CNN, Larry King Live - UFOs; Are They for Real (part 6-6)

[photopicker]

The subjective is where science closes their mind. What fools. The rest of the equation is in the subjective. Not a wonder they are skeptical.

[driepintenbier]

Well I know two people totally strange from each other see a huge ufo like a maria bell-glass nuon light and disappear slowly upwards in 1951. This is like a legal testify proof, but there are two attitudes, one have a receptive mind and the other suggestive. Think about it!

[GassyZuke]

You are exactly right. By the very same logic, a group of people called scientists putting forward a collective statement does not increase the truth of the statement.

I find it laughable that the commentator says the odds are remote that aliens would look like us. The same DNA coming to earth in meteors hit other planets too...millions of years before our own.

[fuunguus]

@GassyZuke

No. That was not alien DNA, or DNA at all. The evolution of life on this planet has progressed from extremely primitive to very complex, the first billion years there were just one cell organisms, and from there everything has evolved in steps. Eyes, hearing, smelling, brains, everything. If the first DNA contained any information of that sort the evolutionary steps would be much faster and bigger. And yes, DNA keeps all kinds of information even if not needed, even DNA from viruses!

[fuunguus]

@fuunguus

If these aliens in fact look like us, my theory is that these aliens are in fact hybrids. Why they would want hybrids is because that is the best way to communicate with us. A middle man that understands both sides on all levels. The last thing they want in a first encounter is miss-communication.

[fuunguus]

@fuunguus

It also wouldn't be dumb using hybrids to study us as well.

[polyrhythmic1]

The evidence that we're being visited by ETs is overwhelming if you really take the time to research. Roswell was not a Mogul balloon...

[Beamshipcaptain]

Yes, of course the EVIDENCE, of which there is plenty of physical evidence, is that we have 2 sources of saucers and other shaped UFOS: Built on Earth, and Built Elsewhere in space and time. We life in a universe TEEMING with life, at all stages of development. Homo Sapien Earth Humans in 2009-2010, are no where near the top.

[dbreiden83080]

@polyrhythmic1

There is no compelling proof that Roswell was an alien crash either. Many of the witness accounts have proven sketchy and untrue over the years.  That is at best controversial not a slam dunk that it was an alien crash there is no real proof of that..

[robinlewisadams]

There are many many scientists that believe in god and christianity. do you place your trust in science to inform you that god is a logical conclusion of science?

[robinlewisadams]

are you a scientist? are you aware that there are many credible scientists that support that the ufo evidence does point towards an extra terestrial origin? are you truely equiped as a scientists with a vast and deep knowledge of the history of ufology? A scinetist will know all about observation, experimentation, and reasoning. how is this possible?

[robinlewisadams]

you may be as sceptical as you wish about the accuracy of those documentaries. first of all i asked you if you have seen the documentary. it is not like any other ufo documentary i have seen. if you choose to be sceptical, it is simply because you mistrust the evidence that is given, and not because you have knowledge that disproves the evidence.

[robinlewisadams]

you are still completely fixated with the idea that this is exclusive to science but it is clearly not because half of the evidence we are discussing is actually eyewitness accounts which can not be fully evaluated within the field of science.

[robinlewisadams]

many of the triangular ships have been described as miles long. have you watched a documentary by mike fox called 'out of the blue'? you will see that the evidence really is stacked up in favor of the likelyhood of an extra terestrial visitation. it's available on youtube in 9 parts.

[robinlewisadams]

i am not exclusively in favour of an extraterestrial origin but of any explanation that takes into account that A. these are highly advanced vehicles beyond the engineering capabilities of MODERN man. and B. they are not characteristic of any technology known to MODERN man.

[robinlewisadams]

once again you are dismissing the eye witness claims for poor reasons. there are many things that we do not know and to assume that what we do not know does not exist or does not merit proper inspection or a fair hearing, is simply closed minded and dismissive and exactly the reason why i support a court case for this mystery.if it were an experimental plane then the goverment would account for this, which they do not in any of the cases that i have come across.

[robinlewisadams]

absoloutely. if science was to be used in say, a murder case in which the scientific evidence was inconclusive, then they would move on to make a conclusion taking into account that the scientific evidence was inconclusive.

