Pentagon releases UFO videos

[Fuzz]

OK, so I asked if their were any peer reviewed articles referencing the physical evidence you say exists. You said "Yes, there are." All I asked would be to see one that you find convincing. And then you dodge and toss generalities out. Why is it so hard for you to point me to the one paper YOU find provides convincing evidence? Does it not exist? Like, come on. You say you like reasonable debate, so present it. Otherwise all of us can only conclude the peer reviewed evidence doesn't actually exist.

[GGG]

Do you have links to the lab reports from los alamos and U of T that Lier refers to that verify his claims about the implants?

Leir’s claims should be easily verifiable and publishable in reputable journals. He has/had materials that could be tested by third parties to verify his claims.

Edit: Forgot to link his last article

https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...MOKING+GUN.pdf

He makes 16 claims about the properties of the implants. In his other works is there the lab reports and did he allow the samples to be independently tested by other groups?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

OK, so I asked if their were any peer reviewed articles referencing the physical evidence you say exists. You said "Yes, there are." All I asked would be to see one that you find convincing. And then you dodge and toss generalities out. Why is it so hard for you to point me to the one paper YOU find provides convincing evidence? Does it not exist? Like, come on. You say you like reasonable debate, so present it. Otherwise all of us can only conclude the peer reviewed evidence doesn't actually exist.

It isn't quite as easy as you make it seem. Most journals are behind paywalls or your institution must have a subscription to the journal in question. Intellectual property protection is still a thing in academic circles, so it is hard to find certain content in publicly accessible form. Do you have a PsychNet account perchance? Access through Ebscohost? There are plenty of articles, you just need access to the journals.

Here's one from Taylor and Francis that I hope is public and speaks to some of Mack's works.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...nalCode=hpli20

Originally Posted by GGG

Do you have links to the lab reports from los alamos and U of T that Lier refers to that verify his claims about the implants?

This is a dumb question. No, I don't, and you know I don't because that information is private. They aren't available and are not part of published papers. Holistic lab reports are not part of published papers.

Leir’s claims should be easily verifiable and publishable in reputable journals. He has/had materials that could be tested by third parties to verify his claims.

He makes 16 claims about the properties of the implants. In his other works is there the lab reports and did he allow the samples to be independently tested by other groups?

He does not include complete lab reports, just the generalizations from those reports. This is common practice, but you know that already. He claimed to have had the samples tested by multiple labs and has the reports to support those claims. None of the labs refute their involvement. I don't know why he would allow the samples to be independently tested by other groups when he had them tested by multiple labs? The risk of having finite evidence disappear or destroyed is too much of a concern, so you rarely see this happen. Independent examination and report reviews are consistent, but release of extremely rare artifacts for testing which could destroy the sample does not happen very often. It's why certified and trusted laboratories are used to examine and test such evidence.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

It isn't quite as easy as you make it seem. Most journals are behind paywalls or your institution must have a subscription to the journal in question. Intellectual property protection is still a thing in academic circles, so it is hard to find certain content in publicly accessible form. Do you have a PsychNet account perchance? Access through Ebscohost? There are plenty of articles, you just need access to the journals.

Here's one from Taylor and Francis that I hope is public and speaks to some of Mack's works.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...nalCode=hpli20
-snip-

No, I don't have access throguh those journals. But I did find a bit more of that one you linked I could read, though not all of it.

https://cupdf.com/document/a-more-pa...-caroline.html

But this is just a "commentary" not a peer reviewed article. And it doesn't discuss physical evidence, just the results of "encounters" that really don't prove anything.



So, again, peer reviewed, evidence you find most convincing. You said there were lots. If it's behind a paywall, send it anyway.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Dion

He's right on one point. I have my doubts that anyone will read up on what he has suggested. Minds are already made up in this forum.

First, I very much doubt this forum is any different than any other group of people - unless it's because it is more open minded than most.

Second, it's a laughable claim with respect to this topic in particular. I have never met a human being that doesn't want there to be aliens - I mean come on, it would be the coolest thing to ever happen, bar none. We all want that. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical about evaluating evidence.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

It isn't quite as easy as you make it seem. Most journals are behind paywalls or your institution must have a subscription to the journal in question. Intellectual property protection is still a thing in academic circles, so it is hard to find certain content in publicly accessible form. Do you have a PsychNet account perchance? Access through Ebscohost? There are plenty of articles, you just need access to the journals.

