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 13
Hazzard

Best evidence for ET visitation - 3rd edition

6,154 posts in this topic

Which is to say, that unless there is some kind of commonly agreed upon framework here about what kind of evidence is valid and makes for a good case, then this type of discussion goes nowhere.

We could sit here all day coming up with UFO cases that have good witnsses, good pictures, radar-visual sightings, physical evidence, EM effects, sightings of aliens, sightings by astronomers, etc, etc, but this never has much effect on those who tend to dismiss all of it in one line or less. I don't think that is part of any real discussion on aliens and UFOs.

I don't see what good it does unless there is such a general idea of what eveidence will be acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SUMMARY

Summary in point form, of why I lean toward ETH:

1. Size and age of universe.

(Because the universe is so large, ET is inevitable. Likewise, becuase the universe is so old, I believe it's quite likely that advanced civilisations exist too. If this is true, I expect they would have such advanced technology that finding other life in the universe would be relatively easy for them (and so I expect, them finding Earth could be practically inevitable)).

2. Almost all ancient cultures having a historic record or legend(s) of being coming from 'above'/'the sky'/'space'/'the heavens' (if ET were not visiting Earth, one would expect a lot less of Earth's cultures to have such legends/beliefs - I would guess maybe less than 50%?...

3. Out of all the thousands of sightings, only ONE, needs to be true in order for the ETH to be correct. When considering all the points (above and below), it's probable that at least one of them is true.

4. Frequency of sightings/encounters.

5. Quality of witness testimony and sightings/encounters.

5.a. High witness credibilty when: Pilot, Astronaut, Scientist, military or other professional, did not believe ETH prior to sighting/encounter, have no motive to lie, telling about sighting is detrimental to witness.

5.b. Multiple witnesses see/experience same ET event.

5.c. Photo + Video evidence (Esp. when in combination with any of above or below points)

5.d. Pilot intercept. (Esp. when in combination with any of above or below points)

5.e. Radar contact (Esp. when multiple radars show same object + when in combination with any of above or below points)

5.f. Some abduction encounters seem credible.

5.g. Testimony of people I personally trust absolutely.

5.h. Some Sightings/encounters include seeing/interaction with (usually small) humanoid occupants of the craft. This is one of the most compelling arguments for ETH as this can hardly be anything other than ETH (Expect perhaps time travellers or interdimensional travellers).

6. The posibility that alien implants exist.

Note: Sometimes we have multiples of the above points occuring simultaneously - obviously this makes the case for ETH much stronger than any single point.

Nice summary you have there. I have to lean with you there. Most of these points were jam in my head somwhere, its nice to see them lay out like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carrying it one step further...

Unless I've overlooked something somewhere, we don't really have any evidence of alien life period. Plenty of opinions that there might be life elsewhere, but nothing concrete to support the idea that there is.

No.

The most interesting ones, if you ask me, is the WOW signal and the ALH 84001 meteorite. I also heard something about that Japanese comet return sample...

Anyone?

Nothing conclusive though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That has always been the problem.

As long as all these liers, hoaxers, charlatans and credulous believers are spewing their nonsense, UFOlogy might have to live with the problem of not being taken seriously by the scientific community.

I think this is a specious and weak position for scientists to take. Firstly I want to clarify that it is highly important that this phenomena be taken on it's own terms which means that, in fact, these can only be considered, at this point, unidentified objects, not alien ships. I agree that there is simply not enough evidence to ascribe a cause to these phenomena. However, to say that because they're just 'unidentified' means that we should just shrug is inane, or to dismiss it out of hand because of the rantings of lunatics or gullible individuals is equally inane. While not flawless, I think Leslie Kean's book is fantastic in this regard. By and large I feel like she makes a good case for the need for rigorous investigation of these phenomena so that possibly some understanding of what is happening my be obtained, instead of either dismissal or wild and unfounded speculation.

She also makes a good case for taking the focus away from government cover-up and conspiracy. I think that is a dead end, even if it were true (and I'm far from convinced that is is). There are enough cases that are at least extremely interesting that, as a phenomena capable of study we should be pursuing active investigation.

But to either relegate it to "There is no evidence for Aliens and you have to prove that to be true or else we won't even consider it" or "The fact is it's a Unidentified Flying Object, we don't know what it is, and that's that" is sophomoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is to say, that unless there is some kind of commonly agreed upon framework here about what kind of evidence is valid and makes for a good case, then this type of discussion goes nowhere.

We could sit here all day coming up with UFO cases that have good witnsses, good pictures, radar-visual sightings, physical evidence, EM effects, sightings of aliens, sightings by astronomers, etc, etc, but this never has much effect on those who tend to dismiss all of it in one line or less. I don't think that is part of any real discussion on aliens and UFOs.

