UFOs Hard Evidence

I did a search and was surprised not to see these documentaries here, it's a series of investigative documentaries on the phenomena of UFOs and quite frankly some of the better ones I've seen to date. If you are sick of cut and paste jobs on Youtube where the "best evidence" or "MUST WATCH 2016!" videos reign supreme then you might enjoy this.

I promise it isn't just a blend of multiple documentaries

Vol 1



Vol 2



Vol 3



Vol 4



Vol 5



Vol 6



Vol 7




Mods, apologies if these have been posted, I searched through about 7 pages and didn't find them.

let me tell you. if
the name of the videos are dubbed 'hard evidence' , its guaranteed there's 0 hard evidence.

- if those old videos were considered hard evidence when they were made ( sometime ago by the looks), why wasn't the UFO myth dispelled after they were released back then...

if they weren't hard evidence then, why are they now?

originally posted by: odzeandennz
let me tell you. if
the name of the videos are dubbed 'hard evidence' , its guaranteed there's 0 hard evidence.

- if those old videos were considered hard evidence when they were made ( sometime ago by the looks), why wasn't the UFO myth dispelled after they were released back then...

if they weren't hard evidence then, why are they now?

Well to be considerate, if you watch the videos they have interviews with people who are still considered pioneers in the UFO phenomena and at the time they were released they could have been considered to hold "hard evidence".

Multiple sightings/recordings, controversial interviews and even implants... The hosts actually go out and do actual investigative journalism, confirming radar signals for instance.


You tell me why the UFO phenomena is constantly and vehemently dismissed?

Nobody could say Stan Friedman is an idiot and he is still very much involved with the phenomena, for some there will never be enough evidence.

Oh and that's the name of the series, I'm not sure why the producers named them such but if you care to watch you might learn something you didn't know.

My internet connection where I am is so poor I am unable to link any videos..

But the most scientific look into UFO's that I ever watched was regarding the Hessdalen Lights in Norway

en.wikipedia.org...

If you want a proper look into this from a team of researchers that where stationed there I am sure there is a 5-6 episode on Youtube in English that covers their findings.

If this hamster here ever runs fast enough to power my internet to anything about 1870's speed I will check your links out...

RA

originally posted by: odzeandennz
let me tell you. if
the name of the videos are dubbed 'hard evidence' , its guaranteed there's 0 hard evidence.

- if those old videos were considered hard evidence when they were made ( sometime ago by the looks), why wasn't the UFO myth dispelled after they were released back then...

if they weren't hard evidence then, why are they now?

That's because it doesn't matter how hard your evidence is, the majority of people won't believe it unless the government confirms it.

The minority of people realise the government are just a bunch of lying toe rags and they'll never admit to this phenomenon.

Someone once said that if there was real proof of something it wouldn't require 10 or 20 'proofs', it would just require one.

If there was any real evidence that a 'light in the sky' or a 'daytime disc' was a non-terrestrial craft being piloted by sentient or intelligent non-terrestrials, we'd know about it.

All we have right now are stories, drawings, and as far as I know there is no evidence of a non-human piloting a craft.

The Betty and Barney Hill case was a 'story', even though parts of it had veracity.

The South American case was of an 'alien' coming out of a craft already on the ground.

The Roswell story involved non-terrestrials in a 'craft' already on the ground.

The Lonnie Zamora story involved someone in a silver suit coming from a craft already on the ground (which did, then, according to him, fly away).

I think it's easy to discount stories like Travis Walton.

So what is 'hard evidence'. It would be procured, captured, possessed in hand, of non-terrestrial artifacts, DNA-like material, composites or substances that are not in the periodic chart, or perhaps a real body of a non-human, non-terrestrial that could be verified as not 'grown' on Earth, or manufactured on Earth.

People say that skeptics would not believe in aliens even if they saw one. Well, that's not true. If, for example there was a live video feed of extraterrestrials building bases out in the open on the Moon, that could be verified by non-US-gubmint sources, then it would be pretty convincing.

