actual distance of the object from the camera. Also, it is moving at an apparent height above the tree, never passing behind it. The color quality also hampers the ability to determine distance to the object and distance to the tree. So, again, the video is inconclusive at best.

    Also, the onus is not on the skeptics to prove that it is a hoax. The weight is on the claimants to prove that it is real.

    I’m curious about your response regarding your lie that I pointed out above. And the comments others made about presenting pictures of models as pictures of aliens. And my comment about the hubcap-UFO above the van.

    One last thought on the videos. How many people other Uncharted Territory examined the videos? What conclusions did they reach? Which people at UT examined it, and what is their particular experience? Has anyone examined the films and disagreed with UT’s conclusion? What did they say?

  238. Meeee

    Michael, you appear to be under some kind of assumption that people are deliberately disbelieving your “evidence”. Why would people do that?

    You seem to think that Mr. Meier’s films are so compelling, so conclusively true, that they show with 100% certainty that aliens exist and are visiting the planet.

    If this is so, why does no one believe them? Why does everyone claim they’re hoaxes? Why doesn’t the scientific community acknowledge them?

    While it’s remotely possible that the military/government could coverup and keep secret evidence that they have (however unlikely), your “evidence” is freely available for anyone, anywhere, to see. So *why hasn’t the scientific community acknowledged it”? You can’t possibly claim that they’re trying to keep it secret.

    That is not how science works. People seem to think that science works by holding on to old beliefs and that scientists somehow stay famous and “in power” by dogmatically defending old theories and beliefs. This is literally the antithesis of science. Scientists are constantly looking to disprove pretty much anything they can.

    That’s what makes a famous scientist. By disproving previously held notions, or by proposing completely new (but testable and confirmable) ideas and theories. That’s what scientists try to do every day. That’s what makes them famous. It’s what gets them money for funding, it’s what gets them nobel prizes (you don’t hear of a scientist getting a nobel prize for, say, simply agreeing with evolution).

    So in light of *all of this*, why has NO ONE proven, to the satisfaction of the scientific world, that aliens are 100% real and are definitely visiting the planet? I claim it’s because you have no compelling evidence. The only other explanation is that the millions of scientists worldwide are all being held to some kind of secrecy pact for reasons that no one has ever agreed on (to keep alien tech for themselves? To prevent panic? Why?), which is literally laughable in it’s absurdity.

    If your proof is so compelling, so amazingly remarkable that it proves with no chance of error that aliens exist and are actively visiting earth, post it here in this thread. Don’t post one of Mr. Meier’s videos since we’ve established that they’re faked, or at the very least are not going to convince anyone in this thread.

    Do *not* post something like “go to my site and read up”. Do *not* post something like “the evidence is out there, go get it yourself”. Do not post anything that dodges the direct question. Post, in this thread, evidence that aliens are real and are visiting this planet. Post evidence that would convince a hard skeptic, say, Phil Plait himself.

    Do this, or stop posting.

  239. @ Harold

    Actually, I thank you for bringing the metal sample issue up, for those who may be interested. The samples were analyzed by Marcel Vogel, a truly genius level scientist at IBM. He videotaped his analysis and, as the comment in the SCientific Experts article at my site relates, he said that he couldn’t duplicate them with any technology available to him as a scientist.

    That deserves to be pondered.

    As do the comments of David Froning, the astro-physicist (with the top secret security clearance) who shared the stage with me at one of my presentations and made the statements attributed to him in that same article.

    So let me disagree with you about experts, as Vogel, Froning and the guys from UC, among others were all at stellar levels in their professions. If their opinions mean nothing, and conjecture means more, than the state of thinking is (and the country) is very dangerously poor indeed.

    As I think I’ve said, no one here can duplicate ANY of Meier’s evidence. And experts who know models, cameras, special effects, etc. said they’d HAVE to go to CGI to do it.

    That deserves to be pondered too.

    And now, since people who know nothing about this and/or me have called me a liar, allow me to make this as clear as possible. I will donate $500 to anyone’s charity of choice if they can find – anywhere – that I have ever said that I possess the metal samples.

    To make that even clearer, THAT claim is a deliberate lie on the part of the now thoroughly discredited, incompetents at IIG and JREF.

    You also need to know that I recently challenged them to prove a statement by Derek Bartholomaus in our film that Meier used a model in a particular film sequence. He declined. And the response by Jeff Wagg (for JREF) several posts above, is the effective, complete withdrawal of that claim by JREF.

    Now, again, if all of these skeptics can’t back up their claims, and legitimate experts and scientists are coming down on the side of Meier’s authenticity…doesn’t it at least suggest a very THOROUGH bit of examination and research by any genuinely concerned parties?

  240. Davidlpf

    So Michael where did the samples of metal go for a scientific study to happen another chemist has to have sample of the metal and test it themselves. As for videotaping the precedure that is fine to show what he did but does not prove what the metal is.

  241. mk

    I am still cracking up! This is great stuff. Michael Horn is funny!

  242. Mike Horn is utilizing one of the most over-used, and cheapest of rhetoric tactics, called the “three-foot stack argument”. Its a way of saying, “Here is my three-foot stack full of my super-awesome evidence, and until you’ve familiarized yourself with EVERYTHING in this stack, you’re not qualified, so shut up, you dummie.”

    Mike, we’ve got a quicker route: you pick your best, most compelling piece of evidence: the piece that, for you, make the best, most bullet-proof case. Show it to us, and we can look at it.

    Problem is, you’ve already done this….many times, and the Meier films are laughably childish, easily repeatable, and incredibly mundane. For once, use Occam’s Razor.

    And stop arguing from the ‘expertise’ of people. That’s a cheap tactic that proves nothing, and shows even less (except for your unwillingness to present the actual arguments themselves, and your willingness to simply defer).

  243. @ Meeee

    Do not try to define the only acceptable means of discerning the truth, do not deliberately ignore and disregard the collective efforts of numerous people totaling several decades, do not…

    Then again, do what you want. As I said, I’m here at my pleasure, not yours.

    If you do not know how to think, if you do not know how to answer Meier’s publication of dozens of specific, previously unknown information (try to answer how he published the info about the 5,100 year-old man some 10 years before the scientists did), if you want to be spoon fed, if you want to ask effectively rhetorical, nonsensical questions about “why no scientists” accept this or that…it only indicates that you’ve been lazy.

    I suggest trying to fool someone else, not me. I’ve read the Sound Analysis and photo Analysis documents, as well as the comments from the scientific experts, spent hours with the original investigative team, hours with Meier over the last 9 years (including trying to trick him to see if he was lying) and personally spoke with the TWO owner/experts at UC, I had a (very brief) conversation with another (top secret clearance level) scientist who was skeptical of the Meier case. It lasted less than five minutes, because he was wise enough to understand that he was in over his head.

    I’ve answered questions during four-hour radio lshows and live lectures…do you have ANY level of expertise that would warrant that?

    So what I’m telling you is this, most of the questions you raise have already been addressed. I spent decades learning; is it really asking too much of you to put a lid on the attitude and get educated, to take, say, a couple of days to peruse some info so that you might have a faint inkling of what you’re talking about?

    And I have one other “do this” for you. PROVE that Meier faked ANY evidence or…stop posting.

    Have a nice day.

  244. Mike Horn: One question, and its a VERY important question:

    What would it take for you to not be convinced by Meier’s videos?

  245. Todd W.

    @Michael Horn

    What is Marcel Vogel’s area of expertise?

    Also, as regards you being a liar, only I have called you that explicitly so far, and that was only as regards the JREF prize money. I’ve already provided evidence to support that claim, and you’ve yet to address it or any of the other questions, really, that have been asked of you. You keep evading, rather than specifically answering what people are asking.

    As to proving that a model was used in a particular film sequence, that is impossible using only the film. It would also require producing the model or other physical evidence. So, that they declined to accept your challenge is not surprising, as it would be impossible to prove.

  246. Todd W.

    Mr. Horn is quite the dramatic one, i’n't he? Not to mention rather full of hubris.

    Again, Mr. Horn, YOU are the one making the claims. YOU are the one that needs to provide the evidence. And, as to your web site, I would venture to say that the majority of people posting here would rather not waste a couple days sifting through your site. As Some Canadian Skeptic asked above, produce the one (or two) absolute best, shoe-in bits of evidence that you have available to us, here, on this blog, so that we can take a look at it. It will ave everyone a lot of time and possible shut us up much faster.

  247. It would require that I disregard not only the experts, including the ones I personally met, it would require disregarding the photos taken not only by other people in Meier’s group, it would take disregarding not only the photos taken by a SKEPTIC in Switzerland (http://www.figu.org/ch/files/downloads/bulletin/figu_bulletin_37.pdf?download) it would require that I disregarded the admitted failure of JREF, CFI-West, IIG, Dr. Novella, Jeff Ritzmann, David Biedney, it would require that I disregarded the testimony of UN diplomat Phobol Cheng, as well as 15 other witnesses who passed lie detector tests, it would require that I disregarded the evaluation by the expert consultant to the U.S. Army, it would require that I disregard the impossibility of either overhead/side suspension of models or pulley rigs (easily proved impossible – it’s what the skeptics now can’t and won’t address) and it would require my disregarding the absolute consistency of information and behavior of a man who I know personally and have met with over a 9-year period.

    Oh yeah, it would require one more thing…that YOU duplicate the evidence.

  248. Meeee

    Michael,

    You dodged the question. The one thing I actually asked you to do was provide a piece of evidence so solid, so amazing, that everyone would believe it, even skeptics.

    Instead, what you did, was what I specifically asked you not to do. You asked me to “go read up on it”.

    You claim that you have spent decades educating yourself on aliens and UFOs. So? What do you have to show for it? So far, very little.

    This blog is full of astronomy fans, people who enjoy looking up at the night sky and wondering exactly what’s out there. We are amongst the most fanciful people in the world. And yet you have failed to convince one of us.

    Your “film evidence”, the films that you’ve apparently had verified… where’s the news? Where are the peer reviewed, scholarly papers discussing the aliens that are visiting us every day? Nowhere, surprisingly.

    Your “metal”. Again, where are the scientific papers discussing the various new and previously unheard of properties in this mystical metal that no one on earth can reproduce? You claim you showed it to a distinguished scientist who then claimed that he could see no way of reproducing it. What happened then? Did he simply give it back and forget about the incident? Where are the scientific announcements, the worldwide discussion over this proof of aliens?

    Nowhere.

    It’s all very well and good you pooh-poohing “scientists” and apparently claiming that your evidence doesn’t need their backing:

    “if you want to ask effectively rhetorical, nonsensical questions about “why no scientists” accept this or that…”

    That’s not an answer. Where are the peer reviewed scientific papers discussing the very real existence of active alien visitation on the planet.

    They are nowhere, because it’s not happening.

    Having a few scientists who agree with you isn’t enough. There are scientists who perhaps don’t deserve the title. There are scientists who are more gullible than others. There are scientists who might just plain lie.

    This is why scientific process is in place. It’s not enough to have 1, 10 or even 100 people claiming one thing is true. Until you can demonstrate it to the entire community, the serious scientists in the world, and thus the skeptics, aren’t going to believe you.

    So, I ask again (in futile effort, I assume):

    Where is the evidence that will convince the scientific community that aliens are actively visiting the planet. Note the very specific use of “community”. By that I mean not just a few random scientists here and there, or “experts” here and there.

  249. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    What is Marcel Vogel’s area of expertise?

    Apparently, ‘the structuring of water’ and ‘the therapeutic application of crystals’. Google him, and the cranks and crackpots refers to him by the minute.

    But this sound genuine: “His areas of expertise were phosphor technology, liquid crystal systems, luminescence, and magnetics.” Not an expert in metallurgy then, but a crank that would play along with other cranks.

  250. Todd W.

    I think I hear crickets chirping.

  251. @Todd W.
    “I think I hear crickets chirping.”

    That was me, sorry. Bad sushi.

  252. Todd W.

    @SCS

    Ah, yes. Gotta watch out for that sushi.

  253. MCW

    I can’t help but add a little nugget here. If ANY of you actually think that the government can’t hide secrets, you’re dreamimng. Technological advancements are guarded tenaciously by armed guys, many of whom don’t even know what they’re guarding. Another poster here compared UFO believers’ beliefs to a Hydra, with many heads. Interesting analogy, but one more fiiting to describe the government. The US government has multiple heads, but it also has multiple intertwined bodies from these heads grow. People that think that the US government acts one entity has most cetainly never been involved in law enforement where officers from one agency constantly run into brick walls when trying to access information that another agency possesses.
    Also, any government agency or organization, be it military or DOJ, has many different clearance levels and compartmentalization, need-to-know access only, and so on. If the Air Force has proof of ET, you can bet your bottom dollar that only select members of the brass and some Air Force intelligence officers would know anything about it.
    As for the debate about the difference between beliefs and actual knowledge, many posters here have pointed out what I did earlier and that is there are many things that I “know”, but only because I read them or saw them on TV. Should I discount everything that every scientist and researcher says until I can verify their claims for myself? I don’t have enough lifetimes to even learn HOW to verify everything, much less verify everything. I see this huge ball of fusion in the sky every day, but I only know that the light and heat are the product of fusion because “science” tells me so. Accumulated knowledge on top of acculated knowledge is how we grow, intellectually speaking, but how much first-hand knowledge, scientific or otherwise, do any of us carry around inside our heads? I would say that the amount of actual, first-hand knowledge, that is knowledge that one individual possesses through their own experimentation and verification is minimal for 99% of the humans on this planet. so why is this subject treated so differently?
    I accept what coventional wisdom says on most issues until such time as said wisdom is disproved, but as another poster pointed out, hardly a week goes by that there isn’t some national news story about some common-held scientific or medical notion being challenged by new research. Personally, I think that we, as human beings, are mere infants on a cosmic level, and one day many of our so-called scientific ‘facts’ will looked back on as medievil or even silly, just as we look back and laugh at those that believed that the Earth was flat and was the center of the Universe.

  254. To be fair though, it WAS cricket-sushi.

  255. Jose

    @ Michael Horn
    Meier’s space ships are plates, bowls, hubcaps other garbage you can pick up at a dollar store. I’m pretty sure my mom has the exact same dining set as he does. Draw an imaginary line from the center of gravity of the “space ships” upwards in each frame of the film. Notice how the line always points to the exact same spot? The scientific name of that spot is “the point of string attachment”. Notice the slight wobble? It’s exactly the same wobble you see when you spin a plate or throw a Frisbee.

    I remember seeing his photos when I was five and thinking “hack job”. If you ever get a chance to do the Disney haunted mansion ride, let me tell you now, that’s not a real ghost sitting next to you. Is there really no better hoaxer you latch on to than Meier?

  256. Celtic_Evolution

    Actually, Todd W., I too go on record as calling Michael Horn a liar. He deliberately mis-identified Dr. Veverka as the Chair of Cornell’s astronomy dept… and then intentionally mis-represented his quote in a veiled attmept to make it seem like Dr. Veverka supported his claims, and did so from a position of authority he does not hold. A two for one liar’s special.

    Both lies. Both which Mr. Horn has cleverly failed to address. Just like completely dodging Meeee’s questions… gullibility.

  257. Wendy

    I’m with you on this one, Phil! If you’ve got no evidence, you’ve got nothin’. Simple as that!

  258. Torbjörn Larsson, OM

    @ Meeee:

    Um, Vogel wasn’t a scientist, not even an engineer. According to the link I found he never finished school. Apparently he was for some time working at IBM’s Data Products Division. Just goes to show us that one should never accept anything offered by a crank as a possible fact.

    Here is an analysis of his patents (fewer than ’100s’ and mostly foreign) and a related discussion on his analysis of ‘UFO’ metal samples on JREF, in case it hasn’t come up in the previous comments.

    Btw, how many patents have Horn produced? I’ve been part of two – he can send the samples to me, I guess, and I’m sure I too will be ‘unable to reproduce them’.

  259. Todd W.

    @SCS

    Mmmm…cricket sushi. Crunchy!

    @CE

    Ah, my bad. Good points. Two calls of “shenanigans”. But still, though, neither of us said he was a liar regarding possession of the metal samples.

  260. Meeee

    @MCW

    The claim that the government can hide things that it develops internally is a valid claim, but it doesn’t quite compare to how an alien situation would play out.

    The military, for example, can produce an experimental jet with extremely few people knowing about it, because they can plan ahead. They have prepared and consistent lies and misdirection that they can mislead people with consistently. They know exactly what staff will be where and when they’ll be there. They know where the jet will be built, where it’ll be tested, landed and maintained. That’s all under control and can be planned for.

    A hypothetical alien incident, such as a craft crash landing, has none of these controls. It come out of nowhere, in a random location, with no pre-planned excuses or staff rotas. If you plan on keeping it secret, then by necessity you must use the nearest local military base and the personal within. You have an entire chain of command who are “in” on something odd going on. You have an entire army base that is “in” on something weird going on. You have several regular eyewitnesses of the crashed craft and any possible alien bodies. Before you can apply proper threats/rewards for keeping silent, these people will have told their friends, family members and so on.

    While still not entirely impossible, it’s still significantly harder to keep it entirely secret.

    As for your claim about accepting things you hear at face value, that is a fairly true contradiction in some skeptics claims. Many people, skeptics and “rational thinkers” in general, claim that you should never believe something you can’t check out yourself. Obviously, this is extremely impractical. One must use judgement in what to just accept and what to criticise.
    Your example of the sun, let’s say. You may see on some TV science program what it is. To you it’s just a giant ball of fire in the sky, but they claim differently. But this is not something to just “accept”. It’s in pretty much every science textbook from extremely early on in school. The people presenting it on TV aren’t claiming it’s a new discovery, they’re not claiming there’s opposition to the idea. It’s an old idea that’s been thoroughly tested.

    Compare this to the claim of UFOs, and you see the difference. Alien UFOs are known to be highly controversial topics. People presenting them on TV are often suspect in their presentation. The “evidence” offered are blurry photos and films, and extensive, rather vague, eyewitness accounts.

    An extremely often used phrase is “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and that’s a good rule to go by. Claiming that aliens are visiting earth is extraordinary. I may be the single most important discovery of all time, and that would not be an exaggeration (just think of the impact it’d have on religion, for example), but to date no extraordinary evidence has been provided.

  261. Colin

    I don’t get it. I’ve seen a number of Meier’s films, like Supervixens and Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!, and they seemed pretty convincing. It’s not until his later work, such as Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens, that there were suggestions of any kind of artificial enhancement.

    We are talking about Russ Meier, aren’t we? Or am I getting confused by a certain astrologer who featured recently on this site?

  262. Celtic_Evolution

    Come on MCW… you can do better than that…

    On your first paragraph… all I have as evidence for your claim in that paragraph is “cause I really think so.” So I’ll ask again… What proof do you have of the military covering up, succesfully, anything of this magnitude? What example of this do you have that makes you so sure it would be soooo easy for them… or is it just cause it seems that way on TV? Even top secret projects like the Stealth fighters and bombers were leaked out far before they were disclosed by the military. I’m sorry, I’m just not going to take it on your really strong belief that you are right about this. Show me proof.

    Now… your next paragraph needs some attention… please don’t take any of this too harshly… I just want you to take it as intended and think about it:

    Should I discount everything that every scientist and researcher says until I can verify their claims for myself?

    No… but if you like, you can pretty easily find multiple sources of confirmation in the form of repeated experiments for most scientific claims. Science rarely accepts anything as credible based on a single source…

    I see this huge ball of fusion in the sky every day, but I only know that the light and heat are the product of fusion because “science” tells me so.

    Well, the great thing about science is that the things you would need to do to verify this knowledge for yourself are readily available… if you really are concerned that you are just being sppon-fed knowledge and don’t know whether you should believe it, then stop being darn lazy and go find out for yourself. We encourage it, and the world would be a better place if more people would do precisely that, instead of the lazy answer of just believing what you are told.

    I would say that the amount of actual, first-hand knowledge, that is knowledge that one individual possesses through their own experimentation and verification is minimal for 99% of the humans on this planet.

    I very seriously doubt that, or else we’d still be starting fires with rocks and sticks and trying to cure disease by bloodletting. You may get that impression based on your own experience… but ask yourself how vast your experience really is, given the vastness of the world and all the people in it.

    I accept what coventional wisdom says on most issues until such time as said wisdom is disproved, but as another poster pointed out, hardly a week goes by that there isn’t some national news story about some common-held scientific or medical notion being challenged by new research.

    This has a ring of truth to it, but doesn’t it also contradict your previous point? How could this be true if so few of us are actively learning anything first-hand? The great thing about science is that it never stops trying to improve upon its findings. I wouldn’t say that scientific ideas are turned upside-down every day… in fact that’s very rare… but scientific theories and ideas are improved upon every day…. and this is a really, really good thing… and by the way has nothing to do with demanding evidence for extraordinary claims… and someone using that argument to defend UFO sightings is simply “moving the goalposts”, as it were.

    Personally, I think that we, as human beings, are mere infants on a cosmic level, and one day many of our so-called scientific ‘facts’ will looked back on as medievil or even silly, just as we look back and laugh at those that believed that the Earth was flat and was the center of the Universe.

    I certainly hope so… as that would be a good thing, too… but some things will not change, like the basic principles of scinece as a tool for discovering truth. That method will never change… nor will the need for critical thinking to prevent us from accepting anything as “fact” without evidence.

  263. Celtic_Evolution

    Sorry, Meeee… didn’t mean to step on your toes there… didn’t see your post before I put mine up.

  264. Tod

    Phil, I love you and your posts. I agree with one of the commenters way above that perhaps the move to Discover has opened the floodgates and allowed a lot of self-righteous zealots to comment on your postings.

    I had an especially hearty laugh over the so-called Doctor who hails from some backwater province called “Switerland.”

    Michael Horn’s so-called arguments have all been dissembled by others so I won’t go into those cesspools of faith.

    However, he reminds me so much of how Dr. William Shockley was lionized as one of the three who developed the first transistor. When he was a fellow at the SWOPSI (Stanford Workshop on Political and Social issues) in the 60s, he espoused a truly pitiful rehash of the “Aryan supremacy” aspect of the Nazis. The “believers” in racial superiority suddenly had a “brilliant” scientist on their side and the appeals to authority were much like Horn’s continued insistence on appealing to Meier’s and Vogel’s so-called expertise (Vogel was hardly brilliant (references pending) and was hardly the person to use in a scientific discovery scenario – the fact that he conveniently lost the samples is enough to create clouds of suspicion on an otherwise dull and drab career at the Almaden site) to prove his sieve-like theses. With credential like these, who needs to offer up hard evidence? Shockley was my teenage hero (he lived down the street near the Los Altos Country Club in case anyone cares) and I visited his lab a few times. That didn’t make his racial theories anything more than celebrity hogwash.

    Thanks again for your insights, Phil. Now on to the next post!

  265. Is this evidence? I think so. Before you scoff, at least read the executive summary that begins on page 6/77. I dare you.

    http://www.mufon.com/documents/MUFONStephenvilleRadarReport.pdf

  266. @Meeee
    What about THOUSANDS radar RECORDINGS since the 50′s? ALL censored by the Mass Media!

  267. Jose

    In case there are any aliens monitoring this thread, I will restate what I said earlier. I would like to ride on your space ship. Although, I’m not looking forward to it, I will accept good probing as a trade off, provided no eggs or anything of that nature are implanted in me, and proper lubrication is used. We can work out a more formal contract when the time comes. I’m going to try and sleep now. I hope to see you soon.

    Sincerely,
    Jose

  268. @Wendy
    What about THOUSANDS radar RECORDINGS since the 50’s? ALL censored by the Mass Media!

  269. @EVERYONE
    What about THOUSANDS radar RECORDINGS since the 50’s? ALL censored by the Mass Media!

  270. Meeee

    @CE

    No need to apologise, you made the point far better than I did anyway.

    Everything else aside, it’s 3:30am here and my brain no make good thinks any more.

  271. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Sylvain

    What about THOUSANDS radar RECORDINGS since the 50’s? ALL censored by the Mass Media!

    What about them? There a literally hundreds of thousands of false or unidentifiable radar contacts at installations across the US every year.

    So… unidentifiable radar contacts = ET? Sorry… I’m not following that one.

  272. Todd W.

    @Meeee

    You’ve done a bang up job! Much more eloquent than I’ve been, I think. Get some rest!

  273. Todd W.

    @CE

    Repeating the same exact phrase, complete with the same punctuation and capitalization makes the point irrefutable. Why ask for clarification? [/snark]

  274. Todd W.

    @Sylvain

    All censored by the Mass Media, huh? Care to provide anything to support that claim? And, no, the fact that these recordings are not available is not evidence of a coverup.

  275. Davidlpf

    @ Tod, no there were no Zealots at the old site, no none at all.
    (I managed to type that with straight face)

  276. They ARE available, they are just not publish by the Mass Media!

  277. Todd W.

    @Sylvain

    What reason does the Mass Media have to publish them? The media is all about ratings, not about truth. The fact that the media doesn’t put them up for the public to see doesn’t provide any support to the “aliens are visiting us” schtick.

  278. We HAVE evidences why don’t you look at the THOUSANDS radar RECORDINGS since the 50’s. We have ABSOLUTE proof since the 50′s that 1 mile wide spaceships came FROM space at incredible speed, stop on a dime and accelerate in a blink of a eye BACK to SPACE! It’s not because Mass Medias censor those RECORDINGS that UFOs dont exist, it’s PROVE the Mass Media TRAITORS. Come on when are you going to stop saying there is no evidences and PUBLISH them instead?! RADAR RECORDINGS record the SIZE, SPEED, VELOCITY, ACCELERATION, DECELERATION, DISTANCES, where it come FROM AND where it GOES!!!!! What MORE do you WANT???? Almost all our sky is recorded by radar and there is ALSO radar in PLANES!! WE HAVE GROUND radar, GROUND visual, AIR radar and AIR visual confirming EACH others AT THE SAME TIME!!! What MORE do you WANT?????
    Stop hiding you head in the sand and go to http://www.disclosureproject.org and try to PUBLISH those proof in the MASS MEDIA and NOW you will beleive us that the Mass Media are corrupt when they going to refuse you too!

  279. Search out this headline on google:

    Honoring Veverka, a man who chases snowballs and discovers ‘continents’

    Find the article that says:

    Much progress indeed, with thanks to dedicated astronomers like Veverka, who three decades later is chair of Cornell’s Department of Astronomy and who will celebrate his 60th birthday with a unique gift from his colleagues: a symposium, “Exploration of the Universe,” to be held Oct. 4-6 on campus.

    Photo showing:

    Joseph Veverka, professor and chair of the Department of Astronomy, shown in his office with a model of the CONTOUR mission craft, will be honored with a symposium on campus Oct. 4-6 to celebrate his 60th birthday.

    This concludes my attempt to cast pearls before the proverbial oinkers, such is the low level of self-contented, incompetent…lying.

    No need to apologize for your blatant lies, having no respect for you it would mean nothing to me.

    A final note:

    A major problem with skeptics (okay, with many bloggers too, obivously) is the gross overestimation of their own importance, intelligence and competence, as well as some firmly held belief that somebody MUST want something from them. These items actually go hand in hand. As far as the Meier case goes, nothing’s been asked of anyone. No one’s trying to recruit people for a non-existent cult, or trying to get them to buy stuff. Why would so much free information be offered if it wasn’t for the purpose of trying to…inform and educate people?

    It’s a thankless job, certainly for Meier. With 21 documented assassination attempts on his life, attempts on his children’s lives and endless libel and slander from incompetent know-it-alls, why should he bother?

    It’s additionally too bad that much of this cynicism and overrated self-importance is rampant in the very generation that is inheriting the mess of this earth and who should have greater concerns than spending their time playing video games, being hooked up to their iPods and all other various forms of non-productive entertainment…possibly including blogging on matters about which they know nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing. It wouldn’t be so bad if they weren’t seemingly so uneducable.

    They want the answers they want, the way they want them, petulant babies lacking any self-motivation and self-responsibility.

