UFO smoking gun?

[Popcorn Sutton]

I think that we can safely describe that sighting as a remote control vehicle.

 

Most sightings may be rc vehicles actually. The only way to cancel inertia IMO is to use a vacuum instead of propulsion, but that hypothesis may have to be tested.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton

[arc]

People on the scene familiar with the temperature inversion said it was a mild one and couldn't have been responsible for the phenomena seen on those two days of sightings.

 

We don't know for sure if they knew the exact characteristics of this specific weather anomaly any more than we would know whether a profound, moderate or anything in between would facilitate the refraction of radar and optical effects better or for worse, all we do know is that there was inversions on those occasions and a steamboat was positively identified by a trained crew as a radar target. This would indicate that the conditions, whatever they were specifically, were capable of refraction of radar signals. The amount of heat being remitted from the metropolitan area may itself be a contributor of an unknown degree determining the size of the urban heat dome over the city and in turn its relation to the inversion layer.

 

 

Also the lights that surrounded the jet at quite close range couldn't have been a temp inversion, neither could the people in the control towers that saw the objects.

 

This is what I find the most interesting about these events, these lights were at night. The pilots said they chased them but couldn't catch them or they were followed by the lights or even surrounded by them on occasion.

 

It is difficult to determine anything about a light source at night, normally an objects size and distance is determined by subtle clues given over to the observers perception. We use visual clues to tell us an objects speed and size, the objects own speed is compared to ours which in turn is compared to the ground below and to distant objects in the background. From this information we are able to make reasonable assumptions as to the objects speed and size.

 

But at night these comparisons are obscured, the information determining how far away the objects are or what their speed is are highly interdependent on each metric, let alone on how large the object is. The very fast up close no doubt appears slow at a great distance.

 

When we were all kids we noticed while riding in a car or train at night that the Moon was racing us just outside our window. No matter what our speed the Moon always kept up with us. And when the vehicle turned the Moon fell back and chased us, and then we turned again and we then chased the Moon.

 

We all know now that it was just an optical illusion, we were fooled by our perception of the Moon's size and its distance from us. It being massive and so far away gave it precedence over the objects in our foreground that passed by us at great speed, making the Moon look as if it matched our progress as we raced it through the night.

 

Now we can again think about these pilots chasing these lights or themselves being chased by them or being surrounded by them as they fly along at 800+ kph. If the source of these lights are of great distance, they will appear to match the observers speed. And when the plane changes direction the lights move to new positions of orientation in relation to the pilots position. To chase them or to be chased.

 

The refracted light beam itself can also move through the inversion layer as the light changes direction at its source causing the focal to move at great speeds through the pilots field of vision. The radius of the urban heat dome and the inversion thermal layer overlaying it will produce rapid changes in the moving lights direction and velocities.

 

These events are most probably optical illusions that the pilots were unable to discern given the limitations of the night and unusual conditions brought on by the inversion.

[Moontanman]

I can go with that, it is difficult to really critique from so far away in time, the main reason I go to old sightings for discussion is the fact that in modern day faking UFOs has become world wide contest of me too...

 

If you would like we can go on to the RB47 sighting for discussion I'll have to chime in later, I have a migraine today and until it lets up I can't think of much else.

 

I can give you a link to the "slow moving meteor" sighting as well, if you would rather discuss it.

 

http://www.ufocasebook.com/coyne.html

[Moontanman]

I often wonder if in 100 years scientists will be laughing at us for discounting UFOs as imaginary or all hoaxes like scientists today do 18th century scientists who were so sure rocks could not fall from the sky... UFOs could represent something completely different from aliens but still be real manifestations of something unknown but ridicule keeps anyone with real credentials from investigating thoroughly what is going on.... IMHO, something real is behind at least some of them, exactly what is of course speculation but so was ball lighting until quite recently...

[arc]

I often wonder if in 100 years scientists will be laughing at us for discounting UFOs as imaginary or all hoaxes like scientists today do 18th century scientists who were so sure rocks could not fall from the sky... UFOs could represent something completely different from aliens but still be real manifestations of something unknown but ridicule keeps anyone with real credentials from investigating thoroughly what is going on.... IMHO, something real is behind at least some of them, exactly what is of course speculation but so was ball lighting until quite recently...

