Do UFOs/ETs exist, are they real?

I meant humans dissecting ETs.

 

The term UFO is likely not accurate. The term should probably UFL....Unidentified Flying Light. Or maybe UVL....Unidentified Visual Light.... UVE........Unidentified Viewable Energy ....

Why do I offer these alternatives? Because early 50 years ago I and my girlfriend observed something that behaved similar to what that now famous Navy video showed. We observed a "Light" nearly pure in almost a very very light blue "color". Like an LED Light. It appeared or I could say it "materialized" in one location for a few seconds then appeared to have "jumped" up to a position above where it first appeared. Then it appeared to jump over to the right . Then it appeared jump down to the level that it first appeared at. It was at night and the "UFL" was over a body of water, it was night time, it was early fall. My car was pointed in the direction that this "UFL" . My girlfriend got very scared and asked to "get out of here". I started the car and the micro second I turned on my lights the UFL appeared to have "flown" off into the direct of Massacusettes which in the position my car was pointed in would be North.

So do UFO's exist??? Maybe. Do UFO's " materialize" ? Maybe. Are UFO's physical in nature? Maybe but maybe not. Do UFO's appear to exist? Probably. Are UFO's just Energy? Probably so. Are UFO's visible? Likely so....... Are UFO's real? Who knows! Is God real? Most people believe so.

Are we humans real? Let's hope so!!

 

The phrase, words Unidentified Flying Object means just that, Unidentified. It doesn't necessarily mean ET's from another world. Although that may be a possible explanation. A lot of UFO sightings take place along with testings of secret military aircraft like the U-2, SR-71, F-117, the B-2 bomber.These probably account for some of the sightings, not all by a long shot.

I was watching Nick Pope, a former British Defense official who said that 95% of UFO sightings are explainable, but the remaining 5% are truly unexplained. Could that remaining 5% be ET's from another world visiting us or could there be some other explanation? I say yes on both. We just don't know.

The possibility exists whether or not one wants to acknowledge it or not. Although when something is possible, it doesn't mean it's true either. The universe is a vast place, I believe there's life out there. Intelligent life, life that could be a thousand times smarter and a thousand times more advanced than us. Have any visited earth, I really don't know. But I wouldn't say it's impossible or that ET's visiting didn't happen or isn't happening now. Sometimes life is stranger than fiction.

 

Initially yes, but you went on to state; "We do know, and the evidence is overwhelming. The gov is covering it up, and the aliens prefer to operate clandestinely.". That's a pretty bold and confident assertion to make without presenting any of that overwhelming evidence here. Surely part of the discussion should involve you actually presenting and explaining that evidence, not just telling people they should blindly go out and find it themselves or to accept you position on gut instinct. I don't see how that is conducive to discussion.

The problem with that approach is that you're not necessarily appealing to people with a "burning curiosity" to know the truth, regardless of how boring or unclear it might be, but people with a "burning curiosity" to believe that there definitively are extraterrestrial aliens flying spaceships to Earth and that governments know this but are covering it up. That may well not being your intention but on the assumption it isn't, don't you think you should acknowledge the risk and temper your approach to minimise it?

Not quite blind acceptance but you do seem to be presenting a single option and not considering any of the other possibilities (either mundane or equally speculative). When faced with a reported UFO incident, shouldn't the question be "What caused this?", not "Was this caused by an extraterrestrial alien spaceship?"?

Couldn't that be considered a little confrontational in itself? Rather than addressing people who disagree with some of your assumptions, assertions or general approach to the question, explaining your reasoning and discussion their alternative viewpoints, you simply refuse to engage with them. Doesn't that risk creating something of an echo chamber?

 

I wouldn't expect anyone to accept blindly anything I asserted. But, in the tone of 'discussion', I was under the impression I could let my hair down, as it were. that doesn't require blind acceptance, by any mean.

Probably, the OP wasn't thought through, I admit.

OKay, regarding the line I highlighted, let's deal only with things that befuddle the imagination, things for which there are no easy answers.

What do you know about cattle mutilations? Let's look at that subject.

1. They are reported all over the world, there are thousands of them, at a loss to ranchers in real $$$
2. All soft tissue is surgically removed as if lazored, eyes, lips, genitals, teats, and others stuff. No signs of torn flesh by teeth, claws, etc.
3. No blood, all blood drained, no blood anywhere, not on the ground, and the carcass has blood completely drained. (there were blood traces, though).
4. No tracks, no footprints, no sign of cattle being dragged.
5. 90% of cattle found this way were in their 4 - 5 years of age.
6. Often, cattle will have broken bones, ribs, as if they were dropped from above.
7. Predatory animals avoid these carcasses, so no vultures, coyotes, etc, they won't even get close

unmarked helicopters have been observed, after the fact, similar to other helicopters appearing after UFO sightings.
UFOs have ben sighted near these mutilations.

