Is there life in the universe, and if so has it visited Earth?

[CEL]

Another important point. Amino acids come in two flavors: left and right handed.
All proteins on terrestrial organisms use left amino acids, but this seems to be random. An extraterrestrial bacterium based on right amino acids could not digest our proteins and would be inoffensive to us.

 

[Anticitizen]

Yes, I get you're point. And here we are searching "super Earth's" and "earth-like" planets for
signs of life when... who knows, there may be amino acids formed from methane that can build another type of organism.

BTW, here's an article from tonight about an essential amino acid for life (as we know it) being found in the centre of a comet.



http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090818/science/science_us_space_comet_life

These guys are so abiogenisis/earth-centric they can't imagine life starting 4.5 billion years ago somewhere else and slowly spreading throughout the galaxies via panspermia.

There's a big jump between the idea of comets seeding our planet with amino acids, etc and the idea of living organisms actually hitching a ride on a meteor from another world.

I personally just don't buy it. As far as I can discern, the probability of a living planet being impacted by an asteroid strike, sending off fragments into space that contain some sort of bacteria or archaea, which then travel billions or trillions of miles (and thousands/hundreds of thousands/millions of years) to just happen to tear through our atmosphere and collide - delivering their payload still alive and intact after all that time and 'wear and tear' from vacuum, radiation, lack of nutrients - to be far more unlikely than simple-by-comparison abiogenesis.

Even allowing for panspermia, the life would still have had to evolve somewhere, so I don't get why you'd paint panspermia and abiogenesis as 'opposing sides' of some sort.

 

[Count Iblis]

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403049

 

[baywax]

Another important point. Amino acids come in two flavors: left and right handed.
All proteins on terrestrial organisms use left amino acids, but this seems to be random. An extraterrestrial bacterium based on right amino acids could not digest our proteins and would be inoffensive to us.

Do you have a reference re: left/right handed amino acids?

 

[baywax]

Even allowing for panspermia, the life would still have had to evolve somewhere, so I don't get why you'd paint panspermia and abiogenesis as 'opposing sides' of some sort.

I don't see abiogenisis and panspermia as opposing conditions. They can no doubt take place side by side.

What I'm pointing out is that conditions supporting life may have developed early on in the evolution of the universe, 5 - 7 billion years ago. This gives "life" time to go through some of the disturbances you mention with the asteroid bombardments etc. These occurrences would then have time to spread "space resistant" bacteria etc... on the tide of the development of the rest of the universe... to host planets, which would only be "host planets" in the time it took for water to form and other conditions met.

 

[CEL]

Do you have a reference re: left/right handed amino acids?

Look at
http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/blaminochiral.htm
or google for chirality

 

[i.neu]

Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't life "out there". astrobiology/exobiology is still very, very young...we can't formulate anything compelling about life in the universe, yet.As for the Drake equation, it's certainly a long shot... maybe the "Drake Guess" is a more appropriate term than the "Drake Equation".

That being said, I shall adopt the sceptic's position when it comes to extraterrestrials holidaying on Earth. :)

 

[ideasrule]

That being said, I shall adopt the sceptic's position when it comes to extraterrestrials holidaying on Earth. :)

Hush. I'm not "holidaying"; I'm doing scientific research. Don't you see the difference?

 

[baywax]

Look at
http://chemistry.about.com/library/weekly/blaminochiral.htm
or google for chirality

I still don't think there will be many life forms beyond the types and species we see on earth... and that is one very large number of variations on life.

Vertebrate Animals

Mammals 5,416
Birds 9,956
Reptiles 8,240
Amphibians 6,199
Total Vertebrates 59,811

Invertebrate Animals

Insects 950,000
Molluscs 81,000
Crustaceans 40,000
Corals 2,175
Others 130,200
Total Invertebrates 1,203,375

Plants

Flowering plants (angiosperms) 258,650
Conifers (gymnosperms) 980
Ferns and horsetails 13,025
Mosses 15,000
Red and green algae 9,671
Total Plants 297,326
Others
Lichens 10,000
Mushrooms 16,000
Brown algae 2,849
Total Others 28,849

TOTAL SPECIES 1,589,361

http://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/Plants-Animals/number-species.php


And these are only the known species. At some point we may see a pile of methane that moves and eats and reproduces... but I really doubt it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Invertebrate Animals

Insects 950,000

And 350,000 of those are beetles.

