Anybody think there are Aliens (UFO)?

[SnidelyW]

Regarding photo adjuncts of UFO sightings;

I fully agree with the photo provenance concerns most people have in attempting to establish credibility of the photographer, and yes, I comprehend the implications of poor, negligible, or non-existent information accompanying the photo. I also agree that photoshop hoaxes are rather prevalent.

In our individual attempts at evaluating the credibility of any photo, at some point we must decide where our standards are, in regards to, as Rramjet wrote; "the weight of evidence begins to pile up after a while".

What I allude to is that one can easily dismiss one photo, two photos or three or four, but over hundreds and even thousands of images, certain types of images stand out for a variety of reasons. Themes are repeated. An object in a photo taken in Florence, Italy, looks surprisingly like one taken in Brazil, for example.

As for the specific photos, I thank Correa Neto for his time in reviewing and his posting of the photos in the thread.

Specifically, the supposed circumstances of the Polish photos have two gentlemen in their 60's returning from a wedding, have their car stall, and take the photos over an eight minute time span. The glider photo was seemingly well researched with an optical engineer required to interpret the analysis. The California photo was taken on a cellphone by a couple out for a hike.

In these three cases, I suppose I will have to make assumptions on motives for bringing these forward for possible examination. Nowadays, one is sure to know that any photo of a potential UFO will bring instant scrutiny, so one wonders about motivation to hoax these photos. Zero fame, next to zero notoriety, zero cash incentive.

 

[SnidelyW]

Several of you have correctly ripped my initial post, regarding post Roswell and yes, it was sloppy writing. I was clumsy.

In my haste to be efficient with words, I left it wide open, and my larger question was lost regarding the overall balance of probability regarding photo evidence of "anomalous objects in the sky".

 

[BabyHeadedMan]

In these three cases, I suppose I will have to make assumptions on motives for bringing these forward for possible examination. Nowadays, one is sure to know that any photo of a potential UFO will bring instant scrutiny, so one wonders about motivation to hoax these photos. Zero fame, next to zero notoriety, zero cash incentive.

People can have all sorts of weird motivations for doing things. There are some who simply enjoy the thrill of fooling others, but every once in a while, individuals actually will gain fame for presenting purported proof of visitations by strange craft and/or beings of unknown origin. Most recently, a man caused a media sensation when he released a video which he maintains is genuine footage of a "grey" appearing right outside one of his house's windows.

 

[Sherman Bay]

Regarding photo adjuncts of UFO sightings;

I fully agree with the photo provenance concerns most people have in attempting to establish credibility of the photographer, and yes, I comprehend the implications of poor, negligible, or non-existent information accompanying the photo. I also agree that photoshop hoaxes are rather prevalent.

Not only prevalent, but ubiquitous.

In our individual attempts at evaluating the credibility of any photo, at some point we must decide where our standards are, in regards to, as Rramjet wrote; "the weight of evidence begins to pile up after a while".

What I allude to is that one can easily dismiss one photo, two photos or three or four, but over hundreds and even thousands of images, certain types of images stand out for a variety of reasons. Themes are repeated. An object in a photo taken in Florence, Italy, looks surprisingly like one taken in Brazil, for example.

And why do you think that is? Could it be that Italians and Brazilians have seen the same movies and photos, and since that's what they expect, tend to produce the same thing?

Did you ever notice that the "alien" encounters tend to echo Hollywood's media offerings? In the 1950's lizards were king, so lizard sightings were common. Then the "greys" were promoted by Close Encounters, etc., and short, big-eyed dudes were seen. Is it possible that one drives the other? And in what direction?

Specifically, the supposed circumstances of the Polish photos have two gentlemen in their 60's returning from a wedding, have their car stall, and take the photos over an eight minute time span. The glider photo was seemingly well researched with an optical engineer required to interpret the analysis. The California photo was taken on a cellphone by a couple out for a hike.

So what? I can make up a story just like anyone else.