 

But alas, ball lightning is now a reasonably proven but not well understood natural phenomena. And I will for now put my money on science determining that these UFO events are just as explainable using similar means. It appears to be a rather natural series of events, preliminary observations by individuals lead to varying interpretations of somewhat highly speculative and with that biased opinions as to the cause. But eventually as more accurate scientific information is made available the speculative pseudo scientific reasoning is pushed aside.

 

And to tie this all up rather nicely here is an article dated before the recent scientific confirmation that ball lightning is real.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-11877842

30 November 2010

Ball lightning 'may explain UFOs'

By Jonathan AmosScience correspondent, BBC News

 

"The scientist has made a detailed study of an unusual event in 2006 when large meteors were observed over Brisbane.

Their appearance occurred at the same time as a brilliant green object was seen to roll over nearby mountains.

Dr Hughes has put forward a theory linking the object - presumed to be ball lighting - to the fireballs.

His idea is that one of the fireballs may have momentarily triggered an electrical connection between the upper atmosphere and the ground, providing energy for the ball lightning to appear above the hills."

 

"If you put together inexplicable atmospheric phenomena, maybe of an electrical nature, with human psychology and the desire to see something - that could explain a lot of these UFO sightings"

 

What will be the explanation 100 years from now? I think it will be simply that nature is playing tricks on us. Both inside and outside of our minds.

Edited April 3, 2014 by arc

[Moontanman]

On 4/2/2014 at 10:29 PM, arc said:

 

But alas, ball lightning is now a reasonably proven but not well understood natural phenomena. And I will for now put my money on science determining that these UFO events are just as explainable using similar means. It appears to be a rather natural series of events, preliminary observations by individuals lead to varying interpretations of somewhat highly speculative and with that biased opinions as to the cause. But eventually as more accurate scientific information is made available the speculative pseudo scientific reasoning is pushed aside.

 

And to tie this all up rather nicely here is an article dated before the recent scientific confirmation that ball lightning is real.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-11877842

30 November 2010

Ball lightning 'may explain UFOs'

By Jonathan AmosScience correspondent, BBC News

 

"The scientist has made a detailed study of an unusual event in 2006 when large meteors were observed over Brisbane.

Their appearance occurred at the same time as a brilliant green object was seen to roll over nearby mountains.

Dr Hughes has put forward a theory linking the object - presumed to be ball lighting - to the fireballs.

His idea is that one of the fireballs may have momentarily triggered an electrical connection between the upper atmosphere and the ground, providing energy for the ball lightning to appear above the hills."

 

"If you put together inexplicable atmospheric phenomena, maybe of an electrical nature, with human psychology and the desire to see something - that could explain a lot of these UFO sightings"

 

What will be the explanation 100 years from now? I think it will be simply that nature is playing tricks on us. Both inside and outside of our minds.

Using a mystery to explain another mystery is more of a desperate attempt than a real explanation... 

[Ten oz]

On 4/2/2014 at 3:56 PM, Moontanman said:

I often wonder if in 100 years scientists will be laughing at us for discounting UFOs as imaginary or all hoaxes like scientists today do 18th century scientists who were so sure rocks could not fall from the sky... UFOs could represent something completely different from aliens but still be real manifestations of something unknown but ridicule keeps anyone with real credentials from investigating thoroughly what is going on.... IMHO, something real is behind at least some of them, exactly what is of course speculation but so was ball lighting until quite recently...

I don't believe science discounts the possibility of Alien life visiting earth. Here in the U.S. our Air Force previous assembled teams to investigate UFOs, NASA has investigated various possibilities that life was possibly seeded on earth, the FAA has investigated UFOs, countless amateur science groups investigate UFOs, and etc. People are not just laughing off the possibility. That said nothing conclusive have been found. There is not a single photograph one can definitively prove shows a flying object which was created by and or manned by Aliens. There is no physical evidence one can definitive prove was left by Aliens who visited. All we have are eye witness accounts and photos which raise some questions but answer none. An argument can be made that eye witness accounts are better than nothing it is also known that eye witness accounts can be flawed. Eye witnesses have seen ghosts, the Virgin Marie, Bigfoot, experienced time travel, and etc, etc. For now, as of 09 May 2018, there simple isn't any high quality evidence and acknowledging such isn't equal to an outright dismissal of the possibility.  

