The Evidence that's convinced me of ETs' Presence on Earth

originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: ben555

whats your point?

You are here to "learn" right?

even your source says "which appear to have been anecdotal"
everything appears or assumes. NOBODY KNOWS,dear me.

The problem is that this work is often sited as physical evidence of aliens when in reality there is no distinction between "real", "natural" or even "faked" cases. As "evidence", it appears to be entirely useless.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

we agree with you and i have posted on why i think skeptics/de-bunkers are needed.

your post adds nothing to help. it is not an article that says "ted phillips is a hoxer" or "ted phillips is proven liar".
it was just another point of view,there is no evidence even in it.

you keep on assuming im here to prove aliens exist.im not. i know little on ted phillips but im going to read the site i found and form my own conclusions. (learning)

PLEASE DO NOT TAKE ANYTHING I WRITE AS PROOF OF ALIENS. I DO NOT KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

to be honest. i dont think your way of thinking is that different from mine. i have not said all your way of thinking was bad. maybe we differ on chances of UFOs being e.t

originally posted by: ben555
a reply to: ZetaRediculian
we agree with you and i have posted on why i think skeptics/de-bunkers are needed.

We? Are you speaking for others on the forum or are there multiple people posting on your account?

your post adds nothing to help. it is not an article that says "ted phillips is a hoxer" or "ted phillips is proven liar".
it was just another point o[f view,there is no evidence even in it.

Its actually an article by a pro UFO person that summarizes his work. Who said anything about him being a hoaxer? However, it seems there is no distinction between hoaxes, natural or "real" trace cases. I think that's important to understand.

you keep on assuming im here to prove aliens exist.im not. i know little on ted phillips but im going to read the site i found and form my own conclusions. (learning)

I assumed nothing. I linked an article and commented on the article on a person you mentioned.

PLEASE DO NOT TAKE ANYTHING I WRITE AS PROOF OF ALIENS. I DO NOT KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

Why are you yelling? I already apologized for assuming you disagreed with me

a reply to: draknoir2
That is quite true. Few if any really knows. But this retired computer scientist and long time hobby physicist has at least given it a try. Guess he ended up with a great physics lesson if anything. All his hypothesises of UFO propulsion connot possibly be correct, that would be too amazing. There's a great interview with "Bob" Schroeder on Podcast UFO.

podcastufo.com...

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

"We? Are you speaking for others on the forum or are there multiple people posting on your account?"
i think i must of started writing "we agree on something" . i takes me a long time to write a post. computers are not my thing. i rather phone people than write a text out.

"Its actually an article by a pro UFO person that summarizes his work. Who said anything about him being a hoaxer? However, it seems there is no distinction between hoaxes, natural or "real" trace cases. I think that's important to understand."
i had meant if he was a hoaxer his work can be ruled out. his work is always going to be questionable. but i have not properly looked at his work. i know of his work and his link with hynek i think makes him credible.
i felt writing off his work as from one source is wrong. i understand now what you are meaning. something like-
ted investigates every single claim of ufo landing site. over the years we now know that sites x,y,z were known hoaxes and a,b,c were ball lighting ect..?

"I assumed nothing. I linked an article and commented on the article on a person you mentioned."
fair enough.

"Why are you yelling? I already apologized for assuming you disagreed with me"
yelling because of capitals? just wanted the words to stand out.i dont know how to change font sizes.
but i feel if that was said it would save a lot of time and arguments with people.


"I already apologized for assuming you disagreed with me"
ok. lets move on. clean slate and all that

a reply to: ben555

i know of his work and his link with hynek i think makes him credible.
i felt writing off his work as from one source is wrong.

I don't know his work that well either but it seems like he catalogued "trace cases" which was a compilation from various sources some which overlap with crop circles and that sort of thing. This is often sited as "physical" evidence of aliens but I don't know how that can be determined if it is true that you can not differentiate between a case that might be considered "real" and ones that are explainable.

If you do come across any good info, I would be interested in seeing that. Thanks

OP

Use your thinking cap before you start believing what you want to believe.

That the UFO Phenomena Exist , there's a mountain of investigated case spanning the world to support this , even back to ancient times.

That UFO is extra terrestrial , not a single shred of evidence exists based on the UFO field investigation. Only a hypothesis exist but no proof no evidences. Some people especially in USA loved the idea of UFO = Nuts n Bolts physical stuff with aliens inside , but that just a belief and never been proven.

Drop your belief that UFO is extra terrestrial because it is this belief system that prevent people from understanding the UFO Phenomena as a whole

Drop Roswell from your UFO reference because it is a hoax and a myth that will taint all your UFO knowledge and research.

