Debunked: Ancient Aliens

Status
Not open for further replies.
And the navigation lights? How do they fit in?

I really do not understand your point . . . an ET race would adopt the practices of the environment they are in . . . whether to mediate low level disclosure or to mimic safety procedures that may avoid unexpected collision with slow flying human craft . . .
 
The incidents you are presenting contain zero evidence of alien contact. The speculation is rather useless. There are millions of people actively or inadvertently looking for the presence of alien life. Hiding such a huge discovery all of this time would be incredibly difficult if not impossible. You can post that if you want but I'm asking if there are any claims of alien contact that have not been thoroughly debunked.

What is you definition of being thoroughly debunked? Giving alternative explanations? Denying all first person witnesses are unreliable and should not be taken seriously? Denying that two or more people can have similar experiences yet they are mistaken . . .?
 
I really do not understand your point . . . an ET race would adopt the practices of the environment they are in . . . whether to mediate low level disclosure or to mimic safety procedures that may avoid unexpected collision with slow flying human craft . . .

And you know this how? This is why speculation is useless. Please stick to evidence.
 
What is you definition of being thoroughly debunked? Giving alternative explanations? Denying all first person witnesses are unreliable and should not be taken seriously? Denying that two or more people can have similar experiences yet they are mistaken . . .?

Anything the poster does not feel has been thoroughly debunked, George. When did I say the witnesses in the incident you gave are mistaken? I said that eyewitness reports alone are weak evidence and that when it comes to evidence of aliens, that incident has none. Strange unidentified aircraft =/= aliens.
 
And you know this how? This is why speculation is useless. Please stick to evidence.

OK . . . how can you suggest that only man made aircraft have running lights . . . I would accept most would . . . but why would a stealth aircraft have their running lights on . . . so we can speculate all day long that the JAAL must not have seen a stealth aircraft . . . so what did they see?
 
Anything the poster does not feel has been thoroughly debunked, George. When did I say the witnesses in the incident you gave are mistaken? I said that eyewitness reports alone are weak evidence and that when it comes to evidence of aliens, that incident has none. Strange unidentified aircraft =/= aliens.

I would agree UFO does not = aliens . . . no problem . . . it is quite possible that what is being seen are of human origin but of technology not known by even experts in the field . . . as in pilots and air traffic control personnel . . .
 
OK . . . how can you suggest that only man made aircraft have running lights . . . I would accept most would . . . but why would a stealth aircraft have their running lights on . . . so we can speculate all day long that the JAAL must not have seen a stealth aircraft . . . so what did they see?

Who said it HAD to be stealth?? Any secretive military aircraft is much more plausible than an alien spacecraft with the given information we have. George, I don't know what they saw, but why on Earth would it be aliens?
 
I would agree UFO does not = aliens . . . no problem . . . it is quite possible that what is being seen are of human origin but of technology not known by even experts in the field . . . as in pilots and air traffic control personnel . . .

Everything is possible.

But what is the weight of the evidence?
 
I would agree UFO does not = aliens . . . no problem . . . it is quite possible that what is being seen are of human origin but of technology not known by even experts in the field . . . as in pilots and air traffic control personnel . . .

ATC and pilots do not know everything there is to see in the sky, man made or natural.
 
ATC and pilots do not know everything there is to see in the sky, man made or natural.

Give me a list of what they don't know . . . weather balloons, ultra lights, hang gliders, gliders, . . . remotely piloted UFO hoaxes . . . predator drones . . ???
 
Everything is possible.

But what is the weight of the evidence?

I think the weight of evidence indicated that there are thousands of sightings of UFOs whatever they may be (many from reliable sources though without historically undeniable evidence) . . . the UFOs behaviors seems to indicate a technology beyond our understanding . . . unless we assume humans are capable of such technology one plausible explanation is it is from life forms we are not aware of . . .
 
And what of the vast amount of evidence that says eyewitness evidence is basically useless? Does that not change things a litte?
 
And what of the vast amount of evidence that says eyewitness evidence is basically useless? Does that not change things a litte?
Sure . . . Yet, there are tons of sightings and new ones come in every day almost . . . Me thinks the recent Texas sightings are in that category . . . many, many personal eyewitnesses . . . no real explanation for what they saw . . . my conclusion . . . not everyone is crazy, mistaken, or drunk . . . some are legit . . . and should be taken seriously . . .
 