 

[Moontanman]

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I don't believe science discounts the possibility of Alien life visiting earth. Here in the U.S. our Air Force previous assembled teams to investigate UFOs, NASA has investigated various possibilities that life was possibly seeded on earth, the FAA has investigated UFOs, countless amateur science groups investigate UFOs, and etc. People are not just laughing off the possibility. That said nothing conclusive have been found. There is not a single photograph one can definitively prove shows a flying object which was created by and or manned by Aliens. There is no physical evidence one can definitive prove was left by Aliens who visited. All we have are eye witness accounts and photos which raise some questions but answer none. An argument can be made that eye witness accounts are better than nothing it is also known that eye witness accounts can be flawed. Eye witnesses have seen ghosts, the Virgin Marie, Bigfoot, experienced time travel, and etc, etc. For now, as of 09 May 2018, there simple isn't any high quality evidence and acknowledging such isn't equal to an outright dismissal of the possibility.  

 

As soon as ghosts start showing up on multiple radars your analogy will be considered. I have to ask could any photo really be proof of anything other than an unidentified object on film? No one has claimed eyewitnesses are special but multiple independent eye witnesses are enough to get you the death penalty...  

I would have to ask what sort of physical evidence would you expect from an alien spacecraft? I'd really like to know... 

You're mention of all the other unexplained phenomena as though any of them have some bearing on each other or UFOs, if you have a connection between those things then please show it, if not you are just trying to poison the well... 

Yes people have investigated the UFO phenomena, most do have the resources to do much more than record records of sightings. The US Air Force did indeed suppress investigations into UFOs even going so far as to pay the Condon Committee to come to the correct conclusion before the investigation was even started.  

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

As soon as ghosts start showing up on multiple radars your analogy will be considered.

People use electromagnetic field meters, ambient temp sensors, geophones, and etc to to measure things they claim are ghosts. Simply receiving a reading isn't conclusive in itself. the reason for it is what matters. To my knowledge no one have every been able to verify that a radar reading was the result of an intelligently controlled object of extraterrestrial origin. Just as no one have verified that a electromagnetic field fluctuation was cause by the spirit of a deceased person. 

12 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

No one has claimed eyewitnesses are special but multiple independent eye witnesses are enough to get you the death penalty...  

Provided there is proof of a victim (body) and a motive. Present me the physical object a witness claims to have seen and I will consider it and that witnesses account as the best evidence I am aware of to date. 

17 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I would have to ask what sort of physical evidence would you expect from an alien spacecraft? I'd really like to know... 

Our (human) spacecraft leave behind boosters, exhaust, scorched launch pads, and etc. Loads of trash from our spacecraft are orbiting earth at this moment.  On the moon our astronauts have left behind a flag, trash, and various pieces of equipment used to take measurements. It is impossible for me to know what form physical evidence from aliens would take but I can't think of any known flying objects which leave behind nothing. Birds leave poop & feathers. Meteorites crash and can be studied. 

28 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

You're mention of all the other unexplained phenomena as though any of them have some bearing on each other or UFOs, if you have a connection between those things then please show it, if not you are just trying to poison the well... 

No, I mentioned all the other explained phenomena as an explain of eye witnesses not being the best evidence. 

32 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Yes people have investigated the UFO phenomena, most do have the resources to do much more than record records of sightings. The US Air Force did indeed suppress investigations into UFOs even going so far as to pay the Condon Committee to come to the correct conclusion before the investigation was even started.  

What resources are required? Also the Air Force, NASA, FAA, and others have not suppressed information to the point where you are not aware of their work. Yet still no clear evidence of aliens visiting earth is known.  

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

People use electromagnetic field meters, ambient temp sensors, geophones, and etc to to measure things they claim are ghosts. Simply receiving a reading isn't conclusive in itself. the reason for it is what matters. To my knowledge no one have every been able to verify that a radar reading was the result of an intelligently controlled object of extraterrestrial origin. Just as no one have verified that a electromagnetic field fluctuation was cause by the spirit of a deceased person. 

Radar is not some random pseudo technology, the key here is that you say  

Quote

To my knowledge no one have every been able to verify that a radar reading was the result of an intelligently controlled object of extraterrestrial origin.

If there was such verification this conversation wouldn't be happening. What is your point? 