In these three cases, I suppose I will have to make assumptions on motives for bringing these forward for possible examination. Nowadays, one is sure to know that any photo of a potential UFO will bring instant scrutiny, so one wonders about motivation to hoax these photos. Zero fame, next to zero notoriety, zero cash incentive.

Zero fame? Hardly. It commonly results in instant celebrity, offers of cash and endless spots on talk shows. Quite a good motivation, methinks. Not to mention the incentive of "putting one over on the stupid public that will swallow anything, ha, ha!"

 

[atavisms]

Yes, I tend to agree that they are of human origin, BUT that is an opinion and I cannot categorically state that as a “truth”. “How do you know that they ARE all man-made?” is an equally legitimate question.

No, never been to Chartres. Where is it and what’s there?

I do not know they are all man made, what I said (meant to convey) was, that this is the most logical assumption. Chartres is a famous medieval cathedral in France.

 

[Rramjet]

And why do you think that is? Could it be that Italians and Brazilians have seen the same movies and photos, and since that's what they expect, tend to produce the same thing?

Did you ever notice that the "alien" encounters tend to echo Hollywood's media offerings? In the 1950's lizards were king, so lizard sightings were common. Then the "greys" were promoted by Close Encounters, etc., and short, big-eyed dudes were seen. Is it possible that one drives the other? And in what direction?

For obvious reasons, there is a general mythology perpetuated by the UFO “debunkers – that popular culture drives UFO experiences. While it may be true in some instances, generally this is not the case. For some instances, it may even be argued that UFO experiences have driven popular culture. But perhaps that is your point?

There is no doubt that UFOs are a shared experience of mankind. SnidelyW is correct that UFO typology presents as no respecter of national boundaries. Representations of UFOs go back centuries, even millennia. The most common representation is of the “classic” disc. THAT much has hardly altered over time. Kenneth Arnold’s Mt. Ranier sighting might have delivered “flying saucers” into popular culture – but he certainly was not the first to witness and describe UFOs. See http://www.ufoartwork.com/ for example.

…and…

In the 1950's lizards were king, so lizard sightings were common.”

That’s a PURE fabrication. What more can be stated? It’s just garbage!

Zero fame? Hardly. It commonly results in instant celebrity, offers of cash and endless spots on talk shows. Quite a good motivation, methinks. Not to mention the incentive of "putting one over on the stupid public that will swallow anything, ha, ha!"

The substantive point to make here is that SnidelyW is again correct. Invariably the “fame” you mention Sherman Bay is negative and harmful to the person’s interests. I challenge you to name instances where instant celebrity, offers of cash and endless spots on talk shows has been proffered and accepted by an “experiencer”. Moreover, it is never (no I can’t be so categorical, perhaps there exists a case I am unaware of…) the “experiencer” that makes anything out of it. If there IS anything to be made out of it, it seems to be by some egomaniac attention seeker trying – but again invariably failing - to create a substantive image for themselves. I am not saying that it NEVER happens, I am just saying that if it does – it invariably turns sour for the person in the spotlight.

Is it possible that a common motivation for photo hoaxes (apart from the spectacular cases such as Adamski where “guru” status is sought) are a “between mates” type of stunt.

I do not know they are all man made, what I said (meant to convey) was, that this is the most logical assumption. Chartres is a famous medieval cathedral in France.

Ah, I see why the reference... Chartres manifests some kind of optical illusion: from a distance (and presumably when the atmospheric conditions are right) it “…seems to hover in mid-air above waving fields of wheat…”. So? Optical illusions are possible. What’s your point though? It certainly does not leap into the air, make a right-angle turn at speed, stop, change colour a few times then zoom off into space at atmospheric speeds that human technology is utterly incapable of achieving!

Uh oh, “…the most logical assumption”? The dangerous thing about assumptions is that they often turn out to be entirely illogical. In the field of UFOs (crop-circles, abduction phenomena, …the paranormal generally) assumptions are something any critical minded, rational thinker is wise to avoid like the plague!

 

[StevenCalder]

Uh oh, “…the most logical assumption”? The dangerous thing about assumptions is that they often turn out to be entirely illogical. In the field of UFOs (crop-circles, abduction phenomena, …the paranormal generally) assumptions are something any critical minded, rational thinker is wise to avoid like the plague!

