Yep,

To take the point further.
Look how far we've come in only 200 years.
From horse and cart to the F22. (and things beyond that haven't been disclosed)
Could someone from 1760 imagine getting across the country by flying? Getting to the moon?
HELL no. Look at the pace of technological development in just the last 60 years like you said...now
just the last 10 years. It's exponential.

Now imagine a culture 2 million years more advanced than us and our limited understanding of the universe.
Interstellar travel for them would be about as unusual as us getting into a BMW and driving to another state.

Try expalining a flashlight to a Neanderthal. An Ipad? Pfff!!
U-96 just isn't smart enough to realize he's the Neanderthal is all.

I know what I saw isn't explainable by any current disclosed technology.
No ignorant, flippant, kneejerk skeptic has been able to tell me what it was either, and I sure wasn't
having delusions.

When the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of sightings are taken into account, the similarity of so many of them,
the "everybody is lying of seeing things or on drugs" position quickly becomes the most irrational.

The three "laws" of prediction formulated by the British writer and scientist Arthur C. Clarke:


1- When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2- The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3- Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Thank goodness they all had clothes on. (I'm at work.) (I'll be home in about 3 hours in case you can upload the other pics.)

WC

How long have we been testing the same chemicals on animals?

Guys I'd love to believe there's something or someone already here from an extraterrestrial civilisation, but it doesn't add up.

An F22 would fly equally well in 1760 as 2012. The limitation is not technology, it's fundamental physics.

Two ad hominems ("simple", "Neanderthal") a straw man (technological advance) and argument from authority (witticisms from Arthur C Clarke) do not make fact.

How about some evidence instead? The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

You don't get it.
You don't realize that our understanding of physics of primitive.
You missed the entire point.

No current physics explains the behavior of the triangle I saw.

It is not the burden of the disbeliever to prove or disprove anything. After all, if I believed on leprechauns, and you didn’t, then how would you prove that they do not exist?

Would you say the reason is that you have never seen one? Because there is no evidence? Quantifiable, scientifically measureable evidence? Because the concept is plain silly? What if I present you with a series of credible eye witnesses that believe that they have seen a leprechaun (there must be a few of those available this weekend… ) Would you say that you have to believe then? Maybe if I had a video of a small man in Irish garbs jumping with a pot o' gold?

I do not believe in Extra-Terrestrial visitations, not because I refuse, or because I think Alien life is impossible, but because there is no scientific hard evidence that supports any of it.

I don’t doubt the account of most honest people about it. I do think they believe they saw what they saw. But there is certainly a factor of sudden observation of unknown phenomena, then drawing a conclusion about it just based on a gut feeling that really puts them in the same category as believing the Earth is flat, because that is what you see… and you KNOW what flat looks like. There are indeed many unexplained things… but of the millions of things that do get explained with time, how many have been definitively explained by reason of being caused by ghosts, aliens, leprechauns, etc…??

Then there’s the science. Whenever something needs to recur to declaring science principles and the scientific method flawed because it doesn’t fit the observation, then we fall on the same trap the Church fell when condemning Galileo… because his findings contradicted the Bible.

It really puzzles me when the most simple explanation is ignored, just because it does not fit the observer’s conclusions. Out of an event that may have a much greater probability of being caused by technology developed in this planet, vs. something from another galaxy that, just the fact of traveling the distance between such galaxies would be an practical impossibility based on solid physics laws, we choose the extraterrestrial explanation? Really?

And there the lack of evidence… Video? Photographs? Why would anyone fake those, right? It’s not like a newspaper or magazine would pay anything to publish those… And we know faking them has never happened before and… ok, I’ll stop with the irony here.

Then there’s the conspiracy part of it. There have been many far worse things that governments would not like you to know about, and they come to light (Watergate anyone?, Soviet Union massacres during WWII?). But of course, since the evidence of all those crashes and alien bodies seem to escape everyone else every single time, they must be focusing in doing a great cleanup job ONLY on the Extraterrestrial ship crashes…and Bigfoot…the cleanup after Bigfoot dung is a massive government enterprise.

So believers… just present the simplest measurable (by independent entity), repeatable, solid piece of evidence (not circumstantial, or anecdotal), and I will believe too.

Finally, a little philosophical discussion on the apparent proof or disproof of something based on not having evidence about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Add "believe they saw what they saw, but didn't really see it" to the list.

I accept that you saw a phenomenon that remains unexplained.

That makes it "unexplained". Not "alien", nor "miracle", nor "astral projection from mind's eye".

There's no shame in admitting something is beyond one's comprehension and understanding. That's one of the driving forces behind scientific progress. But the easy comfort found with conjecture and pseudoscience will rarely reflect reality, and will never progress knowledge.

As opposed to the cultural memes from popular literature, cinema and TV that propagate such commonality. Sightings of unidentified flying objects seem remarkably sparse in the period before man invented things that fly.