In a previous post I gave some ideas of what you should do if you observe something in the sky you can’t identify. I used “flying saucer” in the title of that blog, but I don’t want to restrict this to objects with such an obvious and questionable connotations, so I will use “unidentified flying object” or “UFO.” Terry Groff, an investigator for the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), DFW chapter, has suggested that we use the term “unidentified aerial phenomenon” of “UAP” which has the advantage of being more inclusive, but I will stick with UFO because this acronym is more recognizable.
Photo of high altitude weather balloon through telephoto lens by Thorinn Thorarinn Jonsson, used with permission.
I don’t know the exact statistics, but I would guess that 98-99 percent of all UFO reports, if investigated competently, would turn out to be natural or human-made phenomena. The other one or two percent, in my opinion (and that is all it is), probably would also turn out to be natural or human-made, but we simply do not have enough information to identify them. That said, however, there are a small percentage of reports that are not easy to dismiss and do not appear to be within our capability to explain with the available information. In no way am I implying that even those sightings are alien spacecraft or interdimensional travelers, nor do I personally believe that, but in the absence of other information to the contrary, it is not hard to understand how some observers could make that speculation. But that is as far as I will go with the UFO as alien spacecraft question.
So, of the natural and human-made phenomena reported as UFOs, what are the most common? I have been involved in astronomy education for 35 or more years, and here are the most common types of reports:
Astronomical and atmospheric phenomena
Venus. Aside from short-lived fireballs (see below) and perhaps an occasional comet, Venus is the brightest natural astronomical phenomena, other than the sun and moon, to be visible from earth. It is often bright enough to be visible in daylight. Although it is hard to find during daylight, when you do find it, it can appear quite prominent and it is easy to understand why someone unfamiliar with it would report it as a UFO. In the dark evening or morning sky (due to its orbit around the sun, never ventures more than about 47 degrees from the sun in the sky), it can be intensely bright, far brighter than any star or planet. Under certain conditions having to do with the human eye rather than Venus, it may even appear to move around slightly. Knowing when and where to look, anyone can easily find Venus in either the morning or evening sky most of any year. However, it typically is fairly low in a darkened sky, and due in large part to our increasingly urbanized lifestyle, many people have never seen it. So for someone to see it, expectedly for the first time, Venus can be quite spectacular and even bewildering.
Sirius. This is the brightest of all stars seen from earth. Although only one-eighteenth as bright as Venus at its brightest, Sirius definitely stands out. At a much higher temperature and emanating from what from earth appears a point source, the light from Sirius is different from that of Venus. Most notably, Sirius is far more susceptible to the fluctuations in the atmosphere that produce scintillation. In a word, Sirius twinkles. Because it is bright, comes from point source and is always relatively low in the sky (hence more susceptible to atmospheric variations), Sirius almost always twinkles to some extent and this is more noticeable than with an ordinary star. Sometimes it twinkles wildly and is susceptible to the eye-brain effect that can make it appear to move around slightly in the sky. Except for a few months when the Sun is too near, you can see Sirius at some time of night most of the year. But beginning in January each year, Sirius emerges into the early evening sky, low in the southeast. It is at the time that more people are likely to notice it, and it also is at this time (that is, when it is lowest in the sky), that it twinkles the most. Again, for someone unfamiliar with it, it can look quite odd.
Fireballs. In my experience, probably the single most common astronomical phenomena or object to be reported are bright meteors called fireballs or bolides. However, they aren’t often or perhaps even frequently reported as UFOs, as far as I am aware. But they are a phenomenon you should be able to rule out quickly. Although they are occasionally associated with predictable meteor showers, most fireballs tend to come quite unexpectedly and can be startling. Sometimes they can outshine a full moon and zip across the full width of the sky, and frequently are seen to break up or even explode. On very rare occasions the sound of the explosion might be heard. Fireballs are rare enough that for the casual observer a really memorable fireball can be the sighting of a lifetime. One was even seen and reported in broad daylight over Wyoming’s Grand Tetons in 1972. Most people recognize these as natural phenomena, bits of rock or metal from space that collide with Earth’s atmosphere and burn up. [Note that even those fireballs are definitely not alien spacecraft, please do report them to your nearest planetarium or observatory.]
Sundogs and other sky lights. Strange localized brightenings in the sky on either side of the sun called sundogs might fool some observers, especially they are seen with the sun otherwise obscured. Other, related phenomena such as sun pillar’s may sometimes evoke thoughts of mysterious origin, but I am not aware of any such reports. (For a great site about sundogs and other topics, see Atmospheric Optics.)
Birds and other flying animals. It seems hard to believe, but large numbers of migrating birds, seen high up and under the correct lighting conditions, can be misconstrued as something unnatural. While I have never actually experienced this, I do recall once long ago of being temporarily mesmerized by strange flashes of light while out with a group of students. Eventually I discovered that the flashes of light were happening as a bird (or was it a bat) intermittently flew into the beam of a light which was otherwise hidden from me. Most of the time the bird (bat) was too far and too fast to properly discern, but once the origin was discovered, it was quite obvious.
Other. Comets are sometimes associated with UFO reports and such, and they certainly can look mysterious, but comets typically these days become known to the media and publicized before they are widely visible to the public. Since most people know what they are as soon as they see them, to my knowledge they don’t generate many reports. (However, for information on Comet Hale-Bopp and its purported spaceship companion, see Phil Plait’s excellent Heaven’s Gate page at Bad Astronomy.) One phenomenon that likely would generate some early reports would be a supernova explosion somewhere in the Milky Way. This would be reported quite quickly in the media and I doubt that there would be many reports as a UFO after the first day or two.
Human objects
Airplanes. Of human-made objects, there is little doubt that airplanes generate the most reports. Generally speaking, airplanes are identifiable by their flashing lights, but when they are very high, these may be hard to discern. Anywhere within 50 miles or so of a major airport, or closer to smaller airports, and especially along a line draw down a runway (that is, inline with the runway), is high subject to the “airplane landing lights as UFO” phenomenon. Pilots often turn on the landing lights many miles out from the airport, and if you located in-line with a runway, you will see the lights, typically fairly low in the sky in a direction opposite the runway. At a distance the flashing lights may not be visible, so all you will see is a bright point of light that moves only very slowly. Depending on a number of factors, the light can appear low, then slowly rise a few degrees in the sky, then perhaps get lower again and sometimes suddenly disappear. For those not familiar with the phenomena, it can seem pretty weird. (The sudden cut off of the light may be because the pilot has changed directions for a different approach — close observation at this point may show the flashing lights, depending on distance and atmospheric conditions.)
Even people who claim to know all about airplanes and who “should” be able to recognize this phenomenon can be fooled. I have been called out on short notice to check a UFO sighting, only to find about a half-dozen people, mostly adults and some who claimed to be able to distinguish landing lights, standing in the middle of a street watching the nightly incoming flight from Seattle (or wherever).
In some, probably unusual and rare, incidences, experimental aircraft may elicit UFO reports because of their strange and exotic appearance. No doubt sightings of today’s “stealth” airplanes have generated UFO reports. I have seen, I think, the so-called “Donuts on a rope” phenomenon some feel is the result of a “black” aircraft in development. Certainly there could be many other instances of strange aircraft sightings.
Weather balloons. Weather balloons or perhaps even large advertising balloons, can fly high and shine bright. At great heights or distances they can appear bright and starlike. Lower down or close their shapes may be noticed. Often even in binoculars or small telescopes, they can appear odd, often translucent or even glowing. They can have shapes from round to lozenge-shaped to teardrop shaped with long pendant tails.
Generally they appear to move only very slowly, and usually in a rough west to east direction (although this certainly can vary due to local circumstances). Because they glow from reflected sunlight, they are most likely to be seen in western skies within a couple of hours after sunset; or in the east within a couple of hours before dawn.
Satellites in orbit. It is an unusual night that you don’t see several satellites crossing the sky anymore. Generally speaking, these are similar to high-flying aircraft except that they have no flashing lights and do not leave contrails. People unfamiliar with satellites might be prompted to report them as UFOs, but once having seen a few, they are not likely to be mistaken for anything else. One type of satellite, the Iridium satellites discussed in an earlier blog (See “23 times brighter than Venus!“), might generate more interest, however.
Space debris. Remember Skylab? Or the MIR space station? Old satellites, rocket boosters and bits of space debris can plummet back to earth in a brilliant display, that can be brighter, travel slower and be more impressive than even fireball displays (see above). These fairly rare observations still can generate UFO reports.
Hoaxes. Need I say more? There could be as many possibilities here as there are humans to think them up. One of the more interesting things I have heard reported is a hot-air balloon made from a clear dry cleaning bag, and illuminated by candles.
Other. There are too many possibilities here to even begin to list them, but in general things falling from airplanes, such as ice off the wings or accidental discharges from the lavatories (eeyew!) come to mind. Large sheets of plastic wrap or other trash, flying high and shining similarly to weather balloons are another possibility, although I don’t think I have ever heard of such a report. And the ever popular grand-opening spotlight, flying in circles onto a low cloud deck can sometimes be reported.
=========
So those are, I feel, the major natural or human-made phenomena and objects that are likely to be reported as UFOs.
