Listen: if you want the rest of us to believe you, you'd better settle your differences, put your heads together and come up with a single,
consistent story. Some scientifically credible proof would probably help a bit, too.
Well, if there was PROOF, wouldn't be an issue, would it?
There is plenty of scientifically credible EVIDENCE though, and that is why there are a few well-credentialled people involved in such research.
A single, consistent story would prove nothing. Most stories involving Santa Claus are consistent, yet you don't see his non-existence as
"questioned" do you?
The real reason there is so much dissention in the UFO community, is because it is highly subjective as to which case/s different researchers feel are
not genuine. And, some researchers are less careful in their research than others.
For example, there are some researchers who believe the Billy Meier case, and some who do not (I'm firmly in the NOT category). There are some who
feel the Mexican Air Force infrared video footage captured spaceships...to me, it's just oil rig fires... For just about every case, you'll find
researchers who do and those who do not believe the evidence supports an extraterrestrial craft as the most logical conclusion.
Myself, I often find that the evidence points away from extraterrestrial craft, or at least isn't substantial enough to warrant that conclusion.
However, if even ONE or a handfull of cases DO seem to fit that explanation best, well THAT is something worth pondering and further
investigation...and these are often the ones I most often devote my time to.
Currently, I'm about 3/4 of the way into my investigation of the Phoenix Lights case. So far, I'm not seeing any substantial evidence that flares
couldn't account for BOTH sighting periods...(I know, I know...just wait and see what I present, THEN we can all discuss) and I found that really
surprising. But, so far, its what the evidence is showing. Not going further into it here, but I'll present all of my evidence in the massive thread,
along with pics, maps, the whole bit.
I actually went into the Roswell Case initially expecting to find more evidence supporting the Mogul theory, but the more I investigated, the more
holes the Mogul explanation had, until it eventually just unravelled. I just follow the evidence, and see where it leads. Many UFO researchers need to
profit off their research, and do it for a living. This necessity creates a need to produce something that "sells". Often, this can create a direct
conflict with truth and trust, and we see exaggerations or just outright lies. Luckily for me, it's an intellectual hobby, and I have no such agenda.
I present the evidence, and my conclusion based on that evidence. I frankly enjoy those with other viewpoints, as it may allow me to see holes in my
argument, or even learn other facts that I didn't come across in my research.
While I wouldn't mind getting a book out at some point in my lifetime, it would be to inform, not to "get rich". I'd definitely NEVER want to
speak at a UFO convention or anything to try and "sell" it, though a discussion panel would probably be interesting.
What do you make of the fact that people's stories don't add up?
Keep in mind that when an airplane crashed into the ocean off of Long Island, observers on the ground gave entirely differing reports of what happened
to the aircraft. Assuming all of them actually saw the aircraft, the key point is that they all saw the aircraft crash. This was the anomolous and
tragic event they witnessed. The details, well, they don't seem to fit with the reality of what happened, but fit more with the people who claimed
them. That doesn't mean that an event, (an aircraft crash) didn't happen
The majority of witnesses (to anything) are not skilled witnesses. That is why sightings made by pilots and military officers are held to be more
credible. These individuals are used to what they see in the sky, and are more qualified to rule out other possibilities. Just like witnesses to a
crime. Witnesses rarely agree, based on their own observation skills, memory, and personal feelings, etc. Different witnesses may describe the same
suspect as black, hispanic, Puerto Rican, Indian, etc. especially if they are of a different race, and have little exposure to such individuals.
Likewise, they may not all remember the color of his jacket, height, weight, etc. UFO witnesses are no different. A pilot may estimate the height of
an object at 5000 feet, while another witness says 1000 feet, and yet another says 500. Same goes for size. A yellow light to me may look orange to
someone else (especially given my colorblindness, hehe...).
Then you have abductions....
With the exception of the Hill Case, and the Travis Walton Case, I simply can't buy into the majority of these...especially repeat abductions and
Why not? Simple, because I just cannot fathom that anyone in regular contact with Extraterrestrial beings can't seem to get a picture of them, the
interior of their craft, or give some kind of other irrefutable evidence to back up such a claim.
In the Hill Case, we have 1) an initial reluctance to tell the story, 2) military reports, investigation, etc., 3) the starmap...simply incredible.
(to those unaware, it isn't just the pattern, it's the fact that the COLOR of stars are denoted, before some of that info was even KNOWN about
them!), 4) expert testimony of one of THE most prominent psychologists of the military, etc., etc.
Whereas abductees like Billy Meier claim to talk to aliens on a regular basis, and only produce UFO pics of models, screenshots off of tv programs,
and regular humans (face out of frame) wearing gold foil jumpsuits with pvc pipe ray guns....
So yeah, little wonder why there is some dissention in the ranks, hehe.....
[edit on 6-9-2006 by Gazrok]