Support NeoGAF

[Kinitari]

Here is the thing though: even if you DO dismiss 99,9% of all the UFO sightings (which has been in the hundreds of thousand in the past century and sometimes date back way behind that), there is that pesky little 0,01 percent that is so solid, that it is absolutely NOT outrageous to build a model in which we ARE being visited by extraterrestrial beings.

No - there are no solid 'sightings' - nothing to indicate even in the slightest that we are being visited by extra-terrestrials, at least nothing I've heard about.

Further, the very notion that a 'sighting' could be used for evidence as such is bewildering. No matter how many times people throughout the years have claimed to have seen angels, it doesn't suddenly make angels a real thing.

Now, lucky for us -and for you, I guess-, you do not actually need to devote even a second of your life contemplaining any of this. Because there have been serious resarchers, using "the scientific method" (aka the Holy Grail of the realm of our verifiable existence) who keep going on and going for decades in order to fully understand what is happening. Lack of evidence or evidence on shaky grounds certainly do not stop them, and it really should not.

No serious researcher has found an ounce of evidence supporting the idea that extraterrestrials have visited us. I can't for the life of me understand how you can make that claim.

Why? Because there are working models of the universe that does not clash with our current understanding of it, yet do not outright dismiss everything that happens in the fringes of our cognitive abilities just because we have no way to understand, observe and verify them with our current equipment and/or capabilities. Things popping out of thin air, working wormholes, crafts with their own gravity fields, interacting with our species solely without physically being there, such things.

Simply because such concepts are somewhat possible, does not immediately give any veracity to claims that these 'visitation' events have occurred. No more than me claiming I had a wormhole in my butt last week.

We can get Occam's loved razor again and slice everything that is not currently verified, but that would be foolish, boring and against our advancement as well, for quite obvious reasons. The facts of the future start out as the ideas of the now, not as the scientifically verified facts of now.

I disagree with the claim that using the most logical and realistic explanation to events is somehow boring or especially 'against our advancement'.

How can you advance off of incorrect information? Ideally you want the most correct information at hand.

Honestly this argument sounds like 'I want to believe' with some flair attached to it.

 

[Melfice7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO2wb-LarfU

 

[Thug Waffle]

nvm

 

[zomaha]

No - there are no solid 'sightings' - nothing to indicate even in the slightest that we are being visited by extra-terrestrials, at least nothing I've heard about.

Further, the very notion that a 'sighting' could be used for evidence as such is bewildering. No matter how many times people throughout the years have claimed to have seen angels, it doesn't suddenly make angels a real thing.

JAL Flight 1628 is the only UFO sighting I truly believe happened. It was more than just a "sighting": it was not only seen by the pilots, but also picked up on their plane's radar as well as radar on the ground in a completely different location. Audio exists of the pilot communicating with air traffic control about the object(s). Pretty much the best UFO sighting on record, imo, and enough to convince me something unearthly was involved.

 

[Kinitari]

JAL Flight 1628 is the only UFO sighting I truly believe happened. It was more than just a "sighting": it was not only seen by the pilots, but also picked up on their plane's radar as well as radar on the ground in a completely different location. Audio exists of the pilot communicating with air traffic control about the object(s). Pretty much the best UFO sighting on record, imo, and enough to convince me something unearthly was involved.

This sighting seems as dime a dozen as the rest of them - even if we were to agree that what they saw was a UFO - it really isn't any evidence that what they saw was an extraterrestrial UFO.

I guess in your opinion, if it's enough - it's enough. But it's certainly not enough someone with a bit of skepticism, at least I don't think.

 

[vikki]

Well, I know this isn't really a criticism to you - but you're essentially making the religious argument here - that lack of evidence of God does not mean that God does NOT exist. And that is true - but what that fails to also mention is that a lack of evidence for a claim makes that claim have next to no value. The claim very well might be true, but regular intelligent/logical people will dismiss it all the same - we don't have room in our heads to give every evidenceless claim merit.

I can live with that. I never ask people to believe in ET. I am interested in UFOs and the existence of ET because of a personal experience. The reason I believe it was ET is because I don't believe humans are capable of what I witnessed yet. I think I might have mentioned that my neighbor said that she had seen the "angel" in the tree. I believe she saw what I saw, but we had differing opinions as to what it was.

