It seems, from Slime's statements about the inherent discredibility of the US government and the general establishment, that (s)he wants to believe that we are living in the world of George Orwell's 1984.

I must confess myself puzzled as to why anyone would want to.

__________________
Sincerely, Luriko-Ysabeth

"Everything explodes. Everything."
-- Law #11 of Anime Physics

Plenty of that too. Unless they were deformed humans dressed up in alien suits.

Show me one.

If I supplied you with photographs (dont ask I have none), they would only be written off as fake.

Or maybe determined, after careful examination, to be inconclusive at best. But it's moot; we haven't seen any of the evidence.

Of course you have Sergeant Clifford Stone, US Army and his claimed 57 varieties. Already written off as a sensationalist by Jay.

No, determined after careful consideration to be wildly implausible. There are those among the ranks of the skeptics who are very well versed in the government's practices regarding security and clearance, and Sgt. Stone's testimony bears no resemblance to any of it.

You uncritically accept Sgt. Stone's finely-spun fantasy as if it were fact. I find too much wrong with it to believe it. And not simply because it talks about little alien monsters. There is plenty wrong with the ordinary aspects of his story.

Never been officially observed, without media ridicule. Its a big secret.

Circular (again). You have postulated the existence of something. When it is pointed out that such an existence should produce certain kinds of evidence, none of which is observed, you and your camp come up with fanciful speculative explanations for why that expected evidence is lacking. A far more parsimonious conclusion is that the thing you say exists doesn't really exist.

Pilots have observed aliens in flight, but as most look similar to us ...

No, they are claimed to look similar to us. No proof of such a hypothesis is to be found. This is just one of the many ways UFO enthusiasts try to get around the uncomfortable lack of evidence.

There is no evidence that aliens exist on earth. The proposition that aliens further look similar to humans is moot.

Its life.

Cute, but unsatisfying. You want your evidence to be taken seriously, yet you persist in polemical tactics and ignore the required rigor.

Its a secret remember. There's security and big, BIG money interests to consider.

Circular, and circular.

It can make use of known and unknown physical laws.

Our understanding of physical laws evolves, but by way of refinement and not wholesale redefinition. You're simply trying to make the facts fit your preconceived conclusion.

But all this is common-sense to me.

I am not interested in what appeals to your intuition. Your intuition seems to be the source of your whopping lack of reason.

You are asking as if you are child with no imagination.

Imagine all you want, but don't profess that your imaginings ought to be taken as the truth and that those who disagree are deluded.

Ask an alien.

Produce an alien, and I will. Until then I'll ask the people making the assertions to support them.

Circa 1972, I along with thousand of others in S.E. England.

Fine, you experienced something you can't explain. I respect that. I'm not going to tell you it was swamp gas or light refracted from Venus. I wasn't there. But you'll have to understand our natural skepticism when ream after ream of flimsy, easily contradicted statements are paraded in front of us.

Seeing is believing. If youre lucky to see one, the question will no longer arise.

I see plenty of things I can't explain. Perhaps nothing quite so dramatic as what you see, but I don't immediately assume that what I see is caused by the most farfetched thing I can imagine.

Seeing is indeed believing, but seeing is not necessarily understanding.

It will mean back to school for you experts.

I can't speak for everyone authoritatively, but most of us would salivate profusely over the possibility of examining radically new and advanced technology. We love to learn, and many of us make it a lifetime pursuit.

But we are not impressed with promises of great and wonderful things, only to be introduced to talented storytellers who shine briefly and then fade into obscurity. We want substance, and you can't provide it.

Perhaps slime is right (notice pool of dripping sarcasm) I have proof of it here:

http://www.n810.com/hell.jpg

__________________
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit... It's the only way to be sure." Ripley/Hicks, Aliens

Slime, In simple terms, I don't believe you. You have formulated a scenario that has more relationship to paranoid delusion than to alien encounters. You see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe. It's probably pointless to have further discussion because you are too close-minded to accept the possibility that your "reality" might be wrong.

Postulating a motive for the government to keep secret the discovery of aliens isn't the same as proof that the government has done so. Unfortunately, in your mind they are the same thing. As I think someone else in this thread commented earlier, the UFO conspiracy crowd doesn't need the government to make them look foolish. They do a fine job of it all by themselves. The enemy isn't outside you, it's within! Get some help!

