Dave Mosher over at the Discovery Channel blog collective (not to be confused with our own beloved Discover Magazine Hive Overmind) asked me if I could write down my thoughts about UFOs, so he could post it over at their site to support a show they’re airing about flying saucers. Because I’m a swell guy, I did.
The essay is based on a question I get all the time when I give lectures, and it’s so important to me I’m reposting it here. In fact, I have a YouTube video with a slightly longer version of this as well.
Here’s the written version…
When I give public talks, I can almost guarantee that during the Q&A I’ll get asked: Do I believe in aliens and UFOs?
My answer usually gets a laugh: “Yes, and no.”
As far as aliens go, I suspect pretty strongly that there’s life in space. We know of over 300 planets orbiting other stars, and we’ve only just started looking. In our Milky Way Galaxy alone there are probably literally billions of planets. Life on Earth got started pretty rapidly, relatively speaking, after the crust cooled and liquid water formed, so we know it’s not tough for life to get its start… and it’s entirely possible there is microbial life inside icy moons orbiting Jupiter and Saturn.
So thinking aliens exist has a pretty decent scientific basis. But them coming here is an entirely different beast.
There are tens of thousands of UFOs reported every year. That’s one of the reasons a lot of people think aliens are visiting us: there’s no way that there could be that many reports if some of them weren’t real!
But that’s bad reasoning. In fact, the vast majority of reported UFOs are mundane things in the sky. The planet Venus is incredibly bright; most people don’t believe me when I point it out to them. They think it’s a nearby airplane, or some other bright earthbound object.
Not only that, but if you’re driving, it appears to follow you through the trees because it’s so far away. If it’s low to the horizon, turbulent air makes it flicker and change color. Does this sound familiar? How many UFO reports have you heard that say a huge object (people often mistake brightness for size) was following someone in their car, and it was rapidly changing color?
Yup. Venus.
Manmade satellites pass overhead several times an hour, and some brighten tremendously as a solar panel or mirrored surface catches the Sun. Meteors blaze across the sky, ice crystals refract sunlight and moonlight, atmospheric effects make a distant object appear distorted and weirdly-shaped. All of these have been mistaken for alien spacecraft.
So I know that most people misinterpret what they see. But there’s something else too. If alien spaceships are really out there abducting us and playing chicken with our airplanes, then you’d expect that people who spend more time looking at the sky would see more of them. And who spends lots of time looking up?
Amateur astronomers, of course. They are dedicated observers, out every night peering at the sky. If The Truth Is Out There, then amateur astronomers would be reporting far and away the vast majority of UFOs.
But they don’t. Why not? Because they understand the sky! They know when a twinkling light is Venus, or a satellite, or a military flare, or a hot air balloon, and so they don’t report it.
That, to me, is the killer argument that aliens aren’t visiting us. If they were, the amateur astronomers would spot them.
Of course, you might say “But just because they don’t see UFOs doesn’t mean they aren’t real. It just takes one to prove aliens are coming here!” That might be correct, but remember, we started off thinking they’re coming here because so many UFOs are reported! Once you realize that the overwhelming majority of UFO cases are just everyday things, then that “it just takes one” argument gets a whole lot weaker.
But I’ll surprise you, though: I agree. It really only does just take one. But that one better have good proof! Something better than a single eyewitness, a badly sketched object, a fuzzy photograph, or out-of-focus video (heck, with digital effects the way they are today, you can’t even trust video that’s crystal clear). It needs a sample of non-terrestrial metal. An actual alien. Some incontrovertible evidence that is impossible to deny.
But we never get that. Why not? I think it’s because we’re not being visited. When Klaatu comes and lands on the White House lawn, I’ll be willing to change my mind. But until then, well, keep watching the skies. Learn what’s up there, and what isn’t. You might someday spot the genuine article.
But even if you don’t, you get to discover what’s really up there… and there’s treasure aplenty in the sky to be had, even by us folks stuck here on planet Earth.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
The BA says: “When Klaatu comes and lands on the White House lawn, I’ll be willing to change my mind.”
Two more weeks.
- Jack
November 25th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
I totally agree with your assessment, but their are a few eyewitness accounts of UFO’s I find slightly convincing. Those being the accounts of air traffic controllers and pilots. These guys don’t just see them with their eyes but with radar. What are some of the natural phenomena that can mimic the rapid decent and speeds that many of these professionals have witnessed?
November 25th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Another couple of things that are not proof, memories of being “probed” and cows being sliced and diced a in the middle of no where. Just think why would they travel lightyears just to keep dissecting cows and sticking a probe well up there.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
A small piece of Klaatu would suffice for me, so long as they could show that it really was from Kaatu.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Maybe I’m splitting hairs here, but isn’t something only alien when it’s here? I mean, a stranger in a strange land who never left his home land isn’t exactly an alien, no?
November 25th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
As long as we are so self centered as to think that intelligent (being intelligent the operative word, here) life will think the same as us, this will not be solved. But I have a better idea: why don’t all the skeptics just support absolute openness and support the investigation of those sightings that have no “mundane” explanations. There are quite a few, you know. It really would not be a waste of time. Who knows, what we might discover something about our planet, ourselves and maybe, just maybe, about life outside of our pea brained little world.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I believe in UFOs: Unidentified Flying Objects.
I don’t believe they are alien spacecraft.
I believe that a UFO is really just a object in the sky that the viewer doesn’t recognize or can’t explain at the time, but which could be explained by someone who knows what they are seeing or has time to work out the details (like how relative distance and angles of view can mimic rapid decent and speeds enough to fool professionals).
November 25th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
we don’t see ‘em cause they have developed metamaterials with a negative index of refraction that bend light around them, making them invisible to prying astronomer eyes. they stole the idea from harry potter. stoopid IP stealin’ aliens!
November 25th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Here is an example of some people’s ignorance of the night sky: Police say UFO was just the Moon
November 25th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
You’re correct about a few things. The universe is almost unfathomably vast, containing numerous galaxies, stars, and exoplanets. It would be unlikely that even a small fraction of these exoplanets did not contain life, in one form or another. As far as UFO’s are concerned, I agree with the first portion of your commentary. Most UFO sightings can be attributed to misidentifications of natural or man-made phenomena. However, you have to take into account the small percentage of legitimate cases in which you have multiple eyewitnesses from different vantage points, cooberating video and/or photographic evidence, and in some cases, even radar cross section recordings that all point to one conclusion: That being, a majority of UFO cases are either hoaxes or misidentifications. However a small percentage cannot be discredited nor attributed to any natural or man-made phenomena AND often exhibit craft of unknown origin flying at speeds we cannot yet attain and performing maneuvers which are physically “impossible” given our current state of technology (i.e. instant acceleration from a hovering stance to tens of thousands of miles per hour as well as performing right angle maneuvers at these speeds). Some people argue these sightings are nothing more than overactive imaginations reacting to Hollywood’s portrayal of the UFO phenomena, which does not make sense considering these sightings have been occurring for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. There have been reports of massive “cigar shaped” metallic craft since the early 1800’s, a type of craft which is not uncommonly reported and even filmed to this day.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I know you were probably trying to keep it brief, but I wish you would’ve touched on the whole “cover-up” argument (maybe you did, I didn’t read the full version). The claimed “unbeatable argument” from these people is the point that we don’t have any physical proof because the government covers everything up. Which holds absolutely no weight at all if you think about it.
If that were true, there would have to be an international alliance between every country in the world agreeing to keep every UFO a secret. That is, unless aliens are ONLY interested in America, and only decide to crash-land and/or leave physical evidence behind in our own country. I can’t imagine every government of every country in the world would have the same “cover-up at all costs” mentality that some of these people claim our government has. That’s just utterly silly. And what about countries that aren’t as wealthy as ours? What happens when a UFO crash lands in a small poor town of some third-world country? Will their government have the resources to be on the scene fast enough to keep people from talking, the way they are in every conspiracy theorist’s fantasy? I don’t think so.
I’ve made that point before in some other post, but I figured it had an ever better place in this one. I agree that “aliens”, be it primitive microbes or intelligent life, do exist, simply based on the sheer size of the universe. I believe UFOs are possible, but unlikely for all the reasons listed.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
When you take this information into account, one has to ask yourself: Why would the US military (as well others) deny the existence non-terrestrial UFO’s? The answer is simple. It all comes down to being an issue of national security. Our military (as well as others) do not want your average citizen to know there are craft possessing technologically superior to our own that are capable of violating our airspace at will. There was a time when this information may have caused mass panic of hysteria, another reason this information has been withheld, in addition to the theological implications such information would have and the reluctance of world leaders (who are generally very religious) to alter the public’s world view and to potentially put their own systems of belief into question.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
@Davidlpf: Date Rape.
@BA: Good deductive logic and critical thinking. Those who know, don’t speak. Those who speak, don’t know.
Rage on
November 25th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Recently watch a few minutes of one of those UFO shows, with great amazing video, sharp clear……
!st thought its an airplane with landing lights. Cool looking triangular shape. Drove to Boise last weekend, yep saw a plane approaching the airport looked exactly the same. I admit if you didn’t know what you were looking at then yeah it didn’t seem like an airplane, very odd angles, looked like it was a large wedge flying, but a little common sense and yep its an airplane.
And sheesh every creature knows using a ship is for loosers, the only way to travel is inter-dimensional matter/energy conversion corridors using the dark energy booster units with the glonborbitronium suit. Earth space travel noobs!
November 25th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
It should also be noted that NASA has witnessed UFO’s on various occasions. If you listen to recordings of NASA transmissions regarding UFO’s, you’ll hear astronauts accidentally mention a “craft” or “bogey” before quickly being told to switch to an encrypted channel.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
In regards to the show you watched, Kyle, some of that footage may have very well been an airplane. However, I have personally watched documentaries where such footage has been scrutinized by aviation experts, video analysts, as well as interviewing the people who actually shot the footage describing what they see in detail and interviewing other eyewitness, including police officers and radar operators who all witnessed the same craft. Their conclusions (as well as mine), without a doubt, are that these craft were not man-made.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Phil’s comment about even clear photos being fake reminded me of this footage I found of the Imperial Navy attacking and occupying San Francisco.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfqDVP_0O0c
The Death Star is eerie.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Not to mention the vast distances involved. Assuming the speed of light can never be surpassed, a single journey to Earth could take thousands of years. Yeah, I know, I’m not taking near-lightspeed travel’s time deceleration into account. But still. It’s a pretty long trip to be making just to freak out tipsy backwoods hunters.
I saw some comedian (can’t remember his name) and one of his bits involved one alien talking to another. The alien said, “Ya know, Sklrgzyk, we’ve been anally probing these creatures for sixty years now, and the only thing we’ve ever found out is that approximately 10 percent of them like it!”
Cracks me up.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
That’s pretty weak reasoning. There are thousands of UFO reports that go way beyond “being chased by a bright light that changed colors” from very reputable sources.
Now I’m not saying that they must have seen alien spacecraft. What I am saying is that you need to come up with some better explanations for these reports than “it was Venus or man made satellites”.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
How ironic.. all the comments that support the view of this article’s author were displayed almost instantly. However my comments, which offer a rational counter-argument to a few specific points this person has brought up are being withheld, “Awaiting Moderation.” And you don’t see why their are so many people willing to buy into the “plausible deniability” factor put forth by the US military regarding UFO’s? It’s because of people like him who blindly follow their rhetoric and are afraid to think for themselves, to the extent of censoring anyone who disagrees with them.
November 25th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
In regards to the hurtle of overcoming distances involved with interstellar travel, the indelible cosmic speed limit of 186,000 miles per seconds, one has to look towards alternate means of propulsion. Two prime examples would be traversible wormholes (or Einstein-Rosenbridges) and of course the Alcubierre Warp Drive. Look them up, you just might learn something. Or, if you’re too lazy or stubborn to do so, NASA has courteously summarized the aforementioned means of interstellar or FTL (faster-than-light) propulsion, which can be found here:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/warp/ideachev.html
November 25th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I sometimes have this fantasy, and pipe up if you’ve thought this too:
What if we end up being the first technologically advanced civilization to visit and interact with other lifeforms. Technically it’s possible for others to be first- but why can’t it be us on planet Fegon-6 doing some drefrge probing and freaking out blueneck hillbillies?
November 25th, 2008 at 6:59 pm
GumbyTheCat it could of been skit by “Kids in the Hall” which did skit like that but I cannot think of the exact lines. One of the Comedians was Dave Foley who played Alan Bean in “From the Earth to the Moon” and also was on Newsradio.
November 25th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Sadly, this is what happens when certain people choose to disregard any credible evidence of UFO’s whether out of arrogance or their own conditioned beliefs, they focus only on the most asinine (no pun intended) & least plausible aspects of this phenomena rather than looking at the hard facts.
November 25th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Like someone said before, UFO’s are real. But they are usually easily explained like 80% of the time. The UFO’s that are unexplainable are the ones that airline pilots see alot. They see it, but don’t report because they can lose their jobs. So what makes them lose they job for seeing wierd lights fyling around your plane. coverup?
November 25th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Even more credible than astronomers are Astronauts. Many, if not most of them, HAVE seen UFOs. Dr Edgar Mitchell insists NASA has knowledge of such. Gordon Cooper has seen them. They have been videotaped outside Apollo spacecraft on the way to the Moon. Story Musgrave filmed them. Sally Ride speaks about seeing one during one of her flights. The list goes on.
November 25th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Hello,
The only problem is: there are astronomers who report seeing UFOs. So when you make that argument, you’re really calling for trouble.
Because you’ll just have someone pointing to you one case of an astronomer reporting to have seen a UFO and then… What do you say? That because he’s an astronomer he’s a reliable witness?
OK, here you go, because you were really asking for it, a long list of sightings by astronomers (and I’m sure they are many lists like that on the web, I just put here the first one who came up with google):
http://www.xdream.freeserve.co.uk/UFOBase/Astronomers.htm
As skeptics, I think the thing to say is that no human witness is 100% reliable, and that even astronomers, like everyone else (airplane pilots and so on) can be confused while seeing something in unusual conditions.
Phil, you’re a great skeptic, but I really think you should change your argumentation about UFOs (I’ve seen it in a YouTube video before, and I had the same reaction), and take into account the classic counter-argument by ufo-proponents, that there are many astronomers who reported seeing UFOs. Don’t be surprise when a guy like Stanton Friedman will write about you to say the same thing than me here.
Keep up the good work,
November 25th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
November 25th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
This is my all time favorite UFO story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2248463/Moon-mistaken-for-UFO.html
November 25th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
I do wonder why UFO apparently now means “object identified as an alien spacecraft” rather than “unidentified flying object”. But that’s probably a subject for a linguistics blog.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Bad Wolf said “These guys don’t just see them with their eyes but with radar. What are some of the natural phenomena that can mimic the rapid decent and speeds that many of these professionals have witnessed?”
For starters, electronic interference, cloud echoes, rain, flocks of birds, thermal layers and maybe even meteors.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Considering there are perfectly valid solutions to the Drake Equation that suggest the number of intelligent life in the galaxy is very small, coupled with the fact that we haven’t seen it… I think the safe bet is “no” on both, at least in the Milky Way.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
I think the chemist has it. What impresses me is how young the universe is. The galaxy formed almost as soon as possible after the big bang (http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-20-04.html). Then several billion years went by to build up the heavy atoms we need to survive, and after the Earth formed life appeared again almost immediately. A few more billion years to develop multi-cellular life, before things started happening thick and fast, and here we are. Maybe it really does take 13 billion years to develop an intelligent interstellar space-faring race from a blob of hydrogen — and we’re not there even yet. Maybe it should take longer, and we just got lucky.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Or gas, marsh gas that is.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Nothing new or strange in what you write - by some standards.
It is always interesting to hear “intelligent” people dismissing so easily and with such certainty the possibility that UFOs exist i.e. they claim that there is a simple down to earth explanation for them all. That attitude / interpretation I would regard as pompous and irrational. Why? Well, because there are thousands of UFO sightings that have been investigated and no ‘reasonable’ explanation can be found or is available to explain them. Yes, they do represent a very small percentage of the total sightings, but still very large considering their numbers. Even if this large number were eventually reduced to a few hundred or a few dozen- the ones that still cannot be explained by any means at man’s disposal would have to cause any logical person to think outside the norma frame of reference. Governments have not spent vast sums of money studying and examining a subject that does not exist! In other words - unidentified (unknown) flying objects, performing beyond our own technological capabilities and behaving intelligently must logically be considered to possibly be from somewhere else. Now whether that somewhere else is another Planet, another Dimension, or the Future by Time Travel etc is something that no one can say definitely at the moment. However, it should also mean that no reasoning intelligent and open-minded person should or could dismiss that possibilty.
What you are really saying is that all those reliable UFO witnesses such as Airline / Fighter Pilots, Police officers, Radar Operators, Military Personnel, US Presidents etc. etc. etc. are all mistaken / wrong! They were all in fact either hallucinating, fooled, mistaken, dreaming, imagining - whatever! You must know that these are some of the very same people that you believe and trust in their judgement on a daily basis. Your very life depends on this judgement and in most matters you do this without question, such as:- to govern, protect and transport you etc. through your Government; Military; Nuclear Weapons; Police Forces; Passenger Travel. Some of these same people help to keep you safe day and night. However, when they say that they have seen something that proves to be unexplainable - you rubbish their intelligence. Is there not some great contradiiction in this attitude of yours? You are obviously incapable of thinking outside the box in this matter. Is it really just because you are unable to bring yourself to even possibly acknowlegde that they may have seen or been witnesses to something that is obviously outside the “normal” (and that could be from another world, dimension or time)! You deny that possibility and therefore belittle their intelligence, judgement and place in Society. In doing so, you help to stop people coming forward that may be afraid of being considerd foolish or worse.
It is so ironic that some of the very same people that so strongly deny and make little of any possibility that UFOs are real (as in completely unexplainable on their level of acceptance / understanding) believe in a personal God. I do not know if you are one of them or not. They also believe in a place called Heaven and Hell, Angels and even Miracles. I have nothing against anyone that believes any of this and only raise it as an example of double-think, blindness and possible illogicality. Why? Well. can any of these same (billions of) people provide one photo of God - even a fuzzy one! Can they point out in the Cosmos where Heaven and Hell are located? Do any such believers have an ounce of evidence to support or to back up their beliefs! No, they do not! Yet, they are generally not thought of as being deluded, hallucinating, mistaken, wrong or much worse and they still occupy positions of responsibilty and are regarded as normal. So tell me, which would be the more logical to trust, support and believe in:- the most reliable UFO witnesses, the Radar Controller reports, photos and videos, or those that believe in the Holy Man with the long white beard, sitting up there somewhere in the sky that watches over our every move, action and thought? I would be more inclined to think that the intelligent and logical answer would be to believe the “Reliable” UFO witnesses that Investigations and Science admit have seen something extremely strange and that accept that something very unusual took place, happened and was witnessed (sometimes by multiple witnesses): And that these same Investgators and Scientists admit that what was actually seen, recorded or photographed cannot be explained or properly understood within our known Earthly references at this time. But that’s just me. Obviously you think quite differently about such strange things and the evidence that supports them!
Regards
November 25th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Bad Wolf - I agree about it being odd how seasoned pilots can mistake any atmospheric effects or another plane as a UFO. The pilots that I know have a crazy amount of knowledge on weather and can identify pretty well any aircraft just from the arrangement and frequency of its lights. They would also more than likely have information on military activity in the area over the radio (and are not allowed in military no-fly test zones) due to safety issues. Sure, it could be exhaustion or trauma (like POWs relaying strange events) but it still makes it a tad bit interesting to learn about.
I’m a little curious about one thing though, didn’t Buzz Aldrin claim to see a UFO? Granted, he probably knew more about flying and engineering than the stars… but one would think that he had a decent amount of knowledge in astronomy.
One thing I do know however, is how kooky a lot of “resources” come across when giving their “evidence”. I’m yet to see a really professionally done documentary… some will get you starting to listen to their reasonable witnesses like groups of police officers or a pilot and co-pilot dual sighting, then the next minute they put on the town nut who believes in every conspiracy theory and isn’t afraid to tell it. So until we have concrete evidence other than eye witness accounts and fuzzy videos, count me in with the “believe in aliens but not extra terrestrial UFOs”.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
GumbyTheCat (and Davidlpf): It was The Kids in the Hall…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXfowQSAnqg
One of my favorites!
November 25th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
These alien blogs always go on for hundreds of comments. So many witnesses it seems have something to say. This may have some hidden interpretation instead of them all being crackpots.
It’s difficult for people to keep quiet when they’ve had a personal experience and they’re sure it was something extraordinarily unexplainable. But it seems they have to otherwise the call for evidence outweighs any other interests. I’m not saying that’s wrong, the kind of proof described in the blog story is exactly what is needed before accepting any anecdotal evidence such as a story, but it can be a little disconcerting at times how that’s the first question asked before even taking a slight interest. There’s no way around this, we have to be sceptical, but just remember we are all probably human beings on here
(unless some are aliens) and showing a bit of compassion may actually go a long way, and doesn’t cost a penny.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
I’ve said this before, and here it is again: you give good reasons and logic, not just to cool off about aliens, but to begin, continue, or deepen one’s study of the sky.
November 25th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Nope, John, they’re all crackpots. (Although, some of them are nice crackpots.)
November 25th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
There ya go, I suppose it becomes a habit for ya
November 25th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Do you think we will idscover any intelligent civilizations in the next hundred years? My answers is no! The Drake equation estimates that there could be around 10 intelligent civilizations in our galaxy. But the number of primitive civilizations (anything from microorganisms to lifeforms that haven’t discovered any form of technology) could be a lot bigger than that!
November 25th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Some professional astronomers in Austin, Texas have reported an unknown sighting frequently since September. Don’t be too dismissive of everyone being crackpots.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
This wingnut, Alan Haggard, claims Phil ‘censored his comments’ here on the blog. Phil, is this guy out to lunch?
“Unfortunately, Mr. Plait decided to censor my comments on his blog simply because I do not fully support his views. The censored comments I wrote are as follows:
# Alan Haggard Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
from: http://blogs.discovery.com/space_disco/2008/11/ufo-alien-plait.html
November 25th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
There’s got to be some form of microbial life deep in the martian soil!
November 25th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
And let’s not forget about one of Jupiter’s moons Europa! Think of the deeps sea lifeforms on Earth and you’ll see what I mean!
November 25th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
If we discover life on Mars or one of Jupiter’s moons, it opens pandora box to what we think may be possible. We will start to think how abundant life could be in the universe. Maybe consciousness itself is another constant in the universe just like gravity or related to energy since our self-awareness and conciousness is simply neuron energy. In a way this could make the universe as a whole alive, and all lifeforms part of one large organism. This is how I’ve read Physicists speculating on what we may later find out. Usually only religious people or ufo believers make vague statements about such things that make them sound crazy. But we are now getting people like Physicists speculating on stuff which would have sounded crazy talk only a few years ago. There must be some logical basis for this, otherwise they probably wouldn’t be saying it.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Alan Haggard, I posted this on the other blog, but to make sure you see it:
I have an automatic filter for spam. Perhaps you have spammed some other blog, and it knows? I don’t censor anyone — though I do delete offensive comments or ones that violate my commenting policy. But your jumping to conclusions is noted.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Opening a Pandora’s box is a bad thing, surely you must mean opening a fridge stacked with beer?
November 25th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Venom, what I said was that if UFOs were real, astronomers would report them. That doesn’t mean that astronomers report real flying saucers. What it does mean is that the vast majority of reported UFOs are misidentified mundane objects.
I would put more credibility to astronomers’ reports, but I have been fooled at least once before (ducks, in my case), and I can think of several scenarios where astronomers could be fooled. So they would have to be investigated just like anyone else.
November 25th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
“Why would the US military (as well others) deny the existence non-terrestrial UFO’s? The answer is simple. It all comes down to being an issue of national security. Our military (as well as others) do not want your average citizen to know there are craft possessing technologically superior to our own that are capable of violating our airspace at will.”
Exactly, the US military has covered up technologically superior aircraft that got deep in to US airspace. Except they weren’t coming from the direction you’re thinking of! During the Cold War, there were many, many air missions - the Americans flying over the USSR, the Soviets flying over America. Now, the East and West coasts were fairly well protected. The Canadian border was VERY well protected - if there was to be a nuclear / bomber exchange, that was the direction they’d probably come in. The South? Not so well protected - and we KNOW that the USSR had, at times, bases in the Caribbean. (Hell, that was the whole basis of the Cuban Missile Crisis!)
So if a Soviet aircraft manages to get a fair distance in to US airspace before being spotted by radar and hightailing it out of there, then you can sort of see why the US military wouldn’t want anyone to know that their enemies were getting as far as, say, Nashville. It’s bad for their image
Oh - and there’s also the possibility that when the military was denying non-terrestrial UFOs, it was because they hadn’t found any…
November 25th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
This reminds me of a silly experience I had the other week:
I was driving along a four-lane stretch of road when suddenly a massive, pale yellow object appeared in front of my car.
It was brilliant and crystal clear, and my first (unconscious) thought was it was one of those early “airships” (you’ve probably seen pics of them: like a Spanish galleon with all these spherical balloons holding it up).
I soon realised this was patently ridiculous and tried to get a good look at the object. Guess what it was?
The moon poking through some tress.
It was low in the sky, full (and large: looked about an inch wide) and obscured by haze from a nearby bushfire (turning it yellow).
November 26th, 2008 at 12:05 am
It’s quite the jump from a tiny percentage of unexplained UFOs to alien spacecraft visiting the earth. Blurry pictures, blips on a radar and anecdotes don’t cut it, so where’s the evidence?.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Alan Haggard,
Your posts make up 7 of the first 24 responses (29%) in this article. Nobody is censoring you. And you really shouldn’t be surprised if the spam filter kicks in.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Dear Phil,
You do deserve some credit for maintaining your obtuse ignorance of the UFO/ET subject right up until the very end of the truth embargo. Defender of the closed mind, servant to state propaganda, purveyor of science not as a vessel to be filled but as a paper bag to be worn over the head.
Credit given, it is necessary once again to point out that every time you say or write anything on the subject of extraterrestrial phenomena, you make a complete fool of yourself. Debunkers such as Klass and Shermer act in their self interest - they are paid to be skeptics for a living. Being right is irrelevant. You and Shostak are scientists. You are paid to seek understanding. Both of you are profoundly overpaid.
Regards,
Stephen Bassett
Executive Director
Paradigm Research Group
www.paradigmresearchgroup.org
November 26th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Well said Phil. You should market little talking dolls of yourself that spout this stuff. I, and I am sure many others, could make great use of them. Between CTs and ghost hunters I am, at times, surrounded by idiocy. Thanks for the post. I’ll have to check out the video of it when I get home later.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:36 am
The true believers keep saying they have cases with multiple observers, recordings (photo, film, video tape, radar records), physical evidence, etc. but it’s not true! If there were such evidence, no one but a wing nut would deny it. But this evidence, these cases, don’t exist! Every time they get down to specifics, and people with expertise (professional photographers, astronomers, radar experts, meteorologists, special effects experts, etc. - who ever is appropriate for the type of evidence reported) examine it, it all vanishes like a puff of smoke. Should skeptics categorically deny the possibility of alien spacecraft visiting earth? No. Should they hold their breaths waiting? Absolutely not. The burden of proof is on the believers.
Also, Phil said:
(wonder if that worked? Wonder if all subsequent posts on this topic will show up as quotes from the BA?)
Anyway, that’s strong evidence that *none* of them are real. If there are zillions of sightings, most with no hope of ever receiving any sort of corroboration, and all the ones that can be investigated beyond a “he said, she said” level turn out not to be aliens, then you have to assume the rest are cut from the same cloth. If, on the other hand, there were only a tiny number of sightings, it would mean that most people are competent observers and that tiny remainder would be truly strange phenomena that would warrant further investigation.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:10 am
I’m a professor of applied linguistics and language studies. I watched a ‘ufo’ come down out of the sky at a 45-degree angle a couple of years back and watched it hover over a campus building. It hovered there for about 8 minutes, long enough for me to decided what it wasn’t. It hovered about 10 feet above the building. It was circular and seemed to be ’spinning’. It’s color was silver-blue (metallic because it was reflecting sunlight) and brownish underneath. The weather was mild but some cloud to the east of the campus. It was the middle of the afternoon. I was walking toward the building the ‘ufo’ was hovering over. I wasn’t totally alone, a middle-aged woman passed by me and also saw what I saw (but she didn’t say anything to me, just hurried off). As I said, I watched it hover over the building for about 8 minutes. The ‘ufo’ then silently moved off toward the east and disappeared behind a cloud. I didn’t see any ‘aliens’, just the ‘ufo’.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:28 am
@John Seymour:
That KITH skit was awesome! I love Dave Foley
November 26th, 2008 at 1:47 am
[…] dem folgenden Blog-Eintrag aus der Seele, was die Frage angeht, ob uns Ausserirdische besuchen: Aliens? Yes. UFOs? No. | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine __________________ "Das Herz und den Geist eines Entdeckers, und die Seele eines […]
November 26th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Phiiiii-iiil!! (Said in the whiniest tone you can imagine)
How dare you? I’m writing THIS EXACT ARTICLE for MY blog right now! I’ve been working on it for a week. The title is the same and everything.
Grrr. I guess I’ll have to use a different title now. Or maybe I can just put in a disclaimer that I did this before you - though trackback certainly won’t support me.
::sigh::
November 26th, 2008 at 2:45 am
I say the exact opposite.
Aliens? No.
UFOS? Yes.
Because the term “aliens” generally connotes an intelligent hominid visiting our solar system. I say we are the technological leaders in this universe. Other life forms might be barely multi-cellular. I like the Sagan odds, but believing in aliens is, to me, too similar to being a theist and, if life exists far far away, but stays home, it’s not exactly “alien”.
Because the term “UFO” doesn’t mean “spacecraft from beyond the solar system”. UFOs can become IFOs but that doesn’t mean an object didn’t first exist as an UFO. The problem isn’t their existence, the problem occurs when an individual hears the term and jumps to an extra-terrestrial assumption. Because some have misused the term is no reason to jump on the misuse bandwagon with them. It still means exactly what it was coined for.
If Klaatu came, why the White House? Maybe Klattu would use this heirarchy:
10 Downing Street
Élysée Palace
24 Sussex Drive
November 26th, 2008 at 3:24 am
Alan Haggard said:
While I happen to agree with you here, you should recognise that your argument is an argument from personal incredulity, and as such is not very convincing.
A more logical argument would be that we know of no mechanism that can prevent life from starting on a planet that has suitable conditions. Thus, there is no reason to assume that life cannot start when the conditions are suitable for life as we know it.
Incidentally, we can only ever comment on life as we know it, because we will probably not even recognise life as we don’t know it.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:35 am
Blarg - I wish the aliens would come and bring some extraterrestrial knowledge. We wouldn’t have to wait for the LHC to get repaired to learn about the Higgs!
But seriously - I find it highly unlikely aliens are visiting Earth at this time. Yes, there are lots of unexplained UFO phenomena. But if there were real extraterrestrial space-ships visiting, we’d know about it. Astronomers, random people with good recording equipment, governments that value transparency, or the aliens themselves would provide believable proof. Until then, I will continue to file alien visitations in the same mental folder as God and the tooth fairy.
There are many crackpots out there saying aliens are visiting “psychically” or “spiritually”, which is hilarious! Makes for some great reading, though!
November 26th, 2008 at 3:50 am
Mr. Plait,
I apologize for jumping to conclusions regarding my previous posts.. It just seemed a little odd to me that all of my comments were hidden whilst others were showing up, and only those that supported your views at that, and since I had read a while back that you tend to ban people from your site whom you disagree with (whether true or not), I was lead to the conclusion that you were likely “moderating” your site in such a way to censor any comments contrary to your own. I’m not sure why your site would choose to automatically filter my posts, as I have never partaken in any”spamming” or anything of that sort. In fact, there is at least one thing we have in common. We both despise spam and want nothing to do with it. Well I digress.. Honestly, I respect your views as a skeptic, but foremost as an astronomer, whether I agree with them or not. It’s important that we all express our views and allow the free interchange of thought and knowledge to occur. I can understand why you would have a hard time believing that the UFO phenomena (at least in part) is extra-terrestrial in nature, due to your profession and skeptical nature. I, however, choose to maintain a unique (albeit at times paradoxical) point of view, that of an open-minded skeptic. I’m open to (nearly) any possibility, but whether I choose to believe in it is another matter. Like my views regarding my religion and other topics, my views regarding UFO’s have evolved with time. At first, I too was also skeptical and tended to focus on the hoaxes and trite aspects of the phenomena, and rightfully so. However, after seeing the unprecedented amount of convincing and cooberating circumstantial, and in some cases, even physical evidence, I have concluded that a small percentage of these cases pertain to technologically advanced craft of unknown origin, quite possibly extra-terrestrial. Hopefully, some day more convincing evidence will make itself evident (that is, if the US Military doesn’t get to it first) and will hence confront us all with the reality of the situation. If that day never arrives, or if I am persuaded to abandon my stance on the matter, then I will admit I was wrong and alter my beliefs accordingly. Unfortunately, it does not appear likely that day will come any time soon, and even less likely the latter will occur, which leaves me in a somewhat awkward position. Nevertheless, I will continue to pursue my interest in the UFO phenomena, sorting through the nonsense and focusing on the concrete unexplainable events that have occurred time and time again.