[robinlewisadams]

first of all you are stating that i intend to create some opposition between the legal system and science which is a complete fallacy on your behalf. there are elements of science within a legal system and there are elements of the legal system within science but they still offer alternative value. so you are arguing that the court system is of no alternate value in judging something than a scientific system? that is just bullshit i'm afraid, no matter how complexly termed.

[robinlewisadams]

i have now proved that a court case is relevant and not dismissive of science. your argument of eye witness accounts being unreliable could only be applied in science but this argument was never founded in science and science alone. this is comepletely related to the argument because i on one hand believe in the credibility of eyewitness accounts and you do not and use science as a means to discredit it where i have shown that science is not the only system that can prove or disprove something.

[robinlewisadams]

what you stated doesn't stand up at all because you are making the claim that this is a purely scientific case when it is obviously not confined to the limits of science as these are very human experiences and accounts which can't be simply brushed aside without a fair hearing. science can't give that fair hearing and therefor it is only fair that these accounts be judged in a court.

[robinlewisadams]

what do you say to that?

[robinlewisadams]

I am arguing the case that particular ufo evidence is far more likely to be that of extra terestrial origin when the only alternative explanation given for vast amounts of people coming forward with consistant collective eye witness accounts of large triangular shaped crafts, beyond the engineering capablities of man, hovering over their homes, are insulting claims that these large "unmistakable" vehicles are military flares.

[robinlewisadams]

When I then suggested that a necessary step in the study and understanding of ufos, would be a court system, you falsely accused me of dismissing science, though infact I had taken science fully into account to bring us to the point where the evidence was inconclusive within the scientific field, there for science has played it part in bringing us this far. Then I proved that science is not the only system that can prove or disprove something, which is the strength on which my court idea stands.

[robinlewisadams]

you then went on to say that the legal system was not based upon a very well educated guess in the cases where science was not used in convicting criminals in response to my sarcastic statement which basically mimiced what you where implying by stating that eye witness accounts were completely unreliable even in the case of collective eye witness accounts, where many people witness huge hovering triangular crafts over their homes, although the court regularly relies on eye witness accounts.

[robinlewisadams]

you have failed to prove that my argument is circular and that was the bassis of your very argument. you have failed in proving that i am using fallacies because i have shown that under the terms you apply them to my argument, they can just as simply be used against your argument due to the inconclusive nature of the evidence.

[robinlewisadams]

you are failing to see the point. if you could work out the point i am making and take some time to really think about it, you would realise that it is not an illogical statement to use an example of your motive for arguing. you have stated that my argument is circular yet if you truely believed this then how could you benifit in any way from entering into a circular argument with a person who would simply continue to use fallicies to support their claim. that would be completely illogical!

[robinlewisadams]

no, i am pointing out that my argument is not circular otherwise you would be wasting your time arguing with me because you could never actually persuade me otherwise and the argument would go on forever, there for making you pretty stupid to involve yourself. that isn't the same as stating you are stupid. on the contrary actually, it is giving purpose to the debate and your argument.

[robinlewisadams]

You didn't adress your accusation that my argument was circular similar to that of a religious argument.

[robinlewisadams]

you have made no real holes in my defence. constantly using terms like 'ad hominem', 'ad ignorantum' and 'fallacies' all of which avoid dealing with the actual argument at hand. my point is that you accuse me of having a circular argument yet for some reason you are continuing to indulge me. why would any semi intelligent person be sucked into an argument of that nature? because you know aswell as i, that i have proved that my argument is not circular, not ad ignorantum and not a fallacy.

[robinlewisadams]

you misunderstand my point. i am not personally attacking you but demonstrating that surely you wouldn't be involved in this debate if you truely believed that i was comparible to a religious fanatic who insisted that god was real and would persist in denying any logical argument against christianity.

[robinlewisadams]

yes we are debating now. according to you, you are engaged in a debate with somebody with a circular argument comparible with the arguments of religion, with only fallacies on thier side and nothing of scientific relevance, who believes in a fabricated truth that aliens are visiting us and is lying to conceal their true belief in order to change the sway of the argument in their favour. i would have to question the intellegence of anybody that would indulge such a fanatic.

