Papers show British Air Force hunted after UFOs

Cool! Do it again, do it again, ok? :wink: :wink:

This has been an interesting exercise in the recognition of the worth of information posted on the internet. What has gone on herein is a micro-example of the peer review process.
What is often presented as scientific evidence can more often be riven and inspected and found to be non-credible.yet there can be a large number of people who are quick to accept because there are a bunch of degrees posted after authors names.
There are so many sites out there, self published, agenda oriented, and factually deficient, but written by people with more degrees than a compass. as if that alone were the basis of wider acceptance. it just aint so. The peer review process is core to scientific inquiry. It states simply, "oh yeh?--well lets prove it'.However, often , even that process comes up short and some cold fusion(or creationism) slips by the jury and is all over the net confounding the gullible and confusing students who havent yet developed robust bullshit antennae.
Wolf, you may have been reading the subject for 10 or more years, but I submit that , in this thread,youve been given some good 'rivening" of your subject .Consequently some holes and cautions in the overall logic of your UFO literature, have been suggested. if I were you, Id spend some significant time looking at multiple hypotheses regarding causality of these phenom.

Well, Setatnta had pointed out already very clearly, what is my opinion as well.

I've always learnt to refer at firtst at primary sources, when obtainable.
My quotation could easily considered as one.

So I refer to this one, not to any of the so-called translation, referrations etc.

In 1976, Cometa had a predecessor -- a study by the Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Défense Nationale. The United States had even younger counterparts -- the Blue Book committee (other sources available, but I find this one to be respectable). Decades of smoke with no fire? After the Belgian wave, Colonel De Brouwer gave short radio comments.

All these military people are far more in the know than any of us. If they say the extraterrestrial hypothesis should be investigated -- which they do -- they deserve a positive reaction from our part. The typical evasion by the pseudo-skeptics (the internet is unreliable, you're gullible, blah blah...) is so classical I'm not even gonna fight it. They'll just come up with other debunking techniques.

I got a news flash for ya wolf, i'm no psuedo-sceptic, i'm the real McCoy.

Saying that you're not gonna fight it is the first sensible thing you've written here. Now you might try to make up for ten wasted years by learning the simple techniques of testing evidence and testimony which lawyers and historians have used for centuries, and which have been translated into scientific terms in the peer review process. Cui Bono? which means who benefits is the largest question in such crap as reports of alien visitations. It means "who benefits" are you should apply it by asking what your sources are selling. Just like the alleged Roswell incident--the entire story was manufactured out of whole cloth more than 30 years after Mr. Brazel found the debris of an upper-atmospheric baloon by a self-serving joker who wanted to sell books. He did, because there is never any lack of fools who can be separated from their money by the sale of books and lectures to tell them what they so desparately want to know in the first place. Walter has mentioned primary sources--if you want to quote the Cometa Report, you find the report, and not Marc Angee's version of selected parts and phrases alleged to be from the report, or the CUFOS rehash of the Angee bullshit.

When it comes to healthy scepticism, what you sneer at as debunking, you have a very great deal to learn.

Your site of l'Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Defense National is bogus . . . one immediate clue ought to be the title--the French never capitalize more than the first word in any title. Go to that page, click on home, then click on the rubric "sources"--you'll get a whole page of bullshit bibliography, which can who the worthlessness of the information at that site to someone with a clear head and their eyes open. In your case, you'll find all sorts of unreliable, tendentious crap to support what it is you want to believe in the first place.

You've offered nothing but the self-serving psuedo-science of con artists out to sell themselves and their fairy tales, as they well know they can make a good living by skinning the credulous. I'll waste no more of my time going to the pathetic web sites you link.

.
.
.

The most elaborate coming out on the extraterrestrial origin of UFOs is the Disclosure Project, of which the original press conference video recording can be downloaded HERE

.
.
.

.
.
.
Or HERE, in case servers get blocked.
.
.
.

I'd like to take some time and back up that claim. Even by filling in very conservative estimates for the famous Drake equation (for the number of intelligent civilizations in the universe), the statistical certainty comes confirmed.

Let's take the estimate of the number of stars with planets as 0.5. And that 1/9 of those planets is in a habitable zone. Let us further assume that the probability of life occurring on any single planet that is already within its star's habitable zone is extremely, extremely remote: one in a trillion. By multiplication of this extremely small number by the previous factors of 0.5 and 1/9, we get the assumption that the probability of life around any one given star is 0.00000000000005. Our galaxy has about 300 billion stars, and let's assume there are 100 billion galaxies in the universe. This gives us a statistical probability of the existence of life around at least one other star in the universe=1-(0.99999999999995)^30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The answer to that subtraction is a number that is indistinguishable from 1.00 at any leve of decimal accuracy reported by the computer. The answer is, for all practical purposes, equal to 1.00 -- or 100 percent.

Even if we assume that there are only 10 billion stars in our own galaxy, and that there are only a billion galaxies, the statistical answer to the probability of extraterrestrial intelligent life comes out to to be a number indistinguishable from 1.00. The probability that life exists outside the Earth does not depend very strongly on the actual number of stars in the universe -- as long as that number is very large. There are so many places for life to develop. While we used the best scientific estimates, even lower values still lead to the same answer, a number close to 1.00. The probability is a virtual certainty. We are not alone.

Source: Dr. Amir Aczel, professor of statistics, author of Probability 1, Why there must be intelligent life in the universe.

And while skeptics find it hard to believe that others have found us, before we had the necessary means to find them, dozens of governmental insiders and military whistleblowers think otherwise.