Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

UFO sightings at all time high.


lost_shaman

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Ok. point taken, but it is still more or less splitting hairs. It boils down to how you define a "sighting". After all, all "reports" are in fact "sightings".

Hi LS,

in addition to this line of thought, what about one event with multiple reports? is that one 'sighting' or multiple sightings? guess this falls under the point you make re: defining 'sighting'...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Dude you too? IDK if the timeline is the same for you but I was just talking to a friend of mine about this yesterday.  It seems like 2012-2014  there were constantly sightings in  my area and my family and myself had several but the last couple of years we havent seen anything or heard of anyone else having sightings.

My last one was in the early 2000's.

Edited by Sweetpumper
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Ok. point taken, but it is still more or less splitting hairs. It boils down to how you define a "sighting". After all, all "reports" are in fact "sightings".

Well, a dog is in fact a mammal, but it isn't splitting hairs to point out that a sign saying "Mammals for sale" doesn't mean that you can buy a dog, even though dogs are mammals.

Similarly, reports are sightings, but they are a very specific subset of sightings, but a rise in reports does not mean a rise in sightings.  Or at least, the huge spike in reports on the graph does not mean a similarly huge rise in sightings.   The ease of filing reports in the Internet age is an obvious reason why the number of reports would rise sharply without a corresponding rise in sightings.

There has no doubt been a rise in UFO sightings, ( a UFO in the very basic sense that people are seeing things they don't know what they are), for a variety of reasons - increased population, increase in air traffic, increase in drones and RC craft, etc.  But I find it hard to believe that the spike in reports since the 90s correlates with a similar spike in sightings.

Statistics is a discipline that needs a very rigorous approach, otherwise it generates complete nonsense.    If the article is simply seen as a bit of harmless fluff, then yeah, it could be seen as being overly nitpicking and hairsplitting, but Ufology tends to generate this kind of nonsense that a lot of adherents take at face value with no critical thought, so I don't think it's unfair to point out what's wrong with it.

Edited by JesseCuster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JesseCuster said:

Well, a dog is in fact a mammal, but it isn't splitting hairs to point out that a sign saying "Mammals for sale" doesn't mean that you can buy a dog, even though dogs are mammals.

 

Seem like a bit strained for an analogy.

 

6 hours ago, JesseCuster said:

Similarly, reports are sightings, but they are a very specific subset of sightings, but a rise in reports does not mean a rise in sightings.  Or at least, the huge spike in reports on the graph does not mean a similarly huge rise in sightings.   The ease of filing reports in the Internet age is an obvious reason why the number of reports would rise sharply without a corresponding rise in sightings.

Maybe you missed my post #8, there I basically agree with you. But I think the reasons are different, I believe this is because the term "UFO" became extremely dumbed down beginning with the emergence of Roswell to the point that "UFO" can mean almost anything to anyone, where before that it had a much more well defined definition (one serious researchers still employ while the general public does not). As a consequence, many more people started reporting things that don't really fit the old stricter definition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder -- if I see a bird flying by but it is too far off to allow me to identify what kind of bird it is, is that a "UFO"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Frank Merton said:

I wonder -- if I see a bird flying by but it is too far off to allow me to identify what kind of bird it is, is that a "UFO"?

Technically, yes.  But I think even MUFON would reject your sighting.. :D

Every day I would see about 3-10 distant blobs (I love looking at the sky) each day that I can't (be bothered) positively identify/ing.

Sadly, there are those who demand that UFO means an extra-terrestrial spaceship, despite there being no example of such a spaceship that they can point to..

 

I think the most common usage is that it is something seen in the sky that has characteristics that are not consistent with it being a 'mundane' flying object.  I don't agree with that definition, but there it is..

The problem with that 'common usage', is that many people have never seen traffic choppers from all angles, nor have they seen an aircraft approaching straight on with landing lights, nor have they noticed the extreme 'scintillation' effects that affect Venus/Sirius etc when they are low to the horizon, nor have they noticed the 'following' effect that you get when traveling and viewing a star or planet, and so on...  I live near 2 major airports and also traffic helicopters and even a large RC (remote control aircraft) club, and despite my lengthy observing experience, still find myself being surprised at new and odd effects, caused by quite mundane and normal flying objects and their lights.. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with Chrlzs.

The common usage today, would be just about whatever you see and don't know what it is might be a UFO heck even real Alienz!

But this is what the "technical" definition is and used to be widely known until the late 1970's.