Drop most of the modern US Ufologist because most of them are just lying storyteller who keep pushing worse and worse stuff to the unthinking audience

Look for UFO Investigators in the 1950s thru 1970s and read NICAP and MUFON case files.

Look for posts in ATS made by IsaacKoi and Karl12 for pointers toward real UFO investigation case. Whatever these guys believe about UFO, their posts always showed the truth about UFO phenomena and NEVER the kind of b*ll# that people like John Lear keep spouting in ATS.

Want an example of real UFO case with documented evidence by the military ? look for UFO Flap in Colares Brazil.

originally posted by: milomilo
OP

Use your thinking cap before you start believing what you want to believe.

That the UFO Phenomena Exist , there's a mountain of investigated case spanning the world to support this , even back to ancient times.

That UFO is extra terrestrial , not a single shred of evidence exists based on the UFO field investigation. Only a hypothesis exist but no proof no evidences. Some people especially in USA loved the idea of UFO = Nuts n Bolts physical stuff with aliens inside , but that just a belief and never been proven.

Drop your belief that UFO is extra terrestrial because it is this belief system that prevent people from understanding the UFO Phenomena as a whole

Drop Roswell from your UFO reference because it is a hoax and a myth that will taint all your UFO knowledge and research.

Drop most of the modern US Ufologist because most of them are just lying storyteller who keep pushing worse and worse stuff to the unthinking audience

Look for UFO Investigators in the 1950s thru 1970s and read NICAP and MUFON case files.

Look for posts in ATS made by IsaacKoi and Karl12 for pointers toward real UFO investigation case. Whatever these guys believe about UFO, their posts always showed the truth about UFO phenomena and NEVER the kind of b*ll# that people like John Lear keep spouting in ATS.

Want an example of real UFO case with documented evidence by the military ? look for UFO Flap in Colares Brazil.

I already said in this thread about other instances, not mentioned in the OP, and I also said that if I were to include all of them in the OP it would've required a book not a forum post. Said all this already, but thanks for the insight. In hindsight I could've picked better cases, but what wouldn't be better in hindsight?

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

i was just looking at a couple of cases on the site last night. i can see where people are confusing teds work for e.t evidence. the reports i saw were short and basic and include what witnesses claim which has to be reported. you can see where the confusion happens. just click on link at bottom,here is a little random example from page.

e.g
" Report 12/12/54 Campinas, Brazil: multiple witness, 3 objects, liquid dropped from one object, like a silvery rain, brilliant glowing stain.
Report 8/??/55 Cayerer, France 2200: multiple witness, egg-shaped object, humanoids metal traces.
Report 8/21/55 Kelly-Hopkinsville, KY 2030: multiple witness, humanoids, luminous traces.
Report 11/2/55 Williston, FL 2220: multiple witness, disc, humanoids, human effects, traces.
Report Fall, 1956: Bethel, CT: multiple witness, ring of burnt grass 18 ft in diameter, traces of nickel & chromium.
Report 5/10/57 Beaucourt, France 2250: multiple witness, 8 minutes, humanoids, traces."
www.ufoevidence.org....

i have seen a "ufo",i had watched it(in space) for 20 mins do un-real things.i have posted about it on here.
what was it? i dont know,for a year i was just happy to of seen one but couldnt stop thinking about it. im trying to find out i guess.

a reply to: ben555

Well they certainly are interesting. I think the most you can say is that "something" was there. Even in the case of crop circles, even if hoaxed, its there.

I also have an issue with the mass grouping of cases like this. Its really hard to know which cases have been solved or explained and which haven't. Both are important to know because your explained cases would provide you a baseline that you could compare your unexplained cases with. This would be true with UFOs in general. I think what usually happens is that explained cases are ignored. Either they are left out or included but not categorized as explained. So from a data analysis perspective, there is not much that can be determined.

Saying something like "there are so many, one has to be true" doesn't work statistically although it sounds good.

Even if you look at each case individually, an explained case for one person is not for another. So we are left with a quantity of cases. Could one of them be due to aliens? Sure, but there is just no way to determine that.

Just some of my personal thoughts when looking at information like this. I don't want to come across as dismissive but I think that this stuff needs to put into perspective.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

good explanation. yes its take it for what it is thing. i see there were lots of 1950s reports of aliens in crafts. when i think 1950s i think of ufo hysteria. i dont know if he is still investigating.

funny thing was i was reading through site in above link "ufoevidence" and found my report,i thought it look familiar!(i could not remember where i had reported it)