    Don’t point them in a productive direction, they want to go the other way.

    As far as my whacking a bunch of phony poseurs upside the head, as in taking shots at self-important, empty-headed skeptics like some already mentioned, I plead…guilty.

    When I decided to up the ante on the skeptics, I searched out the ones who had drawn unsubstantiated conclusions on the Meier case, as well as who offered gratuitous derision, and challenged them to put up or shut up. James Randi initially took up the fight, and then retracted his claims against the Meier case. CFI-West/IIG jumped in…and drowned in their incompetence and inability to substantiate their claims. Novella was a real no show who (maybe wisely) didn’t even try to back up his claims.

    None of them could duplicate ANY of Meier’s evidence, just like no one here can, or ever could…not even Ray with his fishing pole and garbage can lid, or the anonymous Canadian guy, who’s obviously spent some time reading very lame and inaccurate theories from other folks with too much time on their hands.

    So it’s the skeptics that have made it a fight, having come to the table already convinced that the case was a hoax, a very unscientific approach indeed…and having come to a battle of wits only half-armed. How much better it would have been for them to try to find out what the truth of the matter really is.

    And, since there’s still some minor (or major) outrage among some here at having been presented with information (from a man with a 57-year record of prophetic accuracy), why not take your own personal inventory to see if you were so diligent in scrutinizing anyone you’ve ever voted for, any political view you’ve held, any religious beliefs you’ve held (let alone many of the personal relationships you may have had). Have you thoroughly questioned everything that you’ve been taught…or everything that you think is true?

    More importantly, contemplate just what it would mean to YOU if the Meier case is true.

    If anyone has any questions of merit (there are plenty examples of meritless comments here) email me through my site. You’ll get an auto-responder but I’ll make it a point to reply asap.

    Lastly, for the poor, self-confident fellow, the…”expert” here:

    Much progress indeed, with thanks to dedicated astronomers like Veverka, who three decades later is chair of Cornell’s Department of Astronomy and who will celebrate his 60th birthday with a unique gift from his colleagues: a symposium, “Exploration of the Universe,” to be held Oct. 4-6 on campus.

    Just as I said.

  280. @Todd
    There is no free press. The Mass Media are under control by the Government!
    The proof that alien are visiting us come from RADAR RECORDINGS!!!!! Radar tell the UFO come FROM SPACE and GO BACK to SPACE!!!

  281. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Michael Horn

    This concludes my attempt to cast pearls before the proverbial oinkers, such is the low level of self-contented, incompetent…lying.

    No need to apologize for your blatant lies, having no respect for you it would mean nothing to me.

    Nor will one be forthcoming. Michael, you come here with extraordinary claims and no evidence… you’d better darn well have your facts straight. It would have taken you 3 minutes to have verified Dr. Veverka’s position with Cornell. Maybe less. You couldn’t be bothered to verify, though, could you? Nothing surprising there. Your statement, as made above, was a lie, and therefor I do not feel the need to retract or apologize for it.

    And either way, you still wilfully mis-represented him.

  282. Celtic_Evolution

    A major problem with skeptics (okay, with many bloggers too, obivously) is the gross overestimation of their own importance, intelligence and competence, as well as some firmly held belief that somebody MUST want something from them.

    Irony… Ur doin it right!

  283. Todd W.

    @Michael Horn

    Umm, going directly to the web site of the Cornell Department of Astronomy, it lists Ira Wasserman as “Professor of Astronomy and Chairman of the Department of Astronomy”, while Joseph Veverka is “The James A. Weeks Professor of Physical Sciences” (under Faculty on the People page). While Prof. Veverka may have been the chair at one point, he isn’t now. The claims of lies regarding his position cancel each other out.

    Now, to the meat of your post:
    Evading questions – check
    Evading providing evidence – check
    Name calling – check
    More evidence of pride and self-importance – check

    Let’s see…if the Meier case, by some leap of logic, turned out to be true, cool! It would open the door to major advances in science. Transportation, biology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, metalurgy…they’d all be advanced greatly! That would be really, freakin’ awesome.

    So, again, pick what you feel is the best evidence you have and post it here. And please, don’t ignore the request again. You came here with a claim. Post your evidence here. Yes, we could go to your site, but seriously, save us all some time and just post your best stuff.

    And, I’m still waiting for your answers to my questions.

  284. Celtic_Evolution

    Shorter Michael Horn:

    Blah blah blah go to my website.

  285. Todd W.

    @Sylvain

    You didn’t address anything in my post. Again, what reason would the media have for publishing these recordings?

  286. Todd W.

    @CE

    You forgot the personal attack and name-calling.

  287. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Todd W

    Yeah… perhaps… but at the end of the day I really think Mr. Horn’s goal is traffic to his site. For fairly obvious reasons.

  288. Todd W.

    @CE

    He’s lonely?

  289. @Todd
    None, since they are corrupt. but people still keep beleiving them that there is no proof but in REALITY they are simply not PUBLISHING them. People need to be kept stupid for better control.

    @skeptics
    We have proof. Go look at them, stop believing the Elites! Wake up people!

  290. Ray

    Michael Horn,

    Why should I cooperate with you and recreate hoax videos when you won’t address questions that we’ve been asking? Here, I’ll help you with a short list:

    1. Why does the “wedding cake” ship look just like the garbage can lid in this picture? Why did Billy leave the handle on it?

    http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo/Wedding_Cake_infront_house_B_L+highl.jpg
    http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/ufo/garbage_lid_zoom+highl.jpg

    2. Why did Billy attempt to pass off photos of dancers from the Dean Martin TV show as aliens from Pleiades?

    3. Why is it that many of Billy’s “predictions” from the late 70′s seem to have been published in newspapers and/or magazines before he made them?

  291. Celtic_Evolution

    CredulousCat says:

    I needz beleeverz… and hugz…

  292. Todd W.

    @Sylvain

    Same request we’ve made of Mr. Horn, post your best piece of evidence here so that we can take a look at it.

  293. JPeter

    There’s a point I’d like to raise in opposition to the position that “the government hushes it all up” or “the military keep all the evidence”.

    We’re talking about the US government and military here, I presume. The one that had (admitedly inaccurate) models of the stealth fighter on hobby shop shelves for years before it was released? The one that couldn’t cover up consensual oral sex in the Oval Office itself?

    It’s unfortunate that a noteable proportion of the US populace has a world view that doesn’t ever go outside the borders of the USA – as I am sure the vast majority of people here realise, the USA contains only a small percentage of the Earth’s population or land mass, and there are a lot of other governments and militaries out here.

    Maybe the US government will cover it up for some unknown reason. Maybe not one sitting president would use the knowledge as part of his bid to get re-elected. Maybe all the tens of thousands of politicians and military personnel and scientists and engineers who have been part of this cover up keep their mouths shut. Maybe they really believe that the American people will go crazy, or commit mass suicide, or not vote for them any more if they found out We Are Not Alone.

    Maybe not a single politician or general in the USA would attempt to use this knowledge to get the corporations he works for alien tech to sell. Maybe not one would try to send out missionaries to convert the heathen aliens.

    But….

    Is the same true of the UK government? Or the Russians? Or the French? Or the Swiss? Or the Swedish? Or the Chinese? Or the Mexicans? Or the Brazilians? Or the New Zealanders? Or the Iranians? Or the Syrians? Or the Cubans?

    While an alien intelligence that did its research would undoubtably conclude that the USA was the biggest single player on Earth, it would also conclude that it’s by no means the only one. They wouldn’t have the automatic assumption that the only place worth going to, dealing with, thinking about, talking to or crashing in would be the USA.

    It’s one thing to assume that the US government is covering something up. It’s harder to believe that they all are.

  294. Todd W.

    Awww…CredulousCat’s soooo cute.

  295. @ Celtic

    One more time, since you have some difficulties with the facts in front of your face. The quoted article above states that Veverka was chair of Cornell’s astronomy department, as he was at the time when I contacted him. Why didn’t YOU take “3 minutes” to verify it instead of accusing me of lying, my anonymous nobody friend?

    And I quoted Veverka accurately. No lies…except from you.

    Finally, you were pointed towards where the evidence can be found. I’m terribly sorry that it isn’t where you’d like it to be, or what you’d like it to be. Life’s like that.

    You’re an amateur full of bluster and attitude. Fine. Someone came to, at the very least, offer education. You’re “too smart” to fall for that.

    Some people will probably be industrious, open-minded, yet critical in their thinking enough to search the truth out for themselves.

    The people who provided the evidence and information to Meier are sufficiently far more advanced than we are, and far smarter, to understand and accept that there’s a preponderance of stupid, arrogant people in this world. They know that we are, to a large degree, beyond help.

    On the remote chance that you’re a citizen of the U.S., take a look around at the gargantuan collapse taking place here…and ponder just how it could happen when such geniuses as yourself have been so scrupulously on guard against frauds and hoaxers. Yes, paragons of vigilance and accountability, who can watch their jobs disappear, lose their homes and be hoodwinked by imbecilic “leaders”. But hey, at least you can be the big (anonymous) guy on campus, online.

    Or I should say, could have been, if you only knew what you were talking about.

  296. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Sylvain

    Ummm… yikes…

  297. @JPETER
    “Is the same true of the UK government? Or the Russians? Or the French? Or the Swiss? Or the Swedish? Or the Chinese? Or the Mexicans? Or the Brazilians? Or the New Zealanders? Or the Iranians? Or the Syrians? Or the Cubans?”

    Answer: Yes (except Mexicans, French, Bresil, China, some other european contry. since they are telling that UFOs exist)
    Do you want to know why?

  298. Celtic_Evolution

    Why didn’t YOU take “3 minutes” to verify it instead of accusing me of lying, my anonymous nobody friend?

    Ummm… having firsthand knowledge of the fact, I didn’t need to. But as Todd W. showed, it would have been prett easy… and as I said before, YOU are the one coming here with extraordinary claims. YOU make sure you have your facts straight, BUB.

    And no… you didn’t quote him accurately:

    From your earlier post:

    So I suggest actual responsiveness, challenging how we know, for example, that Meier published specific, irrefutably accurate information about Jupiter, its rings and moons…moons before the probe got there to document, and confirm, Meier’s information.

    Even Prof. Joseph Veverka, Chairman of the Astronomy Department at Cornell University, admitted that.

    You state above that Dr. Veverka “admits” that Meier accurtaely predicted discoveries about our Solar system months before the discoveries were published.

    Dr. Veverka’s actual statement:

    If he said that 3-5 months before, then all that I can say is that he’s right.

    That’s an admission? Care to revise your statement?

    As I said… wilfull mis-representation.

    I’m terribly sorry that it isn’t where you’d like it to be, or what you’d like it to be. Life’s like that.

    Again… is the irony of YOU making this statement lost on you?

    And on and on… blah blah blah, more insults, blah blah blah, evidence on my website, blah blah blah, don’t need to respond to the valid questions by Meeee and Todd W., blah blah blah I’m smarter than you, blah blah blah, still no real evidence.

    I get it, genius… go peddle your snake oil somewhere else… you’ve been exposed for what you are here.

  299. @JPETER
    If Intelligence Aliens was being know publicly. The entire population of the world would united as a new idendity (Human) being Americans, Irakians, British, Canadians will be gone and/or become meaningless. Most Government are self centered, willing only to growth by itself. Do you imagine that if we get a DEMOCRATIC WORLD government the Chinese and India will have the majority. This is the worst nightmare of Government like the U.S. who want to RULE the world and not just being part of it.

  300. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Sylvain

    Allow me to repeat… YIKES.

  301. Tod

    @ Mr. Horn:
    “It’s a thankless job, certainly for Meier. With 21 documented assassination attempts on his life…”

    Um, who goes around documenting attempts? Who exactly are these unskilled assassins that they keep missing their target? Maybe these “assassins” were just kids with air rifles taking target practice with hubcaps tossed in the air.

    Why would anyone feel the need to assassinate Meier, what’s the desperation?

    What a crock. So you want Meier to be a near-martyr because he’s avoided being killed.

  302. Todd W.

    @CE

    Sylvain’s ventured off the deep end. Just ignore their posts and maybe they’ll stop.

  303. Almost all of the NASA STS mission footage showing anomalous objects entering, leaving and moving through the upper atmosphere is HARD evidence to support the existence of craft capable of maneuvers beyond that of commonly accepted ‘terrestrial’ technology. Granted, it could all be secret military technology being tested right beneath the ISS, or whatever current shuttle is in orbit… yet somehow, I tend to doubt this is the case. I’m not going to point out specific footage (as there is far too much to reference) so I’ll let you do the legwork on that. Don’t be lazy! Do the research, then formulate an opinion. It’s always easy to tell someone else to “prove it” for you. Do the research and find out for yourself, it’ll be far more rewarding.

  304. Celtic_Evolution

    Agreed… sort of what I was getting it with the “Yikes”…

    Consider it advice taken.

  305. @Todd I already post them http://www.disclosureproject.org
    If reading is too difficult
    go to google video and search “disclosure project” and watch all the videos.
    take note of the radar recordings they have, ask for them (or download them)at the web site.
    MUFON also have radar recordings at:
    http://www.mufon.com/symposia.htm
    Exemple Stephenville, Texas Radar Report
    http://www.mufon.com/documents/MUFONStephenvilleRadarReport.pdf
    and many more!
    If you can’t read radar please take the yellow pages under piloting school. It’s very easy to learn.
    Or even google it. They are sites teaching this subject.

  306. Todd W.

    You know, I wonder sometimes if some of these people are just doing a psychological experiment, seeing how long they can keep blog readers responding to their wackiness.

  307. @Todd W.: Well said, LOL.

  308. Celtic_Evolution

    And me the poor, willing subject…

    Now where the heck is that cheese….

  309. Todd W.

    Buzz Aldrin is on the Colbert Report!

  310. Celtic_Evolution

    Warning to outer-space alienz…

    CredulousCat is in ur flying zone takin ur picksherz…

  311. Rizz

    Phil, and guests, just because you don’t believe in something, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

    Seriously, how naive can you all be?

    Dr Mitchell is a brilliant man, and one would be foolish or ignorant to dismiss his claims. Talking with people who have had first hand experience is proof, not hear say.

    How does traditional science explain apparitions for example? Hundreds of people experience apparitions simultaneously. So, are these events really taking place?

    Are they just mass hallucinations? What’s going on here?

    Traditional science cannot explain these types of events. And when they cannot, it’s easier to ridicule it or laugh it away. Just like the media does. They are ill-equipped to deal with it. What a missed opportunity to ‘find out’ what is really going on.

    You can say things like since there is only eyewitness proof, nothing tangible, it probably didn’t really happen. But, you’d be wrong, as I stated above.

    Remote viewing is something else that is very real. Many critics again can’t relate to that type of activity, so they just tear it to shreds, instead of trying to embrace it and take it for what its worth. What a shame.

    Did you know that the ring around the planet Jupiter was discovered before we sent a probe all the way out there to image the distant planet. That’s a fact. Ingo Swann accomplished that. And he didn’t even use a telescope. lol.

    But, how did he do it? Traditional science, again cannot explain that either. Plenty of nay sayers though. Their a dime a dozen, still.

    The list goes on and on. The inhabitants of planet Earth are becoming more aware (ever so slowly), about what is really going on around us. The United States is not the leader in that effort however.

    Again, just because you find it’s difficult to comprehend something, certainly does not mean that it isn’t happening. It’s true.

  312. @Todd, Umair, CE
    We are just trying to help you, educated you, you being lied and mind wash since your birth. We doing this for you. We simply fell sorry for you. Do you realize that you can’t even go check even 1 radar recordings. You are scare, in denial, being lied for so long that the truth scare you. Do you realise that you can’t stop laughing and go LOOK at the evidences that YOU asked. YOU asked us for the evidences and the ONLY thing you are CAPABLE of in LAUGHING but not LOOKING. Do you understand that is not NORMAL behavior?
    Come on think about what you are doing…YOU asked for evidences, WE are giving them to you and you are scare to simply look at them. Now can you see there something very wrong with that!

  313. ND

    Ok ok. Mr Horn, I think I need to start from the top again

    Are you saying that this: http://www.theyfly.com/photos/images/f0829.jpg

    and this: http://www.theyfly.com/photos/1NewPics/f_179.jpg

    are pictures of spacecraft from another world with intelligent alien beings in them?

    my personal favorite is this one: http://www.theyfly.com/newsflash5/images/43.%20WCUFO%205..jpg

  314. robin

    I am a skeptic, but how do I deny my own eyes? I’ve seen something extraordinary that defies explanation, twice, so how do I account for it? The choices are few: share the news with others (and face ridicule) or keep quiet. I don’t have proof. I wasn’t able to break off a chunk to bring to you, (which is apparently the only proof that would do). Nor did I happen to have a camera handy, as so many other people have had. But that’s not proof. You would only laugh at the picture no matter how many experts authenticated it. If I was able to find a scientist willing to take a serious look at my “evidence,” you would simply declare them a kook, no longer credible for even taking my evidence seriously.

    So, tell me, oh wise scientifically minded people, if you found yourself in my position, what would you do?

    It’s easy to laugh at anyone who has the audacity to counter your established beliefs, but you should be careful. Your jokes are becoming brittle, and it’s also becoming evident just how afraid you really are. It’s a self perpetuating mind game: The study of UFOs is crackpot science, therefore no credible scientist will study UFOs, therefore any scientist who studies UFOs is a crackpot, therefore, there is no credible evidence of UFOs. If this is science, you can keep it.

    As for whatever it is I saw, do I want it to land on the White House lawn just so you will have to eat your smug words? Hell no. I just hope they leave us alone.

  315. Michael Horn, I figured you had. I mean, I had suspected this much before, but you’ve given ample evidence.

    You’re just a bully. You’re a bully who trolls around looking for people who don’t accept Billy Meier’s childish videos and phots. You troll around looing for people who stand up to your bullying tactics and then artifically place yourself at some high-minded level of discourse that only exists in your petty head.

    Why are you even on this site? You know that this is a site full of skeptics. I mean, if I were to follow yours and Meier’s example, I might suspect a large conspiracy to get the government to believe in UFO’s, and you’re either an active agent of their propoganda, or you’re too afriad of having your precious extra-terrestrial paradigm threatened and have your *ahem* career ruined.

    But I guess I’m just some jerky, closed-minded skeptic.

    And as for Sylvain, are you being satirical? You use LOTS of CAPS interspersed THROUGHOUT your SENTENCES to MAKE me THINK you’re ACTUALLY really CLEVERLY making FUN of UFOLOGISTS. If you are indeed being satirical, good work. You’ve made me giggle more than once.

  316. Robin, just because you saw something that defies your explanation, doesn’t mean it is beyond explanation. It’s an argument from ignornace.

  317. @Some Canadian Skeptic
    NO I’m not stirical at all!!!
    1) I don’t know how to make bold so I use caps
    2) Im french and I don’t see why using bold make the text satirical (really)
    3) I really mean what I says (Im 38 years old. I don’t find this subject funny at all)
    4) ETs issue is not a funny one. It’s is very serious. It is affecting the entire Humanity and Forever!

  318. using caps sorry not bold
    Why caps make english text satirical? (seriously)

  319. Colin

    If the aliens wanted to reveal themselves to the people of Earth they could do that pretty easily. If they’ve got the technology to get here then no government would be able to stop them.

    OK, so, the government doesn’t want us to know about the aliens. The aliens don’t want us to know about the aliens. In that case what’s the point of fighting the “mind wash”? It’s not like you can do anything about it.

    Seems to me there are 2 options:

    1) No aliens.
    2) The aliens are playing pranks and having fun with the earthlings. “Buzzing” the Earth, a la Hitchhiker’s Guide.

    My razor is blunt; I’m going with 2.

  320. Sylvain,
    1) Well, I share your ignorance in not knowing how to type in bold. And it is indeed frustrating to me as well.

    2) Using caps (or bold) is not satirical, but the things you say sound as crazy, paranoid and delusional as any “they’re here-type” comic books that always portray the weired guy with the tin-foil hat.

    3) I know you don’t find it funny….that’s part of why I do find it funny. It must really be terrifying to live in a world so bereft of reality that you have monsters from space abducting people and the the government keeping an all-watchful eye on people trying to leak that knowledge out, and would stop at nothing to protect this most terrifying of secrets.

    4) But wait, if the governments of the world are so-damn good at keeping the mass-media silent, why aren’t you dead? why isn’t Billy Meier and Mike Horn dead? Why aren’t all these insanely-poor websites with lots of multi-colored flashing text shut down the instant they get put up?

    Oh right, you’re just that damn good at elluding. And Billy Meier is an expert at avoiding assassins (who no doubt tried to kill him with an assortment of rubber-chickens and beach-balls).

    Don’t talk about teaching people reality when you clearly need to calm down a second and listen to what you’re actually proposing. Your Occam’s Razor is in desperate need of sharpening.

  321. @Some Canadian Skeptic
    Do you realize that YOU asked for EVIDENCES for Stephenville UFO and I gave it to you and you still gigling like a child and not looking like a normal adult would? Do you realize this is not normal behavior? Ask yourself “Why am I giggling?”, “Why can’t I stop”

    Why do I fell like a teacher teaching sex to a class of 10 years old?
    do you realize WE are trying to educated you, give you all the proof you asked and all oyu do is giggling. Do you realize that the “name calling” are BECAUSE of those childish giggling? Who many of you are adults?

    SO I repeat again:
    “I already post them http://www.disclosureproject.org
    If reading is too difficult
    go to google video and search “disclosure project” and watch all the videos.
    take note of the radar recordings they have, ask for them (or download them)at the web site.
    MUFON also have radar recordings at:
    http://www.mufon.com/symposia.htm
    Exemple Stephenville, Texas Radar Report
    http://www.mufon.com/documents/MUFONStephenvilleRadarReport.pdf
    and many more!
    If you can’t read radar please take the yellow pages under piloting school. It’s very easy to learn.
    Or even google it. They are sites teaching this subject.”

  322. This is just an open-question to all the UFO-believers out there….

    If these inter-stellar species, who break all kinds of known laws of physics to get here, and have presumably evolved far past our puny, petty human civilization, why are they so crappy at flying their suspiciously-plate-shapped saucers? Why do they seem to crash all the friggin time, and usually in cultures of European heritage, to boot?

    Seems to me that if a species is capable of defying E=MC2 (or at least getting around it), they’d be at least SLIGHTLY better pilots.

  323. Greg in Austin

    I think we’re all being duped. Some guy named Michael Horn keeps getting on here telling everyone to read his blog, or website, or whatever, and we keep doing it.

    I think even Michael Horn knows the UFO=Alien pictures on his website are fake. Where is MY evidence? Right here, in this quote from one of Michael Horn’s posts up above:

    “Regarding Meier’s films, perhaps you failed to read what Uncharted Territory said. Anyone here in their caliber as special effects experts, especially with models. So, regarding the UFO circling around the tree that the “experts” here have pegged as a fake, here’s the quote from that Academy Award-winning company:”

    Stop right there. This is a perfect example of Appeal to Authority. Some special effects group that most people in the US probably have never heard of made a statement, and we’re just supposed to believe them because they are “experts?” Well, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, and I’ll bold the important parts. They are quoted as saying,

    ““But, to reflect on the statement that’s in the film, I also remember seeing a shot on the Super8 reel that showed a UFO circling around a fairly tall tree. According to that shot, we said that we can’t conclusively say whether it’s real or not, but it seemed impossible to stage that kind of a shot with a miniature (it would have to be hanging on a very tall crane, with wires - but even then the movements would be hard to achieve.) So, yes, in regards to that shot, we mentioned that we could definitely do it today with CG, but at the time these were supposedly shot – it would have been very hard, probably even impossible, to fake this kind of shot.” “

    Wait… What was that? “(it would have to be hanging on a very tall crane, with wires)” Well, we all know how difficult it is to find a crane around here. If only there was a company that rented large construction equipment… (Sorry for the sarcasm.) It seemed impossible, but was it? It was probably even impossible? Well, was it impossible or not? “We can’t conclusively say whether it’s real or not.” If you can’t say with certainty that it was real, then the most likely answer is: it was not real.

    I say that not only could the UFOs in the videos be faked, based on Michael Horn’s “evidence” posted here, he knows full well that the videos were faked. This has all been a big scam to get hits on a website, and we’ve all fallen for it.

    Yay.

    8)

  324. @Colin
    Having knowledge is OUR responsability not the aliens.
    3th options

    3) Your in denial
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

  325. Davidlpf

    The giverment is really good at covering up aliens and for some reason they let Meier and others tell about their encounters, why does the phrase “does not compute” come to mind. 21 attempts on his life and they still can’t kill him.

  326. Davidlpf

    Canadian Skeptic I like to add why all the probing once I can see, I guess they can’t be good at biology either.

  327. @SCS
    “If these inter-stellar species, who break all kinds of known laws of physics to get here, and have presumably evolved far past our puny, petty human civilization, why are they so crappy at flying their suspiciously-plate-shapped saucers? Why do they seem to crash all the friggin time…”

    Not the same alien (species)
    please why dont you go to http://www.disclosureproject.org
    or LOOK at the video
    you would have learn FROM a CIA agent that a least 57 species so far have visiting our planet. All different technologie

    If you learn about REAL evolution you would know that some species are BILLIONS years olders than our EXISTANCE. Our SOLAR SYSTEMS is VERY young compare to the our GALAXY and our GALAXY is VERY young compare to the Univers. You being taugh evolution by a Creationist school system.

  328. Davidlpf, “21 attempts on his life and they still can’t kill him.” Well, according to many of his followers, Meier is a prophet, the latest incarnation of Isaiah, Elijah, Jesus and Muhammad.

    I like my theory better, that the assassins used an assortment of various objects made of rubber, filled with air, and used for maximum comic effect (with lots of Boings and Squeeks).

  329. @SCS
    Do you realize you are still giggling and not looking at the evidences that YOU asked?

  330. Sylvain, your theory gets more and more complex with each challenge. Your theory is now a massive web with very sketchy evidence (most of which is testimonial).

    And you STILL haven’t answered why they seem to crash all the time. Why are they such lousy pilots?

    And no, I’ve never learned evolution in a creationist school system (note my nickname, it doesn’t say “Some Louisianan Skeptic”). I learned evolution from reading Darwin, and the 150 years of evolutionary biology that has come since him, perhaps you’ve heard of it?

  331. Sylvian, I’m not in the mood right now to watch any more of your silly 2-hour documentary that is packed with meaningless testimonials (the mention of the word ‘Nibiru’ really sets if off on the wrong foot). Maybe another time, perhaps, but I’m still asking you.

    Don’t defer. YOU answer for YOUR claims.

  332. Why people has car accident ALL the time. How many “car accident” will think we would have if when driving people was SHOOTING at you.

    There about 5 crash and only 1 of them was by accident (roswell)
    and if you go to http://www.disclosureproject.org you will know why that one crash

    You being learning a pseudo-science since your birth my young friend.
    When do you think evolution started? At the SAME time as WE did????

    Our galaxy has being full of intelligence species bnillions of years BEFORE our own solar system came to life. In case you don’t know our Sun is revolving around a black hole in the center of our galaxy. WE make so for ONLY 3 turn around it. There being stars WAY before that revolving also around it making a LOT more turns. You forgot 1 very important fact from Darwin it’s called “TIME”. Creationist teaching evolution never mention that since for them GOD has create ALL the Univers all AT THE SAME TIME (Poof!). So for them (and you) evolution started at the same time as us.
    Poor Darwin, how would he react see people like you destroying all that he try to teach you?

  333. Greg in Austin

    @Sylvain

    1) You said,“There is no free press. The Mass Media are under control by the Government!”

