So UFOs aren't a theory anymore - but we still don't know what they are

And even more slim is that this evidence will be presented to us by modern UFOLOGY

sorry how exactly do you know this ? Because YOU have never seen them ?

Luis Elizondo is a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent and former employee of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.

His comments on high resolution photos

"I am a space enthusiast, but indeed the chances of two intelligent civilizations encountering each other in the vastness of the universe and the gulf of time is astronomically slim."

Pure conjecture, you continue to assume that any intelligent civilizations are roughly the same intelligence as we are.

There could be billions of civilizations with technology a billion YEARS ahead of us ( we were on horses 2000 years ago ), with scanning technology that would appear to be MAGIC to us.

We could be the equivalent of ants in an ant hill discussing the non-existence of planes.

please describe the characteristics of a photograph of a UFO that would not be judged to be a fake.

What evidence do you have that lifeforms don't wipe themselves out?

We know from our history that intelligent life absolutely can wipe itself out pretty easily.

And if it can, and there are other examples of intelligence out there, some must have wiped themselves out for whatever reason.

What percentage do, that's not something we can know. But we have to accept that this is a factor in the chances of two intelligent lifeforms meeting.

If time and distance is relative in the way you're vaguely suggesting, why would aliens need to physically come to Earth in spaceships?

Why couldn't they just use their hyper advanced technology to observe everything they need to from afar?

Also why would the spaceships have to keep their lights on all the time? And why would they be detectable by radar etc?

There's no single piece of strong compelling evidence, that's the problem. I certainly haven't come across any. Every video I see turns out to be a new test missile, or a drone, or a weather artefact, or instrument glitch, etc. For the rest, it's just blurry enough to be inconclusive. If someone can provide I am more than willing to have a look.

There is no single piece of HD footage that you would believe unless corroborated by a thousand "real" news sources without saying its CGI

Even when confronted by the US Navy saying "we dont know what these are" and releasing 2 videos with a verifiable chain of custody.. its "sorry its too fuzzy"

As per the OP no one knows what these are, ultimately we have to be open minded enough to leave the door open for extraterrestrial however slim the possibility.

Shutting that door based on known physics is incredibly lazy, cowardly and historically usually wrong.

That's fine. We have had thousands upon thousands of cases, none have been clear cut. With all our technology that's pushing the envelope of probability.

There are many highly convincing tales of abductions and encounters, even by professionals, even by groups of people, but now that we all have smartphones these have all but disappeared. We have an amazing capacity to misidentify stuff, especially in the sky, and even more so in space (a recent article, which I can't find back right now, demonstrated how differently stuff moves in space, and how it would often fool even seasoned astronauts into thinking they were seeing something else)

I'm not ruling anything out, but just pointing out the obvious (and removing wishful thinking)

But that's not what people are saying. You're misrepresenting their arguments for some reason.

Please quote where someone has say "ZERO percent chance".

And yes, comparing your claims about aliens with other supernatural claims is valid and relevant.

How do you know that Uncle Fred is not using physics as yet undiscovered?

Why are you allowed to appeal to unknown and unknowable science to support your beliefs, but the same cannot be applied to other beliefs?

What's the difference other than you believe one thing but not the other?

There's no need to get offended at the comparison and claiming that the difference is obvious will not really answer the question I'm asking.

Also you bring up cloaking technology, which brings up a point I raise that was ignored.

If you are saying that aliens can do anything including defy the laws of physics as we know them AND that cloaking devices are something they have...

Why are we seeing them? Why are they detectable by radar? Why do they need to come into the atmosphere? Why do they need to travel to Earth at all?

But no, that post doesn't say that there's zero percent chance of aliens existing.

It says specifically:

And again, you've dodged the question I asked with more random, borderline racist ranting there.

I've asked you to explain why you are allowed to apply this argument of "physics doesn't know everything" to support your beliefs, but this same argument cannot be used to support other beliefs.

This is contradictory and indicates that you know your own argument is flawed.

What's the difference between supernatural entities and aliens you believe have essentially supernatural powers?

If you are claiming that aliens can do anything because there might be physics we don't understand, this must then also apply to supernatural things as well. By your argument they must also be using some physics we don't yet understand.