This sighting seems as dime a dozen as the rest of them - even if we were to agree that what they saw was a UFO - it really isn't any evidence that what they saw was an extraterrestrial UFO.

I am curious about this. What do you think is the most reasonable explanation, excluding ET, for this sighting?

 

[Maxrunner]

JAL Flight 1628 is the only UFO sighting I truly believe happened. It was more than just a "sighting": it was not only seen by the pilots, but also picked up on their plane's radar as well as radar on the ground in a completely different location. Audio exists of the pilot communicating with air traffic control about the object(s). Pretty much the best UFO sighting on record, imo, and enough to convince me something unearthly was involved.

This one really is spooky. The big one being twice an aircraft carrier...

 

[Kinitari]

I can live with that. I never ask people to believe in ET. I am interested in UFOs and the existence of ET because of a personal experience. The reason I believe it was ET is because I don't believe humans are capable of what I witnessed yet. I think I might have mentioned that my neighbor said that she had seen the "angel" in the tree. I believe she saw what I saw, but we had differing opinions as to what it was.

Which is interesting, and the fact that you think two people can see the same thing and come to radically different conclusions as to what it was kind of highlights the finnicky nature of 'sightings' as evidence.

I am curious about this. What do you think is the most reasonable explanation, excluding ET, for this sighting?

I have no idea what it could be, and honestly I am pretty comfortable with that. But if I were to be given a list of things and asked to judge what is the most likely to least likely explanation, there would be a lot of things between "most likely" and "UFOs".

To make somehing up for the heck of it

Pilots saw something odd, and tall-taled it into being UFOs - the only person who actually apparently saw anything seems to be the captain - the captain who was already previously familiar with specific UFO incidents (which paints the picture of someone who is interested in UFOs).

Further, the fact that some radar (usually the radar of the pilot) and not other radar (usually the radar of people who try to substantiate the claims of said pilots) pick up on these objects sort of reduces the quality of these radar 'sightings'.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Pilots saw something odd, and tall-taled it into being UFOs - the only person who actually apparently saw anything seems to be the captain - the captain who was already previously familiar with specific UFO incidents (which paints the picture of someone who is interested in UFOs).

Further, the fact that some radar (usually the radar of the pilot) and not other radar (usually the radar of people who try to substantiate the claims of said pilots) pick up on these objects sort of reduces the quality of these radar 'sightings'.

Former FAA Head of Accidents and Investigations, John Callahan, testified that self identified government figures, whom he suspected to be CIA, took the flight data from his office. Presumably such data was significant enough to warrant confiscation. But on this specific note of "What could it be?", when we offer ourselves the luxury to speculate on the information we do have: when the described characteristics of a UFO make it almost impossible to explain, then you're logically left with the inexplicable; something beyond our known laws of physics and aerodynamics. Would it be fair to assess such a sighting to be either 1) a hallucination or 2) a technology beyond our science? And were it unlikely to be No. 1, then is it unfair to speculate extraterrestrial involvement? More to the point, what are your thoughts on the sightings that are deemed 'inexplicable'?

 

[Kurdel]

Would it be fair to assess such a sighting to be either 1) a hallucination or 2) a technology beyond our science? And were it unlikely to be No. 1, then is it unfair to speculate extraterrestrial involvement?

It is as fair as to speculate that it could be Demons or Gods flying in the sky.

It can also be an optical illusion influenced by confirmation bias. But it could be anything, really.

More to the point, what are your thoughts on the sightings that are deemed 'inexplicable'?

Some kind of "god of the gaps" fallacy. If it is inexplicable, it doesn't make any paranormal or supernatural hypothesis any more valid.

 

[awm8604]

Great thread. I love reading about UFO's. I haven't had any sightings or experiences myself, but I have seen and heard enough from others that I think it is very likely we have been or currently are being visited by 'extraterrestrials'.

I had this poster on my wall growing up.

 

[Joel Was Right]

It is as fair as to speculate that it could be Demons or Gods flying in the sky.

It can also be an optical illusion influenced by confirmation bias. But it could be anything, really.



