UFO Phenomenon - Any real scientific material

Gremlin · 24-06-2011 2:32pm

dyer wrote: »

edit ( i was so drunk when i wrote this :rolleyes: )

LOL. Hope the head wasn't too bad this morning.

In fairness drunk or not you raise some good points.

I will just add (again) that I have spent as much time looking at the sky as anybody (and an awful lot more time than most people). Lots of times I have seen stuff which on the face of it seems strange. However because of my line of research I'm lucky enough to have tools and techniques to immediately investigate and arrive at a perfectly reasonable explanation. A lot of people don't have these assets and therefore have no choice but stop there and put it down to alien UFOs.

I know literally hundreds of other astronomers who will tell you exactly the same story, I could probably find you thousands of others too Surely if alien visitation is as frequent and easy to see as some would have us beleive, then surely it would be a case that the only discussion we would be having is not 'if' they are here but 'why' and 'how'. The usual counter to this argument is that scientists are too afraid of ridicule to come forward. Well frankly, for the most part thats nonsense. Often scientists will come across something they don't understand. The vast majority of those will seek out somebody with a better understanding of the particular area related to their experience and ask for the benefit of their opinion. I've seen this happen (and done it) lots of times.

jonbravo · 24-06-2011 3:25pm

Gremlin wrote: »

Jonbravo's post highlights something which I think is crucial in all of this. If you look at this well written piece you might be forgiven for becoming a beleiver. However when taken in isolation, each of the points , i.e. the dogons, bonilla's sighting etc, don't stand up to scrutiny.

With due respect to jonbravo, the line near the end "nor will i do anyone else's homework with regard this subject." is interesting. Quite often its science and the skeptics which are accused of being closed minded and blinkered. In fact if you are willing to spend some time looking at the truth of the mystery its not that hard to find that there is no mystery at all. I find that 'some' beleivers are just not prepared to do this basic research. They will just accept the mysterious explanation. So I would argue that in fact its often the beleivers who need to do their homework.

Alot of the so called research i do has notting to do with funny lights in the sky i might add..{ using ''funny lights'' because some have problems with the term ''ufo'' in this thread. }, you might have noticed it from the thread in the para forum!? I like other areas of the subject more.
The reason i posted was to prove that not everything you read on the internet is correct or wrong....and that from this on example, you can see where this subject has bein for over 100 years:eek:... and can be turned on its head by other's..for reasons unknown to me, their so called research to prove against the possible.
It also brings up the question of ''Who do you start believing, if you can't believe other people''.
the ufo phenomenon is far more then the term ''ufo'' allows.
I'm seeing lots of questions asked but very little answered!?

maccored · 25-06-2011 4:01am

Gremlin wrote: »

With due respect to jonbravo, the line near the end "nor will i do anyone else's homework with regard this subject." is interesting.

i believe he has every right to say that. The act of delving into a subject and proactively looking for information is more important than someone saying they dont believe something and expecting others to supply the reasons of why they should - so therefore its pretty important no-one should "do anyone else's homework with regard" to answering questions on ufology or the paranormal. Theres no proof for either so its all very subjective.

Gremlin · 25-06-2011 10:35pm

maccored wrote: »

i believe he has every right to say that. The act of delving into a subject and proactively looking for information is more important than someone saying they dont believe something and expecting others to supply the reasons of why they should - so therefore its pretty important no-one should "do anyone else's homework with regard" to answering questions on ufology or the paranormal. Theres no proof for either so its all very subjective.

I agree. Jonbravo is quite right . However, I think you are quoting that line out of context a little. If you read what follows it, I am suggesting (rightly or wrongly) that often its diehard beleivers that don't do the homework. For example, look at some of the links posted throughout this thread, and some of the incidents which are highlighted. It takes 5 minutes of googling to find a perfectly rational explanation for the vast majority of them, however it is clear that those who post this material have not even done the most basic research before concluding that these are de-facto UFO (and I use than in its most general way) events.

You're also quite right in saying that like paranormal experiences, there is no proof for alien visitation, people choose to believe, again that is everyone's right.

Which brings me to another point. I may be misreading your post (and please forgive me if I am) but the way I'm reading it is like, the original premice of posting this thread was "Hi I don't beleive in UFO's, go and prove to me I'm wrong because I couldn't be bothered.". What I am really saying is (and I concede I wasn't clear enough). "I've looked at this in some depth (and I have for many years), I can't see anything to convince me there is anything to this phenomenon, if i've missed something then please enlighten me." I think thats a perfectly reasonable position to hold.

Gremlin · 25-06-2011 10:48pm

jonbravo wrote: »

the thread in the para forum!?

