Larry S.
Denver

Again, I wasn’t there so I don’t know what you saw. However, one thing that fits the general description is an airport spotlight on the clouds. You didn’t state the direction, but of course there is the regional airfield to your south. I have seen this many times and it always looks to me more like the light is coming from above rather than below. Airport spotlights typically do not move, but motion of the cloud layer could make them appear to move. There are also commercial spotlights used at car dealerships and openings and such. Those usually move in large circles in the sky. In fact I saw one just last night and it is very easy to understand why anyone would think that they represented something actually moving through the clouds. In my experience, however, they always appear white, not blue-green.

But that is just a suggested possibility, and may have nothing to do with whatever you saw.

Larry S.
Denver

My 17 year daughter and her boyfriend took a walk 3 days ago and when they came back they said they saw these blue-green lights that hovered over what looked like either a huge field or over the river. They said there were 2 of them and they didn’t seem to move at all and then they were just gone

I don’t think we are so far apart, but my opinion — and that is all it is — is that any aliens visting Earth would by necessity be far more advanced than we are. It seems reasonable that they would have only two reasons to visit us.
1) They want to subdue and put us under their rule. I personally find this unlikely because it is my belief (unsubstantiated by evidence) that any advanced civilization should not be warlike or empirial by nature. I do not think that a warlike civilization could progress far enough to enable interstellar travel. I personally don’t believe that any civiization can advance far enough and remain stable if they are warlike and inconsiderate of lesser species (perhaps I am too naive and sentimental, but this is what I believe).
2) Any aliens sufficiently advanced to travel to us and study us (for what reason I have no idea), would have adopted a “non-interference” policy. Yes, I know that this is really mostly a science fiction construction (ala Gene Rodenberry and Star Trek), but is based on concepts of quantum physics and as such, makes a lot of logical sense (at least as far as quantum physics goes it makes sense — but whether it makes sense or not, quantum physics reasonably describes reality as we know it). *ANY* interaction is interference and necessarily affects and changes the observed. So in my opinion, any visiting aliens — if they weren’t out to conquer us “Independence Day” style — would be extremely careful to prevent us from observing them or interacting in any way. Basically I am saying that if aliens are really visiting us, they wouldn’t allow us to observe them until they are full ready to fully reveal themselves.

Hence, my interpretation of UFO sightings is that they are the result of misinterpertations of natural phenomena, or else they are somehow manifiestations of manmade (if unusual) phenomena. Anything else is highly and logically unlikely.

Now again, this does NOT mean that all UFO sightings are due to natural (you know what I mean) or manmade phenomena. But it does mean that anything else is highly unlikely and demands good evidence.

Larry S.

One thing you said which doesn’t quite fit my sense of logic. When walking in what we imagine to be a pristine forest our illusion might be crushed when we come across a candy rapper or some sort of trash. We automatically know that some thoughtless a-hole was there before us. Evidence of our presents anywhere will most likely be some sort of waist. Now assuming that ET’s have come here, we should also assume that they would have learned to produce energy with very little if any waist because of the inordinate amount of energy required for the trip regardless of the method. So it should also be safe to assume that very little if any evidence of their presents will remain behind.

I’ve enjoyed this very much.

Human memory and perceptions are often faulty, and good science is designed to weed out unreliable information by demanding corroborating evidence. People can sometimes be very good observers, but most people sadly are not. Since there is no way to know in most cases who is a good and reliable observer and who is not, science generally demands that we place little value on personal descriptions. Undoubtedly you are aware of the fact that different observers, such as in an accident investigation, often give widely conflicting stories.

Neither science nor the police can investigate every story based solely on someone’s claim. What if legitimate scientists launched a research project every time someone claimed to have seen a ghost or claimed to have encountered Big Foot? No real science would ever get done if scientists spent time on such unsubstantiated claims. That is why science demands good evidence. Unfortunately that may also weed out some observations of genuinely new phenomena, but it is the only way science can legitimately proceed.

Again, science is not there to eliminate the human element. Science is conducted by humans, and interpretation, innovation, creativity and yes, even intuition, are necessary ingredients for science. But so is logic and orderly procedure.

I too, am a fan of Star Trek. Two of my favorite quotations are from Spock:

“Even logic must give way to physics”
and
“Logic is the beginning of wisdom…., not the end.”

Basically to me, Spock’s words are the scientific method as it should be. We must rely on science (or physical evidence) because all human perceptions (including logic) by themselves are inadequate. But at the same time we must be guided by logic and reason, even while we acknowledge that our perceptions and thought processes, no matter how well intended, are sometimes faulty.

Larry S.

P.S. As for your last comment, I tend to fall back on an old argument that if aliens wanted us to know they were here, they would do so. If on the other hand they do not want us to know, they haven’t done a very good job of staying out of the line of sight but have done a good job of not leaving evidence. Your argument that basically they don’t care certainly makes some sense, but I still tend to think that even if that were true, there should be at least one piece of undeniable physical evidence — and there is not.

P.P.S. You are not being argumentative. You are thinking, which is more than I can say for a lot of people!

What I believe to be very unlikely (if ET’s are visiting us) is that they would bather to purposefully make there presents known to us. As advanced as they have to be to be here, they probably see us as we see cattle on the side of the road when we go on road trips.

It seems to me that the real question or questions is not are this objects extra terrestrial but how possible is it that they are. In my opinion what it boils down to is two questions. Does intelligent life exist else where? And is space travel possible without having to physically travel from point to point? The first question is a huge YES. In my mind it’s almost rude to argue other wise. The second is the big unknown but at least theoretically possible. Assuming that it is possible then that means that it’s only a matter of being technologically advanced enough to take advantage of it.

I know, I’ve beaten this horse to death. I’ll let you be after this one. I agree with almost every thing you said. We shouldn’t jump to conclusions and all that and I believe I didn’t. But I just don’t think is as unlikely as you or scientific community imply it is that we might be visited by ET’s.

Sorry for being so argumentative.