Sure . . . Yet, there are tons of sightings and new ones come in every day almost . . . Me thinks the recent Texas sightings are in that category . . . many, many personal eyewitnesses . . . no real explanation for what they saw . . . my conclusion . . . not everyone is crazy, mistaken, or drunk . . . some are legit . . . and should be taken seriously . . .
Bottom-line . . . Eyewitness testimony may be challenged because of unreliability but is allowed in court even in capital murder cases. . . so we will allow it to convict a murderer but won't accept it as evidence of a UFO . . .just seems funny to me . . . ;)


Conviction for murder in the absence of a body is possible; although historically, cases of this type have been hard to prove, the prosecution must rely on other evidence, usuallycircumstantial. Recent developments in forensic science make it less likely that such a murder will go unpunished. There have been over 350 murder trials in the United States where the body has not been found.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_conviction_without_a_body

Content from External Source
 
Why would a UFO not have navigation lights?

Why would a UFO need lights? Really tho.. why expect the inhabitant would see visible light even? why expect it to be manned at all? If you have come here and are kickin around in a UFO, id expect at the very LEAST realistic digital/radar/laser/sonic/ir/something imaging even if visible spectrum was needed id expect them not to need bright lights to use it, or at least turn them off around an aircraft.... remember this is a race that has either committed generations to getting to this area, colonized vast areas of space, or has FTL technology.
 
Why would a UFO need lights? Really tho.. why expect the inhabitant would see visible light even? why expect it to be manned at all? If you have come here and are kickin around in a UFO, id expect at the very LEAST realistic digital/radar/laser/sonic/ir/something imaging even if visible spectrum was needed id expect them not to need bright lights to use it, or at least turn them off around an aircraft.... remember this is a race that has either committed generations to getting to this area, colonized vast areas of space, or has FTL technology.
The lights could be either an accommodation for human benefit or totally incidental to their activities and have no purpose we could even speculate about . . .
 
Give me a list of what they don't know . . . weather balloons, ultra lights, hang gliders, gliders, . . . remotely piloted UFO hoaxes . . . predator drones . . ???

Secretive military aircrafts/projects. Plenty of things have also been mistaken by experts in the past too. Flares, certain kinds of weather balloons, UAV. No one is infallible.
 
Sure . . . Yet, there are tons of sightings and new ones come in every day almost . . . Me thinks the recent Texas sightings are in that category . . . many, many personal eyewitnesses . . . no real explanation for what they saw . . . my conclusion . . . not everyone is crazy, mistaken, or drunk . . . some are legit . . . and should be taken seriously . . .

Every eyewitness report is taken seriously until given reason not to in my book. But even when we take them seriously they can't give us much to go on unless there are more components to the story, which we unfortunately don't have most of the time and certainly not in the incident you provided. That is usually the difference in a murder trial, btw, they have physical or corroborating evidence to go with the eyewitness report.

The Texas sightings you're talking about are these?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN2FlvmG2BM

Is there a particular story that you thought stood out?
 
Every eyewitness report is taken seriously until given reason not to in my book. But even when we take them seriously they can't give us much to go on unless there are more components to the story, which we unfortunately don't have most of the time and certainly not in the incident you provided. That is usually the difference in a murder trial, btw, they have physical or corroborating evidence to go with the eyewitness report.

The Texas sightings you're talking about are these?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wN2FlvmG2BM

Is there a particular story that you thought stood out?
No this one and several more in the same area . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe7c2kraqz8&feature=youtube_gdata_player


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqG_L_9VeXU&feature=youtube_gdata_player


MUFON releases report on UFO sighting in Stephenville, Texas



Friday, July 18, 2008
UFO
Other stories on UFO-related events​





To write, edit, start or view other articles on UFOs, see the UFO Portal


On January 8, 2008 in Stephenville, Texas, one of the larger UFO sightings in the United Statesoccurred. A few days ago the UFO investigative organization Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) released a 77-page report on the sighting. MUFON is a UFO investigative organization in the United States. Founded in 1969, it now has 3,000 members and is headquartered in Fort Collins, Colorado.
The MUFON report, entitled "Special Research Report Stephenville, Texas" was written by Glen Schulze and Ropert Powell. Shulze has radar experience from working at the White Sands Missile Range. Powell has a chemistry degree and has extensive experience with semiconductors from working for Advanced Micro Devices.
The report is an analysis of radar records from the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Weather Service, obtained through several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and comparing them to witness accounts.
Shulze/Powell concluded that the radar data confirms the witness observations of an object, as well as the Air Force's statement that said ten aircraft were operating in the area. They say that it is too difficult to say what the witnesses saw, but that there was something there. Twice, they say, radar picked up an object travelling at nearly 2,000 mph, and at other times it showed a slow moving object.


