Question Are ufo aliens that are small are so cute and handsome?
Let's say an alien is very thin, and about 3 feet tall. It look so cute the kids love to play with it like a teddy bear. Do you agree aliens are cute?

Best Answer They are neither cute nor cuddly.Any children who tried to treat one as a teddy bear,if that was even possible,would retreat screaming in terror.Their appearance is very disturbing to human beings.They have their own agenda and can be rather callous toward us.

Question What's the arguement between evolution/religion/UFO/Aliens from outer space? What do you believe in?
Why do you think this way? Have you ever tried reading the bible and asking questions that might find the answer?

Best Answer On the one hand evolution seems logical and we have bits of evidence indicating its possibility on the other we don't have enough evidence to verify that this happened as fact. In other words, we cannot prove the jump from a bit of goo in a pond even a fraction of the way to homo sapiens, in fact we cannot prove how life even began. The fossil record seems to show that most species appeared instantaneously unlike how mainstream science would have you believe they know everything, they have only produced a possible scenario which is just an educated guess which leaves questions unanswered. I am not religious but I believe that the possibility of a creator God explains our existence better than science. I don't believe the biblical stories in a literal sense but more as a colorful portrayal of how we came to be. I have tried reading the bible and believe it to not be divinely inspired due to the large number of contradictions and the way religions tend to twist the words to say whatever way is most convenient. I believe that some UFO sightings are craft controlled by non-human intelligent entities. The governments are doing an amazing job of keeping a lid on this box. There is too much proof to deny they exist yet only about half of the people believe that this is real ( on Y!A only about 1 in 10). I believe it is possible that UFO pilots may be the angels and demons spoken of in the bible. I also believe that some of the pilots of UFOs are aliens from outer space. Earth watching seems to be a form of entertainment to a great number of species. I've heard arguments that it would be impossible for ETs to visit us. That presupposes that we know how their technology works and what their motivations and intelligence are. People who believe that have limited imaginations. It is also possible that the UFOs are time machines or dimensional shifters from parallel universes. Perhaps aliens had a hand in our evolution? Good luck in your pursuit of knowledge. .

Question Who wants to hunt UFO Aliens with me?
I am, a atheist which uses guns as 20/ name is Huntess. Who by answer, shall destroy martian technoligy and their forms- with earth weaponry?

Best Answer Me - when and where?

Question If (UFO) Aliens come into the country without a passport, wouldn't they be deemed illegal aliens?
And further more couldn't they apply for citizenship under the amnesty bill? They could fly right over the Mexican border and right into a cushy landscaping job. So, you from around these parts?

Best Answer No I am not, The trick is that we are not as cheap as the other immigrant workers. We have the high tech thing covered. Seriously spinning blades to cut grass??? Are you in the stone age? It's not the money per se` that we need, it's just that we have to wait soooo long for the next episode of Desperate Housewives. Makes the 9 billion light years worth it.

Question why do UFO, ALIENS never come down and greet us?
If it is true that Aliens exist, i believe they do, then why do they just show off with there light display, surely if they can reveal themselves in the air, they must know we are aware of there presence, so why don't they come down and communicate somehow, are they frightened, or do they NOT want to frighten us.

