Who is Behind the Mysterious Flying Triangles?

[zoobyshoe]

How long will it take you to debunk 1000 pilot reports?

A couple/three seconds:

People see a huge variety of unexplained things. Any automatic assumption they are extra-terrestrial is bunk.

 

[Drakkith]

Now here is a nice organized table that describes lots of weird things seen by pilots. No fluff or flaky observers, just the facts.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/WeinsteinPilotCatalog.pdf
The table has light, balls, glowing cylinders, airfoils, foo fighters, pink spheres, even a green parallelogram. Maybe this is the mother-lode. By my count, there are about a thousand reports from pilots of UFO encounters. In a nutshell, they're lights, cylinders, spheres, glowing geometric shapes.

How long will it take you to debunk 1000 pilot reports?

There's nothing to debunk unless someone claims those UFO's are alien spacecraft or something similar.

 

[Drakkith]

On the one hand there are people who see UFO's and are filled with wonder and joy about life; they are filled with awe that there is something out there. In the other hand, the scholarly community routinely ridicules these people and calls them stupid. I don't know how to reconcile this. If you're happy then you're stupid?

The issue isn't that people see UFO's, it's that they see them and then believe that the most likely explanation is aliens. They are most likely incorrect, and in many people's eyes they are indeed "stupid". Most likely incorrect means that if you look at just the number of explainable phenomena compared to unexplained there is an overwhelming majority for the former.

 

[FlexGunship]

On the one hand there are people who see UFO's and are filled with wonder and joy about life; they are filled with awe that there is something out there. In the other hand, the scholarly community routinely ridicules these people and calls them stupid. I don't know how to reconcile this. If you're happy then you're stupid?

This is a fundamental misconception about knowledge. Just because an idea is appealing doesn't make it true... or even reasonable. It's amazingly common that people will defend most strongly, the falsehoods they find most appealing (or the truths that are most shaky).

If you're going to objectively review UFO reports, you must remove the awe and wonder of it. Otherwise the topic might as well be considered myth instead of a scientific conjecture.

On the plus side, it should be a huge consolation that the things we are currently learning about our universe are amazingly interesting and mind-boggling! Some of them clearly overshadow the idea of aliens mucking about in our airspace. If nothing else, the reports of faster-than-light neutrinos should be mind blowing! It might not be true (just like the UFOs=aliens idea), but the research is real and happening RIGHT NOW!

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

 

[Mazulu]

The issue isn't that people see UFO's, it's that they see them and then believe that the most likely explanation is aliens. They are most likely incorrect, and in many people's eyes they are indeed "stupid". Most likely incorrect means that if you look at just the number of explainable phenomena compared to unexplained there is an overwhelming majority for the former.

I really can't call anyone "stupid" for believing that these are aliens or (insert popular cultural/religious icon). The phenomena is literally messing with people's heads. Just read down the table from any page of
http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/WeinsteinPilotCatalog.pdf
I picked page 8 at random: fast moving yellow-white basketball (approximate size estimate, not an actual basketball); red-hot metal spheres follow plane, orange spheres, pink spheres maneuvering around plane, fireballs follow plane... Aluminum disk object, lights making sharp turns. I have a bachelors degree in physics. I know what plasma is (a stream of charged particles). Plasma gives off light. But none of my physics professors ever said that plasma could make sharp turns and maneuver around without the aid of an electric field.

