Are UFO Sightings Just Misidentified Natural Occurrences?

[MotoH]

It seems like the UFO craze is mostly with civilized nations, and I have not seen much apart from crackpottery on an indigenous peoples claims for seeing UFOs.

My question being, since we see UFO claims nearly every day, and practically everyone has heard about, and has saw pictures of a "UFO." Does that make us more susceptible to claiming a UFO sighting when it is really just a natural occurrence?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems like the UFO craze is mostly with civilized nations, and I have not seen much apart from crackpottery on an indigenous peoples claims for seeing UFOs.

Not sure what you mean by "civilized" nations. Assuming that you mean industrial or post-industrial nations, then your statement would be incorrect. Note also that you dismiss indigenous people's claims without any references. Crackpottery generally refers more to failed logic, pseudoscience [invalid methodology or assumptions], or faith-based beliefs, rather than claimed observations by a people. Some clarification here would help.

My question being, since we see UFO claims nearly every day, and practically everyone has heard about, and has saw pictures of a "UFO." Does that make us more susceptible to claiming a UFO sighting when it is really just a natural occurrence?

By definition, a UFO could be a natural phenomenon. Assuming that you mean flying saucers, or ET crafts, then of course any idea like this that is popular in the mind of the public can result in misinterpretations of real events.

If you mean to suggest that A implies B in all cases, good luck. UFO and even ET reports go back at least centuries. Even some stories from the Bible might be considered ET in nature. Consider for example, Ezekiel's Wheels.

 

[imiyakawa]

It seems like the UFO craze is mostly with civilized nations, and I have not seen much apart from crackpottery on an indigenous peoples claims for seeing UFOs.

My question being, since we see UFO claims nearly every day, and practically everyone has heard about, and has saw pictures of a "UFO." Does that make us more susceptible to claiming a UFO sighting when it is really just a natural occurrence?

I think what you're talking about is the psychological phenomenon of "availability heuristic".

I can say this only for myself, but I know that a certain % of these cases are not "crackpottery", as me and a group of friends all saw the same UFO, totally unexplainable by any known phenomenon. 0 feasible alternative explanations exist, so until more variables come my way I am happy to say that I probably saw an alien spaceship.

 

[MotoH]

What would make these "aliens" not want to talk with us water filled meat sacks? Couldn't they just tell the worlds governments to F off and go "here we are!" I mean they did come from lightyears away, it's not like we have greater technology than they do.

 

[imiyakawa]

If aliens are visiting earth, that is a very pertinent question. I think that we cannot assign P(they're not vising) or P(they're visiting) based on their lack of communication, as we cannot possibly assume their point of view which is most likely beyond our comprehension.

 

[DaveC426913]

If aliens are visiting earth, that is a very pertinent question. I think that we cannot assign P(they're not vising) or P(they're visiting) based on their lack of communication, as we cannot possibly assume their point of view which is most likely beyond our comprehension.

Totally agree.

It is folly to try to draw any conclusions based on our suppositions about an ET motives.

 

[Chimps]

There are more things in the sky in 'civilized nations' so it's hardly surprising.

I can look up and fail to identify all sorts of flying objects. It could be kites, weather balloons, jets, helicopters, satellites, blimps etc. I see things in the sky and so does my neighbour. He sees what I see and also can't identify it, but he chooses to believe he is seeing flying saucers from another world.

Obviously, the answer to your question is yes.

 

[DaveC426913]

There are more things in the sky in 'civilized nations' so it's hardly surprising.

I can look up and fail to identify all sorts of flying objects. It could be kites, weather balloons, jets, helicopters, satellites, blimps etc. I see things in the sky and so does my neighbour. He sees what I see and also can't identify it, but he chooses to believe he is seeing flying saucers from another world.

Obviously, the answer to your question is yes.

This entire argument is based on the premise that all sightings are misidentifications of known flying man-made objects.

In fact, you highlight the opposite problem: in a less developed country, genuine sightings of UFOs should be higher, since they will stand out against a stark landscape of empty sky. i.e. we should get a higher-than-average quality of reports since there's no background noise of bad reports.

 

[Chimps]

This entire argument is based on the premise that all sightings are misidentifications of known flying man-made objects.

