UFOs: The Research, the Evidence

[Sideroxylon]

So pictures of a toy frog, some indistinct lights which could as easily be anything else as a ufo, and a lense flare on an atmospheric shadow. What amongst that is meant to prove aliens again?

Even if the toy was a previously unknown lifeform, how does "previously unknown" become alien?

Captain James Cook on his first Kangaroo sighting: "OMG Aliens!!!!!11"

 

[edge]

What are the lights in pictures 2 and 3?

2 is manmade and projected, 3 read the link.

Number 3 is similar to what I might have seen on that mountain ridge that I talked about back a ways, It is possible the same as ufolagy seen, but only one explanation.
It is one of those instances where I was in doubt and couldn't say for sure, but in another of my posts where I am sure… I am sure, with no doubt what so ever, a conveyance of an unknown origin and alien to us.
Plus not one of ours for sure as in black operations.
I say this because as soon as we have technology that is in any way similar or exactly as observed we would use it and make a leap that couldn’t be hidden.
Our governments are still using explosion technology.
Technology that is associated with the physics required to do what they can do would put the whole world at bay, in two ways.

To say that we can’t tell the differences is absolutely absurd.

Who ever said Mudpuppy is sure.

 

[RoboTimbo]

2 is manmade and projected, 3 read the link.

Then why did you post #2? Or #1 or #3 for that matter? Number 3 looks like a camera artefact, not something tangible. Why are you posting random pictures? Almost as if you're saying, "Look at these! Wouldn't it be cool if these were something non-mundane?"

Number 3 is similar to what I might have seen on that mountain ridge that I talked about back a ways, It is possible the same as ufolagy seen, but only one explanation.

Yes, I would agree that these mundane pictures could be similar to what others have claimed to see.

 

[edge]

Any one who said frog is mistaken even with the evidence as a photo does not make the observation false or the photo false it's a matter of distinguishing what it is when you look at proof.
If you said frog you’re not investigating it properly.
If you seen a UFO and said it was a blimp it would be false.
If you seen a blimp and said it was a UFO it would be false.
What would be the point in lying?
When you say there’s nothing unusual in one of my photos your lying. As in this one that I posted before.
The one with the light has been mistaken for?
The one with the cars is?
Lets see how good you are.
To say as before there's nothing there is absolutely wrong.

 

[edge]

Then why did you post #2? Or #1 or #3 for that matter? Number 3 looks like a camera artefact, not something tangible. Why are you posting random pictures? Almost as if you're saying, "Look at these! Wouldn't it be cool if these were something non-mundane?"


Yes, I would agree that these mundane pictures could be similar to what others have claimed to see.

#3 is viewed on a regular basis with out cameras.
Same in a way as I have observed without a camera, so I can't say what it is.
But plate tectonics seem to cover that.
But in no way does it cover my other observances or any other mundane explanations for those sightings except that it was a conveyance. I was quite capable of elimination of the mundane.
I can even accept that three of my observances were hallucinations or originating from my mind or sleep deprivation, but not three others that I had seen wide-awake and when I was as clean as anyone could be.

 

[RoboTimbo]

#3 is viewed on a regular basis with out cameras.
Same in a way as I have observed without a camera, so I can't say what it is.
But plate tectonics seem to cover that.
But in no way does it cover my other observances or any other mundane explanations for those sightings except that it was a conveyance. I was quite capable of elimination of the mundane.
I can even accept that three of my observances were hallucinations or originating from my mind or sleep deprivation, but not three others that I had seen wide-awake and when I was as clean as anyone could be.

#3 is a long exposure probably coupled with camera shake to make a light in the sky look exciting.

I'm sure you were quite capable of eliminating mundane explanations, it's just that you are also quite capable of being wrong. Look at how often Rramjet was proven wrong in his process of eliminating the mundane. I've never been shown to be wrong when I've used a process of elimination to eliminate non-mundane explanations.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I'm sure you were quite capable of eliminating mundane explanations, it's just that you are also quite capable of being wrong. Look at how often Rramjet was proven wrong in his process of eliminating the mundane. I've never been shown to be wrong when I've used a process of elimination to eliminate non-mundane explanations.

Photos of out of focus lights, regardless of any given descritption do not prove anything that there was an object with lights that was not clearly photographed. As there are a lot of mundane objects in our sky with lights they prove nothing.

 

[Paulhoff]

I find it hilarious that skeptics will argue against the religious about us being the crown of creation, or in other words we are not alone in the universe but can’t wrap their heads around the fact that others that are out there can come here with millions of years of advanced technology, when all you have to do is look at ourselves and understand we went from horse drawn carriages in a 100 years to being able to go to anywhere in our solar system.
What will we be capable of in the next 100 years?
That’s if we survive, and that maybe why they are here in these critical times at this moment especially.

So, them being so advanced and only flying about the sky shows us what.