    Maybe not in your country, but in the US, there certainly is free press. Yes, we have national broadcasting stations, but we also have large corporate broadcasting companies that outnumber the 4 or so national ones by the hundreds. Not only that, we have what we call “local access” or “community access” channels, where anyone with the money (and it doesn’t take much) can transmit almost anything they want (as long as it doesn’t violate FCC rules on obscenity). In addition, we have print media available from large and small companies, as well as private individuals. Many large cities have multiple printed media that are not even censored for profanity, and they are free to print whatever they think their readers want. Finally, there’s this thing here called “the Internet” and pretty much anyone with a computer can blog about whatever they want (as long as its not certain types of porn) and its pretty much free. Oh, and I almost forgot radio. Anyone with a transmitter and a license can broadcast whatever they want over the airwaves, limited only by the cost of the equipment.

    2) To use fancy text like bold, italics or deleted text, you have to insert certain tags for formatting. Do an internet search for “html tags” and you will find more information on that than you can handle in a day or three.

    3) Thank you for “… just trying to help you, educated you, you being lied and mind wash since your birth.” However, since you do not know me, and certainly cannot have known me since my birth, you have no idea how I was educated, or if I was brain washed. Instead of trying to use scare tactics, why don’t you simply summarize for us what it is you think we don’t know, and exactly why you think we need to know it?

    Good luck!

    8)

  334. Greg in Austin

    Oh, and Sylvain… Where is your scientifically tested and peer reviewed EVIDENCE? EVIDENCE? EVIDENCE?

  335. I am canadian too and ALL our school system is infected by those creationist teaching their “evolution”, and that the reason why you can’t accept the truth about ETs life. You being taugh pseudo-science from them since you birth my young friends, please read DARWIN and not listen to those Creationist teach you about Darwin.

    Your ” evolution” doesnt make sense.
    I REALITY ETs life exist a least BILLIONS of years before our EXISTANCE and they have being travelling the univers since. The “cheap” saucers from ETS just as old as us.

  336. “When do you think evolution started? At the SAME time as WE did????”

    Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff?

    I’ll forward the same request to you: present your ONE best piece of evidence. Don’t forward us to your website where we can buy your wares, give us ONE piece, the BEST piece. Don’t scoff at us for not looking through the 3-foot stack of your crappy evidence and tell us we’re being dogmatic and ignorant.

    And another question: why are you even here? Why are you trolling this website, yelling at a bunch of people who you KNOW are active skeptics, calling us stupid, arrogant and cowardly, then in the next breath shrug your shoulders in confusion as to why we just won’t wake up and smell your coffee?

    Your evidence is really shoddy, which is why I think you (and Horn) keep falling back on testimonials.

    This sure is getting exhausting.

  337. @ Greg
    “why don’t you simply summarize for us what it is you think we don’t know, and exactly why you think we need to know it?”

    ……eh… Do you realize that this blog ASKED about EVIDENCES. People here are either giving them, getting them or giggling. Why are you here?

  338. Greg in Austin

    Some Canadian Skeptic said, “This sure is getting exhausting.”

    Indeed. But we have to continue the epic battle between the Reality-ists and the WooWoo-ites if we ever hope to survive! Eternal vigilance!
    ;)

  339. Greg in Austin

    @Sylvain

    A) You’re welcome.
    B) I’m here waiting for someone to provide actual physical evidence of the existence of alien life visiting our planet.
    C) If you don’t understand why myself, and many others here, are frustrated, simply go all the way to the top of this page and re-read what Phil said at the very beginning.

    I think its going to be a long wait.

    8)

  340. Thomas Siefert

    It’s gotten a bit “gun hoe-tze bee dio-se” in here. :-)

  341. @Some Canadian Skeptics
    I think you miss understand me (or more probably I misspoke)
    I DONT’T want you to watch the testimony since you ALREADY told me you don’t want to listen to them. (In fact the day someone try to convince me that ETs existed I was EXACTLY like you , not want to listening to testimony and want ONLY the hard evidences and this is what I AM trying to give you (I listened the testinomy after)

    I want you to take a pencil and paper and NOTES the Numbers of their radars sightings, call (well write) the FAA get these radars recordings yourself.
    Like I says if you don’t know how to read a radar recordings you can find in the yellow page courses or check google there are sites teaching that.

    If you had watch the MUFON link you would have see in the PDF that they put the FAA numbers and the Freedom of Information requests numbers of all they are saying about the Stevenville radar recordings

    So like that YOU can check BY YOURSELF. Just like I did a couple years ago.

    Exemple p 54 Freedom of information Act Request (DODR 5400.7)
    in the pdf it’s is there already but if you think it’s a fake write to the FIAR and ask for a copy of DODR 5400.7
    http://www.mufon.com/documents/MUFONStephenvilleRadarReport.pdf

    (I hope my english was better and my intention of why to go to the sites)

  342. Thomas Siefert: I may regret outing myself like this later on, but I really wish I understood what “gun hoe-tze bee dio-se” means. I bet its really funny, and I want in!

    (That was not sarcastic, just in case)

  343. Buzz Parsec

    I for one welcome our new alien cricket overlords.

  344. I only try to give the evidences YOU are asking. In cases you don’t know I’m NOT talking to you about testinonies since you (and phil) already says you don’t want those. So I’m talking about a scientific instruments from the FAA itself. It’s called a RADAR.

    Here lets take the Phil Tornado
    would you like to have?
    1) someone telling you about that tornado exist.
    2) a picture of a tornado
    3) Multiple Thermals Radar VIDEO imaging of a tornado from different sources confirming each others.

    Same for UFOs
    1) someone telling you about that UFOs exist.
    2) a picture of a UFO
    3) Radars recording of a UFOs from both multiple ground radars and airbone radar (in a plane) confirming each others that the UFOs is there. Telling you the size, velocity, speed, acceleration, deceleration, where is come from (space) and where it goes back (space)

  345. StevoR

    Thomas Siefert said July 31st, 2008 at 10:56 am :

    “@StevoR: No as far as I know, there’s no link between me and Carl Keenan Seyfert, but I have from a reliable source that the name invokes the same association for BA.

    I took my wife’s name when we got married, so any connections with Siefert of any spelling would be on her side. I had a very common Danish surname before I got married that didn’t turn cool until the Matrix was released.

    My wife raises eyebrows in her proffession because our name invokes associations to the architect Seifert.”

    Thanks! :-)

    Seyfert – yes that’s the name of the galaxy type I was thinking of. Cheers!

  346. robin

    Some Canadian Skeptic:

    In 1976, in Tucson, AZ, at about 10:00 pm, a triangular object the size of parking lot slowly floated over my head without making a sound. That same year, I watched what I thought was a shooting star fly very fast across the night sky, stop, and then move at a right angle into a vastly larger “star.”

    Explain what I saw to me. Please. Give me a rational explanation for how I could see objects moving in a way that defies our current understanding of physics. I guess it’s just easier to dismiss me as misinformed or delusional or assume that I’m lying, because if you had to take anything I’ve said seriously, well where would that leave you?. The point is that seeing is believing. No matter what evidence is presented, you will continue to assert that there is no evidence.

  347. Oh I see whats going on everytime I put a link the text goes to waiting mode. So you dont see the evidences I try to give you and explanation with it

  348. Hot topic. I actually just started my own debunk series about a list of “Abduction Symptoms” I came across whilst crawling the tubes. My first post went up not too long ago, and it’s part of a five part series on the subject since I have soooooo much to say about it.

    Despite my years of asking for good evidence of UfO’s and Abductee stories, I’ve never gotten anything more than anecdotal tales, fuzzy pictures, and shaky videos.

  349. @River
    How many radar recordings did you analyse?

  350. kuhnigget

    @Davidlpf

    The aliens are into anal probing because they are secretly trying to coax Yahweh into destroying the earth because of all the sodomy going on.

    BTW, to Mr. Horn. Me and my friends used to make super-8 movies when we were kids. Several featured “flying saucers” buzzing my house. Looked about as real as Herr Meier’s pictures. Which is to say, not very. I guess I should have become a special effects expert in Hollywood.

  351. @ kuhnigget
    How old are you? Tell me if someone else was acting childishly like you do on this subject on any other ones what would you think about that person?
    Can we have a children section?
    there adults asking for evidences, adults who give them and annoying mentally age children making joke and try to prevent the mature educational aspect of this blog.

  352. Colin

    @Sylvain: “Do you realize that this blog ASKED about EVIDENCES. People here are either giving them, getting them or giggling. Why are you here?”

    Let’s have a poll. Put me down for giggling. Sylvain, too, I more than suspect. Let’s face it, you don’t fit under either of your other categories.

    “mature educational aspect of this blog” ROFL!!!

  353. baryogenesis

    I suspect Sylvain is a Raelian. As for the earlier discussion about the ” Gov’t being good at hiding secret tech”…. attitudes have changed over the decades, to be honest, here. Not to support any conspiracy theory, but the public and workers did cooperate with the Gov’t's requests for secrecy during wartime . As an extension , similarly during the cold war era, esp immediately following WW II and thru the Korean conflict and McCarthyism. Attitudes are different now. But, if some gov’t was sitting on advanced alien technology…well it’s all too silly to even waste words….

  354. baryogenesis

    Oh, and I don’t know if anyone has posted this yet, but here’s the latest link to Swift on the this topic from Randi: http://www.randi.org/joom/content/view/206/27/

  355. Harold McTestes

    It’s official. I’m drunker than Cooter Brown right now and this blog is NOT helping with the spins. Eleventeen hundred posts later and still NO evidence… this is utterly retarded. I’m outty.

  356. Daniel

    @ Sylvain
    With all due respect, If IF there were aliens, Our population would not become “One”. After just one day on our planet those aliens would make tracks so fast past Pluto and we would never see them again (maybe THATS why they didn’t search for their friends in Roswell)

  357. ND

    In the Meier video, it’s not clear that the “ufo” is flaying around the tree. The saucer prop could be in the foreground, with a distant tree in the line of sight.

  358. defectiverobot

    Wow, considering the amount of comments in this thread, you’d think Phil had just done something to a cracker…

  359. defectiverobot

    Boy, with all the heated rhetoric in this thread, you’d think Phil had just done something to a cracker…

  360. Celtic_Evolution

    @ defectiverobot

    LOL… yeah… although that’s really not Phil’s style, I don’t think.

    But it really is funny how the thought processes and reasonings run parallel, isn’t it?

  361. kuhnigget

    @sylvain:

    Actually, your question about age is meaningless. I am a pan-dimensional being who transcends space and time.

    Prove me wrong! I am an expert in pan-dimensionality and have studied the subject much more than you! What’s that? You’ve never heard of me or my transcendence? That is because the “evidences” for my existence have been deliberately hidden for centuries! The very fact you have not seen them proves this! But if you believe in me, sylvain, if you truly believe…all becomes clear.

  362. StevoR

    Meeee Said on July 31st, 2008 at 8:29 pm :

    “@CE … Everything else aside, it’s 3:30am here and my brain no make good thinks any more.’

    Hmm. I can relate to that so, so well. ;-)

    So … many, m-a-n-y, po-ossts .. *Sigh *

    So little evidence.

    Raelians would know about brainwashing I guess – like that Hale-Bopp aliens sucicide cult they practice it.

    Sylvain get yourself some help. If your really serious you really need to think some more & get yourself some help. Not from a cult memember either.

    One other nail in Mike Horn’s coffin here (not that its needed, its more nails than wood!) ;-) Meirs aliens come from the Plieades!? You know M45, “the seven sisters”, that cluster of young, massive, short-lived unlikely to have exoplanets stars!?

    Which one of the 100 plus stars in the Plieades (6-7 visible with unaidedeyesight alone) are they from in particular Mike? Alycone? Maia? Taygete? Atlas? Pleione the shell star? It sounds blatantly dumb on that astronomical howler alone .. *Sigh*

    Could you get a less likely place to have aliens from – I suppose Venus and Io were already taken? ;-)

    (BTW. An earlier about as convincing UFO-cultist indeed had aliens coming from Venus back in the 1950′s – in one of Patrick Moore’s books if I recall right… Funny how they never come from there or Mars now annit! ;-) )

    I didn’t even his website & I still feel I’ve wasted my time.

  363. @ Jose
    I have a scientific degree although not in the field that would make me an expert on this topic. I’m just stating that mainstream science does not take the topic at hand seriously enough. At least not publicly.
    I know that nothing is ever right or wrong; it’s just our best understanding of the truth.

    I watch shows on the history channel and discovery channel where these great minded people presume that ET would never be able to come here because of the distance. They say things like they would never be able to come down to Earth because our bacteria would kill them. This is an assumption. The human race is already on track to build things like Nanobots that are going to revolutionise medical science. If we already can imagine this then why is it so hard to believe that an ET race could have it already. Therefore bacteria wouldn’t be an issue, nor could the distance if anything Eistein predicted about wormholes turns out to be true.

    Look at some of the fundamental questions raised by Tom van Fladern @ metaresearch.org. He proposes some really interesting ideas that mainstream science does not accept or is willing to consider.

    My point is mainstream science will always assume even though they are trained not to. To be objective. The bias is so apparent and it makes me a little sick because I think science has taken a wrong turn somewhere. I think we should all go back to basics really!

    We all need to put aside our belief systems including our scientific belief systems. What you and I know is WRONG, its just part of the truth. We humans think we so smart yet we cannot even have a conversation with our pets.

  364. StevoR

    Hmm. Just thought of an answer for my own question – Eta Carinae or the Pistol Star! ;-)

    Yep, we’re the Eta-Carinans; highly advanced aliens with surprisingly only useless platitudes to give you coming from a planet around a 100 or so solar mass, ultra-short-lived blue hypergiant star that’s about to go supernovae any night now! ;-)

    Well, I reckon its better than Meier’s & Horn’s effort! ;-)

    A couple of names for curious skeptics to note / wiki :

    George Adamski who was the one with Venusian flying saucers

    The Aetherius Society (oddball cult of “dr King”) &

    Immanuel Velikovsky who claimed Venus was a comet ejected by Jupiter. (Are there any Velikovskites still here? Will this bring them out of the woodwork? Hmm ..enough other woos to get one more .. Surely no one now believes Adamaski – but then again .. ;-)

    All curious case studies similar to other “flying crocks” (to parapharase and yoik a line) from Patrick Moore’s non-fiction debunking book “Can you Speak Venusian” (Wyndham Publications, Star book, 1976.)I’d highly recommend it if you can find a copy somewhere. Its a good reference for all skeptics and a very amusing read to boot. One of Phil Plait’s precursors really .. ;-)

    Incidentally, Carl Sagan also covered Velikovskly in “Brocas brain’ … Advice to UFO-ists you may do well to read these too! :-)

    —–
    I’m going to stop procrastinating – tomorrow! ;-)

  365. Greg in Austin

    @ shaun

    “I know that nothing is ever right or wrong; it’s just our best understanding of the truth.”

    Um… wha? Your logic fails.
    2+2=5
    The Earth is flat
    The moon is made of green cheese.
    These statements are all WRONG! Wrong in this case means untrue, false, not correct. I think you paid too much for your science degree.

    The History Channel and the Discovery Channel are poor examples of actual scientific information. Occasionally they get something right, but they are simply there for entertainment and to make money.

    Science is not a belief system. If you really think so, you have not taken the time to learn how science actually works. Perhaps you yourself need to go back to the basics. Here’s a good place to start:
    http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/project_scientific_method.shtml

    Now, to the topic at hand, what was your point?

    8)

  366. Greg in Austin

    Sorry for the italics. I try really hard to double-triple-check my posts, but I still can’t get it right all the time. ;)

  367. JokeR

    Davidlpf :

    “@ Tod, no there were no Zealots at the old site, no none at all.
    (I managed to type that with straight face)”

    I’m not surprised the Zealots have been extinct for millennia. They were a political messianic Jewish sect that existed about the time of Christ died out and perished with the crushing of the Jewish Revolt by the Romans in 70 AD. ;-)

    Oh, you mean zealous er .. eccentric, rant-loving, logic-deprived
    individuals .. Hang on, isn’t that almost everyone online?! ;-)

  368. potterbro

    Robin: “So, tell me, oh wise scientifically minded people, if you found yourself in my position, what would you do?”

    Well, considering the exact wording of how you felt about what you saw… “I’ve seen something extraordinary that defies explanation, twice”… I would say that I saw something that i couldn’t explain and then wish I could find better evidence for what I saw. I might try and check FAA records or radar or look to see if others saw it too… but these only tend to justify that I saw something but don’t bring me much closer to figuring out what it was that i saw (unless the FAA or government confirms that it was helicopters in formation or something). Then I would continue with my life and hope that better evidence comes along before I jumped to any conclusions as to what it was.

    As a scientifically minded person, this is what I would do. Doesn’t it sound far more reasonable than saying unexplained == aliens?

  369. Alien monitoring this thread

    Jose said at July 31st, 2008 at 8:23 pm :

    “In case there are any aliens monitoring this thread, I will restate what I said earlier. I would like to ride on your space ship. Although, I’m not looking forward to it, I will accept good probing as a trade off, provided no eggs or anything of that nature are implanted in me, and proper lubrication is used. We can work out a more formal contract when the time comes. I’m going to try and sleep now. I hope to see you soon. Sincerely,Jose

    Okay sure, we’ll come tonight.

    We just have a few cows we’ve got to pick up first – hope you don’t mind sharing the saucer with them; afraid it does whiff a bit especially after the cattle have been probed! ;-)

    Strange, we’re still trying to work out how such odd & seemingly defenceless
    creatures as bovinus domesticus manage survive in the wild! What itheir secret? Can you help us with that great cosmic mystery? (Nothing else about Earth really interests us as much.) ;-)

    ——–

    PS. Nah, just kidding. I’m afraid we’re set on picking up a few drunken rednecks instead before heading back to Sanduleak -69 202 & our cargo hold is just too full already!

    PPS Bet you were waiting for someone to post something like this eh? ;-)

  370. Alien monitoring this thread

    Greg in Austin :


    “2+2=5
    The Earth is flat
    The moon is made of green cheese.
    These statements are all WRONG!”

    Not necesarily.

    2 + 2 = 5 when two couples one including a preganant woman (& I hope a Doc or midwife!) go into a maternity hospital lift – then the lift door gets stuck and the pregnant lady goes into (& out of!) labour there having her baby in that lift so that five people come out .. ;-)

    The Earth is flat when we’re looking at a prarire or grassland or an area of ground that needs to be prepared to make a road. ;-)

    The moon is made of green cheese when its the moon in a child’s school project where a moon and spoon are also jumping the moon. Macrame is it? Diorama? Or in a poem ..
    Or in the future when nano-bots have been programmed to transform the Moon into a really good pepper a & brie cheese! ;-)

    So it all depends on context see!

    (Playing devils advocate for the sheer hell of it. Sorry couldn’t resist! ;-) )

  371. Carl

    Phil, I am an armchair observer and the only UFO knowledge I have is from publicly available knowledge over the last 50 or 60 years or so. But I can make a couple of contributions.

    First, about generally used UFO terminology:

    The word “DEBUNKER” is usually misued by the UFO interested community. You are abolutely correct: A “debunker” is (or should be) used to describe someone who proves a claim to be untrue. Given the high occurence of fraudulent and misidentified reports, this is a very valuable function, assuming that the “debunker” is also being honest and scientific.

    Another word should be added to the UFO lexicon: “DENIER” This is someone who denies everthing regardless of whether it has validity or not. No evidence is good enough to convince a “denier.” YOU, sir, are a “DENIER.”

    Now, about “evidence:”

    You cavalierly dismiss all eyewitness reports and all UFO evidence as not actual evidence. Granted, the evidence publicly available, at least to me, does not prove what these objects or phenomena are. But there are certainly volumes of credible, scientifically acceptable evidence that they exist. If you don’t or can’t accept that as scientifically proven, you are a “denier.”

    It is also quite proven that agencies of our United States government keep their knowledge of UFOs a highly guarded secret; that they cover up their knowledge and interest in the subject; and in fact often go to great lengths, including lying and intimidation of witnesses, to keep UFO knowledge from the public. This is not just history from 50 or 60 years ago; this is ongoing to this day.

    The issue continues . . .

  372. StevoR

    I said :

    Meiers aliens come from the Plieades!? You know M45, “the seven sisters”, that cluster of young, massive, short-lived, unlikely to have exoplanets stars!?

    But one small correction : these stars may have young exoplanets that are just forming but such worlds are NOT likely to be inhabited by aliens. Certainly not as their homes. Too many meteors & meteorites and in many cases still red-hot, even liquid surfaces frequently and very much unfinished solar (stellar?) systems.

    In any case the bright stars in the Plieades are very much the wrong sort of star for life – too much UV and too short in stellar lifespan. Mybasic pointremains unchanged just that particular aspect slightly altered. Exoplanets? Well they’re possibly forming .. & they may have ‘em briefly but they won’t make good homes. Not yet and esp. not around the brighter stars. ;-)

    PS. Is this the longest thread here ever?

  373. ND

    Shaun,

    “We humans think we so smart yet we cannot even have a conversation with our pets.”

    Well there is that dog whisperer show :) Seriously tho, how is communicating with our pets a requirement for being smart? We do actually communicate with some of the other species at some level or another, no?

    These general statements of possibilities are often the defense alien-ufo proponents fall back on. Skepticism is often in the face of specific claims of alien visitations like our friend Horn is promoting and not speculation of interstellar travel. I bet there is quite a bit of speculation of such things in the scientific community than those cable shows have led you to believe.

    I have not checked out metaresearch.org but keep in mind that there are a lot of crazy ideas out there that make sense if presented right and taken at face value.

  374. Celtic_Evolution

    Shaun

    We humans think we so smart yet we cannot even have a conversation with our pets.

    Ummm… do your pets carry on conversations with each other? If not, how can you expect them to carry on conversations with humans… or any other species for that matter.

  375. Greg
    My point is it’s obvious that mainstream science selectively chooses what it wants to believe and disregard the rest. Even though there is overwhelming evidence on the contrary. If it doesn’t fit the accepted model then it is ousted as a possibility. Examples, the big bang theory (flawed), faster than light travel is impossible (flawed, what of gravity?), an expanding universe (flawed). All these are accepted by mainstream science when the evidence is not present or limited and a mounting body of alternatives (with evidence) are overlooked.

    I think you don’t understand soft systems at all if you don’t understand the logic of my phrase. You are Naive if you think everything you know is the absolute truth. Science is all about getting to a better understanding of the truth. Nothing should ever be accepted as the absolute truth because eventually someone will prove it wrong (inaccurate) and a better definition of the truth will be revealed. That is what is meant by my phrase “I know that nothing is ever right or wrong; it’s just our best understanding of the truth.” so therefore the earth used to be flat (as this was our best understanding at the time and was accepted as the truth! that is fact!) Then it was shown otherwise so it then became wrong. Do you get it now?? Or do you want to try adding 2+2 again and still getting it wrong.

    I’m sceptical about the whole ET visitation topic. I am highly sceptical about “alien abduction”. Yet look at the evidence that is mounting on the subject. It cannot be ignored and you cannot just explain it away as natural phenomena. We cannot just presume it not to be possible as we don’t know what is or isn’t possible with our current understanding of the universe. I think when credible people are saying these things are real we should listen! Try to get to the truth.

  376. kuhnigget

    ” If it doesn’t fit the accepted model then it is ousted as a possibility. Examples, the big bang theory (flawed), faster than light travel is impossible (flawed, what of gravity?), ”

    Wait for it….!

  377. Celtic_Evolution

    My point is it’s obvious that mainstream science selectively chooses what it wants to believe and disregard the rest. Even though there is overwhelming evidence on the contrary. If it doesn’t fit the accepted model then it is ousted as a possibility.

    Huh? That is pure invention on your part. Let’s take your examples…

    Examples, the big bang theory (flawed),

    Again… huh? What do you mean by “flawed”? It’s certainly not a final answer, but that’s not how science operates. It’s a theory… one that is supported pretty widely throughout the scientific community. It is tested, revised, and scrutinized regularly, but it holds up pretty well. Gravity is a theory as well… so give me your prefessional opinion as to how one theory is more “flawed” than the other, please.

    faster than light travel is impossible (flawed, what of gravity?)

    Who said this? This isn’t even a theory… and it’s incorrect. And it needs qualification. Faster than light travel on a quantum level? At a human body size level? These distinctions matter…

    an expanding universe (flawed)

    Yeah… ok… but that debate has been going on for years, and I think your follow up statement…

    All these are accepted by mainstream science when the evidence is not present or limited and a mounting body of alternatives (with evidence) are overlooked.

    …is pure bunk. According to whom? You? If you even only read this blog you’ll know this isn’t a factual statement. The three “theories” you quoted above are under constant scientific scrutiny, and are regularly reviewed and updated. I think your problem may be how you are defining “mainstream science”… so please define it for me, so I can better understand where your coming from, because none of your claims matches up with the “mainstream science” I’m familiar with.

    You are Naive if you think everything you know is the absolute truth.

    And you are not paying attention if you think any of us here think that.

    Nothing should ever be accepted as the absolute truth because eventually someone will prove it wrong (inaccurate) and a better definition of the truth will be revealed.

    Beware of sweeping, all encompassing statements of absolute fact… someone might correct it… for example, quoting Greg in Austin above: 2+2=/=5… please prove it wrong or reveal what possible better definition of this there could be.

    so therefore the earth used to be flat (as this was our best understanding at the time and was accepted as the truth! that is fact!) Then it was shown otherwise so it then became wrong.

    Umm… no it didn’t. It was alwayswrong. Nobody ever made claims of the earth being flat as a result of scientific calculations based on observation… you need to ask yourself why it was that a large section of the population (although not everyone) believed it was flat in the first place… Hint: it had nothing to do with science. Do you understand the flaw in your logic here?

    Yet look at the evidence that is mounting on the subject. It cannot be ignored and you cannot just explain it away as natural phenomena.

    We’re not claiming it should be ignored. Nor are we claiming to explain it all away as “natural phenomena”. We’ve just seen no evidence that it’s NOT. So why is it always the default position of the credulous UFO believer that if it can’t be explained away naturally, right away, then it must be ET. This jump in logic is where we draw the line.

    We cannot just presume it not to be possible as we don’t know what is or isn’t possible with our current understanding of the universe.

    No-one has said it’s not possible. Just not likely based on what we know, and given that such a claim would be extraordinary based on what we know, I think real, testable evidence is a fair minimum requirement to “ET visitiation” to have any credibility as an explanation. And as has been said many times before… If we were to get some, that would be freakin’ awesome.

    I think when credible people are saying these things are real we should listen! Try to get to the truth.

    Agreed… and I see no evidence here that we are not doing just that.

  378. ND

    shaun,

    “It cannot be ignored and you cannot just explain it away as natural phenomena.”
    This is the crux of the “proof” of alien visitations. You’re asserting that our understanding of the universe is incomplete and even flawed, yet you’re using this incomplete knowledge to eliminate any possibility of a natural phenomenon behind the events. You’re making a very basic error in thinking that just because we cannot immediately come up with a natural cause, that there really isn’t one.

    In your last post you sound very conflicted about a ET visitations. Or you’re being disingenuous. Note that this does not exclude the possibility that you’re trolling, a very real and natural phenomenon on the Internet. Tons of documentation and evidence on that one.

    Oh wait, hang on. Can you elaborate on this more?
    “faster than light travel is impossible (flawed, what of gravity?)”

  379. ND
    The dog whisperer is brialliant but he doesn’t communicate with dogs he understands dog behaviour. He basically just dominates them. the leader of the pack. We all see animals communicating yet with our superior intelligence we cannot work out their language. It is probably not the best example but I’m just making the point we should get off our high horse.

    I’m not trying to defend UFO as being ET. I just want us all to agree something is going on and that we need to get to the truth. I really wish we could all stop arguing and put pressure on governments to come clean. As all I see is devide and rule. devide the sceptics from the believers and rule the truth.

  380. kuhnigget

    Turning off my built-in snark-o-tron for a moment, one thing that always amazes me about the UFOlogists is how much of their mythology, er, science is composed of pop culture iconography.

    To wit, the whole “government conspiracy” thing, including the infamous men in black and their super secret operations.

