Lianachan,

Thanks for your reply and clarification. Sounds like there's much that we agree upon.

I think that the probability arguement is a particularly useful one. People who assert that the high probability that there is other intelligent life elsewhere in the universe makes it highly probable that some UFOs are extraterrestrial visitors often miss the fact that the same variables that make extraterrestrial intelligence highly probable, also make it improbable that they've made their way to our little planet. What that should do is reinforce the need for real, bonafide evidence before anyone concludes that any UFO might be an extraterrestrial visitor.

Regards,
Algorithms

__________________
Anything may be possible, but not everything actually is. Some things are true and some things are not. Wisdom is knowing the difference.

Absolutely - that's a point I repeatedly make on other boards. Are there aliens in the universe? Almost certainly. Do they visit us? Almost certainly not. You can't prove or disprove either, of course, and that's one of the main reasons why this is a topic that keen UFOs are aliens advocates can run all day with.

This is uncalled for. In all the times I've been on this board, I've never seen a direct quote changed and then presented as an actual quote. That's lower than low, Scourge. You don't want an intelligent discussion, you want a name calling game. And when it doesn't go your way, you "cook the data". Congratualtions. You've just proven how trustworthy your "anecdotal evidence" is.

Regarding your sighting, and about sightings with only anecdotal evidence to go by. Repeat after me:

There... Is.... Nothing.... To.... Study.
There... Is.... No.... Data.

Even if the scienctific community were banging down your door to look this over, there's nothing for them to look over. I'm sorry, really sorry that there isn't. But that's just the way it is.

John

Um, why? Unless the "sightings" are well documented, and I mean video footage (not shakycam), close up pictures (not blurry low res, or photoshopped), RADAR/IR (and if they're enemy test planes, would the airforce tell the public?), etc, you wouldn't have a case for the scientists to look at. If all they get is shakycam, blurry lowres and eyewitness accounts saying "it moved like nothing I've seen before, really fast".... what exactly can they do? Nothing.


If a scientist looked at "it" and said it was complete bunk, would you accept it? Would the public? No, I think they rather have their imaginary flying saucers.


But what exact work is there to do? See above, without data to look at, what can the scientists say?
I have yet to see a single piece of convincing UFO footage that isn't a) clearly faked b) very low res/far away. Have you?


Depends, you see, scientists have more important things to do than investigate shakycam footage of lights in the sky, or blurry pictures. Especially when the UFOs don't seem to be doing any harm. No laser beams, no gravity cannons... cattle mutilation? oh come on... abductions? get real, the people are always returned, and never more insane afterwards than they were before.

What if the scientists would investigate the incidents? would you be happy then? In most cases they would have to say not enough evidence/data, remains unidentified.

You have to take into consideration the amount of UFO hoaxes. We'd be spending big bucks on investigating them...


"We" ? How about YOU look into it? Hire a staff of scientists you think could do the job, pay them fat salaries, then have them look through the UFO data, and see what they find. What's that, don't have the cash?

How about you take some student's loans, and get a degree of yourself. Start investigating, researching, see what you find. Why should anyone else spend their time on something that proves to be a hoax, or can't be explained cause of the lack of data.

I love it how after studying space science at a university level for a few years all that people ask is "what do you think about this UFO claim", or tell me I'm a government disinformation agent. Or that all scientists (me included because I've actually studied at a higher level than high school) are in a worldwide conspiracy to hide the truth about UFO/Planet X/Reptilians....

Oh, I understand where you're coming from alright. I actually work for the government, and my work is covered by the official secrets act, so I get that kind of thing a lot.

Yeah, and it doesn't really help that I spent almost a year watching RADAR screens in the air force either..... GRIN

I once knew a pilot who "Flew for over 25 years without sighting anything remotely approximating a UFO!"

However, he added: "At least not until one of my last few flights when we were 'buzzed' by a small silver disc which demonstarted preposterous manouevarability. Even though I was very close to retirement I dared not make an official report for fear of my sanity being questioned."

Of course, such anecdotes remain merely that -- anecdotal! So let's just forget that anything like this could ever happen...

Guess the poor guy was upset that he had no good stories to tell, and made it up. Co-pilot? Navigator? Passangers? No, didn't think so....
How about you use Occam's Razor on the guy. Will you admit it's more probable that he made it up/hallucinated, than the fact that a alien craft, from another world, travelled light years, and for some reason didn't have cloaking technology, or just wanted to show themselves for no special reason?

Of course, you're can make up a complex explanation... doesn't make it any more probable.

Well, imagine sitting in a plane, and suddenly falling through your seat and the plane's fuselage, and falling to your death. They check the plane later, nothing wrong with it, at all. What happened? Answer: every single atom in your body, the seat, and the plane's fuselage under your seat aligned perfectly, and made you drop right through. It could actually happen. But what're the chances? Has it ever happened before? Still, it *could* happen. Doesn't mean it has, or will ever happen.

Just because it *could* happen doesn't mean we should investigate every single UFO sighting/claim, that'd just eat up funds and time.

I still haven't seen a single piece of convincing UFO evidence. Any of you feel like pointing me to some? Remember, no shakycam, no low res, and oh yeah I need a point of reference in the video to know how fast the UFO is travelling. Anyone?

Dittto. Of course UFO advocates often claim their evidence is "circumstantial" and that circumstantial evidence is allowable in a court of law and, thus, should be accepted here. The only problem with this is that no UFO evidence has ever met the test of actually being circumstantial evidence. Most advocates have no idea what circumstantial evidence actually is but claim they have it because it sounds good to say.

__________________
Anything may be possible, but not everything actually is. Some things are true and some things are not. Wisdom is knowing the difference.

