My UFO encounter

[YNM]

Reasonable explanations for UFO sightings!

• It could have been a satellite!
  
• It could have been an Iridium flare!
  
• It could have been an airplane!
  
• It could have been something else!
  

Add "kites !" to that. I've saw one.

This is a great UFO-story-swapping thread, but what exactly does it have to do with science?

Help people point out what they see ? My kite example isn't what you'll get everyday !

[benjee10]

But the atmosphere is hazy and hides most of the surface so how can we know what's there? I mean, we've seen some of the lake but not a whole lot.

With a combination of radar and other techniques we have a pretty good idea of what's down there to the extent that scientists can predict the weather there.

Once again you are making giant leaps in logic. Just because something is possible within the boundaries of physics, it doesn't mean it is in the slightest bit likely. I refer you to Occam's razor - while not a law as such it is a useful tool in science for dismissing more outlandish ideas. Which is more probable - that the Earth is being visited by extraterrestrials, or that everyday phenomena are responsible for what people misinterpret as extraterrestrials?

You are basing all of this on eyewitness accounts which are notoriously unreliable and cannot be taken seriously as scientific evidence. People's minds are incredibly easily manipulated and the memory is nowhere near as clear as we like to think it is. Did you know, for instance, that there are spikes in the numbers of UFO sightings in the years that Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Independence Day were released? Spooky huh? Now, I could make some wild assumptions about that. I could say that aliens were listening in to us and specifically chose those years to reveal themselves to people because they thought people would accept them better or something, or maybe that the films were actually documentary evidence of aliens from those years! But it is far simpler to assume that the films being released caused the idea of aliens to leak into the public subconscious and result in more people linking things they may not be able to explain to that concept.

Yes, we should investigate the unexplained, that's what science is about, but making wild guesses about alien technology under the protective cloud of 'how could we possibly know anything about them!' is frankly ridiculous. There is not a scrap of hard evidence for extraterrestrial visits to Earth, yet there are decades of research into psychology and centuries into the world around us that easily explain the majority of 'sightings.' Probably there are some which are caused by unconventional means, but to leap to it being aliens, and to from that to make up wild theories about the aliens' origins, their technology and their motives is doubly ridiculous. We know there are phenomena such as ball lightning which we do not yet fully understand but is still thousands of times more rational than jumping on the 'it was aliens!' bandwagon.

[peadar1987]

You make good points, I wasn't saying for sure that it was so. I'm just saying it's something that could be considered.

For starters, let's call in the different UFO's that people have seen. People have seen the traditional original flying saucer and black triangle and various other saucer craft. Saucer shaped craft are still spotted today, along with the black triangle. This calls in to question; who is flying the saucer and who is flying the black triangle?

Perhaps if aliens were to exist on Titan that somehow exist given your points, they may not be as advanced as we think and they use a old traditional saucer while the Grays use a newer, more advanced craft (black triangle)?

It's not impossible that there is alien civilizations that have not mastered the flying saucer or rather designed the right one.

- - - Updated - - -

The "black triangle" UFO sightings first started in the 1980s, which is exactly the same time the F-117 was beginning test flights. The idea has now entered popular consciousness, so now crops up in all sorts of imaginary, illusory, or hoax UFO sightings, as well as continuing misidentifications of F-117s and B-2s.

This all reminds me a bit of this XKCD comic:

[Albert VDS]

Your point is?

First you are saying "You can't just take human motivation and project them into some hypothetical alien" and in a later post you say "They could just do it for fun or maybe it is a sport".

For all we know fun or sports may be a human thing.

And before the fun an sport comment you comment on that more advanced civilizations might have more power per individual, again that's only concluded by what you know of one example: humans.

[Canopus]

First you are saying "You can't just take human motivation and project them into some hypothetical alien" and in a later post you say "They could just do it for fun or maybe it is a sport".

For all we know fun or sports may be a human thing.

And before the fun an sport comment you comment on that more advanced civilizations might have more power per individual, again that's only concluded by what you know of one example: humans.

As i said we don't know what they would do and why they would do it. So while it is unlikely that they would visit us in the way many of these Ufo stories describe it, it is sill possible.

Anyway i don't really believe in the stories but i still love reading about them. Particularly the ones were the "witnesses" describe stranger aliens. Its kinda sad that you mostly hear only about the lame greys.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Canopus

[magnemoe]

i saw a ufo when i was 5 and living in the california desert. it looked a lot like an f117 (which were still classified at the time).

