Quote:
Originally Posted by xelasnave
Here is one list of UFO reports.
http://www.nicap.org/bluebook/unknowns.htm
If on the level it seems some reports have been made by folk you would be inclined to take seriously with curious radar observations to boot, and yet we still have nothing "solid" it seems.
However as strange as some of these report may be the fact is there is no explaination which means just that... no explanation so until there is one for folk to conclude aliens provides an explanation is unreasonable.
I think answers are more likely to be found by studying human behaviour rather than alien behaviour 
alex  |
What do you want as "solid" evidence. A piece of the craft???. Photo opportunities with the bugs themselves???. A book explaining why quantum physics is taught in alien kindergarten???. This insistence on ridiculously impossible procurement of evidence is nothing more than an attempt to get out of looking at the evidence that's already there by those that don't want to take the time to actually look at it. Mainly because their points of view don't include the possibility that something extraordinary is happening. Basically, they don't want to upset their little sandbox of reality by upsetting the applecart.
You think that science deals with evidence any more reliable than what we see with many UFO reports??? I have some very bad news for all of you that think so. Have any of you ever seen an atom, or experienced a neutrino passing through your body???. How do you know that stars are powered by nuclear fusion processes....ever seen it happening first hand???. Think everything you see is solid???. Think that galaxy you stare at in the eyepiece each night looks like it does now, or is even in the same place as it appears to be??. Don't for one minute think that just because a scientist says so, that something is on the up and up. In some cases, they know no better than you do what's going on. Only what they think they know. Theory doesn't make it right, or gospel anything. All a theory happens to be is an idea of what they believe to be occurring. There's nothing wrong in listening to and taking notice of what a scientist tells you. In general, they have a better handle on the workings of their chosen field than the general person on the street. Even the interested "amateur". However, they're not the paragon of all knowledge nor are they even necessarily correct in their assumptions they keep as part of their scientific paradigm. Use the brains you were given and think for yourselves, with the advice you're given or find for yourselves. Do cultivate a logical and rational approach to whatever you're interested in, but don't let yourself fall into the trap of being anal about sticking to the accepted ideas and/or methods of doing things. Be a critical thinker, not a skeptic. There is a very big difference between the two. One that really has to be learnt through experience and example.