I'm smiling to myself because I was really stoopid to get into that thread a while back. Never again!

jonbravo wrote: »

It also brings up the question of ''Who do you start believing, if you can't believe other people''.

Thats a very interesting question. Personally I would normally take the view that when I'm told something I believe that the person is being honest and at least believes this themselves. The problem is what do you do when a sizeable number of people choose to categorically hoax and lie about material. The internet in particular makes this easy. The advent of easy to use and cheap video editing software makes it easier still, throw youtube on top of all of that and its not hard to see the size of the problem.

I'm not suggesting its ALL a big hoax, just the hoax material is growing all the time. The sad thing is the hoaxers may well be shooting themselves in the foot by 'crying wolf'. It would be sad if geniune evidence was overlooked by the scientific community because of the actions of some people who want to beleive so much that they are prepared to make stuff up to 'prove' they are right.

I would also add that hoaxing and cheating is far from unique to some UFO believers, I've come across many times, some 'scientists' who are no better.

jonbravo · 28-06-2011 4:26pm

I think this brings us to George Adamski!?
his credibilily within the sudject has always being something of question... but for me one thing stands out!

In 1954... stephen darbishire { a teenager at the time } took 2 photographs of a close up object which had the same features of a photograph taken by adamski in california in december 1952, darbishire's photograph was taken on the 4th of feb,england.
he also in 1991 confirmed that he stands by his story and i'll also add that he wasn't alone at the time of the event.
measurements by engineers later said the two were identical and stephen darbishire never heard of adamski until after his picture was taken.

I'm sure as its going to rain today that the skeptics will use adamski and his credibilily as proof of something other then what i've said. i think this example is a case of who can we believe, if we can't believe other people!? or is it a question of just believe the material!?

dyer · 29-06-2011 3:03am

unfortunately the internet does make it easier for so much crap to spread, and so much so that it damages the credibility of the subject.. i think the best you can do is use your rationale to avoid that and pay heed to the efforts certain individuals are making to change all of that.

someone sent me a link to a lecture recently given by a police offer in the uk on the subject of ufos.. he set up a site for officers to report their sightings which can be found here.

it's only through the hard work of people like Gary Heseltine that the world might start taking this whole thing seriously.

murrayp4 · 04-07-2011 4:00am

.....everyone knows that inside UFOs are rich assholes from the future on their time travelling holidays...

fontanalis · 08-07-2011 6:28pm

Was a "earth bound" explanation ever found for the belgian flying triangle?

murrayp4 · 09-07-2011 5:52pm

fontanalis wrote: »

Was a "earth bound" explanation ever found for the belgian flying triangle?

The Belgian triangle cases are some of the most interesting UFO sightings in recent years. There is a chapter in Leslie Kean's book written by Major General Wilifred De Brouwer concerning his investigation into the events. He concluded that the objects seen were not American military aircraft and exhibited characteristics that were not produced by any known technology.

fontanalis · 11-07-2011 1:56pm

murrayp4 wrote: »

The Belgian triangle cases are some of the most interesting UFO sightings in recent years. There is a chapter in Leslie Kean's book written by Major General Wilifred De Brouwer concerning his investigation into the events. He concluded that the objects seen were not American military aircraft and exhibited characteristics that were not produced by any known technology.

That is a fascinating case and it seems unlikely anyone would test their aircraft over heavily populated areas.

gbee · 11-07-2011 2:08pm

easychair wrote: »

If there really is such a thing as UFO's, they would have been around for centuries. Curious that.

Indeed, what we call UFO are referred to in many historic accounts, some notably the Roman Generals who always looked for the signs in the sky before launching into battle.

A lot of references to Gods can be interpreted today as reference to UFO. The Romans were always victorious under the cross formation that is referenced many times. Some of their defeats occurred in the absence of such signs.

Obvious space ships and astronauts are drawn on cave paintings many thousands of years old.

The phenomenon was rekindled during the great war years and the RAF even had a FOO Fighter squadron to hunt and intercept what they believed were German secret weapons.

References to the unknown has been around as long as mankind. Today we can retrospectively speculate that these are known cosmic events or what we call UFOs, so IMO they are thousands of years old and my have been directly related to your evolution.

kylith · 12-07-2011 5:33pm

gbee wrote: »

A lot of references to Gods can be interpreted today as reference to UFO. The Romans were always victorious under the cross formation that is referenced many times. Some of their defeats occurred in the absence of such signs.

Obvious space ships and astronauts are drawn on cave paintings many thousands of years old.

Got any links to these?

jonbravo · 12-07-2011 11:46pm

kylith wrote: »

Got any links to these?

why is a link a need!?

kylith · 13-07-2011 2:54pm

jonbravo wrote: »

why is a link a need!?

