Fear of Outcomes: UFOlogy vs Astrobiology Distrust Explained

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I would dearly love to find definitive "proof" of aliens. The problem is that when I've actually looked into a number of cases in detail that the truth seems to lie in a different direction.

So I'll offer the same to you as I did to our mate Scdfella. Look at it as the "Mirageman Challenge".

If you are convinced aliens are regularly visiting this planet then any evidence that convinces you should convince everyone else right?

So let's put it to the test.

What is the best case for proof of aliens coming to earth?

Alfred Bertoo? Rendlesham? Bob Taylor? Alan Godfrey? Ilkley Moor? The A70 Abduction?

Give it your best shot and show us the evidence. If I am too dumb to understand that as proof then you can point out where my intellectual abilities are particularly weak. I'm no Stephen Hawking after all.

Then again even he doesn't believe aliens are visiting earth. So it might be a problem with all of our intelligence levels only being relative to each other's in the greater scheme of things? Now there's a thought.

a reply to: mirageman

Good luck with that! Lets put it into perspective. His "evidence" is anonymous posters that claim to have been abducted. He completely imagined things that were said by myself and others. All he would have to do is quote one instance of me calling someone "delusional" or demanding evidence. He has over 4000 posts to choose from! You are actually asking him to show something that only exists in his mind. Once you show him that its just in his head, then what? He will just keep on believing despite the overwheliming evidence to the contrary!

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

Well I am ever the optimist.

I actually believe there is something going on within the UFO phenomenon and it's probably a number of different things.

So I'm not prepared to give up on the alien angle either if enough convincing evidence appears.

We'll see.

originally posted by: mirageman
But If science proves life exists beyond earth does this immediately legitimise every UFO case? Not at all.

One of my humorous imaginings is that after all these years we are contacted by a race of aliens and we show them photos and videos of assorted UFOs. Their response: "Yeah, those are weird, huh? We have no idea what they are, either."

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

By the way Scdfa- You mentioned you were/are a field investigator for MUFON and reported on a case in 2000 where it was carried on nationwide TV.

We will never know. Its more likely that it was made up to bolster his online persona.

He needs to be accountable for his claims at some point. We shall see if he ignores it.

With his comment, he's boxed himself into a case that happened in 2000, was strong enough to be carried on both local and national television, and claims he led the investigation. The only notable case in 2000 that would have gone as far as nationwide CBS news would most likely have been the sighting by police officers in Illinois. That narrows it down to a few investigators. Unless he can point out another case.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I would dearly love to find definitive "proof" of aliens. The problem is that when I've actually looked into a number of cases in detail that the truth seems to lie in a different direction.

So I'll offer the same to you as I did to our mate Scdfella. Look at it as the "Mirageman Challenge".

If you are convinced aliens are regularly visiting this planet then any evidence that convinces you should convince everyone else right?

So let's put it to the test.

What is the best case for proof of aliens coming to earth?

Alfred Bertoo? Rendlesham? Bob Taylor? Alan Godfrey? Ilkley Moor? The A70 Abduction?

Give it your best shot and show us the evidence. If I am too dumb to understand that as proof then you can point out where my intellectual abilities are particularly weak. I'm no Stephen Hawking after all.

Then again even he doesn't believe aliens are visiting earth. So it might be a problem with all of our intelligence levels only being relative to each other's in the greater scheme of things? Now there's a thought.

I like your idea, but it is flawed to think that evidence that convinces one person will convince everyone else, and decades of evidence, documents and everything else proves that this is true.

Now look at Zeta's reply just below your post where it says "good luck with that" and is also defining where all of my evidence that convinced me comes from, as if he/she/it knows anything at all about that. You can clearly see that people like that have their minds made up already just by reading that "good luck with that" comment. In their minds, they can't imagine you ever finding any convincing evidence because they already "KNOW" to themselves that it just can't exist.

Then there is also the idea that you need to even have someone show you convincing evidence as if what they know is somehow contingent upon your approval before it can be valid.

That just isn't the case.

HE says my beliefs are from evidence by anonymous posters telling me they were abducted and that is why I believe, which is false.

I have stated in other threads that I have a few personal friends who are abducted and that is one of the avenues of my own beliefs, but that didn't need to happen for me to know what I know, but it is one source of supporting evidence if I was in need of it, which I'm not.