[robinlewisadams]

what are the competing likely answers? give me examples and not just unfounded statements. i personally think that the "competing likely answers" are an insult to the intellegence of anyone with a half open mind and a pair of eyes. military flares? swamp gas? metiors? saucer shaped clouds? mirages? stars? or my personal favourite, mass halucination?

[robinlewisadams]

you have never claimed that you are open to what possibility?

[robinlewisadams]

in the case of the evidence that i am basing my statement on, science has already ruled out the most likely explanations and that is why the evidence has been branded inconclusive and open for debate.

[robinlewisadams]

how can it be insufficient if it is inconclusive? if viewed in those terms then your argument is as much fallacy as is my arguing that it is potentially sufficient evidence. you are once again using words like "true" and "belief" insinuating that i am claiming to know the truth and believe in this truth. and if it is inconclusive then it is open for debate.

[robinlewisadams]

are you suggesting that it is A. unlikely or B. completely 100% certain that e.ts are visiting us? an argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, OR FALSE BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN TRUE!

[robinlewisadams]

correction: are you suggesting that it is A. unlikely or B. completely 100% certain that e.ts aren't visiting us? an argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, OR FALSE BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN TRUE!

[robinlewisadams]

let me put an end to the idea that my argument is any more a fallacy than yours. you are making the assumption that this inconclusive evidence concludes that these are not e.ts. if viewed in those terms, your argument is equally as much a fallacy as my arguing on the contrary. both are not logically unsound because the evidence is inconclusive.i.e- no conclusion. no diffinite answer. no certainty either way. OPEN FOR DEBATE.

[robinlewisadams]

My argument from the outset has been defending the possibility of ufos being potentially of an extra terestrial origin.

[robinlewisadams]

i don't believe because i'm not 100% certain that aliens are visiting us and i can't say with positivity that aliens are visiting us. what i can say is that i lean more towards the idea that they are visiting us based on the evidence available which is completely within reason. i don't watch every ufo video and say wow, look! an alien space craft! i look at rare video evidence and documents and come to the conclusion that it is more likely to be e. t than human, not that it IS e.t.

[robinlewisadams]

there is nothing contradictory or confusing about leaning towards a certain possibility. you are the one who is now dealing in absoloutes, stating that in order for me to support the possibility of something is to believe in it completely. i don't accuse you of believing that it is impossible for these ufos to be e.ts. i accuse you of shrugging off evidence that is inconclusive. i.e-open for debate.

[robinlewisadams]

once again, how can you say that my argument has completely failed if the evidence is branded inconclusive. your argument is against the likelyhood of ufos being e.ts and my argument is for the likelyhood of ufos being e.ts. it's easy just to say that my argument has completely failed but the fact is that without scientific conclusion, the subject is open for debate. i have counteracted every one of your attempts to find flaw in my argument.

[robinlewisadams]

when did i discount science? all i said was that science in the case of these ufo sightings, could only reach inconclusiveness. if an "interesting and emotionally compelling" piece of video evidence is evaluated by science then it is seemingly inevitabe that scientists will either disprove the footage or brand it as inconclusive. there for the conclusion should be drawn from the court system where not everything relies on science to be proved or disproved.

[robinlewisadams]

it is you who has confused my theory with my beliefs. i haven't backed out of anything. i implied and still imply that i completely support the theory that the evidence is in favor of ufos being e.ts. there is a difference between supporting a theory and supporting a belief as the two are completely seperate as we both well know. i didnt say you called me an "ignorantum". i stated that you insinuated this. it is your assumptions that lead you to your mistaken thinking that i'm a believer.

[robinlewisadams]

granted i confused the term mysticism with mysteryious. two similar words that are easily mixed up. i had not realised until now that mysticism is a word widely used in religious terms. so now you know what i meant, as obviously the fact that i'm arguing the case against the two being lumped together as blind faith and ignorant belief, it would be extremely stupid to intentionally use a word that has religious connotations. also if you look at the context in which i used the word it doesn't fit

[robinlewisadams]

i am not accusing you of anything. i am simply giving my status of belief in reaction to your insinuation that i am an "ignorantum" with a "specific belief". you just gave an example why my thinking is theory and not belief. if i had said "Do you expect that we bring you the head of an alien before you will BELIEVE that aliens are visiting us" then you would have made your point, however what i actually said is "before you can CONSIDER such a far out IDEA as this".