Because I want to read about them?

dyer · 15-07-2011 5:02am

what about the phoenix lights?

a ship so big that blocked out the stars and the military still insist it was a trainining routine (to drop flares over a populated city) .. what utter bull****!

these craft travel so fast if you stuck a human being in them, we might as well be spam in a can cause there wouldnt be very much left of ya after it.

easychair · 18-07-2011 2:02pm

dyer wrote: »

what about the phoenix lights?

a ship so big that blocked out the stars and the military still insist it was a trainining routine (to drop flares over a populated city) .. what utter bull****!

these craft travel so fast if you stuck a human being in them, we might as well be spam in a can cause there wouldnt be very much left of ya after it.

If you are saying that the only possible explanation for your "phoenix lights" must be that they are caused by aliens, then why not make that argument and give us some references, and we can all look and debate the issue here.

maninasia · 19-07-2011 8:17am

jonbravo wrote: »

Back to nowadays...
The high level of ifo's within the ufo evidence does not consign the mystery of ufos to the relms of the solved world, even with known developed stealth aircraft it is almost certain tests were carried out,One that comes to mind is the RPV- remotely piloted vehicles{ like model aircraft} which is used to go into enemy territory.
Britain is at the forefront of such craft and have being used over northern ireland in the past.NOT everything in the sky is meant to be there!!

I do find it odd that over 100 years has pasted since the first ufo photograph.....and still with technology people can't see the photographic proof!? nor will i do anyone else's homework with regard this subject.

just to add, Another time to sky watch for ufo's is after a spell of bad weather ,the frontal pressure systems responsible for this change can spring ufo active areas into life......so its worth a go were ever you live!!

I agree it's odd there is not more compelling evidence if UFOs are really spacecraft as they made out. Many UFOs are simply satellites, regular planes, chinese lanterns and stealth aircraft. But let's have some caveats

1. There are many photos of classic disk shaped UFOs in existence (it's not true to say there are no photos even if some could be fraudulent)
http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/decade/1960s.htm
2. Photos are just one form of evidence and can also be manipulated
3. Advanced intelligences with advanced sensory machines could easily anticipate and react to our cameras, either by keeping out of sight, moving away quickly or using a reactive camoflauge. When taking a photo we could be detected in many ways (this might sound far out but not for advanced intelligence)
a) Our brainwaves and physical presence and movement
b) The camera electronic equipment

4. The inherent properties of UFOs may make them difficult to photograph..such as
a) rarity
b) speed of movement
c) altitude
d) height
e) possibly the technology/natural phenomenon behind them makes them blurry as a side-effect i.e. glowing/plasma/diffuse light
5. Most cameras and most people are not capable of taking good pictures of far away objects with a sky for background. You can see this effect on innumerable dodgy youtube videos as the camera pans in and out struggling to auto-focus.

However there have been reports of close up sightings , it is surprising that nobody has been able to get a close up shot of these UFOs/craft. In that sense, if we believe at least some of the witnesses we must surmise that they are manipulating us somehow. Indeed there have been many reports of strange behaviour of witnesses of UFO sightings. Now that might be an accidental side effect, a deliberately caused phenomenon or could simply be human reactions to the unknown.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread644629/pg1

maninasia · 19-07-2011 8:28am

murrayp4 wrote: »

.....everyone knows that inside UFOs are rich assholes from the future on their time travelling holidays...

You never know, it's definitely an option on the list

.
Personally I think it is much more likely there is nothing in UFOs, they are intelligent machines/organisms

jonbravo · 19-07-2011 6:28pm

maninasia wrote: »

I agree it's odd there is not more compelling evidence if UFOs are really spacecraft as they made out. Many UFOs are simply satellites, regular planes, chinese lanterns and stealth aircraft.

However there have been reports of close up sightings , it is surprising that nobody has been able to get a close up shot of these UFOs/craft. In that sense, if we believe at least some of the witnesses we must surmise that they are manipulating us somehow. Indeed there have been many reports of strange behaviour of witnesses of UFO sightings. Now that might be an accidental side effect, a deliberately caused phenomenon or could simply be human reactions to the unknown.

Great post, it beings up questions that i find interesting.
In order to find more compelling evidence in the field of ufos{photos}, Ufology has to break around from Hollywoods view that ET visits this earth in spacecraft.The simple answer is that might not the case, just like ''real'' science,ufology can be surpiring in that respect and change.

Strange behaviour is more common then you might think..and i don't believe strange behaviour of witnesses is an accidental side effect at present,more of a deliberately caused phenomenon in many ways.
When you look in any newspaper on any given day you might find evidence of ET interaction with regard strange behaviour of man.
It is also suggested that many of the female abductees for example are reliving an incident from childhood{keepin the incident hidden from this thread. PM}.but you'll find information below.
One of the leading experts in abductees was professor john mack http://www.johnemackinstitute.org/.
The authorities of Harvard launched an inquiry into his conduct in 1995 on the back of some controversail views.

easychair · 21-07-2011 12:09pm

jonbravo wrote: »

It is also suggested that many of the female abductees for example are reliving an incident from childhood{keepin the incident hidden from this thread. PM}.but you'll find information below.
One of the leading experts in abductees was professor john mack http://www.johnemackinstitute.org/.
The authorities of Harvard launched an inquiry into his conduct in 1995 on the back of some controversail views.

The interesting thing about spacecraft is that, before the advent of aircraft, they were unknown. It may just be a curious coincidence, but did anyone ever ask themselves why that should be? How come we have no stories of spacecraft from the middle ages, or from Victorian times?

It may well be that some people have, indeed, been abducted and returned to tell their stories. It may well be that some people who claim to be Jesus Christ, or whoever else it is they claim to be, really believe they are who they claim to be.

I am a sceptic and also note the lack of objective proof of spacecraft or aliens. While the subject is full of anecdote and people making claims, what is obvious if the lack of any objective evidence, apart from poor quality grainy films from which its not possible to make much out at all.

gbee · 22-07-2011 3:00pm

easychair wrote: »

The interesting thing about spacecraft is that, before the advent of aircraft, they were unknown. .

As you hinted at, some events that we today rate as UFO with possible aliens from another planet would have been reported in the past as other phenomena, take your pick, werewolf, abominable snowmen, religious visions, chariots in the sky, sun at night, night clouds, and of course Gods of all types.

You call things by their contemporary meaning.

Thereafter we have induced corroboration and there will be many people who claim to have seen them. The now common grey aliens who would have been demons if seen by a Victorian and Priest AND Vicar called to exercise them.

So there is that trap, and what people either believe or connive, the stigmata are classical cases of people taking incorrect factual material and manifest this physically in all it's inaccurately.

But, the causal factors can be linked and the Jesus story, if told to a modern day but region free 12 year old boy or girl, could easily recount the story as an alien abduction case and the Jesus being the offspring of aliens.

jonbravo · 23-07-2011 3:31am

gbee wrote: »

As you hinted at, some events that we today rate as UFO with possible aliens from another planet would have been reported in the past as other phenomena, take your pick, werewolf, abominable snowmen, religious visions, chariots in the sky, sun at night, night clouds, and of course Gods of all types.

You call things by their contemporary meaning.

Thereafter we have induced corroboration and there will be many people who claim to have seen them. The now common grey aliens who would have been demons if seen by a Victorian and Priest AND Vicar called to exercise them.

So there is that trap, and what people either believe or connive, the stigmata are classical cases of people taking incorrect factual material and manifest this physically in all it's inaccurately.

But, the causal factors can be linked and the Jesus story, if told to a modern day but region free 12 year old boy or girl, could easily recount the story as an alien abduction case and the Jesus being the offspring of aliens.

all i can ask anyone to do is think about the question more,.... the pros and cons..of the answer.and put forward your own theory on the matter.
but yes i agree on some of your points.

Standman · 23-07-2011 3:30pm

Why not just say they are future human time travelling tourists?

Gremlin · 26-07-2011 12:44pm

Standman wrote: »

Why not just say they are future human time travelling tourists?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14289114

gbee · 26-07-2011 5:42pm

OK then, Why not just say they are future human wormhole travelling tourists?

steddyeddy · 27-07-2011 7:39pm

In fairness if I throw a brick past someone who doesnt notice what it is thats a ufo so we need a set description other than flying and unidentified.

easychair · 27-07-2011 8:05pm

gbee wrote: »

So there is that trap, and what people either believe or connive,

Isn't that the crux of the matter. If you have evidence, there is no need to "believe". I don't "believe", for example, that paracetamol "works", because we have actual evidence to "know" it works.

gbee · 27-07-2011 8:39pm

easychair wrote: »

Isn't that the crux of the matter. If you have evidence, there is no need to "believe". I don't "believe", for example, that paracetamol "works", because we have actual evidence to "know" it works.

Your actual analogy is a studied phenomenon, it probably does not have a place here, but, approximately 30% of patients given placebos actually recover or exhibit the effects of the 'real' drug.

easychair · 28-07-2011 12:18pm

gbee wrote: »

Your actual analogy is a studied phenomenon, it probably does not have a place here, but, approximately 30% of patients given placebos actually recover or exhibit the effects of the 'real' drug.

So forget the analogy and stick to the point.

UFO Phenomenon - Any real scientific material

Comments