I can't rule this possibility out, or the other one. I remain skeptical about both.

Please don't patronise me with Occams Razor references. I know a little bit about this philosophical tool, honest I do...

Man, the sharks are really circling now.

Look. Roughly –Half- the people who share the surface of the Earth with you, think it’s likely that we’re being visited by extraterrestrials, right now.

Half.

Now, the only profession on the surface of the planet that is qualified or equipped to investigate the issue, is science. But science would rather relegate Half the world to the crackpot/liar/huckster file, than investigate. And where do our leaders look, to help them form opinions and policies on this kind of thing?—to science. So as long as the scientific community maintains the conclusion that there’s nothing to look at, even though they’ve never really looked, then any unexplained event in the sky slips completely under the radar. Sure, a witness can call MUFON or any of half a dozen completely useless reporting centers that at most can record your call, whoopee. But is there any chance of getting any kind of evidence that would make any difference—of course not, because ordinary people can only get photos, footage, and a story—and all of that is disqualified, pre hoc, ad hoc.

So what’s the alternative? It has to start right here, with you, with the science community. All you need to do over the next few years, is to be completely honest, actually. When one of your own profession says that the ETH is not altogether illogical or unfounded--that’s true, admit it. Fermi’s paradox wouldn’t have happened at all, if the ET hypothesis didn’t have scientific merit. You may not personally –believe- that it’s probable, but it’s neither irrational nor even bad science—it’s a possibility. Then one day the Advisor to the President’s Special Subcommittee on Unexplained Aerial Phenomena calls you up and asks ‘Could some of these sightings really be extraterrestrial craft?’ at least say ‘I don’t know.’ That’s honest, because you don’t know. Right? Admitting what we don’t know is the spark of every honest inquiry.

Then a few years later, when the emotional climate around the issue has shifted, and we can all say ‘y’know, we don’t know. People say they’re seeing things up there…tell you what, let’s see if we can puzzle this one out with some good science and some government funding. Dr. X calls Presidential Advisor Y, yadda yadda, a provision on a bill goes through, and suddenly we have a fully equipped and teamed new National Institute for the Investigation of Unexplained Aerial Phenomena. Give ‘em some pull with the Air Force so they can check radar records, and if warranted, send a jet out to take footage/sensor readings/whatever. Move fast, collect facts, adapt to new data, and devise new tests, get busy for a few years and beat this horse to death. We don’t know what we’re going to learn until we do it, so let’s just do it and find out instead of arguing about it.

If we’d had this going for us sooner, we’d have known about ball lighting in short order (which is, even today, fairly cutting-edge -plasma physics- for cryin’ out loud). Instead, the scientific community sat back and proclaimed ‘ahhh, yer a woo-woo, seeing funny lights in the sky. What do you know anyway? You’re mistaken, or you’re lying. Floating orbs of light—hah!’

If things had gone down differently, and scientists had been like ‘Wow, really? Did you get pictures? Tell me everything in detail and I’ll go correlate your observations with the database, and we’ll see if we can figure this out,’ then you guys would have come off like heroes, champions of the people. And you’d have made an amazing scientific advance—who knew plasma could form a self-contained sphere of charge in nothing more complex than normal atmospheric conditions?

It’s all so clear in hindsight—but who knew then? All we had were some stories, a few crappy photos, and some burn marks around Granny’s kitchen drain. All of which –could have been faked-, but weren’t. Oops. So now what are you gonna do? Repeat the same mistake? Continue to alienate Half the world by calling them fools and liars? Or are you gonna be heroes this time out, and take the people at their word, and work –with- them, instead of against them.

We probably won’t find what we expect to find out there, but I bet my shoes we’ll find something extremely interesting, and maybe even something of profound scientific value.

I also think we should pass stiff laws against frauds/hoaxsters/wiseguys. It discredits the majority of the witnesses who are good souls. And once we have a modern new Institute to check out these claims, it’d be easy to reveal the liars and see how much they like a fat fine and a few months in the slammer.


This is how cynics are destroying the nobility of the scientific quest for understanding--if they can’t explain it, you’re a liar, or incompetent. It’s disgusting.

Science is not a tool to rationalize a personal, contemptible level of cynicism. You’re wielding it like a hammer, Johnno. Like any tool, science is abusive in the wrong hands. It’s supposed to be a tool to –increase understanding-, not to destroy it.

Wait—you’re not a scientist; you’re just riding the flame-wagon with the nay-sayers to sound like one. You can’t gauge the speed of an object with merely ‘a point of reference.’ You also need to know the orientation of the object to the point of reference, which is often simply –impossible- without knowing how large the object your looking at, really is.

I haven’t seen a –single, stand-alone- piece of evidence that is completely convincing, but the sum of good photos, stories, and footage, makes for a very compelling case that –something- is moving around the sky, with similar, unexplained, flight characteristics.

Consider this—how many ‘convincing’ shots of experimental military craft have you seen? We –know- those exist…but we’d be hard-pressed to –prove it- if we didn’t already know they existed, right? If the shots aren’t taken by the military, they’re of no better caliber than the ‘ufo’ shots you mention. The quality of the evidence does Not indicate that the objects don’t exist, it indicates how difficult it is to photograph/film fast vehicles in the atmosphere.

Give me a list of people who have a scientific-resolution videocamera with flawless auto-focusing technology and a tripod in their pockets, and I’ll get you that flawless footage you asked for.

And exactly how much of this evidence has even been looked at by qualified people? .01%? .0001%? The work hasn't been done yet, but you guys go on and on about how there's been all this scientific investigation and nothing has been convincing—ahem, newsflash—it hasn't happened yet folks.

