UFO Evidence and Critics
There is plenty of evidence to support UFO sightings:
- UFO "flaps", when over a relatively short period of time hundreds or even thousands of independent witnesses report very similar sightings, such as in the case of the Belgian Wave (1989 - 1991) and the Hudson Valley Wave (1982 - 1986).
- Mass sightings, such as the Cosford Incident (UK, 1993).
- Testimony of experienced pilots and police men.
- Physical evidence, such as in the case that occurred in 1964 near Socorro, New Mexico (depressions in the ground, as well as still smoldering, blackened shrubs).
- Radar detection.
Radar repeatedly confirmed the presence of something unidentified. Clouds and other weather phenomena show up on radar, but any experienced operator can tell the difference between weather and something solid.
A popular explanation for radar/visual reports is temperature inversion, for example in the UFO sightings over Washington, D.C., in 1952. But according to a 1969 study by the Air Force Environmental Technical Applications Center, the conditions needed to produce the UFO-like effects attributed to inversions cannot exist in the earth's atmosphere.
Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, France, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden and the United Kingdom have been declassifying their UFO files since 2008.
The French Committee for In-Depth Studies, or COMETA, was an unofficial UFO study group comprised of high-ranking scientists and military officials that studied UFOs in the late 1990s. They released the COMETA Report, which summarised their findings. They concluded that 5 percent of the encounters were reliable yet inexplicable. The best hypothesis available was that the observed craft were extraterrestrial. They also accused the United States of covering up evidence of UFOs.
In December 2017, The New York Times broke a story about the classified Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program (AATIP), which was a program run by the former Pentagon official Luis Elizondo and aimed at studying UFOs. A team of nearly 50 scientists, analysts, and investigators were assembled to work on the program. Elizondo resigned from running the program, protesting extreme secrecy and the lack of funding and support. Officials insisted that the AATIP had ended after five years, in 2012. Elizondo said in an interview that the only thing that had ended was the government funding, which officially dried up in 2012. In a presentation in 2018, Elizondo said that the funding was actually to 2013. After 2013, there were some other funding vehicles to get it through 2013 and 2014.
On January 16, 2019, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) released a list of 38 research titles pursued by their AATIP program in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy. According to this official document, the DIA funded research on exotic stuff such as warps drives, gravity/antigravity forces, wormholes, invisibility cloaking, and the manipulation of extra dimensions.
In May 2019, a Department of Defense spokesman said in a bombshell revelation that the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program "did pursue research and investigation into unidentified aerial phenomena" (UAP). Previous official statements were ambiguous and left the door open to the possibility that AATIP was simply concerned with threats from aircraft, missiles and drones. This new admission makes it clear that they really did study what the public would call "UFOs". The term UAP is used to get away from the pop culture baggage that came with the term "UFO".
Debunkers discount the reality of UFO crafts, while often providing silly
hypotheses describing only one or two aspects of a UFO encounter.
UFO skepticism has become something of a religion.
Our governments, scientists and media, have essentially declared that all UFO sightings are misinterpretations of common phenomena, hoaxes or mass hallucinations. None are actually spacecraft. But the fact is that many of the UFO encounters defy conventional explanation.