UFO Sighting - From a Skeptic

Haven't found it on the net yet....which actually surprised me as I usually find info online first. I'll look some more. Its being reported on the news. They showed a cylindrical object flying across the sky captured on home video. Some say meteorite. Some say space junk. No one knows for sure. And I'm not sure its related at all, just wanted to throw it out thre.

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
It was evidence of the government covering-up advanced technology?
How long do you beleive the government have been covering-up these super high tech aircraft?

Well I was talking about tow different events. On was in the mid 90s and involved classified USAF craft. The other was just a few days ago in 2004 and was na unidentified craft.

The government has been working on classified advanced tech since at least the 1940s with the Manhattan project.

Since then government science has surpassed public science by a good bit. Its not really a coverup, it just classified science. Its also not a secret that the US military has classified information, technology, and various other things. The secret is what that stuff is.

I know that the stealth fighter's early prototypes were already flying in the early 1970s even though they weren't public til 1989.

Originally posted by Quest

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
It was evidence of the government covering-up advanced technology?
How long do you beleive the government have been covering-up these super high tech aircraft?

The government has been working on classified advanced tech since at least the 1940s with the Manhattan project.

There were many UFO sightings then and before. Do you think it is sensible to think the government had these ATV's then too?

Since then government science has surpassed public science by a good bit. Its not really a coverup, it just classified science. Its also not a secret that the US military has classified information, technology, and various other things. The secret is what that stuff is.

When does keeping a secret for so long(50-60 years) and continuely denying it, debunking and and spreading disinformation, qualify as a cover-up?

Again, considering the UFO you described is quite identical to the common characteristics of the UFO, which has appeared countless times throughout the ages. Does your sighting not prove that UFO's could well be flying craft.
Would continued skeptism of other solid UFO encounters not be hypcritical?

Also, if the government have such advanced technology, which may even include zero-point energy technology, shouldn't you be supporting a disclosure of this?

When does keeping a secret for so long(50-60 years) and continuely denying it, debunking and and spreading disinformation, qualify as a cover-up?

I consider a cover up to be when someone is hidding information generated from outside themselves. So if the craft are indeed aline, then yes, that is a coer-up. If the craft are military in origin and nature, thens its just keeping a secret. Spreading disinfo and debunking is just protecting what you created.

Again, considering the UFO you described is quite identical to the common characteristics of the UFO, which has appeared countless times throughout the ages. Does your sighting not prove that UFO's could well be flying craft.
Would continued skeptism of other solid UFO encounters not be hypcritical?

My experience and everyone elses isn't proof of any kind. And its only the lowest level of evidence having been filtered through the human mind and memory. My sighting, and everyone elses, it just a sighting. I'm not being hypocritical at all, because i do not consider what i saw "evidence" nor to I expect other's to believe me or change thier views based on what saw.

Also, if the government have such advanced technology, which may even include zero-point energy technology, shouldn't you be supporting a disclosure of this?

Absolutly not. For starters, several giovernment have the technology to make various nuclear weapons, and I do not think that should be shared openly.

Additionaly, just tossing a new energy source into the economy would collapse it. As oil companies shut down so would various other industries. Even more so if zero-point devices cost a lot to make, it would further seperate the classes of most 1st world nations.

Just because I saw a flying saucer doesn't mean my views of everything else changed or I stopped thinking logically. The only thing my sighting did was make me trust other eye witnesses a little more.

The truth is there is no PROOF of aliens or even flyinf saucers. However there is light evidence and now I'm one of those witnesses.

I consider a cover up to be when someone is hidding information generated from outside themselves. So if the craft are indeed aline, then yes, that is a coer-up. If the craft are military in origin and nature, thens its just keeping a secret. Spreading disinfo and debunking is just protecting what you created.

There is a difference between classified and covered up. I consider it a cover-up when something is hidden without any good reason. If the government have had anti-gravity craft for more than 60 years. Then why did they spend billions on multiple generations of jet-engine air craft? Ultimately, why did they not deploy it in the wars that have been fought?

There is no good reason for covering up. Which only means that the government did not have antigravity aircraft then(1940's and prior) If so, they must have originated from outside. This further corroborates the ET reverse engineering claims.

Again, considering the UFO you described is quite identical to the common characteristics of the UFO, which has appeared countless times throughout the ages. Does your sighting not prove that UFO's could well be flying craft.
Would continued skeptism of other solid UFO encounters not be hypcritical?

My experience and everyone elses isn't proof of any kind. And its only the lowest level of evidence having been filtered through the human mind and memory. My sighting, and everyone elses, it just a sighting. I'm not being hypocritical at all, because i do not consider what i saw "evidence" nor to I expect other's to believe me or change thier views based on what saw.

You said there were super hi-tech government craft. So clearly you have proof for this assertion by seeing one.

Yet, how do you know it is governmental? You also make the assumption that it must have been unmanned? How do you know?

The hypocrisy comes from the fact, that your UFO encounter is legitimate proof for your hypothesis of super-hi-tech air craft. However, UFO encounters from others, of the same characteristics, and vastly more credible witnesses, is no proof. That is hypocrisy.

Also, if the government have such advanced technology, which may even include zero-point energy technology, shouldn't you be supporting a disclosure of this?

Absolutly not. For starters, several giovernment have the technology to make various nuclear weapons, and I do not think that should be shared openly.

Additionaly, just tossing a new energy source into the economy would collapse it. As oil companies shut down so would various other industries. Even more so if zero-point devices cost a lot to make, it would further seperate the classes of most 1st world nations.

If the oil empries collapse, it is a bad thing? Hardly, as ZPE is free-energy or over-unity, it would provide everyone economic independence. It would balance the geopolitical equilibrium of power. The only one losing from this, would be power-hungry folks.

I am actually quite astonished that someone would not support the disclosure of such technology, that could potentially eradicate poverty all over the world and improve the qualify of life for all.

I have not stopped being logical

How is this for logic:

Free energy should NOT be disclosed for the safety of the planet.

A UFO appears right in front of you and you still doubt it exist.

Nothing is proven; untill the government releases it.

This is not about logic, this is more about blind faith in the government. It parallels religious devotion.

Have you heard of "risk analysis" in risk analysis there is no proof for any outcome, but evidence can exist to favour the likliness of an outcome. Risk analysis is used to make a decision in advance of the proof. For instance; an early evacuation.

There is a theory, backed by highly credible people, that the government is planning a grande deception that will dwarf 9/11 and lead to our enslavement. There is a theory that the government is fighting a war with an alien species. There is a theory that the government is bioengineering weapons like AIDS and SARS to kill populations. It all ultimately ties into the ET hypothesis.

The risk is clearly the survival of the human species and our planet. With your logic, proof will only come when we are destroyed. You have been lucky enough to actually see a UFO. I on the other hand have to make my decision from evidence analysis.

For you the following has been proven:

1. Man-made UFO's exist
2. There is a cover-up

The following has been proven beforehand

3. Area 51 exists
4. The shadow government exists
5. 9/11 and the subsequent calls for martial law

The following remains unproven for you

6. Aliens exist

So many of the claims made by the aforementioned theories have been proven, 5 out of 6. In risk analysis, the chances of proof that aliens exist(6th) is 83%.

Yet you say you are being logical? It's more like delusional dude. What kind of investigation is one where the proof is needed before it is investigated? You are just comfortable in the "comfort-zone" of not having to think for yourself, and leaving it completely in the hands of the shepard master, err, Government.

I recall John Lear saying something like this before. If you saw a dead alien body, what proof would it be that it is alien? You know it is very unfortunate, when we have our eyes open, yet still choose to be blind.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by Indigo_Child]