...and to that I say, so what! Argument from majority concensus is meaningless to me unless that majority can provide testable evidence...so far there is no evidence that validates the "visiting ET" hypothesis.

I would be very cautious in "characterizing" any poster on this board without first knowing exactly what those posters' qualifications might be.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

Perhaps the question to ponder is why it is that "qualified people" aren't really interested in this subject. Perhaps, they're confident that there's not much to look at in the first place - precisely because they're qualified to know the difference between something that's worth investigating and something that's not.

__________________
Anything may be possible, but not everything actually is. Some things are true and some things are not. Wisdom is knowing the difference.

Right. Nice dodge. You first post a story/quote from a pilot, point to it being an anecdote, sarcastically say we should just forget about it being able to happen, and now you're claiming you're skeptical of his claims? Nice discussion technique.

I'm skeptical of your skepticism.


So why don't you use it instead of making silly claims, which you then have to dodge from supporting?

And a few hundred years most than half of the people on earth *knew* that the planet was flat. What exactly is your point?

Not really. I'm sure the Air Force would be far more succesful in investigating UFOs, compared to "science". Or maybe your definition of hires pictures/video and RADAR is science?


LOL, radar records? You keep records over there? Either you have completely different systems over there, or you have no clue how AF RADAR surveillance works. I'm betting on the latter (having done AF RADAR surveillance service myself).

Footage, right, but sensor readings? what exactly are you thinking about there?

And mental illnesses, and stupidity. Defenitely stupidity. Nice pics of an airplane, we sent out two F-18 Jets to do "sensor readings" and spent hours looking through "radar recordings", you're going to jail punk.

Funny, even the guy who's friend it was says he's skeptical about the claims. Yep, disgusting.

But come on, what data did he have? Pictures? Video footage? Other eyewitness accounts? He himself chose not to report it. How can you verify any part of his story? I'd love to hear your explanation on why it's disgusting to say that he was making it up, when he himself chose not to report it, and has no other evidence.

You can't scientifically investigate his claim, can you? So why is it so disgusting?

*gasp* I'm not a scientist? But this is a scientific community! So hang on... why aren't you asking a real scientist, instead of some guys on a internet forum?

As for point of reference, say the UFO is flying between a mountain and yourself, the mountain is your point of reference, you know how far off it is. There's smoke rising from the mountain, and the UFO passes through it, and you see the smoke twirling around it. Point of reference? noooo, not at all. You need to know how big the object is.

We could go into camera angles and other objects, but I don't really see the point. You failed to show me any convincing UFO footage. I rest my case.


Okay, good photos? good footage? then show us some. I'm sure someone would've compiled all those good photos and pieces of footage into a neat collection of "ultimate evidence of alien visitors" or some such. But wait, there's a catch. It costs $29.99. That's right, final proof of alien visitors, and you have to pay for it. Wait, what did you say about scammers?

Why do you think the government is reluctant to investigate and make it public? Military test aircraft.


I could dig up tons, except they're taken by the military, and released once the planes were no longer prototypes/cancelled.

Wait, you can prove that they exist because you know that they exist, but can't prove they exist if you don't know they exist? doesn't make sense. Either you can prove that they exist, or you can't, knowing that they exist does not help any proof. You can't just say "we know they exist, so you must accept this proof" when in fact you're handing them a picture of a DC-9.

Either you get good pictures/footage, which is hard because they fly from remote locations at night, or you set up a RADAR station and track them, in which case you'd get a air to surface missile down your throat because you're tracking them.

These things are *supposed* to be secret, that's why we don't know a lot about them. UFOs are supposed to be public, they don't mind if you videotape them, or take pictures, my question is, why don't they ever land in populated areas? why do they say hi to the one guy out in the woods? how hard is it finding a large city?


Right, because the military have sooper dooper teleobjective lenses on their cameras, with motion trackers, yes?

I guess you're not much into photography either.



The quality of the evidence indicates why people believe they have just seen a flying saucer, because they can't make out what it in fact is. Have you even seen UFO videos? They're all taken with shakycam, it's not like the object zips by in half a second, how would they ever get the camera up and aimed in that direction?

Poor quality of photographs can not be explained with how fast the object is moving. If it's really really fast you need to get extremely lucky being able to take a picture of it. And then it would depend on what kind of camera you use. Again, show me a UFO picture that you find convincing, that you think is really a flying object that can not be explained, and that is not faked.


Hang on, earlier in your post you claimed the amount of good quality pictures and footage made it a compelling case. Yep, that's what you claimed. And now you're claimed you need "scientific-resolution" with "flawless auto-focusing" and tripods............... you're falling over yourself for explanations, aren't you?

Tell me about Occams Razor, then, or at least your understanding of it...

You should be a quarterback the way you dodge! :roll:

I'm the next best thing ... without all the poncy padding!

Would anyone care to comment on this:

NARCAP

Can you define exactly what would be the "evidence that validates the "visiting ET" hypothesis." ?

I have an irritating question in mind to all.
If those "visiting ET" are real...
Do you think than an official contact betwen humanity and eventual ET visitor(s)can be a good thing for us?

That if they're wrong, they deserve good science to change their minds, not simply an opinion. We proved the world was round with science—let’s stick with what works and use science, not bias, to address the issue at hand.

I don't think you've given much thought to the issue, frankly--the Air Force is not an investigative body, and it’s subject to extreme political pressures and bias, and knows little of the open debate policy that makes science work—see the Air Command research paper excerpt at the end of this post for further discussion on this.

I’ve read references that indicate we do, though if anyone has details, I’d like to know how much we keep on record and for how long.