• three luminous spots followed the plane, the engine of which faltered
• a bright "shooting star" streaked downward without exploding then came back
• a white ball flying at 3,000 ft high
• one bright light split in two, moved towards the plane then disappeared
• a blue circular flame passed the plane, turned, then blinked

St. Elmos fire comes to mind, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Elmos_Fire
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&h...bnw=159&start=24&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:17,s:24

Does plasma in the atmosphere explain all of the observations? What about,

• one light seemed to take off and moved at 300 mph, made a turn. No specific shape.
• one blimp-shaped object outdistanced the planes at high speed.
• two orange lights rotating about a common center which Maneuvered.
• one silver object moved off immediately when pilot made a bank turn to approach it.
• one object with several lights moving very slowly followed the plane for 20 miles and turned back.
• a red-orange light, hovered one hour, then crossed the sky rapidly

If there was a light (St.Elmos fire?) flashing prime numbers at the pilot, I must have missed it. Are there balls of plasma in the sky that are curious about planes and want to take a better look? Or is the plane sharing an electric field with the atmosphere? In either case, the atmospheric plasma phenomena must be truly dazzling and beautiful. That is, until the plasma gets sucked into the engines and causes the electrical systems to go haywire. I wonder if the flying disks, cylinders and saucers have this problem.

 

[Mazulu]

The issue isn't that people see UFO's, it's that they see them and then believe that the most likely explanation is aliens. They are most likely incorrect, and in many people's eyes they are indeed "stupid". Most likely incorrect means that if you look at just the number of explainable phenomena compared to unexplained there is an overwhelming majority for the former.

Most likely ... is another way of saying in my humble opinion. We still have silvery saucers, disks and cylinders to explain.

• one flying saucer at about 16,000 ft
• near-collision with a flying disc
• a red saucer flying very fast, dived, then made a 45° turn
• a shiny disc
• a saucer-shaped object (diameter: 30 meters)
• a luminous metallic-looking disc
• a disc (diameter: 30 meters) with 9-12 portholes and a light on the top
• an "aluminium"disc (diameter 40 ft) flew under the plane at 4,000 ft high.

Instead of making people feel stupid for telling you what they think they saw, why not ask them: how do you know it's an alien spaceship? Maybe something broke off the plane. Maybe it's St.Elmos fire on a sunny day.

 

[FlexGunship]

Most likely ... is another way of saying in my humble opinion.

Wrong. "Most likely" is an expression of approximated probability.

It is a fact that, given our present understanding of the universe, alien visitation is probably the least likely hypothesis to explain UFO sightings of any flavor.

When you have two puncture wounds on your neck you should probably think of the vampire-hypothesis last. The prevalence of movies and books about vampires does not lend credence to the hypothesis itself. Likewise, the prevalence of movies and books about aliens visiting Earth does not lend credence to that particular hypothesis.

 

[Mazulu]

• a huge turtle-shaped object at 7,000 ft high.

I got this one! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamera

 

[Mazulu]

Wrong. "Most likely" is an expression of approximated probability.

When you have two puncture wounds on your neck you should probably think of the vampire-hypothesis last. The prevalence of movies and books about vampires does not lend credence to the hypothesis itself. Likewise, the prevalence of movies and books about aliens visiting Earth does not lend credence to that particular hypothesis.

If you buy a lottery ticket, most likely you won't win; yet several people around the country win every week. Anyway, how do you explain all these silvery aluminum looking saucers in the sky? If something that big came off the plane, it would crash.

• one silver cigar-shaped object flying slowly and vertically.
• one saucer-shaped object leaving a vapor-like trail, disappeared from sight in 3 mn.
• one cream-colored disc-shaped object, flying at 1,500 ft (diameter : 20 ft).
• a saucer-shaped object followed by the pilot for about 20 miles
• a domed-disc
• four groups of round metallic silver objects
• two large flying discs, with a silver mirror surface, 600-700 ft diameter
• a silvery elongated object motionless

It is a fact that, given our present understanding of the universe, alien visitation is probably the least likely hypothesis to explain UFO sightings of any flavor.

How do you know?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If you buy a lottery ticket, most likely you won't win; yet several people around the country win every week

This is a fallacious comparison. There has never been any evidence that extraterrestrial life exists nor any evidence that extraterrestrial life has ever visited this planet and flown around in our atmosphere. Winning the lottery by comparison can have it's probability easily determined.

When something is has no evidence for it's existence then it cannot be suggested as a hypothesis. People who try to look for alien evidence in UFOs are being illogical; rather you should examine the cases and if you can't attribute it to any current known phenomenon you have to conclude that the cause and nature of the phenomenon remain unknown.

 

[FlexGunship]

If you buy a lottery ticket, most likely you won't win; yet several people around the country win every week. Anyway, how do you explain all these silvery aluminum looking saucers in the sky? If something that big came off the plane, it would crash.

1. Yes, so "most likely" is a fair assessment of the probability. It is not an opinion. Regardless, that's a silly comparison.
2. You forgot to provide citations for all of those things you listed.
3. Fortunately I don't have to explain any of them, but if I had to guess... probably reflections, balloons, lighting anomalies, space debris, and general misidentification.

 

[FlexGunship]

How do you know?

Well:
People make mistakes often. On an almost minute-to-minute basis.
There are already an ungodly number of terrestrial aircraft in the sky.
Balloons! Everywhere!
Pilots are made out of the same human materials as other humans (including brains).
Mass hallucinations are well documented.
The average human hallucinates every day. Vividly!
There are known cases of people misidentifying the MOON as a flying saucer.
There are known cases of people misidentifying the SUN as a flying saucer.

On the other hand:
No extraterrestrial life has even been found.
Despite millions of claims, there's absolutely no evidence that the Earth has been visited by life that didn't originate on this planet.
Given radio telescopes that can detect quasars on the edge of the visible universe, we are unable to detect a single radio signal of interest in the entire universe (granted, so little of it has actually been checked).
There are no known means to traverse interstellar distances.

I mean, the two sides aren't even close when it comes to probability.

 

[Mazulu]

This is a fallacious comparison. There has never been any evidence that extraterrestrial life exists nor any evidence that extraterrestrial life has ever visited this planet and flown around in our atmosphere. Winning the lottery by comparison can have it's probability easily determined.

When something is has no evidence for it's existence then it cannot be suggested as a hypothesis. People who try to look for alien evidence in UFOs are being illogical; rather you should examine the cases and if you can't attribute it to any current known phenomenon you have to conclude that the cause and nature of the phenomenon remain unknown.

I don't want to get in trouble for disagreeing with the moderator, but there is evidence. http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/WeinsteinPilotCatalog.pdf
I've been going down the list for the last several messages. Did you look at the list, even for a few seconds? I found the list while looking at https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2805 There are countless reports of people seeing shiny metallic objects in the sky. Just go to the article and FIND: saucer.
There are plenty of pictures out there. Unfortunately, there are lots of hoaxes, CGI and Photoshop. Flying saucers, disks and cigar shaped objects catch us unprepared for taking measurements. What kind of measurements would you like? What kind of evidence? Should we instruct our US Air Force to shoot them down?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't want to get in trouble for disagreeing with the moderator, but there is evidence.

(You won't get in trouble for disagreeing with a mentor, you will only get in trouble for breaking the rules).

No there is not any evidence that UFOs are aliens. That is the point I am making. The logical fallacy is that there is an unknown phenomenon for which people are providing an un-evidenced explanation. Do you see? It's almost circular logic;

"What are these UFOs?"
"Aliens"
"How do you know that aliens exist?"
"Look at all these UFOs"

To put it another way look at this example;

I take Box A and Box B and plug them together. When this happens we get phenomenon X occurring. We do not currently know how Box A and Box B are causing phenomenon X, the reason is an unknown. Alice says that "we do not currently have an explanation for the phenomenon, we should do more research before concluding". Bob says that "we do not currently have an explanation for the phenomenon, it is likely that aliens are causing it".

Do you see the problem now?

What kind of measurements would you like? What kind of evidence? Should we instruct our US Air Force to shoot them down?

If I had enough resources and was told to find out what UFOs were I would
A) Hire a group of experts to go through and filter out all the case studies where there is an explanation
B) Get the group to speculate* on possible reasons for the remaining cases and get them to research this
C) Repeat ad infinitum

*Speculation is an important part of the scientific method when making a hypothesis. It does not mean that any explanation goes! A good hypothesis will be based on all the current known science from which a reasonable proposal can be formulated.