Here's one from Taylor and Francis that I hope is public and speaks to some of Mack's works.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...nalCode=hpli20



This is a dumb question. No, I don't, and you know I don't because that information is private. They aren't available and are not part of published papers. Holistic lab reports are not part of published papers.



He does not include complete lab reports, just the generalizations from those reports. This is common practice, but you know that already. He claimed to have had the samples tested by multiple labs and has the reports to support those claims. None of the labs refute their involvement. I don't know why he would allow the samples to be independently tested by other groups when he had them tested by multiple labs? The risk of having finite evidence disappear or destroyed is too much of a concern, so you rarely see this happen. Independent examination and report reviews are consistent, but release of extremely rare artifacts for testing which could destroy the sample does not happen very often. It's why certified and trusted laboratories are used to examine and test such evidence.

I would expect that someone outside of his research team would have reviewed the lab reports. For example a chemical company tells be that a chemical is compatible with a material. I say, can you please send me the lab report so I can review the findings. Then the company sends me the lab report.

I actually didn’t know that the lab reports wouldn’t be publicly available. I would have assumed that in his books he would have them as appendices. I’m trying to actually understand why you find Leir credible? Am I reading a good summary of his work? Because I read that paper and if what he claims he has found is true it should be easily repeatable by others. And therefore in the absence of an effort to have the work repeated the work is not credible.

For example the two items below should be easily verifiable without sample destruction.

6. The emission of radio waves which are deep space frequencies in the FM band.
7. Electromagnetic fields in ex- cess of ten milligauss.

What do you find compelling about Leir and on what grounds do you put trust in it?

[handgroen]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

It isn't quite as easy as you make it seem. Most journals are behind paywalls or your institution must have a subscription to the journal in question. Intellectual property protection is still a thing in academic circles, so it is hard to find certain content in publicly accessible form. Do you have a PsychNet account perchance? Access through Ebscohost? There are plenty of articles, you just need access to the journals.

Here's one from Taylor and Francis that I hope is public and speaks to some of Mack's works.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...nalCode=hpli20



This is a dumb question. No, I don't, and you know I don't because that information is private. They aren't available and are not part of published papers. Holistic lab reports are not part of published

Could you imagine if there was proof aliens existed but it was just behind a paywall? Cause I totally can.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would expect that someone outside of his research team would have reviewed the lab reports. For example a chemical company tells be that a chemical is compatible with a material. I say, can you please send me the lab report so I can review the findings. Then the company sends me the lab report.

And why would they do that? That is why they use labs to do analysis and validate each other's work.

I actually didn’t know that the lab reports wouldn’t be publicly available. I would have assumed that in his books he would have them as appendices.

That's a bad assumption. Don't think I've ever seen that. References, yes. Possible graphs or supporting math, but complete lab reports? Haven't seen that before. Articles are going to review findings and discuss those findings, not publish complete lab reports. Do you have articles like that?

I’m trying to actually understand why you find Leir credible? Am I reading a good summary of his work? Because I read that paper and if what he claims he has found is true it should be easily repeatable by others. And therefore in the absence of an effort to have the work repeated the work is not credible.

How exactly do you repeat a surgery to remove a foreign object once that object has been removed? Or are you talking about the labs, which Leir stated had been verified by second analyses by a second credible lab? Why would they involve anyone from the outside world to confirm findings of a lab they are using a second lab to validate the findings?

I find it compelling because these people have claimed to have been through a highly descriptive traumatic event and have been able to identify a location of a possible implant, then surgery finds a foreign object at that location.

For example the two items below should be easily verifiable without sample destruction.

6. The emission of radio waves which are deep space frequencies in the FM band.
7. Electromagnetic fields in ex- cess of ten milligauss.

I don't disagree with you. There should be more testing. But that's what labs are for. That's why they paid the labs to do the analysis. Would I like to see more? Hell yes. Let's get to the bottom of the issue and see what is what. At the same time I can understand why they keep this stuff under lock and key. If it is what they claim it is, it is extremely valuable and many people would like to see it disappear.

What do you find compelling about Leir and on what grounds do you put trust in it?