I saw an interview with a military pilot who flew reconnaissance missions in the Fifties to investigate the ufo phenomenon, and they had taken all the armaments off their plane, and retooled with every kind of instrument they could think of to record data if they encountered something unusual. Seems like a good idea to me—infrared and ultraviolet cameras, magnetometers, spectrometers, whatever might help us understand what we had encountered.

So you don’t see why it should be a criminal act to intentionally defraud the public? You think this is equivalent to an honest mistake? Hmm, somebody’s morality meter seems to be broken…

Wrong. And, a disingenuous argument. Seems like I have to deal with lot of this around here lately. There’s obviously a Huge difference between admitting –you aren’t sure- because the evidence isn’t conclusive (i.e. skepticism), and loudly proclaiming that the guy’s a liar. Maybe you should look up the definition of ‘skepticism,’ you seem to think it’s a synonym for ‘cynicism.’

Because you have no basis to call him a liar until you have more facts. As it stands, it’s only an unknown, and that’s –all- you can honestly say about it, scientifically anyway. Anything beyond this is prejudice, pure and simple.

Maybe you can investigate further, but that’s not the point. The point is, that leap-froging over the actual act of investigating, to proclaim that you have any idea what the truth behind that story is, is cynicism, not scientific skepticism. Personally, I’d like hear that guy’s story in person. Maybe the thing showed up on radar, or perhaps the copilot saw it too. Maybe a sighting or two were reported in that vicinity at around the same time. Or maybe he would confess that it was just a fish tale. But the fact is, that to conclude that he’s a liar because you personally find his story incredible is purely prejudicial.

I have discussed it with the scientists I know personally, they were very sincere and insightful. But they don’t feel comfortable discussing the issue with most other scientists because they don’t get open minds on the issue, they see more ridicule than honest examination of the topic. Of course, there’s none of that around here, thank god…

Lol, right--a smoking mountain…very common, that. Hah hah…and you think –my- reasoning process has jumped the tracks…man, I’ve heard better arguments from Hoagland, lol.

You’re not making a case, you’re dodging one. Anyway, I have a videocassette that’s a collection of amateur footage of this topic, and several cases were quite compelling, especially when seen as a group. It cost me about ten bucks, iirc. Which is more trouble than you’ve gone to, apparently. I’m currently trying to sift through the stuff on the web to put up some links to interesting footage, but the field is so rife with flotsam, it’s hard to find the gems. The biggest problem is, it seems like few, if any, really skeptical scientists are involved in any way, collecting the interesting footage and photographs and related material. Right now, it’s a huckster paradise. Which is why I’m suggesting the involvement of more scientific minds. The good footage and cases are out there; they just need to be evaluated with a trained eye. And the problem is, the trained eyes can’t get involved without eliciting the rancor of folks like yourself. So you’re creating a self-fulfilling disconfirmation scenario—you won’t look at the evidence yourself, and you won’t let anyone you’d listen to look at it either, without attacking them personally and professionally. Then you rail about how there’s nothing to see. Cripes, it’s –worse- than an ostrich sticking its head in the ground, cause you’ll attack anyone else trying to pull their head out of the sand!

And this is because we haven’t allowed a more credible forum for the dissemination of this footage/etc, to exist. Like I said, I was willing to fork out a few bucks to see what was out there—someone has to pay for the acquisition and compilation and production of the work. And some of what I saw was fascinating; I think it was worth the cash.

I was thinking about that tonight, and it seems unlikely the military would fly ‘test aircraft’ in unrestricted air space—but I’ve never served in the forces, I’d like to hear an insider’s perspective to better understand whether this is a legitimate concern. Seems to me—why fly a craft that you don’t want anyone to know about over places it can be publicly filmed? Once it’s over your house, any footage is pretty much public domain, no?

Excuse me, I meant to say ‘advanced military aircraft.’ The relevant aspect here is--how much footage of these craft do we get by civilians, and is this any better than supposed ‘flying saucer' footage? I think that if we got footage of advanced military aircraft on video, it wouldn’t be any better than footage of ‘ufo’s’ because of the difficulty recording aerial objects. Which makes a strong case for why we don’t have the ‘smoking gun’ style of footage you demand to be delivered to your mailbox one fine day.

Exactly--I was pointing out the irony of the situation—we only accept ‘proof’ when the military releases information that claims it’s a real craft, for exactly the reasons above—photographic evidence from civilian ground observers isn’t clear enough, even of ordinary high altitude military aircraft, to constitute proof. We only deem it as such after we’re told what it was, viz, ‘yup, we’re flying the new B-2 over your area, that’s what you’re photographing.’ Since the military can’t claim phenomena they’re not responsible for, we accept none of the evidence for craft that aren’t claimed by them. So we don’t accept footage of –any aerial phenomenon- as proof, we defer to the military to –tell us- what’s ‘real.’ And that makes anything we see in the sky, that the military doesn’t claim, ‘woo-woo.’ And that’s a real pickle.

