Explanations for UFOs

  • Thread starter Mammo
  • Start date
  • #1
208
0
Not entirely correct. Earthquake lights are now generally accepted as a genuine phenomenon, as is ball lightning. The "ball lightning" produced in labs so far only vaguely resembles the phenomenon reported. For example, in the lab, a sustained energy source in the form of microwaves is required.
Is there a link to scientific Earthlight investigation? I'd be interested to read about the mechanism they think is reponsible. Is it just the reporting of Earthlights after an earthquake which is generally accepted, or is it the assumption that the lights are caused directly by the movement of the earth? This is what I have a problem with. I have seen a TV documentary concerning mystery earthquake lights in Wales(UK), where professionals investigating (i.e. policemen) reported that the lights moved as if they by their own volition. If it was a geological explanation for the earthquake lights, then one would imagine that they would be more akin to the aura borealis or northern lights. Why haven't these lights been filmed successfully, and attributed to geological activity? The eye witness accounts actually favour a crytozoological explanation of 'things with wings' which are bioluminescent. This might seem extraordinary to some, but it is a better fit of the facts than the 'natural earthlights' in my opinion. The national flag of Wales features a red dragon, after all.
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #3


Most UFO sightings are just mid identified aircraft or astronomical phenomenon but there quite a few that can not be explained. Sightings by trained observers such as Military and airline pilots of these objects performing maneuvers that are not possible by any known aircraft. They have been seen at speeds faster than any known jet and making right angle turns without even slowing down and coming to a dead stop after traveling at great speed and even reversing direction without a flinch. In my opinion the government either has some insane technology that we dont know about which they have had since the 50s or they are ET craft.
 
  • #4
208
0


Most UFO sightings are just mid identified aircraft or astronomical phenomenon but there quite a few that can not be explained. Sightings by trained observers such as Military and airline pilots of these objects performing maneuvers that are not possible by any known aircraft. They have been seen at speeds faster than any known jet and making right angle turns without even slowing down and coming to a dead stop after traveling at great speed and even reversing direction without a flinch. In my opinion the government either has some insane technology that we dont know about which they have had since the 50s or they are ET craft.
I agree with this point of view, but think there is also room for something else. You have to be very open-minded to even consider the possibility of a living down-to-earth explanation for some of the (ufo) lights incidents, I admit. The funny thing is, it seems to fit extraordinarily well. Or is it just me?
 
  • #5
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,210
270


Ivan Seeking;

I personally believe that there could be two main reasons for the genuine UFO phenomena. One is the obvious 'saucer' shaped craft, which are either extraterrestrial or man-made whilst the other is something more down-to-earth. There is substantial evidence of 'things with wings' in the cryptozoological world. It is not beyond the bounds of reasoning to suggest that a large unknown night-flying (i.e. wing flapping) creature has developed bioluminescence. If small creatures that live at the bottom of the sea can do it, so can big things that fly in the dark. Have you ever heard of anyone with this opinion?
before we even look at discrete objects like that, the atmosphere itself has all kinds of crazy things going on it. Scientists were skeptical about ball lightning for a long time. There could be similar (and equally rare) phenomena in the sky.
 
  • #6
208
0


before we even look at discrete objects like that, the atmosphere itself has all kinds of crazy things going on it. Scientists were skeptical about ball lightning for a long time. There could be similar (and equally rare) phenomena in the sky.
I have looked at all the possible natural sky phenomena to account for reported ufo incidents. Undoubtedly they can explain some, but there is still room for a lot of other explanations. After many years of having an intense interest in the subject, I am convinced that the cryptozoological angle has potential. It's a new idea perhaps, but the more you think about the reported facts and imagine the idea of 'things with wings', the more it seems to fit. The famous Rendelsham Forest incident is a classic example which lends itself to this interpretation in my opinion. There are many more.
The MOD releases more ufo files:

I wonder if the pics of the diamond ufo are online somewhere.
Fantastically interesting article.
 
  • #7
28
0


Hello Mammo.

Please could you describe how the Rendelsham Forest incident could be explained by a cryptozoological explanation.

I've just read Ivans previous post, maybe it would be best to start a new thread.

