I assumed he was being dismissive and not literal.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

Just to put a nail in this coffin: I have spent a lot of time flying in the Phoenix and Tucson area in the Military Operating areas in question. I have seen flare drops from numerous platforms and in varying lighting conditions. It is a weird disorienting thing the first time you witness these flares, I can very easily understand the confusion. Moonlight has a major influence on ones interpretation of these events, I would propose that the debunking of the debunking was not conducted under identical lighting and wind conditions. Bottom line is this wasn't a UFO way to much evidence to the contrary! Just for the record I am sure that there are incidents that have occurred that yet remain to be explained. Maybe just maybe one of them was LGM. Would love to witness such an unexplained case myself, as I am firmly convinced in the likelihood of life out there somewhere, but alas the evidence is still against their visiting the 3rd rock. Now bring on the MIB!

__________________
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

Alexander Pope, 1709

I had completely forgotten this thread and moved on with my life. Then, today, I just happened to come across this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-60-years.html

It is a radio interview with Apollo 14 astronaut Dr Edgar Mitchell, who claims that, "I happen to have been privileged enough to be in on the fact that we've been visited on this planet and the UFO phenomena is real."

And he says a lot more.

Is he lying? Or delusional? I'm just interested in getting a sample of how the UFO deniers debunk his claims.

Edgar Mitchell thread on BAUT

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Thanks for pointing me to that thread, Fazor. Wow, what a firestorm of controversy Edgar Mitchell touched off on BAUT. I like the "where's the beef" poster on that thread. Verrry interesting. It seems to me that no amount of "sightings" whether recorded on video, camera or radar will suffice as proof. No number of astronauts, military brass, pilots and other "credible" witnesses to government cover-up will suffice as proof. Nope, the only "proof" that will potentially satisfy the UFO deniers is an actual alien spacecraft on display and available for independent testing -- and even then, I bet there will be skeptics and debunkers in droves, no doubt. Thanks again.

Video, Camera, and Radar all share the same fault; they only show that something registered a signal (either visible spectrum on film, or radio noise on radar). They don't "prove" what anything is.

Eye witness testimony has a whole other set of failings.

And lastly, the UFO community loves to throw the word "credible" around, but again, they use the term wrong. Scientifically, the only credible UFO witness would have to be someone with intimate knowledge of alien craft. AFAIK, no such person exists.

Think of it this way; does a military officer's opinion of the latest blockbuster movie's special effects quality carry any more weight than, say, the local school janitor's? Being in the military, or government, or public eye, does not automatically lend expert support to every argument you make.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend, Lindon. A claim that is extraordinary requires evidence. And that evidence must withstand EVERY inquiry not matter how intense, no matter how often. Your evidence is not proof. It is shaky at best.

Why would independent of an actual object be wrong? If someone claimed to have found something pretty fantastic would you not want to see it for yourself, test if its really there, what its made of, etc? Taking people on their word is NOT a basis for proof, not evidence of anything, and for sure not the way good science is performed.

Yes, we require evidence. No that which has been put forth is NOT good enough. It does not withstand serious inquiry.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

If a hundred people in different locations, unknown to each other, all describe seeing and hearing the same thing independently and there is radar signal recorded at the same time, corroborating the independent sightings -- is that "proof" in your dictionary, or not? Just curious.

It seems science has a higher standard of "proof" than a court of law in criminal proceedings. Right, or wrong?

I should probably back that statement down a bit. Obviously, certain expertise lends itself to the ability to make certain assessments. But the fact still stands, lacking better evidence of their existence, no person I'm aware of can say, "Yep, that's an alien craft." The only conclusion they can come up with is "Yep, that doesn't match anything that I'm aware of".

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

It's proof that something was seen. And it's helpful in determining the characteristics of what was seen. But the leap from "something was seen" to "we have proof that we saw an alien vehicle" requires much more than that.

Correct. Two totally different things.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Lets see if this helps you understand where we're coming from. I'm going to use some of the same "proof" of UFOs.

Throughout history, there have been thousands of reports of glowing lights in the sky. None of these lights match the characteristics of aircraft, and some originate long before man achieved flight. These are independent and unrelated sightings, yet many of the accounts describe seeing the same.

Accounts of dragons also date back many thousands of years. And many different cultures tell stories of these creatures breathing fire, which gives off light and thus would obviously be seen in the night sky.

Since the accounts of lights are unexplained, and since the stories of dragons match, I have just proven to you that dragons exist, even though bones or physical remains of such creatures have never been found. Keep in mind, these sightings still continue to this day, so they're obviously still alive. We can logically conclude that dragons evaporate when they die, and thus leave no physical clues.

