My UFO encounter

[Pingonaut]

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?

Honestly both of them are fairly likely.

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?

The problem is some of them do come with some pretty good proof. You just have to investigate it. There were a few landing sightings where the ground beneath showed extremely high radiation, corroborating the exact shape and size of the objects.

[YNM]

I'd like to say: this thread IS in the science labs, not a bashing subforum. Granted many bashing occurs - but most stops after a while, only resurfaces only when someone digs ("necro") it out.

So, shouldn't we DISCUSS THESE INSTEAD :

1. Tell a possible unidentified object sighting.

2. Try figure out what it is.

3. Get some explanations why it have to be that - the mechanism etc.

Your sight do often fools you - that's very correct, hence why we use candela and lumens beside wattage for lamps - but it doesn't remove the fact you've (or someone have) saw something unexplainable to you / them. The thread were supposed to be used for sharing experiences of these, without outright denying them and says the cause must be X. My kite viewing were quite rare to me and most people, but it was real. (i'm aware, no pics and it didn't happen, but i assure mine was real and reproducible, and tbh i said it because i believed the op might be interested and the thread wouldn't be like this.)

Sory for backseat moderating, but I guess that's kind of needed for this subforum.

[Camacha]

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

[benjee10]

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.

- It is more the 'has arisen near enough to us' part that I was intending there.

- Just because you can't understand/decode a broadcast doesn't mean you can't detect it. It doesn't require many leaps in logic (I do like that phrase) to make the assumption that alien broadcasts would have some sort of pattern and be distinguishable from the 'background noise' of the universe. Besides the WOW signal we haven't picked up anything that could be interpreted as alien signals.

- Of course it can change. But based on our current understanding, which fits experimental evidence and explains what we see in the universe almost perfectly, there is no reason to make wild assumptions that these rules can be broken.

- Fair point. Though you would expect some hard evidence to be left behind. When we tag animals, well, we tag them, we leave debris behind etc.; there's never any physical evidence of abductions.

- I challenge the notion that a government would deny that things exist beyond their control, and the idea that any conspiracy of that size could ever be pulled off. Natural disasters aren't covered up are they? They're completely beyond our control and they affect far more people than alien abductions would.

- We don't necessarily need to understand the reason, but we can attempt to apply logic given that we are capable of it. Saying 'we couldn't even understand their motives' is basically the UFOlogist version of 'God works in mysterious ways'

- I am not saying it doesn't exist because we don't understand it. I am saying that it is extraordinary to claim that such things exist when we have no evidence for them and there are far simpler explanations for the same outcome.

I will again reiterate that eyewitness testimony means A B S O L U T E L Y N O T H I N G, no matter who it is from. The human mind is an amazing machine but, like any machine, it has its flaws. Anyone can be deceived. The mind deceives itself constantly. The memory is a fragile thing. It is easily distorted and it is susceptible to suggestion and bias.

It is not that I am not curious. I am extremely curious and I have done a fair amount of research into this subject and concluded as best I can that there is always a perfectly ordinary explanation. I've had experiences in my life which I initially put down to the supernatural or paranormal, but after investigating them I found them to be reasonably simple tricks of the mind. For a good month or so (now this is eyewitness testimony, call me a hypocrite if you like) I was seeing lights moving across the wall of my bedroom while the blinds were closed, accompanied by a scratching sound seemingly within the wall (now this is an old house and its walls are pretty much solid stone) There was no clear source of lights. Initial investigations showed that the light was not coming from the direction of the windows as completely blocking them had no effect. Eventually I found that the light was in fact the result of a mirror which had fallen behind my desk reflecting light from a second mirror in my room up onto the wall. This meant that blocking line of sight with the windows had no effect since the light was coming from another direction. The movement of the lights was caused by the wind moving leaves in a tree outside. The scratching I traced back to a mouse that was not within the wall but scraping along a metal girder in the ceiling/floor beneath it and to one side, which was reverberating through the old stone and creating a loud noise. Obviously this isn't really a UFO sighting per se and is relatively minor, but in the dead of night the mind easily amplifies the significance of even little things like that.