[robinlewisadams]

that is why your argument that the theory of ufos is comparible to religion is incorrect, because i do not believe. i have a theory based on evidence. theories do not deal in absoloutes as beliefs and religions do. religions are based on blind faith and belief. if you were in a debate with a person who stated their strict belief in e.ts visiting us then you would be correct in comparing their belief to religious faith, however you are not and that is why you are wrong in comparing the two.

[robinlewisadams]

excuse me but i have stated nothing is true or false. i don't have a specific belief that extraterestrial life is visiting us in space crafts but i do believe that the evidence points strongly towards that likelyhood that this phenomena is beyond human engineering. do not put words in my mouth. i do not believe in aliens or god. i apply evidence to the latter and hold a theory on this. that makes it neither strictly true or false in my estimation.

[robinlewisadams]

prior not latter

[robinlewisadams]

silent, low-flying black triangles in 1989 and 1990 over Belgium, tracked by multiple NATO radar and jet interceptors, and investigated by Belgium's military (included photographic evidence).

ever heard of GEPAN/SEPRA?

didn't think so. go and look into it.

look up 'mexican airforce ufo footage'

as an example of video evidence that is compelling.

[robinlewisadams]

you have discounted all eye witness evidence consistantly. so if you do not discount this evidence then what is your explanation for the collective eye witness accounts? on the subject of american goverment witnesses, what more evidence can they give but there own word. they describe exactly what it is that they were ordered to conceal. i have never came across a case where one of these witnesses withholds information due to fear of the consequences. you are applying falsities.

[robinlewisadams]

the reason they are branded inconclusive is because there are no mundane explanations for a large percentage of ufo footage. there are many videos that can be proved to be either hoaxes or natural causes. those videos should not be confused with the 'inconclusive' footage, which can't be brought to a conclusion due to the mysterious inexplicable nature of the footage. the point i make about a court case, is that a conclusion must be met by the end of the process.

[robinlewisadams]

your claim that there is no physical evidence is simply uneducated. you have obviously done little or no study on the subject. i have made logical arguments which you have predictably replied with in vague terms like 'fallacious arguments' instead of directly dealing with my points such as that outside of the field of science, criminals are regularly convicted for crimes based on eye witness accounts only. but still you discredit eye witness accounts even those on a collective level.

[robinlewisadams]

It is undeniable that this subject is controversial and mysterious, we knew this from the outset otherwise we wouldn't be disscussing it. a large contributary factor to the controversy and mystery is the secretive behaviour of the american goverment on the subject of ufos. reasonable sensible men who have worked for the american goverment and have been ordered to take part in this secrecy by guarding the truth from the american public, have then spoken out on the matter in retirement.

[robinlewisadams]

the point i was making with the court case obviously went completely over your head. If in 15 or 20% of ufo video evidence cases, scientists can't come to any conclusion because there seems to be no conclusion that can explain these phenomena outside of the extraoirdinary, then it would have to be settled in a court of law, outside of the field of science by pure reason and judgement. science played it's part in concluding that there are no ordinary explanations for this evidence.

[robinlewisadams]

But ofcourse you'd be absoloutely within reason to suggest that the entire legal system is based on nothing more than a very very well educated 'guess' and ofcourse there is no guaruntee that all the criminals prosecuted without dna evidence are actually guilty. so science would suggest that we let these so called criminals free in the name of justice because if something can't be proved by science then we people shouldn't be so illogical to challenge any scientically unapplicable case : )

[robinlewisadams]

it is also a fact that much of the video evidence has been labeled 'inconclusive' because it can neither be proved nor disproved to be e.ts by science. there simply is no explanation, rendering the evidence 'inconclusive' scientifically speaking. now if this evidence is taken out of the scientific field and placed within human reasoning and judgement(i.e a court of law), then we may be able to conclude that at the very least, this footage is of something that is beyond human engineering.