I don't see what good it does unless there is such a general idea of what eveidence will be acceptable.

I think someone has to open a cold one (hey, its Friday) and just enjoy the fact that we can all agree to disagree on some things.

The way I see it, Im learning something new every day here at UM. :)

Sadly, not about ET visitation, but plenty of other interesting stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think this is a specious and weak position for scientists to take. Firstly I want to clarify that it is highly important that this phenomena be taken on it's own terms which means that, in fact, these can only be considered, at this point, unidentified objects, not alien ships. I agree that there is simply not enough evidence to ascribe a cause to these phenomena. However, to say that because they're just 'unidentified' means that we should just shrug is inane, or to dismiss it out of hand because of the rantings of lunatics or gullible individuals is equally inane. While not flawless, I think Leslie Kean's book is fantastic in this regard. By and large I feel like she makes a good case for the need for rigorous investigation of these phenomena so that possibly some understanding of what is happening my be obtained, instead of either dismissal or wild and unfounded speculation.

She also makes a good case for taking the focus away from government cover-up and conspiracy. I think that is a dead end, even if it were true (and I'm far from convinced that is is). There are enough cases that are at least extremely interesting that, as a phenomena capable of study we should be pursuing active investigation.

But to either relegate it to "There is no evidence for Aliens and you have to prove that to be true or else we won't even consider it" or "The fact is it's a Unidentified Flying Object, we don't know what it is, and that's that" is sophomoric.

I could not agree more.

Infact, if it was up to me, I would take the money spent on wars and put it on space exploration and other interesting stuff.

Maybe even some of the paranormal could be explained by throwing money at it?

If you havent already, check out From The Titanic To The Moon and Aliens of the Deep, a 2005 documentary film, directed in part by James Cameron.

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been dealt with by people who really have to look into these matters, like some in the military that are assigned to research them and realize from the start that the term "UFO" presents a problem. Leslie Kean's new book addresses this.

The trouble in here is that anyone can pop in and make a comment, and do. I can't believe some of the things I have to read in here, from both camps, that makes me shake my head because the only thing they rely on are links to articles, reports and stories (or so it seems sometimes) from every corner of the internet instead of picking up a well researched book that's more than a few pages long and answers so many questions like this.

If I have to read another post that says "Y'know, UFO means it's unidentified, right?", I'm running straight out into freeway traffic.

Hey Sweetpumper, it's good to see you around. :tu:

I had a decent post typed up in reply but due to the fact that I'm not at home and using an apparently demon-possessed laptop, my reply was summarily destroyed/deleted down to the first sentence. anyway, the gist of my reply was something along the lines of internet research not being so alien (if you'll pardon the pun) a concept when talking about a public forum.

Also, don't be too hasty to run into freeway traffic, unless you think there might be answers in the afterlife. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe even some of the paranormal could be explained by throwing money at it?

Well, to be honest there have already been many people who have thrown money at the paranormal and it has only made matters worse. (speaking specifically of the credulous crowd and the leeches that feed off of them.) <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think someone has to open a cold one (hey, its Friday) and just enjoy the fact that we can all agree to disagree on some things.

The way I see it, Im learning something new every day here at UM. :)

Sadly, not about ET visitation, but plenty of other interesting stuff.

That's okay, I'll just opt out of this one, like I did your other "More Best Evidence" thread that went on for a long, long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

For entertainment purposes (rather than any deeper conspiracy theories), we’ve trawled YouTube for UFO clips, and have pulled together a list of ten of the very best hoaxes, “unexplained” footage, fakes, and “mysterious” home movies.

So, put on your tin foil hat and press play now. As always, be sure to let us know your favorites in the comments below.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread632006/pg1

I really love that second one. ^_^

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WOW signal and the ALH 84001 meteorite. I also heard something about that Japanese comet return sample...

I've heard of the WOW signal but not the others. I see I have some catching up to do. :)

I hope no one is waiting for me to say whether there is alien life or not because it might be a while. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you're wrong, that's not more likely, but I can think of nothing more to say about that documentary than what I have already written on that thread. I already explained why they chose to disclose that infomation at that particular time.

I know your opinion, and I respect it, but I disagree; I don't see any "out of the ordinary" in that film. As usual, bold claims with no much of the support.

Now, I would like to know you opinion on Childerhose UFO (in some other thread my eye caught your link to UFO photos, where this particular photo was presented). Do you buy it? I don't. And there is a reason for that. First of all, there is red flag raised when you encounter

(Note: Speaking to F/L Annis in May 1958, writer asked if he recalled the incident. F/L Annis said that he didn't. )

WTH? Such extraordinary event, and Annis didn't recall that?!