And in skepticism that assumption isn't an un-changing absolute, its based on odds that change as the evidence changes. Being wrong isn't a defeat, its a triumph, so making educated guesses based on what we currently know, is not something which in skepticism is frowned upon.

I think I get the part you've been miss understanding, at least I hope I do.
When someone here says "It is unlikely there are white crows" that is not the same as "There are no white crows". The first admits for possibility of being entirely wrong should evidence be presented, the second is an absolute. I think you've come here assuming the absolute is the skeptical position. It really isn't.

The assumption is just based on odds, odds aren't irrational or anti-rational. Its just a way to make an educated guess.
Just visit your local betting shop for more information

 

[Stray Cat]

In our individual attempts at evaluating the credibility of any photo, at some point we must decide where our standards are, in regards to, as Rramjet wrote; "the weight of evidence begins to pile up after a while".

The weight of evidence if it is indeed 'piling up' shows the biggest pile to be those which have been innocent or malicious misidentifications or blatant hoaxes. The remainder have not been judged to be anything other than unidentified. When a murder is committed and the police don't catch the culprit, he is described as 'the unidentified assailant' or similar... no one jumps to the conclusion that an alien committed the offense!

What I allude to is that one can easily dismiss one photo, two photos or three or four, but over hundreds and even thousands of images, certain types of images stand out for a variety of reasons. Themes are repeated. An object in a photo taken in Florence, Italy, looks surprisingly like one taken in Brazil, for example.

But from another viewpoint, you'd think that with thousands of photo's AT LEAST ONE would be conclusive?

Specifically, the supposed circumstances of the Polish photos have two gentlemen in their 60's returning from a wedding, have their car stall, and take the photos over an eight minute time span.

And it's unheard of for two guys in their old age to perpetrate a hoax?
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/dougdave.html

The glider photo was seemingly well researched with an optical engineer required to interpret the analysis.

And it's unheard of for an 'expert' to validate something incorrectly?
http://www.rense.com/ufo5/analys.htm

The California photo was taken on a cellphone by a couple out for a hike.

Isn't digital technology wonderful
http://www.apptism.com/apps/scam-ufo-lite

Nowadays, one is sure to know that any photo of a potential UFO will bring instant scrutiny, so one wonders about motivation to hoax these photos. Zero fame, next to zero notoriety, zero cash incentive.

Although broadly, you are correct, what you have to realise is that most UFO photo's don't even enter into the general public's world, they are hawked around the UFOlogists websites and are 'sold as seen' with no critical analysis done. Preaching to the converted is the easiest way to gain any favour with a group you wish to identify strongly with.
http://www.cropcirclewisdom.com/cropcircles/cropmess/777/777.html

 

[RoboTimbo]

In these three cases, I suppose I will have to make assumptions on motives for bringing these forward for possible examination. Nowadays, one is sure to know that any photo of a potential UFO will bring instant scrutiny, so one wonders about motivation to hoax these photos. Zero fame, next to zero notoriety, zero cash incentive.

What was the motivation of the Georgia boys for their bigfoot hoax?

No, this is not off topic. It relates to motivation and credibility.

 

[Rramjet]

The assumption is just based on odds, odds aren't irrational or anti-rational. Its just a way to make an educated guess.
Just visit your local betting shop for more information

Yes but on what evidence do you base the “odds”? I would of course favour peer-reviewed scientific analysis (and so should any skeptic worth their “title”). The only studies in that light are the “Blue Book” analyses and the best of those (Special Report No. 14 - http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf) places the “Unknown” category at 21.5% of all sightings. So an “educated guess”, based on the evidence, would dictate that the likelihood that a UFO report represents a genuine UFO is about 1 in 5.

But what about the substantive point (getting back to photographic evidence) that UFOs have been around (and represented similarly) for millennia (http://www.ufoartwork.com/)?

 

[devnull]

that artwork looks suspiciously like a 404 error.