http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/MUFON_releases_report_on_UFO_sighting_in_Stephenville,_Texas

Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting testimony by Paul Hellyer former Canadian Minister of Defense. . . Me thinks he is considered crazy by most debunkers but presents what I consider a condensed synopsis of the state of ET and international politics and world control structure that many in the alternate disclosure community believe to be true. . . http://vimeo.com/65430488

I think this is from the Disclosure Conference in Washington DC where several semi-fringe ex-Senators and US Government officials are staging a mock Congressional Hearing. . . while knowing this is what it is . . . the subject matter presented by the Canadian Minister is never-the-less compelling to many. . . .
 
No this one and several more in the same area . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe7c2kraqz8&feature=youtube_gdata_player


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqG_L_9VeXU&feature=youtube_gdata_player


MUFON releases report on UFO sighting in Stephenville, Texas



Friday, July 18, 2008
UFO
Other stories on UFO-related events​





To write, edit, start or view other articles on UFOs, see the UFO Portal


On January 8, 2008 in Stephenville, Texas, one of the larger UFO sightings in the United Statesoccurred. A few days ago the UFO investigative organization Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) released a 77-page report on the sighting. MUFON is a UFO investigative organization in the United States. Founded in 1969, it now has 3,000 members and is headquartered in Fort Collins, Colorado.
The MUFON report, entitled "Special Research Report Stephenville, Texas" was written by Glen Schulze and Ropert Powell. Shulze has radar experience from working at the White Sands Missile Range. Powell has a chemistry degree and has extensive experience with semiconductors from working for Advanced Micro Devices.
The report is an analysis of radar records from the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Weather Service, obtained through several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and comparing them to witness accounts.
Shulze/Powell concluded that the radar data confirms the witness observations of an object, as well as the Air Force's statement that said ten aircraft were operating in the area. They say that it is too difficult to say what the witnesses saw, but that there was something there. Twice, they say, radar picked up an object travelling at nearly 2,000 mph, and at other times it showed a slow moving object.


http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/MUFON_releases_report_on_UFO_sighting_in_Stephenville,_Texas

Content from External Source

Are you suggesting that these stories are evidence of alien visitations? Because the problem remains that none of them have any of evidence of the sort. People saw things in the sky they can't explain. Radar picked up F-16s and an unidentified object flying int he area. Where in that story can we conclude or even reasonably suggest that it was an alien spacecraft? There are much more reasonable explanations we can suggest before resorting to the idea of an intelligent civilization flying around over Texas.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/ufo/4304170

Flares have a long association with UFO sightings. One night in late February 1942, the sky over Southern California lit up with strange blinking lights near various defense plants. In what has become known as the Battle of Los Angeles, the Navy unloaded four batteries of antiaircraft artillery at what turned out to be a balloon carrying a red flare. A decade ago, mysterious lights seen by thousands of Phoenix residents were actually leftover flares dumped by A-10 pilots with the Maryland Air National Guard.

Some Erath County residents dismiss the flare theory. "I've seen military flares," Allen says. "They are not even the same color as the ones I saw." But evasion-flare technology evolves rapidly, as the military tries to keep one step ahead of the increasingly sophisticated tracking capabilities of antiaircraft missiles. At one time evasive maneuvers consisted of sharp turns against the sun. When missiles got smarter, pilots began dropping bright flares; infrared seekers homed in on the decoys while warplanes fled from the field of view.

But today's missiles can track far more than the heat signatures of engines. They can pick out targets among decoys by discerning a warplane's movement and shape. Spectral sensors on missiles can even detect the color differences between a jet engine and a flare. In response, the military has deployed a variety of flares that can move under their own power and change color.

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/ifo_list.htm

List of things known to have been mistaken for alien spacecraft.

