That depends on who your are trying to convince. Some skeptics are so stuck in their ways, even mass sightings do not count as hard evidence... And I assure you, there have been plenty of mass-sightings. Forensically detailing theses subjects, most of them show advanced technologies, and to anyone who has even the remote grasp of science, are well aware of how damaging these mass-sightings are to the skeptic. But some, of course, just ignore them and say ''it's our own technologies!''
Well, yes. I actually believe in many instances there is sufficient evidence not presume anything remarkable is going on. However, in many instances we cannot ignore the evidence like many skeptics do.
I assume you are a skeptic ... right? The fact you have said there is no convincing evidence shows a lack of knowledge in the literature of UFO's.
''That's good, but be aware that if it is your contention that UFO's are alien spaceships, well, it'll be an uphill battle proving that...in other words, people here will require evidence.''
No... that is not my contention. I actually said straight away in my OP in my sister thread next door that my contentions have not been made up - but - I am not a typical skeptic who will dismiss evidence just because I feel like it.
''Well, sure it is...but evidence indicates that it has less to do with "what's up in the sky", and more to do with "what's up here". (I'm pointing to my head)''
No... I strongly disagree. And for a number of reasons.
These aircraft have been caught on radar, even on film by Military Officials, they have been caught on STS-tapes recorded by officials whose integrity it has hard to question. Mass sightings have occurred... now for the latter here... unless you want to believe that sometimes hundreds of people are just wackjobs, seeing the same delusion, or the other alternative is what they saw was very real.
Which one of these two, do you think is more plausible? I'd say mass hallucination is somewhat of a myth - we can all be terrified about something simultaneously, like what you might find when you stick seven people into a mansion and tell them to ghost hunt... but when you have a physical object in the sky which is being visually recorded perhaps by hundreds of people at a time, I'd say it is less likely to vanishingly small that they are all experiencing the same common hallucination. Our brains don't work that way.
''When that's all the UFO "community" offers up as evidence, what should a skeptic do?''
That's uninformed. For a number of reasons again. The UFO community do indeed believe in a phenomenon which includes the craft of unknown origin over the landscape of nearly every major country over the globe. It's easy to say for instance ''what should a skeptic do if this is all that is offered'' but there is plenty evidence in the archives of real phenomenon, which has been experienced, by respectable people and to which there is no explanation.
So in short, this isn't all which a skeptic has to deal with - most of the time a skeptic will choose to listen to what evidence they wish to listen too. When you name incidents like the Washington 1942 case, or the Shag Harbor case, among many many other mass sightings, skeptics are mostly lost with how to deal with it. They may act very obtuse and say ''it was weather balloons,'' but they usually say these things because they believe the ''conventional explanations'' can fit the bill, which when studying the evidence more closely, (which many skeptics don't) the evidence does not.
In fact, in many ways, the evidence is damning in the sense when we look back even 50 to 100 years ago, when technology was slim and very crude. In these days, when a UFO was found to exhibit technologies greater than our own, it was hard to point the finger of blame. One problem the US government dealt with was that they were the main superpower at the time, next to Britain. Whatever advanced technologies that should have been around, we should have had it - so just imagine the way officials reacted when these things came on to the picture...
Colonel Keyhoe was one person who actually admitted that Military Officials where soberly concerned about these objects in the back room. They knew, if it was not their technologies, whose the damn was it? I bet the Soviets where blamed a lot, but they where more talk back in the day than actually displaying actual advanced technologies.
Anyway, there is plenty evidence which someone can offer, and crap youtube video's is not one of them.
''The possibility of "alienness" is remote at best...nonexistant at worst.''
Remote is a strong word.
Again, we should be open to idea that what we have in our hands, the evidence from past encounters shows that the possibility should be a little more than simply remote.
There is also very suspicious transcriptions over the years made in STS missions. There was even a transcription of an astronaut naming a ''bogey'' which is your usual terminology, an ''alien spacecraft'' - it was a bad recording. There was also a case when a couple of astronauts observed a UFO, the end transcription said ''did you hear our conversations'' Housten: ''Yes we heard them'' shuttle: ''Good, don't forget to censor them.''
What did they want censored? Alas, we will never know. But the fact remains, there is plenty evidence supporting the debate. I will even type up these transcriptions with the name of the astronauts so you may check these for yourself.