[robinlewisadams]

eye witness accounts are held in full credibility in a court of law under the close scrutiny of the court as is video evidence. if science was to be the only factor of the legal system then criminals would be less likely to be prosecuted due to lack of dna evidence at every crime scene. murderers have been sent to prison for life based on nothing more than reliable eye witness accounts, yet you believe for some bizzare reason that every eye witness account can be shrugged aside as irelevant.

[robinlewisadams]

there are less scientists willing to support it because it is a subject of great controversy and mysticism. the nature of this subject is mysterious and outside of the normal realms of science because it is not something as i stated that an equasion can be applied to. it is based around an unpredictable collection of moments which have been documented in the only way possible. what would be far more contributary, is an investigative court case where no evidence is withheld by goverments.

[robinlewisadams]

i am not certain of anything. i was arguing that your 'circular argument' point didnt stand up because you state that there are no aliens visiting us and undermine my THEORY as if you can say with certainty that my notion is as uncredible as religion although my opinion is based on video and eye witness account evidence and not blind faith, however inconclusive you think this evidence is, it is an ever growing body of evidence and there for my argument is no more a circular argument than yours.

[robinlewisadams]

your 'circular argument' point, really doesn't stand up at all in this case. what we have is ALOT of video evidence which anyone is free to make an assesment on and form there own theory or belief. in science there are no absoloutes and theories are only credited once there is a solid equasion behind the theory. you can argue that there is no proof that the ufo videos are credible but with no more of a solid equasion than i have for the opposite theory. so both arguments can be dubbed circular.

[robinlewisadams]

a simple answer. scientists peer review studies once determined that the uncertainty princaple was flawed and ofcourse dismissed darwin's theory of evolution contrary to the evidence. why? because it conflicted with an entirely differing set of beliefs within the scientific community.. nikola tesla, one of the most brilliant scientists and inventors of the 20th century once announced of contact with e.ts which was ridiculed. that is why the study of ufos is largely neglected. fear of ridicule.

[robinlewisadams]

i also have afew questions for you FreshePi. If video evidence and eye witness accounts are simply not evidence enough for you, then exactly what do you consider substantial? Do you expect that we bring you the head of an alien before you can consider such a far out idea as this? If e.ts were further evolved to the point of developing the speculated advanced technology, do you expect they'd be caught by such primitive unadvanced beings as us?

[robinlewisadams]

when you're dealing with video evidence from varied sources you need a filter for non credible evidence, i.e-digitaly enhansed videos or videos that are simply set up as a hoax, as aposed to evidence that is presented by sensible people, part of a collective witnessing across a large area which also have a consistant body of video evidence. as soon as any scientist declares into the study of ufos in favor of the theory of e.ts as a cause , they are discreditited as scientists by people like you.

[robinlewisadams]

i was not aware that religion had stacks of video evidence of god floating on a cloud or parting the sea. do religions have people in places of power surpressing evidence of god? there's no comparisson between the study of relevant evidence on potential e.ts and the blind faith of religion FreshePi! You dont have to be a scientist to recognise something that's physically and technically superior to modern day man's capability.

[CaptEm1]

First of all SETI is a joke, 2nd, these arent just some hillbillies picked up from a ranch, Mr. Holt was a colonel and base commander, why would he waste his time and possibly ruin his career by lying about something like this? They saw a UFO, it's that simple. You would be pretty frustrated if people laughed at you, when you knew exactly what you saw.

[mymello]

It is a million times more far fetch to say that we are the only life in the universe ( which IS HUGE!)that to say there is!

[zzzthaoster]

I don't want to believe too, unless their evidence....but when ever I remembered about the time I was very little, me and cousin both saw a ghost or some form of a goblin I want to say anything is possible.

[wavesnew]

Volume is FUCKd ^^^ UP ^^^

[gomeero]

if we cant trust our pilots to identitfy a UFO, or aircraft, how can we trust them to fly a plane risking lives. obviously these individuals are intelligent. why else would they be in their respected occupations. if anyone should be able to defend us or idenitfy a potential risk to the general public; it would logically be those who protect peoples lives. Officers, pilots and the like, which are the ones in these cases. if fat dude cant trust a pilot to know a plane, what expert does he need?

[niggasoffdablock]

why are old people so closed minded? jesus fucking christ.

hes lying. no... theres just no evidence of it.

wtf?