Actually, Slime has totally redeemed himself in my eyes when he admitted to riding a motorcycle. Pity he can't fix it.

This whole UFO thing has me disappointed. My bookcase is full of 'mystic' type books, giving answers to deep and meaningful questions that I want answers to. I read them and every time I find fatal flaws in what would be an apealing theory. Time and agin, I'm prepared to believe, as I was with the Moon landing hoax, only to be disappointed with the offerings, which more often than not seem to be produced to part me from my money. It's a bit like advertising for cars. You see the ad, want one, but when you drive them you realise they are really no different than the car you already have.

The military was involved but the military was not in control. You cannot make the distinction. I saw, on a daily basis, detachments of soldiers placed under direct command of civilian officials of the city, state, and Olympic organizations. There was an immense military presence in my city, but the military was not running the Olympics.

Nit-picking. This thread was about alien artifacts on the moon. Only you see the semantics of language more important.
I suggest strongly that if a terrorist attack was imminent your happy-faced civilian control (a guise to keep the games and its participents unconcerned) would have been given its due position.
ie. Bert & Fred the security guard would have been bundled out of the way pretty damn quick.

Now how much longer are you going to persist in attempting to make "informed" comment on things you know nothing about?

Tell me Jay. Did you hear personally from Army personnel that they were really just waiting in the wings, just in case?
Dubya wouldnt have wanted a security firm protecting him if he had control of the military.
I certainly wouldnt.

You have proved military involvement. You have not proved military control. That is my entire point. You cannot distinguish involvement from control and you consider proof of involvement to be proof of control. Thus when you say "NASA is military," we understand that you cannot distinguish between the military controlling NASA and the military having dealings with NASA.

I think you will find that if NASA was to discover life on the moon (which is the point of this thread), or artifacts, the military mind would see such information as a potential threat. The military would then be in charge of supervising the operation. What is released in the interests of National Security (After all they may be secret US buildings) and what actions should be taken to counteract an alien invasion.
NASA just pilot the probes when everything goings OK.
Much like the 2002 Winter Olympics the chain of command is dependant on a minute-to-minute basis.
An interesting article on the security aspects and chain-of-command is here:
http://www.afmc.wpafb.af.mil/HQ-AFMC...htsecurity.htm
Should a terrorist action occur, you could argue no one entity is in control.
Semantics Jay.

Why on earth do you think I'm arguing the military was not involved in the Salt Lake City winter games? I stated that as the premise of my argument! My question was not whether the military was involved, but whether it was in charge or exerted an inappropriate influence over it.

Thank your lucky stars you never had to find out!

The U.S. military does not control everything with which it interacts.

It has control when it seeks or needs it. That is ultimate control.

The hardware of the Internet (at least as constituted in the United State) does not appear on any of that list.

We dont see the hardware, just the software interface. Remember the Matrix

Yet many, many other sites have ongoing high-bandwidth distribution without requiring paid subscription. You cite a singular past high-bandwidth event. Can you substantiate that Disclosure Project's ongoing bandwidth is significant compared to the most significantly busy sites on the net?

All I will say is Dr Greer asked supporters to donate $7/month to pay for the ever increasing bandwidth costs, so they could put up the Disclosure Project webcast which is no longer available to view (National Press Club remove webcasts after 6 months)
The cost would also help future travel expenses for new witnesses/halls etc.
They have a further 400 witnesses to film. His goal was to get 1,000 subscribers. So thats $7,000 he obviously needs.
I agree that it is a most unsatifactory situation, that the biggest story will only be seen by a fraction of the audience it would otherwise draw. I dont think he has sold out to commercialism, just commerical realities.
I believe his other website http://www.seaspower.com is a money-making venture. I hope it does well for him.

Do you have a problem behaving as an adult?

All work and no play... And I have read the libelous ad hominem attacks on me later.
I might be childish at times but its not underhand or unethical.

Is Dr. Greer afraid of criticism or dissenting views? Does he not see the inherent value in having skeptics examine his conclusions?

No. I'm sure he'd welcome them. Skeptic and debunkers are different. Skeptics are healthy; debunkers are usually negative.

Cool your thrusters. I made no allegation of impropriety.

You merely infered he was in it for the dough. Still libelous without evidence to support your position.

In response to "I do not succumb to mass pressure nor to I make decisions by parroting or sheeplike tendencies to conform with the mainstream culture."

Are you insinuating I and others here do?