Correctly it was an unidentified flying object.

I saw something who looked like an two stage rocket as a teen, streak of light going upward fast, then an pause and an weaker light continued.

We thought it was an ground to air missile test, they had an SAM battery around the military airport in that direction.

However the battery would not test a missile over an populated area, they had an dedicated test and training facility in another part of the country.

My guess is an amateur rocket or something similar. think an SAM would have an stronger flame anyway.

[DeepOdyssey]

The "black triangle" UFO sightings first started in the 1980s, which is exactly the same time the F-117 was beginning test flights. The idea has now entered popular consciousness, so now crops up in all sorts of imaginary, illusory, or hoax UFO sightings, as well as continuing misidentifications of F-117s and B-2s.

This all reminds me a bit of this XKCD comic:

Try to capture a plane or satellite at night, using you mobile phone camera. You won't see anything.

Still to capture a UFO, you need a decent camera to catch the necessary amount of light.

[Pingonaut]

I don't really see why so many people find the idea of ET UFO sightings (like the credible ones that have been thoroughly investigated and scrutinized) to be so unlikely. It's worse when it becomes the standard to just assume someone is wrong when they talk about a UFO encounter, or UFOs in general.

The idea that there are ETs with crafts that can do the things reported in sightings should make "logical/scientific people" more curious about the topic. Especially the idea that they may have gotten here with FTL/warp travel.

If anyone is willing, I'd enjoy hearing someone's reasons behind thoroughly discarding UFO sightings as ET or man-made with technological advancements that we don't know about. It's best to be extremely skeptical, but I see no point in being skeptical to the point of believing the most simple explanations, if they don't actually work.

Still to capture a UFO, you need a decent camera to catch the necessary amount of light.

Yeah, it's obviously pretty rare to get one. I really like this image from the Belgian sightings (saw a documentary about it, this was confirmed to be free of edits by multiple professionals):

Edited May 29, 2015 by Pingonaut

[benjee10]

I don't really see why so many people find the idea of ET UFO sightings (like the credible ones that have been thoroughly investigated and scrutinized) to be so unlikely.

Because it IS highly unlikely. There's not a shred of solid evidence beyond easily faked photographs and eyewitness testimonies. The distances and energies involved are so vast that the prospect of them arriving here and not leaving substantial evidence behind is utterly untenable. Either they travel incredibly quickly, either at close to lightspeed or at superluminal velocities via something like warp drive, or they have mastered generation ships or long-term suspended animation and travel slowly. Either way, they'd be detectable. As has been pointed out before stealth in space is pretty much completely impossible. Any spacecraft would be much warmer than the majority of the space behind it as seen from Earth. That's just how the laws of physics work. To make the 'aliens are visiting us' hypothesis (if you can even call it that) work you need to make astounding leaps of logic and pretty much say that the laws of physics that we know of are wrong, or at least can be circumvented.

Just apply Occam's razor please, people. There is plenty of evidence for phenomena here on earth than could be misinterpreted as ET sightings. There is ZERO evidence of intelligent life on other worlds. There is ZERO evidence of alien life ever visiting us that would hold up to any scientific scrutiny. I am not saying that aliens visiting us is impossible, or interdimensional beings or whatever they are. I am saying that it is overwhelming more likely to have a rational explanation.

Leaps of logic required if aliens are visiting us:

- An extraterrestrial civilization advanced enough for interstellar travel has arisen near enough to us to want to investigate

- Said civilization for some reason remains undetected to us despite the SETI program

- Thermodynamics is wrong - perfect thermal cloaking in a vacuum is possible

- Extraterrestrials have the technology and the motives to traverse interstellar distances only to reveal themselves to a few seemingly random people, leaving no scraps of evidence beyond eyewitness testimony

- If aliens are not undetectable then the whole goverment, scientific establishment, and everyone who watches the sky for a living, are lying to us in a vast conspiracy to prevent us knowing about aliens for... what reason exactly?

- Aliens have the technology to mask themselves perfectly and yet still remain visible to humans for... what reason exactly?