[Pingonaut]

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.

Why do they have to use signals that we use, like radio? Like people saying "SETI hasn't found anything, so it's unlikely," it's like trying to detect television broadcasts with a ham radio.

[Camacha]

Honestly both of them are fairly likely.

This is the type of claim that needs proof, so please back that statement up.

The problem is some of them do come with some pretty good proof. You just have to investigate it. There were a few landing sightings where the ground beneath showed extremely high radiation, corroborating the exact shape and size of the objects.

If that were the case it would be called science.

[LN400]

The problem with investigating an eye witness account is, there is nothing to investigate. You can not investigate words alone.

[Pingonaut]

I'd like to say: this thread IS in the science labs, not a bashing subforum. Granted many bashing occurs - but most stops after a while, only resurfaces only when someone digs ("necro") it out.

So, shouldn't we DISCUSS THESE INSTEAD :

1. Tell a possible unidentified object sighting.

2. Try figure out what it is.

3. Get some explanations why it have to be that - the mechanism etc.

Your sight do often fools you - that's very correct, hence why we use candela and lumens beside wattage for lamps - but it doesn't remove the fact you've (or someone have) saw something unexplainable to you / them. The thread were supposed to be used for sharing experiences of these, without outright denying them and says the cause must be X. My kite viewing were quite rare to me and most people, but it was real. (i'm aware, no pics and it didn't happen, but i assure mine was real and reproducible, and tbh i said it because i believed the op might be interested and the thread wouldn't be like this.)

Sory for backseat moderating, but I guess that's kind of needed for this subforum.

I dunno, I'm enjoying the discussion. I've yet to see anyone putting anyone else down for their views.

- - - Updated - - -

If that were the case it would be called science.

By who?

[Camacha]

By who?

By people that actually understand how science and proving things work.

[Kryten]

Why do they have to use signals that we use, like radio? Like people saying "SETI hasn't found anything, so it's unlikely," it's like trying to detect television broadcasts with a ham radio.

You can pick up TV signals with a ham radio with sufficient frequency range, and we're monitoring the entire spectrum. You've ignored the rest of my statement as well-any physical object will produce some radar signal, why don't we see it? Why are there no unexplained sonic booms?

[benjee10]

Why do they have to use signals that we use, like radio? Like people saying "SETI hasn't found anything, so it's unlikely," it's like trying to detect television broadcasts with a ham radio.

Honestly this is just making a claim unfalsifiable, which makes it unscientific. There is no way to disprove that aliens are using a method of communication we cannot detect or understand. Until such a time that we too discover this amazing hidden communication system this claim remains as ridiculous as 'I can fly, but only when no one is looking.'

Also what Kryten said above.

[Pingonaut]

We don't necessarily need to understand the reason, but we can attempt to apply logic given that we are capable of it. Saying 'we couldn't even understand their motives' is basically the UFOlogist version of 'God works in mysterious ways'

I'm saying though, we would be so behind in understanding of technology and society that our motives would likely be different than theirs. As I said, I like the Zoo Hypothesis and it would make sense. They hide when they need to, don't try to when they don't, etc. because they're doing research, or whatever.

I will again reiterate that eyewitness testimony means A B S O L U T E L Y N O T H I N G, no matter who it is from. The human mind is an amazing machine but, like any machine, it has its flaws. Anyone can be deceived. The mind deceives itself constantly. The memory is a fragile thing. It is easily distorted and it is susceptible to suggestion and bias.

Very true. But some eyewitness testimonies come with good physical evidence that can be explored further. If you can corroborate it, then always try to do so.

-snip story-

That's good. I'm not saying don't be skeptical.

- - - Updated - - -

By people that actually understand how science and proving things work.

What? I'm sorry, but that really doesn't make any sense. Use science to confirm/debunk the claims, is what I'm saying. Make investigating this stuff a proper science and debunk it properly.

- - - Updated - - -

You can pick up TV signals with a ham radio with sufficient frequency range, and we're monitoring the entire spectrum. You've ignored the rest of my statement as well-any physical object will produce some radar signal, why don't we see it? Why are there no unexplained sonic booms?

Any physical object will produce a radar signal? Yeah, there are cases where there was a radar signal. But how does stealth technology work? (I don't personally know) If we can make stealth jets that don't show up on radar as greatly, why can't a more advanced technology (almost) completely avoid it?

I've actually got to go. Thanks for the good discussion!

[Kryten]

Any physical object will produce a radar signal? Yeah, there are cases where there was a radar signal. But how does stealth technology work? (I don't personally know)

Materials that are radar absorbent and shapes that reduce direct return, but there's no such thing as a 100% effective radar absorbent material.

[Camacha]

What? I'm sorry, but that really doesn't make any sense. Use science to confirm/debunk the claims, is what I'm saying. Make investigating this stuff a proper science and debunk it properly.

Who says that is not done? The fact that no one has been able to produce proof that holds up when investigated means one thing - there is no good proof.

[benjee10]

I'm saying though, we would be so behind in understanding of technology and society that our motives would likely be different than theirs. As I said, I like the Zoo Hypothesis and it would make sense. They hide when they need to, don't try to when they don't, etc. because they're doing research, or whatever.

I'm not sure its entirely valid to say that their motives would be that different to ours. Natural selection here on Earth has crafted a pretty specific and simple set of motives which there is very little variation on in the scheme of things. The behavior of every creature and culture on the planet can ultimately be traced back to one simple motive; survival, whether it be as an individual, a colony, a culture or an entire species. I would argue that almost every action taken by any living organism on the planet, conscious or unconscious, is driven by that compulsion to survive. Even if the actions do not have a direct impact on chances on survival in the modern world they are derived from it. Why do we have friends? In the wild a group of friends would likely increase your chances when hunting for food which you need for survival, would also help you in negative situations (increasing chance of survival), provide warmth in the cold (for survival), hold collectively more knowledge than you as an individual could (helping with, you guessed it, survival) Social activities of any kind can all be linked back to this. We do science to gain more knowledge about the world, knowledge that helps us to control the world better to benefit OUR SURVIVAL. Why should aliens be any different? What possible motives could they have that could not be linked directly or indirectly to survival?

[LaydeeDem]

I really wish people would stop automatically linking "Aliens" to UFOs. There are plenty of other wacky speculations that are just as plausible: Santa Claus, leprechauns, time travellers, Nth-dimensional beings, God or gods of your choice, underwater creatures, N.azis from the Moon, secret weapons of the CIA/NSA/KGB, the Illuminati, big foot, tooth fairies, etc...

Why do they have to be aliens ? The alien thing is 100% cultural bias.

Totally agreeing here, a big pet peeve of mine is that people jump right to "Aliens".

UFO means "Unidentified Flying Object"

All you need to be a UFO is to be unidentified, and flying.

Also, off topic,

Is the word "N.azi" really censored here?

....

Oh you gotta be kidding me KSPF

[Albert VDS]

With every claim, be it aliens, ghost, talking to the dead, etc. etc., there is one major flaw: if it was real it would be mainstream.

The vast majority of people would know of these things to be real and a lot effort would be put into gathering more concrete evidence

and a way to explain describe why, how and what.

[DeepOdyssey]

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

Common sense completely fail at understanding the quantum physics. We shouldn't use common sense as any denominator when it comes to advanced technology.

[Kryten]

With every claim, be it aliens, ghost, talking to the dead, etc. etc., there is one major flaw: if it was real it would be mainstream.

The vast majority of people would know of these things to be real and a lot effort would be put into gathering more concrete evidence

and a way to explain describe why, how and what.

That reasoning doesn't work-all views start out as 'non-mainstream', regardless of veracity.

[Camacha]

Common sense completely fail at understanding the quantum physics. We shouldn't use common sense as any denominator when it comes to advanced technology.

