The day that UFO proponents have been waiting for has finally arrived. Britain has finally released all of its UFO records for the years 1978 through 2002. The results are shocking.
It turns out that aliens and alien spacecraft are far more common than imagined, in people’s imagination, that is.
Rather than having a vast underground organization for dealing with UFOs as in, for example, the movie Men in Black, the British government has employed a single civil servant, who spent 25% effort at cataloging reports.
Virtually all of the reports are laughable, such as the meals on wheels driver who reported seeing a “Vulcan-shaped” object in the sky.
UFO aficionados insist that the problem is with the government, that they didn’t take the reports seriously, and did not properly investigate them. That brings up the obvious question of how exactly you would investigate a flashing light in the sky after it had been reported. No matter. Governments could release their UFO reports till they were blue in the face, and UFO fans would still insist that they were covering up the real reports. This is because UFO fans have already concluded that aliens are among us, primarily based on science fiction movies and TV shows.
So which is it? Is the government hiding all of their meticulous reports on aliens and UFOS, or did they not take any of it seriously, and didn’t bother to investigate the reported sightings?
One thing is certain, nothing that governments say will change UFO fan’s minds. They are in full conspiracy-mode, thinking that there is some vast plot to keep the truth from the people of the world. The boring truth is, aliens don’t give a hoot about the Earth, and that’s probably a good thing, what with death rays and all.
Dr. John Moffett is an active research neuroscientist in the Washington, DC area, who has published over 45 scientific articles on the nervous and immune systems. Dr. Moffett is also the author and webmaster of the political opinion website www.Factinista.org, and is a Managing Editor at OpEdNews.com.
You are acting exactly the way people were when we tried to convinced them about the earth is round and evolution. No matter how many proof we have you will NEVER look at them. You know when Galileo try to proof the earth resolved around the sun many people like you didnt even want to LOOK inside his telescope.
You know all those evidences wont desappear by magic!
We life in a universe of science get used to it.
by
Sylvain Pimpare (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments)
on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 2:52:32 AM
That's the problem, there is no evidence. If you can point to one shred, I'd love to see it. I don't mean cheesy web sites, I mean some picture from the Hubble telescope of colonies on the moon or Mars, or a real spaceship in orbit.
No evidence at all. Zip.
And by the way, I am a scientist. That's what I do for a living.
The distances are too far to travel, and there are no wormholes to pop from star system to star system. You have to go sublight, and you need more fuel than you can carry. That's why even though other civilzations may exist, they aren't going to stop by for a visit any time soon.
John
by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 610 comments)
on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 5:36:00 AM
More research need by your authors before publishing
If anything this article is laughable. There are many eyewitness accounts of unexplained objects by reliable witnesses such as pilots, police officers and the military. To say all these people are lying is obsurd, the chances of that are highly unlikely. Agreed from our current Science chances of ET visiting is also unlikely but our known Science can only be the beginning of what is to be discovered. Less than a century ago many of today's acheivements were thought impossible. Why can't people like you accept there is a phenomenan which is currently unexplained by Science and just say 'Well we don't know what it is yet' instead of pathetically ridiculing the subject. For a person of Science you choose to reject all reliable eyewitness testimony instead of saying further investigation is required. One day when you see an Unknown Aerial Phenomenan (UAP) you will say 'Oh wow, I was wrong about that!'
by
A W (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 6:20:01 AM
And he and his fellow pilots have never seen a spacecraft.
UFO means unidentified, and since all aircraft in the air are of Earth origin, that simply means that the witness could not identify them. That doesn't mean they are spaceships from another planet.
Eye witness accounts are known as anecdotal evidence, and do not have any relation to scientific evidence. Please present me some scientific evidence of extraterrestrial spacecraft.
You can't, because there is none.
