UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Jeff Corey]

I've got Kass's book and other skeptical works by various authors including Sagan. My sighting was not plastic wrappers in a parking lot. The object was a big glowing sphere with powers of accelleration beyond any Earthly technology. Choose not to believe the story, but don't imply explanations that aren't plausible. At least alien techology is plausible, plastic wrappers that look like a big ball of light at 3Km that can accellerate beyond view over 25Km away in about 1 second isn't plausible ... neither are birds, aircraft, or fireflies or anything else known that is natural or manmade ... yet anyway.

j.r.

I didn't imply your supposed sighting was plastic wrappers in a parking lot. I didn't even imply it was metal foil wrappers in a dust devil. Please don't impute implications where they don't exist.

 

[Akhenaten]

Thanks, I actually did respond to that question ( about my notes ) here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7483046&postcount=1707

j.r.

You typed some stuff under a quote of a question about your notes. Calling it a response, however, is drawing a bit of a long bow.

 

[ufology]

Straight over your head at 25 km/sec.





The only thing that's implausible here is your story. Trying to create a new version of reality in which alien technology (or techology either) is a reasonable explanation so that it makes more sense isn't going to work.

Actually my story is pefectly plausible. It's far more logical to propose that some unknown technology could be resposible than to think plastic wrappers could spontaneously congeal into a giant ball of light and take off at 25kps.

j.r.

 

[Akhenaten]

Actually my story is pefectly plausible.

Of course it is. I'll bet your explanation for not being able to see the surface of the lake is plausible too.

It's far more logical to propose that some unknown technology could be resposible than to think plastic wrappers could spontaneously congeal into a giant ball of light and take off at 25kps.

j.r.

You really should slow down a bit and try actually reading what people have posted.

 

[Agatha]

Actually my story is pefectly plausible. It's far more logical to propose that some unknown technology could be resposible than to think plastic wrappers could spontaneously congeal into a giant ball of light and take off at 25kps.

j.r.

Those two things (alien tech and wrappers) are not the only possible explanations.

Jeff Corey wasn't proposing that what you saw was plastic or metal wrappers, you appear to have misread or misunderstood his post and he has already pointed this out to you, as has Akhenaten.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Actually my story is pefectly plausible. It's far more logical to propose that some unknown technology could be resposible than to think plastic wrappers could spontaneously congeal into a giant ball of light and take off at 25kps.

j.r.

You should try to read the replies to your assertions. In post 1720 I said, "I didn't imply your supposed sighting was plastic wrappers in a parking lot. I didn't even imply it was metal foil wrappers in a dust devil. Please don't impute implications where they don't exist."

So not only do you ignore what I said, you turn "imply" into "think". That is either dishonest or an indication that you can't remember things for less than an hour, let alone more than a year. Which is it?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Yet I tell the story because it is part of human experience and should be shared rather than hidden away out of fear of ridicule, mockery, disbelief or whatever other social consequences there may be.

j.r.

The object lessons of these stories go way beyond anything you have envisioned.

 

[Marduk]

I've got Klass's book and other skeptical works by various authors including Sagan. My sighting was not plastic wrappers in a parking lot. .

lets just go over what you saw again, you saw a ufo impersonating firefly flight behaviour, during firefly mating season, in an area densely populated by several species of firefly, they even got the 2 hour period of activity correct

My God, the Aliens are entomologists.
That explains where the bees went eh

 

[23_Tauri]

I stand corrected.

A small point, really, in the greater scheme of things.

Nice to see a poster who is willing to hold their hands up rather than duck, dance and leap. Although, I can see how you could do all those things together to make a nifty dance routine.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Actually my story is pefectly plausible. It's far more logical to propose that some unknown technology could be resposible than to think plastic wrappers could spontaneously congeal into a giant ball of light and take off at 25kps.

j.r.

False dichotomy.

 

[23_Tauri]

Don't worry, I won't slam you with it every five minutes while implying that you don't know how to read. Just because we get certain details wrong when we read or write something down doesn't mean that the essential information isn't correct. Plus finding the errors helps us make better records. I do a lot of copy, cut, delete and paste when I'm writing, and I'm the only one maintaining the site, so I have no proof reader. I try to avoid mistakes, but nobody is perfect. I actually should thank whoever it was back there for pointing out my directional mistake. If nothing else, this discussion has made me look at the finer points and I appreciate every bit of constructive commentary.

j.r.

ufology, from what I can gather the only 'essential information' that is correct is that you saw some bright lights one night in the Rocky mountains many years ago and concluded that they were aliens. You didn't have the time or the tools to record accurately any of the 'essential information' that would help with identification. The essential information isn't just incorrect, it's missing!