A. MATERIAL OBJECTS
1. Upper Atmosphere meteors
satellite reentry
rocket firings
ionosphere experiments
sky-hook balloons (discontinued) 2. Lower Atmosphere planes
reflection of sun
running lights
landing lights
weather balloons
luminous
nonluminous
clusters
clouds
contrails
blimps
advertising
illuminated
bubbles
sewage disposal
soap bubbles
military test craft
military experiments
magnesium flares
birds migrating
flocks
individual
luminous 3. Very Low Atmosphere paper and other debris
kites
leaves
spider webs
insects
swarms
moths
luminous
(electrical discharge)
seeds
milkweed, etc.
feathers
parachutes
fireworks 4. On or Near Ground dust devils
power lines
transformers
elevated streetlights
insulators
reflections from windows
water tanks
lightning rods
TV antennas
weathervanes
automobile headlights
lakes and ponds
beacon lights
lighthouses
tumbleweeds
icebergs
domed roofs
radar antennas
radio astronomy antennas
insect swarms
fires
oil refineries
cigarettes tossed awayB. IMMATERIAL OBJECTS 1. Upper Atmosphere auroral phenomena
noctilucent clouds 2. Lower Atmosphere reflections of searchlights
lightning
streak
chain
sheet
plasma phenomena
ball lightning
St. Elmo's Fire
parhelia
sundogs
parselene
moondogs
reflections from fog and mist
haloes
pilot's halo
ghost of the Brocken
mirages
superior
inferiorC. ASTRONOMICAL planets
stars
artificial satellites
sun
moon
meteors
cometsD. PHYSIOLOGICAL after images
sun
moon
reflections from bright sources
electric lights
street lights
flashlights
matches
(smoker lighting pipe)
autokinesis
stars unsteady
stars changing places
falling leaf effect
autostasis
eye defects
astigmatisms
myopia
failure to wear glasses
reflection from glasses
entoptic phenomena
retinal defects
vitreous humorE PSYCHOLOGICAL hallucinationF COMBINATIONS AND SPECIAL EFFECTSG PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDS development defects
internal camera reflectionsH RADAR anomalous refraction
scattering
ghost images
angels
birds
insects
multiple reflections​
I HOAXES

So again, we have to look for evidence beyond eyewitnesses and beyond testimony. Alien visitation would be HUGE, so there needs to be more evidence before we can say it is happening.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are you suggesting that these stories are evidence of alien visitations? Because the problem remains that none of them have any of evidence of the sort. People saw things in the sky they can't explain. Radar picked up F-16s and an unidentified object flying int he area. Where in that story can we conclude or even reasonably suggest that it was an alien spacecraft? There are much more reasonable explanations we can suggest before resorting to the idea of an intelligent civilization flying around over Texas.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/ufo/4304170



http://www.cufon.org/cufon/ifo_list.htm

List of things known to have been mistaken for alien spacecraft.



So again, we have to look for evidence beyond eyewitnesses and beyond testimony. Alien visitation would be HUGE, so there needs to be more evidence before we can say it is happening.
Despite the variety of alternative explanations and I would admit there are many . . . the existence of a few unexplained events are adequate to consider the existence of technology beyond our understanding . . . this, I think, was admitted even by the directors of different investigational programs . . . the conclusion was not that they don't exist but that they pose no significant threat to our safety, military flight operations or national security . . .




Project Sign, Project Grudge (USA, 1947–1949)


Main article: Project Sign
The first official USAF investigations of UFOs were Project Sign (1947–1949) and its successor Project Grudge (1949). Several hundred sightings were examined, a majority of them having a mundane explanation.[55] Some sightings were classified as credible but inexplicable, and in these cases the possibility of an advanced unknown aircraft could not be ruled out.[56] The initial memos of the project took the UFO question seriously. After surveying 16 early reports, Lt. Col. George D. Garrett estimated that the sightings were not imaginary or exaggerations of natural phenomena.[57] Lt. General Nathan F. Twining expressed the same estimate in a letter to Brig. General Schulgen.[58]


[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ufology
Content from External Source