I see you guys getting very heated over one person who disagrees with you. Andrew/DaveC are having kittens as I dare challenge their reality. Sounds like some mind-control technique to do with conformity is being adhered to.

Have you ever considered the possibility that the preponderance of evidence favors the mainstream interpretation?

Yes. Then I wake up and shudder at the stupidity of people. When I see it fairly discussed with 'real' witnesses in the mainstream press, you can then begin to contemplate righteousness.
Until then you and your supporters are just plain chicken scared. Frightened of a proper debate.

Or like so many conspiracy-minded individuals you simply assume your theories are rejected because of closed-mindedness and not, perhaps, because they fail to meet a suitable standard of credibility?

Your standards (as I have said before) are impossible to obtain.

Eye witness testimony - Unreliable.
Photographic evidence - Fakeable.
Insider Confession - Sensational.

Doesnt leave much.

In response to "I would hate for you to shut-up and have never asked you to."

False. You stated on at least two occasions at Apollo Hoax your intention to "bring Jay down". And your actions subsequent and continuing have upheld that stated motive. At every opportunity you attempt to shame, insult, and discredit me. I'd say there is ample evidence that you don't want me talking.

I love you talking. But I want you talking like a human and not a robot. Bring Jay down to bring the new Jay up.
One day, we will be friends and on the same side. I will train you in the ways of the Carrot and we shall seek enlightenment from the myriad of races that populate our universe.
If you havent murdered me first. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

You accept the statement in question because you believe an FAA official ought not lie, distort, or make mistakes. That is not an appropriate basis.

He's a liar now. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]

To uncritically interpret these events as UFO/alien evidence is what bothers me.

16 miles in half the sweep of a radar and remaining stationary. If you had a secret weapon that could do that, dont you think
you'd be careful about following a passenger airline with lots of witnesses for a whole 30 minutes.
You see we UFOlogists use logical reasoning too.

The existence of aliens does not prove alien constructs on the lunar surface. This is my stake in the debate.

I came here to post testimony of the moon artifacts and to put across a diverse viewpoint.
If you and others will deride such things, dont expect to have the argument only one way.

In the broader arena, collecting dissimilar stories -- all of which are interpreted as alien encounters -- is not corroboration because you cannot presume a connection. I don't think you understand what it means to corroborate evidence.

You mean it to be unattainable, if you're honest with yourself. The FAA clip was such corroborate evidence.
I still dont think youve heard it.
You are always deriding my men-in-black, illuminati, CIA death squad rationale to the UFO debate, as having no merit or justification.
But at the same time you appear to be suggesting that governments have such incredible advances in science undewraps to the public.
Surely such a big secret would suggest all the previous must be in place to keep it secret.
Dont tell me you think that UFOs are a spiritual phenomenon, or God?
We never learn what you actually think on such matters.

Epistemology has little to do with ethics. Please stop distracting from the point.

Ethics is fundamental. Please look up ethics and epistemology. You will find numerous occasions where they are closely linked.

You appear to have little understanding of how knowledge is reliably obtained and how hypotheses are reliably tested. Whether you believe us to be mindless sheep is irrelevant; many here have a lifetime of training and experience understanding how to know reliably. You must respect that. You appear unable to.

I have an engineering degree at the highest level, like you probably. I have been told by experts that the UFO I saw was Venus, ice crystals, and a team of white-coats from a university told me it was there polythene bag lifted up on warm air-currents at night. All of this was supposed to produce a dazzling light in broad dayligh that traversed the sky faster as fast as a Perseid meteor.
Oh and it did all this from a lowly 1.5V cell
I've had my fill of expert opinions and reliably tested hypothesis.
There is no answer that has yet been put forward to answer these strange anomalies that is compatible with modern day Earth science. Only lies. I'm only surprised that so-called intelligent people of so gullible.
BTW it weren't a flock of mallards either.

If I want the FAA's opinion of what those radar traces represent I can consult the FAA, or some other person I may know who understands radar. You said you had seen the radar traces yourself on video. Since you are not an expert in interpreting radar data, your opinion of what that data represents is meaningless, therefore I wonder why you bring up the point of having seen the raw data.

The FAA director who produced the evidence is an expert and explains the data findings. It was he who was asked to explain the evidence to the government.

The ApolloHoax webmaster's decision to expunge the files resulted from your direct actions.