This information would be fundamentals like the size, distance, speed, trajectory of the object. This is stuff you've speculated upon based on your preconceived notions about the possibility of alien visitation.

I'm not knocking your story, and I certainly believe you saw something, but your story ain't ever going to convince people who want evidence that it was anything but a misidentified object of earthly origin. That's all.

 

[23_Tauri]

The whole thing was a ball of light so it wasn't headlamp size, more like a headlamp the size of a whole car, but with an odd glow that is hard to describe ... it was bright, but not sharp or blinding, a quality of light very similar to glow stick light ... but blue-white and much brighter.

Like a firefly then? Glow sticks look very like fireflies.

As it approached the top of the trees you could see the tree tops. They weren't really disctinct at that distance, but you could see them well enough to tell they were tall firs, and as it settled into the forest between them the light from the object filtered out from between them. So I knew for sure it had gone down in the forest on the other side of the lake.

You haven't convinced me that you could be sure that the light went down below the darkened tree line. Perhaps the light just went out? You're also still assuming that you remember all these details, like bright blue-white light for example, perfectly, when the fallibility of witness testimony has been pointed out to you earlier (with helpful links).

I see similar effects here regularly from car headlamps on a road that runs through the Tsu Tina Nation ( native land ) across from my home. The cars are way over there going along a road between the trees.

But you know what you are looking at this example. You know the road is there, and that you are observing car headlights. Do you see the discrepancy?

Plus I saw the object four times in total that night. Three of us saw it the first time. Two of us the second, and me the last two times. ( The girls had dozed off by then ). When it came up the last time, it was getting light and the landscape was plainly visible. This thing, whatever it was, wasn't "one of ours". There is just no way.

Yes, and your reasoning for thinking that it was the same object was simply "it had to be". Once again, you made an assumption. You assumed it was the same object.

After the sighting, I started asking around and I found out that other people had reported similar objects out there in the past. The valley has plenty of weird stories, and since I lived there for several years I was lucky enough to experience some of the phenomena.

j.r.

You name me a hicky valley in the middle of nowhere that doesn't have lots of 'weird stories' for late nights round the campfire/in the local bar.

 

[ufology]

I didn't imply your supposed sighting was plastic wrappers in a parking lot. I didn't even imply it was metal foil wrappers in a dust devil. Please don't impute implications where they don't exist.

You implied well enough that it could have been something as mundane as that and I simply used the same example to imply it's ludicrous to think it was.

j.r

 

[Agatha]

Actually, no. You should read Jeff Corey's post again, as you are misunderstanding the point of it (protip: it's not all about you). You are drawing an erroneous inference, and you have been corrected several times now.

 

[Paul2]

Ufology, here is the bottom line of what Jeff said.

If an object is far enough away, the normal depth cues of accommodation and binocular disparity don't work and the absence of any other cues made the judgement of distance and speed impossible.

 

[ufology]

Actually, no. You should read Jeff Corey's post again, as you are misunderstanding the point of it (protip: it's not all about you). You are drawing an erroneous inference, and you have been corrected several times now.

OK the original post was a response to Marduk ( Mr. Firefly ). So technically yes, the above is correct. It wasn't aimed at me specifically, but was only in the context of such an experience ... to which my comments in that regard are still valid. But I'll still try to avoid butting in next time ... thanks for pointing it out.

j.r.

 

[Jeff Corey]

You implied well enough that it could have been something as mundane as that and I simply used the same example to imply it's ludicrous to think it was.

j.r

No. If you think so, you are unable to read a clearly written message and understand it. You are unable to read with any comprehension of what was said, your uninformed viewpoint is lacking in any modicum of critical thinking and seems to be impervious to evidence that your unfounded assertions have no validity. Maybe this whole discussion is above your grade level.

 

[ufology]

No. If you think so, you are unable to read a clearly written message and understand it. You are unable to read with any comprehension of what was said, your uninformed viewpoint is lacking in any modicum of critical thinking and seems to be impervious to evidence that your unfounded assertions have no validity. Maybe this whole discussion is above your grade level.

See the post above yours where someone corrected me already. I should have been more observant regarding who the post was in response to.

j.r.

 

[Jeff Corey]

My comments still stand.
As I said before,"So not only do you ignore what I said, you turn "imply" into "think". That is either dishonest or an indication that you can't remember things for less than an hour, let alone more than a year. Which is it? "
Since you haven't answered, I stick with a combination of both.

 

[R.A.F.]

...and take off at 25kps.

By what method did you determine this speed?