 

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Provided there is proof of a victim (body) and a motive. Present me the physical object a witness claims to have seen and I will consider it and that witnesses account as the best evidence I am aware of to date. 

Do you really think that a UFO being delivered to you is reasonable? Do you really expect alien spacecraft to fall out of the sky to provide you a "body" ? 

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Our (human) spacecraft leave behind boosters, exhaust, scorched launch pads, and etc. Loads of trash from our spacecraft are orbiting earth at this moment.  On the moon our astronauts have left behind a flag, trash, and various pieces of equipment used to take measurements. It is impossible for me to know what form physical evidence from aliens would take but I can't think of any known flying objects which leave behind nothing. Birds leave poop & feathers. Meteorites crash and can be studied. 

Sorry dude, you are incorrect, in fact such traces have been found and are not uncommon... 

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

No, I mentioned all the other explained phenomena as an explain of eye witnesses not being the best evidence.

And I pointed out the comparison is nothing more than poisoning the well. The fact that other phenomena occur which are not part of the UFO phenomena is meaningless to the subject in question...  

 

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

What resources are required?

Sorry typo, I meant to say do not have the resources. 

2 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Also the Air Force, NASA, FAA, and others have not suppressed information to the point where you are not aware of their work. Yet still no clear evidence of aliens visiting earth is known.  

You are correct, we do over time become aware of their work and sometimes we see it for what it is right up front. The Air Force was so disrespectful of the phenomena they actually hired scientists to not investegate but to debunk all sighting. Some of those scientists bowed out due to the perceived "the fix is in" mentality of all government sponsored investigations and reported the governments attempted coverup. If not for those people speaking out we would not have the information but to be fair so much of what the Air Force did was so silly that to say they suppressed the information is far from the truth. They took the low road and rificulted the infor instead of supressing it as you would expect. This resulted in a far more effective debunking of UAPs than actually trying to keep all info from the public.. 

Some of the main "debunkers" forever destroyed their own capabilities by asserting that some sightings were slow moving meteors or comets, these assertions are so divorced from reality you really have to wonder why there were allowed to say this crap...  

[Ten oz]

25 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Radar is not some random pseudo technology, the key here is that you say.

If there was such verification this conversation wouldn't be happening. What is your point? 

None of the devices I mentioned are pseudo science in and of themselves it is the application of them that is pseudo science . There is nothing pseudo scientific about taking the temperature of room. The pseudo science is in the leap one makes when claiming a temperature change is cause by a ghost. Radar is sound science but that does mean alien intelligence is responsible for everything or anything which isn't immediately identified by radar operators. 

40 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Do you really think that a UFO being delivered to you is reasonable? Do you really expect alien spacecraft to fall out of the sky to provide you a "body" ?

Uhh, you are the one which reference eye witness reporting and the Death Penalty. My point was that no one gets the death penalty from witness reporting alone. 

43 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Sorry dude, you are incorrect, in fact such traces have been found and are not uncommon... 

That is awesome! Please provide a link. 

46 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Some of the main "debunkers" forever destroyed their own capabilities by asserting that some sightings were slow moving meteors or comets, these assertions are so divorced from reality you really have to wonder why there were allowed to say this crap...  

We still need evidence for what this are. Simply being sarcastic about what they are not isn't evidence. 

[Moontanman]

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

None of the devices I mentioned are pseudo science in and of themselves it is the application of them that is pseudo science . There is nothing pseudo scientific about taking the temperature of room. The pseudo science is in the leap one makes when claiming a temperature change is cause by a ghost. Radar is sound science but that does mean alien intelligence is responsible for everything or anything which isn't immediately identified by radar operators. 

No one is claiming that aliens are responsible for everything not immediately recognised by radar operators, radar is quite a bit more than just some random technology being used to intentionally scam people. You insinuation of this is yet another attempt at poisoning the well. Either Radar can be evidence of a UFO or detecting objects at a distance is just more silly pseudo science. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways.  

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Uhh, you are the one which reference eye witness reporting and the Death Penalty. My point was that no one gets the death penalty from witness reporting alone.

Not true, in fact people get the death penalty from eyewitness testimony. 

 https://capitalpunishmentincontext.org/resources/trialprocess

Quote

Only rarely do the police come upon such a crime in progress. Usually, they must depend on evidence gathered at the scene of the crime and on possible eyewitnesses. Police often rely on photographs of individuals who have committed crimes in the past to display to eyewitnesses who might be able to identify a suspect. Thus, even though a particular individual has no connection to a crime, he might become a suspect if he looks like the actual perpetrator.