Paul



How dumb people on the ground can be is what.

 

[Archer17]

I'm surprised this thread is still going. I see ufology is still getting bites here. It's a shame he was never capable of getting beyond the affirmation/dictionary stage as the ufological lore can be entertaining and, in some cases, interesting. Maybe we'll get someone else a little more grounded in reality that will honestly debate the issues and respect the thread title instead of just trying to yank chains. Then there's edge...

I find it hilarious that skeptics will argue against the religious about us being the crown of creation, or in other words we are not alone in the universe but can’t wrap their heads around the fact that others that are out there can come here with millions of years of advanced technology, when all you have to do is look at ourselves and understand we went from horse drawn carriages in a 100 years to being able to go to anywhere in our solar system.
What will we be capable of in the next 100 years?
That’s if we survive, and that maybe why they are here in these critical times at this moment especially.

I always find it hilarious when flying saucer believers use this argument in lieu of actual evidence. ET comes all this way and does the moth/flame thing for eons just because we are so special. Riiight.
Technological advancement always sounds like a nice argument with it's comparison to how things used to be 50, 100 or more years ago here on Earth but it doesn't make a "UFO" an extraterrestrial craft by default. In fact, if I wanted to be a stinker (which I guess I do) I could remind you that we put men on the moon in 1969 and haven't exactly progressed at the same rate there as your horse and buggy example seemingly implies. At any rate, the simple fact is: our technological advancement (or lack of it) is ours, period. Your hypothetical ET might primarily consist of Jovian gas bags that, like ufology, can float but, unlike that dictionary-wielding chain-yanker, lack the necessary appendages to even type, let alone make spaceships. Then again, maybe ETI is primarily aquatic. Who knows? You certainly don't. So tout our technology all you want but it doesn't really mean anything.

Another hilarious thing is the circular reasoning employed by your basic saucer-spewer. They are here so things like SR and the distance hurdle already have been addressed by their "aliens" and the peddler doesn't even have to explain how they did it. All they have to do is link to a saucer story and/or claim they saw a "UFO" and that's it. I'm waiting for the inevitable CERN/Neutrino "puzzle" to make a light in the sky a Denebian scout ship by you people. It doesn't take much, does it? Well, I hate to burst your buddle here edge but a "UFO" is just an unidentified flying object which means exactly that. An unidentified object will never be an "alien" space ship, it will just be an unidentified object. Another thing to chew on is UFO sightings are singular events that woos lump together to make a phenomena out of so they can sell books or rationalize their special place in the grand order of things. The thing is, if you or other hokem-peddlers want to put "aliens" in control of any of your "UFOs" you need to produce said "aliens." End of story. How such a simple concept seems to elude some is the real mystery here.

 

[Tomtomkent]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=...l=3916l7691l0l7847l12l12l0l11l0l0l93l93l1l1l0

OMFG! Alien invasion!

 

[Astrophotographer]

#3
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=23555&stc=1&d=1317210151 looks like a "glory" (I did not see any link with that image explaining what it was supposed to be. I am not sure what that has to do with anything regarding UFOs.

 

[23_Tauri]

.....we put men on the moon in 1969 .......

You sure about that?

 

[AdMan]

Did edge explain why he posted a picture of a mudpuppy in a thread about UFO evidence? Is he claiming it's an alien? I can't quite decipher what he's saying in many of his posts...

 

[Astrophotographer]

Any one who said frog is mistaken even with the evidence as a photo does not make the observation false or the photo false it's a matter of distinguishing what it is when you look at proof.
If you said frog you’re not investigating it properly.
If you seen a UFO and said it was a blimp it would be false.
If you seen a blimp and said it was a UFO it would be false.
What would be the point in lying?
When you say there’s nothing unusual in one of my photos your lying. As in this one that I posted before.
The one with the light has been mistaken for?
The one with the cars is?
Lets see how good you are.
To say as before there's nothing there is absolutely wrong.

The first one has too low a resolution to be able to determine what it might be. However, judging by the weather pattern in the image, i would not be surprised if it was some sort of wind blown debris. It could be a raindrop on the window as well (being close it is out of focus). I would put that as insufficient information. However, I would find it unlikely as good evidence for UFOs/alien craft.

The second one is a light of some kind. However, one can not determine what the light is from. There is no evidence to indicate it is unnatural or coming from a UFO/alien craft.

Is this your UFO evidence? I am not impressed.

 

[Spektator]

#3
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=23555&stc=1&d=1317210151 looks like a "glory" (I did not see any link with that image explaining what it was supposed to be. I am not sure what that has to do with anything regarding UFOs.

A Brocken Spectre. Rather common and well-undestood natural phenomenon.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Did edge explain why he posted a picture of a mudpuppy in a thread about UFO evidence? Is he claiming it's an alien? I can't quite decipher what he's saying in many of his posts...