Thats like saying your Grandfather is directly responsible for your birth. Thats an impossibility.

The dispute in question arose from a vicious series of personal attacks and threats which you instigated and which you tried to continue here before you were warned to stop.

No threats except to tell Mr Ploegman snr of his 17 year old sons mafia death threats aimed at me and a rather whopping security blunder.
If that is a threat then so be it. I threatened to "tell daddy". Not put a horse head in his bed.
Get real. Ploegman junior deleted his forum in a panic. You say I am directly responsible. I say you have no credible evidence.

You stated explicitly your intent to "bring down" ApolloHoax and "bring down" me personally, the latter statement being followed by attacks on my character and insinuations regarding my training, occupation, and personal interests.

You have a selective memory. Without hacking ApolloHoax I could not possibly bring down a website. I rang up Jons father to complain about a death-threat leveled at me on numerous occasions and without getting above myself, I think that is a reasonable action to take. John is 17 and in my country at least, his parents have some responsibility for him until he is of age. I could have rung up the Police/FBI/CIA...you name it.
Bear in mind what Skull 'N Bones Bush is doing to protect his and all Americans souls from threat of death.
It seems you will not allow me same protection even though the UK military looks like supporting 'your' cause.
I knew full well that the site may be temporarily halted to remove the threats. But couldnt in my wildest dreams assumed no one had ever backed it up. Dumb!
If I had really thought it would all have vanished there'd be more than the 99% of files stored on my drive.
It would be 100%. You have them from me so your motive looks very sus now.

Your motive, intent, and opportunity are not in dispute.

False. I dispute it.

You tried to enlist others to help you do away with ApolloHoax. You wanted to bring down ApolloHoax, and your actions proximally resulted in its emasculation.

The other (no plural) came of his own free will. Not to get rid of ApolloHoax but to expose you as unethical.
I have that thread in its entirety. Do you want me to post it here?
Get BA's permission and consider it done.

You wag your finger in the air and speak of suppression and its associated evils, yet you are the most egregious practitioner of it.

Youre losing it. Reality is often different to your recollection. Notice I dont call you a liar because I have the threads and you know it. Put your evidence up and I will shoot it down.

Nor do I believe having conveyed an incorrect impression in a review, which I corrected soon enough, is even remotely commensurate with Bart Sibrel's repeated and deliberate deception regarding his interviews.

You went on at lengths to discredit Sibrel by strongly inferring he wrote his own reviews. I have no proof of that and as for his LunarHoax claims, he may merely be disillusioned.
Writing a false review should be considered to be of lesser merit.

The reason why I rarely contribute to this forum isnt because I dont have many question or answers I'd like to share, its because Jay would never let me sleep.
Good night all.

Talk to you in the morning. zzzzZZZZZZzzzzz

This thread was about alien artifacts on the moon. Only you see the semantics of language more important.

On the contrary I find the question of alien artifacts on the moon much more interesting than the military presence in my town during the Olympics or any of the other things that have cluttered this thread. Let's talk about alien artifacts on the moon.
I think you will find that if NASA was to discover life on the moon (which is the point of this thread), or artifacts, the military mind would see such information as a potential threat.

Supposition. I don't trust your characterization of the military.

Thank your lucky stars you never had to find out!

Actually I considered myself to be in the safest place on earth.

It has control when it seeks or needs it. That is ultimate control.

No, there are limits to the military's power.

We dont see the hardware, just the software interface. Remember the Matrix

I see the hardware. It's part of my job now. (I have a new job since we last spoke.) BTW, The Matrix is fiction, in case you missed the e-mail.

Skeptic and debunkers are different.

Could you elaborate more on the difference?

Still libelous without evidence to support your position.

No, I speculated that he may have profit as a motive. That is not libelous under U.S. law, but it's not something I'm interested in trying to prove. I have merely explored alternative motives for his operation.

I see you guys getting very heated over one person who disagrees with you.

It's more than just a disagreement. Your approach is tantamount to calling us ignorant and conformist for not buying your conclusions. That's poor manners. We have other reasons for not believing your conclusions.

Andrew/DaveC are having kittens as I dare challenge their reality. Sounds like some mind-control technique to do with conformity is being adhered to.

This is what I'm talking about. You can't seem to grasp the notion that people who disagree with you may have very valid reasons for doing so. And you seem to strongly oppose any attempt to change your view of reality, not just on this point but on several points you have discussed.

