But at the same time, what I am hungry for is details. For me disclosure has happened the day that we have an UFO museum or interviews with aliens. The day that we can freely ask as many questions as can be answered.
Originally posted by Orkojoker
Originally posted by NavalFC
Originally posted by Orkojoker
reply to post by NavalFC
Regarding lack of physical evidence, there is some, although it's not a chunk of a UFO. There are lots of documented anomalous environmental traces associated with UFO "landings" as well as very consistent patterns of electromagnetic effects on aircraft. Not to mention some unexplained, yet apparently unhoaxed, photographs and film footage. There are also a good number of official government documents indicating that something quite abnormal is going on regarding this phenomenon.
If you need UFOs to be littering the countryside with shavings from their hulls before you will begin to consider the possibility of their reality, you might remain forever doubtful. There are many other phenomena, however, for which there is no available physical evidence but which most people accept as part of reality; for instance, most commonly acknowledged historical events, the entire field of psychology, and consciousness itself. One question I rarely see addressed by people who ask for physical evidence is this: What kind of physical evidence would you expect to find in relation to this phenomenon?
A UFO hull would be helpful yes. Ground traces and blurry photos dont say much. As far as the documents go, documents of the time seem to suggest that the govt viewed UFOs in the context of possible soviet aggression. people need to remember that the cold war was a time of utmost paranoia and nothing was above reproach, lest we forget the age of McArthystic paranoia. So it seems reasonable that the govt would express concern to people reporting unknown aircraft in US airspace.
As to the types pf physical evidence id personally want to see? some kind of tangible item or technology from an alien ship or ship itself, that shows to be of nonhuman origin or the ship to come into such close proximity that one can tell it is an aircraft under intelligent control. In all of these UFO photos and videos, the object is always so far away from the viewer it appears as a light, or if its closer its always so blurry. a case wherein a UFO appears close enough to those who observe it to distinguish it as an intelligently operated aircraft would be helpful.
But UFO reports tend to follow in droves of the same description, when large demographics hear one report others start "seeing" things like it.
For example, George adamski is mentioned in another thread. During the "contactee" era, Aliens were described much the way adamski described his aliens, as being human like and benevolent in demeanor. Then enter Betty Hill, obsessed UFO'er who has an alien encounter. From then on the aliens take a similar stance , in the reports, and the classic grey is born.
Infact, I bet if I took a given location, and invented a story with regard to anomalies that were supposed to have allegedly been seen at that location, then spread the story that soon reports of anomalies as described would flood in, even though I made the entire history up.
NavalFC, I would definitely like to have a UFO to examine too, but I don't think it's reasonable to expect that to happen. The phenomenon seems to be rather elusive by nature. Ground traces may not say much, but I wouldn't say that empirically detectable anomalous environmental changes found at sites where UFOs are claimed to have touched down and which are consistent across hundreds of cases on several continents are anything to sneeze at.
I too lament the dearth of really good photos and videos, but there are some nice ones to choose from. The famous pic taken during the Belgian wave of 1989-90 is pretty exceptional in my opinion. As I understand it, the McMinnville photo has undergone some pretty extensive analysis and has stood up quite well. I've seen some decent-looking videos as well, but I could never rule out fakery on any of them Any photo or video is only as reliable as the witness testimony that accompanies it, and if you are not willing to accept witness testimony, photographic evidence goes right out the _
It should be pointed out that many of the earliest reports came from within the U.S. military itself. Reports from Air Force pilots were what initially piqued official interest, not stories told by civilians. And if you read the relevant literature, you find that the idea that UFOs were a Soviet creation was discarded pretty early on. A couple good places to start are with Edward Ruppelt's book, which can be read for free at this link:
...and this paper written by Michael Swords, which details the early days of Project Sign:
As far as documents go, Richard Dolan has written a good article that briefly discusses a few of the more interesting documents that have been released:
In response to your last statement regarding how easy it would be to get loads of people to report anomalous events just by planting a story in a community, I don't think you could do that nearly as easily as you think you could. And if you are trying to attribute the core of the UFO phenomenon to that kind of sociological effect, I'm going to have to guess that you are relatively uninformed on the topic.
The book examines various scenarios that could occur, and probably will, regarding increased transparency during and after events and processes related to the UFO phenomena.