My point is not to claim that all UFO sightings are the result of misinterpretations of natural of human-made objects and phenomena (although I do personally feel that this is a strong probability). My point is when you see something unusual in the sky, don’t automatically assume that it is evidence of intelligent beings from another world. There are many, far more likely explanations that you should check out first. If in the end you can find no reasonable explanation in known natural phenomena or human activity, then perhaps you will be justified in considering the more fantastic options — but just as possibilities, not as proven fact.
Larry Sessions
===========
You are allowed and encouraged to comment and to disagree with me, but you are required to be civil. Comments are moderated, which means that they will not show up until they have been approved. Please be patient.
Rude and offensive material will be removed. This is my blog, and I set the groundrules.
Larry,
What a lame article.
Fortunately, I persevered long enough to read some of your older postings and they made a lot more sense. But this one bites the big one.
First, I have a quibble with the UFO-interested community regarding the term “DEBUNKER.” In my opinion, the term “DEBUNKER” should be used for a person who legitimately, scientifically and honestly exposes a UFO report to be either a hoax or explainable as a known phenomenon. Those people who deny all evidence regardless of the facts should be called “DENIERS.”
I was born in 1947 so I never saw WWII. But I have pretty good evidence that it happened. I also have pretty good evidence that the WWII Holocaust happened. Yet there are people who deny that the Holocaust happened. We don’t call these people “debunkers,” we call them DENIERS. They DENY that the Holocaust happened despite the preponderance of evidence.
You, sir, are a UFO DENIER. You basically state in your posting of August 6 that, in your opinion, 100% of UFO reports would be explainable as natural or man-made if all the facts were able to be investigated.
If you cannot acknowledge by now that some well-studied and well-documented UFO cases defy all possible known explanations, you are being outrageously unreasonable and unscientific. The body of good evidence is now huge and undeniable by reasonable people.
Clearly the existence of unexplainable UFOs does not prove that they are “extraterrestrial” or that they are proof of life elsewhere in the universe. We don’t know what they are or where they came from. But if you are unable to acknowledge the existence of UFO evidence (and I mean the data that defies explanation after careful study), then perhaps YOU are the one that is being unscientific.
I was a student at the University of Michigan campus when the “swamp gas” sightings in nearby Chelsea were occurring, and I also remember vividly a radio interview Dr. J. Alan Hynek gave to WJR interviewer J.P. McCarthy many years later. Obviously you disagree with Dr. Hynek. But in fairness I think that you should make clear Dr. Hynek distinguished between what he could prove scientifically and what he might have thought was a possible explanation. You don’t have to believe that UFOs come from another dimension or parallel universe to acknowledge that UFOs exist. Dr. Hynek to my knowledge never claimed proof of what they were, but he did state that he could say with scientific certainty that they exist, they exhibit intelligent control, they avoid human interaction, and they often display seemingly “puerile” behavior.
As to the idea that “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence,” I agree, but it should always be added that debunkers must also be held to the same standard of evidence. Far too often the “debunkers” casually dismiss evidence they don’t want to believe without a whiff of good explanations of why they reject the evidence. That makes them DENIERS.
if another race far in space had the means to travel interstellar distances, avoid gamma ray bursts, comets asteroids,etc. and were to come to earth i doubt they would crash when they arrive. i also doubt they would fly thru the countryside with their lights blazing away. i mean even earthlings possess the tech to make aircraft invisible to radar and see in the dark. i have no doubt other life exists but i doubt they have visited us or crashed or abducted anyone.if they were to abduct someone they would choose a scientist or contact us directly. but common sense tells me they wouldnt overcome the obstacles of space travel just to bump into our atmosphere and loose control of the vehicle. i know its off your topic larry but i think its in line with the last comment.
are you in like 4th grade ???? Did you do ANY research at all before you wrote this inane article ???
Carl, you openly admit you didn’t read the entire article, so why are you commenting on it and why are you being such an ass about it? Had you read the article you’d find Larry never said what you seem to think he said. I suggest you read it again and rethink. But of course, being the big scientific type you make yourself out to be, you’d have known that to begin with.
As for the article, I think it’s very well written. I especially like that someone is finally pointing out that UFO does NOT mean “Alien Spacecraft” it means simply an object in the sky that cannot be identified. People just let their imaginations run wild, and obviously, thinking they’ve seen a real alien spacecraft, they don’t want to let that go. How many people can say they’ve seen aliens? It’s a story that I’d love to have, but I know the chances of that are very slim. Like Sam said, I doubt aliens would take all the time and energy to come here, then sit around in our atmosphere for a while and leave, or crash, or write symbols in our fields. If they took the time to come here and had something to say, I think they’d be a bit more direct about it, after all, I’m sure humans wouldn’t be shy about landing on an alien planet and making their presence known right off the bat.
Far to many people are looking to deny the existance of said (ufo) Why ? clearly the u.s. gov.is in a perpetual state of cover up,not only on this subject but many, is there really an area 51 that was denied for a very long time however we now know its there and they confirmed its existance, when then will they come clean with all matters of cover up…
I’m so tired of this ” 1 to 2 percent are unknowns” garbage. People are not that stupid. Yes mistakes are made but nowhere near those percentages. I’ve taken hundreds ,yes hundreds, of videos and pictures of unknown objects and not one of them is a bird, satellite or venus, yet they are solid objects moving through the sky in a manner unlike anything we are told exists. This does not mean they are alien in nature but they are real.
I thought it was good article.
I just wish there were more pictures, because I really liked the weather balloon photo. Thankfully I guess what it was before I read the caption.
I don’t think he’s really said anything new. I think its fairly commonly believed, even among the ufo community, that 85-90% of reported sightings probably have conventional explanations. So this is just going over what is likely for those 90% to be. More pictures would have been helpful so that people can reduce the number of reports that are actually conventional.
He’s not really stating anything different than Stan Friedman does, he’s just focusing on a different part of the pie, the 85-90% than the 10-15%.
Zephryus,
Of course I read the entire article, and I also read some of his earlier postings which were much more enlightened. In fact, the term “debunker” is a reference to one of Larry Sessions’ earlier postings.
Larry says he has been teaching Astronomy for about 35 years. But he just won’t directly come out and state point blank that there are well documented UFO incidents that defy all known natural and man-made explanations. He implies it, but he always backs down. What a wimp. He “guesses” that 98-99 per cent of UFO reports would have an explanation and then says “and the other 1 or 2 per cent probably have explanations.” No, he’s dead wrong on that point. He is a DENIER: there are many well-documented and studied cases that defy normal explanation.
You and I and Larry Sessions are in complete agreement on the point that the existence of unexplainable phenomena doesn’t prove much. All of our “explanations” are just wild speculation.
Wow, I wake up in the morning and once again find out how sensitive the idea of UFOs is. I have been aware of and have maintained an interest, if not a devoted study, of the UFO phenomena since I was a child in the 1950s. I have personally met Dr. Hynek several times, and have invited him here to Denver to give a talk (which was not too long before he passed away). I have had direct experience with people who have reported UFOs (but not, in my opinion, an alien spacecraft or being) and I personally have seen things in the sky that I cannot explain.
But I have no physical evidence of the existence of any artificially produced and undeniably extraterrestrial materials or artifacts. If anyone else does, they have not produced them for scientific inspection. There are intriguing photos and videos, but as such they are not sufficient evidence.
I did not personally experience World War II, either, but I believe it happened. I have seen the death chambers of the holocaust at Dachau. There is overwhelming physical evidence that it happened, as well as personal and consistent experiences of millions of people now living.
Nor have I ever personally seen air or radio waves or atoms, but I believe they exist because of their well-established effects.
Einstein never accepted the quantum world’s “spooky action at distance,” yet there is abundant evidence that it is true. In fact, other bizarre quantum effects such as the almost “magical” tunneling effect (a kind of subatomic StarTrek style “transporting”) are extremely well established although they fly in the face of classical physics. You are looking of evidence of them right now, as the computer on which these words are written and displayed — along with the rest of modern electronics — uses such effects to operate.
Things that we cannot see and which do not seem consistent with known physics certainly can exist. Quantum effects are a prime example. But when the evidence is abundant and undeniable, logic demands that you accept them as real, or at least the best approximation we have for now. No such abundant or undeniable evidence exists for the interpretation of UFOs as anything other than natural or human-made phenomena. This does not constitute proof that earth is not being, or has not been, visited by aliens and/or their spacecraft seen. But I am saying that from a scientific perspective, there is no good or compelling reason to assume this is true.
The UFO phenomena is fascinating and, I think, important enough to study, but in the glaring lack of any true or undeniable physical evidence — even after many, many years of study — it must remain in the province of speculation.
Despite some organizations that have been scientific in their approach, investigators who have cautiously examined thousands of cases, and decades of research around the world, the UFO phenomenon is unsolved. Whatever the ultimate truth of the situation is, the UFO topic today remains on a par with unproven physic phenomena and the search for Bigfoot.
Some folks feel that there is a conspiracy by the government or other agencies to hide the truth of alien visitation from us, and I certainly agree that our government and others have hidden important facts from the people. But there just is no credible evidence that the government has any proof of extraterrestrials visiting earth.