Yes. Then I wake up and shudder at the stupidity of people.

No, you're missing the point. If the preponderance of evidence favors a certain view, those who hold that view are not necessarily stupid.

Frightened of a proper debate.

Very well, a proper debate obeys the rules of logic. You break several of them in nearly every post and then when this is brought to your attention you raise irrelevancies like terrorists and thugs. You talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?

Your standards (as I have said before) are impossible to obtain.

No, they are not. They are the standards of legitimate inquiry and investigation.

Eye witness testimony - Unreliable.

Eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Thus it must be corroborated to be believed, especially when the testimony is implausible at prima facie.

Photographic evidence - Fakeable.

Not to mention inconclusive. Photographs of unknown objects cannot simply be stated to depict some certain thing, even if they are reasonably assured not to be faked.

Insider Confession - Sensational.

Insider confessions are special cases of eyewitness testimony. Under normal circumstances there is no question that an insider is an insider. If someone claims, say, to be from a tobacco company and gives evidence of the company's intent to create an addictive product, there is usually little question whether the witness is really from a tobacco company. That can be tested.

Insiders in the UFO camp are frequently people who only claim to be insiders. Their insider status cannot be reliably determined. If their claims are implausible a priori and we cannot determine their authority, it is foolish to rely on them.

Doesnt leave much.

No, it doesn't. That's why historical research and other forms of investigation are hard. You have to choose. Either your research is easy to do, or it's reliable. You can rarely have both.

I love you talking. But I want you talking like a human and not a robot. Bring Jay down to bring the new Jay up.

Nice save, but I'm not buying it.

I will train you in the ways of the Carrot and we shall seek enlightenment from the myriad of races that populate our universe.

So far the ways of the Carrot don't appeal to me. It's nothing personal. Your method of reasoning doesn't strike me as particularly useful or reliable.

He's a liar now. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]

Not necessarily, but we have to consider that possibility. In his case, probably not. In other cases, we just don't know.

16 miles in half the sweep of a radar and remaining stationary.

Assuming it's an object.

If you had a secret weapon that could do that, dont you think you'd be careful about following a passenger airline with lots of witnesses for a whole 30 minutes.

If I could help it, yes. Accidents happen. Why do you leap to the conclusion that it's a weapon?

You see we UFOlogists use logical reasoning too.

Not really. You just followed an affirmed consequent.

I came here to post testimony of the moon artifacts and to put across a diverse viewpoint.

Great, that's actually what I want to talk about too.

You mean it to be unattainable, if you're honest with yourself.

Not at all. If someone sees something he can't explain and someone else sees something different that he can't explain, and you interpret both of them as UFO experiences and say that one corroborates the other as UFO experiences.

The biggest mistake people make is to presume a connection where none is proved to exist. I do this myself. It's very common.

I'm not trying to set a standard of evidence that is unattainably high, knowing you will not be able to reach it. I'm setting the standard of evidence which is common in historical investigation and noting that you fail to attain it. That's the basis for my rejection of your claim.

The FAA clip was such corroborate evidence.

What, exactly, do you claim it corroborates?

But at the same time you appear to be suggesting that governments have such incredible advances in science underwraps to the public.

Not at all. You presume too much. I accept as an axiom that elements of government, especially the CIA, may have things to hide. But I don't presume it has necessarily to do with some sort of specific technology. You have a visible correlation to a radar-observed phenomenon. That doesn't necessarily have to be an object.

Surely such a big secret would suggest all the previous must be in place to keep it secret.

Absolutely not. It presumes some method of keeping a secret, but not necessarily that method.

Don't tell me you think that UFOs are a spiritual phenomenon, or God?

I don't believe that. But I do believe that some of the same phenomena that is being seen today may have been attributed to spiritual or religious manifestations in earlier times.

We never learn what you actually think on such matters.

I suspend judgment. You want me to consider the possibility that many of these things are alien spacecraft. Fine, I've considered it and I am not convinced.

You will find numerous occasions where they are closely linked.

Okay, I yield the point.

I have an engineering degree at the highest level, like you probably.

Did you study epistemology? The scientific method? Most undergraduate engineering curricula don't include that. I learned it as an elective while a graduate student, and practically from my early work on scientific research projects.

I have been told by experts that the UFO I saw was Venus, ice crystals, and a team of white-coats from a university told me it was there polythene bag lifted up on warm air-currents at night.

