Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 17
Hazzard

More Best Evidence for aliens

25,265 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

On the first Best Evidence thread I certainly learned many new things, thanks to Badeskov, pericynthion, MID, Lilly, Czero, Psyche, Evangium, and many others, but Im sad to say that irrefutable proof of ET on Earth, or anywhere else for that matter, is not one of them.

Eyewitness testimony from people that saw something strange and unidentified in the air. Radar returns, video clips and pictures... But that is all we have so far. To me thats not enough. I need better evidence!!

This is where science comes in.

In science, there is no reasonable doubt. You can either verify an experiment, repeatedly according to the model of the hypothesis, or you cannot. When it comes to ET, you cannot. No one can. There isnt a space agency on the planet, that I know of, that has found any proof of ET life, intelligent or other, dead or alive, anywhere in the universe.

Roswell, the DSP detection, the Belgian incident of 1990, Shag Harbor, The Iranian UFO Dogfight, Battle of LA, etc,... We even have people posting pictures that they claim are alien artifacts on the moon and Mars.

Yes, some of these UFOs could be alien crafts and alien artifacts. But we need to be 100% sure, and if we cant exclude everything else...well, then all of a sudden, we arent 100% sure, are we!?

I might say, however, that as an investigator of pseudoscientific topics for over twenty years my experience has taught me that the first things to suspect and look for are fraud, forgery, deception, misrepresentation, sophistry, and specious reasoning, and if these are not in evidence, I then look for illogical reasoning, self-deception, misreading, inadvertently fudged data, and willful misunderstanding, and if these are not in evidence, I then look for ignorance, innocent mistakes, misinterpretations, equipment errors, out-of-date references, overlooked results or causes, etc. Unfortunately, ALL of these items MUST be examined FIRST when investigating any pseudoscientific topic, BEFORE one begins looking for presumed new or unusual natural phenomena.--Steven Schafersman.

Can anyone honestly say he examined and eliminated all the above items before he convinced himself UFOs are Alien star ships?

Sure, Scientist and Engineers, Commercial and military aircrews, Radar experts, Senior military and intelligence officials around the world, Astronomers, Astronauts and cosmonauts, Presidents, Kings, and many other credible folks around the world have all observed strange things in the sky... But, in the end, they merely describe objects observed which defy identification based upon standards which we know regarding aerodynamic performance or characteristics.

UFOs are observed unidentified flying objects. There is nothing else attached to them. Evidence is not something you can observe. That is called an observation.

So, again...

UFOs, Alien abductions, Area 51, Cattle mutilations, Crop circles, Alien artifacts on Earth/Moon and Mars... What evidence is there, and most importantly, how good is it, that intelligent extraterrestrials are out there, have found Earth, and are now here doing all the things we hear about?

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh no not again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh no not again.

Why not? After all, when you filter past the noise, BS and disparaging remarks from the original Best Evidence thread, there were some interesting discussions that never got a fair chance to be had.

Maybe this time, we might be able to have them without the need to have the thread ramrodded to a few members top 20 (supposedly) irrefutable cases...

For now I'll take a wait and see approach.

The Belgian Wave.

Regardless of whether or not you belive that this case is the strongest 'proof' of ET joyriding through our skies, one thing does come to light, when looking at Meesons earlier reports, and that is light ;)

If any of our die-hards (on either side) took the time to read them, rather than present the you tube grabs from various documentries, etc..., there is no mistake that Meeson is toying with the idea of some kind of light phenomena. For him, the conclusion that he found to be most comfortable, was that this light phenomenon was the by-product of some unknown propulsion system. It is important to make the distinction that this was a personal conclusion that wasn't arrived at through scientific means, since the data itself was inconclusive. In fact he later revisited some of that data to show that the much vaunted radar data could have been the product of atmospheric phenomena as easily as it could have been an ET spacecraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note to add that i've asked Hazzard to set up this new discussion as a continuation of the previous 'Best Evidence' thread because fundamentally it is a legitimate and highly relevant topic to the UFO/ET life field and i'd like us to be able to continue the debate in a civil, respectful and objective manner.