As Sam and Zephyrus noted, the logic of this kind of thinking is lacking. If aliens are visiting earth, we can handle it. If aliens are visiting earth, and want us to know, they could just land on the White House lawn and announce it to the world. Obviously they haven’t. Or if they don’t want us to see them, I am sure they could prevent it — yet there are so many reports of sightings. The argument that they are just giving us hints here and there of their presence, so as to get us used to the idea without scaring us too much, is just plain silly. You might say that it is puerile, something a 4th-grader might come up with.
The truth is, neither Carl’s “deniers” nor the “true believers” are open to logical argument. Logic and the scientific process demand that UFO reports be subject to the same requirements as any other phenomena. In other words, there needs to be scientifically valid evidence, and there just isn’t any such evidence — at least for now.
LS
because of your lack of common sense knowledge of space and energy in the universe you will not be able to open up to the fact that we are not alone in space, but like one of the commentors said, you really need to dig up more information about your topic and be able to give it a full open minded thought about it. Because of the undiscovered powers of our minds we haven’t yet be able to open our eyes to the universe.Untill we discover to use our own inner energy and the energy of our living planet will remain as we are….Im sure that some of our asnimals are able to sense them when they are around….Just think about it….Magic creatures we are. How much to believe makes the difference…..
When we have the ability to travel easily from our planet to any other in the galaxy, then I will believe that aliens could have visited earth. I do not doubt for one second that at least one other planet in the universe contains intelligent life, but to think that they would come to earth simply to wander around without being seen is ridiculous. After all, did europeans carefully hide themselves when they came to the New World? no, they went right out and made their presence known, then went about accomplishing their “mission”, namely taking all the native’s property and valuables. Some nut in New Mexico who saw a glittery piece of plastic and some wooden struts doesn’t count as evidence for alien presence, as that’s exactly what the big wreckage from Roswell is, plastic and wood.
Since I am having a little problem posting things right now, I’ll put several responses in this one post:
Jeff,
You are entirely correct that there is nothing new here. I didn’t claim that there was. If I had done a tutorial on, say the laws of Newton, I wouldn’t need new material, but there is always the chance to rephrase something to make it more understandable or more accessible.
The point is that there will always be people out there who come along and read something for the first time. So it doesn’t really matter whether they read something in what I have posted or essentially the same thing in what someone else has written. I think it is important, if not original, information.
As far as the photos go, I agree that more would be better, but this is a blog, not a magazine article. I don’t get paid for it and I don’t have a budget for it and I don’t use photos I don’t have permission to use. I could have spent more time finding legitimate photos to link to, granted and perhaps I should have, but again this is a blog, not a research project. If you know of some good ones to link to, let me know and maybe I can get them linked into the blog.
And as I think you understand, but apparently some people don’t, I am not trying to “deny” the possibility of alien visitations (I do, however, remain highly skeptical on this). My point is to give people alternate and probably more likely explanations.
LS
=====
Carl,
I will not get into a nit-picking semantic argument with you over “denier” or “debunker”. I leave the door open to the idea of UFOs as alien spacecraft visitations, but for me no alien has ever walked through that door and if one ever did, I would demand reasonable evidence that he (she, it) originated somewhere other than earth. I believe that there is a strong chance of intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe, but I have no evidence that any such lifeforms have visited earth and therefore remain skeptical. I have heard stories, rumors and speculations from many people, often with photos but never with any demonstrably alien artifacts or other scientifically valid evidence. Without such physical evidence, claims of UFOs as alien visitations are just hearsay. If and when any such evidence turns up, I will be thrilled to accept UFO aliens as reality. Until then, the small percentage (whatever it is) of unidentifieds will remain UFOs, and as such cannot be used as evidence of alien life.
LS
=====
AJ,
What exactly is your definition of “common sense knowledge of space and energy in the universe”?
I am open to life elsewhere in the Universe. In fact I find it very likely. It may be that such life has knowledge and abilities far beyond our own. Arthur Clarke once said something about a sufficiently high technology appearing like magic to a civilization with lower technology. I have no doubt that such would be the case. However, the bottom line is that there is not one shred of actual evidence that such life exists beyond earth. I do honestly believe that someday we will receive such evidence, and in fact I am rather surprised that after decades of searching, so far none has been found.
If such a civilization were to discover a way to overcome the known and enormous barriers to efficient interstellar flight (and yes, it may be possible that there are ways around those barriers that we have not demonstrated or have not discovered yet), then their appearance at earth might well seem “magical.”
But I’m not going to talk about “magic” and unproven powers of mind. If you have reasonable proof of such things and they are susceptible to the laws of science, please have them tested and provide such proof. I would be the first to jump on the bandwagon if someone provided a method whereby we could “travel” through space or time via some “universal mind” or other mental technique.
By the way, I also have had a few instances of what some people might consider telepathy, precognition or other psychic phenomena. However, these things have never been under my control, nor repeatable. I would absolutely love for them to be true and I am certainly not absolutely convinced that no forms of psychic powers exist, but again I have no undeniable evidence of them. As such I cannot honestly ascribe the things I have experienced to anything more exotic than coincidence.
LS
=====
Zephyrus,
Thank you. Very well put. Some people feel that science is overly negative (and undeniably some scientists, being human, are negative) because it does not support their particular viewpoint. That’s too bad, because the role of science is parallel to what most people feel religion is all about — to discover the truth. Denying the truth in the face of overwhelming evidence is foolish and potentially dangerous, but so is accepting some idea when no good evidence exists. In both cases the mind is closed to other ideas. And both types of people will label everyone who doesn’t share their opinions as nay-sayers, nuts or worse. I want the truth, whether it pleases me or conforms to my preconceived ideas.
LS
=====
Mark,
I said I was just guessing on the percentage of reports unidentified, based on figures I have seen elsewhere. It may well not be that high. But I must ask, if all you have are photos and videos of unknown objects, how do you know that none are birds, satellites or Venus? And in fact how do you know that any of them are solid? If you do not have a physical object to examine, on what do you base those claims? Just by what they look like to you, or how they appear to move?
Yes, it’s true that we have made assumptions, based on known physical laws, about objects that we have not physically touched, including the planets (before we visited them) and stars. But those assumptions are based on known physical laws. Some information can be derived from photos and videos, true, but you cannot establish beyond all doubt what some unknown object is based on a photo or video by one person. Now if there were various verifiable photos of the same object from reasonably separated locations, you might derive more information, but frankly photos and videos, especially today, are so easily manipulated that images alone are weak evidence at best.
LS
OK Larry, Your article was interesting. I don’t have physical evidence for proof, but I sure would like to hear your explanation for what I personally witnessed in 1989.
A spherical object at an altitude of 50-75 feet and approximately 20 ft diameter, emitting a pulsating red-orange light, peaking of light intensity was associated with some kind of increase in energy field like static as I could feel it with the hair on my head and arms. The object also appeared “fuzzy” at those times. It was almost directly overhead for a short while before suddenly shooting off at great speed.
None of your explanations would seem to fit.
AJ, in your comment:
“Untill we discover to use our own inner energy and the energy of our living planet”
I don’t understand what “inner energy” has to do with the subject, nor what it is or how it would help.
Your other comment:
“because of your lack of common sense knowledge of space and energy in the universe you will not be able to open up to the fact that we are not alone in space”
I think Larry shows good knowledge about this topic and has researched and studied it enough to make for a good discussion, and as for you claiming he’s narrow-minded by thinking we’re alone in the universe, he actually made no comment at all about whether or not he believes in Extra Terrestrials. He was only focusing on UFO sightings and what they would be, showing that he believes we have not been visited by them. Here’s a quote from his other article, How to Watch a Flying Saucer, which may help you to better understand his position on the subject:
“I also believe that there are ETs out there somewhere, probably many ETs many places. Based on what we know, statistically it seems very likely.”
Carl, in response to your comment:
“You, sir, are a UFO DENIER. You basically state in your posting of August 6 that, in your opinion, 100% of UFO reports would be explainable as natural or man-made if all the facts were able to be investigated.
If you cannot acknowledge by now that some well-studied and well-documented UFO cases defy all possible known explanations, you are being outrageously unreasonable and unscientific. The body of good evidence is now huge and undeniable by reasonable people.”
Larry IS acknowledging that there are some UFO cases which have not been explained. If you read all of the post as you claimed, you would have seen that he didn’t say 100% ARE natural or man-made, he said:
“I don’t know the exact statistics, but I would guess that 98-99 percent of all UFO reports, if investigated competently, would turn out to be natural or human-made phenomena. The other one or two percent, in my opinion (and that is all it is), probably would also turn out to be natural or human-made, but we simply do not have enough information to identify them.”
He didn’t boldly state that the small percent we can not explain are not ETs, he said we have no true evidence, scientific or otherwise, to prove that they are ETs. As for the “well-documented” “good evidence” you speak of to make UFOs undeniable (I would say ETs, rather than UFOs, because that’s what it seems like you’re implying, although you never really say what you think they are, you just state that you believe in the UFOs that can not be explained) I wonder where this evidence is. I have seen nothing to lead me (or the reasonable people of the world) to believe that it is undeniable that ETs exist. I can agree with Larry that there are some UFOs that have been sighted but with lack of enough information to determine what they are. Those are up to speculation, but in comparison, if I am in the woods on a full moon night and I see something run by me faster than I thought any animal in the woods can move, with an unidentifiable shape, I can either say that it was probably a wolf and I couldn’t see it that clearly because it was dark and the creature was fast, or I can say that it was a wherewolf since I don’t know enough about it to prove otherwise. I’m not going to jump to conclusions until I have logical scientific information, so I suppose that makes me a DENIER of anything that does not have a logical scientific explanation.