"One thing we can be sure of about God: he had an inordinate fondness for beetles.”

 

[WhoWee]

And 350,000 of those are beetles.

"One thing we can be sure of about God: he had an inordinate fondness for beetles.”

...and yet the "Beatles" said they were more popular (or something?)...

 

[Vectus]

I still don't think there will be many life forms beyond the types and species we see on earth... and that is one very large number of variations on life.

Sorry, but that's absurd. In a potentially extremely different environment with conditions much unlike those on earth, different elemental composition, different selective pressures, a different geological history, potentially different genetic codings for different proteins that may function very differently from ours, ect, ect, there's no telling what kinds of specialized complex life may arise. There are simply too many factors. Not to mention, there are countless ways for a species to effectively fill a niche.

That's not to say that we might not find some species that are somewhat similar or may employ the same general mechanisms as species on earth, but chances are if there are any similarities that they are very basic or very coincidental. The seemingly endless diversity of life here on Earth is testament to this, not the other way around.

 

[CEL]

I still don't think there will be many life forms beyond the types and species we see on earth... and that is one very large number of variations on life.

99% of all the species that ever lived on Earth are now extinct. You should multiply your numbers by 100 to account for terrestrial species.
Anyway, the fact that all existent species use only 20 levogyre amino acids and employ DNA/RNA to code biological information, seems to be of random origin. Life with different origins would be really alien.

 

[WhoWee]

At some point we may see a pile of methane that moves and eats and reproduces... but I really doubt it.

I think we might have one of those in my son's room.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think we might have one of those in my son's room.

(Well, I hope it isn't reproducing! You don't let girls in there do you?)

 

[baywax]

And 350,000 of those are beetles.

"One thing we can be sure of about God: he had an inordinate fondness for beetles.”

How can we be sure about an unsure thing like "god"?
That's as speculative as assuming there are forms of life other than the examples of which have developed on this rock in space during the last 4 billion years.

If there's a methane-based creature in the son's room, check for a meth-lab under the bed. Could be an explosive situation.

 

[WhoWee]

How can we be sure about an unsure thing like "god"?
That's as speculative as assuming there are forms of life other than the examples of which have developed on this rock in space during the last 4 billion years.

If there's a methane-based creature in the son's room, check for a meth-lab under the bed. Could be an explosive situation.

Wow, I was upset about dirty plates/bowls - cereal and uneaten peanut butter and jelly.

No "reproduction" or meth labs in my house.

 

[baywax]

Wow, I was upset about dirty plates/bowls - cereal and uneaten peanut butter and jelly.

No "reproduction" or meth labs in my house.

Ya never know. Actually I thought you might be concerned about a high amount of methane gas production...

 

[Chronos]

Where are the alien artifacts?

 

[WhoWee]

Where are the alien artifacts?

Under the sand, under the ice, deep in the oceans?

 

[baywax]

Where are the alien artifacts?

The appendix?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Where are the alien artifacts?

What is the evidence that we should have any even if ET has visited?

What are we looking for?

Where do we look?

 

[CEL]

What is the evidence that we should have any even if ET has visited?

What are we looking for?

Where do we look?

There are hundreds of reports of abductions by ETs. Proponents of the alien origin of UFOs point some of those reports as evidence of their theory.
Why no abductee was able to steal at least an ashtray from the ship?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There are hundreds of reports of abductions by ETs. Proponents of the alien origin of UFOs point some of those reports as evidence of their theory.
Why no abductee was able to steal at least an ashtray from the ship?

So you are saying that if any visitations by ET did or do happen, abduction claims must be true?

Secondly, what makes anyone think that even if ET abductions were in fact happening, it would be possible to gain evidence? Did POWs come back from Vietnam with Vietnamese ashtrays?

I have never been impressed with abductions claims, but I am even less impressed with the typical objections to those claims. Even asking for an ashtray in itself shows the question is not serious.

 

[CEL]

So you are saying that if any visitations by ET did or do happen, abduction claims must be true?

Secondly, what makes anyone think that even if ET abductions were in fact happening, it would be possible to gain evidence? Did POWs come back from Vietnam with Vietnamese ashtrays?