Some kind of "god of the gaps" fallacy. If it is inexplicable, it doesn't make any paranormal or supernatural hypothesis any more valid.

Do you find there to be an equivalence between the notion of alien visitation and that of the supernatural and paranormal?

 

[Kurdel]

Do you find there to be an equivalence between the notion of alien visitation and that of the supernatural and paranormal?

I see no difference when we are talking about dubious claims of things that cannot exist within the parameters of our natural world.

Both require a leap of faith I am not ready to make.

 

["God's Beard!"]

I'm not skeptical of the possibility of intelligent extra-terrestrial life. We're here, we've found microbes on meteorites, it's obviously possible.

What I am skeptical is of the social and technological achievement it would take for an alien species to find us and physically arrive on our planet using a device that humans would recognize as a vehicle. The chance of a species not only surviving to the point of absolute space-faring technology without destroying themselves but doing so at a point in the history of our universe where we also exist and are able to recognize their technology for what it is is almost so small it's unthinkable.

If they did come, trying to think of their technology on our own terms would be the equivalent of anthropomorphizing an amoeba.

 

[vikki]

Which is interesting, and the fact that you think two people can see the same thing and come to radically different conclusions as to what it was kind of highlights the finnicky nature of 'sightings' as evidence.

Which is why I would never use any story to prove ET's existence. Eye witness testimony, however faulty you may think it is, is usually all we have when someone has an encounter with a UFO or ET. Even today most people are not prepared to capture that brief moment when something extraordinary happens .

 

[Poimandres]

I have a sighting report from my dad, grandparents, and about 20 other people. This was in the 1970's, in PNG. The whole group was outside and witnessed what looked like a bright star. At first it moved in a straight line, but started accelerating and stopping rapidly and pulling right angle turns. They watched it for about 5 minutes before it disappeared.

 

[Kinitari]

Former FAA Head of Accidents and Investigations, John Callahan, testified that self identified government figures, whom he suspected to be CIA, took the flight data from his office. Presumably such data was significant enough to warrant confiscation. But on this specific note of "What could it be?", when we offer ourselves the luxury to speculate on the information we do have: when the described characteristics of a UFO make it almost impossible to explain, then you're logically left with the inexplicable; something beyond our known laws of physics and aerodynamics. Would it be fair to assess such a sighting to be either 1) a hallucination or 2) a technology beyond our science? And were it unlikely to be No. 1, then is it unfair to speculate extraterrestrial involvement? More to the point, what are your thoughts on the sightings that are deemed 'inexplicable'?

To get to the crux of the question - simply having something be "inexplicable" doesn't give validity to weak claims. And generally, many of these claims are explainable - but often those who want it to be aliens argue that the mundane explanations aren't good enough, therefore - aliens are a possibility.

Which, I'm sorry, just isn't how I work. I don't jump to any conclusion when an easy answer isn't available.

 

[Joel Was Right]

To get to the crux of the question - simply having something be "inexplicable" doesn't give validity to weak claims. And generally, many of these claims are explainable - but often those who want it to be aliens argue that the mundane explanations aren't good enough, therefore - aliens are a possibility.

Which, I'm sorry, just isn't how I work. I don't jump to any conclusion when an easy answer isn't available.

Going back to an example whereby conventional explanations (weather phenomena, aircraft/military/ balloons, satellites, meteors, Chinese lanterns) do not the characteristics of the sighting, whereby its not likely to be A, B or C - I'm asking, why cant we consider D.

In other words, in what scenario, if any, excluding that whereby we have physical evidence, would you feel the ET theory would be worth considering as plausible?

 

[vikki]

To get to the crux of the question - simply having something be "inexplicable" doesn't give validity to weak claims. And generally, many of these claims are explainable - but often those who want it to be aliens argue that the mundane explanations aren't good enough, therefore - aliens are a possibility.

Which, I'm sorry, just isn't how I work. I don't jump to any conclusion when an easy answer isn't available.

And no conclusion has been drawn, only speculation. Speculation based on a belief that what many have witnessed is beyond our human capabilities. What could be beyond human capabilities?