Hello Larry,
Here goes.
From the Larry Sessions Aug 6th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Wow, I wake up in the morning and once again find out how sensitive the idea of UFOs is. I have been aware of and have maintained an interest, if not a devoted study, of the UFO phenomena since I was a child in the 1950s. I have personally met Dr. Hynek several times, and have invited him here to Denver to give a talk (which was not too long before he passed away). I have had direct experience with people who have reported UFOs (but not, in my opinion, an alien spacecraft or being) and I personally have seen things in the sky that I cannot explain.
I have never met Dr. Joseph Allen Hynek either but I have read some of his work. His story is an interesting metamorphosis from Debunker to Informed Skeptic (Skeptic in the original Dr. Marcello Truzzi sense of the word). I believe that he had some theories but kept an open mind. Do you?
But I have no physical evidence of the existence of any artificially produced and undeniably extraterrestrial materials or artifacts. If anyone else does, they have not produced them for scientific inspection. There are intriguing photos and videos, but as such they are not sufficient evidence.
Your use of language is very good. I especially like the way you insinuate words in you restatements or response that were not there to begin with for easy refutation. “Undeniably?” By whom? Under what pre-stated conditions?
Operational Definition, anyone? Did Dr. Deming lay down a gauntlet that fellow PhDers are afraid to pick up? An Operational Definition is something that reasonable people can agree on. It consists of a criterion or criteria to be applied to an object, idea, or group; A test of the object, idea, or group; and a Decision as to whether or not the object, idea, or group did or did not meet the criterion or criteria. I am just working on my PhD and even I know this. So, for skeptics and Deniers, where is your operational definition? Without them, your denials amount to intellectual bullying. Columbine anyone?
I, too, think some physical evidence would settle the argument once and for all. Now, I doubt it. Short of a working craft replete with pilot, co-pilot, flight engineer, navigator, RIO, and stewardess I do not see evidence being accepted. Look how long it took for 1800s Astronomers to accept the theory that large rocks fell from the sky. When confronted with a large rock in a French field still war, it was thought to be a hoax. Why? Because the “Authorities” obey Jones’ First Law. That Law states that “Given a choice or free agency decision opportuntiy, that people tend to choose the ‘Easy Way‘ out. The Easy Way out is not always the right way.” I created this term in the 1980s after reading about Sir Arthur Clarke’s 3 laws.
There have been unrefuted claims of physical evidence and artifacts. Some have been subjected to chemical analysis. There have been reports from chemists that the provided artifacts do not conform to known chemical or metallurgical practices. That does not mean that they are from Tau Ceti but it should stop unwarranted and unfounded criticism that there have been no physical evidence found.
Several digital videos of Phoenix Lights were analyzed by experts and the light spectrum signature does not conform to First Law explanations of flares. This should engender more investigation among qualified authorities. Has IT?
I did not personally experience World War II, either, but I believe it happened. I have seen the death chambers of the holocaust at Dachau. There is overwhelming physical evidence that it happened, as well as personal and consistent experiences of millions of people now living.
But Carl’s point was that despite all this which you agree to, there are some who Deny.
Nor have I ever personally seen air or radio waves or atoms, but I believe they exist because of their well-established effects.
“I have never seen…”seems to follow a pattern of “If I haven’t done it then I can’t claim expertice.” Example is that lack of pigmentation precludes any plausible comment dealing with racism…a much over-used term.
I am guilty of some of this. I was born in Gary, Indiana and saw racism first hand daily for years. No one can tell me anything about racism. I suffered as a result of discrimination.
Einstein never accepted the quantum world’s “spooky action at distance,” yet there is abundant evidence that it is true. In fact, other bizarre quantum effects such as the almost “magical” tunneling effect (a kind of subatomic StarTrek style “transporting”) are extremely well established although they fly in the face of classical physics. You are looking of evidence of them right now, as the computer on which these words are written and displayed — along with the rest of modern electronics — uses such effects to operate.
Things that we cannot see and which do not seem consistent with known physics certainly can exist. Quantum effects are a prime example. But when the evidence is abundant and undeniable, logic demands that you accept them as real, or at least the best approximation we have for now. No such abundant or undeniable evidence exists for the interpretation of UFOs as anything other than natural or human-made phenomena. This does not constitute proof that earth is not being, or has not been, visited by aliens and/or their spacecraft seen. But I am saying that from a scientific perspective, there is no good or compelling reason to assume this is true.
I agree with your statement “or at least the best approximation we have for now.” That is good, scientific method at play. I disagree with your statement about “Compelling reason…” There are compelling reasons to believe that Lonnie Zamora did not see Venus or an off-course LEM. Hynek thought this case was one of the best. You had a trustworthy eyewitness. You had physical environmental interaction with something, you had trace elements. You had testimony from the Government that they were not flying LEMs in that area. You had testimony from other people that something took off. It was not even a flying saucer! It was egg-shaped.
I disagree with your phrase, “No such abundant or undeniable evidence…” Close examination of many accepted events produce a dearth of explainable evidence. Consider a controversial example: the Little Big Horn battle. We have eyewitness accounts from survivors. We have eyewitness accounts from Amer-Indians. We have a well marked geographical area. We have physical evidence. We do not have a fool-proof, air-tight explanation or description of accounts that took place. We do not agree on even how many participated! Why?
So, the Null is “UFOs do not exist?” or is the Null “UFOs are not explainable by current, natural phenomena.”
The UFO phenomena is fascinating and, I think, important enough to study, but in the glaring lack of any true or undeniable physical evidence — even after many, many years of study — it must remain in the province of speculation.
It is not “Speculation.” It is a fact. People see things which aren’t swamp gas or ball lightening or weather balloons or Venus. These UAPs interact with Jet Liners and radar and humans. I do not recall any 747s veering away from a temperature inversion. I do not recall Venus radiation burning two women in Texas. There are a lot of scientific anomalies. Kuhn, himself, wrote that when too many anomalies built up then it was time for a new theory with explained the anomalies as well as all the other previous observations and data.
Despite some organizations that have been scientific in their approach, investigators who have cautiously examined thousands of cases, and decades of research around the world, the UFO phenomenon is unsolved. Whatever the ultimate truth of the situation is, the UFO topic today remains on a par with unproven physic phenomena and the search for Bigfoot.
“…remains on par with unproven physic phenomena…” Oh! Please! I am in a PhD level Critical Thinking course right now. Have you ever heard of logical fallacies? Ad Hominem? Strawman? Or about 49 others? You claim to be a scientist. Then write like one!!
Some folks feel that there is a conspiracy by the government or other agencies to hide the truth of alien visitation from us, and I certainly agree that our government and others have hidden important facts from the people. But there just is no credible evidence that the government has any proof of extraterrestrials visiting earth.
Lets do an Einstein Gedanken. Lets say that somehow an F-111 somehow wound up in 1918. Could the United States have made use of the technology? Too fantastic? Okay, lets say that a Spanish Caravel blew over to Yucatan in 1490 during the Reconquista. Would Mayan experts have been able to make use of their fantastic technology? Could they have constructed ships? Could their metal smiths have made rifles? Or swords? What kind of cultural arrogance makes us think that a downed craft hundreds of years in advance of our technology can make use of it? It would take decade to study it. The Mayans, in 1490 did not have that long. The Chinese were there with metal and firearms in 1428 but the sightings of the Mayan villagers was probably dismissed as a dream or Pulque intoxication. Mushrooms, anyone?
“…I certainly agree …But there is just no credible evidence…” There you go again with that phrase “credible evidence.” You draw it like Billy the Kid drew his six gun. What does it mean? Credible to whom? What constitutes good evidence to you? A dead alien? Oh. Excuse me. I forgot that dead aliens are just Hollywood special effects. Hoax! We certainly have a lot of practical jokers in America. We are not productive enough. People with too much time on their hands faking such things for free. Crop Circles anyone?
As Sam and Zephyrus noted, the logic of this kind of thinking is lacking. If aliens are visiting earth, we can handle it. If aliens are visiting earth, and want us to know, they could just land on the White House lawn and announce it to the world. Obviously they haven’t. Or if they don’t want us to see them, I am sure they could prevent it — yet there are so many reports of sightings. The argument that they are just giving us hints here and there of their presence, so as to get us used to the idea without scaring us too much, is just plain silly. You might say that it is puerile, something a 4th-grader might come up with.
“…they could just land on the White House lawn…” OHHH! Please! What cultural arrogance to use a phrase like that! No. Please. Not the “White House lawn” ploy.
“Not room 101.” What with 9/11 that would be the last place to land unless you wanted to get blown to smithereens by trigger-happy “jack-booted thugs.” OMG! That got G. Gordon Liddy in trouble. ?
I think that the only thing you can assert about this preceding paragraph is that sightings are inconsistent. Some exhibit radar tracks, and some do not. Why? Some are on radar but cannot be seen and vice versa. Why? Some sightings report physical interaction like burns and indentations and charred shrubbery and some do not. Some sightings exhibit electrical and/or magnetic effects and some do not.
