My bro is Chief of Naval Operations and he was telling me about UFOs underneath the ocean. Spooky

Yes, it says there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. That, of itself, is not reason to arrive at any other conclusion. Right here, "I think that says something," you're making the assumption that because a blurry photograph or video, or vague eye-witness account couldn't be figured out that it must mean something more. Where is your evidence for that? A pile of other blurry photos that couldn't be figured out? The unsubstantiated yet vehemently insisted claims of people who believe a funny dot in the sky is part of some larger conspiracy?

A lot of people died in the witch hunts, too, you know.



This is not entirely true, and there are a lot of mundane factors affecting what reports are made available and when. Someone has to dig them up, and considerations have to be made to the information that might be in the report. They're not just "[date] saw light in the sky." They have information pertaining to the aircraft/vehicles in use, their location, and specifics of what they were doing at the time. I wouldn't expect the Air Force to be keen on having all the details of their shedule and training excersises available. Those blacked out bars aren't there to hide the bit that says "13:02 ate lunch with grey alien." It's information that would likely be missing from any report you requested from the government. The Royal Air Force and Australian Air Force apply the same considerations to the information they provide. All the Russian reports are the same. It's not a conspiracy, the US government remains reserved because that's how they are with, well, most of what they do.



No one denies they saw something. But there is no evidence to indicate that any UFO sighting has been anything more than something misidentified, from common vehicle to uncommon weather event. An unexplained light in the sky remains a not yet explained light in the sky.

I'm not jumping to any conclusions based off of what you think. You really need to take a look at some of the evidence out there. There are WAY more things available than simple blurry pictures or videos. If we were talking about ghosts, I'd agree with you. But if you're talking about UFO's, there's literally tons of places you can go to find some pretty incredible video that has been found to be authentic (when I say authentic I mean not CGI or faked). There have been stories from army personnel and incidence's that occurred that defy explanation and that's after considering all possible alternatives.

An example would be the Rendelsham Forest incident, you can google that and find the name Nick Pope beside most of this story. He's one of Britain's most prevalent UFOlogists, and used to be an extreme skeptic. He was assigned (if memory serves me right) to several UFO reports by the British government (I think he worked for the ministry of defense or something), to try to ascertain an explanation for them. He found that yes, around 90% of them could be explained, but there were a few that stood out and simply could not. He concluded the only possible explanation, based off the evidence and anecdote's from very respected people in the military, corroboration between the stories, etc, that some were completely unexplainable and indicated another intelligent life form. Rendelsham Forest is one such incident. I'm not going to detail it here because it's just too much but it's all over google.



I hope you aren't referring to just the Salem witch hunts.



The USA is the only country that has not yet opened its UFO files. All other countries have started to, or have already opened their files entirely. That means investigations, stories from military, etc, they are all fully available for the public. The USA has nothing like this availble for the public that they have not been sued for, and even after being sued through the Freedom of Information Act they refuse to put out some things. They've put out documents related to Project Blue Book and other investigations but that's it. Nothing more. There is nothing in those documents relating to their aircraft, or evidence to point to it. I fail to see how the blacked out bars could be anything related to flight patterns or information like you said, due to the fact that if you read sentences before and after it wouldn't fit into what they are saying. It'd be like if I was talking like this We had aircraft flying in the vicinity of Groom Lake 21:35 and suddenly carried on like that part wasn't in the sentence. Make any sense? I'm not saying there is a conspiracy at all, but the blacked out bars have to be a little more than simply flight paths and technical information they don't want people to see. Ultimately, nobody knows what's under those black bars but to me I can't accept that it's simply "information on training exercises, etc". But then again, I'm not saying it's "had lunch with Grey alien" either. Here's an example of what I mean.. Try to find a US site doing the same thing:

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/ufo/index-e.html




As I said, there is plenty of more available evidence out there than simple grainy video or pictures. If you want some interesting videos to watch just check out the exopolitics conference I posted a few posts ago. It's incredibly long but very interesting. It includes testimonials from all kinds of military personnel, astronauts, air traffic controllers, doctors, and other very reputable people. Like This guy Or this one. Maybe you've heard of him? I know I have.

IN B4 the "Yeah but he's old and must be Senile" comments.

I have already conceded to the point that there are recorded occurrences, be it photographic, video or anecdotal pertaining to UFO events that are authentic and defy explanation. My point is that this of itself is not cause to resolve any further conclusion. There are no more facts to go on! Merely being presently unexplainable does not equate it to being a goddamned spaceship. The amount of recorded events that are unexplained - and I mean truely unexplained, without a plausable theory by a skeptic - is a remarkably small number, and just about all of those are the cases that really do have almost no evidence. The grander the incident, the more likely there's a terribly boring reason to explain it. The Rendelsham Forest incident is not a good example to use of an unexplained incident because there are explanations for it! Unfortunately I am not intimately familiar with the event so please excuse me for using Wikipedia as my source but it is almost 5am and I am not at my sharpest. These are theories, yes, but the arguments in support of Rendlesham (and UFOs in general) as being something other-worldly are only theories, too, and based on the same evidence as the skeptics have the jump in logic is significant. Where are the facts? Only what is tangible. Drawing from this information, without presumption, there is barely room to move beyond saying "Welp, it sure was something." Personally I have to say it's a lot shorter walk to find my bench. You, metaphorically, have to hop inside a spaceship to find your bench.



It's just an analogy, not something specific. They assumed people were witches and went looking for whatever they could find that they could say was evidence to support their assumption. A lot of people involved with ufology, on both sides of the fence, are guilty of this.



Actually, Project Blue Book reports were always publicly available. That was the point of the whole thing - to act as a liaison between the public and the Air Force's investigations into the UFO phenomena. Their final word, the Condon Report, was published and freely available. This information is still available. One could argue the US government was the first to open their UFO files.



Obviously my few proposed examples of what lies beneath the black bars are not applicable in every instance, but still examples of what is likely there. And no doubt a lot of information I haven't thought of that is probably mundane yet is, or was, considered some importance to the operational integrity of the military. If you want to believe it's something more then I can't change your mind because neither of us will ever have any clue what's under those black bars.



We could trade names all day but I imagine the end result will be the same. I'm irritated by what the people on your side have to say and likely you're irritated by what the people on my side have to say.

Ultimately my argument is this - there is no solid evidence that any UFO is anything other-wordly. Yes, UFO sightings are real and actual occurrences, however the present beliefs held by ufological proponents are merely the ever-remaining legacy of Kenneth Arnold's famous words, "...flat like a pie-pan." Er, I mean, "flying saucer." If only they'd called them "flying pies." Life would be so much more fun.

I think this lady sums it up best:

"While some puzzles remain, we can probably say that no unearthly craft were seen [...] We can also argue with confidence that the main focus of the events was a series of misperceptions of everyday things encountered in less than everyday circumstances."