- Aliens have antigravity/magical propulsion technology

Leaps of logic required to believe that ET sightings are explainable by ordinary phenomena:

- The human mind is fallible

[Slam_Jones]

-snip snip-

Leaps of logic required if aliens are visiting us:

- An extraterrestrial civilization advanced enough for interstellar travel has arisen near enough to us to want to investigate

- Said civilization for some reason remains undetected to us despite the SETI program

- Thermodynamics is wrong - perfect thermal cloaking in a vacuum is possible

- Extraterrestrials have the technology and the motives to traverse interstellar distances only to reveal themselves to a few seemingly random people, leaving no scraps of evidence beyond eyewitness testimony

- If aliens are not undetectable then the whole goverment, scientific establishment, and everyone who watches the sky for a living, are lying to us in a vast conspiracy to prevent us knowing about aliens for... what reason exactly?

- Aliens have the technology to mask themselves perfectly and yet still remain visible to humans for... what reason exactly?

- Aliens have antigravity/magical propulsion technology

Leaps of logic required to believe that ET sightings are explainable by ordinary phenomena:

- The human mind is fallible

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke

I'm sure people 200 years ago would balk and laugh at the idea of going to the moon, because the technology of the time wasn't even close to allowing it. but technology progresses just the same.

If you told someone even 50 years ago about your smartphone, do you think they'd believe you? They've never seen one before, and they don't understand how it works. To them, it's magic. Just the same way any civilization sufficiently advanced enough to be able to visit us would have technology we can't even dream of.

Just because it doesn't exist or hasn't been proven yet, doesn't mean it's impossible. Stating something is impossible is the quickest way to stop progress. If we want to advance as a civilization, we can't keep saying "this is impossible because ________!" All that does is slow us down.

I'm not saying that all UFO sightings are of extra-terrestrial craft - I'm sure the majority are experimental aircraft. However, dismissing the idea of ET-UFOs entirely is a pretty bold claim. Are you so arrogant that you think our world is the only one capable of harboring life?

Edited May 29, 2015 by Slam_Jones

[Camacha]

If anyone is willing, I'd enjoy hearing someone's reasons behind thoroughly discarding UFO sightings as ET or man-made with technological advancements that we don't know about. It's best to be extremely skeptical, but I see no point in being skeptical to the point of believing the most simple explanations, if they don't actually work.

The fact that you do not understand a sighting right away, does not mean it is an actual alien UFO. The overwhelmingly large chance is that you simply lack the information or imagination to explain it.

The idea that aliens would defy the laws of nature in a major way to frequently visit our planet, but would not be able to fully hide themselves or make any effort to contact us is just highly unlikely. The more reasonable explanation is that people simply misunderstood what they saw.

- - - Updated - - -

Just because it doesn't exist or hasn't been proven yet, doesn't mean it's impossible.

No one says it is impossible. Common sense and good practice just tells us to apply the option that is vastly more likely.

Stating something is impossible is the quickest way to stop progress. If we want to advance as a civilization, we can't keep saying "this is impossible because ________!" All that does is slow us down.

This is where you are blatantly wrong. Believing in unlikely and unproven fairly tales is something humanity has done for millennia now and has held us back every time. Face the facts and be better of because of it.

However, dismissing the idea of ET-UFOs entirely is a pretty bold claim. Are you so arrogant that you think our world is the only one capable of harboring life?

You are thoroughly misunderstanding the discussion if you think that is the argument.

[Pingonaut]

-snip-

Leaps of logic required if aliens are visiting us:

- An extraterrestrial civilization advanced enough for interstellar travel has arisen near enough to us to want to investigate

- Said civilization for some reason remains undetected to us despite the SETI program

- Thermodynamics is wrong - perfect thermal cloaking in a vacuum is possible

- Extraterrestrials have the technology and the motives to traverse interstellar distances only to reveal themselves to a few seemingly random people, leaving no scraps of evidence beyond eyewitness testimony

- If aliens are not undetectable then the whole goverment, scientific establishment, and everyone who watches the sky for a living, are lying to us in a vast conspiracy to prevent us knowing about aliens for... what reason exactly?

- Aliens have the technology to mask themselves perfectly and yet still remain visible to humans for... what reason exactly?

- Aliens have antigravity/magical propulsion technology

Leaps of logic required to believe that ET sightings are explainable by ordinary phenomena:

- The human mind is fallible

These "leaps of logical" aren't really leaps of logic. Here are my responses to those:

- We are interested in the development and progress of animals in the wild for scientific purposes, why is that hard to believe in this situation?

- The SETI program is the equivalent of trying to pick up a television broadcast with an old radio

- This is based on our current understanding. God knows that doesn't change as we advance, right?

- Seemingly random to us. When we're tagging or observing openly animals and fish for example, that would seem random to them as well.

