Not all UFO witnesses have experienced something which is nowhere near explained so far. If you want to argue about it that way then aliens can be considered mundane once they decide to show themselves properly, and so anything can end up becoming mundane. It is likely that the US military has technology kept classified that some Univerisity Professor’s don’t know of and defy what they understand as science, as we know this has happened in the past with stealth plane technology. So it would be likely that this is still the case today for newly developed technology, than it would be that this has stopped completely, given that black budget is around $32 billion.

So is this technology which exists but we know not of, considered mundane. Well it would be to those who have worked on it. It would be as normal for them as an internal combustion engine. But are you going to say because there’s no physical evidence for you to see, then it likely doesn’t exist, but we know it does, so that would be a wrong method of thinking. So you could be entirely wrong about your line of thinking towards ufos, we just don’t know for sure.

One could use the argument that aliens should be here, so they must be here. All other arguments against them (lack of physical evidence, not showing themselves etc) being here irrelevant, as any advanced race elsewhere which we accept is likely to exist will find a way to travel, just like we would expect our future descendants to find a way to travel long distances, as it’s in our nature to explore.

That is the line of thinking which Dr. Mitchell seems to be making apparent. This could be right or it could be wrong. Your reply will probably sound like “Yes anything could be possible but without physical evidence…. blah blah blah…..even flying purple elephant could be possible”. Sure anything could be possible but to dismiss alien visitation as myth like you would for Santa Claus is inaccurate, as we accept that aliens will most likely exist elsewhere. What scientists, are saying that Santa Claus or a flying purple elephant exist somewhere? None.

I see absolutely zero point in associating any form of ridicule towards alien visitation, when it should be something we expect to happen someday at the very least. What’s so funny about alien visitation anyway, I think those who ridicule it have watched too much sci-fi and assume that this is all imaginary. I think it’s due to the shallow attitude of some of the scientific community, who fear their careers due to the false perception of the general public that it is all just a joke. I know some do treat it as a serious subject, for example seti, but there are for example, those who make comparisons between ET and Santa Claus on these forums who are clearly not just sceptics, but anti-seti. That is a drastic flaw in lots of people.

Some even use seti for media attention, whilst not even considering the consequences – http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/digitalcontent/2008/07/bebos_latest_expansion_into_sp.html
Yes this could get young people into Astronomy, but why propagate space with radiowaves of spam, is it really so necessary?! In fact if an alien species are as nasty as humans beings are to each other then we should have more consideration of radio transmissions into space. I know we have satellite comms and other comms which already transmit outwards, but these are indirect, and of lower intensity.

“Keep these points in mind when thinking about UFO reports in the future.”

I am not dismissing any of those points at all, I’m just showing a broader range of view.

“Just because it is not something ordinary for you, doesn’t mean that it is in fact extraordinary.”

No it doesn’t always mean something is extraordinary, but an event can seem like it could be extraordinary, as a few other people are suggesting as well from their own accounts. I think anyone who is rational would say that is possible after witnessing something like that, and someone who doesn’t is either irrational, or hasn’t experienced an unexplained sighting which still remains unexplained by well-known science today.

My example is quite apt to the discussion. For someone who has never seen, either first-hand or in pictures/video, the Aurora, for them, it is most certainly not mundane. You dismiss it as a poor example of a UFO phenomenon because you know, and have always known, the lights to be a perfectly natural phenomenon. In essence, you are doing exactly as you accuse some skeptics.

Further, as regards children vs. adults, education most certainly does not equal any smarter. Talk to any magician, and they will most likely tell you that kids are much more difficult to trick, while adults are much easier. Why? Because children tend not to have a bunch of assumptions about the world built into their thinking. Adults, on the other hand, tend to assume a great deal, based on their understanding of the world. This leads to mistakes in interpretation of events in the world around them.

So, yes, I have experienced something out of the ordinary for me, just like any UFO witness has experienced something out of the ordinary for them. The fact that it really was something ordinary does not change that fact. Keep these points in mind when thinking about UFO reports in the future. Just because it is not something ordinary for you, doesn’t mean that it is in fact extraordinary.

Aurora has always been considered mundane in my lifetime. So you were a child and mistook something, that proves very little for cases where an educated adult has witnessed something. In actual fact you have never witnessed anything out of the ordinary then by your last post.

First, regarding weird experiences. Let me relate to you an experience I had as a child. I was outside at night, in the countryside, playing with my brother. All of a sudden, we saw these weird lights in the sky…greens and reds. It was eerily silent. We ran inside to get my parents, thinking it was a UFO. We went to the window to look out. The lights lasted a moment or two more, then were just gone.

So far, this sounds a lot like many of the UFO stories. Now, let me add in some details that came out after we got mom and dad to come look, as well as what might not occur to a kid (and even some adults). First off, this took place in northern Minnesota, in the summertime. Second, the lights had a wavy pattern to them. Have you guessed what it could have been yet? It was simply the Aurora Borealis. To someone who had never seen that before, it can be really freakin’ scary and be interpreted as something not at all natural and possibly alien in nature.

So, yes, I have experienced something really bizarre that I wasn’t able to make out any rational explanation for at the time. Since then, I have not had any experiences where I was unable to figure out what was going on, nor do I know anyone that has had such an event (or at least, no one has told me about it).

