How many "skeptics" have actually ever studied genuined reports of UFO activity?

Well i definitely believe in ufos as i have seen one many years ago and im not just talking about spotting a strange light in the sky. I saw a ufo close up, it was hovering above this house and some trees. It was round metallic, made no sound at all but was rotating very slowly. It had orange lights all around the middle of the disk shaped craft. After a few minutes of it hovering it started moving forward very slowly while still slowly rotating. It was so close it is impossible to mistake it for anything else, and it was 4:30am. I lot of people make fun of the story and don't believe me which is very frustrating cause i know what i saw was real. My father is in the military and so is my uncle, both Intelligent people and both have seen ufos as well as a lot of other people they know in the military.

De-bunkers prefer to consider every other possible explanation than admit that ET might be watching us regardless of how little their explanation matches what is known. They happily point to instances of hoaxes or obvious cases of mistaken identification and declare with little uncertainty that since those instances were not little green men then aliens don't exist. Sometimes the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" pops up as a way to avoid debate knowing that aliens aren't handing out receipts with each abduction. Yet, reports from credible, highly credentialed professionals get heaped into the same category as intoxicated mental patients. Rarely do I see it said that something unexplainable has a good probability of being unknown intelligences piloting an unknown aircraft with unknown motives because too many unknowns make skeptics nervous.

These cynics will avoid reading anything pro-UFO with the false expectation that the media will alert them when it's OK to believe that we are not alone. Conclusive proof to them will only be achieved by introducing them to an alien, letting them go for a ride, and then taking them to a medical facility to verify that they aren't hallucinating.

It requires far less thought to assume that Hynek was crazy and that all the video, physical and eye-witness evidence is faked.

Most people, even skeptics don't deny that people sometimes see things in the sky that they can't identify. Sometimes other people step in and can't figure out what these people saw either.

Its not the existence of UFO's that is in debate, its the existence of aliens.

The existence of lights in the sky that an observer on the ground can't identify, in no way indicates the presence of aliens spacecraft.

So you see, its not the UFOs, but the assertion that UFO's represent some alien civilization that is in debate.

Since no evidence what-so-ever has been produced, and since it is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence to back it up to satisfy the standards of science, there is no need for a skeptic to investigate further.

Should these mysterious lights actually be aliens, thier technology is so far ahead of ours, that we could never know it through any investigating or technology of our own. A civilization of that magnitude could only be detected by us if they allow us to find them. If that happens, the debate is over, the crazy alien hunters prove they aren't crazy after all. However, I am not holding my breath.

"Name these scientists who have proved UFtOs don't exist."

Oops, you just blew it right there. Name the scientist that can prove that I don't have an invisible unicorn in my back yard. Burden of proof is on the claimant, not the other way around.

Can you please tell me where in these two books that this J Allen Hynek came up with the science behind the method in which these supposed "UFOs" managed to defy physics and traverse the galaxy by at least some 50 light-years?

As suggested, the term UFO does not automatically qualify as an "alien spaceship". A UFO is simply that it is unidentifiable to viewer. In most cases of the "sightings" there is someone looking at the exact same object but from the opposite direction that knows exactly what it is. A vast number of sightings are actually the planet Venus. people drive along in their car, see the very bright Venus that seems to follow them as they drive, and 'viola', instant alien.

EDIT:

You are wrong dead wrong. I have studied this and in great detail. But when you jabber about books that are mostly opinions and fiction, then it is a waste of time.

"... govt's around the world freely admit the existence of UFOs and ETs." - err they do?? Wow. The government departments you converse with must be different to ones I do.

Nobody with clearance as high as you suggest are going to come on line on open forum and tell everyone. It negates purpose of having such secret clearance in the first place. This is not about some scene out of a sci fi, it is a real life scenario.

The govt. is not going to hire incompetents. Are you kidding? The government is where incompetents go for careers. As a military veteran and ex federal employee. I can assure you the govt. is littered with incompetents. In fact, I'm convinced the folks we elect like it that way.

How many skeptics have read the books? Who knows, how many non skeptics have read this one?

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/our_deliberate_slide...

Years ago I read all of the supposedly true UFO books. I stopped when "Chariots Of The Gods" was demonstrated to be a big old phoney baloney tale.

For me it's the fool me once thing. If we ever figure out what UFO's are, we won't find out from authors like the late Mr Hynek.

It would be arrogant to state that UFO's do not exist. Believing that we can identify every possible object we see in the sky is not reasonable. Of course there are things out there that we cannot easily explain. That being said, the existence of UFOs does not prove the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. The fact that we might not be able to identify some objects does not mean that those objects are alien spacecraft.

The term "UFO" means "unidentified flying object". Obviously it is possible to see something

and not be able to identify it, so, yes "UFOs" exist. Dr. Hynek did his best to study the

large collection of anecdotal reports. It is a big leap from these reports to the explanation of

"alien spaceships".

No doubt some sightings are military aircraft, and the like. We can't discount disinformation by

military agencies so that witnesses to experimental aircraft over flights would be branded

as "crazy UFO people".

No doubt some sightings are honest mistakes, others are fraud, and still others are reports

made by the mentally unbalanced.

Some, however, are real phenomena. Atmospheric "sprites" (upper atmosphere electrical discharges)

were observed for years. The risk of being associated with "UFO crazies" caused pilots to

suppress observations of these phenomena for years. So the "alien spaceship' crowd really

has done a lot of harm to science.

Finally, I would have to say that the MUFON groups seem to be interested in doing a scientific

investigation of these sightings. They seem sincere and competent. The rest of the anti-science

"true believers" would be wise to follow their example.

Divvy up the undeniable evidence. You can can't you? Any evidence that will stand the test? Go on, give it a go, the world is waiting to make you rich.

Edit. Scientists will ask for evidence of a UFO not deny it exists.

Nope. That's because I spent my time learning actual astronomy. You know, how to figure out what stuff in the sky was. And learning real science - how we draw conclusions, what counts as evidence and what doesn't. I don't need to waste my time reading books by people who never bothered to learn either and then think they can draw conclusions.

You can't prove something doesn't exist. But if you want to claim it does, you're the one who needs to provide proof of it. Lesson #1 of science - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And they, and you, have no evidence at all.

the burden of proof lies not in proving something doesn't exist, but in porving it exists.

I can claim I created the universe, along with all your memories and thoughts, 5 seconds ago.

Prove I didn't. You can't. Therein lies the fallacy of that assumption. You can't disprove something open ended like "do UFO's exist".

But failing to disprove does not PROVE. That is the issue with that argument. You can't disprove I created the universe. However, your inability to disprove does not prove that I did.