 

[devnull]

I must admit one of the photos/captions made me giggle:

"This is a 7000 year petroglyph discovered in the province of Querato, Mexico in 1966. You can see 4 figures with their arms outstretched below a large oval object radiating what appear to be beams of light"

Can anyone guess what the object might be?

 

[StevenCalder]

Yes but on what evidence do you base the “odds”? I would of course favour peer-reviewed scientific analysis (and so should any skeptic worth their “title”). The only studies in that light are the “Blue Book” analyses and the best of those (Special Report No. 14 - http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf) places the “Unknown” category at 21.5% of all sightings. So an “educated guess”, based on the evidence, would dictate that the likelihood that a UFO report represents a genuine UFO is about 1 in 5.

I take it when you say UFO here you use it interchangeably for Alien and Unidentified?

I also take it your entirely comfortable assuming that 1 in 5 ufo's are of alien origin even without confirming a single one as having alien origin?

That is a leap beyond the evidence I am not willing to take.

But what about the substantive point (getting back to photographic evidence) that UFOs have been around (and represented similarly) for millennia (http://www.ufoartwork.com/)?

Millennia without (as you admit) evidence capable of confirming the alien hypothesis.

To put it grotesquely simply If you went to your bookie and asked for the odds of a football team that have been playing (lets be generous and just take recent history) the last 60 years and have yet to score a goal let alone win a game, what do you think they might say about the odds of that team winning the next match?

To be clear, its both a possible and a interesting field of investigation. But it is important to be dispassionate with the facts. Believing it highly likely confirming evidence of Alien visitation is just under the next rock would be to ignore the history of the field.

I really hope you find something.

 

[jakesteele]

People can have all sorts of weird motivations for doing things. There are some who simply enjoy the thrill of fooling others, but every once in a while, individuals actually will gain fame for presenting purported proof of visitations by strange craft and/or beings of unknown origin. Most recently, a man caused a media sensation when he released a video which he maintains is genuine footage of a "grey" appearing right outside one of his house's windows.

People can also not have weird motivations for doing things.

 

[jakesteele]

Rramjet, thank you for posting the information. FYI, I did not follow the link you supplied because I've read #14 before, in whole and in summary, in a variety of books and on-line articles. IOW, I'm familiar with the reports and have been for years. Where I failed to explain this in my earlier posts, I apologize.

Rramjet, I've asked for evidence and you've provided anecdotes. Anecdotes and eyewitness testimony are a form of evidence; however, you appear to believe that no person in authority would ever misidentify a mundane, cosmological, atmospheric or terrestrial event; that no person in authority could ever suffer from the known and documented human phenomena of hallucination, perceptual distortion, regional/cultural expectation, accidental embellishment of fact, or the impermanence of memory; that no person in authority would ever make a willingly fraudulent claim.

Rramjet, these known and documented human behaviors and conditions alone are sufficient to provide possible explanations of every single anecdote you've offered. Extraterrestrial visitation has no physical evidence, no independent verification, no records deriving from studies employing the rigors of scientific scrutiny, spanning decades, which show it be a real and legitimate event, as do the psychological and/or perceptual conditions I've listed in the preceding paragraph.

When combined with the number of atmospheric/cosomological phenomena I've previously listed -- including, especially, meteors in all their forms, and experimental military aircraft -- these psychological and perceptual conditions easily explain the many anecdotes you've offered.

Human beings sometimes report seeing things that aren't there. Sometimes human beings suffer from medical and/or psychological conditions that distort their perception. Sometimes human beings mistake real things for imaginary ones, and/or mix up facts when later recalling the events. And sometimes human beings lie.

Even if every anecdote you've provided from #14 and elsewhere could be shown somehow to be 100% accurate and correct, there is still no concrete evidence that the explanation for these sightings is "extraterrestrial visitation". There might be some energetic phenomena of which we are not yet aware, such as the recently-discovered infra-red "sprites" which occur during lightning storms. There might be some aircraft that some nation of the world was developing in secret. Etc. Resorting to the claim of "ET visitation" is a spurious leap into a realm of the imagination for which there remains no solid, non-hoaxable, unambiguous evidence... which has been my original and sole claim.

you appear to believe that no person in authority could ever not misidentify a mundane, cosmological, atmospheric or terrestrial event; that no person in authority could ever not suffer from the known and documented human phenomena of hallucination, perceptual distortion, regional/cultural expectation, accidental embellishment of fact, or the impermanence of memory; that no person in authority would never make a willingly fraudulent claim.