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

 

That is awesome! Please provide a link. 

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseView.asp?section=PhysicalTrace

6 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

We still need evidence for what this are. Simply being sarcastic about what they are not isn't evidence. 

I would agree but with the caviate that being sarcastic about they are is not helpful either... 

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Not true, in fact people get the death penalty from eyewitness testimony. 

 

From your link "Crimes that would be eligible for the death penalty almost always involve brutal murders which shock the community." 

Eyewitness testimony in the absence of a brutal murder doesn't lead to death penalty convictions. There needs to be a body and then things like witnesses become useful. 

18 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseView.asp?section=PhysicalTrace

From the first report I clicked on: 

" The TV station did, however, commission a laboratory investigation of the vehicle, which concluded that ‘no significant dust was observed on the vehicle as presented for inspection’. Ufo researchers did manage to obtain samples themselves, which they forwarded to Dr Richard Haines, a NASA scientist at the time, who concluded that the dust taken from the interior of the car was different to the dust sampled from the exterior. Further tests by different analysts have provided no evidence of it being alien or unusual."

If there is a specific one of those reports which you think contains evidence please let me know which one and I will review it. 

[Moontanman]

35 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

From your link "Crimes that would be eligible for the death penalty almost always involve brutal murders which shock the community." 

Eyewitness testimony in the absence of a brutal murder doesn't lead to death penalty convictions. There needs to be a body and then things like witnesses become useful. 

From the first report I clicked on: 

" The TV station did, however, commission a laboratory investigation of the vehicle, which concluded that ‘no significant dust was observed on the vehicle as presented for inspection’. Ufo researchers did manage to obtain samples themselves, which they forwarded to Dr Richard Haines, a NASA scientist at the time, who concluded that the dust taken from the interior of the car was different to the dust sampled from the exterior. Further tests by different analysts have provided no evidence of it being alien or unusual."

If there is a specific one of those reports which you think contains evidence please let me know which one and I will review it. 

How would dirt or dust be identified as alien? 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/763816/UFO-landed-earth-proof-Delphos-Dr-Erol-Faruk

https://listverse.com/2015/05/20/10-ufos-that-allegedly-left-physical-evidence-behind/

Quote

The envelope contained three white metal pieces allegedly from a disk that had disintegrated above a beach in Ubatuba, Sao Paulo. The fan, who claimed to have witnessed this event, was never identified.

The testing done on one of the pieces destroyed it but gave interesting findings. It was revealed to be magnesium with above average density, and when the study stated that the magnesium was purer than that which human technology could produce, the fragments became an overnight sensation in UFO circles. The University of Colorado tested one of the two remaining pieces and found that it wasn’t as pure, but since the Brazil sample no longer existed, its purity couldn’t be verified. However, the Colorado study did concede that their piece was packed with an abnormal amount of strontium, something not found in normal magnesium. The metal had also been strengthened during its manufacturing with a process called directional crystallization, a technique unknown in 1957 when the fragments were mailed to the columnist.

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Moontanman

[arc]

10 hours ago, Moontanman said:

     Well you may have thought you gave a reasonable argument, actually you were arguing with a man who had a migraine and couldn't think. It's easy to cherry pick parts of a sighting to explain but unless you have a coherent explanation that covers both the easy to explain and the more difficult then you are simply cherry picking... 

    Well Moon, I read through this post again, and the only cherry picker I can see at work here is you.  I only addressed what you put forth as the most compelling evidence. In other words, I only furnished sound alternative answers that were based on a natural causation, to explain the cherries you picked out as being the most edible to your discriminating taste.

   Moreover, I readily and quite easily with the help of my friend Occam dispelled the notion that your special hand picked cherries are different then all the others scattered around the internet. And additionally, some of the evidence I showed was from the links you furnished. You ignored that evidence because it suggested an alternate narration to your predisposed position on this subject. You veered off the road to a scientific understanding of this subject when you started your new thread and posted that Washington D.C. link again in hopes of a different outcome.

       But hey, if doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is your way of fun then have at it.   