I'd be a pretty poor scientist if I accepted things without any scientific evidence, wouldn't I?
by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 610 comments)
on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 7:47:44 AM
I have not said to accept anything without evidence
You saying 'My brother and his pilots have never seen a spacecraft' is a scientifically incorrect statement. What you mean is your brother and his fellow pilots have told you they have never seen a spacecraft, which doesn't prove that they have or haven't. Regardless of that other pilots do claim to have seen UAP.
Just to reiterate I have not declared UAP to be definitely aliens, that is just a theory and there is no evidence to back that up. Although there are many accounts of the military disclosed in the disclosure project describing their involvement with alien technology, they have no proof of course. But it is ludicrous to accept that all sightings can be put down to known explanations, as about 5-10% cannot be explained.
Since the Second World War up until today pilots have witnessed unexplained orbs of light, discs etc with some of them up to a mile wide as the Guernsey UFO seen by pilots of two airplanes and the passengers and picked up on radar. These could be natural atmospheric phenomena not fully understood by science, and it is a fact that some pilots are seeing something. Some people think alien visitation best fits the accounts as a theory, others don't but that does not make the phenomena go away.
Eyewitness testimony can enough to convict someone of a crime. Science is wrong to dismiss all reliable sightings just because it lacks physical evidence. Instead what should be concluded is a phenomena may exist but we don't know what it is yet. But science is not brave enough to say that. It is childish for someone like you to write a one sided article which does nothing scientifically.
Project Blue Book in the US concluded all sightings can be explained because they ignored the 5-10% which cannot be explained, which is the same as what you are doing.
In a recent survey 24% in South East England have seen a UFO.
In 1942 the US military fired over 1400 round of ammunition at what they originally said was a UFO then later changed the story to a balloon. Would they really fire that much ammo at a balloon?
In 1947 they said the Roswell crash was a UFO at first before changing the story. Wonder why they said it was a UFO if it was obviously man-made, unless the high ranking military official was stupid.
Gary McKinnon hacked into NASA computers and claims he found documents on UFOs, antigravity technology and 'free energy'. If that turns out to be true then he should be able to provide that evidence in 70 years when he's out of jail.
And to finish with I seem to remember that the Rendelsham forest sighting had radiation above background level at the exact location of where the supposed landing occurred.
by
A W (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 10:27:14 AM
I repeat, if I accepted someone's word that ghosts exist, just because they said they saw one, I'd be a terrible scientist.
You offer only anecdotal evidence, which of course is not scientific evidence.
Many people have been wrongly convicted of crimes due to poor eyewitness accounts, so again, bad example.
Science is science, and you haven't given me a shred of scientific evidence, so I stick with my hypothesis that UFOs are normal events that are misinterpreted by witnesses.
If you offered me real evidence, I'd change my mind, but so far you haven't.
by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 610 comments)
on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 10:34:02 AM
UFOs are normal events that are misinterpreted by witnesses?
That is absurd! Talk to someone who is a reliable witness who says they have seen one and they will tell you that a 'normal event' is definitely not the correct description of what happened. They won't claim to know what they saw but they will be sure that it wasn't a conventional aircraft or known astronomical phenomena.
People claim to see things that are nothing like any explained event so you are claiming their misinterpretations have to be wildly out of what really happened.
For you to say it was definitely misinterpreted is as ridiculous as the witness claiming it was definitely an alien spaceship. The only hypothesis we can draw is that it could have been a normal event misinterpreted but we don't know so it may also be an unknown event yet unexplained.
by
A W (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 11:01:26 AM
If you saw a UFO would you assume you had misinterpreted something normal even if your brain was telling you what you saw was real, or even that something was wrong with you. Assuming what you thought you saw couldn't be explained by anything conventional and remained unexplained to the present day a long time after the event.
Also assuming hallucinations ruled out since it's a sighting involving many people. Would any sane person assume they had misinterpreted something ordinary when they all claim to have seen something which doesn't even resemble anything ordinary, an example could be a low flying triangle craft a mile wide.