There is at least one case of a HUMAN mutilated in the same fashion. But, it seems cattle/horses, farm animals are the target, and always in rural settings ( they're not going after dogs in cities )

The same report as above, all over the earth, and here's but one example:
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/08/7672...blood-cattle-mysteriously-mutilated-in-oregon

Okay, what does Occam's razor do with this one? If it could be caused by a disease, bacteria, there is no proof of that, either. Bacteria was found, but it wasn't determined to be causation, or opportunity. Are there any bacteria that act as 'anti-coagulant' ?

One thing that could explain it, ALIEN space craft using tractor beams. Unless you can think of something better.

See, in a similar fashion, there's a concept called 'presumptive evidence'. For example, if you wake up in the morning and you look out the window and there is snow covering the ground and the entire visible landscape, you can 'presume' it snowed the night before with 99.99% certainty, hell, 100% I'd say.

So, what I'm driving at, you can reach that place where you can 'presume' aliens exist, but it will take a journey for you to get there. I've traveled that journey, and no one thing does it, but over hte course of my years in the subject, I can, with 100% certainty, assert that earth is being visited by aliens and they come here via space craft, of all sizes and shapes. It's a journey, no one thing will get your there.

Also, for ALL of your objections, there is a compelling counter argument. I have run the gamut can handle each of them.

 

UFOs come in many forms, one of which are light, balls of light, called 'orbs'. but, metallic disks and other shapes are reported, as well.

The Navy now calls them "UAP" unidentified aerial phenomena. and they go underwater, as well,

 

Metallic dis s have been reported but I have never seen any documented evidence that there are metallic craft.

 

At least you have an open mind. Look into cattle mutilations, and see if you can come up with an easy explanation. consider the following:

What if:
1. Aliens have an agenda, and they are doing it clandestinely deliberately, they have the ability to cloak their machines and themselves.
2. Aliens have the ability to switch off at a close range:
a ) People
b ) all electronics within the field of their tractor beams.
3. All points in space are connected, all one has to do is find the key to the connection.
4. Aliens are a million or millions of years more technologically advanced , and achieved all of the above and below?
5. Most of the testimonies of abductees under hypnosis describe the same or verisimilar events and descriptions of aliens are identical, that hundreds were done before the book "communion" was published, and the abductees were from all walks of life, from all over the world?
6. There are thousands of landing physical trace cases.
7. Many abductees have tiny implants under the skin, in the ear, deep in the nose ( a few deep in the brain), which a lab analysis reveals 'nanotubes' and micron thin lawyers of exotic woven metal?
8. Large groups of people witnessing the same UFOs in the sky at the same location and the descriptions were of a UFO that was as big as a football field.
9. There are witnesses of UFO by high level military personnel, jet pilots, airline pilots, air traffic controllers, etc.
10. Many who tried to blow the whistle were threatened by NSA personnel.

 

You certainly can, but when you state that there is "overwhelming evidence" for a claim, you can't get defensive when people ask you to present some of that evidence.

Well it would suggest that the cause is more likely to be something we know exists rather than something we're only speculating about. If someone said they travelled from New York to LA, you'd expect they travelled by plane, car or train before you thought about teleportation wouldn't you?

Better on what basis? Exactly how are you assessing the "validity" or "quality" of the various hypotheses proposed?

For a start I wouldn't assume that every one of those reported incidents had the same cause. I gather the actual details can vary significantly but they're still commonly generalised as a single phenomena, with any outliers or contradictions just ignored (which also makes it easier to ignore elements that don't align with a chosen explanation). The Wikipedia page lists a range of possible explanations, such as natural causes, either something known but misidentified or something natural but not fully understood. If we're considering any kind of intelligent intervention though, human beings seem like the obvious first choice as the only highly intelligent species we know exists. All of those seem perfectly viable for at least some cases.

"Alien space craft using tractor beams" is a possible explanation too, but one that requires a whole range of underlying concepts to be established before it is even considered, the existence of intelligent aliens, the presence of their spacecraft here, the scientific possibility of a "tractor beam" and their possession of such a device. You could also suggest "Demons using magic" or "Time travellers with advanced technology" with no more speculation or assumption. I see no justification for pushing aliens, specifically and exclusively, to the top of the list.