Regards,
Alan Haggard
San Diego, CA
November 26th, 2008 at 3:57 am
Nigel, you bring up an interesting point. I just didn’t think it was necessary to point out the fact that we don’t know of any mechanism that would prevent life from occurring if the conditions were just right. My statement was adequate as it stands. As far as my remark of life in “one form or another” I have to disagree with you there. It IS possible that we may very well be capable of recognizing alien lifeforms so alien they are unlike anything we have yet to see, for a variety of reasons. That is, unless these lifeforms choose to remain entirely motionless at all times or are completely undetectable, both visually and chemically.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:02 am
This demonstrates why we are unable to have serious discussions over possible visitations or, perhaps, interactions within dimensions/multiple universes. The discounting of sightings is almost always the same and relies upon the worst possible examples. Venus & satellites are poor explanations as they only address average people observing rather small specks in the sky. They probably do explain the vast majority of “reported” UFO sightings, but mostly dismissed by any serious investigator of such things. The real hardcore, not-so-easily-ignored cases, the in-your-face sightings are difficult to dismiss, but rarely discussed by skeptics unless they can prove a hoax. Why is that?
I’ve got no clue as to what’s going on, but I do “know” that something is going on and I’d like to see it resolved. I’m in my 50s and have been an amateur astronomer most of my life, astro photography my focus. I’ve never seen anything I could not explain during the weekly outings. However, on a fishing trip deep in the Canadian wilds, I did observe, with others, up close & personal, an object I’ll never forget (nor will the others) and not easily explained. None of us reported the object because we knew it would be pointless. Over the years, I’ve read other accounts, seen sketches & photographs and can attest that many were nearly identical to what I observed.
Count me in the group that really doesn’t care what anyone else thinks about the experience, doesn’t want to believe me or thinks they have a logical answer. Once it happens to you, as you often hear others say, you’ll understand.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:14 am
There you go, does Alan Haggard sound like a crazy man. No, he sounds like a rational person looking for answers. That’s how many people are, and even how many ufo witnesses are. It’s a shame that everyone hasn’t seen a ufo, and that nobody has any proof yet of their encounter.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:30 am
I’ve often wondered about dark matter. It’s nearly ubiquitous, and yet it interacts with normal matter so feebly that we hardly know anything about it. That doesn’t mean that dark matter interacts weakly with other dark matter, though, right? There could be a myriad strange life-forms existing in what almost amounts to an alternate reality, living out their lives never suspecting the existence of our form of matter. Except as an esoteric explanation for the missing 10% of matter that they just can’t account for with astronomical observation and ‘normal’ physics…
There was a sci-fi book about this idea once - I don’t remember who wrote it or what it’s called, but it was wicked awesome. A spaceship full of humans goes out to colonize another star system, but it’s no good when they get there, and by the time they get back to Earth, 3 million years have passed due to relativity. No big deal, that’s what they expected. But the sun had aged a few billion years, and had wiped out humanity in the throes of old age!
Why is this? They look around, and see a similar phenomenon in all the normal stars of the galaxy, but not the old and slow-burning ones. It turns out that dark-matter creatures profit from some of the hail of particles - maybe positrons? - so they cluster around the stars to cause them to collapse early and burn slower, so they have a long and steady supply of these particles. Sadly, these “engineered” stars are too cold to sustain normal “baryonic” life, so what the last lifeboat of earthlings to do?
November 26th, 2008 at 4:47 am
I didn’t mean to end the previous comment like that.
More like this:
Anybody know the book I’m talking about? I’d like to re-read it sometime.
November 26th, 2008 at 5:01 am
My sighting was of several lights moving around each other before zooming off leaving 2 trails or distortions behind them, with around a dozen or two jets in pairs appearing to intercept towards this location from different directions before and after the sightings. These appeared to be possibly fighter jets that had been intercepting a ufo. Although some of these could be the same jets circling round or changing direction. Maybe they were from different military bases so that’s why they approached from different vectors. I’m absolutely certain that these unknown lights were not balloons, lanterns, planes, helicopters, hallucinations or celestial objects. I cannot rule out new undisclosed military technology, but these were just like a typical extraordinary ufo sighting and left me shaken for a few days. I cannot rule out an elaborate hoax by someone involving model aircraft, but that seems unlikely as I didn’t hear the sounds of model aircraft. This incident has not been reported in the media as far as I know. At the time I thought these were not ours, anything we have could not move around as fast as that. At the time I also felt an usual feeling on the top of my head, similar to what I would describe as an electromagnetic field. I’ve never experienced that sensation before and never have since. After daylight, the contrails left by the jets filled the sky in parallel and perpendicular lines and gradually merged together by the wind and drifted away. I would not be surprised if the chemical trails people witness are just a large merger of contrails from fighter jets intercepting ufos, maybe some of the larger ones caused by afterburners. I definitely heard the planes pass over as well at the time, they appeared to be at a high altitude, and not exceeding the sound barrier. I don’t think that was the sound of model aircraft either before someone attempts to say that’s what it was. Another explanation could be that chemical spraying caused hallucinations. But I really doubt the chemical spraying theories and therefore think that’s unlikely.
I’ve emailed Nick Pope asking how to find out radar traces of this event. Since it takes time, more expertise than I have and money I have since not investigated this. If there are ufo researchers who wish to investigate this event I can give them more details, such as times, date, location where I witnessed this in order for them to determine whether anything was detected on radar. But I’m unable to offer any help beyond this. If anyone chooses to investigate it’s up to you to interpret the radar, and all the costs. Although I will provide as much information as I can to help you I don’t have the time or money to help with any in depth analysis. This could provide as much evidence as the Stephenville sightings, or none at all. It depends on what was picked up on radar, and whether this information can be obtained through the freedom of information act in the UK. I know one thing for sure, that’s that something extremely unusual happened, and there were unexplainable lights, and apparent chasing of these lights by fighter jets. I did take photos but they didn’t come out too well, and with careful adjustment of the brightness and contrast I can make out the same lights I witnessed in the same orientation in the sky, and moments later there’s a swirling pattern in the sky in roughly the same location. Without actually seeing these at the time looking the photos doesn’t seem very impressive as they only appear extremely dim. They do appear to be more than background noise created by the compression of the jpeg image though to anyone who is impartial in their judgements. And funnily enough Venus is also there in the photo as well. I admit at the time for a short while I also thought Venus was also another ufo, but most people would at the time if they saw dancing lights right nearby. After checking with planetarium software I determined the bright light on the photo is definitely Venus. I am not going to say I can prove this happened, so for those of you that wish to pick out bits and try and discredit please do, but be aware I cannot prove it and so don’t ask me to.
November 26th, 2008 at 5:08 am
And yes Nick Pope did reply the same day with details on how to obtain the radar data, and he gave advice on what to exactly ask for. I can post those details as well if anybody wishes to pursue it. I wish to remain anonymous as I’m not looking for fame, and I don’t need to take credit for helping to provide potential evidence.
November 26th, 2008 at 5:18 am
Alan Haggard said:
We can, of course, speculate endlessly about how life might exist in ways that are alien to our existing knowledge (e.g. life existing with ammonia as a solvent instead of water). This ability to speculate is not at issue.
However, we can only make definitive statements or predictions about life as we know it.
We may recognise life as we don’t know it, but it is more probable that we won’t. The whole point being that any alien life out there has to resemble terrestrial life in one way or another for us to be able to identify it as alive. And I’m not talking here about looking like a terrestrial cat or dog - I’m talking about such basics as metabolism, reproduction and compartmentalisation. Alien life would have to have at least some of these properties for us to be able to recognise it as alive.
November 26th, 2008 at 5:24 am
Naomi, I’ve brought up the ‘Soviet aircraft penetrating US airspace’ point myself in the past… in fact, I used it as an alternative to explain the 1947 Roswell thing, even though there isn’t any evidence to support it. (It’s in at least one of these blog entries somewhere around here, maybe two… been a while since I’ve brought it up.) Makes much more sense given the context of history, and applies Occam’s Razor in the process.
Anyway, it’s nice to see I’m not the only one who’s considered the possibility of ‘enemy’ aircraft as oppposed to alien spacecraft as an explanation for UFOs.
November 26th, 2008 at 5:43 am
Alan haggard said:
As far as I was aware, none of these cases withstands detailed scrutiny. Judging speed and distance are notoriously difficult without suitable reference points, and the atmosphere can occasionally create some strange and bizarre refractive phenomena (akin to a mirage, but not limited to the Earth’s surface).
Behaviour such as you ascribe to UFOs (please also notice that the plural of an abbreviation does not require an apostrophe!) violates the laws of physics. If it comes to a choice between a mundane explanation that involves (for instance) rare atmospheric phenomena and a fantastic explanation involving the postulation of technology that allows its possessors to violate the laws of nature, well, it seems pretty clear-cut to me.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. That evidence has yet to be forthcoming.
You seem also to be making an eliminative argument, to wit: if we have ruled out all known phenomena to explain a reported UFO, then the answer is alien spaceships. This is logically weak for one very simple reason - you unjustifiably discount unknown but wholly terrestrial causes.
Science is quite comfortable with the conclusion “we don’t know”, because this often stimulates further investigation. However, alien spaceship enthusiasts do not permit this conclusion to exist - if a “sighting” cannot be explained (to the enthusiasts’ satisfaction!) as a known phenomenon, it “must” be alien visitors. This is probably one reason why the enthusiasts are so often dismissed as cranks.
November 26th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Life on Earth is about 4 billion years old. Modern humans have only been around for about a million years - that’s about .025% of the time that life has been around. So for the other 99.975% of life’s existence on Earth, there was no “intelligent life”- life capable of communicating with or traveling to other worlds. So while life may be common in the universe, intelligent life - the kind that could travel here in spacecraft - is probably extremely rare.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Alan Haggard said:
Er, no.
You have not supported any of your claims with evidence.
That is not rational argument. You are the one making extraordinary claims. Where is this evidence to which you vaguely allude?
November 26th, 2008 at 6:22 am
Here we go again
November 26th, 2008 at 6:28 am
Naomi,
Do you have any cites for these aircraft that have penetrated the US?
November 26th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Why does everyone keep saying military pilots are reliable observers?
Do the words ‘friendly fire’ mean nothing to you?
Anyone capable of mistaking an orange press truck for an Iraki tank is OF COURSE the right person to make a judgment call about a UFO encounter
November 26th, 2008 at 6:35 am
Because the term “UFO” doesn’t mean “spacecraft from beyond the solar system”. UFOs can become IFOs but that doesn’t mean an object didn’t first exist as an UFO.
I can’t see how a semantics argument is helpful at all. Everyone knows what is assumed in the meaning of the term UFO. You can’t fight language.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:36 am
My above cmt should have looked like this:
Because the term “UFO” doesn’t mean “spacecraft from beyond the solar system”. UFOs can become IFOs but that doesn’t mean an object didn’t first exist as an UFO.
I can’t see how a semantics argument is helpful at all. Everyone knows what is assumed in the meaning of the term UFO. You can’t fight language.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:37 am
OMG!
my comment is awaiting moderation!
I must be the subject of rouge UFO hackers that object to my support for BA’s position!
November 26th, 2008 at 6:40 am
John - I agree… Alan Haggard’s posts are quite insightful and goes to show that rational thinking people do believe in such unexplained phenomenon. Regardless of how skeptical I may be, nobody can give me concrete evidence against UFOs either. In that sense, it is sort of like Carl Sagan’s “Dragon in my Garage” exercise.
(BTW, I can also remember when I first started posting here and my first few posts were awaiting moderation. It was a little odd seeing other posts shoot up while mine wasn’t so I assumed at first that Dr. Plait didn’t like what I had to say. What I didn’t realize is how the filter recognizes you over time and lets some post freely why the noobs are held up. So I can see why the blog will occasionally get an upset person wondering why respectful free speech is being filtered if they are only putting forth an opposing viewpoint).
November 26th, 2008 at 6:44 am
[…] Bad Astronomy blog with some (retroactively) obvious logic about UFOs — Never thought of this angle before, myself. […]
November 26th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Jim Seymour - Thanks! It was indeed that KITH skit I was thinking of. Too funny.
November 26th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Annette — one of the most difficult feats in logic is proving a negative. Skepticism, which is actually another word for applied-logic, has that very difficulty.
November 26th, 2008 at 7:06 am
“Here we go again”?
What do you mean - here we go again, asking to see some actual evidence for UFOs - why is that so unreasonable?
November 26th, 2008 at 7:08 am
It’s a funny coincidence that Phil writes about how amateur astronomers don’t see UFOs. Last week at a star party one of the attendees asked if I had ever seen a UFO. I answered that I’d seen a couple things that I didn’t recognize at the moment, but later figured out what they were, and that’s all. Part of the reason is that if we see something we don’t recognize, we put a ’scope on it and take a closer look. We pull out a computer and fire up an astronomy program to see what was there. We go to a satellite tracking web site and search.
November 26th, 2008 at 7:16 am
@John: It is unfortunately a waste of time to pursue your sighting. Here is why:
Option 1: You saw alien spacecraft with military jets in pursuit. Clearly there is a massive coverup conspiracy involving aliens, MIBs, and an international shadow government. Any radar records you might get are already edited for content. “They” read this website and have tracked your IP so they know who you are, and you’ll get nowhere.
Option 2: You saw a training exercise, a hallucination, optical disturbance, weather balloon, or Mercury is in retrograde. The radar records will show something mundane.
To anybody except the hypothetical “people who know”, the options look identical.
So now we can sit tight and ponder - do we agnostically say “aliens might be visiting our planet, but there is no way to know”, or do we use Occam’s Razor and say “despite the strange things I’ve seen, the simplest answer is that we are alone”.
November 26th, 2008 at 7:20 am
It’s not unreasonable, it’s unfeasible to expect a witness to have the evidence. Yet the first question involves asking for evidence whenever anyone mentions a sighting. I’m not saying don’t ask for evidence, what I meant was don’t use overkill and ask for it in every post. Not necessarily referring to you, just a general statement on what a few people do on here, not everyone of course. I’m a sceptic myself but I don’t spend my time calling others crackpots. I want to see the ship and the occupants before believing, yet I’ve seen ufos and know myself that they do exist, but I don’t know what they are or where they’re from, and I don’t have proof to give to anyone.
November 26th, 2008 at 7:27 am
I’ve said this before, but I’ll annoy you all with it again. The chances of not only a civilization with space travel but one who has then traveled to visit us is SO much smaller than the chances of just another intelligent species with a civilization, and even smaller than the chances of just another intelligent species who are, say, hunter-gatherers.
Consider a species even 1000 times more intelligent than we are who has been around much, much longer. Assuming that they are intelligent enough, they still need so many things to be able to invent space travel: complicated speech, organized and motivated citizens and leaders (well, at least citizens), the necessary materials and fuels, and, the one we don’t think about as much, appropriate limbs and something similar to an opposable thumb, combining to create a grasping system. Or, of course, some form of psychokinesis or other method of making something as intricate as a space travel system.
I’d say the chances of other species, probably far more advanced than we are mentally, is pretty high. At least, that is, the chances that they ever existed. You then have to consider whether they exist now and whether they have the qualities I mentioned, not to mention tons of others I didn’t mention or can’t think of myself. There could be super-intelligent gasses and fish out there (see dolphins) that couldn’t ever create even a city, much less a spacecraft.
November 26th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Why would the US military (as well others) deny the existence non-terrestrial UFO’s? The answer is simple. It all comes down to being an issue of national security. Our military (as well as others) do not want your average citizen to know there are craft possessing technologically superior to our own that are capable of violating our airspace at will.
I suggest you read “Demon Haunted World”. If anything, the military would get huge increases in funding in today’s economy by playing the fear card of aliens coming here for unknown purposes. Your reasoning seems backwards (in a whole lot of areas to be honest!).
November 26th, 2008 at 8:02 am
An additional point to my (and naomi’s) idea about Soviet aircraft penetrating US airspace. Neither of us cited proof for the idea; in fact, I said I had none.
Speaking only for myself, I offer my explanation only as speculation without evidence. BUT, based upon the history of the time (the Cold War) and the fact that neither the US nor USSR would ever want to admit each country was flying over the other, it just seems to make more sense. Put another way: one could discount the idea the Soviet spyplanes were flying over the US, and offer up many reasonable arguments to prove the point, but then to switch gears and say that alien spacecraft were instead flying over the US is somehow better? How are aliens any more logical a conclusion than Soviets? Might as well be faeries or pteranodons.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:05 am
I don’t see this joke anywhere…but someone once I asked me if I believed in UFOs. Of course I said, I don’t have to…UFOs are real. If it’s flying and you don’t know what it is, it’s literally an Unidentified Flying Object.
Now…the question is: are they alien spacecraft. Most likely not…
November 26th, 2008 at 8:18 am
I very much doubt Soviet aircraft would mistaken for UFOs. Especially for the 1947 Roswell thing. The Soviets wouldn’t have had an aircraft that could fly that far in 1947 surely? Unless the foreign incursions were Canadians or Mexicans of course.
High altitude bombers and reconnaissance aircraft by definition are just that anyway, high altitude. They don’t tend to get over their targets and do aerobatics. You’d be flat out seeing the ruddy things. The military would probably recognise them anyway. Even the Soviets were able to shoot down a U2.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:33 am
I’m pretty sure Roswell was a weather balloon used to test ballistic missile detection systems … coverup and contradicting “official” explanations is to be expected given some farmer found it and they didn’t want the Russkies to know what was going on.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:48 am
A (hopefully) final note from me about Soviet aircraft in US airspace: I offer it only as a POSSIBILITY, not as an end-all explanation. But as such, I submit that it’s much more PROBABLE than otherwordly aliens. There are a number of other terrestrial explanations that can & do have more merit, but the idea here is to think terrestrial in the first place. Rule out every terrestrial possibility before making the ‘leap of faith’ to aliens.
November 26th, 2008 at 8:56 am
As a JPL Solar System Ambassador, I get this question all the time. My answer is generally the same as yours, but I really like the amateur astronomer argument. I’ll have to use that in the future.
Thanks,
Steve
November 26th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Metre:
99.975 %,,,that sounds just about right. .00025 times about ,,,whatever number of stars have livable planets(still unknown).
Intelligent(argue-ably) life on this planet is still struggling with the whole concept of moving beyond its planetary environment. In order to fund interstellar travel, it’s likely we would need an economy several thousand times larger than we have at present.(ie, quadrillions of dollars/year)which will absolutely require a solar system wide economy. That will likely take a few thousand years to put in place. Since it took about 7 or 8 billion years to create the heavy elements life needs for self replication, we’re probably(after a mere 4.7 billion years) in the earliest stages of organic evolution. There may well be many planets in this galaxy with intelligent life, just now getting to the thresh hold of technological ability to control their environment and maybe expand into space however,,,there are a number of requirements for that expansion,,,
1) an expansionist philosophy
2) surviving entry into a nuclear age
3)planet wide co-operative behavior(we’re still on the low end of that)
4)something close to the planet to encourage expansion(like a big moon)(That alone seems to be a pretty unlikely development)
I expect there is lots of life in the universe.
I expect many such will eventually develop intelligence
I expect most such intelligence will never leave their planetary surface.
Of those that do, there’s still that pesky speed of light limitation to contend with.
A note about the Alcubiere warp drive,,,NASA estimates it would take a mass energy equivalent to the mass of Jupiter to enable such FTL. MAybe they’re being too conservative, but I expect they’re right on.
For an expansionist society, one in which there is both desire and means to settle the galaxy, there is also the inevitable overrun of all more primitive life(see:History of life on THIS planet). SO, IF there were such a culture already in place in this galaxy, it would likely have already colonized us. Since that does not appear to be the case,,,I expect we’re either the first such intelligence to come along, or at least very close to the first, so close that others haven’t had time to get here,,,yet,,,
But I really wish it were otherwise. Vulcans would be so cool to know,,,
Gary 7
November 26th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Dave Mosher! He used to work at dm.com. Go Dave.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:01 am
I will also note that, again from the perspective of simpler-is-better, a conspiracy to hide the presence and capabilities of military aircraft in enemy airspace is *much* more plausible than hiding the presence of alien aircraft in terrestrial airspace.
* Military planes miss astronomers’ attention because they are too close (and uninteresting).
* The “conspiracy” is limited to just the two relatively small parties involved (US and Soviet air forces, in the case of a hypothetical Roswell bomber incident).
* The parties involved have a vested interest in keeping it quiet.
Why do I talk about conspiracies all the time? Well, if even 0.1% of the tens of thousands of “sightings” per year turned out to be real, then we’d have one *real* UFO visit per year that a human has witnessed and reported. That’s a whole lot of evidence and stuff over all these decades that has been very effectively suppressed. Not sure how that would occur world-wide without some sort of crazy conspiracy thing going on.
Unless, of course, the percentage of “real” sightings were actually zero…
November 26th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Skeptic’s flowchart
Is there a preponderance of evidence that unexplained aerial phenomena are aliens?
|
No
|
[Wait 10 years]
|
Is there a preponderance of evidence that unexplained aerial phenomena are aliens?
|
No
|
[Wait 10 years]
|
Is there a preponderance of evidence that unexplained aerial phenomena are aliens?
|
No
|
[Wait 10 years]
|
…
Hey! This is easy!
November 26th, 2008 at 9:07 am
John said:
I disagree. See my preceding comments.
Does a rational person make an extraordinary claim that they cannot back up with evidence?
If Alan Haggard had been saying “there’s a small percentage of sightings that we can’t explain by reference to known phenomena (references to detailed accounts of said unexplained sightings), then alien visitors remains a possibility” I would have agreed. However, this is not what his posts have been saying (although I have not yet read all the comments in this thread so if he changed his tune at some stage I apologise now for mischaracterising him).
I am a UFO witness. I have seen things in the night sky that I cannot identify. Do I think they were alien spacecraft? No. Probably they were either satellites or aircraft.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:24 am
With respect to government cover ups, it seems to me our government and most others are incapable of keeping secrets. We routinely hear about contents of top secret documents, secret meetings, etc. There are leaks everywhere. I therefore find it interesting that it appears all governments on earth are capable of keeping supposed evidence of alien visitations to our planet a secret.
I also think that the National Security argument would not stand the test of legal challenges unless there were some imminent threat involved. If no alien attack has occurred yet, despite years of reported observations, I’d be surprised if an enterprising investigative reporter/organization couldn’t find enough evidence to get a judge to over rule a government claim of “National Security”. There are judicial venues with clearances to address top secret issues, so I don’t think it a valid argument to say the government can hide all this stuff away without anyone questioning it.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Gary 7:
I’m still not sure that intelligence - of the type to develop space travel -is common in the universe. In fact, I suspect it’s fairly rare. The dinosaurs dominated life on earth for 65 million years without advanced intelligence, so intelligence is not required to be successful as a species. And given that evolution is not progressive, there may never be a need or opportunity for it to evolve on a given planet.
While humans have been aound for a million or so years, only in the last 100 years has our science and technology advanced enough for us to examine the universe and take a few fledgling steps into space. So while life has been around for 4 billion years, life that is both intelligent enough AND advanced enough for space travel has been around for less than 100 years, or 0.000000025% of the history of life on earth.
So maybe, as others have stated, we are the “Old Ones” - the first generation of intelligent life in the universe (Vulcans aside, of course).
November 26th, 2008 at 9:30 am
You guys need to do more research. UFO’s do exist. I have seen one myself. And there ain’t no way it was Venus, Weather Balloon, Plane or Santa! To say there are no UFO’s is dumb. Mistaken identities yes. But there are a lot of sightings that are real. Read up before you speak up guys and girls!!
November 26th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Annette said:
But obviously you have missed the point of Carl Sagan’s exercise. He was demonstrating the impossibility of proving a negative. If I were to claim there is an invisible pink unicorn at the bottom of my garden, you would find it impossible to prove me wrong, but that does not make me right.
It is categorically impossible to prove that UFOs in general are not alien spacecraft. This does not make it any more likely that any of them are alien spacecraft.
However, we can assemble a reasonable set of hypotheses based on what we know:
We know that interstellar travel is a hugely difficult undertaking, irrespective of how advanced your technology is, because we have some quite detailed knowledge of the laws of physics.
We know that most people rarely look at the night sky in a context in which they will see much, and thus are unfamiliar with the normal appearance of the planets, satellites and so on. Hell, even a flock of geese can look really odd when lit up from below and seen from a long way off.
We know that the atmosphere can, occasionally, display some bizarre refractive properties (even to the extent of a distant town fooling a jet pilot into thinking it was a UFO because of the way the air was refracting the light).
We know that it is notoriously difficult to judge distance and speed of objects in the sky at night.
We know also that celestial objects that are near the horizon will twinkle more than those directly overhead.
We know that people are notoriously bad at seeing what is actually there (for example, the famous psychology experiment where people fail to notice the guy in a gorilla suit walking across the set in a video; and, by the same token, the unreliability of eyewitness accounts in a court of law).
As Phil has pointed out, we know that people who look at the sky on a regular basis (astronomers) report no (or very very few) UFOs.
So, the only rational conclusion one can reach is that UFO sightings are failures to identify known phenomena.
If anyone had any real data demonstrating that UFOs actually are alien spacecraft, this would be a really, really big deal. It would be the biggest deal since the invention of fire. It would be front page news on every newspaper on the planet. Yes, I’ve heard the conspiracy theories, but there is no evidence to support them. Lack of evidence for alien spacecraft is not evidence of a cover-up. It is only what it is, no more. Therefore, since the actually discovery of an alien spacecraft would be such a big deal, the only rational conclusion one can reach is that there is no such evidence.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:37 am
UFOs are here, but some people don’t get it. Google Belgium UFO or Rendlesham UFO or Illinois UFO or any of the well documented cases, some with radar, photos, and multiple witnesses. Anyone who denies that we are being visited is dumb as a box of rocks.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:38 am
To anybody that thinks that little green men are coming here - you don’t understand the physics of space travel. For whatever advanced materials or engines or whatever they have developed they certainly haven’t developed ways to beat the speed of light or any other physical law. Space is way, way, way, one more way-too vast, space travel takes way too much energy and time- it’s not possible.
I think life, simple life, probably exists out there in lots of places. I think intelligent life is so rare that we might just be the only examples of it (why aren’t we detecting just a single other existence of it with SETI? Where are they?).
November 26th, 2008 at 9:41 am
[…] pegados aquí al planeta Tierra. Autor: Phil Plait Fecha Original: 25 de noviembre de 2008 Enlace Original Articulos RelacionadosY mira que siempre doy noticias…Pero esto hay que comentarlo, porque en […]
November 26th, 2008 at 10:15 am
@Kirk:
Would that be igneous rocks, or sedimentary rocks?
November 26th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Colin, I just went to your site and read of your encounter. First of all, I find it very odd, that sitting among, what, 150? 200 other people, you would not point out to some of them, at least, what you were looking at to get confirmation. Why not call a flight attendant to look out the window at the object? This is really not a credible sighting in my opinion.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:30 am
I have never understood the argument that the government would cover up evidence of Aliens for fear of “panic.” If anything, the government would be the FIRST ones to trump up and exaggerate the threat to get new legislation, taxes, and defense spending through. I mean an Alien enemy with advanced technology? That’s like a blank check (and blank constitution :/) landing in the president’s lap.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Any thoughts on an observation described as follows?
Daylight object, appeared to be at a relatively high altitude, viewed through binoculars (not visible naked eye). Appeared stationary for a time before the object was lost. When observing a commercial aircraft within a couple minutes the same (or similar) looking object moved through the field of view and was visible as it moved across the sky (roughly 2/3 visible sky) until it was lost behind a ridge. The object appeared white and round. The binoculars could not resolve the object completely (a little fuzzy). This observation was made on a mountain ridge at approx 8,000 ft looking over the dessert.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Terrestrial explanations are not always the more obvious choice over alien visitations.
If we or any other nation has developed an incredible technology that would explain the more mysterious cases and it has been around for years (the consistancy of the more credible sightings), then it would be used in warfare to save lives. You’d be pressed to find a military expert who would disagree. Stealth technology was used in the Gulf. How about the A-Bomb? We don’t spend money to develop, test and improve military technology that results in a proven design and then let it sit in some Area 51 hanger for a bunch of geeks to droll over for multiple decades. Once used in warfare, the technology is exposed. It is certainly much easier for the enemy to collect evidence of a new aircraft than it would be for your average Joe observer. So if we have this incredible technology why hasn’t it been used?
And, sorry, but I’ll take the alien explanation over the terrestrial one if it involves Nazis fleeing post WWII Germany and taking their flying saucer research to South America. There are many nutcases out there who actually believe that sort of stuff. Blast me if you want, but aliens are more plausable to me than a bunch of aging Nazis zipping around our airspace.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Sorry I meant “Desert”
November 26th, 2008 at 10:45 am
John,
You claim to have seen an object that you could not identify, chased by a dozen or two military jets, right?
So, was it one dozen, or two dozen? There’s a huge difference! If you cannot tell me how many aircraft were allegedly chasing this object, why would I believe that the object you saw was what you are claiming it to be? Your powers of observation are weak. Also, that many fighter jets chasing an unidentified object seems like overkill. Even when the Russian “Bear” bombers occasionally penetrate Canadian airspace, our military will only send up 2 or 3 CF-18 Hornets to politely escort them off the property.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Speak of the devil…..
Just saw a FOX News promo……Apparently “Hannity’s America” will be focusing on UFOs on an episode that will air tomorrow.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:51 am
@Rocket:
What were you doing, looking through binoculars, at an object you couldn’t see with the naked eye? What I mean is this: If you could not see it with your own eyes, how did you find it through binoculars? What caused you to look there in the first place? Also, if what you say you saw was there, is it not possible that the object was a military test of, say, an unmanned drone? That is a more likely explanation that alien spacecraft.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:52 am
In my attempt to become a good critical thinker, here are a few of my own “ponderings” in regards to UFO’s:
1. As has been mentioned before, what is the point of visiting alien spacecraft to have blinking/non-blinking colored/non-colored lights on them? I would think that any kind of lights would be for the purpose of anti-collision. Why would advanced craft need these? Our supposedly-primitive technology, using things like GPS and advanced avionics has almost eliminated the need for aircraft to have any kind of visual identification. I would think that an advanced species would have figured out a way to avoid crashing into things (and vice-versa) without the need for brightly lit lights (not even mentioning the fact that this would advertise their presence pretty well, which seems pretty silly for a group of beings that seem so intent on keeping their presence low-key).
2. Speaking of keeping a low key-presence, why the heck do these things need to be visible at all? Our supposedly-primitive technology has allowed us to create aircraft that are pretty good at flying around almost completely undetectable. I would think that an advanced society would have something similar, but way more advanced.
3. Why would they need to send any type of biological entities inside these craft? Our supposedly-primitive technology has allowed us to map almost every square meter of the planet Mars, the Moon and have obtained reams of data about our other planets and solar system, and we’ve done that without having to send a single human being. Wouldn’t they have the technology to observe our planet robotically?
4. Why would an advanced society need to send a physical craft of any kind here at all? Our supposedly-primitive technology enables us to view stars, galaxies and PLANETS for crying out loud, from a great distance without having to send a single human-created object. Although, there are problems in distance-observing with things like time differential, etc. but it hasn’t stopped us, so why would it be a problem for an advanced species?
Anyway, just a few semi-random thoughts.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:52 am
@Wade, CNN is doing a whole week on them next week on American Morning.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Michael…..
Perhaps disclosure is coming? John Podesta is Obama’s transition team chief.
I’m just sayin’
November 26th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Oh and before it gets mentioned (hopefully): I meant mapping the Moon robotically-I didn’t mean to imply that we never sent people there.
Thanks!
November 26th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Nigel Depledge Says: “If I were to claim there is an invisible pink unicorn at the bottom of my garden, you would find it impossible to prove me wrong, but that does not make me right”
That was my exact point. I never once said that the alien UFO sightings are right. In fact, I subscribe to the belief that they are more than likely not. I just used Sagan’s example to show how neither side can be proven right or wrong which is exactly what you reiterated for me. I fail to see how I was not clear on this, but I digress.
And as for your examples of why UFOs are improbable (key word there being “improbable”), as with Sagan’s dragon I can counter everything you said with a legitimate argument… for example:
*****
“We know that interstellar travel is a hugely difficult undertaking, irrespective of how advanced your technology is, because we have some quite detailed knowledge of the laws of physics”
Someone from the 13th century would argue that flying a huge vessel through the skies at breakneck speeds would be a difficult undertaking, it doesn’t mean that we weren’t capable of inventing airplanes. Besides, all the aliens that I know have an even greater understanding of physics and the majority of matter in the universe that we are confused by. So there.