Now, getting to your answer to my question about changing your mind. So, you have never gone from a position of not accepting the explanation to accepting it? Or from accepting it to not accepting it? There have been no accounts of UFOs that you have started accepting one explanation (even if that explanation was “it’s unknown”) and, over the course of finding more information about it, switching to a different one?

I would give a word of caution that there is such thing as being too skeptical. Take a look at the current vaccine-autism brouhaha. Those claiming a connection between vaccines and autism tend to fall into the trap of being overly skeptical. Because there is no evidence that definitively kills the link (just too many variables, not to mention the trouble of trying to prove a negative), they maintain “but, it’s possible! So, we should do XYZ.”

The same thing occurs with the UFO camp, in particular when it comes to stories involving government involvement. A rational explanation is put forward, but then the “true believer” rationalizes it away, moves the goalpost and maintains that “but we just don’t know for sure.” There needs to be a point at which you (in the general sense, not you in particular, John) stop and examine the evidence again and your reaction to it. Are you really dismissing an explanation because it doesn’t fit the facts? Or, are you dismissing it because it doesn’t fit with your interpretation of the facts?

I say this as a generally warning for anyone involved in skeptical inquiry, as well as a specific warning for you, as you seem to be falling into the logical fallacy of being overly skeptical. Again, I may be wrong, but that is the impression that I get.

Do you or JustAl know anyone personally who have claimed a sighting who have always seemed rational, just out of interest?

Before I had a sighting I used to be less sceptical of reports of sightings and think a lot of them could have been alien, now I’m sceptical of just about everything. Reading sceptics comments on here has been refreshing in comparison to most ufo reports in the media or on tv. I find most reports unconvincing, whilst only a few which remain unexplained are worth more investigation, e.g. Stephensville, Guernsey, possibly Phoenix.

I will get straight to the point and say that for myself and maybe for some others who have experienced something possibly unexplained, this personal experience can be considered as real evidence by those people, even if sounding credulous. This is of course why people consider similar sightings to be at least a bit relevant, although not proof that the simlar sightings were definitely unusual. I also consider that it is possible that my sighting can still be explained as something mundane, but have yet to find anything remotely close to what I saw, after much checking. This conclusion has been made by my own thinking and I have not simply just accepted what any ufologist has concluded, and whilst you may find it similar, there are some differences between the “total believers”.

You may consider that a belief, but I have a gut feeling that it was definitely real (unusual in origin), and so I have to consider it as fact. I ask you again if you have noticed this occurrence in anyone you know personally? That is probably the only way you could understand what I mean, unless you experience something unusual yourself.

I know scientifically all I can claim is an unexplained sighting. Although the changing characteristics I have described of a witness could be used to determine which sightings are worthwhile for further study, and which some of those will turn out to be extraterrestrial if indeed that is what’s happening. However since I can provide you no proof of that, it’s likely to be ignored completely by sceptics requiring physical evidence.

Therefore I find it pointless to continue with any previous arguments. It’s fine, accept as crackpot if you wish (waiting for Just Al’s joke), but I only hope you and everyone else experience something which can be possibly interpreted as out of the ordinary, and the scientific community doesn’t regret it’s investigating methods in the future.

“regards the Venus explanation, you have also seemed to say that it is never a good explanation. My interpretation may be off, and please, feel free to correct me. Yet this explanation is not, I would venture to guess, used in every situation, and that in those situations where it is plausible, if not concluded, the evidence presented probably suggest it as a likely explanation.”

I agree that many cases are so unconvincing that they could be and even likely Venus as the witness sounded blind drunk. There was a report in the media in UK recently (can’t remember where) when a woman said she saw a bright light in the sky which couldn’t have been a star or planet as it was too close to the horizon. That is obviously ridiculous as you can see Jupiter clear enough right until it’s below the horizon, providing there’s no clouds of course. Jupiter can never be too close to the horizon to be seen on a clear night, and is only not visible whilst below the horizon. Atmospheric disturbance can cause some strange effects in those cases where a sighting is close to the horizon, and without any more information we can say this is likely Venus appearing strange really low on the horizon.

I meant earlier that Venus is offered as a possible explanation by sceptics for some sightings where it is unlikely, but not necessarily given as the most likely mundane explanation. That is what I think is rather silly, mentioning Venus in the list of mundane although unlikely for some sightings. This may not happen as often as I may have thought, and this is probably just the media taking the sceptics remarks out of context, but it still does happen.

I also feel that if witnesses didn’t say such contradicting remarks or restrained from explaining their sighting emotionally, and kept to what they were sure in their mind as pure facts, the idea of witness accounts having more weight would be considered, presuming it was obvious the witness in question wasn’t fully intoxicated. And I find it ridiculous that because someone has had a few pints even though not blind drunk makes it plausible that they hallucinated or misinterpreted a street-lamp. That is only my opinion though, as many light-weight sceptics would say “ohh 4 pints ohh dear that’s a lot of alcohol, maybe he was drunk”. Some people do have larger alcohol tolerances.

“Do you still dismiss it because it does not fit with what you believe?”

No I only accept knowledge and don’t believe in anything without some sort of evidence, whether that’s only from something I’ve witnessed or a credible scientific report and/or physical evidence. And no, I don’t think I am more important than anyone else on this planet.

“Have there been situations where you have changed your position on a story?”

No, not when involving any serious circumstances. Anyway, whether someone’s a credible witness or not, it’s not accepted scientific practice to believe unproven claims. Again for the third time I emphasise, check if you know anyone personally who have become what you consider credulous in a similar way, and consider all possibilities.