This time around i'd like to set a few ground rules, mainly:

- No personal (ad hominem) attacks, bickering, flaming or other unsavoury conduct

- No baiting, discrediting/defaming or mocking of skeptics or believers by the opposing camp

- Sources should be provided when asked, discussion should remain civil and objective

- The discussion should stay on topic at all times

Lets try to make thread as popular as the last while keeping the above in mind.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Regardless of whether or not you belive that this case is the strongest 'proof' of ET joyriding through our skies, one thing does come to light, when looking at Meesons earlier reports, and that is light ;)

If any of our die-hards (on either side) took the time to read them, rather than present the you tube grabs from various documentries, etc..., there is no mistake that Meeson is toying with the idea of some kind of light phenomena. For him, the conclusion that he found to be most comfortable, was that this light phenomenon was the by-product of some unknown propulsion system. It is important to make the distinction that this was a personal conclusion that wasn't arrived at through scientific means, since the data itself was inconclusive. In fact he later revisited some of that data to show that the much vaunted radar data could have been the product of atmospheric phenomena as easily as it could have been an ET spacecraft.

Yes, this is a in interesting phenomena often overlooked. Charles Hall (I think that's his name), an aerospace engineer who worked at / for / with NASA, pondered this and came out with the observation that the wavelength of light emitted varies with the amount of acceleration the object uses. Red for hovering / stationary, going up through the spectrum with increasing "thrust power."

Meeson, well I looked at his report and I am quite dumbfounded as to how he comes out with having humid air turn into a radar reflector. We know that it ducts radar, the rules for that are quite clear and well-established. That's the shakiest part of his thesis. On the whole though I find him quite fair and even-minded, like a lot of the French researchers.

And I WILL have my facepalm moment. Sooner or later someone will gave me cause.

Edited by Captain Zim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And I WILL have my facepalm moment. Sooner or later someone will gave me cause.

Surely that would have been my dead parrot thread ;)

Meeson, well I looked at his report and I am quite dumbfounded as to how he comes out with having humid air turn into a radar reflector. We know that it ducts radar, the rules for that are quite clear and well-established. That's the shakiest part of his thesis. On the whole though I find him quite fair and even-minded, like a lot of the French researchers.

I found myself wondering if it wasn't so much about proving the thesis as his own, but rather him toying with the idea of another. In any case, it certainly doesn't destroy his credibility, but , for me, it serves to show that the conclusions for that data aren't so much carved in stone, as they are written in sand.

After all, even SOBEPS, upon disbanding, issued a statement to the effect that for all the data it had accumulated, it was itself inconclusive and the only conclusions that had been arrived at were the ones it's members allowed to be formed from their own personal beliefs about the subject.

Yes, this is a in interesting phenomena often overlooked. Charles Hall (I think that's his name), an aerospace engineer who worked at / for / with NASA, pondered this and came out with the observation that the wavelength of light emitted varies with the amount of acceleration the object uses. Red for hovering / stationary, going up through the spectrum with increasing "thrust power."

The other aspect the lighter side of the phenomena :D , and this is one that Vallee mentions when talking about his database, is just how often the term 'light' is mentioned in connection to sightings. I suppose if we started to look at the emotional reactions from witness, it would be interesting to see if the colours and intensity also correlate to the witnesses frame of mind during the experience.

Edited by Evangium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maaan; if only our cows could talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This time around i'd like to set a few ground rules, mainly:

- No personal (ad hominem) attacks, bickering, flaming or other unsavoury conduct

- No baiting, discrediting/defaming or mocking of skeptics or believers by the opposing camp

- Sources should be provided when asked, discussion should remain civil and objective

- The discussion should stay on topic at all times

Lets try to make thread as popular as the last while keeping the above in mind.

:tsu: Excellent Saru! Let the evidence come forth! :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maaan; if only our cows could talk.

That could be interesting on many levels. However, I suspect it would put a bit of damper on my next BBQ. :unsure2:

Side note...the only 'Talking Cows' I know of are are these guys. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The Belgian Wave.

Regardless of whether or not you belive that this case is the strongest 'proof' of ET joyriding through our skies, one thing does come to light, when looking at Meesons earlier reports, and that is light ;)

If any of our die-hards (on either side) took the time to read them, rather than present the you tube grabs from various documentries, etc..., there is no mistake that Meeson is toying with the idea of some kind of light phenomena.

For him, the conclusion that he found to be most comfortable, was that this light phenomenon was the by-product of some unknown propulsion system. It is important to make the distinction that this was a personal conclusion that wasn't arrived at through scientific means, since the data itself was inconclusive. In fact he later revisited some of that data to show that the much vaunted radar data could have been the product of atmospheric phenomena as easily as it could have been an ET spacecraft.

