Undeniable proof UFO's are Real?

Angilion said:
I can buy that, but I don't necessarily interpret it the same way as you do. There are many examples of societies being ruined by contact with a much more technologically advanced society. The pace of change is too great and society falls apart. For example, most current jobs would simply cease to exist in any real sense. At best, people would be left doing their work as a charitable gesture to them, and that's not good.
Click to expand...

Indeed, there would be negative effects. This could be why UFOs avoid direct contact a mass scale. It could be part of a gradual process.

Another reason I forgot to put for why the government keeps quiet is that if it did came out and it's discovered the government witheld information on something as monumental as the existance of ETs and had silenced people through intimidation and maybe killed some the would be a total collapse of faith in the government. Possibly resulting in many powerful people facing Nuremburg style trials and killed.

Angilion said:
I don't see why an interstellar civilisation would necessarily have moved "beyond" a system in which people exchange things in trade.
Click to expand...

There probably is bartering of some sort when needed but I doubt it's done with credit cards and loans from banks and house repoesessions if you can't keep up on your interest payments. I imagine by the time you've figured out how to transcend the laws of physics you've figured out how to tackle scarcity making the need a lot of business/economic practices redundant.
 
magick said:
No it's based on the fact that people in power who wish to maintain there power have a vested interest in covering-up UFOs.
Click to expand...

How are the Government covering up UFO's exactly?
We have the internet where people can post absolute truth but we never see any.
I don't know about you but if I were an alien in a ship that could have been here since Biblical times I would have landed on the centre spot of Old Trafford or similar by now.
The Government would not be able to do a thing about it.

magick said:
There gradualy letting us know they're there for a start.
Click to expand...

Well for the last 60 years they are doing a really bad job.
 
dmpoole said:
How are the Government covering up UFO's exactly?
Click to expand...

By saying it's all weather phenomenon.

dmpolle said:
We have the internet where people can post absolute truth but we never see any.
Click to expand...

There's plenty if you can be bothered to luck.

dmpoole said:
I don't know about you but if I were an alien in a ship that could have been here since Biblical times I would have landed on the centre spot of Old Trafford or similar by now.
Click to expand...

That's you though :p

dmpoole said:
Well for the last 60 years they are doing a really bad job.
Click to expand...

Info on ufos is far more available now than it was 60 years ago. In fact far more available than it was 10 years ago before the internet really took off.
 
I think ufo's/alien craft frighten people...the minute you consider the idea possible/true.....a lot of belief system are crushed.

I know your gonna ask what beliefs....scientific..spiritual...etc.
 
*Moangroan* said:
I think ufo's/alien craft frighten people...the minute you consider the idea possible/true.....a lot of belief system are crushed.

I know your gonna ask what beliefs....scientific..spiritual...etc.
Click to expand...

You'r right moangroan look at how many people are in denial on this thread when there's evidence right in front of them.
 
magick said:
You'r right moangroan look at how many people are in denial on this thread when there's evidence right in front of them.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly, honestly believe that people look at the "evidence" and pretend to themselves that aliens don't exist?

Your "evidence" is inadequate. If it was good evidence, people might believe you. You don't convince anyone because you've provided nothing even close to being conclusive, credible evidence.
 
I really really really want to believe.
I can't tell you how much I want to believe.
When I was a young lad I read nothing but paperbacks on UFOs and other paranormal stuff.
I even went to church because I believed in God.
When I was 18 around 1976 I realised there was nothing there but I'm honestly still looking.
My life would be complete if I saw an actual Alien craft land and take me aboard but there is absolutely nothing out there that I've watched/read that convinces me.
 
The same is true for people who believe in life after death.....you can be 100% convinced but you cant know if you are alive...lol. And if its not true you will be dead and will not know...lol
 
dmpoole said:
I really really really want to believe.
I can't tell you how much I want to believe.
When I was a young lad I read nothing but paperbacks on UFOs and other paranormal stuff.
I even went to church because I believed in God.
When I was 18 around 1976 I realised there was nothing there but I'm honestly still looking.
My life would be complete if I saw an actual Alien craft land and take me aboard but there is absolutely nothing out there that I've watched/read that convinces me.
Click to expand...

Likewise.

I used to daydream about a first contact scenario when I was a boy.