We went over this earlier in the thread, but I’ll briefly recap the counter-argument: For the sake of argument, let’s say there are alien craft entering our atmosphere now and then. The situation would be analogous to us sending an observational jet over a tribe of people in some remote isolated area who are not as advanced as we are technologically. We know that they have no notion of aerodynamics, or even manned flight. In fact, our very –presence- among them would completely turn their primitive civilization on its head. But, we would like to make contact one day, without totally disrupting/invading their delicate cultural psychology. So what’s the reasonable course of action? Rather than land a jet or a helicopter in the center of Congo Square, irrevocably destroying their way of life (without their consent, I should add), we have a more subtle, noninvasive approach. We decide to fly a jet or two overhead once, maybe twice a year, to get them thinking. Over the course of a few decades, we can increase the frequency and proximity of these fly-bys, but we won’t do anything to give them sound, physical, irrefutable proof of our existence until we’re sure they’re ready for it. Following this program, we find (perhaps by monitoring their communications with telescopic microphones), that over the course of fifty years, half of the people of the tribe believe that the silver birds they see flying overhead, are actually some kind of chariot created by a more advanced tribe. Perhaps a great divide begins to form among them, as to the validity of this hypothesis. And eventually, they realize that the only way they can settle the dispute, is by letting their best minds observe and investigate the claims of these sightings, to determine what, if anything, they really are. In time, through careful observation and analysis, a consensus is reached that the things reported in the sky are (some of them anyway) quite real, and probably extraordinary devices of some kind, possibly even manned by -someone-. Perhaps at that point, the tribe decides to try to communicate with the people of the silver craft flying overhead, and send them an invitation to come visit, maybe using smoke-signals. At which point, we can, with some hope of safety, land a vehicle nearby and introduce ourselves to these people, without completely shocking the heck out of them, and begin friendly negotiations.

Sure, this is a somewhat fanciful little tale—but honestly—wouldn’t we act with a similar level of caution, if we were presented with such a situation? If we had discovered a tribe of methane-based creatures on Titan, using bows and arrows to hunt down and consume big Titan mites or something--wouldn’t we proceed with a similar program of non-interference? Heck, we’d probably make it a first priority to go retrieve the Huygen’s Probe, to be sure we didn’t contaminate the natural evolution of these creatures toward their own technological age.

Sorry that was so long—I just wanted to point out that subtlety and patience seem like reasonable protocols for a first contact scenario from another world—and dropping in for tea at the White House without some prep work would very probably create a great number of problems for both sides.

Um, patronizing much? Crikes. I was referring to the fact that the military usually takes close-ups of craft –on the ground- and from other planes –flying right next to them-. And no, I’m not a photographer, but I do appreciate the difficulties of taking shots of an object half a mile away, moving erratically, with a handycam, which seems like more than you can say.

To some extent this is true, and as I said I think most ‘sightings’ are honest misidentifications, or worse, outright hoaxes. But you’re neglecting the fact that many of these sightings involve movement dynamics and behaviors that appear to outclass every form of technology known to man. As I said earlier in this thread, I’ve had the dubious honor of witnessing an event that fits this description; the pertinent aspect being a series of rapid, zigzagging directional changes that didn’t involve any apparent change in velocity. The only place I’ve seen any kind of maneuver like this, is among a few pieces of footage people have credited to extraterrestrial craft (I’m not convinced that this is the answer, but it seems like one possible explanation). I’ve scoured through every explanatory possibility I could find to account for this motion, to no avail. And I’ve scanned the skies tirelessly for decades, ever since, wondering if I’ll ever see anything like it again. I haven’t. In fact, I’ve never seen anything that even remotely suggested something extraordinary moving through the atmosphere since then, and doubt I ever will again. Whatever it was, it’s a –rare- phenomenon. But it’s an unmistakably striking one.

Yes.

Not true, though the web seems to be chock full of this kind of shaky evidence—I gather that’s all you’ve seen. Some footage I’ve seen was reasonably steady, actually. I wish I’d had a cam that day myself—the lights I saw at afternoon moved extremely fast, but they were visible for about a minute because they zigzagged several times in a region spanning about 40 degrees of the sky. If I could have gotten that on tape, it would have been an intriguing piece of documentation.

Focusing is a serious issue, for one thing, and trying to do so manually (autofocus is useless for a fairly small object moving rapidly and changing directions erratically) while being shocked by what you’re witnessing, makes for a difficult time and generally bad images. Heck, even taking a decent shot of a jet is tricky, and they move pretty slowly and in smooth arcs and straight lines. And without a telephoto lens, lighting-fast film, and a calm photographer with a rock-steady hand (or a tripod, which usually isn’t nearby), a close-up is going to be fuzzy at best.

Okay, but I’ll have to dig around on the web a bit, like I said, the web is a bad place to find good evidence—the crackpot quotient is really high on the web and I don’t want to post links to junk. I’ll see what I can find this weekend and post links of potential interest in a few days.

Good in my estimation, but not flawless, because they can’t be by nature, as I’ve explained above. There’s enough good photographic and video footage to pose a strong case for further investigation, imo, but if you require crystal clear images as you requested, you’re not going to be satisfied. It’s the nature of the beast—the photography issue itself.

..................Nope. You’re demanding a quality of evidence that is impossible for non-specialists to acquire. Average cameras, used by average citizens, cannot yield irrefutable-quality images, as you demand. I’m not making unreasonable demands on the limited technology we have at our disposal, you are. Given those limits, I think we have some very good evidence, all things considered. But, like you, I think we need to do much better if we’re going to make a convincing case to people who -believe- that there is nothing interesting going on in our atmosphere now and then. Which is why I suggest that we be more open, even encouraging, to the prospect of a proper, skeptical investigation by professional scientists. Some would be quite interested in doing the work, if they didn’t fear the malign rancor of their peers.

