Suppose we asked the government to show us all evidence bearing on the existence of the Higgs Boson. They would rightly say, we have no evidence of the existence of the Higgs yet. Does that mean we should not look for the Higgs Boson? Does it mean that we should shut down the LHC? -- The answer to both questions is no.

Suppose we asked the government to show us all evidence bearing on the existence of superconductors with critical temperatures above 300K? They would rightly say, we have no evidence of the existence of superconductors with critical temperatures above 300K. Should we then quit all research on high temperature superconductors? -- The answer is no.

I have argued with skeptics who reason in a circular manner: anomalous phenomena should not be researched until we get more evidence. Yet, I ask, how can we get more evidence, yes or no, without doing more research? There would be no point in doing research if we had sufficient evidence. - What use would it serve to search for the Higgs Boson if you have already found it or shown that it cannot exist?

The question then becomes what kinds of theoretical or anomalous phenomena deserve research and experimentation? Simply because certain theoretical phenomena has a strong theoretical backing, does not mean it exists and conversely simply because certain anomalous phenomena does not have a strong theoretical backing does not mean it does not exist. - It is nature that decides what phenomena exists.

This brings up another question, scientists find it unfamiliar to ask government agencies to verify or falsify the existence of phenomena. It should be equally strange to ask a government to explain dark matter as it is to ask them to explain what appear to be ET visitations. A possible reason why the scientific community may not view it as strange is because, up to now, only governments had the resources and equipment necessary to collect sufficient data. Moreover, the main purpose of these resources and equipment is not to collect data on ET visitations, so much data relevant to ET researcher may be ignored.

Most fields of research do not require the approval of government agencies to be considered legitimate. For example, which government approved physics to be a legitimate field of research? How about medicine? Or mathematics? These fields are considered legitimate because they have proven themselves to give testable, repeatable, falsifiable predictions. (in the case of mathematics, proofs)

The only real way to make progress is find testable, repeatable, falsifiable predictions about ET visitations. Then design, build, and test your own equipment and test the theories. Like I said in the beginning of this entire post, the only real way you will ever get disclosure is if you go out and get the data yourself, with your own equipment. Whether it be sending up your own satellite or rover and sending and receiving signals with your own antennas, designing a passive radar, doing spectroscopy with a DSLR camera, or simply doing historical research.

There is a theory out there that claims that SOME of the best UFO cases may be explained by living creatures. Though this may be plausible, there may be SOME unknown creatures in the upper atmosphere, it cannot account for most of of the best UFO sightings.

Much of the best UFO data indicate that:

1. These objects are solid, are capable of moving at 1000's of mph in the lower atmosphere.

2. Can accelerate from 0 mph to 1000's mph in 1 - 2s.

3. Can move at and accelerate to 1000's mph in the lower atmosphere with NO SONIC BOOM.

3. They Fly in formation.

4. Some objects are very large 0.25 mi long, in some cases.

5. They produce much heat, sometimes to the point of burning.

6. Some craft have been reported to be highly radioactive.

7. They are attracted to nuclear power plants (the air force "conceded" this in 1952)

8. NASA footage has shown these objects flying and maneuvering in space.

So let's test the "creature explanation" against the data.

1. How does the creature move? What propulsion system does it use? Most flying creatures use the flapping of wings, which cannot provide the performance.

2. What biological and chemical processes can furnish the energy to move these creatures? They would have to eat a tremendous amount, if these creatures are the size of whales, they would have to eat all the time. Not to mention if these creatures live in the upper atmosphere then there is very little food. If they use solar power or electromagnetic energy then their metabolism must be explainable or at least addressable by known biological and chemical processes.

3. If these creatures are material, which all known creatures are, then how could they explain the fact that when they accelerate to 1000 mph in the lower atmosphere no SONIC BOOM is heard. Any and all man made craft going faster than the speed of sound the lower atmosphere create a sonic boom. So how do these creatures not create a sonic boom when traveling faster than the speed of sound?

4. How could biological creatures account for the cases where the craft are radioactive. Radioactivity often destroys living tissue. Also how could they account for the fact that these creatures are seen more often around nuclear power plants? Unless these creatures have radiation detectors, how would they know that certain human built structure is a nuclear power plant - this may indicate the UFOs are intelligent enough to recognize human built objects.

5. There is no known biological process that can create a skin about the size of jet that can withstand the temperatures of aerodynamic heating. While traveling at 1000's mph or greater in the atmosphere air friction will heat up the skin of the craft often to very high temperatures. The SR-71 needed to use titanium to withstand the temperatures, what biological process can make a metallic or ceramic - like shell that can withstand those temperatures?