So, hopefully now you either believe in dragons, or see the failing in the UFO argument. An inability to explain a sighting is a far cry from proof that said sighting is some otherwise unexplained phenomenon.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Those dragon sightings were of course made by totally uneducated and unsophisticated observers who also believed that "the angry gods" made volcanoes go boom. Versus highly educated and trained observers who are not prone to superstitions. What, you don't believe in dragons???

LotusExcelle states, "A claim that is extraordinary requires evidence." I guess my take on that is that the claim that alien visitation has been and is occurring is not all that extraordinary. Even some of the most ardent "deniers" that have commented on this thread and in others I've read do not deny the nearly 100% probability that there is a) life elsewhere in the universe, and b) that one or more alien civilizations could well be a million or even a billion years ahead of us in technology. Given those two premises, what's so extraordinary about the idea that aliens have visited this rock?

It could be that "they" aren't aliens, but some form of super-secret advanced government project. But to me, the best explanation is "alien visitation". No proof, just belief backed up by mountains of circumstantial evidence.

Lets ignore for a moment your claim that modern people aren't subject to superstition.

Your claim that our ancestors were unsophisticated observers only further proves that dragons exist. After all, how is it possible that so many cultures, without any knowledge of each other, all arrived at the same conclusion by chance, based on erroneous observation? What are the odds of that?

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

I thought I would snip this out of your post and quote it.

Belief backed up by circumstantial evidence, no matter how much of it, is no different than believing in dragons, as Fazor's posts have stated. Your belief that aliens are visiting us is backed up by absolutely NO more evidence than our ancestors' dragons. Are you claiming that aliens are more likely than dragons? Why?

Also I'd like to point out an issue with your "aliens may exist therefore" line of reasoning. While it is highly unlikely that we are alone in the universe the chances of an alien happening upon Earth are (no pun intended) astronomical. Of the *billions* of star systems in each of the *billions* of galaxies... to say that is going out on a limb is putting it mildly. You have a better chance or accidentally having a plane fall through your roof into your kitchen and with its prop blades make a rather sophisticated attempt at Lamb Vindaloo.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

Unless, of course, they happened to notice a strange bunch of nuclear blasts going off on and above planet earth over an extended period of time and decided to check it out up close.

Fazor and LotusExcelle, your reasoning begins to sound like mush and your comparing UFO sightings to dragon "sightings" borders on absurd.

I got what I came here for, this time around. I wanted to get some "denier" debunking samples on Edgar Mitchell's statement.

I'll leave this thread again as before, with no interest whatsoever in trying to prove that alien UFO visitation is fact, and with a strong sense of curiosity as to what it is that makes "UFO deniers" tick.

Thanks again!

Lindon - The furthest light could have traveled from the very first nuke explosion (not counting an atmospheric test here - just the very first nuke test) is 64 light years. Check my math on that. I think its 63 or 64 light years. How many stars are in that range?

I'll even throw you an assumption that aliens somehow can travel at lightspeed. That means for them to be here now they would have to have been within about 30 light years to see the nukes and then head here.

Tell me how many stars are within that range.

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---

If you can show how any single sighting matches the look, flight patterns, and radar signature of an alien craft, I'll happily change my mind.

The fact is, you cannot say, "Aliens are possible. Some things are unexplained. Therefore, said unexplained occurrences are proof that aliens exist."

Sightings could be aliens. They could be time travelers from a future earth. They could be inter-dimensional visitors. They could be dragons. They could be any number of not yet conceived explanations.

The problem is that every piece of evidence you have spoken about, and every piece of evidence that the UFO community puts forth, is dependent on the assumption that UFOs exist, rather than proving the existence of UFOs. It's circular reasoning. "If we assume A is true, and B fits the assumption of A, then B proves A".

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

A hypothetical observer would have needed to already be "up close" to observe them. They aren't very impressive at interplanetary (let alone interstellar) distances, and at best, their light would take years to even reach the nearest stars.

Why? What is the difference between the dragon mythology and yours?

Pointing out the lack of good evidence for alien spaceships is not the same thing as denying UFOs.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Lindon, No body denies that there have been unexplained unidentified flying objects, but where is evidence that these are aliens. Not one piece of physical evidence exist. No parts or pieces, no bodies, no communications, nothing but speculation. Most of this circumstantial evidence can be explained by more than one possible phenomenon. We have yet to reach the stage of Holmes logic where all the possible reasons are elliminated and all that remains is the impossible.