Actually, I still do.

Go into space? Set foot on another planet? Meet people of a different species from a different world? Awesome. The only reason I wouldn't sign up for that in a second is because I'd drop the pen in my excitement.
 
Surfer said:
Rendlesham forest

lighthouse beam from a lighthouse

loads of discrepancies amongst those witnesses as to what actually happened...
Click to expand...

Regardless of what actually did happen, it's clear from numerous investigations that the lighthouse theory as an explanation is quite simply insulting everyones intelligence and has been taken apart. More significantly the core witnesses that were in Halt's group on the ground have always maintained consistency, the majority of the discrepancies are minor and largely insignificant in the grand scheme of the unfolding events.

Surfer said:
so 70 ppl and not one of em had a camera?

But like i said it doesnt help when some of the witnesses tell blatantly different stories of what happened. (according to that wiki link anyway)
Click to expand...

Jim Peniston took several still photos, he claims they were destroyed to that effect when being developed at the base, he did take plaster casts of the three indentations on the forest floor the following morning though

Tefal said:
You know lie detectors are inadmissible in court?

because they can be gotten around with little bit of practice/preparation
Click to expand...

Theres 4 or 5 guys who have passed at least 2, some of them 3 seperate tests between 1975 and again in 1993 and more recently, they were normal joes with nothing to gain other than be ridiculed by the masses
They were treated like scum essentially

Think the below summary taken from the Rendlesham site is still begging an answer after nearly 28 years if nothing else

Was the Rendlesham forest incident of defence significance?

This question is easy to answer, and I truly believe that the MoD were plain wrong in their conclusion. We don't even know how they came to this conclusion. As I have already said, if an unknown and intelligently controlled object (so the witnesses say) plunging into the trees less than a mile away from two USAF bases harboring nuclear weapons is of no defence significance to the United Kingdom, I cannot think what would be!

If an unknown object leaving traces of radiation around a forest less than a mile away from nuclear-armed USAF bases and then flying up into the sky and beaming laser-type beams towards the nuclear bunkers is not of any defence significance; then we should start worrying what else the Ministry Of Defence are over-looking.

There is another way of looking at it also, and this is to work out the possibilities - there are only two:

1. Either many trained USAF personnel as well as the bases' Deputy Base Commander, who were meant to be guarding nuclear-armed bases, were all hallucinating for 2-3 nights during the Cold War.
2. Or what they say did happen really did happen - intelligently controlled unknown objects exhibiting advanced technology visited the area near RAF Woodbridge and RAF Bentwaters for 2-3 nights in a row.

Either of these scenarios must surely be important to the Ministry of Defence; I would be very surprised if anyone can claim otherwise.
 
Mexican military airforce have in the past issued footage at a press conference taken by their fighter pilots observing unknown objects in their airspace. Most airforces have had similar events especially Belgian and Russian but are usually careful to go public, Mexico however..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDOOZ_IPb6Y

Also Coln Halt (deputy base commander from Rendlesham) press conference

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmR2PzgLPhg

And security officer willing to swear under oath in congress

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ydRncq9wQA
 
ten80p said:
This question is easy to answer, and I truly believe that the MoD were plain wrong in their conclusion. We don't even know how they came to this conclusion. As I have already said, if an unknown and intelligently controlled object (so the witnesses say) plunging into the trees less than a mile away from two USAF bases harboring nuclear weapons is of no defence significance to the United Kingdom, I cannot think what would be!

If an unknown object leaving traces of radiation around a forest less than a mile away from nuclear-armed USAF bases and then flying up into the sky and beaming laser-type beams towards the nuclear bunkers is not of any defence significance; then we should start worrying what else the Ministry Of Defence are over-looking.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you are taking everything that happened as true and then working things out from there. You are making an assumption on what happened that fits what you want to have happened. From that initial assumption it could well make the MoD look like they were either covering something up or that they are incompetent.


ten80p said:
There is another way of looking at it also, and this is to work out the possibilities - there are only two:

1. Either many trained USAF personnel as well as the bases' Deputy Base Commander, who were meant to be guarding nuclear-armed bases, were all hallucinating for 2-3 nights during the Cold War.
2. Or what they say did happen really did happen - intelligently controlled unknown objects exhibiting advanced technology visited the area near RAF Woodbridge and RAF Bentwaters for 2-3 nights in a row.