But we know that in this era of convincing CGI, dedicated hoaxers, and even ability to project convincing seemingly solid hologram images in the sky, that there really is nothing 'science-fiction' that can't be faked. Thus, yes, it is very hard to convince skeptics, but not impossible.

Also, be aware that 'evidence is not 'proof', but a preponderance of the right kind of evidence could work. Remember, stories like those told by Col. Corso, even if from 'high-ranking' credible people, are just stories.

We all know that a surgeon who was hoaxing the Loch Ness Monster was a professional and touted as someone who wouldn't 'lie'. We all know that guys could have credentials, such as having worked at Los Alamos, or Area 51, and still be capable of telling a story (or being fooled).

FWIW

a reply to: Maverick7

I know this does not prove anything, but i have seen a ufo, just like in the -i want to believe poster-.

I saw it pretty close, in daylight, even got a bad picture of it.

I do not know if it was operated by Hu-Man or not.

originally posted by: jamespond

originally posted by: odzeandennz
let me tell you. if
the name of the videos are dubbed 'hard evidence' , its guaranteed there's 0 hard evidence.

- if those old videos were considered hard evidence when they were made ( sometime ago by the looks), why wasn't the UFO myth dispelled after they were released back then...

if they weren't hard evidence then, why are they now?

That's because it doesn't matter how hard your evidence is, the majority of people won't believe it unless the government confirms it.

The minority of people realise the government are just a bunch of lying toe rags and they'll never admit to this phenomenon.

Well, either that, or more likely they aren't hard evidence at all and are just posing hypothetical questions which are wrapped up and given a veneer of credibility they don't necessarily deserve. Von Daniken was seen as providing hard evidence in the '70's but I'm not sure if anything he posited hasn't been shown to be wrong either through lack of knowledge around cultures either ancient or foreign to his own, or out and out faked (and admitted to). Berlitz was somewhat similar also in the '70's.

It's much easier to say it's all true but the government are lying as it apparently removes the need to provide the real evidence, but that's why this dance keeps on going round and round isn't it.

a reply to: Maverick7

I agree somewhat, we've had plenty of evidence of strange goings on and still do get a lot of it, such as the ball light phenomena but that doesn't equate to extraterrestrials. I don't think there's ever been a smoking gun but you cannot deny that something has been going on for at least the last 60 years nearly.

Paper trails exist within the US government alone of investigations into the phenomena even if you minus the controversial MJ-12 documents you still have a mountain of documents to go through. The pile keeps getting bigger too.

I know my own government were falsely stating they don't investigate UFO's and also state they don't present a defence risk, not sure how they kept a straight face over the years. It's either you know what they are and they don't pose a risk or you don't know what they are and you are lying, the UK takes defence very seriously.

We have a multitude of cases with multiple witnesses, Phoenix lights and the Belgian wave comes to mind. The latter of which has radar tracking and testimonies from military and civilian alike. Something buzzed around the North sea, nobody can deny that.

Gosh darn, Soviet Russia and the USA almost caused nuclear armageddon when both nations tracked a "fleet of bombers" near or over the Bearing sea, each naturally thinking their counter-part was launching a pre-emptive attack. But radars do spoof and pilots can misidentify although nobody can deny "hard evidence" of UFOs exist.

We civilians will never get the truth when what has been sighted or detected on radar was most likely a top secret aircraft, the kings of this field (USA) are excellent at keeping their toys under wraps for as long as possible.

So is there evidence of UFOs? You betcha. Is it evidence of aliens or something out of this world? Maybe, maybe not but I can guarantee some people clicked on when the B2 bomber or the SR-71 was unveiled to the world.

UFO - Unidentified Flying Object.

a reply to: slider1982

But the most scientific look into UFO's that I ever watched was regarding the Hessdalen Lights in Norway en.wikipedia.org... If you want a proper look into this from a team of researchers that where stationed there I am sure there is a 5-6 episode on Youtube in English that covers their findings.