Analysis of the mysterious radar recordings of the F-16.

Meesons report.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...26rlz%3D1I7GZHZ

At the bottom of the report we have Apparent reason.

(Good find Peri and Evangium)

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mars and Area 51, cattle mutilations and crop circles ....We never end the list but no logical conclusion had come whatsoever...But as is mentioned Science is absolute here...Technology is never at its peak and no reputed or infamous space agencies has found us results proving positive to ET...Then the question remains...How can we explain all these reportings ?As study claims more than 90% UFO sightings are reported in USA and england and other western countries....and not so as is like this in other countries?Why?What are these countries having for aliens to get attracted so much?Questions and only questions but no answers.....

Thanks

B???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

How can we explain all these reportings ?As study claims more than 90% UFO sightings are reported in USA and england and other western countries....and not so as is like this in other countries? Why?

Now that is a good question... anyone?

What are these countries having for aliens to get attracted so much?

And this is not... because I personally dont think they are here.

If aliens have been visiting the Earth for 50 years, or a thousand years, I dot think it would be so hard to convince a lot of people that that was true. Its convinced 50% of the American public, sure, but its convinced very few academics.

As an astronomer said, if I thought there was a one percent chance any of that was true, Id spend 100 percent of my time on it. In other words, if the evidence were the least bit compelling, you would have lots of academics working on it because its very interesting. (could there be a more exciting discovery!?)

To me that says that the evidence is weak... from the scientists perspective.

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That could be interesting on many levels. However, I suspect it would put a bit of damper on my next BBQ. :unsure2:

Side note...the only 'Talking Cows' I know of are are these guys. :D

I certnally Yuck Yuck! Yuck ! Will Lok at my plate of Ribs Differently Mooo!!!!

Great Find Lilly !

Im going to go to Stephenville in Sept and Dig around for some rmmored reports that have been kept out of th Main stream News Feeds!

More Evidence Ideed! Im Glad its Back!

We can Thank Saru and Hazzard!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can we explain all these reportings ?As study claims more than 90% UFO sightings are reported in USA and england and other western countries....and not so as is like this in other countries? Why?

The only reasonable answer I can think of, is that most of the scammers come from USA/UK. There's plenty of obvious and proven fakers from here. But we are two very wealthy countries (per capita) and the US has a large population with access to recording equipment. Hence alot of right place right time moments.

I would also think that if ET was flying around, they would fly over the vast oceans to conceal a possible crash. With the UK being an island, this could explain some sightings; especially as quite a few have been reported over coastal regions.

This is only my 2 cents as it were...the only evidence I have is what I've seen - and thats hardly enough to even raise an eyebrow within the scientific community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is only my 2 cents as it were...the only evidence I have is what I've seen - and thats hardly enough to even raise an eyebrow within the scientific community.

Since UFOs seem to be more of a 'fleeting event', I suspect that it will probably take a few scientists having personal experiences of their own in order for UFOs to be taken seriously. Just my personal opinion here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I suspect that it will probably take a few scientists having personal experiences of their own

Exactly. But I think there has been, and they've either been discredited or the story has just died out like so many others.

I thought things were going to get interesting when HRH Prince's Philip and Charles (two very senior royals) got involved, but nothing came of that either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Since UFOs seem to be more of a 'fleeting event', I suspect that it will probably take a few scientists having personal experiences of their own in order for UFOs to be taken seriously. Just my personal opinion here.

Well said Lilly and all to true, Its my personal opinion too,

edited to add that it truley does change ones perspective once you have been witness to a ufo cos you know what you seen and there is no changing that unless proven to be explainable in which in my case it is not, In my case the evidence although circumstantial is growing in leaps and bounds,

I think that it has happened to a true scientist and most likely has been brought forth to the scientific community but MONEY is not in ufo hunting,

Edited by thefinalfrontier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has there been a real count of Forum members thatHave pesonally Had an actual Sighting?

I know of only a few that arebrave enough in here to put up with all the Flack!

We need to Post a List Of them Date,LocationTime ect Details,All the Green and Grey Little Details is what helps sort thru the Information!

Who would Like to Set it Up? I Know WHat I saw , TFF, Lilly, ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has there been a real count of Forum members thatHave pesonally Had an actual Sighting?