 

I find it funny as hell that some advance civilisation would travel millions, if not billions of light years to earth only then to dissect a single cow or draw circles in a wheat field or put up a light show in the sky...

Also, detecting and recognizing intelligence isn't trivial. We share 98% of DNA with apes, yet when was the last time you tried communicating with one (beside some member of this forum that is). An advance alien may just as well consider us not worth the effort or even recognize us at all if their life form is different then ours, just like most people don't care at all about the intelligence of bees or ants, yet both of those insect show great intelligence in their societies.

 

The people who are in charge of this information are trying to prevent a panic by the public. Or so they say.

It's because of the war of the worlds radio broadcast and that resulting panic. Now we'll never get a second chance. Or so they say.

 

That "panic" is a myth. The broadcast was only in a tiny market and most of the people didn't even know about it. That "war of the world" panic myth is the result of a well organized publicity campaign by Orson Wells and never ever was a real thing.

 

I believe UFOs are exactly that; Unidentified Flying Objects.

I think a good many of them are probably top secret military experiments, unusual atmospheric phenomena, or just plain old misidentification. The other half of the equation is the myth of alien visitations and how that affects people's beliefs. The only possible abduction case I still believe is possible is the original Betty and Barney Hill case. The rest I think are psychological in origin.

 

OK, I looked it up on snopes (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/war-of-the-worlds/), and it was described as mostly false. So, you're right. But it also said that debunking that report was done in later years, like 2010. So, the general idea would have held sway until then.

 

Hey, I also fell for that myth myself. They even made a movie about it... But in the end it never really happened.

People should realize that space is a pretty big and empty place. You just don't jump on a ship and travel millions of light years on a hunch that something interesting may exist on a spinning ball of rock far far away. Scanning for radio wave or other signals is also a pipe dream since such signals degrades quickly the farther they get from the sources and none of them are strong enough to make it all that far in relation to the universe. Even laser would be too diffused to be meaningfull after a mcertain distance.

And the more advanced an alien civilisation would be the less likely they'd interact with us or even recognize our existance as one deserving the effort of making contact with. At best they'd just come and take what they want. But what could they want that isn't also available on system or planets where they don't need to interact with a lower tech level civilization? Water, it's one of the most abundant ressource in the universe being composed of H²O which star pumps out a vast amount of. Minerals? Again, all are present elsewhere being the by product of solar fusion. Good looking women, well maybe...

 

Hmmm....

Which species is more advanced?

One that must build tools to be able to acquire food, requires tools protect themselves from the environment of which they only inhabit less than 30% of their world, regularly use tools to prey on each other, and couldn’t survive being inserted into an environment for which they they lack the appropriate tools to survive? And, though has the capacity for communication, often does not effectively communicate well enough to live in harmony with others of its species?
Or, one that has little need for tools to acquire food, no need for tools to survive in their environment of which they inhabit nearly 70% of their world, doesn’t engage in warfare, and generally lives in harmony with others of its species?
What constitutes the designation of advanced?

 

Which is why in a previous post I mentionned that aliens would be just as well trying to contact bees or ants than us humans.

 

I often use as an analog of 1st Contact fantasies, that of humans meet dolphins. They appear to high intelligence, language, and even evidence of culture... yet, in part because our physical senses and environmental experiences are so wildly different, we thus far have lacked the ability for inter species communication, often judging them by their inability to learn human language. I imaging two dolphins conversing... ‘What’s wrong with these land creatures that can’t swim even as well as a new born and on top of that, they can’t learn the simplest common phrases of language that every dolphin, even among our different populations use to communicate. Stupid creatures.’

 

Everyday we are discovering more and more planets in the Goldilocks zone. Being I'm one of those who believe we're not alone in this gigantic universe. The idea of intelligent life out there is a definite possibility. As someone once said, if we're the only life in the universe, what a waste of all that space.

I think life out there could be based on some other element than carbon. Although carbon is probably the one most of it is based on. I also believe anyone capable of interstellar travel is way beyond radio communication. That the folding of space and perhaps time is possible, that travel beyond the speed of light is also possible. Perhaps not by the physics we know today, but I can guarantee that physics won't be the same a couple of hundred years into the future. All of this I think possible for someone far advanced.