In fact, you highlight the opposite problem: in a less developed country, genuine sightings of UFOs should be higher, since they will stand out against a stark landscape of empty sky. i.e. we should get a higher-than-average quality of reports since there's no background noise of bad reports.

The OPs question was regarding susceptibility to claiming a UFO sighting when it is might be a natural occurrence and that is the question to which I responded. I would appreciate if you could try to avoid taking my posts out of context because it can become tedious having to clarify things which should be obvious.

Anyway, your post is nonsense. Any unidentified object is obviously a 'genuine' UFO. If it's not a 'quality' UFO then presumably it is because it can be identified and therefore it is not a UFO at all.

 

[DaveC426913]

...avoid taking my posts out of context...

Out of context?? You might want to check out what that phrase means. You are using it inappropriately.

it can become tedious having to clarify things which should be obvious.

Yes, how silly that someone should have to spend time clarifying a comment they posted on the internet.

See http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/".

 

[DaveC426913]

Anyway, your post is nonsense. Any unidentified object is obviously a 'genuine' UFO. If it's not a 'quality' UFO then presumably it is because it can be identified and therefore it is not a UFO at all.

I am not disagreeing with any of this. I am only distinguishing between mistaken reports (oftendue to observer ignorance) and genuine reports (a genuine UFO report does not mean it is an ET, it simply means it is difficult to explain away by conventional means).

The point is that, in a nation with relatively few objects in the sky, there is less "noise"; because of this, what UFO reports there are should actually be more genuine.

 

[bassplayer142]

This entire argument is based on the premise that all sightings are misidentifications of known flying man-made objects.

In fact, you highlight the opposite problem: in a less developed country, genuine sightings of UFOs should be higher, since they will stand out against a stark landscape of empty sky. i.e. we should get a higher-than-average quality of reports since there's no background noise of bad reports.

Even if they are higher, third world countries have nowhere to report them to. Half these people don't have electricity let alone a local news station with a motive for publicity.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Even if they are higher, third world countries have nowhere to report them to. Half these people don't have electricity let alone a local news station with a motive for publicity.

So, even if accurate representations of facts, UFO stories would be indistinguishable from legends and myths.

 

[DaveC426913]

So, even if accurate representations of facts, UFO stories would be indistinguishable from legends and myths.

No, not quite. Legends and myths are by definition from the past. It's not legend or myth if the witness is still around to interview.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, not quite. Legends and myths are by definition from the past. It's not legend or myth if the witness is still around to interview.

I was alluding more to the many historical accounts found in societies all over the world. As for modern eyewitness accounts, those have little to no weight unless they come with corroborating evidence in the form of photos, and or RADAR tracks, and or official radio communications between airborn observers and ground stations, and or trace physical evidence. And even then it doesn't prove anything.

It is also noteworthy that many countries not typically associated with UFO fame have released their own official UFO files from military sources. The last time I checked, probably a dozen countries had released such files.

 

[Anticitizen]

It seems like the UFO craze is mostly with civilized nations, and I have not seen much apart from crackpottery on an indigenous peoples claims for seeing UFOs.

My question being, since we see UFO claims nearly every day, and practically everyone has heard about, and has saw pictures of a "UFO." Does that make us more susceptible to claiming a UFO sighting when it is really just a natural occurrence?

You might be interested in a short story by William Gibson called 'The Gernsback Continuum'.

 

[Dembadon]

It seems like the UFO craze is mostly with civilized nations, and I have not seen much apart from crackpottery on an indigenous peoples claims for seeing UFOs.

There are many factors at play here:

-How much exposure do you get to indigenous people?
-How often are indigenous people's claims covered by media to which you have access?
-How accurate is such coverage by said media?
-What is lost and/or distorted in translation?
-What claims are we not hearing from indigenous people?

My question being, since we see UFO claims nearly every day, and practically everyone has heard about, and has saw pictures of a "UFO." Does that make us more susceptible to claiming a UFO sighting when it is really just a natural occurrence?

I believe this is based purely on the individual. Some people make an effort to think critically while others do not.

Here is an alternate point of view to consider; what about those who have decided that UFOs (when they are considered to be alien) cannot possibly exist? Instead of asking "what are the data," they simply deny the claim right off the bat. This type of person may also see UFO claims everyday.

 

[Max Faust]

Isn't the primary characteristic of a UFO that it's unidentified?

