SamBridge Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) So you are going to assert one unknown phenomena to explain another unknown phenomena? Sam, I am not talking about a light in the sky or something seen but not enough information has been gathered to know what it is. are you going to tell me a slow moving meteor stopped and shown a green light on that helicopter and was seen from the ground by completely unconnected observers? Are you going to tell the airliner that observes a powered object was ball lightning? I'm saying for sure these things are alien space craft but to dismiss them all as ball lightning or odd clouds is just not paying attention,.,, There are indeed cases of UFOs that are completely inexplicable, have huge amounts of data, competent observers, radar contacts, multiple independent observers and multiple independent radar contacts. The point is that there are many natural phenomena that can be mistaken for things like UFOs and simply don't have enough scientific testing to detirmine with certainty what they really are because they are rare phenomena it isn't even often that I see a lenticular cloud in a region with no mountains, but it still happens sometimes, and even before you can get to that point you have to consider the likelihoods I mentioned, such as life forming elsewhere in the universe, then having a good enough environment to evolve to a highly intelligent point, then developing space travel technology, then out of all the planets in the universe they manage to find this specific one and mess with it rather than contacting the species on it or enslaving it. Edited February 21, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) The point is that there are many natural phenomena that can be mistaken for things like UFOs and simply don't have enough scientific testing to detirmine with certainty what they really are because they are rare phenomena it isn't even often that I see a lenticular cloud in a region with no mountains, but it still happens sometimes, and even before you can get to that point you have to consider the likelihoods I mentioned, such as life forming elsewhere in the universe, then having a good enough environment to evolve to a highly intelligent point, then developing space travel technology, then out of all the planets in the universe they manage to find this specific one and mess with it rather than contacting the species on it or enslaving it. No, there are sightings that cannot be any natural phenomena and the likely hood is meaningless. Tell a lottery winner he cannot have the money because the odds are so low he couldn't have won. Edited February 21, 2013 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) No, there are sightings that cannot be any natural phenomena You have virtually no proof of that. We have proof that rare phenomena can be mistaken for supernatural or extra terrestrial things, and 0 proof that extraterrestrial or supernatural things are mistaken as rare phenomena. Tell a lottery winner he cannot have the money because the odds are so low he couldn't have won. But if you bet your house on a lottery ticket, you'd probably end up homeless. There's possibly infinite numbers of planets, the conditions i mentioned absolutely have meaning because we need to be rational and actually consider how likely it is not only that extraterrestrial life would form, but that it would be able to create technology and then find this planet and then somehow not contact anything on the planet or enslave it. Edited February 21, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 You have virtually no proof of that. We have proof that rare phenomena can be mistaken for supernatural or extra terrestrial things, and 0 proof that extraterrestrial or supernatural things are mistaken as rare phenomena. But if you bet your house on a lottery ticket, you'd probably end up homeless. There's possibly infinite numbers of planets, the conditions i mentioned absolutely have meaning because we need to be rational and actually consider how likely it is not only that extraterrestrial life would form, but that it would be able to create technology and then find this planet and then somehow not contact anything on the planet or enslave it. Again, please tell me what natural phenomena could account for the sighting I listed and they are not even close to being the best.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JrPahoodneyMan Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Maybe the vehicles are atmospheric and reverse gravity propelled, and it could be piloted by evolved humans that came before our Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) Again, please tell me what natural phenomena could account for the sighting I listed and they are not even close to being the best.... Clouds particularly lenticular ones, plums or outbreaks of dust or vapor such as sometimes localized condensed bursts of steam or ash from near a volcano ball lightning, tricks of light on a lens, photoshop, the relative perception of a meteor or plane, meteors planes. weather balloons birds, military air crafts (which actually can account for some, there was even an experiment called a "stealth blimp" which matched the shape of what was described in UFO sightings), maybe satellites as sometimes they come close to Earth, not necessarily all "natural" phenomena but they aren't supernatural or extra terrestrial phenomena. Edited February 21, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 Clouds particularly lenticular ones, plums or outbreaks of dust or vapor such as sometimes localized condensed bursts of steam or ash from near a volcano ball lightning, tricks of light on a lens, photoshop, the relative perception of a meteor or plane, meteors planes. weather balloons birds, military air crafts (which actually can account for some, there was even an experiment called a "stealth blimp" which matched the shape of what was described in UFO sightings), maybe satellites as sometimes they come close to Earth, not necessarily all "natural" phenomena but they aren't supernatural or extra terrestrial phenomena. please point out even one of those things that could apply in the cases i cited... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) please point out even one of those things that could apply in the cases i cited... All of them. I've seen quite a few pictures that looked similar to UFOs, but when I looked closer they were definitely mere lenticular clouds. You had your heart set on the existence of alien life it seems, but unless there is definite proof you will have to accept it is unlikely to one of the highest degrees. Edited February 21, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 All of them. I've seen quite a few pictures that looked similar to UFOs, but when I looked closer they were definitely mere lenticular clouds. You had your heart set on the existence of alien life it seems, but unless there is definite proof you will have to accept it is unlikely to one of the highest degrees. No Sam, none of the things you mentioned could possibly have applied to the cases i quoted. You are falling victim to pelicanism, where it's so important to show that a UFO is something natural that you will apply the most absurd explanation. My favorite was the "slow meteorite" explanation, i once read where a UFO was attributed to a comet, I'm not requiring that alien space craft be the answer but silly horse feathers isn't either and as i have pointed out the odds are meaningless and assumes quite a bit that is not necessarily true. Like: intelligent life forms only colonize planets FTL is required to colonize the galaxy The Earth is so valuable that any aliens who found it would take it over immediately. There is more but I think you can get my point from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) Alright, you asked for it. http://www.squidoo.com/cloud-lenticular http://www.ufo-bbs.com/txt1/679.htm http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-common-explanations-for-ufos.php http://www.thestealthblimp.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20090124173840/http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/black_triangle_020805.html http://www.livescience.com/9030-mystery-green-fireball-ufos-solved.html And that's AFTER you consider the high improbability of intelligent life evolving, then developing space technology, then finding earth and not interfering at all when it has so many resources. You have to accept that things could easily not be UFOs more easily than they could be, especially considering experimental military technology. If you don't, you are in denial about something. Once again, I will state we have proof that natural or man-made phenomena can be mistaken for extra terrestrial life, and no proof of the vice-versa, no proof that something could only be an alien space ship. Oxalic acid trails? I used oxalic acid myself when I was cleaning quartz crystals I had mined, and oxalic cases where reported in the south which is where quartz is mined in the US. Crop circles? Attach a manual lawnmower to a string attached to a stake around a central point, you will be able to move in a circle, I used a manual lawnmower myself that flattened grass more often than it cut it. Those are much more likely than life from another planet forming space technology then finding Earth out of millions of planets in a universe virtually infinitely large and then somehow not only remaining undetected when there are observatories all around the world and likely plenty of scientists who would want to share the existence of aliens with people. Edited February 22, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 Alright, you asked for it. http://www.squidoo.com/cloud-lenticular http://www.ufo-bbs.com/txt1/679.htm http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-common-explanations-for-ufos.php http://www.thestealthblimp.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20090124173840/http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/black_triangle_020805.html http://www.livescience.com/9030-mystery-green-fireball-ufos-solved.html And that's AFTER you consider the high improbability of intelligent life evolving, then developing space technology, then finding earth and not interfering at all when it has so many resources. You have to accept that things could easily not be UFOs more easily than they could be, especially considering experimental military technology. If you don't, you are in denial about something. Once again, I will state we have proof that natural or man-made phenomena can be mistaken for extra terrestrial life, and no proof of the vice-versa, no proof that something could only be an alien space ship. Oxalic acid trails? I used oxalic acid myself when I was cleaning quartz crystals I had mined, and oxalic cases where reported in the south which is where quartz is mined in the US. Crop circles? Attach a manual lawnmower to a string attached to a stake around a central point, you will be able to move in a circle, I used a manual lawnmower myself that flattened grass more often than it cut it. Those are much more likely than life from another planet forming space technology then finding Earth out of millions of planets in a universe virtually infinitely large and then somehow not only remaining undetected when there are observatories all around the world and likely plenty of scientists who would want to share the existence of aliens with people. Sam, again, none of those things could possibly account for the sightings i quoted, in fact those things are obviously not UFOs since they are identified.... UFO means something int he sky that cannot be explained after all possible causes have been taken into account... simply seeing something you cannot identify is technically not an official UFO until it has been investigated... A civilization that at about the same level as our own could conceivably colonize the entire galaxy in a few million years, an eye blink in cosmic time. Crop circles? Really? Crop circles? I thought you wanted to seriously discuss this Sam... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Semjase Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Maybe this UFO disclosure movie will shed a new light on the UFO question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) Sam, again, none of those things could possibly account for the sightings i quoted, in fact those things are obviously not UFOs since they are identified.... UFO means something int he sky that cannot be explained after all possible causes have been taken into account... simply seeing something you cannot identify is technically not an official UFO until it has been investigated... A civilization that at about the same level as our own could conceivably colonize the entire galaxy in a few million years, an eye blink in cosmic time. Crop circles? Really? Crop circles? I thought you wanted to seriously discuss this Sam... This is where it doesn't make sense. I've seen you around the site and normally you make good logical points, I don't see why you are acting illogical all of a sudden. Those things can absolutely account for what has been claimed to have been seen, and they are far more plausible than aliens. I looked at those links, they could easily be a complex clouds and tricks of the lens and light, relative perspective of objects of how they are lined up, experimental military crafts which of course the military would want to hide knowledge about if it would advance their operations in any way. Just because it's unidentified doesn't mean there can't be a theory about it. We have never observed or identified a single object in space that is on it's own a black hole, all we can see is the gas swirling around what we think is one, yet we have all sorts of physics that can accurately model the behavior we suspect of it. The fact that it is unknown exactly what it is does not rule out plausible explanations. In fact, it encourages us to look through them. If your arguement is "it's possible", I can't really disagree with that, all I can do is tell you it's hghly unlikely given what we know. 1000 years ago you would have been taken seriously if you said you saw a spirit floating in the sky. Now we know it was likely ball lightning. Edited February 22, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 from my own post It can be asserted with little debate that the Airforce not only lied and ridiculed peoples reports of UFOs they did not scientifically study the phenomena and did much to prevent any real study of this phenomenon. To this day the US Airforce's stance of ridicule has prevented almost any serious study of the phenomena. I just don't think the subject has gotten the study it deserves and anyone who tries risks being labeled a crank or crack pot. Not all UFO's are simple lights in the sky, many have an embarrassing amount of observational data and remain completely inexplicable. If any other subject had as much evidence as UFOs do it would be rigorously studied...I just can't dismiss all sightings as mistaken identity or hoaxes or stupidity. At one time meteorites were dismissed out of hand and the people who saw then and even picked them up after they fell to earth were dismissed as unreliable "eyewitnesses" this went on for centuries, ridicule accomplishes nothing. For instance, the following photograph was made back in the 1950's, there are two photos, the photos and the negatives tested. the best technology we have confirms this is an actual photo of a real object in the range of 50 or 60 feet across. The people who took it made nothing off it and had no motive to fake this in any way and in fact waited until the roll was filled before developing the photos not really understanding what they had taken a photo of. http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/topphotos/photo301.htm http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) from my own post For instance, the following photograph was made back in the 1950's, there are two photos, the photos and the negatives tested. the best technology we have confirms this is an actual photo of a real object in the range of 50 or 60 feet across. The people who took it made nothing off it and had no motive to fake this in any way and in fact waited until the roll was filled before developing the photos not really understanding what they had taken a photo of. http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/topphotos/photo301.htm http://brumac.8k.com/trent2.html That easily looks like it could be a blimp or weather balloon, most likely a weather balloon or some kind of weather monitoring device, I would speculate at most it was an experimental design to see if weather balloons or flotation devices could be used to keep watch of things from the sky, a precursor to drones or stealth blimps, or just a home made experiment which I have seen done before, at first glance that's what I thought it was, not a UFO. I need something more than a random distant object, it's like those lochness monster photos, if there was a picture of one from less than 10 meters away with the object on the ground that was proven to not be fake I'd be less skeptical. I believe the object in the photo is real, but I think there are more plausible explanations than a UFO created by etxtra-terrestrial life that by a 1/100000^1000000000000000000000000000000000 chance were formed and then evolved and then created advanced space technology then out of another 1/1000000000000^100000000000000 chance found Earth. Edited February 22, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 That easily looks like it could be a blimp or weather balloon, most likely a weather balloon or some kind of weather monitoring device, I would speculate at most it was an experimental design to see if weather balloons or flotation devices could be used to keep watch of things from the sky, a precursor to drones or stealth blimps, or just a home made experiment which I have seen done before, at first glance that's what I thought it was, not a UFO. I need something more than a random distant object, it's like those lochness monster photos, if there was a picture of one from less than 10 meters away with the object