__________________
"A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again."

Alexander Pope, 1709

You know, on further thought, all this talk about what would or wouldn't happen in a court of law is missing one simple fact--this would never make it to trial in the first place. No corpus delicti, just a lot of talk. If I showed some blurry video of what people swore up and down was a bank robbery, it wouldn't matter unless someone could actually a show a bank which had been robbed. Hearsay is not always thrown out, but it certainly isn't enough to send a case to trial. Eyewitness testimony does not a case make.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Number of reported UFO sightings in the last 60 years or so: approx 25,000
Number of reported dragon sightings in the last 60 years or so: 0

Percent of U.S. population who believe in (alien) UFO's: 50 - 70% depending on which survey you're reading.
Percent of U.S. population who believe in dragons: No surveys done, probably 0%

Number of videos, pictures and radar recordings of UFO's: Unknown, but in the hundreds and perhaps thousands at least
Number of videos, pictures and radar recordings of dragons: 0

Number of mass sightings of UFO's: 3 or 4 that I can find
Number of mass sightings of dragons: 0

Number of UFO's I have personally seen: 1
Number of dragons I have personally seen: 0

Number of credible witnesses to UFO sightings: depends on who/what you call credible -- probably in the hundreds
Number of credible witnesses to dragon sightings: 0

That's the short list.

Clearly, no comparison, whatsoever.

Myth is not a very good term to describe the UFO phenomenon in my opinion.

I saw a UFO -- unidentified flying object. I admit that it may have been a top secret government craft/object of some sort, but it makes more sense to me that it is of alien origin. UFO deniers tell me no, without hard physical and undeniable evidence you can not and should not leap to the conclusion that whatever it was you saw was of alien origin. I say, logic dictates otherwise.

UFO deniers tell me no, you didn't see what you think you saw, or you had an optical illusion, or you're making it up to get attention, or you're playing a practicle joke, or you have no evidence it was an alien craft and therefore should keep your mouth shut. And whether the "witness" is an astronaut, a governor, a policeman, a pilot, a military officer or just some bozo on the street (like me!) they get the same treatment from UFO deniers.

UFO deniers are too quick to discount another person's experience. UFO deniers are prone to launch into character attacks in attempts to void a person's credibility. UFO deniers are willing to tell somebody that no, you didn't see what you say you saw, which hints at a certain amount of arrogance IMO.

In other words "I saw something that I couldn't identify, thus, I saw an alien craft." If you cannot see the error in that logic, then no amount of debate will likely help you.


"I saw an alien craft or a secret government craft. That's all it could possibly be, and anyone who disagrees is arrogant and in denial."

If you don't see the error in that logic, then again, no amount of debate will likely help you.

There's a difference between "stepping outside the box" and locking yourself in a different box.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

Believing and knowing are different things. That's all that's being said. You may as well add

Number of pictures showing a UFO well enough to identify it as alien in nature: 0
Number of pictures of an animal well enough to identify it as a dragon: 0

Videos have the same totals.

Have people seen odd things? Yes
Have people taken pictures of things in the sky that couldn't identify? Yes

I seriously doubt that anyone here disputes that. But the leap from "a thing in the sky" to "alien spacecraft" is a huge one, and it had a number physical problems to go along with it. Mainly that space isn't just big, it's freaking huge.

As for your discounting the one guy that observed the craft to be airplanes when he got his scope on it, just because it's his word against several dozen others, I offer this:

I once tracked a bright green spot in the sky, in day light for over an hour. I was using binoculars and for that entire time, it didn't seem to move at all, in a clear blue sky. I had been trying for Venus in daylight when I spotted the green thing. I thought I had found a supernova. I bet that I could have convinced any person that walked by at that moment that I had fond one. After trying for an hour, I got a scope on it and guess what.

Helium balloon. I was seeing the sunlight from a green helium balloon that was basically just hovering in one spot. Looking at with a scope I could see the shape, the knot and the string. Mystery solved. Now if those hundred or so people had gotten a good look at it with optical enhancement, would they have come to the same conclusion the one guy that did that did? We'll never know, because only person actually tried to get more information about it.

Here's the thing about people. For many of us, it's better to be popular than it is to be right. there are a lot of people out there that can see something, then hear several others describe it as something totally different, then that one person changes their story to match the others so they aren't the one that's different.

How many of your 100 or so reported it that night?
How many reported it the next day after they saw something about a UFO on the news?

This is part of the reason eyewitness accounts are not all that credible on their own. Also, a person's position has little to do with credibility.

Former President Jimmy Carter was a pilot. He also claimed to have seen a UFO that turned out be Venus. He also thought he was under attack by a rabbit, while in a canoe, because in his mind it swam out to attack them.

If we had 50,000 eyewitness accounts of a UFO setting down in a field, but no physical, or valid documentary evidence of any kind, it is not enough to say that it happened.

You are free to believe what you want, but your belief does not change the fact that there has been a sum total of ZERO credible evidence gathered.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

That's an incorrect interpretation of what I wrote.