As somebody said, a statement is either tautology or conjecture, so it seems we are dealing with A) something unidentified which is airborne, and B) a wish, or a need, to "explain" either the phenomenon itself or the psychology which caused the observation to happen. In both cases the person making the statement is asserting a specific world hypothesis, which is conflicting with another world hypothesis.

I personally don't "believe" either way. Had there been enough data to form a scientifically sound hypothesis, this would have existed by now. In lieu of this, we have to just make do with the scariest thing of all: The human mind's very limited capacity for understanding reality.

 

[Chimps]

Out of context?? You might want to check out what that phrase means. You are using it inappropriately.


Yes, how silly that someone should have to spend time clarifying a comment they posted on the internet.

See http://www.cracked.com/funny-3809-internet-argument-techniques/".

Actually, I am fully aware of that article and find it amusing that you should quote it, since it clearly applies more to your posts than it does to mine.

 

[chrisalviola]

maybe in the 3rd world countries peoples faith in Christ or their religion is strong, compared to people who live in some rich nation. that's why they don't care of UFO's they see religious signs instead of flying saucers.

 

[ViewsofMars]

NASA - Ask an Astrobiologist recently answered a question regarding a UFO.

1.Question
Reading all the questions that you anser on alian life and ufos you come across quite rude thousands of people see ufos each year. If one land in my back yard what should I do? Who would i go to for help? (I am 12 years old)

[Answer below]
If a UFO lands in your backyard, you should get good photos of it and call your family and neighbors to see it too. So far, in spite of millions of claims over the past 60 years of people seeing UFOs, no one has ever come up with credible photos or other evidence. That is why scientists do not believe these are alien spacecraft . Without evidence, such claims will not convince anyone. If UFOs interest you, I recommend that you read "The UFO Invasion: The Roswell Incident, Alien Abductions, and Government Coverups" by Kendrick Frazier, Barry Karr, and Joe Nickell to find our how UFO claims are investigated.

David Morrison
NAI Senior Scientist
April 8, 2010
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=10725

I just love David's answer! lol! He answered another one. David is very passionate about this issue.

Question

Has NASA any had UFO problems ?(i'm doing a school project on them)

[Answer below]
No, I can't imagine that NASA would have any problems with something that doesn't exist. The sad thing about UFO reports is that they distract so many people from understanding and enjoying real science. (There is a lot of nonsense on the Internet about UFOs, but I do recommend the website http://skepdic.com/ufos_ets.html).

David Morrison
NAI Senior Scientist
June 2, 2006
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=1510

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A typical nonsense debunking. For example, he specified that there are no credible photos of UFOs [I assume that he means alleged alien spacecraft s. Someone should inform him that one is not automatically the other]. According to whom? There are plenty of photos that the academic community simply rejects based on the demand that extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence. It took far less evidence for ball lightning to enter the mainstream - just a few fuzzy photos and unsupportable stories! Ask him for a photo of ball lightning. He also fails to address the far more compelling reports found in military files; likely because he doesn't even know they exist. I also wonder if he has reviewed the cases in which cops chased these things all over the countryside. Are the cops all crackpots and conspiring to tell tall tales? Note for example that the police chase scene in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, was based on a real episode that involved the police from I believe several counties. The most recent example of something like this occurred in Illinois, in 2000.

His answers are pedantic at best. I'm not claiming that ET is here, but the UFO story is far more interesting that he wants to believe or cares to learn.

 

[ViewsofMars]

A typical nonsense debunking.
[snip]
His answers are pedantic at best. I'm not claiming that ET is here, but the UFO story is far more interesting that he wants to believe or cares to learn.

Ivan, I don't think my previous message inclusive of David Morrison, NAI Senior Scientist is nonsense nor would I wish to mislead people into thinking he isn't aware of the lack of evidence to support UFO's.

I am sorry you are upset but I must agree with a scientist, especially if he is more than educated in advising children and adults. He obviously has the sources available from the scientific community so I would expect him to be aware of what is going on. I sure wouldn't wish for youngters to go around saying what you have to their parents after a NASA Senior Scientist has clearly and most recently responded. Perhaps you would like to present to "NASA - Ask an Astrobiologist" your concerns then share with us what an astrobiologist replies to you.

Note for example that the police chase scene in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, was based on a real episode that involved the police from I believe several counties.