Secondly, pilot took one shot. Again, WTH? Such extraordinary event, and he took only one image of UFO! Darn, I would be shooting endlessly until the film ends...

B.Maccabee went into details, trying to make some estimations, but, I think (more appropriate wording would be "I'm sure"), B.Maccabee made mistake for taking word of Childerhose without doubting. In that photo I see simple reflection from canopy (it can be simulated with ease, but for now I don't have my DSLR, so I can't show - just for now - how it can be done; it depends on how light converges onto the lens), and the rest of the story was made up by Childerhose. Why would he do that? I don't know, as well as I don't know why capt. Ruano made up UFO/Aeromexico collision story (which was bolstered by Maussan).

So much BS flies in UFOlogy, so I have reason to doubt every case was presented, no matter what person is/was peddling ETH - plumber, general, cop, pilot, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Interview With Carl Sagan - Author, Astronomer.

It would be an absolutely transforming event in human history. But, the stakes are so high on whether it's true or false, that we must demand the more rigorous standards of evidence.

Precisely because it's so exciting. That's the circumstance in which our hopes may dominate our skeptical scrutiny of the data.

So, we have to be very careful.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/aliens/carlsagan.html

Edited by Hazzard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Carl Sagan fella was pretty smart. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, no it doesnt.

A UFO (we all know they exist) where the U stands for Unidentified, is just that... there is nothing else attached to it.

Read Paxus link... http://www.unexplain...showentry=23141

Let's take one look at what has been described,

A saucer-shaped flying craft capable of flying hypersonic speeds within the atmosphere and not leave behind any sonic booms, and, capable of right-angles turns at high speeds beyond 40 Gs. They are capable of hovering silently and then, zoom off with on buildup in speed at hyperonic speeds. Such speeds and maneuvers have been confirmed visually, and via radar contacts, airborne and ground-based, which in many cases, confirmed the eyewitness accounts

Question is, were y those saucer-shaped craft those of mankind?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence that is good enough to prove the existence of aliens everyone thinks are visiting earth.

Then whose saucer-shaped craft have been interfering with our aircraft for decades?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the whole subject of ET visitation is highly classified...as it is said to be...then you might be waiting

a long time for that !!!

Much is still classified, but somenone leaked information in 1984, that one of our DSP satelllites had tracked a UFO as it maneuvered around the satellite, and that set off a chain of events and now, it has been revealed that our space surveillance assets have been tracking UFOs as they arrive from deep space, up to 500 times per year and not long ago, it was found that a DSP satellite had tracked the 1976 Iranian UFO incident.

Contrary to what some have said, it was Ron Regehr who notified security that someone had leaked that information on a bullentin board and the rest is history. He was one of the engineers who helped develope the DSP satellite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The Coyne UFO Incident

coynemain.jpg

UFO still puzzles 30 years later- Coyne Helicopter / UFO Incident. Soldiers encountered something strange in 'Coyne Incident'

DISPOSITION FORM

AR 340-15: the proponent agency is The Adjutant General's Office.

Near Midair Collision with UFO Report

To: Commander Flight Operations Office

DATE 23 Nov 73 Cmt 1

83D USARCOM USAR Flight Facility

ATTN: AHRCCG Cleveland Hopkins Airport Columbus Support Facility Cleveland, Ohio 44135

1. On 18 October 1973 at 2305 hours in the vicinity of Mansfield, Ohio, Army Helicopter 68-15444 assigned to Cleveland USAR/FFAC encountered a near midair collision with a unidentified flying object. Four crewmembers assigned to the Cleveland USARFFAC for flying proficiency were on AFTP

status when this incident occurred. The flight crew assigned was CPT Lawrence J. Coyne, Pilot in Command,1LT Arrigo Jozzi, Copilot, SSG Robert Yanacsek, Crew Chief, SSG John Healey,Flight Medio.

All the above personnel are member of the 316th MED DET(HEL AMB). a tenant reserve unit of the Cleveland USAR/FFAC.

2. The reported incident happened as follows: Army Helicopter 68-15444 was returning from Columbus, Ohio to Cleveland, Ohio and at 2305 hours east, south east of Mansfield Airport in the vicinity of Mansfield, Ohio while flying at an altitude of 2500 feet and on a heading of 030 degrees, SSG

Yanacsek observed a red light on the east horizon,90 drgrees to the flight path of the helicopter.

Approximately 30 seconds later, SSG Yanacsek indicated the object was converging on the helicopter at the same altitude at a airspeed in excess of 600 knots and on a midair collision heading.

