Best UFO Cases Ever Caught on Tape

Best UFO Cases Ever Caught on Tape

2007, Conspiracy  -   291 Comments
Ratings: 6.76/10 from 369 users.

An increasing number of UFO cases have been reported by people all over the world. Video cameras are now capturing hundreds of these baffling unidentified flying objects which puzzle both those who believe and those who don't.

On this program there'll be presented the most compelling videotaped evidence of extraordinary and unknown craft ever shown anywhere and hear from a top government physicist, a video analyst, and the eyewitnesses themselves. Could these be actual alien spacecraft, sophisticated military vehicles hidden from the public or incredible hoaxes? You decide for yourself as we examine the best UFO cases ever caught on tape.

A startling, domed flying machine was videotaped over America on May 24th, 2003. It appeared to be a mysterious device displaying some unknown propulsion system. The crystal clear footage was shot by a videographer, Jeff Willes, while standing outside his home in Phoenix, Arizona.

Some top UFO experts believe this is the kind of compelling evidence that should get the US government's attention. Willis, a dedicated videographer, has taped several inexplicable UFOs over Phoenix - a city that many experts claim has the most UFO activity of any American city.

But it's his focused efforts to document strange, disc-shaped craft and eerie, night-time formations that have produced some of the strongest UFO evidence on record. On December 11th, 2004, in the clear blue skies above Phoenix, Willis managed to tape a disc hovering for several minutes before a strange second object passed it from above.

Then on May 24th, 2005, the two-year anniversary of his astounding dome saucer sighting, Willis captured an enigmatic craft navigating over his house. It too appears to be a metallic device displaying unknown flight characteristics. Moving silently the UFO appeared to be two objects or had split into separate parts somehow linked together.

Just a few months later Willis videotaped day-like disc which incredibly turns into an orange, glowing orb before vanishing behind the building. But the nighttime UFO encounters Willis managed to record during the same period are perhaps even more difficult to explain, and were witnessed by a fellow sky-watcher.

More great documentaries

291 Comments / User Reviews

  1. I have a really good recording

  2. I filmed 4 different clips of a UFO how can I sell the footage

  3. Some things are just hard to believe, until you see them for yourself! then you know. and also think of this.. if you we're the Aliens, you too would stay far far away from humanity! just look at us! we'll never get anywhere because of the way we are.. creating and repeating the same ol problems. we're not worthy of meeting them yet and probably never will be. we're an embarrassment!

  4. Not one single video was clear enough to accept as hard evidence.

  5. I will be happy to share if respect and sincerity are observed. I’m unsure about what exactly to believe but I’m sure I see it in my video and picture. It was so fast I never saw it live I was just getting shots of the mountain after repairing my chimney rot for paint

  6. I have a brand new video of a little ship zipping around the sky insanely fast and reversing direction with no more than a millisecond pause as in none!

  7. I didnt know who to contact,we were raised up on a mtn here in Va.When I was a kid my daddy always told us not to go deep in a valley behind our house,he said THE LONGHAIRS WOULD GET MAD AND CAUSE PROBLEMS,we always thought it was a family.Our family have lived deep up in this mtn for hundreds of years,only one other family lived up here and they made liquor so we never went on their side of the mtn.When we killed hogs,deer,or got our garden up daddy would always haul some up for the Longairs.I never saw them until one night we were coon hunting and my best dog went off up in that holler. I went about 5 miles looking for him when I heard a loud howl,then I started seeing movements.I finally got hold of my dog,when I started getting rocks throwed at me,I shined my light to see what and who the Longairs were,they were what people call BIGFOOT.Its only one way in this mtn,and its so steep on the backside you couldnt climb down if you tried.Who do I tell about this,my family have always got along with these things.They tore up a chicken house and took a bunch of chickens,for me coming up there that time.I know they still up in there,at night you can hear them holler,I dont want them hurt,and I dont want alot of people up in here.But I do know I could help them,dont try to figure out how and where I am.I used a friends phone and name to do this.This is no hoax,I will meet with 2 people and take them and show them.For years my grandpa said the Longairs would come get us if we were bad,they were saying Longhairs,

    1. Send me info

  8. Witnessed two different sightings. One in new Jersey on about September 4th in 2002. At the time the Comet was visible for two weeks in the sky. We had a severe thunderstorm at dinner time, with about 45 minutes of lightning then the sky was clear. I stepped out of my mother in-laws house and lit a cigarette as I gazed up at the comet. Then I was distracted by a large towering cloud under the comet. As gazed at the cloud 4 or 5 gold discs appeared on the left and circled around the cloud! All of a sudden the craft on the left wing position dropped below the others and positioned itself on the right wing position! It was as if it did not want to fly through the cloud! The went behind the cloud and must have gone north, they did not appear again. My second sighting was in California, in Sacramento. I was with a friend at the coffee shop on South 16th Street, also known as Freeport Blvd. I was outside enjoying a cigarette and while gazing up at the stucco work on the apartments above, a large saucer appeared above the building! As I watched in horror and amazement it was followed by three more! The were about 60-70 feet wide and 15-20 feet apart. Flying in formation from right to left. They made no sound, there were no lights, and they were not spinning. I could easily see a scorched metal silver and gray finish as if caused from entry to our atmosphere! They were only 100 feet above me! I could have hit one with a rock! They flew slowly about 6mph. I was going to follow them but it meant leaving my friend and the street has cars on both sides. It is hard to look up and drive on 16th street going north. I have since seen no more, yet. Trust me they are real and I no longer wonder if they are.

  9. Look, a UFO. Now where is my potato. I must film it.

  10. I just spent an hour reading every comment. Very entertaining I have to admit, far more so than the documentary itself. It was obvious to me that most of these things could be anything other than extra-terrestrial craft and that it is too easy to jump right to the E.T. theory. All I can say is that as a young man I once witnessed an object that wasn't a helicopter, airplane , or anything we could think of,[I was with three other people] hovering over a corn field at three A.M. And considering the distance it was huge. To this day I have no idea what it was and to be honest, don't much care. It was interesting at the time. My only real comment in answer to all the others is this, Their are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, then are dreamt of in our philosophy.

  11. @Olin T Flowers - Maybe you aleady have

  12. I read about 20 of these comments & are you f#@%ING kidding me????? Aliens are here and have been here since the beginning. The proof is out there all u have to do is open ur eyes, close ur mouth & pay attention. No wonder the government thinks we're sheeple! Unf%#$ ING believable. You probably think bin Laden took down the twin towers from a cave also..

    1. I was taking pics of a double rainbow, a week later I looked at the pics and there is a ufo I can count the lights its so close plus it looks like a thousand more everywhere

    2. They are as real as rain but hope u dont ever see one

  13. Scientists estimate that there are a BILLION stars is our galaxy ( the milky way ) and and estimated BILLION galaxies in the see able Universe. For those who do not realize, our Sun is a Star so this mean that there is an estimated 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the known universe. That's 1 QUINTILLION! That is such an enormously large number that is incomprehensible to the human brain. Taking in to consideration that there are a Quintillion! stars and each star is a Sun with the capability of warming a planet as to create the primordial soup for biological creation ... you have to be completely out of your mind to still think that there is no such thing as extraterrestrial life.
    With those odds, it would be mathematical fact! that life would exist outside our planet. FACT!

    1. Assuming your pontificating from a science perspective, as the opening word in your first sentence is pointing to the alleged words of "scientists ", mathematics is a means to construct or disproove a possible theory in context to an unknown. And that's certainly a fact. Mathematics is not proof in absence of fact. Furthermore science, above all else, defines what is known as scientific fact through analysis of observable, demonstrated physical process or entities. Clearly, there is enough material through video etc. to strongly suggest the presence of intellegent "yet unknowns." but you'd have to be out of your mind to state an unsupported theory with no real scientific basis for applying unfounded statistical math out of context, which was for estimating groups of bodies within a viewable space, as a quantifiable FACT. Yes those crafts must call some place home. Or maybe the crafts ARE homes. But non believers in the science world take us to task on statements of fact that are in fact not rooted in science. its more probable at this stage that extraterrestrial life is here now among us in the vast unknown regions of our earth. But alas, science takes a belligerent stance against faith.

  14. why only ufo's are seen in US? why not in Afghanistan, Pakistan and countries which are less technologically advanced? there is no ufo's or aliens. there will be a day when US will come up with aircraft which look like flying saucers and will say this is result of a old research that started years ago.

    1. UFOs have been spotted all around the world. It is well documented. Perhaps you should do some research before you comment and give your opinion. How would anyone listen to what you have to say if you don't know anything about it?

    2. Do your research, watch more documentaries because THEY HAVE BEEN spotted ALL OVER THE WORLD!!!!!

  15. Check out UFO'S SEEING IS BELIEVING (Peter Jennings, it's online) If you want to see a good piece on this subject.

  16. How come we don't have flying teacups, we got the saucers. I like the case of the flying anvil. This compilation of shit has convinced me that some people just have too much time on their hands and highlights the shortcomings of our mental health system.

    1. And he replies with dismissal of all others experience and or beliefs as a group of under stimulated fools with overactive imaginary delusions and yet he has irony to the moon with his devotion of time and energy to read and reply on the lunatic loungers ??

  17. Total pish, this is actually some of the worst ufo footage I've ever seen and I've seen A LOT. I don't understand how they could spend so much time talking up the importance of the sightings in Israel and not show the footage of the ufo over the dome.

    1. do some research the dome ufo is fake as hell

  18. 22:52, LOL. Pay attention to this part, LOL. They are showing images of a NASA mission which consisted in deploying a satellite to a higher Earth orbit using a cable (because they wanted to find a cheap way to do so). Then the people who made this dumbcumentary add some TOTALLY UNRELATED images of... whatever that is (it seems underwater footage showing marine creatures) and play an audio track of some astronauts saying that there's debris out there, LOL. You are supposed to think that those astronauts are talking about that underwater footage you are seeing, but, in reality, they are referring to real debris the images of which you are not seeing, LOL. Another video-bait for fools.

    23:12 Yep, that's definitely underwater footage. You can see the shadows of every element over the marine soil. If that footage had been taken in space, THERE WOULD BE NO SHADOWS PROJECTED OVER THE FREAKING VOID, LOL. Also, we wouldn't see that illuminated area because the void can't be illuminated, light doesn't bounce off against the void, LOL.
    The areas that are closer to the spotlight are brighter and everything gets darker as you look away from the illuminated area, becoming totally dark in the end... That's clearly a spotlight illuminating the marine soil at an angle, and those round things floating around are probably marine creatures and floating pieces of other stuff, which is typical underwater. Also, you can see the stones and sand, those bright things on the bottom aren't stars, LOL, they are small stones over the marine soil.
    "I measured approximately 2 to 3 miles in diameter against the 12 mile length of the tether" XD. What tether????!!!!! LOL That's not the tether from that mission you moron! The cable was cut and went away along with the satellite, and if you paid attention you'd have noticed that the cable started to wrinkle right after it got severed.
    Do you see any wrinkles there? And where the hell is the satellite? I guess it got confiscated by the aliens, LOL.
    That's not "pulsating spacejunk", LOL, that's a marine creature breathing/eating/swimming. That's another element that confirms this is underwater footage.
    "This spiral, to me, suggests a gravity wave that is stronger than light. This, to me, is proof, in quantum physics, that these ufos are utilizing very advanced forms of gravity energy and zero-point energy. " First, that's not a spiral, second, this guy is mentioning some kinds of energy that are currently being investigated just because they sound cool, complicated, weird, etc. He probably has no clue of what "gravitational energy" (that's the correct name, btw) and zero-point energy really are or how they work, but since they sound futuristic, aliens are probably using them, LOL.
    That's a great logic, which shows the level of this guy.
    Also, he probably meant "a gravitational wave FASTER than light", not "stronger", but, anyway, that doesn't make sense either, LOL

    After some more fakes and hoaxes we see another fake video in which the guy speaks Spanish> 32:43. First off, this guy seems r*****ed, secondly, what he really said is this "you know what? Call some...some stuff of the media". I'm translating it literally, it's not that my English is bad, as I said, this guy seems r*****ed or something, LOL. he doesn't say anything about Alpha Centauri (I doubt that guy knows what Alpha Centauri is, LOL) and he definitely doesn't say "how are you?", the guy that gives us the false translation is simply lying.

  19. Laughable.
    The chances to viewing a "UFO" are staggeringly high. But the dude in Phoenix videotapes multiple UFO's over a short period of time? Absurd.
    When I was a child, back in the 1960's, I was fascinated with UFO's. Then I grew up.
    These "examples" are silly, pathetic, juvenile and idiotic. The people behind the videos are in for the notoriety and for the money.
    How many people in the world now have cell phones? Its one billion people. That many cell phone cameras and not a single decent image of an unknown flying craft? I just wasted 50 minutes of my life.

  20. Oh, God, just started watching this; and Jeff Willes seems like a really, really, bad, third-rate actor. But, I'll watch to end.

  21. According to Drunvalo Melchizedek:
    In modern esoteric teachings, it is taught that the MerKaBa is an interdimensional vehicle consisting of two equally sized, interlocked tetrahedra of light with a common center, where one tetrahedron points up and the other down. This point symmetric form is called a stella octangula or stellated octahedron which can also be obtained by extending the faces of a regular octahedron until they intersect again. In his books, researcher and physicist Drunvalo Melchizedek describes this figure as a "Star Tetrahedron", since it can be viewed as a three dimensional Star of David. By imagining two superimposed "Star Tetrahedrons" as counterrotating, along with specific "prana" breathing techniques, certain eye movements and mudras, it is taught that one can activate A NON VISIBLE 'saucer' shaped energy field around the human body that is anchored at the base of the spine. Depending on the height of the person doing the exercise, this field is about 55 feet across. Once activated, this 'saucer' shaped field is capable of carrying ones consciousness directly to higher dimensions.
    He lives and teaches in Sedona and surrounding areas of Phoenix, and has thousands of followers.
    I wonder what he thinks of flying saucers.

    1. we have a saying in Britain. Bullsh/t baffles Brains.

      What it means is if you chuck in enough big words to whatever you're talking about then most people will not have a clue what you're talking about, but also won't call you out on it for fear of appearing stupid.

      all that bullsh/t reads like it's been ripped out of L Ron Hubbards Dianetics.

  22. Science, Proof And The "UFO"

    Val Germann,

    Here is one of the stickiest wickets in the whole field of Ufology. The debunkers all say "where is the proof?" And the "Ufologists" keep trying to turn themselves into physicists and produce it. But the plain facts are these:

    If there is a another, non-human intelligence operating on the Earth then "science" could be of little help and there may be no "proof" available except as these "others" desire. The concept of "proof" requires that there exist a human agency possessing the ability to determine with authority what is happening in the world. When "science" is dealing with things like sulphur dioxide or chimpanzees there is no problem. But if "UFOs" are the products of a superior technology then where is the "authority" to determine what is really going on? We must remember that scientists are neutral, objective observers only within their narrow specialties. They are all, regardless of specialty, part of a self-selecting social elite. They have a position to protect. Someone has to pay for "science" and every last scientist. Science and scientists are caught up in the economic and military systems that dominate the United States and most other nations. These systems are paid for by the average citizens of these nations and those average citizens must retain confidence in that which is taking so much of their money.

    Who is the "jury" who must be convinced by "evidence" for the existence of "UFOs" as "artifacts of another intelligence?" The same people who would be severely damaged if that "evidence" ever were to become "proof!" It is not rational for "Ufologists" to expect science and scientists to cooperate in their personal diminuation. It is not going to happen. The proof of a superior technology and civilization operating on the Earth would be a tremendous blow to all of our various elite groups, including scientists. This is so even though the first reaction of the average man might be an "us against them" reflex that would actually enhance the power of our current human leaders. In the long run (several decades) present human social arrangements would have to change, and drastically, if we were to "make contact" with another intelligence. Those at the top of the current heap understand that clearly, whether the rest of us do or not.

    The 1987-89 statements of John Lear and William Cooper are interesting mostly because they deal with the issues above. Is it conceivable, as these two men claim, that our scientific and governmental elites have sold us out to "others" from off the Earth? "NO," say most of those who have heard the charge. But for many people, more and more all the time as we Americans are sold out to earthly "foreigners" by our social and economic betters, the answer is becoming, "Well, it might be possible, should such creatures exist." This last is the starting point for our discussion.

    The Three Arenas Of Proof:

    1) Legal "Proof" 2) Scientific "Proof" 3) Intelligence Proof

    The Three Arenas Of Proof: 1) Legal "Proof"

    In the legal profession "proof" does not exist until a jury has been convinced and a conviction obtained. Before that time "proof" was simply "evidence." Jurors hear the statements of witnesses and experts. The "physical evidence" in a trial is given by a police expert and it is HIS credibility that makes the evidence, whatever it is (ballistics, fingerprints, etc.), stand up in court. If the jury convicts evidence becomes "proof." There is no such thing as "machine proof." A human being always has to testify as to what sophisticated machines are saying. Machines cannot speak for themselves. They are only tools and have no legal standing to testify. "Proof" at trial is a human thing, not a machine thing.

    Let us take the legal paradigm and put it into the world of the UFO. Let us suppose that a "crashed disc" is brought before the nation. It looks for all the world like a Flying Saucer. Let us suppose further that it REALLY IS a Flying Saucer! What would make it real to the public at large? Would seeing it on TV be enough? No, it would not. The thing could be fake, right? Hollywood can make anything look real these days.

    No, it would be a statement of strangeness given by a figure in authority that would make that "crashed disc" real. The artifact in itself is NOT sufficient. A human being in authority has to PROCLAIM a mute physical thing to be what he believes it to be! That puts it into the human system, that's the proof! This is the absolute core of the issue.