Best Answer Reading these responses, and the question itself, made me kind of sad. It appears many people have lost the ability to reason and think critically. Now I respect everyone's opinion, and some of these responses seem heartfelt and reasoned out , to a degree, but I have to assume most of these people are very young, for they certainly do not understand the history of UFOs. Nor do they have a comprehensive view of the current situation regarding aliens and UFOs worldwide. At least the Asker of this question believes that aliens exist. That's a good place to start. Is it worth it, to waste these keystrokes on minds not ready to listen? On people who will view what I say as adversarial, at best, simply because it conflicts with their current level of understanding? Most of you will react with a touch of hostility, as if the alien situation were a spitting contest, That isn't the case. Well, hope springs eternal, and I'm bored and wide awake, so I will share a little of what I know. Feel free to completely disregard what I say, but do so at your own risk, and at the risk of having to learn all this later, when it can no longer be contested. Think about it this way, even if you've denied aliens for years, there is still time to get in on it, stay ahead of the crowd and be the first 'cool dude' in your neighborhood to the score! Shock and amaze your jaded friends! Confuse parishioners! Scare your family! Amuse pseudo-intellectuals! Learn the time-honored technique of questioning the official story! Ready? Let's go! Okay. First, people fall into one of three categories; people who think aliens are NOT here, people who think aliens ARE here, and third, people who KNOW aliens are here. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is the reality. I respect everyone's opinion, especially those who have come to the conclusion that aliens are here without having a personal experience, for in truth, were I not in the third category, I'm not certain I would have looked into ufos deeply enough to be convinced they are real. So, I can respect the other side too. But they're incorrect. Theres not space enough to describe how I know aliens are here, it is rather involved and now I'm starting to run late, but I will tell you that I have known aliens are a fact, through first hand experience, since 1968. Flying saucers, as cliche as the notion sounds, are completely real. Just like a 1950s version, outer rotating section, inner section rotating at a different speed, absolutely right on the money. forget that George Lucas crap; intricate and spired appendages, antennae, spires, etc, the alien saucer is simple, elegant, elemental shapes. The other major types of alien ships are the triangle, the cylinder, the sphere, ovoid. Very simple shapes, seamless hulls of metallic grey, sometimes dark charcoal grey, others chrome-bright. The lights, however are far from simple, amazingly bright and intense, hues richer than any you've seen before, spines if light like a ferris wheel, recessed lights searching and casting across the ground, some craft so brilliant the appear lit from within, cycling through every hue of the spectrum in seconds, in patterns. And these craft are silent, a low flying triangle is so silent you can hear only the mechanism of the rotating lights. Getting late, gotta go for now, lets call this part one, will finish with part two later today. END PART I PART II Brian Zeiler writes about the logical trickery of the UFO skeptics. " Skeptics in the scientific community resist the evidence for extraterrestrial visitation because of the implications it raises and because of the questions it begs. But should the integrity of the determination rely on the implications of a positive classification? Or should the classification of true or false be assessed in isolation of the implications? Which is worse -- a false positive, meaning ruling in favor of the UFO as a unique phenomenon when in fact it does not exist, or a false negative, meaning ruling against it and missing out on its true existence? The answer, of course, lies in the incentive structure of the analyst. An equally intelligent non-scientist has no incentive nor predisposition to favor one type of error over the other, but scientists do. For scientists, it would open a whole new confounding problem domain, and it would make them look incompetent in the public's eyes for missing out on this fact for 50 years. That's why the incentive structure of contemporary scientists is such that they will not accept alien visitation unless they must, which would be when they get irrefutable physical proof. Their incentive structure prohibits them from making any such inference unless it is unavoidable, and they will strain the boundaries of logic and reason to no end to dismiss all evidence other than physical proof, no matter how powerful it may be. This scientific predisposition toward disbelief, rooted not in science and logic but rather in dogma and paradigm, brings us to the logical trickery of the scientific UFO debunker. What Exactly is "Extraordinary"? First, the scientific debunker will say that because alien visitation is an extraordinary claim, it thus demands extraordinary proof. Therefore, no evidence is suggestive of alien visitation unless it is accompanied by irrefutable physical proof -- even if the observations directly indicate, within normal scientific evidential standards, the presence of a solid object under intelligent control with propulsion technology beyond human understanding. No matter how directly the observations indicate an anomalous vehicle of nonhuman origin, skeptics maintain that a prosaic explanation must be adopted unless physical proof is obtained. But such a stance, rigid beyond the normal standards of scientific methodology, is a direct product of the incentive structure, not of logic, as indicated above. Normal standards of science would require meeting the evidential threshold for each of the above conditions necessary to establish extraterrestrial origin; yet the same degree of evidence for physical substance is rejected for anomalous vehicles when it would otherwise be accepted for observations of more conventional vehicles. Thus, the debunkers have failed to define the boundary of extraordinariness, which renders the declaration logically specious due to its wholly arbitrary implementation that is easily contaminated by individual and collective incentives. They exploit the arbitrary classification of "extraordinary" by applying absurdly rigid evidential boundaries to cases that clearly feature anomalous, physical vehicles that humans could not have built. Instead of assessing the case for physical substance on its own merits with the radar-visual observations, they merely apply a priori probabilities of nearly zero to the detection of anomalous vehicles, with no logical defensibility in the face of insufficient information to estimate the a priori probability, and therefore give themselves license to reject all evidence of any quality unless a physical specimen is obtained. For instance, if SETI receives an anomalous repeating signal with intelligent content such as a mathemtical constant, and rules out all known causes of terrestrial and deep-space interference, do they need a chunk of the alien radio dish or a dead alien to attribute it to alien origin? It would be just as easy to apply UFO-skeptic logic and insist that the signal is nothing more than anomalous until we obtain physical proof of aliens; after all, why ascribe a radio signal to alien origin before we have physical proof of the existence of aliens? After all, we cannot rule out malfunction, fraud, or human error with 100% certainty, so the simplest explanation is an undetected flaw, not an alien message. Right? Or is it really just the case that the a priori probability assumed by scientists of alien radio detection is higher than that assumed for atmospheric detection? Is this a priori probability differential between radio versus atmospheric detection logically defensible? Or do we lack sufficient information to make anything but a wild guess, a guess contaminated by incentive, dogma, and mere habit? Why do so many scientists, including Tipler and Fermi, argue that interstellar travel would be feasible for advanced civilizations whose productivity growth has created such vast wealth that journeys are less expensive than they would be for us humans? Do we know what alien energy resource stocks are? Even right now, we have the technology to mount a journey at 10% of the speed of light and arrive at the nearest star in 40 years. How "extraordinary" is it to consider that, several billion years ago, one culture might have mounted a gradual expedition that took them to our solar system and many others? We sure don't know whether this is "extraordinary" or the natural outcome of technological advancement, but many scientists wish to believe, simply due to heavily entrenched ideologies with absolutely no basis in logic nor fact, that such interstellar expansions are far less likely than the human interception of alien radio signals. So just what is "extraordinary", aside from a word referring to a claim for which extremely low a priori probabilities of truth are applied? I consider extraordinary a claim which undermines fundamental precepts of physics. Alien visitation does not do this. And no matter the difficulty as we perceive it, interstellar travel does not violate the laws of physics. Neither do aliens. Therefore, alien visitation does not violate the laws of physics, and nor does it require a straining of credible probabilistic expectations. We simply don't know how likely it is. And that is hardly a strong case for considering alien visitation an "extraordinary claim." Nevertheless, skeptic

Question How has the belief in Aliens/UFO's increased or decreased as compared to the belief in ghosts?
Does belief in different paranormal phenomena change drastically due to changes in cultural paradigm shifts...are aliens less trendy now and ghosts more real or has nothing changed?

Best Answer Both, coincidentally enough, have diminished since the advent of phones that are also cameras. A concerned. When every one has cameras on their person at any time, it can get tought to do an undercover job.