The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis for the UFO phenomenon should be taken seriously.

I'll start with the photographs my opponent provided demonstrating that people can hoax photographs and that lenticular clouds look vaguely similar to some reported UFOs. I do not dispute either of these assertions. As for Con's objection to my statement about foo fighters: I suggest my opponent look into them if he is interested as there are thousands of cases from WW2 to present of unknown objects interacting with aircraft, often for long periods as described by Army Air Major William D. Leet: "'My B-17 crew and I were kept company by a 'foo-fighter,' a small disc, all the way from Klagenfurt Austria, to the Adriatic Sea. This occurred on a 'lone wolf' mission at night, as I recall, in December 1944.'" (1) Many of the descriptions involve evasive action taken by the pilot with the "objects" maintaining formation for several minutes, and many do not involve "following behind" as in this case reported by a B-29 crew over the Indian Ocean: "A strange object was pacing us about 500 yards off the starboard wing. . . it appeared as a spherical object, probably five or six feet in diameter, of a very bright and intense red or orange. . .It seemed to throb or vibrate constantly. . .I went into evasive action, changing direction constantly, as much as 90 degrees and altitude of about 2,000 feet. It followed our every maneuver for about eight minutes, always holding a position about 500 yards out and about 2 o'clock in relation to the plane. When it left, it made an abrupt 90 degree turn, accelerating rapidly, and disappeared into the overcast." (1) Descriptions such as this, with details of the object and it's relation to the plane through a series of described maneuvers, seem to rule out most factors other than that there was something actually there. It is obvious from any detailed analysis of available evidence that my opponent's characterizations of the evidence are based on an extremely limited sample and a-priori assumptions about the rest. But again, not to minimize these, but I was hoping to get to the other presented cases with supporting evidence. Re: Con's statement: "scientists follow information and take it seriously if it is good evidence." I agree that this would be ideal, but I disagree that this is the case. As he himself agreed "every scientist/person can be guilty of [cognitive dissonance]." A scientist is unlikely to examine the evidence for UFOs precisely because they have made a-priori assumptions, as my opponent has (I say this only because he seems at least somewhat unfamiliar with the topic he is arguing against. I would assert that to take a position without information is evidence of pre-existing bias). I do not blame him, however. The vast majority of scientists are also completely unfamiliar with the subject and if asked, will dismiss it, with simplistic blanket explanations, as my opponent has, like lack of oxygen or war stress, or mass hysteria, that in many cases are simply not adequate to explain the reported observation. This is of course quite understandable, as UFO "believers" are often horribly unscientific and irrational in their presentation of the evidence and their argument for it, often giving just as simplistic and blanket explanations without backing them up. It seems that the media and the government have also done their part in many cases to create a taboo around the subject. I will talk more about this in a moment. My opponent closed by saying that he (and/or "various agencies and airforces") has given valid explanations covering (I must assume he means) EVERY case of unidentified flying objects and that the "UFO community" refuses to accept these explanations. This is demonstrably false, as thousands of UFO reports analyzed by governments around the world, including the U.S. government, have been determined to be of unknown origin. That said, as my opponent points out, there has been a consistent pattern among agencies of the US government to downplay the validity of the reports in general. I submit, that at least in large part, this can be demonstrated to be based on intentional deception. We know that to begin with, the US government took UFO reports very seriously(2) (3) and then changed it's official stance, in spite of the fact that it continued to take the phenomenon seriously in secret, as evidenced by a number of declassified documents, showing that the air force and other agencies continued to investigate UFOs even after "officially" closing Blue Book(4). J. Allen Hynek was the Scientific Advisor to Project Blue Book and a member of the Robertson Panel. He was highly skeptical of UFO reports to begin with. During his work with the project, he publicly debunked reports (most of us may know him as the originator of the "swamp gas" explanation). He later became a whistle-blower, stating that Blue Book was meant to intentionally misinform the public about UFOs. He came to take the phenomenon very seriously after failing to find plausible explanations for a number of compelling cases, often involving military pilots. http://www.youtube.com... It is also clear that the Condon Committee had similar objectives. A letter(6) from the C.C. Project Coordinator, Robert Low discusses his misgivings about the project: "One has to approach it objectively. That is, one has to admit the possibility that such things as UFOs exist. It is not respectable to give serious consideration to such a possibility. . .The simple act of admitting the possibilities just as possibilities puts us beyond the pale, and we would lose more prestige in the scientific community than we could possibly gain by undertaking the investigation. . .The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would appear a totally objective study but, to the scientific community, would present the image of a group of nonbelievers trying their best to be objective, but having an almost zero expectation of finding a saucer." It is also clear that project head Edward Condon was biased about the subject, quoted by the New York Times referring to it "a bunch of damned nonsense."(7) When the Condon Committee released their 1,000 page report, scientists and media rarely looked beyond Condon's conclusion, which said more or less that studying UFOs was without scientific merit. Those who did, including the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics(8), were often strongly critical of Condon's conclusion, which did not reflect the conclusions of many of the report's authors, who concluded in about 1/4 of the cases that the phenomenon did not correlate with conventional explanations. In the Bentwaters case even concluding that "the most probable explanation. . .[is] a mechanical device of unknown origin." Prior to BlueBook and the Condon Committee was a secret 1953 CIA study known as the Robertson Panel. One panel member, Dr. Thornton Page, wrote that "our job was to reduce public concern, and show that UFO reports could be explained by conventional reasoning."(6) This is backed up by what Hynek claims in video 2. http://www.youtube.com... The panel's recommendations were not publicly released (until recently), but they suggested that through an "educational program". . ."the national security agencies take immediate steps to strip the Unidentified Flying Objects of the special status they have been given and the aura of mystery they have unfortunately acquired." They suggested this be done in part through "debunking" UFO reports by manipulating the media: "The 'debunking' aim would result in reduction in public interest in 'flying saucers' which today evokes a strong psychological reaction. This education could be accomplished by mass media such as television, motion pictures, and popular articles. . . The report went on that "business clubs, high schools, colleges, and television stations would all be pleased to cooperate in the showing of documentary type motion pictures if prepared in an interesting manner. The use of true cases showing first the 'mystery' and then the 'explanation' would be forceful."(9) But did anything happen with these recommendations? Apparently. Dr. Page wrote in a letter about Walter Cronkite's 1966 UFO special: "I. . . helped organize the CBS TV show around the Robertson Panel's conclusions."(10) But whether there is a conspiracy isn't central to my argument. Let it suffice that there is a taboo(11). The main thrust of my point remains. To summarize: 1) As Fermi and others have noted, and most scientists have had no qualm with, it is not illogical to assume that our galaxy has been fully colonized by intelligent entities by now. 2) There is ample evidence (a tiny portion of which I have presented, very little of which my opponent has addressed) that at least some cases of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena cannot be adequately explained. (I am not impressed by the blanket explanations that Con has put forth to explain a very large number of reports, largely by highly experienced, well-trained, methodical, aviators and operators of supporting equipment. I accept that anomalies of perception occur, but with thousands of such reports, these explanations strain believability.) 3) Given 1, it is not unreasonable to question whether some portion of 2 may be the result of activities by 1. I thank my opponent for an enjoyable debate and hand it back to him for the last word. (1) http://www.unmuseum.org... (2) http://www.roswellfiles.com... (3) http://www.brycezabel.com... (4) http://www.theblackvault.com... (6) http://www.cufon.org... (7) http://www.ufoevidence.org... (8) http://www.ufoevidence.org... (9) http://www.cufon.org... (10) http://rense.com... (11)http://ovnis-usa.com...