Are UFO Sightings by Credible Witnesses Convincing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Alien
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the credibility of UFO sightings and the belief in extraterrestrial life, sparked by CNN's report on "Alien believers among us." Participants debate the validity of military encounters with UFOs, emphasizing that some reports come from credible witnesses, including military personnel. Critics argue that believing in aliens is akin to believing in other supernatural beings, asserting that unexplained phenomena do not necessarily imply extraterrestrial visitation. The conversation touches on the challenges of interstellar travel, questioning the feasibility of aliens visiting Earth given the vast distances and resources required. Some participants express skepticism about the lack of concrete evidence supporting claims of alien encounters, while others advocate for keeping an open mind regarding the existence of life beyond Earth. The dialogue also reflects on how societal perceptions of UFOs have evolved over time, influenced by media portrayals. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the ongoing debate about the nature of UFO phenomena and the need for further investigation into credible reports.
Physics news on Phys.org


We all know that many credible people have faith in God. As for them, these people would have been even more credible if they didn't have faith in aliens.
 


The reason the first gentleman can now speak out is that his documented military encounter has been released by the Ministry of Defense. It was classified until now. He had been ordered to shoot it down but was not able to do so.

If you had been paying attention, you would know that.
 
Last edited:


Fairy tales of modern day.
 


How do you defend that? These are documented military cases from government files.

Are you just making a leap of faith?
 


Just because there's a phenomenon we don't understand, doesn't make it supernatural. Just like people long ago explained strange sounds and shapes in the dark as being trolls, fairies etc, today we explain objects in the skies as being visitors from other stars. That is a leap of faith. I am not making a leap of faith, I simply point to the similarities between believing in in alien visitors and believing in other supernatural beings.

I noticed that for some reason, it's not allowed to discuss religion here. Well, I think belief in aliens is no more rational. Consequently it shouldn't be allowed either.
 


leopard said:
Just because there's a phenomenon we don't understand, doesn't make it supernatural.

No one has claimed anything supernatural, but I understand your point.

Just like people long ago explained strange sounds and shapes in the dark as being trolls, fairies etc, today we explain objects in the skies as being visitors from other stars. That is a leap of faith.

It may or may not be depending on what a person saw. I agree that most people make judgements and leap to conclusions that can't be supported. But it is also true that some highly credible reports describe crafts that defy the physics that we understand. This is not always just a matter of fuzzy lights in the sky.

I am not making a leap of faith, I simply point to the similarities between believing in in alien visitors and believing in other supernatural beings.

You said it is all fairy tales. You certainly can't know that for a fact, so it is a leap of faith. And the evidence is not some person telling an unsupportable story. These cases are, for all practical purposes, facts. The interpretations are subject to debate, but to argue that they never occurred amounts to a conspiracy theory since we have government issued documents saying otherwise. Conspiracy theories are not allowed for discussion.

I noticed that for some reason, it's not allowed to discuss religion here. Well, I think belief in aliens is no more rational. Consequently it shouldn't be allowed either.

Your opinion has been noted.
 
Last edited:


First, what make these reports credible? Second; these objects are never captured on film, why? Third; what makes people jump to the conclusion that the objects are filled with little green men?

UFOs exist, no doubt, but it stops there. To assert anything more is a conspiracy.

Correct, I can't know that aliens don't exist among us, but I can't know that trolls, unicorns, ghosts, angels, demons, gods or tooth fairies don't exist among us either. I don't claim knowledge of non-existence, that would be irrational. I do, however, stick with the null posision, which is that aliens don't exist on our planet. Strictly speaking, I'm an alien agnostic , just like I'm a tooth fairy agnostic, but that doesn't make me protest when someone claims that tooth fairies only exist only in fairy tales.
 
  • #11


leopard said:
Just because there's a phenomenon we don't understand, doesn't make it supernatural.

Aliens are not supernatural. They're just other lifeforms.
 
  • #12


Ivan Seeking said:
It may or may not be depending on what a person saw. I agree that most people make judgements and leap to conclusions that can't be supported. But it is also true that some highly credible reports describe crafts that defy the physics that we understand. This is not always just a matter of fuzzy lights in the sky.

Ok, now you're going off the deep end Ivan. Is there some deep-seated need to believe this is true? I mean what's next? Are you going to tell us there are credible reports of astrologers accurately predicting human personality?