Therefore those people would disagree with your hypothesis.
You would have no evidence of their brain misinterpreting the event so your hypothesis cannot be proven. This leads to a lack of conclusion and so leaves open the possibility that you are wrong. Therefore you should conclude that current science is inconclusive for this event.
by
A W (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 12:21:27 PM
...scientists don't operate by your method of simply trusting what some people think they saw. Thankfully, they run the tests in multiple labs, collect the data, and confirm, modify or refute the hypothesis.
I'm amazed that you are convinced without ever having seen one yourself.
by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 610 comments)
on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 12:58:24 PM
How can you confirm your hypothesis to be true if you can't test in a lab using the people who had the sighting, since you cannot analyse their brain chemistry for particular traits?
Therefore leaving an inconclusion to the sighting.
And no I would not operate by just trusting what they saw but I would not be so ignorant as to say that they hallucinated without having any evidence that they did.
by
A W (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 1:09:10 PM
I can't believe someone like you can maintain be a scientific by make CONCLUSION without looking to all the evidences first.
There is a LOT of evidences but you refuse to look at them. You convince yourself there is none that's call denial and you are affected by it because you are scare of the truth.
Please see a psychologist and then you will be able to check ALL the evidences (Thousands of Radar signtings, photos, videos, writen and verbal testimonies).
A REAL scientist like us would NORMALLY ask like ask for full disclosure. Your in denial Sir, that the reason you dont WANT full disclosure on the subject.
Denial is a defense mechanism' postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.
Sylvain Pimpare
by
Sylvain Pimpare (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments)
on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 at 11:09:12 PM
Imagine people hallucinating without interviewing them.
Imagine all the photos and videos are fakes without analysing them.
Imagine Radars to be "someting else" without even knowing how to read radar.
Do you realise that when someone show you real evidences like http://www.disclosureproject.org/ you cant even go through them all and change site instead (ridiculus ones) to have a laugh and feel more secure and in control.
Thinking that you dont need to listen, read, analyse, learn since you ALREADY know what will be the result.
You are a very poor scientist.
Denial is a very powerful thing, isnt?
by
Sylvain Pimpare (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments)
on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 5:13:40 AM
i AM STILL SKEPTICAL ABOUT UFO,s and I read the frequent posts on OpEdNews about them as science fiction. The most prolific recent poster on this topic offers only his unsupported word.
However Mr. Moffet's arguments do leave me with a few questions. The first is how can you exclude eyewitness testimony completely from science since even the most peer reviewed scientific articles in reputable professional journals are based upon the testimony of those who performed the experiments?
Second, one of the UFO sightings mentioned by one pf the people who commented on your article reported that not only did the pilot of the plane see the UFO but it was also seen by his passengers and the pilot of another plane miles away. How can all these unconnected minds, one which was miles away, experience the same hallucination?
And third, though you baldly assert that wormholes do not exist, there are articles in professional physics and other scientific journals discussing the possibility of worm holes.
Robert Halfhill
by
rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 285 comments)
on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 at 11:51:57 PM
You forgot also if (your talking about the sighting that Im thinking) that particular sighting also have RADAR sighting CONFIRMING it too!!! So even a precise analytic machine have hallucination!
by
Sylvain Pimpare (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments)
on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 1:01:28 AM
Do you realise that if this a hoax (like 95% of them) you will help make John Moffett wrost.
Why dont you simply show him instead HARD already PROVEN evidences like in http://www.disclosureproject.org/ so he wont get lost in is denial again? your not helping him.
Do you understand that he is waiting for another hoax to write back (on it of course not on what we are REALLY talking about).
Didnt you read what wrote? He believe that our evidences are coming form movie and sci-fi shows and ABSOLUTLY doesnt want to read and view REAL evidences. He is severly affected from denial, you not helping him at all nor people like him. They being lied since their birth its not easy to escape Plato's cave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave
It's only with hard evidences that you can help them see the light.
by
Sylvain Pimpare (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 24 comments)
on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 7:14:34 AM
If it's a hoax it doesn't prove all other evidence is fake.