    The majority of this, including the MIB, came from pop culture. “Flying Saucers Are Real” by Donald Keyhoe was a work of fiction published in 1950. It is the source of many tropes still around today. Keyhoe was smart enough to realize that he’d make more money if he repackaged his fiction as “fact,” which is exactly how his subsequent books were marketed.

    Likewise, all these wonderful videos of aliens peeking in people’s windows and getting autopsied. Why do they all look like covers from science fiction magazines of the 1940s and 1950s, or monsters from B-movies made in the same era?

    Now one of the latest tropes I’ve been seeing is this whole idiocy that labels cirrus clouds as pan-dimensional beings zipping around the stratosphere. Okay. Cool. But it’s a rip-off from science fiction books written in the 1980s!

    I mean, come on, guys. At least be original with your silliness!

  381. Guys, I don’t have the proof you want. some of the examples I used you can get alternative theories from metaresearch.org which explain problems with eg the big bang/faster than light travel.

    I’m just thinking about all these revelations that some credible people are asserting. I refer to the latest revelations from Dr Mitchell and all those witnesses from the disclosure project. Why are these people saying these incredible things and risking everything (the families risk included). I just makes me angry that whenever the subject is being discussed it seems to be another opportunity to bash these people and make a joke of them.

    I know that does not constitute evidence that what they say is true but surely it indicates that something big is going on?? (not evidence of it but indicates it…).

  382. RAF

    Shaun, you seem to have a very “skewed” view of what mainstream science actually “is”. It is most certainly NOT about “belief”, it is about evidence…When will the BA’s request for evidence be answered??

  383. RAF

    [i]I refer to the latest revelations from Dr. Mitchell, and all those witnesses from the disclosure project.[/i]

    Talk is cheap…where is the evidence for alien visitation??

  384. Carlhcarl

    (To avoid confusion with someone else with the same name, I’ll post as “carlhcarl” instead of just “carl.”)

    Here are some of my favorite known incidents that have plenty of evidence and that defy conventional explanation:

    The so-called “Battle of Los Angeles” in February 1942: Thousands of eyewitnesses, over 1,400 anti-aircraft shots fired, a huge, glowing, low flying, slow moving object, apparently unaffected by the anti-aircraft barrage, front page newspaper photo the next day, and absolutely no known or possible explanation then or now.

    Japan Air Lines 747 over Alaska, November 1986: The crew reported being surrounded by several gigantic flying objects, one “the size of an aircraft carrier,” and FAA radar confirmed the presence of the objects.

    The 1989-1990 Belgium “wave:” Unlike the United States government, the Belgian government made public the UFO reports that began in November 1989. Thousands of witnesses, including military and civilian pilots, air traffic controllers, police, and ordinary citizens reported seeing triangular shpaed objects that defy conventional explanation.

    The January 2000 glowing object “as big as a 2 story house” moving slowly over southern Illinois: Reported by a trucker, witnessed and reported by police patrol officers in 4 different towns. One officer took a Polaroid photo of the object.

    No evidence? Look ‘em up. There are a lot more . . .

  385. ND

    shaun,

    You’re overly generalizing scientists and skeptics here. If you ignore the heated words (there has been plenty of insults and bashing from the like of Horn and others), you will see very clear reasons for not taking people simply at their word, no matter how credible they appear. These reasons have been stated repeatedly yet they have not sunk in. I don’t know what else to say.

  386. kuhnigget

    “I know that does not constitute evidence that what they say is true but surely it indicates that something big is going on?? (not evidence of it but indicates it…).”

    And that can’t be an indication of common human psychological traits? Why does “something going on” always lead you to the most complicated and improbable solution, aka alien visitation?

  387. Celtic_Evolution

    Shaun

    Please look up “Occam’s Razor”…

  388. Alright. I won’t generalise and further. Let’s try stick with the request for proof . I have four of you bashing me.

    Please explain why this study by the French is not proof that the UFO phenomena is real?

    Link:http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1626.htm
    Assessment of the UFO phenomenon by GEPAN (1978)
    Claude Poher, GEPAN Report to the Scientific Committee, June, 1978
    Positive conclusions from the GEPAN Report to the Scientific Committee, June, 1978: “In 60% of the cases reported here, the description of this phenomenon is apparently one of a flying machine whose origin, modes of lifting and/or propulsion are totally outside our knowledge.”

  389. Jose

    @Shaun
    I have a scientific degree although not in the field that would make me an expert on this topic. I’m just stating that mainstream science does not take the topic at hand seriously enough.

    I don’t have any degree, let alone a scientific degree. But when someone brings me something written in crayon, and they tell me it’s the Magna Carta, my eyebrows go up.

  390. Jose

    @Shaun
    Why are these people saying these incredible things and risking everything (the families risk included).

    They’re not risking everything. They get off on playing the part of the maverick rebel. Sure, they’re laughed at by some people, but to many others, they’re heroes.

  391. Jose

    I hope I didn’t just cause another italics meltdown.

  392. Jose, since I have now provided some evidence of a scientific study that concluded UFO are a real phenomena. Instead of continuing bashing me, why not explain why the French scientists are mistaken? Or are you now trolling the blog?

  393. Todd W.

    I’ve noticed between the last couple threads on UFOs and this one, that people in or supportive of the UFO community have some basic misconceptions:

    1) I cannot be mistaken about what I saw. It was real, and my memory is correct.
    2) If I can’t explain what it was, and some of the people I talk to can’t explain what it was, then it was not something natural (or alternatively, then it must be alien).
    3) If someone doesn’t believe me 100%, they are stupid and don’t know what they’re talking about.
    4) If someone doesn’t believe me 100%, they are saying that it must be something natural and that it cannot possibly be aliens.
    5) Implausible is the same as impossible.

    Addressing these in order:
    1) Human perception and memory are woefully flawed things. We often see or remember things that either did not happen, or happened differently. We trick ourselves, fill in gaps, miss small yet important details, alter our memories as time passes, etc. The last thread about Ed Mitchell had a nice post regarding psychology, memory and perception.
    2) This is the “arguing from ignorance” logical fallacy. There is a strong urge to make sense of what is going on around us. The unknown is, admittedly, scary at times. There are times that we can’t make out what something is, because we just don’t have the experience or training necessary (or, see #1), but we do our best to make sense of it. If we can’t, and those whose opinions we trust can’t either, there is a tendency to explain it as something outside the realm of the real world we know. Rather than leaving something as just “unknown”, particularly where it has had a profound emotional effect on us, we try our best to explain it in some fashion, often leading to erroneous or unsupported conclusions (e.g., it must be alien, it must be natural, it must be God, etc.). Most of the time, I’d wager, we don’t even know that we’re doing this. We get blinded to our own bias and mistaken assumptions, believers and skeptics alike. However, I would say that skeptics tend to examine their own beliefs and conclusions a bit more closely than non-skeptics. Not always the case, but I think the is a tendency there.
    3) Sometimes, when people become so absolutely certain of their conclusions, they tend to puff up and get a little self-righteous. When this happens, it is very easy to ignore what someone else is saying and simply dismiss them as stupid. They shut down any rational evaluation of others’ alternate arguments, perhaps even to the point that they argue even when what others are saying agrees with their position. An “Us vs. Them” mentality sets in.
    4) We tend to see in others qualities of ourselves. Someone that has a tendency to jump to a sweeping conclusion (e.g., it cannot possible be natural; it must be alien; etc.) is likely to transfer this view onto those who disagree with them. The majority of skeptics, as demonstrated by most of the posts in this and other threads, will not say that something was definitely, 100%, without a doubt, natural unless there is abundant evidence to reach that conclusion. Likewise, skeptics will not say that it is without a doubt, definitely not an alien, unless, again, the evidence supports such a conclusion. In fact, the majority of posts by skeptics in this thread do not say “it is absolutely impossible for aliens to be on Earth”. Instead, they point out that it is unlikely. Which brings me to my final point.
    5) So often, it seems, when a skeptic says that such and such explanation is unlikely or not plausible, it seems that believers interpret this to mean “impossible”. Please note that there is, actually, a difference between the “implausible” and “impossible” besides just the spelling. Impossible means 0% chance. Nada. Zilch. By contrast, implausible implies that there is still a chance, although it is rather low. When we say that it is unlikely that aliens are here, or that the chance of some UFO encounter having an alien or non-natural explanation is rather slim, we’re not saying that it’s impossible. There is a chance, yes. But, unless there is really good evidence to support it, we’ll say that there are other, more likely explanations.

    I think it behoove those on both sides of the discussion to keep these thoughts in mind, and to evaluate your own behavior and arguments to see if any of these flaws are popping up.

  394. Todd W.

    @shaun

    The quote that you provided:

    In 60% of the cases reported here, the description of this phenomenon is apparently one of a flying machine whose origin, modes of lifting and/or propulsion are totally outside our knowledge.

    does not conclude that what is reported is definitely an alien UFO. Note the word “apparently”. Also, they’re talking about descriptions that have been reported of the objects seen, rather than the objects themselves.

    I will add a caveat that this is just an initial reaction to the quote you provided, not the entire report.

  395. Yojimbo

    @Shaun

    Okay, I’ll bite. I followed your link and poked around for a while. I see a summary of the GEPAN report, and some information on their methodology. The link to the original document is dead. I did not follow the French links since about the only French words I know are “fries”, “kiss”, and “letter”. I did not see anything on this site that would remotely pass for evidence.

    All I can see is that a French organization I know nothing about, composed of Dr. Claude Poher, Ph.D, and other people who are not named whose qualifications not mentioned, concluded back in 1978 that, based on unspecified evidence, some UFO’s are probably alien craft. I don’t doubt they came to this conclusion, but it doesn’t help this discussion, where people are asking for evidence.

    What you have presented is evidence that some people believe there is evidence – which we already knew was true, and doesn’t count for much. This is just another appeal to authority.

  396. Jose

    Jose, since I have now provided some evidence of a scientific study that concluded UFO are a real phenomena. Instead of continuing bashing me, why not explain why the French scientists are mistaken? Or are you now trolling the blog?

    Because your “evidence” is still written in crayon.

  397. I agree with everything you have said Todd.

    Just to reinterate. I did not say UFOs are of ET origin. In fact I stated that I am still sceptical. I too need the proof before I will believe it is of ET origin.

    I do think the phenomena is REAl though! This blog requests proof yet it is unlikely, actually impossible that anyone will ever be able to provide this in this forum to the satisfaction of the sceptics. I mean how can anyone prove it in words on a blog? photos/video none of this is enough. we all want to see/touch and study it physically before it will truely constitute proof.

    I go with what Sam said near the begging of this blog and that be the end of my contribution to this subject.
    Ref – Sam Says: July 31st, 2008 at 12:47 am

    Cheers all have a good weekend.

  398. Greg in Austin

    @shaun

    We are not bashing you, we are simply questioning your facts (when you give them.)

    “Please explain why this study by the French is not proof that the UFO phenomena is real?
    Link:http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1626.htm

    I checked this link. While it does sound interesting, it fails the basic requirements that Phil and everyone else here have asked for:

    1. It is lacking any physical evidence
    2. It is entirely based on witness observations
    3. It clearly says that 60% of the witnesses observed something outside of their knowledge, but it does not say what the other 40% say they saw. If the other 40% say it was a plane or a balloon or anything man-made, then 60% of the witnesses are wrong!
    4. The link to the “original source” at the top of the page goes to “The page cannot be found” error 404, so there is no way to verify the authenticity of the source.
    5. It is not up to us to prove it wrong. It is up to you to prove it right!

    Let’s try to help you think better. Say a woman walks up to you holding an apple, and she tells you it is a banana. Do you believe her? What if she tells you she has a Masters Degree in Agriculture, and she promises that this is a banana. Then she tells you that she asked 10 other people, and they all agreed that it was a banana. Do you believe her now?

    Now let’s say you’ve never seen a banana. Do you believe her now? How could you possibly know for sure it is, or is not, a banana if you’ve never seen one? She is an expert in agriculture, and she has eye witness testimony backing her up. How can you be sure?

    You ask questions. Questions like, what color is it? What is its shape? Where did she get it? What area of the country or the world did it come from? Is it a plant? Did it come from a tree, or grow in the ground? What kind of tree was it? What did the tree look like? Does she have a book that says its a banana? Where did that book come from? Did she show her banana to 10 other people with Masters Degrees in Agriculture, and did they agree that it was a banana? Did she send her banana to a lab without telling them what she thought it was, and did they come to the same conclusion? Did anyone make a comparison of her banana with any other known bananas, and did they match? Does her banana actually match the characteristics of something different, like a grapefruit or an apple?

    See now why you cannot take expert witness testimony as actual evidence? Just because someone says its true, even if they are experts in their field, it still does not necessarily mean it is.

    If Phil Plait came to me and told me the apple in his hand was a banana, I’d say, “Phil, I think you’re a great guy, and you’re website rocks. But dude, I’m sorry, that’s not a banana.”

    8)

  399. kuhnigget

    @Shaun:

    I would love to actually SEE this evidence of yours, but as Yojimbo and Jose have suggested, you’re not really providing it, you’re only providing the conclusions of unknown others.

    Please refer upthread to Mr. Horn’s constant quoting of “expert” Hollywood special effects artists. I followed the link Mr. Horn provided and looked at the same footage as these “experts” and came up with a vastly different conclusion, namely, that the flying saucers the videos purportedly showed were in fact rather crudely put together models obviously suspended (swaying back and forth) from a wire. I did the same thing myself back when I was a kid making super 8 monster movies.

    I suspect, though obviously without the data I can’t state outright, that I would have a similar conclusion if I could see your “evidence.” Show it to me for real, and I’d be glad to analyze it.

    One other note regarding this particular report of yours. I can’t help but notice that Dr. Poher is the same guy who claims to have built a “UFO engine.” A quote from the good le docteur:

    “It all comes down to standard physics. An electromagnetic field can create a low pressure area under an aerodyne, or flying saucer. To this can be related the peculiar property of plasma. Plasma’s magnetic field is frozen inside while it expands at unimaginable speeds, producing an electrical current. Using plasma, a belt of ‘free air’ can be created. The molecules of air in front of this belt are pushed aside without piling on top of each other, as they do when a normal aerofoil passes through the atmosphere fast enough to break the sound barrier.”

    Uh-yup!!

  400. Yojimbo

    @Shaun

    “I do think the phenomena is REAl though! This blog requests proof yet it is unlikely, actually impossible that anyone will ever be able to provide this in this forum to the satisfaction of the sceptics. I mean how can anyone prove it in words on a blog? photos/video none of this is enough. we all want to see/touch and study it physically before it will truely constitute proof.”

    I don’t recall anyone claiming the phenomena are not real. What is in question is whether an extraordinary explanation for them is required – that is the claim that needs the extraordinary evidence. And that extraordinary evidence doesn’t have to be all that spectacular. Unambiguous pictures or video would be really helpful – something that isn’t blurred to the point of uselessness or that looks faked, some physical artifact that isn’t lost or heresay.

    Having a ship land on the White House lawn during a press conference would be really useful, but I’d be satisfied with a lot less – just give me something where you don’t have to say “well, you had to be there…” :)

  401. robin

    potterbro :

    I never said I thought it was aliens, certainly not at the time. I assumed it was something the military was doing — except that it’s really hard to imagine how we could possibly be making something so huge without people commenting on the size of the assembly plant, or the thousands of people who would have to be working in it, not to mention a monster sized power source.

    Funny thing though, despite the fact that I didn’t go public with my experiences, many other people have reported seeing the same things all over the planet. Isn’t that too much of a coincidence, even for science? Simplest explanation has to be the right one, right?

  402. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Shaun -

    I appreciate your willingness to have this discussion… I know we can be sharp, but remember… we’ve heard this all before. I think Todd W. has tried to address you in a conversational tone… and I would like to think I’ve done the same… if I’ve come across too harsh, I’m sorry…

    There is only one final thing from your last post I’d like to address… and that is the following statement you make:

    This blog requests proof yet it is unlikely, actually impossible that anyone will ever be able to provide this in this forum to the satisfaction of the sceptics.

    This is abjectly false. Earlier in this thread, our good friend Michael Horn was trying to convince us of the encounters of Billy Meier. One of the “proofs” for Meier’s experiences was a sample of metal alloy that was supposedly of alien origin. I, and I’m guessing nearly everyone else here, would trip over themselves trying to get their hands on such evidence. It’s exactly the sort of thing that would give us reason to believe the UFO claims. It’s tangible, it’s testible, it can be confirmed inependantly, and can be displayed for all to see.

    Alas, like every other piece of evidence, it mysteriously disappeared, and thus our quest for real evidence must continue. So I must object to your position that we just will never be convinced. We certainly can be with the right evidence. And once again, nothing would geek me out more.

  403. Celtic_Evolution

    @ robin

    Simplest explanation has to be the right one, right?

    You’re almost there… now just follow that logic, understanding that ET / Alien visitation is not the simplest explanation… not by a long shot.

  404. RAF

    Shaun posted: I have four of you bashing me.

    Why do you characterize a request for evidence as “bashing”?

  405. Greg in Austin

    @ Robin

    “In 1976, in Tucson, AZ, at about 10:00 pm, a triangular object the size of parking lot slowly floated over my head without making a sound. That same year, I watched what I thought was a shooting star fly very fast across the night sky, stop, and then move at a right angle into a vastly larger “star.”

    Explain what I saw to me. Please.”

    You saw a hot air balloon coming down for a landing, or perhaps a weather balloon partially deflated such that it was no longer a typical shape.

    Then you saw a meteor (not an actual star) streak across the sky at an odd angle from your position, and then at the point at which it finally broke apart, it slowed down and suddenly dropped, appearing from the ground to go at a completely 90° angle, then burning out right about the vicinity of an actual star or bright planet.

    That’s my inexpert analysis of your observation, and is most likely the case, unless you have any further evidence of either event. Please, feel free to add more info.

    Remember that when we are standing on the ground, it is very difficult to perceive things in the air moving in 3 dimensions. Even though the cars and buildings and trees nearby are obviously not 2-dimensional, anything up in the sky more than a couple hundred feet becomes extremely difficult to measure without a frame of reference. Anyone with any experience sky watching can agree that our eyes are easily fooled.

    8)

  406. kuhnigget

    “Shaun posted: I have four of you bashing me.
    Why do you characterize a request for evidence as “bashing”?”

    [kuhnigget blushes and tries to hide his snark-o-tron.]

    Tho, in my own snarky defense, this is yet more common behavior, is it not? The UFOlogist presents his “proof,” said proof doesn’t go over, UFOlogist ignores contrary arguments, becomes a martyr and adopts “I tried but you wouldn’t listen” line, goes away claiming moral high ground in his own head.

  407. I’ve reached my own conclusion that about 4 or 5 of you are just monitoring this blog to debunk everything that is offered to you.

    As I stated, no amount of evidence will be sufficient. Due to the extraordinary nature of the topic. I’m sure that if ET landed on your lawn and shook your hand you would suspect you had been drugged or there would be some other rational explanation.
    Obviously no amount of observation by witnesses, credible or not is going to convince you otherwise.
    I mean the premise of an expanding universe theory hinges on the observation of galaxies that have a red shift glow to them… This somehow draws the conclusion that the universe is expanding theory.
    I mean come on. We accept observations and derive theories. We see pictures and video of these things and theorise they are ET. What is wrong with this theory until proven otherwise? We for the most part go along with the theories of the big bang and an expanding universe on less observational evidence…

    If UFOs are of ET origin could the government keep it secret? I think they could if it was classified top secret and only a few people knew.
    Didn’t the government keep the stealth fighters secret for 20 years before it crashed and the secret was out? I’m sure a lot more people where prive to those secrets that then there are to UFO secrets. I mean we are speaking about the single most earth shattering conclusions here, that UFOs could be of ET origin.

    What happened to all the physical debris that was collected at Roswell?
    What happened that night in LA when the military was attempting to shoot down UFOs?
    What happened with the Phoenix lights event? was that not observed by thousands? Where are the pictures and video? surely someone thought to take a few snapshots?
    What happened to some of Tesla experiments? The ones that would have negated the need for Oil? like the wireless power.
    What happened to John Hutchinson equipment? seized by the government right?
    What of the ancient Sumerians ramblings about the Annunaki. The stories of the nephelim in the bible, the creators of the megaliths etc. Could this be the proof you seek? Is all this just conspiracy theories or myth and hoaxes?

    The evidence you seek is not accessible to us citizens. Should we outright believe people who say they have top secret clearance and confirm it real? NO, we do need extraordinary proof, that we all can concede.

    I too want the physical evidence and would also wonder if my mind is playing tricks on me or I had been drugged if I actually witnessed something of this nature.
    I merely want to demonstrate that if the powers that be don’t want us to know, then we wont ever know because the truth is distorted so much that nobody can ever discern the truth.

  408. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Shaun

    OK… I give up… there are so many factual things wrong with that last post (not the least of which is your “expanding universe theory” and comparing those observations to jumps of “must be ET” logic…. cripes, have you listened to nothing we’ve said? You can’t make that comparison and we’ve detailed why pretty clearly.

    So many long debunked urban legends and conspiracy theories lumped into one post it’s really hard to continue to take you seriously… and more continued “the gubment is hiding the real evidence, but I have no evidence of that” garbage… *sigh*… t’s clear you’re not interested in actually regarding our responses with any acutal critical thought… I’m starting to think you might me a Poe… and I’ve pretty much lost interest…

  409. RAF

    No amount of evidence would be sufficient.

    No…what has been presented as evidence of alien visitation is simply not convincing.

  410. kuhnigget

    Final steps in UFOlogist methodology:

    Return, start all over again.

  411. Quoted from:
    http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp

    DOES THE UNIVERSE REALLY EXPAND?
    One might be inclined to think, given the popularity of the big bang theory today, that we must by now have solid evidence that the universe is indeed expanding. But in truth, that most fundamental premise to the big bang cosmology remains an assumption. Attempts to show its truth observationally have frustrated astronomers for decades. Moles recently summarized the four classical tests for expansion.5 These involve the relationships between the redshift of galaxies on the one hand, and apparent magnitude, surface brightness, number counts, or angular size of galaxies on the other hand. The redshift of galaxy light is assumed to be caused by the velocity of the galaxy away from us. We are here examining tests of the correctness of that assumption. In the next section we will mention some alternative interpretations of redshift for galaxies. To be clear on this point, it is well established that the redshift of ordinary galaxies (although not radio galaxies, Seyfert galaxies, “active galactic nuclei”, or quasars) is closely correlated with the distance of those galaxies. But is not well established that the redshift is caused by an increase in that distance.

  412. sorry to go off topic…

  413. kuhnigget

    Shaun. Dude. You are obviously a dedicated and not unintelligent individual. So, please…use the amazing resources of the internet to explore some real science. Quoting articles from Metaresearch, Inc., (claim to fame: the Face on Mars™ really isn’t an eroded mesa, despite all those fantastically clear photographs that show it to be exactly that) is not the way to win friends and influence people in these parts, off-topic or not.

  414. Celtic_Evolution

    @ Shaun -

    I’m going to have to leave it up to you to figure out the reasons why, but for your consideration:

    Badastronomy.com = Science based website.
    Metaresearch.com = pseudo-science based website.

    That’s not to say that this site and its ilk shouldn’t be explored, reviewed and considered, but they are more interested in sensationalism than science… Just keep that in mind when using them as a source…

  415. Celtic_Evolution

    Oh… and I meant to address the actual question… as I pointed out earlier, no-one here has once stated that we have the final, definitive answer on the nature of the universe and its ultimate fate… so what exactly is your point with that post?

  416. ND

    Shaun,

    The intention here is not to bash you. I think you’re overreacting to our responses. You kept insisting that you’re skeptical about actual alien visitations but you also appear to be quite invested intellectually and emotionally to possibility that these alien-ufo reports might be for real. There has been this conflict in all your posts.

    All skeptics on this blog would love to hear of a positive result from seti or a advances in detecting earth like planets around other stars and to detect tell-tale signs of intelligent life. However if an actual visitation happened and an alien was standing in front of me, I’d probably piss my pants and faint.

  417. Rizz

    The blog requests proof.

    Brilliant.

    Perhaps someone with post ‘the link’ with the answer soon, or turn in a piece of hardware.

    Its already been pegged as crack pot science, as someone stated above, so any proof is really a waste of time.

    Can any of you bloggers explain apparitions, which are incredibly close to the UFO/ET phenomena.

    Seeing ‘things/events’ that no one else is seeing. And ‘no proof’ once again, except eyewitness reports.

    No one so far has even addressed that little idea.

    People really are seeing things, and experiencing events that are truly extraordinary.

    Sagan said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; I say that extraordinary events require extraordinary people to find out why these types of things exist.

    Fortunately, the knowledge is at hand.

    Unfortunately, its acceptance is not.

  418. kuhnigget

    “so any proof is really a waste of time.”

    Yeah. That pretty much sums it all up, doesn’t it? Though probably not in the way you intended.

  419. Greg in Austin

    @Shaun

    You keep flip-flopping and contradicting yourself, and you are ignoring what everyone here is saying. Its not only 4 or 5 of us that want real evidence, its more like 400 or 500 on this blog alone. As to your ramblings:

    What happened to all the physical debris that was collected at Roswell?
    Its in a box labeled “Weather Balloon Debris”
    What happened that night in LA when the military was attempting to shoot down UFOs?
    You mean in 1942, when we were at war? They were aiming at enemy fighters.
    What happened with the Phoenix lights event? was that not observed by thousands? Where are the pictures and video? surely someone thought to take a few snapshots?
    There were, and they did. They were flares dropped from military aircraft.
    What happened to some of Tesla experiments? The ones that would have negated the need for Oil? like the wireless power.
    Try doing a google search on Nikola Tesla, and find out for yourself.
    What happened to John Hutchinson equipment? seized by the government right?
    Proven fake.
    What of the ancient Sumerians ramblings about the Annunaki. The stories of the nephelim in the bible, the creators of the megaliths etc. Could this be the proof you seek? Is all this just conspiracy theories or myth and hoaxes?
    Oh boy, I can’t even begin to point out all the things wrong with those statements.

    Shaun, did you even bother to read what everyone has been telling you?

    @ Rizz

    Ok, ghosts? Really? After you have read all of the previous posts from the top of this page, one single sentence should stand out in your head: “Where is the evidence?” Do we really have to start all over?

    Let’s say a woman walks up to you with an apple in her hand, and she says its a banana…

    8)

  420. Isabell

    When I was a girl (around 12) my best friend and I wandered onto a small dirt road in an isolated, wooded area of our suburban neighborhood. It was a beautiful summer day with a bright blue sky and no clouds. As we got to the end of the road, we noticed something hovering right over a large tree beside us. It was a seamless round silver metallic disc. It silently hovered, motionless, about 50 feet above our heads.
    At first we couldn’t understand what we were seeing, and just stared at it.
    Then, without saying a word, fear took hold, and we both ran nonstop, to our respective homes. We never spoke a word of the incident until about 25 years later when I looked her up and contacted her. She recounted the same memory without any prompting or suggestions from me.

    Since that amazing sighting, I have seen many other UFO’s, sometimes alone, other times in large groups. Sometimes viewed as bizarre moving lights far up in the sky, other times as large low flying objects that vanished before our eyes.

    I’ve accepted long ago that something is flying in our skies that our military cannot control. There have been countless commercial and military pilots around the world that have reported sightings and even near misses of unidentified objects flying in their airspace. In many cases, pilots have been forced to make sudden maneuvers in an effort to get out of the way of these objects.

    For the safety of pilots and their passengers, it is high time we have professional, serious investigations into these reports to determine what the protocol for pilots should be in dealing with this phenomenon!

  421. John

    Did the US goverment not spread disinformation in 1947 by announcing that a weather balloon had crashed, which they later retracted their story and then announced it was a top secret project Mogul balloon. So they do feed the public false information if they feel it’s in the interests of National security. If they behave that way towards the Soviet threat how would a paranoid US goverment then act if an otherworldly threat appeared back in those days. If that were to happen today then their response probably wouldn’t be as extreme. But I don’t think it’s inappropriate for UFO investigator to say that dis-information is part of the goverments game, where it is quite obvious they are good at doing that.