I have never been impressed with abductions claims, but I am even less impressed with the typical objections to those claims. Even asking for an ashtray in itself shows the question is not serious.

Ashtray is only an example. I seriously doubt that, if aliens are visiting us, they will be smokers.
Besides abductions, there are reports of crashes of spaceships, but no parts of them have been found, unless we believe in a gigantic governments conspiracy to hide the truth.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm not sure why you object to this logic.

Secondly, what makes anyone think that even if ET abductions were in fact happening, it would be possible to gain evidence? Did POWs come back from Vietnam with Vietnamese ashtrays?

An alien artifact would be priceless. Nevermind the money/fame, its value is in terms of proving you're not crazy.

There is no motivation for bringing back something from Vietnam. And who says they didn't? Does anyone care? You're analogizing apples with oranges.

Even asking for an ashtray in itself shows the question is not serious.

For the sake of the letter of the question, you seem to miss the spirit of it.

 

[Count Iblis]

Is there life in the universe, and if so has it visited Earth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Count_Iblis"

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm pretty excited to see "I Know What I Saw" airing October 4 on the History Channel. It will feature the most credible UFO cases and witnesses from around the world.

When I was younger (80's) there used to be shows such as this that (it seemed to me) stuck to the presentation of relatively factual and reliable information, lest they be laughed off the TV.

Lately (in the last decade, or even the last 5 years) I have lost all faith in even the most prefunctory attempts to be factual. Today's shows have ramped up the melodrama many notches and make absolutely no bones about mangling facts, testimonies, historical accounts or anything else to make what they think is a "compelling" show. The recent outbreak of "reality ghost" shows is but one symptom.

While it would be cool to see what progress has been made in the field, or even see the latest accounts, I am not even going to bother watching it, since I know I will be unable to trust a single word of it.

 

[kpax]

Out of the Blue was pretty good. The Peter Jenning's special was accurate, AFAIK, but had no depth. The UFO hunters shows are mostly garbage and the guy who runs them is a complete nut, imo. He is the classic UFO crackpot who sees conspiracies and intervening aliens behind every shadow.

Yeah, Bill from UFO Hunters has the word "UFO" carved into his forehead.

 

[BigFairy]

When I was younger (80's) there used to be shows such as this that (it seemed to me) stuck to the presentation of relatively factual and reliable information, lest they be laughed off the TV.

Lately (in the last decade, or even the last 5 years) I have lost all faith in even the most prefunctory attempts to be factual. Today's shows have ramped up the melodrama many notches and make absolutely no bones about mangling facts, testimonies, historical accounts or anything else to make what they think is a "compelling" show. The recent outbreak of "reality ghost" shows is but one symptom.

While it would be cool to see what progress has been made in the field, or even see the latest accounts, I am not even going to bother watching it, since I know I will be unable to trust a single word of it.

so true DaveC..


also kPax: securing cooperation of thousands of people for cover-up :D

 

[kpax]

also kPax: securing cooperation of thousands of people for cover-up :D

Not sure what you mean by that.

 

[ViewsofMars]

From NASA Ask an Astrobologist:

Have aliens visited Earth? Are UFOs real?
No, there is no evidence for visits of intelligent aliens to Earth, either now or in the past. The are many claims concerning UFOs and aliens, but no evidence to support these claims. The photos that are posted on the Internet are mostly fakes, and no one has ever produced an artifact or any other tangible scientific evidence of UFOs or aliens. One of strongest cases against the reality of these claims is that the group of people who spend the most time observing the sky are amateur astronomers, and they don’t report UFO sightings. If there were any evidence of aliens, astrobiologists would be among to first to hail such a discovery and analyze the data. However, there is no evidence that withstands scientific investigation. If you are still interested, you can use the search engine to find posted answers to specific questions about aliens and UFOs.
http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/faq

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No evidence for visiting ETs? False. There are reams of evidence for this.

No known scientific evidence? True.

It would be nice if people would finally learn that there are many forms of evidence. Scientific evidence is just one of them. This is an elementary concept.

UFOs? Unidentified. There is a difference between a UFO report, and a report of an encounter with ET. That also needs to be recognized by people making uninformed comments.

 

[ViewsofMars]

I think we will have to agree to disagree. I'll stick with science as noted in previous post! I love science!