[illmagnified]

I showed my mom the STS tapes yesterday along with the radiocast of Dr Mitchell who was also the 6th man on the Moon saying the UFO Phenomenon is real and there is a government cover up.She immediately said its fake, im like mom why in the hell would a person who is a DOCTOR no less an AMERICA ASTRONAUT- the elite of the elite- lie about what he knows. He confessed to being Debriefed on the subject and has VERY reliable contacts, Nasa was called to rebutle and they had nothing to say. Look it up

[niggasoffdablock]

anybody who says we are alone in a universe so massive is a retard or very religios.

[illmagnified]

o absolutely or they are from the Baby Boomer generation, where the UFO phenomenon was rising and was considered to be a huge joke which was fabricated by the government to cover up this Paradigm shifting cataclysmic event from happening. Remember all the movies and comics and dolls and jokes along with countless paraphanelia etc, that is going to stick with the baby boomer generation forever and i think the government is waiting for that generation to die off b4 disclosure to prevent panic.

[mymello]

"anybody who says we are alone in a universe so massive is a retard or very religios." hahahah i couldn't agree more lol

[Snowman374th]

Dude I will say it for him. Every time they see one. The skeptics say fake. It won't matter man. I agree with ya though, The pilot would know what they were seeing up there. And it's always some planet doing something at it best, lights on police cars driving around dont stay in one spot. keep digging men we'll get it out there.

[glueberry]

I like how the non-sceptics are calm, composed, and well addressing their point of view while James just repeats the same phrases over and over (and at the same time seeming very nervous).

[dahur]

James Mchaha, is so bogus a skeptic. I don't trust anyone who talks to me with their eyes closed. And his nervous body language tells me

he doesn't know what he's talking about, and he knows it. It's a great chance to be on national TV. But he comes off as pretty stupid.

[satail]

Many skeptics are on/off type of people if there's no clear evidence there's nothing.

[Jacob4Freedom]

Basically, the skeptic is just calling the guy a lier.

[ForbiddenDisclosure]

The skeptic is correct, no evidence, just lighthouse lights, nothing to it, move along.

[siavash89]

can i say im upset with cnn

the skeptic is a moran

they could have brought some one smart so instead there would be good response

[Tigerlily468]

It's James against the world...alone again, naturally.

[onetrashdancer]

sooner or later this guy james is going to spill the beans just like the old timers from roswell, may be 10 or 15 years from now, by that time they will have another sceptic working for them.

[Vitotesta]

SEE DISCLOSURE PROJECT read LEFT AT EASTGATE

WATCH DR. JONATHAN REED. Magayhay is a STOOGE

whose strings are pulled by goons. Don't buy

sceptics B.S. . Truth is coming out.

[falconx1]

The fat-ass is very convincing. But I don't buy it!

[vril5]

Think we shall be glad for guys like James Mageyhay (dinousaurs)

He knows he´s lying and he know we know!

But just a few years ago he would be the only "expert" we would hear after an incident!

- So a kind of disclosure is hopefully progressing! :)

[HAHAHA1307]

This McGaha is a total retard. what a loser

[dickylee123]

to right mate there is shit loads of stuff on the net you have just got to sort the shit out from the good and they will have all the proof they need to start beleaving

[airmen103]

I love how this fat liar Mcgayee says after project blue book in 69 the air force stoped taking ufo reports, yet the Norrad installation last updated thier UFO reports in Oct 2004. Funny how 35 years later they would update the files if they stoped taking reports. You can tell that fat ass looks flustered When James Fox called him out on Jupiter being classified.

[yourtubeyourass21]

If you want Documented HARD SOLID PROOF, go to this link asap

W W W DOT MajesticDocuments DOT COM

Be very well prepared what you read forth. WAKE UP PEOPLE. May peace see light to us all.

[pampasg]

you have to understand that they can when they want be invisible to the naked eye.If you watch nasa footage the cameras that are seeing the objects are in the infarred spectrum,are eyes do not see at that level.if you were to use a regular camera at these objects you would not see them...check out nasa ufo........

[ArchiLinux]

We will know a bit later on these things are true. My basis for believing is letting go of the notion that we humans are the only intelligent beings in the universe.

[jrcolli22]

you get so worked up and passionate, attack the debunker because you want these things to be true

[Barnes466]

that debunker is a paid to do this, he obviously doensn't listen to people who were there at the event is the proof.

[simabravet]

That jerk debunker is none other than James Mcfudgpacker. He seems to want to tell people what their own eyes have seen without being there. He is one thing and that is a government stooge. You notice him twitching, he seems like he doesnt even believe what he's saying. He is a clone of another dead debunker named Philip Klaas.

[lovosazul]

basically we need to bring to justice all the secret societies that are running if not America but the whole world who have their own evil agenda when it comes to technologies that can stop starvation all over the world. starting with the federal reserve bank in America! Peace to wrold:)

[jacketsdominate]

Hopefully when we've moved beyond the necessity of needing to get into these pointless arguments with obstinate close minded people, we'll have more time to get a serious discussion going about what exactly these phenomena are.

[jacketsdominate]

I think it's hilarious that any TV show on UFOs STILL feels that they need to bring in a token skeptic just to portray the image that they're being objective in their coverage. It's been this way for a long time, but at this point the absurdity of the skeptic's viewpoint I think actually hurts their position further than these people didn't even say anything and just listened to the witnesses.

[chrisbrien]

I feel sorry for this stupid skeptic come amateur astronomer . At least he should try to look relaxed and convincing.

I wonder how much the US Gov is paying him?

What a goose.

Next time mate come up with better arguments rather than it was just lihts in the sky.

[Yarns]

I think James McGaha did come out of this interiew worse off in the debate. He does pose some valid comment's and is probably far from dum.

[jravell]

And Sgt Penniston is lying when he says he respects him for his opinions. I certainly don't. I thought we left this lighthouse business behind us.

[slimsxyblkwoman]

The so called "skeptic" is obviously paid to debunk the KNOWERS at all costs! Anybody with half a brain can see that the "be-bunker" is nervous and babbling non-sense! He doesn't even believe what he's saying! What a retard -- the paid governmental debunkers are fastly becoming a laughing stock and rightfully so!

[christianjake666]

the truth will be reveal one day soon till then, hey let them say what they want, but dont forget there are so many people out there who have had some experience with ufo's, etc, they cant shut us all up!

[christianjake666]

What a joke this James McGaha it is obvious that he work for a government agency and going by this it is very likely that we will not be told the truth about ufo's in the near future as the governments who think that they are in charge of the world do not want us to know the truth, for those like myself who have had first hand experience "who cares what they think!!"

[TTTJJJ1971]

James McGaha has always been, and is still an idiot. He discreditet one of Americas finest astronauts, Gordon Cooper, in a book of his.

And to say that science isn´t interested in UFO´s is a lie (like everything that comes out of James McGaha´s mouth). One of this worlds foremost scientists, Michio Kaku, says openly that serious investigations about ufos should take place. He also says that there is a possibility that there could be an alien prescence on the moon. myspace. c o m/tj1971

[joeyjojo4]

Gotta LOVE the poor skeptic. His whole world is collapsing around him on national tv.

[z3ko]

skeptic is so funny :))

[ratscatsangels]

you are all write, debunkers, as they are called, and known, will never admit they are wrong ,on matter if they where taken on a ship, with aliens, and lived with them for at least a month, they would come back, and say it was all a dream, you will never get them to admit they are wrong.

[jimc52]

Some people wouldn't know a UFO from a house if it fell from the sky and landed on them. The critic is one of these people. Here we have professionals who know what they saw and even touched, and this guy comes along and tells them they don't know what they know or saw. It's the classical DENIAL technique the govt uses whenever it can't tell the truth and needs to wiggle out of it. Let me say this, expert testimony is admissable EVIDENCE in a court of law.

[morph988]

when was this aired?

[GizmoLogix]

October 9th 2007.

[uthric1]

This skeptic is ridiculous. You can see how much he shakes, he is nervous because he has been told to try to discredit these credible and courageous people.

[Sindbadziri]

Jupiter ?! Since when radars are capable of tracking planets ?

"Skeptics" are having more and more trouble getting explanations that make a sens...

[ponyboy316]

It's like a religious nut explaining his/her child's "curse" to a doctor that's trying to explain it's a medical condition.