[Moontanman]

13 hours ago, arc said:

    Well Moon, I read through this post again, and the only cherry picker I can see at work here is you.  I only addressed what you put forth as the most compelling evidence. In other words, I only furnished sound alternative answers that were based on a natural causation, to explain the cherries you picked out as being the most edible to your discriminating taste.

   Moreover, I readily and quite easily with the help of my friend Occam dispelled the notion that your special hand picked cherries are different then all the others scattered around the internet. And additionally, some of the evidence I showed was from the links you furnished. You ignored that evidence because it suggested an alternate narration to your predisposed position on this subject. You veered off the road to a scientific understanding of this subject when you started your new thread and posted that Washington D.C. link again in hopes of a different outcome.

       But hey, if doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome is your way of fun then have at it.   

Of course there are natural alternatives but none of them held up in the bigger picture. Yes an airplane confirmed at one point that one of the returns was a boat on the river... case closed? No of course not because while some of the sighting can be blamed on natural phenomena most of it cannot. I pick this one sighting because of the multiple threads of evidence in the sighting. Hell I'm still not convinced what was going on but I do know that trying to explain parts of it as mundane and ignore the meat of the report gets us nowhere. 

I am more than willing to concede this sighting to the role of explained but not at the expense of reality...  

Edited May 10, 2018 by Moontanman

[Ten oz]

On 5/9/2018 at 3:32 PM, Moontanman said:

How would dirt or dust be identified as alien? 

Why are you asking me? That is the evidence referenced in the link you provided.

On 5/9/2018 at 3:32 PM, Moontanman said:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/763816/UFO-landed-earth-proof-Delphos-Dr-Erol-Faruk

 

Quote

 

He wrote: "Placing water onto the affected soil was very like placing it onto a glass surface, with the water spontaneously forming into droplets sitting on the surface."

Although, he remained unable to fully identify the soil compound, he claimed to detect "a highly water-soluble organic compound which is potentially chemiluminescent”.

This could have been responsible for the alleged glow seen at the time, he said.

Dr Faruk concluded there were three possible explanations - a hoax, the ring was in fact a fairy ring - a natuarlly occurring ring of toadstools, or a genuine alien space ship had been seen.

 

The "evidence" outlined in that link is a chemist finding a quality to soil which he couldn't readily explain. I do not consider that to be good evidence. Dr Fraruk is basically saying that his inability to identify something is proof of aliens. It is leap. 

On 5/9/2018 at 3:32 PM, Moontanman said:

https://listverse.com/2015/05/20/10-ufos-that-allegedly-left-physical-evidence-behind/

This link outlines 10 different cases. For the sake of brevity I will reference the Ubatuba Case since that is the one you quoted. The material studied was from an unidentified source. A columnist received 3 piece of metal in the mail. Of the 3 pieces the most interesting one was destroyed rendering repeatably of tests impossible. The unknown source of the 3 pieces and the loss of the featured piece render the whole thing inconclusive. 

If you would like me to go through the other 9 case I will but it doesn't seem necessary as none stood out to me as containing proof of alien visitation. To be clear I am not claiming to know Aliens have definitely not visited Earth . Rather I am saying that I do not know. I am saying it can't be confirmed. Alien life in general seems likely in my opinion. Life exists on earth and is capable of traveling beyond Earth which is solid proof that both life and space travel are possible. However believing that alien visitation can exist isn't equal to evidence that it does exist. 

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Why are you asking me? That is the evidence referenced in the link you provided.

That was my attempt to show how silly the idea of testing something and being able to tell if it was extraterrestrial becomes. What exactly would you expect positive evidence of something being of extraterrestrial to look like? So many people seem to think that a rock from outer space would somehow be different from a rock from the earth or an asteroid but inevitably the universe is made of the same basic materials everywhere and believers, especially believers, seem to think that dust or rocks are labeled as to their origin. Nothing could be further from the truth  and while such gradations can be made it takes extremely sophisticated equipment and a point of reference for those sort of tests to be meaningful. 

What sort of trace evidence would be acceptable? 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

 

The "evidence" outlined in that link is a chemist finding a quality to soil which he couldn't readily explain. I do not consider that to be good evidence. Dr Fraruk is basically saying that his inability to identify something is proof of aliens. It is leap. 