I would like to put this to rest right now. If you believe that everyone is experiencing hallucinations or being tricked by optical illusions then you needn't say more. No need discussing things that never happened.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Watch

One of my favourites

 

[Kurdel]

Going back to an example whereby In other words, in what scenario, if any, excluding that whereby we have physical evidence, would you feel the ET theory would be worth considering as plausible?

None.

What would it take for you to consider that it is a time traveller/cherub/ghost/fairy/demon?

Any of these suggestions are equally likely, because they have as much chances of being right

 

[V_Arnold]

None.

What would it take for you to consider that it is a time traveller/cherub/ghost/fairy/demon?

Any of these suggestions are equally likely, because they have as much chances of being right

This is some wicked circular reasoning if I ever saw one.

 

[Kurdel]

This is some wicked circular reasoning if I ever saw one.

Can you explain?

In truth, nothing short of open contact with aliens would make me believe, and if they could reproduce the UFO maneuvers.

Until then, cherry picking aliens as an answer to what are UFOs is just ludicrous and close minded. Why not consider all the vast gamut of possibilities we can pull out of our ass?

 

[Partial Gamification]

I think it is more likely that there are terrestrial explanations for these events than these events involving extraterrestrial life, but I still found the following a fun chart to look-over:

Source

I thought the greys/grays were humans from the future that returned to obtain genetic material to save their sterile dystopian future brought-on through generations of genetic engineering. I'm surprised little green men made the list.

Is it any less likely that there is an unknown species the dwells deep below the Ocean and in the substrata that is more advanced and older than humanity? Why couldn't there be an Abyss-like explanation that has these creatures native to the Earth? This seems just as, or more, likely than inter-stellar travel but it is honestly not something I could seriously believe. I want to believe, but cannot as it is both manipulative and also can be either intentionally or unintentionally dishonest. It serves as a nice distraction from things that are much more secret than some faux global cover-up.

 

[xXxDieselxXx]

If you want to believe

You have to watch "The Fourth Kind" movie. It's supposed to be based on real studies or events.

It really makes you think about all the mysteries out there.

http://youtu.be/r25ZUxTURis

 

[Maedhros]

What about the Phoenix Lights's case? Was it debunked as well. It's one of these cases where many people sight the ocurrence and they still dismiss it... or was it just another "Roswell"?

 

[V_Arnold]

Can you explain?

In truth, nothing short of open contact with aliens would make me believe, and if they could reproduce the UFO maneuvers.

Until then, cherry picking aliens as an answer to what are UFOs is just ludicrous and close minded. Why not consider all the vast gamut of possibilities we can pull out of our ass?

My point is that there have been countless UFO "encounters" described over the past hundred years, and the grey aliens, for example, are a recurring trend. Whether you want to dismiss it outright or not is up to you, but if the visitors would have been described as space monkeys with goat horns, then THAT would be the topic of the discussion.

Now, with that kept in mind, to me, it seems that we would need to first dismiss this case before we could say something like "it is equally possible that space monkey-goats visit us". Because obviously, then you would have to bring up your thousands of reports detailing encounters with space goats, magic fairies, unicorns, etc, all related to the UFO phenomena. But these sightings have these aliens associated with them, therefore the chance of THEY visiting us and not some other "magical creature" is inherently higher than the alternatives.

What about the Phoenix Lights's case? Was it debunked as well. It's one of these cases where many people sight the ocurrence and they still dismiss it... or was it just another "Roswell"?

The moment "mass hallucinations" are brought up as an explantion in cases like the Phoenix Lights, rationality goes out of the window, imho.

 

[crimsondynamics]

I have a UFO story to tell. Well, two actually, but this one had witnesses.

It was a Friday afternoon and I saw a large rugby-shaped flying object moving very slowly. It wasn't flying high at all, and seemed to be almost hovering no more than 10 stories above the ground. This object moved all of 200 meters (200+ yards) in a straight line over the course of half an hour. By large I'm talking about the size of a typical American suburban house. It was chrome-colored and the afternoon sun reflected brightly off this object.

It was also flying right in a part of the city with moderate vehicular and pedestrian traffic. I called others in the office to have a look and in total we were about 8-10 people, completely sober, witnessing this object traverse the air.

This was back when mobile phones didn't have color screens, much less cameras, so nobody took any video footage. Actually, given how we were observing this object fly around for so long and taking into account how low it was flying, we were positive this would have hit the evening news, not to mention the front page of major newspapers.