 

[FlexGunship]

I don't want to get in trouble for disagreeing with the moderator, but there is evidence.

You don't get in trouble for disagreeing with a moderator. You get in trouble for making unsupported statements, like "but there is evidence."

What you're providing as evidence isn't good enough for two reasons:

1. When you provide a single piece, it gets picked apart for lacking quality
2. When your single piece lacks quality, you make an appeal to quantity

You follow this pattern:

Mazulu: What about this case of a flying cigar monkey?
Forum: Doesn't seem to be much evidence... could just be a balloon.
Mazulu: But there are thousands of reports, surely they can't ALL be balloons!
Forum: ​

 

[FlexGunship]

(You won't get in trouble for disagreeing with a mentor, you will only get in trouble for breaking the rules).

No there is not any evidence that UFOs are aliens. That is the point I am making. The logical fallacy is that there is an unknown phenomenon for which people are providing an un-evidenced explanation. Do you see? It's almost circular logic;

"What are these UFOs?"
"Aliens"
"How do you know that aliens exist?"
"Look at all these UFOs"

To put it another way look at this example;

I take Box A and Box B and plug them together. When this happens we get phenomenon X occurring. We do not currently know how Box A and Box B are causing phenomenon X, the reason is an unknown. Alice says that "we do not currently have an explanation for the phenomenon, we should do more research before concluding". Bob says that "we do not currently have an explanation for the phenomenon, it is likely that aliens are causing it".

Do you see the problem now?

You don't get in trouble for disagreeing with a moderator. You get in trouble for making unsupported statements, like "but there is evidence."

What you're providing as evidence isn't good enough for two reasons:

1. When you provide a single piece, it gets picked apart for lacking quality
2. When your single piece lacks quality, you make an appeal to quantity

You follow this pattern:

Mazulu: What about this case of a flying cigar monkey?
Forum: Doesn't seem to be much evidence... could just be a balloon.
Mazulu: But there are thousands of reports, surely they can't ALL be balloons!
Forum: ​

Spooky.

 

[Mazulu]

Well:
People make mistakes often. On an almost minute-to-minute basis.
There are already an ungodly number of terrestrial aircraft in the sky.
Balloons! Everywhere!
Pilots are made out of the same human materials as other humans (including brains).
Mass hallucinations are well documented.
The average human hallucinates every day. Vividly!
There are known cases of people misidentifying the MOON as a flying saucer.
There are known cases of people misidentifying the SUN as a flying saucer.

On the other hand:
No extraterrestrial life has even been found.
Despite millions of claims, there's absolutely no evidence that the Earth has been visited by life that didn't originate on this planet.
Given radio telescopes that can detect quasars on the edge of the visible universe, we are unable to detect a single radio signal of interest in the entire universe (granted, so little of it has actually been checked).
There are no known means to traverse interstellar distances.

I mean, the two sides aren't even close when it comes to probability.

Let's cut out the bull crap. If the physics community really wants to test the hypothesis that aliens are flying around in spaceships, then the scientific experiment team has to have to transmit the invitation into space. It should look like this,
Dear Space Aliens,
We don't know if you exist. But if you do, we would really like to meet you. It would be great if you could RSVP with SETI and let us know that you're coming. You can land at xyz airport. We can meet, share culture, technology and discuss philosophy and mathematics. Look forward to meeting with you.

This is how you test the hypothesis that space aliens exist. If they RSVP, you can have whatever video cams, and test equipment you need. If there is no response, then you can publish a paper entitled: Are We Alone? Or are they ignoring us?

 

[Mazulu]

You don't get in trouble for disagreeing with a moderator. You get in trouble for making unsupported statements, like "but there is evidence."