The reason I keep pointing out that you are not answering the question is because you aren't answering it.

Is there a reason you're not answering it?

And you admit that it doesn't make sense for aliens to be detectable by lights and by radar and you can't provide a rational reason why they would need to physically come to Earth.

Cool.

To most people, these would be good reasons not to believe that all these ufo sightings are the result of aliens.

Why do you believe they aren't issues for that idea?

Sorry mate. You've dodged my questions again.

Why?

We're uncovering more about physics, it doesn't mean there's a way to break those limits.

Think about it, if a race was so advanced they could go faster than the speed of light, then they would have utterly no issue remaining undetectable by our primitive technology. We are at the stage where we can observe distant planets, we can observe our own planet with satellites. They would have to be magnitudes ahead of that, why would they have to enter our airspace and clumsily be "glimpsed" by fighter pilots?

If there was an advanced ET race out there capable of FTL interstellar travel and they were observing us, even being among us, we would have zero idea about it

"But you are essentially calling on the supernatural by just assuming that aliens can do whatever using magic/physics we don't understand yet."

What utter rubbish.

If the Russians or the Chinese demonstrated weapons that were contrary to our knowledge of physics in the west .. no one would shout

"what we have here is a missile that demonstrates physics we don't yet understand, alternatively AND EQUALLY LIKELY they may have summoned a demon"

have a read , no mention of calling ghost busters.

"But then at the same time you apply random limitations to these aliens. Apparently they can travel faster that light, detect humans from light years away... but haven't figured out how to defeat radar or turn off the lights in ther ships?"

WHO says they they want to defeat our radar, or turn off their lights , I said "With regards to knowing the mind of potential ET's and their evasive sightings I'm afraid you'll have to ask them."

"Why can something supernatural such as ghosts or fairies not be the result of physics we don't understand yet? Why do you discount all supernatural explanations as impossible?"

I never said that, I said anytime in the history of MAN when we invoked the supernatural to explain something we were wrong.

"Why does this not apply to aliens? To my knowledge "aliens" have about as good a track record as an explanation as supernatural stuff."

Exactly, your knowledge is probably lacking, continue the research

"The difference is that you're applying a different standard to the explanation you like. Could you also maybe explain why it's taken 3 attempts for you to address this question?"

I have addressed it every time, you just ignore it.

Potential visiting ETs probably have a better understanding of physics than we do, seeing as they are already visiting planets across very large distances and we can't do that yet. Seeing as they may have a much older civilization this is plausible. In what way is that equally likely to supernatural bumkin.

How many seconds of HD footage would be required to be undeniable proof of ET visitation ?

Evidence always has to be taken in context. If evidence is produced where it can be positively and multilaterally identified that the object in question is not from this planet, then that would be strong evidence.

"If the Russians or the Chinese demonstrated weapons that were contrary to our knowledge of physics in the west" - Sorry but give one example of this ever happening? I suspect you are confusing new/refined technology with "breaking physics" (the example you gave demonstrates this)

Right but in fairness over decades plenty of experts, military people, professionals and even groups have claimed to have seen aliens and craft quite close up. All of these mysteriously stopped when we got mobile phones with high quality video cameras on them.

OK so when the evidence is released I'll happily review it and adjust my opinion accordingly

Until it is revealed, you have to admit you've got very weak evidence at the moment

Lol a lot of words that never actually address any of my points.

Can you point to any examples where the explanation turned out to be aliens?

You say I'm just lacking research there, so please enlighten me.

Sorry you've dodged the question again. Why do you keep doing this?

I asked you to provide examples of where the explanation turned out to be aliens.

Please provide them.

But that's not an answer to the question I've asked you.

You are now also going on a strange rant.

Last time:

Please point to an example where the explanation was shown to be aliens.

If you ignore the question again, I will take that to mean you admit you can't point to any examples.

Alternatively you could explain why you keep avoiding this question and the others.

Indeed and one poll suggested that up to 40% of us believe in ghosts. The human mind has an incredible capacity to not only invent stuff, but also firmly believe those inventions.

I keep answering your question , why do you keep ignoring it

why ?

We've never proven anything to be aliens however its a MORE plausible than the boogey man.

And if you cant understand that then I cant help you.