In other words, people can misidentify things and they can also not misidentify things. With debunkers it seems to always be some sort of misidentification no matter how skilled, experienced or well trained a person is, yet you will take a magicians word for everything.

 

[StevenCalder]

With debunkers it seems to always be some sort of misidentification no matter how skilled, experienced or well trained a person is, yet you will take a magicians word for everything.

If the person has no hard verifiable evidence and the anecdote/etc can be explained by mundane common events, yes. You don't prove things by saying "X is true, trust me I'm experienced/well trained".

If the person has hard verifiable evidence confirming their hypothesis however its a different story.

Don't fall into the trap of caricaturing the people with an opposing view point to you, our goal isn't to make sure your wrong, its to make sure your right. You or anyone else proving visitation by aliens is basically a wet dream for all us geek types.

 

[GeeMack]

you appear to believe that no person in authority could ever not misidentify a mundane, cosmological, atmospheric or terrestrial event; that no person in authority could ever not suffer from the known and documented human phenomena of hallucination, perceptual distortion, regional/cultural expectation, accidental embellishment of fact, or the impermanence of memory; that no person in authority would never make a willingly fraudulent claim.

In other words, people can misidentify things and they can also not misidentify things. With debunkers it seems to always be some sort of misidentification no matter how skilled, experienced or well trained a person is, yet you will take a magicians word for everything.

Millions of people have seen or taken photos of things in the sky that they were initially unable to accurately identify. Thousands upon thousands of those things they saw or photo'ed, when eventually identified, were determined to be planes, helicopters, meteors, planets, satellites, and other mundane sky things. Thousands of others were determined to be faked photos or photos lacking in sufficient detail or quality to be of any evidential use at all. Yet thousands of other sightings were determined to be hoaxes or lies or hallucinations, the result of frauds and delusions and toxins/drugs/etc., errors, fictional events created to support political or religious agendas, and several other categories of not-real-things-in-the-sky.

So, jakesteele, in real numbers, how many of those previously unidentified sky sightings, after they were identified, turned out to be alien space craft? Real numbers, now, not some evasive vague reply belittling skeptics for wrecking your fantasy. Have there been 43 alien space craft identified? 12? 236? Just exactly how many?

 

[Vortigern99]

you appear to believe that no person in authority could ever not misidentify a mundane, cosmological, atmospheric or terrestrial event; that no person in authority could ever not suffer from the known and documented human phenomena of hallucination, perceptual distortion, regional/cultural expectation, accidental embellishment of fact, or the impermanence of memory; that no person in authority would never make a willingly fraudulent claim.

In other words, people can misidentify things and they can also not misidentify things. With debunkers it seems to always be some sort of misidentification no matter how skilled, experienced or well trained a person is, yet you will take a magicians word for everything.

This is a gross mischaracterization of my position. I believe nothing of the sort, and I don't know to what "magician" you refer. Please do not invent opinions that I supposedly hold, nor put words in my mouth or keyboard. This is known as a straw man, and is a logical fallacy.

To clarify my position for what is hopefully a final time: In those cases in which the object/event observed cannot be identified, we have no evidence that extraterrestrial technology or visitation is the explanation. If you choose to speculate as to what might have caused a given sighting, aside and apart from the dozens of terrestrial, atmospheric and/or cosmological possibilities, I wish you all the fun your imagination can provide. When and if you can provide concrete evidence for whatever your position is (be it extraterrestrial or whatever), I would certainly like to see it, as I have no preconceived conclusions and can be swayed by non-hoaxable, unambiguous, independently verified data.

Thank you and good day.

 

[Rramjet]

I take it when you say UFO here you use it interchangeably for Alien and Unidentified?