I’d like to include this quote, to support my suggestion that an earnest scientific investigation of the ‘ufo’ phenomenon be undertaken, free of the political biases of, and pressures upon, the military. Excerpt from the ‘Air Command and Staff College Research Study, Air University: Should the USAF Reopen Project Blue Book,’ conclusions section(http://www.cufon.org/cufon/afrstdy1.htm):

“It is apparent to the writers that Project Blue Book suffered from bias, faulty research, political pressure, an inadequate staff, and a shoddy, antiquated filing system. In short, Project Blue Book lacked the necessary scientific methodology warranted by an important study of this nature.
The writers feel that their research has proven a new UFO study is definitely warranted. Any new study, however, should profit from the mistakes of Project Blue Book and the Condon Committee and incorporate the lessons learned from their failures. Any new UFO program should be free from bias and political influence; it should also transcribe all old and new input concerning UFO sightings to data processing and a central memory bank. Any new UFO study should carefully employ scientific methodology in their investigation and should maintain a stable, well-qualified, highly motivated leadership. But once again, the writers must ask the question: If a new UFO study is warranted, who should undertake it?
It is doubtful that the Air Force, or any DoD agency could conduct a truly scientific study in this politically volatile subject, considering the past history of Project Blue Book. Any new UFO study should be independent of the military and should be undertaken by Prominent scientists and astronomers in the United States. Ideally, these scientists could form a national organization whose prime purpose would be the investigation of UFOs. Such an organization could cooperate and exchange information with scientists and astronomers throughout the world, as well as with private agencies such as Dr. J. Allen Hynek's Center for UFO studies. Such an organization should be financed by the government and should report to a congressional sub-committee. Hopefully, this would free the organization from political influence, bias, and pre-judgment, and would encourage an open discussion of questions and findings. Ideally, such a national organization would divide the United States into regions or sections. Each area should maintain transportation which would be available whenever needed to investigate UFO sightings and landings within a few hours of their occurrence.”

This is how a scientific treatment of this subject could and should be done. I’m alarmed that anyone here would object to investigating any phenomenon of interest, in fact. Not only might we find something truly intriguing, but it would also take most of the pressure on astronomers to answer these questions, and focus that curiosity toward an organization dedicated to the topic.

I see no merit is arguing against research, even in a field as hotly disputed as this one—in fact, the divisive, antagonistic charge of this matter seems all the more reason to examine it with consummate care and the highest professional scientific standards.

You and I clearly have a different perspective on what it means to have a gift, in this case, a scientific one. In my mind, and in my life, I see a gift not as a privilege to wield like a weapon, but a responsibility to use for the good of all mankind. In my mind, we are gifted to serve, not rule or demean our fellow humans.

But pointedly, you’ve ignored my posts regarding this issue R.A.F., in which I’ve pointed out that the science community’s attitude, for the most part, is that the average citizen should perform a task which requires scientific tools and a keen scientific mind—that gift I mentioned. Photographs, footage, and testimony are, yes, somewhat tentative ‘testable evidence,’ but they are testable to some extent, if you –know how- to do so, and have the proper tools. Most people can’t even perform enough trigonometry to calculate the apparent velocity of an aerial object—that’s a test. So they ask their friends and neighbors (if they are brave enough to risk the impending wave of ridicule) for assistance. Would you come to their aid to help them out? It’s sure looking like –not-.

So really, who’s to blame for the quality of the evidence—the witnesses, or the people who have the gift of scientific talent, who could help analyze the evidence, but don’t?

I’ve asked that question Star Pilot, but it’s been evaded, unfortunately…I don’t think any of the nay-sayers want to admit that nothing short of a chunk of alien technology, or video footage of impossible resolution revealing a disc-shaped craft flying through a plume over a ‘smoking mountain’ would suffice…lol.

Not yet, sadly. With fundamentalist Christians –still- running the White House, political policies of deceit still ruling the day, and a scientific community that would be clamoring that the news footage is a hoax, contact now could be the straw that broke the camel’s back. I think a shockwave of fear would be the likely reaction these days.

But some day, I hope, we’ll be inspired to learn that our galactic neighbors have a lot to share with us, and just maybe, us with them.

you just gotta love the its too far theory.
lol
well lets see if they are even 50,000 years our senior they would( as lonfg as they are intelegent) have things we just dont understand yet
whos to say older species of et arent able to travel vast distances?

__________________
"I'm a visionary, I'm ahead of my time...
...problem is i'm only about 30 seconds ahead."
George Carlin

Yes--this is exactly the kind of work I've hoped to see, thanks for the link gzhpcu. Here's a diverse group of scientific and, specifically, aviation-minded professionals who see the need to better explore the range of aerial phenomena being reported by credible observers...without the balderdash of the mainstream, media-hungry sheister types who've discredited the entire area of inquiry.

They're not advocating any specific interpretation, just reporting the facts provided by pilots and radar technicians and soforth, with an eye toward eventual explanation. Now, maybe we'll get somewhere with all of this...and learn that badgering the witnesses isn't a substitute for responsible investigation. I should add that CSICOP is also doing excellent work, as Wolverine pointed out.

With efforts like these, maybe we'll eventually do away with the stigma of sightings of unclassified phenomena, and meet them instead with the spirit of analytical objectivity that they deserve.

Lots of people have seen things that they can't explain, I've seen something myself. However, to take what amounts to a huge "leap of faith" and say, "hey, it was probably alien space craft" is not the most reasonable conclusion to come to. It really doesn't matter what 50% of the people or even all of the people believe, what matters (in science) is what you can prove.

The situation as it now stands is that there exists no irrefutable evidence for the claim that ET has been or is buzzing the skies of our planet. Sure, there are people (myself included) who have seen things that leave us scratching our heads. In these situations the very real possibility remains that there could be more earthly explanations for seeing things that seem unusual (ball lightening is a good example of this). It also seems quite reasonable to say that military activity, especially that involving new technology, could be very likely.