What I see i n this thread from those who quite vocally don't believe anything of visitation is pure intellectual dishonesty, ridicule and behaviorisms you expect to see from children.

The idea that people who are stuck in their own sewer of disbelief, are deserving to be shown total proof of alien visitation happening is quite humorous to me.

Other people remaining ignorant of certain subjects is their own doing, it isn't caused by faulty evidence.

MY policy is that I do not take anyones word alone, I also research and investigate something, and observe behavior of witnesses to form my own opinion.
People should just research for themselves and then choose to believe or not believe. And that's it.

But this is not enough for people like the debunker who never research things. They just wait around for someone that does that and then try to shoot them full of holes without knowing anything about a case. Then they ridicule and insult, just like you see in this thread.

And they do this to anyone who believes in visitation without any regard for any evidence by claiming there is none.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: mirageman
But If science proves life exists beyond earth does this immediately legitimise every UFO case? Not at all.

One of my humorous imaginings is that after all these years we are contacted by a race of aliens and we show them photos and videos of assorted UFOs. Their response: "Yeah, those are weird, huh? We have no idea what they are, either."

Exactly.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I would dearly love to find definitive "proof" of aliens. The problem is that when I've actually looked into a number of cases in detail that the truth seems to lie in a different direction. So I'll offer the same to you as I did to our mate Scdfella. Look at it as the "Mirageman Challenge".

If you are convinced aliens are regularly visiting this planet then any evidence that convinces you should convince everyone else right? So let's put it to the test. What is the best case for proof of aliens coming to earth?....

Then again even [Stephen Hawking] doesn't believe aliens are visiting earth. So it might be a problem with all of our intelligence levels only being relative to each other's in the greater scheme of things? Now there's a thought.
....

1) It sounds like maybe you're conflating (thus, confounding) the two separate concepts of evidence and proof? A very common error. It'd be silly for the skeptic to deny that there is any *evidence* in support of "true UFOs", and probably even more silly for the typical believer to assert that he can produce *proof* of true UFOs. Maybe picking which one of those two things you'd settle for and then keeping the goalpost firmly planted in that spot would be a more productive approach?

2) Truth is thankfully not determined by majority opinion. Especially when so many who offer opinions on this topic are so clearly and demonstrably uninformed.

On the other hand... if there did exist data which showed that the more familiar one becomes with the UFO topic, the more likely one is to believe that non-human intelligence is involved... or data which showed that the higher the education level, the more likely one is to believe that non-human intelligence is involved... well, that would undermine your not-so-subtly implied view that skeptics have a higher "intelligence level" than believers, would it not? Are you aware of any such data existing?

3) For many thousands of people, the most obvious answer to your question "what is the best UFO case?" would probably be "the case that I, myself, was a witness to." A skeptic may not prefer that type of evidence, but he should at least admit that many witness/believers are actually privy to a kind of data and a quality of data that the skeptic simply has no access to.

Meaning that radical "UFO belief" and radical "UFO skepticism" are actually not equally valid, and not equally informed. Most UFO witness/believers are applying an evidentiary filter to their sighting -- "I saw it with my own eyes!" that is trustworthy enough and sufficient enough in every other human endeavor used to get to the true nature of reality.

Because of this great disparity in data -- that which is known to many witnesses far outweighing in value that which is (or even can be) known to the skeptic -- it becomes apparent to most people, after objective reflection, that it's actually the skeptical UFO denier who's exercising something more akin to faith here. Because absent the first-hand data that many UFO witnesses/believers have, the best the skeptical denier can do is revert to wholly specious reasoning: "some UFO cases have been shown to be due to witness misidentification, and real UFOs seem unlikely, so it's probably true that all UFO cases are due to witness misidentification."

One tactic used by UFO deniers is to speak of UFO evidence as if it consists of little more than single-witness, distant-light-in-the-nighttime-sky kinds of cases. But consider instead a multi-witness, daylight, close range type of UFO encounter. A significant and well-represented category of UFO case. One of Hynek's major categories, and Vallee too. And now imagine one of those witnesses here on these forums. How bizarre, even utterly absurd, must the inferential leap that any skeptical denier must make seem to one of those witnesses... to someone who has, with other corroborating individuals, seen the truth of the UFO matter laid out right in front of him, unmistakably? Can you imagine?