    Now there’s a recent case made public on ‘Britain’s Closest Encounter’s’ on Channel 5 in the UK, where a radar operator described how 6 separate radar receivers detected 35 objects travelling faster than the majority of our planes of the time. This was around the 1950s as far as I remember, and was mentioned in between the hour long programme on the Alderney lights. He said the whole operation room was shocked at what was happening, and there was no way that we had that many planes that could fly that fast in that location. In fact they sent jets to try and intercept the radar blips, and the pilots saw them on radar, although didn’t make any visual contact, and the objects moved away too fast for them to keep up. Now these radar signals were either not recorded, or most likely just kept locked up by the government. I know that this is only an eyewitness account, and not real evidence, but if true then the UK goverment is holding back on what they know from the public.

    Now I know there’s no real proof that any of that happened but ask yourself, what would the goverment of that time do in such an event – keep quiet about it is your answer. If that such evidence exists I would be interested in reading an experts opinion on it. Would 6 radar recievers all having the same 35 radar traces at exact same time, direction and matching velocity, be enough with matching eyewitness accounts, to account for the necessary physical evidence and so proof of an unknown phenomena?

    So Phil, what’s your interpretation of the Alderney/Guernsey lights that the pilots and crew of 2 planes claim to have witnessed? We know of your almost disregarding qualities towards these eyewitness acounts, but their accounts were more broad and from passenger eyewitness testimony as well, which was the first time their accounts were made public on video at the same time, as far as I know. I would be interested in the sceptics viewpoint of what they think happened. An experienced pilot says he doesn’t know what he saw, how can you say more accurately what it was when you didn’t see it yourself? Thus according to David Clarke, we could have a new phenomena, and speculates this could be weather related. While now you may agree this is unexplained, why cannot we say that this can be something new to science? Why do you fear the possibility of this ever happening, surely new stuff to science can just happen at any moment, what is so wrong with saying it could be? And is there a real need to try and discredit anyone who says that this is possible, because we all would love some actual physical evidence to come forth, but I ask you, what possible means does any ordinary person have available to collect this kind of evidence? Shall we all carry around RPG weapons to blow up a UFO when we see one!

    If we are to conclude that Mitchell is not right just because he’s an astranaut, we cannot also conclude that all of his ideas are crazy, just because some of his other ideas sound crazy. Or are you going to fight bad science with more bad science?

    Although I still do find your blogs interesting, and your feedback from previous blog’s
    comments are amusing (notably the tornado from a followup blog). This can only lend further reason for more people who have witnessed ufos to come forward on here, and will just annoy you even more because of their lack of evidence. You are somehow making that situation worse, and if you keep on complaining on future blogs I will remind you again why. Although the tornado comment was probably from someone who was joking, and using that against everyone who claims to have seen a ufo is silly, and doesn’t help your case at all in the long term, as that is obviously not a logical scientific approach. Why don’t you also post blogs about sceptics commenting, who are pretending to know what some people have witnessed without asking for eyewitness accounts first? Is that also not ridiculous too, or do you only prefer biased ridicule? Oh yeah I forgot why bother since you would obviously just call this inaccurate just like all other eyewitness accounts. Until we have physical evidence, or sceptics start to take eyewitness acounts as more worthy,we will forever have a stalemate situation, regardless of whether alien visitation is or isn’t happening.

  422. robin

    Greg in Austin:

    Thanks Greg, but I know what I saw. It was over my head, moving slowly and silently and was so immense that it took a full 20 minutes to go by — so I had time to study it quite well. I remember thinking it was impossible, yet there it was. It had a triangular shape, was absolutely silent and did not displace the air. (I’ve seen balloons before, so no go on that one.)

    As for the star, your description would make sense if what I saw was falling toward the earth, but it streaked across the sky with no tail, stopped moving for several seconds, and then moved at a 45 degree angle back and up to a brighter, larger “star.” I waited for it to pass in front of this brighter “star” at the same rate of speed, but it didn’t. Did it disappear inside of it? I don’t know. I just know it disappeared and I sat and stared for a long time wondering WTF.

    I’m not sitting hear wearing a tinfoil hat and I’m not out in the desert every night holding up a sign welcoming ET. I guess I’m just finally old enough not to care anymore what other people think. It does bother me when scientist make fun of the subject, and the people who are honestly trying to share their experiences (and yes, I know there are a lot of people on the fringe with whom I share as much in common as I do with narrow minded skeptics). What I am trying to say (though I’m beginning to wonder why I bother) is that eyewitness testimony is valid enough in a court of law to put someone in jail for life. Why is it that when it comes to this subject, not only does it hold no weight, but anyone who claims to have had an experience is automatically considered to be missing some important bricks, and is therefore, in kindness, talked down to as if they are a simpleton and told that something the size of a parking lot is a balloon.

    There are many as yet unexplainable things in the world that actually have simple explanations once scientifically analyzed. But there are also some that cannot be explained. I believe that I have seen two of them. Is it really so hard for you to open your mind to the possibility that I am relating something extraordinary? Not to convince you, but to maybe, just maybe, put a tiny crack in your certainty?

    You don’t have to cop to it here, no one has to know. It can be our little secret. But it might come in handy to be forewarned if you should ever happen to look up and see something you can’t explain. Just don’t tell anyone. They’ll be pretty sure they know better than you do what it is that you saw. Mums the word.

  423. RAF Says:
    August 1st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
    No amount of evidence would be sufficient.

    No…what has been presented as evidence of alien visitation is simply not convincing.

    @RAF How do you know if you are not looking at the evidences we present to you? Omniscience?

  424. Sam

    Wow — lots of condescending rhetoric and back-slapping among the anti-ufo crowd, but no responses to the substance of the more credible claims and, yes, the credible EVIDENCE. Oh, yes, you all are the “smart” and “rational” and “logical” people… we know how great and inherently superior your logic is to ours (we, the silly and simple-minded people who are still looking for answers to the many baffling incidents of unexplained aerial encounters).

    I love how, toward the end of his post, Mr Bad Science (that title has a nicely ironic ring to it) writes: “I certainly don’t have the time to sift through every single case, of course, and I’m pretty busy in general.” Really — too busy to do research for the article you have the nerve to write on this subject? Gee, forgive me for expecting that you might want to try spending some time looking at the evidence before you disparage it. I guess I’m just a kook, but that sounds like bad science to me.

    Mr Bad Science then goes on to write, “But I’m always interested in what some might consider to be more solidly based cases.” Really? How interested, exactly? interested enough to do ANY research on your own initiative into ANY of these cases? or only interested enough to ask the random public to summarize the evidence for you? Do you know ANYTHING AT ALL of value on this subject that you write about with such bravado? Have you bothered to watch the leading documentary on the subject, “Out of the Blue”? Or the Disclosure Project testimonials at he National Press Club in 2001? Have you examined what’s available at ufoevidence.org? Have you done ANYTHING to educate yourself on the EVIDENCE that you’re so quick to dismiss as being non-existent? Have ANY OF YOU nay-sayers out there?

    Finally, Mr Bad Science writes, “So given all this I’ve said, please feel free to leave your evidence for the best cases in the comments section below. Let’s take a look.” How generous of you! Sorry, if you want to have anything remotely resembling credibility on the subject, you have to do your own homework, not just read the cliffs notes version that one of your readers leaves for you. But if you’re looking for a suggestion as to a serious case to look into “for starters,” that’s seems like a fair request (should be unnecessary if you’ve ever even watched any decent ufo documentaries, but fine…) Try reading about the 1986 Japan Airlines (JAL flt 1628) incident over Alaska.

  425. Sam

    Kuhnigget, quoting the deliciously uninformed and equally un-self-aware Rizz, sums up the entire debate going on on this web site perfectly:

    “’so any proof is really a waste of time.’

    Yeah. That pretty much sums it all up, doesn’t it? Though probably not in the way you intended.”

    Thank you, Kuhnigget — you nailed it! It doesn’t matter what evidence is put forth; the people who insist on mocking this subject (who are invariably people who HAVE NOT looked at the evidence) have made up their minds. Period. They won’t believe it until the US government or CNN tells them to believe it. Anything less is, as Rizz declared with authority, “crack pot science.”

    For those of you demanding “the proof,” do your credibility a favor and spend a few hours looking at some of the proof that’s publicly available. Until you do, you really should shut up — or at least stop leaving absurdly uninformed comments on a blog called “bad science.” The irony is just too rich!

  426. robin

    The following is a comment I copied from an article in today’s New York Times in response to Nick Pope’s article, “Unidentified Flying Threats.” I don’t know the protocol of including it here. I hope the commenter will forgive me if I’ve overstepped. (Quotations indicate the comment.)

    “As an investigative journalist and close associate of Nick Pope’s, I am pleased to see his op-ed published in today’s Times stressing the safety implications of incursions of unknown aircraft into protected airspace.

    I represent a group of government officials, military personnel and aviation experts from eleven countries who have launched an initiative to bring about exactly what Pope recommends: a new official U.S. investigation into UFOs within the appropriate government agency. My group, the Coalition for Freedom of Information, includes Nick Pope as a key advisor, as well as former Governor Fife Symington of Arizona; John Podesta of the Center for American Progress, formerly President Clinton’s chief of staff, has publicly supported our efforts towards increasing government openness through use of the Freedom of Information Act.

    Our formal Declaration to the U.S. Government requesting a new official body to investigate relevent UFO incidents has been signed by six Generals; John Callahan, former head of the Accidents, Evaluations and Investigations Division of the FAA; and Pope and Symington, and is posted on the home page of http://www.freedomofinfo.org. Like Mr. Pope, the signatories, both active and retired, have worked within the governments of European and South American countries which currently investigate UFO incidents and now recognize the need for international cooperation involving the United States.

    These experts are united in their position that since their governments, militaries and pilots have documented the existence of a real, physical phenomenon operating in our skies which so far defies conventional explanation, the UFO problem is worthy of investigation by the U.S. as well, especially given the aviation safety and national security issues involved.”

    Leslie Kean, New York

    — Leslie Kean, New York, NY
    Recommended by 47 Readers

  427. robin

    THE EVIDENCE

    “The evidence that there are objects which have been seen in our atmosphere, and even on terra firma, that cannot be accounted for either as man-made objects or as any physical force or effect known to our scientists seems to me to be overwhelming. . . There have been thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of sightings and encounters, physical results and of the latter, by people all over the world whose evidence on any other subject would be accepted without question.”

    Lord Hill-Norton, Admiral of the Fleet, former Chief of the Defence Staff, former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee. United Kingdom, 1988.

  428. Rizz

    Sorry to bother you all, I’m outta here.

  429. Sam

    @Potterbro (ref 7/31, 10:15a post) and the rest of you of like mind –

    Re Eye-witness testimony: You miss my point, and you clearly demonstrate that you have done no serious inquiry into this subject on your own. The kind of eye-witness accounts I’m talking about are of an entirely different variety – a point I tried to make by distinguishing between hypo examples of witness accounts. You’re dwelling entirely on the kind I dismissed when I wrote of those who see strange lights and then say “I swear it was a flying saucer.” I was exaggerating for effect, but I would include all kinds of ambiguous visual experiences with that. The witnesses I find most convincing are the ones who explain that they KNOW things from having had some top secret security clearance or because they happened to be present when some extraordinary event took place that was treated by the government as one might expect the govt to treat an alien encounter incident.

    For example, check out the accounts of John Callahan, former head of FAA Accidents & Investigations Division (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJlnSGkljho), or Daniel Sheehan, former Chief Counsel of the Jesuit Order of the Catholic Church in the US (and former Asst Gen Counsel of the NY Times)(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY9ZRfa5tBs&feature=related). There are also military officers who apparently have had experiences that cannot be explained away — e.g., USAF Sgt Karl Wolfe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6QNzH4x1rY), USAF Security Ofcr Larry Warren (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ydRncq9wQA), USAF Lt Col Dwynne Arnessone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4DXn5rxPt4&feature=related), USAF Maj George Filer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrFC9pHCyVo&feature=related).

    If you’re willing to accept that there’s not a BETTER explanation for these witness accounts than the one we’re debating on this blog, then that’s good enough for me; that’s really all I’m saying too. On the other hand, if you’re saying there IS a better explanation, then put your money where your mouth is and tell us what that better explanation is.

  430. Sam

    Robin — Thanks for that excellent and timely post!

    I note that Rizz signed off without responding to your post, or, for that matter, mine, in which I seconded Kuhnigget for calling him out for admitting that no proof could ever persuade him to alter his view of this subject (truly an enlightened approach).

    I have a feeling all we’ll hear from the uninformed nay-sayers in response to your post and my most recent post (in which I linked to several credible witness accounts) will be, in the words of Mr Bad Science…

    “”

    Bad science indeed!

  431. Sam

    Hmm… apparently if you put something inside pointy brackets, the whole thing fails to show up. (Sorry, didn’t realize.)

    Let me try it again using different brackets:

    “…in the words of Mr Bad Science…

    ‘{crickets}’”

  432. ND

    Robin

    “As for the star, your description would make sense if what I saw was falling toward the earth, but it streaked across the sky with no tail, stopped moving for several seconds, and then moved at a 45 degree angle back and up to a brighter, larger “star.” I waited for it to pass in front of this brighter “star” at the same rate of speed, but it didn’t. Did it disappear inside of it? I don’t know. I just know it disappeared and I sat and stared for a long time wondering WTF.”

    This could still be a meteor. What do you mean by “Did it disappear inside of it?”
    Was it a point of light? slightly elongated? You can’t tell how far a meteor has fallen vertically to earth as it streaks across the sky. How often do look up at the night sky? How familiar are you with it? This is something important to consider.

    Here’s my experience, I once saw a meteor, and right after it expired I saw another meteor streak in another direction from near where the first one ended.

    But since we weren’t there with we cannot tell you exactly what you saw. Only speculate based on what we know. Note that this does not translate into “no known explanation except an ET craft.”

    As for the moving triangle you saw, did you see any other details? was it just dark?

  433. ND

    Robin, do you remember what month (or even day of that month) you saw the streaking object?

  434. Celtic_Evolution

    You know what always interests me? And this goes back to Isabell’s post, and touches on the Billy Meier experience as well…

    Why is it that people who claim to see UFO’s, so frequently see them “all the time”. I’ve talked about this before in earlier posts, but whether consciously or subconsciously, there seems to be a desperate need by many in the “UFOlogist” community to be special, and unique. Meier has “hundreds, maybe thousands” of pictures of aliens, yet not another single person in the area where he lives has ever actually seen them, let alone photograph them… doesn’t this give you pause? And it’s a common theme in the UFO crowd… a few dozen people with multiple encounters… almost everyone else with none… that stretches credulity.

    Meeee spoke earlier in this thread about the mind’s capacity to see things and perceive things that aren’t there… Isabell, I suggest you read her post to start and then research it a little more on your own… simply accepting that what you saw or have seen is unexplainable because you can’t explain it just isn’t good enough.

    For the rest of you… John, Shaun, RAF, Sam, Rizz (I suspect a little sock-puppetry may be going on here, but anyhow…), please read Phil’s initial post again… you continue to spout out more anecdotal stories… we’ve covered this, ladies and gentlemen, ad nauseum. As Phil stated, you can clamor all you want and pile up a 3 ft. pile of anecdotal claims and yell as loud as you want “this can’t be ignored”… but you’ll still be missing the point. They’re not ignored… and we have no doubt there are some real phenomena tied to many of them… but for the last time, that does not mean it’s OK to make the logical leap to assigning them to ET visitiation. You say it’s ET visitation… I say it’s fairies or pixies. And my evidence is just as strong as yours… so why aren’t there more “Pixologists” out there?

    So again… to be able to rule out pixies or fairies as the cause of these weird sightings, I’m gonna need some actual evidence to test other than the stories of the weird sightings themselves. Why is this so hard to grasp?… I really don’t get it.

  435. Todd W.

    @robin

    If the governments feel that UFOs pose a credible threat to security, then I would see no problem with calling for them to investigate these cases. I’m curious, though, if the government does look into these cases, and find that there is nothing extra-terrestrial going on, will the UFO community accept that finding or just make claims of government cover-up?

    On your second post about “the evidence”, I noticed that Lord Admiral Hill-Norton mentions “physical results”. I’m assuming he means that there is physical evidence that has been exmined? It would be great if that physical evidence were to be shared with multiple scientists of the appropriate specialties (both in and out of the UFO crowd) to examine it and see if they all come to the same conclusions.

    Also, regarding the two sightings you had, asking us to evaluate what you say you saw isn’t exactly the most productive approach. The only account of it that we have is yours. What I mean is that we don’t know what details you may be leaving out or that you may not remember. We don’t know how accurate your account is or whether your memories have altered at all since the events. You may feel certain that what you recall is accurate, but as was mentioned in the last Ed Mitchell thread, memory is a very changeable thing. Because we are working with very limited information, we might offer conjectures, as Greg did, but in the end, we can’t prove anything, and no matter what we say, you will likely put more stock into what your interpretation of events was than any explanations offered here. In the end, the best answer to you asking what it was that you saw, is “I don’t know.”

    @Sam

    The pointy brackets are used in HTML tags, that’s why your text didn’t show up.

    I’ll comment on your post lambasting Phil for requesting evidence/best cases to be posted in the comments, even though your tone was incredibly rude and uncalled for.

    Frankly, there is a lot of garbage out there, when it comes to UFOs. Lots of cranks and fakes, many cases where the witnesses were just mistaken, and tons of cases where the details are far too lacking to come to any reasonable conclusion other than, based on the evidence, it’s still just “unknown”. So, asking for the best-case evidence to be posted here would help to narrow down the field, saving quite a lot of time. I don’t see this as an unreasonable request.

    If you feel that there are specific cases or reports out there, which meet the rigors of scientific methodology, please post them here. Just do it politely and without the personal attacks.

    Also, regarding Rizz, I think that if you re-read his post, you’ll find that he seemed more supportive of the UFO supporters and somewhat critical of the skeptics.

    Finally, a quick note regarding eyewitness testimony and its use in the courts. Eyewitness testimony, while valid evidence in the court system, is usually not enough to convict someone. There must also be some form of physical evidence. Why? Again, because people, their perceptions, their memories, are faulty. Doesn’t matter who. Doesn’t matter what their qualifications, they are still prone to mistakes, bias and/or lying. And even if the courts did rely solely on eyewitness testimony, science does not. When someone discovers some new chemical property or a new mechanism used by a certain disease, their word is not enough for it to be accepted. They must show the data. They must share exactly how they arrived at that data and how they analyzed it. Other scientists must try to replicate the results. Only after lots of scientists have looked at it and overwhelmingly come to the same conclusions is it actually accepted as true. And even then, as more information comes along, that “truth” may be altered or done away with.

  436. Celtic_Evolution

    Sorry, RAF… incorrectly lumped you in up there with the others… totally unintended… my apologies…

  437. Todd W.

    @Sam

    The video links you provided show people who sound quite certain about what they saw. However, they are still just their stories and don’t provide us with any evidence that we can evaluate. Again, at best, the events that they describe at best are “We don’t know what it was” scenarios. There is certainly nothing in those videos that definitively says that UFOs are alien. It may convince you that aliens are visiting Earth, but those videos, by themselves, amount to nothing, as far as proving such a case.

  438. Greg in Austin

    @Robin

    “Thanks Greg, but I know what I saw. ”

    Except, you cannot explain what you saw. I’m not poking fun or trying to be a jerk here, but you are simply not giving us any information other than, “I saw something.” I believe that you saw something. Now I’m trying to help you figure out WHAT you saw.

    Where were you? Were you standing, walking, driving a car? What time of day or night was this? Which direction did the object come from? Which direction did it head? Which way was the wind blowing? You say it was big, but what was your frame of reference? Were there buildings or trees between you an this object that you could use to roughly estimate its size? How long did you observe it? Did you try to follow it? Did anyone else see it? Did THEY know, or think they knew, exactly what it was? Could it have been a blimp? (The Goodyear blimp is amazingly large when actually seen on the ground). Could it have been a cloud? Did anyone photograph it? Did you call any of the local airports, private air strips, police, fire or even your neighbors to ask them if they saw anything or know what it was? Was this near a military base? If so, did you call the base and ask them if they saw anything? Is there anybody else who saw the same thing that we could also ask these very same questions? Had you been drinking or enjoying any recreational drugs (like say, a hallucinogen?)

    Let me try to put this nicely… If you do not know what it was, then it could be anything. And the most likely explanation, based on thousands of years of observation, is always terrestrial in nature. There is absolutely no evidence to assume that it was an alien space craft, because 99% of these cases have non-alien explanations, and the 1% that are “unknown” could be anything. They just as likely could be a bird or a plane as they could be Marvin the Martian or ET.

    I am among those here who would love to see an alien ship, an alien life form, or even just some piece of alien technology. But I spend a lot of time observing the sky, during the day and at night, and I’ve seen lots of neat things. But none of them could even remotely be extraterrestrial.

    Here’s my anecdotal story: 3 friends and I were driving at night in our home town. It was dark, probably around 10pm, and we were in a residential neighborhood. Suddenly there was this white, ghost-like object floating across the road in front of us. The guy driving immediately stopped the car, and we watched this 3-foot “thing” float slowly across the road about 5 feet off the ground. We rolled the windows down, and heard no sound. There were no trees, and the headlights could pass thru this object, but it was clearly there. It had no particular shape, just a weird oblong mass of semi-transparent white stuff. We were dumbfounded. As we sat there for a moment, the driver said he didn’t want to go on in that direction, so we turned around and took a different street. One block away, in this neighborhood, we saw a large decorative water fountain at the entrance to the neighborhood. Someone had apparently put lots of bubble bath or laundry detergent into the fountain, because the whole thing was overflowing with a gigantic mass of bubbles! Large chunks of bubbles were floating around in the air, wisping on the calm summer night’s breeze. If we had not turned around, we to this day would have sworn we saw a ghost, because until we saw the fountain, we would not have known what it was.

    8)

  439. JPeter

    @Sylvian
    “If Intelligence Aliens was being know publicly. The entire population of the world would united as a new idendity (Human) being Americans, Irakians, British, Canadians will be gone and/or become meaningless. Most Government are self centered, willing only to growth by itself. Do you imagine that if we get a DEMOCRATIC WORLD government the Chinese and India will have the majority. This is the worst nightmare of Government like the U.S. who want to RULE the world and not just being part of it.”

    You have a very optimistic view of humanity.

    I suspect half of the populace would be “oh cool!” and talk about it for a week, then it would be replaced in the news by the latest Big Brother, Idol or celebrity gossip story.

    Of the rest, the religous fundamentalists of all flavours would compete to be the first to alternately send missionaries to convert the new heathens or declare a crusade/jihad against them.

    Corporations would compete like crazy to be the ones to bring new high tech to market.

    Nations would desperately try to be the only ones with alien military tech, or at least to be the ones with the aliens as allies. Except for the idits who would shoot at them in “a show of strength”.

    In short, I sincerely doubt that humanity would suddenly unite in universal brotherhood. Even in the worst disasters we have plenty of people robbing each other, looting, raping and murdering, not just selfless examples of heroism, bravery and brotherhood. Why would the simple knowledge of aliens be any different.

    For a historical analogy, there have been several times in history when a more powerful, more technologically advanced different culture encountered smaller, more primitive tribes. The situation in South America when Cortez arrived would be an example. Rarely has universal brotherhood broken out among those tribes – usually they were played off against one another by the higher tech, more powerful new arrival.

    Do you push openly for a world government united behind Washington? Or Moscow? Or Beijing? Or Delhi? Or Geneva? Any option will be opposed by most of humanity. Probably unfortunately.

  440. Rizz

    Just for clarification, regarding ‘proof being a waste of time’, I was refering to Robins post July 31 @10:18 PM in a sarcastic way, which I apologize for. Hence the comment on crackpot science.

    I’m right there with you Robin.

    You also stated “I am a skeptic, but how do I deny my own eyes? I’ve seen something extraordinary that defies explanation, twice, so how do I account for it?”

    That is the real question at hand, I believe.

    Not so much having to ‘prove’ what you saw, but rather how do you begin to ‘explain’ what you saw.

    The apparitions I was speaking of were the ones taking place in Medjugorje, where many hundreds of eyewitnesses experienced, at the same time, an extraordinary event.

    I’ve been around long enough to know that you cannot convince anyone of anything. That has to be left to ones personal beliefs, and personal experiences.

    Having said that, I do believe that this will be my last post.

    In closing I would encourage you all to listen again to what Dr Mitchell actually said – http://ufonotebook.vox.com/library/post/edgar-mitchell-we-are-not-alone.html, and perhaps become familiar with his work.

    He really is a brilliant man, and more qualified to speak about this topic than anyone else I know.

    Again, sorry for the sarcasm in my earlier post, it was late.

  441. Sully

    Thanks for the interesting discussion.

    One question struck me as a source of much misunderstanting – “On the other hand, if you’re saying there IS a better explanation, then put your money where your mouth is and tell us what that better explanation is.”

    The fellows doubting visits by ET don’t have to provide a better explanation. The believers in ET have to provide proof that is experimentally testable. If that involves breaking into area 51 or bribe one of the guards to bring out a piece of the spacecraft or the body of an alien, so be it.

  442. RAF

    Celtic Evolution @9:43….

    No worries. :)

  443. RAF

    Sylvain Pimpare says: How do you know if you are not looking at the evidences we present to you?

    I simply do not find what has been presented to be convincing. Why do you assume that I haven’t looked at the “evidences”?

  444. kuhnigget

    C’mon RAF, don’t you know when you’re presented with “evidences” you’re immediately supposed to accept it (them?) at face value, forget about critical analysis, forget about the context of who is presenting it and where they got it from, ignore the scientific method and never ever try to test said evidences, and…most important of all…when presented with evidences you are supposed to believe.

  445. Isabell

    Celtic_Evolution:

    I had a pretty up close UFO sighting at a young age which brought about the awareness to pay attention to the sky throughout my life. I don’t see UFOs all the time as you suggest. But I have seen some very unusual things over the past 40 years. It’s been about 15 years since the last significant sighting. I am not feeling the need for attention, I don’t think I am special, I am not writing a book, or screenplay, or even hosting a blog. I do share Robin’s sentiment in that – I don’t care what anyone thinks. I know what I saw (or I should say), I know what I didn’t see. In addition, I was not alone. There were many documented UFO sightings in the Hudson Valley during the early 70′s, the time to which I reference the childhood sighting.
    I have to ask all of you out there that say you are skeptical but would love to see “ET”…
    How much time do you actually spend outside watching the sky? Chances are, you probably aren’t going to see a UFO staring at your computer screen. Like ants, most of us never look up.

    And thanks to Robin for the excellent reference from Leslie Kean.
    I was at that press conference in DC. These were extremely credible international witnesses that gave riveting accounts. The Iranian General spoke of an actual dog fight he had with a UFO. He described firing a missile at it, and the missile was just “absorbed” into it, having no effect at all. Weather balloon? Comet? Tornado? I know, hallucination right? I don’t think so.

  446. sonia

    The phenomenon is well documented. Its existence is undeniable: sane -and credible- people see stuff in the sky that they cannot understand.

    What is also undeniable is that our species’ science has no explanation for such a phenomenon, not even the beginning of one.

    This does not mean that the phenomenon is not happening: the absence of ‘evidence’ is not evidence of absence, neh?

    As a matter of fact, some people are prepared to stick their neck out and testify under oath about what they personally witnessed. Some, for example, will tell stories which suggest that the phenomenon seems to be capable of rendering weapon systems inoperative, or producing ‘glitches’ in missile launch system operation, or other somewhat puzzling ‘anomalies’ which, of course, not any government would be willing and ready to publically admit.