Now, even if there were ET craft "taking a look at the earthlings", I seriously doubt that we'd be able find proof of this via photography or radar images. Any beings able to traverse the incredible distances involved in "paying us a visit" would have to be so far in advance of us that their technology would, to paraphrase Arthur C. Clark, be (to us) indistinguishable from magic. So, folks, if visitation either has or at some point does take place the ball will be entirely in their court, not ours. JMHO.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

I've reached no conclusion, indeed, I continue to repeat the fact that -I have no clue what I saw-. The ETH is another matter altogether. It's a reasonable hypothesis. Has it been proven?--of course not, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. All I've been saying is, we need to gather better data regarding these sighting reports with the tools and expertise of first-rate scientific minds. Maybe the evidence we acquire with these tools and human resources will validate the ETH to some degree, maybe it won't. But with a significant number of reports by reliable witnesses, which is growing all the time, I think the matter merits greater analytical effort.

I agree with all of that. None of the evidence to date, with regard to the ETH, is irrefutable, but some of it is suggestive, even fascinating in some cases. The radar/visual cases in particular are downright riveting.

That's probably all very true--but does that justify not making a more concerted effort to gather information? I don't think so, because, for one thing--we may miss lots of important data that has nothing to do with ET's, like the ball lightning you mentioned--we may yet discover atmospheric phenomena vital to safe aerial transport. Additionally--if some of these sightings are in fact ET in origin, and they're trying to slowly acclimate us to their existence, then making the effort to detect them demonstrates that we're ready for more solid evidence of their existence. Not to mention how cool it would be to have some fairly close-up footage of one of these things doing acrobatics around an observational jet ;)

Would you mind sharing your story? I'm always looking for consistencies/inconsistencies with these reports, in hopes that they'll help me better understand what people have seen...

Here you go. Don't think it will do much good though. Either, we saw something unusual or 16 people were confused and misidentified something in a big way. I've had people tell me I am lying, delusional, crazy, ignorant, confused, misinformed...etc.

However, at no time did I jump to any conclusions about what I saw. Frankly, I no longer really care about the opinions of most people regarding this. I refuse to don a "tin foil hat" and join the ranks of the "true believers". So, if you're a MUFON investigator (or something similar) please just access the newspaper records. I will also not accept any explanation that doesn't fit the size of the object and position changes that we witnessed. Therefore, further discussion is irrelevant in my opinion.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

I'll know it when I see it, and I haven't seen it yet.

OK...that's not a "fair" answer...how about...evidence that's convincing! As it stands right now, the evidence for "visiting ET's" is the same as the evidence for the existence of ghosts...i.e. photos of white blobs, and personal stories. It's simply not enough!

It would be a very good thing...my question is, If ET's have been visiting us for 50+ years, why haven't they contacted us, already? Oh, I've heard the "reasonings" to explain away this lack of contact, and I just don't buy them. There is no reason for ET's to play games with us, unless one is willing to make LOTS of assumptions as to their motives...I am unwilling to make those unsubstantiated, circular reasoned assumptions.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

That's the problem though, science as far as I'm concerned _is_ biased. We stick to what we know, or think is possible. We "know" that faster than light travel is not possible. And if there was a alien species near us we'd be swamped in radio signals from them, we'd just have to detect them of course. But even then, if we stick to FTL travel being impossible, we can conclude that there are no planets near us that would support life. I'm sure the closest stars were checked for planets first...

So this brings up to super advanced races, coming from far. Problem? Travel time. Sure, they could have some new power sources which takes care of the power issue, they could have cryo tubes or whatever, takes care of the people, but there's still the problem of close to light travel being very hazardous in space because of other objects. High power lasers to shoot everything in front of the ship? high power shield?

But of course, there could be other phenomenon, ball lightning and whatnot, sure they'd be interesting to investigate/research, but really depends on the scientists, doesn't it? Up to them to decide what's important and whatnot.

You're right about the reluctance of the scientific community, but that's because we're all people. Why is it so rare that a actual scientist gets to see a UFO? Probably because they spend their time indoors glued to books, eh? What about astronomers? Even if just hobby skywatchers. Tons of em around, watching the skies. What're the odds that someone out in the woods sees a UFO, compared to someone who daily/weekly stares at the skies for a hours?

Just saying they'd be the ones equipped, RADAR, IR, etc. They could intercept and photograph, as you'll point out later, compared to land based photography a mile off.

I'm sure that'd be a military secret. I've never heard of them keeping records, but of course, they could be, I doubt it's for very long though, even if it's complete records. There's really no point, either the radar observer calls UFO, fighter jets intercept and investigate, or it leaves the screen never to be spoken about. They'd need someone sitting and looking through the records, and someone watching him to be sure he doesn't leave anything out, and someone watching the first two making sure they don't work together to hide things, and some....... etc


Interesting. I guess you could do that.


The public? Heh, what does it matter if the public thinks they saw a flying saucer? they'll keep paying their taxes anyway. Intentionally defraud though? The thing is, did it do any harm? Did they panic and commit suicide because they thought they were going to be alien slaves for the rest of their lives? Or did they simply figure, hey, neat light show, and go on with their lives?

Consider someone wanting to put lights on their kite because they want a light show of their own, shoud it be illegal because it could make someone think there was a UFO on the way?

Then again, you said intentionally. You'd have to prove that the person doing the "fraud" knew how it would affect the audience, and that he/she intentionally did so to get some kind of result.

I doubt that happens a lot.

Did I proclaim that he was a liar, or did I hint at the possibility that it might have been the case? Same thing? So, I guess we shouldn't be allowed to hint at other possibilities that make other people look bad. Such as drunk driving. Clear wide road, no ice, no kids in the backseat, no heart attack, no sudden dizzy fits, shouldn't we be able to hint at drunk driving?