And the evidence is not some person telling an unsupportable story. These cases are, for all practical purposes, facts.

Facts based on your personal criteria?
 
  • #13


LightbulbSun said:
Aliens are not supernatural. They're just other lifeforms.

Nothing that exists is supernatural. If trolls or unicorns or bigfoot exist, they're just other lifeforms too. Supernatural/metaphysical/you name it, are pointless words that could have been replaced by 'non-existing'.

It's not their alien form that makes them supernatural, but their presence on Earth when they're supposed to be in very remote parts of the universe.
 
Last edited:
  • #14


FWIW -

assume that, unlike science in 1890, we now actually have a decent grip on Physics - the Standard Model is correct for entities at our non-quantum level of existence. In plain words, traveling from planet A to planet B in our the universe means expending lots of energy and resources. In addition, it requires life support for extended periods of time -- which requires even more expenditure of resources. This seems like a pretty safe assumption, based on mankind's escapades to the Moon and back.

Also, let's assume there is no other intelligent life in the Solar system. At this point, this seems like a very safe assumption to make based on our current knowledge. We could probably include ourselves in that list of non-intelligent beings for even having to have discussions like this one. :)

Let's also assume there are planets like ours with technologically advanced civilizations within a radius of say 150 light years.

Then, the cost of traveling -- a minimum of 4 light years (Alpha centauri) and up to our 150 light year limit -- to another world is a dollar sign, a 1 and a looong string of zeroes after it.

Going to the moon takes several days, and requires lots of time, energy, and money.
Going to Alpha centauri will take proportionally more. Alpha centauri is 4 light years (9.5 trillion km) distant, the moon 380000 km.

The cost of going to the moon was $US 20b in 1960 $US - or about 40 billion now. One 10 day flight of the Challenger cost about 3.5 billion. Pick a really large number of dollars to create and launch a vessel that can make it to Alpha centauri and back in 50 years, and keep everybody on board alive. Good Luck. How about 100 trillion dollars?
Or maybe the GDP of our planet for 10 years.

Since we can't invoke Physics concepts that don't yet exist to argue this problem away, it means that even if they are out there, them coming here to visit or pillage is prohibitive. It's not like they can cheaply and effectively cart off all of Earth's goodies and some sample Terran denizens back home for personal gain.

We need an alternate explanation for the alien thing, one that does not involve living beings from other planets visiting us here.
 
  • #15


leopard said:
It's not their alien form that makes them supernatural, but their presence on Earth when they're supposed to be in very remote parts of the universe.
Thats what they said 100yrs ago about going to the moon...
 
  • #16


There were no physical laws that prevented us from going to the moon.
 
  • #17


Bending space is theoretically possible. Even so, claims about the absolute impossibility of (easy) interstellar travel make me cringe. I understand we have to argue from present day knowledge, but let's be humble and realistic and admit that we can't really predict what new discoveries lie ahead of us.
 
  • #18


It takes enormous amounts on energy. Why would extremely smart aliens spend all their money and energy to visit our planet? And how come they're able to bend space, but never manage to reveal themselves to others than semi-stupified peasants on the countryside? It's ridiculous!
 
  • #19


It is not important to explain the hows and ifs. What is important is to address the evidence that we have. We don't know everything and physics is not complete. Perhaps a race of beings with a billion years head start knows a few things we don't.

I don't know if ET is here, but there are highly credible people who will [and have] swear before Congress that he is. But of course each person judges these claims according to their own sensibilities.

My only goal is to bring the most dramatic and credible cases to light, and to squelch the giggle factor where appropriate. ET? I don't know, but it isn't all nonsense.
 
Last edited:
  • #20


Ivan Seeking said:
It is not important to explain the hows and ifs. What is important is to address the evidence that we have. We don't know everything and physics is not complete. Perhaps a race of beings with a billion years head start knows a few things we don't.

I don't know if ET is here, but there are highly credible people who will [and have] swear before Congress that he is. But of course each person judges these claims according to their own sensibilities.

My only goal is to bring the most dramatic and credible cases to light, and to squelch the giggle factor where appropriate. ET? I don't know, but it isn't all nonsense.

You haven't squelched my giggle factor yet. Hey, did you know that someone in the government thinks 9/11 was an inside job? It must be credible, he works for the government!