Either of these scenarios must surely be important to the Ministry of Defence; I would be very surprised if anyone can claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

Again you make the assumption that everything you have been told about the event is true and all of the "evidence" you have been presented is true. If it isn't then it makes your possibilities meaningless.

Nothing would make me happier than discovering life on other worlds or being contacted by life from other worlds, I have shelves of SciFi at home. But the sad truth is that there is very little real evidence of it ever occurring and that the so called "witnesses" tend to be somewhat unreliable. Just because you don't trust the government shouldn't mean that you trust every Tom Dick and Harry that makes a claim about UFOs.
 
RDM said:
But the sad truth is that there is very little real evidence of it ever occurring and that the so called "witnesses" tend to be somewhat unreliable. Just because you don't trust the government shouldn't mean that you trust every Tom Dick and Harry that makes a claim about UFOs.
Click to expand...

That is largely the point I was trying to make earlier, just because you don't believe one doesn't automatically add credibility to the other. Being open minded does not mean accepting everything at face value - that is naivety at best and blatant stupidity at worst. If you look at the available evidence and decide it does not satisfy you that does not necessarily mean you are closed minded, it can simply mean that none is compelling enough to make you believe in it.
 
The government must absolutely love all the UFO conspiracy stuff, they can use it to hide anything!

e.g. you have a military plane crash on UK soil carrying a nuclear weapon, normally something like that would trigger a massive investigation + panic etc. All they have to do is get a few military people to come out with stories about strange lights, UFOs and unexplained radiation etc and the huge majority of people will just ignore the story due to all the nutters that'll jump on it as proof of aliens!
 
RDM said:
The problem is that you are taking everything that happened as true and then working things out from there. You are making an assumption on what happened that fits what you want to have happened. From that initial assumption it could well make the MoD look like they were either covering something up or that they are incompetent.

Again you make the assumption that everything you have been told about the event is true and all of the "evidence" you have been presented is true. If it isn't then it makes your possibilities meaningless.

Nothing would make me happier than discovering life on other worlds or being contacted by life from other worlds, I have shelves of SciFi at home. But the sad truth is that there is very little real evidence of it ever occurring and that the so called "witnesses" tend to be somewhat unreliable. Just because you don't trust the government shouldn't mean that you trust every Tom Dick and Harry that makes a claim about UFOs.
Click to expand...

I understand what your saying however I don't consider myself to fall into the category of either believing everything pro UFO or wanting to believe everything is simply true or a cover up. This specific case has always intrigued me because of the number of what I would refer to as credible witnesses with nothing to gain yet everything to lose. Military personnel reporting this kind of stuff were/are generally looked down on yet here we have the deputy base commander writing an official report to both USAF and UK MOD. Factor into this the supporting evidence of off-site radar, non military witnesses in surrounding area, radiation readings, on the fly recorded running commentary, physical evidence and then the sensitivity and implications of the event based on where this took place then you can apply a subjective opinion on the event based on many factors. The fact that there are still so many unanswered questions for such an event to have been reported inside a restricted zone at a nuclear site is both a matter of and a breach of national security surely by any standards.

On that night if a member of the public or greenpeace had managed to get to that location they'd have been ripped a new hole and taken to the cleaners, and it would have been taken extremely seriously as a very significant breach of security even if they'd been intercepted by merely a couple of random junior offices, yet here we have an alledged unknown object landing in that very spot that no-one still to this day can explain and yet the MOD officially (even though later proven to be not the case) didn't even launch an investigation but did confirm that both radars on site were both out of action during this period, surely therefore this makes the events even more 'lack of security' significant

The number of testimonies from military airforce pilots, commercial pilots and air traffic controllers is significant yet even this kind of evidence is often dismissed or ridiculed

You say I assume the report on Rendlesham to be true, fair point but at what point do we think its true or untrue ? What evidence is missing ? Do we assume the radar was wrong or the operator(s) were wrong, were all 70+ personnel collectively doing a hoax, was the geiger counter wrong, were the public witnesses outside the base part of the hoax, were the holes in the floor and marks on the trees fabricated, anyone could apply this train of thought to everything in life because the words compelling and evidence themselves vary from person to person
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom