Ufology

[TomTomKent]

Quiet from fifty miles away though? I live half that distance from Manston, and can often see far larger vessels take off and land with out hearing engine noise.

[Errata]

I do not believe in the alien explanation either, but the A10 Warthogs releasing flares in an exercise has not been universally accepted by witnesses.
Delta winged, experimental aircraft, which will make there debut on the international scence within a generation, are my top culprits.

I'm fine with it being a military exercise, I just thought it was damned peculiar. Why A10s? I mean, theyre my favorite aircraft, it just seems an odd choice. Especially as they are not quiet by any means.

[Jonathan H]

I have to declare a prejudice regarding the extra-terrestrial explanation for some UFO sightings. As a child I adored 'Close Encounters off the Third Kind' and would love it to be true: that friendly aliens would visit us.

The 'Phoenix Lights' of 1997 thus got me quite excited, at first, because it involved multiple witnesses, the sighting was lengthy in time, the 'craft' were not saucer-shaped, nobody was claiming to see, or to have been abducted by grey aliens, dead or alive, and it had been [partially] filmed.

Very, very disappointingly, a closer look at the sources revealed that those witnesses with binoculars could see that the 'massive, triangular craft' had no visible structure between the lights -- that this space was transparent and objects could be seen through it.

In other words, it was an optical illusion created by terrestrial aircraft flying in formation.

[Scorpio]

I do not believe in the alien explanation either, but the A10 Warthogs releasing flares in an exercise has not been universally accepted by witnesses.
Delta winged, experimental aircraft, which will make there debut on the international scence within a generation, are my top culprits.

[TomTomKent]

Flares produce vapour. Flares descend, albeit slowly, through the atmosphere, but, a strong wind making a possible acception, not through it. I think the military was pressed to explain these events, and being damned if they could and damned if the could not, then they come up with the flare thing.

Or it could be that the LUU2 Air Deployed Illumination flare is launched at an altitude of 1000 feet, and burns for five minutes illuminating an area of around a kilometer each. The descent speed slows around halfway through the burn time when the alluminium outer cannister has been burned away. The pheonix metropolitan area, from which these "UFOs" were witnessed covers around 14,000 square miles. If we restrict our viable witness statements to the Goldwater Range we are talking about 4,000 square miles. The flares were launched much closer, only 50 miles from Pheonix, but the average witness was 70 miles away. They saw the lights supposedly hanging in the air for about five minutes, then dissappearing.

These are the same characteristics we would expect flares to have if we watched them burn out from over fifty miles away.

The military being pressed to answer questions is not evidence of aliens. It is evidence that the military do not like to disclose details of their exercises. LIke I said before, the results are repeatable, which may not eliminate the possibility that an unknown phenomona (again UFOs are Unidentified, which means any assumptions of their origins is premature), but it does mean we have to weigh the possibility of an unkown phenomona against the known characteristics of hardware we know the military uses in the area, which are repeatable.

There are more reasonable assumptions we can draw from this information with out assuming the word "alien", and should at least discount the more earthly possibilities first: If a military arm is reluctant to share details of an operation is it more likely to be:
a) Because the pilots strayed from the intended flight plan.
b) Because revealing too many details may allow a deduction of what target the pilots are training to attack.
c) Because it is not considered the done thing.
Or d) Because it was a cover up for aliens.

[Scorpio]

Flares produce vapour. Flares descend, albeit slowly, through the atmosphere, but, a strong wind making a possible acception, not through it. I think the military was pressed to explain these events, and being damned if they could and damned if the could not, then they come up with the flare thing.

[TomTomKent]

You know, I never bought Roswell, and quite few other famous sighting in retrospect can easily be explained by the experimental aircraft of the day. But the lights over Arizona... that's pretty mysterious.

Not really. When you see lights that look like flares, where you expect to see flares, that onlyform an "unexplained" pattern from one angle, then I would tend to need very good evidence they are not just flares. Especially if the mystery can be reproduced with flares.

[Steven Russell]

Good points, Abby and thanks for the compliment.
Steve.

[Abby Normal]

I am as convinced as one can sensibly be that ours is not the only planet to harbour intelligent life. The vast numbers involved are just too persuasive. But, if we were confronted with alien life, would we recognize it, as an earlier poster has asked? The differences between, say, an elephant, a jellyfish, and a bacterium seem vast but these life forms have all evolved on the same planet. Even if we restrict ourselves (and there's no reason why we should) by saying that life needs a home planet, must be carbon-based, and needs liquid water, alien species could well evolve completely differently to Earth species given differences in environment.

For example, we would not exist in our current form without:
1) chemical and geological composition of the Earth,
2) the Moon, providing tidal forces and stabilizing the Earth's rotation,
3) Jupiter hoovering up potentially disastrous comets and rogue asteroids etc.,
4) extinction events e.g. that which put paid to the dinosaurs.
I am sure there must be many more but I hope these few will serve to illustrate the point.

Interstellar distances do seem to be an insurmountable problem. But so did the sound barrier and powered, controllable flight. It may be that warp speed is possible. Nonsense, you say, but imagine sitting Shakespeare down to watch the cricket on telly from half a world away. In any case, Earth species enjoy very different lifespans. Our three score years and ten might seem like an eternity to the average insect but a bit pathetic to a redwood tree. What if there are alien species with a lifespan of thousands or millions of years? Even at sub-light speed, a trip to Earth might seem like visiting your aunty.

So I firmly believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere. But have they been here? I think probably not. But they may be watching...

Best wishes,
Steve.

Hi Steve
Great post. There are approx 100 billion galaxies in the universe. The average galaxy has about 100 billion stars. Thats 100 billion x 100 billion stars in the universe with each star being a possibility to harbor a planet in the "goldilocks zone" right for life, just as the Earth. The sheer numbers alone convince me that the probability for other life and intelligent life is so high as to be inevitable.

As to what alien intelligent life may look like? who knows but if it arose on one of these goldilocks planets with similar conditions of Earth (not too hot or cold, liquid water, carbon based elements etc.) then I do not really have a problem with the possibility that they could look "humanoid" as convergent evolution on this planet shows that even spacially seperated and unrelated species can evolve with similar charactaristics.


And for those who think they would be so far advanced than us that they would take little or no interest in us I say-no way. They would be extremely interested in us. Even we study bacteria and viruses. Have they physically visited us? perhaps but they probably would be so advanced that they could study us without actually travelling here.

And I dont think they would announce themselves to us all of a sudden. They would probably have rules and procedures for that sort of thing amonst the various intelligent civilizations that already know of each other. Its probably along the lines of revealling themselves very gradually and/or not letting us know of there existance until we advance enough in intelligence, technology etc. where we can discover them.

And i have one more point to make-a thought experiment for the folks who don't beleive in other intelligent life in our universe:

name one thing, anything, that there is only one of. Good luck. If there is one of something there is usually alot of it. There is either more than one of something or there is none. Intelligent life is same way i would imagine-there is alot of it. Heck, even our universe isn't the only one.

[kensei]

kensei

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was " elderly" I suppose it depends on perspective, but I am a hale and hearty 60 with a firm intent of remaining active for a few decades yet!!

Phil

Phil, I was not referring to you at all with the word "elderly" but to Philip Klass, who is now deceased. As far as I knew you could have been 25. Sorry for the confusion.

[Errata]

You know, I never bought Roswell, and quite few other famous sighting in retrospect can easily be explained by the experimental aircraft of the day. But the lights over Arizona... that's pretty mysterious.

[Wolf Vanderlinden]

I’m agnostic on the subject of UFO’s (great band though) but I have, in my life, talked to two people who have stated that they had seen one relatively up close. One man was a neurosurgeon from India who as a teenager saw some sort of craft that had landed in a field just outside his village. The other was a cameraman for the CBC who first saw lights in the sky at his weekend cabin somewhere north of Toronto and, a little later, saw a craft land in a clearing in the woods and then take off. Neither man had anything to gain from talking about these experiences and, in fact, both had been ridiculed for doing so.

As I said, I’m agnostic on the subject but I believed both of them were telling the truth. I know personally how difficult it can be to talk of some experience which lies outside of the limits of conventional thinking and understanding and to be ridiculed for doing so.

Wolf.

[Phil H]

kensei

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I was " elderly" I suppose it depends on perspective, but I am a hale and hearty 60 with a firm intent of remaining active for a few decades yet!!

...after Randle described the testimony of the late Jesse Marcel about how he had handled the debris of the crashed UFO- the paper-thin metal that you could crinkle up but would immediately return to its prior shape and could not be burned with flame or even damaged with a sledge hammer- Klass' response was to point out that Marcel was old and therefore probably senile when he gave that testimony.

My understanding was that the late Jesse Marcel had himself been "outed" as a liar, in that he made various claims to medals and awards and to being a personal adviser to Presidents that simply were not true. If he did misrepresent himself in some areas of his life than surely this must call his testimony on Roswell into question also.

I seem to recall that almost all the details (dates etc) changed between two books by Randle which hardly makes them reliable sources.

My own reading on Roswell was frustrating, as reference would be made to some document or other - the diary/log of some local nuns might be a case in point - but no book I have found illustrates this, provides a precise identification or even proof of its existence.

You try to make a note of a sighting or a claim and when you analyse it, what is said is imprecise and indefinite - no use. No two authors use the same sources or correlate each other. There is confusion on dates, and locations of crashes.

And then we have the whole saga of false or misremembered (if one is being generous) testimony from the likes of the mortician and the ex USAAF sergeant or whomever (Kauffman?) - apologies my books are not here.

Testimony changes, huge numbers of witnesses are cited (300-600?) but how many saw anything that suggested an "alien" element to whatever happened.

All in all I have concluded that a secret terrestrial "balloon" or some such is probably the best explanation.

Phil

[kensei]

Kensei

On what do you base your statement:

The Roswell case is actually very, very well documented by credentialed ufologists like Kevin Randle and Stanton Freidman, and while it is true that most of the evidence for it is anecdotal, there is a ton of such testimony by people who say they witnessed various aspects of the incident, and such eyewitness testimony is routinely used in courts of law to convict criminals.

Randle is, I thought, now pretty DISCREDITED!!

A jury hears someone say, "The defendant told me that he committed the murder," and they convict.

Where is it you live precisely?

You might convict a murderer on that basis, but I think we need a higher standard of evidence for a subject the existence of which is yet to be proven!!

They'll blame the whole thing on weather baloons, crash test dummies mistaken for alien bodies, and aging witnesses surely being senile and mixing up the years in which they saw things.

Which is actually TRUE of many of the so-called Roswell "witnesses" - take Gelnn Dennis (the mortician) as a case in point.

I didn't think you were so gullible, kensei.


Phil

I packed a lot into my last post. You respond only to what I said about the Roswell case. Ok then, that's fine. I certainly don't claim to have all the answers on it, but much of what I've read and heard on radio and tv programs has impressed me greatly. I've read and seen just as much of the skeptical side as I have of the proponents, and in my humble opinion neither side can yet claim to have closed the case. I remember Kevin Randle appearing next to the late Phil Klass on the Larry King show debating the case, and after Randle described the testimony of the late Jesse Marcel about how he had handled the debris of the crashed UFO- the paper-thin metal that you could crinkle up but would immediately return to its prior shape and could not be burned with flame or even damaged with a sledge hammer- Klass' response was to point out that Marcel was old and therefore probably senile when he gave that testimony. It hit me so blatantly- Phil, you're an elderly man yourself. So when should we stop putting any faith in anything you have to say based purely on your age? That says nothing about Randle's credibility I know, but I thought Klass' approach to the argument was really arrogant and juvenile. I have also heard the testimony of Marcel's son who was shown the debris by his father- he is a doctor and military veteran with considerable credence behind his name, and he completely confirms his father's statements about the stuff recovered from that desert.

Stanton Freidman- well, he is a nuclear physicist after all, which dwarfs my own educational status by leaps and bounds. His point by point intereactions with debunkers in favor of the Roswell case have resonated with me.

Now, what I said about eyewitness testimony as it is used in court as opposed to how it is regarded in paranormal cases- I think your "Where is it you live precisely?" comment might be based on certain high profile cases in the news in which justice does not seem to have been served, and I understand that. Casey Anthony just yesterday walked free and went into hiding when she most probably did have something to do with the death of her daughter. I get that. Sometimes the guilty go free, and when they do they make for big headlines. But usually they don't. Thousands of cases play themselves out around the world all the time in which eyewitness testimony plays a major role. That means someone simply says what they saw or heard, and a jury believes them. And based on that, it just frustrates me that when someone who might be believed in a case like that is completely discounted when they swear that they've seen a UFO or been abducted by aliens. Just put yourself in that place- you say "I've experienced something so incredible that it's changed my life," and society says to you, "No you haven't, you're crazy."

People do lie. Lord knows, I have written elsewhere on this site how badly I've been effected in my life by someone's lies. But when that happened to me, I chose not to go into a place of never trusting anyone ever again because I understand that blatant lying is not the norm. Most people who tell amazing stories are trying to do the best they can in describing something weird that has happened to them, and they know that not everyone will believe them. Some seek attention, and some very actively shun it but still think that their stories should be told. I apply that to Roswell, where an awful lot of people have gone on record to say, "I saw this."

And as for the military, they have had three different responses to Roswell. The very first was when Walter Haut went public and said the Army Air Force had captured a flying disc. The second was the next day when they said it was all a mistake and it was the debris of a weather balloon. Years later they announced it was Project Mogul, balloons carrying secret devices to monitor the skies for purposes of national security, and the people who said they saw alien bodies were just remembering when we did experiments a few years later dropping crash test dummies out of hot air balloons and as they aged they mixed up the years in which it happened and thought they'd seen alien bodies at the same time as the Roswell crash. But then, after all that, when Walter Haut was dying he wrote a confession saying that no, the story of the UFO crash and the alien bodies was true and I saw them.

Maybe I'm naieve, but I would just like to think that when mass numbers of people all swear to having experienced something, and when individual people swear that they were there when things happened and they saw it, they can't all be liars.

[TomTomKent]

Meh. It is not too hard to see how even an objective sceptic could draw THAT conclusion. At best the UFO "conspiracy" can be seen as a deliberate misinformation campaign to distract attention from flying wings and jet research.

More reasonably these are largely flights of fiction and fantasy from attention seekers.

But we have to be careful. Clearly there are Unidentified Flying Objects. It would be pointless to argue otherwise. But "Unidentified" does not mean "Alien", and storiesof crashes, close encounters, etc, with no evidence to support them tend to be silly.