*****
Etcetera….. so it appears that you are the one missing the point just by offering up reasons.
And let me reiterate, I’m not a conspiracy theorist… I’m just offering up why we cannot prove either side until we have concrete scientific evidence.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Heh..I’d find this moire compelling if farmers hadn’t been able to hit Venus with .22 rifles during one of these encounters that never happened. Or had South American people by the hundreds filming them over their cities.
Try again, clown
-Skeptical of the skeptics, that’s me.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Rocket: Swamp gas.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:08 am
@Wade:
A more likely explanation is that the networks are capitalizing on the public interest in UFO’s, and they are gunning for ratings. However, I am open minded enough, that if the government came forward, and stated, “We have been visited by an alien civilization for X number of years. UFO’s are real. Here is the proof. Now, I’d like to introduce you to Ambassador xzgriff from vrusdfer… nanu-nanu, I would accept that.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:09 am
@Michael L
I was observing a commercial plane as it passed over at (I would guess) cruising altitude when the aircraft passed the object (when it appeared stationary). You will notice of course I didn’t say anything about what I thought it was, I am interested in hearing thoughts from others based simply on the observation details of “An Object”. It may very well be a drone. Does it sound like the shape a behavior of any drones you are familiar with? I didn’t mention speed when it moved, I made some estimation on speed but without knowing the distance it was from me in comparison to passing commercial aircraft there were too many unknowns to be comfortable with a guess. I also tried to rule out foreground objects (e.g. birds, bugs, and so on) by observing an area at the same focus while local animal life flew in the foreground. None was comparable to the object so they were ruled out.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Okay, I’ll bite.
Alan Haggard: “It should also be noted that NASA has witnessed UFO’s on various occasions. If you listen to recordings of NASA transmissions regarding UFO’s, you’ll hear astronauts accidentally mention a “craft” or “bogey” before quickly being told to switch to an encrypted channel.”
Please provide documentation, including the determination of how you know the comm channel change is to an encrypted channel.
And let’s be very clear about this. NASA cannot witness a UFO, individual people can. The implication is that because someone is an employee of NASA he is either infallible or has unquestionable credibility. Astronauts are clearly the pinnacle of rationality and good judgement, right? (See: Lisa Nowak.)
November 26th, 2008 at 11:12 am
@Annette
Ha! Awesome.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Michael…..
I didn’t realize that there was that much interest in UFOs these days? I know that they’re currently big in the UK. Seems to me, at least by the number of new TV shows, that ghosts & Bigfoot are the new fascination? I have a difficult time accepting either subject, but on the other hand, cosmology is leading us into very strange waters, our concept of reality being questioned. Do wish we had completed the Supercolliding Super Collider (SSC) project, but perhaps LHD will give just enough?
November 26th, 2008 at 11:38 am
I don’t buy the argument that the US government would cover up UFOs and do nothing, so as to “not panic” the populace. Since when has the government covered up a unique threat, for that reason? Yeah, they cover it up when they mess up, themselves, like if they allow known Soviet aircraft to overfly the continental US. But you can believe that even if the public didn’t know about that, careers were ended over those events in the military, and they spent money to avoid it next time.
If UFOs were real, they would be at LEAST as high profile as the “terrorist threat”, or historically the “missile gap”, since when it comes down to it, the people hold the purse-strings, and ya gotta scare-em good to get lots of money for defense. AND the military needs to show something for the money, to validate the spending.
The military hiding a genuine threat, even from itself, is just poppycock.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:44 am
@Rocket:
I just went to Google Images, and Googled military drones. I won’t post a pic here because it will get caught up in the spam filter (Yes, Alan, even those of us that have been posting awhile still have posts caught in spam filter). Anyway, there are all types of shapes and sizes, with all kinds of abilities. Keep in mind, these are the images of drones we know about. Now, what could they be testing that we don’t know about?
November 26th, 2008 at 11:45 am
I sometimes watch some of the shows with evidence purporting to show UFOs. It always amazes me how little effort has been made to identify some of the “evidence.” There is one segment, taken during the day, of “UFOs maneuvering in front of distant mountains.” As soon as my wife and I saw it, we looked at each other and said “stunt kites!” Their motion when doing loops is very distinctive. I’ve seen this segment on at least two shows.
Clear, dark skies, free of wasted light, Alan
November 26th, 2008 at 11:49 am
By the way, folks, expecting evidence from someone who has a sighting is a little much. I wouldn’t trust anyone who claimed to have an experience and then could provide hard, scientific evidence. A hoax would probably better explain. And for someone to have a sighting and have a professional or at the very least, a high-end prosumer camera capable of stable images, in his or her hand at the same time is really stretching the odds. Lots more photos these days, but from low rez digitals, cell phones, etc. Nothing to be learned.
If the sighting, the event, is that extraordinary, I doubt that many would be cool & calm enough to go looking for a camera or others to show. My single experience was just that. Had a nice Nikon 35mm sitting in the camper, indeed, there were others in our fishing group who were asleep. Those of us who observed were pretty much frozen in place, not thinking much of anything except that we didn’t want to turn a away for fear that we’d miss even a second of it. That’s how it was for me and the others. No thoughts to grab a camera or seek more witnesses. I just wanted to watch. I’d sort of be suspicious of anyone who is confronted with an up-close event and could just walk away even for a moment. I’d think that person to be a believer, ready for the elusive UFOs. I didn’t give a hoot about the subject until after it happened, not before.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:56 am
I stand corrected, the CNN special on Aliens is on this week on American Morning. I just saw the one they did today. I think Miles O’Brien should stick to covering Space Shuttle launches.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:56 am
If you are able to cover the huge distances in the universe you must be quite clever.
Clever enough not to be seen if you do not want to be seen
Clever enough to land in Beijing, Mexico City, Tokyo or Groningen [:)] if you want to be seen.
You certainly are not that daft to stumble through our atmosphere in a glorified canoe. The Wright brothers had better equipment than some of the stuff these aliens have to work with.
You are also clever enough to understand the level of civilization on Earth.
You destroy, teach or ignore.
If someone brought this up I am sorry to repeat it but reading through all these posts is a bit tiresome.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Aliens have no interest in contacting humanity because humanity has absolutely nothing whatsoever to offer them. Totally not worth the bother.
Advanced aliens are probably hyperadvanced machines anyway. Who have nothing in common with emotional blobs of meat.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Rocket: Round, fuzzy object, seen thru Binocs., with no estimation of velocity,,,Hmmm,,Possible cloud that just evaporated???
Metre: I agree.
One of the geophysical analyses I’ve read proposes that active plate tectonics and a strong magnetic field in a rocky body(like earth) requires something to stir the mantle/core interface, in other words, it takes a large, nearby object, of sufficient mass, to provide gravitational drag on the mantle. That keeps the core convection active, due to continual mixing of heavy elements and continuing heat generation from the radioactives present in the core and the resultant generation of a significant planetary magnetic shield.
We have only this solar system as an example but that example provides us with only one such binary system,,the earth/moon system. I note that Pluto and Charon are another example of a binary system, but it’s composed of accumulated ice and snow form the outer system. I doubt such hard, rocky binaries are at all common, since the evidence we have indicates it was a collision between earth and a body of just the right size/mass and the exact angle of incidence, to propel enough mass into orbit to form the moon. Quite a concatenation of coincidences , eh?
I wonder what the odds might be for such an earth/large moon formation might be?
GAry 7
November 26th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
In my experience a credible observer most likely would not report a good sighting unless they thought they had nothing to lose. The issue I see with Phil’s statement is that amateur astronomers in many cases are very good at what they do and as knowledgeable as many professionals (the pros just write more papers). The effort is a constant struggle to achieve credibility and a single observation no matter how well recorded is just not verifiable. It seems to be ok to theories about the concept but anyone who is hoping to be taken seriously as a researcher, amateur or not will not gain acceptance by making non verifiable claims.
I expect most responses to my observation will be some kind of military craft but that is still an unknown till the observation can be tested comparatively. I don’t have any idea what it was. Maybe it was nothing but an optical affect in the binoculars. It is kind of fun to hope though.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
I’m a retired US Air Force Officer and currently a USAF Civilian scientist and engineer. I can’t offer explanations for all of the reports, but I do know that many of our classified aircraft and especially some of our autonomous munitions experiments (some of which were never implemented) could look like they defied Newtonian physics. Some of the radar screen anomalies were merely software issues.
I share Sagan’s dismay at never finding even the slightest evidence that we were not alone, and he dedicated most of his life searching for it, sometimes in collaboration with NASA. Some of us that are the absolutely the most skeptical have the greatest desire for some evidence that we are not alone.
I haven’t read all of these posts, but as a theorist I didn’t see any discussion of concepts alluding to breaches other than via the vastness of our space-time. UFOs (or just probes for that matter)could theoretically arrive and leave in and out of our space-time. So if you are stuck on thinking only 3-dimensionally, other life may not be geometrically very far from us…just on a different plane. NO, not a 2-dimensional plane.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
IF Aliens were to come down they would see how we treat our own people and then run to their ships and fly past neptune so fast it would tilt upright.
November 26th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Dear sir, Where did JESUS and MUHAMMID,ascend to in a phisical body. Thanks BILL
November 26th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Phil, thank you for taking my criticism and printing my previous post.
It is obvious that those that dismiss UFOs out of hand wthout investigation or insight are just being closed-minded and in outright denial about this issue. Governments have investigated this phenomena and all end-up with a percentage of cases that are beyond their ability to explain - by any of the ‘normal’ means at their disposal. The best the US Government could come up with was to state that these unexplainable UFOs were not a threat to US Security and therefore were no longer being studied. Well, that last part was really a statement for the sheeple to believe. Studies and Investiigations of this phenomena continue to this day. To those that do not believe that their Government would lie to them - I can only say open your eyes and wake up! Think WMD and Iraq for starters.
I would ask those, particularly the Americans on this site what they think of the Disclosure Project? I would also address this same question to you Phil. Particularly in connection with the dozens of credible witnesses with impressive backgrounds and credentials in US Services - Military, Navy, Army and Air Force, CIA and some large Aeronautic Corporations etc. concerning their disclosure evidence. These individuals are willing to give their evidence in Congress (given the chance) and under oath. I am not asking anyone’s opinion of Dr. Greer in this connection - just referring to the witnesses and their testimonies. You probably no doubt are already aware that these testimonials very strongly (overwhelmingly so) supports the notion that UFOs (as in the Extra Terrestrial type) exist and that this fact has indeed been suppressed and covered up by the “Powers that Be”. Some of these individuals had the highest possible security clearances available in the States and include high ranking personnel such as Generals, Admirals etc. Apparently there are some 400 of these ‘whistle blowers’ with many of them willing to testify in Congress and under oath to the fact that what they declare, is the truth.
Are these witnesses credible? Should their statements be believed? Is what they claim true? Or, do you believe that they are some kind of mistaken or confused nutcases?
Maybe they in fact possess more credibilty, knowledge, information and experience (in this area under discussion) than all the debunkers here put together! I would certainly think so!
I got no takers from the Deniers (that also cannot prove anything one way or the other) regarding my previous Post. I was a bit disappointed with that, considering the Blog I was writing on, but maybe they were just being easy and kind to a newcomer. Though I really doubt that that was the case!
Anyway, you all now have a second chance / opportunity to respond. This time to the above questions. Of course any responses will depend on the fact that those that are so sure of themselves and so quick to Deny this phenomena would have fulfilled the following criteria:- already have had the interest, taken the time and made the effort to educate themselves and listen to what these Disclosure Witnesses had to say on this subject!
November 26th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Rocket said,
Have you ever seen the Moon during the day, when its about half-full? Faint, but clearly visible with the naked eye, right? Have you ever seen Venus or Mercury during the day? Venus is, at certain times of the year, visible during the day, if you know where to look. Often, its not quite visible with the naked eye, but clearly visible with low-power binoculars. It would appear just as you describe, after sunrise or before sunset.
If you can tell us exactly what time and day you observed this object, exactly where you were located, exactly which direction and what angle above the horizon you were looking, and exactly what magnification your binoculars were, we can tell you for certain if the object you saw was a very bright star or planet. Without knowing most or all of this information, it will be sheer speculation as to what you saw.
It could have been Santa.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Mr. Considine,
I am an amateur astronomer and have done a fair amount of reading about UFOs. Quite some time ago, I ventured to hear one of the better known speakers talk about why we should believe UFOs are real and that we are being visited by aliens. His evidence was not convincing, but more distasteful was the way he verbally abused “skeptics.” Such an attitude makes reasonable discussion difficult. Although far more restrained, your use of the label “Denier” strikes me the same way. Often putting labels on people is just a simple way to make their viewpoints less worthy of consideration.
Clear skies, Alan
November 26th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
[…] Aliens? Yes. UFOs? No. - The Bad Astronomer weighs in. […]
November 26th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
John said,
Please provide the source of your claim. I’m not saying I don’t believe you, but this is exactly the type of comment that frustrates many people here. You make a claim with no proof and then cry foul when others immediately question your story.
Who are these “professional astronomers” and what did they see? Seeing as how I live here and don’t know what you’re talking about, I’m interested.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Kirk said,
Radar, photos and witnesses have been scientifically tested and proven to be unreliable sources for evidence. Concrete evidence for any extraterrestrial visitation will have to be in the form of a craft we can examine, a life form we can examine, materials such as metal or liquids we can examine, or better yet, all three, that we can test and confirm in independent studies. Until then, you’re believing in hoaxes.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
@ Alan Haggard,
You offer so much to work with, I don’t know if I have the time. I’ll keep it short…
You said,
Please provide us with the source(s) of this claim, and the proof that these “craft” are alien in origin.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Very good, Here are the details you asked for to my best recollection:
My Location: 117.6680 W, 34.4000 N
Time: Roughly 4:00 to 4:30 pacific (Don’t remember the day but it believe it was in June of this year) Twilight was around 7 pm give or take.
Approximate declination was about +50 degrees (I was facing North East, about the Az where the Pleiades rises right now)
At the time Venus should have been behind me (South West) during daylight.
Binocs were 7X35 w/ 6”30’ field
I would defiantly buy a planet (maybe not a star) if it were on the ecliptic, if it were close to twilight and if it hadn’t moved. Again I didn’t mention speed because of the limitations of my observation but if I were to (for the sake of argument) say it was at the same location of the plane I would guess the plane at cruising altitude would have been about 30,000 ft and traveling at about300 knots. If that is a reasonable estimate and the altitudes were the same the object would have been traveling easily 8 or so times faster. My assumption is that it was closer than the aircraft but I just don’t know. If it was Santa I wonder if he was heading for Mexico for the summer
November 26th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Sigh, I meant “Definitely” not “Defiantly”, stupid spell check.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
As a response to many of the UFO=Alien Life supporters here, I just want to reiterate what has been said on this blog over and over and over again:
Eyewitness testimony has been scientifically proven to be unreliable, even when the eyewitness is a trained professional in any field. Even Astronauts are human and can make mistakes, or errors in judgment.
Photographic and Video evidence has been scientifically proven to be unreliable. It can be altered, it can be forged, it can be tricked, and sometimes images and videos can simply create false data because of user or programming errors.
Radar has been scientifically proven to give false readings, generate false images, and is susceptible to interference. Radar technology has come a long way since the 50’s and 60’s when most of the UFO reports began, but it is still not 100% reliable in any UFO report.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
@Rocket,
Did you check the path for the Shuttle, ISS ir any other satellites for that date and time? They too are visible during the day with binoculars.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
A professional Astronomer might mention something in conversation like “hey I saw the strangest thing” but I don’t believe for a second that anybody that hopes to publish is going to go on record with out absolute repeatable results, at least none that I know.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I meant “or” not “ir.” Stupid fingers.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
@Greg
Yes But the object was stationary for some time as well, so that would rule out an orbiting object unless there was a phase angle thing going on or something. Maybe Phil can inject some tutelage on that subject.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Two “UFOs” I saw, both brighter than Venus and very impressive - one in bright twilight and one in fairly deep twilight - turned out the be weather balloons. The first one suddenly vanished, with a quick impression of a thread of light to the unaided eye. A lot of phone calls by my wife identified it as a probable weather balloon.
The second was confirmed with a telescope, and we could see balloon well and the instrument package below the balloon. It broke while we were watching, and we were able to watch shards of balloon fall for quite some time with the telescope.
We get quite a few “What did I see?” calls and e-mails. What they saw is often Venus, Sirius, or some other bright star down near the horizon. Some of the people are really interested in knowing what they saw, while others are only looking for confirmation that they saw something unusual. With the latter group it is almost impossible to convince them otherwise, but I always hope they will follow my advice to look again on the next clear night.
Clear skies, Alan
November 26th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Hmm… How large did the object appear in the field of view @7x? Without knowing for sure the size, altitude or distance of the object, its impossible to rule out any terrestrial object. It could have been a weather balloon that seemed stationary, but was much closer than the aircraft, and then moved with the air currents.
The ISS can take 5 or 6 minutes to pass across the sky, but I’ve never seen it appear stationary. Otherwise, we’d call it the International Stationary Station, or the International Space Stationary.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
< < Cheyenne Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 9:38 am
To anybody that thinks that little green men are coming here - you don’t understand the physics of space travel. For whatever advanced materials or engines or whatever they have developed they certainly haven’t developed ways to beat the speed of light or any other physical law. Space is way, way, way, one more way-too vast, space travel takes way too much energy and time- it’s not possible....>>
Cheyenne, that is a typical type of statement made by people that that fail to use their imagination and confine themselves to what they want to believe and to what they know - not to the possibilities that may be available under other circumstances. It is similar to other such statemnets one hearsuch as - ‘it is against the Laws of Nature’ and so on. Who actually knows all the Laws of Nature to be able to make such a ridiculous statement. Something may be against the Laws as they are known or that are known - but not what is yet to be discovered.
< < For whatever advanced materials or engines or whatever they have developed they certainly haven’t developed ways to beat the speed of light or any other physical law >>
How can you actually seriously say that? How do you know this for a fact? You should read Schrodinger’s Kittens - Matter may possibly be able to be in two places at the same time etc.
What is wrong with what you say! Well, first of all you severely limit yourself and what you allow yourself to be open to. In doing so and making such claims, you may influence others to think as you do. How so? Just by what you say. For example, some scientists now believe that it may be possible to bend time and space - travel-wise. They say that this could possibly be done (long space journies undertaken in a fraction of the normal time) by bending space. Don’t ask me how, but the theory is described by comparing a long piece of cord (whatever) laid out flat with A being one end and B the other. Now, using the speed of light example and considering the distances from A to B in light years it would indeed take a very long time to get from A to B . However, if what they speculate turns out to be possible, the suggestion is that the travel time could be vastly reduced by bending the cord (Space) and bringing the two ends up nearly to meet each other. So that getting from A to B would not be the impossible journey in time it was previously considered to be nor the only option of getting there. One now had a short cut! Yes, science fiction at present to us mere mortals, but still something to think about and in so doing it opens up a whole new perspective on Space travel possibilities. Sometimes one hears this argument being used to explain how ” Aliens” UFOs can do all this travelling - all conjecture of course, but still…. Another possibilty being suggested is that there could be Worm Holes in Space. So, really we do not know. Nor do we know what could be realistically possible for some far more advanced civilisation than ours - if there is one! We really are self-limiting thinking and imagination-wise,when we agree to confine ourselves only to what is already known and acceptable and not to what may be possible to achieve in the future.
Over the years I have heard renowned Astronomers and Scientists making statements such as - ‘ no life could live there’ referring to certain planets or parts of Space and this never ceased to annoy me. Why, you may well wonder: Well, it was because they would never add or include the words “Life as we know it”. They automatically restricted their thinking to what they knew and not to what they did not know and in so doing ruled out the possibility of other forms of life - distinct from ours i.e. Not as they knew it. Chances are, that could very well be the case. Reminds me of what Scientists had to say at the time about the possibility of manned flight - Of course they said it was impossible, but….. Well, more recently have Scientists not stated that it was impossible that Bumble Bees should fly. No one ever logically explained this fact to our little friends and off they took regardless. Of course Scientists are not Bumble Bees - are they!
November 26th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
“Well, more recently have Scientists not stated that it was impossible that Bumble Bees should fly.”
No. Neither Scientists (capital S apparently signifying the big, bad, group of conformist thinkers that never, ever, question the status quo) nor scientists have ever stated that bumblebees can’t fly.
Please, can this hackneyed canard be dropped? Forever? Starting now?
What was stated is that if you do a quick calculation by using an approximation valid for non-twisting wing aerodynamics, there is not enough lift to account for bumblebee flight. This shows that the approximation is not good enough, not that Scientists (capital S again) blindly jump to the conclusion that bumblebees can’t fly.
November 26th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
< < Greg in Austin Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
As a response to many of the UFO=Alien Life supporters here, I just want to reiterate what has been said on this blog over and over and over again:
Eyewitness testimony has been scientifically proven to be unreliable.........
Photographic and Video evidence has been scientifically proven to be unreliable. It can be altered, it can be forged...............
Radar has been scientifically proven to give false readings, generate false images, and is susceptible to interference.................>>
I have an open mind regarding UFOs and whether they originate outside this planet, but I am certainly very curious as to their origin. And Yes, I am referring to the cases that cannot be explained or discarded by any normal scientific or natural means. Having said that, I would be more swayed towards the argument / possibilty that they represent some strange phenomena either earthly but yet undiscovered, alien, extra dimensional or from the future. Maybe that puts me into an even worse category as far as you are concerned.
Anyway, that as it may be and to get back to what you wrote. If one were to accept without question that what you say is true and acceptable in all cases concerning evidence (which I would be inclined not to believe), I have the following questions for you.
1. If one had a number of credible witnesses all (more or less) reporting the same sighting - what would you say about their evidence?
2. If you had these same witnesses reporting the same phenomena and this included photos / video of the object/s what would you say of their evidence?
3. If you had all of the above plus radar reading supporting these witnesses - what would you say of their evidence?
4. At what step of the above 3 options would you accept the evidence given as being factual. ie. True?
November 26th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Rory: Your reference to Shrodingers kittens(should be CAT) is mistaken. It has NOTHING to do with bi-location(being in two places at the same time). It was an example of how rediculous was the idea that reality could be in two different STATES at the same time. Shrodinger was trying to be sarcastic,,,unfortunately, most folk really didn’t understand that and ended up misquoting him,,,over and over and over and,,,
Gary 7
November 26th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Rory Considine said,
How ironic, because soon after, Rory also said,
November 26th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Timothy from Boulder Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
< < No. Neither Scientists (capital S apparently signifying the big, bad, group of conformist thinkers that never, ever, question the status quo) nor scientists have ever stated that bumblebees can’t fly.
>>
You obviously did not read what I wrote correctly, even though you cut and pasted it in your reply. I did not say that Scientists ever stated that Bumble Bees “can’t” fly. By reading again what I actually said you should be able to distinguish the difference in meaning:-
“Well, more recently have Scientists not stated that it was impossible that Bumble Bees should fly”
You also should not be so quick with your judgements, jumping to wrong conclusions as you did when you wrote:-
< <...Scientists (capital S apparently signifying the big, bad, group of conformist thinkers that never, ever, question the status quo)....>>
I have great respect for Science and for the majority of Scientists and their work. If you had been applying an illogical judgement to the finish, you should really have added:-
‘ (capital Bs apparently signifying the big, bad, group of ………….)’
as I also wrote in capitals:-
“……Bumble Bees should fly”
November 26th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
GAry 7:
I concur that having a large moon may play an important role in helping life flourish. In addition to helping sustain our protective magnetic field, the moon also stabilizes our axis of rotation keeping the seasons constant; and its tidal effect has slowed earth’s rotation from 10 hours to 24 hours. Without these effects, the climate on earth would be much more extreme and variable. Life may still exist, but it would exist only in limited protected niches and we would not have experienced the diversity of life we have seen on earth. Complex items like big brains need lots of evolutionary time and experimentation to develop. And for that to happen, you need a planet where life flourishes and is not constrained to a few protected niches. So while life may be common (still a speculation itself) in the universe at large, planets where life can flourish - earth like planets in the goldilock’s zone AND with a large moon AND a protective magnetic field - may be very, very rare. Claws, teeth and other features are easier to develop than big brains and have proven adequate in helping most species survive. That is why I think that intelligent life is probably very rare in the universe, and it explains why the SETI searches have come up empty.
November 26th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
@ Rory,
Great questions!
1. If one had a number of credible witnesses all (more or less) reporting the same sighting - what would you say about their evidence? I would say google eyewitness memory testimony for a huge amount of psychological studies on the matter, and then I would give the same answer I did before.
2. If you had these same witnesses reporting the same phenomena and this included photos / video of the object/s what would you say of their evidence? Since the first part of this question was answered in #1, that only leaves the validity of photographic and video graphic evidence. Same answer as before.
3. If you had all of the above plus radar reading supporting these witnesses - what would you say of their evidence? Same as before.
4. At what step of the above 3 options would you accept the evidence given as being factual. ie. True? Probably none.
In order for something to be scientifically factual, it has to be something we can test and measure and repeat with independently verified studies.
For example, if Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer claims that you can stand an egg on end at any time of the year, I don’t believe him just because of who he is. I can repeat that test myself, in my own kitchen, and verify his conclusion. And not only can I do it, but so can you, and so can thousands of others. That’s what makes it a scientific fact. That is how science works.
Let’s take another example. Say you have a photo of an airplane: a Boeing 747. We all know 747’s exist. Many people here have seen one up close and have been on one. Now, can you really say, with certainty, that your photo of a Boeing 747 is of a real actual plane, or if its just a model? Or is it CGI? Did you really take the picture, or did someone else? Is the craft in your picture really made of aluminum, or is it plastic? Say in your picture, you are standing right next to it, and touching the wheel. Can you say with certainty that its really you in the picture, or a cardboard cutout? In order to verify your claim that it is really you, standing next to a 747, and touching the wheel, what could we do? We can repeat the scenario and take another picture, then compare that picture to the original. Then I can go stand next to and touch the 747, and so could thousands of other people.
Does that make sense?
November 26th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Anyone ready to prove to me, after I’m dead, that all of you exist, that any sort of existance exists, that perceived reality exists? I’ll ake arrangements to turn over my house & bank accounts to the first person who ca do this. How about giving me a scientific method I can use, once dead, to prove that I once existed, had a past and that all of you existed? How will science help me? How is the evidence collected and presented?
November 26th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Greg in Austin Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
< < ....In this example, Rory is “open to” hearsay and anecdotal evidence, and has not researched the validity of this claim. If Rory had done just 10 minutes of “research” he would have discovered that indeed, no scientist had ever made such a claim. Instead, he was influenced by something he heard because he wanted to believe it. >>
Wow! How normal! Neither of you addressed either of the previous two posts I had written concerning UFOs, which this blog is about, nor did you address or answer any of the questions I raised or asked. Good one, you would prefer to stick to Bees, did a little Googling and came right to the attack over a minor part of a much longer post.
Fine, no problem with that! Now please show me the part I wrote that was invalid and that incurred this groundless and needless rebuke of yours. I generally take care of how I word things (and of course I can like everyone else be wrong on ocassions). So, now Greg in Austin that I touched a nerve on, please point out to me what I said that was invalid and show that I did not do my homework etc. Of course when you do this and prove your case I will immediately acknowledge my mistake and withdraw the offending reference to Scientists and Bumble Bees. It is always better to clear these differences up at an early stage. - no!
In the meantime the following may be of interest concerning our Bumbly friends and science Though you must bear in mind that nowhere did I state that Scientists claimed that BBs “can’t” fly. That would be a ridiculously contradictory thing for anyone to say when they can witness the Bees flight:-
[Some light has been shed on the origin of the bumblebee myth by author and aerodynamicist J.H. McMasters. (Zetie, �96) He states that it all started in German technical universities in the 1930�s. Apparently, a famous and unnamed Swiss aerodynamics expert was having dinner with a biologist when the latter asked a question regarding the flying abilities of bees. A preliminary calculation showed that there was insufficient lift to allow bees to fly. Only about one third to one half of the required lift could be generated. The biologist started spreading the word about scientific �proof� that bees can�t fly and somehow the media got hold of the information. Today, decades later it is a ubiquitous myth that is rarely questioned and is often used to disparage science. The implication, of course, is that if �science� (as an abstract entity) claims that bumblebees cannot fly, when they clearly do fly, then �science� is bunk. The findings of science can therefore be comfortably disregarded as esoteric and irrelevant…………..
When science �proved� that insects can�t fly the only thing it really proved was that insects with smooth and rigid wings could not glide (Zetie, �96). Experiments have actually been carried out demonstrating that this is indeed true. Clearly, conventional aerodynamics was not formulated to account for small insects with a small wing size. Once this was recognized, however, research began uncovering startling new aerodynamic oddities of insect flight that produce previously unknown sources of lift.
One of the most significant discoveries involves the rotation of the wings during flight. Michael Dickinson of the University of California discovered in his studies of flying insects that their brains were inordinately concerned with the minutiae of wing rotations. Hoping to reveal new insights into aerodynamic lift, Dickinson took a close look at wing rotations and noticed that it primarily occurred at the end of each wing stroke. To further analyze his findings he created a scaled-up version of a fruit fly�s wings. To simulate the viscosity of air from the fly�s point of view Dickinson placed his robotic wings in mineral oil and flapped them slowly. Using sensors attached to his robotic wing he determined that by precisely timing the rotation of its wing, bees could generate 35% extra lift. What Dickinson and other scientists have discovered is that precise wing rotations at the end of a stroke causes the vortices of air on the wings to increase their speed thereby increasing lift…………]
http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=41
November 26th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
@Rory,
You also said,
On the contrary, as weird as it seems, I am not opposed to the possibility of time or inter-dimensional travel. I not really opposed to the possibility that aliens are visiting Earth right now. But my question would still be the same: Where is the evidence?
I watch and read as much sci-fi as the next guy. It is fun entertainment. But its not real. The facts are, we have no evidence of alien existence anywhere in the universe yet, and certainly no evidence of aliens traveling here. I’d be thrilled to see it, but its not here.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Greg in Austin Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
< < Does that make sense? >>
Well it partly does. If the 2nd operation of repeating the first operation proves it to be true (because it was repeated or repeatable), it still actually means that the first operation was correct and true in the first instance! Unfortunately not everything in this world can be confined to labority type situations and proofs nor do they all lend themselves to these types of tests. - though it would be great if they could. Can I think of any examples at the moment…… not really besides the obvious concerning telepathy telekinesis (paramormal subjects) and those to do with the mind etc. Is there not a whole range of subjects that Science cannot (at the moment) reproduce and repeat laboratory-wise that conclusions are based on solely study and research of other types - say for example, with geology and the past. How certain events and results took place. Is not Astronomy an even more obvious place to look - where I am sure most scientific discoveries and claims are based on reaching conclusions from what is already known but cannot be proven by repeated results. Have not some scientific claims and ‘discoveries’ not changed or altered over the centuries.
Interesting subject. Also what you were saying concerning the witnesses, photos etc. though as I said I do not go along completely with your take on it. Of course witnesses can be wrong, images interferred with etc. but your arguments would end the court cases if followed to the end. So where does that leave us regarding NASA’s photos of Mars and the Moon and what they say - we are not to believe a word out of their mouths or what they produce - if we followed the argument you make! Now please don’t just say that some witnesses, photos etc are more reliable than others (which of course they are), as that will nullify your previous claim.
Getting tired now - well passed my bedtime.
November 26th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Greg in Austin……
The evidence, to some, is the experience. How one would collect evidence to such an extraordinary event is beyond me and a rather unfair imposition to place upon someone who stumbles into an “event.”
For those who want to jam their sighting down someone’s throat well your point is valid, but for the rest of us who don’t report or go into detail over what happened, don’t look to make a dime or acquire fame, do TV & radio interviews, well…..we have no need or compulsion to provide evidence. We have all we need to have some additional knowledge and can be comfortable in our own skin.
As I’ve posted before, present me with evidence, after I’m dead, that you exist, that I existed, that there is a reality.
I’m rather amazed at many comments in here that tend to ignore M-Theory, the closing in on just what perceived reality may be. Many mysteries may soon be explained so are we to ignore out of fear or accept the possibilities that all that we dream is in play?
Certainly, the vast majority of skeptics apply human logic to how an alien might think. Why is that? And if visitations are from a potential multiverse, another dimension, all bets are off, the laws of physics out the proverbial window……….
November 26th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Wade:
That argument didn’t work for the Solipsists of ancient Athens and it STILL is nonsense.As a famous someone(me) said, “Ya can’t prove anything to a dead man: but they sure are peaceable.”