Trust? I don't trust anyone or anything. I said it was compelling research and information. But I find lots of research in many areas compelling and worthy of more review. I find it interesting because it does support claims made by others who have been through similar traumatic events. The fact it is complimentary to other research is what makes me give it more rope. It's just like doing literature review and coming across information that is related, you have to go down that rabbit hole to determine how related and the affect on your research. I'm not saying this research is rock solid, far from it actually, but the reality is that all it takes is one of these implants to be what they are claimed to be, and everything we think we know changes. Same thing with all of this research. All it takes is one instance to be what is claimed, and its a whole new ball game, for good and bad.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

And why would they do that? That is why they use labs to do analysis and validate each other's work.



That's a bad assumption. Don't think I've ever seen that. References, yes. Possible graphs or supporting math, but complete lab reports? Haven't seen that before. Articles are going to review findings and discuss those findings, not publish complete lab reports. Do you have articles like that?



How exactly do you repeat a surgery to remove a foreign object once that object has been removed? Or are you talking about the labs, which Leir stated had been verified by second analyses by a second credible lab? Why would they involve anyone from the outside world to confirm findings of a lab they are using a second lab to validate the findings?

I find it compelling because these people have claimed to have been through a highly descriptive traumatic event and have been able to identify a location of a possible implant, then surgery finds a foreign object at that location.



I don't disagree with you. There should be more testing. But that's what labs are for. That's why they paid the labs to do the analysis. Would I like to see more? Hell yes. Let's get to the bottom of the issue and see what is what. At the same time I can understand why they keep this stuff under lock and key. If it is what they claim it is, it is extremely valuable and many people would like to see it disappear.



Trust? I don't trust anyone or anything. I said it was compelling research and information. But I find lots of research in many areas compelling and worthy of more review. I find it interesting because it does support claims made by others who have been through similar traumatic events. The fact it is complimentary to other research is what makes me give it more rope. It's just like doing literature review and coming across information that is related, you have to go down that rabbit hole to determine how related and the affect on your research. I'm not saying this research is rock solid, far from it actually, but the reality is that all it takes is one of these implants to be what they are claimed to be, and everything we think we know changes. Same thing with all of this research. All it takes is one instance to be what is claimed, and its a whole new ball game, for good and bad.

In the private sector when you are buying things you routinely get access to lab reports. If the actual data and reports are not routinely part of the peer review process in academia that seems fairly flawed. I would expect any decent analysis of this type to discuss sample preparation, testing methodology, and list detailed results. This does not appear to exist.

All it takes is one instance. This is exactly why Leir’s work is garbage. If he has the smoking gun and has the evidence he says he has and the science is credible and not garbage then he could prove it.

This isn’t fuzzy photos, or memories. The claim here is easy to verify if he allowed access. I don’t understand how you would hand wave that away.

This started with you saying that there is numerous peer reviewed papers with physical evidence and you gave 3 names. I picked one, found claims with no peer review or evidence.

[Snuffleupagus]

Good article by the washingtonpost.

UFO Mania Is Out of Control. Please Stop.

[Dion]

Space.com: Given your long and productive research on the UFO issue, what has surprised you the most? Similarly, what has disappointed you the most?

Especially in the early years of my reporting, I was most surprised by the lack of curiosity among scientists and policymakers about UFOs. I was also surprised by how entrenched and powerful the stigma was in the media and in the culture in general. It mystified me why just about everyone was not impacted by the potential implications of the evidence for this phenomenon. It didn't take long for me to realize that most people in a position to make a difference were uninformed and understandably had other priorities. Still, given how fascinated I was with this and given what it might mean if even one UFO was extraterrestrial, I found this apathy and disinterest hard to understand.

Many times I was amazed that accomplished investigative journalists did not jump on board and take a deep dive into this subject. As a freelancer, I couldn't open the same doors as The Washington Post, The New York Times or The New Yorker. Yet they were essentially silent. That was frustrating to me. But of course it has all changed now.

I was also frustrated that there was no government agency in place to receive reports from police officers, commercial pilots and other credible witnesses, and to conduct investigations when necessary. You can imagine my surprise when I learned about the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP) program in 2017. However, being limited only to military cases and being secret, it was not exactly what I had been hoping for.

Space.com: With all the chatter now about UAPs, the UAP preliminary report, etc., where are we now, and what's next?