There you go my friend. I must have posted this a half a dozen times now. Six minutes explains it all in a nutshell



These objects exhibit many of the properties and characteristics noted in "UFO" sightings. The Norwegian government is not covering anything up. Nobody is jumping to the conclusion that "...them there lights is alienz. Because I don't know what else could it be..."

Hessdalen is also one of those places in the world where, although the phenomenon is rare, it does make repeat appearances.

a reply to: uncommitted

Well you tell me how the governments own project blue book can conclude there's nothing to UFO's even wih no explanation to 701 cases?
Tell me why all US government agencies hold secret files on UFO's and won't reveal this information in its entirety to the public, while still denying that any such files exist?
Tell me how it's not solid evidence for the reality of UFO's when an anti gravity aircraft flies over a school in australia, lands in the playground for the whole school to stand and watch for 20 minutes before taking off again?

I think for a lot of people it helps them sleep at night when the government comes out and says there's no evidence for UFO's. Fair play to them i say. On the other hand some aren't so easily fooled!

The day will come when the crowd who think we're alone in the universe are tossed onto the scrap heap with the flat earthers, the ones who knew it was impossible to fly and the ones who knew we were the centre of the universe. The day will come!!!

originally posted by: jamespond
a reply to: uncommitted

Well you tell me how the governments own project blue book can conclude there's nothing to UFO's even wih no explanation to 701 cases?
Tell me why all US government agencies hold secret files on UFO's and won't reveal this information in its entirety to the public, while still denying that any such files exist?
Tell me how it's not solid evidence for the reality of UFO's when an anti gravity aircraft flies over a school in australia, lands in the playground for the whole school to stand and watch for 20 minutes before taking off again?

I think for a lot of people it helps them sleep at night when the government comes out and says there's no evidence for UFO's. Fair play to them i say. On the other hand some aren't so easily fooled!

The day will come when the crowd who think we're alone in the universe are tossed onto the scrap heap with the flat earthers, the ones who knew it was impossible to fly and the ones who knew we were the centre of the universe. The day will come!!!

Calm down and show proof and I will listen, millions will.

Who says we are alone in the universe? That is a totally separate point. Don't mix the two together.

a reply to: jamespond

Well you tell me how the governments own project blue book can conclude there's nothing to UFO's even wih no explanation to 701 cases? Tell me why all US government agencies hold secret files on UFO's and won't reveal this information in its entirety to the public, while still denying that any such files exist?

Calm down Yorkshire lad. The reality of UFOs was confirmed long ago. What the hell do you think Project's Sign, Grudge and Bluebook were a study of? Or the UK's own Flying Saucer Working Party?

The problem is that popular culture has ingrained into our minds that UFO = Alien Spacecraft

Your post even shows signs of confusion between the existence of unidentified flying objects and us being alone in the universe when you say :

I think for a lot of people it helps them sleep at night when the government comes out and says there's no evidence for UFO's. Fair play to them i say. On the other hand some aren't so easily fooled! The day will come when the crowd who think we're alone in the universe are tossed onto the scrap heap with the flat earthers, the ones who knew it was impossible to fly and the ones who knew we were the centre of the universe. The day will come!!! ...

Clear your thoughts. UFOs do exist. Get past that and you will then discover that a much murkier world exists where intelligence communities infuse the UFO world with disinformation and misinformation. Perhaps to conceal secret technologies or perhaps there is something more?

That is where the true mystery lies.

a reply to: jamespond

At the end of the day at the nuts and bolts end of this phenomena we have the military, they will always be the ones with more ability to detect and observe, for instance NASA as an agency probably dreams about having the backing and technical know how of the US military. No two ways about it, NASA can dream big but when it comes to the crunch only the US military could for instance launch 200 missiles at the Moon. It's easy to fathom and the same story goes for the European Space Agency or their Russian, Chinese or Indian counterparts.