Reality is what it is. It DOESN”T depend upon us to make it happen, which is what Shrodinger was trying to say with his cat experiment. The cat is NOT both dead and alive at the same time: it’s one or the other. The only uncertainty involved in that application of quantum omechanics is the uncertainty of OUR state of knowledge.
Thus, to prove I exist, all I have to do is punch someone in the nose:unles, of course, they’re a masochist,,,
Gary 7
November 26th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Gary Ansorge Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
< < Rory: Your reference to Shrodingers kittens(should be CAT) is mistaken. It has NOTHING to do with bi-location(being in two places at the same time). It was an example of how rediculous was the idea that reality could be in two different STATES at the same time. Shrodinger was trying to be sarcastic,,,unfortunately, most folk really didn’t understand that and ended up misquoting him,,,over and over and over and,,,>>
No Gary, I think that my reference was correct. I read “In search for Schrodinger’s Cat.” explaining the mystery of light. My reference was to the sequel by John Gribben - “Schrodinger’s Kittens” which I also have read. Now I think after your post that I will have to revisit this book again because after all, Cat is singular and Kittens are plural. The two kittens were the ones in differnt boxes and I was referring to them. Have you read this follow-up?
However, I must admit that I did find these two books heavy going at times and I imagine that little will have changed when I read the sequel again, or the part that I was referring to. When I do, I hope to be able to concur with you or restate what I will have read. There are lots of mysteries I imagine concerning quantum physics which have yet to be discovered. The theories of Quantum physicsI understand run counter to common sense - no! They are still little being grappled with by Scientists - so who really knows at the moment.
Thanks for reply
November 26th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Gary….
You are correct in how you prove your own existance to yourself, your little slice of time & space, well, I’d certainly like to think so, but you’d not exist in the state of reality or non-reality that I’d be in if one of us were dead, the other alive.
My point is not to deny that you exist within your own reality, your dimension/space, when I die, but that once dead, I am incapable of perceiving your existance or that I existed or that there was an I or a me to continue the argument. You will exist because that’s what you perceive, but you’ll not be able to convince me of that fact once I’ve passed.
I have a sense that as the concept of reality is rewritten and supported by M-Theory, the analogy of life v death
November 26th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Sorry……Messed up somewhere…..Probably in an alternate reality?
I have a sense that as the concept of reality is rewritten and supported by M-Theory, the analogy of life v death will one day be a comparison of multiverses/dimensions. Belief in the beyond may be far more than just an inborn protective device to ease our fears of death.
November 26th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Gary….
“Thus, to prove I exist, all I have to do is punch someone in the nose:unles, of course, they’re a masochist,,,”
After I’m gone, can you prove to me, a “me” that does not exist, present evidence that you punched “someone in the nose?”
November 26th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
@Rory,
Again, great questions. I think you’re beginning to think like a scientist. (Please don’t be offended!)
Paranormal and supernatural events are also not supported by science. Its not that science wants to disprove any such events, its just that those types of events have never been proven as fact by the scientific method. Gravity, electricity, evolution, erosion, evaporation, thermodynamics, magnetism, etc. have all been rigorously tested over and over again, and are taken as fact.
Not really. In all areas of science, not just geology and astronomy, there are unanswered questions. The answers are found by making predictions, performing experiments, gathering data, and analyzing the results. Sometimes the results show the prediction was wrong, sometimes they show the prediction was correct. Very often, the results answer the question but bring up 10 more. Also, the experiments may take a long period of time (months, years, decades) to reach a conclusion, and can even contradict previous conclusions. That’s OK, its part of the process.
Another great question. What do you think? If the scientific claims are found by following the process, then I’d say some have not changed because when we test them, we get the same results. Others change often, as new data is discovered.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Greg in Austin……
There is nothing that is paranormal or supernatural when it comes to UFO sightings or alien visitations. Ghosts & religious beliefs do fall into the catagory as they seemingly defy our physical laws as we know them, but aliens? Absolutely not! And I’m sure that you’re aware that there are scientists who have said that they’d be more surprised if we weren’t visited.
In what way would an alien civilization defy our physical laws, our concept of reality? Name one…….Of course, you could make a minor case by applying human logic to the development & motivations of an alien culture, but why? How can anyone speculate on the age-old “landing on the White House lawn” argument or why they can’t go undetected? How do we know if they are capable of masking themselves or why they’d even want to?
Very doubtful that our “scientific method” would apply to the detection of alien visitations.
November 26th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I was with the author of this article until I reached: “And who spends lots of time looking up?
Amateur astronomers, of course. They are dedicated observers, out every night peering at the sky. If The Truth Is Out There, then amateur astronomers would be reporting far and away the vast majority of UFOs. But they don’t. Why not? Because they understand the sky!”
The fact is, astronomers spend most of their time looking through telescopes at a distant, tiny section of the sky. They’d be unlikely to see an alien spaceship if it flew right over their house, or their observatory. But even having said that, it is not true that amateur astronomers don’t report seeing UFOs. I have several friends who are avid amateur astronomers and between them they have witnessed several UFOs for which they can only account in terms of extraterrestrial spacecraft. And they are familiar with all the usual aerial phenomena - from venus to ball lightning - that can be mistaken for “flying saucers”.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
I guess I could say I believe in both.
Do I believe aliens exist? Well given the vastness of the universe, I gotta think there’s SOMEBODY else out there.
As for UFO’s? While I don’t go “They’re aliens!” I certainly believe there are some unexplained phenomena out there. I’ve seen a few weird things myself.
Could they be alien spacecraft? Sure, they COULD.
But I think it much more likely they’re some unexplained atmospheric phenomena or some optical trick of the light. I’ll believe any of those LONG BEFORE I’ll go to “little green men from Mars”
November 26th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Rocket,
my guess is a weather balloon. The following webpage has a sequence of images that fits your observation pretty well. This one explodes too but the initial image sounds like what you described.
www.srh.noaa.gov/srh/srnews/stories/2006/balloon.htm
November 26th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
@Wade,
I totally agree. No matter how they get here (warp drive, wormhole, magic toaster), once they are here, they must obey the laws of physics as we know them. If they are here physically, they must leave physical evidence. Footprints, equipment, ships, DNA, hair, skin cells, etc. If they are flying around, there are laws of thermodynamics and fluid dynamics that dictate how fast an object can move thru our atmosphere. Unless you have proof of their alien technology (and you’d have to show your work) any speculation as to how they move around is just that: speculation.
The scientific method does indeed, and must, apply.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
It’s becoming increasingly evident I’m the only commenter dumb enough to mistake the moon for an alien spacecraft.
Is that depressing or what?
November 26th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Your arguments are not logical.
Show me one person who thinks aliens are visiting us because “there’s no way that there could be that many reports if some of them weren’t real!” I know of none. I have never heard that argument. My argument is, non-humans are visiting people because sane, rational, non-hypnotized people are reporting that non-humans are visiting them. Why don’t you look at Budd Hopkins SIX THOUSAND individual case reports over the last twenty-three years? The case studies average about fifty pages each. Too much to investigate? Tell me about it. http://www.intrudersfoundation.org
You are wrong about amateur astronomers. Your killer argument is not even a good argument. It assumes that amateur astronomers AS A CLASS have more better observations than EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD AS A CLASS. There are quite a few amateur astronomers looking in the sky, but the ratio of amateur astronomers to NON-AMATEUR ASTRONOMERS is extremely low. Stating it another way: for the sake of argument let’s say 10 out of every 10,000 people (one percent) in the world is an amateur astronomer. Now it is not correct to say that amateur astronomers are ALWAYS looking in the sky, but the number that do is very high, say 90% of the time. And it is not correct to say that NON-amateur astronomers never look in the sky, but the number that do is very low, say 10%. So 90% of 10 is 9, but 10% of 9990 is 999! And if, as you say, non-amateur astronomers tend to have less reliable observations than amateur astronomers, we might estimate that only 1 out of 100 NON-amateur astronomers has a reliable observation. That STILL leaves 10 (actually 9.9 but I rounded up) NON-amateur astromoners observations to 9 amateur astromoners observations. So even if I stack the deck on the side of the amateur astronomer, it is still more likely that NON-amateur astronomers would spot more true unknowns than the amateur astronomers would. In the real world, I don’t think untrained observers are as stupid as Phil does.
November 27th, 2008 at 1:54 am
Greg in Austin: “Once they are here, they must obey the laws of physics as we know them.” Why can’t they obey the laws of physics as THEY know them? Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, or so says Clarke’s Third Law (may he rest in peace). You don’t yet understand the wisdom of Albert Einstein: “Imagination is more important than knowledge.”
November 27th, 2008 at 2:06 am
Greg in Austin: “They must leave physical evidence. Footprints, equipment, ships, DNA, hair, skin cells, etc.” Guess what? They DO leave evidence in some cases, though they seem to be very good at not leaving evidence that humans can detect. There are tons of photos of landing sites, backed up by witness testimony. Talk to Dr. Roger Leir about it. He has 15 or so tiny objects that have very odd properties, and are clearly manufactured, but no one is owning up to them. The people that had those objects in their bodies say they were put there by non-human during abductions. It is irrational and illogical to ignore this testimony, and the physical evidence that follows from it. http://www.alienscalpel.com
“The scientific method does indeed, and must, apply.” But in the search for the truth, scientific evidence is not the ONLY evidence there is. There is much good evidence that is NOT scientific. In totality, ALL the evidence points conclusively to a non-human presence, here, now.
November 27th, 2008 at 2:07 am
Greg “They must leave physical evidence. Footprints, equipment, ships, DNA, hair, skin cells, etc.” Guess what? They DO leave evidence in some cases, though they seem to be very good at not leaving evidence that humans can detect. There are tons of photos of landing sites, backed up by witness testimony. Talk to Dr. Roger Leir about it. He has 15 or so tiny objects that have very odd properties, and are clearly manufactured, but no one is owning up to them. The people that had those objects in their bodies say they were put there by non-human during abductions. It is irrational and illogical to ignore this testimony, and the physical evidence that follows from it. http://www.alienscalpel.com
“The scientific method does indeed, and must, apply.” But in the search for the truth, scientific evidence is not the ONLY evidence there is. There is much good evidence that is NOT scientific. In totality, ALL the evidence points conclusively to a non-human presence, here, now.
November 27th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Kirk said:
I googled Belgium UFO as you suggested, and found several interesting sites. One of them (third from top) was written by someone who interviewed the pilot of one of the F-16s that was scrambled in that incident. Here’s the relevant paragraph from his essay:
(SOBEPS is the Belgian UFO believers organisation that made such a big deal of the sightings)
The SOBEPS-published report was heavily criticised by a group of Belgian scientists who examined it. Again, from this essay:
(”This physicist” refers to long-time SOBEPS member Professor Meessen, author of the report).
Is this really one of the best-documented UFO sightings?
What a crock.
Anyone who believes we are being visited is, to use Kirk’s vernacular, dumber than a box of rocks.
November 27th, 2008 at 3:30 am
Rocket said:
I haven’t read through the comments to see if anyone else has replied, but my guess is lens flare inside the binocs. Otherwise, how could they not resolve (by which I assume you mean focus on) a “distant” object?
November 27th, 2008 at 5:09 am
Annette said:
This is utterly irrelevant, because no-one in the 13th century had an understanding of the laws of physics. Whereas, by contrast, we know quite a lot.
But irrespective of how advanced your technology is, you still have to obey the laws of physics, which makes interstellar travel hard.
And you seem to have missed my point. While we cannot “prove” it, we can make an extremely strong case, based on what we already know, that UFOs are almost certainly not alien spaceships.
In the absence of complete knowledge, it is reasonable and logical to draw conclusions from what is known. Whereas you seem to be saying that the jury is out and will be out until one side or the other is conclusively proved. Logical positivism, while philosophically sound, has never been very useful.
November 27th, 2008 at 5:20 am
Rocket said:
But actually, pretty much all amateur astronomers have a day-job that is nothing to do with astronomy (or are retired). So, tell us what you think they have to lose.
Also, a non-trivial proportion of amateur astronomers (probably about 5 - 10%) spend a significant amount of time outdoors at night with a pretty decent camera attached to a telescope. If they saw a UFO, you can bet they would photograph it. And these guys know how to take good pics of distant objects (unless the objects are moving very fast).
So I don’t buy your “amateur astronomers see UFOs but don’t report them because they would lose credibility” hypothesis.
November 27th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Rory Considine said:
As you will notice if you actually read what people have said, of course UFOs exist. All they are is things in the sky that the observer could not identify. This does not constitute evidence for alien spaceships.
What? Where?
If there are “thousands” of UFO sightings that cannot be explained by reference to known phenomena, perhaps you’d care to supply a list of the top 100.
Basically, put up or shut up.
November 27th, 2008 at 5:38 am
Rory Considine said:
Please notice, Rory, that you are behaving like a typical Believer.
You seem to refuse to accept that we actually do know quite a lot about how the universe works.
Even if our present theories are wrong or incomplete (e.g. compare general relativity with quantum mechanics), they are at the very worst pretty good approximations of how the universe works. Otherwise we would not have seen such overwhelmingly close agreement between observation and theory.
It does not matter how advanced your technology, interstellar travel is hard. If you think that technologies can one day be invented to make it easy, you are fooling yourself.
November 27th, 2008 at 5:44 am
Rory Considine said:
Oh, God, not this old chestnut again.
First of all, no scientist has ever claimed that bumblebees cannot fly.
Second, for a long time it was a joke among aerodynamics engineers that bumblebees “couldn’t” fly - if you assessed their aerodynamic properties using the equations for fixed-wing aircraft. (Note for the clueless: bumblebees are not fixed-wing aircraft.)
Third, do you really, honestly believe that any scientist or engineer would seriously claim that a thing that so obviously does fly can’t?
November 27th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Rory Considine said:
So, Rory, what does this demonstrate, other than your inability to write good English?
Incidentally, your statement about the bumblebees:
can be re-written without changing its meaning, thus:
“…haven’t scientists stated that it is impossible that bumblebees should fly,”
This carries the obvious implication that you believe that scientists have claimed that bumblebees can’t fly. So, before you criticise others for failing to understand what you have written, perhaps you whould examine what you have written more closely first…?
November 27th, 2008 at 5:53 am
Wade said:
But I don’t believe you really exist.
November 27th, 2008 at 5:57 am
Wade said:
In this case, do not expect anyone to believe you.
November 27th, 2008 at 6:25 am
Alan French Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Mr. Considine,
< < I am an amateur astronomer and have done a fair amount of reading about UFOs. Quite some time ago, I ventured to hear one of the better known speakers talk about why we should believe UFOs are real and that we are being visited by aliens. His evidence was not convincing, but more distasteful was the way he verbally abused “skeptics.” Such an attitude makes reasonable discussion difficult. Although far more restrained, your use of the label “Denier” strikes me the same way. Often putting labels on people is just a simple way to make their viewpoints less worthy of consideration. >>
Hi Alan!I understand what you are saying and take your point.
However, imagine the following scen:- You and a number of fellow amateur astronomers reported seeing something strange and on a number of ocassions. Let’s say that you had conferred and discovered that your sightings were all similar and you even had some photos to prove (to your own satisfaction) what you had seen. Now you happen to mention this to others and they (some that do not wish to entertain the possibility your sightings suggest) tell you that were mistaken, wrong, imagining, drinking etc. etc. Now they may even charge that the photos are fake, that you are a bunch of weirdos and that it is all just a big hoax. So, a very large question mark is placed over your own credibility and your standing in your community and amongst your peers is eroded. Needless to say, you would be annoyed, maybe angry and probably sorry for ever mentioning what you had seen in the first place. If you were more than convinced that what you saw was an unexplainable UFO you might even join an interested group in studying this phenomena. Whatever, you might decide in the circumstances, I suggest that you would look on the aforementioned debunkers / naysayers as outright deniers. That is exactly what they would be with regard to what you knew you had seen, understood and shared with your fellow astronomers.
I am not referring to parties or individuals that would have enquired, maybe studied or have tried to understand and explain your experience. I am referring to the many ignorant deniers that deny outright without knowledge or investigation the experiences that many have had. There are Deniers in all walks of life, not just in this particular subject. Debating or discussing something intelligently and still disagreeing with the opposing view is not the type of individuals that I was referring to. I refer to the people that do not let discussion or debate arise - the ones that Know, are so sure of themselevs and really do not have to hear what you have to say nor or they interested in whatever your evidence might be. This might only irritate or upset their narrow minded view on whatever the subject is to which they hold their rightious opinion - set for many in concrete.
If you (as you have) or anyone else had taken an interest in this subjest and read some of the available papers etc. and still felt that UFOs as in ETs do not exist on the evidence that you have so far seen - that is fine. Many of us are probably in and out of that boat at various times . I certainly would not describe you and such people as deniers. Disbelievers maybe, but I think you see the difference. So no offence meant to any of the open-minded disbelievers that may have read something different into what I wrote.
Regards
November 27th, 2008 at 6:34 am
This is pointless, you’re going round and round in circles. Stop wasting time in trying to convince a sceptic of a sighting, they will never believe. Just let them find out in their own way when they see a huge craft over their heads.
November 27th, 2008 at 6:54 am
I am reluctant to get into UFO debates on the net, they often degenerate into slanging matches but after a cursory search on the net I found an article that I think is kind of relevant to Phil’s argument that ‘UFO’s should be seen by astronomers’ Here’s a link: http://www.bufora.org.uk/Articles/Astronomers_and_UFOs.pdf
hope this gets through the filters, my last post on another thread where I provided a link was deleted…(dons tin foil hat, gets ready to use full caps)…..ITS A CONSPIRACY!!! IV’E BEEN CENCORED!!!! PHIL WORKS FOR THE CIA/ NRO/NSA!!!!!……oh wait, is it really that bad?….maybe it’s time to turn off the computer, I wonder what it’s like outside?
November 27th, 2008 at 7:03 am
Oh wait….the CENSORED!!!!! post I submited on another thread has just appeared, after being moderated, just goes to show that it was a true conspiracy against me, insomuch that there was really nothing to it but my own fevered imagination.
November 27th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Nigel Depledge Says:
November 27th, 2008 at 5:51 am
< < So, Rory, what does this demonstrate, other than your inability to write good English?
Incidentally, your statement about the bumblebees:
…have Scientists not stated that it was impossible that Bumble Bees should fly
can be re-written without changing its meaning, thus:
“…haven’t scientists stated that it is impossible that bumblebees should fly,”
This carries the obvious implication that you believe that scientists have claimed that bumblebees can’t fly. So, before you criticise others for failing to understand what you have written, perhaps you whould examine what you have written more closely first…>>
Nigel get off the soap box! Just admit it! You got it wrong and misquoted me. I know what I said and what you imagine I was inferring is neither here nor there. If you wanted to go further and read something else into my sentence you could also say that it was an actual question - waiting for confirmation:-
“…haven’t scientists stated that it is impossible that bumblebees should fly,”
The point of the matter is that I never said nor did I imply anywhere that - Scientistists said that bumble bees “can”t fly. That was your point in replying and what you imagined you were responding to.
It is amazing when one turns on the spotlight and turns off the floodlight how much more escapes one’s vision. So, stop digging a hole for yourself. I did not say, did not mean, nor did I infer what you have claimed - end of story!
November 27th, 2008 at 7:20 am
Rory Considine Says, in part:
November 27th, 2008 at 6:25 am
>>Hi Alan!I understand what you are saying and take your point.
However, imagine the following scen:- You and a number of fellow amateur astronomers reported seeing something strange and on a number of ocassions. <<
Thank you. I made that comment elsewhere recently, and only got more of the same, so I do appreciate that.
I’ve been enjoying the night sky since the early 1960s, and have seen a lot of interesting things in my nights under the sky. I haven’t yet seen anything that could not be explained.
My interest in UFOs in my younger days got me reading every book I could find. None of these books were by skeptics, nor did I see any skeptical articles in those days. Every offer of “proof” just came up very short, and eventually I decided there just wasn’t evidence for such claims. Various shows on television in recent year haven’t done anything to improve the matter, often containing segments that have fairly obvious explanations (I wrote about stunt kites earlier in this discussion).
Another problem I have with people and shows trying to convince me that we are being visited by alien spacecraft is that they can never seem to let go of a sighting. I did a lot of reading about Barney and Betty Hill, found it totally unconvincing, yet it is still trotted out as evidence. If people want to convince me of such things, it would be helpful if they showed a bit more skepticism.
Clear skies, Alan
November 27th, 2008 at 7:37 am
My apologies if someone has already linked this in this discussion - it’s on the front page of Digg:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/?JSONLINK=/video/tech/2008/11/26/am.obrien.aliens.abducted.cnn
I’m at work so I can’t check the video. Is it as ridiculous as I think it is?
The point I really wanted to make with another comment here is this:
Ok, so there may be some unexplained UFO phenomena out there. The number and degree of unexplainedness varies, but let’s just say there’s at least a few that are truly weird and really seem to be flying craft of some kind.
Where did the idea that these are extra-terrestrials come from? Might as well be inter-dimensional travelers, or time-machines, or advanced technology from the inner earth (check Hollow Earth theory). Right? Given the extreme difficulties with interstellar travel, I think the likelihood of those options are about the same.
UFO enthousiasts should be focusing on the unexplainability of the phenomena instead of postulating about Grays and government coverups.
I personally think they all have mundane explanations because even the most improbable coincidence of mundane circumstances is more likely than an extraordinary event like alien visitors. Us as humans are poor calculators, but I think, given the vastness of the cosmos and what we know about physics, that it’s very unlikely the Earth is the tourist destination UFO enthousiasts would like to make it out to be…
November 27th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Uh-oh! Moderation cause I linked to CNN! The MIBs have found me out!
I just linked to a CNN video on the front-page of Digg, where there is apparently an interview with someone about an alien encounter?
ya….
November 27th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Rory Considine said:
Actually, Rory, it kinda works like this:
If you refer to a famous thought experiment (e.g. Schroedinger’s Cat), you can expect most people to understand what you are talking about. If, on the other hand, you refer to somethng that no-one has ever heard of unless they have read an obscure book, you need to explain just what the hell you’re talking about. If you want people to follow your argument, précis the thought experiment and relate it to your point.
November 27th, 2008 at 7:53 am
Wade said:
Er … no. Not really.
November 27th, 2008 at 8:20 am
I agree with Nigel about M-Theory.
Wade - I recommend Wikipedia’s article on “M-Theory” for a brief oversight of the theory. Frankly, I don’t know where life and death play a part in it… or how it’s relevant to the discussion? Perhaps you can elucidate.
November 27th, 2008 at 9:17 am
[…] traducido y posteado en Ciencia Kanija, el original se publico en Bad Astronomy y su autor es Phil […]
November 27th, 2008 at 9:21 am
M-theory,,,just another variety of (11 dimensional) string theory. None of which mean diddly until they can successfully predict the outcome of SOME kind of experiment,,,I’m still waiting for the LHC to find Higgs particles, which is one prediction that MAY be testable,,,
UFOs as alien threat,,,now, how much money could the Bush Administration squeeze out of the general public for defense from such,,,and just think how the ad hominems go.
” The Surge,,,er, I mean, the Alien Defense Force has prevented annular incursions so it must be working,,,send more money,,,”
Someday, WE will have flying saucers and then we can say, “You know, those folk who saw UFOs back in the stoner age were right. It’s a great shape for a micro wave powered space craft,,,”
It’s thanksgiving and I have to work but tonight I’ll be raising a margarita in toast to freedom of speech and thought. May it forever prevail.
Peace Y’All
Gary 7
November 27th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Nigel Depledge wrote:
November 27th, 2008 at 7:53 am
< < Actually, Rory, it kinda works like this:
If you refer to a famous thought experiment (e.g. Schroedinger’s Cat), you can expect most people to understand what you are talking about. If, on the other hand, you refer to somethng that no-one has ever heard of unless they have read an obscure book, you need to explain just what the hell you’re talking about. If you want people to follow your argument, précis the thought experiment and relate it to your point. >>
Nigel. this is getting a little frustrating and annoying i.e - your unneccesary nitpicking . Particularly in my case, where you continuosly appear to be getting it wrong . Maybe it is your only form of response to the questions I posed and which you have so far failed to address - attack the messenger…
I had originally written in my post:- “You should read Schrodinger’s Kittens” .
You are only proving your own ignorance on the matter when you pompously and arrogantly write:-
< < If, on the other hand, you refer to somethng that no-one has ever heard of unless they have read an obscure book, you need to explain just what the hell you’re talking about. >>
Hell has nothing to do what I was referring to. On the other hand this book < < that no-one has ever heard of unless...>> (according to Mr. I am Right all the time) and which you describe as an < < obscure book >> was written by the same author that wrote the best-selling book ‘In Search of Schrodinger’s Cat’ i.e. John Cribbin. He aslo wrote The Omega Point, In Search Of The Big Bang, In The Beginning and many others. His books have been translated into over thirty languages. He has a PhD in Astrophysics from Cambridge, was and possibly still is a Visiting Fellow in Astronomy at the University of Sussex and consultant to New Scientist.
So Nigel, you should try to get your facts right before you so quickly jump-in to attack and endeavour to belittle another Poster. As it is , you are only drawing attention to yourself and managing very well to make yourself look foolish into the bargain. You must know by now that you are not Always right and do not know Everything!
November 27th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Rory Considine said:
Ain’t no soapbox here, dude.
I quoted your exact words, me old china.
I will admit I am wrong only after you have demonstrated this.
Just because you did not mean what you wrote, and did not write what you meant, does not mean that I misinterpreted your words.
No, you can’t weasel out it that way. What you wrote has one clear meaning. It may not be what you intended, but that’s your problem, not mine.
While you did not say in the exact words “scientists have claimed that bumblebees can’t fly”, what the hell else could you possibly have meant by your words:
Aside from the fact that a double-negative is ungrammatical, if you had actually meant “recently, scientists have stated that bumblbees can fly”, why not just write this????
I think my interpretation of your words, while not the only one, is the only logical one. If you want people to understand your point, you should work harder at making that point clearly and concisely. And then not complain when someone misunderstands (not misinterprets) what you have written.
November 27th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
hi,
i’ve been an amateur astronomer for 30 years,and have seen a number of unexplained objects,especially in the last 8 years,in the daytime.i scan the sky with zeiss 10×50 binocs,and on occasion have observed very high altitude white dots,which have flashed on and of,changed shape,changed colour,jumped from 1 position to another(no-not binoc shake!),or stopped in mid-air.
i recently bought a high res. digital slr + small apo refractor to image some of these objects.1 or 2 ‘movies’ made from still frames ,can be seen on my youtube channel ‘phil2466′
the main reason we do not hear many reports of ufos from astronomers,is precisely because of the ridicule heaped on the subject by websites/blogs such as this.
cheers,phil ,uk
November 27th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Phil wright: Your “shape shifting” UFOs look very much like objects scintillating in the atmosphere. The “swirling ufo/plasma” video looks very much like Venus to me. Do you have more detailed information? What time of day was it? What was the azimuth? What was the field of view?
Rory: If you attempt to use a popular science book to argue a scientific point, you can’t exactly complain if you aren’t taken seriously. If you have a point to make, cite peer reviewed papers, or at the very least a proper scientific textbook.
November 27th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Nigel Depledge Says:
November 27th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
< < While you did not say in the exact words “scientists have claimed that bumblebees can’t fly”, what the hell else could you possibly have meant by your words:
Well, more recently have Scientists not stated that it was impossible that Bumble Bees should fly>>
You do persist beyond the limit! Even as you try to climb out of the hole you dug for yourself. Is the above supposed to be your way of acknowledging that you were indeed mistaken and wrong!
If you have a logical mind (and are knowledgeable) you might understand from the above that I was ssuggesting :- Scientists believe that bumble bees because of their size, weight and their small wings etc. should not really be able to fly. Now the details of the actual scientific reasons why they might think this was not included, because I felt that the person being addressed would be aware of this. In the circumstances I was correct. However, some people e.g. Nigel Depledge jumped the gun, misjudged and misinterpreted what I wrote, tried to change the wording by saying that I had claimed - ‘Scientists have stated that bumble bees “can’t” fly’. This of course was untrue and in fact rubbish! You might have had reason to ask if I was really looking for confirmation for what I wrote - but no, you preferred to twist my words to suit your attack. Big mistake!
Many posts ago I fully poined out and explained your error / wrong-doing and that is still the position. However, you want to try to prove yourself right whatever the circumstances. Well Nigel - forget it. In this particular situation it can only be a dream for you. Why not just admit you made a big boob (beat the ego into submission). You made a personal attack on me and tried to put me down. Unfortunately from your point of view - you made a horlicks of it, got it all wrong and no back-tracking is going to change that fact.
It really does get a bit boring. So for the sake of all the others Posters and the topic being discussed, I think that you should desist and drop your mischevious, unhelpful and unrewarding nitpicking.
Feel free to have the last word on this ridiculous discussion (Once you do not misquote me again)!
November 27th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Hyperdeath, will do - if I can get my hands on them!
November 27th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
phil wright Says:
November 27th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
< < .......the main reason we do not hear many reports of ufos from astronomers,is precisely because of the ridicule heaped on the subject by websites/blogs such as this. >>
Well said Phil! Many will agree with you.
November 27th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
By definition, UFOs must exist. The term only means there is something flying that is not identified. That said, the commentary by the original author is specious. It can be categorized by the old skeptic’s approach “any answer is better than a UFO” even if the facts don’t fit. When was the last time you heard of someone touching Venus. Or, did you know that basically every sensor system in the world has recorded anomlies (and that includes national satellites). There are two big problems. First, UFO reports convey a wide variety of characterists. Second, because of incompetent reports, such as this article, any professional that investigates the field is subject to castigation. (That is not conjecture as Scietific American did a rather nasty ad hominim attack on me)
November 27th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
hi ,hyperdeath,amd everyone,
the swirling ufo/plasma was in the northeast at around 7pm 31 july 07.
i know that venus will never be seen in the northeast in the evening!!
the spinning cylinders ufo flew over me from southwest to northeast ,was flickering rapidly and was very bright in the daytime sky.
the lit ufo may be a balloon,but the light formations seemed a bit odd!
the spinning ufo really does look like a flying saucer!
thanks for looking at my youtube vids.
cheers,phil
November 27th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
hi again,
the 2007 vids were taken with a canon 400d slr with canon 200L prime lens.i have cropped them about 500% to bring out detail.
the 2008 stuff has been imaged with a canon450d slr and a 600mm f.l .ed80 refractor,they have also been cropped by about 400%.
cheers,phil
November 27th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Bright objects against the night or day often appear to be rotating or spinning through binoculars. Such comments are often made when people have called after looking at Venus or a bright star near the horizon, and I always figured it was a seeing effect. Anyway, I wouldn’t consider some to be actually spinning just because it looks that way.
Clear skies, Alan
November 27th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
It’s true that most people describe their experiences far too much in detail when they only saw flashing lights or moving lights. It doesn’t help their credibility to describe such accuracy as spinning or other features unless they actually saw this up close and clearly. Also factors such as altitude, size and speed are estimates probably with an accuracy of +/- 50% unless you are a pilot and an object is observed at the same altitude. Therefore for an average ground observer stating the height, size and speed with such an accuracy that you would need a speed gun or radar to detect it at is completely pointless. I’ve seen unusual lights myself that I haven’t explained yet, but I get annoyed when I hear witnesses on TV giving such accurate information about their sighting, which they just could not know within a reasonable error.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:11 am
i agree that a lot of witnesses make false assumptions regarding size,height ,speed of unusual objects.it annoys me as well,so when i witness things that i cannot explain,i make sure my camera is ready since the resolution/magnification of my equipment is high enough to easily identify any obvious ifo ,such as an aircraft,or weather balloon.
stars and planets(except venus and jupiter)dont really show up on an image with a shutter speed of 1/2500 of a second!!same with satellites - with the exception of ISS/shuttle - no way would a mag. 2 or 3 sat show up in sunny,daytime skies.
the swirling motion of one of my ‘movies’, is indicated by the strange gaseous appendages which surround the object,and which are true details - not camera artifacts!!
my imaging equipment lets me confirm what the tiniest dot in the daytime sky is.for instance,i imaged a weather balloon/radiosonde this year,and the images even showed the payload hanging from it,yet it was the smallest speck to my naked eyes!
try looking for ufos yourself.scan the daytime sky with wide-angle binoculars in a grid-search pattern.you might be surprised!!most of the things you will see will be balloons of all shapes and sizes,but when you see an extremely high altitude dot,with a flashing light to the side of it,which flies over then stops at an elevation of,say ,50 degrees,then fades away ,then i would challenge anyone to identify it!!(a sighting by me in 2005).
by the way,my equipment is:
canon 450 d slr(12 mega)
skywatcher 80 ed refractor
william optics megrez 72
william optics flt110 (tmb)-just getting set up for daytime use,with alt-az mount.
nikon 8 x 40 binocs
zeiss 10 x 50 binocs
cheers,phil ,uk
November 28th, 2008 at 1:28 am
another thing,
why do skeptics(sceptics for uk readers!)always go on about 1960s spyplanes such as u2 or sr71 as explanations for ufo reports of that era.what a load of garbage!a plane is a plane.they have wings,jet engines,and make a lot of noise,especially the sr71.in any case ,spyplanes only reach their top speeds and altitudes when they need to penetrate hostile airspace.if the usaf or cia had triangular things flying,then they would be strange,but any conventional aircraft-shaped object is a plane!
cheers,phil
November 28th, 2008 at 1:56 am
@Rocket
“My Location: 117.6680 W, 34.4000 N”
You know that’s Edwards Air Force Base airspace, right? And a well-populated region with lots of other skywatchers (as well as professional installations and high-tech radar), including an observatory less than 1 mile from that location. There are also experimental weather stations nearby.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:00 am
@Gonzo
I can’t see how a semantics argument is helpful at all. Everyone knows what is assumed in the meaning of the term UFO. You can’t fight language.