“the argument that they are just giving…” How do you boil a frog? In a pan of cold water, you gradually turn up the heat. How do you get a society use to something? You do it gradually. “Line upon Line. Precept upon precept.” Some people are afraid of heights. Do you shoot them to the top? Or do you lift them gradually so they can adapt? Do not be too dismissive of your fellow PhDers research on the social effects of horses and firearms on the Aztecs in 1528. And please do recall the Indonesian Cargo Cult phenomena.
The truth is, neither Carl’s “deniers” nor the “true believers” are open to logical argument. Logic and the scientific process demand that UFO reports be subject to the same requirements as any other phenomena. In other words, there needs to be scientifically valid evidence, and there just isn’t any such evidence — at least for now.
You are the scientist. You are an expert. I have a question which I would like for you to answer in front of all your readers. Do not belittle them with dismissals of “Its too technical..”
What constitutes evidence? Drop the “White House Lawn” crap.
What is your Operational Definition of UAPs?
How many anecdotes constitute a sample and are thus subject to statistical analysis?
Are we so sure that after 60 years of this stuff that we haven’t been subject to experiments using control groups and double-blind studies?
Hi, Isaw1! Your description certainly would not seem to be something that could be easily explained with natural or human-made phenomena. However, without corroborating evidence, it will have to remain as an event for you, but not evidence of any kind of alient visit to earth.
Now, I am not saying that you were hallucinating or making anything up — I wasn’t there and I did not experience what you saw. But I hope you can understand that there have been many instances of people claiming to see something when they really were having a hallucination (drug induced or otherwise), or else they simply made the whole thing up. I could claim that I saw bigfoot and he (?) took me to his underground burrow and fed me a gourmet dinner of grubs and berries. (%^}. But if I don’t have proof of it, it would just be my word for it. *I* might believe it and at least in my mind “know” it was true, but why should anyone else believe me if I can’t prove such an outlandish story?
Karl Popper, and maybe others, suggested that in order for some idea to be considered scientifically, it must be falsifiable. In other words, it must be possible at least in theory to prove something wrong. Since I have no way of proving you wrong — that is, I have no evidence to prove that you did not see what you claim you did see — then your claim cannot be considered as scientific evidence for anything. Certainly that does not mean that you were lying or hallucinating. Not at all. It just means that since there is no chance that what you said can be disproved (presumably there were no other witness and it is too far back in time to investigate the scene), your story cannot be used as proof of alien spacecraft (or whatever it was) in a scientific study. Anyone is free to believe whatever they want, but if they can’t give proof, it cannot be accepted scientifically.
LS
Hi Larry … I think your article in very good, and sheds light on any number of ‘other’ means which could be and often are misconstrued as unidentified objects. I, too, have had a recent experience with one such unidentified object; however, I feel I understand what it is, although its origin may be unknown. Flying objects exist .. and some that don’t actually fly, but more or less, cross the border between dimensions, at least in my spehere of understanding. That is what I feel I videotaped last month .. you can check it out — http://www.youtube.com/beeshot or our website - http://www.ufotrax.com. Sorry, Larry, but I’m a ‘dyed in the wool’ believer and have been for some years. Wasn’t a satellite, or a plane or a meteor, or Venus, or a star… appeared to be a living entity, and if I didn’t see it in the spotting scope with my own eyes, I wouldn’t have believed it either. O.K. off my soapbox, and just want to end with .. people need to know the info you posted in today’s blog because … ’stuff’ happens. But .. the real thing happens, too. Be blessed, Larry.
Dolphyn
Dolphyn,
Thank you for your comment. I appreciate the fact that your comment is civil and that you did not effectively invite me out for a duel. I am perfectly happy to correspond to “dyed int he wool believers” who are not rude or insulting. (I would like to become a believer myself, but I won’t hold my breath for the evidence necessary.)
I watched your video, and I presume that the night-time portion is oriented toward the mountain (Mt. Adams looks amazingly like Rainier). My guess is that you are to the south of the mountain, looking north.
Now, as to what was making the light, I do not know. I was not there with you, so all I have to go on is your description and the video. I can say that I have personally experienced similar sights in the Colorado mountains, which turned out to be car headlights on a road descending the mountain. I doubt that there are roads on Mt. Adams, so that probably is not it, per se. But aren’t their mountain climbers or even campers at this time of year? I’m not sure they would camp overnight, but at least that would seem a possible solution and far more likely than more exotic sources. What about some kind of seismic station that might have lights? Just thoughts.
There are also geological processes that could produce light, although my suspicion is that if there were enough activity in general for that, the geologists would be raising alarms. There has been some recent activity, including some very small rumblings on Mounts Adams since the 6th of July (last bit of data I saw), but I doubt any geologic origin of the light.
I cannot tell you exactly what the light was, but as for the video, I can say something. If history is any guide, you probably won’t like what I have to say here, but I have been familiar with optical instruments all my life (I got my first telescope 50 years ago). I am not trained specifically in optics, but I have seen this a thousand times. What you (or whoever on the video) describes as looking organic (I think that was the word used), looks exactly like a point or near point source of light out of focus. The very fact that at one point you (or whoever) focuses the camera and the light gets smaller, brighter and more point-like is a dead giveaway to that. The organic-looking aspect of the unfocused light is absolutely normal as a result of the optics used in the scope (or camera lens). With most camera lenses, the unfocused point source of light looks a bit like a big fuzzy peach or one-celled animal (although of course color will vary with the source). In your video, the unfocused image shows a flat edge at the top, which is due to some object in the optical train, quite possibly an edge on a mechanical iris (an device that produces an adjustable size hole for light to go through, usually consisting of a number of thin, flat metal plates that slide across each other in a circular pattern). Of course this says nothing about what the light on the mountain was, but that organic appearance had nothing inherently to do with the light. All that I can say for sure about the light is that it was small enough and far enough away to appear more or less like a point source.
Again, thanks for sharing your report. While I don’t feel that there is anything exotic or oterh worldly about it — who knows for sure? Certainly not me.
LS
Dear Buddy in Huntsville
I am not going to spend my day defending the blog or my comments. I stand by them, but I am not going to get into an discussion as to the meaning of words. My goal was to provide people with information on the common objects and phenomena that often give rise to UFO reports, not to say that there is no such thing as alien life, nor to deny any possibility that such life has visited the earth or may have given rise to some UFO reports. What I did say is that I have seen no evidence that is convincing to me of the extraterrestrial origin of any UFO report. That does not mean that I think it is impossible, just that I do think it unlikely and in any event there is no evidence of such that I have seen or that has been accepted by the scientific community at large. Granted there are individuals in all walks of life, probably including scientists, who are convinced that they have experienced some kind of contact with an alien spacecraft (or in variations, time or interdimensional travelers). However, being convinced of something — however real it is for the individual — does not constitute valid scientific evidence. You are free to believe what you want.
By the way, which “Huntsville” is it?
Hello to all who wrote. I liked Larry’s opening account and thank him for a sensible account. I was also impresed with the intelligent and well-written comments concerning L’s treatise. It is pleasing to read the understandings and beliefs of informed people. We often get much on the net which is less than enlightning. Not only on the net but on TV, newspapers, magazines etc. I incourage all to respect the opinions of others and criticize their “facts” rather than their beliefs. Isn’t it permissable to believe anythings we want, but as has been stated by others, “no one have a right to be wrong in their facts.”
I am an old man, over 80 now and am constantly impressed by so many of our younger people who have learned and are learning so many wonderful aspects of science, and are willing to pass that learning on. Hopefully we can all learn from each other. Respect others and respect truth when found!
People see airplanes, helicopters and birds nearly every day of their lives. Most of these folks can be relied upon to know the difference between say… a Boeing 747 and a stop sign wrapped around a teapot. So unless you or I were standing right next to them, we can either take them at their word that it was odd and/or unidentifiable or we can dismiss them out of hand because we think we already know all the answers.
Of course, we don’t truly know what UFOs are and no, I’m not talking about the swamp gas and Venus (the planet and the razor). The genuine unidentified flying object is just that; Unidentified. Following that, a genuine UFO researcher keeps and open mind and a genuine debunker locks up shop and sends his/her mind home wrapped in newspaper.
Oh… and yes, that’s just my opinion… but I’ll stand with it.
I agree that most are misidentifications and people should have a working knowledge of what they are looking at. But, who the heck are you to say 98 percent are misidentifications and the rest of the percentage is too?? What a flipped out dork, you [DELETED] stay out of this subject because you have no idea what the heck you are talking about. Wait tell you see one, you [DELETED], and then hear some dork say, they are not real. What we seen was no misidentification it was a very real other world craft or thing, unlike you who is not real about this. You [DELETED]!!!!
Hello Larry … Thank you so kindly for your reply. I guess … in my effort to ‘not write a novel’, I didn’t explain myself clearly
The object in the sky was really our main focus and was separate from what was happening on Mt. Adams. While everyone else was hooting at the lights on the mountain, we were checking out the spectacle in the sky. FYI .. we were in the field at the Sattva Sanctuary. Mt. Adams was in front of us, which I believe is north.
The light object we videotaped was in the western sky above a dividing tree line. And, there were three other witnesses besides Astoria and myself. While I kept the object in the camera, Astoria had it in a spotting scope. I, too, looked at it in the spotting scope and it indeed was undulating, moving, looking like a living chandelier. Never saw anything like it in my life.
