The U.S. military takes UFOs seriously. Why doesn't Silicon Valley or academia?

Stan, you have effectively broken this forum. Maybe you can look up Sandy B/ K9 and you guys can talk to each other about how much you hate things. Congrats, and be well!

I don't think Sandy B is K9 ? In fact I'm certain she isn't, unless I've been completely fooled. Can anyone confirm that ?

Berkelon, that’s your opinion. I don’t ‘hate things’. I don’t hate anything or anybody in fact. I’m quite lighthearted and have a healthy sense of humour. 

Perhaps you ought to start looking at yourself? I’m willing to talk in public or by pm about your views about me, and what I’m accused of doing.

Just to add, I don't think either of you have broken anything.

I don't think Sandy B is K9 ? In fact I'm certain she isn't, unless I've been completely fooled. Can anyone confirm that ?

I agree. Sandy was from OZ or NZ, whereas K9 is definitely from the USA or Canada, I can barely remember Sandy, whereas K9 still posts occasionally on Skeptiko. I’m sure a lot of people here know her real name, I did but I’ve forgotten it.

I agree. Sandy was from OZ or NZ, whereas K9 is definitely from the USA or Canada, I can barely remember Sandy, whereas K9 still posts occasionally on Skeptiko. I’m sure a lot of people here know her real name, I did but I’ve forgotten it.

I know K9 and what her name is. It's not Sandy B, she's someone else.

Stan is right IMHO? - why should we waste our time with the Physcialist / Pseudo-skeptic Evangelicals anymore than they will read up on ID/Creationist case-by-case refutations of experiments/findings?

Proponents are always expected to explain, to read, to go much further than skeptics are willing.

If the goal is debunk the UFO phenomenon the skeptic should admit their bias from the beginning.

If they are more open about certain cases then let us know. Doesn't look like it from what I can see.

edit: I don't always agree with him but the idea that Stan is "intellectually lazy" is laughable.

I would like to know if he thinks that all such incidents can be explained away, if he does then he’s probably just yet another sceptic that we can and should ignore. 

Saying he ‘takes the process very seriously and tries to be respectful’ doesn’t give me much confidence. 

Instead of prejudice how about you take time to listen to this podcast with Fraser Cain and he?

Interview: Mick West, Identifying UFOs

Instead of prejudice how about you take time to listen to this podcast with Fraser Cain and he?

prejudice
[ˈprɛdʒʊdɪs]

NOUN

1. preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.
   

Steve, it’s not prejudice when I’ve learned something through ‘actual experience’. However, I did as you suggested. Turns out I ought to have trusted my intuition/intellect. There’s also a big clue in the title of his site...Metabunk. 

Instead of prejudice how about you take time to listen to this podcast with Fraser Cain and he?

Interview: Mick West, Identifying UFOs

Well he (Mick West?) seems quite reasonable and pleasant. He does seem to come at it from the point of view that (like Woerlee on NDE's) it's all explainable by ordinary means and that's it. His analysis of one of the cases where he suggests that it might have been the plane lights that were seen doesn't hold up to well though. I thought plane lights weren't utilised at great heights ? Mind you I wouldn't know, Stan certainly would though.  

Personally, I just keep an open mind on it. I don't think there's any good evidence for alien travellers. I don't mean UFO's; there's plenty of evidence for those but a UFO is only what it is, no more (or less) than an unidentified flying object. I think it's unlikely that we are being 'visited', only because of the inconceivable distances involved, that's all I would say. They must exist somewhere out there though, surely. But of course unlikely doesn't mean it hasn't happened. 

I think we are much further along (in the process of verification) with NDE's myself but others will disagree, some very strongly.