Papers show British Air Force hunted after UFOs

To quote CodeBorg: I have been told that i have a "pomp" ass . . .


At least Snood, i did not advise anyone to grow a brain.

"Pomp" ass?
Methinks you refer to BoGoWo, not I.

The whole subject is quite alien to me...
because there are no green meteors or green people either. Trust me.

Sorry, Boss, you're right, it probably was BGW . . . what a lovely set of bad jokes . . .

http://extraterrestrial-life.net/Cometa.htm

The Cometa report by the French government is one of the most authoritative studies of the UFO subject: please inform yourselves before making self-indulging judgments on a subject of this magnitude.

Ah and self-indulgent, too . . .

You ol' charm-school drop-out you . . .

oops - sorry I didn't get you this 1st time - it was the "(I'm not kidding.) part that got me - I can be obtuse - sorry!

I can only quote Dr. Carl Sagan on the subject:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

I'd be delighted to be convinced that UFOs are real.

I definately know that there are green men:
they've been on Abuzz and are still disturbing my life, while 'working' in my computer.

Honestly, I've more difficulties to be believe that UFO's visited us than with some 'strange' religious beliefs. (At least I can get the idea behind the Madonna of Lourdes.)

Walter, I had the same feeling initially -- I guess everyone does. But investigate the credible sources. As Dr. Bernard Haisch says:



I think our lack of credulity is more of a psychological nature than of a scientific nature. The subject has been ridiculised deliberately for a very long time, and we're all still suffering from this.

In what regard do "we" suffer from the the ridicule of claims that there have been alien visitations? Your Bernard Haisch in his web page again and again qualifies his remarks as speculation, and every point he raises against those whom he chooses to deride as "scoffers" is speculative by his own admission. He speculates on the Air Force continuing to compile information after the end of the blue book project, but offers not a shred of evidence. He states: "If a competent witness reports having seen something tens of degrees of arc in size (as happens) and the scoffer -- who of course was not there -- offers Venus or a high altitude weather balloon as an explanation, the requirement of extraordinary proof for an extraordinary claim falls on the proffered negative claim as well." He has not defined a competent witness nor alluded to a single instance of such a competent witness making a claim to have proof of an alien visitation. You choose to libel me with an inferential slur on the size of my brain because i do not "believe" in UFO's--but in fact, i have twice stated that i do believe in UFO's, but that i do not believe that there has ever been any proof adduced that UFO's are evidence of alien visitation. Your Mr. Haisch offers no such evidence, and in fact offers only the speculative assertion that there must be some explanation. I have no problem with that, but in that i have not offered any counterexplanation, or refutation of the alien visitation contentions beyond objections to the hypothesis based upon a review of the likelihood of such events, i am not placed in Haisch's category of the disbeliever bound to substatiate any "proffered negative claim." I feel completely comfortable in asserting once again that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

For the third time: i haven't the least doubt that many people have seen, or believe they have seen, objects or what appeared to them objects, which flew or appeared to fly, and which they were then and subsequently unable to identify. I am willing to posit that they did see some thing which was in fact flying--and which was and remains unidentified by them, or by anyone else. I've not mentioned weather baloons or a transit of Venus. To proceed from the point of acknowleding that there have been and are valid reports of unidentified flying objects to a contention that this is evidence of alien visitation is an extraordinary claim for which proof is required. You've offered no such proof here, only sneering personal insult because i won't accept your cherished belief.

I might also add that there is an old dictum in forensics that he who frames the question wins the debate. Mr. Haisch is attempting to frame this "question" in terms of proving that there is not "something there"--in terms of debate, he is attempting to shift the burden of proof. Scientist though he may claim himself to be, lawyer he is not: on this one, he is "out of court."

