Anybody think there are Aliens (UFO)?

[Stray Cat]

Use is made of very powerful magnetic fields, generated by the craft to expand outward into the air surrounding these flying discs, to alternately energize and store a vast amount of electrical energy in one magnetic field, and then to force that vast store of energy back into the center of the craft, by collapsing that field, and with another magnetic field transverse to it, to densify and redirect that vast store of electrical energy out and down through the craft's center - to transform that electrical energy into a propulsive force of great velocity and power.
That both magnetic fields are alternately generated and then collapsed, and that they oppose each other, ensures a continual movement and excitation of electrical energy - and consequently a very visible generation of high energy photons around them. Hence, when these craft are energising their electric fields colored light and white light are given off as the sea of electrons changes in speed and direction.

Wow, you know an awful lot about something that no one has ever seen, never photographed, never videoed, never examined...

 

[SnidelyW]

Post Roswell logic?

A question regarding the UFO timeline in modern history- say from 1947- post Roswell.

I prefer to discount what we know, and then discuss what remains.

In post Roswell UFO lore, I think we can all agree that photo evidence of unexplained craft has been pervasive. We can visit UFO websites to sift through thousands of photos.

If we can accept that basic fact, then we can ask- human created craft or not? If human created, then where is the evidence of this 62 year old technology, and the engineers who were involved in its creation?

Given that, to my limited knowledge, not one engineer in the last 62 years has stepped forward to say "Yes, that crazy flying thing is MY invention." Zero artifacts, drawings, etc.

So, where does that leave us?

In my view, it leaves us with a body of evidence no one on earth will own up to taking the credit for.

 

[BlackKat]

...In my view, it leaves us with a body of evidence no one on earth will own up to taking the credit for.

Actually it leaves with NO evidence. That's the problem with ETophiles, that they refuse to admit they're drinking from an empty glass.

 

[SnidelyW]

I will gladly admit I cannot explain the content of several tens of thousands of photos from roughly 1947 onwards, taken at random, all over the globe, by people of all countries, with zero common agenda, showing some sort of airborne structure. If this is what you refer to as NO evidence, what would constitute evidence?

 

[SnidelyW]

Interestingly enough, I am not at all an ETophile. I am just attempting to sort through what we know, and do not know, and draw cogent conclusions.

 

[William Parcher]

Interestingly enough, I am not at all an ETophile.

Why is that interesting at all, let alone worth mentioning?

 

[Correa Neto]

SnidelyW,

Could you please point us towards what you consider to be the some of the best of those "photo evidence of unexplained craft"?

I mean, good, non-blurred, in focus, detailed pictures with a solid "pedigree".

Blured bobby or fuse-shaped things do not qualify, neither will material suspected of being hoaxes.

Its not such an unreasonable request, don't you think?

 

[Sherman Bay]

I will gladly admit I cannot explain the content of several tens of thousands of photos from roughly 1947 onwards, taken at random, all over the globe, by people of all countries, with zero common agenda, showing some sort of airborne structure. If this is what you refer to as NO evidence, what would constitute evidence?

Would you agree that one badly blurred, possibly hoaxed photo was not good evidence? Then would 100 of them be better evidence? 1000? 10,000? Quantity does not make quality.

"Zero common agenda"? You mean there are some cultures that don't produce fake photos?

"Showing some airborne structure"? Assumes facts not in evidence. And even if a "structure" exists (as opposed to an optical illusion), it could be a pie plate or a frisbee (and often is).

"Taken at random"? How do you know that? If I string up a round object from an overhead wire and tell you that was taken at random, will you believe it as long as I sound sincere? You do know that the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary, don't you?

I have a big, coffee-table picture book I picked up a few years ago in the bargain bins called "UFOs -- the Best Evidence." This is the best evidence, mind you, not just any old crappy evidence. Yet not a single photo is sharp, of an object as opposed to a blob of light, and taken in such a way that the size can be calculated and any useful information obtained. This is the best evidence.

 

[GeeMack]

I will gladly admit I cannot explain the content of several tens of thousands of photos from roughly 1947 onwards, taken at random, all over the globe, by people of all countries, with zero common agenda, showing some sort of airborne structure. If this is what you refer to as NO evidence, what would constitute evidence?

In your concluding comment you say...

If this is what you refer to as NO evidence, [...]​

Correct. This is what we refer to as no evidence. You acknowledge it yourself with your opening comment...

I will gladly admit I cannot explain the content of [...]​

See? Seems your willing to admit that there's no evidence for...

[...] some sort of airborne structure.​

... in those...

"[...] tens of thousands of photos from roughly 1947 onwards, taken at random, all over the globe, by people of all countries, with zero common agenda [...]."​

Okay, now that we're all on the same page...

 

[SnidelyW]

I do not think it unreasonable at all to provide links to photos.
Being a newbie, I am told I cannot post links yet but as soon as i can, I will provide the links to the photos that made me say 'Hmmmm'.
I do not have instant access to 'the best of the best', not being a hobbyist of this sort of thing' but I will gladly collate some images which I believe have some degree of credibility. But there again, regarding said credibility of photos, at which point do we begin to marginalize the credibility of the photo? Is a photo taken by a police officer on duty any more credible than one taken by the same officer rolling out of bed at 2 a.m.? I think you know the general direction I am taking.