- If you were a government would you want your citizens knowing that there are things of such magnitude out of their control? Also some governments are fairly open about this topic.

- Again, why do we need to understand the reason? They're a completely different species from a completely different planet. And I again refer you to the idea of a deer not understanding why it was abducted by a human and then set free (the human was a scientist doing research, but the deer didn't understand that)

- This one is pretty out there. What arrogance to believe that it doesn't exist because we don't understand it. "Sufficient technology is indistinguishable from magic."

- Human mind is fallible - Uh, yeah. But why do people feel the need to immediate discredit others for a sighting? There are some amazingly credible witnesses. Police officers, pilots, astronauts, military. Why is there not curiosity about this subject? If you want to put it to rest, find proof (proper proof) for each sighting. You cannot just say every person who sees a UFO is not credible.

The fact that you do not understand a sighting right away, does not mean it is an actual alien UFO. The overwhelmingly large chance is that you simply lack the information or imagination to explain it.

The idea that aliens would defy the laws of nature in a major way to frequently visit our planet, but would not be able to fully hide themselves or make any effort to contact us is just highly unlikely. The more reasonable explanation is that people simply misunderstood what they saw.

Absolutely it doesn't mean it's an alien UFO. Most sightings are obviously just mistaken identity. Why are you simply assuming that they are defying the laws of nature, and that they have a reason to hide themselves?

No one says it is impossible. Common sense and good practice just tells us to apply the option that is vastly more likely.

Yes, but you also need to properly consider each possibility. Just saying "well this is more likely" doesn't cut it.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Pingonaut

[Camacha]

Why are you simply assuming that they are defying the laws of nature

They pretty much do if they come here, looking at the distances and energies involved.

and that they have a reason to hide themselves?

We have not quite seen them landing on our lawn, have we? That means that if they are around, they are not showing themselves.

Yes, but you also need to properly consider each possibility. Just saying "well this is more likely" doesn't cut it.

We do. We consider the options and say 'this one is vastly more probably and likely' and that does cut it. Of course, if someone brings evidence that could change opinion, that should be evaluated, but nothing convincing has been produced and that is pretty much the whole issue.

[LN400]

Just chiming in here. A job title like "police officer", "pilot", "astronaut" or "5 star general" does not affect the credibility of a witness. Eye witness testemony is really worthless regardless of the title of the person saying he or she saw something. If Stephen Hawking said he had seen an alien, his testimony would be worthless, just like any other eye witness testimony. Worthless as evidence, let alone proof. Hard, physical evidence would be valuable.

[Pingonaut]

They pretty much do if they come here, looking at the distances and energies involved.

No, they don't necessarily. There are plenty of theoretical ways of going around the speed of light that we already know of. Do you think we know all there is to know about interstellar travel physics, more than a civilization that has had maybe millions of years more time than us?

We have not quite seen them landing on our lawn, have we? That means that if they are around, they are not showing themselves.

Why do they have to land on our lawns, or be showing themselves? (I'm obviously partial to the zoo hypothesis) A scientist studying the deer population at a local nature preserve will "abduct" deer and do stuff with it. They won't try to hide themselves if it isn't necessary, they will when it is, but they don't go stomping on the deer's home saying "HEY I'M HERE, LOOK!" just because they don't have reason to hide.

We do. We consider the options and say 'this one is vastly more probably and likely' and that does cut it. Of course, if someone brings evidence that could change opinion, that should be evaluated, but nothing convincing has been produced and that is pretty much the whole issue.

Well, there are quite a few cases that have done it for me. Testimony from really good witness does that. Not every pilot, police officer, soldier, and even astronaut just happened to be incapacitated visually at the time.

- - - Updated - - -

Just chiming in here. A job title like "police officer", "pilot", "astronaut" or "5 star general" does not affect the credibility of a witness. Eye witness testemony is really worthless regardless of the title of the person saying he or she saw something. If Stephen Hawking said he had seen an alien, his testimony would be worthless, just like any other eye witness testimony. Worthless as evidence, let alone proof. Hard, physical evidence would be valuable.

Job title doesn't. Experience does. People who are trained observers are more credible than a blind hillbilly. Physical evidence exists, but it isn't hard proof. I'm not sure how you'd get hard proof.

edit: huh, just realized accidentally double posting just updates your post. Awesome!

