I don't know if that's valid, Skeptic. I mean the whole "space brothers" gibberish is one thing but the reports of aliens or UFOs that fade out or disappear or demonstrate some other "supernatural" quality is quite another.
Our own stealth planes, special forces snipers and hunter subs routinely demonstrate this ability. Does that make them supernatural, or are they often using technology and tactics the target or observer does not understand?
Remember, as Arthur C. Clarke (or was it Carl Sagan?) said, "Any significantly advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." in which case they'd be GENUINELY supernatural (in so much as they'd be demonstrating properties of nature beyond our current understanding).
Advanced technology would
not be supernatural; it would be unfathomable. That which is not yet explained by science is not supernatural; it is merely unknown. When science collects enough data, and gets something testable and measurable, and acquires sufficient expertise to fully test an unknown object or phenomenon, it becomes known.
When European settlers first engaged in warfare with the natives, our guns were mystical and magical to them, since
the natives had no experience with firearms, or frame of reference with which to compare that technology with their own. Fast forward two hundred years, and the natives used guns superior to those carried by the typical U.S. cavalryman to destroy the 7th Cavalry at Little Bighorn.
Having had three hundred years to observe, examine, trade for and then master the firearm, what was once a magical, mystical object became a fundamental part of a native warrior's equipment. If we were to acquire a UFO, it might take us five hundred, or a thousand, or tens of thousands of years to understand how it works. That does
not make it supernatural.
Look, if I go to a magic show, and the magician makes himself "disappear," it isn't because he has any magical powers. He's performing a trick I don't understand. Once you walk backstage, or talk to other professional magicians, or befriend the guy and get him to demonstrate his illusion, I can understand how he did it. It isn't supernatural at all. It's something unknown, which now is known.
If some folks in ufology want to attach all kinds of supernatural nonsense to UFOs, they ought to be willing to admit that it isn't UFOs that really interest them - it's supernaturalism. I find it mystifying that folks who giggle and smirk at traditional religious paradigms can turn around and entertain psychics, thought-photography and demonology. Aren't they trading one sick horse for another?
Also, I don't consider radar hits "hard" evidence. Evidenence maybe but nothing substantial. A blip that appears and then disappears only to reappear a second later at a different altitude miles away COULD be a fast moving UFO or it could be two completely unrelated blips that the operator assumes are the same thing. Only the eyewitness reports of pilots combined with radar hits bear any real merit as far as I'm concerned.
My inclusion of hard radar hits in the "physical evidence" category assumes that the radar is used to verify observation. In earlier posts, on this thread, I've referred to the invalidity of eyewitness observations
not reinforced by some kind of testable, measurable physical evidence. Radar hits alone aren't enough; eyewitness testimony alone isn't enough. The two together might give us something interesting to examine further. They may not conclusively prove the reality of a UFO encounter, but they get us further along than endless "I once saw..." stories and supernaturalistic pandering.
If someone comes to me and says that a UFO must have landed in their yard because there is a burned patch of grass there, but they themselves didn't witness it happening, then I see no compelling reason to waste time on further study. Patches of grass get burnt for all kinds of reasons. If someone comes to me and says they saw a UFO land, watched an occupant enter their room, carry on a conversation with the observer and then leave, but can provide no corroborating physical evidence, then further inquiry is useless. It's just a story. It may be true, it may not be true, but it is evidentially worthless.
Now, if someone comes to me and says a UFO landed on their roof, and can show me torn up, irradiated shingles and a scorch mark, at least I have
something testable to look at, and a context against which the physical evidence can be judged.
Unless, of course, you're Linda Howe, for whom some matchstick-burnt sheets are clear evidence of an alien abduction.