Correct interpretation: I saw something I couldn't identify. I had no idea of what it was. I forgot about it for many years. Then, a few years ago, watching programs on the History Channel where several people reported seeing the exact same thing I saw, it occurred to me that what I had seen was either a top secret government craft or an alien craft -- one or the other. It seems more logical, makes more sense to me, that it was an alien craft. But I do not claim it was an alien craft. Simply, it makes more sense to assume that's what it is. That is the same conclusion that many people, all much more educated and far more credible than me, have come to.

It appears that no amount of debate will likely help you either, as you are determined -- apparantly -- to discount and deny any person's witness to what appears to be a UFO -- top secret government or alien origin. It's one or the other. Which is it? Or do you believe that every witness is either just seeing things or making it up?

Let's forget about all the other people who have witnessed or claim to have witnessed a UFO sighting and focus on my experience for a moment.

One of the three is true -- which is it?

1) I did not actually see what I saw. It was an optical illusion, swamp gas, weather balloon, or some other common item that I misinterpreted -- or, I am a publicity seeker, a liar or a practical joker. Or something along these lines.

2) I did see what I saw, and it was a top secret military/government craft with incredible speed and maneuvering capability.

3) I did see what I saw, and it was an alien (not made in USA, China, Russia, etc...) craft with incredible speed and maneuvering capability.

Are there any other possiblities besides the three listed above?

You're saying that what you saw looks more like a UFO than anything else you can think of. You don't seem to realize that you can't logically say that, when there's never been a proven alien craft for you to compare your experience to.

You have to understand that even if your unidentified sightings matches the description of other unidentified sightings, the only thing that proves is that you and other people have shared a similar experience and were unable to determine what it was. That does not qualify the statement "It was most likely an ET craft."

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

I think your number one is three different possibilities. There is a difference between "saw something you misinterpreted"--which is, bluntly, the most likely explanation--and "I made something up so that I could get attention." I do believe you genuinely think you saw an alien spacecraft. I also believe that you think the only other reasonable option is a secret government craft. I would just like you to understand why you're wrong that those are the only two probable options just because other people thought that, too.

Are you aware, for example, that not all "shooting stars" are white, small, and brief? There have been large, bright ones which have streaked across the sky, visible from many places, for longer than a split second. And, yes, they get reported as "obviously alien spacecraft or a governmental craft." Which they aren't. They're nothing more out-of-the-ordinary than a chunk of rock. All those people thinking they saw aliens doesn't mean they were right.

Now, I suppose your response to that is that what you saw wasn't anything so ordinary as that, that it exhibited behaviour more complicated than just moving across the sky. And maybe it did. On the other hand, there are things people remember as having done so which, it turns out, didn't. It is also, again bluntly, possible that you heard descriptions of vaguely similar experiences, and your mind changed them so they were the same thing. This is not intended as an insult. It's intended to be an explanation of how the human brain works. People's minds just do that on an unconscious level. Mine does, too--and, yes, it's easier to spot when someone else is doing it than when I am.

You must accept that yours is not the only possible explanation if we are to look at it logically. Just as we do, despite what you think, accept that it's possible it was alien craft. We are just assigning it the probability logic indicates, the probability that it's something else because it always is in cases where it can be identified.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Hey, whatever happened to "seeing is believing"?

What are these: http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/view/newer.htm

Answer:

1) 100% practical jokes, swamp gas, weather balloons, obvious fakes

or

2) Top secret military/government craft that are being sighted going at incredible speeds and making incredible maneuvers that defy explanation

or

3) Alien craft that are being sighted going at incredible speeds and making incredible maneuvers that defy explanation

Are there any other explanations?

I'm not going to play the "Identify these photos" game. If you want to claim that they're UFO craft, you're going to have to do so in the appropriate (Conspiracy Theories) section, and you're going to have to present more of an argument than "Look at these photos and prove they're not aliens!"

Before doing so, I'd advise that you familiarize yourself with the forum rules, and also the special rules that are specific to that section of the forum.

__________________

I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.
"In order to increase awareness of the homeless, security have been given binoculars."

I take exception to your #1 on that list. First of all there are different intentions at question here. So I think this is a more correct list - see if you can spot the difference.

1) Photographer intended to perpetrate a UFO hoax (first-party hoaxer)
2) Photographer took a photo of *someone else's hoax* accidentally (third-party hoaxer)
3) Photographer took a photo of a non-hoax object. Think model craft, or actual craft but from far away/unusual lighting conditions and interpreted it as a UFO
4) Photographer did not intend to perpetrate a hoax but subsequent viewers interpreted said photo of object as a UFO anyway

__________________
---"Why do things have to suck so bad?" a friend once asked me.
"Because space is a vacuum and that's a lot of suck." I replied.
(Actual quote)---