    In the modern world a thing is not necessarily what it IS but what someone in authority SAYS it is. The rest of us must then take the word of this authority about the "reality" of any artifact or process. We, just like a jury at trial, have to take someone else's word about nearly everything. The only question is: whose word are we going to take?

    In 1954 I saw a large, diamond-shaped object go over my five-year-old head. My best estimate is that this object was some hundreds of feet across and several thousand feet above me. I did not see it close to the horizon but had a sudden urge to look straight, and I mean straight, up--to the zenith. I had to bend over backwards to do this. Then and only then did I see this thing. It made no sound and was cruising smoothly and rapidly under a solid overcast. It frightened me deeply.

    For me, this event is experience--beyond proof. I am a witness. The questions are:

    1) Do YOU believe me? 2) Does my sighting resonate emotionally with you? 3) Does it fit in with what you believe to be the "reality" of the current human situation? Or is it emotional anathema to you and you want to send me a sharp note of protest, telling me that my mental processes must be defective? To you my sighting is a "story," but so is much of the rest of the world!

    It is unfortunate but true that as long as great numbers of "Ufologists" continue to insist on "proof" we are going to learn very little about what is actually happening. "Proof" is simply not available. This is something that "they" (if they exist) understand quite well and use against us. Ufology has been spinning its wheels for four decades, chasing lights in the sky in a vain search for "proof," while the real action has been right here on the ground. In the opinion of UFOSearch this has not been an accident.

    The Three Arenas Of Proof: 2) Scientific "Proof"

    The following is a quote from a letter I recently received: "Ufology ought to be a scientific study of a legitimately puzzling phenomenon." You see, I just can't agree with that. In my opinion, "Ufology" can never be truly "scientific." This is because of the nature of science and the probable nature of the "UFO." If in fact the "UFO" represents another intelligence of some kind then the fundamental assumptions of "science" and "scientists" are null and void. These assumptions are:

    1) The universe is objective (totally material, in effect, dead) and knowable with certainty by human beings, i.e., by scientists, who are the most human.

    2) The scientific method is the best way to study the universe and its language is quantification--mathematics. The ideal here is the "hard, physical evidence" that can be deemed "proof" by the ultra-materialists of the world of science.

    3) The highest form of "science" therefore is physics, the most provable, with chemistry a strong second.

    But if the UFO is not "objective," if instead it is under the control of an agency equal or superior in intelligence to humans, then the UFO is not necessarily knowable at all, let alone knowable with certainty. Science assumes that humans are at the top of the universal brain chain. Science has not really looked at what it might mean if we are not.

    The "scientific method" demands repeatability either of experiment or observation. It assumes "control" of one kind or another by human beings. But if the "UFO" represents another intelligence then that "control" may not be available. And if that control is not there then science is not going to give us what we need. We need more than science.

    In the final analysis science is not a whole lot different from the legal profession. Both scientists and the jury at trial see only a part of the real world and they both make rule-bound assumptions concerning both evidence and the nature of that world. To the scientist the universe is a gigantic mechanical device and the results of experiments and observations are valid for that reason. If enough evidence can be assembled then the majority of scientists (the "jury" of science) will accept that evidence as proof. That's how it works.

    The Three Arenas Of Proof: 3) Intelligence Proof.

    For two generations America has been the most powerful country on Earth and fought war after war to acquire and maintain that power. Yet to the average American his country is as pure as the driven snow, innocent of the "great power" sins of older empires. It is no wonder that "Ufology" is making no headway with the public. That same public is bullet-proof to even the obvious truth about its own CIA and NSA. In this environment of blissful unknowing what chance does something really strange and dangerous have? None.

    Americans in general know nothing of the world of intelligence and the power that intelligence can give. In the world of intelligence the universe is not mechanical, rather it is covertly or overtly hostile. In the world of intelligence there are only opponents and very little is "objective." The intelligence game is not "us against a mechanical universe" but instead "us against an enemy who means us harm." In this arena if you wait for proof--you'll see it from the afterlife. This is the world of the UFO.

    For the intelligence operative "science" is a weapon of great power against all opponents and High Technology determines who wins and who loses. The patty-cake, patty-cake of ideal science is out the window. In the years following World War Two a new science came to the fore -- power science, a discipline much too important for our true elites and their intelligence services to ignore. America was now a world power in a world full of enemies. What type of proof was required here? What was the role of "science" now?

    Most Americans are totally innocent of this. Oh, they know there is a CIA and that it spies on people, sure. They have heard something about the FBI spying on "subversives" in the 1960s and they may know of the National Security Agency. But not one American in a thousand has any idea of what is actually happening. If the most powerful country in the world is going to "maintain innocence" then its people must not know very much and it is this public ignorance and apathy that helps make many things, including the "UFO," so hard for most people to accept. People who are unaware of the bizarre things their own elites are doing have no way to deal with what ANOTHER civilization might be up to!

    Thus the "threshold of belief" is just too high for most people where the "UFO" is concerned. In the opinion of UFOSearch this is the DESIRED result of a covert plan. Until this planned wall of ignorance is broken down for a large number of Americans there will be no real progress on the "UFO front."

    Science, "Intelligence" and Power

    Into the intelligence world came thousands of scientists during World War Two. For most of them it was new. Some, however, had already served in this "nether world" through the brutal domestic and overseas extraction industries, mining and the oil business. The scientist had no doubt of his cultural superiority over the rest of Earth's human beings. His machines needed resources and they would get them--one way or another. As a result of World War Two the marvelous inventions of the previous one hundred years were turned into weapons beyond history, true planet killers. Horror and shock spread through civilization. Today we are numb to it but in the 1940s and 1950s is was real and palpable. For the first time large groups of scientists had been admitted to REAL POWER and given huge resources for their work. As the Cold War against the Russians gained momentum, fueled by dreams of "imperialism on the cheap," the position of "scientist" rose higher and higher. The horror of the new weapons and the hatred of the USSR drove America's cadre of emigre scientists and their home-grown colleagues onward and upward. By 1947 the best and brightest of the Western World increasingly and willingly began contemplating planetary-scale destruction. Von Braun's prediction had come true, America could afford the very best.

    This became that "nether world" of the "power scientists" like Vannevar Bush and Lloyd Berkner, Edward Teller and Detlev Bronk. This was the world of the European refugee and his pathological fear of the USSR. It was the world of the American physicist who in 1940 had a budget of five hundred dollars and who by 1945 was spending millions.

    It was these people who soon defined the terms of engagement for the military types who "ran" the various intelligence services. "Science" was NEVER, EVER going back to the 1930s, never going back to the days when the elite of the Earth had to grovel for a plumber's wages. It was a member of the A.E.C. (Rockefeller operative Strauss) who goaded the Air Force into monitoring the stratosphere for possible products of a Soviet atomic explosion, three years before any "military expert" thought there was even a possibility of a Soviet bomb. Proof? It was enough that the Russians existed and that we had the bomb and that they would certainly try to get it. A very dangerous, multi-million-dollar operation was set in motion on the basis of a "hunch" on the part of an influential scientist. Of course, the "hunch" did fit the paranoia of the day. The "hunch" fed the power complex. And when the "hunch" was proven right (instrumental data was acquired), it wasn't "a hunch" or "paranoia" anymore, it was revealed truth! It was the "scientists" who pushed for the U-2 and Atlas, Polaris and Discoverer -- over the objections of carrier-happy Admirals and stick-happy Generals. The scientists were the ones who made The National Reconnaissance Office possible and gave The National Security Agency its abilities.

    Who pushed for the H-Bomb and saw to it that the American scientist Oppenheimer was discredited? Hungarian Edward Teller. Who sat on their hands as Eisenhower tried to get a test ban treaty to cool off the Cold War and stop the Strontium 90 from showing up in my milk in Carrollton, Missouri? The former General Of The Armies pleaded with his scientific advisors for help but none came. None of them were curtailing their brand new power. It is said that Eisenhower feared the "military-industrial complex." That may be true. But behind that was the arrogance of the new elite, an elite that had tasted forbidden fruit and was lusting for more. Thus the "scientists" helped crush the old government elite during the so-called "McCarthy Era" and pushed the "weapons culture" ahead as fast as possible. There was no effective resistance to any of this within the scientific community and by 1954 scientists of Oppenheimer's persuasion were either keeping a low profile or had been driven out of government through "security checks" and McCarthy-Era purges. Opposition to the new "power science" was pushed to the fringes, along with Astrology and the UFO.

    By the middle of the 1950s half of the scientists and technical people in the USA were working for the War, er, the Defense Department--as they do today. For almost two generations now our very best people have been totally concerned with power and the projection of power--raw military power. This set them against many of their own ancient traditions; power does that. Thus was created the situation we see today: "Science" as part of the Cold War establishment, hip-deep in weapons research, spying and God knows what else. Today, "Science" is not always a noble work, not always a part of an ancient "liberal" tradition (based on the rule of law and the free exchange of information) but can now be an integral part of an imperial system riven with secrecy and power mania. In this world nearly anything goes--anything. In this world, a world of arrogance, duplicity and bad faith on a planetary scale, planetary blackmail becomes possible.

    This is the world of Lear and Cooper, in my opinion the real world of the UFO. Not that everything that Lear or Cooper says is "true," whatever that means. I mean that when you really start down the rabbit hole of the "UFO," when you stop looking into the sky and start looking at things on the ground, you have left the mythical world of "science" and entered the world of intelligence and power. The rules here are different. This is serious.

    The existence of "aliens" from another planet, another dimension or even another part of the Earth would be both a shock and a threat beyond tolerance for our elites. It is easy to say things like "human culture would change if we make contact" but when you are on top of the current heap you don't want to hear things like that. Not at all.

    Now we're where we need to be. "Flying Saucers," in and of themselves, would be a tremendous threat to existing human society. Add to that what I suspect became known in the 1950s about implantation and abduction, mutilation and disappearance, and the Eisenhower years became a living nightmare for many of our new economic and scientific elites. They were ripe for blackmail, overweeningly proud and yet insecure in their new positions. If our little grey friends (or those behind them) didn't seem to care about human social arrangements and said they just needed a few things from us and a little help in getting them (from 50 or 100 light years away they probably couldn't bring the whole store) then by God they were going to get the stuff--from our own elites using our tax dollars. And if a little inducement were offered, such as high technology, well, all the better. A little bribe makes a guilty conscience a whole lot easier to live with.

    We here at UFOSearch can well believe that in exchange for "protection" our new scientific elites would have eagerly provided assistance to others, even if part of the "deal" involved harm or even death to average Americans. We must remember that these are the same people who would bring the world willy-nilly nuclear testing and Thalidomide. They view the "average man" as not much better than a dog. It would have been a deal that they could hardly have refused, a deal they would already have made with the nuclear devil.

    Does UFOSearch believe that our hereditary elites (the employers of Allen Dulles, James Forrestal and William Casey) would trade a few million lives for their continuance in power? Yes. Do we believe that the people who created Project Phoenix would trade a million or so of our lives for a power that might put them on top, over and above their old- line earthly superiors? Yes. Was a "revolt of the Dulleses" possible? Yes.

    All of these people have one interest in common--staying on top. For them, as for the many scientists, the common people are a common herd and occasionally some slaughtering must be done--that's the way it is. Our nuclear progams have killed thousands of Americans over the years. None of them care. What would they do for the power of the Gods? Would they kill us all? We fear they might.

    1. What a load of crud. Threads of truth mixed in with UFOSearch's opinions, in an attempt to make their opinions seem credible.

      Pray tell, which scientists assume "by scientists, who are the most human"?
      This is an opinion based load of trash, relying on fear and fallacy with a hint of truth to get to it's point that as it says, cannot be proven anyway.

      Very much like most 'scriptures'.

      You're a sheep of the UFO pushers, who, like they say the scientists they're trying to discredit, have their own agenda. You are a clown, a silly one too, no better and very much the same as religious nutters.
      You need a good probing, might help loosen up your impacted BS you've swallowed and are now regurgitating, dribbling all over the thread.

    2. Haha. Well ... someone had to go the 'anal probing' route eventually, given the Godwin like nature of the argument. I wouldn't have guessed an impacted bowels approach though, it adds the imminent thread of devastating 'ass'-teroids :)

    3. Well, I thought me-to-alright :) I like your sense of humor jaber, you make me laugh mate.

  23. I can only assume this was made by someone who does not believe in extra terrestrials having visited earth. Simply put these are some of the worst documented cases not the best, there are many other videos circulating that are far more convincing than the ones presented here. Just my opinion but it seems most of the actual convincing videos are disappearing from the internet in recent years and it is being flooded with bogus crap from people crying for attention, how is it some have 10 or 20 chances to film ufo sightings while others never see one. I believe they exist but the real cases are usually presented by an accidental filming of the object by someone whos never seen anything like it before not a ufo hunter lmfao. Wish i had a link for many of the videos ive seen that show the point im trying to make but as ive said type ufo in on google and u get more crap now than ever before.

    1. totally agree, a common agenda to minimise controversial disclosure is 'information overload', which is swamping the net with double bluff theories, such as the 911 rumour circulated that no Jewish people died in the WTC's. This information is released by the same people involved in the 'cover up'. It's purpose is to pursuade the masses that 'all conspiracy theorists are loco', and to look no further.
      The same could be said for the huge number of UFO clips, similar to you i search for buried treasure, the recent uploads that get taken down pronto, not the ones signposted by You Tube.

    2. Because some people spend a lot more time looking at the sky than others?

  24. jeez, what is it with these professional serial debunkers, there is some excellent 'clear' footage, reading the comments it is like listening to a bunch of primitive neanderthals in serious denial. We are not the only intelligent (i say that with weary irony) in the vast universe, how can a relatively dumb race "humans' speak so arrogantly about absolutes when we could be light years behind these other races, they could mess with dimensions, have force fields around the craft etc etc, just because it is not in hi freakin def does not mean all the thousands of sightings and film are balloons or hoaxes, UFOs to debunkers is like calculus to 5 year olds, get over yourselves, we are nothing special!

    1. You call humans a "relatively dumb race". Relative to what exactly? If you mean relative to these super intelligent beings that play hide and seek with silver saucers above banjoland and hicksville then I wish you the best of luck with your fantasies. If you mean relative to a higher power who sits on a sky throne well then there are no mentions of UFOs in the Bible, therefore they don't exist.

      I'm not saying that aliens don't exist but I'm most certainly not going to base my beliefs on the shoddy tomfoolery displayed in this hoax of a doc.

      Also you sound a little too emotionally invested, get over yourself.

    2. Our beliefs are based on our internal environment and are of no use in proving or disproving the existence of other life forms, i base my acceptance that it is more likely to be 'fact' on the knowledge that only '1' piece of evidence needs to be real! This means in a court of law every single piece of evidence out of the thousands, maybe millions has to be proven a hoax, a trick of light, a mirage, a balloon, etc etc. i think the sheer weight of evidence would lead a judge to find in favour of the existence of other life forms.
      My beef is with the arrogant tone of most debunkers who have the illusion that because a green man has not personally shaken their hand or sent them a selfie, then UFOs obviously do not exist
      As for our 'dumb race' well a race that bombs it's own children, assassinates leaders who espouse peace and harmony, allows the majority of it's citizens to live in abject poverty whilst a minute minority own the worlds wealth, not mentioning the destruction of the planets natural resources to feed narcissistic consumerism, sounds pretty unenlightened to me.

    3. Fair enough, I'm all for an evidence based approach. The problem as it stands is the absence of any credible evidence on one side of the argument.

      Rational people are generally going to be very skeptical of the kind of evidence that videos like this one claim, it reeks of snake oil. Personally I'd love if SETI or NASA or whoever were to find something, it would be a total game changer. And it's the speculation on the changes it would necessitate that interests me just as much as anything. For example how many addendums would the bible then need? Do they share a common DNA with us and if so then how? Will they give us back Elvis?

      Re "dumb race": I have to agree with your above statement, we are fairly disappointing in a lot of what we allow when viewed as a whole( and our future alien overlords will be most displeased :-( ). But I'm sure you'll agree we've also done some pretty amazing things and lots of us are not happy with the bad stuff.

    4. If you expect credible evidence from NASA and the mainstream scientific community, which is where SETI is coming from, then I don't believe that you are in touch with how the system works.
      You don't have to be a UFOlogist to be someone who is interested in the history of the UFO phenomena and the factual historical evidence that have indeed shone a very serious light on the subject matter of UFOs.
      Rational people ought to be skeptical; however, the skepticism has to be intellectually balanced. From the documented real incident called "The battle of Los Angeles" to the most currently unexplained UFO incidents from a global perspective, there are thousands of well documented cases thoroughly investigated by teams of experts including scientists, who are better equipped than you or I who have dubbed these cases to be unexplained by any prosaic explanations. If rational and reasonable conclusions are to be made in terms of a likely explanations, you can't try to look past the most obvious one to come up with the most ridiculous unsubstantiated scientific or otherwise theory. That, is irrational.
      When non-progressive mainstream scientists and like-minded people who are stuck on our current natural reality begin to come up with theories born of their prejudice and close-mindedness, then you have theories such "Swamp gas" and many other completely ridiculous explanations to explain away what the best UFO cases might have been. That is irrational and intellectually vacant.
      It is my belief that many people on here are unreasonably skeptical because there is a sense of fear of instability when the natural reality that glues them together begins to be threaten by a brand new reality and paradigm. This is not about skepticism or rational thinking. This is more of a knee-jerk defensive response.
      The US government institutions that control and possess the hardcore information on the UFO and ET evidence have many self-serving reasons to not tell you nor anyone in the public at large the truth.
      The truth, specially when it isn't served in a silver platter is the most difficult information for the common man to accept.