There are videos and photographs in DOD [Department of Defense] files which are vastly superior to the ones we have seen so far. I think the public has a right to this and other data, as stated by [former U.S.] Senator Harry Reid who initiated the [AATIP] government program. The secrecy is excessive here, despite the need for some classification on grounds of national security.

Perhaps we will be fortunate enough to see open congressional hearings on UAP. And eventually, we may be issued a definitive statement that these objects are not Russian or Chinese. It has been established that they are not ours, but the door on UAP being technology from a foreign adversary has not been completely closed. Some in a position to know have stated that these objects are not created by Russia or China. That needs to be stated as fact in one of the subsequent written reports. Perhaps one day those two countries will join with the United States to acknowledge this reality. At that point we will have crossed a line into a new world.

Space.com: Do you expect "full disclosure" regarding UFOs in the near term? If so, is the public ready for this disclosure and the related add-on of possibly distrusting the government?

Kean: It depends on what you mean by "full disclosure." Some people think this means that government officials will stand up and announce that we have been visited by extraterrestrial craft for over 70 years and we knew about it all along. I don't think this is ever going to happen.

However, if we get to a point where it becomes an official, stated fact — universally accepted — that these objects are not ours, Russian, Chinese, or made by any country on Earth, this would be disclosure of at least some UFOs originating off this planet. At the same time, I suspect that tagged on to any admission along these lines would be the caveat that we don't know what they are, where they are from or why they are here. Such clarity will not necessarily be established in the near term.

https://www.space.com/ufos-are-real-...kean-interview

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by GGG

In the private sector when you are buying things you routinely get access to lab reports.

Yeah, that's if you're buying something. If you're buying a chemical and need to know specifics on it, you can ask for that. They'll give you a general datasheet. If you want more than that, you're paying for the lab testing. Those results are then yours because you paid for them. The vendor is not going to share those results with anyone else as that may impart information to your competitors as to what you or your business is doing. That information is your business and only your business. Labs do everything they can to maintain confidentiality.

If the actual data and reports are not routinely part of the peer review process in academia that seems fairly flawed.

No, that's the way the peer review system works. I don't know what you think peer review is all about, but it is NOT granting people access to everything that goes on in research. Much of research is highly secretive and all the information pertaining to research is considered highly guarded secrets. Samples, lab work, lab reports, and lab results are not part of the peer review process as they are the intellectual property of the institution and an investment. The generalized findings from the article are the only data points commonly shared. Peer review is the process of examination of methods and findings for consistency and possible errors or omissions in application of the methodology. From a publication perspective it is determining if the research is consistent with the mission of the publication and the peer review of methods and findings has passed rigor. Research and intellectual property, just like in the private sector, remain highly guarded secrets as they generate revenues and prestige for the institution.

I would expect any decent analysis of this type to discuss sample preparation, testing methodology, and list detailed results. This does not appear to exist.

That depends on the type of journal. More technical journals will expect some of these details. Others will not. Some journals do not even require peer review for publication. Some institutions are also allowing their researchers and faculty to meet the publication requirements by going directly to print and allowing the commentary aspects of review meet the peer review component. This is completely understandable when certain subjects are using methods never used before, and the available experts to provide peer review do not exist.

All it takes is one instance. This is exactly why Leir’s work is garbage. If he has the smoking gun and has the evidence he says he has and the science is credible and not garbage then he could prove it.

This isn’t fuzzy photos, or memories. The claim here is easy to verify if he allowed access. I don’t understand how you would hand wave that away.

Well, to start with, he's dead? But while he was alive, he did allow multiple labs to examine and test the artifacts. Is that not enough? Or are one of these people who will only believe something if it is YOUR guy who does the testing? I'm not waving anything, and would hope for further exploration of these artifacts, but the guy died suddenly and with that access to the materials. Do I hope that those will see the light of day again? Yes, but as with many scientists, their death can mean the end of that work and study.

This started with you saying that there is numerous peer reviewed papers with physical evidence and you gave 3 names. I picked one, found claims with no peer review or evidence.

Yes, and I tried to explain that it is not easy to start posting links from certain databases. But I'll give you some cites from "peer reviewed" articles. First 20 hits of 97 in one database search.

Appelle, S. (1971). On a behavioral explanation of UFO sightings. Perceptual and motor skills, 32(3), 994.