Ivan, you said, "No evidence for visiting ETs? False." Ivan, I think people that claim to see aliens have an imagination beyond reality. Until a scientist has examined an alien then obviously there aren't any. I hope you don't think the Hobbit was an ET. ( I did note seeing to this topic of discussion a link you gave to "Credible Anomalies Napster" with mention #40 the Hobbit.) Let's clear this up if that was your intention.

'Hobbit' was a dwarf with large feet
by Rex Dalton

From head to toe, the bones of a metre-tall species dating from somewhere between 17,000 and 95,000 years ago continue to reveal the potential complexities of human evolution.

Two articles published in Nature today focus on Homo floresiensis — one describes how its brain could have dwarfed to its unusually small size1, the other how its large feet, similar to those of chimps, would have allowed it to walk efficiently but probably not to run well on two legs2.
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090506/full/news.2009.448.html

And don't forget to read from the internationally known peer reviewed journal Nature, "Old tools shed light on hobbit origins".
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7093/full/441559a.html

The following comment of yours is absolutely stripped of evidence! The only time I've noticed people make comments such as yours is when Science has won the debate.

That also needs to be recognized by people making uninformed comments.

 

[BigFairy]

Thanks for the update.

 

[pftest]

I think we will have to agree to disagree. I'll stick with science as noted in previous post! I love science!

Ivan, you said, "No evidence for visiting ETs? False." Ivan, I think people that claim to see aliens have an imagination beyond reality. Until a scientist has examined an alien then obviously there aren't any.

Thats certainly not a scientific statement. Dinosaurs existed, even before any human or science saw it.

I hope you don't think the Hobbit was an ET. ( I did note seeing to this topic of discussion a link you gave to "Credible Anomalies Napster" with mention #40 the Hobbit.) Let's clear this up if that was your intention.

Its posted in the credible anomalies. When something is an anomaly, it does not mean its alien. There are all kinds of anomalous, unexplained phenomena in nature.

The following comment of yours is absolutely stripped of evidence! The only time I've noticed people make comments such as yours is when Science has won the debate.

He said there are other types of evidence than scientific evidence. Do you disagree with this? You think all evidence is scientific?

 

[CEL]

Thats certainly not a scientific statement. Dinosaurs existed, even before any human or science saw it.

True, but there are fossils, that have been examined by scientists.
There is no need that an alien be examined by scientists. If some alien artifact can be smugled by an abductee, or if residuals of an alien craft are available, those evidences can be examined by scientists and constitute scientific evidence.

 

[DaveC426913]

Until a scientist has examined an alien then obviously there aren't any.

Thats certainly not a scientific statement. Dinosaurs existed, even before any human or science saw it.

You're misinterpreting.


"Until a scientist has examined an alien then obviously there aren't any accepted in our body of knowledge."

Better?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think we will have to agree to disagree. I'll stick with science as noted in previous post! I love science!

Ivan, you said, "No evidence for visiting ETs? False." Ivan, I think people that claim to see aliens have an imagination beyond reality. Until a scientist has examined an alien then obviously there aren't any.

What you think has no bearing on the facts. Your belief amounts to nothing more than a religious statement. Scientific evidence is just one form of evidence. There are others, including anecdotal evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law. To argue otherwise is blatent crackpottery. To continually deny a basic definition will merit a misinformation penalty.

 

[BadFish]

Has anyone seen the show on history channel today, "I know what I saw."?

Its regarding UFO's. I was orginally agianst the theory of UFO's, until I saw this show. At one point during the show, a pilot apparently saw a UFO on radar, made a report on it, and the government said it never happened.

Now I don't have a lot of scientific knowledge , but I know there are a lot of very smart people on these boards. Is it good to keep our minds open to what is and isn't possible? Most people would have probably thought flying was impossible before the 1900's. But it was from one person (The Wright brothers) who thought it was possible that made it possible.

My point is, is it a good thing to keep our minds open to what is and isn't possible?

 

[DaveC426913]

I was orginally agianst the theory of UFO's, until I saw this show.

Are you saying the show has made you a believer?

You really really want to think carefully about letting any TV show change your mind about anything.

My point is, is it a good thing to keep our minds open to what is and isn't possible?

This needs to be said: It is important to keep an open mind. But not so open that your brains fall out.

