Originally posted by gameisupman

I took the initiative..

Well congratulations, it's the first time you've ever done that on these boards.

You make some fair points about certain cases in the previous post but before we discuss the subject of physical trace evidence for specific UFO incidents can I ask you if you're the same person posting behind ATS members 'Mainlinethis' and 'IgnoreTheFacts'?

If it is you Jerry then hello.

So we have around 3-5k physical trace evidence reports, a lot (if not a vast majority) of which has been investigated by CfPTR & Ted. Now, we already have one 'event' - the Flatwoods monster - which supposedly had hard evidence of metal & liquid at the site removed.

So statistically, Ted should have also come across some other form of more substansial/hard evidence (like the Flatwoods event) by now. I mean, lets look at it from from this angle: are we honestly saying that 1 in 3.5 thousand cases of UFO landings result in hard (and I mean something other than scorched soil or slight changes in chemical composition) evidence; it just so happened that the said hard evidence was 'taken' and not returned?Come on, really? Do you think that it's just a little too convienient?

If we are talking extraterrestrial craft, and mean spaceships, regardless of what propulsion they would use (even those potentially outside of our current understanding of physics, thermodynamics and with a chemical make up not even necessarily on our version of the periodic table), surely we should have more? I mean much more. I mean proof. Actual proof that we are being visited by something we cannot explain. You cannot have 3.5k events of something touching something (craft + ground in this case) else without more evidence than is currently offered as a physical trace. Look at modern forensics for example: we are mere scientifically backward humans by comparison to a race who can build a spaceship & fly it here and yet can we find microscopic traces of blood on clothing, skin under fingernails, DNA(!!!!!) contamination at crime scenes. And yet, in 3.5k alleged landings there is nothing more than dehydrated soil, slight variations in EXISTING chemical composition and nothing really more of any substance (excuse the pun)

And almost 60 years later and we actually don't have anything. Anything validated by several respected laborotories. Anything which can now be taken in to any modern University and tested by even their lowly science department. They're not spooks! They don't work for the Government and have a protocol which tells them to send all hard evidence to a secret agency with no questions asked.

I do honestly believe that we are not alone. I also believe there is a very slight chance we have been 'visited', it would stand to reason. We ARE interesting. We ARE one of a kind in the solar system. So I'm not a debunker.

But look at the trace evidence. Whilst some of it is unusual, almost* all of it IS explainable with current science. Almost all of it IS composed from our current periodic table. *Sure I said 'almost' as nothing is definitive and, in my heart of hearts, I hope I'm not right!

I credit the work being done by Ted but you have to put it into perspective. We have no evidence as a result of the physical trace research.