Ivan, I thought the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" was fiction.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Ivan, I thought the movie "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" was fiction.

The segment he mentioned was based on a real incident. His point is that various law enforcement officers have reported seeing unidentified flying objects.

When I lived in Minnesota many years ago there was a police officer who was crashed into by some unidentified flying object. It came up the highway flying in the opposite direction he was driving and it grazed his cruiser as it passed, bending his antenna and denting the vehicle. There were photos of the vehicle with the article about it in the paper. The point is, he could not identify what the flying object was: it did not look like any conventional air plane or helicopter.

Stories like this have convinced me that there are, indeed, unidentified things flying around out there. I don't believe for a second they are from another planet, but they are, non-the-less, intriguing.

 

[ViewsofMars]

The segment he mentioned was based on a real incident. His point is that various law enforcement officers have reported seeing unidentified flying objects.

Zoobyshoe, it would be nice if Ivan could give us the information by way of a link that will tell me as you have stated that Steven Spielberg "based on a real incident" used an account that "various law enforcement officers have reported seeing unidentified flying objects (UFO's)" in the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Zoobyshoe, getting back to the movie, this is what I found out about it.

The genesis of Close Encounters of the Third Kind started when Steven Spielberg and his father saw a meteor shower in New Jersey when the director was a young boy. As a teenager, Spielberg completed the full-length science fiction film Firelight. Many scenes from Firelight would be incorporated in Close Encounters on a shot-for-shot basis. In 1970 he wrote a short story called Experiences about a lovers' lane in a Midwestern United States farming community and the "light show" a group of teenagers see in the night sky.
http://exclusivemovienews.blogspot.com/2010/02/close-encounters-of-third-kind.html

 

[DaveC426913]

Stories like this have convinced me that there are, indeed, unidentified things flying around out there. I don't believe for a second they are from another planet, but they are, non-the-less, intriguing.

This is a question I've wanted to ask Ivan and you.

What, in your considered but private opinion, do you think is the perpetrator? I'm not asking you to defend your opinion; I'm asking what - if you had a chance to a peek into the future to where these mysteries were conclusively solved - would you put your money on?

It could be anything from ET (which I believe you've both dismissed) to secret projects, to mis-identified objects (large birds, weather balloons) to false reports or hoaxes or anythiong else. And of course mixed ratios of the above.

I'm asking what you believe is the likely cause of the more interesting and inexplicable reports.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zoobyshoe, it would be nice if Ivan could give us the information by way of a link that will tell me as you have stated that Steven Spielberg "based on a real incident" used an account that "various law enforcement officers have reported seeing unidentified flying objects (UFO's)" in the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

I'm sure he can dig up a link or two. I recall having read an account of the specific incident he's referring to.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is a question I've wanted to ask Ivan and you.

What, in your considered but private opinion, do you think is the perpetrator? I'm not asking you to defend your opinion; I'm asking what - if you had a chance to a peek into the future to where these mysteries were conclusively solved - would you put your money on?

I would say:

1.) Eloraborate hoaxes (by the same people who brought you crop circles).

2.) Eloraborate hoaxes designed both by our government and foreign governments. I have this idea that the US and Soviet Union were in a clandestine UFO War for years during which each was trying to convince the other they had extra-terrestrial technology reverse engineered from crashed flying saucers.

3.) As yet unknown natural phenomena. It's been suggested, for example, that swarms of glowing insects might be swept high into the atmosphere and present as inexplicable lights. Then there are things like the Marfa lights that seem to be caused by city lights from miles and miles away being "piped" through the atmosphere via unusual channels caused by discrete air currents differing in temperature from the surrounding air. That sort of thing.

 

[Antiphon]

To the OP: The industrialized regions of the world are under greater scrutiny by extraterrestrial civilizations. If a technological threat to them develops here, that's where it will happen, not in the rain forest.

 

[MotoH]

To the OP: The industrialized regions of the world are under greater scrutiny by extraterrestrial civilizations. If a technological threat to them develops here, that's where it will happen, not in the rain forest.

They have space ships that can travel extremely fast. We have a glorified V2 rocket. I am positive they aren't scoping out our technologies.

(and I am also positive aliens are not visiting us. They have interstellar space craft, they wouldn't be didly dadling around in the atmosphere when they can just scan us from orbit.)