That is not any reason to believe in the most unlikely of explanations, as you could pretty much use it to justify anything. The fact that there is spaghetti in my cupboard and that I sometimes see people eat it on television does not mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real. You don't know how the Spaghetti Monster would use its magic powers! As someone said before, creating unfalsifiable circumstances is not a good practice at all.

You cannot just point at something complicated and say you don't know how it works without providing any substantiation.

[DeepOdyssey]

That is not any reason to believe in the most unlikely of explanations, as you could pretty much use it to justify anything. The fact that there is spaghetti in my cupboard and that I sometimes see people eat it on television does not mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real. You don't know how the Spaghetti Monster would use its magic powers! As someone said before, creating unfalsifiable circumstances is not a good practice at all.

You cannot just point at something complicated and say you don't know how it works without providing any substantiation.

Well yes i agree with your points, but these didn't contradict my argument. Im too for an conclusive argument that would finally probe an alien existence, whether its a detailed footage or a radio transmission. But given the humanity skepticism, we would never agree that alien races visit our planet, unless majority or population could see aliens in their own eyes. Even if you could capture a footage of alien craft, and be sure 100% positive that its extraterrestrial, public opinion wouldn't believe you. People would need individual encounter, or a vast amount of propaganda, to make them believe your data is correct. Thus i'm fairly positive we will never encounter aliens, unless they are the ones who would want to contact ourselves.

[Pingonaut]

I'm back, but not for too long.

Who says that is not done? The fact that no one has been able to produce proof that holds up when investigated means one thing - there is no good proof.

What is proof, exactly? Investigations certainly have produced evidence.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure its entirely valid to say that their motives would be that different to ours. Natural selection here on Earth has crafted a pretty specific and simple set of motives which there is very little variation on in the scheme of things. The behavior of every creature and culture on the planet can ultimately be traced back to one simple motive; survival, whether it be as an individual, a colony, a culture or an entire species. I would argue that almost every action taken by any living organism on the planet, conscious or unconscious, is driven by that compulsion to survive. Even if the actions do not have a direct impact on chances on survival in the modern world they are derived from it. Why do we have friends? In the wild a group of friends would likely increase your chances when hunting for food which you need for survival, would also help you in negative situations (increasing chance of survival), provide warmth in the cold (for survival), hold collectively more knowledge than you as an individual could (helping with, you guessed it, survival) Social activities of any kind can all be linked back to this. We do science to gain more knowledge about the world, knowledge that helps us to control the world better to benefit OUR SURVIVAL. Why should aliens be any different? What possible motives could they have that could not be linked directly or indirectly to survival?

Then why do we study animals in the wild today, why do we protect endangered species? Curiosity, as well. For a civilization that has achieved beyond the point of only surviving, why is it far fetched to believe that they would be doing things like we are? Nature preserves, studies on species and their development, etc.

[Camacha]

Even if you could capture a footage of alien craft, and be sure 100% positive that its extraterrestrial, public opinion wouldn't believe you. People would need individual encounter, or a vast amount of propaganda, to make them believe your data is correct.

This all sounds a little bit too much like something a disappointed conspiracist would say. We can prove it! Well, actually we can't, but if we would, you would not believe us! Why won't you believe us!

Call me optimistic, but I am certain that a single piece of good, solid evidence would sway a huge amount of scientists. There will naturally be a certain amount of scepticism to overcome, but that is only healthy. As has been stated, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Pingonaut]

With every claim, be it aliens, ghost, talking to the dead, etc. etc., there is one major flaw: if it was real it would be mainstream.

The vast majority of people would know of these things to be real and a lot effort would be put into gathering more concrete evidence

and a way to explain describe why, how and what.

As said above, that reasoning doesn't make any sense. The idea of Earth being a round ball of rock orbiting a ball of flame, which is just one of countless similar systems certainly wasn't mainstream for such a long time.

Sorry. That view has no basis in reality.

[Kryten]

The Loch Ness monster is known to not exist: full sonar sweeps have been done of the lake, multiple times, there's nothing in there. Regardless of that, there are plenty of blurry photos and eyewitness accounts, with more coming out every year. So here's something to start with; produce evidence more substantive than that for Nessie.