Now have ET's in unknown crafts been visiting the earth. That's a big maybe for me. Why would we be of interest to someone a thousand years more advanced than us. Perhaps we nothing more than an experiment to them, their petri dish so to speak. Almost every culture on earth has legends of the sky people, spirits from the sky, the star people, some even go into detail. The Hindu mahabharata and the ramayana, ancient Mesopotamia with the Anunnaki and much more. Even the Bible refers to angels from Heaven or from above, the stars.

But I won't go to ET's flying in UFO's above us, at least not yet. Possible, yes, proof positive, no. At least no yet. Yes, I open minded on the whole thing from ancient aliens to visiting aliens today, it is possible. But not ready for the history books as of yet.

 

Have you read any of the books by Dr. John Mack, Dr. David Jacobs, or Budd Hopkins ( these are the salient specialists in regressive hypnosis therapy ) ?
If you haven't, before you jump to such a sweeping conclusion, you should at least read one of their books, one each would be even better.

In this universe, in any category, there not a single item of anything. There is not one cat, not one dog, not one caterpillar, not one fly, not one rock, not one tree, not one planet, not one sun, not one comet, not one TV star, not one President, not one human, not one bad horror flick, so how can there be only one convincing abduction case? (also, not one planet with intelligent life) That would defy what is known about the physical universe.

If, of the millions of reported UFOs, is it likely that of all of them, NOT ONE of them is real? Is that even possible?

If you purchase a house in a neighborhood, the odds of a neighbor stopping by to borrow some sugar, or butter, or just to introduce themselves, given enough time, that EVENTUALLY a neighbor does stop by, is almost 100% certain ( given enough time, it might take 10 years, depending on the neighborhood ).

The earth is 4.5 billion years of age, is that enough time for a neighbor to visit us?

 

Appeal to incredibility falacy.

 

I believe in aliens, and I've encountered them, but I don't trust the accounts of those who are hypnotized. Too easy to be led to a certain conclusion.

Plus, in the many encounters I've had, I've encountered an alien race that isn't documented anywhere. Black fur and white stripes.

 

Yes, I'm familiar with Bud Hopkins, and I've probably have read the others too.

Bottomline is that regressive hypnotherapy has been disproven as an effective means of recalling repressed memories for all the other reasons it has been tried. It introduces ideas and concepts which the subject may not be aware of, but rather than provide a negative response, the inherent effect is to provide further validating responses. It's not a scientific based approach, which is why it is no longer used for criminal investigations, and as "evidence" for alien abductions it is quite weak and the least reliable.

It is for this reason why I mentioned the Betty & Barney Hill case, because it was the first case that used hypnosis, the subjects would have had no known reason to lie because they would have nothing to gain by doing so. However, once their story became known, all hypnosis sessions began sounding the same with only minor variations. The mythos of alien abduction grew faster than the ability to actually have hard scientific evidence.

Sidenote: The one bit of evidence in the Hill case that clenched it for many was the star pattern Betty drew that she claims her abductors said they were from was at the time an unrecognizable constellation. It was later discovered that her drawing was accurate of a star system as viewed from outside of our solar system perspective....so?????

Eyewitness testimony is so fraught with biases it is basically worthless without corroborating physical evidence.

I don't deny the possibility of sentient extraterrestrial life. It is afterall mathematically probable, and based upon what we know today of biology, it is probably ubiquitous, but not necessarily sentient in any meaningful way to communicate with. While I may hope and dream of Vulcans warping out of hyperspace to deliver us the Holy Grail of interstellar space technology, until they actually do that, I'll be more than happy to do a backflip for a tiny living amoeba on Mars.

As one comedian use to say in his routine, if you've been abducted by creatures from another planet aboard their spaceship and they proceed to do all these kinky anal things to you, at the very least I would think of stealing a ******n pen or something for all my discomfort.

 