    5. One problem with that line of reasoning is that you are confusing skepticism with something more akin to reactionary. It's very much a reality that people can be skeptical of a claim while at the same time also want the claim to be proven true. As I've already stated I'd love if the little green men were real, regardless of what their intentions for humanity are. And all it would take to convince me is some solid verifiable evidence. I don't live in fear of having my comfortable world view turned upside down.

      Another problem(arguably a bigger one) with your comment is your readiness to disregard the mainstream scientific community on the whole as nothing more than wilful conspirators in a cover-up because they're not backing up your beliefs. It's almost impossible for me to take anyone serious when they go that route because of the arrogance and self delusion it points to. It's the kind of mindset symptomatic of countless other conspiracy movements and it's very much anathema to anything constructive.

    6. I do agree with your point regarding skepticism. What you don't know is that I am not a messiah who wants people to believe in UFOs. My belief in the subject matter has to be skeptical given that I know that roughly 80 percent of the cases have prosaic explanations. It would be idiotic to argue here in favor of the ET hypothesis without being skeptical if I want to be taken seriously. I am only interested in the hardcore 20 percent cases that are supported by other intelligent and skeptical investigators and historians who explore this topic.

      My issue with your brand of skepticism is that it hinges primarily on orthodox scientific evaluation to legitimize what is evident while discarding deductive reasoning to arrive at a sensible conclusion. When tons of trace evidence, radar evidence, testimonial sighting evidence from the most respected observers such as pilots, astronauts, astronomers, scientists, police officers, politicians exist for 75 years and beyond and counting, it borders irrationality to assume that they've been all delusional and observed something prosaic when they've all denied that this was the case.

      When the late scientist, Doctor J. Allen Hynek goes from debunker scientist to a believer in his later years based on the mountains of evidence that he has observed, I fail to understand how you can rationally discard the conclusion from all of these serious individuals and ask for solid evidence. Often times, believability is based on our ability to process and conclude what is evident as opposed to what is "solid" evidence.

      You misunderstood my point by overlooking that I stressed "mainstream scientific community" as opposed to the community of scientists that exist outside of that system and its politics. You are judging without fully understanding my point by suggesting that I am arrogant and delusional in my deduction.

      If you do your research you'll find that judging back from the beginning of the UFO era, system scientists in general have been threatened by the UFO subject matter. Only scientists outside that box have expressed interest.

      The small number of mainstream scientists who may be interested in the study of UFOs kept it to themselves due to the fear of not being taken seriously by the their peers in the establishment. The other threat stems as well in that they might lose their grants from their supporters for showing interest in such fringe subject matter. Politics, arrogance, and big egos plague this community. This is not conspiracy theory. It is fact! Do your research and confirm. Having stated this, many other scientists outside of that community are believers with many who have sided with the Extraterrestrial hypothesis.

      "It's almost impossible for me to take anyone serious when they go that route because of the arrogance and self delusion it points to. It's the kind of mindset symptomatic of countless other conspiracy movements and it's very much anathema to anything constructive."

      This kind of comment in itself suggests a self-righteous arrogance.
      Many scientific conclusions are theoretical without solid-evidence. I understand that to many the scientific methodology that leads to a theory gives them a sense of thoroughness. But even mainstream scientists have missed the mark as history has repeatedly documented. The story of Galilieo best illustrates mainstream vs. outsider scientist. I am pro science as long as the scientist isn't shackled by politics and can think outside the box.
      Conspiracy movement may hinge on your own prejudice of the idea of conspiracy theory. Sometimes, a story suggests dots to be connected; there are those with the ability to ask the the tough questions and connect the dots. Simply put mysteries to be solved are not necessarily some nonsense conspiracy movement. That kind of thinking and conclusion is not very progressive.

    7. That was a fairly interesting response. Thank you.

    8. Thank you for forcing me to defend my position a bit. That's always healthy. Cheers!

    9. I look forward to hearing you defend your position at a later date, your comments offer a lot to think about.

    10. Your feedback is much appreciated. If you want a good source for info on the subject matter, visit ufoevidence dot org. Best regards

    11. In answer to your latest accusation I'm lying about your 20% quotes. Your BS hasn't cleared yet, so I'll reply to this crud you posted.

      Hmm, I cut and paste what you posted, so how is that misquoting you?
      Another fallacy, wrong again twit. I'll quote it again since you seem to have a short memory, or are just an outright liar.

      "I am only interested in the hardcore 20 percent cases that are supported by other intelligent and skeptical investigators and historians who explore this topic."

      Earlier, you said;
      the UFO phenomena where cumulative evidence have been probed and
      investigated over time where 20% of it remains unexplained."

      Direct cut and pastes from your posts.
      Who's the liar? Clearly you are.

      I also note you fail to answer any questions, like how did you go from the 20% being 'unexplained' to 'supported'?
      Na, you'd rather go into ad hominem and tantrums. You now admit your 20%
      is not evidence? Or is it? You can't seem to make up your mind, it depends on what suits you at the time.

      And no, I don't have to go away, I already told you can tantrum all you like, it doesn't make you correct. The more you throw your toys out of your pram and spit your dummy, the longer I'll hang around and point out you're full of sh1t, ya clown.

    12. I like your sharpness, docoman, but i think you are mixing things up here. Or it must be i'm the one misunderstanding.
      I don't think eze60 ever stated that he regards the 20% as scientific evidence. When eze60 goes to 'supported', i think it is meant as supported as a case for study, not supported as evidence.

    13. G'day mate, the post that one is replying to didn't get cleared, he accused me of lying, so I came back at him, hence the tone of my post.
      As to the 20%. I read all of his posts before I replied. That is where I thought he went wrong.

      He started off saying the 20% was unexplained after investigation. Then later posts go to them being supported (as in supporting the ET Hypothesis). Tied in with his posts about 'fringe scientists' etc, and his assertion, (cut and paste from his post);

      "FYI, UFO investigators also use scientific analyses to verify the strongest data."

      I took his 'strongest data' to be the 20% he had earlier said was unexplained after being "probed and investigated over time."

      Most people forget what the 'U' in UFO stands for. I think he made the same error. He went from unexplained to supported, and had offered evidence like the COMETA report, and quotes from other scientists as his support. Obviously it cannot be the 80% of cases that are explained away as mistakes, which leaves the 20 % of .. unexplained.. or supported... depends on which post you read.

      You could be correct, I could be wrong, but I see a contradiction there. Either it is unexplained, or it is supported as being ET's. I read him saying both.

    14. yeah, i did read it differently, though i could be wrong, you right. But if a post didn't get cleared i might mis some information. The best thing would be for him to clarify, though i don't see him coming back here. To bad, he started off rather intelligently, then went a bit madly defensive. Oh be it.

    15. Happy to reply to you NX2. In any intelligent discussion, a person must be cautious about assuming what someone stated and run with his misinterpretation and using that misinterpretation to try to win an argument while using the same misinterpretation to attempt to insult and disrespect. At one point, I became disinterested in a brawl that became unproductive and flat out unhealthy. when that happens, I just decide to walk away in that things had gotten too ugly beyond reprieve. You had it right the first time. If someone has been paying close attention to the tone and knowledge behind my argument, it'd be silly to run with the interpretation of me stating 20% evidence of UFO. That's simply insulting. No one else here made that misinterpretation. There is no contradiction in stating that UFO investigators supported the 20% as unexplained because they already ruled out everything else. I just don't see how "supported" within the context of all that I've stated earlier suddenly become "supported as evidence" and is used as my quote.
      When everybody here sees things the same way and are on the attack mode, difficult to not defend; though I'd not characterize my responses as madly defensive. Regards

    16. Great to hear from you again. Sorry for calling you madly defensive, that's of course only my kind of wording, i might have madly exaggerated it a bit. And thanks for confirming, despite my doubt, i saw it right in the first time.

    17. No worries NX2, you seem to be one of the more sensitive ones here. That's very much appreciated.

    18. Sensitive is good, but not at the expense of sensible.

      Firstly I've a question for you, do you believe that the UFO phenomenon are ET's visiting Earth?

      I am very glad that eze60 brought up the tone of his posts. It is very important in understanding them and their meanings as a whole.
      Have you read the whole thread, taking particular notice of the times posted, and the statements and replies? If not, do so, and note who became disgruntled and aggressive to whom first.

      Well before I commented here, in reply to 'please show some more or better evidence', or 'it's possible but I don't see enough to say it's ET's ' type of requests, you will see multiple fallacies, truths mixed with negative reinforcement of not accepting the idea, and back-handed rudeness to those requests for more in eze60's replies.

      You were right in him going very defensive straight up... one poster recognised the 'tone' in the reply enough to come back with "I never said anyone was stupid"... read the tone..

      Contrary to the latest claim of 'recent victim of a misinterpretation' setting him off, you'll see where the rudeness began if you look further back. Before I commented, and by ez60 to those that questioned him.

      Don't be fooled by a smooth delivery, or by the mind tricks employed, or sell yourself short for a trinket of a compliment. Don't buy the 'belief' without looking at the reasoning behind.. (one example, why repeat so many times the word 'misrepresented' in that last post... answer... to change then reinforce it as an idea, smoothly going from 'misinterpreted to misrepresented..very different meanings and intent behind.. repeatedly reinforcing his little attempt to swing attitude, try to let you think that subtle but very important word change was your words.. the same as he does repeatedly about ' mainstream science' v's his science... .. read some creationists arguing, you'll see them do the same kind of fallacious maneuvers and tactics. Him saying he was attacked and misrepresented by me, thus causing his attitude towards others is simply not accurate if you read the previous posts made. His attitude was here well before me.)

      One example you will find... Jack1952, who has a well earned reputation here as a good thinker and doesn't get involved in fights... all he said is a very valid thing, he doesn't see enough for him to conclude it is ET's... to which it was implied he had a biased mindset, could only see black and white, biased and arrogant mindset , amongst others that don't agree with him, to have a "inability to use deductive reasoning" etc
      All before I arrived.
      Following the tone?

      This gem was in response for a request for more, better evidence, which is in reality a disguised attempt to generate acceptance rather then critical thought, " This is not a court for scientific scrutiny. I think when it comes to criticizing a documentary, common sense is all it takes. "

      On the point of that 20%, that is the crux of his argument, being that is the total of his 'supported, (sometimes unexplained) evidence... and if you read the tone and all the posts, that 20% which starts as unexplained and needing more research, (but can't be by science because the scientific method doesn't apply, as it's outside known science), then moves quite smoothly to it being the evidence that is the sum total of the scientifically tested evidence that he has. Which he goes on to then explain, (not using logic, but his deductive reasoning, anther fallacy ) it's ET's....

      That is a oxymoron. They cannot at the same time be accepted as evidence proving ET's are here, whilst remaining 'can't be both at the same time. eze60 explained them to get to what he himself admitted are his beliefs (note the word belief..and what a belief is) ... and has responded to everyone that has requested better evidence with a subtle, but nonetheless aggressive put down in reply. (he words it so it's there, but hard to pick where exactly. Clever and slick, but there nonetheless)
      So I applied what I believe, I'll treat people on their merits. He's rude, he'll get it in return... I don't apologise to him for treating him the same as he acts.

      And now in response to my saying let's drop it a notch and act like adults, he comes out with more dishonest accusations and mind games, that it was I that started it with a 'misrepresentation'. (in itself a twist on what you said, a misinterpretation is not a misrepresentation... can you not see the subtle change )
      You did miss the post, it wasn't cleared, where he said I was id1otic and a liar etc etc

      His argument... he says it's weird (the sightings) and requires more investigation (requiring more investigation is agreeing that more evidence is required is it not?), but then says the only reasonable deduction is ET's.... that is not correct.

      A slick and well delivered sermon, full of false passive/agressive claims, claims to authority and false analogies (Galileo for one e.g, while true, is irrelevant here in regard to UFO's ), that are truths not relevant to this case,(a form of fallacy) subtle put-downs of any mindset that will question or disagree with a theology that is fundamentally built upon an assumption, (as stated, his is the only intelligent deduction of all the evidence,) and then finally false claims of innocence and victimisation... is classic BS straw man, red herring and numerous other fallacies to many to mention here
      He would have made a very good preacher if his beliefs went a different way... NOTE.. the term 'beliefs'.. it's very relevant. You will find all that if you read the whole thread and the interchanges... starting before I arrived.

      Like I said, sensitive is good, but not at the expensive of sensible. He's slick, but not accurate and certainly no victim here.

    19. There might be a certain sensitiveness to me, but surely, i'm not being as such at the cost of sensibility. You sure are sharp, being able the way you dissect, which is something i admire, but i'm not sure i agree with the way you see eze60's intentions.

      If it seems that i defend him, then it is not because i think he is a victim, but because he appears to have researched and have put a lot of thought in the UFO phenomena. In contrast to simple 'i wanna' believers. Yes, he does believe in the ET hypothesis, for which i don't regard him as another 'nutter'. Perhaps an agenda, as Jack 1952 puts it, but as far as i'm concerned, he's allowed. But not at any moment (initially) have i viewed it differently than propagating his believe as anything other than his own. And if he were to be a preacher, then he is not a successful one, he didn't convert me, i don't believe ET's MUST have visited Earth, though i do believe in the possibility. And it being a believe doesn't require any scientific proof, Though if a believe can be scientifically underpinned, it adds credibility (which is currently not possible). Did he try to do that?

      I found his conversation with Jack1952 rather acceptable. Yes, he did make the black -white remark, but in reply to Kafka 11. Was that really meant for/about Jack1952? He could as well be 'generally speaking'. However, it is exactly the post that made me suspect he might become a bit to defensive. Later on i addressed him about his defensiveness, because i believed he had more in him than that. I hope you don't think i suggested that you are to blame for this, because i'm well aware it was before you arrived.

      I admit i haven't had much discussion with creationists, so i probably wont recognise certain patterns, but could it be you are looking for patterns that simply aren't there?

      As for reading the 'tone' of a post, always a peculiar thing to do, full of possible misinterpretations. But so easily done.

    20. After a little more exposure no doubt you will see the patterns more clearly.
      eze60 has shown all the signs of the creationist syndrome in his posts right down to the poor me, the bad men are picking on me cause they keep asking questions.
      And we all know questions are like cancer to them folk.
      The onus has always been upto the person making the claim to provide the evidence to support said claim, not the people who doubt it.
      As it has been eze60 claims it is his responsibility to provide the said evidence not the other way round.
      I haven't read or said that it's not a "possibility", however I will say the crud eze60 is trying to pass off as legitimate evidence and truth based knowledge appears to be lacking any credibility.
      Granted it may be his presentation, but the underlying insults that he presents detract from any short coming he may be having in his posts.

    21. It's as much techniques as patterns mate. It makes it easier to recognise the fallacies if you already know them. Check the wiki page on 'list of fallacies', it's an interesting read, and will help you spot people's BS in general. For a more entertaining lesson on some 'mind tricks' that some employ, check out Derrin Brown and many of his shows on 'mind control'.
      I lost count of how many fallacies I read in eze60's posts here, or how many different ones he used. But some are not that hard to recognise.
      As another poster said to you, they noticed that people that agree are intelligent, those that don't are not, they're close minded, sheep to science.. etc etc.

      A very common creationist tool (using them as an example I'm used to, it's a common incorrect argument technique in many areas although with them it's usually words like think/believe/theorise v's know, told by God,enlightened) the intent is the same, which is to speak in 'good words' and ideas with what you wish to highlight your side of the debate as being, while using the opposite descriptions for the opposing side/s. They rarely say it directly at their opposition, that is a direct attack that will be recognised as such, get responded to and thus known by anyone watching. It is a mind trick to try to reinforce without their audience realising it, their side = good, opposing side = bad. It has to be relatively subtle to work, but stands out like 'dogs-balls' once you know it. (You'd have seen politicians doing it) One example from many in his posts;
      "When non-progressive mainstream scientists and like-minded people..." Reinforcing 'if you ask for evidence, you're "non-progressive"'. You will find many examples of this kind, nearly every post he does. As i already said, look at how many times he uses the term 'misrepresent'... ask yourself why so many times, that particular word, in the context?

      The 'black and white' comment you mentioned.. while not AT Jack1952 specifically, there is only a few he could mean with comments like "many here who seem to totally ignore the evidence and the logic behind your deduction.." speaking to a fellow believer. He's made a number of comments like that talking about the 'others' here. Look WHEN it was said too. (that particular one I also find amusing, as later to me he said there is no logic in his deductive reasoning?!?!?)
      Who are the 'many here' that ignore his evidence? He'd only spoken to a couple people then..none had 'ignored his evidence', they said it was possible, but needed more evidence then he'd given. So who could the 'others here' be? Not the 2 that agreed with him early, surely. Which leaves...? Were they what he claimed, arrogant, close-minded, sheeps to science etc etc?

      Another technique he employs is to use something when it agrees, bag it when it doesn't. Science is used and flipped about by him this way. He repeatedly makes the point 'mainstream science' is bad, 'fringe science and scientists' are good. Hmm, stop and think about that for a second.... Don't both groups need to adhere to the same methodology? Or else one group isn't really doing science... (he wants to say he's scientific and use the 'science label', while avoid the pesky evidence and peer review.. pretty important parts of 'science' and it's method)
      He said NASA and SETI can't be trusted, (alluded the USA in general at one stage) but later said the COMETA report, which he recommended more the once, was kind've like Europe's NASA. (put it down when it disagrees, use it as if they're good for a 'character reference' when it suits) From eze60's post;
      "I've lost count how many times I've made reference to the COMETA report
      here. It is a study of the UFO phenomena by an organization in France
      that is akin to NASA."