[h=3]Studies by GEPAN, SERPA & GEIPAN (France, 1977–present)[/h]
Main article: Groupe d'études et d'informations sur les phénomènes aérospatiaux non identifiés
In 1977, the French Space Agency CNES Director General set up a unit to record UFO sighting reports.[79] The unit was initially known as Groupe d’Etudes des Phénomènes Aérospatiaux Non identifiés (GEPAN), changed in 1988 to Service d'expertise de rentrée atmosphérique Phenom (SERPA) and in 2005 to Groupe d'études et d'informations sur les phénomènes aérospatiaux non identifiés (GEIPAN).[79]
GEIPAN found a mundane explanation for the vast majority of recorded cases, but in 2007, after 30 years of investigation, 1,600 cases, approximately 28% of total cases, remained unexplained "despite precise witness accounts and good-quality evidence recovered from the scene" and are categorized as "Type D".[79] In April 2010, GEIPAN statistics stated that 23% of all cases were of Type D.[80] However, Jean-Jacques Velasco, the head of SEPRA from 1983 to 2004, wrote a book in 2004 noting that 13.5% of the 5,800 cases studied by SEPRA were dismissed without any rational explanation, and stated that UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin.[81][82]
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Despite the variety of alternative explanations and I would admit there are many . . . the existence of a few unexplained events are adequate to consider the existence of technology beyond our understanding . . . this, I think, was admitted even by the directors of different investigational programs . . . the conclusion was not that they don't exist but that they pose no significant threat to our safety, military flight operations or national security . . .




Project Sign, Project Grudge (USA, 1947–1949)


Main article: Project Sign
The first official USAF investigations of UFOs were Project Sign (1947–1949) and its successor Project Grudge (1949). Several hundred sightings were examined, a majority of them having a mundane explanation.[55] Some sightings were classified as credible but inexplicable, and in these cases the possibility of an advanced unknown aircraft could not be ruled out.[56] The initial memos of the project took the UFO question seriously. After surveying 16 early reports, Lt. Col. George D. Garrett estimated that the sightings were not imaginary or exaggerations of natural phenomena.[57] Lt. General Nathan F. Twining expressed the same estimate in a letter to Brig. General Schulgen.[58]


[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ufology
Content from External Source

Unexplained cases still do not equate to evidence of alien visitations. If a case is unexplained there are a number of ways to look at it. One could be that it just hasn't been investigated enough. Another may be that it was a foreign secretive military technology. The last thing I would suggest is that it could be a natural phenomenon we just don't know about yet. In the ideas of Carl Sagan, if we see something unexplained or that we don't understand, we don't take throw our hand up and say, "Wow, well that's probably aliens." That's a lazy and unlikely conclusion, we should be searching for an explanation that is supported by evidence. What kind of answer do we have otherwise?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unexplained cases still do not equate to evidence of alien visitations. If a case is unexplained there are a number of ways to look at it. One could be that it just hasn't been investigated enough. Another may be that it was a foreign secretive military technology. The last thing I would suggest is that it could be a natural phenomenon we just don't know about yet. In the ideas of Carl Sagan, if we see something unexplained or that we don't understand, we don't take throw our hand up and say, "Wow, well that's probably aliens." That's a lazy and unlikely conclusion, we should be searching for an explanation that is supported by evidence. What kind of answer do we have otherwise?
Nor do we put our heads in the sand and eliminate a plausible explanation which needs continued serious consideration . . .
 
Nor do we put our heads in the sand and eliminate a plausible explanation which needs continued serious consideration . . .

I can assure you that's not happening here. I have never seen any evidence that would strongly suggest an alien presence visiting Earth. You have not presented any here. Calling that suggestion plausible means there is at least some evidence of it. Eyewitnesses and testimonies alone do not justify it at all.

Well if they are not US advanced technology . . What are they?

Foreign... Non-US. Russia, for example.
 
I can assure you that's not happening here. I have never seen any evidence that would strongly suggest an alien presence visiting Earth. You have not presented any here. Calling that suggestion plausible means there is at least some evidence of it. Eyewitnesses and testimonies alone do not justify it at all.



Foreign... Non-US. Russia, for example.
Hmmm . . . you admit there is advanced technology . . . ?
 
Hmmm . . . you admit there is advanced technology . . . ?

We are communicating with advanced technology. What, specifically, are you asking? My point is that there are other militaries working on creating the latest and greatest technology that they would like to keep secret too, and could be responsible for some UFO sightings that might currently be unexplained.
 
We are communicating with advanced technology. What, specifically, are you asking? My point is that there are other militaries working on creating the latest and greatest technology that they would like to keep secret too, and could be responsible for some UFO sightings that might currently be unexplained.
In the 1950s we were seeing UFOs which exhibited capabilities far beyond any technology then known and still is unknown . . . the only difference is we have advanced dramatically in technology since the 1950s . . . but still we are unable to match the capabilities witnessed . . . so my question is what do you recognize as advanced technology in the UFOs? And why do you think humans were able to accomplish such capabilities in 1950 much less in 2013?
 