I know of only a few that arebrave enough in here to put up with all the Flack!

We need to Post a List Of them Date,LocationTime ect Details,All the Green and Grey Little Details is what helps sort thru the Information!

Who would Like to Set it Up? I Know WHat I saw , TFF, Lilly, ?

Hi D;

I have started a thread about a year ago asking anyone who had seen a ufo to please share the info. I think I got maybe 15-20 replys to it, I think the number of people who have actually seen something are Unsure what they seen or know what they seen and are afraid of ridicule or there are those who plain old dont care,, I havent had much time recently but ill go digging it up if I can locate the thread,

Good idea D,

Regards;

TFF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, like most people, i need evidence that these ufo's are ET. We have many sightings, enough sightings to know that something odd is flying in our airspace, but thats not evidence of ET im afraid. I video has been posted on here though that, if real, i believe it is something that just cant be put down o balloons or natuarl phenomona. The only thing that leaves is CGI. But these you can make anything look real by using a computer and photo shop, and that makes it very hard to know whats real and whats fake. I believe that there is millions of life in the universe, and as we are quite a young galaxy, i believe that there is life that is far more advanced that us, but are they coming here? They could be, but i will only believe that with evidence to support it. What we do know is some ufos defy explanation, and thats all we have im afraid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Now that is a good question... anyone?

Because, funnily enough, the US is a massive country with a thinly scattered rural population. In Africa, India and China, peasants aren't exactly rushing to their local MUFON website to report a funny light they saw up in the sky. UFO culture is also a culture of reporting. Yours truly has never "reported" a single UFO to any public database. As I've said before, I've had witnesses with me (my own family and friends!) who couldn't be bothered to go outside and look at a (rather spectacular and mysterious) UFO. Perhaps next time I'll scream and flap my arms and say something about a passenger plane on fire about to crash.

People love death and carnage far more than little lights in the sky.

I should also add that the airspace of the some of the US and particularly the UK is crammed, absolutely crammed with aircraft. So much that I would hate to fly there. Zurich and CDG are also pretty bad. So right away you have

Edited by Captain Zim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly. But I think there has been, and they've either been discredited or the story has just died out like so many others.

I thought things were going to get interesting when HRH Prince's Philip and Charles (two very senior royals) got involved, but nothing came of that either.

Well, their tame crop circle boffin led an operation that resulted in a bunch of circlemakers getting nicked, and something very weird at the other site, which the MOD isn't keen to discuss (ie a funny light made the crops bend down).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Good Data is hard to get when Every Government agency is required to report to higher levels of security From The FAA,thru the Military Just try getting Radar records of the Stephenville Tx UFO sighting, ITs all covered up quite neatly.! The wittness DId see something of enormous size with F-16`s in Hot presuit! Thats a Fact!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Analysis of the mysterious radar recordings of the F-16.

Meesons report.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=e...26rlz%3D1I7GZHZ

At the bottom of the report we have Apparent reason.

(Good find Peri and Evangium)

The data I presented had nothing to do with any atmospheric phenomena. And, even the lead F-16 pilot made that statement on tape as well, and it is obvious that the data was not indicative of any atmospheric phenomena.

Meesons, has been a focus of jokes over the years due to his flawed statement on that data. Didn't he understand as to what guided the F-16's to the area in the first place? Ground-based radars, which were totally different radar systems, should have told him something right there, that the object was a real craft and not something of any phenomena since the airborne radars also confirmed the presence of the object as well.

That shows sloppiness on his part.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now that is a good question... anyone?

And this is not... because I personally dont think they are here.

If aliens have been visiting the Earth for 50 years, or a thousand years, I dot think it would be so hard to convince a lot of people that that was true. Its convinced 50% of the American public, sure, but its convinced very few academics.

As an astronomer said, if I thought there was a one percent chance any of that was true, Id spend 100 percent of my time on it. In other words, if the evidence were the least bit compelling, you would have lots of academics working on it because its very interesting. (could there be a more exciting discovery!?)

To me that says that the evidence is weak... from the scientists perspective.

But, didn't scientist once scoff at people who were claiming that rocks were falling from the sky? Those rocks were meteors, so why did scientist act that way they did back then, just as they are doing on the UFO enigma.

The scientist who have thrown in ET, were those who were tracking those objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 17

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.