Dr. Haisch is one of many others. The official French Cometa report, directed by Air Force commanders and high ranking scientific personnel, comes to the conclusion that UFOs are not possibly from this Earth. I've encountered so many skeptical types as yourself with the same dull arguments, trying to debunk this whole phenomenon... I can smell your approach from miles away. Your narrative that since they're unidentified, they must remain that way, is hilarious. The point is that they have features, observed since the late '40s, which are not terrestrial. These UFOs are therefore extraterrestrial. Get this logic through your thick head.

<sigh - wolf and Set...>


Okay - I have to share a personal story, in order to illustrate how my own perspective on this issue began to take shape. I do not say that seeing flying objects that are as yet unidentified is "proof" of anything. I say simply that there are such objects, because I saw one myself.

I was 12-13 years old. It was Summer, because the sun had only just set for an hour or so over Fayetteville, North Carolina, and it was already well after 9pm. I was sitting on the front porch, from which the view was the across-the-street houses, then right behind that, the huge multipurpose athletic field of E.E.Smith High School. I guess I appreciated peace and quiet even then, because I was just sitting there, content to be looking out into the clear skies and sparse stars. I then saw something I have never been able to explain away. entering the scene from the right, from what apeared to be only a couple thousand feet in the air, was a large, rapidly moving, apparently disc-shaped object. There was no sound of motor, only a "whooshing" sound, as if a lot of air was being very forcefully displaced. I was immediately scared, and got up and began to walk across the front yard, toward the direction of the object. As I approached, I saw the object stop in midair suddenly, beam a light down and move it briefly around, then take off at an angle and a speed which I have never seen reproduced by anything in the 30+ years since. I ran back inside and told my sister what I had seen. I've told the story dozens of times in my life, but mostly I've just used it to know within myself that there are things out there that we simply don't know about. I can never scoff too much, because I know what I saw, and I was not dreaming.

Wolf, i'm sick of your snide personal remarks . . . i consider your contentions about what is or is not "extraterrrestrial" to be absurd, but that has not lead me to make personal remarks about you. Knock it off, clown.

Can we firmly separate the question of belief in possible alien life from the question of whether they are visiting us in spacecraft or not?

I would be awful disappointed if, somewhere in this big universe, life had not appeared other than here.

Personally, I doubt whether I shall ever "know". I mean, I don't expect them to say hi, or anything.

Now, while you must believe in the possibility of alien life to form a belief that we are being visited by 'em, believing in such visits is by no means a necessary result of acknowledging that there may be alien life! I mean, that is obvious and all, but I am constantly confronted by people who seem to feel that the two beliefs have a two-way interdependence.

(I mean extra-terrestrial alien life - there is plenty of pretty damned alien life here, as far as I am concerned!)

I am highly sceptical, because of the current "knowledge" we hold about the laws of the universe through physics. But, laws are found to be less lawful than we thought, from time to time, and you can't "prove" a negative - so I am unable to prove they DON'T drop in.

I like how these threads go.Its only a matter of "t" before somebody engages in guerilla tactics, and disobeys universal rule number 2- ie 'Play Nice"

The Lincoln lab at MIT had , last year, discovered that it iS possible to exceed the limits imposed by 'c'. they , in effect, developed an experiment that exceeded c by a small percentage. thus tossing out much we accept in time and space. their experiment had, in essence, caused light to appear at a target, before it was even shone. the old chestnut that c will not be exceeded is being seriously questioned.

Biologically , its almost a sure thing that life exists elsewhere, and statistically , its probable that theres much intelligent life smarter than us. Now, have they broken the code of intergalactic travel by redefining c or by redefining place? All this, and more , is unknown, and unknowable to us at this time.

I was too nice!

I thought quarks had been doing c+ for a while?

But - maybe these new li'l smeggers got an A!

Not only to i find this a completely reasonable statement, the last sentence is the heart of my argument in this thread. Absent proof that there have been alien visitations, i have no reason to believe in them. That the possibility of life elsewhere is great is something with which i heartily concur. To assert that "they" have loaded up the Roadmaster for a visit to their poor relations seems more than a little absurd to me.