The lights on Mt. Adams were another thing all together. While people were whooping and hooting at the mountain, this ‘object’ was doing its thing in the western sky.
Very few people noticed it. And .. toward the end before we lost it .. we saw lights coming out of it .. for a second or two, coming out of the top. It doesn’t show on the video, but Astoria saw it through the scope. We have about 26 minutes of it on tape from when we first noticed it until it disappeared.
The object came in and went out by itself, except for a few times when I first turned on the camera and I tried to get it into focus. The in and out was not my moving the telefoto in and out … this object came close and moved back on its own.
As for the lights on the mountain itself … take this little story into consideration, if you don’t mind — After we lost the western sky object, we watched the mountain and saw numerous lights .. looked like in the same general vicinity on the lower right of the mountain. We grew tired and went to sleep. Around 2 or 3 am, I was awakened by a brilliant flash inside the motor home like someone took my picture. I poked my head up and looked out the window ( I was on the side facing the mountain). I saw lights firing off on the mountain like crazy, left, right, top, etc, but did not see anyone outside with a flash or camera, nor did I hear anyone. I laid back down. That’s when I saw this brilliant, tiny white light on the ceiling; it looked like a teeny star. I watched it for a moment or so, and saw it move to three different places on the ceiling and wall (it may not have actually been on the ceiling, but that is what I can use for reference). I tried to wake up Astoria to ask if she saw it, too, as soon as I spoke, it disappeared.
Life is interesting, Larry … but far be it from me to be so bold as to say .. “We are the only intelligent life
” I felt connected in a small way to the big picture. Pretty cool experience.
Be blessed, Larry and.. thank you
Dolphyn
Thanks, Ted. I appreciate your comment. I certainly believe that everyone has the right to believe anything they want and to conduct their lives accordingly — as long as it does no harm to other people or the environment. To kind of paraphrase something from an old movie (”The Day the Earth Stood Still”), we have rights, but not the right to act irresponsibly. Being uncivil is irresponsible, but unfortunately it has become all too common in this day.
LS
PS. You aren’t an old man. I recently heard that 60 is the new “40,” and 80 is the new “60.” That’s comforting to me as I rapidly approach 60!
Hey Carl:
Please list a couple of these “well-studied and well-documented UFO cases (that) defy all possible known explanations.” I’d like to see them.
I have never seen a ghost. I do not believe such phenomena exists. However, I
do believe that some people believe that they have experienced the phenomena.
IF I ever saw one for myself, I would expect I would become a ‘believer’ that
they exist. Previously I did not believe that UFOs existed. But after the first
very dramatic observation, my belief sytem became immediately reversed. Someone who has not had such an experience tends to rationalize that those that have are irrational.
I am a 70 yr. old retired professional commercial pilot with over 14,000 flight hours.
My education includes two college courses in astronomy. I designed and built my own
telescope to view the great-beyond. So I have a pretty good idea of what’s ‘out there’. And naturally I am very familiar with about all of the known man-made air
and space-craft hardware and their operational characteristics.
In my life time I have observed visually, and in the first instance heard, four
different so-called UFOs. None of the four were alike at all. All were very
different from each other. They were all relatively close at less than a three
mile range. Three were seen in the day time, one at night. One of the day-time
observations was while airborne with an aeronautical engineer aboard. This one
was observed through 10 x 25 binoculars at about a two mile range. Very clearly
seen. To say that the engineer’s ‘belief-system’ was severely challenged would
be an under-statement. He was very upset at seeing something he did not believe
existed.
These craft were just as real appearing as if they had been conventional aircraft.
I find it rather strange that a qualified person can report observation of a known
craft and their veracity will not likely be challenged. But if the same person
observes an un-conventional craft, all kinds of excuses are brought forward by so-called ‘experts’, such as yourself, to discredit the observation.
I certainly have no explanation for their existence. I have no evidence to
present. Lack of physical evidence is not proof that they do not exist. I saw a
certain kind of car at the post office today, but I can’t prove it!
They have been, do, and will continue to be observed. The scientific community needs
to get their ‘act’ together to investigate their reality instead of denying it.
I have seen many other kinds of strange aerial phenomena from the surface and while airborne. Most professional rational people educated and experienced in a knowledge discipline can usually distinguish between what is normal and abnormal phenomena, even if it is strange and not immediately explainable.
I love how “scientists” will make claims about the lack of evidence and no physical samples, etc. There are indeed many, many physical traces, images from space, photos, video, credible eyewitness reports from police, US Presidents, military, astronauts, etc. Don’t believe me? Ask any commercial pilot if they have seen anything. I bet anyone with some experience will say yes…then ask if they reported it.
The fact is that nearly everywhere else in the world accepts this as common knowledge. It is the USA which seems to be in denial here…Why don’t you research the EU appeal to the US to release ufo info? How about Mexico? Brazil? The real travesty is that there is no scientific infrastructure in which research is actually done. Which university studies these things? None. Rather than waiting for that proof to arrive at your door…or the ufo to land at the white house…why not do a little more research? IF this is true, it will be one of the most complex stories and situations ever known to man…lets not simplify such things or trivialize them by even attempt to understand motives which by definition are alien.
Now I don’t want to diminish your article because it is correct in the context it was written in. However, such a powerful idea as others visiting earth demand not only the burden of proof but the burden of intelligent attention along with an open mind. There is clearly a lot going on with this phenomenon and it (rightfully so) stirs the passions of those who desperately want to believe and those who desperately want to not believe. I am not claiming I know any more than the average Joe…my only contention is that REAL scientists need to study this stuff…everyone waits for the burden of proof yet no one is looking. Thanks for reading my rant.
Jeremy
Dolphyn,
Thanks for the additional information. Taking your description word for word, all I can say is that what you describe is nothing I could identify as natural or human-made. Since there were several other witnesses at the time, maybe your report will carry more weight than otherwise. However, I have made what comments I can about the video, and I don’t think it makes any difference whether it was of the lights on the mountain or the other light.
What I suggest that you do is contact some local reputable organization. Go to this website and find the closest contact to you:
http://www.mufon.com/washington.html
You might also want to go to the Cener for UFO Studies and make a report with them:
http://www.cufos.org/
I really wish I could offer you more, but that’s about it. And life really is interesting, isn’t it. And a mystery. Did you know that the Lakota words usually translated as “Great Spirit” and used for God are “wakan tanka,” which can also be translated as “Great Mystery.” That’s what life is, Wakan Tanka, the Great Mystery.
Good luck.
LS
In my opinion UFO’s are definitely Alien spaceships and the government is definitely up to something. Roswell was a crashed Alien Spaceship and the government covered the whole thing up. They hid everything at Area 51. Just think about it, loads of UFO sightings are seen in many places over the world and nobody - not even a scientist - can write every single one of the sightings (and not to mention many Alien Abduction and Alien Contact cases) off. We’ve all heard so called scientists make guess work at what a UFO really is. Hey…that’s it! Scientists are part of the Alien/UFO Government Conspiracy Cover Up too! Or maybe for some weird reason they think they’ll loose their “Scientific Reputation”. In my opinion Aliens exist and they definitely visit Earth. But that’s just my opinion… The truth is out there! The Jedi force is strong in me!
Jeremy and Von,
Thank you for your remarks. I am completely aware how much personal experience can affect beliefs on a subject. I also have seen UFOs, but never anything so compelling that it forced a radical change in my thinking. I personally would like such an experience, but I will reserve judgement on this topic until I have such a personal experience or scientifically valid evidence is obtained. But even if I do have a compelling experience with UFOs, I will try my best not to let my emotions overrule my judgement and rationality.
If you will read carefully what I wrote, you will see that I explicitly stated that the current lack of evidence is not proof that UFOs as alien spacecraft do not exist. I also said that if you can find no simpler and more probable explanation in nature or human works, then you can feel more justified in believing it is the result of some more fantastic origin.
Larry Sessions
Jason,
Like everyone else, you are entitled to your own opinion, with or without evidence.
LS
government cover up??? please. dems and rep presidents cant get away with sex deals or shady deals it all comes out in our system. john stewarts daily show would have no funny without people wanting to leak and the public wanting to believe. just to simply state the govt is up to something of this magnatude is going ape with mob mentality. other life must exist because the odds are in favor of it ghosts may exist because our bodies are made of electrically charged atoms that must have a field even after we die. do we see them are we visited. the odds are against it.is it possible? anything and i mean anything is possible. but the belief that the govt can get away with it is not logical. everthing comes out. i belive what i know and that is we know nothing compared to what we will know 200 years from now.if i see a light at night it may just be that i taped glow sticks to a kite at the beach(which i have done.)it does appear to someone driving by that we are under attack others know there must be a simple exp.
