UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[ufology]

I would offer that the first sighting through the window was a lightning bug, and the subsequent "sightings" were hynagogic/hypnopompic events. This is just one combination of everyday, naturally occurring, mundane phenomena

Resume:

The first sightings could not have been lightning bugs because:

• We watched the object come up from behind the mountain on the other side of the lake, and the glow from its light could be seen rising with it from behind the mountain until it became fully visible. That would not be possible for a firefly and indicates that when we first saw it, it was at a distance equal to the distance of the mountain peak.

• As it descended into the valley, when it approached the tree tops, you could make out the outline of the tree tops on the mountain. This would not be possible for a firefly at that distance.

• When it landed, it went down between the trees on the other side of the lake and you could see the light coming out from between the trees on the other side of the lake. This would not be possible for a firefly.

All the above indicate that the object was at too far a distance to be seen if it had been a lightning bug ( firefly ), whether it was seen through a window or not.

The light as seen coming up from behind the mountain sillhoutette, over the mountain top, and down in front of it into the valley, combined with the light seen coming out from between the trees when it landed, also give positive markers for distance, regardless of it being seen through a window.

As for being some sort of sleep deprived hallucination ( or any other kind ), I was wide awake, unimpaired, alert, and young with keen senses. It was not the least bit difficult for me to stay awake all night. I didn't pass out afterwards either. I drove around the other side of the lake on my way home to see if I could locate where it had been, and didn't sleep until later that day.

Last but not least, there were two people with me who had also seen it earlier. The chances of us all seeing the same hallucination ( even if we had been on hallucinogens ) is remote, and we all saw it land from the same place I saw it take off from. Given the extraordinary nature of this object, and that we only saw one object at any given time, it is doubtful that there was more than one object involved. So it isn't reasonable to assume that we all saw an object earlier, but that when I saw it myself rise up from the same place it had landed, that I was suddenly hallucinating the same thing we had all seen earlier.

 

[Marduk]

Last but not least, there were two people with me who had also seen it earlier. The chances of us all seeing the same hallucination ( even if we had been on hallucinogens ) is remote, and we all saw it land from the same place I saw it take off from. Given the extraordinary nature of this object, and that we only saw one object at any given time, it is doubtful that there was more than one object involved. So it isn't reasonable to assume that we all saw an object earlier, but that when I saw it myself rise up from the same place it had landed, that I was suddenly hallucinating the same thing we had all seen earlier.

I love hearing about extra witnesses, but why is it that the claimant always seems to have lost their phone numbers

 

[ufology]

I love hearing about extra witnesses, but why is it that the claimant always seems to have lost their phone numbers

As if I'd give the people here confidential phone numbers anyway. Be reasonable. Besides, I've given out my contact information, and that's more than anyone else I've seen here so far with respect to disclosure.

 

[AdMan]

Last but not least, there were two people with me who had also seen it earlier. The chances of us all seeing the same hallucination ( even if we had been on hallucinogens ) is remote, and we all saw it land from the same place I saw it take off from. Given the extraordinary nature of this object, and that we only saw one object at any given time, it is doubtful that there was more than one object involved. So it isn't reasonable to assume that we all saw an object earlier, but that when I saw it myself rise up from the same place it had landed, that I was suddenly hallucinating the same thing we had all seen earlier.

Since you are the only one posting here, all we have is your word that those two other people remember the event the same way you do, and even if they did, that would only help ascertain what actually happened if you'd never talked to them about it.

You've been told multiple times that human memory is notoriously fallible. Every time you've remembered this memory or told someone about it it got molded again in your brain. There is no way to say what actually happened, even for someone who was there and witnessed whatever it was. Human memory is not self-correcting, as you've erroneously claimed.

It is very revealing that you cannot accept those facts.