Come on, you can do better than this. Let's see some actual evidence, and not just people telling stories. And yes they're stories. It doesn't matter what occupation they're in. They're still stories Ivan until evidence is shown to support these stories.
 
  • #21


LightbulbSun said:
You haven't squelched my giggle factor yet. Hey, did you know that someone in the government thinks 9/11 was an inside job? It must be credible, he works for the government!

Come on, you can do better than this. Let's see some actual evidence, and not just people telling stories. And yes they're stories. It doesn't matter what occupation they're in. They're still stories Ivan until evidence is shown to support these stories.

And I am quite sure that you haven't done any homework. Have you studied the UFO Napster in detail? If you want to know about this, the cases are posted. It is your job to learn about it.

I will not tolerate trolling.
 
  • #22


Today's CNN reports is into the realm of dragons in the garage. To the best of my knowledge, there is no reliable evidence to support claims of alien abductions. Regressive hypnosis is often used to support or even obtain the so called abduction accounts, and this is known to be a very unreliable technique that can create false memories. So I do agree that this all really flakey stuff. If we assume that ET is visiting, then, who knows, but even then, abduction claims are a separate issue from UFOs with little to no supporting evidence beyond stories.
http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2008/11/26/am.obrien.aliens.abducted.cnn
 
  • #23


Ivan Seeking said:
It is not important to explain the hows and ifs.

Agreed.

Ivan Seeking said:
What is important is to address the evidence that we have. We don't know everything and physics is not complete. Perhaps a race of beings with a billion years head start knows a few things we don't.

I don't know if ET is here, but there are highly credible people who will [and have] swear before Congress that he is. But of course each person judges these claims according to their own sensibilities.

My only goal is to bring the most dramatic and credible cases to light, and to squelch the giggle factor where appropriate. ET? I don't know, but it isn't all nonsense.


Ivan Seeking said:
What is important is to address the evidence that we have.

Which is nothing.

Ivan Seeking said:
I don't know if ET is here, but there are highly credible people who will [and have] swear before Congress that he is.

You don't know if invisible unicorns are here either. And there are highly 'credible' people who will swear before Congress that Jesus is going to return to Earth in the next 50 years.
 
  • #24


Ivan Seeking,

Personally, I am skeptical about the whole subject yet try to maintain an open mind.

I briefly looked at the UFO Napster thread:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2805

I see that you study UFOs pretty extensively. I was curious to know what patterns you see with the UFO sightings and reports over the last century that may lend credibility to UFO reports/sightings overall.

I would expect that the media's portrayal and the publics' perception of UFOs and aliens has likely changed over the last century as our communication systems and media outlets have evolved. For example, I would argue that our society today is more susceptible to biases of what UFOs and aliens look like due to widespread media coverage of reports and movies about aliens. Do modern reports of UFOs and alien sightings vary as widely as those portrayed in movies and the media? How does this differ with reports during the earlier part of the 20th century? I figure that people during this era are subjected to such biases considerably less, if at all, so I wonder what the consistency is of the reports from this era. If there are aliens visiting earth, I tend to think that their technology and anatomy should be consistent in design.
 
  • #25


jim mcnamara said:
The cost of going to the moon was $US 20b in 1960 $US - or about 40 billion now. One 10 day flight of the Challenger cost about 3.5 billion. Pick a really large number of dollars to create and launch a vessel that can make it to Alpha centauri and back in 50 years, and keep everybody on board alive. Good Luck. How about 100 trillion dollars?
Or maybe the GDP of our planet for 10 years.

You forgot to consider the possibility that the extra terrestrials have long outlived their planet and have been living on a giant ship traveling in search of resources for millions of years.

Maybe they are zipping around collecting water from clouds, and munching down on modified alien human hybrid stem cells.
maybe they would take us over, but they are afraid of the woods and got used to living on space ships, so they hang around and mooch off of us.
 
Last edited:
  • #26


leopard said:
You don't know if invisible unicorns are here either. And there are highly 'credible' people who will swear before Congress that Jesus is going to return to Earth in the next 50 years.

There are creatures at the bottom of the ocean that exist but nobody will ever know it. We can pretty much rule out the possibility of unicorns existing because if they did, we would have seen them on land.

Can you rule out the possibility that an unknown sea creature exists. Of coarse not, many new species are found every year. Can rule out the idea of life evolving in other solar systems, no.