Jason, I find it interesting that you truly believe Roswell was an actual alien spacecraft crash site. Have you ever researched the event? and I mean besides looking at obviously pro-alien crash site websites. If you were to do a bit of research (as I myself did for a rather large school project) you’d find 3 things: 1) There certainly was a crash of an airborne object in the desert near Roswell. 2) That object and crash WAS covered up by the US, for reasons I will explain in a minute. 3) The object was 100% man-made, it really flew, and had absolutely nothing to do with aliens. Now, of course, the main reason everyone thinks this was alien related was because the government DID cover up the event. This is understandable, but the reason they covered it up had NOTHING to do with aliens. The object that crashed was NOT, as the government said, a weather balloon, it was in an experimental device that was being used to detect nuclear bomb explosions set off by the Soviets. The device was able to measure vibrations in the air in the upper atmosphere that these explosions created. In effect it was a form of spying on the Soviets. Obviously the US government wouldn’t want to reveal that this is what the object was. In what can only be viewed as a major mistake, the government explained it was a weather balloon. Now many pictures of the wreckage can be found on the internet and at various museums around Roswell. Look at these pictures and tell me this is alien debris. Any sane person would have no reason to believe so, after all it’s made of mostly wood and tinfoil-like “fabric”. (I mean WOOD, come on, aliens are supposed to have traveled at light-speed using wooden spacecraft the size of kites???) The reason why people knew the government was up to something it because the debris was very obviously NOT a weather balloon. It was mostly the remains of the anti-radar “shielding” that was constructed around the device. People simply jumped to the conclusion that the debris must be from aliens. (Who would have thought of a nuclear bomb detector?) I encourage you to RESEARCH UFO sightings before simply agreeing with them.
Sam and Zephyrus,
Thank you for your sane and rational comments. Frankly I never meant for this blog to incite such zeal among the “true believers” in UFO’s (after so many years I should be used to it, however!). So to hear reasoned and thoughtful comments is very welcome.
I think that we all believe that intelligent life in the Universe beyond the Earth is likely. However, when you look at the reality of it, travel to Earth by such beings is fraught with great difficulty (unless they have discovered or harnessed some fundamental new aspect of nature — which is certainly possible but just as certainly not demonstrated in anything we have done so far on Earth). Beyond that, the logic of traveling to a puny little planet (which I say from a sense of reality but reverence as well) is lacking. Surely if life is abundant in the Universe, aliens would find better places to visit than Earth in this unfathomably large Cosmos. So for those reasons alone, alien visitation to Earth is unlikely. Combined with a complete lack of credible scientific evidence (oh, watch the wolves jump on that remark!) for UFOs being alien, I must remain skeptical.
I’m sure that you have seen David Blaine, or Chris Angel or one of the great magicians of the past. There are things they do that I have NO IDEA how they did it. I’m sure some people, certainly including other magicians, know how it is done, but I can even imagine how they can appear to levitate, or cause an elephant to appear out of nowhere, even though the spot is encircled by a circular chain of humans in a parking lot. How do they do it? If they weren’t honest about saying it is just a “trick,” and there is nothing supernatural involved, I have to admit that it might begin to change my feelings about reality. But they admit that they are following the laws of physics and others, such as the “Amazing Randi” have made a point of emphasizing the fact that magicians, mentalists and whoever are not using supernatural powers.
My point, of course, is that it is easy to be confused and misguided when confronted with apparently unexplanable phenomena. Fortunately there are some who will approach things from a logical, reasonable and yet open-minded attitude. Many of the “true believers,” however, will always choose what they want to believe over the more rational solution (and boy, I bet that stirs up a hornet’s nest of denials!).
Being skeptical does not mean that we deny the possibility, but that we also acknowledge the improbability. I suspect that if any of us had a true encounter with aliens (or whatever), we would become “true believers” as well. However, that in itself would not be sufficient scientific evidence.
As I have said before, I want to believe in ETs, but I will remain skeptical until credible evidence, acceptable by the rules of science, is uncovered.
Larry S.
I came across this page as part of a quest searching for something I saw a couple of days ago which was a solid yellow glowing orb which passed through our garden about 1/2 to a foot in diameter travelling fairly slowly and smoothly. I saw it out of my studio window and it had gone by the time I got down there which is about 150ft away, it was about 4:30 in the afternoon, we have a wood at the end of the garden which it was in front of and it passed behind a tree at the edge so I could work out roughly where it had traveled. The only thing I’ve found is a photo at http://www.iamhaunted.com/gallery/view/id_5225/ which looks pretty much like what I saw.
I’ve seen 4 UFOs in the past 3 years (none before that and I’m almost 40), a large metallic orb, a black object hovering beside a power station chimney, and a very bright light in the sky which spiraled inwards and disappeared (at night). The metallic orb is the only one seen by someone else (my wife). Both the metallic orb and the black object were seen during daylight. I’m surprised I haven’t seen more at night as I’ve spent a lot of time outside with a telescope in that time.
I am open minded to this kind of thing, I have no idea what they are but there is no doubt in my mind that they exist. In the 50s there was a fleet of UFOs passed along the east coast and my Uncle who was a child was camping in the garden at the time. My Grandad woke up to a loud bass drone noise rushed outside and brought him and his friend back into the house, he saw one of them and it was a huge cigar shaped craft. These were seen by a lot of people in Hull and it was a huge talking point at the time apparently. My Uncle, my Grandma, my Mum and her sister all remember the noise vividly. And before someone says anything no they weren’t airships.
I thought this article was interesting to alert people to common explainable phenomena but I also think that the common attitude of needing proof to have any credibility is deluded and arrogant (no offence Larry I’m speaking generally and inclusively). There is a tendancy to be too comfortable in our collective knowlege and the chances of true ‘truth’ are pretty low when you think about it. We are not machines with a CPU but organic matter which is subtly changing constantly, the chances of understanding the world/universe is pretty slim. Science merely gives us clues and one point of solid ground to stand upon to base our perception of reality. I think that is dangerous ground because we hold on to it so firmly that it blinds us to other possibilities.
Because we can build computers and cars etc… there is a collective belief that we have progressed, but its obvious with the state of the environment that are knowlege is crude and we are using it to destroy any chance of reaching a higher potential (or maybe it is after we have destroyed it we will achieve it who knows). A good example is Tesla’s tower which he was building to harness the motion of the planet to provide wireless clean free energy for the whole world back in the 1920’s or 30’s. JP Morgan pulled the research funding when he realised the quote goes something like “Where do we put the meter?” The older I get the more I’ve realised that being wrong is a good thing and a great teacher, and that defending your position comes more from the humility of being wrong and pride, and stands in the way of true advancement. But what do I know?
Sam I’m sorry but if you think that the US government has no secrets you are very naive, what you describe is the public office, the military and the CIA is something else and there is no end to the secrets. Find a clip of Stanton Friedman showing the UFO declassified info that took xxx years for him to get hold of, 90% of it is blacked out with a marker. The stuff underneath the black ink is therefore still secret there is no arguing with that (or is there?:) Not to mention the 50 secret wars since the second world war Panama etc…
Anyhow enjoyed the thread,
Andy
There is no use reasoning with most of your respondents. None have ever produced any good evidence, no anyone actually affected by an “alien” visit; none of us in the scientific community seem to ever have these odd things happen, and few other countries experience these events.
I saw an unusual occurance years ago: the captain of an airliner between Tokyo and Honolulu reported a UFO (a valid name in this case) in the western sky, before dawn, lasting several minutes — this was published in the newspaper. An engineer working for me told me of a succsesful Atlas(target) missle launch from Kwajalein island as part of an ABM test. The UFO was the missle rising into the sun above the earth.
He had seen the same thing once from an monitoring aircraft — said it looked like the missle was near them, although they knew it it was farther as they were tracking it!
The real story did not get into the paper.
George Curtis
Interesting article. However, it appears that the author has NOT accomplished any indepth research on the subject and follows one of the basic rules of debunking: “Research by proclamation, investigation is too much trouble and nobody will no the difference.”
So until the author does some real research, this article can’t be taken too seriously.
I do have a few questions and comments for Zephyrus:
1. You stated: “When we have the ability to travel easily from our planet to any other in the galaxy, then I will believe that aliens could have visited earth.”
My question to you is: Why would extraterrestrial visitation be dependent on our own technological ability? Your statement doesn’t make sense. How do you know intelligent life could ONLY be on the same or lower level than our own? There may be life out there that is 100,000 years or even 500,000 years more advanced than us. Look how far our civilization has come in the past 1,000 years. Who knows what we will be able to do in the next 10,000 years. I don’t think we should rule out someone else has figured out interstellar travel. Currently there is ongoing research into Faster than Light Travel and many have proposed theories that don’t violate known laws. Here is one of many peer reviewed articles that discusses the possibility:
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000699000001001160000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes
2. It appears that you have NOT researched the Roswell incident. You’ve only accepted the government explanation and totally disregarded the numerous eye witness accounts. If you had done your research, you would know that an important witness has recently come forward; Lt Walter G. Haut. He was the public affairs officer at Roswell at the time of the incident. Lt Haut denied that he knew anything about an ETV crash or retrieval of bodies. However, upon Lt Haut’s death an affidavit signed by him was released stating the incident DID occur. Here is the link that provides the affidavit:
http://roswellproof.homestead.com/Haut.html
Why would Lt Haut change his story after all these years? Maybe he did so to clear his conscience.
3. Lastly, please don’t assume to know how these beings think or why they are visiting earth. If so you would be guilty of perpetuating an anthropomorphic fallacy. Meaning, you’ve based your assumptions on how humans would act or react when visiting an alien world. We can’t possibly know their reasons for visiting earth. They’re alien!