I also take it your entirely comfortable assuming that 1 in 5 ufo's are of alien origin even without confirming a single one as having alien origin?

That is a leap beyond the evidence I am not willing to take.

OMG! (tearing hair out in frustration). THIS is what reasonable people are up against here. Sheer, implacable, bloody-mindedness. Even after multiple denials of that position by me, and even after multiple affirmations that I draw NO links between UFOs and aliens, still people just carry on as if they had not read or understood at all. Then they compound their boorishness by chastising me for NOT holding my own position on the matter.

It’s exactly the way “debunkers” treat the evidence… they completely IGNORE it!

Thus we can have statements such as…

Millennia without (as you admit) evidence capable of confirming the alien hypothesis.

And antirational, illogical bunk such as…

To put it grotesquely simply If you went to your bookie and asked for the odds of a football team that have been playing (lets be generous and just take recent history) the last 60 years and have yet to score a goal let alone win a game, what do you think they might say about the odds of that team winning the next match?

Which of course suddenly reverts to the – “All the crows I have seen are black, therefore all crows are black” logical fallacy – despite all previous statements claiming innocence of committing such a fallacy - and of course again, such a statement completely IGNORES the evidence!

Thus also we can have devnull asking…

"This is a 7000 year petroglyph discovered in the province of Querato, Mexico in 1966. You can see 4 figures with their arms outstretched below a large oval object radiating what appear to be beams of light"

Can anyone guess what the object might be?

Which selectively lifts a single ambiguous depiction - while completely IGNORING the many others referenced there that prove the point – that UFOs (and depictions of UFOs) have been with mankind for millennia! ((http://www.ufoartwork.com/)


And we can have Geemack stating (after a rant also reverting to the “All crows are black” fallacy)…

So, jakesteele, in real numbers, how many of those previously unidentified sky sightings, after they were identified, turned out to be alien space craft? Real numbers, now, not some evasive vague reply belittling skeptics for wrecking your fantasy. Have there been 43 alien space craft identified? 12? 236? Just exactly how many?

Which again completely IGNORES the scientific evidence (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)) and also (once again) raises the spectre of aliens in conjunction with “Unknown” as if somehow “Unknown” = “alien”. What utter nonsense!

And we can have Vortigern99 with wide-eyed innocence stating….

I don't know to what "magician" you refer…

As if he were NOT a registered member of JREF (this forum) and had never heard of it’s founding member… AND had never stated:

I will now cease arguing with you, as I find it is a waste of my time and energy. Good day.

Doo do doo do (theme from twighlight zone) …He’s baaaack!

 

[GeeMack]

To put it grotesquely simply If you went to your bookie and asked for the odds of a football team that have been playing (lets be generous and just take recent history) the last 60 years and have yet to score a goal let alone win a game, what do you think they might say about the odds of that team winning the next match?

Which of course suddenly reverts to the -- "All the crows I have seen are black, therefore all crows are black" logical fallacy -- despite all previous statements claiming innocence of committing such a fallacy - and of course again, such a statement completely IGNORES the evidence!

You do seriously need to improve your reading comprehension skills, Rramjet. That's not what StevenCalder was saying at all. Try again.

And we can have Geemack stating (after a rant also reverting to the "All crows are black" fallacy)...

So, jakesteele, in real numbers, how many of those previously unidentified sky sightings, after they were identified, turned out to be alien space craft? Real numbers, now, not some evasive vague reply belittling skeptics for wrecking your fantasy. Have there been 43 alien space craft identified? 12? 236? Just exactly how many?

Which again completely IGNORES the scientific evidence (http://www.ufocasebook.com/specialreport14.pdf)) and also (once again) raises the spectre of aliens in conjunction with "Unknown" as if somehow "Unknown" = "alien". What utter nonsense!

And again you've completely misunderstood what I said. You can probably take a remedial reading course at your high school after school hours or in the evening. Ask your principal or counselor about it.

And why is it so difficult to name the number of events where a flying object was initially unidentified, and later determined to be a craft from another planet? Do you know the answer, Rramjet?