    While our political masters acknowledge the existence of the phenomenon, (as the French and the British authorites did by releasing their official records) they cannot acknowledge this very simple -and perhaps terrifying- truth: We are not smart enough to figure out WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE PHENOMENON, the capabilities of which, meanwhile, seem way beyond anything our species is capable of…imagining.

    Our scientists have no answer(s). Our knowledge and understanding of the physical reality, whether macroscopic or subatomic, is minimal, incomplete, wrong (?), insufficient, unsatisfatory, handicaping etc… We have an enigma here that for all our intellectual prowesses we are unable to resolve.

    It is THIS EVIDENCE that is being covered up, wittingly or unwittingly by all sorts of people, most of them exponents of the ‘extraterrestrial visitation hypothesis’, unfounded, unproven but, if one thinks about it, a lot more confortable, a lot more acceptable, a lot more REASSURING than…no explanation at all.

    So is human nature that we prefer to keep silent -or lie- rather than admiting that we don’t know and -for some perhaps- that we are scared.

  447. sonia

    Meanwhile,

    What do scientists say in public ? (orthodox responses)
    What do scientists say in private ?
    What have scientific review panels concluded ?

    Summary: http://www.freedomofinfo.org/science/USymp021114.pdf ,

    and some data:

    Physical Evidence Related to UFO Reports
    The Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Pocantico Conference Center, Tarrytown, New York
    September 29 – October 4, 1997
    http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/ufo_reports/sturrock/toc.html

  448. Here is a story of a once lost man…after years of feeling so lonely in his confusing search for truth. He once believed that if he worked to the best of his ability and payed his taxes then nobody could touch him. He trusted the estate agent to sell him a house despite the impending credit crunch, of which neither parties were aware. He voted for a different government because they convinced him they had a better way. He trusted the doctor and the priest with himself and his family, and for the most part everything went alright.

    The following night he was visited by three small beings who filled his mind with light and truth. He saw the corrupt and devious nature of mankind present at every level and in every circle. He found himself joyfully illuminated by what he now knew to be a new mission for him – to help others understand what the hell’s going on.

    The next morning he began trying to explain through every channel he could find, even in online blogs which laid his faithful telling of the story open to ridicule and derision.

    He still maintained his worldly life but had an extra burden on his shoulders, to try and help his poor brothers and sisters make sense of the confusing times in which they are living.

    God has created the universe out of love, which mankind has repeatedly failed to notice. Even when he has noticed, it is very difficult for him to fall into line with the truth. The men of the lost and fallen world are waiting more helplessly than ever, wearing suits and making jokes to get themselves through the days. And yet, little do they know, our hero is running out of patience. The ones who have set their minds against believing him will reap what they sow, which is doubt and further confusion. The ones who are open to his words must take care and discern, but eventually they will see a glimmer of light. It may well be in the most unexpected of places…

  449. RAF

    Isabell says: “How much time do you actually spend outside watching the sky? Chances are, you probably aren’t going to see a UFO staring at your computer screen. Like ants, most of us never look up.”

    Perhaps that is true for you, but to assume that folks posting to an ASTRONOMY blog would not be inclined to look at the sky is rather foolish don’t you think?

    Personally, I look to the sky all the time…have ever since I was a kid.

  450. ND

    Isabell,

    Can you gives details on some of your UFO encounters? And when you say UFO you mean ET visitation?

  451. Isabell

    RAF:
    Okay, point well taken. It’s not the first time I’ve been foolish and it won’t be the last.
    For example, I’m actually going to take the bait and reply to ND below!
    Most of the folks I know are too busy working and taking care of their families to spend much time searching the heavens. Including myself these days. Glad to hear that you do!

    ND: No scoop marks, missing time or implants to report. Sorry.
    But here are a few of the observations I’ve made…

    Early summer 1983- I was with a group of about 15-20 people outside one night. (There were no drugs or alcohol involved.) From a distance we noticed two red lights approaching, maintaining the same distance from each other. At first we thought it was a plane, then as it got closer we thought it might be two separate planes flying in formation although there was no sound. Finally as the lights moved overhead what we saw was hard to comprehend. There were no clouds out that night, the sky was full of stars.
    The red lights were at either end of a huge black object which was only visible because it blocked the stars above. It remained motionless and soundless above us for about 5 minutes. Then it began moving off and actually vanished a few yards away from where we stood.

    Late Summer 1983- Same place as above. I went outside after putting my baby to sleep to watch the stars on the front porch. There were about 4 other friends with me there.
    We watched some planes and satellites cross the sky. There was a particularly bright star in the center of the sky that I noticed right away. After about 15 minutes another bright light flew with remarkable speed from the horizon on my right and stopped in the center of the sky next to the bright star that we had noticed earlier on. The second light began to rotate around the original bright star. After about 3 rotations both lights sped off in opposite directions with incredible speed.

    1993 or 94 – Was traveling home over a mountain with my son and a friend.
    A huge fireball flew over the car. It came from the southwest and blazed by right above the tree line. It was very impressive and we all assumed it was a large meteor.
    We arrived home about 10-15 minutes later. As we got out of the car, another fireball flew by overhead, this time coming from the northeast followed closely by 3 low flying military jets. I discussed this event at length with an astronomer a few years ago. He assured me that jets don’t follow meteors.

    My mind is open… I have no agenda. If anyone reading this can come up with an explanation to any of these events, please enlighten me.

  452. robin

    Greg in Austin, and those of like mind.

    See my post re: “Evidence,” and the one before it. Do a little research. Not a lot. You don’t even have to go outside your house. Noodle on my comment that many, many people around the planet have described seeing EXACTLY what I saw. (Again, the Goodyear blimp is not shaped like a triangle). Read some of the reports.

    I realize that you are at a disadvantage. It is easier to be open to the idea that something is happening once you’ve had a personal experience. But I didn’t want to believe that I had seen anything unusual until I caught a newspaper story years later describing what other people had witnessed; it’s size, it’s shape, the fact that it moved slowly and silently. Until that day, I was quite happy to assume that what I had seen was a prototype of the stealth bomber, because I DIDN’T WANT TO BELIEVE it could be anything other than something we made. But then I found out that the Stealth design wasn’t even accepted until October of 1981, with the first flight in 1989. (My event occurred in May of 1976.) With a length of 69 feet, you could have landed a fleet of Stealths on the thing I saw.

    Whether you believe me or not, I’ve done my homework, Greg, because it was important to me to make sense of the experience. And given that research, I can only conclude that something is happening. What other conclusion can there be for why so many people, from all walks of life, many different countries, have come forward to say that they saw exactly what I saw, despite the fact that I never told anyone what I saw?

    Now, if you would do just a little open-minded research on the topic, you might start to wonder about the sheer numbers of reports by airline pilots and military personnel, and ordinary citizens around the world — courageously given, in my opinion, despite the possibility of ridicule so evidenced on this blog.

    Or you can just continue to enjoy the echo in your bell jar. (It is safer in there, I know, at least for the time being.)

    Really, it’s all the same to me.

    (ND: I’ve seen meteors. This did not have a tail. Up is away from the Earth — meteors typically fall toward the earth.)

    (Rizz: No worries. I understood you perfectly, but thanks for the shout out)

  453. robin

    Thanks Sam — just saw your post. I appreciate it.

  454. robin

    Todd W.

    Thanks. I found your comment to be sincere and open minded.

    It is very true than memory fades, but the memory of an extraordinary event rarely does — precisely because it was extraordinary. How many times have you heard someone say “I can see it as if it were yesterday.” I suggest that such extraordinary events, and the memory of them, is why it is so easy to dismiss the subject. People are so certain of what they saw, that they must be wrong. Have you ever in your life seen something so outside the norm, so incredible, that you can summon the memory of the event at will? The way things looked, the way it made you feel?

    Once I came upon what looked like snow drifts on a summers night. The puffy whiteness of the snow reflected in the lights of the stores along the street as it piled up against the grass, the way snow does after you shovel the sidewalk. It had to 75 degrees out, and yet there, defying my rational mind, were snow drifts on the ground. Of course, it turned out to be fiber glass that had fallen from a truck, but I will never forget the way it felt to argue with my own rational mind, even as my eyes were deceived.

    That was an extraordinary event. And I will never forget it.

    Nor do I take lightly, or for granted, any extraordinary thing that I might see. I always look for the rational explanation first. But when they are exhausted, whatever remains, however improbable, must after all, be the truth.

    Now we just have to figure out what that truth is.

  455. ND

    robin,

    yes meteors do fall toward earth but it’s hard to tell since they don’t have enough distinguishing features and no nearby objects to use as a references to tell that they are falling. So any point of light in the sky will be hard to judge when it comes to speed, distance and direction. Otherwise I have nothing else to tell you about what you saw. The knowledge that meteors fall can affect how you judge what you see.

    This is what’s so frustrating about these unrecorded observations. There’s no way for others to really help you.

    As for remembering extraordinary events clearly, you might want to talk to psychologists who have studied this.

  456. These comments are very amusing, but I had to stop reading them after about 1/4 because the I could no longer stand the burn of the stupid. It seems many people wouldn’t know coherence even if it bit them in the eyeball.

    Very good post, Phil. The crickets made me laugh out loud.

  457. ND

    Isabell,

    event 1) did you see any other details about this object other than the red light? Were you able to judge how far above it was? I would think that’s hard to do without seeing any detail or other objects next to it. “Then it began moving off and actually vanished a few yards away from where we stood.” Did you mean several hundred hards?

    second event) Lighning bugs? You did not say the lights blinked so I’m guessing they were constant points of light. Can’t think of anything else.

    third event) there isn’t enough in this story to say that the objects you saw weren’t earth based. This is the thing. It’s a mystery, and not something definitive. Was this at night or during the day?

  458. Raj

    I am amused by your attempt at scientific inquiry on this matter Mr. Plait. I don’t believe in aliens myself (I need to see the proof/evidence too). In your mind somehow, redirecting the question towards the notion of evidence is incredibly inadequate. If you wanted to see evidence of polar bears, it would be quite easy to do. Although cruel, we have the technological means to capture, imprison or kill a bear to show you that they exist. Assuming aliens are visiting earth, I doubt that any one of us has the technological capacity to kill and/or capture an alien for your high and mighty viewing pleasure.

    The sun does not revolve around your seemingly religious closed-mindedness.

    The onus is really on you to explain away the best cases. For example: the over 3000 official air incidents reports between alleged UFOs and civilian/military aircraft collected by Dr. Richard Haines (the former Chief of NASA’s Space Human Factors. Reference: http://www.narcap.org ). Some of these incidents involved instrument failures or near collisions where the object in question was able to avoid collision at the last moment by making impossible, sharp turns. Instead of listening to your pointless armchair mental masturbation, I would much rather be interested on your thoughts concerning an alarmingly large number of these unusual air safety cases. But somehow, I doubt you will rise to the occasion.

  459. ND

    Raj,

    Unless I’m reading your post incorrectly it sounds like you’re saying two things.

    “I don’t believe in aliens myself (I need to see the proof/evidence too).”

    I read this to mean that you’re looking at this sceptically and that so far you have not seen any definitive evidence to support that UFOs are ET in origin with alien occupants.

    Then what’s the point of the site with UFO air incidents? The site uses the term “unidentified aerial phenomena” (UAP) and tries to disassociate from orgs that promote alien-ufo encounters. So the site is not about aliens. I don’t understand your criticism. Phil’s and others request for evidence has to do with alien UFOs and not simply reports of unidentifiable phenomenon or the fact that people see them.

    Reports and eyewitnesses can take you so far. The next step is evidence. So many people want to believe or are driven by imagination a mystery inspires, that desire to skirt evidence is becomes too strong.

    Are these two sentences not contradictory?
    “I am amused by your attempt at scientific inquiry on this matter Mr. Plait. I don’t believe in aliens myself (I need to see the proof/evidence too). In your mind somehow, redirecting the question towards the notion of evidence is incredibly inadequate.”

  460. Greg in Austin

    @Robin,

    My suggested possibilities for what you saw were completely reasonable considering the (limited) information you provided. Yet, you continue to swear that what you saw was different than anything ordinary, or can provide evidence for. Then you ironically accuse me of being close-minded.

    Thank you for taking my honest attempt at helping to find possibilities and pooping on it.

    @Raj,

    We also have the capability to prove the existence of polar bears WITHOUT capturing, killing, or even seeing them. Polar bears leave plenty of evidence, i.e. foot prints, urine and fecal matter, remains of uneaten food, bite marks on unsuccessful hunting attempts, not to mention the actual physical remains of polar bears that die of natural causes. The life of nearly all of the animals on earth have been well documented, by scientific observation.

    So, where are all the little bits and pieces of actual physical evidence that even suggests the presence of aliens? Where are their footprints? Where are their little bits of spacecraft from all these crashes? Are you telling me that they travel billions of light years to get here, and they don’t even drop a piece of alien candy wrapper on the ground? You can’t even drive a car to the park for a picnic without needing a barrel for all your trash, and leaving behind fifty pieces of evidence that you were there.

    So far, ALL scientific observations of Aliens, Bigfoot, The Loch Ness Monster, Ghosts, Fairies, Zombies and the like have been 100% negative. There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence yet that any of these things actually exist, and especially not in any of the attempts we see here.

    I know, I know… You know what you saw, and it was Aliens.

    Prove it.

  461. Greg in Austin

    I might as well go stand in front of a brick wall and say, “Phil has asked anyone here to provide actual physical evidence for Aliens,” for all the good it apparently does.

    8)

  462. Isabell

    ND:
    1- Yes, I meant to say a few hundred yards, it seemed close. The reason why it seemed close was because we watched the 2 red lights for a long time as they approached and eventually paused directly overhead. How far up overhead? There was no way of knowing for sure.
    But the object’s visibility was made possible only by the night sky behind it. It had a domed shape to it. The lights were on either side of the object. The object reflected no light, it was totally black with no visible details at all.

    2 -I defiantly know the difference between something that looks like a star, and lightning bugs. They weren’t bugs. LOL.

    3 – This happened at night. The object was a large ball of fire. It didn’t appear to be falling, but traveling very fast, parallel to the ground. I must note that I have never seen military jets flying in formation in our neck of the woods ever before and I have been living here for almost 30 years.

  463. Isabell

    Before signing off, I thought I would leave you all with one of my favorite quotes from
    Edgar Mitchell – the one to whom we owe all of this lively debate!
    Cheers…

    “Suddenly, from behind the rim of the moon, in long, slow-motion movements of immense majesty, there emerges a sparkling blue and white jewel, a light, delicate, sky-blue sphere laced with slowly swirling veils of white, rising gradually like a small pearl in a thick sea of black mystery. It takes more than a moment to fully realize this is Earth……..home.
    My view of our planet was a glimpse of divinity.”

    - Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut

  464. Greg in Austin

    @Isabell

    That’s nice. How does that prove the existence of ET?

  465. ND

    Hi Isabell,

    I really don’t know what else to add to these events. That’s what’s so frustrating about. I actually would have liked to be there and seen them, even though I don’t subscribe to the ET-UFO idea (unless they’re floating over a city as depicted in Independence Day, now that would be some evidence).

    Maybe it was another plane with an engine on fire? Must have been scary sight. The first time I saw a meteor streak across the sky, it scared the crap out of me. It was then followed by excitement that I finally saw one. But as you know, it’s a sudden and unexpected event.

  466. Isabell

    Greg:
    It doesn’t – it’s just a beautiful poem Greg.

    ND:
    It sounds like the Stephenville Texas UFO sightings of late were similar to the Independence Day UFOs in the sheer size.
    The thing was said to be miles wide and hovering above the tree line. Can you imagine looking up and seeing something suspended above you as far as the eye can see?
    I would have been terrified.
    Re: the ball O fire. It was a ball of fire. There were no reports of a crash or a meteor in the news although I know others who also witnessed it.
    Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond with intelligence and respect.
    Best…

  467. Raj

    @Greg,

    I think you missed the point. If we are to assume for a moment that aliens exist and are visiting us, then we can not reasonably predict their behaviours, priorities, whether they are common enough to have come from nearby stars as opposed to “half-way across the galaxy” as many of you love to conjecture, etc. Neither can we assume (as you do) that they would be as clumsy as humans and leave technologically advanced candy wrappers for us to pick up, send to material sciences labs for R&D into novel technologies that we are not ready for. In 100 years we’ve gone from stage coaches to nuclear weapons, integrated circuits…and (strangely) we still depend on fossil fuels. If I were an alien, I would make sure I would keep even my candy wrappers away from us. Even landing on the White House lawn for a day, only to say “dropped by to say hi, but you’re dangerous babes in the woods that need to grow up, so sorry can’t help you” may be dangerous. A confirmation of their existence and observed capabilities of their craft would together redirect all of our scientific resources to modify our understanding of physics to replicate their technologies. I believe we truly are THAT capable. Anyway, it’s all conjecture (as you have all conjectured about alien behaviour). But cetainly worth thinking about.

    On the issue of science by observation, if aliens were visiting us, we would be in no position to apply controlled experiments to supposed alien ships or their occupants (if there are indeed any). In fact they would likely possess the tools necessary to observe US! How can we be talking about evidence if the observer can become the observed! Again, I do believe that we need evidence, but the ET/UFO hypothesis by its very nature robs us of the usual techniques and tools required to prove most “earthly” hypotheses. So to clarify my earlier post, we cannot seek the kinds of physical evidence most skeptics demand. So talking about physical evidence is pointless when it comes to the UFO/ET hypothesis. The same is NOT true of Lochness Monsters, bigfoots, etc. as we assume that they should be trackable by our science. So there in that situation, the reasonable scientist deserves the on-my-desk proof.

  468. RAF

    Raj says: “The onus is really on you to explain away the best cases.”

    Sorry, but you don’t seem to understand the concept of why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Raj says: “we cannot seek the kinds of physical evidence most skeptics demand. So talking about physical evidence is pointless when it comes to the UFO/ET hypothesis.”

    How very convenient. You’re basically saying that skeptics might as well just accept that aliens are here because there will never be physical evidence to examine?

    What a bunch of bull.

  469. maninasia

    FROM POSTER JOSE
    # Jose Says:
    August 1st, 2008 at 2:38 pm

    Jose, since I have now provided some evidence of a scientific study that concluded UFO are a real phenomena. Instead of continuing bashing me, why not explain why the French scientists are mistaken? Or are you now trolling the blog?

    Because your “evidence” is still written in crayon.

    MY POST
    The above is typical of close minded thinking about the UFO field. To use the ‘require extraordinary evidence’ prerequisite many areas of natural phenomena cannot be studied in the regular scientific method. For instance ‘earthlights’, ‘earthquake lights’, ‘ball lightning’. Since nobody has reliably created earthlights from a massive tremor event, does it mean the phenomena does not exist.? It is rare, unpredictable and not possible to replicate in the lab. Skeptics don’t have to be convinced of this phenomena , but they have a duty to to their research about the field and admit there are huge numbers of very difficult to explain away cases and also numerous UFO reports come in all the time from people who had very clear sightings but only recently feel okay to report them because of the anomonymity of the internet and the opening up of discussion of this field.
    Would we believe in DNA if we couldn’t analyse it in the lab. The rules of genetics were disovered in the late 1800s by Gregor Mendel, but people thought his idea was a bit wacky and since nobody had the concept of a double helical molecule that could easily encode information it was left until technology caught up with his observations.

  470. maninasia

    POSTER
    Greg in Austin Says:
    August 3rd, 2008 at 8:59 pm

    So, where are all the little bits and pieces of actual physical evidence that even suggests the presence of aliens? Where are their footprints? Where are their little bits of spacecraft from all these crashes? Are you telling me that they travel billions of light years to get here, and they don’t even drop a piece of alien candy wrapper on the ground?

    MY POST
    Yes, they do not leave candy wrappers.

    The US goverment has the stealth fighter in operation for 10 years before it’s existence was confirmed during the first gulf war. Do you think it would be difficult for an advanced civilisation to hide their presence from us?

    They may or may not have crashed, that’s debatable. You must remember if they are an advanced civilisation they are not God, omnipresent……they are subject to the same laws of the universe as us (with better capabilities of course), and as such mistakes can happen. Also they may not be of one motivation or one type. Finally if they are using technology all technology is prone to failure, it’s the law of entropy!

  471. I suspect that many US officials are in the midst of a massive ‘saving face’ operation. Ordinary men like you and I who know a lot more than us but who are so full of self-importance that they can’t just hold up their hands. Perhaps certain people will need to die of old age before the rest of us get a chance to work it out. People with power are afraid of the masses. Others simply enjoy their lifestyle and their influence. Behind closed doors – erm…what happens? Oh yes, that was why the door was closed – they didn’t want me to know.

    Are we being protected or controlled by not being told the truth?

    Discuss…

  472. Greg in Austin

    @Raj and maninasia,

    The imaginary beings you conjure up are based solely on speculation, hearsay, and science fiction stories. You have yet provided any evidence for your claims.

    What makes you think that they are so advanced that they don’t leave behind a shred of evidence?

    We have left dozens of landers and probes on planets, asteroids and moons, and have a tens of thousands of satellites surrounding our own planet. The evidence of human activity in this solar system is clearly evident by the amount of junk we place everywhere we go. What PROOF do you have that aliens wouldn’t do the same?

  473. Greg in Austin

    @Squid,

    What “truth?”

  474. Please visit: http://www.nsa.gov/ufo/

    Download these two docs:

    Key to the Extraterrestrial Messages by H. Campaigne
    Extraterrestrial Intelligence by Howard H. Campaigne

    and explain what I am reading?

  475. @Greg,

    I don’t know, nobody told me.

    But COME ON! Nobody has to offer their experiences for free and there are so many stories. Obviously some people do want to make money from it, others crave fame and attention (God knows why!!), some may well be agents of disinformation to throw us off the scent. But some UFO and alien-related stories I am certain are true.

    By the way, who created the laser and fibre optics, for example? Some very clever guy? I don’t want to know who developed the formats. Who INVENTED the laser and holographic technology which contains information of all kinds within light? I wasn’t the best at physics but there seem to have been some pretty amazing leaps in the past few decades.

    Open minds are what we need, with caution and extreme filtering in operation.

  476. Raj

    @Greg and @RAF

    I actually don’t know that aliens are indeed visiting us. But you (in a very unscientific, school-yard bully way) suggest that I assume they are here. I actually don’t. If you are going to have a discussion, I do suggest that you leave behind your religious dogma—which clearly is closed-minded and devoid of any potential for innovative thought. And once again, you anthropomorphize theoretical alien behaviour by suggesting that they would leave screws and other junk in space as humans do at this point in our history. That is hardly scientific thinking. Your lines of thought are riddled with many assumptions that cannot themselves be verified. This blog obviously is a rallying place for a cult-like dogma—-which is unsuitable for proper scientific discourse on the UFO/ET hypothesis.
    I guess the UFO/new age quack believers have their counterparts in the “skeptic” world.

  477. To the moderator:
    Why is my previous post which contains evidence not being approved?
    It’s still awaiting moderation even though I posted it prior to Squids last post??

  478. RAF

    Squid says: “…some UFO and alien-related stories I am certain are true.”

    That is your BELIEF and you are entitled to it, however belief is not enough to convince those of us who DEMAND evidence before belief.

    You understand that, right?

  479. @shaun,

    Uh-oh… Looks like the moderators may be MIB or something? What chance have we got NOW??

  480. Greg in Austin

    @Squid.

    You said, “Are we being protected or controlled by not being told the truth?”

    Perhaps I need to be more specific. What exactly are we being protected from? By whom? Who is controlling us? And please, like everyone else here has asked, please provide your evidence for such claims.

    “But some UFO and alien-related stories I am certain are true.”

    How do you know for certain, without either physical evidence, or positive results from any scientific experimentation? All we have is negative or inconclusive studies, or demonstratively unreliable witness accounts.

    “By the way, who created the laser and fibre optics, for example?”
    Well, if you can believe anything you read on the internet, it takes about 5 seconds to learn from Wikipedia:

    - Laser
    Foundations

    In 1917 Albert Einstein, in his paper Zur Quantentheorie der Strahlung (On the Quantum Theory of Radiation), laid the foundation for the invention of the laser and its predecessor, the maser, in a ground-breaking rederivation of Max Planck’s law of radiation based on the concepts of probability coefficients (later to be termed ‘Einstein coefficients’) for the absorption, spontaneous emission, and stimulated emission of electromagnetic radiation.

    In 1928, Rudolph W. Landenburg confirmed the existence of stimulated emission and negative absorption.[7] In 1939, Valentin A. Fabrikant (USSR) predicted the use of stimulated emission to amplify “short” waves.[8]

    In 1947, Willis E. Lamb and R. C. Retherford found apparent stimulated emission in hydrogen spectra and made the first demonstration of stimulated emission.[9]

    In 1950, Alfred Kastler (Nobel Prize for Physics 1966) proposed the method of optical pumping, which was experimentally confirmed by Brossel, Kastler and Winter two years later.[10]

    - Optical Fiber

    Guiding of light by refraction, the principle that makes fiber optics possible, was first demonstrated by Daniel Colladon and Jacques Babinet in Paris in the 1840s, with Irish inventor John Tyndall offering public displays using water-fountains ten years later.[1] Practical applications, such as close internal illumination during dentistry, appeared early in the twentieth century. Image transmission through tubes was demonstrated independently by the radio experimenter Clarence Hansell and the television pioneer John Logie Baird in the 1920s. The principle was first used for internal medical examinations by Heinrich Lamm in the following decade. In 1952, physicist Narinder Singh Kapany conducted experiments that led to the invention of optical fiber, based on Tyndall’s earlier studies; modern optical fibers, where the glass fiber is coated with a transparent cladding to offer a more suitable refractive index, appeared later in the decade.[1]

    Again, there is no evidence here that these technologies are not completely human in origin. Surely you’re not going to suggest that all the mathematics and physics we have developed over the centuries were actually given to us by aliens.

  481. No seriously now this is double standards.

  482. @RAF

    Yes, I understand. And I wish you well. Unfortunately I cannot present you with evidence and I hope you meet someone who can. Someone in real life, not online. Perhaps you too will need to be presented with something behind closed doors (stop your mind wandering, if you can). The most important gifts are timely and wise in their appearance, not randomly stumbled upon. Think positive and try not to spend too much time in front of a screen is my advice. Suspend your disbelief for a moment and imagine there are people who have real proof of alien intelligence. And if you think we’re all watched too closely these days (CCTV, phone tapping etc.) then imagine how closely those who have real evidence must be watched. Not nice but, in my humble opinion, true.

    Take care.

  483. Greg in Austin

    @Raj,

    Ignoring the personal attacks, I will attempt to make my point clear:

    “And once again, you anthropomorphize theoretical alien behaviour by suggesting that they would leave screws and other junk in space as humans do at this point in our history. That is hardly scientific thinking. Your lines of thought are riddled with many assumptions that cannot themselves be verified.”

    My lines of thought are based on observation and historical evidence. It is not possible for humans to travel around the nearby region of space without leaving evidence. Many people, yourself included, are arguing that the alleged aliens are somehow visiting earth and not leaving behind one iota of scientifically testable evidence, and cannot be accurately observed. I am simply stating that is not likely. However, if you would like to provide some evidence that supports your idea, I, and many many others, would be very interested in seeing that evidence.

  484. RAF

    Raj says: “This blog obviously is a rallying place for cult-like dogma.”

    So requesting evidence for an extraordinary claim is “cult-like dogma”?

    Boy are you confused.

    …and Shawn, try not to be so paranoid. You just got caught in the spam filter. There is no conspiracy to silence you.

  485. Greg in Austin

    @Squid,

    If you posted a hypertext link, your post will be delayed. It happens to everyone here.

    If we were to “imagine people who have real proof of alien intelligence,” instead of actually “seeing” the proof, then why would we need to stop with aliens and UFOs? Why not just imagine that AT&T has magical pink unicorns locked in cages, who flick their tails to make my email work, and that a little green leprechaun lives in my car to make it go, but Ford doesn’t want anyone to know about it?

    The answer is because unlike some people, I choose to live in reality, not fantasy. See what I’m getting at?