In the 1950s we were seeing UFOs which exhibited capabilities far beyond any technology then known and still is unknown . . . the only difference is we have advanced dramatically in technology since the 1950s . . . but still we are unable to match the capabilities witnessed . . . so my question is what do you recognize as advanced technology in the UFOs? And why do you think humans were able to accomplish such capabilities in 1950 much less in 2013?

The first question I'd ask is for better detail on these cases along with video. Secondly, I'd ask if we can be certain it was technology being witnessed or a natural phenomenon that could explain the seemingly impossible movements. It would help to add substance to what you're referencing, George.
 
The first question I'd ask is for better detail on these cases along with video. Secondly, I'd ask if we can be certain it was technology being witnessed or a natural phenomenon that could explain the seemingly impossible movements. It would help to add substance to what you're referencing, George.
So you do not accept the reports from pilots and others that UFOs accelerate and decelerate at and from unbelievable speeds, make right-angle turns and appear and disappear without warning . . . ?
 
So you do not accept the reports from pilots and others that UFOs accelerate and decelerate at and from unbelievable speeds, make right-angle turns and appear and disappear without warning . . . ?

If there is nothing but eyewitnesses in these cases then we don't have a discussion. Can you outline these cases more specifically?
 
If there is nothing but eyewitnesses in these cases then we don't have a discussion. Can you outline these cases more specifically?
There are multiple eyewitness testimonies . . . these characteristics are by far the most common testified . . . but you are correct unless you accept those characteristics I listed we have no discussion . . . THE END . . .
 
There are multiple eyewitness testimonies . . . these characteristics are by far the most common testified . . . but you are correct unless you accept those characteristics I listed we have no discussion . . . THE END . . .

So I'm just supposed to accept every eyewitness? I have plenty of reason to want more than just an eyewitness testimony.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-the-eyes-have-it
http://www.howstuffworks.com/eyewitnesses-unreliable.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/photos/eye/text_06.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/scott_fraser_the_problem_with_eyewitness_testimony.html

I'm honestly just asking for more, George. What are we supposed to do if an eyewitness is all we have? We are left with nothing. A video would be helpful, or some other kind of evidence. Hell, even giving us a name, date, and place would be more helpful. You're literally giving me nothing to work with in regards to this "advanced technology."
I've been searching myself and I can't find anything to help me know which cases you are talking about.
 
So I'm just supposed to accept every eyewitness? I have plenty of reason to want more than just an eyewitness testimony.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-the-eyes-have-it
http://www.howstuffworks.com/eyewitnesses-unreliable.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/photos/eye/text_06.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/scott_fraser_the_problem_with_eyewitness_testimony.html

I'm honestly just asking for more, George. What are we supposed to do if an eyewitness is all we have? We are left with nothing. A video would be helpful, or some other kind of evidence. Hell, even giving us a name, date, and place would be more helpful. You're literally giving me nothing to work with in regards to this "advanced technology."
I've been searching myself and I can't find anything to help me know which cases you are talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UFO_sightings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_flying_object
This is a good start . . . Pick a few and we can talk . . .
 
Which ones were you referring to when you were talking about advanced technology?
I will accept anything you would consider a demonstration of technology beyond known human capability . . . I am sure we can find one or more sightings which will discuss such testimony . . .
 
I wii accept anything you would consider a demonstration of technology beyond known human capability . . . I am sure we can find one or more sightings which will discuss such testimony . . .

You obviously had cases in mind. Which were they?
Remember, more than just eyewitnesses.
 
You obviously had cases in mind. Which were they?
Remember, more than just eyewitnesses.
http://www.ufosnw.com/history_of_ufo/phoenixlights1997/usatodayarticle06181997old.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights

ATC personnel observed the event . . . I don't consider them eyewitnesses . . .


[h=2]Photographic documentation[/h]Imagery of the Phoenix Lights falls into two categories: images of the triangular formation seen prior to 22:00 MST in Prescott and Dewey, and images of the 22:00 MST Phoenix event. Almost all known images are of the second event. All known images were produced using a variety of commercially available camcorders and cameras. There are no known images taken by equipment designed for scientific analysis, nor are there any known images taken using high powered optics or night vision equipment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Lights[h=3][edit][/h]
Content from External Source
 
I have a question, are we seeing more reports now? Since many folks have camera phones, shouldn't there be a lot of recent pictures of them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top