What you're providing as evidence isn't good enough for two reasons:

1. When you provide a single piece, it gets picked apart for lacking quality
2. When your single piece lacks quality, you make an appeal to quantity

You follow this pattern:

Mazulu: What about this case of a flying cigar monkey?
Forum: Doesn't seem to be much evidence... could just be a balloon.
Mazulu: But there are thousands of reports, surely they can't ALL be balloons!
Forum: ​

Where did I say flying cigar monkey?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Let's cut out the bull crap. If the physics community really wants to test the hypothesis that aliens are flying around in spaceships, then the scientific experiment team has to have to transmit the invitation into space.

Two points:

1) "Aliens flying around in spaceships" is a bad hypothesis as an explanation for anything.
2) If aliens did exist and did fly around in spaceships then any of them within ~50 lightyears could have detected the radio transmissions we've been leaking into space. The content is irrelevant, they're hardly going to understand any Earth language are they?

 

[Dotini]

I have a bachelors degree in physics. I know what plasma is (a stream of charged particles). Plasma gives off light. But none of my physics professors ever said that plasma could make sharp turns and maneuver around without the aid of an electric field.

• three luminous spots followed the plane, the engine of which faltered
• a bright "shooting star" streaked downward without exploding then came back
• a white ball flying at 3,000 ft high
• one bright light split in two, moved towards the plane then disappeared
• a blue circular flame passed the plane, turned, then blinked

Does plasma in the atmosphere explain all of the observations? What about,

• one light seemed to take off and moved at 300 mph, made a turn. No specific shape.
• one blimp-shaped object outdistanced the planes at high speed.
• two orange lights rotating about a common center which Maneuvered.
• one silver object moved off immediately when pilot made a bank turn to approach it.
• one object with several lights moving very slowly followed the plane for 20 miles and turned back.
• a red-orange light, hovered one hour, then crossed the sky rapidly

If there was a light (St.Elmos fire?) flashing prime numbers at the pilot, I must have missed it. Are there balls of plasma in the sky that are curious about planes and want to take a better look? Or is the plane sharing an electric field with the atmosphere? In either case, the atmospheric plasma phenomena must be truly dazzling and beautiful. That is, until the plasma gets sucked into the engines and causes the electrical systems to go haywire. I wonder if the flying disks, cylinders and saucers have this problem.

Yes, plasma explains beautifully everything you listed, given the presence of the electric field. I consider the physics of the objects in ALL those cases potentially solved by the plasma hypothesis. Precisely why and how the plasmoids react and behave as they do remains to be explained. But the observed performance and physical characteristics can now be understood. For instance, ball lightning, a form of plasma, has been infrequently seen and videotaped around thunderstorms, tornadoes and volcanoes. It is a primitive type of UAP which nevertheless embodies the most important features of the more exotic UAPs.

What is more difficult for the plasma hypothesis to explain is the Rendlesham Forest case. Here we have the problem of what appears to be a solid metallic craft with some kind of script engraved upon it, which, it is claimed, is touched and photographed by an airman. Can plasma be made to assume a solid shape with writing and porthole features? Our physics doesn't go there. So maybe this case is a hoax cooked up by AFOSI to test the officers and airmen or to manipulate the media and the public. Things like this have been done before.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Mazulu]

*Speculation is an important part of the scientific method when making a hypothesis. It does not mean that any explanation goes! A good hypothesis will be based on all the current known science from which a reasonable proposal can be formulated.

So you're going to ignore 60 years of reported sightings of aerial metallic objects* because they're not part of established science? So how should these aerial metallic objects become part of established science? Should they show up at a university physics department and ask to be tested?

*http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/WeinsteinPilotCatalog.pdf

 

[Mazulu]

Two points:

1) "Aliens flying around in spaceships" is a bad hypothesis as an explanation for anything.

Astronauts fly around in spaceships. Why not aliens?

2) If aliens did exist and did fly around in spaceships then any of them within ~50 lightyears could have detected the radio transmissions we've been leaking into space. The content is irrelevant, they're hardly going to understand any Earth language are they?