  486. @Greg

    I don’t think all the mathematics and physics was given by aliens, no.

    But hey, who couldn’t use a little help down here?

    I sure hope that peace wins through in the future of this planet. It’s not looking too good right now, I think. OK, different topic. But if I were watching events on this planet from somewhere truly peaceful then I think that I’d be cautious about getting too involved, unless I wanted to take over.

  487. Ok let me try do this again without getting caught by the “spam filter” twice.

    I’ve not included the url incase that is what is blocking my messages.

    Please go to the NSA website and the UFO section.
    Please read the following docs:
    Key to the Extraterrestrial Messages by H. Campaigne
    Extraterrestrial Intelligence by Howard H. Campaigne

    please let me know what you all think?

  488. RAF

    Squid say: “try not to spend too much time in front a screen is my advice.”

    This is kinda funny. I don’t post to any BB’s (anymore), and have only recently (like the last week or so) regularly posted to this blog.

    Since Phil has been nice enough not to ban me, I will continue to post when I have something to say.

  489. wow it went through! well done RAF

  490. If you have trouble navigating to find them.
    Go to http://www.NSA.gov
    Go into HTML version
    Click Public Info
    Click declassification Initiatives
    Go into UFO section

    I’d love to hear what the sceptics have to say regarding this signal? because as far as I knew, only the wow signal has ever been spoken about in public.

  491. Greg in Austin

    @shaun,

    This looks to me like a sample test or quiz for learning cryptology. In the second document, it clearly states,

    “In the most recent issue of the NSA Technical Journal- Vol. XI, No. 1 Mr.
    Lambros D. Callimahos discussed certain aspects of extraterrestrial
    intelligence and included several messages to test the reader’s ingenuity.”

    Its a practice exercise, and the answer key.

    What do you think?

  492. Todd W.

    @shaun

    Greg’s answer may not be too far off.

    However, let’s assume for a moment that it is not merely a cryptology test. There are no dates on the documents, so we cannot tell when they were written. The documents do not specify where in space the signals originated. Were they from a satellite orbitting Earth? Were they encrypted messages from astronauts? The document also does not specify how the signals were detected.

    Nothing in the document provides absolute evidence that the signals were from a non-human source. Without more details, we cannot conclude that they were, indeed, from some alien race.

  493. ND

    shaun is a close encounter of a the troll kind.

  494. Todd W.

    @Robin

    “But when they are exhausted, whatever remains, however improbable, must after all, be the truth.”

    Not necessarily. The true explanation may still be something outside the observer’s or investigator’s knowledge and experience. Don’t take this next statement the wrong way, but one could just as easily say that what you saw was God, or a giant space whale with bioluminescent barnacles on it. Those are also improbable and have just as much evidence to support them. Whatever it was that you saw clearly had a big impact on you, both intellectually and emotionally. Just try to keep in mind, that humans are incredibly adept at filling holes in the details and changing other details in order to make sense of what we experienced. If someone is open to the possibility of aliens, they may patch together their observations in such a way that that is the only possible explanation for them. What a person remembers is almost never a 100% accurate depiction, down to the very last detail, of what actually happened. Even seemingly significant aspects of the event can be altered or made up, all so the brain can make some sense of it.

    @Isabell

    Regarding the first case you shared (the two red lights silently floating by). It may have been some sort of balloon or blimp. That would explain the large, domed shape you describe and the lack of sound. As for the lights disappearing from view, it is possible that it turned in such a way that the beacons were blocked from view. Just a suggested explanation, of course, since I cannot say with absolute certainty that that is what you saw.

    Quick note regarding aliens leaving stuff behind:

    It is a reasonable assumption that some trace would remain. Just about everything in nature leaves some sign of its passing. Animals leave tracks, droppings, claw/teeth marks, blood, etc. Plants leave seeds, stems, leaves and so on. Humans leave all of the same types of marks that other animals leave, but we also leave signs of tools and other artifacts, ever since we started using tools and making things. Even the weather and other natural phenomena tend to leave some sign of their having occurred: precipitation leaves moisture, lightning results in thunder and ozone, volcanoes spew forth molten rock, fires leave charred remains, and so on. Why would aliens necessarily be any different? The real question is not, I feel, “Do they leave behind signs of their having been here?” Rather we should ask a few other questions: how long do the traces last? where were the traces left (single trace in a remote location vs. public place vs. many small traces over a greater area)?

    IF aliens are visiting Earth, they will almost certainly leave some trace behind. Maybe not candy wrappers, but imprints, markings, bits and pieces of their ship that may have jiggled loose. These pieces of evidence are crucial to answering that big IF.

  495. Todd W.

    Here’s a thought to make the UFO supporters’ minds spin (particularly those believing in some massive coverup or that governments have lots of information): What if declassified government docs regarding UFOs as specifically alien in nature (as opposed to terrestrial tech/natural phenomena) are released merely to feed the UFO theory and draw attention away from classified projects? In other words, what if alien spacecraft don’t actually exist, except in fiction put out by governments, writers, fakes and mistaken witnesses?

    Just a hypothetical to consider.

  496. maninasia

    Greg in Austin

    How can you believe an advanced civilisation would leave traces such as probes etc. sitting around on earth. Their technology is probably 1000s or even millions of years ahead of ours. They do not need to use primitive rocket space craft to get around, if indeed UFOs are a by-product from an advanced civilisation they already display capabilities that we don’t have now. What is so difficult to understand about this point? Again I’m not saying that UFOs are definitely from ETs, but it has to a distinct possibility.

    Lastly google Gordon Cooper and 1955 ufo sighting….. his sighting report goes way past Mitchell in that he claims to have personally seen one land.

  497. Phil Plait is now researching the Meier info…and the skeptics take it on the chin again:

    http://www.prweb.com/releases/2008/08/prweb1174744.htm

  498. I never read it carefully.
    Yes I believe you are correct Greg, it does appear to be a test. Todd – all your points are very valid too. No dates/additional data etc, does make the case it is a fictional scenario.

    I disagree that it is disinformation. I just misinterpreted it.

  499. Greg in Austin

    @maninasia,

    Of course you have proof of your claim that they don’t use rockets to get around, and you’re not just speculating, right?

    Again, I base my reasoning on simple observations of reality.

    Of the two choices:
    1) If aliens come here, then they must be able to completely hide, remove or cover up all traces of their visit.
    2) If aliens come here, then based on all of our experience of everything in the universe, there would be evidence.

    My bet is on #2.

  500. Todd W.

    @Shaun

    No worries. And my disinformation thing was just playing at the same theories being thrown about by UFO-proponents, rather than specifically responding to your post.

  501. Greg in Austin

    @Michael Horn,

    Many people here concluded that
    A) Meier’s photos of UFO’s were fake, and easily manufactured
    B) Meier’s claims of Aliens from Plieades were in fact female actors
    C) Meier’s “alien metal” was conveniently lost, therefore no scientific studies could be made
    D) All of your claims are based on appeal to authority and unreliable testimony
    E) Your personal attacks on anyone who questions you proves you are not open to a real debate regarding UFOs.

    Can you explain any of these?

    Oh, and we’re still waiting for that shred of evidence.

  502. Greg in Austin

    One more thing,

    Michael Horn,

    How many predictions has Billy Meier made in his life, and how many of them were actually FALSE? The reason I’m asking is that from your article, 5,100 Year-Old Iceman Proves Meier UFO Contact Case True! you state,

    “Dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of Meier’s specific, prophetically accurate information have already been noted and have served as sufficient proof, for many diligent researchers, that the case itself is authentic.”

    So I ask again, how many total predictions did Meier make, and how many of them were inaccurate?

  503. Todd W.

    @Greg

    Don’t hold you breath for any real answers from Horn. I’m still waiting for answers to the questions I asked. He has proven himself to be a rather pompous, self-important bully who would rather hear himself talk, hear others agree with him, and puff himself up than invest any time or effort in serious, respectful discussion.

  504. @ maninasia

    Thanks for introducing Gordon Cooper to this. How could we not respect a man like that?

    Peace and truth be out. The hippies had peace, the government had truth. It’s a shame they didn’t get together and help each other.

  505. Re:

    Many people here concluded that…

    MH: First, what are the qualifications of the “many people here”? How many have actually researched the case (for more than 10 minutes, etc.)?

    A) Meier’s photos of UFO’s were fake, and easily manufactured:

    MH: If you actually do read carefully, the skeptics have failed to prove that, after eight years of trying. Let them know if you’re more qualified to to substantiate the claims of hoax, they’d love to hear from you.

    B) Meier’s claims of Aliens from Plieades were in fact female actors

    MH: Not true. How do I know? Because Meier was warned that something was going to happen re the photos (which were later manipulated by other parties). How do I know? Because it’s in a book published well more than a DECADE before the falsifications happened. and yes, I have the book.

    C) Meier’s “alien metal” was conveniently lost, therefore no scientific studies could be made

    MH: Wrong again. The metals were examined by SEVERAL scientists. Marvel Vogel’s very detailed video analysis of the metals has not been refuted by anyone. And I hate to be the one to have to tell you this but, the “evidence” for some 90%+ of history is actually no longer present. You can’t touch a star either yet I’m sure you know ALL about them and can “prove” that they exist and that they are exactly what you think they are.

    D) All of your claims are based on appeal to authority and unreliable testimony

    MH: Nonsense. The claims are based on examination by scientific experts, of course, as well as on extremely reliable eyewitnesses (including FIVE other photographers), trained observers…even skeptics. Meier and 15 other people passed lie detector tests (100% truthful, years ago) and of course again got a thumbs up from an expert consultant to the U.S. Army Special Forces.

    Even more importantly, by actually researching and investigating the INFORMATION in the case one can prove for themselves if it’s accurate…and if Meier indeed published it before “official” discovery. Examples of this are referred to in the press release. One such is Meier’s publishing info on the surprise awaiting us when we discover water on Mars, as just occurred.

    How do I know he published it, in 1976, before NASA?

    I first read it in his work in 1986. And it’s in published books with an outside date of 1993.

    E) Your personal attacks on anyone who questions you proves you are not open to a real debate regarding UFOs.

    MH: Not really. Go back and you’ll see that I was called a liar here when I was submitting information. It was MY fault, however, to post here initially because I thought, since this was associated with Discover magazine, that this was a blog/forum for mature, scientifically minded people, and not just another hang out for, primarily, adolescents with too much time on their hands.

    Find that insulting? Well, how come since you mention the 5,100 year-old man, your jaw hasn’t hit the floor trying to figure out this one-armed farmer – who’s just happened to kick the butt of all the genius skeptics – also publishes mind-blowing information like that?

    Actually there’s no insults intended, I’m just not PC enough to cater to people who think they know everything, people who, instead of trying to prove just how glib and smart they are, could better spend their time – if they spend any on this – getting into the information and finding out for themselves (as opposed to the so-called experts that YOU rely on) just what the truth of the matter is.

    There are only two possibilities, it’s either the biggest, most impenetrable hoax, or the most important story in all of human history.

    And, in light of the latter, it’s really beyond immature and irresponsible to expect me to spoon feed you what you can go and find for yourselves. Especially since I’ve already spent years of my time, and tens of thousands of dollars, to bring to the public. Another thankless job, as there’s an awful lot of lazy, immediate gratification, types out there who think that making demands is a substitute for respectful discourse…and self-responsible due diligence.

    Don’t worry about “hits” to my website. I don’t make any money from it and, as you might notice, I don’t carry any advertising either.

  506. Greg in Austin

    A) The photos and/or negatives may be real pictures of something, but that does not prove that the something is alien. The same trickery has been done a million times by confirmed hoaxers and debunkers, and its been proven a million times that the exact same effect can be done with ordinary objects.. What we are insisting is that you, or anyone, provide evidence that the objects in the pictures are anything other than an ordinary hubcap tied to a string on a crane, yet you refuse.

    B) So Meier has DNA evidence from these aliens that prove they are not related to any person on earth? He has some kind of evidence, a flake of skin, a few hairs, or a drop of saliva that can be analyzed, right? Right?

    C) Who does video analysis of a metal to determine its structure? Where are the chemical lab results? Where are the spectrometer test results? Oh, and nice diversionary tactic: “You can’t touch a star either yet I’m sure you know ALL about them and can “prove” that they exist and that they are exactly what you think they are.” Because that has ANYTHING to do with the question at hand. Again, where is the metal, or at least where are the confirmed independent scientific test results of supposed metal?

    D) Greg: All of your tests are based on appeal to authority…
    MH: Nonsense. The claims are based on examination by scientific experts…
    That’s the definition of appeal to authority. The evidence can’t stand on its own and be independently verified, but don’t worry, this EXPERT says its real.

    E) We say you use personal attacks instead of evidence to argue your case, and you respond with more personal attacks? Brilliant!

    My jaw didn’t drop when I read about Meier’s supposed knowledge of the 5,000 ice man because I seriously doubt its legitimacy. If it were true, then men who discovered him, the museums that own the remains, the scientists who studied him for years, as well as the rest of the world would have said something.

    There is a third, and most likely possibility: It is a hoax, it has been penetrated, and you are in denial.

    Oh, and by the way, you still didn’t answer the question as to how many predictions Meiers got wrong.

  507. Todd W.

    @Greg

    Don’t forget that he was right about being called a liar, but has failed to explain himself yet. For Mr. Horn, I am referring to the claim that the JREF prize money does not exist, just to be clear.

  508. Let me put it in a better, clearer context…now that we’ve dispensed with the other questions.

    My point with JREF was that first James Randi called Meier’s evidence “a farce any child can see through”. Note that farce is equivalent to hoax.

    He then did a “gee, I never said that” which was an effective retraction of the hoax claims.

    But his affiliated organizations, CFI-West and IIG, continued to claim that Meier haoxed…despite their saying that they didn’t TO be clear, when someone accuses Meier of using models and claims that his evidence is “an easily duplicated hoax” – as they did – it should be clear what their position is.

    But I not only issued a challenge – which they accepted – to duplicate Meier’s evidence, I included a presentation (not an interview) by Derek Bartholomaus of IIG in our film presentation, where he reiterated those claims.

    I gave some brief rebuttal but saved the best stuf for AFTER the film was released, which forced him to retract some of his claims. Then I recently issued the challenge for him to back up his other claims of models for a Meier film.

    He couldn’t do it. And Randi’s representative also backed away from the model claims – the only possible means left for Meier to have hoaxed his work.

    So that leaves us with JREF, CFI-West and IIG no longer claiming it’s a hoax.

    IF it’s not a hoax…doesn’t somebody owe somebody something regarding claims of the “paranormal”?

    And, to be even clearer, this isn’t wasn’t has never been and won’t ever be – for us – about the money.

    If you’re involved in the most important story in all of human history (since the skeptics have admitted that it isn’t the biggest hoax, the only other possibility) money is irrelevant.

    Oh really? Yes, as I mentioned before, I don’t get paid to do my work, it’s voluntary.

  509. kuhnigget

    Hey, Michael Horn!

    As I said repeatedly before: I looked at the Meier pictures again just now. I checked out the videos, too. I’m no “expert” on CGI like the ones you’re always quoting, but I did make 8mm movies of flying saucers when I was a kid, and I tell ya…Meier’s flying saucers look exactly like my old 8mm movies, right down to the wobble caused by the model wiggling around on the wire and the difference in focus between distant objects and the model in the foreground. I even figured out a way to get rid of the wobble for static “hovering” shots by adding a guide wire down to the ground. Pretty cool, huh?

    Here’s a suggestion: instead of getting “experts” in computer technology to comment on your evidence, why not listen to some people who actually used the same techniques Meier did? Like me? Better yet, send me $20 bucks and I’ll digitize the old 8mm film and upload it onto youtube for ya.

  510. kuhnigget

    @ Shaun

    I never read it carefully.
    Yes I believe you are correct Greg, it does appear to be a test. Todd – all your points are very valid too. No dates/additional data etc, does make the case it is a fictional scenario.
    I disagree that it is disinformation. I just misinterpreted it.

    Excellent application of analysis and deduction Shaun. You re-examined the evidence, used your head, came to a logical conclusion. That’s what science is all about. And I bet if a person were to dig deeper and actually contact the people involved, they could confirm your theory. Woo-hoo!

  511. Ray

    Michael Horn,

    You said:

    “A) Meier’s photos of UFO’s were fake, and easily manufactured:

    MH: If you actually do read carefully, the skeptics have failed to prove that, after eight years of trying. Let them know if you’re more qualified to to substantiate the claims of hoax, they’d love to hear from you.

    B) Meier’s claims of Aliens from Plieades were in fact female actors

    MH: Not true. How do I know? Because Meier was warned that something was going to happen re the photos (which were later manipulated by other parties). How do I know? Because it’s in a book published well more than a DECADE before the falsifications happened. and yes, I have the book.”

    A) The “wedding cake” sure looks like a trashcan lid with some junk on top. It even has the lid’s handle still on it. Exactly why did the Plejarans leave the handle on the ship AND what purpose does having a gigantic handle serve?

    Or did Billy forget to remove the handle in his haste to perpetrate the hoax?

    B) Please explain how the Plejaran women looked just like the dancers on the Dean Martin TV show.

    As for any “predictions” by Billy of tampering, thats way too easy. Any good charlatan will have a backup plan to cover himself when discovered. Billy simply makes “predictions” to cover the holes in his hoaxes.

    For example, I will now make a prediction: Michael Horn will deny that the “wedding cake” ship is merely a trashcan lid with the handle still attached and adorned with shiny paint and some odds and ends.

  512. Quick responses:

    I GUARANTEE that your films won’t even come close to Meier’s for a number reasons, including the haze factor, thermographic signatures, etc. will not be the same, edge enhancement will show distinct differences and I doubt that you have the equivalent of 10o+ fee above and to the sides of your models, nor are they filmed OVER deep valleys, as was established by the on-site investigation.

    You really should read the photo analysis at my site, it’s free.

    As for the WCUFO, there’s $500 on the table for anyone who can take a garbage can lid and duplicate the object.

    My money will collect dust before you ever collect it.

    Try to duplicate the WCUFO video. And, not to be TOO obvious here but why do you assume such things as “handles” and all the other nonsense? Make one, video it as Mieer did – with himself in the video – and then let’s talk.

    Oh, the reason I checked in her ewas to share this update to my press release, funny how it just gets better for Meier, isn’t it?

    BREAKING NEWS FROM NASA – FURTHER CORROBORATION OF MEIER MARS INFORMATION!

    Information received early Monday evening from NASA reports that the Phoenix spacecraft detected the presence of chemicals in the Martian sopil that may make it “detrimental to life” http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j1hvRUNc9W-3lupLU6TLQtR0gdRAD92BPQ980.

    Could this be what Semjase was referring to, in her last sentence to Meier below – from 1976?

    Meier- You are right, too. Yet now another question: Yo u had once told me that no life would exist on
    Mars. If I have understood this right, you meant by this but planetarian human life, didn’t you?

    Semjase- 114/Certainly.

    Meier- Well – then your earlier answer does not exclude (the possibility) that any other life of floric
    or faunic form can exist there, or even does exist. You then told (me) expressly, that life does
    not exist there, while logically you had addressed only the human planetary life. What do you think now,
    Will the Americans discover low forms of life with their sonde sent to Mars?

    Semjase- 115/They will meet with surprises in many respects, as in the fact that Mars has much more
    water than earthly science had assumed until now.
    116/ But there are also surprises in the character of the ground and the nature of the microworld.
    117/The floric and faunic world can absolutely be found on Mars when the scientific instruments of these sondes are well enough to evaluate and store the concerned results.

    Meier- Then “life on Mars” could prove true for our science?

    Semjase- 118/It is in the compass of possibility, that the analyses could verify this, when the scientific instruments are qood enough, because faunic and floric forms of life are existing on Mars, even though this planet destroys other forms of life by its contrary to life nature.

  513. Todd W.

    Can’t believe I’m actually going to get into this again…

    Mr. Horn, a few questions for you:
    1) Did you, or Billy Meier, ever actually apply for their challenge? And no, issuing your own challenge doesn’t count. If you didn’t apply, then you’re not eligible for any prize.
    2) If you did apply, what did you put forth as evidence? Was it available for IIG, CFI-West, or the JREF to examine themselves or by scientists they selected? Were the original materials (photos, films, metal) provided to them for study?

    Let me make some predictions of my own:
    1) They accepted your challenge. You did not accept theirs. Ergo, no prize for you.
    2) You will likely say something along the lines that the original materials were not in your possession and you could not provide them, for whatever reason, to IIG. This seems rather a double-standard, since you required their materials (e.g., photos) to be examined and tested, but did not allow them to examine and test Meiers’.

    And a note, even though you have been told this over and over for several years, photos are, at best, inconclusive, as far as evidence goes. Even if the film has not been manipulated, what appears in the picture can be staged or faked, and, depending on the skill of the photographer, can be very difficult to establish as a hoax. The Meiers photos and video are rather fuzzy, and the objects in most of them far away from the camera, making any detection of, say, strings or wires, exceptionally difficult. The photos in which the objects are closer have the top of the objects out of the frame, making it impossible to determine if it is suspended from a line.

    Also, as regards proving a claim. Yours was the original claim: that they Meiers photos and other material were proof of an extraterrestrial presence on Earth. The onus of proving those claims is therefore on you, not on the skeptics to prove that they are a hoax. And even if they cannot prove that it was a hoax, that does not mean that it is therefore real, merely that they were unable to determine whether it was a hoax or not.

    Finally, regarding the actual money. I figured it was only time before you make the cop-out that you don’t need the money. Well, perhaps some scientist could use the money as a grant to further their research? Or perhaps a charity or hospital could use the money? No one cares what you do with the money once you win it, so it doesn’t matter whether you consider the money “irrelevant.”

  514. Todd W.

    One more thing, on the photo of the “alien”. As Ray mentioned, making a prediction is an easy out. Now, if you maintain that the photo was tampered with, I assume that you have evidence, besides Meiers’ word? Is the photo available for examination so that independent investigators can verify your claim?

  515. Todd W.

    And a finaly note, that I forgot to mention before hitting submit. I see that, once again, you dance around my accusation about your lie regarding the JREF prize money. Almost let you get away with that. Perhaps I just need to remind you of exactly what I’m talking about. To quote:

    @Michael Horn

    Quoting from the article “Photo Analysis Ends Challenge by Skeptics”, emphasis mine:

    Certain parties, such as CFI-West of Los Angeles, and James “Amazing” Randi, also offer fake challenges with non-existent financial awards promised to anyone who can provide evidence of the “paranormal”. Such disingenuous offers are based on the cynical assumption by the skeptics that, since no such things exist anyway, no such monies need be available to back up the challenge.

    PDF of the prize account balance as of 1/31/08 held at Goldman Sachs available here: [URL cut to avoid spam filter, see below]

    The article quoted above clearly states that the prize money is “non-existent”. I have shown that it does exist. Therefore, you are lying.

    I’ve removed the URL so that my post does not get caught in the spam filter, but for those who are interested, please see my post above: July 31, 11:52am.

  516. Jose

    @maninasia
    The above is typical of close minded thinking about the UFO field. To use the ‘require extraordinary evidence’ prerequisite many areas of natural phenomena cannot be studied in the regular scientific method.

    I’ll settle for ANY evidence. I don’t need extraordinary. A tissue sample or Exotic space ship material is fine. With all the extraterrestrial activity on our planet, it doesn’t seem like those should be too hard to come by. Instead we get amateurish photographs and fake autopsies.

    Skeptics don’t have to be convinced of this phenomena , but they have a duty to to their research about the field and admit there are huge numbers of very difficult to explain away cases and also numerous UFO reports come in all the time from people who had very clear sightings but only recently feel okay to report them because of the anomonymity of the internet and the opening up of discussion of this field.

    I have done the research. I don’t see huge numbers of difficult to explain away cases. Here are two reasons.

    1. The unreliability of eyewitness testimony has been scientifically proven. People can fool themselves into seeing what they want to see. This goes for individuals as well as large groups of people.

    2. People lie. They may be trying to get attention or make a buck (Meier). Or they may just do it to mess with people (Crop circle makers).

    The rules of genetics were disovered in the late 1800s by Gregor Mendel, but people thought his idea was a bit wacky and since nobody had the concept of a double helical molecule that could easily encode information it was left until technology caught up with his observations.

    I don’t know if this is true, but let’s assume it is for the sake of argument. Mendel made his claims, and people were able to duplicate and confirm his results. But imagine if people weren’t able to duplicate his results? If he behaved like a UFO huckster, Mendel would claim that they did the experiment incorrectly, or they were part of a close minded scientific establishment bent on suppressing the truth. Of course, he would have his supporters who would point to the fact that he was a monk, and therefore more credible that the average person.

  517. ManinAsia

    This spam filter thing is very annoying as it negates the possibility of posting some great cases on here

    @Michael
    Basing your assumptions on testimony from one man is very dangerous and in the end fruitless.

    @Greg
    You have a very black and white mind. Actually I am a scientist with an advanced degree. When I look at this area I try to take in all the angles. I have a biological background, when approaching the idea ‘Are these objects possibly the result of an advanced civilisation’, I take into account the high probability of life on other planets and the billions of planets in the milky way (this is my professional area of expertise) and I say yes, there is a good possibility of this since they display characteristics and have displayed characteristics of flight we cannot replicate.

    The one thing this whole UFO thing is, it is not black and white. It has multiple components
    - Natural phenomena mistaken or unidentified
    - Man-made phenonmena mistaken or unidentified
    - 1-5% of cases which defy explanation.

    It is very difficult to explain rotating and extremely rapidly moving metallic disks, sphere, cigars and triangles as natural phenomena. In the case of disks and sphere shaped objects they cannot generate lift and velocity by any of our conventional technology. They have been sighted since the 1940s and actually before that. In world war II Foo fighters were identified by both the allies and the axis forces, both assumed the other side were responsible. There have been pictures of these objects taken, however due to their distance, limitations of common camera designs, rarity
    and velocity they are very hard to take pictures of. The other simple thing which many posters have mentioned is that most people simply don’t look up and would not notice these things. When they do notice them the majority do not report or talk about them.

    Astronomers are not kitted out to study these objects either, they usually train telescopes on fixed objects in the solar system or beyond at night-time.

    Google ‘Foo’ and ‘UFO’ and check the wikipedia link since we are being prevented putting links here. It’s time to make a few people embarrassed, can all these witnesses be mistaken (). Among the objects described (some of which were probably St.Elmo’s fire on their wingtips) they describe disks, large cylindrical objects moving at 1000mphs (in the 1940s!). One bronze coloured object followed a plane near Tasmania and then dove into the ocean. The Robertsons Panel concluded ‘If the term Flying Saucers had existed in the 1940s, Foo fighters would have been included in this group.

    What’s interesting about the Foo fighter reports (some of which only emerged in the 1990s), they were not even assumed to be alien craft in the 1940s, these witnesses has NO AGENDA to describe these objects as they did. They were reported by military crews with no reason to report them other than doing their job.

  518. ManinAsia

    @ John

    There are many cases of multiple eye-witness testimony and radar tracked objects moving at incredible speed. There are cases of UFOs landing beside a school in Australia in the 1960s and numerous students and teachers seeing the disk-shaped object! The object left impressions on the ground before it took off again

    Google ‘Westall UFO encounter’ , this case has it’s own yahoo group formed by the ex-students who witnessed the event and who want to get witness testimony from the now adult students and before the teachers pass on.

    The problem is the ridicule that these cases are subject to and a lot of people just don’t want to challenge their own world view/religion and feel uncomfortable admitting to seeing things that bring them ridicule. They risk losing their jobs and liviehoods and often are forced to keep quiet.

  519. Todd W.

    @ManinAsia

    The spam filter just puts a post into moderation, waiting for approval. Once it’s approved, it will appear in the thread. Any post with a hyperlink in it gets picked up. As long as it’s not to some adult-only type of site, it will likely get approved and posted.