 

[russ_watters]

A typical nonsense debunking. For example, he specified that there are no credible photos of UFOs [I assume that he means alleged alien spacecraft s. Someone should inform him that one is not automatically the other].

We can do our regular dance here...

You point out that a "UFO" by definition isn't necessarily an alleged alien spacecraft and denigrate a skeptic for treating "UFOolog" is if it were 'did-you-just-see-an-alien- spacecraft -ology' and nog giving the appropriate level of respect or attributing the appropriate level of scientific rigor to the pursuit. As always, I respond: whether you really believe that to be true or just want that to be true is irrelevant. It just plain isn't true. UFOology really is 'did-you-just-see-an-alien- spacecraft -ology'. That's what the people reporting the sightings are talking about and that's what most of the people investigating them - particularly the most scientifically rigorous among them - are looking for. The most credible and scientifically rigorous investigations are about. By that, I mean military investigations. Project Blue Book is the archetype of this and it was all about looking for alien spacecraft , started not long after the initial "flying saucer" craze of the late 1940s. When a military investigation revels "no threat to national security", it means: 'this was not an alien spacecraft '.

Investigation of interesting scientific explanations for the sightings exist only as a subset of 'not an alien spacecraft ' judgements. Whether swamp gas, Venus or an Iridium flare, figuring out if any natural (or pseudo-natural/unexpected man-made) explanation has interesting scientific implications is secondary -- and nonetheless also judged not worthy of study by reputable scientific studies.

Indeed, when a "credible" or "compelling" sighting is publicized, it is always a 'this looks like a real alien spacecraft !' type of event. And a big part of why the reputation of UFOology is so bad is because of this stance and because of the excitement generated by such events...and the let-down when such events are figured-out as being mundane. The Mexican Air Force oil rig fiasco is a perfect example of the black-eye the field can get by overhyping the 'alien spaceship!' angle.

Of course, Morrison knows all of this and his dismissiveness is a reflection of his clear understanding of the issue.

According to whom?

According to reputable scientists in reputable scientific fields.

There are plenty of photos that the academic community simply rejects based on the demand that extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence.

Correct - and correctly. You seem to be attempting to criticize the scientific community for acting in a maner that is absolutely the proper way to act! The cold fusion fiasco is a great example of what happens when that rule of thumb is forgotton or bypassed. Yeah, extrordinary claims really do require extrordinary evidence in order to be worthy of serious consideration. If such a bar was not set, scientists would be buried by the necessity to investigate huge numbers of relatively obviously (to scientists) crackpot claims.

It took far less evidence for ball lightning to enter the mainstream - just a few fuzzy photos and unsupportable stories! Ask him for a photo of ball lightning.

Uh, attempting to denigrate a potential real scientific finding does not by corollary promote an unscientific one to legitimacy - even if you were correct to denigrate ball lightning in that way: Try googling it for your pictures: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBF_enUS311US311&q=ball+lightning

Besides the pictures, the proposed effect has been demonstrated in a lab. So while that doesn't make the explanation certain, it does provide an absolutely certainly credible explanation that might be attributable to the observations in nature. By contrast (and I've pointed this out before), until the generic explanation "alien spacecraft are real" is proven, it cannot be credibly applied to individual sightings.

He also fails to address the far more compelling reports found in military files; likely because he doesn't even know they exist.

Unlikely. More likely: when it comes to this issue, what UFOologists consider "compelling" is much different from what reputable/mainstream scientists consider "compelling".

I also wonder if he has reviewed the cases in which cops chased these things all over the countryside. Are the cops all crackpots and conspiring to tell tall tales? Note for example that the police chase scene in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, was based on a real episode that involved the police from I believe several counties. The most recent example of something like this occurred in Illinois, in 2000.

No. People who report they've seen UFOS are almost always telling the truth. It's just that (by definition), they just don't realize what they are seeing has a mundane explanation. Pilots and air traffic controllers have been known to chase Venus, so why should cops be any better at identifying it?

"“Do you know how many times we have cleared Venus to land?” (Hendry 27) - The words of an Air Traffic Controller in Detroit" http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Venusufo.htm

His answers are pedantic at best. I'm not claiming that ET is here, but the UFO story is far more interesting that he wants to believe or cares to learn.

Only if the story is about alien spacecraft !

 

[russ_watters]

This is a question I've wanted to ask Ivan and you.