on the ground that was proven to not be fake I'd be less skeptical. I believe the object in the photo is real, but I think there are more plausible explanations than a UFO created by etxtra-terrestrial life that by a 1/100000^1000000000000000000000000000000000 chance were formed and then evolved and then created advanced space technology then out of another 1/1000000000000^100000000000000 chance found Earth. Again Sam, odds have nothing to do with this and while I know it's not proof it is obviously not a weather balloon. The picture was taken in 1950 Sam, jet aircraft were relatively rare, the object was 50 to 60 feet across it was not a drone or blimp. If it was the only such photo or sighting it could be seen as an aberration but it is not the only such photo, in fact there were at the time several photos of virtually identical objects taken around thew world. pelicanism: The assertion that something completely impossible can account for something unknown Kenneth Arnold saw several Metallic discs traveling at 1800 mph go past Mt. Rainier in a line. Ornithologists say pelicans often fly in a line and the sun can reflect off them so the objects must have been pelicans... flying at 1800 mph... I cannot prove that UFOs are alien space craft but I can show the phenomena is not explainable by any known means and the analysis the subject gets, like the way you dismiss it, is wrong. Any other unknown phenomena with as much supporting data as UFOs have would be a hot bed of research and study to figure out what was going on. UFO's however are ignored and ridiculed even though they cannot be adequately explained. I do have a falsifiable hypothesis that attempts to explain them but since the odds are so small why bother... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) Again Sam, odds have nothing to do with this and while I know it's not proof it is obviously not a weather balloon. The picture was taken in 1950 Sam, jet aircraft were relatively rare, the object was 50 to 60 feet across it was not a drone or blimp. If it was the only such photo or sighting it could be seen as an aberration but it is not the only such photo, in fact there were at the time several photos of virtually identical objects taken around thew world. Aerial technology was being worked on in the 1950s. http://library.thinkquest.org/C002733/History/timeline.htm I cannot prove that UFOs are alien space craft but I can show the phenomena is not explainable by any known means and the analysis the subject gets, like the way you dismiss it, is wrong. Any other unknown phenomena with as much supporting data as UFOs have would be a hot bed of research and study to figure out what was going on. UFO's however are ignored and ridiculed even though they cannot be adequately explained. This is where you're wrong. Not only did I specifically not dismiss the possibility which you can see at the bottom of post 38, but just because we can't confirm what something is doesn't mean we can't have a plausible explanation and doesn't mean we should assume it's some outlandish supernatural/extraterrestrial phenomena. Regardless of the fact that we can't confirm what it is, there are at least 5 other more plausible explanations, you could argue that the picture is evidence that people experimented with weather balloons, you could use it as evidence that the military was experimenting with aerial technology, you could use it as evidence people liked playing with giant Frisbee in the 1950s, all more likely than aliens. This doesn't have to do with confirming what an object is, it has to do with the fact that there's a 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance it was aliens and a much larger chance it was something from Earth. "Kenneth Arnold saw several Metallic discs traveling at 1800 mph go past Mt. Rainier in a line. Ornithologists say pelicans often fly in a line and the sun can reflect off them so the objects must have been pelicans... flying at 1800 mph..", not considering experimental military technology for a moment, how did he measure it was going that fast? Edited February 22, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 Aerial technology was being worked on in the 1950s. http://library.thinkquest.org/C002733/History/timeline.htm maybe it was a giant pelican... come on Sam, why propose an impossible thing to explain an unknown just because the unknown is uncomfortable? In 1950 such a craft was impossible, the US government came to the conclusion that UFOs were alien space craft but the top guys were afraid to accept the possibility and squashed the report. This is where you're wrong. Not only did I specifically not dismiss the possibility which you can see at the bottom of post 38, but just because we can't confirm what something is doesn't mean we can't have a plausible explanation and doesn't mean we should assume it's some outlandish supernatural/extraterrestrial phenomena. Regardless of the fact that we can't confirm what it is, there are at least 5 other more plausible explanations, you could argue that the picture is evidence that people experimented with weather balloons, you could use it as evidence that the military was experimenting with aerial technology, you could use it as evidence people liked playing with giant Frisbee in the 1950s, all more likely than aliens. This doesn't have to do with confirming what an object is, it has to do with the fact that there's a 1/10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance it was aliens and a much larger chance it was something from Earth. citing something completely implausible to explain something else implausible accomplishes nothing... and as i said before the odds have nothing to do with it, it's like saying the odds of life developing on the earth from chemicals is so implausible it couldn't have happened, the odds of this are not a trillion trillion trillion to one, the odds of life developing on the earth is 1, it happened, if aliens are visiting us then the odds are 1 stubbornly saying the odds are trillions to one while aliens are flying around is silly... I will admit that a great deal of the UFO "culture" is stupid but ignoring real phenomena is just as stupid. "Kenneth Arnold saw several Metallic discs traveling at 1800 mph go past Mt. Rainier in a line. Ornithologists say pelicans often fly in a line and the sun can reflect off them so the objects must have been pelicans... flying at 1800 mph..", not considering experimental military technology for a moment, how did he measure it was going that fast? Ummm.... he timed them over a known distance,in 1947 people could do simple math... who knew... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 BTW Sam, the Coyne helicopter incident is totally inexplicable unless it was a conspiracy of several people in two different and unrelated groups one group which was comprised of trained military observers who saw the purported UFO from a very close distance. Did you bother to actually read the report? http://www.nuforc.org/Coyne.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 (edited) maybe it was a giant pelican... come on Sam, why propose an impossible thing to explain an unknown Are you kidding me? You think a bird or a weather balloon or an experiment is impossible but you think aliens are more probable? You're too deep into this, you need to take a step back and realize what you're saying. Ummm.... he timed them over a known distance,in 1947 people could do simple math... who knew... That's almost trolling, I obviously did not state they could do math, it is unlikely observers would spontaneously at a random moment of a random day be able to get equipment out to measure it's exact speed. Edited February 22, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 22, 2013 Author Share Posted February 22, 2013 Are you kidding me? You think a bird or a weather balloon or an experiment is impossible but you think aliens are more probable? You're too deep into this, you need to take a step back and realize what you're saying. In 1950 yes... Seriously Sam, that picture has been subjected to more scientific scrutiny that is possible to represent... it was not a bird a weather balloon, a slow meteor, a frisby, a pie tin, or anything else explainable, it is simply inexplicable... That's almost trolling, I obviously did not state they could do math, it is unlikely observers would spontaneously at a random moment of a random day be able to get equipment out to measure it's exact speed. He was a pilot, he flew that route routinely, he was aware of the distance, he used a watch to time them over a course he knew the distance of, between two mountain peaks, he estimation of 1800 mph disturbed him so much he cut it down to 1200 to adjust for possible error. he thought they were experimental aircraft from the US he was not a UFO nut, they were not super sonic pelicans... No one knows what they were but no reasonable explanation fits the observed facts. Now how about the Coyne helicopter incident? If anything it is even harder to explain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 Everytime I look at the title of this thread, I think it's an oxymoron. If anything it is even harder to explain... If it's hard to explain, it must be an Alien spacecraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 23, 2013 Author Share Posted February 23, 2013 Everytime I look at the title of this thread, I think it's an oxymoron. If it's hard to explain, it must be an Alien spacecraft. No, but if it can't be explained hanging something flat out impossible on it as an explanation is not science... slow moving meteor my grandmas ass... I can live with "it's not explainable for now" but ridicule is not going to find a reasonable answer... This is a very good sighting, very difficult to explain... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Tehran_UFO_incident The incident is regarded by a number of UFO researchers to be one of the premier UFO encounters ever recorded. Some researchers consider it strong evidence for the extraterrestrial origins of the UFO because there was a blackout on the F-4 just when it was going to fire and because of instrumental breakdowns on two different aircraft while they were on the chase. A military spy satellite also recorded this incident. The [/size]DSP-1 satellite detected an infrared anomaly during the time of this event that lasted for about an hour.[/size][17] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 (edited) In 1950 yes... Seriously Sam, that picture has been subjected to more scientific scrutiny that is possible to represent... it was not a bird a weather balloon, a slow meteor, a frisby, a pie tin, or anything else explainable, it is simply inexplicable... Your problem seems to be confusing an answer with a possibility. We don't know what it was, but that doesn't mean we don't have possibilities. If I lock in man in a room with a bag with 99 green marbles and 1 red marble, if all I know is that he picked some kind of marble from the bag, I can say with certainty he had a 99% chance of picking a green one, which is pretty likely. Edited February 23, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 23, 2013 Author Share Posted February 23, 2013 No Sam, you assume that UFOs have to be explainable in terrestrial terms, you think any answer is more likely than aliens no matter silly the answer is. there are no supersonic pelicans, no slow moving meteors, and sometimes there is an embarrassing amount of data but no answers that fit your narrow world view. Expand your mind but stay skeptical. Being skeptical doesn't mean rejecting everything but it does require that answers make sense in the light of the evidence... . If no answer makes sense despite the data then you say it's unknown, you don't desperately try to pound a square peg into a round hole because you can't let your self believe in round pegs... This UFO documentary is probably the best One I've ever seen, they cover the subject relatively neutral and go out of their way to point out the silly as well as the sublime. I recommend it for anyone with even a passing interest in UFOs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now