  520. Harold McTestes

    Hi all. Just figured I’d pop back in and see if there had been any evidence posted yet. Still nothing remotely credible I see… bummer. I’ll try again next week.

  521. Todd W.

    @Harold

    Heh…I think this may very likely be the longest thread in BA history(just guessing), and still nothing. Wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you. :)

  522. Harold McTestes

    I have to give you props, Todd. You hung in there like a champ!! Props to Greg too. You guys have carpal tunnel yet?

  523. There’s so much nonsene here that it isn’t worth a lot of time, since no one ehre actually does any research.

    Here’s a beauty:

    “The Meiers photos and video are rather fuzzy, and the objects in most of them far away from the camera, making any detection of, say, strings or wires, exceptionally difficult. The photos in which the objects are closer have the top of the objects out of the frame, making it impossible to determine if it is suspended from a line.”

    Thanks for showing that, in your ignorance, you’re making a case for the authenticity of the Meier evidence. “Fuzzy, far away”…that means large objects a good distance from the camera and not small models. Didn’t you do ANY homework?

    And your next line is simply…factually wrong, go check the link referred to in my press release at a site that ends in dot info.

    And the genius remark about the “word of one man” or whatever, another indication of someone babbling without knowing ANYTHING about the facts of the case, the dozens of witnesses, the five other photographers, the lie detector tests, investigation, etc.

    Okay, no one knows what the heck they’re talking about so the BIG issue is my saying that there was no money behind the challenge? That’s it? Not that Meier published the info about water on Mars 32 years ago AND that just today the new discovery about the substances that are detrimental to life on Mars that were discovered were ALSO mentioned in the same contact 32 years ago?

    Have any of you gone to school? Did you run this kind of utterly incompetent, non-responsive nonsense on your instructors? Do you have ANY idea about how proof for something is actually established or do you just like playing with your keyboards?

    I’m sure you think I’m “bullying” or whatever because of your absolutely intolerably self-absorption. I’m not. It’s just that so far none of you would last two minutes in a real debate, a lecture challenge, etc.

    The problem is that you don’t know just how pathetic this is, in this instant gratification “culture”.

    Think what you wish, simply because thinking itself would be a refreshing activity to observe here. You have been presented with a rather impressive puzzle, which so far no one here is qualified to even discuss.

  524. John

    This is a list of the various types of people on our planet relating to the UFO phenomenon, although not exhaustive.

    1. Believers who have seen a UFO and say that was an alien ship. (These are what most witnesses tend to be like… easily accepting of something)

    2. Sceptics who have seen a UFO, and just don’t know what they saw. They are often rational and don’t claim to know what it was, but do sometimes say it looked just like an alien ship out of the movies. (These tend to be people of above average intelligence from any background, although scientists usually, apart from a few, keep quiet because they know no-one will ever believe them without proof. We are getting more and more of those scientists with this account or knowledge starting to come forward with it. Some even changing from saying something unusual is happening to saying that they know some are alien visitors)

    3. Deniers who have seen a UFO and say “nah that didn’t happen, it can’t be real” (These can be religious in nature, uneducated people or people who just cannot fathom et outside of sci-fi, or even some scientists who like to think everything unexplained is best ignored. These don’t tend to announce their scepticism in public, and tend to just keep silent, therefore strengthening the viewpoint of person number 4.)

    4. Sceptics who have haven’t seen anything that remains unexplained until this day, and so find the idea that people have seen a UFO ridiculous. These can be anyone from all walks of life, but are usually fairly intelligent, and can be scientists. These tend to announce their scepticism in public from time to time, and use a valid argument that no physical proof of UFOs remain for us to examine. (Some people dispute this fact using radar traces from multiple receivers matching eyewitness accounts, burn marks, radiation marks. These sceptics will always find a way to explain these using a mundane explanation, even though a few cases remain unexplained they will say a mundane explanation is always likely, even though we just don’t know that is true for every case. These kind of people are only going to be convinced if a piece of a craft or alien body or something similar is produced in front of the world media with a full testing and report completed by a credible scientist)

    5. People who haven’t see anything unexplained and don’t care.

    ———————————————–

    Now no.1 kind of people discredit the no.2 people often, which is not always helpful. But I know for a fact that some unknown phenomenon exists as I’m in second category. This is also the case for many many other witnesses, with some claiming they know such as Mitchell. People in category 3 need to come out of the closet, we know you are out there. People in 4 are stuck in a rut, there’s nothing we can do about those yet, and there are quite a few who make themselves known on here. People in 5 which I suspect are the majority of the world’s population and need to wake up.

    And for people in 4. this is correct even without sufficient physical evidence. How do I know this? From my personal experiences and other credible people’s experiences which match mine, and the rest is from observing your behaviour.

  525. Alex

    It really is as simple as we who saw something “know”, other people who saw something “know”, Mitchell who talked to people “knows”, and you sceptics just don’t know.

  526. Alex

    even they should understand it plain and simple as that

  527. Greg in Austin

    @maninasia,

    You said, “Actually I am a scientist with an advanced degree. When I look at this area I try to take in all the angles. I have a biological background, when approaching the idea ‘Are these objects possibly the result of an advanced civilisation’, I take into account the high probability of life on other planets and the billions of planets in the milky way (this is my professional area of expertise) and I say yes, there is a good possibility of this since they display characteristics and have displayed characteristics of flight we cannot replicate.”

    Since you have a degree in science, as you claim, surely you remember your lessons on the Scientific Method, which goes something like this:
    # Ask a Question
    # Do Background Research
    # Construct a Hypothesis
    # Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
    # Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
    # Communicate Your Results

    It sounds to me like your method is:
    # Come to a conclusion
    # Look for data that supports that conclusion
    # Communicate your results

    Just something to think about.

    You also said, “Astronomers are not kitted out to study these objects either, they usually train telescopes on fixed objects in the solar system or beyond at night-time.”

    Actually, one of the first pieces of equipment any good amateur astronomer would have is a pair of binoculars. These would be very useful for getting a closer look at objects in the sky, and are not fixed on any position. However, my argument was actually related to the amount of time amateur astronomers observe the skies, with or without telescopes, compared to the average person. I know I’ve spent hundreds of hours, at night, in the pre-dawn, both near cities and out in West Texas, stargazing, planet watching, and observing. I’ve seen interesting things, for sure, but unfortunately, I’ve never seen anything unexplainable.

    Finally, as to the Foo Fighters, according to the Wiki page you offered, there are no less than 10 possible explanations for these phenomenon, and only 1 of them is extraterrestrial. If 9 out of 10 explanations are terrestrial, and there is no evidence, I’m going to go with terrestrial. The most likely reason, based on the evidence linked at the bottom of that page, is electrostatic discharge from the aircraft. If I was really curious, I’d probably start my research by talking to a few pilots.

  528. Isabell

    Thank you for your post ManinAsia. I like the way you think.

    Todd – “Regarding the first case you shared (the two red lights silently floating by). It may have been some sort of balloon or blimp. That would explain the large, domed shape you describe and the lack of sound. As for the lights disappearing from view, it is possible that it turned in such a way that the beacons were blocked from view. Just a suggested explanation, of course, since I cannot say with absolute certainty that that is what you saw.”

    Good thinking but I need to clarify. The object, as I said, was visible because it blocked the stars. When we looked at it, it looked like black space. We were in a remote area where the sky was lit up with gazillion stars. The black object above us blocked those stars. As it moved away we could see not only the 2 lights but the absence of light and stars between those lights. When it vanished, not only did the red lights disappear, but the entire object disappeared, revealing the night sky above us again.
    Your theory that it could have moved, thus obscuring the lights is a fine one, but doesn’t account for the fact that the sky provided us with the light which silhouetted the object. I also have to admit that I haven’t been able to accurately describe in writing its shape. Sure wish I can do some drawings for you all.

    Squid – I wanted to throw in some thoughts to your question –
    “Are we being protected or controlled by not being told the truth?”

    At the National Press Conference in DC in which an international panel testified to their remarkable experiences, the press was invited to ask some questions at the end.
    One question that was asked several times was “Why the secrecy? Why would our government want to keep this from the American people?”
    A panelist answered, “Because they don’t want to scare us, they don’t want to create a panic.”
    A CNN reporter then stood up and said “You say the reason why the Government keeps this a secret is because they don’t want to scare us, but they LOVE to scare us! With yellow alerts, and orange alerts, and red alerts, it seems every other day they are saying something to scare us!”
    There were a lot of laughs and the recognition of some truth to that.

    I don’t believe we are being protected by not being told the truth. But I do believe the truth is slowly coming out, and when it does, that truth will be used to control us.

    Also… I have been thinking about time travel for many years as a possible explanation.
    What if “they” are us?

  529. Greg in Austin

    Well, shucks, Mr. Horn. You shure showed us, what with your fancy big words and researchin’ and stuff. Why, I don’t know why I ever doubted ya! I must be some kinda knucklehead, ’cause I can’t figure out where in all your wordin’ you actually have any evidence of your own.

    Maybe you is smarter than all the rest of us. Here I thought that guy from Italy, Giovanni Schiaparelli or something, thought fer sure Mars had water back in 1877, when he did all that telescope lookin and map drawin. Turns out he was wrong about the canals, but that’s OK, cause he didn’t know any better. Accordin to you, this Meiers fellow must have been there already or something, cause that there Phoenix prober just found actual physical evidence only this year. Don’t matter that we’s been speculatin’ on this fer over 100 years, what’s proof is what Meiers says.

    Thank you Mr. Horn, for learnin us all this UFO stuff. Now we’s don’t have to ask any more dumb questions that show how ingnorant we’s are.

  530. That’s a good lad, Greg. Next, read the 1,300 pages of the investigation reports and get back to me with something substantial.

    Run along now little fella, youse got some reading to…did!

  531. kuhnigget

    Mr. Horn:
    I couldn’t help but notice you didn’t ask to see my 8mm movies of flying saucers that I made when I was a kid. Too bad. They’re pretty neat.

  532. kuhnigget

    @Maninasia

    Thank you for the info about the Westfall case. Very interesting. I couldn’t help but notice the linked news story detailing Mr. Ryan’s investigation points out that numerous witnesses repeatedly contradict each other. Some said the “object” made a noise. Some said it didn’t. Some said it was followed by aircraft. Some said it wasn’t. Some said it burned the ground. Some said it didn’t. Some said it left marks, others that there were no marks. This, I think, is a good example of why eyewitness testimony by itself is often not very helpful. Did they see something? Undoubtedly. Can you say anything more than that? Not really.

    One other comment I find telling, this coming from Mr. Ryan himself in another googled article in which he compares (paraphrasing) the marks supposedly (by some) left on the ground during the Westfall incident to “crop circles.” He seemed rather excited about that. I’m assuming the intent was to link the Westfall incident with the “alien-manufactured” crop circles in England, which were all the UFO rage a few years back. The fact that the perpetrators of the crop circle hoax have since come forward (repeatedly) and explained exactly how and why they were made, once again makes one speculate as to Mr. Ryan’s objectivity.

  533. robin

    Greg in Austin:

    “My lines of thought are based on observation and historical evidence. ”

    You are right. However, if what I, and many others, have said about our observations is the truth, then what we are observing is unpresidented. A UFO is not a new species of flora or fauna. It is not possible to bring back a sample from the field for testing. While I saw two phenomenon in 1976, I have not seen anything since. But others have.

    Given the nature of the phenomenon, it may be that a new methodology must be created in order to analyze the available data, of which there is a great deal. That analysis will not be taken seriously, however, unless and until the scientific community is willing to risk ridicule by those who hide behind blind skepticism and call it science. The professional cost of going against the current “wisdom” on this topic is all too high.

  534. robin

    kuhnigget:

    Re: Crop circles. While it is true that hoaxers have come forward, it is also true that not all crop circles can be attributed to them, and in fact, the hoaxers got the idea of making crop circles from the crop circles they saw.

    Skeptics love to point to hoaxes as if they account for every phenomenon. They do not.

  535. ManinAsia

    @Isabell..thanks.
    @Greg
    You have pointed out the standard scientific method well. You’ve also illustrated by doing that why it is not very useful for studying the topic of UFOs (as I explained in a previous posting). Considering most scientists wouldn’t touch this area with the proverbial bargepole make it doubly hard to do scientific research.
    Yes my ideas about UFOs are conjecture, I never saw they were absolute truth Mister Black and White :) But using common sense and a good knowledge of up-to-date biology, astronomy, information technology and physics combined with similar witness testimony the world over of strange metallic objects doing unbelievable things (which have been tracked on radar) I think my conjecture has a good chance of being right.

    I am well aware witnesses have varying impressions to an event. Why I picked the Westfall incident was to illustrate that a major event such as this could happen where there was a very unusual object sighted by hundreds of people which almost certainly touched down, yet again it was ignored, mainly because of the ridicule that comes with the UFO area. The principal told the teachers to stay quiet. The kids were told to stay quiet. The farmer told the kids to get off his field. RAAF officers visited the teachers at home, took reports and then the reports were never logged. The main witness, Andrew Greenwood, science teacher, does not want to talk about it now but stands by his previous testimony that he saw a flying disk/thin metallic objects moving rapidly.
    The corn circles were almost certainly made by the object. I am also well aware most corn circles are fake worldwide. Just because the main investigator isn’t so up to date on corn circle faking doesn’t mean he’s doing a bad job and collecting witness testimony, putting the story together. The same goes for Mitchell, just because he believed his cancer was cured by remote healing (an idea not much different than catholics and their blessed saints, or Mormons and talking directly to God) his decades of works in the space industry and his personal background of growing up in Roswell should be ignored.

    @Todd
    I think you should do your homework on this subject more……

  536. ManinAsia

    @Isabell

    What you describe is almost certainly a flying triangle sighting, slow massive dark triangular object, sometimes lit up at the axis points or from below. There have been sightings worldwide for decades. These may or may not be the same objects, almost certainly some of them are. I believe your account because it sounds so familiar to many other flying triangle reports I have read. I know another witness who described it as being like a giant ‘flying block of cheese’. He had it fly right over his bouse.
    There have been many sightings in Belgium and the UK and the US. It is possible it is not an ET object but rather a LAV (lighter than air) vehicle operating NATO bases. The technology for this exists just about.
    There are reports of triangles accelerating at tremendous speed although they seem to be the minority so that is why I would aim towards the idea that they are man-made (usually described as moving very slowly and low altitude).

  537. ManinAsia

    @Robin
    Skeptics love to point to hoaxes as if they account for every phenomenon. They do not’
    Excellent line!

  538. @Isabell

    Glad you mentioned time travel. I believe that is something else which has been hidden from us for many decades. Understandably, to some extent, but if they had been more open about it in the beginning then people would perhaps have made their mistakes and got used to it by now. The powers that be seem quite happy to allow starvation, mass torture and genocide in certain cultures whilst allowing (or practicing?) mind control, devastatingly harmful primitive cancer treatments and generally confusing disinformation (leading to suicides and all kinds of criminality) in others. Knowledge is power, so I might disagree with you on one point – the more of the truth the masses learn, then the less easy we are to control, I think.

  539. Todd W.

    @ManinAsia

    Why do you say I need to do my homework? Because I have been asking for some credible evidence and am still waiting for more than stories? Well, point me the way!

    @Michael Horn

    I’m beginning to wonder if you can post even once without taking a superior air or calling or implying your interlocutors are stupid. Now, to your latest post:

    Thanks for showing that, in your ignorance, you’re making a case for the authenticity of the Meier evidence. “Fuzzy, far away”…that means large objects a good distance from the camera and not small models. Didn’t you do ANY homework?

    Let me clarify. The objects were far enough away that any lines that may have been used would be very difficult to detect in a photo. Far away does not equal miles, or even half a mile, away. So, no, “fuzzy, far away” does not mean large objects a good distance from the camera. It means, poor quality film and/or iffy focus, of possibly a model that may be large or small, far enough from the camera for the support mechanism to not be seen.

    And your next line is simply…factually wrong, go check the link referred to in my press release at a site that ends in dot info.

    Please clarify which statement you say is factually wrong. Thanks.

    And the genius remark about the “word of one man” or whatever, another indication of someone babbling without knowing ANYTHING about the facts of the case, the dozens of witnesses, the five other photographers, the lie detector tests, investigation, etc.

    Please provide the quote this refers to. Is it about the photo of the alien? That’s the only part I can see in my post regarding anything close to “the word of one man”. Please clarify your point. Thanks.

    Okay, no one knows what the heck they’re talking about so the BIG issue is my saying that there was no money behind the challenge? That’s it? Not that Meier published the info about water on Mars 32 years ago AND that just today the new discovery about the substances that are detrimental to life on Mars that were discovered were ALSO mentioned in the same contact 32 years ago?

    Again, you try to distract from the issue by bringing up some supposed prophecy. My point in calling you out for your lie is that it speaks to your credibility. The fact that you have lied, and continue to dance around that lie, rather than admit you were wrong or that you did lie, particularly about something that is easily verified, casts a shadow of doubt on your other claims, many of which are more difficult to verify.

    Have any of you gone to school? Did you run this kind of utterly incompetent, non-responsive nonsense on your instructors? Do you have ANY idea about how proof for something is actually established or do you just like playing with your keyboards?

    Ironic that you call us non-responsive. You have yet to answer our questions.

    1) Did you apply for the IIG challenge? (Issuing your own challenge doesn’t count. I hope you can see why.)
    2) What evidence have you presented, other than stories, fuzzy photos and fuzzy video, all of which are, at best, inconclusive? Where is the metal sample? Perhaps, since Mr. Meier is the contact for these aliens, he could arrange for them to show themselves to some of the skeptics?
    3) What evidence do you have that the photo of the alien was tampered with? Is the photo available for independent analysis?
    4) Why does the photo of the “wedding cake” UFO look surprisingly like a trashcan lid, with the handle not disguised or removed, with other objects attached to it to make it look less like a trashcan lid?

    I’m sure you think I’m “bullying” or whatever because of your absolutely intolerably self-absorption. I’m not. It’s just that so far none of you would last two minutes in a real debate, a lecture challenge, etc.

    Calling people intolerably self-absorbed, stupid, etc….yeah, I’d call that kinda bullying.

  540. ND

    Michael Horn

    Are there any prophecies that have been made by Meier that have not come to pass yet? Anything that we should look out for? All these prophecies appear to be revealed after the events.

  541. ND

    Isabell,

    Regarding your first encounter, there is still no convincing evidence that it’s not man-made. The key think that’s missing is that you were not able to see any details of the object itself, except the red lights. What was the shape of this object?

    Also regarding triangle ufos, the observer is most likely only triangular aspect of the object and missing out the other shapes. That’s just a guess based on the idea that’s it’s a dark object seen at night.

  542. maninasia

    @Todd

    Sorry Todd, I was referring to the BLOG author Mr Bad Science. My bad.

    @ND Regarding Isabell’s siting, these objects have been almost unanimously described as triangular, as sometimes the outline is clearly visible against the background of the sky and some have been observed in daylight/twilight. Of course it can also be affected by the angle of the observer but I think that’s not very relevant to the large number of similar sightings.

  543. ND

    My take on Micheal Horn is that he’s here on a fishing expedition, ruffling feathers and making up stories of defeated skeptics on his site. Very apparent from his childish comments. He started off very cortious when he first started posting.

    As for the Meier video of the ufo flying around the tree, that did not look “actual size”. That model saucer was being dangled closer to the camera than implied. It never crossed in front of the tree. Even if it did, the tree and the saucer were silhouettes so one could not tell which was in front of the other.

    As for the pictures and video of the saucer embeded in the tree, come on, that’s a small model tree rather than a real living one.

    That’s the last I’m writing about it.

  544. RAF

    Todd W. says: “Calling people intolerably self-absorbed, stupid, etc….yeah, I’d call that kinda bullying.”

    We really can’t expect much more from someone who promotes what is essentially “warmed-over” George Adamski.

  545. I find it more than a little telling that people here are automatically coming down on the side of the skeptics regarding the so-called million-dollar challenge, etc. Talk about prejudice.

    First, a little something to contemplate. Million-dollar challenges tell you quite about the people that make them.

    For one thing, it tells you that they are so sure about their view of reality that they’re willing to bet a whole lot of money on it.

    (It also tells you that there just may be a bit of, perhaps unconscious, fear lurking beneath the surface, fear about things possibly NOT being exactly as they’d like them to be.)

    Now, just how ready are they to have their reality – and their cash – separated from them? We can safely guess not very.

    REAL scientists don’t make defiant bets on reality like that. They try to be as objective as humanly possible in determining what the facts actually are, whether they have prejudice, consciously or otherwise.

    James Randi and his cronies ain’t no scientists. If you read the correspondence to me by Jeff Wagg, his General Manager, you’d think the guy was about 10 years-old (or maybe a not too clear-headed 85). The point here, that I jumped on with all my promotional vigor, is that James Randi (and his affiliated skeptics) are the ones who made the claim that Meier’s evidence, and the case itself, was a hoax.

    Please THINK this through. An entity that has a million-dollar challenge preemptively claims that something is a hoax, then RETRACTS that claim and then…DOESN’T offer up the money? THEY are the ones who set the standard of proof, claimed that the Meier evidence failed it and then RETRACTED, i.e. failed to prove THEIR claim! THEY are the ones (the affiliated skeptics) who claimed that THEY could duplicate the evidence…and then couldn’t.
    There was no need for me to apply for any challenge. THEY already published THEIR conclusions and then, as I presented my evidence and arguments…THEY WITHDREW THEIR CLAIMS.

    Sorry for the caps but really, isn’t it obvious who you should be chewing out here? And I do mean OBVIOUS.

    As for the nonsense questions regarding the Meier photos, films, video, metal, sound recordings, etc., sorry but they are just as off the mark as the lack of “reasoning” here.

    Why? Well, let me answer it this way. If a teacher decided to give a class a test on some subject and the class protested, saying, “You didn’t cover any of this material in class!” and the teacher said, “Yes, I have but none of you were listening. However, I’ve posted all of the information – and answers – online and you can take as much time as you want to read it all BEFORE you take the test,” and, instead of going to where the answers could be clearly found, the students CONTINUED to protest, as if the teacher hadn’t clearly directed them to the answers…just how valid would their protest be?

    Considering how well anyone here thought through the million-dollar challenge issue, I am not hopeful that you’ll get the point. Nonetheless, before giving any answers AGAIN, I leave you to ponder (ALL) of this.

    That, my friends, is not “bullying”, it’s calling you out on your laziness, prejudice and inadequate scholarship and…thinking.

  546. Jose

    @robin
    While it is true that hoaxers have come forward, it is also true that not all crop circles can be attributed to them.

    I’ll bite. Where is the evidence of crop circles that are not man made.

    Skeptics love to point to hoaxes as if they account for every phenomenon. They do not.

    That’s a flat out lie. Skeptics point to hoaxes along with other explanations to show there are more reasonable alternatives than alien visitation or lake plesiosaurs.

  547. Todd W.

    @Michael Horn

    Regarding the million dollar challenge, again, you make excuses for why you haven’t applied for it, and then complain that they didn’t give you the money. Let’s be clear. Their challenge is that if someone has some phenomenon that falls outside the realm of accepted science and reality (UFOs would be applicable here), they can apply for the prize, stating their claims clearly and undergoing testing to verify those claims. If you fail to follow the application procedures, they are under zero obligation to pay you anything. What part of that do you not understand, Mr. Horn?

    You gave them a challenge, and they accepted. Your challenge said nothing about any prizes and did not obligate them to give you their prize monies.

    So, the truth of my statement, that you lied, still stands. Complain all you want, it just makes you look worse.

    Again, regarding claims. Your claims came first. Therefore, the burden of proof is on you. Why do you keep failing to understand this?

    As to the JREF not being scientists, I seem to recall James Randi readily admitting that fact, but also stating that they have a number of scientist colleagues who are willing to step up for any investigations, pending agreement by both the JREF and the applicant. So your statement brushing them off because they are not scientists is irrelevant.

    As to your implication that scientists and prize money don’t mix, I recall this little, insignificant award called the Nobel Prize, which carries with it a modest bit of money.

    Regarding your teacher analogy. If a teacher is asking the question of whether unicorns exist, and they produce photos, videos, and limited, non-peer-reviewed reports about hoof prints, horn material, etc., I think it would be a foolish student who says, “Yes, they do,” before asking to examine the original materials upon which the reports were based or examining the potential that the photos and videos could have been staged, not to mention the credibility of the sources. So, the photos and videos, again, are out as evidence. The reports, likewise, are out. Why? Because the original materials are rather suspiciously unavailable for examination by independent parties. This casts doubt on the reports you have provided.

    Again, you have avoided answering the specific questions raised.

    That, my friends, is not “bullying”…

    You’re right. That post was not bullying. It sounded a lot more like petulant whining and excuse-making.

    Mr. Horn. Please answer one question for me. Why do you continually refuse to offer simple, straightforward answers to our questions, opting instead to go off on tangents that dance around the point but never hit home?

  548. Todd W.

    @ND

    “He started off very cortious when he first started posting.”

    That’s Horn’s MO. He starts out sounding sane, but the moment someone disagrees with him, out come the insults, appeals to authority, and self-aggrandizement. If you take a look at the correspondence between him and the IIG, available on the IIG web site, you will see a similar mien.

    Also, speaking of the IIG web site, they have an analysis that someone did of some of Meier’s prophecies. A crucial point identified by the author is that it is difficult to determine exactly when Meier wrote the prophecies down. Yes, he wrote dates on his notes, but he could be lying. The date of publication is the best we can do for confirming a reasonable timeframe for the prophecies.

  549. Jose

    @Michael Horn
    One quick question. Is it just a coincidence that Meier’s space ships to look exactly like ceramic bowls and garbage can lids? Doesn’t that bother you?

  550. Todd W.

    @Jose

    I predict he will not answer your question directly, but rather challenge you to replicate those photos using garbage can lids nd ceramic bowls.

  551. If anything would bother me it’s the fact that someone would post such a foolish, unthinking question in light of the above post from me that points out how putrid the thinking abilities here have been.

    Then again, maybe you were gratuitously trying to emphasize that point.

  552. Todd W.

    @Jose

    Ah. I was wrong. He opted to only insult and not even challenge.

  553. Jose

    Ah well, what can we expect from someone who’s devoted his life to worshiping a fraud. Avoiding the obvious truth is too deeply ingrained.

  554. Greg in Austin

    Mr. Horn,

    In the realm of science and reality, it is not up to me to look for holes in your “evidence.” It is up to you to show how your “evidence” is anything other than fiction. Based on the “evidence” you have placed in this blog, I have concluded that you and Meier are full of baloney.

    You posted this tidbit:

    “Semjase- 115/They will meet with surprises in many respects, as in the fact that Mars has much more water than earthly science had assumed until now.
    116/ But there are also surprises in the character of the ground and the nature of the microworld.
    117/The floric and faunic world can absolutely be found on Mars when the scientific instruments of these sondes are well enough to evaluate and store the concerned results.

    Meier- Then “life on Mars” could prove true for our science?

    Semjase- 118/It is in the compass of possibility, that the analyses could verify this, when the scientific instruments are qood enough, because faunic and floric forms of life are existing on Mars, even though this planet destroys other forms of life by its contrary to life nature.”

    As of today, we have NEVER seen any plants or animals on Mars. In fact, the report that just came out TODAY indicates the presence of perchlorate, a toxin, was found by the Phoenix lander. This toxin was also found by the Viking landers in the ’70s. This is evidence that rules out any possibility that “faunic and floric forms of life are existing on Mars.” Therefore, Semjase is wrong, Meier is wrong, and you are wrong.

    I am not interested in reading your fairy tales at the moment. Perhaps later, when I’m very bored and have nothing better to do, I might consider reading your 1300 pages of fantasy. As it stands, you have not been able to convince a single skeptic (some of whom are actually scientists) in this blog that the photos, videos, and alleged interviews with aliens are anything but total and complete nonsense. Your methods are flawed, your ideas are fanciful, and while you are adept at changing the subject and calling on the authority of oth