Agreed (with the first part), but being pedantically over-literal was not my point. 1)Phil has described being technically accurate as one of his goals. 2)Everyone does know what everyone else assumes; we have to agree what terms mean. An object sighting only becomes official when it is reported, after which, the goal becomes trying to ID, which is the nut of the topic here. It matters because if more people understood this as the process (instead of the opposite), and understood that “UFO” does NOT mean extraterrestrial visitors rather than, simply, an object that could not be correctly identified authoritatively and therefore explained, the press would have less incentive to propagate the cult of disinformation regarding the topic and a better informed public would be less gullible. If even a billion people make an incorrect assumption, it doesn’t make it correct. Do objects exist that fly and can’t be identified? Of course. Denying it doesn’t help my nephew (for example) strengthen his skeptic skills as much as truth and that truth is in the term itself. Clearing up the assumption that UFO=Alien Visitors is advantageous.
(With nods to the posters who already commented as such).
@Metre
Interesting about the moon and agreed about the odds of life. Sagan may have found hope with his odds being higher given the extremity of the universe but maybe our species is the oddball long shot a)having become hominids b)having a continuing intelligence curve c)having survived atomic discovery, d)having no predator species we must share with, etc. Also, if an advanced hominid (or some such) did solve basic existence problems to the point that their economical situation allowed advanced-technology spacecraft programs before the extinction of life-sustaining resources, what are the odds they could do so to the extreme of overcoming space physics and traveling beyond a corner of their own galaxy? The odds are massive even assuming life exists everywhere. We Rule!
November 28th, 2008 at 2:03 am
(sentence should say “Everyone does NOT know what everyone else assumes”)
November 28th, 2008 at 2:23 am
LOL. You are assuming that we are doing well as a species. Maybe we are on the path to potentially extinction, as we have not progressed beyond our tribal nature yet.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:25 am
And that would shorten the odds even more.
Although something also tells me when I say things like that, that life is much more abundant than we ever thought, even intelligent life. It goes against rational thinking, but nevertheless there’s always that nagging thought still there.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:21 am
Rory Considine said:
(My bolding)
Well, now we get to the crux of the matter.
You have just confirmed that the way I interpreted your words is correct, i.e. that you were suggesting that scientists believed that bumblebees should not be able to fly.
Scientists have never believed this. Nor have engineers.
As I have already pointed out, it was a joke among aeronautical engineers that, if you apply the equations for fixed-wing aircraft to a bumblebee, you don’t get enough lift to counteract its mass, therefore bumblebees “can’t” fly. I also pointed out that bumblebees are not fixed-wing aircraft. Perhaps I should also have pointed out that the calcs were done in the full knowledge that bumblebees are not fixed-wing aircraft, but to me this was implied by the fact of its being a joke.
As another commenter has pointed out, this illustrates not the challenge bumblebees face getting off the ground, but the dangers of applying assumptions that are inappropriate to the situation at hand.
November 28th, 2008 at 3:33 am
John said:
Heehee! John, you miss the whole point of scepticism.
Scepticism is not a refusal to believe in anything; instead it is the insistence on a critical examination of all available evidence, placed in the context of existing knowledge.
All it would take to convince we sceptics that Earth is being visited by some alien space travellers is some hard evidence. Evidence that can be assessed and evaluated independently.
As has already been pointed out, the “evidence” of eyewitness accounts, dodgy videos or photos, and spurious radar echoes does not constitute hard evidence. Either you must conclude “we don’t know” or you must show us some real evidence. Leaping to conclusions based on shaky evidence is never going to convince a sceptic.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:14 am
@ Nigel Depledge
No I haven’t and thanks for the lesson in scepticism, but I’m already up to speed on that. I meant that the believers have no evidence and therefore can’t prove their claim, and the same speech you gave to me is always given to them all. This gets repeated for every believer comment, therefore going round in circles. The only way of breaking that cycle is for the physical evidence to be presented, but you know that won’t happen on here. I wasn’t saying scepticism was pointless, and if you saw a craft up close you would become a believer, it’s human nature. Although you should still be sceptical of what/who it was, and not come to an extraterrestrial conclusion only by the sighting. But it would convince you of an unexplainable event at least.
Just for the record I’m a ufo witness, I don’t have proof, and I don’t care whether any believes it or not. And I’m sceptical of what it was, and I cannot say what is, was never mind aliens.
Therefore it is pointless to try to convince a sceptic of a sighting, unless somehow bits of the craft fell off and you could show it to them, or some other proof could be provided. Maybe you find it intriguing to listen to people’s claims, maybe if you witnessed a ufo (just for the sake of the point presume they could exist) you would see how these conversations go round in circles for one of two reasons: 1. Either no unexplainable ufo events occur, and all witnesses are mistaken, or 2. No physical evidence yet forthcoming or 3. Government conspiracies prevent this information to be obtained. Or maybe you do realise and accept 1. as likely. Anyway keep on asking for the evidence even though every response you’ve had so far has nothing substancial to offer. At the end of the day it’s what we all would like to get hold of.
Anyway the argument with the bumble bees although funny is irrelevant towards ufos. Even if say some scientist says that bumble bees cannot fly if they used an appropriate model, this is known to be inaccurate as there’s evidence of bees in flight. To use as an analogy towards not understanding the laws of ufo flight cannot work as there’s no evidence of ufo flight to work with. Regardless of whether the scientist said that or not, or used an inappropriate modelling method as a joke, it matters very little. I think some people like to argue for fun on here.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:22 am
That last point just meant that people like to use an argument that scientists got something wrong, therefore they could be wrong again. And somehow use that in favour of being wrong about ETs travelling faster than speed of light. Of course that may end up being correct, but it’s false logic as that argument can apply to anything or nothing. We just don’t know. If they somehow got it right they would claim they knew all along, but it would just be a guess put together from other guesses on what they thought they saw. Intelligent people realise that it’s just a wild guess, and so they remain sceptical until it can be proved.
November 28th, 2008 at 4:42 am
Nigel
http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=41
November 28th, 2008 at 5:07 am
@ John -
OK, point taken.
I am UFO witness - I have seen lights in the sky that I could not identify. I reckone they were most probably a plane or a satellite.
Or the light of Venus reflecting off swamp gas…
November 28th, 2008 at 5:27 am
OK I’ve seen less extraordinary ufos as well which were probably unusual plane lights, model aircraft, lanterns or a satellite.
I’ve seen one group of extraordinary ufos which has yet not been explained, and Venus was in the same part of the sky during the sighting, and I admit I wasn’t sure that it was Venus for a while, until I checked where Venus was supposed to be. But I’m sure most people would be slightly freaked by other mundane lights in the sky if they saw 7 lights zig-zag around each other and zoom off. That’s probably why you get reports of ufo fleets, where it’s likely most are just stars and planets mis-identified as witnesses get carried away.
To be completely honest I wouldn’t get over excited by a light in the sky just seemed to hover on its own, as long as it doesn’t perform some seemingly impossible manoeuvre I wouldn’t call it a ufo because it’s most likely something mundane like lanterns or balloons. Of course if I could make out an actual craft just hovering that would be something new and exciting. And it’s a good idea to make sure you have a level head if you see some extraordinary manoeuvres by lights, and not be paranoid about other lights. I can tell you it’s extremely difficult to not stare at other lights warily even a few days after a really wierd sighting, even when these other lights are stars! lol
November 28th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Rory Considine said:
So, who is the nitpicker, Rory?
Me for interpreting your words as saying that you believed scientists have claimed that bumblebees should not be able to / cannot fly, or you for making such a fine distinction between “should not be able to” and “cannot”.
Either way, you are still wrong, because, as I point out above, no scientist has ever claimed that bumblebees should not be able to fly.
I had no need to twist your words.
You have stated that scientists claimed that bumblebees should not be able to fly. You are wrong.
Actually, you totally failed to do this. All you did was assert that I had misinterpreted your words, but at that time you failed to make your meaning any clearer.
Subsequently, you have made your meaning clear, and illustrated that I was right to criticise you. Your criticism of me seems to boil down to “I didn’t say ‘cannot’, I said ’should not be able to’,”. The distinction you make here is irrelevant.
Apart from the fact that I am right, you mean?
Straight back atcha.
Why can you not admit that you were wrong?
Nu-uh. I pointed out that a statement you made was wrong. If you see that as a personal attack, that’s not any doing of mine.
When someone interpreted your claim as being wrong, you whined that they misrepresented you.
I merely pointed out that you should check your own words for ambiguity before complaining that other people have misrepresented you.
Yet, it now turns out that the only thing I got wrong was conflating “cannot” with “should not be able to”, a trivial distinction compared with your erroneous claim about what science has claimed in the past.
I’m not backtracking.
I have said all along that no scientist has ever claimed what you claim that they have. This is correct.
What, I should let you malign scientists without calling you out?
No, sir.
Now you are making ad hominems against me (mischievous? unhelpful? I seek the truth).
I have only ever quoted your exact words, and attempted to make sense of them and parse out your meaning.
Oddly enough, I’ve been accused of nitpicking before, but only when I’m right. It seems to me that the charge of nitpicking is the recourse of the wrong.
Basically, Rory, stop whining about being attacked, accept that you really were wrong about the bumblebee thing, and stop trying to malign science and scientists.
November 28th, 2008 at 5:37 am
Phil Wright said:
So, in addition to being unable to capitalise at the start of a sentence, you have never heard of lifting bodies.
Just because you have not heard of or seen something, does not mean it doesn’t exist. Lifting body aircraft are well documented - I imagine that Wikipedia has an article about them.
12 seconds later…
Yes, it does. Go to Wikipedia and search for “Lifting body”.
Not all planes have a distinctive winged silhouette from beneath,after all.
November 28th, 2008 at 5:49 am
hi nigel,
my typing is rubbish so i stick to lower-case!i know about lifting bodies,like the nasa x24 ,etc,.however didn’t they always drop them from a b52,so they would glide down to land at edwards afb?so maybe a few were sighted in california at the time,and were mistaken for ufos.i’m sure somebody could check dates and times of lifting body flights and cross-check ufo reports in the same timeframe and location!i also know about the b2 and the xb70 ,which have unusual designs.
so i take it you ‘believe’ that a lot of witnesses are fooled by spyplanes who would not normally be fooled by aircraft?
all you armchair skeptics should go out on a nice sunny day and LOOK!!!!
cheers,phil
November 28th, 2008 at 6:27 am
Check out some of the US experimental X-planes, they could easily be mistaken for something else. The X-30, 33, 37 & 40 at a glance are wierd, and I would wonder what they were if they flew past my house. They were only experimental though and are unlikely to have been tested in the UK.
November 28th, 2008 at 8:39 am
For some of the Astronomers here and also for the uniformed close-minded debunkers (not the informed ones), the following may be of interest:-
Clyde Tombaugh was the American astronomer who discovered the planet Pluto. On August 20, 1949, he observed a UFO that appeared as a geometrically arranged group of six-to-eight rectangles of light, window-like in appearance and yellowish-green in color, which moved from northwest to southeast over Las Cruces, New Mexico. He stated:
From Wikipedia:
Tombaugh and UFOs
Tombaugh was probably the preeminent astronomer to have reported seeing Unidentified Flying Objects. On August 20, 1949, Tombaugh saw several UFOs near Las Cruces, New Mexico. He described them as six to eight rectangular lights, stating “I doubt that the phenomenon was any terrestrial reflection, because… nothing of the kind has ever appeared before or since… I was so unprepared for such a strange sight that I was really petrified with astonishment.” [1]A similar shocked response has been reported by many other who claim to have seen mysterious aerial objects.
Tombaugh was also later to report having seen three of the mysterious Green Fireballs, which suddenly appeared over New Mexico in late 1948 and continued at least through the early 1950s. In 1956 Tombaugh had the following to say about his various sightings:
“I have seen three objects in the last seven years which defied any explanation of known phenomenon, such as Venus, atmospheric optic, meteors or planes. I am a professional, highly skilled, professional astronomer. In addition I have seen three green fireballs which were unusual in behavior from normal green fireballs…I think that several reputable scientists are being unscientific in refusing to entertain the possibility of extraterrestrial origin and nature.” [2]
In 1949, Tombaugh had also told the Naval missile director at White Sands Missile Range, Commander Robert McLaughlin, that he had seen a bright flash on Mars in August 1941, which he now attributed to an atomic blast (mentioned May 12, 1949, in a letter from McLaughlin to Dr. James van Allen). [3] Tombaugh also noted that the first atomic bomb tested in New Mexico would have lit up the dark side of the Earth like a neon sign and that Mars was coincidentally quite close at the time, the implication apparently being that the atomic test would have been visible from Mars.
In June 1952, Dr. J. Allen Hynek, an astronomer acting as a scientific consultant to the Air Force’s Project Blue Book UFO study, secretly conducted a survey of fellow astronomers on UFO sightings and attitudes while attending an astronomy convention. Tombaugh and four other astronomers told Hynek about their sightings, including Dr. Lincoln La Paz of the University of New Mexico. Tombaugh also told Hynek that his telescopes were at the Air Force’s disposal for taking photos of UFOs, if he was properly alerted.
Source:- http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case355.htm
This site appears to be worth a visit for all sides in this debate - whatever your beliefs.
November 28th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Anyone interesting in doing some experiments?
Right now Venus and Jupiter are nicely placed in the southwestern sky as evening twilight falls. Look at them with binoculars. Take some photos, do some video. I think you’ll see some interesting effects, and the results will likely look unusual. Bright small objects against the darkening sky bright out lots of optical defects in optics - flare, ghosts, and so on - and unstable air (seeing) and atmospheric dispersion (thick atmosphere acting like a prism) add their own features. Optical defects change as the placement in the field changes, and seeing also makes the view vary considerably with time. I think it would be easy to imagine “gaseous jets.”
If you want to expand your experiments, do it with Venus in the daytime sky. Venus is bright enough to see with the unaided eye if you know where you look. I usually find it by looking when it is due south by scanning with binoculars. Most planetarium programs will tell you when Venus transits on a particular day from your location. Right now Venus is due south from my 43 degree north, 74 degree west location at 2:50 PM EST. Scanning upward from the southern horizon with binoculars would find it fairly easily. I usually stand in the shadow of a building where I can see due south. This makes it impossible to scan up the Sun by accident, and easier to spot Venus by eye allow once you have spotted it in binoculars.
On Saturday, December 1, the crescent Moon will be near Venus, which will be a good landmark, making it easier to spot in the daytime sky.
Even if you don’t do any of these experiments, be sure to note the conjunction of Venus and Jupiter on Sunday night, November 30, when they will be only two degrees apart as darkness falls. They will be joined by a thin crescent Moon on Monday, December 1, for a lovely and very photogenic sight in the early evening sky.
Feel free to share your videos with us on Youtube.
Clear skies, Alan
November 28th, 2008 at 8:45 am
And don’t be bashful about using that zoom… most folks would.
Clear skies, Alan
November 28th, 2008 at 8:59 am
An intervies with another Astronomer this time with a lot of backgound into the investigation of UFOs :–
CLOSE ENCOUNTER WITH DR. J. ALLEN HYNEK
By Dennis Stacy
An Interview With The Dean, 1985
Re-Edited for CUFON by Dale Goudie 1991
For over two decades, from 1948 to 1969, Dr. J. Allen Hynek was a consultant in astronomy to the United States Air Force. The subject of his advice, however, was not the fledgling space program or even the moon and stars above, but Unidentified Flying Objects. In 1973 he founded the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS) and had serves as Director and editor of its journal, “International UFO Reporter.”
STACY: Dr. Hynek, as a scientist, you go back as far with UFO phenomenon as probably anyone alive today. Exactly how did that relationship begin?
HYNEK: That’s an easy story to tell. In the spring of 1948, I was teaching astronomy at Ohio State University, in Columbus. One day thee men, and they weren’t dressed in black, came over to see me from Wright Patterson Air Force Base in nearby Dayton. They started out by talking about the weather, as I remember, and this and that, and then finally one of them asked me what I thought about flying saucers. I told them I thought they were a lot of junk and nonsense and that seemed to please them, so they got down to business. They said they needed some astronomical consultation because it was their job to find out what these flying saucer stories were all about.
Some were meteors, they thought, others stars and so on, so they could use an astronomer. What the hell, I said, it sounded like fun and besides, I would be getting a top secret security clearance out of it, too. At that time, it was called Project Sign, and some of the personnel at least were taking the problem quite seriously. At the same time a big split was occurring in the Air Force between two schools of thought. The serious school prepared an estimation of the situation which they sent to General Vandenburg, but the other side eventually won out and the serious ones were shipped off to other places. The negatives won the day, in other words.
My own investigations for Project Sign added to that, too, I think, because I was quite negative in most of my evaluations. I stretched far to give something a natural explanation, sometimes when it may not have really had it. I remember one case from Snake River Canyon, I think it was, where a man and his two sons saw a metallic object come swirling down the canyon which caused the top of the trees to sway. In my attempt to find a natural explanation for it, I said that it was some sort of atmospheric eddy. Of course, I had never seen an eddy like that and had no real reason to believe that one even existed. But I was so anxious to find a natural explanation because I was convinced that it had to have one that, naturally, I did in fact, it wasn’t until quite some time had passed that I began to change my mind.
STACY: Was there ever any direct pressure applied by the Air Force itself for you to come up with a conventional explanation to these phenomena?
HYNEK: There was an implied pressure, yes, very definitely.
STACY: In other words, you found yourself caught, like most of us, in a situation of trying to please your boss?
HYNEK: Yes, you might as well put it that way, although at the same time I wasn’t going against my scientific precepts. As an astronomer and physicist, I simply felt a priori that everything had to have a natural explanation in this world. There were no ifs, and or buts about it. The ones I couldn’t solve, I thought if we just tried harder, had a really proper investigation, that we probably would find as answer for. My batting average was about 80 per cent and I figured that anytime you were hitting that high, you were doing pretty good. That left about 20 per cent unsolved for me, but only about three or four per cent for the Air Force, because they used statistics in a way I would never have allowed for myself. For example, cases labeled as insufficient information they would consider solved ! They also had some other little tricks. If a light were seen, they would say, “aircraft have lights, therefore, probable aircraft.” Then, at the end of the year, when the statistics were made up, they would drop the “possible” or “probable” and simply call it aircraft.
STACY: What began to change your own perception of the phenomenon?
HYNEK: Two things, really. One was the completely negative and unyielding attitude of the Air Force. They wouldn’t give UFOs the chance of existing, even if they were flying up and down the street in broad daylight. Everything had to have as explanation. I began to resent that, even though I basically felt the same way, because I still thought they weren’t going about it in the right way. You can’t assume that everything is black no matter what. Secondly, the caliber of the witnesses began to trouble me. Quite a few instances were reported by military pilots, for example, and I knew them to be fairly well-trained, so this is when I first began to think that, well, maybe there something to all this.
The famous “swamp gas” case which came later on finally pushed me over the edge. From that point on, I began to look at reports from a different angle, which was to say that some of them could be true UFOs. …………………………………
Article continued at:- http://www.cufon.org/cufon/hynekint.htm
November 28th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Dr. J. Allen Hynek Speaking at the United Nations, Nov. 27th 1978
………….But we need not base our opinions or actions solely on the
French in-vestigations, as competent as they may have been.
Similar conclusions have already been drawn indepen-dently by
scientists with whom I have been associated, many of whom,
however, have been reluctant to express their opinions openly.
There is a surprisingly large number of individual scientists
who have expressed to me, privately and personally, their
involved concern with the challenge of the UFO phenomenon, and
who entertain opinions consistent with those of the French
report. These scientists are in many cases associated with large
and prestigious scientific organizations, both government and
private, which, as organizations are silent or even officially
derisiveabout the UFO phenomenon. The individuals within these
organizations who have intimate knowledge of the UFO phenomenon
are restrained by organizational policy to remain officially
silent about their interest and in private work with UFO
matters………………………………………………………….
Complete article at:- http://www.cufon.org/cufon/hynekint.htm
November 28th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Rory, thanks for calling me a “debunker”. After all, I can’t debunk something unless it’s bunk in the first place.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:33 am
For those Astronomers readings here and wondering about other Astronomers reporting UFOs, the following list compiled in 1964 is informative:-
Here are some astronomer, meteorologist, and physicist UFO sightings. The list is compiled in a 1964 compilation of data from NICAP, a civilian UFO group with mostly Ph.D.s on the board of directors. Very scientific, pragmatic, academic group. The compilation was called “The UFO Evidence” and was edited by Richard Hall, now with the Fund for UFO Research in Maryland. The cases were mostly reported through civilian channels and funneled to NICAP as a central repository. These may be verified by finding the book at major university library.
7/10/47 Unnamed “Top Astronomer”. Elliptical object which hovered, wobbled, ascended suddenly.
8/na/49 Clyde W. Tombaugh (ring a bell?), astronomer. Circular pattern of rectangular lights, keeping fixed interval.
Summer 1948 Carl Mitchell, physicist. Three luminescent greenish discs one second apart, passed across sky from N to S and over horizon.
5/20/50 Seymour L. Hess, meteorology and astronomy. Disc or sphere in apparent “powered” flight.
8/3/51 Walter Webb, astronomer. Bright glowing light moving in undulating path.
1952 W. Gordon Graham, astronomer. UFO “like a smoke ring, elliptical in shape, and having two bright pinpoints of light along its main axis”, saild overhead from west to east.
8/5/52 James Bartlett, astronomer. During daylight observation of Venus saw a flight of two disks diameter about 30 minutes of arc; passed overhead to S, turned E. Then two more disks with dome-like protrusions in center.
6/11/54 H. Percy Wilkins, astronomer. Two silvery objects “like polished metal plates” moving against wind; third grayish oval arced across sky.
11/25/54 Marcos Guerci, meteorologist. Two luminous objects observed from airport; one apparently semi-circular, other circular.
12/7/54 R. H. Kleyweg, meteorologist. Hemispherical disk tracked through theodolite.
11/1/55 Frank Halstead, astronomer. Cigar-shaped object followed by domed disk.
6/18/57 Henry Carlock, physicist. Observing sky with telescope; twice glimpsed UFO with halo around it and “what appeared to be three portholes”.
11/10/57 Jacques Chapuis, astronomer. At Toulouse Observatory observed maneuvering yellow star-like object for 5 minutes. “It was something I had never seen before.” UFO finally ascended straight up out of sight.
5/22/60, Observatory Staff (Majorca astronomer (?)). Triangular UFO about 1/4 apparent size of moon sighted at 9:33 am, spinning on its axis while on steady course. Report cabled to NASA in Washington. [Note: Familiar triangular shape and axial rotation maneuvers that persist in contemporary reports. Daytime sighting by astronomers at observatory. Highly credible.]
3/16/61 R. J. Villela, meteorologist in Antarctica. Fireball-like object in low-level flight.
5/20/62 C. A. Maney, physicist with six others. Maneuvering light, turned sharply, made sudden changes in speed.
And that’s only though 1964, so this should annihilate the debunkery myth that astronomers and scientists don’t see UFOs. Also consider that those who do probably don’t report them as often as non-scientists because of ridicule fear.
Files by David Rudiak
Here are some more astronomer UFO reports, which are of far more than just unidentified, distant lights in the sky:
JAMES BARTLETT, JR.
8/5/52 - Baltimore, Maryland [right after various radar/visual sightings in nearby Washington, D.C. and Virginia during July, 1952]. While doing daylight observations of Venus, saw two disc-shaped objects pass south of Baltimore, then turn east. Soon afterwards, two more discs appeared overhead, with domelike raised centers. Bartlett, previously a skeptic, stated, “UFOs do exist. They are some type of mechanism, controlled craft, origin unknown.”
Sept, 1953 - Baltimore, Maryland. Dramatic nighttime UFO observation by Bartlett, who first spotted four large lights by eye. Through binoculars he observed the lights came from the noses of two enormous cylindrical or cigar-shaped craft. He observed a cabin in the nose and ports on the sides of the hulls in each craft.
9/6/54 - Baltimore, Maryland. Bartlett saw four glowing objects in line formation. When an airliner approached, they changed formation and climbed, then reformed in line. He stated, “It was a precise and highly controlled performance.”
H. PERCY WILKINS
6/11/54 - Charleston West Virginia/Atlanta Georgia - 10:45 AM. While flying, English astronomer Wilkins [head of the British Selenological Society] saw 2 radiant, polished metal disks, like “dinner plates”, soon joined by a third. Wilkins, one of the world’s leading moon experts, also confirmed seeing what appeared to be a giant artificial bridge or roadway on the moon in the same spot first reported by John O’Neill. The next month the structure was gone.
FRANK HALSTEAD (DIRECTOR OF THE DARLING OBSERVATORY, DULUTH, MINNESOTA)
11/1/55 - Mojave Desert, California. On a train, Halstead and his wife observed for 8 minutes a cigar-shaped UFO about 800 feet long pacing the train above a ridge. Then joined by a smaller disc, perhaps 100 feet in diameter, with a small dome on top. Both objects were very shiny. After 2 or 3 minutes, both rose straight up in the air and disappeared in 15-20 seconds. In June, 1957, Halstead stated, “…Many professional astronomers are convinced that saucers are interplanetary machines… I think they come from another solar system, but they may be using Mars as a base.” In 1959, Halstead stated that he, assistant Raymond Matsuhara, and 16 others observed a straight black line on the floor of the crater Piccolomini on 7/6/54. This was also observed from nearby Tulane Observatory and by amateur astronomer Frank Manning in New Orleans the same night. The line was gone a few days later.
J Allen Hynek
J. ALLEN HYNEK (AIR FORCE BLUE BOOK CONSULTANT)
Unspecified date and place - Hynek saw and took 2 photos of a nearby disc-shaped object with a “dome” outside his airplane window at 30,000′. The photos are reproduced in “The UFO experience,” 1972, and “The Edge of Reality,” 1975. Hynek pointed out he had to reach under his seat and find his camera before taking the pictures. With the jet moving at 600 mph, the object would have followed the plane for several miles between being first sighted and when the photos were taken, eliminating most conventional explanations.
BENITO REYNO, DIRECTOR OF ADHARA OBSERVATORY, ARGENTINA
11/14/64 - San Miguel, Buenos Aires. 8:35-9:05 PM. Astronomers reported that an elongated, flattened reddish object criss-crossed the sky three times in an E-W, W-E direction. The astronomers noted it couldn’t be a satellite because of the reversals of direction and the fact that it took only 4 minutes to cross the sky instead of 18, like a normal satellite. Photos were taken by director Reyna. Also described as three separate UFOs following a route perpendicular to the orbit of Echo II balloon satellite and on the plane of the orbit.
MONTE IZANE ASTROPHYSICS OBSERVATORY, CANARY ISLANDS.
6/22/76. A huge orb of yellow light with a blue tinge seen by astronomers at the Observatory. Also seen by numerous other witnesses, including the crew of a Spanish naval corvette. It was seen to rise and then drop a curtain of light towards the ground, illuminating the sea and shore. The light appeared to corkscrew upwards from this halo and move across the island. The mass of light left by the object remained in the sky for 40 minutes. A color photo was taken by another witness and eventually released by the Spanish Air Force. [Reprinted in “UFOs and How to See Them,” by Jenny Randles] The Canary Islands A.F. commander, Gen. Carlos Cavero stated, “I have for some time held the view that the UFOs are extraterrestrial craft [but] it is as difficult for official quarters to admit that something exists as it is for the church to affirm that this or that is a miracle.”
I have about 150 other sightings from astronomers, physicists, aeronautical engineers, meteorologists, and other scientists and engineers. And I’m sure this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Before you so casually dismiss these UFO sightings as unidentified satellites and airplanes, you should at least bother to read the reports first.
by David Rudiak
Closing words by Dick Allgire:
One of the great debunker urban myths is that astronomers never see UFOs. But this is simply not true. Tombaugh was just one example. Dr. Lincoln LaPaz had at least two (saucer, green fireball) and also secretly investigated saucer and green fireball reports for the Air Force in New Mexico. Even debunker Donald Menzel had a green fireball sighting.
Prof. Walter Webb had a sighting in 1951. James Bartlett Jr., previously a big skeptic, had four sightings in 1952 (4 discs), 1953 (4 lights emerging from cigar-shaped craft), 1954 (four glowing objects flying in formation), and 1957.
Frank Halstead had a spectacular sighting in 1955, when he and his wife observed a large, 800-foot cigar-shaped UFO pacing their train, then joined by a 100-foot disc, both then rising straight up and disappearing. In 1954 British astronomer H. Percy Wilkins saw three 3 radiant, polished metal discs, “like dinner plates” from his airplane window while flying over the states. And Blue Book consultant J. Alan Hynek snapped two photos of something saucer-like from his airplane window.
Australian astronomer Drs. Bart Brok and A. R. Hogg described a bright light moving erratically across the sky in 1957 which they determined was at least several hundred miles up. A day later, French astronomer Jacques Chapais described seeing a canary-yellow object sweep across the sky twice before disappearing straight up.
There are many more examples. Perhaps the earliest, well-documented astronomer UFO sighting dates back to 1878. E.W. Maunder and other staff members at the Greenwich Royal Observatory reported “a strange celestrial visitor” in the Observatory Reports, which they described as “torpedo” or “spindle-shaped.” Years later Maunder wrote that it looked exactly like one of the new Zeppelin dirigibles (the first ones not being built until 1897 or 1898 I believe).
November 28th, 2008 at 9:43 am
John, you said,
These descriptions sound suspiciously like air-to-air missiles, during a routine training mission. Have you tried describing your observations to military experts for possibilities?
November 28th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Nigel Depledge, you’re wasting your time with Rory.
Check out the Wikipedia article on “Crank (person)”, and look at item #3 in the “Common characteristics of cranks” section. Rory seems to be a classic case. He’ll split every hair, and redefine every word in the dictionary before conceding he’s wrong.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:48 am
@Rory,
Those are great accounts of people witnessing things in the sky. Those are completely useless in providing proof of alien existence, as not a single one of them provide a single shred of testable, verifiable evidence.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Wow, Phil. Do you call that an intelligent response to Rory’s posting?
And your assertion and I quote: “That, to me, is the killer argument that aliens aren’t visiting us. If they were, the amateur astronomers would spot them.”, makes me wonder how much of a scientist are you really? First, you distort the issue by using the word “aliens” interchangeably with the term “UFOs”. Second, where is the data behind your assertion that amateur astronomers have not seen UFOs? I’m sure that you don’t have any. Blanket statements like that are not made by anyone who has been properly trained in the scientific method of investigation. Clyde Tombaugh, the discover of Pluto, saw an unidentified flying object. I am an amateur astronomer with a degree in Chemistry and 30+ years in the semiconductor field and have seen an object that I could not identify as any known celestial body or aircraft.
If you are going to comment on a subject…any subject…ensure that you have thoroughly researched the subject. Otherwise, you do no service to the scientific community.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:57 am
hi ,
for alan:yes i will do some venus imaging with the same setup as my other videos on youtube.i for one think that no gaseous jets will appear because my equipment is sooooo sharp,even in fairly poor seeing,especially with the very fast shutter speeds (1/2500 sec) i routinely use.that ufo/plasma object was in the northeast sky for only a few minutes,at an elevation of around 20 degrees.it literally vanished 3 minutes later,even though the sky was clear.the apparent size of the object is a lot bigger than any planet using same gear,so it wasn’t a distorting point-source.could you contact me privately if you would like to see an original image? niauplater@fsmail.net
cheers,phil
November 28th, 2008 at 10:03 am
John Atwell said,
Which laws of physics are you talking about? Gravity? Electromagnetism? Relativity? Certainly there are things we don’t know about the universe, but what we do know is pretty solid. Can you elaborate?
November 28th, 2008 at 10:05 am
John Atwell said,
As Phil, myself and many others have said many many times, photos and witness testimony are not reliable sources of scientific evidence.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:12 am
John Atwell said,
I readily disagree. There is zero evidence of non-human presence. There is certainly evidence of non-typical atmospheric phenomenon, but there is no concrete scientific evidence that any of them are controlled by a non-earth intelligence. There is no DNA or other biological substance that has been independently verified to be non-terrestrial matter. If there are any materials such as strange metals or alloys that are suspected to be alien in origin, please cite the peer-reviewed scientific studies that confirm the metals or materials are not from Earth.