Quote
Anything that relates to any airborne object which by performance, aerodynamic characteristics, or unusual features does not conform to any presently known aircraft or missile type, or which cannot be identified as a familiar object. (USAF Regulation 200-2)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2017 at 3:36 AM, ChrLzs said:

where is Zoser, anyway..?

 

I soooooo miss that guy.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/3/2017 at 2:36 AM, lost_shaman said:

I believe this is because the term "UFO" became extremely dumbed down beginning with the emergence of Roswell to the point that "UFO" can mean almost anything to anyone, where before that it had a much more well defined definition (one serious researchers still employ while the general public does not). As a consequence, many more people started reporting things that don't really fit the old stricter definition. 

When I was young, to the general public "UFO" meant "flying saucers" or other allegedly alien craft. For example, in the early-1970's there was a T.V. science fiction series called "UFO". I don't recall anyone thinking that the title was generic and meant "not only flying saucers but also misidentified weather balloons". I could be wrong though: It is a long time since the series was on T.V. and my memory might be playing tricks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went for breakfast the other day and they brought me some unidentified fried objects that I assume were bacon and eggs but can't be absolutely sure about that.

jmccr8

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sightings are much more frequent now because I believe aliens who previously have been observing us from perhaps another dimension have decided to manifest themselves now that human technology is close to being able to suss them out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

It is possible to have your own mind. To believe in or not believe in something entirely. The centrists - those who are both analysts and open-minded - have become radicals.  There are brilliant scientists who have read dozens of books on the "alien" conundrum and while they might not have found a wholly satisfying answer, they know that there is actually irrefutable proof that something strange is going on here. I don't know what "they" are or who, but in my opinion it's foolish to brush the whole issue aside when the evidence is astounding.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Some while ago, I saw a documentary on Swedish TV about the organization UFO Sweden and their work, how they were investigating reports and had meetings (they showed a meeting were an investigator reported that they had been able to find natural explanations for all UFO reports that year). They were talking about that there used to be more UFO reports in the past, like in the 70s, and that they were more of close-encounters than today. Somebody in the organization said "In those days, people saw beings as well.". That seems contradictory to the statistics in this thread I think ... unless the aliens abandoned Sweden since they found the USA more interesting ;) .

Edited by fred_mc
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, fred_mc said:

Some while ago, I saw a documentary on Swedish TV about the organization UFO Sweden and their work, how they were investigating reports and had meetings (they showed a meeting were an investigator reported that they had been able to find natural explanations for all UFO reports that year). They were talking about that there used to be more UFO reports in the past, like in the 70s, and that they were more of close-encounters than today. Somebody in the organization said "In those days, people saw beings as well.". That seems contradictory to the statistics in this thread I think ... unless the aliens abandoned Sweden since they found the USA more interesting ;) .

You should look into a book called Dimensions by Jaques Valle (sorry if the spelling there is a bit off). People have seen beings for a long time. Dimensions purports that all these sightings are shape-shifting inter-dimensional beings... And that they were once fairies to people in Scotland, for example. It's just a hypothesis, but an eye-opening one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SweetestFriend said:

You should look into a book called Dimensions by Jaques Valle (sorry if the spelling there is a bit off). People have seen beings for a long time. Dimensions purports that all these sightings are shape-shifting inter-dimensional beings... And that they were once fairies to people in Scotland, for example. It's just a hypothesis, but an eye-opening one. 

Dimensions is now almost thirty years old.  And still we wait for just one verification of *any* interdimensional being, even a flea, let alone one that conveniently shape shifts..  I guess it needs to, in order to explain all the anecdotes that Vallee confuses with evidence......

How about you tell us what Vallee case impressed you the most, and we can look at it in proper detail...  If it is not 100% convincing, and given the unprecedented level of surveillance we now have, 24hrs a day, 365 days a year, what does that say about these 'anecdotes'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Dimensions is now almost thirty years old.  And still we wait for just one verification of *any* interdimensional being, even a flea, let alone one that conveniently shape shifts..  I guess it needs to, in order to explain all the anecdotes that Vallee confuses with evidence......

How about you tell us what Vallee case impressed you the most, and we can look at it in proper detail...  If it is not 100% convincing, and given the unprecedented level of surveillance we now have, 24hrs a day, 365 days a year, what does that say about these 'anecdotes'?