Bisson C, and Persinger M.A. (1993). Geophysical variables and behavior: LXXV. Possible increased incidence of brain tumors following an episode of luminous phenomena. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77(3_suppl), 1088-1090.

Cook, C. M., and Persinger, M. A. (2001). Geophysical variables and behavior: XCII. Experimental elicitation of the experience of a sentient being by right hemispheric, weak magnetic fields: interaction with temporal lobe sensitivity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 92(2), 447-448.

Clamar, A. (1988). Is it time for psychology to take UFOs seriously? Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 6(3), 143-149.

Clamar, A. (1988). Symposium: The UFO experience: What psychotherapy tells us. Introduction, in: Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 6:3, 141-142

Ashworth, C. E. (1980). Flying saucers, spoon-bending and Atlantis: A structural analysis of new mythologies. The Sociological Review, 28(2), 353-376

Bader, C. D. (1995). The UFO contact movement from the 1950s to the present. Studies in Popular Culture, 17(2), 73-90.

Bader, C. D. (2003). Supernatural support groups: Who are the UFO abductees and ritual-abuse survivors? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(4), 669–678.

Banaji, M. R., and Kihlstrom, J. F. (1996). The ordinary nature of alien abduction memories. Psychological Inquiry, 7(2), 132-135.

Bowers, K. S., and Eastwood, J. D. (1996). On the edge of science: Coping with UFOlogy scientifically. Psychological Inquiry, 7(2), 136-140.

Bartholomew, R. E. (1991). The quest for transcendence: An ethnography of UFOs in America. Anthropology of Consciousness, 2(1‐2), 1-12

Bullard, T. E. (1989). UFO abduction reports: the supernatural kidnap narrative returns in technological guise. Journal of American Folklore, 147-170.

Chequers, J., Joseph, S., and Diduca, D. (1997). Belief in extraterrestrial life, UFO-related beliefs, and schizotypal personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(3), 519-521.

Clancy, S. A., et. al. (2002). Memory distortion in people reporting abduction by aliens. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(3), 455

Clark, S. E., and Loftus, E. F. (1996). The construction of space alien abduction memories. Psychological Inquiry, 7(2), 140-143.

Condon, E. U. (1969). UFOs I have loved and lost. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 25(10), 6-8.

Cross, A. (2004). The flexibility of scientific rhetoric: A case study of UFO researchers. Qualitative Sociology, 27(1), 3-34.

Crowe, R. A., and Miura, C. K. (1995). Challenging pseudoscientific beliefs: Surveying evidence for exotic claims. Psychological reports, 77(3_suppl), 1263-1282.

Crumbaugh, J. C. (1959). ESP and flying saucers: A challenge to parapsychologists. American Psychologist, 14(9), 604–606.

Curtis, E. (2016). Science and technology in Elijah Muhammad’s Nation of Islam astrophysical disaster, genetic engineering, UFOs, white apocalypse, and black resurrection. Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, 20(1), 5–31.

A second database search returned 128 articles (max for that database). As I said, there are lots of articles that are peer reviewed and speak to the evidence discovered in support of this field of study. Is there a lot of conjecture and hogwash in some of the reports and studies? Yes there is. Just like any other field of inquiry and study. It's hogwash until it isn't.

[Fuzz]

OK, so AGAIN! Which do you find provides compelling physical evidence? Pick one, if there are so many! Clearly you have been convinced, so there must be one peer reviewed paper you find compelling.

[Lanny_McDonald]

It's not a matter of one. It's the body. They all present evidence in different ways. That's what makes me laugh at skeptics. They take these ridiculous "Occam's Razor" stances and are looking for a single event or a single piece of evidence that clearly shows something is happening. It's why the climate change debate keeps rolling along and the obvious is being ignored. Or the people that are looking for the one technology that will solve the energy consumption challenge associated with climate change. The whole body of work amounts to something that is hard to dismiss. You find one event, that's probably a freak occurrence. You find two, and you maybe have a coincidence. You find three, you're no looking at a trend. You find millions of events and you have something that cannot be ignored. The collective body is what forces me to maintain an open mind on this subject.