The evidence you speak of is anecdotal, hearsay and wishful fantasy, but it is not scientific evidence.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:25 am
@John Atwell,
I followed your link to alienscalpel. I was unable to find any articles or reports about Dr. Leir from actual scientific journals, only pro-ufo/alien abduction websites. Can you please provide a link to an actual scientific paper or article that shows the actual research done on the subjects who claim to have been abducted, or of the scientific analysis of the materials found in the “victims” bodies?
You said,
I agree, we cannot ignore this testimony. We have to tell as many people as we can what complete and utter nonsense junk like this really is. Alienscalpel dot com is a scam of a website that preys upon the gullibility of people for the sole purpose of selling books and DVDs. If you want to buy that crap for entertainment, that’s fine. But do not try to pass it off as legitimate science.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:26 am
This discussion reminded me of Leslie Peltier’s account of seeing odd lights in the sky. (Well known variable star observer, comet hunter, and author of “Starlight Nights: The Adventures of a Star-gazer.) He was comet hunting, and suddenly noticed a long, staight line of faint and equally bright stars in the field - stars that shouldn’t have been there. He turned on his red observing light and grabbed a pencil. When he looked back into the telescope, the line of lights had moved! As he watched, they started moving faster and getting brighter. He soon realized they would pass right over his observatory.
They passed directly above him, and were visible to the unaided eye. Then he realized he could also hear something. On stepping outside the observatory, it was immediately obvious it was a skein of eleven wild geese, their light gray bodies reflecting the city lights from below. He wondered what he would have thought had they not passed overhead, and he had never identified them. He was fairly sure he would not have become a “believer.”
Obviously, not all sightings are wild geese, but clearly mundane things can fool people. Without the sound clue, one of history’s most experienced amateur astronomers would not have had an explanation for his sighting.
Clear skies, Alan
November 28th, 2008 at 11:17 am
A few thought on sightings by astronomers…
Some astronomers started out as amateurs, and are quite familiar with the night sky. Clyde Tombaugh is certainly one of the best known examples. Others may not have started out as amateurs, but still know their way around the night sky. Many, however, are surprisingly unfamiliar with the night sky. I’ve heard some rather surprising (and incorrect) answers to call in questions about something seen in the night sky when an astronomer has been on a talk show.
Obviously, there are cases where astronomers have seen things they couldn’t explain. What does that mean? To me, it means just that - they saw something they couldn’t identify. How folks jump to the alien spacecraft as an obvious solution has always puzzled me. As Peltier’s geese illustrated, mundane objects under unusual circumstances can be hard to identify. As the recent discovery of red and blue sprites shows, we are still discovering new phenomena.
There are also known phenomena that are rare and about which we know little. My mother, who was always reasonable and very rational, told of a stormy night when a glowing ball of light came out of the fireplace of the farmhouse, across the room, and then up the stairs. Other people have reported such things, which I guess would be termed “ball lightning.”
Finally, there are people who just think it is fun to fool people. A friend once launched a bunch of helium balloons with various lights on them. (I don’t think anyone noticed.) I’ve heard other similar accounts, and know of a couple that made it into the news as “UFOs.
Clear skies, Alan
November 28th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Rory Considine Says:
November 28th, 2008 at 9:33 am
in part…
>>H. PERCY WILKINS
6/11/54 - Charleston West Virginia/Atlanta Georgia - 10:45 AM. While flying, English astronomer Wilkins [head of the British Selenological Society] saw 2 radiant, polished metal disks, like “dinner plates”, soon joined by a third. Wilkins, one of the world’s leading moon experts, also confirmed seeing what appeared to be a giant artificial bridge or roadway on the moon in the same spot first reported by John O’Neill. The next month the structure was gone. < <
It is quite well known that the changing lighting of lunar features can give such impressions, and that they change appearance from lunation to lunation. No reason at all the suspect Wilkins, in spite of his expertise, couldn't be fooled by the lighting. Our eye/brain is very prone to seeing what isn't there. Canals on Mars are a prime example.
As to the "metal" disks, it would be difficult to do much investigation so long after the fact. I would argue that it would have been more accurate for Wilkins to describe them as "appearing metal like," but that is a minor quibble.
>>Australian astronomer Drs. Bart Brok and A. R. Hogg described a bright light moving erratically across the sky in 1957 which they determined was at least several hundred miles up.<<
Even when astronomers are providing distance determinations, I have to wonder “how do they know?” How did they determine this? And objects “several hundreds miles up” would be in orbit.
Clear skies, Alan
November 28th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Phil Wright,
Even if it wasn’t Venus, it still looks like something scintillating in the atmosphere. Furthermore, even with an instantaneous exposure you’ll see swirling effects, due to there being multiple optical paths from the object to the viewer.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
hi hyperdeath,
the thing is,no ,say, bright white airliner - of which i have imaged literally thousands to get the focus right,and exposure right,for the really interesting stuff - at extreme distance such as 25 miles,has ever showed any optical effects remotely like the object in the ufo/plasma video.yet these airliners look like small dots as they head northwest toward north america.like i have said,this object has got some intrinsic size in the original frame,so it isn’t a point-source scintillating.and a radiosonde that bright would show detail that would reveal its true nature with my equipment.
thanks for your time,
phil wright ,coventry uk
November 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Robert said,
Phil, myself, and most of the folks here, totally agree that people see Unidentified Flying Objects. Phil, myself, and most of the folks here also agree that because of the media hype, the books, and common usage, the term “UFO” is commonly used to describe “alien spacecraft”.
Phil, myself, and most of the folks here argue that no piece of credible scientific evidence has ever shown that any of the Unidentified Flying Objects are indeed alien spaceships.
You also said,
What is your point? Are we to believe you because you are an astronomer and have a degree in Chemistry? (Appeal to authority.) Are you saying that the object you saw could not be identified by anyone, or just you? (Appeal to ignorance.) The object you saw was not an aircraft or star, therefore it must be an alien spacecraft? (False dichotomy.)
I think if you read up on all of Phil’s posts on UFOs, you will get a better understanding of his point of view.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
hi everyone,
this is the most interesting debate on ufos i’ve ever had!
cheers,phil
November 28th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
hi again,just posted a video on youtube showing some typical atmospheric distortion effects viewing the moon.will get an image sequence of venus as soon as this fog clears up
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=df511CjerP8
cheers,phil
November 28th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Greg,
You missed the crux of my posting, which was Phil’s assertion regarding amateur astronomers and UFOs. Where is the evidence to support that assertion? Perhaps you could admit that evidence doesn’t exist or perhaps you or Phil could provide it?
As to your contention that most people on this board believe that the definition of UFOs = Alien Spaceships, is unfortunate. Serious people who study the subject do not jump t0 that conclusion. Your efforts to debunk the subject by that assumption is erroneous.
And please don’t make false statements on my behalf. I never said that if I could not identify an object, then it must be an alien spaceship. Making things up is not the way to debate a topic.
November 28th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
It would be nice to see or know where to find the original papers/article/report regarding sightings of UFOs by astronomers. As stories gets passed along, the details often change.
Clear skies, Alan
November 28th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
and another.plato this time.watch how the smallest craters scintillate and disappear/reappear. used about 75 frames to make this,manually resizing to get the alignment right!phew!!
cheers,phil
November 28th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
oh yes:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5qGUISbzDjU
November 28th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
# Phil Plait Says:
November 28th, 2008 at 9:19 am
< < Rory, thanks for calling me a “debunker”. After all, I can’t debunk something unless it’s bunk in the first place. >>
Hi Phil! Nice to hear from you.
I don’t recall calling you a debunker - are you trying to inveigal yourself into this category!
I would not have considered you a debunker, though of course that was what you were attempting with this Article. I would have placed you more as an ill or mal-informed disbeliever. Or possibly someone that has a vested interest in attempting to push a viewpoint and does not do so in a balanced and fair way . Someone that appears to be heavily supporting one viewpoint without fully or correctly informing his audience of the other side’s arguments and strenghts. Why do I think this! Well, my observations are based solely on this article you wrote and that this thread is ’supposed’ to be discussing. (aside from people with fixated linguistic and grammatical fixation problems).
Do I have examples of what you wrote that I find unfair, half true, exagerated etc.? Yes I think so and if you like I will now endeavour to point out some of these one-sided and unbalanced statements / arguments of yours:-
< < There are tens of thousands of UFOs reported every year. That’s one of the reasons a lot of people think aliens are visiting us: there’s no way that there could be that many reports if some of them weren’t real! >>
Written I think for the gullible. Most people with any savvy would know and understand that the majority of reports of UFOs are easily explained by normal / natural / earthly means or by the planets, moon etc . The majority of the recent reports in England for example will be understood to be the result of sightings of Chinese laterns. Many of the other reports - photos and videos will be looked at very sceptically (rightly so), as people are very aware of the amount of hoakers involved with this subject.
There is a more obvious reason why people might believe that some of the Sightings are likely to be true and not from this world as we know it. This would be because they saw that these Sightings had been seriously and thoroughly investigated and that no other reasonable explanation could be found to explain the phenomena. Would I be right in thinking that you do not believe that there are such unexplained cases and therefore that no such phenomena exist? One could certainly arrive at such a conclusion because nowhere in your article did you mention or did you emphasise that fact! That I opinion, is being disingenuous on your part, as far as the counter arguments and facts are concerned.
< < But that’s bad reasoning. In fact, the vast majority of reported UFOs are mundane things in the sky. The planet Venus is incredibly bright; most people don’t believe me when I point it out to them. They think it’s a nearby airplane, or some other bright earthbound object. >>
So you say - concerning those that imagined Venus was an airplane. If they think it’s a nearby airplane, or some other bright earthbound object and not a UFO, it is of no concern and you should not have included it as an example. If they were all claiming it to be a UFO that would be different. In fact what you say here might actually suggest that few people confuse Venus with unexplainable objects. Also, you neglected to inform your readers about objects that are not mundane and that cannot be explained as easily as you would wish - have you? No, you have not! May I ask why not?
< < Not only that, but if you’re driving, it appears to follow you through the trees because it’s so far away. If it’s low to the horizon, turbulent air makes it flicker and change color. Does this sound familiar? How many UFO reports have you heard that say a huge object (people often mistake brightness for size) was following someone in their car, and it was rapidly changing color? >>
This is true, as does the moon. However, you automatically dismiss another possibility and that is that some of these reports were not of Venus or of the Moon. As well as that, you do not even allow for that possibilty and in so doing you belittle or try to deny the people that may have made such reports. Not only that, but you ignore completely sightings that may have occurred when there was no Venus or Moon visible! Why is that?
< < Yup. Venus. >.
Again this reinforces how disingenuous you are. Endeavouring to push your biased and one-sided view .
< < Manmade satellites pass overhead several times an hour, and some brighten tremendously as a solar panel or mirrored surface catches the Sun. Meteors blaze across the sky, ice crystals refract sunlight and moonlight, atmospheric effects make a distant object appear distorted and weirdly-shaped. >>
True.
< < All of these have been mistaken for alien spacecraft. >>
Once again you show your bias. “All” at some time may have been described as unidentified and even by a few as UFOs, but they are definitely not always mistaken for “alien” spacecraft. That is just not true and therfore it is complete rubbish! Most people that report or see something strange do not in fact know what they have seen and are anxious to find out what it was or have it explained to them. Most people probaly do not make a report at all, even though they may have seen something that they themselves cannot explain.
< < So I know that most people misinterpret what they see. >>
You do! How do you actually know this? Have you interviewed most of those around the world to substantiate your claim or have you scientifically followed-up most of the investigations to affirm your definite conclusion? Many people may do as you say, but I suggest that most people that make such reports do not do so based on the object sightings that you suggest. There are many daylight observations and reports.
< < But there’s something else too. If alien spaceships are really out there abducting us and playing chicken with our airplanes, then you’d expect that people who spend more time looking at the sky would see more of them. And who spends lots of time looking up? >>
You are attempting here to be facetious, when you have not made the effort to discuss or point out the UFOs that have been investigated and cannot be explained by any means at our current disposal. You are trying to rubbish the topic in the minds of those you are addressing and in so doing you seem to hope to deter interest, questions and investigation. Which of the students or listeners is going to stand up and ask a serious question when the ground has been set to make a laughing stock out of of them? You attempt to bury the subject with ridicule / smear as many others have done and still do. Read what Dr. J. Allen Hynak had to say about this at his UN address on UFOs (Previously posted by me).
< < Amateur astronomers, of course. They are dedicated observers, out every night peering at the sky. If The Truth Is Out There, then amateur astronomers would be reporting far and away the vast majority of UFOs. >>
Is that true - that they peer at the sky!!! Or do you really mean but do not describe that what they focus on is really a little further out - much further in fact!. You let your readers (that you already seem to think are so gullible) believe that these amateur astronomers are examining the clouds or just above or below them. Should you not have been more explicit on behalf of your student listeners / readers, if only for balanced educational purposes!
Why is it that many do not make Reports? Well, it is quite simple and is self-evident. If you were reading the comments posted here, the reasons would be very clear to you, but I have no doubt that you already were fully aware of the reasons and causes for such a situation to exist! Could it be because of the ridicule that is awaiting and has already been heaped on others, through articles such as yours and Government actions and policies over the years ensuring that this happens!
< < But they don’t. Why not? Because they understand the sky! They know when a twinkling light is Venus, or a satellite, or a military flare, or a hot air balloon, and so they don’t report it. >>
Incorrect! They do and courageous ones have done so. Again here, you are not in fact telling your audience the truth and once again being disingenuous and trying to ridicule the subject / phenomena. What you are actually saying is that any Amateur Astronomer that does make such a report really ‘does not know the sky’ (or what he is talking about). What a conceited view!
< < That, to me, is the killer argument that aliens aren’t visiting us. If they were, the amateur astronomers would spot them. >>
Bad ending for an argument that was not good to start with.
Most sightings that are reported are close to earth in case you were not aware of this (though of course we know that you are). It is to do with numbers / population. It also has a lot to do with human eyesight and it’s range under normal conditions and circumstances. Astronomers would have less chance of spotting something unusal (UFO type) because they are normally though not always, focussed on external objects at great distances. Their field of vision is like the ’spotlight’ situation. Whereas, those that are earthbound or nearer the earth (pilots, astronauts), would have the availability of ‘floodlight’ vision and be able to see and take in much more in their expanded field of vision.
< < Of course, you might say “But just because they don’t see UFOs doesn’t mean they aren’t real. It just takes one to prove aliens are coming here!” That might be correct, but remember, we started off thinking they’re coming here because so many UFOs are reported! >>
That is your assumption and reasoning. People may be inclined to believe in an ‘Out of this World’ / ‘Extra or Inter-dimensional’ etc. explanation only after those UFO sightings have been subjected to a thorough and honest investigation and found to have no explanation at all within our present ability to explain them. They may also believe this because of the reported unusual and apparent characteristics and capabilities associated with these particular UFO sightings.
It is very enlightening to observe that you have not once in an Article (which I presume you think is balanced) referred to these numerous unexplainable (currently) UFO sightings. Why is this? Is it because you would be at a loss to explain them yourself! Thereby highlighting what your own article amounts to - a biased, close-minded judgemental opinion / belief that is full of half-truths and disinformation. It is certainly not the open, knowledge- seeking, scientific insight / overview that it should, or even could have been. What a pity!
< < Once you realize that the overwhelming majority of UFO cases are just everyday things, then that “it just takes one” argument gets a whole lot weaker. >>
This is also rubbish! It would still mean that all it takes is for one of these to be true, factual and proven to be a UFO to show-up all the deniers and would be debunkers to have been wrong. In there lies the vested interest in those people (such as yourself) to try and make sure that this does not easily happen as it would greatly question your own misjudgement in the matter. What you are trying to inculcate in the more gullible is, that as most Sightings are explainable by everday objects and events - all therefore are. That dear Phil is not the situation and it possibly is not the truth either - is it?
< < But I’ll surprise you, though: I agree. It really only does just take one. But that one better have good proof! Something better than a single eyewitness, a badly sketched object, a fuzzy photograph, or out-of-focus video (heck, with digital effects the way they are today, you can’t even trust video that’s crystal clear). It needs a sample of non-terrestrial metal. An actual alien. Some incontrovertible evidence that is impossible to deny.>>
I agree. But again you attempt to suggest that there have not been multiple eye-witness reports.
Yes, proof does need to be strong and acceptable. But not necessarily as you state it - though that would be great. If for example one of our probes to Mars, the Moon or elsewhere, shows evidence of recent or past intelligent interference or civilisation, that would certainly change the goal posts for many disbelievers. Some kind of proof might arrive through SETI (lots of patience needed). However, I do agree that more concrete proof is required to turn disbelivers and the many of us that are just keeping an open-mind on the so-far unexplained phenomena, into true believers. Who knows, the US government could well be sitting on the very proof required and may decide (if they have such proof) to release it. How unhappy that would make those that made it their businees to belittle, knock and ridicule this subject. How foolish they would all look!
< < But we never get that. Why not? I think it’s because we’re not being visited. When Klaatu comes and lands on the White House lawn, I’ll be willing to change my mind. But until then, well, keep watching the skies. Learn what’s up there, and what isn’t. You might someday spot the genuine article. >>
Well, so far we have not, but as in all such matters and particularly pertaining to science - one should have already learned to be patient.
< < But even if you don’t, you get to discover what’s really up there… and there’s treasure aplenty in the sky to be had, even by us folks stuck here on planet Earth. >>
Of course I have no problem agreeing with this sentiment and I do.
Regards
November 28th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
@Robert,
In regards to amateur astronomers reporting UFOs, this wasn’t my claim. But I’ll be glad to support it:
* The Austin Astronomical Society has put out monthly newsletters since 1999. You can download them from austinastro.org. I did not look at every one, but out of the 11 newsletters put forth so far this year, none of them mention UFOs, Unidentified Objects, or Aliens. If an amateur astronomer in Austin observed what they believed was an alien spacecraft, this is one place they could publish it, for free.
* Stardate online, at stardate.org, is a Production of the University of Texas McDonald Observatory in Fort Davis, Texas. Their website is used by thousands of amateur astronomers all over the world, and it even includes instructions on “How to report unusual objects in the sky” to the International Astronomical Union. Again, if an amateur wanted to report a UFO, they could do so here. A search for UFO on that website turns up no information.
* The Astronomical League (astroleague.org) is another useful source of information for amateur astronomers. It has no information on UFOs. It does have links to about 25 other Observing Clubs online, run by amateurs. I didn’t look thru all of them for UFO information, but you could if you wanted to.
The point here is that amateur astronomers do not regularly report UFOs to the community. I cannot say with certainty why that is, but a pretty good guess is because they don’t see UFOs, or don’t relate an unidentified object to alien life. I would also say its a safe bet that Phil Plait, a professional astronomer, who has had a blog online for more than 10 years, probably knows hundreds, if not thousands, of amateur astronomers. His knowledge and experience in this very field of study makes him qualified to make such a statement.
Please re-read Phil’s original post. His point was that when people say they saw something they cannot identify, the common lay-person reaction is to think it was a UFO/Alien ship. Most of the UFO=Alien proponents on the web, on Youtube, and in this very blog argue that if we don’t know what it is, it MUST be aliens.
You said you saw a Unidentified Object. I did not know if you were telling us you saw a UFO and thought it was an alien ship or not. That’s the most common reaction, and that’s why I asked. Perhaps I should have phrased my question differently.
Do you think what you saw was an alien spacecraft? If not, you need to make yourself more clear. Otherwise, the crackers on the internet will gladly take your quote as evidence to support their claims.
November 28th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Greg in Austin Says:
November 28th, 2008 at 9:48 am
@Rory,
< < Those are great accounts of people witnessing things in the sky. Those are completely useless in providing proof of alien existence, as not a single one of them provide a single shred of testable, verifiable evidence. >>
Of course they are not verifiable proof. That is obvious, as most sightings, photos etc are also not sufficient proof to explain whatever this phenomena is. My point is and always has been - that there are Sightings (many very strange ones) throughout the world that defy rational explanation and remain unexplained by any current means at our disposal. Of course there has to be some explanation for what these sightings are / represent and in time I am sure that a satisfactory explanation for them all will emerge - whatever it is and I will not prejudge that.
The Postings I made were to show those people that baselessly knock and ridicule all such claims (unexplained ufo sightings) that they are incorrest. Particularly when they would like to suggest that those that make such reports are either screwballs, oddballs, drunks, mistaken. drugged - whatever, that this in fact is not always the case. For example, Phil in his Article had written:-
[Amateur astronomers, of course. They are dedicated observers, out every night peering at the sky. If The Truth Is Out There, then amateur astronomers would be reporting far and away the vast majority of UFOs But they don’t. Why not? Because they understand the sky! They know when a twinkling light is Venus, or a satellite, or a military flare, or a hot air balloon, and so they don’t report it. That, to me, is the killer argument that aliens aren’t visiting us. If they were, the amateur astronomers would spot them.
The post I made may not have cited Amateur Astronomers, but I am sure you get the message. It was not posted as proof of anything other than very reliable, credible scientific figures would contradict the likes of the claims being made in this article. Unexplained UFOs have and are seen and reported by Astronomers. Some of these same renowned Astronomers themselves believe (not proof of course) that these “intelligent) flying objects they witnessed are not of this world! Their deductions, not mine. Where they are from or what they are is really anybodys guess. At least until we have the evidence to say exactly what they are, or represent.
My whole gripe with a few of the Posters here and originally with Phil’s article, is that they seem to go out of their way to ridicule, belittle, stunt interest thus further reports and investigations becoming available. Hence they contradict themselves and help to impede the very possible evidence that they appear on the surface to want. Their words and actions hinder and sabotage the chances and opportunities for such needed evidence (if it is available), to emerge.. Many I suspect having such a vested interest in the stance that they have adopted do not want this evidence (should it contradict them) to ever appear.
I have a very open mind on this subject and prefer until I know, to remain in the middle and not at either extreme. On this thread, I have not yet read any post that represents the outright Believers (at any cost), but I have certainly read posts by the knockers and Disbelievers making their claims before the evidence has even been brought to court - not to mention it’s presentation or a willingness to await the Jury’s verdict. It’s more of a lynch mob mentality - they are guilty - hang him!
Why is it that none of Phil’s peers did a critique on his Article. Particularly the ones that might be participating her? After all, his article was written about and to do with a subject that the Jury is still-out on and he was attempting to influence the minds of students to his beliefs and not providing both sides of the coin - so to speak! Is it possible that all of them (his peers) those that may have read the article, would agree 100% with his deductions, claims and conclusions! Hardly the case! Is it possible because of the tone of it and the general ridicule that certain people try to apply to this subject, that they would be afraid or embarrassed to venture their opinion / disagreement in public! This I would think is very possible. People have to try to stand-up for their beliefs, opinions and views and question authoritive figures and their Governments more on all matters. We have seen what fear, propaganda, misinformation / disinformation and outright lies has done to American citizens, as they sheepishly believed , accepted and concurred with every untruth blasted at them, officially and unofficially.
Open-minded questioning I believe is needed and should be applied to this subject in hand. Thankfully it does not appear at this stage to have or to include the same dire and dreadful consequences as recently resulted from people not asking the right questions and demanding the truth from their Government in the US. But who knows, maybe down the road when another excuse to increase power and control is thought necessary by the powers that be, they may be quite happy to use the Alien card - whether they are proven as in UFOs, to exist or not! That would not matter if the whole world was now cringing in fear and of course only one earthly power to save them from the “imaginary threat”. Another very good reason I think, that this subject should be studied, debated and brought more out in the open and not left in the control of only vested interests. Universities and other public scientific organisations / institutions should be encouraged to openly investigate this subject and hopefully by so doing put an end to the controversy surrounding it. There is doubtlessly a phenomena to be studied and investigated. Now if this were done, how many more credible witnesses and sightings might come out of the woodwork! Much better way to spend the tax-payer’s money than killing people etc.
Sorry about the long post Greg Had to get that off my chest as there appears to be some here that inmagine that I am anti scientists. They do not realise how further they could be from the truth, but people will believe whatever suits them regardless of the facts. Now do I believe that scientists are never wrong or that they should be considered infallible - what do you think!
November 28th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
What is with all this unnecessary capitalization?! Maybe we’re seeing an example of “Conservation of Capitals.” In his posts, phil wright doesn’t use them, so Rory is picking up the Slack. Or maybe it started with rory?
Just a curious aspect of this discussion…
Clear skies, Alan
November 28th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Do any of the following reports sound or appear to be the result of someone seeing and misinterpreting Venus or the Moon for a UFO? Did Phil mention or describe any such reports, investigations, results in his Article. Is he that knowledgeable on the subject to have been able to dismiss, or to ignore them all out of hand! Perhaps what his article was really trying to prove is that the sightings that have been studied and that have an acceptable explanation, are not ETs. Wow! That is enlightening! Who does not know that!
Anyway, if that was not his intention - why would he leave the following information / details concerning possible UFOs out of his Article, or not reference / acknowledge their existence (Investigations and Reorts)!
Finding the answers to these questions is almost becoming a big a mystery as ‘part’ of the subject he wrote about!
What do you think?
Physical evidence
Besides visual sightings, cases sometimes have indirect physical evidence, including many cases studied by the military and various government agencies of different countries. Indirect physical evidence would be data obtained from afar, such as radar contact and photographs. More direct physical evidence involves physical interactions with the environment at close range—Hynek’s “close encounter” or Vallee’s “Type-I” cases—which include “landing traces,” electromagnetic interference, and physiological/biological effects.
* Radar contact and tracking, sometimes from multiple sites. These are often considered among the best cases since they usually involve trained military personnel and control tower operators, simultaneous visual sightings, and aircraft intercepts. One such recent example were the mass sightings of large, silent, low-flying black triangles in 1989 and 1990 over Belgium, tracked by multiple NATO radar and jet interceptors, and investigated by Belgium’s military (included photographic evidence). Another famous case from 1986 was the JAL 1628 case over Alaska investigated by the FAA.
* Photographic evidence, including still photos, movie film, and video, including some in the infrared spectrum (rare).
* Recorded visual spectrograms
* Recorded gravimetric (example) and magnetic disturbances (extremely rare)
* Landing physical trace evidence, including ground impressions, burned and/or desiccated soil, burned and broken foliage, magnetic anomalies, increased radiation levels, and metallic traces. See, e.g. Height 611 UFO Incident or the 1964 Lonnie Zamora’s Socorro, New Mexico encounter, considered one of the most inexplicable of the USAF Project Blue Book cases). A well-known example from December 1980 was the USAF Rendlesham Forest Incident in England. Another less than two weeks later, in January 1981, occurred in Trans-en-Provence and was investigated by GEPAN, then France’s official government UFO-investigation agency. Project Blue Book head Edward J. Ruppelt described a classic 1952 CE2 case involving a patch of charred grass roots. Catalogs of several thousand such cases have been compiled, particularly by researcher Ted Phillips.
* Physiological effects on people and animals including temporary paralysis, skin burns and rashes, corneal burns, and symptoms superficially resembling radiation poisoning, such as the Cash-Landrum incident in 1980. One such case dates back to 1886, a Venezuelan incident reported in Scientific American magazine.
* Animal/cattle mutilation cases, that some feel are also part of the UFO phenomenon. Such cases can and have been analyzed using forensic science techniques.
* Biological effects on plants such as increased or decreased growth, germination effects on seeds, and blown-out stem nodes (usually associated with physical trace cases or crop circles)
* Electromagnetic interference (EM) effects, including stalled cars, power black-outs, radio/TV interference, magnetic compass deflections, and aircraft navigation, communication, and engine disruption. A list of over 30 such aircraft EM incidents was compiled by NASA scientist Dr. Richard F. Haines. A famous 1976 military case over Tehran, recorded in CIA and DIA classified documents, resulted in communication losses in multiple aircraft and weapons system failure in an F-4 Phantom II jet interceptor as it was about to fire a missile on one of the UFOs. This was also a radar/visual case.[18]
* Remote radiation detection, some noted in FBI and CIA documents occurring over government nuclear installations at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1950, also reported by Project Blue Book director Ed Ruppelt in his book.
* Actual hard physical evidence cases, such as 1957, Ubatuba, Brazil, magnesium fragments analyzed by the Brazilian government and in the Condon Report and by others. The 1964 Socorro/Lonnie Zamora incident also left metal traces, analyzed by NASA.
* Misc: Recorded electromagnetic emissions, such as microwaves detected in the well-known 1957 RB-47 surveillance aircraft case, which was also a visual and radar case; polarization rings observed around a UFO by a scientist, explained by Dr. James Harder as intense magnetic fields from the UFO causing the Faraday effect.
These various reported physical evidence cases have been studied by various scientist and engineers, both privately and in official governmental studies (such as Project Blue Book, the Condon Committee, and the French GEPAN/SEPRA). A comprehensive scientific review of physical evidence cases was carried out by the 1998 Sturrock UFO panel.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Alan, it’s probably misplaced emphasis! Wait till I start capitalising the whole post. Lol!
Damn, I just noticed that the Article I posted concerning Physical evidence is full of capitals and not by me. Now where is the english professor when he is needed!
November 28th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Now, now! SHOUTING is definitely bad form, and hard to read too.
The Lonnie Zamora sighting is certainly one of the more compelling ones. One reason I object to the uncritical nature of many who believe in alien visitors and their inability to toss out evidence is the ease with which real sightings could be lost. There could be something buried in the noise. Roswell often seems a poster child for alien visitors, but doesn’t seem to deserve such a role.
I did find one possible explanation for Zamora’s sighting…
http://www.nmsr.org/socorro.htm
As the author comments, we’ll probably never know for sure. Too bad Zamora stopped taking interviews. (Is he still around?)
Clear skies, Alan
November 28th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Greg,
I appreciate your attempt to provide evidence on Phil’s behalf, but just because none of the amateur astronomers that are part of AAS have posted that they have seen a UFO, does not signify that they have not. A better test would be to send out an anonymous survey to the members of a local astronomy club and ask them to anonymously reply as to whether they have ever seen an object that they could not explain and ask them to describe the characteristics of the object that they saw. The reason an anonymous survey is needed is because of the negative retribution that goes with claiming to have seen a UFO; and that doesn’t mean one has seen an alien spaceship or little green men…but that is what is implied by people when they assume anyone who reports a UFO is reporting alien spaceships.
You might be interested to know that over 1000 military and commercial pilots have reported unknown craft that they could not identify. In 1976 two F-4 phantoms were scrambled to intercept an unknown object detected visually and on ground radar. As the F-4s approached the object they lost their communications and firing systems. This is documented in a Department of Defense memo declassified in 1981.
The UFO that I saw was not a celestial object. There were two of them which moved in unison and were completely silent. They moved very slowly and there were no blinking lights to signify an aircraft. They moved slowly away, disappeared, and then reappeared in the original location about 10 minutes later. The only way that I could explain them would have been two helicopters that were completely silent, that moved perfectly synchronous to each other, that did not have the required aviation lights, and whose light source seemed like a halogen light with no change in intensity, that is normally seen during an extended observation of an aircraft because the light source will very as the aircraft changes its angular position to you. Was it an alien spaceship? Heck if I know. But the point is there should not be a stigma because a person reports an unidentified flying object. Much of the problem with UFOs is because of the reactions of people who want to believe in aliens so badly that they are not open minded and see aliens in any unknown aircraft. But just as much of a problem is caused by people who are not open minded and refuse to believe in the possibility of unknown objects in our skies, whatever their origin.
You should study the history of UFOs. You will find that it is a fascinating subject that has been stuck in a quagmire between the fanatics on one end and people who refuse to even consider their existence on the other end. Meanwhile, the phenomena continues to exist with no appropriate scientific investigation and analysis to determine exactly what it is.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
@ Robert
Meanwhile, the phenomena (sic) continues to exist with no appropriate scientific investigation and analysis to determine exactly what it is.
I would disagree with that. I recall in college reading several sociology studies, and one entire textbook, dedicated to the UFO phenomenon. And that was just from my own casual browsing of the library. Twenty odd (very odd, occasionally) years later, I can’t imagine but there are tons more such investigations.
I suspect, however, a sociological explanation for the phenomenon (singular) is not what you are looking for, as it most likely would not involve hardware from off the planet.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Sorry, that first line above should be in quotes.
[i]”Meanwhile, the phenomena continues to exist with no appropriate scientific investigation and analysis to determine exactly what it is.”[/i]
November 28th, 2008 at 9:49 pm
well, drat.
November 28th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
oh dear
November 29th, 2008 at 12:02 am
@ kuhnigget
That’s why we need a preview/edit facility here.
November 29th, 2008 at 1:02 am
hi rory and alan,
excellent posts.keep it up!
cheers,phil
November 29th, 2008 at 2:19 am
Let me be clear, for those who are confused:
People see unidentified flying objects. No doubt.