The UFO denier's belief, a leap of faith -- for it can be nothing more -- must seem so bizarre and empty and absurd to that kind of witness. Bizarre in a way that the witness's reasoning has never, could never appear to a skeptic... because there is no analog in that other direction. And (importantly) NOR CAN THERE BE. Just by the very nature of the situation and what it means to witness something. The type of UFO witness/believer mentioned above does not have to make any inferential leaps of faith. The skeptical UFO denier MUST make leaps of faith.

How does that point get turned around so frequently?

Also note: the shortcomings present in the radical UFO skeptic's line of reasoning are further highlighted by the thousands of UFO trace and radar-visual cases. It's very hard to claim a witness misidentified something when that something leaves unambiguous and unexplainable marks in the grass or on the ground.

4) Also not discussed enough here: a skeptical UFO denier's answer to the question "if you saw it with your own eyes, would you believe it then?" That's always interesting, because of the issues raised in the prior paragraphs. Either answer the skeptical denier gives to that question eventually leads to some pretty startling realizations about the true nature and source of UFO disbelief. I've seen that discussion play out many times... and never, not once, to the benefit of the skeptical denier. (Which is why the smarter of them often avoid answering it altogether.)

The bottom line is that the smugness and arrogance displayed by some self-labeled 'skeptics' here on ATS, which is more noteworthy than usual in this thread, is not just wholly unjustified. It is absurd, even, to some people, in a way that some witness/believer beliefs are not and cannot possibly be. Because of the ideas hinted at in #3 above (expressed elsewhere much more eloquently than I'm able to), which cannot be overemphasized.

Any skeptic/denier who thinks of himself as the true and rational type of skeptic, yet is continually having to defend against accusations of being a "debunker", might find some pertinent reasons resting somewhere within those concepts? I'll see if I can find some time to dig through a bunch of pdf's for a more thorough and analytical discussion of the ideas. They're important ones, and go to the very foundation of what it means for man or mankind to 'know' things.

I promise that none of this is intended to offend or belittle any true skeptic here. The true skeptic is an essential part of any search for truth. Hopefully that's obvious by now. My intent here was just to highlight a few points that probably deserve more frequent discussion or reminder. This UFO debate is not one where symmetry of knowledge does or can exist. Deniers are busily at work, pretending their point of view occupies the intellectual high ground, while the truth is that they're operating from a position of information deficit. And if you really think about it, it couldn't possibly be otherwise.

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Hey Strumpets! good to see you around. Your thoughts seem much more organized then I remember. Mine are probably not! Anyway, interesting points.

Because of this great disparity in data -- that which is known to many witnesses far outweighing in value that which is (or even can be) known to the skeptic -- it becomes apparent to most people, after objective reflection, that it's actually the skeptical UFO denier who's exercising something more akin to faith here. Because absent the first-hand data that many UFO witnesses/believers have, the best the skeptical denier can do is revert to wholly specious reasoning: "some UFO cases have been shown to be due to witness misidentification, and real UFOs seem unlikely, so it's probably true that all UFO cases are due to witness misidentification."

I don't think the highlighted part is accurate. What do you think the percentage of identified cases are? 95%? 80%?... 50%? Point being even if half the reported cases turn out to be misidentified that would be a significantly larger number than "some". Its OK to quantify the number since there are stats that do exist. "some" is just a little on the subjective side. I consider the "identified" cases to be the cases that were at one time thought to be UFOs. Agree? If you agree then these cases were at one time indistinguishable from the "Unidentified" cases. Can we extrapolate to ALL cases being misidentifications then? I don't think so but that is what we know so there can only be a probability that it is so for the rest. What presents itself to me in this case is an extremely fuzzy set of data where it is virtually impossible to distinguish between identified and unidentified cases. The ONLY difference between the 2 is that there is an explanation for the identified cases and none for the unidentified ones. The problem being the witnesses reporting in an identical fashion in each. Would you say that is true? And what are "Real UFOs"?

But consider instead a multi-witness, daylight, close range type of UFO encounter. A significant and well-represented category of UFO case. One of Hynek's major categories, and Vallee too. And now imagine one of those witnesses here on these forums. How bizarre, even utterly absurd, must the inferential leap that any skeptical denier must make seem to one of those witnesses... to someone who has, with other corroborating individuals, seen the truth of the UFO matter laid out right in front of him, unmistakably? Can you imagine?