To a rational thinker, it is as important to know what not to open our minds to. People once saw in evil spirits too.

 

[BadFish]

Are you saying the show has made you a believer?

You really really want to think carefully about letting any TV show change your mind about anything.This needs to be said: It is important to keep an open mind. But not so open that your brains fall out.

To a rational thinker, it is as important to know what not to open our minds to. People once saw in evil spirits too.

The show made me more open to what could be out there. Like I said, I don't have a degree in anything scientific or know calculus, and I'm sure you probably do (and therefore respect your opinion), and as a scientist who follows procedures to proof things, there may not be absolute proof, but it opens the mind.

I'm sure, at least, somewhere in the universe we are not alone. The universe is a big place.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm sure, at least, somewhere in the universe we are not alone. The universe is a big place.

While this belief is not unreasonable, it is completely unrelated to the question of whether the reports and incidents of UFOs are reliable and of what they indicate.


It is this greyish area of doubt between (there could be life out there in the 20 billion light year universe) and (we havie a bunch of reportsof unexplained phenomena) that the TV shows and UFO popularists exploit to spin their yarns.



Think about this: all the UFO reports and incidents in history could just as easily be explained by ghosts and spirits doing funny things instead of ETs. Why don't believers follow that line of logic? It's every bit as valid.

 

[Virtuous]

I'd like to add that anecdotal evidence relies heavily on humans perceptions of an event. Given there have been many studies I am sure that attest to the fact that the human mind isn't the most unbiased pure method of retaining every relevant fact. A specific object in the sky can easily be seen as a UFO because by very definition, you could say...oh that's a plane (an option)! Instead your mind is quick to make recognizable image out of what it see. Whatever it is most like resembles a UFO, How are you so sure people are not see what, people are telling them to see? What other evidence do you have to compare it too?
Then there is the fact that people's memory of an event changes over time. Another experiment was done, can't remember what it was called but subjects were asked to walk in a specific area. where they set up a scenerio where they say some conspicuous material and the works. They then asked them to come and recall the event that happen in the future at specific interval, and they found many errors as time went by.

In a court of law is slight a different scenario. It's under the assumption that the observer has an understanding of the situation, and a reason validating a specific level of certainty. If a human being witnessed "Tom Finklestien" robbing his house, he has to know who that person is ( his neighbor, that bastard). If some random person comes to my house and I make claim that it was "Joe Bauer" with no evidence backing that up, that evidences get defeated, it could be or it could not be without any way to tell. Same applies to aliens.

I think I am at the tipping point of open mindedness with that sort of evidence no? Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[kpax]

Overall, I thought "I Know What I Saw" was just ok. I was disappointed at how much time was devoted to the Rendlesham Forest Incident and how little time was given to the Belgian UFO Wave. The Rendlesham Forest Incident in my opinion is nothing more than misidentification of explicable lights coupled dishonest eye witness testimony. The Belgian UFO Wave is a far more intriguing case. The testimony of 100s of witnesses in the Belgium case is corroborated by at least one photograph clearly showing a structured craft and military radar. This evidence convinces me there was a craft of unknown origin in the skies above Belgium in 1990.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="[URL]http://www.youtube.com/v/iDPxJxFNlvE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iDPxJxFNlvE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="[URL]http://www.youtube.com/v/9-_9_IKGkqg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9-_9_IKGkqg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[CEL]

Overall, I thought "I Know What I Saw" was just ok. I was disappoint at how much time was devoted to the Rendlesham Forest Incident and how little time was given to the Belgian UFO Wave. The Rendlesham Forest Incident in my opinion is nothing more than misidentification of explicable lights coupled dishonest eye witness testimony. The Belgian UFO Wave is a far more intriguing case. The testimony of 100s of witnesses in the Belgium case is corroborated by at least one photograph clearly showing a structured craft and military radar. This evidence convinces me there was a craft of unknown origin in the skies above Belgium in 1990.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="[URL]http://www.youtube.com/v/iDPxJxFNlvE&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iDPxJxFNlvE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="[URL]http://www.youtube.com/v/9-_9_IKGkqg&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9-_9_IKGkqg&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

From http://skepticreport.com/sr/?p=162

It is important here to underline that the F-16 pilot saw no UFOs at all. I spoke with some of his friends who had laughed with him about the UFO hypothesis. Had it not been for the SOBEPS team, these so-called mysterious radar returns would have been labeled as ordinary “angels”. Another important thing is that at one point the “return” remained unchanged on the screen while the plane was maneuvring, which is indicative of an instrument failure. This is also what Lieutenant-Colonel Salmon from the Belgian Air Force Electronic War Center remarked when he was interviewed by journalists of Science & Vie Junior in 1992.