I'm asking what you believe is the likely cause of the more interesting and inexplicable reports.

In addition, I'm interested in what UFOologists and laymen observers are looking for. I don't believe for a second that by-and-large they are searching for natural phenomena: people would not be studying the issue if not for the possibility that what was being seen is alien spacecraft .

 

[russ_watters]

I would say:

1.) Eloraborate hoaxes (by the same people who brought you crop circles)...

2.) Eloraborate hoaxes designed both by our government and foreign governments...

3.) As yet unknown natural phenomena...

Just for clarity, would "unidentified, mundane phenomena" also make the list? Ie, did you just leave it off because it was too obvious/mundane? From Venus to birds to fireflies to oil rigs, the vast majority of sightings that are initially called "UFOs" are later identified as perfectly mundane things that the observer just didn't recognize. It stands to reason that even most of the ones that are never positively identified are also such perfectly ordinary things.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Just for clarity, would "unidentified, mundane phenomena" also make the list? Ie, did you just leave it off because it was too obvious/mundane? From Venus to birds to fireflies to oil rigs, the vast majority of sightings that are initially called "UFOs" are later identified as perfectly mundane things that the observer just didn't recognize. It stands to reason that even most of the ones that are never positively identified are also such perfectly ordinary things.

Obviously a lot of reports are of misidentified mundane phenomena and outright hallucinations. Dave asked for personal opinion about "the more interesting and inexplicable reports".

 

[undidly]

People who claim to see space aliens in our sky are mocked.
Government agencies participate in the mocking.
Religious people who claim that there is an invisible man living in the sky are not mocked.
Government agencies support the invisible man delusion.
Why is this?.
Seems to be a huge conspiracy to me.
Soon to be reversed I think.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hello undidly, note that conspiracy theories are not allowed. Also, religion bashing is not allowed. Please review the guidelines at the following link:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5929

 

[infinitenight]

In my opinion it really doesn't matter how many times people try to play off these sightings for everyday natural phenomena because even if a fraction of them are correct, it means that we are being visited by extraterrestrials. Hundreds of cases have been debunked down to natural, even comical explanations but there are still those that cannot be explained even by the most imaginative of skeptics. I think that it really is time we all open our eyes and see that there is so much more to this universe than any of us could imagine. Other races of intelligent beings exist, and they have visited us. Get used to it because this is going to play a huge role in the future of mankind

 

[Evo]

In my opinion it really doesn't matter how many times people try to play off these sightings for everyday natural phenomena because even if a fraction of them are correct, it means that we are being visited by extraterrestrials. Hundreds of cases have been debunked down to natural, even comical explanations but there are still those that cannot be explained even by the most imaginative of skeptics. I think that it really is time we all open our eyes and see that there is so much more to this universe than any of us could imagine. Other races of intelligent beings exist, and they have visited us. Get used to it because this is going to play a huge role in the future of mankind

Please post your proof of visitation.

It's ok to post that you think we have been visited, but it is not ok to say that we have.

 

[DaveC426913]

... there are still those that cannot be explained even by the most imaginative of skeptics...

The fact that they cannot be explained does not mean they must be of extraterrestrial origin. It means simply that we cannot explain them.

Consider the following unrelated but equally-plausible scenario:

We see phenomena that, despite our very best efforts, simply cannot be explained by any known terrestrial event. Flying saucers in our skies, abductions, whatever you care to put on the table.

By process of elimination, since these are not of any terrestrial origin, they must be the only thing left:

Acts of God.

God, for whatever reason he sees fit, is tossing saucer-shaped devices through our skies and kidnapping people.

You see, your process-of-elimination argument works perfectly well. You have just proven that God must exist and we'd better get used to it.

 

[jreelawg]

It is interesting considering NASA, it's position and role in addressing UFO issues, and questions of extra terrestrial life.

My grandfather worked for NASA as a public relations officer, in charge of wester operations. He worked for NASA from it's inception until the late 80's. One of his roles was to address this issue of how NASA would address the public in the event extra-terrestrial life was found on other planets, from intelligent to microbes. This issue was a complex and controversial issue at the time among NASA officials. What would news of such events cause. How would religion be affected, how would the economy be affected, and so forth.