      You asked did he try to underpin his beliefs with 'scientific credibility'. Yes, he did. The following quoted post to JACK1952 from eze60 not only is an example of the 'victimised' persona he's built from nothing, a mischaratisation of what JACK1952 said into something bad (also another example of the first technique I mentioned), but it also reveals his real position on this topic.
      "I think you are trying to challenge the messenger by attempting to pick
      apart his message while ignoring the undeniable and pretty lucid big
      picture behind his message."

      Many preachers call themselves the messenger, they're 'selling their message.' As eze60 reveals in that post, he see's himself as 'the messenger' here, and those that don't agree are all 'ignorant or unintelligent' etc etc.

      (As you said you found exe60's and JACK1952's conversation "rather acceptable", I have to assume either you're fine with that twist around accusation to Jack1952's very valid and reasonable questions, or you didn't notice it? It was not accurate, and actually quite rude to Jack when he had been very reasonable.)

      Or this quote, at a_no_n, which is relevant to your question,
      "I have enough scientists and physicists that are on the same page as myself regarding this phenomena."
      Another one from eze60, " people just shutting down because the concept of believing
      independently based on a pattern of strong testimonial, and trace
      evidence does not compute to them."

      If he's not trying to underpin his beliefs using science, why use it in the positive in his argument at times, but only when he can twist it to agreeing with him?

      As this quote reveals, science agreeing with him is not a requirement for his beliefs though;
      "Though I trust areas of this subject matter that require scientific
      verification in terms of specific matters, I don't need the blessing of
      scientists to draw an informed conclusion."
      (a double dip.. he trusts scientists... but cleverly and subtly puts down those those that have asked for more scientific evidence. Who here said they need the blessing of scientists to make an informed decision?)

      You'll see him recommend the COMETA report as his major piece of evidence to numerous people, he 'lost count how many times' he posted. He said it was compiled by researchers and scientists etc, an informative and good read, also alludes to it as "one of my biggest source of evidence to support my reason for taking a non-religious and non-scientific leap of faith."

      As jackmax showed, that was a report that STARTED from the position that UFO's, Unidentified Flying Objects, are in fact ET's. The start-line was 'his position', not 'informed people arriving at his position' as he's used it as.
      Not to mention the logical problem with that being one of his "biggest source [sic] of evidence". A biased report in this context. He tried the same thing with that Val Germann post.

      The 3rd common technique that I'll mention, is mixing in a truth with their own supposition, in an attempt to 'slide' their supposition through with the truth. See if you can spot it in this example from his posts;

      "The US government institutions that control and possess the hardcore
      information on the UFO and ET evidence have many self-serving reasons to
      not tell you nor anyone in the public at large the truth.
      The truth, specially when it isn't served in a silver platter is the most difficult information for the common man to accept."

      The biggest trick to seeing BS in what people are saying, is to slow down, think about each point they make, and how that relates to their overall point and what they've said earlier. You said you defended him 'because he appears to have researched and have put a lot of thought in the UFO phenomena."
      Be careful mate, appearances can be deceiving. Just because someone says they have researched something, doesn't mean they have effectively or with an open mind.

      Good logic should be like a truth... it should stay consistent with itself and what's known to be accurate, and consistent with what it said earlier.

      I grant you eze60 is quite smooth at it, as he himself said, he's had lots of practice online discussing this topic.

      But here's a problem with him being so researched and versed on this topic. Why would one lead off with such an obviously flawed report (in the context of providing evidence for ET's) as the COMETA report? He used the appeal to authority in this thread, namely himself (amongst others) that you defended him for, so with all his apparent research, intelligent and independent thinking, why did he point people to a biased, 'come from the perspective that UFO's are ET's' report like that, to 'provide evidence for ET's'? Either he's dishonest about his amount of expertise and widespread knowledge on the subject, or he deliberately pointed people to a seemingly 'valid, government sanctioned and scientist and investigator written' report, yet what is clearly a biased report as far as providing evidence for ET's goes. A dishonest trick.

      Either way, he's not completely honest. Not to mention his excuses for being defensive was me, when he was well before I got here, or his assertion he 'walked away' (again I'll remind you, you didn't read the post that didn't get up.. why do you think a Mod said no to it? Answer- it went further than any other nastiness that was allowed. A pity now for me, as it disproves his latest outright lies)

      Was I looking for what you call patterns...if you mean was I looking for faults in logic and fallacies, then yes. Its called critical evaluation. Am I seeing ones that aren't there... no, I don't think so. There are multiple fallacies in his posts. If it's about misinterpreting his tone, then the other posters that haven't agreed with him must have made the same mistake too it seems. Apart from you being 'sensitive' to him, the couple that agree with his ETH as he calls it, and a ding-bat that's trolling me, it seems most of the others read his 'tone' the same as I did, even you said you read his defensiveness from early on.

      If you can't see any flaws in his logic or the fallacies made, you're allowed not to. But don't expect me to skip past what I see as BS because others can't see it... that's not me mate.

      I'm not ditching you being sensitive, that is a good trait mate, I probably should be more myself at times. But I have no sensitivity (or expect it) when people or myself are talking sh1t. Hence my sensitive v's sensible comment. If its not liked it being pointed out it's BS too bad. If people feel insulted, HTFU.
      I treat them as I find them. This one is rude and condescending from early on, I don't care about him crying he gets the same back. I offered him an olive branch and to drop it back a notch, he replied with lies.

    22. You want to check how honest eze60 is, go have a look at the post where he originally said 'misrepresented' multiple times. AFTER I had talked about it to you, guess who has gone and changed those 'misrepresented' into 'misinterpreted' now?

      Changing a post AFTER it had been replied to from you, then talked about by me, trying to 'fix' his deliberate trick after it was discussed.

      You think that's an honest maneuver? Why would someone do something as intellectually dishonest like that, after the fact?

    23. Well, i haven't noticed it, a lot seems to have happened in my absence. But fair enough, i'll keep a more critical eye open.

    24. My apologies for you getting caught up in what I consider to be a bizarre scrutiny and judgement on this thread that I've never experienced here in the United States or elsewhere in any genuine debates and discussions in such a way. I just read your exchanges above. It reminded me why I've decided to pass on the exchanges with what seems to be a gang of individuals who cannot reason and tolerate an opposing point of view. I believe that I've already made my case here several times over. And yet I am asked to answer questions already answered as though I was before a clan of judges. Otherwise, they seem to be looking for details to pick on to cut me down. Reading your insightful responses, as you can see the responses tend to become personal if you dare to stand your ground. I take responsibility for me getting frustrated earlier with a couple of aggressive counter responses. But since I stopped taking the bait and play ugly for ugly, The ad-hominem attacks keep coming! I just see these exchanges as an impasse that will no longer be productive.
      I believe that I was accused of trying to manipulate you. Wow! What a stretch! NX2, you and anyone else is free to agree or disagree with my position as long as it is a civil discourse. In your case and anyone else who can identify different world views and not feel threatened by them, are always welcome for a healthy discussion. But I reserve the right to cease communication if I deem that the other side needs to be in control of an argument for it to be an argument.
      Be well, and best regards.

    25. Firstly, thank you for making my prediction come true within hours.

      Actually eze, get it correct at least just once. I said you attempted to manipulate everyone on here, not just NX2. A stretch hey? How about you show where I'm wrong then.

      If you were truly sorry for him getting involved... why post to him again, attempting to 'involve' him more?

      Now you try to say it's bizarre scrutiny you've never received before... contrary to your earlier claim this is your usual response from close-minded science sheeps.... so which claim of yours is correct.. once again your claims are mutually exclusive.
      Your claims unravel more every post you make.

      So which is it with Jack1952 now, do you not respect his opinion, you do, or are you back to him being naughty to you? Seems by your latest post you've got him back into the 'naughty basket'. I've been rude to you, as you have me. He hasn't been despite your rudeness to him, so why respond with this trash instead of to him as you claim you do "as long as it is civil"?
      Another fallacy of yours exposed.

      Who on this thread has had a post deleted because it went too rude? You did.
      Who makes claim after claim with sketchy or no evidence, you do.
      Who got defensive from the get-go when simply asked questions and for more evidence? You did.
      Who claims they've answered every question asked, when that is obviously not true? You do.

      Through your own words you have shown yourself to be a coward and a liar. Not to mention weak. If your 'self evident' evidence could stand on it's own merits, nothing you or I say would change that. If you were treated as you claim, the Mods would've stopped it. (same as they didn't clear your trash post)
      You require people to suspend critical thought and take a leap of faith, just to reach the same conclusion you have. Anyone that won't is... 'insert any of your ad hominem claims of others here'.

      You are another 'faith' based preacher, just a different belief system.
      Not to mention you have many of their fallacious arguments down pat, especially their 'poor me, I'm being picked on' syndrome when asked to prove your claims.

    26. Thanks for the apologies, but it is truly my own responsibility.
      Docoman might have a point that i need more skill in recognizing fallacies, however i am not able to perceive you as a preacher. You don't come across as the type..
      However, i have to agree you go into the defensive mode way to easily, and i already told you that's really not in your interest. I grant you, some here can play it quite rough. But so what? If you really have such a great problem with it, than you are way more sensitive than i am.
      You say you never encountered such scrutiny in a debate before. While that might be true, i find that a bit hard to believe. Ive been around in other 'intellectual' places, and as i see it, such scrutiny and behaviour come with the territory, especially with controversial subjects.
      Yes, if you want to be understood properly you will have to repeat yourself. Is that really such a hard thing to do?

    27. It's all good mate. My apology if I came across a bit strong towards you, the
      respect and credit I have for you, you've earned from your posts I've read here on TDF for awhile now. You own your deeds, good or bad, I respect that in you too.

    28. No worries mate,
      you come on as strong as you think or feel necessary. Thanks for the respect, likewise.

    29. Cheers NX2,

      It is misunderstood that I go in the defensive so readily given that I have not responded to the ones bent on ad-hominem fits lately.

      My point is very clear. If personal attacks overshadow the substance in an argument, then I don't feel obligated to dignify it.

      I respect you and your angle based on our short exchanges largely because you reciprocate respect and remain on topic. Docoman and two others here have not earned such respect in that their anger and frustrations have overshadowed the contents of any good points that may exist.

      If you or Jaberwokky asks me to clarify a point once, twice, three times I would be happy to do so because I don't believe that you are here to spew ad-hominem attacks and will remain on point from our previous exchanges.

      So I disagree with your point that "Yes, if you want to be understood properly you will have to repeat yourself.". This I believe is relative to whom I chose to have an exchange with.

      I am not here to manipulate for sympathy. So you don't have to agree with me. That accusation in itself may be perceived as counter manipulation for support. But I will not claim to know what docoman's intentions are as he seems to think that he knows me better than myself.

      FYI, I don't mind scrutiny as it comes with discussing any topics. What is meant is that the personal attacks are on an all time high here with the characters in question. But if the behavior borders or flatly fits the modern internet definition of what's considered trolling, I don't have to respond to that either. Different people deals differently with such behavior.

      About being sensitive, I believe that what was meant earlier is that I find your approach to be empathetic in that you seem to be one who looks at different angles and points of views of an argument and will not pass simplistic judgement. So I'll give that one to Docoman in terms of introducing the distinction in that you are more sensible as sensitive can be interpreted as being fragile.

      As far as being sensitive, at this point, aren't the attackers the ones who best fit this characterization? You accused me of this before. My response is simply to not respond. And by-the-way,

      I've read every attempts riddled with personal attacks over the last couple of days. I've not spewed any venom back and ultimately decided to not respond.

      Besides the three attackers, I've had more civil responses here by the way.

      My point in relationship to other discussions is that I've never experienced such unrelenting ad-hominem attacks as opposed to true scrutiny.

      My other objection is that I am dealing with 3 persons here who fit the description from the quote below:

      "Symptoms of Pathological Skepticism

      William J. Beaty

      Many members of the mainstream scientific community react with extreme hostility when presented with certain claims. This can be seen in their emotional responses to current controversies such as UFO abductions, Cold Fusion, cryptozoology, and numerous others. The scientists react not with pragmatism and a wish to get to the bottom of things, but instead with the same tactics religious groups use to suppress heretics: hostile emotional attacks, circular reasoning, dehumanizing of the 'enemy', extreme close-mindedness, underhanded debating tactics, justifications, and all manner of name-calling and character assassination. R"

      It is very difficult for me to feel inspired to engage in a dead-end exchange with such characters.

    30. When did you edit that post about 'misrepresented' eze60?

    31. lol, the irony is you are so dishonest or deluded or both, you contradict yourself in your very first paragraph, by going defensive to NX2 now.
      As already shown, as a read of the thread will prove to anyone, you were defensive well before your 'evil triad' arrived, as soon as you were asked for better evidence.

      You couldn't lie straight in bed. Doesn't your conscience flare up when you are dishonest? How do you justify it to your self esteem?

      In answer to your little attempt at an insult, I'll quote something I read recently, that you bring to mind.
      In order for me to be insulted by you, first I'd have to care about your opinion.

      I don't care about dishonest people's opinions or feelings. So you'll have to try harder, you're too eze.

    32. You are right, you haven't spewed venom back lately, which is something i respect.
      Skilled as they are, their use of ad hominems might as well be a little trick to fall for, and then be able to accuse you for not addressing their points. While you made some valid points, it is exactly at your weaker points that you often seem to fall for it.
      You are absolutely right, it is relative to whom you choose to have an exchange with. It's also relative to your credibility.

    33. G'day mate,

      I've read all this tread and the way it reads to me is if you agree with eze60 you're intelligent, if you don't you're unintelligent.

    34. Good day as well.

      Then that's the way you've read it. Of course we can only speak for his intentions the way our interpretations go. How come i don't see it as such?

    35. G'day mate
      You must be a glass half full type of guy...
      Or you haven't read his stuff with out your rose coloured glasses on.

    36. well yeah, thanks
      my rose colored glasses, what a lovely world we live in. What are those dark colored sunglasses you're wearing? :)

    37. There safety glasses, they help to keep the sh!t out of my eyes

    38. Rose colored glasses keep the s*it out of the eyes too. What are you saying now?

    39. Lol, you asked him what his were for. While rose coloured may protect your eyes, you can be deceived by the colour change... hence the term and it's meaning.
      You asked why can't you see it. When you know what the fallacies are, and have been exposed to them time and again, you learn the ability to recognise them easily. As you said, you don't have much experience with this type of argument. Go debate with some creationists for awhile, you'll learn the tricks of their trade pretty quick if you've got the capacity for critical thinking. Did you have a look at the list of fallacies and what they mean as I suggested?

      Or ask yourself this... why did, as you said, he not convert you to his thinking?

    40. Quite telling how you go from 20% unexplained, to it being;
      "I am only interested in the hardcore 20 percent cases that are supported by other intelligent and skeptical investigators and historians who explore this topic."
      So is that 20% unexplained, or explained? You've made the leap from unexplained to it supporting you thoughts. Nice logical contortion, but not accurate.

      Here's a hypothesis that makes more sense to me. That 20% of unexplained sightings are from something us humans invented, not ET's. Think it's a coincidence that the sightings really got going during WWII?

      If they had all that science knowledge and 'power', why did they supposedly crash? Trying to fly and 'phone home' at the same time maybe?

    41. "If they had all that science knowledge and 'power', why did they supposedly crash? Trying to fly and 'phone home' at the same time maybe?" Advanced does not equate to infallible. This shallow analysis isn't worth any further response.

    42. Nice attempt at ducking your error.
      And about the rest of it? What about your 20% changing from unexplained to supported during your argument?
      You want your cake and eat it too.
      You say it's hard for science, but you also say "FYI, UFO investigators also use scientific analyses to verify the strongest data."

      What data? What scientific analyses? You argue things in both directions to suit your beliefs.
      Science can't prove it, but it's scientifically analysed.
      Governments cover up knowledge of ET's, but they couldn't cover up something we invented.
      ET's can warp time and space, could be interdimensional, yet they still crash.

      a_no_n was spot on when he said, "flimsy and bluntly cheesy excuse for evidence that you presented."

      All you've shown is the same tendency to interpret everything to suit your beliefs as religious people do. Twist the logic around to suit yourself, use science if it agrees, bag it if it doesn't. Call anyone who asks for some real and tangible evidence self-righteous and arrogant.
      Could there be ET's here? I think it's possible. Is it the most likely answer? No. Certainly not yes from anything you've argued.

    43. I do not care to satisfy your ignorance in this forum. If you're incapable of understanding my premise, it'll be a waste of my energy. I've had this type of exchange with many the likes of rigid types such as you. When their attack become stronger than the content of their argument, then I'll decline the invitation to the gutter brawl. If you are I'll-educated about the history of this phenomena. Be a student and go to school. Start your education with the COMETA report.

    44. I understand your premise, just don't agree because your logic is flawed.

      Apply your 'attack stronger then the content of their argument' to yourself...
      You don't care to respond, because you made the error. Another attempt at ducking your responsibility to prove your hypothesis.
      Nice try again, but still wrong.

      You're the one that takes requests for evidence and disputing your logic as 'attacks', and are the one that's talked about 'counter-attacking'.

      Respect is a 2 way street, you've earned none, so receive none. News flash for ya, I don't give a sh1t what you think about me, you don't know me.
      You go get your 'story' correct, then come back more educated. Until then you'll remain what you are.. another ET claiming twit with no evidence and faulty logic, being laughed at by those you try to convince otherwise.