 

[Resume]

Resume:

The first sightings could not have been lightning bugs because:

• We watched the object come up from behind the mountain on the other side of the lake, and the glow from its light could be seen rising with it from behind the mountain until it became fully visible. That would not be possible for a firefly and indicates that when we first saw it, it was at a distance equal to the distance of the mountain peak.

• As it descended into the valley, when it approached the tree tops, you could make out the outline of the tree tops on the mountain. This would not be possible for a firefly at that distance.

• When it landed, it went down between the trees on the other side of the lake and you could see the light coming out from between the trees on the other side of the lake. This would not be possible for a firefly.

All the above indicate that the object was at too far a distance to be seen if it had been a lightning bug ( firefly ), whether it was seen through a window or not.

The light as seen coming up from behind the mountain sillhoutette, over the mountain top, and down in front of it into the valley, combined with the light seen coming out from between the trees when it landed, also give positive markers for distance, regardless of it being seen through a window.

As for being some sort of sleep deprived hallucination ( or any other kind ), I was wide awake, unimpaired, alert, and young with keen senses. It was not the least bit difficult for me to stay awake all night. I didn't pass out afterwards either. I drove around the other side of the lake on my way home to see if I could locate where it had been, and didn't sleep until later that day.

Last but not least, there were two people with me who had also seen it earlier. The chances of us all seeing the same hallucination ( even if we had been on hallucinogens ) is remote, and we all saw it land from the same place I saw it take off from. Given the extraordinary nature of this object, and that we only saw one object at any given time, it is doubtful that there was more than one object involved. So it isn't reasonable to assume that we all saw an object earlier, but that when I saw it myself rise up from the same place it had landed, that I was suddenly hallucinating the same thing we had all seen earlier.

Who's this we? I'd like to hear from them. Independently of course, unprompted by you. If they exist, I'd wager their memory would differ significantly from yours.

I am about your age and remember my youthful "keen senses." Or actually I think I remember them. If you can't admit that an all nighter can screw with your perceptions, no matter what age, then I feel you're being a wee bit disingenuous.

 

[Marduk]

As if I'd give the people here confidential phone numbers anyway. Be reasonable. Besides, I've given out my contact information, and that's more than anyone else I've seen here so far with respect to disclosure.

I can only think of one other poster who's real name is more public than yours
they called him Biddle, rhymes with piddle

 

[Resume]

As if I'd give the people here confidential phone numbers anyway. Be reasonable. Besides, I've given out my contact information, and that's more than anyone else I've seen here so far with respect to disclosure.

Then leave them out of the story.

 

[Paul2]

You've been told multiple times that human memory is notoriously fallible. Every time you've remembered this memory or told someone about it it got molded again in your brain. There is no way to say what actually happened, even for someone who was there and witnessed whatever it was. Human memory is not self-correcting, as you've erroneously claimed..

Maybe the highlight will help.

 

[ufology]

Since you are the only one posting here, all we have is your word that those two other people remember the event the same way you do.

You've been told multiple times that human memory is notoriously fallible. Every time you've remembered this memory or told someone about it it got molded again in your brain. There is no way to say what actually happened, even for someone who was there and witnessed whatever it was. Human memory is not self-correcting, as you've erroneously claimed.

It is very revealing that you cannot accept those facts.

AdMan:

It all depends on how you define "self-correcting". If you seem to have forgotten something, say a person's name, then you have a memory "error". However you can set you mind to rebuilding that memory, and sometime later, suddenly the memory is reformed ( the "error" is "corrected" ). This has probably happened to everyone here and everyone watching.

Additionally, you could consider the "moulding it into your brain" ( as you say ) on subsequent reacollections, as a form of error prevention. Plus we have the added benefit of intelligence. Using our powers of reason, we can also correct memory "errors" through investigation and research.

Machines don't even come close to the level of humans on the intelligence scale ( yet anyway ). So presuming everyone is so feeble minded that they can't tell the difference between something extraordinary and something mundane, or remember it well enough to describe it with reasonable accuracy, is not a reasonable position.