Cpt Coyne observed the converging object, took over the controls of the aircraft and initiated a power descent from 2500 feet to 1700 feet to avoid impact with the object. A radio call was initiated to Mansfield Tower who acknowledged the helicopter and was asked by CPT Coyne if there were any high performance aircraft flying in the vicinity of Mansfield Airport however there was no response received from the tower. The crew expected impact from the object instead, the object was observed to hesistate momontarily over the helicopter and then slowly continued on a westerly course accelerating at a high rate of speed, clear west of Mansfield Airport then turn 45 degree heading to the Northwest. Cpt Coyne indicated the altimeter read a 1000 fpm olimp and read 3500 feet with the collective in the full down position. The aircraft was returned to 2500 feet by CPT Coyne and flown back to Cleveland, Ohio. The flight plan was closed and the FAA Flight Service Station notified of the incident. The FSS told CPT Coyne to report the incident to the FAA GADO office a Cleveland Hopkins Airport Mr. Porter, 83d USARCOM was notified of the incident at 1530 hours on 19 Oct 73.

3. This report has been read and attested to by the crewmembers of the aircraft with signatures acknowledgeing this report.

Lawrence J. Coyne [signature]

<LI>
Arrigo Jozzi [signature]

<LI>
Robert Yanacsek [signature]

<LI>
John Healey [signature]

DA FORM 2496

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There might be "scientific evidence " if science would investigate UFOs, but instead they hold up a hacks reports on UFOs from the 70s and refuse to study them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There might be "scientific evidence " if science would investigate UFOs, but instead they hold up a hacks reports on UFOs from the 70s and refuse to study them.

EXACTLY. The skeptics come out in mass numbers spouting about needing scientific evidence...but we will never get any because they won't study anything!! It is an endless cycle setup to make believers look insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There might be "scientific evidence " if science would investigate UFOs, but instead they hold up a hacks reports on UFOs from the 70s and refuse to study them.

By most accounts I'm familiar with, with UFO's (in the sense of mysterious, unexplained objects in the sky) don't tend to be very cooperative when it comes to being studied.

But there is one place which has possibly been an exception. A small valley in Norway called Hessdalen.

Hessdalen is a small valley in the central part of Norway. At the end of 1981 through 1984, residents of the Valley became concerned and alarmed about strange, unexplained lights that appeared at many locations throughout the Valley. Hundreds of lights were observed. At the peak of activity there were about 20 reports a week.

Project Hessdalen was established in the summer of 1983. A field investigation was carried out between 21.January and 26.February 1984. Fifty-three light observations were made during the field investigation. You may read the details in the technical report. There was an additional field investigation in the winter of 1985. However, no phenomena were seen during the period when the instruments were present.

Lights are still being observed in the Hessdalen Valley, but their frequency has decreased to about 20 observations a year. An automatic measurement station was put up in Hessdalen in August 1998. Both data and alarm-pictures can be viewed on this website.

This website has a lot of information, including photographs and videos. Check it out if you're interested.

http://www.hessdalen.org/index_e.shtml

Edited by nessuna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EXACTLY. The skeptics come out in mass numbers spouting about needing scientific evidence...but we will never get any because they won't study anything!! It is an endless cycle setup to make believers look insane.

I disagree. Skeptics look harder at these cases than most believers. And plenty of believers don't need any help looking insane, they do a mighty fine job all on their own. Not all believers, of course, but enough do draw a well-deserved ridicule that it tends to dampen the legitimacy of ETH claims. If you want to cry about believers having a bad name, point the finger at the whack jobs out there that bring it upon themselves.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By most accounts I'm familiar with, with UFO's (in the sense of mysterious, unexplained objects in the sky) don't tend to be very cooperative when it comes to being studied.

But there is one place which has possibly been an exception. A small valley in Norway called Hessdalen.

This website has a lot of information, including photographs and videos. Check it out if you're interested.

http://www.hessdalen.org/index_e.shtml

Hi nessuna and welcome to UM. Hessdalen is one of my favorite subjects. You might be interested in an interview with Massimo Teodorani posted here recently. Enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

EXACTLY. The skeptics come out in mass numbers spouting about needing scientific evidence...but we will never get any because they won't study anything!! It is an endless cycle setup to make believers look insane.

By all means of respect, that is just plain out wrong. It seems like you haven't been following the discussions on various topics here. Typically it is the skeptics that actually do the research and the believers that dismiss research because it tends to dismiss the ETH.

Cheers,

Badeskov

Edited by badeskov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Carl Sagan fella was pretty smart. :tu:

That he indeed was, BooNy :tu:

Cheers,

Badeskov

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 13

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.