UFOs

[RichLB]

A couple guys here wanted to know about the physical evidence (artifacts) which have been related to UFOs. You might want to go to the following web site:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseVi ... n=artifact
The Bob White relic is the one I was referring to in previous posts. It has been determined to be a manufactured crystal using nanotechnology beyond our present capacity.

[Bob]

Rich, Rich, Rich. This has developed into the theater of the absurd.

How many times do I have to acknowledge (I'd be pretty damn stupid to do otherwise) that yes(!) there are some sightings of lights/objects/whatever that, so far, have no rational explantion for them (meaning, nobody seems to know what they are). You refer to them, as do many, as UFO's.....and I only ask you to always remember the first word there - unidentified. And, yes, I have no reason to believe that these unexplained phenomena are anything other than errors in perception or natural phenomena which appear to be something else (something unknown). Why do I believe that? Well, it's because a substantial percentage of what are first labeled as "UFO's" are later rationally explained.

Being unidentified or unknown provides no rational basis to suggest these UFO's are aliens or our future selves returning for a little sight-seeing. And, yes, I believe that suggesting those possibilities - given you're as ignorant about it as most of us are - is irrational. And you somehow suggest that I have a closed mind because I won't accept that your suggestions might possibly be true? While that logic sounds a little like what Yoda might say, I'd be happy to consider any all all alternative theories PROVIDED you provide some factual evidence to support them. But, until you do, it's just wacky talk as far as I'm concerned.

[RichLB]

I'd be happy to consider any all all alternative theories PROVIDED you provide some factual evidence to support them. But, until you do, it's just wacky talk as far as I'm concerned.

I somehow doubt that. Factual evidence has been presented over and over here, yet you either ignore it or farcically dismiss it. Other than a UFO landing on your doorstep, what additional evidence do you require? With whatever standard of proof you require, I can only hope you are on my jury should I ever be tried for a crime.

[thaiworthy]

I had an artifact in my backyard. Bigfoot came and stole it.

[Gaybutton]

Factual evidence has been presented over and over

Yes, it has. I don't disagree with that. I also agree that some of it defies explanation. However, simply because some of it cannot be explained - yet - that doesn't mean the only explanation has to be they're of alien origin. I haven't seen any proof these things are alien-made. Just because no scientific studies so far conducted have not proved what they are, those same studies have also not proved what they aren't. According to scientists, bumblebees should not be able to fly. But obviously, they fly. Nobody seems to be able to explain how they manage to do it. But that doesn't mean bumblebees must be aliens. The way I see it, the same logic applies to some of these "unexplainable" objects. Even if they can't be explained, that does not constitute proof they are alien-made.

[Bob]

Factual evidence has been presented over and over

However, simply because some of it cannot be explained - yet - that doesn't mean the only explanation has to be they're of alien origin.

Exactly, GB. But I'd go one step further and say that not understanding something provides no rational license to suggest explanations that have no factual underpinnings in the first place.

[Gaybutton]

not understanding something provides no rational license to suggest explanations that have no factual underpinnings in the first place.

True, but sometimes there is basis in fact. Sometimes reliable people observe whatever it is that's going on and sometimes well known experts in the field are stumped. These are reputable people, not crackpots. Often, when I view these programs, it's very difficult for me to feel any different from Anthony Quinn's character in the movie , "Barabbas," when he, as a gladiatorial slave, is confronted by his Roman master and questioned as to why he is wearing an amulet displaying the symbol of Christianity. Barabbas denies believing in Christianity. The Roman then asks him why he would wear the symbol if he doesn't believe in what it stands for. His response is, "Because I tried to believe."

[RichLB]

Bob (and GB as well) I am still curious what would serve as evidence enough for you. I suspect you would have agreed with the jury in the OJ trial since you did not see the knife actually plunge into his wife. What more do you need? Manufactured artifacts beyond our capability, eye witness reports from thousands of credible witnesses, radar validation of visual sightings, extensive military involvement in what you claim didn't occur, residual evidentiary data at reported landings, and the list goes on. So, I ask you again, what evidence do you demand to accept that craft of unknown origin exist? You have yet to answer.

[Gaybutton]

You have yet to answer.

First, your OJ analogy doesn't work. I neither saw nor experienced the Holocaust, but I'm certainly no Holocaust denier.

I thought I answered your question quite clearly. Two things would convince me. One would be that the scientific community as a whole accepts it as fact. The other would be one of those alien spacecraft actually landing, intact, and whatever beings on board make themselves known. Maybe something else would also convince me, but I don't know what that would be.

[Bob]

Bob (and GB as well) I am still curious what would serve as evidence enough for you. I suspect you would have agreed with the jury in the OJ trial since you did not see the knife actually plunge into his wife.

I can't quite get any grips around some of the irrelevant and mystifying stuff you slide into the discussion. What's the OJ trial have to do with this? And I don't agree with you at all regarding the suggestion you're making that the OJ jury somehow ignored any credible evidence (had you watched the interviews with the jury a week or so after the trial, I believe you would have been rather impressed with how concientious they were with examining the evidence before them). It's amazing how much unjustified anger was tossed their way by people who's knowledge was based on watching the television snippets and who felt they knew everything there was to know about the case.

Back to your question versus your side trip to LA, I'd just like to see a little factual evidence (and, to be honest, you'r linking the one url to the UFO site doesn't cut it for me - unless you want me to put equal credence in the so-called scientific story of the guy who saw a light in the sky and all of a sudden found a gold nugget at his feet....). So, let's talk solely about what you assert is the object somebody found and which somebody asserts is an object beyond the manufacturing ability of the human race. What is it, where's a photo of it, and what credible scientist or scientists reached that conclusion?