I couldn't see clues in the link he gave in the same post. What is that all about, edge?

 

[Archer17]

The first one has too low a resolution to be able to determine what it might be. However, judging by the weather pattern in the image, i would not be surprised if it was some sort of wind blown debris. It could be a raindrop on the window as well (being close it is out of focus). I would put that as insufficient information. However, I would find it unlikely as good evidence for UFOs/alien craft.

The second one is a light of some kind. However, one can not determine what the light is from. There is no evidence to indicate it is unnatural or coming from a UFO/alien craft.

Is this your UFO evidence? I am not impressed.

Neither am I. The second pic is an X-Ray image from Chandra of Sirius A & B .

 

[ufology]

What are the lights in pictures 2 and 3?

Robo,

Thanks for your comments on: http://www.zeitlin.net/OpenSETI/Docs/EuroSETI2002_OSI.htm

Anyone Else?

Also thanks for posting the link on the Deming Lights. I had considered that maybe what I saw was one of the Earthlight type phenomena, but the precision repitition was just too controlled for that. There was nothing erattic about it.

BTW: So what would make you rule out fireflies for the Deming Lights phenomena? It seems they are all up in the sky where you can't be sure the light or object ( whatever it is ) is closer than any particular background landmark. And I don't see any images of the light shining out from behind any other landmark nearby either. So where are the distance cues? The blurryness seems to indicate some distance. I see aircraft on approach here where I live a lot, and if they were photographed with a longer exposure, I imagine the pictures would look very similar. The only thing is that the witness descriptions don't really match commercial air traffic. Maybe they were USAF aircraft doing maneuvers off in the distance. Not much info to go on there.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Robo,

Thanks for your comments on: http://www.zeitlin.net/OpenSETI/Docs/EuroSETI2002_OSI.htm

Anyone Else?

Also thanks for posting the link on the Deming Lights. I had considered that maybe what I saw was one of the Earthlight type phenomena, but the precision repitition was just too controlled for that. There was nothing erattic about it.

At least your memory of your perception tells you that. No telling now what it actually was because of the problems with memory and perception that have been documented in this thread.

BTW: So what would make you rule out fireflies for the Deming Lights phenomena?

What would allow you to rule them in?

It seems they are all up in the sky where you can't be sure the light or object ( whatever it is ) is closer than any particular background landmark.

Your point here is taken. Not knowing the size of something, we can't accurately gauge its distance and not knowing its distance, we can't accurately gauge its size. I think we can agree on that. Even if it were in front of something else, we still wouldn't know.

And I don't see any images of the light shining out from behind any other landmark nearby either. So where are the distance cues? The blurryness seems to indicate some distance.

Or camera shake. Or video editing.

I see aircraft on approach here where I live a lot, and if they were photographed with a longer exposure, I imagine the pictures would look very similar. The only thing is that the witness descriptions don't really match commercial air traffic. Maybe they were USAF aircraft doing maneuvers off in the distance. Not much info to go on there.

So you're relying on witness descriptions as accurate? Why would you do that, knowing how fallible memory and perception can be?

 

[Drs_Res]

Since it seems to have been missed, I'll repost this:

Could you take the image and indicate the core object minus the glow? Maybe as a red circle or something?

I'll keep in mind that the edge might not be 100% discernible, but a close estimate would be nice. You did after all say that it was about 15.55 feet (I think that was the number) in diameter, so you must have had some idea where the edge was vs. the glow. You can even tag the the red circle with the words "Estimated size of the Core", or something to that effect.

Thanks.

Drs_Res

I don't think I could do that with any real accuracy on the scale of the picture I posted because the picture is too small. The relative size of the object to the trees as it neared them and landed behind them gave clues as to it's size. In this picture I can't really get that across accurately. Maybe if the image was the size of a picture window, like what human perception sees, but that's just way too big to post here and nobody has a monitor that big anyway. When I get more time I'll create an illustration that is larger and closer and in scale. About the only thing you could do is imagine a sphere of light about 15 feet wide. Note that in the illustration, this was just before the object departed and it had gotten much brighter, so the core size seems larger because of that.

The reason that I asked for something close to scale for the core on this picture is because you said earlier that this was a good representation of what you saw. I was trying to picture how much of the "Object" labeled UFO was core vs. glow in that picture. Is it possible that you have the object labeled "UFO" to large, even though you are including the glow?

Another question if you don't mind. Was the sky clear that night / morning?

Thanks.

And this:

Another question if you don't mind. Was the sky clear that night / morning?

Thanks.

And another question for you, whilst you're answering Drs_Res's question if you will, <SNIP>. At any time during the sightings (night or early morning) could you see the reflection of the orb / light / UFO / shiny thing in the lake?

Edited by Locknar: 

Politeness Man throws his Stainless Steel handkerchief; name calling is never civil/polite.... Post <SNIP>'ed, breach of rule 0.