Let us now look at the famous picture taken at Petit-Rechain. It was internationally distributed by the SOBEPS team and was used for the covers of the two books which this private organization published about the so-called Belgian UFO wave.

The document depicts a black triangular silhouette against a bluish background supposed to be the night sky. One irregular illuminated surface appears in each corner of the triangle. In the centre there is a luminous spot surrounded by a reddish aura.

There are discrepancies between the photo itself and the testimony of the young man who claims to have taken it. The picture was reportedly taken with a reflex-camera equipped with a 55-200mm zoom lens set at a minimum of 150mm. The photographer alleges that he used a long time exposure (between one and two seconds) and pressed the shutter release button for approximately two seconds. But he also said he simply held the camera with his hands against the corner of a wall. Even if he exaggerated, and the shutter button was pressed only for one second, the object photographed could not have had sharp edges; it would have been completely blurred. On the contrary, the triangular object shows at least one sharp edge. The young man said he saw the enormous object in the company of his girl friend. This second eye-witness was so little impressed by the extraordinary apparition that she didn’t even keep her eyes on it! At one instance she said the object left instantaneously and at another time she admitted that she actually never saw it leave. More important: Pierre Magain, an astrophysicist from the Astrophisics Institute of Liège has mathematically demonstrated that the size attributed to the object by the young photographer is completely different from what the camera captured. So, one can conclude that the testimonies of the two witnesses are completely irrelevant to the picture.

 

[kpax]

From http://skepticreport.com/sr/?p=162

Yes, I am aware of all of this. The radar returns captured by the F-16 could be attributed to instrument failure. That is one of three possible explanations. However, keep in mind the fighters were scrambled because a radar return had been identified by at least two ground based radar installations. Were those suffering instrument failure as well the same evening? Doubtful. A better explanation is some kind of atmospheric phenomenon causing the returns. The third option is an unidentified craft.

One thing that's must not be overlooked is that the radar returns were captured on a separate night entirely than the mass sightings. So even if there is a prosaic explanation for the radar hits that still wouldn't account for what witnesses saw from the ground as the two events happened on different evenings. I wouldn't be quick to dismiss the photograph because it is corroborated by 100s of eyewitnesses (not just the photographer and his girlfriend). The physical descriptions given by the witnesses throughout the area very closely resembles what is depicted in the photograph. The sheer numbers of eyewitnesses alone is compelling evidence that there was a structured craft above Belgium. Couple that with the photograph and I'm convinced that there was something there.

 

[DaveC426913]

Were those suffering instrument failure as well the same evening? Doubtful.

This is where I keep coming up short.

You doubt that there could be a coincidental failure in independent instruments, yet you have no trouble believing something astronomically more unlikely.

Radar gives false readings whether spurious or mechanical. This is fact, applicable to both aircraft equipment and ground equpiment. They do happen.

If a radar set gave a false reading, say once in 1,000 times, then two giving false readings simultaneously will occur once in 1,000,000 times. This straightforward. (Granted, it is simplified but the facts cannot be denied.)

Further, this does not need to be explained. It is inherent in the definition of coincidence.


Why are you so quick to jump to an incredibly unlikely conclusion?

 

[kpax]

You doubt that there could be a coincidental failure in independent instruments, yet you have no trouble believing something astronomically more unlikely.

Why are you so quick to jump to an incredibly unlikely conclusion?

I don't believe for a second that the 100s of billions of dollars spent in research and development on black projects since the F117 have been unsuccessful. If I had to guess at the origin of the craft I would say the United States military. I think all unexplained UFO sightings can be attributed military black projects. Personally, I wouldn't bet we're being visited by ETs.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't believe for a second that the 100s of billions of dollars spent in research and development on black projects since the F117 have been unsuccessful.

You lost me. What does that have to do with what I was saying?