>> There's a meme running through the UFO counterculture that describes this
>> the effect of gravitational warping. Theoretically, UFOs distort spacetime
>>in order to fly, using gravitational lenses to focus on a particular point,
>> which they _draw toward them_. This way, there is no contradiction with
>> physical laws; the UFOs aren't even really "flying," per se.
>Show me some crash debris or other usable proof. I have not seen to date
>which would support such hypotheses. Don't get me wrong. I would truly love
>we are being visited, but the proof is not there.
I firmly think we've got proof of _something_ truly unusual. In other words, an authentic "unknown." And, for the record, I don't claim that the above propulsion technique is for real--or if _extraterrestrial_, nuts and bolts craft are for real. But it's a pervasive idea, which can be traced to Robert Lazar's claims of having worked with ET technology. I don't endorse Lazar's claims any more than I endorse the ET Hypothesis.
As far as crash debris goes, there have been a number of instances that have yielded physical residues, radiation traces, magnetic anomalies, etc, but nothing that a scientsist in the public arena can point to as "proof" of otherwordly visitors. So I agree with you, for the most part. Someone posted earlier on the subject of Roswell. After reading just about everything about this alleged "incident" and corresponding with researchers and one witness, I've concluded that something strange happened. Aliens? Maybe. The subject has been so contaminated by the media and beaten into the ground by conspiracy-mongers that I wonder if we'll ever know for certain. There are going to be some declassified materials released by the end of this year (or maybe 2000...I don't remember) that might help shed light (but probably not).