Do you think it's not blatantly obvious that inter-dimensional shape-shifting beings explaining the alien phenomenon is clearly far-fetched? Someone expressed an interest in other beings spotted in history and Dimensions is filled with such accounts. They are accounts, yes, not video-taped proof. This level of surveillance you speak of... You say "we". Who is "we"? I certainly don't have access to any such surveillance. It exists, but do you suppose we know all the extreme occurrences that are surveyed? You seem to be taking the words of what you're told for truth, without any evidence of your own.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SweetestFriend said:

Do you think it's not blatantly obvious that inter-dimensional shape-shifting beings explaining the alien phenomenon is clearly far-fetched?

Yes.  So ... why recommend the book and tell us it was 'eye-opening'?

Quote

Someone expressed an interest in other beings spotted in history and Dimensions is filled with such accounts. They are accounts, yes, not video-taped proof.

Anecdotes, as in the proverb, do not pluralise into evidence.  Just as stories of Unicorns do not make them materialise.  Thirty years have elapsed and not one example of such an occurrence.  If anything, less examples nowadays, and none supported by evidence, none unexplainable by mundane means.

Quote

This level of surveillance you speak of...

I carry not only my phone which has a reasonable quality camera, but also a very capable DSLR - a camera I could not have afforded twenty years ago.  I have video surveillance outside my house, and a dashcam in my car running at all times.  In the astronomy club I occasionally attend, about twenty of the participants have all sky webcams, again, running most of the time.  Lots of houses, buildings, law enforcement vehicles now have continuous surveillance systems, some suburbs have security cameras, airports and aircraft and traffic choppers, etc all have much better cameras/radar/sonar/etc than they ever have. And I could go on for a while yet.

THAT level of surveillance. 

Quote

You say "we". Who is "we"?

As above, pretty much everyone.  No need to wear a tinfoil hat and hint that I'm in the Illuminati - nowadays I don't even work for the ebil gubmint any more..., not since the 90's, in fact.

Quote

I certainly don't have access to any such surveillance.

So you don't have a camera on your phone?  You don't watch TV and see all this surveillance?  Wow.  I'm sorry to hear that.

Quote

It exists, but do you suppose we know all the extreme occurrences that are surveyed? You seem to be taking the words of what you're told for truth, without any evidence of your own.  

I'll let the audience decide who is taking unsupported words as truth....

Edited by ChrLzs
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Yes.  So ... why recommend the book and tell us it was 'eye-opening'?

Anecdotes, as in the proverb, do not pluralise into evidence.  Just as stories of Unicorns do not make them materialise.  Thirty years have elapsed and not one example of such an occurrence.  If anything, less examples nowadays, and none supported by evidence, none unexplainable by mundane means.

I carry not only my phone which has a reasonable quality camera, but also a very capable DSLR - a camera I could not have afforded twenty years ago.  I have video surveillance outside my house, and a dashcam in my car running at all times.  In the astronomy club I occasionally attend, about twenty of the participants have all sky webcams, again, running most of the time.  Lots of houses, buildings, law enforcement vehicles now have continuous surveillance systems, some suburbs have security cameras, airports and aircraft and traffic choppers, etc all have much better cameras/radar/sonar/etc than they ever have. And I could go on for a while yet.

THAT level of surveillance. 

As above, pretty much everyone.  No need to wear a tinfoil hat and hint that I'm in the Illuminati - nowadays I don't even work for the ebil gubmint any more..., not since the 90's, in fact.

So you don't have a camera on your phone?  You don't watch TV and see all this surveillance?  Wow.  I'm sorry to hear that.

I'll let the audience decide who is taking unsupported words as truth....

The people that HAVE recorded UFOs? "Real" ones, that are not explainable by our scientific standards? Our own government attested that many sightings and contacts simply can not be explained by our current means, supposedly. I did not recommend the book to a plurality of people, but only one person. Not to you. It's eye-opening in whatever manner that person might interpret the material to be. I would hope they wouldn't simply attest to the book for its proposed theory, It has very eye-opening information. As most books do. I don't have access to surveillance of a large area at all times. You don't either. I never said the accounts were scientific evidence. Of course they're not! For goodness sake, you are taking much of what I say and morphing it into a dedication of belief. I do NOT propose that Dimensions is the answer or even necessarily a plausible one. Only that it is exploratory on the topic of historical accounts of alien beings. Quite. Eye-opening.   

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think aliens are real and there's real sightings but it seems a lot of ppl are just saying they see one to be involved with the phenomenon 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.