As for my terms in the previous post, 'structure' was used to connote form, not architecture.

'Taken at random' was used in reference to photos I have seen, for example, of someone posing in front of scenery, with something unusual showing up in the background. I will be extra careful in future posts. Hey, I'm new at this. I'm learning!

Regarding 'explaining', just because I cannot explain it does not mean it cannot be explained. I am not an aeronautical expert, and I freely admit that.

I will also admit I was unprepared for the cherrypicking of my posts, but I'll clean up my posts to avoid that in the future.

I was perhaps a bit careless in the use of specific terms in my attempt at conveying a more broad concept.

 

[Correa Neto]

Just add dots or remove bars at the address and you'll be able to point us towards the site. Or say something like "the pic taken by H. Simpsom, Springfield, September 31, 2009". We'll be able to find it if its in the net.

As for the "pic taken by a cop" line, a recent bigfoot hoax was commited by cops, so, its not a good one. Cops are humans just like we are, same good and bad traits.

Regarding the "something unusual in the background seen only after the pic was taken", all cases that I am aware of can be explained by conventional means such as:

a. out-of-focus and/or blurred common objects such as birds and insects (the reason of my previous (and misspelled) comment regarding "blurred bobby or fuse-shaped things");
b. "artifacts" such as lens flares and that black area blocking ccds from very bright light sources (such as the Sun) at old digital cameras;
c. reflections on glass pannels such as windshields and windows;
d. dirt on glass pannels and the cameras' lenses
e. usual objects seen from weird angles.

At http://www.cubbrasil.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=16&id=26&Itemid=96 (an UFOlogy site in Brazil - available only in Portuguese, sorry) you'll find plenty of examples of the above. Correctly identified by their crew, BTW.

 

[Rramjet]

What is your explanation?

I HAVE no explanation. I have repeated many times that for the UFO reports that have been analysed scientifically (eg; Blue Book Special Report No. 14) and have met strict criteria for information-content and reliability - and yet remain “Unknown”, we have no way of concluding WHAT is going on. Therefore research is needed.

I also KEEP repeating that it is nonsensical (illogical) to say that “These unknowns DO have a mundane explanation - we only have to wait for more information and that will show a mundane explanation…” That is just stating:

"We have an explanation even for those things we don't have an explanation for." Nonsense!

I also KEEP repeating that to state “Most UFO reports so far have mundane explanations, therefore ALL UFO reports will have mundane explanations.” is just stating:

“All crows I have seen are black, therefore all crows are black.” Again, nonsense!

Even the judicious addition of words such as “likely” and “probably” do NOTHING to add rationality to these statements.

For example: “All crows I have seen are black, therefore IT IS LIKELY all crows are black.” is STILL nonsense! It is a big universe. There may be a pocket of jungle out there containing more white crows than all the so far observed black ones.

Cuddles, StevenCalder, Stray Cat and now you, just do not seem to understand basic logic. I merely hope my explanations (as above) might illuminate and inform your thinking.

PS: here again is a link to SP14 (for those interested in a properly conducted scientific analysis) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf) and please – get past any summary conclusion to look at the data and the analysis of that data. As with the Condon Report, the data and data analysis do NOT exactly support the summary conclusions. A careful reading of each study will lead to the inescapable conclusion that the writers of the report(s) summary conclusions had a “debunking agenda”. Remember also, the writers of the summaries were NOT the people involved in the data analysis.

 

[Stray Cat]

I haven't seen anyone saying that all crows are black though... what they (we/I) am saying is that to date, where UFO's (as in, alien space craft) are concerned, we have only seen black crows (as in, we have not to this point in time found/seen anything that could conclusively be termed an alien space craft).

The logic is sound, I'm not reaching with ANY speculation about what colour crows we may find in the future and the statement doesn't exclude the possibility of finding a white crow in the future. Infact, my constant research into UFO's is me actively searching for a white crow... something I wouldn't do if I really thought it was a waste of my time.

 

[atavisms]

I HAVE no explanation. I have repeated many times that for the UFO reports that have been analysed scientifically (eg; Blue Book Special Report No. 14) and have met strict criteria for information-content and reliability - and yet remain “Unknown”, we have no way of concluding WHAT is going on. Therefore research is needed.

I also KEEP repeating that it is nonsensical (illogical) to say that “These unknowns DO have a mundane explanation - we only have to wait for more information and that will show a mundane explanation…” That is just stating:

"We have an explanation even for those things we don't have an explanation for." Nonsense!

PS: here again is a link to SP14 (for those interested in a properly conducted scientific analysis) (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf) and please – get past any summary conclusion to look at the data and the analysis of that data.

nicely put. I havent studied UFO's very much at all, aside from the occasional program (P Jennings' Seeing is Believing and various pilot testimony, some of which is quite compelling.