I don't profess to tell you what you saw. Honestly I would love to have seen it.

The FAA director who produced the evidence is an expert and explains the data findings.

That's my point. That is legitimate evidence. You say you've seen the evidence, as if that proves something. It may be interesting, but it's not proof. The proof is in the expert analysis by the FAA official.

Would you like to put that assertion to a vote? Or is this another of those instances where you claiming it to be true makes it so?

Okay.

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa030899.htm

That "Castle" thing puzzles me good. Is it perhaps a lens flare?

__________________
~AstroMike

News flash!
You are not challenging anybody's reality.

At best, you are straining our credulity.

Your credibility goes down with every ad hominem attack and unsupported allegation.


_________________
Be alert! The world needs more lerts.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-10-12 05:35 ]</font>

Hey Slime, can you prove that you are not paid by the government to do the job to discredit everyone who has the slightest interest in UFOs?
BTW, UFO is not a synonym for Alien. It just means there is something we can't explain ad hoc. As science progresses, more and more phenomenons can be explained.

Slime,

You appear to use the word ethics a lot in your posts. As if this was important to you that people are ethical.

Yet, as I recall when you first started posting on ApolloHoax as Slime, you stated that you were not Carrot Cruncher, the similarities between he and yourself were apparently only co-incidental. Do you consider lying to be ethical conduct?

Yet, as I recall when you first started posting on ApolloHoax as Slime, you stated that you were not Carrot Cruncher, the similarities between he and yourself were apparently only co-incidental. Do you consider lying to be ethical conduct?

I never 'directly' or 'indirectly' denied being Carrot Cruncher. I was amazed that nobody asked me a direct question to deny my alter-ego. You all missed out on an opportunity there to dig for facts.
You see I never knowingly lie.

Care to find such a reference to you claim?
When you cant you can ethically apologise.
Or groveling will do. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I never 'directly' or 'indirectly' denied being Carrot Cruncher.

Stating that the similarities are purely coincidental is unquestionably an indirect denial. At best it conveyed a misleading understanding, which is all I did to earn the title "unethical" from you. The difference is that when my mistake became apparent, I corrected it. Your tactic instead is to deny (directly or indirectly) as long as possible, and then a bit longer.

Here, as on ApolloHoax, you demonstrate your hypocrisy. You excuse behavior in yourself or in your allies which you viciously denounce in your opponents. Your judgment regarding ethics is hardly of anyone's concern. When you can demonstrate clear-headedness and even-handedness, then perhaps your opinions on ethics might mean something.

Now what do you believe is compelling evidence there are alien artifacts on the moon?

You uncritically accept Sgt. Stone's finely-spun fantasy as if it were fact. I find too much wrong with it to believe it.
And not simply because it talks about little alien monsters. There is plenty wrong with the ordinary aspects of his story.

'Little' and 'Monster' are your adjectives. Like little green men and science fiction monster stories.
Theyre also descriptions commonly used by the media to spin and kill intelligent debate.
You have taken the word of those who know about the military against that of an Army unit Sergenat that had cosmic security clearance.
First you need to ascertain what security clearance level they had and further, to confirm your suspicions, know no possible motive to discredit Sergeant Stone.
I would say you have a problem in both areas of your debunking exercise.

You have postulated the existence of something. When it is pointed out that such an existence should produce certain kinds of evidence, none of which is observed, you and your camp come up with fanciful speculative explanations for why that expected evidence is lacking.

The credible evidence is the stuff you wont look at for fear of being locked in an unescapeable conclusion. It is contained within the pages of Disclosure Project literature, DVD and videos.
You must buy before you can see.
Before you postulate as to why is much be paid for, and ignoring legality issues for arguments sake, consider the interests that 'may' like to keep it secret.
Logic should guide you to the conclusion that the evidence would be consumed as quickly as it could be printed.
Dubya expose book 'The fortuate Son' sold out very quickly. It appears few will admit to having a copy!

A far more parsimonious conclusion is that the thing you say exists doesn't really exist.