The human brain is absolutely amazing, and so long as we are healthy, it is accurate enough to allow us to do and recall many things consistently our whole life. It is neither as weak or fallible as you constantly claim it to be in such general terms.

 

[Marduk]

Then leave them out of the story.

exactly, see ufology when you include them in the story, all you are doing is making another unsupported claim, that isn't evidence. For all anyone knows you might have imagined them as well. I could easily say, I saw the Jolly green giant and there are 500 witnesses who saw him with me, but without their evidence, its worthless. In fact its worse than worthless as its easily interpreted as a lie made up to support a story that you have no evidence for

now what you need to be able to say is "when it took off a panel fell off and here's the laboratory analysis of the exotic metal content, some of which are unknown to science", what you've got isn't evidence, it isn't even credible.

It was you, all alone
witnessing something late at night through a reflective surface, which behaved exactly like a species of insect thats known to inhabit the area, exhibiting flashes that the insect was known to make at that time of year in that very same location, which is something never seen before in any UFO report, except for those few UFO reports that later turned out to be lightning bugs. Which you claim was doing a certain speed at a certain height which you had no way of measuring.

Your story has changed several times in the retelling and the other stories you claim which also mark you as "special" are even more ludicrous

the one telling thing you have stated is that you've been nuts about aliens since you were 7, so you were bound to have a sighting sooner or later eh

 

[RoboTimbo]

I still haven't gotten your answer to this, ufology:

Why are UFOs [using your definition] sometimes later found to be mundane?

 

[RoboTimbo]

It all depends on how you define ... bla bla bla

How do you define "is"?

 

[AdMan]

AdMan:

It all depends on how you define "self-correcting". If you seem to have forgotten something, say a person's name, then you have a memory "error". However you can set you mind to rebuilding that memory, and sometime later, suddenly the memory is reformed ( the "error" is "corrected" ). This has probably happened to everyone here and everyone watching.

There you go again, redefining terms to suit your arguments. Is that all your arguments are based on?

Self-correcting means errors can be corrected without resorting to anything outside. Memory does not do that. What you are talking about is finding a memory that you couldn't locate earlier. It is not correcting an erroneous memory.

Do we need to post links to relevant studies on the fallibility of memory again? I would, but my guess is you would ignore them yet one more time, so it's a wasted effort.

 

[ufology]

exactly, see ufology when you include them in the story, all you are doing is making another unsupported claim, that isn't evidence ... bla bla bla

It's my story and I can tell it however I want. I don't claim that it is scientific proof. However it is evidence as evidence is defined:

ev·i·dence [évvid’ns] noun​

1. sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion

2. proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime​

3. statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry


Anectodal and firsthand witness testimony qualifies as evidence under all three meanings above because the word or does not necessitate that evidence be proof. Anecdotal evidence gives us a signs, information and consists of oral and written information from witnesses.

What you might say is that is doesn't qualify as scientific evidence. So what? I'm not here to prove my experience was real scientifically or otherwise.​

I'm beginning to understand why the skeptics here dislike dictionaries so much. They have been programmed in such a way that when presented with official and/or independent evidence that conflicts with their programming, they block it out and start hailing blasphemy to protect them from having to admit the truth. It's like some sort of cult brainwashing. Very interesting.​

 

[RoboTimbo]

It's my story and I can tell it however I want. I don't claim that it is scientific proof. However it is evidence as evidence is defined: bla bla bla

What's the definition of "claim"?

Very interesting.

As interesting as you not answering questions?

 

[jhunter1163]

I am a UFO eyewitness as well. I've seen an object in the sky that I could not identify. It was late at night, and the object, whatever it was, made three passes down the hill on which my parents lived. The first time, it was maybe a half-mile away; the second, maybe a quarter-mile; and the third time, it passed within 50 feet or so of me. It was metallic and very shiny, like stainless steel. It had one very bright white light on it, and made no noise at all. I couldn't see the entire thing but the lit part was rounded in such a way as to suggest that the entire thing was spherical. It passed almost directly over my parents' house (I was about 17 at the time) and moved down the hill and out of sight.