6. Speaking from a strictly evolutionary standpoint, how did these creatures evolve? The upper atmosphere is not very hospitable to ANY form of life, if these creatures evolved (which we believe all or most creatures did) then how did the proto-creatures survive in the upper atmosphere? High levels of radiation harm living tissue, though simple organisms maybe able to survive, how do complex organisms survive with constant high radiation?

7. NASA footage has shown what appear to be UFOs in space, outside the atmosphere. This raises other problems, first how do these creatures move outside the atmosphere? What food source is there in the vacuum of space? How do these creatures withstand reentry?

With all these questions, it seems unlikely that living creatures could account for all UFO sightings.

Other countries have historically been far more open to admitting the possibility of ET-UFOs in their skies than the US. For example in the early 90's there were many sightings of triangular craft in Belgium, it is amazing how they handled the situation, according to Lesle Kean:

Kean (2010) "We must remember that the 1989-90 UFO wave in Belgium was handled rationally, openly, and responsibly by the government." (p. 156)

Kean (2010) "The [Belgian] air force was not only responsive, but was even proactive in it's investigation, looking for craft on multiple radar systems, scrambling F-16s to intercept on 3 occasions, and then holding a press conference to explain all this to the public. In addition state of the art analysis was provided by a number of laboratories on [the photographs]". (p. 156)

Kean (2010) "And to take it even a step further, the Belgian Air Force made all its data and ever resource, including radar stations and even aircraft, available to a highly competent group of civilian scientists." (p. 156)

Kean (2010) "Through it all, the Belgian government did not hide information, issue false explanations, or ridicule witnesses" (p. 156)

None of the common excuses against disclosure came to pass; society didn't crumble, people didn't panic, the economy did not fall, not only in Belgium, but nearly all countries with many UFO sightings. So why has the US government and science establishment been so hostile to the concept of ET-UFOs? They have some serious issues they need to work through.

1. Kean, Leslie. (2010) UFOs Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go On the Record. New York: Three Rivers Press.

Originally posted by deloprator20000
So why has the US government and science establishment been so hostile to the concept of ET-UFOs? They have some serious issues they need to work through.

The serious issue you're talking about is national security, and they're not in any hurry to "work through" that issue. A little thing like keeping the nation in existence is pretty important to them.

The reason the US is so hostile toward UFO investigation is that for the greater part of the 20th Century there were other countries in the world actively working to destroy the US. That naturally and reasonably made the US a little paranoid. And one thing it didn't need starting with WWII and beyond was a lot of people poking their noses into what could very well be an active playing field for the development and deployment of necessarily strategically secret offensive and defensive weapons.

The government only wants to keep two things secret from their enemies:
1. What they know.
2. What they don't know.

A UFO gets spotted. Is it one of "ours?" Maybe. If it is, the government wouldn't want to tell you on the off chance you're a deliberate or accidental spy who could spill the beans to the Commies. Is it one of "theirs?" Maybe. The government certainly wouldn't want to let people know that the Commies are able to fly their advanced craft into our airspace without consequence. They want to keep it quiet. And if it isn't the Commies, and some unknown potential threat from another planet or time or dimension, they don't want you to know about that either. The government's job is to protect its citizens. Anything that brings that into question is dangerous from a political and social support perspective.

So they really don't need a bunch of people with huge telescopes and night vision goggles driving around on the periphery of their bases taking photos of the things flying around there -- UFOs either "alien" or "home grown." It's hard enough keeping active spies from stealing and selling secrets to the competition, without a bunch of amateurs getting in on the act, too.

The question is always going to be one of the quality of the information you gather. People don't like the information about the Moon they get through the NASA filter because they think it has been manipulated. Some of it has, although essentially for quality purposes and likely not to cover up evidence of alien towers, or whatever. Some don't trust the information they get from other countries because they think the US has bullied them into filtering the information per US wishes. That has yet to be adequately proven. Some want to gather their own evidence and information. That's an expensive proposition, and again, something that might bump them up against US national security concerns.

What we're stuck with, then, is patiently, patiently waiting for The Event. The large, public, Independence Day-sized event that can't be covered up and can't be discounted as something mundane. Anything else is just tail-chasing.

Or you can have aliens just come to your farm, come out of their space ship and say " Hi were from mars".
And that basically is what happened in Gary Wilcox's case as simple as it sounds. That is the funny thing about advanced beings. The come whey the want, they communicate when they want. I think though they were surprised that their cloaking technology didn't seem to be working on that April 12th day, 1964 ! It probably didn't work with Lonnie Zamora that same day as well. Unless they planned it not to work
And the strange, strange thing about it is Donald Shrum seem to see the same type of uniforms and stature of the beings as well. Of course the big difference between the three is Gary talked with them in his account and they stated they were from mars.

Both with with uniforms from head to toe, both 5 ft tall.