To say that even one of those objects is an “alien spacecraft” is a leap of logic, or a leap of faith, or whatever you want to call it. It is not supported whatsoever by actual scientific evidence.
You might as well argue that the unidentified object was a flying unicorn, Pegasus, a one-eyed-one-horned-flying-purple-people-eater, Santa Claus, Flash Gordon, Doctor Who, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any number of imaginary creatures. There is no evidence of alien life forms visiting this planet. To suggest otherwise, without any proof, is utter nonsense.
Unless you can prove to me that ET is visiting here, you don’t have an argument. I don’t care who you are. Show us the physical evidence.
[end rant]
November 29th, 2008 at 2:31 am
Robert said,
Feel free to conduct such test yourself. You asked for evidence, and I provided it. Now you are changing the goal posts.
Please provide your source for this claim, and then please show how any of these reports prove that what they saw was alien technology.
Again, there is no doubt that you or I could see something in the sky we cannot identify. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS ALIENS! I cannot be more clear on this matter.
I’ve studied UFO’s off and on since I was 6. I wanted to believe. I was fooled into believing they exist, because I wanted to believe. Since then, I grew up, and realized that in order for something to be scientific fact, it has to be rigorously tested. So far, I have seen zero scientific tests that give credence to the idea that aliens are visiting Earth. The closest thing we have so far to real alien life forms are the fossilized microbes within a meteorite from Mars. And even that data is not 100% conclusive. If you can show me a valid scientific study that proves the existence of alien life, please let me know I would be thrilled to see it.
November 29th, 2008 at 5:41 am
hi greg,
how about all the metallic disc -shaped ufos that have been sighted over the years? surely they were built by someone or something? surely not all the reports are hoaxes or misperception,although i will accept that a lot of reports may be bogus.check out a ‘classic’ metallic ufo on my youtube channel ‘phil2466′.this object was extremely high(you can tell by the amount of atmosphere blurring and dimming and shimmering the image)it was literally invisible to the naked eye,having been found with binocs.imaged with a 600mm f.l. apo refractor + canond slr.the object has some sort of black ‘markings’ on it which change position from one frame to the next - suggesting an anticlockwise rotation.please have a look!i know it isn’t scientifically valid evidence,but it is evidence of the existence of metallic disc- shaped objects high in our atmosphere.
cheers,phil
November 29th, 2008 at 6:26 am
Greg you stated, “You asked for evidence, and I provided it. Now you are changing the goal posts.” What you provided was not evidence. Evidence would be an actual survey, conducted with proper methodology, of amateur astronomers and professional astronomers, that determined the percentage of them who had seen unidentified flying objects. For you to draw conclusions based on whether any astronomers post sightings of UFOs makes as much sense as determining an election poll by canvasing newsletters and websites. You are the one defending the statement that amateur astronomers have not seen UFOs. You have the burden of proof to prove that assertion. As of yet, you have provided no evidence.
Greg you stated, “Please provide your source for this claim, and then please show how any of these reports prove that what they saw was alien technology.” I never said any of the reports by pilots proved they saw an alien technology. I simply said that they saw an object in the sky that they could not identify as any type of known aircraft. I no longer see a point in continuing these discussions with you because you are continuing to distort what I have stated.
Greg you stated, “Again, there is no doubt that you or I could see something in the sky we cannot identify. THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS ALIENS! I cannot be more clear on this matter.” And I don’t know how many times that I have told you that I’m not stating that seeing UFOs equates to proving aliens exist.
There is no point in continuing these discussions with you. You are not capable of arguing a point without putting words in the other person’s mouth. You are also discussing a subject which you obviously have not knowledge of. I guess that’s why you have to keep leaping to conclusions and saying that UFOs don’t prove aliens exist, because you have nothing more to say.
When it comes to facts and evidence, you have little input. You totally ignored the 1976 F-4 example that I provided you. You had nothing to say about the examples that Rory provided you, except to say that UFOs don’t prove aliens exist.
I would suggest that you take a course in debate or the scientific method. Both help teach how to logically approach and examine an issue in an unbiased fashion.
November 29th, 2008 at 6:41 am
It’s always a special treat to hear skeptics say things like “I BELIEVE there’s scientific explanations for everything.”…
November 29th, 2008 at 6:43 am
Alan, I have maded three attempts to submit a reply to your post, but my reply does not appear on the thread! Why this is the case I have no idea. This post is just a test and if it shows up I will repost my reply.
Regards
November 29th, 2008 at 6:49 am
Kuhnigget,
You stated, “I recall in college reading several sociology studies, and one entire textbook, dedicated to the UFO phenomenon. And that was just from my own casual browsing of the library. Twenty odd (very odd, occasionally) years later, I can’t imagine but there are tons more such investigations.”
There are very good sociology studies regarding the UFO phenomenon, as you point out. These rightfully delve into the issue of how individuals can develop a cult belief about a subject. They do not address whether the phenomenon itself is real. I was referring to a scientific study of the phenomenon to explain its origin, be it real or not.
The first such studies were conducted by the Air Force in 1947 and 1949 and were called Projects SIGN and Project Grudge. These projects were summarized by scientists in the Robertson Panel who stated that “UFOs were not a threat to our national security”. This was followed by the Air Force’s Project Bluebook. The Air Force then hired the University of Colorado to impartially investigate the subject and draw a conclusion in 1969. This was a very controversial study due to its limited time frame and with issues that are too extensive to get into here. Nonetheless, that was the last scientific study of the UFO phenomenon that has been made. There have been none since 1969. Plenty of books but no “officially” sanctioned studies of the phenomenon.
November 29th, 2008 at 7:07 am
How strange! My reply was sent, but has not yet appeared whereas the one above has. There was nothing written in this post that would warrant any type of restriction to it’s acceptability here as far as I can judge!
Do you know if this is normal or can happen when a submission is being scrutinised? I did not see any notification saying:
[Your comment is awaiting moderation.]
November 29th, 2008 at 7:23 am
# Rory Considine Says:
November 29th, 2008 at 6:43 am
>>Alan, I have maded three attempts to submit a reply to your post, but my reply does not appear on the thread! Why this is the case I have no idea. This post is just a test and if it shows up I will repost my reply.
Regards <<
Strange things happen in cyberspace. I’ve had similar things happen on various Yahoo groups and with my regular e-mail. It just vanishes without a trace, or even appears many hours or even a day later. Indeed my first few posts here took a long time to appear, yet never received the “Your comment is awaiting moderation.” note. I wondered if I had missed some need to register, or was having a computer problem.
Clear skies, Alan
November 29th, 2008 at 7:41 am
Robert Says:
November 29th, 2008 at 6:49 am
< < ....There have been none since 1969. Plenty of books but no “officially” sanctioned studies of the phenomenon. >>
Apparently there have been some further (2?) scientific studies Robert:-
These various reported physical evidence cases have been studied by various scientist and engineers, both privately and in official governmental studies (such as Project Blue Book, the Condon Committee, and the French GEPAN/SEPRA). A comprehensive scientific review of physical evidence cases was carried out by the 1998 Sturrock UFO panel.
Peter Andrew Sturrock (born 1924) is a British scientist.
An emeritus professor of applied physics at Stanford University[1], much of Sturrock’s career has been devoted to astrophysics, plasma physics, and solar physics, but Sturrock is interested in other fields, including ufology, scientific inference and in the history of science and philosophy of science. Sturrock has been awarded many prizes and honors, and has written or co-authored many scientific articles and textbooks.
In 1998, Sturrock organized a scientific panel to review various types of physical evidence associated with UFOs. The panel felt that existing physical evidence that might support the ETH was inconclusive, but also deemed extremely puzzling UFO cases worthy of further scientific study. [7] Sturrock subsequently wrote up the work of the panel in a book The UFO Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_A._Sturrock
CNN’s Interview With Peter Sturrock (Transcript)
Summary: In the first independent review of UFO phenomena in more than 30 years, a nine-member group of scientists says physical evidence linked to some sightings deserves additional scientific study. The physicist who headed up that panel is Peter Sturrock
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc541.htm
GEPAN / SEPRA / GEIPAN (France)
Since 1977, the national space agency of France CNES has been helping civilian and military authorities understand the precise nature of Un-identified Aerospace Phenomena (PAN). The unit involved is the Rare Aerospace Phenomena Study Department (SEPRA) based at the CNES technical centre in Toulouse. Since 1977, the department has developed a precise analytical methodology and today has accumulated a considerable database. The SEPRA database is comprised of more than 2200 different cases, with some 6000 eyewitness accounts and approximately 100 sightings from aircraft.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/Gepan-Sepra.htm
November 29th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Robert the following may interest you and indeed others:-
COMETA Report
In 1999 an important document was published in France entitled, UFOs and Defense: What must we be prepared for? (”Les Ovni Et La Defense: A quoi doit-on se préparer?”). This ninety-page report is the result of an in-depth study of UFOs, covering many aspects of the subject, especially questions of national defense. The study was carried out over several years by an independent group of former “auditors” at the Institute of Advanced Studies for National Defense, or IHEDN, and by qualified experts from various fields. Before its public release, it has been sent to French President Jacques Chirac and to Prime Minister Lionel Jospin. The report is prefaced by General Bernard Norlain of the Air Force, former Director of IHEDN, and it begins with a preamble by André Lebeau, former President of the National Center for Space Studies (Centre National D’études Spatiales), or CNES, the French equivalent of NASA. The group itself, collective author of the report, is an association of experts, many of whom are or have been auditors of IHEDN, and it is presided over by General Denis Letty of the Air Force, former auditor (FA) of IHEDN.
COMETA Report on UFOs - Part 1 (PDF) PDF Document
Part 1 of the complete French report on UFOs published in 1999, entitled “UFOs and Defense: What must we be prepared for?”. This ninety-page report is the result of an in-depth study of UFOs, covering many aspects of the subject, especially questions of national defense.
COMETA Report on UFOs - Part 2 (PDF) PDF Document
Part 2 of the complete French report on UFOs published in 1999, entitled “UFOs and Defense: What must we be prepared for?”. This ninety-page report is the result of an in-depth study of UFOs, covering many aspects of the subject, especially questions of national defense.
The 1999 French Report on UFOs and Defense (PDF) PDF Document
Mark Rodeghier, CUFOS
Article on the COMETA report, the 90-page report that is the result of an in-depth study of UFOs over a period of about three years, covering many aspects of the subject, especially questions of how the UFO phenomenon affects the national defense of France and that of other nations.
The French Report on UFOs and Defense: A Summary
Gildas Bourdais
On Friday July 16, 1999 an important document was published in France entitled, UFOs and Defense: What must we be prepared for? (”Les Ovni Et La Defense: A quoi doit-on se préparer?”). This ninety-page report is the result of an in-depth study of UFOs, covering many aspects of the subject, especially questions of national defense.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/cometa.htm
November 29th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Robert,
I am well aware of the scientific method. I use it all the time.
Perhaps reading comprehension is not your specialty, so please let me repeat my exact words,
That is the topic of discussion here. Amateur astronomers, just like everybody else, see unknown objects in the sky. My argument is that few, if any, equate an unknown object with alien technology, and that is well supported by the sheer volume of UFO=Alien websites out there.
Please tell me, with your reasoning skills, how an eyewitness report from 1976 proves aliens are visiting earth?
November 29th, 2008 at 8:11 am
@ Phil Wright:
“check out a ‘classic’ metallic ufo on my youtube channel ‘phil2466′”
Looks like a humble mylar balloon to me, slowly drifting through the air. The “rotation” is just the balloon wobbling up and down. BTW, I saw a similar object last summer. Probably about 1500 feet up. Thought it was a helicopter at first (the daily medevac run from Lancaster to L.A. County General passes over my house every day), but it appeared to be hovering and darting about from side to side. Even through by 10×80 binocs it appeared as a silvery blob. Then it caught a downdraft and came close enough to reveal its true nature. Looked pretty much like your metallic ufo.
@ Robert:
“They do not address whether the phenomenon itself is real. I was referring to a scientific study of the phenomenon to explain its origin, be it real or not.”
The textbook I read did delve into the actual phenomenon, not just the behavior post-sighting. As I recall (sorry, it’s been 25 years), the thesis saw parallels with religious “sightings” of one sort or another. It actually made a very strong case, or so I thought. I will try to dig up the author and title.
November 29th, 2008 at 8:19 am
@Robert,
If you agree that UFOs do not prove aliens are visiting earth, then why are we arguing?
November 29th, 2008 at 9:02 am
hi greg,
my scope will not even infinity- focus on anything less than 3/4 mile away/high!the thing is edge on ,and tilting slowly,first to the left,then levelling for a while,then tilting to the right.the video is highly speeded up with 2 minutes of images compressed into 5 seconds of movie.it does not display any random tumbling,just slow tilting and spinning.it was also virtually stationary in the sky.i mean,it may be a balloon,but it just seems odd compared with the hundreds of mylar balloons i have observed/imaged before.
thanks for looking!
phil wright ,uk
November 29th, 2008 at 9:13 am
@phil,
How do you determine the size and distance of an object you photograph? Can you tell, with your equipment, if an object is a small balloon 1 mile away, or a larger craft 5 miles away?
If you had a second setup, with the same equipment, at a different location, could you triangulate and roughly estimate an objects actual size?
Where are you located?
November 29th, 2008 at 9:43 am
hi kuhnigget,
my last remark was meant to be for you,but i got confused as to who replied about my metallic ufo video!did you see the’2′ video on my youtube channel?now that is a metallic mylar-type balloon,which randomly tunbles along.in the future,i aim to display any balloons that i image,on my youtube channel,so that anyone can compare what i think is odd,with things that are obviously balloons.
thanks for your time,
phil wright,uk
November 29th, 2008 at 9:58 am
hello greg,
it is virtually impossible to tell how high the objects are,or how big they are,or how fast they are moving!all i know is,i feel that i can roughly guess if something is very high,or low,by the way the atmosphere ’softens’the view(in binocs).if you watch a distant airliner in binocs,on a nice sunny day,you can almost detect the slight blue tinge on a white airplane fuselage for instance.
im in coventry,england.i feel that it would be difficult to get somebody a distance away to triangulate observational data,due to perpetual cloudy english weather,the sheer difficulty in spotting tiny glimmers of light in a large area of sky,etc.
i know the basic mathematics involved in calculating angular size and stuff,since i have a book called ‘project idendification’ by harley rutledge phd.he was a skeptical phycisist,until he decided to take a team of his students to a location,in the u.s.,which was undergoing a ufo ‘flap’.his team used astro telescopes such as questar’s and celestron scts, to image and measure true sizes,movements,and velocities.in all,i think his team recorded more than 70 ‘high strangeness’ ufos.
cheers,phil
November 29th, 2008 at 10:19 am
@ Phil wright
did you see the’2′ video on my youtube channel?
Yes, I did, and a quick google search will indeed bring up a catalog of mylar balloons, one of which is a giant #2 that exactly matches the shape in that clip.
The other one I commented on, in my opinion, is exactly the same thing: a mylar balloon, most likely of a basic lozenge shape. The “rotation” is just the balloon wobbling back and forth. I think your videos show rather dramatically how odd a simple object like a helium balloon can look when it’s high up in the sky.
Again, from my own observations of a drifting mylar balloon this past summer, I noted how the object appeared to rapidly shift its position back and forth when viewed with the naked eye. Further observation with a pair of high-powered binoculars, however, showed no such motion. Our eyes tend to shift around continuously when presented with a large expanse of blue sky. It’s that constant shifting that creates the illusion of motion in the small, distant object. Again, this illustrates rather clearly how easy it is to draw the wrong conclusion about a “ufo” - especially when you add in other factors such as emotions, preconceptions, group psychology, etc.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Greg in Austin Says:
November 29th, 2008 at 8:19 am
@Robert,
< < If you agree that UFOs do not prove aliens are visiting earth, then why are we arguing? >>
Exactly! Yet when anyone makes a post pertaining to UFOs the ones that cannot be explained after investigation, you and one or two others here, keep harping back to “Alien Spacecraft” that had not been mentioned or suggested in the posts in the first place. Most of us are more interested in having the ones that appear to defy explanation - rationally explained. The problem is that none of those that seem so keen on rubbishing / knocking and ridiculing the phenomena and those that draw it our attention, appear to know anything about the subject (study and investigation results-wise) of the unexplainable sightings that are really the important issue.
How is it that these people cannot realise that most of us here are not cliaming, saying or even suggesting that all UFOs are “Alien Spacecraft”, nor that all or any of the unexplained ones are. They do without a doubt represent something unknown and that appears to defy at times many of our understood laws of physics etc. As the situation exists (with neither proof to deny or to affirm) and because of their apparent appearance and attributes, they could just as easily be from anywhere. Particularly when all other logical or currently known and understood explanations have been tried and ruled out. You Greg, or anyone else at this time cannot for certainty (knowingly) state that these objects do not have an alien source. You cannot scientifically prove this no more than can the true believers. Neither also do not have the proof required to be able to show and explain what they are and prove your stance on the subject. I know, I know, it is up to the other side to provide the proof you will say. However, I am sure that they are trying to do this, but I personally also believe that there is an onus on the Scientific world to actually explain this phenomena and help to understand and to resolve the matter - if they can! Carl Sagan once stated that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
So, the knockers and ridiculers (and I am not saying that you are one of those), come across just as illogical and even more close-minded than their counterparts that believe without any proof that all these UFO sightings are of alien spacecraft. You do not need to reiterate your own stance again on waiting for the required evidence to be produced to resolve this phenomena. We would all would like to see this happen. That was / is what the Disclosure Project is all about. A lot of people believe (and with good reason) that the US Government is sitting on the required evidence that would actually prove that we are in fact being visited by Aliens and much more. That may be, but without the disclosure, we are without this evidence - if it actually exists at all!
I originally (in my 2nd post I think) described this Disclosure Project and their insider witnesses. I asked the asked the naysayers / knockers / disbelievers a number of questions and not one of these Posters took it upon themselves to answer the simple questions - yourself included. Why was this? Is it that none of you are aware of this project, have not read these witness testimonials, or have and are unable to answer? Anyone who tries to ridicule, put-down or deny this phenomena should at least know what they are talking about with regard to the outstanding and unexplainable sightings. They should not just deny for the sake of taking a stance without some depth of knowledge into what they are actually talking about and denying. If they do so they only show their own ignorance and intolerance.
Perhaps you can now revisit the post I speak of and address the qustions I had asked:
Rory Considine Says:
November 26th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
You can also visit the Disclosure Project site at:- http://www.disclosureproject.org/
It is the Witnesses and their reports that I was addressing in the above Post.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:16 am
# kuhnigget Says:
November 29th, 2008 at 10:19 am
>> Our eyes tend to shift around continuously when presented with a large expanse of blue sky. It’s that constant shifting that creates the illusion of motion in the small, distant object. <<
For folks who want to read more about this, do a search on autokinetic effect.
Clear skies, Alan
November 29th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Well I figured there was some fancy name for it. Thanks, Alan.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Greg, the following is solely for information purposes. It is not proof as we have discussed, but it certainly should arouse interest and openess to the UFO phenomena in the most closed-minded, narrow minded or just normal sceptical disbelievers. The following is only a sample of the documentation I previously referred to. I will post this in two parts. Part 1 :-
DISCLOSURE PROJECT BRIEFING DOCUMENT
Prepared for:
Members of the Press
Members of United States Government
Members of the US Scientific Community
2001
“There exists a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of the national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself.”
- Senator Daniel K. Inouye
“In the councils of Government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
- President Eisenhower, January 1961
The Scientists
Carl Sagan, Ph.D.
Late Professor of Astronomy and Space Sciences, Cornell University
“It now seems quite clear that Earth is not the only inhabited planet. There is evidence that the bulk of the stars in the sky have planetary systems. Recent research concerning the origin of life on Earth suggests that the physical and chemical processes leading to the origin of life occur rapidly in the early history of the majority of planets within our Milky Way galaxy–perhaps as many as a million–are inhabited by technical civilizations in advance of our own. Interstellar space flight is far beyond our present technical capabilities, but there seems to be no fundamental physical objections to preclude, from our own vantage point, the possibility of its development by other civilizations.”2
2 Sagan, Carl. “Unidentified Flying Objects.” They Encyclopedia Americana. 1963.
Margaret Mead, Ph.D.
Anthropologist, author
“There are unidentified flying objects. That is, there are a hard core of cases–perhaps 20 to 30 percent in different studies–for which there is no explanation. We can only imagine what purpose lies behind the activities of these quiet, harmlessly cruising objects that time and again approach the Earth. The most likely explanation, it seems to me, is that they are simply watching what we are up to…”3
J. Allen Hynek, Ph.D.
Former Chairman, Department of Astronomy, Northwestern University; Scientific Consultant, Air Force Project Blue Book (1947 - 1969)
“Each wave of sightings adds to the accumulation of reports which defy analysis by present methods… An investigative process in depth is necessary here if, after twenty years of confusion, we want some answers.”
“When the long awaited solution to the UFO problem comes, I believe that it will prove to be not merely the next small step in the march of science but a mighty and totally unexpected quantum jump.”4
Frank B. Salisbury, Ph.D.
Professor, Plant Physiology, Utah State University
“I must admit that any favorable mention of the flying saucers by a scientist amounts to extreme heresy and places the one making the statement in danger of excommunication by the scientific theocracy. Nevertheless, in recent years I have investigated the story of the unidentified flying object (UFO), and I am no longer able to dismiss the idea lightly.”5
James E. McDonald, Ph.D.
Senior Physicist, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, University of Arizona
“The type of UFO reports that are most intriguing are close-range sightings of machinelike objects of unconventional nature and unconventional performance characteristics, seen at low altitudes, and sometimes even on the ground. The general public is entirely unaware of the large number of such reports that are coming from credible witnesses… When one starts searching for such cases, their numbers are quite astonishing.”6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics UFO Subcommittee (1967)
“From a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations…the only promising approach is a continuing moderate-level effort with emphasis on improved data collection and objective means…involving available remote sensing capabilities and certain software changes.” [emphasis added]
and regarding The Condon Report (Project Blue Book), 1986: “The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from The Condon Report’s content; namely, that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about 30 percent) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study.”7
Peter A. Sturrock, Ph.D.
Professor, Space Science and Astrophysics, and deputy director of the Center for Space Sciences and Astrophysics, Stanford University
“The definitive resolution of the UFO enigma will not come about unless and until the problem is subjected to open and extensive scientific study by the normal procedures of established science and administrators in universities.”
“Although…the scientific community has tended to minimize the significance of the UFO phenomenon, certain individual scientists have argued that the phenomenon is both real and significant… To a scientist, the main source of hard information (other than his own experiments [and] observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is self-reinforcing; the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view works against the presentation of relevant data…”8
Helmut Lammer, Ph.D.
Physicist, Space Research Institute, Department for Extraterrestrial Physics, Austria
[Writing about the formations in the Cydonia region of Mars]
“It is the author’s belief that the Viking data are not of sufficient resolution to permit the identification of possible mechanisms of the origin for these objects, although some results to date suggest that they may not be natural. Clearly these mysterious objects deserve further scrutiny by the forthcoming Mars missions. If one of these missions finds that the face on Mars, the pyramids and the other strange structures are indeed artificial, then the ‘unlikely’ Prior Colonization or Previous Technical Civilization hypotheses would provide a possible answer.”9
Professor Hermann Oberth (1894-1989)
German rocket expert and a founding father of the space age.
“It is my thesis that flying saucers are real and that they are space ships from another solar system. I think that they possibly are manned by intelligent observers who are members of a race that may have been investigating our Earth for centuries. I think that they possibly have been sent out to conduct systematic, long-range investigations, first of men, animals, vegetation, and more recently of atomic centers, armaments an centers of armament production.”10 7
Dr. Carl Justav Jung
“A purely psychological explanation is ruled out…the discs show signs of intelligent guidance, by quasi-human pilots…the authorities in possession of important information should not hesitate to enlighten the public as soon and as completely as possible.”11
Astronaut Edgar Mitchell, Ph.D.
In 1971, Dr. Mitchell became the sixth person to walk on the moon as part of the US Apollo Space program.
“I am an American astronaut and a trained scientist. Because of my position people in high places confide in me. And, as a result, I have no doubt that aliens HAVE visited this planet. The American government and governments throughout the world have thousands of files of UFO sightings which cannot be explained. As a scientist, it is logical to me that at least some of these will have been witness of alien craft. As a former astronaut, the military people who have access to these files are more willing to talk to me than to people they regard as mere cranks. The stories I have heard from these people, who are more highly qualified than me to talk about UFOs, leave me in no doubt that aliens have already visited Earth…”
… “when I learned that aliens really do exist, I wasn’t too surprised. But what did shock me when I started investigating extra-terrestrial reports a decade ago is the extent to which the proof has been hushed up. It isn’t just the US government which has kept quiet about alien visits. It would be arrogant of an American like myself to assume that ETs would only choose to visit my country. Indeed, I’ve heard convincing stories about governments all over the world that know of alien visits - including the British government.”12
November 29th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Greg here Part 2:-
3.2.2 Section II: The Government Speaks - Political, Military and Intelligence Figures
President Harry S. Truman
“I can assure you that flying saucers, given that they exist, are not constructed by any power on Earth.”13
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
“Beware the military-industrial complex.”14
President Gerald Ford
“…I have taken a special interest in these [UFO] accounts because many of the latest reported sightings have been in my home state of Michigan… Because I think there may be substance to some of these reports and because I believe the American people are entitled to a more thorough explanation than has been given them by the Air Force to date, I am proposing that either the Science and Astronautics Committee or the Armed Services Committee of the House, schedule hearings on the subject of UFOs and invite testimony from both the executive branch of the Government and some of the persons who claim to have seen UFOs…In the firm belief that the American public deserves a better explanation than that thus far given by the Air Force, I strongly recommend that there be a committee investigation of the UFO phenomena. I think we owe it to the people to establish credibility regarding UFOs and to produce the greatest possible enlightenment on this subject.”15
President Jimmy Carter
“If I become President, I’ll make every piece of information this country has about UFO sightings available to the public, and the scientists. I am convinced that UFOs exist because I’ve seen one…”16
President Ronald Reagan
“…when you stop to think that we’re all God’s children, wherever we may live in the world, I couldn’t help but say to [Gorbachev], just think how easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe…”
“Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.”17
J. Edgar Hoover
“I would do it [study UFOs], but before agreeing to do it, we must insist upon full access to discs recovered. For instance in the L.A. case, the Army grabbed it and would not let us have it for cursory examination.”18
General Nathan D. Twining
While he was the Commanding General of the Air Material Command he wrote the following:
“It is the opinion that:
a. The phenomena reported is something real and not visionary or fictitious.
b. There are objects probably approximating the shape of a disc, of such appreciable size as to appear to be as large as a man-made aircraft.
c. There is a possibility that some of the incidents may be caused by natural phenomena, such as meteors.
d. The reported operating characteristics such as extreme rates of climb, maneuverability (particularly in roll), and action which must be considered evasive when sighted or contacted by friendly aircraft and radar, lend belief to the possibility that some of the objects are controlled either manually, automatically, or remotely.”19
General Walter Bedell Smith
CIA Director, 1950-1953
“The Central Intelligence Agency has reviewed the current situation concerning unidentified flying objects which have crated extensive speculation in the press and have been the subject of concern to government organizations… Since 1947, approximately 2,000 official reports of sightings have been received, and, of these, about 20% are as yet unexplained. It is my view that this situation has possible implications for our national security which transcend the interests of a single service. A broader, coordinated effort should be initiated to develop a firm scientific understanding of the several phenomena which apparently are involved in these reports…”20
H. Marshall Chadwell
Assistant Director, Scientific Intelligence, CIA
“Since 1947, ATIC has received approximately 1500 official reports of sightings plus an enormous volume of letters, phone calls, and press reports. During July 1952 alone, official reports totaled 250. Of the 1500 reports, Air Force carries 20 percent as unexplained and of those received from January through July 1952 it carries 28 percent unexplained.” 21
Captain Edward J. Ruppelt
Former head [1951-1953], U.S. Air Force Project Blue Book
“This report has been difficult to write because it involves something that doesn’t officially exist. It is well known that ever since the first flying saucer was reported in June 1947 the Air Force has officially said that there is no proof that such a thing as an interplanetary spaceship exists. But what is not well known is that this conclusion is far from being unanimous among the military and their scientific advisors because of the one word, proof; so the UFO investigations continue.” 22
Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoetter
First Director, CIA, 1947-1950
“It is time for the truth to be brought out… Behind the scenes, high-ranking Air Force officers are soberly concerned about the UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe the unknown flying objects are nonsense… I urge immediate Congressional action to reduce the dangers from secrecy about Unidentified Flying Objects…”23
Major General E. B. LeBailly
Director of Information, Office of the Secretary of the Air Force
“…many of the reports that cannot be explained have come from intelligent and technically well qualified individuals whose integrity cannot be doubted. In addition, the reports received officially by the Air Force include only a fraction of the spectacular reports which are publicized by many private UFO organizations.”24
Congressman William Stanton (Pennsylvania)
“The Air Force failed in its responsibility in thoroughly investigating this incident [April 17, 1966 sighting, Pennsylvania]… Once people entrusted with the public welfare no longer think people can handle the truth, then the people, in turn, will no longer trust the government.”25
Wilbert Smith
Department of Transport - Canada, senior radio engineer, head of Project Magnet
“The matter is the most highly classified subject in the United States Government, rating higher even than the H-bomb. Flying saucers exist. Their modus operandi is unknown but concentrated effort is being made by a small group headed by Doctor Vannevar Bush. The entire matter is considered by the United States authorities to be of tremendous significance.”26
Lord Hill-Norton, Admiral of the Fleet, Great Britain (Five Star)
“I have frequently been asked why I am so keenly interested in UFOs; people seem to think it odd that someone who has been so closely involved with Defense for many years should be so simple. I am interested for several reasons. First, I have the sort of inquiring mind that likes to have things satisfactorily explained, and the one aspect of this whole matter which is starkly clear to me is that UFOs have not been explained, to my satisfaction. Indeed, so far as I am concerned the U stands more for unexplained than unidentified. Second, there is a very wide range of other unexplained phenomena which may or may not be related to UFOs but which have come to my notice in the UFO connection. Third, I am convinced that there is an official cover-up of the investigations which governments have made into UFOs, certainly in the United States… The evidence that there are objects which have been seen in our atmosphere, and even on terra firma, that cannot be accounted for either as man-made objects or as any physical force or effect known to our scientists seems to me to be overwhelming.”27
Major-General Wilfred de Brouwer (Deputy Chief, Royal Belgian Air Force)
“In any case, the Air Force has arrived to the conclusion that a certain number of anomalous phenomena has been produced within Belgian airspace… Until now, not a single trace of aggressiveness has been signaled; military or civilian air traffic has not been perturbed or threatened. We can therefore advance that the presumed activities to date constitute a concrete menace… The day will undoubtedly come when the phenomenon will be observed with technological means of detection and collection that won’t leave a single doubt about its origin…”28
November 29th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
excellent stuff rory!!
November 29th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
@Rory,
I don’t see my name on any of those lists, so yes, I will admit, I have no knowledge of the Disclosure Project.
Please forgive my earlier rants. My frustration lies from the fact that the number of “aliens are here” believers appear on radio, television, and in news reports far more often than those who want real evidence. Try listening to Coast to Coast AM for 10 minutes, and you’ll understand what I mean.
I agree, I cannot prove a negative - that aliens don’t exist. To me, the UFO phenomenon is basically a modern version of ancient mythologies. It is human nature to find meaning in everything. Until someone comes along (accidentally or on purpose) and makes a new discovery to explain the unknown, we will continue to have stories like these.
Great discussion!
November 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Edgar Mitchell is a good poster child for people with “credentials” believing things that have no demonstrated basis in reality - Uri Geller bending spoons with his mind and parapsychology, for instance.
http://www.mysterious-america.net/edgarmitchellint.html
I love the way he invokes quantum mechanics!
Clear skies, Alan
November 29th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Pretty much everyone quoted on the two lists given above seems to be either A, offering an opinion (based on what?) or B, commenting on some government investigation which they didn’t care for.
Harry Truman???? The man didn’t even know the Manhattan Project was going on while he was vice president. Ronald Reagan???? He let his wife’s astrologer influence his schedule! J. Edgar Hoover??? Oh, yeah, he never had an axe to grind. Air Force officers “concerned” about the matter…during the Cold War? Hey, there’s a surprise!
And added to the list is nonsense about the “face” on Mars?
C’mon, dude, you can do better.
November 29th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
kuhnigget Says, in part:
November 29th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
>> And added to the list is nonsense about the “face” on Mars? <<
Now that we have far more detailed views of Mars, the “face” and other purported structures no longer provide any support for arguments about aliens. As I mentioned earlier, people lose credibility when they can’t let such things go and admit a mistake.