Alas, no news was ever reported of this incident.

 

[vikki]

None.

What would it take for you to consider that it is a time traveller/cherub/ghost/fairy/demon?

Any of these suggestions are equally likely, because they have as much chances of being right

To believe that an aircraft, that is capable of feats much greater than humans can accomplish, to our knowledge, is occupied by something other than humans is what we are getting at. To get hung up on what we are calling something that we believe to be unearthly is just semantics.


Do you believe in the probability of life on other planets?

 

[ced]

What about the Phoenix Lights's case? Was it debunked as well. It's one of these cases where many people sight the ocurrence and they still dismiss it... or was it just another "Roswell"?

I always thought the Phoenix Lights was a solid case, and I'm referring to the 7 - 9 PM sighting of a large craft traveling low and slow, not the flares that were dropped later.

The problem, like always, is that not one fucking person out of allegedly thousands took a picture or video of this sighting, it's all from the flares.

What has been identified is that the early sightings from the northern areas of AZ was of a formation of jets (looks like a triangle of lights) and the mass sightings that were photographed and filmed was the flare drop at 10.

You can read all the crazy reports you want after the fact, but the vast majority of people don't know how to think critically and certainly can't identify lights in the night skies.

Here is a good read on it (scroll down a bit):

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-05-21/

 

[Joel Was Right]

None.

What would it take for you to consider that it is a time traveller/cherub/ghost/fairy/demon?

Any of these suggestions are equally likely, because they have as much chances of being right

A ghost? You mean a spirit of the dead that is now walking the Earth? I'm amazed that you find the idea of alien life and the dead returning from the grave interchangeable

 

[Raist]

JAL Flight 1628 is the only UFO sighting I truly believe happened. It was more than just a "sighting": it was not only seen by the pilots, but also picked up on their plane's radar as well as radar on the ground in a completely different location. Audio exists of the pilot communicating with air traffic control about the object(s). Pretty much the best UFO sighting on record, imo, and enough to convince me something unearthly was involved.

Huh?

Anchorage Air Traffic Control obliged and requested an oncoming United Airlines flight to confirm the unidentified traffic, but when it and a military craft sighted JAL 1628 at about 5:51 PM, no other craft could be distinguished.

5:23:19 AARTCC JAL1628 Roger. And I'm not receiving any radar replies.

So that only leaves the bits which basically say "there was stuff on there but it was a super secret meeting and evidence was hidden from us", based on... I'm not sure what.

Also

Japan Air Lines flight 1628 was a UFO incident that occurred on November 17, 1986 involving a Japanese cargo jumbo freighter aircraft. The aircraft was en route from Paris to Narita, Tokyo[1] with a cargo of Beaujolais wine.[

Maybe that explains it

 

[NeonZ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colares_UFO_flap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operação_Prato

Hm... I don't know any extensive source about this in English, but there was an extended case in a Brazilian city of various UFO sightings and supposed attacks that ended up even involving the army. Of course, no actual contact or material proof of the flying objects was obtained, aside from the army's own observations.

I've had an experience related to UFOs too, but I think an event that was officially registered like that is more relevant.

 

[Mully]

If you want to believe

You have to watch "The Fourth Kind" movie. It's supposed to be based on real studies or events.

It really makes you think about all the mysteries out there.

http://youtu.be/r25ZUxTURis

It's not based on anything. It's all made up.

 

[Joel Was Right]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJNa9V_rrQc

Apparently upon reading the newspapers in July, 1947 about the Roswell incident, Viktor contacted the German media and claimed it was based on his designs.

 

[vikki]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJNa9V_rrQc

Apparently upon reading the newspapers in July, 1947 about the Roswell incident, Viktor contacted the German media and claimed it was based on his designs.

I watched a show that talked about this man for a bit, but I can't tell how much of it is speculation. Did he really do anything or is he just claiming he did?

 

[Joel Was Right]

I watched a show that talked about this man for a bit, but I can't tell how much of it is speculation. Did he really do anything or is he just claiming he did?