That's a good point. Its impossible to determine what someone else experienced or saw. There are many people here that I respect and I have no answer to what they have described they have witnessed. Honestly, the multiple witness thing doesn't much matter. The people I am thinking of are single witnesses. I have no idea what people witness on a personal level. How in the world can anyone say they misidentified or hallucinated something? What I do notice is how much introspection goes on. In the cases where there is absolutely no introspection....I may feel otherwise. We all have experiences.

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I would dearly love to find definitive "proof" of aliens. The problem is that when I've actually looked into a number of cases in detail that the truth seems to lie in a different direction.

So I'll offer the same to you as I did to our mate Scdfella. Look at it as the "Mirageman Challenge".

If you are convinced aliens are regularly visiting this planet then any evidence that convinces you should convince everyone else right?

So let's put it to the test.

What is the best case for proof of aliens coming to earth?

Alfred Bertoo? Rendlesham? Bob Taylor? Alan Godfrey? Ilkley Moor? The A70 Abduction?

Give it your best shot and show us the evidence. If I am too dumb to understand that as proof then you can point out where my intellectual abilities are particularly weak. I'm no Stephen Hawking after all.

Then again even he doesn't believe aliens are visiting earth. So it might be a problem with all of our intelligence levels only being relative to each other's in the greater scheme of things? Now there's a thought.

Mirageman's Challenge Accepted

Good evening, good citizens of ATS. I'd like to address Mirageman's "challenge". Now, I often regard mirageman as one of the more serious-minded posters, so this post disappoints me early. He starts with a false premise :

any evidence that convinces you should convince everyone else right?

Absolutely wrong.

Every person has their own evidentiary requirements, and they range from extremes. We would not be having this discussion otherwise, obviously. Some accept everything, some accept nothing. A scroll back through this thread or any other makes it clear that we treat the same evidence quite differently.

Mirageman will never convince everyone else of anything.
Your hope is to convince any.
Your best hope is to convince many.

For example, I find the evidence for Roswell overwhelmingly convincing. But, although it puzzles me, some do not.
Same evidence, different perception. You cannot change someone else's mind with evidence. Not unless you can change the way they perceive that evidence, but that all comes from within.

And whether you are talking about aliens, or politics, or anything else:
You can't convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced.

That being said, mirageman wants me to select a UFO case that should convince him that aliens are visiting Earth.
And the he offers several:

Socorro? Roswell? Shag Harbour? The Hills Abduction? Travis Walton? Hudson Valley? Varghina? Wot?

Alfred Bertoo? Rendlesham? Bob Taylor? Alan Godfrey? Ilkley Moor? The A70 Abduction?

You see, folks, Mirageman is asking the wrong question.

But - he is providing the correct answer.

The evidence he seeks is not to be found in any one of those UFO cases.

The evidence is all of those UFO cases.

It is this body of evidence that conclusively establishes alien contact as the most likely explanation of these events.

It's easy enough to throw stones at any single UFO or alien encounter report, perhaps enough to raise doubt in anybody who wasn't actually there. But try that with all of these cases, it quickly becomes laughable. It ends up with absurdities like, "weather balloon". "Ball lightning." "Mass hysteria". And let's not forget the timeless classic, "swamp gas."

Millions of people describing the same types of craft and the same types of beings. From all countries, all walks of life. From world leaders to children. From astronauts and pilots to artists and musicians. All reporting the same vehicles, same beings, same procedures.

For seventy years, every year.

The documentation.

And then there is the physical evidence. Thousands of photographs, going back to the 1920s. Film and video, and radar.
Witnesses exposed to radiation, sometimes with terrible consequences.

I don't have to go any further.

And this reveals a tactic used again and again by debunkers, they only want to tackle one individual case. The sheer volume, scope, and longevity of UFOs makes debunking simply impossible.

originally posted by: Ectoplasm8

originally posted by: ZetaRediculian
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

By the way Scdfa- You mentioned you were/are a field investigator for MUFON and reported on a case in 2000 where it was carried on nationwide TV.

We will never know. Its more likely that it was made up to bolster his online persona.

He needs to be accountable for his claims at some point. We shall see if he ignores it.

With his comment, he's boxed himself into a case that happened in 2000, was strong enough to be carried on both local and national television, and claims he led the investigation. The only notable case in 2000 that would have gone as far as nationwide CBS news would most likely have been the sighting by police officers in Illinois. That narrows it down to a few investigators. Unless he can point out another case.