[Camacha]

Well, there are quite a few cases that have done it for me. Testimony from really good witness does that. Not every pilot, police officer, soldier, and even astronaut just happened to be incapacitated visually at the time.

- - - Updated - - -

Job title doesn't. Experience does. People who are trained observers are more credible than a blind hillbilly.

The fact that officers are regularly proven to have mistaken things, or simply to lie, makes this argument quite problematic. Those are human beings too, without a physics and engineering degree to understand what they might be seeing.

[LN400]

Nope, experience still doesn't make an eye witness testimony valuable to science. It really makes no difference to science if it's Bobby the hobo or deGrasse Tyson who say they saw it.

[Kryten]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; not a few blurry pictures and eyewitness accounts.

[Pingonaut]

The fact that officers are regularly proven to have mistaken things, or simply to lie, makes this argument quite problematic. Those are human beings too, without a physics and engineering degree to understand what they might be seeing.

This is true. I'm not saying you should accept every case as fact just because they're trained observers. I'm simply saying they're more credible. Of course without complete knowledge they are personally fallible, but others can use their testimony and investigate it further, using their circumstances as a base.

- - - Updated - - -

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; not a few blurry pictures and eyewitness accounts.

Again, I really don't know how you're going to get extraordinary evidence.

[Greenfire32]

And what do you have to say to people who insist that God exists due to similar personal experiences such as your own? You may have been looking for God and claimed not to have found Him, but what would you say to someone who was not intending to find God and yet did? The same applies to angels and demons. Heck, you're convinced that the phenomena you observed were "ghosts" and "aliens", but what if someone were to tell you that you were actually observing spiritual entities? Such as angels, demons, or even deities? I've certainly heard countless claims both ways. I can explain many of these things through natural phenomena such as sleep paralysis, but I can't explain them all. Personally, I always raise an eyebrow of skepticism whenever I hear of "oogie-boogie" claims such as these, but as scientists, we are supposed to be open minded.

I already addressed this. In my post. That you quoted.

I realize the paradox of this situation, which is why it's hard for me to say those things. I am NOT a person of faith. Yet my belief in aliens and ghosts is do largely to personal experiences. We have a word for this: "faith."

It is strange that I myself cannot bring myself to employ the same logic I use for everyday things (just science and logic in general) for things like aliens and ghosts, and yet I also cannot bring myself to employ the same faith for ghosts and aliens for things like religion.

I am aware of this paradox. And I have actually lost sleep in the past pondering why I am this way.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Greenfire32

[Camacha]

No, they don't necessarily. There are plenty of theoretical ways of going around the speed of light that we already know of. Do you think we know all there is to know about interstellar travel physics, more than a civilization that has had maybe millions of years more time than us?

So we either have an unproven, millions of years more advanced civilisation doing things with physics that are as of yet not proven to be possible on the one hand, and someone simply misunderstanding what he sees on the other. Guess which one has a higher probability of occuring?

Why do they have to land on our lawns, or be showing themselves? (I'm obviously partial to the zoo hypothesis) A scientist studying the deer population at a local nature preserve will "abduct" deer and do stuff with it. They won't try to hide themselves if it isn't necessary, they will when it is, but they don't go stomping on the deer's home saying "HEY I'M HERE, LOOK!" just because they don't have reason to hide.

The problem is that we have these sightings that never seem to come with good proof. So they either try to hide (but are pretty bad at it), do not have a reason to hide (but still pretty much do) or are not here at all. Again, which one is vastly more likely?

[Darnok]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; not a few blurry pictures and eyewitness accounts.

You should tell that to Einstein and few other scientists that only have some notes on paper as proof of their claims

[Pingonaut]

Nope, experience still doesn't make an eye witness testimony valuable to science. It really makes no difference to science if it's Bobby the hobo or deGrasse Tyson who say they saw it.

Why? It makes a difference if a trained observer says they see something. Take the story as-is? No. Investigate further based on circumstances? Yeah. That's the issue. It stops at investigating ​thoroughly.

[Camacha]

Again, I really don't know how you're going to get extraordinary evidence.

An actual alien or ship to examine would be a good start, or even any tangible technology that is beyond our knowledge.

[Kryten]

Again, I really don't know how you're going to get extraordinary evidence.

Radar returns of vehicles with much altitudes and speeds than we're capable of, large uncatalogued objects appearing in orbit, clearly structured radio signals from elsewhere in the solar system... anything like that. As it stands we genuinely have better evidence for the Yeti than for extraterrestrial visitors.