Basically in a nut shell, if anyone had evidence it would be military and it is worth noting as you said, far too many documents concerning UFOs are classified and as democracy takes effect and more files are admitted to public scrutiny it becomes more and more apparent something isn't right.

When hundreds of documents or thousands if you count internationally are partially or fully withheld for "national security" reasons yet most governments state UFOs pose no risk... You have to ask yourself, how many B2s or Tu-160s do we not know about.

In all honesty aliens is probably the more acceptable circumstance when you think about it!

a reply to: mirageman

The problem is that popular culture has ingrained into our minds that UFO = Alien Spacecraft

Bang on fella

a reply to: solve


did you get a good look at the underside of the vehicle in any detail?

a reply to: RAY1990

Just thought I would take the time to come back and comment. I figured if I can make useless time watching Netflix, I can also maybe take some time to give these videos a chance since the op seems so excited about them. To learn any new kernel of evidence of this topic is always a plus too me.

I am now on the third video and have been pleasantly surprised. The OP is correct on the point that is isn't a bunch or repeat documentaries strung together. I have now learned of quite a few new things I wasn't aware of. Even some comments from Nick Pope that I had never heard before, as well as Clifford Stone.

The only negative thing I have to say about the videos are the quality of them. After being spoiled with HiDef, it is hard to see some of the videos of evidence shown. Still though, this doesn't take away from the meat of the matter being presented.

Yes, there are a few repeats of things, but they are tackled from a different direction than the usual norm of presentation.

So all in all, I think it is worth the time to watch them. Thank you RAY for bringing them to the table.

a reply to: RAY1990

We really don't need to see a bunch of tired ol' videos to convince us of the reality of UFOs. The "hard evidence" exists. Scientists depend on hard evidence, circumstantial evidence won't do. Ditto for the justice system. In UFOlogy there is no hard evidence, just circumstantial. But it's overwhelming as it isn't one individual providing it, it's millions of us. Our experiences give circumstantial evidence legitimacy. I'm not talking about belief but about the by now millions of images from stills, emulsion film movie footage, camcorders, cell phones, etc. "Solid" evidence.

We don't need no stinkin' Unidentified Aerial Object (UAO) anymore! Skeptics still do, but who cares about them? And the people in the videos cannot produce any "hard evidence", all that they are able to do is just talk.

a reply to: onehuman

I feel I should have better explained the videos...

The documentaries were made by a few people but namely the same people who made the UFO magazine UK edition, these documentaries were to supplement the magazine and approach the topic in a more objective way compared to the 100's of UFO documentaries at the time. It showed a lot of promise.

Unfortunately it all collapsed with the death of Graham Birdsall, that's the chap who does the narrating and interviews. Before my time as I was a kid when these came out but he was considered a mentor and friend by many respected in the field and I can see why... Maybe other members will have more knowledge on him.

a reply to: klassless

I was going to write a post on the circumstantial nature of evidence and UFOs, if UFOs are to be faced with scrutiny they have to be faced with individual scrutiny because it's a phenomena a one that has became very varied. If we were dealing with an individual committing fraud, murder or any crime the mountain of circumstantial evidence would eventually land them a conviction. But UFO's are individual case by case and should be treated as such.

Using all the potential evidence of all past UFOs on a case by case basis is absurd, it would be like pinning every fraud that hasn't been solved on one fraudster because the evidence points out they are a fraudster.

For some their conviction is enough, they don't need evidence. It's also true that for some the release of a top secret airframe is enough, they've finally identified what to them was a UFO.

I'm of an opinion that we actually need more investigative journalism in the UFO field, otherwise lights in the sky will just be that, lights in the sky. We need people asking the right people the right questions and not just talk. Ufology seems a joke compared to the investigations done in the 1990's and very early 2000's, now everyone screams aliens and has wild assumptions as if they have a clue.

No, investigations can still hold credit and other than investigating what is and what isn't and probing would be authorities such as the Aviation field, military coast gaurds etc all we will ever have is people talking about lights and such.