    45. There is no logic to be dubbed flawed. What's driving you nuts is that I've chosen to believe in something independent from your accepted standards.
      This is why I find you offensive here. I do not care about who you are and how you view me. It seems to me that it is the reverse. It is you who cannot go away without an explanation that fits within your way of thinking and concluding. I left that zone and chose to take a stand and believe in something outside that box. If proven wrong later, I'll live and accept it. Science cannot prove the existence of ETs visiting our planet. But you know what? They've not been able to disproved it either.
      It's not about faith and religion. It's independent thinking in choosing to believe based on what I've investigated for over 20 years. I don't owe you a debate.
      You know what, I'll end this ugliness by ignoring your parting shot from your previous re:

    46. Wrong, you have 'a logic', it's just twisted about. Your whole response to your Occham's razor problem for starters.
      You give yourself way more credit then you're due, it would take much more than your tantrum to drive me nuts. Stomp your feet and declare you don't owe all you like, it doesn't make you correct, or make your ducking questions about your claims any less absurd.
      You find me offensive because, as you've already stated, you don't like questions. And that's what I did, question you. I read your BS, saw faults, like your 20% starting as unexplained, to smoothly moving later to 20% hardcore independent all right.

      Nice, the classic fallacy of 'you can't disprove me'. Lmao, just like religious nutters. Pesky questions annoy you, how dare anyone ask you to show how you're correct.
      You are correct in your thinking is independent. Independent of sense and logic doesn't make it correct though.

      You could easily shut me up by showing you're correct.... can't do that though can you. Just about everyone here has said it's possible, including myself... but that's not enough for you. No converts, so you're frustrated. Poor thing. Maybe you'd find more converts at a UFO convention.. they'll swallow your crud without looking at it first, unlike most here.

    47. Another thing you got wrong.. you said there is no logic, yet you also said you used deductive reasoning....
      Explain that again, after you learn what they both are.

    48. Maaate,
      It appears to me that you don't like to be asked for references or evidence to prove your claims.
      You seem to think that if someone has doubt in UFOs they are uneducated or un able to think for them selves which is a flaw in your thought process. The exchange of information that you say is available could go along way in helping understanding your belief. As you're the one making the claim it is your responsibility to provide the evidence to back your claim and not the person who dis-believes it. As for wasting your energy on this forum the easiest solution into either put up or shut up.
      You seem as bad as the religees that try to argue the case for "god" in the aspect that as soon as someone disagrees with you and asks for evidence, you become rude and unwilling to have a reasonable discussion and start insulting the person rather than providing the information to help your beliefs gain momentum. It seems that you are insulting and rude to people when they put forward reasonable and logical argument against your beliefs in the same way religees have been doing for years. Why don't you try to educate your self what's required having a discussion rather than insulting people who's only asking for evidence you claim to have available to you.

    49. Picked him in 1.

    50. Jackmax,

      I don't like being asked for references when I have already provided the references and expressed a belief that does not require justification. It is not a claim.

      FYI, I have experienced hostile, prejudgments and condescending pokes from lots of orthodox thinking individuals here.

      Furthermore, albeit circumstantial, much of what the documentary has pointed seem to have been completely ignored here by those who reason and process information from one point of view.

      This is very puzzling behavior to me.

      When I have had these discussions with very educated and informed European friends who are in fact pro-science, such rigidity and linear reasoning does not exist.

      There seem to be a more cross-disciplined philosophical intelligence involved.

      "It appears to me that you don't like to be asked for references or evidence to prove your claims.
      You seem to think that if someone has doubt in UFOs they are uneducated or un able to think for them selves which is a flaw in your thought process."
      Your quoted comment mis-characterized the exchanges I've had here. When I point to my sources for supporting evidence, It is frequently ignored as was this documentary.
      If I am asked to prove my case simply within the framework of the scientific model, then no other perspective that is contrary can exist or be proven. So there is no debate to be had because the judge only speaks one language.
      So do you understand this philosophical quagmire here?
      You seem to have undermined the frustration and hostility from a couple of characters here who throw cheap shots when I don't write to them what they wanted to read. And yet I keep pointing to one of my biggest source of evidence to support my reason for taking a non-religious and non-scientific leap of faith based on the easily available information that I've uncovered.
      What you state is a claim, is a personal decision to believe based on my studies, not your study, nor that of any of the other characters here.
      So much misinterpretations and people just shutting down because the concept of believing independently based on a pattern of strong testimonial, and trace evidence does not compute to them.
      I've lost count how many times I've made reference to the COMETA report here. It is a study of the UFO phenomena by an organization in France that is akin to NASA. From their study, after resolving all of the explained cases, Albeit not so called scientific evidence, there is an undeniable amount of evidence that points to the most likely conclusion.
      FYI, Ockham's razor pointed to that as the simplest conclusion. Your tone is no different from the others towards the end it is blind to the answers that I have given.
      But the problem seems to be that I am more educated about the UFO topic than all of you. At the same time I have enough scientific voices thinking outside the box to support my position and hypothesis. FYI, I am not interested in what any of you consider to be a flaw in my thought process. This to me just means that you cannot leave your own thought process and explore different ways of reasoning the possibilities, which is also flawed and see the legitimacy in mine.
      You are still sounding no different than the others here.
      In terms of open thinking, I don't believe that I represent the sheep here. Regards,

    51. You're correct, you don't represent the sheep that can be found on TDF, you represent the sheep you'd find at a UFO convention, those that set up around area 51 and co. Most of the sheep you'll find here subscribe to religious 'scriptures'. You do share many common traits with the sheep though. For one, as you said, you're not interested in anyone that considers your statements and logic flawed.. you're only interested in those you can convert... just like the religious sheep.
      Like you said, you've gone independent, out on your own... it could accurately be said you're out there....way out there..

      Lol at you thinking that there are more assumptions made in it being a phenomenon from Earth, rather than ET's not only being there, but also intelligent and capable of getting here, as well as wanting to travel here and fly about visiting nutters.
      Wrong. Tantrum all you like, it doesn't change anything.

    52. It is very apparent that you have no idea or concept of scientific peer view of how science and the chain of evidence works, so for you and your " very educated and informed European friend" to try and twist around the proven method of peer review due to your own silly belief without actual proof only instils mis-trust and contempt for such beliefs.

      Philosophical intelligence is not science in any way shape or form and to insult my intelligence with such crap only adding to the contempt actual educated people will show you. At no stage could you and a group of like minded people sitting in a room talking about what if and if only, could be taken as scientific in any aspect.

      " Ockham's razor pointed to that as the simplest conclusion." and the simplest conclusion is that until there is evidence to prove your claim your at best hoping to be right. You are very quick to insult when people put forth a logical argument against your belief which indicate to me that your beliefs are flawed or just plain wrong.
      If they weren't wrong you would being doing your utmost to provide all the material available to create the strongest case possible rather than the insults and abuse that you have been producing to date.

    53. I've had enough of you science sheeps who only can view the world through one prism. I will top-post an article that supports my argument more eloquently for you and all of the other clones here to read.

    54. If it wasn't for us "science sheeps" (by the way for some one whom portrays them self as being more educated than others on this thread, one would assume that you would know that more than one sheep is called sheep not sheeps) our lives would be all that more difficult.

      It would appear that your lack of education is bearing it's ugly head. You will find we the science sheep look at all prisms however we only except the right one after and the evidence has been studied all validated by the peer view process to ensure we don't mislead or give false witness to others. Which is the complete opposite to what you're doing by your own admission.

      I have looked at your said evidence and one thing that you seem to be failing to mention is that one constant point that COMETA report shows is that at best it is a hypothesis at best.
      That being the case your claims are less than a honest appraisal of the report. which therefore lessens your credibility and proves that you are making assumption that are not completely correct. that being the case one could assume that it is more wishful thinking on your behalf rather than fact.
      On the report I've noticed that only one member of the committee has a PhD which would not as you claim be considered to be of a scientific study of UFOs. It was a report to the French govt on a national defence plan on the hypothesis of UFOs and ETs.

    55. Another point I found amusing about his BS, he bagged NASA, saying you'll not get the truth from them. Then later he said his COMETA is kind've a European version of... NASA, to try to give them credibility. Hmmm, another logical contortion to suit his current thought, unconnected from previous thoughts.

      This clown can't even keep his own argument straight, once again.
      I think you just showed how credible he and his COMETA are... they started from the standpoint that UFO's are of ET origin for a defense plan ?... what a joke using that as your 'evidence' for UFO's being ET's.
      Makes about as much sense as wiping BEFORE you poop...

    56. I think that ol' matey has difficulty in understanding the difference between fact and fiction in a lot of different aspects of this subject.
      Very simular to the religees we've come across on other thread on TDF.

    57. You might have to start up your own inquisition then, get all these 'sheeps' back to the flock with you I bow to your greater edumakashon, o wise and all knowing one...not.

      It doesn't matter how eloquently you dress up sh1t, it's still just sh1t, which is what that post above is, along with your reasoning.
      What you've had enough of is actually being asked to back up your beliefs and claims with something other then FAITH or outright BS. Which you've failed to do, and got frustrated when others won't buy your crud.
      Could there be ET's coming to Earth, possibly. Has anything you've posted shown its more likely then, not by a long shot other then in your own mind. Your posts are just like your 'sightings', 80% cr@p, 20% unexplained... 100% fuzzy.

    58. "This means in a court of law every single piece of evidence out of the thousands, maybe millions has to be proven a hoax, a trick of light, a mirage, a balloon".

      No it does not. If there is another possible and viable answer to explain a piece of evidence advanced, then that evidence loses weight. Evidence is only viable if there is no other realistic, reasonable explanation available.

      "narcissistic consumerism". Do you mean the hardware and software you used to post your comment? Or maybe the bacon and eggs you had for breakfast or the toilet paper you used to ....?

    59. I think you are trying to challenge the messenger by attempting to pick apart his message while ignoring the undeniable and pretty lucid big picture behind his message.

    60. It doesn't matter how many fuzzy, out of focus pictures and videos of something in the sky exist, it proves nothing. Nothing, except there may be a phenomena that we don't understand, yet. Too many people jump to the conclusion that they know all the answers because they've seen something strange. I've seen something strange along with three other witnesses but I don't propose to give an explanation of what it was. I don't know. I'm comfortable with that, even though I really do want to know. Anecdotal evidence doesn't cut it, either. Faith healers present all kinds of witnesses who tell all kinds of wonderful stories, yet I don't believe them either. That goes for fortune tellers, Eastern mystics and all their ilk. None of them provide any physical data to back up their claims. They just tell stories with an interpretation that satisfies their own set of beliefs.

      No one has ever shown one piece of solid material that proves the existence of alien presence of Earth. It has never been shown. Also, the claim of government cover-up consists of anecdotal evidence and vague documents that could be taken out of context, are vague to the point of multiple interpretations, or are intentionally explained to suit the agenda of the presenter.

      To assert that if anyone does not believe, yet, that aliens are visiting the earth, is blinded or close minded, belies someone who has the ego to believe that he has all the answers. The reason I watch these videos is because I realize the possibilities exist and if there is something positive to show it, I want to see it. I will not go in with the idea that I will now validate a predisposed conception. Show me and if you have good information, I will except it, but I must consider all possibilities, not just the one I like.

    61. Bacon and eggs, toilet paper?? Not quite a Socratic critique.

    62. You live no different than I do. My point is that we consume because we must. All living things consume to survive. If every person of earth lived the way we live, we would still be over consuming. Your old car will eventually have to be replaced, your guitar and turntable will eventually deteriorate and become unusable. They will have to be rebuilt. Someone will have to rebuild it.It is either that, or we eventually regress to becoming hunter-gatherers. That is not an option for the great majority of us.

      I used toilet paper as an example because I work in a factory that produces toilet paper. There are those who make money off my efforts, but I do to. I have operated a small business in the past and I know that we have to make more money than we invest to keep that business viable. That goes for all business, large or small. I asked my employees to work for their money. That didn't make me the puppet master. It meant that I was the one who invested his money, established a customer base, and organized a business entity to achieve certain goals. I understand that the elite rich have been stacking the deck so they can maximize profits and evade tax obligations. In a way we all do that. It is up to the average citizen to try and force an equitable system that favours all, not just the super rich. The rich, or the ones who lead, will always be a part of society. There is nothing to be done about that. Soviet Russia tried and they still had their elite. It is the cycle of life.

    63. I believe that what Kafka 11 meant is that in our state of evolution, we use a monetary system that does not promote balance of consciousness between the haves and the have nots. This empathic chasm exists while small samples amongst us human beings shows that the best of us do not have to follow this model. It suggests that only when we become an enlightened specie that we will see the full benefits of sharing one another's wealth in all sense of the word. Our current monetary system may then become rather absolete as we now know it. Kudos to you for your business success. It does not read like you are part of the bigger problem.

    64. With regards to all of your previous posts, I could not have stated a better opinion on this subject matter.
      The problem with many here who seem to totally ignore the evidence and the logic behind your deduction is either one of denial based on the fear that one's current concept of mainstream science based reality is vigorously threatened. When this happens, you find that those who are the followers of science based reason become blind, rigid and irrational. They will totally ignore the proverbial two ton elephant in the room as they do with the evidence in this and other documentary footages with tons of evidence.
      The other issue is often one of sheer ignorance about the history, mountains of trace, radar, testimonial evidence of the highest kind from the most reliable sources that is easily accessible. But I think it's mainly a form of denial. The most intellectually balanced individuals will form a conclusion based on the preponderance of evidence based on observation as opposed to mainstream scientific evidence. What many here do not know is that there are many scientists who already believe based on the preponderance
      Of evidence who know that science alone do not answer every questions.

    65. Touche.. as they say 'denial is not a river in Egypt'. I wonder what it is that makes these skeptics so angry.. if they only scratched the surface, the evidence of ancient technology, the testimonies of astronauts, airline pilots, ex military personnel, professors etc, these are people with impeccable credentials who have nothing to gain and everything to lose.
      I find it so much more exciting to be in the'lets explore all possibilities' camp. The weary trudge of the long distance debunker must be a lonely one!

    66. What is troubling is many commenters inability to use deductive reasoning not based on the limited scientific parameters to draw an evidential conclusion. It's as though they are blind to the multiple shades of grey and can only process information in black and white. To use a similar analogy, they can see the primary colors; but when presented with the secondary and mixed colors, they cannot make the connection. To me, when they keep saying show me solid evidence it is the same as saying that if it isn't black or white, there is no evidence and the mixture of the two cannot be processed. It is why I believe that the, let us explore all possibilities camp can understand that the mixture of black and white is still black and white as well the sense that is there in understanding the mixture of the primary colors.

    67. It does not challenge any belief in science that I might have. If these aliens are visiting earth, they are using their knowledge of science to get here. No human knows of any scientific principle that would allow this. Maybe it exists, maybe not. To claim that it is a form of denial is your way of asserting elevated perception and insight.

    68. That's my point. If they are using a scientific principle or new physics to get here, and given the fact that no human would know it, wouldn't one conclude that their scientific knowledge is therefore way beyond that of our own? And if so, why would any earth scientists or their disciples project our scientific limitations and the lack of knowledge about such ground breaking physics unto them? This is the most obvious deduction. It is simple reasoning. One must conclude that this is why it is happening; and that makes sense.

    69. Just because it makes sense, doesn't mean it's so. If you ask it's possible, I would have to say yes, but the possibility does not make it so. As far as our science knows, at this time, it is impossible to travel those distances, especially with the frequency of the sightings that have been reported. Right now, I don't know and so all I can say is I need good solid evidence that proves that they have been here and are still coming here. Thus far, I haven't seen anything, but I'll keep looking.

    70. It is then two things; either you and myself process evidence differently; or I have seen
      Evidence dating back 75 years and beyond that you've not researched and been privy to.

    71. Over 30,000 people claimed to have witnessed a miracle at Fatima in Portugal in 1917. Does that prove that God exists? Maybe, but it may be that they witnessed a natural phenomena. Claims of religious experiences go back thousands of years but does it really prove anything. The slogan "I want to believe" may be indicative of a mindset that shows a bias to accept facts in a way that fulfils that "want". I do not see it as a want or don't want. I want to know what is actually happening. I will never learn that if the outcome of any investigation has an agenda in mind. For evidence to have any value, it has to be unassailable. Anecdotes and fuzzy videos are just not good enough.

    72. The miracle case noted is not the same as the UFO phenomena where cumulative evidence have been probed and investigated over time where 20% of it remains unexplained.
      You do know that about 80% of UFOs are confirmed with natural and prosaic explanations right? I fully accept it and feel that it is necessary to weed out the junk. But when you keep pushing to explain away the 20% as something that you swear must be natural. Then let me throw this right back at you. Who in this scenario fits the slogan "I want to believe.", in this case I want to confirm science's natural angle? The same bias-based mindset exists with those who are scientists and those who believe in the scientific methodology that bases everything on the natural and tangible realm. This is not unusual for scientists and those like yourself to grasp for natural theories as answers for something un-investigated that they just cannot frame within the borders of science.
      My point is that you may have the same agenda and bias and have failed to notice it in the name of science. Your scientific slant and arrogant conclusions about anecdotal evidence is not objective. History is loaded with anecdotal evidence that we've accepted without proof given that we're not there to confirm things.
      I've made the point here before that the study of UFOs is new to science because it cannot be controlled like what science typically studies; It is not a phenomena that ought to be judged solely under scientific microscopes because science doesn't have the proper scope nor the range to investigate it alone. You seem to be stuck in your definition of proof like someone who can only perceive black and white and cannot make sense of something grey. Just because you cannot make sense of the shades of grey does not mean that grey does not exist.

    73. Science doesn't just demand evidence. It demands extraordinary evidence. For years, logic dictated that stars, other than our sun, should have planets orbiting them. Science would not confirm it as fact until it could be verified by actual observation that anyone could see and verify. It is now proven beyond doubt. That is how precise science is and should be.

      UFOlogists still don't have that definitive evidence that is beyond doubt. They need to keep looking until they have it just like science did in their hunt for planets outside our solar system. Until then, all they have is good reason to keep on looking.