It's important to realize, that NASA, is obligated to have particular stances on the subject independent of observation and science depending on who is in charge. Second, that any NASA obtained evidence of the subject is NASA property and would be illegal for anyone to talk about without NASA permission. Thirdly, some UFO sightings could possibly be classified aircraft developed through or with the help of NASA, or known to NASA which they are not authorized to talk about.

So the thing is, NASA in spite of being the one agency you would expect to be the experts on the Subject of UFO's, most likely would be the last place you are going to get information on the subject.

There are however a lot of older retiring NASA pilots and astronauts who claim to have witnessed extra-ordinary UFO's while on flights/mission. Then again, what they witnessed could always be just another NASA project or project of another government agency which was not privy to them. NASA operates in a need to know basis when it comes to sensitive information, and you can get in a lot of trouble for saying things your not supposed to if you work for NASA.

 

[jreelawg]

I would say:

2.) Eloraborate hoaxes designed both by our government and foreign governments. I have this idea that the US and Soviet Union were in a clandestine UFO War for years during which each was trying to convince the other they had extra-terrestrial technology reverse engineered from crashed flying saucers.

I've had this thought run through my head a few times. What if the these lights which are in formations and perform seaming impossible aeronautical stunts, are nothing more than some kind of sophisticated light show, and illusion designed to make people think they see something extra-ordinarily advanced. This would get around the issue of how many of these sightings report rapid changes of direction and rapid drops and gains in altitude, at the magnitude which would easily kill any human passenger. The only thing is that there are a lot of reports in which UFOs demonstrating seemingly impossible acrobatic stunts were tracked on radar.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I've had this thought run through my head a few times. What if the these lights which are in formations and perform seaming impossible aeronautical stunts, are nothing more than some kind of sophisticated light show, and illusion designed to make people think they see something extra-ordinarily advanced. This would get around the issue of how many of these sightings report rapid changes of direction and rapid drops and gains in altitude, at the magnitude which would easily kill any human passenger. The only thing is that there are a lot of reports in which UFOs demonstrating seemingly impossible acrobatic stunts were tracked on radar.

Yes, the point would not be that any craft have to be able to actually do any of these remarkable things, they just have to appear to be able to do them. The brains behind the stunts would be David Copperfield caliber magicians let loose on all the technology available to the military. They would study things like radar and focus on all the loopholes and glitches that could be exploited to make craft seem like they're doing impossible things.

The US did, in fact, hire a magician to create a bedazzling light show in the Panama Canal when it was suspected axis forces were planning on bombing it during WWII. It was some sort of rotating configuration of mirrors and searchlights that just outright blinded airplane pilots looking down on the ground at it. They became disoriented and couldn't see where to drop the bombs. Plus we know, from WWII both sides went way out of their way to create false, "dummy" battalions of tanks and trucks to make it look like troop strength was building up in places it wasn't.

I happened just today to see a UFO program on the History Channel. They interviewed two former Soviet Generals. When Andropov was in power he ordered the military to keep nightly watch of the skies everywhere for UFO's. This went on for 13 years. Many reports were collected. One general said they automatically suspected any report they could not otherwise explain was some sort of new US spy plane or attempt to create disinformation. Military strategists think about deception all the time and it would not be the least unusual for both sides to have a UFO distraction/deception program going.

 

[ecsspace]

What people claim to see in the sky tells you more about the observer than what's in the sky. You can go out at night with a large group of people to "watch for UFO's", and depending where you are and with enough time a normal airliner will pass over. There will always be be someone in the crowd who insists it's "a UFO"; from their perspective meaning they see this airliner as an alien spacecraft .
Because: they want it to be, and their desire to see it as such is more important to them than any sense of reason and experience (they may or may not possess) that tells them it's a common jet.
I mean, your parents said "Santa Claus, oh sure' They leave the room, you go look up the chimney - someone of the dimensions they describe is going to fit through a four inch flue? Yet you have friends in elementary school, and here comes some guy in the Santa suit, and to them he's the man, no question. Even after you say, no, it's coach in a red suit and beard. Some of your friends actually
start to cry because you ruined the ride.
I still have that bad ruin-the-ride habit. Maybe there's some twelve step program: AA - Assholes Anonymous. Or even better: AO 'Assholes Obvious"

 

[jreelawg]