Thanks

Jamie
 
  • #8
208
0


Hello Mammo.

Please could you describe how the Rendelsham Forest incident could be explained by a cryptozoological explanation.

I've just read Ivans previous post, maybe it would be best to start a new thread.
Hello Jamie, unfortunately that would be against PF rules. I can only hope that the idea gets included as an acceptable topic of discussion in the near future.
Not entirely correct. Earthquake lights are now generally accepted as a genuine phenomenon, as is ball lightning. The "ball lightning" produced in labs so far only vaguely resembles the phenomenon reported. For example, in the lab, a sustained energy source in the form of microwaves is required.
A BBC Horizon programme last night "Why Can't We Predict Earthquakes?" had a section on Earthlight investigation. An independent scientist believes he has recreated the effect in the lab by crushing rock: a peizo-electric effect is produced. Also, an early photograph was shown of the lights which were a continuous white glow around the mountains. I was very impressed, and I'm now a believer in both natural Earthlights and the other explanation. BBC: Why Can't We Predict Earthquakes (move slider to 40 mins+)
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,408
741


I still have a nagging question. Why would hyper advanced aliens piloting a craft across the galaxy give a hoot if primitives like us saw them hovering over an interesting neolithic mound - like new york city - in broad daylight? Why so secretive? Do we pose a threat to them? The logic escapes me. What earthly historical parallels do we have of technologically superior societies concealing their existence from 'primitives'? The 'alien' explanation for ufo's is illogical.
 
  • #10
Garth
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,574
105


Hello Mammo.

Please could you describe how the Rendelsham Forest incident could be explained by a cryptozoological explanation.

I've just read Ivans previous post, maybe it would be best to start a new thread.

Thanks

Jamie
I was brought up in East Anglia and I know that part of the country pretty well, having spent holidays and sailed off the coast in that region.

I am completely convinced that the "Rendelsham Forest Incident" is nothing but hype.

It was late at night just after Christmas, had they been celebrating?

From the Wikipedia article Rendlesham Forest incident:
Science writer Ian Ridpath investigated the incident in 1983, initially for BBC TV's Breakfast Time, and on 5 January 1985 wrote an article for The Guardian which did much to discredit the accounts of the UFO sightings at Rendlesham.[23] Ridpath asked local forester Vince Thurkettle about the flashing light, and he indicated that it originated from a nearby lighthouse, which as seen from the forest edge appears to hover slightly above the ground and would appear to move as the witnesses moved. Also, if a UFO was present, the airmen should have reported a second source of light (the lighthouse) in the same line of sight. In the Halt tape (mentioned above), one can hear an unidentified airman call out "There it is again...there it is" with an interval of 5 seconds, the same frequency at which the Orford Ness lighthouse flashes.[7] Video footage of the lighthouse as seen from Col Halt's vantage point at the edge of the forest shows it flashing at this rate.[24]

Thurkettle saw the alleged "landing marks", as did the local police, and believed them simply to be old "rabbit diggings" covered with pine needles.[25] USAF photographs of the marks discovered by researcher Georgina Bruni were sent to the MoD by Lord Hill-Norton in 2001 and released under the Freedom of Information Act in 2007.[26] Moreover, the supposed burn marks in the trees were actually axe cuts made by foresters that indicated the trees were ready to be felled. To give further pause to accepting the alleged UFO sighting, a meteor "almost as bright as the full Moon" was spotted over southern England at exactly the time of the initial reports of a bright object "landing" in the forest, according to Dr John Mason, who collects reports of meteor sightings for the British Astronomical Association.[27]

Crucial amongst the evidence is the interpretation of the levels of radiation in the area (clearly heard on the "Halt tape"). Experts at the UK’s National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) have pointed out that the equipment used for this measurement was not intended to measure background radiation and therefore the readings at the low end of the measurement scale are meaningless.[5]
I know Ian Ridpath, we meet regularly at the Royal Astronomical Society monthly meetings, I trust his conclusions.

Garth
 
  • #11
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
177
Since the UFO news thread had drifted so far off topic, I started a new thread and moved the posts.
 