[Fuzz]

OK, so the answer to the original question is no. You could have started with that.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

It's not a matter of one. It's the body. They all present evidence in different ways. That's what makes me laugh at skeptics. They take these ridiculous "Occam's Razor" stances and are looking for a single event or a single piece of evidence that clearly shows something is happening. It's why the climate change debate keeps rolling along and the obvious is being ignored. Or the people that are looking for the one technology that will solve the energy consumption challenge associated with climate change. The whole body of work amounts to something that is hard to dismiss. You find one event, that's probably a freak occurrence. You find two, and you maybe have a coincidence. You find three, you're no looking at a trend. You find millions of events and you have something that cannot be ignored. The collective body is what forces me to maintain an open mind on this subject.

This. Because of the body of evidence, data, and witness accounts, it's can't just be boiled down to one "silver bullet" incident that unveils all of the phenomenon at once. In fact, it is my opinion we are likely looking at several different parts of the phenomena, including UAPs, USOs, and multi-dimensional / hard to track entities outside of human-detectable electromagnetic spectrums.

"Disclosure" will be more like a trickle-down of gradual information, with cases coming to light over the next several years due to things like potential public hearings (that Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Marco Rubio are pushing for) and the inclusion of the UAP investigations in the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Then you have a growing private interest in researching the topic from groups like the Harvard-based Galileo Project and UAPx.

If anything the U.S. government will likely release more interesting data in the coming 1-5 years based on identifiable patterns, of which there is already significant data (most of which still remains classified). And with investments in further research, it will lend to building a profile of UAPs to primarily discern the relevance to national security and provide appropriate threat assessments that can be communicated to the public.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

OK, so the answer to the original question is no. You could have started with that.

The answer is yes. I can't help it if you can't read a journal article and understand what they are saying. Again, you want a picture of a "flying saucer" with "little grey men" in these articles. That's not how journal articles work or how academics present information (as frustrating as it is). The evidence is presented in these articles, just not in the picture book format you are hoping for.

[jammies]

Or, it could just be that humans are prone to seeing patterns in disconnected observations, especially when those patterns confirm what they already believe to be true. Since you're making an extraordinary claim, the onus is on you to supply the extraordinary evidence, and to prove you understand its relevance by explaining what that evidence is and how it supports your conclusion.

You're like a student writing a thesis who just supplies a list of references and a few chapter headings, then sparks out to play some video games while occasionally checking his email for the expected notification that an A+ was awarded. Which is atypical and unlike your usual habit of writing lengthy screeds, so the pattern I detect in your repeated refusal to meaningfully elaborate on this subject is not that you won't, but that you can't.

[Enoch Root]

Science is not looking for a silver bullet, and in fact, that is not how science functions. All that is being asked for is verifiable evidence. Something to test, analyze, and verify. Something to build on.

Everybody wants there to be alien life - it would be the greatest story in history. And no one is plugging their ears and saying "lalala" so they can't hear you. We are all on the edge of our seats on this topic.

But the argument from the sceptics is that this is an extraordinary claim that requires some extraordinary evidence - so bring some. Bring something to the table that can be measured, or verified, or tested.

Claiming that sceptics and the scientific community are being closed-minded is a pretty pathetic argument.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Science is not looking for a silver bullet, and in fact, that is not how science functions. All that is being asked for is verifiable evidence. Something to test, analyze, and verify. Something to build on.

Everybody wants there to be alien life - it would be the greatest story in history. And no one is plugging their ears and saying "lalala" so they can't hear you. We are all on the edge of our seats on this topic.

But the argument from the sceptics is that this is an extraordinary claim that requires some extraordinary evidence - so bring some. Bring something to the table that can be measured, or verified, or tested.

Claiming that sceptics and the scientific community are being closed-minded is a pretty pathetic argument.

At one time they were. Read what Lesie Kean said in her first comment

Especially in the early years of my reporting, I was most surprised by the lack of curiosity among scientists and policymakers about UFOs. I was also surprised by how entrenched and powerful the stigma was in the media and in the culture in general. It mystified me why just about everyone was not impacted by the potential implications of the evidence for this phenomenon. It didn't take long for me to realize that most people in a position to make a difference were uninformed and understandably had other priorities. Still, given how fascinated I was with this and given what it might mean if even one UFO was extraterrestrial, I found this apathy and disinterest hard to understand.

Many times I was amazed that accomplished investigative journalists did not jump on board and take a deep dive into this subject. As a freelancer, I couldn't open the same doors as The Washington Post, The New York Times or The New Yorker. Yet they were essentially silent. That was frustrating to me. But of course it has all changed now.