Surprisingly there isn't very much verifiable information on him but from what I can gather, he did indeed have an interest in the workings of the natural world. It's possible that he experimented with devices but there is no piece of technology that has been attributed to him.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

Adam Sessler talks to real life "UFO Hunter". Yes, you read that right.... Adam Sessler.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIrifko1qWU

 

[Winnie the Pimp]

Even if Aliens are observing us, they are probably respecting the prime directive and we would never know about them...

 

[Joel Was Right]

What do you guys think of the 1897 Aurora case?

 

[Heretic]

What do you guys think of the 1897 Aurora case?

link?

 

[Mdeezy]

link?

http://ufos.about.com/od/bestufocrashcases/p/aurora.htm

Maybe hes talking about that.

The Crash:
These early ships were slow moving craft, and so was the one that crashed into an Aurora windmill on April 19. According to the legend, the craft was destroyed, and the remains of an alien pilot were discovered among the remains. Also found among the scattered debris was a strange material with hieroglyphic-type etching. The alien creature was given a proper burial in the one and only cemetery in town. The alien body has long since disappeared.

Not of this World:
UPI also picked up the story, and the legend was spread far beyond the borders of Texas. There were a number of eyewitness accounts of the incident later published, and they all agreed with the basic facts. An unknown craft had crashed into the town, strange debris was found, and a being "not of this world" was found in the wreckage. One intriguing account, although second-hand, came from a 15-year-old girl. Her parents had visited the site, and claimed that the alien pilot was a "small man."
Military Cover-up:
There is also evidence of a military cover-up. Soon after the crash, military personnel came to Aurora. Could they have been responsible for the removal of the alien body? For a time, there was a headstone for the body, but even it has disappeared. All that remains are photographs of the headstone.

There have been, at times, lobbying to dig up the alien grave, and see what evidence may remain. But townsfolk have kept this from happening. What excitement would run through UFO circles if alien DNA was found there. Maybe it is best to leave the grave alone, and let the Aurora mystery remain.

 

[Mdeezy]

Anyone ever heard about the Black Knight satellite?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sEuDKzP_MKI


https://forbiddenhistory.info/?q=node/57

What is the "Black Knight" satellite?
It is a mysterious satellite, of unknown origin, discovered in 1960 which shadowed Sputnik. It is believed to have been of extraterrestrial origin, and signaled back old radio waves from the 1920s and 1930s before it disappeared. In short wave patterns analyzed by astronomer Duncan Lunan, it revealed its origin as Epsilon Boötes (or the star system as it was 13,000 years ago).

"In February 1960 the US detected an unknown object in polar orbit, a feat that neither they or the USSR had been able to accomplish. As if that wasn't enough, it apparently was several sizes larger than anything either country would have been able to get off the ground.

And then, the oddness began. HAM operators began to receive strange coded messages. One person in particular said he managed to decode one of the transmissions, and it corresponded to a star chart. A star chart which would have been plotted from earth 13,000 years ago, and focused on the Epsilon Bostes star system.

On September 3, 1960, seven months after the satellite was first detected by radar, a tracking camera at Grumman Aircraft Corporation's Long Island factory took a photograph of it. People on the ground had been occasionally seeing it for about two weeks at that point. Viewers would make it out as a red glowing object moving in an east-to-west orbit. Most satellites of the time, according to what little material I've been able to find on the black knight satellite, moved from west-to-east. It's speed was also about three times normal. A committee was formed to examine it, but nothing more was ever made public.

 

[Heretic]

What the hell is that...

 

[commedieu]

What the hell is that...

swamp gas, or you're menstruating..

both?

shadowed spud?? that legit?

 

[HelloMeow]

Iron man.

 

[Amagon]

What the hell is that...

Aliens

 

[akira28]

Black Knight feels like copypasta.

...or the kind of thing some skeptics do for fun.

 

[WorldStar]

Black Knight feels like copypasta.

...or the kind of thing some skeptics do for fun.

IIRC the original video and images were hosted on NASA's site

quick googling reveals this:
http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/STS088/STS088-724-66_3.JPG

 

[Mdeezy]

IIRC the original video and images were hosted on NASA's site

quick googling reveals this:
http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/images/ISD/highres/STS088/STS088-724-66_3.JPG

Thanks for this. I shouldve posted in my original post