For the author, Zephyrus and all those that continue to deny the possibility. Before you make any assumptions concerning this subject, please take the time to do proper research. There are many balanced articles on the subject that are not ufotainment or sensational skepticism. Also, don’t rule out all witness accounts because they don’t fit known explanations.
Larry
I appreciate the tone you have maintained (I can only guess - struggled to maintain) in your original post and subsequent replies. You did not ridicule or attack those who did not act as civilized toward you. I think people on both sides of this issue can get pretty frustrated when debating someone who just can’t see the point being made. The point usually revolves around what actually constitutes evidence.
The problem, as I see it, is that two different methods are used to evaluate data and possibly reach conclusions. The scientists use the scientific method about which we non-scientists know almost nothing. The rest of us use the traditional method which is at its most refined level in a court of law. Eyewitness testimony can rank right up at the top in court. In court witness testimony is not automatically accepted as the truth. Individual witness integrity, eyesight, training, distance from the subject of their testimony, etc. are all considered. With multiple witnesses, the relationships between them, the fact they had different observation points, discussion of their testimonies among them prior to testifying in court are also considered by jury members. No, the system isn’t perfect. The guilty are sometimes acquitted, the innocent are sometimes convicted. But so far, it’s the best system we have. It is so ingrained into us that we use less formal versions of the traditional system in our daily lives. Answers to questions such as, ‘Do we send our child to school a, or school b?’ can be influenced by eyewitness testimony. Where would the family like to go on vacation?
I think that the question, “Are extraterrestrial spacecraft visiting Earth?” is better addressed by the traditional method than the scientific because of the broad nature of the question (yes, I am convinced the ETs are here). The massive amount of high quality eyewitness testimony is mind-boggling. I don’t see how any reasonable person (not using the scientific method) who takes the time to review all the evidence (non-scientific evidence), could come to any other conclusion but that ETs are here. Some of what is written about UFOs is very questionable to say the least, but if an inquiring person starts with what respected researchers have written and then branch out to the individual cases cited by those researchers, he/she could skip over the questionable material. And more eyewitness testimony as opposed to less, does strengthen a case using the traditional method. Trying to answer the question using the scientific method would be like answering the question, “Did John Smith rob the First National Bank last Thursday?” using the scientific method. Expert scientific witnesses may be called on to contribute testimony, but the overall justice system does not adhere to the scientific method.
There are questions that only scientists can answer. How could an ET craft traveling thousands of miles per hour as recorded by ground radar or visually witnessed, make a 90 degree turn or stop on a dime without slowing first? Why do predators avoid the carcasses of livestock dropped back to the ground by an alien craft? What type of electromagnetic radiation would ionize the air immediately surrounding an ET craft and what would make the color light emitted by the ionized air change? How do the changing intensities and changing wavelengths correlate with the motion of the craft? There are a small but relevant number of physical trace samples that are not in government hands. In one case molten metal was observed dropping from a craft that was very close to the ground. It cooled down and solidified on its way to the ground. Metallurgical tests were done, but the prohibitive cost prevented an isotopic ratio test to determine if the metal was from Earth.
We could all use more participation from the scientific world. Not since the 1960s and the efforts of Dr. John McDonald have mainstream scientists been pressed into service to help with UFO investigations. Today there are a few real scientists, such as Stanton Friedman and Bruce S. Maccabee, who bring science to the study of UFOs. Whether the reason is no time left over after ‘the day job’, fear of being ostracized by the scientific community, belief that it would be a waste of time since there aren’t any ETs here or just lack of interest, scientists have been avoiding the UFO field in droves. Perhaps if scientists could take off their scientist hats just long enough to examine the non-scientific evidence the way the rest of us do, they would see enough merit in the argument that ETs are here, to put their scientist hats back on and apply the scientific method to appropriate research within the UFO field.
I’ve actually read alot about UFO’s and the Roswell UFO Incident. I’ve also read a lot about UFO Cover Ups and Alien Abduction Cases in books (like The Uninvited, The Mammoth Book of UFO’s, Alien Base and Alien Contact) and on Web Sites. I’m in the middle of an awesome project I came up with all about Aliens, Alien Spaceships, Alien Abductions and Alien/UFO Cover ups and I’ve done research for that project.I’ve even been on a Web Site (The Black Vault) with uncovered Government Alien Spaceship Files.
The Government is definitely up to something. I reckon they’re getting Alien technolodgy off the Aliens and letting Aliens abduct people in return. And I don’t think they’d be more likely to abduct a scientist. The Government, I think, don’t want to let the public know about their contact with the Aliens because imagine it, after all the years denying it, after all that time, letting the public know. It’d cause mass panic! And that was probably the reason they didn’t let public know all them years ago anyway.
You get a lot of proffesionals - ie Air Force Workers, Military Workers, Astronomers and even ex-Ministry of Defence workers reporting sightings and sometimes even close contact of Alien Spaceships - for example the Rendlesham Forest Incident and theirs lots of witnesses to Roswell too that say it was an Alien Spaceship that crashed - You only have to read the UFO Magazine UFO Encyclopedia to know that.
Jason
Thanks occardog (and George Curtis) for your well thought out remarks. Certainly there are several lines of approach, which sometimes lead to different conclusions, and one approach may be more effective than another in a particular pursuit. The whole concept of UFOs has always been at best on the periphery of science because of the lack of scientifically verifiable evidence. Of the physical evidence presented, nothing that I am aware of has ever been shown, via the scientific process, to be of extraterrestrial intelligent origin. On the other hand, the proponents of UFOs as alien visitation cite apparent oddities in appearance, or claim unusual properties of supposed artifacts, or other properties of what little physical evidence has been submitted for examination. The problem is that despite opinions to the contrary, the claims don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Eyewitnesses sometimes have a unique and valid perspective, and often are reliable purveyors of the truth. But just as often, or more often, they are not that accurate and in some cases extremely inaccurate, especially when strong emotions are involved as to whether something is true or not. Emotion colors judgement, which is why science cannot rely solely or largely on eyewitness testimony. It might be useful as a adjunct, but not as the primary source of information.
Again, as I have stated before, the fact that I can’t accept personal testimony as solid evidence in this case does not mean that the story isn’t true. I have personal opinions on the subject, but that is all they are. My point is that the eyes and ears can mislead, the mind can distort, and the emotions can fabricate “facts.”
On the other hand, physical evidence, examined using relevant scientific methods, is far more reliable. Even that is subject to some interpretation, but less subject to human idiosyncrasies.
What I find interesting is how emotionally caught up some people involved in this subject (and some who have commented to this blog) become. It also is a bit telling that so many obviously fail to read the blog completely, or let their emotions ignore certain things I wrote. (That doesn’t give me much confidence in their ability to observe and process details.)
I feel strongly that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the Cosmos, but at this time we have absolutely no solid evidence of it. We have none from the admittedly limited searches such as SETI that have gone on so far. And for UFOs, we have widely varying personal accounts, usually grainy photos and videos. Some of it is interesting enough for further examination, which conceivably could provide some good and acceptable evidence. But so far none has turned up.
I would welcome such evidence if it came from UFOs, which could then be correlated along side the eyewitness testimony. In fact, I think I am safe in saying that the scientific community at large would be thrilled to obtain solid and reliable evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence. It would be the most exciting discovery I can imagine. Which makes it all the more odd to me that many UFO proponents apparently think scientists want to disprove the idea or are caught up in some conspiracy to cover up the “truth” about UFOs. As Col. Potter used to say, that’s just plain “horse hockey.”
LS
To USAF Retired: The first thing I would say is don’t rely too much on the affidavit of a dying man. He’s got nothing to lose and everything to gain: he could go down in history as a key witness, or have his reputation ruined, in which case he’s not around to be embarrassed, so what does he care? As for my comment on technology, I’m just saying that if we can finally do something more than going to the moon and back, then it will be easier for me to think that aliens might be able to.
As for Roswell:
Too many actual UFO researchers think that NO CRAFT WAS INVOLVED:
# ^ “PFLOCK NOW BELIEVES THAT NO FLYING SAUCER CRASHED IN NEW MEXICO IN 1947″ (article), “The Klass Files”, from “The Sceptics UFO Newsletter” (SUN) #43, January 1997, http://www.csicop.org/klassfiles/SUN-43.html
# ^ “Another Major Roswell Crashed-Saucer Proponent ‘Abandons Ship’” (article), “The Klass Files”, from “The Skeptics UFO Newsletter” (SUN) #44,March 1997, http://www.csicop.org/klassfiles/SUN-44.html
# ^ “STOP THE PRESSES!” (article), “The Klass Files”, from “The Sceptics UFO Newsletter” (SUN) #47, September 1997, http://www.csicop.org/klassfiles/SUN-47.html
Those who research UFO’s for a living don’t believe it happened. The wreck was first discovered on or around June 14, 1947, by a rancher, on the ranch HE owned. He left and did NOT return NOR did he tell ANYONE between June 14 and around July 4, when he returned with his family to gather up the debris. He described the debris as “patches of rubber and tinfoil.” A few days later he heard of some “flying disc” reports and wondered if perhaps that was what he found. Mind you, it was not an ALIEN flying disc he heard about, but simply a Flying Disc. After he reported it, ONE man arrived to look at the debris and help collec