  • #12
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
177
Garth, considering that the people involved saw the lighthouse every night, that explanation seems ridiculous to not only me but the alleged witnesses as well. If one is to selectively reject bit and pieces of claims that violate a personal theory, then we can just make up any explanation that we want.

If one were to try to use one coincidental timing mark to prove that ET is here, I'm sure that you would be one of the first to object.

Col. Halt spent an hour describing to me personally the events that he witnessed, and for all practical purposes, I believe him. A lighthouse and meteor didn't send shafts of light to the ground while maneuvering through the trees "as if by intelligent control".

Why would he falsify an official military report like this long before he knew that anyone else would ever know about it?

By the way, Halt doesn't believe that he saw an alien spacecraft. He has never made that claim - just another fact misrepresented by the so-called skeptics.
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
177


I still have a nagging question. Why would hyper advanced aliens piloting a craft across the galaxy give a hoot if primitives like us saw them hovering over an interesting neolithic mound - like new york city - in broad daylight? Why so secretive? Do we pose a threat to them? The logic escapes me. What earthly historical parallels do we have of technologically superior societies concealing their existence from 'primitives'? The 'alien' explanation for ufo's is illogical.
We don't discuss personal theories. If ET really is here, we have no way to judge methods or motives.

To draw conclusions based on what we do know is virtual crackpottery. Also, it is a violation of the posting guidelines to posit a theory that seeks to explain an unproven premise. If it is ever proven that ET is here, then we can discuss methods and motives.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
208
0
I was brought up in East Anglia and I know that part of the country pretty well, having spent holidays and sailed off the coast in that region. I am completely convinced that the "Rendelsham Forest Incident" is nothing but hype. It was late at night just after Christmas, had they been celebrating? From the Wikipedia article Rendlesham Forest incident: I know Ian Ridpath, we meet regularly at the Royal Astronomical Society monthly meetings, I trust his conclusions. Garth
The voice recording of the personnel on the ground who entered the forest to investigate was very convincing of something strange going on, in my opinion.

Garth, considering that the people involved saw the lighthouse every night, that explanation seems ridiculous to not only me but the alleged witnesses as well. If one is to selectively reject bit and pieces of claims that violate a personal theory, then we can just make up any explanation that we want.

If one were to try to use one coincidental timing mark to prove that ET is here, I'm sure that you would be one of the first to object.

Col. Halt spent an hour describing to me personally the events that he witnessed, and for all practical purposes, I believe him. A lighthouse and meteor didn't send shafts of light to the ground while maneuvering through the trees "as if by intelligent control".

Why would he falsify an official military report like this long before he knew that anyone else would ever know about it?

By the way, Halt doesn't believe that he saw an alien spacecraft. He has never made that claim - just another fact misrepresented by the so-called skeptics.
Firstly, thanks for starting this thread Ivan. Good idea. What is the background to you interviewing Col. Halt for an hour? Sounds an interesting story.

BTW, the cryptozological 'things with wings' reports are often associated with pine trees. The inaccessibility and high nest sights I guess (if they exist).
 
  • #15
208
0


I still have a nagging question. Why would hyper advanced aliens piloting a craft across the galaxy give a hoot if primitives like us saw them hovering over an interesting neolithic mound - like new york city - in broad daylight? Why so secretive? Do we pose a threat to them? The logic escapes me. What earthly historical parallels do we have of technologically superior societies concealing their existence from 'primitives'? The 'alien' explanation for ufo's is illogical.
You obviously haven't seen the original 1950's (I think) footage of 'flying saucers' appearing over the Whitehouse then. It caused mass panic amongst the population. That's a logical reason why they wouldn't show themselves.
 
  • #16
Pythagorean
Gold Member
4,210
270


I have looked at all the possible natural sky phenomena to account for reported ufo incidents.
I sincerely doubt that unless you're a very ambitious astronomer and meteorologist.
 
  • #17
208
0


I sincerely doubt that unless you're a very ambitious astronomer and meteorologist.
It was a comment meant to reflect my interest in the ufo subject (and other mysteries) for the last 25 years or so.
 

Related Threads on Explanations for UFOs

Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
197
Views
28K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
189
Views
50K
Top