You have to remove all doubts you can, and then see what's the most reasonable explanation.

I admit it, maybe I jumped the gun, maybe I should've asked first if there was video/other evidence, and THEN said maybe he's just making things up. But sure, call me a cynic, I don't mind.

Yeah, but had more facts been put forward I would've admitted that I was wrong, but as long as I'm not wrong I don't really mind, you can go ahead and call me prejudice, but hey, I'm still right!

Well, maybe they too are tired of loosely based claims, with little data/facts to back them up. It's like with me and the moon landings, I've debated hoax believers for years, and in the end, when they can't come up with their own claims, just copy others, and don't bother doing any research on their own, I easily go toward ridiculing them.


Mt St Helens, january 3rd, 2005. Latest UFO claim I looked at.

I just put forth an explanation as how to it wouldn't be impossible, with a point of reference. Will you admit that with a proper point of reference like this, you could examine the video evidence without necessarily digging up "radar records" ?

I'd have to see UFO footage to be able to decide if it has a good point of reference or not.


Each to his own. When is the last time you bought a video tape about the moon landings to examine a claim about an astronaut being suspended by a wire, or a shuttle video because there was supposedly a flying object in view during one of the EVAs?


But that's all they'll be able to do. Evaluate it. And you already stated yourself it would be impossible to figure out the speed of the object (and I said without a point of reference). Eyewitnesses? Pictures? All you'll get in the end is a compelling case. And that's it.

"You" being the "scientific community" ? Or me personally?

Personally? I'm not interested enough in the phenomenon to do any looking up. If I had a experience myself, I'd get fuelled to do so (like with various other things). Because I know I won't be able to "investigate" something enough to come to a conclusion.


Yes but remember, it's going to be low resolution shakycam footage because the plane is moving so fast!


Define "advanced military aircraft" for me please. Are we talking aurora project here? B-2? F-117?


Regarding sightings and native tribes and whatnot. No, we wouldn't. US Seahawk went in to check on some natives down in south east asia after the tsunami, got chased off by bows and arrows. Go Air Force!

Well, what's your idea of prep work? 50 years? 100?
almost 60 years since roswell....


Just a bit

It would really depend on how close the object was, what speed it was travelling at, and so on. I've read several accounts of hovering crafts close by, yet, no convincing evidence. I've taken pictures of aircraft flying low during air shows and landings and whatnot, turned out allright.


Do you know it's moving erratically, or that the camera is shaking? You don't. The most of the footage I've seen is zoomed in as close as possible, and shaky. There's no way of telling how the object is in fact moving. Suggestions? Zoom out and hold the camera steady in one position. if the object is moving, sure go after it.


That's what the eyewitnesses say, personally I haven't seen any footage indicating this (that's not faked or otherwise).


Yes, as I explained before, not a big passion of mine. I'll gladly look at any footage you have to offer though.

Thanks.

I can't be bothered to go through the posts, did I ask for crystal clear, or hi res? I believe I asked for hi res. I'll give "good" footage a look anyday.


See above. You're free to quote me (or tell me approximately where in what post I demanded what quality).

I think I said hi res, which changed to crystal, which now changed to irrefutable. Which one is it?


What exact demand did I make that was unreasonable? I don't think I clearly stated what kind of resolution (except high) was needed. Most digital cameras today take high resolution images. Problem is people compress them before putting them online.

But again, I'll wait for you to post any image of video you feel is compelling and warrants further investigation. Post anything you like, and I will tell you if I think it's low res/shakycam, or if I too find it compelling.

You're asking the scientific community to react, to investigate. How about you put forth a case you find compelling, and we'll see if we think it's worth investigating.

How about something that is independently verifiable as being unequivocally extraterrestrial in origin? Physical evidence that met that standard would be useful. After over fifty years of alleged "sightings" and claims of "abductions" shouldn't we have something a little more concrete than fuzzy pictures and anecdotal observations that can't be proven to be anything?

I have a standing invitation for E.T. to drop by for a beer (I particularly favor Belgian Lambic ales) and talk superstrings - now that would convince me. A crop circle on my overgrown front lawn might be nice also.

__________________
Anything may be possible, but not everything actually is. Some things are true and some things are not. Wisdom is knowing the difference.

NARCAP has great potential, if it is done correctly.

It would certainly be a good idea to look carefully at these phenomena; the fact that pilots of aircraft have been reporting them consistently has distinct safety implications.
Especially if, as I suspect, those sightings which are not hoaxes are all explained by misidentification of known phenomena or unknown but mundane phenomena, including various eyesight and neural problems that can produce apparently real objects in the field of view, and by the well-known unreliability of memory.

Since it is possible to study transient phenomena like gamma ray bursts and sprite lightning jets then the sort of transient phenomena we are talking about can almost certainly be studied too.
However I have a feeling that when investigated fully even the most intractable cases would have a mundane explanation.

One area that could bear fruit is a wide ranging statistical analysis of radar only or radar/visual cases; I suspect, but cannot prove, that there is a correlation between the equipment used and the type of radar sighting- many early radar sightings were caused by the state of the art at that time, and would not be (and are not being) reported by todays radar systems; meanwhile more up to date reports are of targets that would not have been detected by the early systems because they are at the edge of resolution.
Just an idea; a preconception or prejudice if you like. But it seems strange to me how inconsistent the radar detection of unidentified aerial phenomena appears at first glance; If these things are extraterrestrial craft are they transparent to radar or not? Is this transparency dictated by an alien whim or what?
There may well be some hidden statistical significance in radar detection reports that needs to be revealed.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set