That is not proof but when I look at how young we are and how old the universe is (and the nature of nature) it is nearly a foregone conclusion that life should exist in other places..-and some of that testimony is pretty incredible, but not enough where science is concerned.

 

[atavisms]

Very few Skeptics doubt that there are not Unidentified flying objects. What we doubt and dismiss, based on flimsy evidence, is the alien hypothesis for UFO'S.
That is irrelevant to the subject of Ufo's

I see you have taken on a group mind.

 

[SnidelyW]

Let's begin with these three separate incidents. For my part, I am only concerned with photo evidence.
Case one;
ufoevidenceorg/photographs/section/recent/Photo411.htm
A case in Poland, with crystal clear photos. People and cars in the foreground, and jet contrails in the distance Several photos in broad daylight

Case two;
narcaporg/reports/007/TR7.htm
A photo taken from an aircraft.
This second case is interesting because the photo is rather thoroughly investigated, along with optical characteristics of windshields, viewing angles, etc.

Case three;
ufocasebookcom/2009/california011009.jpg
A crystal clear photo taken in broad daylight by a couple in California this past January.

Let us know what you make of these, and keep in mind, I am not a UFO hound. I do not have the expertise to offer any opinion other than that they caught my interest.

Thanks.

 

[StevenCalder]

For example: “All crows I have seen are black, therefore IT IS LIKELY all crows are black.” is STILL nonsense! It is a big universe. There may be a pocket of jungle out there containing more white crows than all the so far observed black ones. .

One last time concerning "All crows are black", as has been repeated to you a heap of times so far (increasing the likely hood you wont get it this time either) I don't think anyone so far has or is arguing that "all crows are black". Yet you seem to be arguing with this imaginary view point all the same.

OK, back to the actual conversation.

If everyone you've ever met in your life had 2 feet, the chance of the next person you meet having 2 feet is higher than the next person having 3/4/5/6/7/8... feet. You, I would assume, don't think it more or equally likely the next person you will meet has 6 feet? Possible yes, but less likely than the next person having 2 feet.

If all crows you've ever seen were uniformly black the same applies. The more black crows you find in a continued absence of white/red/blue/purple crows increases the probability that the next one is likely to be black also. Find a multicoloured crow and the probability changes.

In your logic the amount of things that become probable is astounding, now we have removed evidence as a pre-requisite. Any and all woo that has yet to have a shred of confirming evidence is now probable!

Bring us evidence and the probabilties change, I would love to know aliens had visited us. It would probably be one of the most exciting days of my life. But currently in absence of evidence it is just as likely as everything else we don't currently have evidence for: flying teapots, faeries, physics of choosing, that I slept with the queen etc.

Possible, but based on the evidence unlikely.
You honestly don't get that?

 

[Rramjet]

Let's begin with these three separate incidents. (...)

Let us know what you make of these, and keep in mind, I am not a UFO hound. I do not have the expertise to offer any opinion other than that they caught my interest.

Thanks.

Unfortunately, Snidely, in the era of Photoshop, NO photo can be considered trustworthy.

Alternately, if you have independent observers reporting the objects in the photo at the same time as the photo as taken, that might add weight... or if you had a person taking a photo of a person taking a photo ...

No photo can stand on its own now and there are very few UFO photos the provenance of which can be guaranteed. Although there are a great many that are likely "originals" - ie; untampered with - still, we cannot be certain anymore. The McMinnville photos (1950) are certainly genuine, Rex Heflin (1965) is another, and there are plenty of genuine photos that show...something... but are ambiguous when looked at from different perspectives. So my suggestion is to RESEARCH the provenance of any photos before deciding their reliability - if you cannot determine that much - then throw them out as useless (You WILL however find plenty that DO have reliable provenances - if you do the research, but you will not find "proof" - that one startling photo that absolutely clinches it - but the weight of evidence begins to pile up after a while, just like with the reports, you cannot just ignore them all).

 

[Stray Cat]

Let's begin with these three separate incidents. For my part, I am only concerned with photo evidence.
Case one;
ufoevidenceorg/photographs/section/recent/Photo411.htm
A case in Poland, with crystal clear photos. People and cars in the foreground, and jet contrails in the distance Several photos in broad daylight

Case two;
narcaporg/reports/007/TR7.htm
A photo taken from an aircraft.
This second case is interesting because the photo is rather thoroughly investigated, along with optical characteristics of windshields, viewing angles, etc.

Case three;
ufocasebookcom/2009/california011009.jpg
A crystal clear photo taken in broad daylight by a couple in California this past January.

Let us know what you make of these, and keep in mind, I am not a UFO hound. I do not have the expertise to offer any opinion other than that they caught my interest.

Thanks.

1. Two mixing bowls glued together
2. A camera strap.
3. A lamp shade

 

[Stray Cat]

The McMinnville photos (1950) are certainly genuine,

Genuine in what sense?
Only that the negatives have not been tampered with.
Not in the sense that they show what the Trent's described seeing.