Announce the experiment to the media; maybe they watch CNN.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So you're going to ignore 60 years of reported sightings of aerial metallic objects* because they're not part of established science? So how should these aerial metallic objects become part of established science? Should they show up at a university physics department and ask to be tested?

*http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/WeinsteinPilotCatalog.pdf

You are missing the point. I am saying that hypotheses must be made using known science and tested appropriately. Invoking an explanation with no evidence is fallacious and explains nothing.

Astronauts fly around in spaceships. Why not aliens?

We have evidence of astronauts. Not of aliens.

 

[zoobyshoe]

The average human hallucinates every day. Vividly!

Eh? You have to be careful how you define "hallucination". The phenomenon of seeing color rather than shades of grey, for example, shouldn't be lumped into the category of "hallucination".

 

[zoobyshoe]

So you're going to ignore 60 years of reported sightings of aerial metallic objects* because they're not part of established science? So how should these aerial metallic objects become part of established science? Should they show up at a university physics department and ask to be tested?

Pretty much. The existence of the giant squid wasn't confirmed by the number of anecdotal sightings and the credibility of the witnesses, by any means.

 

[FlexGunship]

If the physics community really wants to test the hypothesis that aliens are flying around in spaceships, then the scientific experiment team has to have to transmit the invitation into space. It should look like this,
Dear Space Aliens,
We don't know if you exist. But if you do, we would really like to meet you. It would be great if you could RSVP with SETI and let us know that you're coming. You can land at xyz airport. We can meet, share culture, technology and discuss philosophy and mathematics. Look forward to meeting with you.

Okay, that was done in 1974. Not to mention the countless broadcasts that have been coming from Earth since the radio was invented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_message

This is how you test the hypothesis that space aliens exist. If they RSVP, you can have whatever video cams, and test equipment you need. If there is no response, then you can publish a paper entitled: Are We Alone? Or are they ignoring us?

So then the test can't fail?

Uh oh! You just outlines an unfalsifiable experiment! That sets off my troll detector!

So you're going to ignore 60 years of reported sightings of aerial metallic objects* because they're not part of established science? So how should these aerial metallic objects become part of established science? Should they show up at a university physics department and ask to be tested?

You cannot point to a preponderance of non-evidence in lieu of actual evidence. Pick one, let's discuss it. If there's a hole in it, throw it out and pick another. But don't keep appealing to the large number of reports. That type of proof doesn't work for proving that gods exist, or that vampires exist, or that faeries exist, or that Atlantis exists, or that Nibiru exists, or that Nemesis exists, or that XXXXX exists, or that YYYYY exists!

Reports of California Condor sightings number much fewer than UFO reports annually, and yet we have much better photographic evidence of them.

Explain.

Astronauts fly around in spaceships. Why not aliens?

Or rocks, for that matter. At least we have evidence that bird exist. Aliens on the other hand...

Announce the experiment to the media; maybe they watch CNN.

Wait... what?

 

[FlexGunship]

Eh? You have to be careful how you define "hallucination". The phenomenon of seeing color rather than shades of grey, for example, shouldn't be lumped into the category of "hallucination".

While falling asleep and waking up, humans normally experience auditory and visual hallucinations. Furthermore, sleeping, itself, can often lend itself to hallucinatory experiences.

Most importantly, though, are the common hallucinations we disregard. Hearing your voice called, or feeling a cell phone vibrate, or even the famous person-out-of-the-corner-of-your-eye. There's even a term for it: "hallucinations in the sane."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinations_in_the_sane

 

[zoobyshoe]

While falling asleep and waking up, humans normally experience auditory and visual hallucinations.

I am not normal, I guess. This has happened to me so rarely I have a very short list of all the times it's ever happened.

Furthermore, sleeping, itself, can often lend itself to hallucinatory experiences.

Eh? This just doesn't happen to me. I dream, of course, but dreaming isn't considered hallucination.