Now that doesn't mean that they are here, but it is possible. No evidence short of an Alien body would be conclusive, but ought we not consider the possibility?

On January 14-16, 1953-

"The USAF scientific advisory panel concluded that unidentified flying objects (UFO's): (1) held no direct physical threat; (2) were not foreign developments; (3) were not unknown phenomena requiring revision of current scientific concepts; and (4) a rash of sightings offered a threat from skillful hostile propagandists."

NASA AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS pg. 71

and in 1959

"USAF committee presided over by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Associate Director of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory at Cambridge, Mass., recommended that the USAF continue to take a positive approach to UFO's, investigate reported sightings by all scientific means, and keep the public fully informed of existing policy. Of the unknown objects sighted, it reported, no scientific evidence supports the conclusion that the objects were spacecraft ."

NASA AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS pg. 71
 
Last edited:
  • #27


jreelawg said:
You forgot to consider the possibility that the extra terrestrials have long outlived their planet and have been living on a giant ship traveling in search of resources for millions of years.

Maybe they are zipping around collecting water from clouds, and munching down on modified alien human hybrid stem cells.
maybe they would take us over, but they are afraid of the woods and got used to living on space ships, so they hang around and mooch off of us.

Your point is funny, but very true. The people that talk about the costs and time involved to visit other systems are based on what they know about Earth and us. Do you think aliens use dollars? :wink: what makes you think that they even have a monetary system. Maybe since their start their sole purpose was bent on building technology to visit other planets. Why do they have to be humanoid or even carbon based, just because we are. Also, we live for 70 years on average, a fly lives for a few days, but to him that is his whole existence. What's to say that possible alien visitors live for thousands or millions of years, it's not impossible. I still can't say that aliens have visited us necessarily, but the assumptions some people make us to why they couldn't are a little silly.
 
  • #28


redargon said:
Why do they have to be humanoid or even carbon based, just because we are. Also, we live for 70 years on average, a fly lives for a few days, but to him that is his whole existence. What's to say that possible alien visitors live for thousands or millions of years, it's not impossible. I still can't say that aliens have visited us necessarily, but the assumptions some people make us to why they couldn't are a little silly.

How long they live is irrelevant so long as they are able to replicate.

It isn't way out there to consider also that there may be extra terrestrial life out there that looks a lot like Earth's life. I think for one, that the fact that lifeless matter can spring forth life and even intelligence is pretty amazing. I would be double amazed if another non carbon based life form could exist.

What would be interesting, is an intelligent life form living in a liquid ocean, methane, water, whatever, which developed "hands", and build civilizations and technology underwater.
 
Last edited:
  • #29


I don't think the argument should be;

"what would aliens be doing in our back yard!?"

The fact is that there is a phenomena occurring on earth, and has been for some time, regarding UFO's.

Be that phenomena purely psychosymatic, really aliens or uncle sam I don't know and hence will not go into.

I think what Ivan_Seeking is trying to say is that it is a large enough (testimonies, witnesses) to warrant futher investigation (correct me if I'm wrong).

Consider this, 1000's of years ago someone is having a walk, suddenly a bolt of fork lightning strikes the ground in front of them. They rush back and tell everyone about a bright light coming down from the sky etc. etc.

Everyone thinks they're crazy, until one day a few people see it and now it's fact. But they still don't know what it is. They postulate, invent gods, end of the world etc. and split into factions on different sides of the argument.

This is exactly what's happening now.
 
  • #30


"That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that it's falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."
David Hume
 

Similar threads

That's Not a Drone!
2
Replies
67
Views
5K
How reliable is an Expert Witness?
2
Replies
56
Views
10K
UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record
15
Replies
705
Views
139K
Brazil Releases Classified UFO Data
Replies
42
Views
15K
Are Men In Black Silencing UFO Witnesses?
Replies
30
Views
5K
UFO study finds no sign of aliens
Replies
9
Views
3K
Medical FDA antidepressant warnings of suicide risk among kids may have the opposite effect
Replies
1
Views
2K
UFO BRIEFING DOCUMENT SHOWS BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE
Replies
2
Views
6K
The Reagan and Carter UFO Sightings
Replies
41
Views
9K
To Those Who Don't Believe Alien Abductions Are Occurring
Replies
14
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top