    74. Yes, I understand and know what science demands in terms of extraordinary evidence. And yet, extraordinary evidence can still be proven wrong and shortsighted as we learn through time. The most sensible scientist will be humble and agree to this.
      What baffles me is that the most extraordinary discovery in the history of mankind with regards to the possibility of off-world visitation that requires an extraordinary investigation is ignored by the mainstream scientific community that pontificate about extraordinary evidence.
      Other scientists who oppose this attitude from mainstream scientists agree that there is plenty of evidential information for science to proceed with this investigation.
      And yet the mainstream scientific community prefers to theorize from a distance without looking at the tons of strong and available data.
      This brand of bias is certainly irrational and non-scientific. Science may be objective; but scientists may be egotistical and political with an agenda. A flawed man is first a man before he is a model scientist.

    75. FYI, the tendency is to give science the benefit of the doubt to reported discovered habitable planets. But science has not proven that the conditions reported are beyond doubt.
      FYI, UFO investigators also use scientific analyses to verify the strongest data. Why the bias? Let's just remember that scientific and government institutions are not always truthful or accurate. Though our collective tendency often is, if NASA or a government official announces it, it must be absolute proof. I'd like to reserve my right as an independent thinker who's not just a bandwagon skeptic against UFOs and the ET story, but as well skeptical at times of the big brother institutions that might lie to us if they don't believe that we have a need to know ground breaking information.
      This isn't about being a conspiracy theorist. It's about being conscious.

    76. That shade of grey is the area of uncertainty. It is the unknown. I don't like to make a claim of certainty in a grey area. I'm comfortable admitting that I don't have all the answers.

      I'm not sure why one should dismiss the volumes of religious claims of miracles yet the volumes of UFO testimonials must be taken seriously. The supposed miracle at Fatima was witnessed by thousands. I'm not sure what happened there, but I don't dismiss it either. Something must have happened but to automatically give it religious status is premature and serves to validate the position of the religious. I would say the same about the UFO phenomenon. I don't know what is happening if anything and I won't say that I know specifically what is going on. I'll just keep gathering information until something concrete comes along, if ever. Until then, it hasn't been proven to me, even after viewing all links, some quite interesting, that you have provided.

    77. Point well taken Jack 1952.
      My angle is, that as complex individuals we ought not be shackled by the parameters of scientific, nor religious principles that define what is evident. Personal experiences, investigated information will dictate to our informed human instincts what we deem evident or not. It isn't scientific in the strictest sense of the word. But, it is human, if that means anything to science and religious fundamentalists.
      Basing things on the principle of certainty is safe. But as humans, we do not always have the luxury and safety net of certainty, though I fully understand why one would seek it. Have you ever been on a jury? Once there, you are placed in a position to judge the fate of another human being without always having hard evidence. This is part of what it means to be human. One will take a leap of faith based on elements that science cannot fully measure. From that realm, a person will make a decision to either convict or not. It isn't much different from deciding to believe or not base on cumulative evidence of all kinds. Nonetheless, I respect your perspective.

    78. Have you been in a jury, well if you have you will know that your statement "Once there, you are placed in a position to judge the fate of another human being without always having hard evidence" goes against everything the judge demand from you. If the prosecution can not for fill the required evidence with provable evidence the judge tells you that you can't convict.
      So it would appear that you are trying to convict without any evidence or with circumstantial evidence at the most. which would not stand up in a court of law.
      I have many question about UFOs however asking someone like yourself that misrepresent the subject by your bias would only detract from the passion you appear to have on this subject. It would be more advantages in letting people know the resources available to find the evidence that some of us require to make an informed opinion. Presenting people with half truths and your strong beliefs can detract from people desire to investigate this subject further.
      I can see how the possibility of UFOs can inspire some people to investigate it further, but that doesn't give them the right to have shown a lack of respect to others that don't have your same passion, which you have done on this thread. Then you come on here a play the victim and pull the every one picking on little old me, and I don't know why....
      Have you ever heard the saying: People in glass houses shouldn't throw stone.....
      If you thought that you could spread half truths and/or lies on this forum without recourse more fool you...
      There are many intelligent persons that frequent this site and will not except fallacies or beliefs without evidence to back up the statement being made.
      You are not a victim here as you tried to make yourself appear to NX2. Your insults were easily detected when some one may have a different opinion than you or by what you wrote in that post that was deleted, calling someone a liar and a troll is down right offensive and considering the person we are talking about is a well respected member of this site. Docoman doesn't lie be it on this site or in real life and you could very well learn many thing from that man if you were not so far up your own arse the see what he has to offer on this and many other subjects

    79. I can say that the bias that you've accused me of has been vehemently expressed from the opposing argument here with many who have responded. If you cannot see that so be it. Again what I stated about evidence in court was misunderstood . But I refuse to argue with you further. "If you were not so far up your own arse to see what he has to offer on this and many other subjects". After that comment, you've lost me as I refuse to re engage in an attack based dialogue. Goodbye sir.

    80. So rather than try and have a robust discussion, you are going to still play the victim card.... Grow up f*ckwit it is a forum in which opposite views are what make it interesting, if we all thought the same then new thoughts and ideas may not be possible.
      Rather than spit the dummy why don't you try to explain little on what you were to put across with your evidence in court statement like most reasonable adults would do. You are behave like a spoilt little brat, how boring this place would be if we all agreed, but then again you thought that you could spread your garbage around and convert all, the same way as religees do on other threads on this site.
      HTFU and grow some balls you sooky little person or are your arguments that weak you already know they don't stand up on there own merits. If your that sensitive then you are going to struggle with your case on any thought provoking medium. Any public forum where you have the freedom to express yourself like this site you will always find a select few that will not take what you have written as the truth and rightly so, as it has already been pointed out that you manipulate the truth by mixing in your unfounded belief rather than letting the truth stand on it's own merit.
      I notice you failed to mention the part where you accused him of being a troll and a liar or to acknowledge that you had over stepped the mark, to once again make you look like the victim.

    81. Sorry Jack, I won't take the bait. You can take that tone elsewhere.

    82. I don't know your country of origin however I know one thing you're not an Aussie...
      If you were you would understand my tone a lot better. If you think docoman is a troll you have a lot to look forward to as now if I have seen the documentary I will dissect your comments then attack you when ever I can.(with in the rules of the site we happen to be on) You my friend are a coward and the little respect I had remaining of you has now gone. The sooner you understand you can't go around attacking people for asking question the better you time on these types of sites you will have. Put your hand up and admit you were wrong in your actions towards docoman and be a f*cking man.
      Your the one who started with the insults, I'm just the one that will hold you accountable for them and us them against you every chance I get you weak little prick.

    83. Read back and carefully evaluate who's been on the attack as oppose to who's been on the defensive.
      Your rabid insults and ad-hominem attacks are not going to ever create a constructive intellectual exchange here at least not with me. You can keep your negative energy to yourself.
      I was unaware that I had to be Aussie to be embraced on this thread. This is a world wide forum, in case you were unaware of it. Attack away; and you will be ignored. This'll be my last re:

    84. I never said this was an Aussie site all I was saying was that you have not got think skin.
      The reason I have not embraced you has nothing to do with your nationality, it has everything to do with your attitude towards myself and others. The moment you insulted me was when my attitude towards you shifted and I'm like a dog with a bone and the likes of people of your elk do need to be put back in there place every so often.

    85. I anticipate, just the same as religious proponents do, he'll just take any criticism of his case or delivery and logically twist it into being an attack on his 'message' as he put it. He has all thread, and by his account has for awhile online now... he'll not 'change his spots' from a little reason or chastisement. 'Believers' don't do that... as you well know, reason is neither a requirement or result of 'faith'. He'll play the 'persecution' card continually while trying to twist any logical argument, or just flat out ignore it, just the same as religious proponents do.

    86. Why don't you address the questions that have been put to you in case.

    87. He didn't say you had to be Aussie to be embraced on this thread. Nice try at twisting words about, again. (and once more claiming to be a victim) He said if you were Aussie you would understand his tone better. Which you no doubt would.

      Attack/defense, depends on one's perspective... I agree with you, go back and read from the start of the thread. You used adjectives like 'arrogant, close-minded, sheeps[sic] of science' etc well before anyone 'attacked' you. All they did is request better evidence.
      Even your 'defender' NX2 said you were overly defensive (madly was his first description) to others asking for more evidence.
      So please do, go back and read where the 'ad hominem and insults first started'. Your 'defense' was actually the first shots.
      You'll do better here if you get honest with yourself first eze60, and harden up. If you want to give it, be prepared to receive it too. Stop trying to play the poor victim when its for everyone to see, you started with the insults being defensive to questions.
      Dishonesty doesn't become you, or do your credibility any good. You crying the poor victim makes a dishonest ass out of you, and a fool of anyone that entertains your falseness.
      Have you got any decent evidence? Or is that the extent of your exhaustive research?

    88. Who would 'the many' be here that you speak of exe60?

    89. Do you have an opinion on the shaping of public opinion through the use of science fiction in various media, from war of the worlds to close encounters of the 3rd kind it presents a broad spectrum of imagination and potential for marginalizing the conversation.hope that didn't come off as trying to seem wise in anyway, I'm working on it.

    90. Your usage of the terms 'shaping pubilc opinion' and 'use of science fiction' implies there is a deliberate use of the genre for an agenda by/through various media, which you indicate is for its potential 'for marginalizing the conversation', the shaping of public opinion you mentioned. Your words betray your stance. Various media, books, TV etc have used it to make money from it's popularity more so than any other 'agenda' I'd suggest. Can you show the various media you mention even have an agenda other then profit concerning science fiction and ET's?

      If he wish's to argue that line, he'll be shown wrong again. Whether it has or hasn't deliberately been used that way, it is not 'various media's' major effect on the population with science fiction when examined. War of the Worlds, CE of the 3rd kind, ET, Star Trek, X Files have all made it more acceptable to have and express belief in ET's, they have raised awareness, instead of, as you imply and seems you want him to argue, that it is designed to shape public opinion in a deliberate effort to discredit him and his fellow believers and their claims.

    91. why is it always a zero sum game?

    92. Care to be more specific?

    93. your previous post had eze already at a loss in your presupposition of his arguemental stance. unless I read it wrong, cutting off any desire to respond, in my opinion,

    94. He stopped responding, playing his 'victimised, injured soul' routine, before my previous post.
      Maybe you missed the qualifier to my presupposition, "If he wish's to argue that line,"

      But since it was your post, maybe you should answer instead of asking him to?

    95. That is an interesting topic terrasodium.

      Whether natural or by design, I do believe that science fiction in various media influences public opinion in some ways. Though it is difficult to ascertain to what degree.

      Many are not aware of the magnitude of influence that the UFO phenomena have had on the science fiction genre with hollywood right in the thick of it. Though still unresolved in many people's minds, the true to life subject matter of UFO stimulated the imagination of many science fiction writers to explore a brand new realm of story-line possibilities. This is not to state that the likes of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells were not already there during the pre-popular UFO era. Nonetheless a case for art imitating life can be made.
      The sci-fi genre is the perfect argument for those who may wish to illustrate the chasm between the realms of the imagination akin the UFO matter and what is deemed true science.

      Having stated that, the better science fiction movies use theoretical scientists as consultants for scientific believability.
      So the more creative and imaginative hand of science is very involved.

      I saw a documentary that suggested that there were government consultants for the movie THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL, for the sole purpose of slowly preparing the American public for eventual disclosure of alien visitation. But I haven't much more to have an opinion on that besides that documentary.
      It’s just my general first glance ideas on this topic. But I am sure there’s more to it.

    96. It's not unresolved that there are UFO sightings that are weird... just what the UFO's are.
      It is also questionable which influenced (and to what degree) the other... public interest influencing hollywood, or the other way around. As you point out, the science fiction genre was around before hollywood got 'rolling'.
      If you've only seen 'The Day the Earth Stood Still', (which, btw, is fiction, not a documentary, the '51 version, or the '08 remake? Hence the term 'science FICTION' instead of science documentary) how can you make an informed judgement on the rest?
      Or was that a 'documentary' ABOUT the movie? In which case, did it just document the film... or supply it's own 'take' and opinion on it (rendering it an opinion piece, not a documentary)

      The fact you renamed it from 'science fiction' to a documentary, or documentary instead of opinion piece, once more betrays your bias, and your resultant misunderstanding of the material you peruse. Not to mention your own, separate definitions from what everyone else uses.

    97. You should already know terra will not enter into a discussion where he may need to show some honesty

    98. He's trying today... so I'll play fair while he does.

    99. The 'contact' sub genre is by far the most popular and I think that popularity stems from public demand. I don't know the stats but I'm guessing the vast majority of people don't need to be 'prepared' for the news that aliens are for real, I'd venture that they 'want to believe'. I'd go so far as to say that it's easier to believe. It seems to me that most people have an inbuilt draw to a higher power. A lot of what Daniel Dennett says of religion could equally well be applied to belief in alien visitors.

      I'd be much happier if everybody in this thread would refrain from abusing the term 'science fiction'. I know that alien abduction/visitation/invasion is a part of the genre but it's such a shallow and lacklustre part when viewed as a whole. Sorry, it just drives me nuts.

    100. which word in the term science fiction has you vexed ? are the two words incomprehensive as a combination in a instructive symbol of a concept? what would be a better wording to express the reach for conjecture/ hypothesis in the relative line of questioning?

    101. I ticked it up for the first half of that post, I was wondering the same thing about jabber's last paragraph too. I don't understand exactly what he meant either, just that using the term in reference 'only' to ET's drives him nuts.

    102. Your words. They are needlessly thorny.

      Feel free to use the term Ufology if you wish, it fits better with the conclusions you wish to reach.

    103. lol, I like your term Ufology... I'll use that one :)
      Was I correct in thinking you don't like the term science fiction being used to only talk about ET's... some people equate science fiction = ET's, that's what annoys you mate?

      You are correct of course, the genre science fiction covers much more than just the folly of Ufology. Jules Verne's 20,000 leagues under the sea is a classic example I think. A recent example of non ET science fiction is Elysium starring Matt Damon.

      I'm a fan of the genre too ;)

    104. The Ufology term isn't mine, and according to wikipedia it's not to be confused with UFO religion( I guessed they'd have one of those of course). The word covers what's being forwarded in some arguments here nicely I think.

      So yes, because of that I don't think ET's and the accompanying narrative should be equated with SciFi ... even though it is SciFi technically. It sullies science fiction by association, that's what I think. Good science fiction deals with moral, ethical and existential conundrums and puts you in situations with no easy answers. Not quite the same as obsessing over videos containing what may or may not be weather balloons ;)

      Yeah I liked Elysium by the way. Wasn't quite on par with District 9 but it did offer something fresh. I still find science fiction to be one of the more rewarding of genres to read.

      Edit: I was actually half joking when I originally started the SciFi rant but the more I think about it ...

    105. An interesting read, cheers mate. I have to concur, the term does seem to cover much of what is posted in this thread.
      pseudoscience applies very well...the claim to " exemplify the methods and principles of science, but that do not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lack supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lack scientific status"
      Many examples of that to be seen on this thread.
      I can see yr point about SciFi, ET's are only a small sub-genre. I haven't read any for quite awhile myself... was my favorite genre growing up though, and I still like to check out all the SciFi movies that are released.

      Warning-- you should be careful mate, apparently you're now talking to one of a triad of evil, out to 'get' the tinfoil hat wearing dishonest poster on this thread. Apparently, you're OK. You might 'blow' that status by talking with me :)

    106. Oh dear. If we've descended into setting up opposing camps then we might as well start shooting people. That's a shame because I do enjoy humour and arguments and sharing differing and similar views with people while not getting shot. This thread has been interesting, and as is often the case on TDF, informative, but I'm still as skeptical as ever regardless of the few niggly questions I have.

      Well, seeing as we're all going to be shooting each other I'm just gonna grab my imaginary gun and head over to the 911 docs section for a spot of house cleaning.

      Brb :)

    107. I also like Louis Theroux and his style. Have you seen the show he did on UFO chasers?
      There is a bloke 'channeling' an ET..for a fee of course... very amusing, completely absurd.
      Or the plastic 'mind gun' another 'hunts' them with.
      If you haven't seen it, it's worth a look if you feel like a laugh.

    108. I've watched quite a lot of Louis' shows, haven't seen that one though. I'll put it on the list, he's always worth a watch. Cheers.

    109. Ufology works for me but curious about what my conclusions are? I also like the thorny bit made me gelotologically inclined.

    110. I'd say the conclusions are irrelevant with regards to that term. I'm pretty sure every one in this thread is engaging in Ufology.

      Also I think we could all benefit from a crash course in gelotology 101.

    111. You've said that you've only ever had a few 'intelligent' conversations with a couple of people online. Would I be correct in assuming those conversations you consider 'intelligent' are with other people who believe the same as you? There is a higher percentage of intelligent people online then the figures you've said you have experienced, why do they seemingly not converse with you often?

      You had one here with Jack1952, albeit mostly one sided intelligent, are you going to count that too? Or is he still one that is 'close minded', that makes arrogant assumptions and is a sheep of science? Now you say you respect his perspective? He hasn't changed the whole thread, why respect it now, but not earlier?

      Jack1952 quite well put down exactly why your arguments and sketchy evidence is not enough. He showed that you are just like religious people claiming they have evidence for their God. But just like theirs, yours comes up short of proving anything other then at best, there might be something we don't understand going on.