If you’ve wondered why there is such a tendency to believe things well after they’ve been shown wrong, I recommend Tavris and Aronson’s “Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts.” Both an interesting and disturbing read.
Clear skies, Alan
November 29th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Interesting to contrast Lonnie Zamora’s “Blue Book” report with descriptions elsewhere. He first said “Saw two people in white coveralls very close to the object.” and later offered “These persons appeared normal in shape–but possibly they were small adults or large kids.” He also noted he saw them for perhaps two seconds. (Given the distance - 150 to 200 yards - and brief look, he could certainly have mistaken their size.)
Reports on “UFO sites” include “[Zamora] then noticed two beings that he thought at first to be children,” “[Zamora] reported seeing two, small aliens,” or said he saw “humanoid figures.”
There are also embellishments on his description of the two people, of the craft, and of his description of its flight.
Nothing like changing the facts a little to support your view. And then they wonder why people tend to be skeptical of such things.
Clear skies, Alan
November 29th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Greg in Austin Says:
November 29th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
< < Please forgive my earlier rants. >>
No problems and I did not take offence at anything you said.
< < My frustration lies from the fact that the number of “aliens are here” believers appear on radio, television, and in news reports far more often than those who want real evidence. Try listening to Coast to Coast AM for 10 minutes, and you’ll understand what I mean. >>
I do understand what you mean, though I would of course need to listen to the particular viewpoint before I could try to make a judgement on what was being said. There is so much information / disinformation / misinformation (of all sorts) out there, that one would really need to acclimatise themselves to what they are going to hear in order to slowly digest it. I kid you not. Even if a portion of what one hears, reads etc. is true concerning this subject - it is still mind-boggling and I think that I am a fairly open/ broad-minded person. I can almost understand how the Government “if” they possessed the information spoken of, would be afraid to release it. What with some 100 million fundamental Christians or their type in America alone, not to mention other fundamentalists and Creationists elsewhere, this information could drive them all crazier than they are. This would be aside from the problem with vested interests (Big Corporations) losing their hold and control on the masses through our almost total reliance on fossil fuels, cars etc. If I were to pick the real reasons why the Government would not release the information / technology that they are claimed by many to posess (lets imagine that this is true for the moment), I would strongly think that it would be because of the latter reason given above - the Greed, Power and Control factors!
Years ago, when I first had an interest in this subject, it appeared so much simpler. There were unexplained sightings and that some of these could possibly represent aliens or their craft visiting this planet. I did not come back to the subject until a year or two ago (having dipped in and out over the years) and was surprised at the complexity that had developed over the years - though the subject matter had not gone away, if anything it had accumulated and increased, on every level. Now I found myself reading about all sorts of matters (one article led to another) from Alien visitations; abductions; animal mutalations; crop circles; alien agreements with the US Government (or some version of the government); secret powerful groups within or above Government control or oversight; black operations and massive funds for same; back-engineering of alien craft; conspiracy to keep this cheap or free technology from the masses because of vested interests (oil companies, military etc); different types of known and described aliens races; stations on the dark side of the Moon and evidence there of buidings etc., as also on Mars; NASA (Never A Straight Answer) disseminating altered images from the Moon and Mars and much much more. Strange, weird and even fascinating - the stuff previously of science fiction.
What a jungle to deal with and try to make some sense out of! Well, I have done my best (while trying to remain sane lol!) and though of course it is nigh inpossible to prove anything definite one way or the other, it all left many questions in my mind that I strongly feel definitely need clarification and answering. That is exactly what the Disclosure Project was setup to try to achieve - pressurise the Government into disclosing all they know about UFOs and an alien presence and releasing the cheap or free technology that would be beneficial to mankind. I can certainly see that if this is true that there would be some strong opposition to ever doing this. Particularly when there is so much money invested and to be made from oil etc. So, all this is food for ever more conspiracies - whatever the truth is in connection with any of them. The Government could easily resolve and stop a lot of this if they released all the documentation they have concerning UFOs and their investigation or knowledge of same. That leads to another big question in favour of those that believe the Government has been carrying out a policy of cover-up and all that goes with that, for over 40 years - why do they not release this information! Why is it always like getting blood out of a stone to have documentation released and in full! Why all the secrecy, threats, ridicule and worse to those over the years that were reporting and investigating this subject and to those that work for the Government in this area! Dr. J. Allen Hynek who was in charge of the famous Blue Book UFO investigations has hiimself confirmed some of this. There are too many unresolved issues and unanswered questions relating to this whole matter that need and could be cleared up by the US Government. Carter was unable to have the information disclosed when he became President, being told I understand, that he did not have a high enough clearance to warrant seeing the evidence. Apparently his position (if all this is true) was not high enough to ascribe “A need to know” clearance for him and the evidence was not disclosed. I would be the first to admit that this sounds (to my mind) weird, but you can easily check this out on the internet to confirm or deny it’s veracity one way or the other. Certainly it would appear that he had said that he was going to have this information publicly made available if he became President and he failed to do so! He himself had previously filed a UFO report as you are no doubt aware.
< < I agree, I cannot prove a negative - that aliens don’t exist. To me, the UFO phenomenon is basically a modern version of ancient mythologies. It is human nature to find meaning in everything. >>
Greg, if the basis of ancient myhthologies had so many credible witnesse, as much scrutiny, as many interested Governments and private organisations throughout the world seriously investigating and documenting them as the present phenomena has - I very much doubt that they would be considered by either of us, myths in the first place!
< < Until someone comes along (accidentally or on purpose) and makes a new discovery to explain the unknown, we will continue to have stories like these. >>
This is probably the very crux of the problem and you are overlooking it. We already have the means and the technology to discover and explain this phenomena. The phenomena is not a story it is something that exists, can be seen, imaged and shown on radar. I have no doubt that the Government knows an awful lot more than everyone else about this matter and have purposely kept it secret - for whatever their reason/s. They certainly have the money, motivation and technology at their disposal to have answered and explained this phenomena for a long long time. Would you doubt that! Why were / are not our universities and scientific community encouraged and supported in investigating this subject, as many scientists and prominent people have been advocating over the years? Why and how has it become a subject of automatic rubbishing and ridicule for many? Who might have set the stage and encouraged this to happen and why? Why is it almost a taboo subject with the scientific community and so rubbished in our media? Is there not something extraordinary to be investigated and explained - regardless of what it turns out to be! Is there not the attraction for some scientists to investigate and endeavour to resolve, understanding, discover or explain what lies behind this apparent enigma! I certainly think so - even if only to be honoured with being the one/s that finally put this whole matter to bed once and for all.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Here are a couple of key points where we can kindly disagree:
If the photographs/videos/crop circles/etc. can be duplicated and/or explained using known earth technology, it rules out an alien source. If you want to say it could be alien, without proof, I would say its just as likely to be leprechauns.
I most certainly doubt that. You put a lot of faith in a successful government coverup/conspiracy which in nearly all other matters has been utterly incompetent. The closest thing I can think of to a successful government secret of this scale would be the U2, SR-71 Blackbird, and F117 Stealth Fighter programs, and even those were not 100% secret for this length of time.
The great thing about science is, we can independently test and verify data on our own. If aliens were indeed actually visiting the earth, the government would be no more able to hide it from everyone than they could, say, hide the fact that Venus orbits the sun, hydrogen and oxygen mix together to form water, or objects fall at 9.8m/s^2.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
What? How many thousands of people in Greece and Italy worshiped and prayed to Zeus and Jupiter and the other gods for how many hundreds of years? They attributed everyday events like lightning, earthquakes, floods, even rain to actions of the gods. Entire civilizations rose and fell worshiping these gods. To me, that is exactly what the UFO phenomenon is like. When knowledge increases, beliefs in the supernatural and paranormal are replaced with solid scientific explanations.
November 29th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
[…] pegados aquí al planeta Tierra. Autor: Phil Plait Fecha Original: 25 de noviembre de 2008 Enlace Original Articulos […]
November 30th, 2008 at 4:23 am
People of Earth Attention: The things you think are precious, I don’t understand. We have a legitimate expectation that humanity will continuously improve going forward, but not on my watch apparently. It is to demonstrate the epitome of ignorance to fantasize that aliens use technologies that include spaceships and FtL propulsion to travel between stars. Moreover, do you really think they are made of meat? Do you think that you will remain meat come the next millennium? Some of you worry that we will eat you with Faba beans and a glass of claret/Have you no imaginations? We are not coming to serve Man!
You grow old quickly yet transmit little that is wise.
Aging is a genetic disease that you should conquer w/in 100 years but probably will not due to religious insanities and a perverted social commitment to death. We grow annoyed at your foolishness.
You will build a sustainable society but only after humanity witnesses an unprecedented flushing of your most entrenched institutions along with your shorelines.
Are you going to the Moon? Mars? 20 years? Ha! Hold your breath…
For billions of years Earth’s atmosphere has been reflecting light bearing the signatures of living processes. The lights are on, we know you’re home. That has been your beacon, your porch light, and it has been noted. Can’t you figure out how to connect to the Universal Internet? We can help but first you must open that door to imagination!
What price for admission? GROK!
Someday folks will remember how to dream, and even more important, to translate dreams into reality. Wake up meatballs. You have mail.
November 30th, 2008 at 4:54 am
excellent stuff procyan!
November 30th, 2008 at 5:10 am
hi everyone,
like procyan says,the earth must stand out like a beacon in our galactic backyard,if life-bearing planets are rare.think about it:we are on the edge of imaging earth-sized planets orbiting nearby stars.maybe a few years after discovery we may be able to detect the atmospheric compositions and temperatures of these planets.maybe a ‘life’ signature.so imagine the other side of the coin:intelligent life on other planets discovering that the beautiful blue and white planet we call home has lots of life on it,and knowing this fact,say,1 million years ago. would they want to come here,or just not bother?could they travel here,with technology 1 million years ahead of ours? newton says no,einstein says no,becouse our 20-21st century physics says:impossible!!but maybe they haven’t heard about the theory of relativity.maybe they have their own physics!
cheers,phil
November 30th, 2008 at 5:45 am
hi greg,
who says leprechauns don’t exist? (lol)!
November 30th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Thanks Phil, Yes! Perhaps no one told them they couldn’t do it. How many histories are there? How many times has the wheel been invented, eh?
How can we not have those big interferometers in space by now?? O waste of loss.
Which of us has looked into his brother’s heart? Which of us is not alone and forever prision-pent?
I remember some days before the voyager tours of the Galilean moons, the pundits were preping us for disappointment. “probably will look a lot like our Moon, dry, dusty blah blah blah. In the absence of information, they took the conservative view. Thats what scientists are supposed to do.
But really NO. Scientists should and do dare to dream the most exciting of outcomes. The reason we can do this safely and with enthusiasm is because we have the scientific method. It keeps us …honest. Mostly. So dream on fellow cadets. We have time to lose, besides we have come too far already
… to turn back that is.
November 30th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Hey, Spaceman Spiff, butt out! Nobody likes a nosy neighbor!
November 30th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Somebody far, far, f-a-rrrr upthread said :
“If I were to claim there is an invisible pink unicorn at the bottom of my garden, you would find it impossible to prove me wrong, but that does not make me right.”
Well it * is * impossible for a unicorn toexist thatis bothpink and invisble -pink is acolour youhgave tosee. Invisible is well not visible and thus NOT pink!
Look up the Adamski UFO cult story for a laugh folks. It’s funny how flying Saucers are never reported as coming from * Venus * or * Mars * these days ..
November 30th, 2008 at 8:01 am
@ kuhnigget Says:
“Hey, Spaceman Spiff, butt out! Nobody likes a nosy neighbor!”
Au contrarire, kuhnigget, woodpeckers would *love* Pinochio as their nose-y neighbour and would get him to lie all the time to peck at that woody nose of his!
(Every rule has its exceptions. Every blog has its nuts. Hmm .. Can I say ‘nuts’ here?
)
November 30th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Incidentally getting a major sense of deja vu here -allthses UFo threads seem toend up very similar sounding.
Haven’t we all been thro’ this B4? Edgar Mitchell thread and UFO sightings ones and well .. I’m sure I’ve read these exact same comments … prob’ly posted same replies too.
Every rule has its exceptions. Every blog has its nuts. Some blogs have more nuts than others.* Some topics bring out more nuts than the nuttiest chocolate bar or squirrel house-keeping magazine could dream of. Its one of the joys of the net.
——
* No this ain’t one of them - just this topic. & I’m not excluding myself here either!
Philosophy wise one good quote :
“To the question, “how do I know I exist?” a professor famously replied, “And who’s asking?”
- Philosopher and author, Antony Flew
November 30th, 2008 at 8:25 am
@ Joker:
Haven’t we all been thro’ this B4?
Of course we have, and the experience will repeat itself again and again. Despite the overwhelming simplicity of the issue (Evidence! Where is the evidence!), the UFO nutters will continue to trot out their tired old conspiracies and their deflated weather balloons, their “thousands of eyewitnesses” (millions of kids have “heard” Santa Claus, too, so?), their arguments from authority - the likes of Ed Mitchell and, now, J. Edgar Hoover!!! - and in the end, still no credible, verifiable evidence! This, despite the earthshaking nature of the events in question.
At least people like Michael Horn are blatantly in it for the money, not just sad, powerless people seeking to be part of something bigger than their apparently unsatisfying lives.
Ooops….I have no evidence for that last statement, except…the Face™ on Mars told me so!
November 30th, 2008 at 9:18 am
# Greg in Austin Says:
November 29th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
< < Here are a couple of key points where we can kindly disagree:>>
Let’s see.
“You Greg, or anyone else at this time cannot for certainty (knowingly) state that these objects do not have an alien source. You cannot scientifically prove this no more than can the true believers.”
< < If the photographs/videos/crop circles/etc. can be duplicated and/or explained using known earth technology, it rules out an alien source. If you want to say it could be alien, without proof, I would say its just as likely to be leprechauns. >>
You see Greg this a problem with you and some others. I have continuously been talking about and referring to the Sightings that cannot so far be explained by any means i.e. where all the normal or obvious explanations are at a loss to be able to explain them. I have not at all been referring to the ones that are explainable, or that may appear to have the possibility of a very reasonable and down to earth explanation. You and others seem ignore this and in your replies continuously fall back to the argument that there appears to be a simple / mundane explanantion for all the Sightings. This is not the case and should be address and recognised! The discussion should be targeted, and focussed not on the obvious ones that can and are readily explained by everday events due to misinterpretaions etc. (no one is questioning these), but the unexplainable ones. The ones that have been scientifically investigated and found to have no rational explanation to explain them. These are the very UFO sightings that you all seem to want to ignore, not to discuss and that many of you appear to have no serious knowledge of. Alan would certainly seem to have the interest and to have checked out some of these cases, but in this he appears to be more the exception. The others here I feel are just showing themselves to be unscientific deniers. They are being unscientific because they try to ridicule / rubbish a subject based on their own close-minded prejudices. Others do not deal with the issue at all, but try to attack the messenger for minor or insignificant points - such as spelling or not starting a sentence with capitals, that are totally unrelated to the subject under discussion. They are certainly not here to exchange views and opinions in an open-minded way, but rather to impose their groundless beliefs in the same way that the ‘true believer’ might without any evidence in support. It is clear from some of their responses or lack thereof, that they obviously know very little about this subject, have not studied it and yet they can pontificate to others (who they probably regard as silly or worse) for having the cheek to question their fixed opinions and beliefs: Beliefs which they so dogmatically think are right, thereby ruling out all other possibilities or explanations. The beliefs / conclusions that they so strongly hold have not been reached (I would strongly suggest) by any scientific study or method. They therefore protest too much, because of their own lack of knowledge and insecurity on the subject which they know (study-wise) so little about. I can well understand people that might become disbelievers through reasoned study and investigation: Or, if some eminent scientists or public scientific institution had fully investigated these unexplained (todate) cases and found / agreed on the explanation which ruled-out the posibility of anything unearthly, inter dimensional etc. being involed. Such a thorough investigation would be welcome and it is what most open-minded people would like to see happen. { My turn to rant!]
< < I most certainly doubt that. You put a lot of faith in a successful government coverup/conspiracy which in nearly all other matters has been utterly incompetent. The closest thing I can think of to a successful government secret of this scale would be the U2, SR-71 Blackbird, and F117 Stealth Fighter programs, and even those were not 100% secret for this length of time. >>
Well, we can agree to differ on this. The secrecy may not be imposed by the Government as you know it, but by powers blocks within the government with hidden agendas, that may wield as much power if not more than the actual Government itself. Where for example does all the billions of dollars (and much more) go that vanishes / is unaccountable for every year in the US?
Not all went to corrupt employees I would suggest! Though some of the reconstruction companies in Iraq and Afghanistan might account for part of the total - though that would not mean that such money would have found it’s final home with these same companies!
[”According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,” Rumsfeld admitted.]
It is going somewhere - black holes, black operations / projects, whatever! All this money or only a small part of it would help to keep the lid tightly down and firmly closed on anything that they wanted to keep secret. That does not take into account the threats to jobs, pensions or much worse that might accompany the necessity to keep something so secret. This of course is only speculation on my part and is in response by way of a possible explanation to your statements above. If you wish you can checkout what the Pentagon and the Defense Department inspector general estimates have gone missing over the years - unbelievable amounts. So much, that if you had only heard it for the first time today, you might be more inclined to believe in alien visitations to explain all the ufo sightings. It’s your tax momey! For example:-
[The source of the $1.1 trillion undocumentable adjustments to balance DOD’s books in FY 2000 used for the $1.1 Trillion Missing Money calculator is from the Department of Defense Agency-Wide Financial Statements Audit Opinion – A Memorandum for Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), dated February 26, 2002 Re: Independent Auditor’s Report on the Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2001 Agency-Wide Financial Statements (Report No. D-2002-055) signed by David K. Steensma, Acting Assistant Inspector General for Auditing.]
http://www.dodig.osd.mil/Audit/reports/02report.htm Reference Part four, Page 6 of 12, paragraph 2, at: http://www.dodig.osd.mil/Audit/reports/fy02/02-055.pdf
[In FY 1999, HUD refused to publish audited financial statements, reporting $17 billion of undocumentable adjustments in the FY 1998 ending balance and $59 billion of undocumentable adjustments for FY 1999. HUD declined to report their undocumentable adjustments in FY 2000.
The source of the FY 1999 figure of $59 billion is testimony by the HUD Inspector General, Susan Gaffney before the House Subcommitte on Government Management, Information and Technology, House Committee on Government Reform, March 22, 2000.]
Testimony of the HUD Inspector General re: $59 Billion Undocumentable Adjustments in FY 1999 at: http://www.solari.com/learn/59billion.htm
< < The great thing about science is, we can independently test and verify data on our own. If aliens were indeed actually visiting the earth, the government would be no more able to hide it from everyone than they could, say, hide the fact that Venus orbits the sun, hydrogen and oxygen mix together to form water, or objects fall at 9.8m/s^2. >>
Again that is just speculation on your part and not necessarily true, even if one might believe it to be likely! It is claimed that the UFO (flying saucers) subject, studies and investigations within the US Government was classified higher than the H-bomb. Now that must seem unbelievable to any disbeliever and would pull the rug from under alot of their faith in what they so strongly do believe, the die-hards aside like those believing that Iraq had WMD until it was so ridiculose to believe it any longer. Though I bet that there are some die-hards still out there!. Now if it is true concerning the UFO secrecy classification, the subject should not be dismissed by the disbelievers and deniers. Would you agree? Well if you want to read the memo in which this was outlined and puportedly written in 1950, check here:-
Nov. 21, 1950: Smith’s Top Secret memo to the Dept. of Transport (pdf format) ( text )
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Smith_papers.html
or just google - The Wilbert Smith Papers
See also:- […At the same time that Wilbert Smith was meeting with American and Canadian officials to study technology and the messages coming from the non-humans, Dwight D. Eisenhower was continuing Harry S. Truman’s MJ-12 Special Studies Group on extraterrestrial vehicles and biological entities. Below is a November 4, 1953, SECRET memorandum from President Eisenhower to the Director of Central Intelligence, who in 1953 would have been Allen W. Dulles. Dwight David Eisenhower was the 34th President of the United States in office from January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961. In the last paragraph, President Eisenhower mentions “Project JEHOVAH director Professor Albert Einstein and Doctor Robert Oppenheime……….]
http://www.earthfiles.com/news.php?ID=1456&category=Environment
I have just found an actual transcript of the 1950 memo which is easier to read than the original (hoping it is an authentic reproduction and accurate) and will copy it in my next post.
It is nice to be able to discuss this subject with you in an open manner, looking at and evaluting the pros and cons.
Regards
November 30th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Greg,
This formerly “Top Secret” document was retrieved from the University of Ottawa Library archives by Nick Balaskas (York University). For more detailed information about Wilbert Smith (biography, videos, &c.), visit:
www.presidentialufos.com
See also: W. Smith: The New Science
Geo-Magnetics
(Ottawa, Ont., November 24, 1950)
Memorandum to the Controller of Telecommunications:
For the past several years we have been engaged in the study of various aspects of radio wave propagation. The vagaries of this phenomenon have led us into the fields of aurora, cosmic radiation, atmospheric radio-activity, and geo-magnetism. In the case of geo-magnetics our investigations have contributed little to our knowledge of radio wave propagation as yet, but nevertheless have indicated several avenues of investigation which may well be explored with profit. For example, we are on the track of a means whereby the potential energy of the earth’s magnetic field may be abstracted and used.
On the basis of theoretical considerations a small and very crude experimental unit was constructed approximately a year ago and tested in our Standards Laboratory. The tests were essentially successful in that sufficient energy was abstracted from the earth’s field to operate a voltmeter, approximately 50 millivolts. Although this unit was far from being self-sustaining, it nevertheless demonstrated the soundness of the basic principles in a qualitative manner and provided useful data for the design of a better unit.
The design is now completed for a unit which should be self-sustaining and in addition provide a small surplus of power. Such a unit, in addition to functioning as a “pilot power plant” should be large enough to permit the study of the various reaction forces which are expected to develop.
We believe that we are on the track of something which may well prove to be the introduction of a new technology. The existence of a different technology is borne out by the investigations which are being carried on at the present time in relation to flying saucers.
While in Washington attending the NARB Conference, two books were released, one titled “Behind the Flying Saucers” by Frank Scully, and the other “The Flying Saucers are Real” by Donald Keyhoe. Both books deal mostly with the sightings of unidentified objects and both books claim that flying object were of extra-terrestrial origin and might well be space ships from another planet. Scully claimed that the preliminary studies of one saucer that fell into the hands of the united States Government indicated that they operated on some hitherto unknown magnetic principles. It appeared to me that our own work in geo-magnetics might well be the linkage between our technology and the technology by which the saucers are designed and operated. If it is assumed that our geo-magnetic investigations are in the right direction, the theory of operation of the saucers becomes quite straightforward, with all observed features explained qualitatively and quantitatively.
I made discrete inquiries through the Canadian Embassy staff in Washington who were able to obtain for me the following information;
a. The matter is the most highly classified subject in the United States Government, rating higher even than the H-bomb,
b. Flying saucers exist.
c. Their modus operandi is unknown but concentrated effort is being made by a small group headed by Dr. Vannavar Bush.
d. The entire matter is considered by the United States authorities to be of tremendous significance.
I was further informed that the United States authorities are investigating along quite a number of lines which might possibly be related to the saucers such as mental phenomena and I gather that they are not doing to well since they indicated that if Canada s doing anything at all in geo-magnetics they would welcome a discussion with suitably accredited Canadians.
While I am not yet in a position to say that we have solved even the first problems in geo-magnetic energy release, I feel that the correlation between our basic theory and the available information on sauces checks too closely to be mere coincidence. It is my honest opinion that we are on the right track and are fairly close to at least some of the answers.
Mr Wright, Defense Research Board liaison officer at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, was extremely anxious for us to get in touch with Dr Solandt, Chairman of the Defense Research Board, to discuss with him future investigation along the lines of geo-magnetic energy release.
I do not feel that we have as yet sufficient data to place before Defense Research Board which would enable a program to be initiated within organization, but I do feel that further research is necessary and I would prefer to see it done within the framework of our own organization with, of course, full cooperation and exchange of information with other interested bodies.
I discussed this matter fully with Dr Solandt, Chairman of Defense Research Board. On Novemebr 20th and placed before him as much information as I have been able to gather to date. Dr Solandt agreed that work on geo-magnetic energy should go forward as rapidly as possible and offered full cooperation of his Board in providing laboratory facilities, acquisition of necessary items of equipment, and specialized personnel for incidental work in the project. I indicated to Dr Solandt that we would prefer to keep the project within the Department of transport for the time being until we have obtained sufficient information to permit a complete assessment of the value of the work.
It is therefore recommended that a Projet be set up within the framework of this Section to study this problem and that the work be carried on a part time basis until such time as sufficient tangible results can be seen to warrant more definitive action. Cost of the program in its initial stages are expected to be less than a few hundred dollars and can be carried by our Radio Standards Lab appropriation.
Attached hereto is a draft of terms of reference for such a project which, if authorized, will enable us to proceed with this research work within our own organization.
W.B. Smith
Senior Radio Engineer
November 30th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Greg, you can checkout the site referenced below for your own evaluation as to it’s veracity:-
http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/magnet.htm
Project Magnet
(November 1952)
Purpose ~
This project is for the purpose of studying magnetic phenomena, particularly those phenomena resulting from unusual boundary conditions in the basic electromagnetic field. There is reason to believe their discovery will open up a new and useful technology.
Organization ~
The initial organization shall be as small as practical and composed of personnel who are used to working together, including so far as possible a variety of research abilities. Laboratory facilities are to be drawn from existing facilities so far as possible. Overall responsibility for the project shall rest with the engineer-in-charge, who shall delegate such responsibility to subordinates as maybe required to carry out the project.
Program ~
The initial program shall include the following avenues of investigations, to which others may be added from time top time as may appear expedient.
1. Theoretical study of electromagnetic radiation assuming boundary conditions different from those upon which the conventional theory was developed.
2. Laboratory study of mechanical forces associated with electron drift and electric currents in metallic masses.
3. Theoretical and laboratory study of magnetic domain resonance conditions in magnetic materials.
4. Investigation of the propagation of magnetic wave motion in magnetic materials.
5. Investigate the possibility of producing, an effect, a “sink” in a magnetic field.
6. Investigate the possibility of producing, in effect, single isolated magnetic poles.
7. Investigate the effects of a magnetic field on a rotating curviplaner metallic object.
Coordination ~
Full coordination is to be maintained, within security regulations, with other groups working on a parallel or associated problems. Project reports will be available on a classified basis to suitably accredited groups of individuals.
Security ~
As in the case with most fields of research, it is impossible to assess the results in advance, which might be obtained through this project. However, there exist certain suspicions that the lesser-known and little explored aspects of magnetism may hold the key to a new and significant technology. Consequently, it is intended to classify this work in it entirety until such time as it can be assessed for its impact on our civilization.
November 30th, 2008 at 10:52 am
hello,
for all the skeptics who want real evidence of real ufos/and or et,please tell us what this evidence should be,and how we should go about obtaining it.the way i see this,is because we are not dealing with something reproduceable in a lab,then science rejects the whole subject.but how would we go about verifying something that humans or nature have no control over?
cheers,phil
November 30th, 2008 at 11:29 am
another thing,
why do ‘hardened’ skeptics resort to name-calling?why do some of them call ufo witnesses ‘nuts’ or ‘kooks’ or ’sad’.i agree that there is a percentage of mentally ill/unstable people in any large cross-section of people,and maybe ‘aliens’ attract slightly more than,say,stamp-collecting,but if all ufo witnesses/’believers’ are ‘nuts’,then you really would not want to catch that next airline flight!! or trust your nation’s air defense!!
cheers,phil
November 30th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Greg in Austin Says:
November 29th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
“Greg, if the basis of ancient myhthologies had so many credible witnesse, as much scrutiny, as many interested Governments and private organisations throughout the world seriously investigating and documenting them as the present phenomena has - I very much doubt that they would be considered by either of us, myths in the first place!”
< < What? How many thousands of people in Greece and Italy worshiped and prayed to Zeus and Jupiter and the other gods for how many hundreds of years? They attributed everyday events like lightning, earthquakes, floods, even rain to actions of the gods. Entire civilizations rose and fell worshiping these gods. To me, that is exactly what the UFO phenomenon is like. When knowledge increases, beliefs in the supernatural and paranormal are replaced with solid scientific explanations. >>
Again you seem to have missed the point and not considered what I actually wrote (or maybe it was that I did not write it clearly enough). So I will try again.
I was saying that if what are now regarded as ancient mythologies had the same number of documented reports, photos. videos etc. and the same enquiries, scientific investigations….(which we know they could not have) that they would not now be myths. That means that if the same modern technology and scientific investigations had been applied to them in their time as have actually been appled to UFOs today on a world-wide basis - that the question of them ever becoming myths should or would not arise. As I would imagine UFOs if scientifically explained (again I refer to the unexplained cases) will not become myths in the future. Present science I believe will in a fairly short time either explain them away or clarify exactly what they are or represent and hopefully put an end to the speculation. Also if people had been more educated / knowledgeable and with information readily available (internet) etc. at the time of the mythmaking, I strongly doubt that superstitious beliefs would have been so readily accepted or acceptable. You have to compare like with like and I was making this comparision to our current phenomena of unexplained UFOs. I certainly do not believe that there will be a UFO myth resulting from this present phenoma, in one or two thousand years time as your post seems to suggest!
Now you can easily come back to point the finger at religions and the “superstitions” of their followers - particularly the fundamental fanatical ones in our own times and I would of course agree with you. However, I might argue that if the same criterea were applied to these at their conception or shortly afterwards, as I applied to the ancient myths, that the story might well have unfolded differently. Modern religion and the masters that control or want to control the masses through blind unquestioning faith is an altogether different story and argument I opinion. But………
November 30th, 2008 at 11:35 am
@ Phil:
“but how would we go about verifying something that humans or nature have no control over?”
Astronomers test theories all the time, based upon repeatable, observational evidence that either conforms to a theory or suggests an alternate. What they don’t do is continue to push theories that contradict physical laws.
As to nature having no control over UFOs…so you’re admitting supernatural forces at work?
@ rory:
All snarkiness aside,
“I have continuously been talking about and referring to the Sightings that cannot so far be explained by any means i.e. where all the normal or obvious explanations are at a loss to be able to explain them.”
Could you please point to one such Sighting (sic)? Because it seems to me the only ones who at a loss explaining them are the UFO folks. Oh, wait, it’s that old line again: It isn’t a (insert one: weather balloon, Venus, whatever) therefore it’s an alien space ship.
And by the way, please don’t use Donald Keyhoe’s book as “evidence.” You are aware, I hope, that “Flying Saucers are Real” (his first book, which introduced the concept of Men in Black, secret conspiracies, etc.) was a novel? Keyhoe wrote it as a work of fiction, but when publishers repeatedly rejected it, he reworked it as a nonfiction expose and viola! the UFO conspiracy was born!
Honestly, if you’re going to dredge up 50 year old stories, at least get your history correct.
November 30th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
hello kuhnigget,
say a metallic disc-shaped object,flies over the texas star party gathering,before sunset when the astro=imagers are getting their stuff set-up for the night.say the disc looks quite low(3000 ft)and is moving as fast as a fighterplane,but with no noise or vapour trail or exhaust.say a few of the astronomers manage to get their slr cameras on the object in time to fire off a few frames,and the others stand and watch (in horror at) such an ‘impossible’ occurence.so you will have a few images from different angles,to triangulate positional data,velocity,etc.and you will have lots of ‘useless’ eyewitness testimony.
now if that ever happened,would that be acceptable as scientific evidence?you would never be able to ‘test’it in a lab.the photos could be just a ‘deflated weather balloon’,and the witnesses ‘nuts’ and ’sad’ ‘nobodies who want to get on tv’,to quote a former well-known pseudoscientific debunker.
some ufos do appear to breach certain laws of nature.i once observed a fuzzy red light (at 3 am)that came from an easterly direction,moved steadily for a while ,then did a huge right-angle turn(like constellation size)headed due north, then did an acute angle ,instantaneous reversal of direction,so heading south,then another manoevre,finally heading south-west.and as it flew into the light pollution of coventry (uk)centre,did a huge jump in speed,so it looked like it was instantly moving twice as fast approx.it was totally silentuntil the jump in speed,and then made a slight roaring -jet sound .totally bizarre.(3 am around end of august 1981)not autokinesis!!this thing behaved just like a billiard (pool)ball bouncing off the cushions,and going all over the table!!by the way ,the moon was last quarter in taurus at the time,so maybe you could work out the date!
cheers,phil
November 30th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
phil wright:
I, too, have seen and heard something like that on numerous occasions in the early hours of the morning — it was a bloody police helicopter on night patrol!
November 30th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
# hyperdeath Says:
November 28th, 2008 at 9:43 am
< <