Most importantly, though, are the common hallucinations we disregard. Hearing your voice called, or feeling a cell phone vibrate, or even the famous person-out-of-the-corner-of-your-eye. There's even a term for it: "hallucinations in the sane."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinations_in_the_sane

Here, again, these things just aren't a daily occurrence in my life. I get this kind of thing only when I'm overly tired or stressed.

 

[FlexGunship]

I am not normal, I guess. This has happened to me so rarely I have a very short list of all the times it's ever happened.

Eh? This just doesn't happen to me. I dream, of course, but dreaming isn't considered hallucination.

Sleep related hallucinations are considered parasomnia (i.e. dream-like).

Here, again, these things just aren't a daily occurrence in my life. I get this kind of thing only when I'm overly tired or stressed.

http://www.sleepassociation.org/index.php?p=hallucinationsduringsleep

The American Sleep Association defines two types:

Hypnogogia:

Hypnogogic hallucinations occur just before sleep, and may be accompanied by sleep paralysis, a state in which the subject is physically immobile, but fully conscious. Hypnogogia and sleep paralysis often cause fear, more so than in sleep paralysis during hypnopompia which is often considered as part a dream by the subject, as well as feelings of difficulty breathing and muscle tightness.

And hypnopompia:

Hypnopompia occurs upon waking, and may also be accompanied by sleep paralysis. Sleep paralysis is much more common in hypnopompia than in hypnogogia. Sleep paralysis is often confused by the person experiencing it as part of a lucid dream, which accounts for the high number of recalled dreams with elements of being frozen in place, or being unable to move. Common hypnopompic experiences include the sensation of falling and the feeling of a presence in the room.

I should redact my statement of "While falling asleep and waking up, humans normally experience auditory and visual hallucinations" and alter it to say that "It is not abnormal for humans to experience auditory or visual hallucinations when entering or leaving a sleep-state."

 

[Mazulu]

Okay, that was done in 1974. Not to mention the countless broadcasts that have been coming from Earth since the radio was invented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_message

Uh oh! You just outlines an unfalsifiable experiment! That sets off my troll detector!

You cannot point to a preponderance of non-evidence in lieu of actual evidence. Pick one, let's discuss it. If there's a hole in it, throw it out and pick another. But don't keep appealing to the large number of reports. That type of proof doesn't work for proving that gods exist, or that vampires exist, or that faeries exist, or that Atlantis exists, or that Nibiru exists, or that Nemesis exists, or that XXXXX exists, or that YYYYY exists!

Reports of California Condor sightings number much fewer than UFO reports annually, and yet we have much better photographic evidence of them.

Falsifiable experiment? OK, here goes.
Abstract: Over the last 70 years, there have been sightings of saucer/cylindrical/cigar shaped metallic objects in the sky. There are several famous accounts of alien abduction (Link Removed), alien implants (Link Removed), and an organization of witnesses of alien activity (Link Removed). There is plenty of speculation that the metallic objects in the sky and the accounts of alien activity might be linked. In other words, maybe they got here in a spaceship. There is a mountain of pictures and stories, but there is no hard evidence. I propose that we try to get hard evidence.

Hypothesis:
If alien intelligence exists and it got here in a flying saucer, can we get it to land at an agreed upon location by transmitting a request for a meeting? An experiment team would announce to the media their intent to invite an alien in a spaceship to land for a meet and greet. Watching CNN is a perfectly reasonable way to monitor what is happening on planet Earth; if aliens are observing us, then they might watch CNN or other news reports. The invitation will be transmitted as an audio/video signal from point x aimed at point y. The invitation will be cordial, friendly and it will be broadcast repeatedly for a period of 3 months until the aliens find it. We want the aliens to feel welcome so we will afford them plenty of time to find the invitation.

If the team invites aliens in their spaceship to land at a designated location: will they land? If they do land, then the issue is resolved. If they don't land, then why? Is it because they don't exist?