Surely Mr Moffett realises that or at least he should as it's the same as someone emailing him saying they have proved a theory in neuroscience. He would be fascinated at the prospect of it being true, but would prefer to go through the proof himself to see if it makes sense.
It is the same with this, if like 95% of other proposed evidence it has been faked then we will know in time and be able to move onto the next evidence put forward.
I doubt Mr Moffett would consider the disclosure project evidence anyway.
by
A W (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 7:59:07 AM
If ET did not exist, and chose to not intervene into our nuclear weapons filled world, and did not give our nuclear warfighting elite a time out; we all would have been turned into nuclear waste long ago.
If former Clinton advisor James Carville were trying to explin it all he might say something like this: "IT'S THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS STUPID."
by
Patrick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 401 comments)
on Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 11:59:37 AM
THEY COULD HAVE RIGHTED MANY OTHER WRONGS IF THEY EXISTED
That is analogous to arguing that if God did not exist and did not chose to intervene in our nuclear filled world, there would have already been a nuclear war and we would all be dead. Of course the problem with the God argument is that if He or She exists and is all powerful, He or She would of had the ability to intervene. If He or She were perfectly good, He or She would have wanted to intervene to not only restrain the use of nuclear weapons but also to prevent all the suffering and injustice in the world. But that hasn't happened so it looks like He or She doesn't exist.
Extraterrestrials, although not imagined to be nearly as powerful as God was imagined to be would still be powerful enough not only to stop nuclear war but also to prevent many of the injustices and suffering on this planet. They could have as easily intervened in our society as easily we intervened in less technically advanced societies. And if they were moral and ethical, they would want to intervene and intervene to help us and not for purposes of exploitation as we intervened with less advanced societies. But there is still a lot of suffering and injustice on this planet. So it looks like extraterrestrials don't exist either. Or at least they haven't discovered our planet yet.
Robert Halfhill
by
rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 285 comments)
on Friday, May 30, 2008 at 2:31:51 AM
That is all speculation and does not disprove or prove anything, although is correct in the similarity that just because we aren't nuclear waste it doesn't prove the existence of aliens or god from that.
The ET theory of saving the Earth only stems from eyewitness accounts of military officers seeing lasers or what appeared to be lasers emanating from a craft they said they saw land in Rendlesham Forest in England in 1980. They reported equipment malfunction at the time, and this is where the theory of the ETs disabling the nukes comes from. This is reported to have happened elsewhere too at military bases.
Just to point out this is not my theory, this is the unofficial opinion of some members of the military at the time.
by
A W (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Friday, May 30, 2008 at 5:15:05 AM
Another point is why do people try to use logical assumptions to disprove the existence of aliens visiting Earth without first looking at the evidence. It shows complete lack of objectivity, and closed mindedness of the possibility of those assumptions being incorrect.
Only primitive humans should make a comparison between god and aliens, as we now understand technology to a level to be able to make the distinction between the two.
Also there is no evidence of a god, there are many documented accounts of possible ET contact. So as you can see there isn't that much to compare between the two.
It is no wonder that god appears to be imperfect since it is just the imagination of imperfect frightened humans. That is a direct contradiction to what religion believes god to be. Either that or god is a failure due to all the death and destruction on Earth, which again contradicts religious beliefs. Instead they accept that god lets them suffer and will save them in the afterlife if they believe in god, as a convenient way of deluding themselves.
It's more likely that god is a human construct of the imagination rather than human's being a construct of gods imagination. Whilst not disregarding the possibility of higher forms of existence, but not accurately depicted by religions as these beliefs are too basic, primitive, naive and in some cases barbaric.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that ET visitation is much more than a construct of the human imagination.
by
A W (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Friday, May 30, 2008 at 5:54:01 AM