Ever notice how in the science fiction genre that extraterrestrials are most frequently depicted have large heads (presumably holding large brains... a suggestion of intelligence), limbs for locomotion, often distinct from those for manipulating technology) and represented having human like motives and emotions. Then too, the depictions of their technology are remarkable in their function to that developed by humans for transportation, weaponry, etc. though usually differing in artistic design indicating the foreign element of origin? What much of SCI Fi depicts of aliens and of the myriad of speculations of UFOs being cast as extraterrestrial in nature stems from an incorrect assumption of Evolutionary Theory. Casting an eye to the universe and suggesting life might exist elsewhere may be somewhat a reasonable hypothesis and given the age of the universe being what it is, it is also not an unreasonable hypothesis to think life could have developed earlier and been around longer than that on our planet. However, assuming that intelligent life evolved and may have been around long enough to develop superior technology to that of humans is not a forgone conclusion nor a reasonable one based on what we know of evolution and the it’s shaping process, Natural Selection. The process of Natural Selection does not lead to a conclusion either of increasing intelligence as we subjectively see it, nor does it make any statement of the emergence of any particular technology development vector that would lead to that which can fly or travel in space. Evolution, and the process of natural section is not a goal oriented process toward some ever increasing technological advancement that is often projected on life from elsewhere.
If, time was the factor for life ever increasing in complexity and technology, humans have been in the process of evolving for some hand full of millions of years, assuming we are correctly interpreting the fossils record. Whereas, dinosaurs walked the earth since about 245 million years... assuming we interpret their fossils record and if some are correct in their conjecture that birds are their decedents. So, if time were the factor, why aren’t birds more technologically advanced and where are their space vehicles. ... perhaps... UFOs....

 

Is that the case with cattle mutilations? I'm talking about when all of the easy explanations are exhausted, thoroughly exhausted.
That is the time to consider it.

They don't, actually. The salient ones are:
1. Soft tissues removed with surgical precision. No tears, burns, etc.
2. Blood drained, no blood on ground, etc.
3 No tracks or sign of struggle,
4. Analysis of brain indicating severe trauma, that the animal wasn't killed before the mutilations.

Not only does wikipedia toss upo possible explanations, it also explains why they have been discounted. In fact, wikipedia does not resolve the issue at all. What it does do is NOT take aliens off the list. At least, that was my take, if you think otherwise, give me the citation.

Why? They are either here or they are not here, THAT is the only question. Of course, if they can be easily ruled out, they should.

That being said, I'm only positing the introduction of aliens when all easy explanations have been exhausted.

You are conflating two things which really should not be conflated.

Which of the following is 'woo' ?
1. A sentient being as neighbor. ( distance irrelevant)
2 Demons

Ahh but , aliens is 'fantastic'? why is it fantastic? Because you've never observed it? Because men and women write books about science fiction speculating on it's fantastic aspects? Is not it true that the only reason we think it is 'fantastic' because we are, compared to highly advanced civilizations, primitive? It's perspective, NOT reality. I say let's consider the possibility in a more matter-of-fact sense, because if it WERE real, that would be the case.

But, neighbors are neighbors, few and far and near, neighbors are neighbors, and why is a neigbor far 'fantastic' more than a neighbor hear?
Scarcity is perspective, it's not reality. What's real is what is real, it's either real or it is not.

Not at the top of the list, but on the list if and when all easy explanations have been exhausted. All I'm trying to to is get you to at least accept that it is possible, more than 'well, anything is possible,' but possible in the sense that neighbors are possible, possible.


It's a possible explanation. But, to consider whether or not it is possible doesn't require establishing proof for 'intelligent aliens'. But, I think I can via presumptive evidence. So, allow me to prove it from a presumptive evidence level. Now, i say 'presumptive' which is distinct from 'assumptive'. For example, if we wake up in the morning and look out the window and the ground is covered with snow, snow is everywhere, we can 'presume' it snowed the night before during our sleep. We can presume a gun is fired if we see, or even smell, smoke around the barrel. Now,with aliens, we can't presume it with only one piece of evidence.

Can we presume that Jesus Christ actually lived and walked among us, at some point in history? Can we presume it to be true?

Since there is NO actual evidence, we presume it given the tonnage of writing about it. It's the weight of it, that gives us the ability to presume. But, of course, it is possible that Jesus is a myth, and, like an oak seed eventually grows to be an oak tree, a myth from 2000 years ago can grow if that myth feels a need in the psychological make up of mankind, as a whole. That being said, I think we are safe to presume Christ did, indeed, walk the earth. Whether or not he actually performed miracles, that is up for debate more than his actual existence, in my view.

But, on that point, consider this: In the universe, in any given category, notice with 100% certainty that there is not one of any thing, not one cat, not one dog, not one tree, not one caterpillar, not one car, not one bird, not one planet. So, given THIS REALITY, how could it be possible that there is but one planet with intelligent life? I don't think that is up to debate, I think the consensus is in favor of the existence of aliens.

Now then, on the point of "is it possible to travel great distances in short order which, if done at the speed of light, would take thousands of years?

I don't think we can even ask, because, the question isn't 'is it possible', the question is, why should anyone assume it's not possible?