There was an airport about five miles away, but I have my doubts that it was a plane; to fly as low as this object was, in the dark, over a forested area, is taking your life in your hands. Besides, even at 50 feet from me it was still silent. There are other witnesses; two of my brothers also saw it (my mom did too, but she has passed away.)

To this day, I don't know what it was. I'm quite sure, though, that the answer doesn't involve extraterrestrials; more likely someone with a glider being very, very bold (or stupid, depending on your point of view.)

 

[Astrophotographer]

My "belief" ( as in "faith" ) has nothing to do with rejecting the idea of lightning bugs. It was the my observation that rules it out. The object was about 3Km away and it lit up the trees around it. Then the object went from a dead stop to cover a distance of over 25Km in about 1 second. I've been over this before with the people here, and it's as if what I say just goes in one ear and out the other.

I missed this one.....how did you deterimine the object was 3KM away and went 25 km in one second if you had no idea as to what the object was? Did you have a laser range finder or built in radar?

 

[Resume]

I missed this one.....how did you deterimine the object was 3KM away and went 25 km in one second if you had no idea as to what the object was? Did you have a laser range finder or built in radar?

You're gonna love the answer to this one.

 

[Marduk]

It's my story and I can tell it however I want. I don't claim that it is scientific proof. However it is evidence as evidence is defined:

ev·i·dence [évvid’ns] noun​

1. sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion

2. proof of guilt: the objects or information used to prove or suggest the guilt of somebody accused of a crime​

3. statements of witnesses: the oral or written statements of witnesses and other people involved in a trial or official inquiry


Anectodal and firsthand witness testimony qualifies as evidence under all three meanings above because the word or does not necessitate that evidence be proof. Anecdotal evidence gives us a signs, information and consists of oral and written information from witnesses.

What you might say is that is doesn't qualify as scientific evidence. So what? I'm not here to prove my experience was real scientifically or otherwise.​

I'm beginning to understand why the skeptics here dislike dictionaries so much. They have been programmed in such a way that when presented with official and/or independent evidence that conflicts with their programming, they block it out and start hailing blasphemy to protect them from having to admit the truth. It's like some sort of cult brainwashing. Very interesting.​

read through that list again, point out to me where it mentions 30 year old uncorroborated claims, oral statements at least according to the definition you posted are not evidence unless they are part of a trial, if this was a trial, you wouldn't be called. Notice also that it pluralises "witnesses", youre all on your own with no one else backing you up

it may indeed be a type of evidence, but to determine that heres three definitions, see if you can work out the adjective

1 without worth;

2 of no use, importance, or value;

3 good-for-nothing

then when you've worked out the word, place it in front of your evidence

 

[John Albert]

I've actually seen 3 UFOs in my lifetime. One of them was sighted when I was a young teenager, maybe age 14. I don't remember much about it other than it was hovering high over a cornfield, and slowly moving back and forth a few degrees in the sky. At the time, I couldn't identify it at all but now I'm thinking it may have been a kite or a helium balloon.

The second one I witnessed while on an airplane at about 32,000 feet, traveling across Lake Erie headed East into Southwestern Pennsylvania. I saw a dark gray object moving through the clouds above and to the South (I had a window seat on the starboard side of the plane). The object was quite far away and appeared generally cigar-shaped with no visible markings, but I could not see any wings protruding from it. Every so often, I'd catch a glimpse of it through the clouds, then it would disappear again. I didn't get a good enough look at it to be certain, but I'm fairly sure it was some kind of large airplane. Maybe military, or a cargo jet.

The most recent one was described in the "Is Ufology Pseudoscience" thread. It has been positively identified as a disused Soviet-era satellite.