These things that dont exist have been admitted to by the Norwegian government. Perhaps Johnno will confirm.
Dr. Greers (UFO Doctor-On-Call) has been on site at the behest of NATO and the Belgium government to view such imaginary objects hovering a few yards off the ground. Debunk this rather that nit-pick the semantics.
A shadowy government organisation operating in the UK during the 1950's, officially denied until last year, was set up to investigate the UFO phenomenon.
Even with Project Bluebook the government of the UK/USA 'appeared' to be taking the subject seriously once. Which indicates the existence of E.T. alien technology or Earth alien technology. So that leaves the Ruskies and the Red Chinese with superior weaponry than the US have today!
Witnesses now tell the true story of Project Bluebook. If you prefer the official version thats up to you.

No, they are claimed to look similar to us. No proof of such a hypothesis is to be found. This is just one of the many ways UFO enthusiasts try to get around the uncomfortable lack of evidence.

No Jay. Photos presented to you would be inconclusive as you have already stated (not that you needed to).
Numerous pilots took close-up photos of UFOs in flight. They dutifully handed them over to their superiors. The fact that none are officially acknowledged would be more likely proof of a cover-up.
Particularly as Gordon Cooper can testify to this convenient loss of evidence.

Cooper, one of the famous Mercury 7 astronauts, had his own UFO experiences during the early 1950's. In 1951, while serving as a pilot with the air force in Germany, Cooper claims he chased groups of saucer shaped vehicles. He recalled that groups of saucer-shaped vehicles had been sighted for days in a row over the base. He said that "we tried to get close to them but they were able to change direction faster than our fighter-jets."
On May 2 1957, at Edwards Air Force Base, Cooper was part of what has become a famous and much publicized encounter.
He was project manager of the flight test centre and said of the incident;
"I had a crew that was filming an installation of a precision landing system out on the dry lake bed, and they were there with movies and stills and they filmed the whole installation, and they came running to me that this UFO, this little 'saucer' had come down right over them, put down three landing gear, and landed about fifty yards from them, and as they proceeded to go over and get a better shot of it, it lifted up, put the gear in, and disappeared at a rapid rate of speed....I had to look up the regulations on who I was to call to report this, which I did, and they ordered me to immediately have the film developed, but put it in a pouch and send it to them by the commanding General's plane to Washington, which I did. And that was the last that I ever heard of the film."
Although Cooper did not witness the sighting, he did study the film. 'It was a typically circular shaped UFO. Not many people saw it, because it took off at quite a sharp angle and just climbed out of sight.
Cooper was "surprisingly" selected as a Mercury astronaut only two years after reporting the UFO. Cooper was one of seven
people chosen from five hundred military personnel who applied to fly aboard what was to be the first manned space flight.

"All Apollo and Gemini flights were followed at a distance, and sometimes quite closely, by space vehicles of extraterrestrial origin - every time it occurred, the astronauts informed Mission Control who then ordered absolute silence".
Maurice Chatelain - former Chief of Communications with NASA.
(Chatelain also helped design the Apollo spacecraft)

NASA was formed in 1958 and from the start a number of it's astronauts and test pilots testified to sighting UFOs or craft of undetermined origin.
Initially Joseph Walker was the first to announce a sighting - he told the National Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Space Research in 1962 that he had an aerial encounter with two disc-shaped objects the previous month. He had actually filmed the encounter.
In April 1962, NASA pilot, Joseph Walker, filmed five cylindrical and disc-shaped objects from his X-15 aircraft.
In July 1962, Major Robert White, another test pilot, reported an incident involving a formation of UFOs whilst flying at 314,000 feet. NASA refused to reveal any evidence that might substantiate the pilots' claims - photographs or films were never released.
In April 1964, two radar technicians watched UFOs following an unmanned Gemini capsule.

In 1965 the FBI received information from a confidential source that an informant at NASA was secretly divulging information on UFOs to two UFO researchers in Pittsburgh. According to FBI files:
"The source believes that the informant may be classified and had actually seen a film showing a missile separating and a UFO appearing on the screen. The informant advised prior to the flight of Gemini 4 - watch out for something interesting because the spaceship had devices aboard to detect UFOs".

The FBI files infer that NASA was (is) withholding filmed evidence of UFOs to which the general public is being denied access and the remarks about Gemini 4 is of special interest because James McDivitt , a pilot with Gemini 4, confirmed that during the mission he did see an "unidentified object".

I could fill this web site up with testimony from the highest ranking people testifying to UFOs and the cover-up and that they are of extraterrestrial origin.
Buy the book "Disclosure". The evidence is on my side. The nit-pickers can play semantic games with the facts.
Thats as far as th