I need to be accountable for my claims? In what way? And accountable to who? You?

2000. Yes, that was the year.
You want to guess about the rest, be my guest, but don't put words in my mouth.
You want to ask me a question you go right ahead.

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I would dearly love to find definitive "proof" of aliens. The problem is that when I've actually looked into a number of cases in detail that the truth seems to lie in a different direction. So I'll offer the same to you as I did to our mate Scdfella. Look at it as the "Mirageman Challenge".

If you are convinced aliens are regularly visiting this planet then any evidence that convinces you should convince everyone else right? So let's put it to the test. What is the best case for proof of aliens coming to earth?....

Then again even [Stephen Hawking] doesn't believe aliens are visiting earth. So it might be a problem with all of our intelligence levels only being relative to each other's in the greater scheme of things? Now there's a thought.
....

1) It sounds like maybe you're conflating (thus, confounding) the two separate concepts of evidence and proof? A very common error. It'd be silly for the skeptic to deny that there is any *evidence* in support of "true UFOs", and probably even more silly for the typical believer to assert that he can produce *proof* of true UFOs. Maybe picking which one of those two things you'd settle for and then keeping the goalpost firmly planted in that spot would be a more productive approach?

2) Truth is thankfully not determined by majority opinion. Especially when so many who offer opinions on this topic are so clearly and demonstrably uninformed.

On the other hand... if there did exist data which showed that the more familiar one becomes with the UFO topic, the more likely one is to believe that non-human intelligence is involved... or data which showed that the higher the education level, the more likely one is to believe that non-human intelligence is involved... well, that would undermine your not-so-subtly implied view that skeptics have a higher "intelligence level" than believers, would it not? Are you aware of any such data existing?

3) For many thousands of people, the most obvious answer to your question "what is the best UFO case?" would probably be "the case that I, myself, was a witness to." A skeptic may not prefer that type of evidence, but he should at least admit that many witness/believers are actually privy to a kind of data and a quality of data that the skeptic simply has no access to.

Meaning that radical "UFO belief" and radical "UFO skepticism" are actually not equally valid, and not equally informed. Most UFO witness/believers are applying an evidentiary filter to their sighting -- "I saw it with my own eyes!" that is trustworthy enough and sufficient enough in every other human endeavor used to get to the true nature of reality.

Because of this great disparity in data -- that which is known to many witnesses far outweighing in value that which is (or even can be) known to the skeptic -- it becomes apparent to most people, after objective reflection, that it's actually the skeptical UFO denier who's exercising something more akin to faith here. Because absent the first-hand data that many UFO witnesses/believers have, the best the skeptical denier can do is revert to wholly specious reasoning: "some UFO cases have been shown to be due to witness misidentification, and real UFOs seem unlikely, so it's probably true that all UFO cases are due to witness misidentification."

One tactic used by UFO deniers is to speak of UFO evidence as if it consists of little more than single-witness, distant-light-in-the-nighttime-sky kinds of cases. But consider instead a multi-witness, daylight, close range type of UFO encounter. A significant and well-represented category of UFO case. One of Hynek's major categories, and Vallee too. And now imagine one of those witnesses here on these forums. How bizarre, even utterly absurd, must the inferential leap that any skeptical denier must make seem to one of those witnesses... to someone who has, with other corroborating individuals, seen the truth of the UFO matter laid out right in front of him, unmistakably? Can you imagine?

The UFO denier's belief, a leap of faith -- for it can be nothing more -- must seem so bizarre and empty and absurd to that kind of witness. Bizarre in a way that the witness's reasoning has never, could never appear to a skeptic... because there is no analog in that other direction. And (importantly) NOR CAN THERE BE. Just by the very nature of the situation and what it means to witness something. The type of UFO witness/believer mentioned above does not have to make any inferential leaps of faith. The skeptical UFO denier MUST make leaps of faith.

How does that point get turned around so frequently?

Also note: the shortcomings present in the radical UFO skeptic's line of reasoning are further highlighted by the thousands of UFO trace and radar-visual cases. It's very hard to claim a witness misidentified something when that something leaves unambiguous and unexplainable marks in the grass or on the ground.

