reply to post by vexati0n
OF COURSE there is good evidence. Do you all just speculate on here, and leave the actual reading of books and articles to others? That we're on page
2 of this thread, and the word "radar" has only been mentioned by one or two posters, in response to such a ludicrous original question, is a sad
testament to the level of UFO knowledge on this forum. Sorry, but IMO, it's true.
The fact is, there are tons of radar-visual cases, where people see not just lights in the sky, but solid, physical objects, often close, often very
large, often at speeds or accelerations that humans or our machines simply are not capable of, and where the presence of the object is confirmed by
radar... i.e., not hallucinations -- something is there, with radar clutter/interference issues having been eliminated as factors.
Even before Condon, tons of these cases were documented. Hasn't everyone on this forum read Dr. James McDonald's "Statement on Unidentified Flying
Objects" that he prepared for Congress? The pdf is online. It, and his "Science In Default" piece (fairly blasting Condon / Blue Book) should be
required reading. Anyone who doubts that unidentified objects are flying around our atmosphere should go read those... or Kean's book, if something
lighter is desired... or the NARCAP web page... or COMETA part 1... or... geeze, on and on and on. Skeptics need to deal with the best radar-visual
cases, and, beyond cursory dismissal (based on this unstated assumption: "UFO's can't be real, so the data must be faulty"), you'll notice that they
Do we have a piece of a saucer? No. But we have mounds of evidence proving that there are in fact solid objects flying around in the sky, seemingly
with intelligence (whether natural or artificial), moving in ways we can't... and this goes all the way back to the mid 1940's. This brings the ET
hypothesis squarely into play. Science simply should not be ignoring strong evidence, just because it's not the best or ideal evidence, yet because of
the ridicule factor, they do...especially in the U.S. (Though there are signs this is slowly changing.)
So please, do not let some pseudo-intellectual who proudly boasts that he's a 'skeptic' feed you that baloney about "extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence." Because that's premature. It describes a level of evidence which applies when looking to CONFIRM a hypothesis, i.e., AFTER
scientific study... and we are not at that stage yet! All that the most reasonable UFO researchers are really asking for is simply a fair shake by
science... that UFO's be studied, instead of laughed at. Something like the Condon report, even, would be fine, to me... IF the Summary agreed with
the actual internal findings (large % of unknowns), that it was made clear that those were good data/high-strangeness 'unknowns' (and not just distant
lights/poor visibility 'unknowns'), and if it was reported on accurately by a responsible mainstream media. I'd support that. I'd not be surprised by
an official conclusion which amounted to "we don't know what they are, but the ET hypothesis must be considered credible," although we must be open to
any conclusion. So even that (an official "we don't know, but it must be taken seriously"... which should be a very easy step to take if we truly live
in an open society!!), would be enough to erase the horrendous ridicule factor and taboo that exists. And then, once the public's fear of reporting is
extinguished, once radar data is made more open, things like that, then the phenomenon can be properly studied long-term. Then we can fairly ask if
there's "extraordinary evidence."
Bottom line: There is a mountain of evidence that suggests that the ET hypothesis should be taken very, very seriously. It simply hasn't all been
compiled as well as it should have been, or put into one neat place. (And in today's society, you know what that means...) But it's there. Go start
with McDonald, or even the body of Blue Book unknowns, and delve into those.
edit on 16-5-2011 by TeaAndStrumpets because: typo