Who's to say what an alien race, a million years more advanced than us, can do or not do? But, that idea alone isn't sufficient to 'presume' aliens have visited earth. I say all reason why not should be discounted because we cannot say with any degree of certainty that it is impossible to travel the great distance because it is impossible to know what aliens have, or have not, conquered in terms of problems of physics. We are left with only this:

Have they, or have they not, visited earth?

I don't think any of these factors you asserted needed to be established are really relevant (unless you can easily rule them out, and I don't think you can) I think the relevant question is this:

are they here, or are they not here? To answer that, really, from my perspective, requires traveling a road, a journey, and at the end of that journey, once can presume, safely, in my view, so that is what I'm trying to do here, is paint, as best as I can, what that journey is and entails.

From there consider the following ( and I can back up most of these )

1. Aliens have an agenda, and they are doing it clandestinely deliberately, they have the ability to cloak their machines and themselves. ( this is a big enough subject to warrant it's own thread, but I do have information to back it up at the 'presumptive evidence' level. For example, by presumptive evidence, you wake up in the morning, and you look out the window and see snow everywhere, covering the landscape. We can safely 'presume' that it snowed the night before during our sleep ).

2. Aliens have the ability to selectively switch off at a close range:
a ) People
Aliens have the ability to universally switch off at a close range
b ) all electronics within the field of their tractor beams. (or whatever the beams are called)

(1 and 2 above is based on testimonies of abductees under regressive hypnosis, and it is very consistent across a range of abductees from all walks of life, under hypnosis. Now, I realize hypnosis is unreliable, but it's issues of 'confabulation' are thoroughly addressed by Dr. David Jacobs, whose mindful of such things and beyond, you should read his book :Walking Among Us" the book reads far better than you might assume it won't. I wish you would trust me on that point. You might actually like the book, it's written for skeptics, it is not written as a chorus to the choir. )

3. All points in space are connected, all one has to do is find the key to the connection. (this I cannot prove or demonstrate, but consider it )

4. Aliens are a million or millions of years more technologically advanced , and achieved all of the above and below ( logically assuming this)

5. Most of the testimonies of abductees under hypnosis describe the same or verisimilar events and descriptions of aliens are identical, that hundreds were done before the book "communion" was published (so they didn't have a well known description ), and the abductees were from all walks of life, from all over the world and none of them knew each other. Dr. Jacobs posits that if they were making stuff up, their testimonies would be much more creative and diversified than the matter-of-fact consistent descriptions that turn up, over and over and over again. The wild one's who go off on wild tangents, he says it only happens in the first few sessions, that people project their own imagination into the sessions, which he calls 'confabulation' but through a system of controls, he has learned out to winnow from the sessions confabulation. He approaches this with years of experience and skill. Read Dr. David Jacobs "Walking Among Us".

6. There are thousands of craft landing physical trace cases. http://www.project1947.com/47cats/phillips.htm

7. Many abductees have tiny implants under the skin, in the ear, deep in the nose ( a few deep in the brain), which a lab analysis reveals 'nanotubes' and micron thin lawyers of exotic rare material (this one I'm withdrawing because the samples haven't yet quantified the results and had the samples tested numerous times at different laboratories. A thorough scientific method would be the only way to get real proof that the implant was otherworldly and, as of late, this has yet to occur. )

8. Large groups of people witnessing the same UFOs in the sky at the same location and the descriptions were of a UFO that was as big as a football field.

9. There are witnesses of UFO by high level military personnel, radar, visual sightings confirmed by radar, at mach speeds much greater than any craft man has produced, doing right angle turns at much speeds, evidence much much much better than 'blobs in the sky'.

10. There is a famous case of UFOs sighted over nuke missile silos, and a series of silos taken off line, noting that each missile has self contained electronics, so a domino effect failure is impossible, and they were taken off line, and turned back on, all simultaneously. To this day, they have no explanation.



11. There are tens of thousands of photos and videos of UFOs and 'high strangeness'.

12. Many who tried to blow the whistle were threatened by NSA personnel.

The above, plus the fact that there are some 4000 or 5000 sightings reported to MUFON every month ( most are explanable, but not all ).

Plus everything previously described on cattle mutilations,
http://www.politicalforum.com/index...t-are-they-real.573838/page-3#post-1071783801

That we can presume the existence of alien visitation.

If you can't, despite all of the above, I wonder why? It seems to me that the ONLY reason you give is that it is 'fantastic' .

But, I argue, it is only fantastic because of human's limited perspective