      Your reply to that.. you go back to imploring that everyone "not be shackled by the parameters of scientific, nor religious principles that define what is evident." (what religious principles define what is evident btw?) You want us to "take a leap of faith based on elements that science cannot fully measure."
      And you draw a false analogy with a jury in a court of law.
      We are not in a court of law, we are not required to reach a decision on a deadline, on incomplete information as they sometimes have to (which as pointed out to you, should be not guilty if it's not proven), there is no need for your requested 'leap of faith' to choose one way or the other, right now. That's one reason your jury analogy is a false one.
      (can you name a court case where the jury was required to do what you ask? Suspend their usual parameters of what is evident, to take a leap of faith to reach a decision?)

      Why do you, just like many preachers, implore people to suspend what they think they know and hurry up and make a choice now? Why is there any need for any 'leap of faith' regarding UFO's, what's the rush?
      Could it be, like preachers, that you've expended your 'evidence', still been found to be wanting when critically evaluated, so you wish to short-circut that evaluation and rush to the decision making, in the hope you'll get more affirmative replies?
      It's been pointed out that you don't have enough solid evidence to prove your hypothesis, so why do you reply with 'just suspend what you think you know, then take a leap of faith'? If its 'self evident' as you've claimed, why suspend any thinking in making one's evaluation?

      Every time you've been asked for better evidence, you've replied along those lines.
      The reality is, that is clearly your attempt at ducking your responsibility, you make the claims, you have to provide the evidence.
      If you can't, (which you can't in this case) then rightly so, your idea remains a hypothesis, a POSSIBLE answer only. Not what you wish, the ONLY correct answer.

      To not just take sketchy evidence, add it to some fools assertions of knowledge they clearly don't have, and accept the story they are telling as fact, why do you want people to not do that with religious beliefs, but do it with your beliefs?

    112. To speculate on a subject and offer possibilities is one thing, but to state, with absolute certainty, without sufficient evidence, what one believes to be fact,is another thing altogether. Speculation allows for the prospect or the chance of possible explanations. When that speculation is taken on as fact, without good reason, then the prospect for other explanations are lost. Options must always be open until evidence prove facts. That is why I will never say that aliens have been and are visiting earth. It's a speculation but the facts to support it just isn't there.

      A jury is charged by the judge,that they must find guilt based on the evidence, without reasonable doubt. If that evidence is lacking, a leap of faith by a jury is the one thing they are not to do. Poor evidence equals no guilt. That is the law, applied. A defendant, found guilty on insufficient evidence, may have grounds for an appeal. I would hope, maybe somewhat naively, that a verdict would never be found based on faith. If I ever was on a jury, faith would be the last thing, if ever, that I would use to arrive at a verdict.

      I, also, question your statement "not be shackled by the parameters of scientific principles". Science is the method used to understand the world around us. My car, my computer, all the advances we have in modern technology and understanding is arrived at through the properly applied use of the scientific method. I don't have faith that my car will start. I rely on the science of the engineers that built that car and if it doesn't start, I take it to someone, who has been trained to repair it by using all the scientific knowledge and hardware at their disposal. To my knowledge, no scientific advancements have ever been realized through the application of faith. It is the judicious application of science that brings these advancements. If anything, science is what releases us from the shackles of ignorance.

    113. @Jack1952: You are right. At our best speed, the nearest star system (Alpha Centauri 4.2 light years) is some 60,000 years away for a one way trip at todays best speed. With that said, if aliens were travelling inter-dimensionally, it would not be an issue of speed or distance, but one of phasing. (would explain a lot) Either way, even if it is true, proving it would be folly at best, short of an "independence day" event!
      P.S: Would not be the ideal time for anyone to say, ' I told you so'.

    114. That footage doesn't provide me with any solid scientific proof of what you advance. I am not a debunker, I want some clear proof that can't be dismissed.

    115. I believe in extra terrestrials but i can see youre point this video gave no solid evidence of anything other than the act that some people will go to great lengths to get noticed as ufo hunters, it actually hinders the possibility of people who dont believe in such things from changing their beliefs. They shouldnt let people who wear tinfoil hats have cameras i guess

    116. "primitive neanderthals in serious denial" haha man you really nailed it though. "Solid Proof" exists and has for a long time. Logic , stats, calculations, facts and history proves that. The only people left who don't believe are the less-aware types of humans. Not all intelligence can keep up with an advancing race.

  25. I liked the flying Aga thing, more convincing than the light up yoyo's ;)

  26. At the very least it's good that films like this get people talking. I enjoy the comments more than the video most of the time. Personally, like most people I cannot say for sure if we have been visited. I look at the vastness of space, I think about the millions of chunks of debris full of bacteria from earth that are flying through interstellar space. We now know that bacteria can survive open space and re-entry so chances are that even if we were the only ones in the beginning, earth has seeded a few places and bacteria from here is now there. And from there to other places eventually. Looking at the scale of things it's quite likely that we could have began the same way but if not, it's begun now. Looking at the grand scheme of things if we don't destroy ourselves we do know that in a few billion years our sun will die. By then if we're still around it would be very unlikely that we wouldn't have the technology to permanently survive in a space craft. We technically could do so now. By then science may allow for virtually unlimited life spans. There is a planet only 5 light years from earth that has been found in the goldy-locks zone. Quite doable if you live in space for a few hundred years or have a multi generational population on board. To be honest we could go there ourselves if it was found to be habitable. It would just take someone willing to make a one way life long trip. If we can do this now a few hundred years into the industrial age and 12 thousand years out of an ice age it opens up possibilities. Looking at the scale of time that we know, earth could have seeded a local solar system and planet by now. Considering how much time we have spent in ice ages here, it is conceivable that we could have seeded a world that has surpassed us. Even with the ridiculously ignorant notion that we had life here first we have probably spread it ourselves by now.There are too many possibilities with trillions of chances for life to take hold too many ways. I think we will have trouble not finding at the very least, bacterial life virtually everywhere.

    1. Yup, the comments are every bit as good as the doc most of the time :)

  27. a study has shown that most sightings occur near fault lines,meaning
    energy releases from below the ground can have effects on human brainwaves inducing visions or even producing 'orb-like' phenomena (for orb-like phenomena check arnold boscowitz' book from 1898-"earthquakes")...
    but still there are minute cases which can't be explained (yet),so the mystery prevails....but that has always been a motor for fantasy which is an evolutionary key of the human psyche which helped us getting here where we are now...............'lost/somewhere in nowhere'!>smirk<
    anyhow,i've learned by researching this topic that the slight 'eccentric type' brings forth 'eccentric-claims' with a slight of evidence,imo!...but that is not denial to the subject...just caution to the messenger,if you will!dr.greer,for example,begs for scrutiny as in comparison to the aforementioned 'von daeniken' ,whom should be avoided with 'occam's barge-pole!'the china footage of the slow moving 'aircraft' is known as a 'lentikular-cloud' in meteorlogical for the end 'object in the film (around 38 mins in)reminds of an 'apple' commercial gone wrong.....but the worst comment comes at the end.....concluding that everything is boiling down to the 'holyland'......'GOD' beware (pun intended)!
    summa summarum:very bad summation of an interesting subject!

    1. If indeed we are being visited and they are rolling in on the holy land I would think they are more likely observing how stupid we are, killing each other over deistic constructs and interpretation. Determining that we would indeed be a threat if we somehow organized and pushed out to interstellar space while we still maintained such primitive viewpoints.

    2. Dont forget about the corruption and destruction of our environment all in the name of greed/profit, of course since the most likely life forms of life to achieve higher levels of intelligence are predators its just as likely they arent as benevolant as many would like to believe.

    3. Shhhh. Let them have their moment.

  28. all the thousands upon thousands of high definition cameras in the world today, and yet still nobody can get an image of a 'ufo' that isn't fuzzier than an episode of the muppets or shaking like an epileptic at Japaneese comicon.

    the first videos are clearly all balloons...he probably released them himself. As for the lights, it was most probably helicopters on a military training exercise (assuming they aren't doctored)...I got bored after that and stopped watching so i can't comment on the rest.

    1. Not to mention tripods, mono pods and camera stabilizers and electronic image stabilization.

    2. Explanations of what UFOs might be that are based on zero counter-evidence, cynicism and the assumption that the people who decided to publish this video are completely tunnel vision and stupid by not having ruled out the "Balloons, helicopters, lanterns" and all obvious explanations before editing this video, brings the focus on you, the commenter. This makes less for an open and intellectual debate or discussion here.

    3. I have at no point at any time ever said that these people or anyone is stupid. But there are other options besides balloons helicopters and lanterns, and there's nothing saying that they sat down and had a proper discussion about what these things might be. They were going out looking for evidence of aliens, and would claim absolutely anything they saw as alien activity because it's the answer everyone wants.

      I don't see how what we're doing isn't an open discussion?

    4. Your assessment of how these films are made with people who "would claim absolutely anything they saw as aliens" I am certain is off the mark. I am sorry, I give the authors a bit more credit than you have. Before accusing them with such an aggressive assertion, why don't you contact them and ask them how they conducted their investigation? My guess is that they are aware that in order to be taken as being credible, they have to have ruled out and edited the bad videos that were easily explainable.
      Open perhaps, but reasonable, not the least bit with these wild assumptions of them being very irresponsible filmmakers who are eager to convince you that UFOs as ETs are real enough to dump anything into the public eye.

    5. And i'm afraid that's why views like yours are not accepted by the scientific community.

      I'm not accusing them of anything that they wouldn't be accused of under scientific scrutiny. If the evidence backs them up, then it doesn't matter what i think or what they're accused of.

      If they're presenting evidence i shouldn't have to ask them any of those questions, the answers should all be in their presentation. as it stands a lot of questions need asking before this can possibly be considered as any sort of evidence,

    6. That's funny. This is not a court for scientific scrutiny. I think when it comes to criticizing a documentary, common sense is all it takes. You were not asking any questions. You were simply judging, or misjudging perhaps due to your negative assumptions.

      "And i'm afraid that's why views like yours are not accepted by the scientific community."

      If you're suggesting this comment with regards to the UFO phenomena, it is new territory for the scientific community because much of it is based on observation and verification outside the lab. As documented, many in science are clueless as to how to approach this phenomena because it is outside of what it typically studies. It is why many mainstream scientists approach this with an air of awkwardness and at times stupidity with regards to the theories to frame the phenomena in the context of what it must be in the eye of science. Besides specific studies and verification of samples, the mainstream scientific community doesn't have a good handle on how to approach this subject matter. It is a topic that many types of professional observers must weigh-on. I think that's why many here are confused about how to make sense of this phenomena in thinking that it's strictly a scientific matter that requires lab-style "solid evidence".
      Though I trust areas of this subject matter that require scientific verification in terms of specific matters, I don't need the blessing of scientists to draw an informed conclusion.

    7. Oh give over...So all that guff earlier aboutr having a debate, that was just you talking the talk was it?
      Ii did nothing of the sort, I merely subjected your deeply held beliefs to the most basic level of scrutiny, and if i'm being honest with you I did it quite gently too...the fact that you've kicked up into a hysteria is down to lack of reliable evidence, not anything else. If the evidence supported what you think, then you wouldn't have to resort to such emotionally charged arguments.

      Oh how hilarious, scientists trained for decades in he art of proper observation are still not as worthy as you are to judge what is reality and what isn't.,..instead we're meant to rely solely on you and your boxed set of the X-Files, because apparantly only your eyes are open.

      It's nonsense, your entire argument is nothing but special pleading a weak logical fallacy.

      Next please...

    8. What scrutiny?
      All I've read from you has been the same "give me solid evidence" nonsense that I've been reading from the same gang of tunnel visioned sheeps here ignorant to how to evaluate evidence from a non-linear perspective.
      My case has been made here. Your frustration must be from your inability to reverse my outside the box ability to decide on my own what is believable.
      I don't need your negative judgement to believe in a phenomena that I've thoroughly researched.
      I have enough scientists and physicists that are on the same page as myself regarding this phenomena.
      What's your excuse?
      Next please right back at you mr. Arrogant and ill-educated and linear thinking.

    9. Nice fallacy.... try again. If that's your case... lol. You are indeed non-linear... as I said, you go from 20% unexplained, to now that 20% is hardcore evidence...
      Then go to ad hominem when its pointed out your argument is at best, very weak, and only a hypothesis.

      Believe what you wish, but you're no different to any 'God' believer that sees what they want to see, and concludes in favor of their wishes.

    10. Idiotic misinterpretation of what is meant by 20% of the unexplained cases. "Believe what you wish, but you're no different to any 'God' believer that sees what they want to see, and concludes in favor of their wishes." Taking a final word cheap shot suggests that my belief offends you. That is your problem, not mine.

    11. You are correct about one thing, you jumping from 20% unexplained, to it being 20% hardcore evidence... (your words) is idiotic.

      As you yourself admit, they're your beliefs. And as shown, you are making leaps of logic to support your beliefs.
      Nothing different to other 'believers'.
      More of an observation then a cheap shot, but go ahead and play the 'persecution card' as do other believers when asked to show evidence.

    12. Showing zealots the limitations of the prized tools that they niether use professionally or comprehend amatuerishly, will only pull the discourse away from meaningfully questioning the contents of known and the possibilities of the unknown. In the end even the bad sophist type arguementation which is what you'll be subject to henceforth only speaks to convert conversations into a carpentry shop format, if you don't worship the hammer you will have no advance at the driving of the evidentialist nails, best to you for passing on the dogmatic cool aid.

    13. I am uncertain if your verbose and somewhat incomprehensible comment is meant as a genuine intellectual criticism or
      An attempt to injure.
      I am open for an intellectual debate if your argument is well sourced with references as opposed to an all pro-orthodox mainstream scientific argument.
      I will give you plenty of references as to why I've come to believe the likely hood that ET beings have been Visiting us.
      And, I will not make ad hominem and arrogant attacks as many here tend to make in the name of what is scientific.
      The misunderstanding is that real science, which I embrace, is not promoted by scientists who are arrogant, judgemental, dismissive and condescending when confronted by a new phenomena that cannot fully be explained after full and repeated scientific scrutiny.

    14. terrasodium ( salt of the earth?) is not attacking you. Though i have the impression that English isn't his/her first language.

    15. Thank you NX2. I've been under attack in many of the posts here not so directly, but often as parting shots and pokes. I seem to have a minority viewpoint. Perhaps I've become a bit too defensive. Thank you for your observation. Regards

    16. In my regard you're most welcome. I like reading your comments, they're quite intelligent and they come with a certain drive. A drive that leads at times to a certain anger.
      Just let me say, don't let that anger take you over, or direct that anger to 'the other'. it will lead you to loose any discussion.
      I take that as a reminder for myself as well, so, i hope i don't come across as patronizing here.

    17. You are not patronizing at all NX2. You are correct about me allowing my frustration to get to me. If it isn't anger stemming from a more profound personal issue, it is my intolerance of closemindedness with regards to any topic that is in turn expressed in dogged arrogance and condescension. I revere the achievements of science. But it is neither all knowing, nor does it hold the ultimate mantle of human truths.
      I've arrived arrived at this simple conclusion through both a physical and non-religious spiritual journey involving intense exploration and education. And I would not be passionate here about my position unless it was very well supported.
      Unfortunately, I don't believe that I've had any real discussions here because I've been confronted with a one-sided hostile perspective that has been all linear orthodox science types. Nonetheless, my bad for indulging in a dog fight given that it distracts from my points.
      I have posted some great links above that elucidate my perspective and outline some very strong allies in my belief. If you haven't already visited the links and article, please take a look. Thanks again for the support.

    18. You are not patronizing at all NX2. You are in fact correct that I've allowed my frustration with those who are not versed with new information beyond the confines of scientific orthodoxy. If my expressed frustration isn't born of something beyond these verbal brawls, it stems from my intolerance of close-mindedness with regards to any topics associated with judgemental and condescending attacks.

      I believe that we are both physical and spiritual beings, not meaning religious spirituality. I've arrived at this conclusion from life experiences, insight and education. This is a position that need not be justified under scientific scrutiny.

      I revere the contributions of science. However, in my opinion it does not have all of the answers to the complexities of the human state; though some day it may be able to quantify much of that state.

      This is often where I think the objectivity of science itself can be distinguished from the the arrogance and egos of scientists and disciples of science.

      Unfortunately, with the exception of a very few individuals that can be counted from one hand over several years between this forum and you tube, I've never had exchanges that can be dubbed real civil intellectual discussions. As a result, I think I only lose a discussion not in terms of the content of my attempted position but by the impression given from losing my cool. So I thank you again for your feedback on this matter. I will try to be more centered when baited to brawl back by insults and condescending comments.

      Please see the links and other article posted above. You'll see that my position on the seriousness of the UFO and ET hypothesis is backed by numerous very highly respected individuals.

      You will also see that albeit more popular on this thread, the kind of aggressive responses against people who back the ET hypothesis has been happening for a long time, and that it more so implies ignorance about the full scope of this subject matter more than anything else.

      Best regards.

    19. Some of the posts weren't meant as an attack on you personally mate, they were a request for more evidence. When you come back with 'you're close minded, or a sheep of science or another clone', you'll get a response equally if not more aggressive. As you said, it's healthy to be skeptical. You should view requests for more evidence as an opportunity to present your case more thoroughly, not as an attack on you personally. (I don't know you..I can't dislike someone I don't even know)
      I don't agree with all of your reasoning, I think opposite to you about the principle of Occam's Razor in this case, but I do agree that it is only a guideline, not a law. I don't agree with putting down scientists and institutions like NASA, then using them as a comparison for lifting something like COMETA.
      Or saying it's outside science, but then using scientists to prop up the argument. To me, its a contradiction.
      I agree, there seems to be something weird that is unexplained with some sightings. I just disagree that the most likely explanation is ET's. Fact is, you and I don't know for sure either way. The same as the 'god' hypothesis, I need more then a few people saying 'this is correct, believe me'. I need to see some evidence and some sensible logic that says that is the correct answer, whatever the new claim is, by whomever.
      My apologies for any sarcasms that weren't warranted, lets both drop it down a notch and act like adults again I propose.