4) Also not discussed enough here: a skeptical UFO denier's answer to the question "if you saw it with your own eyes, would you believe it then?" That's always interesting, because of the issues raised in the prior paragraphs. Either answer the skeptical denier gives to that question eventually leads to some pretty startling realizations about the true nature and source of UFO disbelief. I've seen that discussion play out many times... and never, not once, to the benefit of the skeptical denier. (Which is why the smarter of them often avoid answering it altogether.)

The bottom line is that the smugness and arrogance displayed by some self-labeled 'skeptics' here on ATS, which is more noteworthy than usual in this thread, is not just wholly unjustified. It is absurd, even, to some people, in a way that some witness/believer beliefs are not and cannot possibly be. Because of the ideas hinted at in #3 above (expressed elsewhere much more eloquently than I'm able to), which cannot be overemphasized.

Any skeptic/denier who thinks of himself as the true and rational type of skeptic, yet is continually having to defend against accusations of being a "debunker", might find some pertinent reasons resting somewhere within those concepts? I'll see if I can find some time to dig through a bunch of pdf's for a more thorough and analytical discussion of the ideas. They're important ones, and go to the very foundation of what it means for man or mankind to 'know' things.

I promise that none of this is intended to offend or belittle any true skeptic here. The true skeptic is an essential part of any search for truth. Hopefully that's obvious by now. My intent here was just to highlight a few points that probably deserve more frequent discussion or reminder. This UFO debate is not one where symmetry of knowledge does or can exist. Deniers are busily at work, pretending their point of view occupies the intellectual high ground, while the truth is that they're operating from a position of information deficit. And if you really think about it, it couldn't possibly be otherwise.

This is a phenomenal post, you put me to shame, but I was thrilled to read it. You beat the challenge.

a reply to: Ectoplasm8

By the way Scdfa- You mentioned you were/are a field investigator for MUFON and reported on a case in 2000 where it was carried on nationwide TV. Would that be the floating triangle seen by police officers in early 2000? I linked a YouTube video of it on page 4.

No, I was not involved with that sighting. My interview, as I stated, involved a spate of sightings, not a single event.

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

1) It sounds like maybe you're conflating (thus, confounding) the two separate concepts of evidence and proof? A very common error. It'd be silly for the skeptic to deny that there is any *evidence* in support of "true UFOs", and probably even more silly for the typical believer to assert that he can produce *proof* of true UFOs. Maybe picking which one of those two things you'd settle for and then keeping the goalpost firmly planted in that spot would be a more productive approach?

I don't think there is any doubt among skeptics or believers that "true UFO's" exist. It's the identification process which separates the two.

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets
2) Truth is thankfully not determined by majority opinion. Especially when so many who offer opinions on this topic are so clearly and demonstrably uninformed.

I completely agree.

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

By the way Scdfa- You mentioned you were/are a field investigator for MUFON and reported on a case in 2000 where it was carried on nationwide TV. Would that be the floating triangle seen by police officers in early 2000? I linked a YouTube video of it on page 4.

No, I was not involved with that sighting. My interview, as I stated, involved a spate of sightings, not a single event.

Any particular reason you can't be more specific?

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

By the way Scdfa- You mentioned you were/are a field investigator for MUFON and reported on a case in 2000 where it was carried on nationwide TV. Would that be the floating triangle seen by police officers in early 2000? I linked a YouTube video of it on page 4.

No, I was not involved with that sighting. My interview, as I stated, involved a spate of sightings, not a single event.

Any particular reason you can't be more specific?

I think I revealed why but the post was removed. Every May 6th I notice my posts are removed from the night before. I think its a glitch in the system. Very strange.

a reply to: Scdfa

The sheer volume, scope, and longevity of UFOs makes debunking simply impossible.

Its impossible to debunk someone's imaginary vapor. I agree.

originally posted by: draknoir2

originally posted by: Scdfa
a reply to: Ectoplasm8

By the way Scdfa- You mentioned you were/are a field investigator for MUFON and reported on a case in 2000 where it was carried on nationwide TV. Would that be the floating triangle seen by police officers in early 2000? I linked a YouTube video of it on page 4.

No, I was not involved with that sighting. My interview, as I stated, involved a spate of sightings, not a single event.

Any particular reason you can't be more specific?

Yes, a very good reason. I have no intention of revealing my identity to you. If you want to post your identity, go right ahead.