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

Regarding the reference error, no problem I just wanted to address your information so the error is not problematic if anything it made me more dubious of the UFO claims. Regarding the date of civilizations, I understand what you are saying. However, we should remember that without the dark ages we as a civilization would be 500 to 600 years ahead in technology so we have no idea what that 600 years would have meant. (1) But to put it in perspective, we would have put someone on the moon at least in the 18th century. This is why I point this out, as exploration of science does not have to with civilization age but technology and science. As such a civilization that developed at the same pace as ours, but did not go through a dead period of 600 years in terms of science and technology, would be far more advanced than us but still the same age. Also, again I am not saying its impossible that alien life exists outside of our solar system. However, I am pointing out that the age of such a life form is something we cannot know. Regarding Dr Haines, I agree I may have been misreading so I will attempt to answer you questions regarding this to make myself more clear. I just want to say that Dr Haines has a clear bias, as he assumes everything to be a cover up, this is why I mentioned that similar sightings of this type were reported by aircrews over Europe and Asia in World War II. It reverts back to the fact that multiple of these cases can easily be explained by war stress, oxygen deprivation or instrument failure, and not the immediate UFO jump. I also watched the Youtube clip, and have to say this very important statement. Sounding rational does not make you right, as can be attested when considering Bill Maher and his anti-vaccine stance. (2) Interestingly, my opponent drops sub cases 1 to 3 from my second round argument as it does not fit the criteria and I applaud that. But,at this point lets note that Dr Haines who is meant to be "most qualified people on earth to scientifically study UFOs" thought it was not necessary to drop. In other words these cases are considered credible by Dr Haines, and this is more evidence as to why I say he has a bias. Regarding sub case 4, I gather is been dropped despite my opponents lengthily response. In response I will gladly drop the rank question of Lt. Commander Davies as I misread that he was actually a naval pilot. However, regardless as you say there is no corroborating information for this case and so it is a personal account that can get dropped due to lack of evidence. With respect to the 14 radars, I still believe the text is ambiguous and so it is good this case is getting dropped as I do not agree with your analysis. Regarding sub case 5, I agree with my opponent that it was two separate events. However the text says in a very misleading way that "Three crewmembers (tail, left, and top gunner) of a B-29 reported a five-minute encounter with a light orange colored sphere which shot away at an angle. " This sentence implies one aircraft, and so if this is the case the airspeed of the aircraft becomes very important and that is why I brought it up. The speed of 144 mph I mentioned comes from the text where they say their speed was 125 knots which can be converted. (3) With respect to the word flak, yes I know it traditionally means from anti aircraft exploding shells, however it should be noted that this term has been used far more liberally in the military than just to reference anti-aircraft exploding shells. (4, 5) It should be noted that if this aircraft was receiving flak that the lights/objects seen can be explained through war stress, explosions etc. However, I agree that this is not relevant evidence and as such we can drop it, again Dr Haines however did not think it worthy of dropping. Now to the evidence my opponent wanted me to address and which I snubbed in my second round argument as been easily explained by a balloon sighting. This is case 9 in full and why I snubbed it " May 10, 1952 Korea, Project Blue Book monthly summary for the period 1 - 10 May 1952 includes a single entry for a sighting on May 10th by a military observer that was evaluated as BALLOONS. No other information is available. "I think my opponent is referring to the following case which I posted in round 2, so I will post my response here again. Case 1 sub case 12 May 26, 1952. This sighting was at night, and the pilots even talk about a glare from a searchlight of a plane which was blinding so they could not determine what type. Surely then this bright light observed that followed the plane could just be attributed to a searchlight on a plane. (7,8) What's interesting is the author who then talks about presuppositions "The conclusion of the Deputy for Intelligence stated above illustrates once again the lengths that people will go to to ignore obvious facts that do not agree with their presuppositions. " Yet, the author is the one with presuppositions as he has already decided that any report from the air force is not reliable. I believe the major contention my opponent has though comes from the acceleration speed of the "UFO". However, again I state here that the pilots observed glare from the "UFO" and as such how do we even know if their depth perception is correct to come up with those values. Additionally, this whole sighting lasted only 14 seconds according to the pilots observations in war conditions at night with glare from searchlights. These variables are enough to cast serious doubt on this account. This case is meant to be corroborated by ground radar, however the report by Brig. General Banliff even states "No information has yet been received from the ground controller at Bromide as to the returns plotted or the length of time that object was held in contact by the ground radar. " So, I think it is safe to say that this was only witnessed by the crew, and so we have lost one source of information. This means in effect this information about acceleration is only obtained from one radar by one person. In closing my opponent talks about intelligent life in the universe. However, this debate is about an intelligent civilizations spacecraft and NOT about intelligent civilization. With respect to spacecraft I believe there is no credible evidence for this as presented so far. As I have characters left let me address some more of the links from round 1 of the debate. The Belgium spottings of the triangles shaped flying aircraft is interesting as only ground observations were observed and there are reasons for the sightings such as stealth fighters flying at that time. (8) Importantly, even though these objects were chased by F16's importantly no pilot EVER saw any of these objects and the radar observations can be explained by so called "rare meteorological phenomenon. " Maybe, it should also be noted this was near the end of the cold war, so it could have been Soviet Russia testing new planes beyond the classified stealth fighters or other US Air Force planes. (9)I think it is important to realize that just because multiple people believe something, and have claimed to see something it does not make it rational. This can be thought of in terms Cottingly Fairies which were photographed and claimed to be real by some people back in 1917 to 1920. (10) Even though these pictures have been discredited, there are still people that claim that they have seen fairies. (11)Regarding the LakenHeath-Bentworth incident, the pilots say that the object was stationary and that all the information reported is overblown. (12) In fact from Wikipedia the "aircrews both stated that the radar contacts obtained were unimpressive and that no 'tail-chase', or action on the part of the target, occurred. They also asserted no visual contacts were made. "(13) Considering this is a Wikipedia link and the related link are broken, I have included a Youtube interview. The interview is with two of the pilots explaining what they saw. Interestingly these pilots and the interviewer state the report of the Americans was overblown and that the British report said this was a complete non case, as there was not even any thing to observe. . http://www.youtube.com...I cant wait to hear my opponents response to these rebuttals and as such I hand the debate back to my opponent. (1) . http://www.allabouthistory.org...(2) . http://transcripts.cnn.com...(3) . http://www.disastercenter.com...(4) . http://www.merriam-webster.com...(5) . http://public.wsu.edu...(6) . http://www.13thbombsquadron.org...(7) . http://en.wikipedia.org...(8) . http://www.ufoevidence.org...(9) . http://en.wikipedia.org...(10) . http://en.wikipedia.org...(11) . http://www.paranormaldatabase.com...(12) . http://www.ufoevidence.org...(13) . http://en.wikipedia.org...