    20. Niether is Latin,,,,,

    21. "And, I will not make ad hominem and arrogant attacks as many here tend to make in the name of what is scientific."
      Yet you said earlier, "Next please right back at you mr. Arrogant and ill-educated and linear thinking"

      You are correct in one thing, your ad hominem is not in the name of what is scientific, its in the name of your beliefs, which are unscientific.

      As NX2 said, terrasodium wasn't attacking you. He was actually doing his usual 'I know more then others but don't want to go into it' kind of post in your favor. He loves to pat himself on the back because he's so advanced compared to everyone else, but won't elaborate further on his 'holier then thou' posts. That's why he uses, as you put it, "verbose and somewhat incomprehensible" wording. They're his attempt to sound more intelligent than anyone else. He usually says a lot without really saying much at all.

    22. You are correct!
      Counter attack to ad-hominem attacks does not further the conversation. My bad indeed!
      I am here to make my case. I am pro-science and totally understand the scientific nuances. It is frustrating when many here assume that they are giving me new information when they repeat the same elementary point about their scientific position in terms of evidence. If the person with whom I am communicating comes up with intelligent, philosophical counter-arguments without condescending and snide pokes to undermine the opposing perspective, in this case my perspective, then this could be a real debate. But this seems to happen very, very rarely here. But I've had this kind of exchange before.
      While not being "religious" at all, I do believe that we are both physical and spiritual beings. It is completely unscientific. But intuitive instinct cannot be fully explained either. Science does its part; but at least at the level that we know it now, it is limited and cannot explain and confirm everything.
      I cannot comprehend why many here go on the attack when it is pointed out that science as we know it, does not know it all.
      When many sensible scientists take off their science suits and become human, they usually realize the limitations of science.
      Regarding terrasodium, I was only able to respond to his/her post as I interpreted it at the time; Beyond that, I cannot shape an opinion about this person's motive from that writing style.

    23. Then you should understand it is up to the one proposing the explanation to provide the evidence, not others job to prove you wrong.

      Your 'evidence' and argument are lacking, that's why you keep getting asked the same questions over and over, you haven't answered them adequately.

    24. My sincerest apologies to you Terrasodium if I was on the counter-attack and misinterpreted what you meant. I seemed to have been too sensitive in my defense due to multiple pokes from many here. I have passed, on the dogmatic cool-aid. But that upsets a lot of people.
      Have a wonderful evening.

    25. Don't let the internet Machiavellian sadists deter you, they hunt in packs, the dark tetrad is amusingly informative when you can see it for what it is.

    26. :) Thanks Terrasodium.
      I speak 2.5 languages and I am open to learning more with the cultural nuances associated with them. So I am definitely willing to learn outside of my comfort zone.
      I think that if this curiosity is universal, it is a problem in this forum. Cheers!

    27. That appears to be 1.5 languages more than him by all indications.

    28. This is exactly what i'm saying!

      asking for solid evidence isn't nonsense, it's a BASIC's not a big conspiracy against you, it may feel like that, but it's not, that's just the world...oddly enough people like to have solid evidence before changing their opinions...whod have guessed?

      I love the way that i'm the arrogant one because i'm not willing to believe you at face value.

      You presented to me what you thought was good evidence, i quite gently explained to you why it was not, and now after that slightest bit of criticism lood at the hissy fit you're're calling me names, accusing me of things i quite clearly haven't done or said, and are generally throwing all of your toys out the pram in classical tantrum fashion...odd considering you were the one who wanted an intellectual debate on the subject...sounds to me like you're just looking for people to pat you on the back and agree with you.

      sorry but i ain't gonna do that on the flimsy and bluntly cheesy excuse for evidence that you presented.

    29. It requires your group to supply evidence, because that is who makes the claims it's ET's. Until you show it is, then its nothing more then a hypothesis.
      Could be correct, could be wrong. Occams Razor suggests it's an Earthly origin, not ET.

      This show says 'Best UFO Cases Ever'... if that's it, there's not much. :( Same as your argument so far... not much sense, just what if's and could be's. Then you feel insulted because others ask for some decent evidence. You sound exactly like someone claiming their version of God is correct.. and react the same when asked for evidence.

    30. Have you ever tried to video tape the unexpected that comes with a myriad of unpredictable behavior at great distances away at an unknown point in time? Good luck getting a model pose when it comes to trying to photograph a UFO. It's funny that if someone did get the clearest and detailed photo of a UFO, the immediate response will be HOAX, CGI, FAKE etcetera.
      This is proven in Youtube. As human beings, we are like the proverbial crabs in a barrel in the universe; if one or a few of us try to crawl out of it, the rest would pull him or them back down into the barrel. There is a parallel to be drawn here in terms of our position in our galaxy. We are so earth-centric and isolated in our limited reality and scientific knowledge, we tend to ridicule those who are pointing to possibilities past our neighborhood.

    31. dude i'm sorry, that excuse was reasonable twenty years ago...but now it just doesn't hold any water, with modern cameras in most peoples pockets, yet the evidence stays the's all jarry, it's all blurry and in more cases than not, it's still a complete hoax.

      It not about dragging you back down or anything like that, it's not about ridiculing anything, it's genuine criticism, and it's the same criticism any scientist would get for using flimsy information.

      I'll tell you for definite Nobodies ridiculing those who point to the possibility of life elsewhere. in fact modern statistics say it's less likely that we're alone in a universe like ours. To be honest i'm fairly certain that there must be life out there...i just don't think it's nipping down here every now and again to give people small Ariel displays before going home for tea.

    32. It's not an excuse a_no_n. Until you're in the position with photographers with current equipments trying to capture the unanticipated objects, you're not credible enough to judge. But of course you're right. You are entitled to that opinion. Mainstream science and scientists have demonized brilliant fringe scientists and those who attempted to communicate a new truth throughout history. I am convinced that this is the same trend with many bad skeptics specially when it comes to the ET hypothesis.
      You want to see some pretty solid snapshots of UFOs from a well respected UFO website that would not post bogus photos without testing the legitimacy of the photographs, go to If you want opinions that are likely more informed than yours or mine, read the COMETA report. It was an investigation conducted by real investigators and scientists. The difference being is that it was not an American investigation. For some reason a few other countries seem to have a healthier and more genuinely open-minded take on this phenomena than here in the States.

  29. What if we are the most advanced civilization in the universe?

    1. It's possible but not quite probable. The universe is believed to be 13.798 billion years old and the earth is estimated at 4.54 billion years old. That leaves a lot of time prior to earth's appearance for life to grow on other planets and evolve civilization. Who knows what our civilization will be like and able to do in a million years yet that is but a blip compared to the age of our galaxy. I guess the main obstacle for civilization to evolve further is that if it's like ours, it has a tendency to self destruct after a few centuries. Our best guess so far is the Drake equation but too many variables are unknown yet.

    2. yeah, but also we're at least a 2nd generation solar system, which is needed to get the larger elements required. So you can narrow that margin somewhat, if indeed our sun is an average star, and has a life expectancy of around 8 to 9 billion years. Probability, which so many hang their hats on in this area, is nothing more then that. Ask any gambler how probability works. Occam's razor suggests if there is weird UFO's, humans likely invented them and have kept it secret for whatever reason. (which also explains the 'government cover-ups' they all claim helps prove it's ET's)
      There is some tentative evidence the Germans were working on it in WWII, which also coincides with the time-frame of sightings.
      Its possible they're of ET origin, but I think the less likely scenario. Especially if they had the tech. to get here, then crash. I'd expect if they were advanced enough to get here, they'd be advanced enough we wouldn't know about it.

    3. I was bringing the point to answer the question if we are the most advanced civilization in the Universe. My opinion on ETs visiting us is that it is extremely unlikely and the evidence presented is very shaky at best.

    4. I just don't get why they would be so cr@p at hiding themselves. If they were smart enough to get here undetected, from some place so far that we hadn't noticed them, how are they suddenly so daft that they show themselves or forget to switch on their cloaking device. Unless of course they wanted to be seen, but then why so haphazardly? And, 50 years (give or take) is a loooong course of aversion therapy, surely we must be prepared for them by now? ;)

    5. I concur with your thoughts mate.

    6. What if we're the second most advanced civilisation on our planet? Whales have been here longer ;)

  30. I have stopped watching the video as soon they pronounced the name Eric Von Daniken.

    And about the lights, of course they form a triangle formation because 3 lights in open space will always form a triangle.

    1. You're being way too sensible. We can't have that in government cover-up documentary.

      I first read "Chariot of the Gods" shortly after it was released, around 1970. I was in my late teens and at first I thought it was an intriguing idea. As I got deeper into the book, I started to see flaws in his interpretation of history, his logic and the way he presented information. It was difficult to verify most of his claims and he was all over the place linking historical events to one another. I don't trust a thing with his name linked to it. Not then and not now.

  31. For a videographer, this Willis guy doesn't take very clear pictures. Then, whoever uploaded this video, didn't even bother to upload in HD. It's weird, enough, but nothing that says aliens. Why would aliens fly the billions of miles to get here and then only hover for a couple of minutes and leave? No video here that proves a thing.

    1. Why would we try to ascertain the motives of a completely different intelligence by basing it on our own modus operandi?
      To project the motives of Extraterrestrial visitors, we have to think way outside the box beyond our own tendencies. If you do then the idea of the manipulation of time, space and dimension to get from point A to point B, C or Z becomes a more feasible reality. Otherwise we are projecting with our heads stuck deep in the sand.

  32. Only thing I can agree with is some are Unidentified Flying Objects. That doesn't mean they came from space at all. It's the least probable explanation. Why would alien civilizations travel for light years to fly around in our atmosphere with no logical purpose? That is not how exploration works.

    When we send probes into space, we send them to explore for as long as we can as we want some information for the time and money spent. If aliens sent something our way, it would be active for more then a few minutes. When Columbus discovered America, he didn't sail past the land and say : "Ok I found land, let's go back home."

    1. Why is the Extra Terrestrial Hypothesis the least probable explanation? Is it because you perceive science and the natural world to have all the answers in terms of what is real? Read France's THE COMETA report. It is the perfect response to your comment with respect to some UFOs.

    2. Because it's the one that requires the most complex scenario and expenditure of energy to be real. Scientific thinking begins by the simplest energy efficient theories then gradually switches to more complex solutions to explain an observable phenomenon.

    3. I totally understand your reasoning. However, I'd state that if we dare to project the motives of an incredibly advanced ET specie, it would be an error to presume that their modus operandi for space exploration would be like that of our own. We'd have to theorize way outside the box and come up with a variety of possibilities in terms of their motive, propulsion system or mainly their ability to manipulate time, space and dimensions. In order to theorize in such a way, we might have to discard the method thinking of our limited understanding of science and physics. If you have not read the COMETA report, please do. It is available online in French. But I believe there is also an English translation.

    4. Occam's Razor suggests you're wrong, that's why it's the least probable.

    5. Ockham's razor: states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.
      It's a logical generalization that fits perfectly within the scientific model.
      A) It is a generalization as opposed to a rule.
      When dealing with questions beyond the realms of scientific understanding, it takes a progressive scientist to throw out the rule books and investigate all possibilities outside of the widely accepted scientific orthodoxy.

    6. FYI, I think Ockham's Razor favors the ET hypothesis.

      Quote from a NICAP article:

      This is why radar-visual case are so unique in their evidential value. Those three conditions are necessary and sufficient conditions to defend inducing the ETH; the question is the degree of corroboration for each of the conditions. When ranking possible origin hypotheses, Occam's Razor is the guiding principle here:

      American or foreign government craft

      Extraterrestrial craft

      "Interdimensional craft"

      Once one replaces the null with the alternative and looks for a hypothesis of origin, it is feasible to reject the first origin hypothesis. It is absurd to think these are government craft, since the so-called "conspiracy" widens by a huge magnitude: the behavior of the flights are at variance with accepted flight-test procedures (e.g. chasing civilians), and the requisite physics for the observed propulsion would require enormous leaps in 1947 in all sorts of technology that the civilian community still has not grasped 50 years later.

      The second hypothesis, that they are extraterrestrial craft, is the "Extra-Terrestrial Hypothesis", or ETH. Note that this is a specialized sub-hypothesis within the broader, original "alternative hypothesis", which is simply that the "saucers" do in fact exist. Some researchers, like Vallee, reject this and move to the third hypothesis, though that is beyond the scope of this article.

      Falsifiability is a difficult area because the very approach to the subject is more subjective and inferential (hence the Bayesian approach -- see Sturrock, "Applied Scientific Inference", Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 8, no. 4). The very nature of the problem -- the vagueness, the lack of replicability on demand, and the elusiveness -- does not lend itself with ease to direct and irrefutable falsifiability."

    7. There are more assumptions in the ETH than there is in the human origin hypothesis.

      Thus, despite your attempts at flipping it around, Ockham's Razor suggests if there is something, it's ours, not ET's.

      I agree with your last paragraph that it is a difficult area scientifically, as there are few if any usable observations for a start. You are not at the point of Falsifiability yet. Nice try though.

  33. This is the best they could find? Either they need better cameras or they need lessons on how to hold a camera.

  34. i've never seen on film or in real life ,a really convincing sighting so i believe we are alone in the Universe . So lets love and respect the life ,we have in abundance here on earth

    1. I don't believe we've ever been "visited" and I think that 100% of the "UFO" footage are either hoaxes, or more likely, misunderstandings of natural phenomena -- but -- there is absolutely no way we are alone in the universe. Just in the past decade we've discovered tons of planets that can theoretically support liquid water, so the chances of this tiny insignificant planet being the only one capable of sustaining life in the ENTIRE universe is impossible.

    2. Hi Lenny statistically there should be infinite loads of life out there , , and infinite loads of it should be,right here , visiting us,,but I don't see them I only know that i am alive and conscious ,, and thats kind of enough for me don't need any aliens right now

    3. How do you come to the conclusion that infinite loads of aliens should be right here visiting us? Only a handful of men made it as far as the moon, even if there are advanced civilizations out there, pinpointing earth in one arm of a galaxy of billions of stars then traveling light years to get there is no small feat.

      Human radio signals only covered approximately 100 light years to this day and the galaxy is 100 000 light years wide. If there are advanced aliens more then 100 light years away, they probably don't even know we exist.

      Forget about other galaxies, Andromeda, the nearest one is 2,538,000 light years away. They perceive earth as it was when early hominids had just emerged. Nothing to attract much attention and send anything our way to investigate. It's easy to forget that when you look at the stars, you actually look at the past, not the present.

    4. Yes You're right,, I am aware of the distances and time scales involved I don't think they would want to come and investigate or go shopping here on earth if they were that advanced that they knew how to get here .. But yes, its all possible, in a infinite universe, ,its even possible that they exist and don't exist all at the same time so Im open , but still dont seen them..

    5. your approaching this with your limited modern day brain and understanding. If you existed only 200 years ago you would have ridiculed our current technology. Are you saying if you were to wake up in ten thousand years time our technological abilities and possibilities would not have improved incredibly.

    6. I am not saying that. What I am saying is that if there are more advanced civilizations out there, they probably don't know we exist, probably can't come here or don't want to come here.

      Sure technology will improve incredibly but I believe in the physical constraint that nothing goes faster than light. If advanced civilizations had wanted to make contact, they would have done it already easily with radio signal. My conclusion is they either can't or don't want to or don't exist close enough for the signal to have reached us yet.

    7. Fair point. However, I still think we are in the kindergarten technology wise, so who knows what will be possible a thousand years from now, i would be shocked if our current understanding does not expand and long held scientific laws are reconstructed. The Wright Brothers flying machine to exploring Mars in a 100 years?

    8. Sorry, but your view is quite cynical and ill informed. The American mainstream Scientific community alone will not be the authority to answer this question for you.
      Reading suggestion: THE COMETA REPORT

  35. I don't believe this stuff for a second. If there were really such things we would have been visited before by these so called alien visitors. I just don't see anything that would make me believe it or any other so called evidence.

    1. It is interesting that for those night sightings, many ancient cultures would regard them as 'Ghosts' rather than, of course, 'alien space crafts'.

    2. They also regarded volcanoes, earthquakes, and other natural phenomenon as more then they are. But because you believe in ET's, that's the one they got close to correct? Sure mate, sure.

    3. You should try lookin up more often, not bein a smart ass. I am quite sane and have seen incredible craft
      In one instance up close. I have not seen aliens and honestly don't want to. At the very least Ervin you will see something that is man made anyway.

  36. There is an abundance of relatively cheap technology out there that can get us a few clean shots. Even the "best" images were little more than blobs of light, half of which could very easily be balloons.
    There is also a proliferation of cheap technologies that would allow someone to hoax these things so well they would look quite legit to someone who wants to believe. I am still skeptical even though I've seen lights in the sky with my own eyes, I assumed a satellite or a very high aircraft, that turned a 90 degree angle.

    1. Yep I'll believe in aliens when I shake one's hand.

    2. or tentacle...

    3. Or noodly appendage :P

    4. ooh err missus lol

    5. Ra amen!

    6. Take a black plastic rubbish bag and tie a candle under the hot air will make the bag float as the bag is black all you can see is the candle.

    7. Or just buy one of those 'Sky Lanterns'. Chinese have been using these as early as the 3rd Century BC.

    8. I have a photo on my phone very clearly shows the ship, not a disc as you alway's hear about. Photo taken of the 3 moon night this year, 8 people together taking shots at 9.45 pm onwards of the changing moon. What was on my phone was scary! 2 people wanted it sent to their phones but their picture was blank. Today i had photo printed, so clear and shows Kareneven more than able to see on phone. Thkeis is real, where do i take it?