What people claim to see in the sky tells you more about the observer than what's in the sky. You can go out at night with a large group of people to "watch for UFO's", and depending where you are and with enough time a normal airliner will pass over. There will always be be someone in the crowd who insists it's "a UFO"; from their perspective meaning they see this airliner as an alien spacecraft .
Because: they want it to be, and their desire to see it as such is more important to them than any sense of reason and experience (they may or may not possess) that tells them it's a common jet.
I mean, your parents said "Santa Claus, oh sure' They leave the room, you go look up the chimney - someone of the dimensions they describe is going to fit through a four inch flue? Yet you have friends in elementary school, and here comes some guy in the Santa suit, and to them he's the man, no question. Even after you say, no, it's coach in a red suit and beard. Some of your friends actually
start to cry because you ruined the ride.
I still have that bad ruin-the-ride habit. Maybe there's some twelve step program: AA - Assholes Anonymous. Or even better: AO 'Assholes Obvious"

This is all true, yet really tells us nothing of the mystery of the UFO phenomena. The only reports you can explain by this phenomena, are ones that no rational person would take serious anyways.

Santa Clause is a proven fictional character, whereas the UFO mystery is still, as far as you or I know, unsolved. So in my opinion people who claim to represent any certainty about the UFO phenomena without evidence, should take the JAA twelve step program, Jack-A**'s-Anonymous.

 

[FlexGunship]

Obviously a lot of reports are of misidentified mundane phenomena and outright hallucinations. Dave asked for personal opinion about "the more interesting and inexplicable reports".

"More interesting and inexplicable reports" can still be explained by mundane misunderstandings.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"More interesting and inexplicable reports" can still be explained by mundane misunderstandings.

"Might", not necessarily "can".

And there is no way this applies to all reports.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note that you and Russ had to posit a conspiracy theory [with no basis other than wild speculation, I might add] to explain the Iran 1976 event. And there are others, like the case of the RB-47 over the Gulf. Even the Condon committee, which is well known for its bias and failure to accurately reflect the body of the report in the summary by Condon, had to concede that there was no known explanation for this.

The Condon Committee toyed with several explanations, but found none to be satisfactory listed this as an unknown.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case665.htm

 

[FlexGunship]

"Might", not necessarily "can".

And there is no way this applies to all reports.

You are correct about the distinction between "might" and "can" and I accept your modification.

However, there is no fundamentally-implicit reason why it couldn't apply to all reports. That's really a tautology.

 

[DaveC426913]

However, there is no fundamentally-implicit reason why it couldn't apply to all reports.

It is meaningless to suggest that all observations might, in an ideal circumstance, be explainable by mundane means.

We explain what we can, and the rest is unexplainable. No one is suggesting that unexplainable===extraterrestrial.

 

[ecsspace]

I can say this only for myself, but I know that a certain % of these cases are not "crackpottery", as me and a group of friends all saw the same UFO, totally unexplainable by any known phenomenon. 0 feasible alternative explanations exist, so until more variables come my way I am happy to say that I probably saw an alien spaceship.

I once saw something myself that by it's behaviour did not exhibit any traditional human-created flight characteristics, but did demonstrate behaviour that could very easily be considered to be under some conscious control.
But even now many years later I shy from considering that it could be a vehicle or some conveyance of an extraterrestrial origin.
The most remarkable aspect of the sighting was how unremarkable it seemed at the time, which I still think about once in a while. There was no accompanying emotion of any kind, yet I would imagine that most people would expect some sense of awe or fear. My father saw it with me, and seemed equally nonplussed, as if it was no more remarkable than the overflight of a normal airplane.
Following from this experience I tend to be closer to dismissing outright claims of people who speak of sightings and then relate their emotional state, as if they are attempting first to illicit the emotional state in any listener as a means of qualifying the veracity of their sighting. For instance, I only know personally one other person who saw something unusual 9whose story I 'believe'), and she too described it as if it was 'no big deal', and her sighting was far more detailed than mine. She seemed convinced that it was an actual craft from another world, but it seemed as though she took no more regard for it's presence at the time as if she had seen a billboard or any other common roadside object. Somehow, her emotional detachment made her story more 'believable' to me.

When you and your friends saw this UFO, do you recall any particular emotional state of your own, or if any of your friends seemed more affected by it emotionally than others? Did the sighting cause any kind of uncomfortable emotions in any of you while you were seeing it, and was that ever a topic of discussion amongst any of you later?