This link outlines 10 different cases. For the sake of brevity I will reference the Ubatuba Case since that is the one you quoted. The material studied was from an unidentified source. A columnist received 3 piece of metal in the mail. Of the 3 pieces the most interesting one was destroyed rendering repeatably of tests impossible. The unknown source of the 3 pieces and the loss of the featured piece render the whole thing inconclusive. 

If you would like me to go through the other 9 case I will but it doesn't seem necessary as none stood out to me as containing proof of alien visitation. To be clear I am not claiming to know Aliens have definitely not visited Earth . Rather I am saying that I do not know. I am saying it can't be confirmed. Alien life in general seems likely in my opinion. Life exists on earth and is capable of traveling beyond Earth which is solid proof that both life and space travel are possible. However believing that alien visitation can exist isn't equal to evidence that it does exist. 

The main difference in our stance is I think it can be tested. I think the quality of at least some sightings makes it probable enough that non terrestrial technology could be involved. I think we could falsify this one way or another. One way might be via detecting waste heat given off by artificial habitats, the distance factor, Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud, would make it a challenge, but like most challenges even failing would be better than not trying... 

Like most people, and I don't fault you for this, you raised the bar on what you would accept as soon as it became apparent that at least some trace evidence exists. We can go on splitting hairs over what constitutes good evidence, for me that evidence is already here. Like most people I tend to feel like really good evidence is too good to be true and all other evidence is inconclusive at best. 

In the 1952 Washington DC sightings a very poor job of investigation coupled with a military that was trying it's best to appear to be in control  resulted in less than believable explanations being taken as gospel by both points of view. 

Some people need to believe it's not true, some seem to need to believe it is, for whatever reason, just as fervently. 

At some point you need to decide what level of uncertainty in the evidence prompts a more specific investigation and how that investigation can be done. Now we have the possibility of a way to find out. Decades of pictures, eyewitnesses, radar returns and abduction reports become moot if a real way to do more than just pour over old reports and speculate. 

The real question about evidence is whether or not what we have justifies further investigation and do we have a means to investigate. I think the answer to both questions is yes.  

Edited May 11, 2018 by Moontanman

[Ten oz]

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

The main difference in our stance is I think it can be tested. I think the quality of at least some sightings makes it probable enough that non terrestrial technology could be involved.

Change probable to possible and I agree 100%

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

ike most people, and I don't fault you for this, you raised the bar on what you would accept as soon as it became apparent that at least some trace evidence exists.

This isn't true. Come on, pieces of metal from an anonymous sources isn't clear evidence of anything. 

3 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

In the 1952 Washington DC sightings a very poor job of investigation coupled with a military that was trying it's best to appear to be in control  resulted in less than believable explanations being taken as gospel by both points of view. 

Some people need to believe it's not true, some seem to need to believe it is, for whatever reason, just as fervently. 

At some point you need to decide what level of uncertainty in the evidence prompts a more specific investigation and how that investigation can be done. Now we have the possibility of a way to find out. Decades of pictures, eyewitnesses, radar returns and abduction reports become moot if a real way to do more than just pour over old reports and speculate.

Why rush to conclusions you can't confirm? There are any number of things which might be true but until they are proven so the correct answer is that we do not know. There have been many creditable witnesses and circumstantial evidence that Tasmanian Tigers (Thylacine) may not be extinct. Until one is located they remain in the extinct category. 

I was actually in the car (VW Van) as a kid when my whole family claims to have seen a UFO. We were driving through New Mexico from California in route to Texas. We were somewhere in or just west of the El Malpais National Park. It was around 11pm. On a long dark rural stretch of Interstate 40 my father came to a full stop and started yelling "what is that". My mother kept repeating my fathers name. My two bothers, 4 and 6 years older than me, pushed up against the windows in the back and yelled various expletives. I look around but saw nothing. This went on for a over a minute. As narrated in real time by my family an object a few times larger than our van had come down from the sky and hoovered about 20 feet above the road a quarter mile in front of us. Then when my father stopped the object quickly flew directly over us and hovered for over a minute before quickly elevating away. It was described as orb shaped and made of red and green light. Again, I saw nothing. In the decades since my parents have spoken about the experience a lot. They insist I saw it and as time has gone on their description of what happened has grown more detailed. My siblings and I speak on a very limit basis but I am aware that they too continue to insist seeing something that night. I do not think they are all crazy but I also do not think what happened is conclusive of anything. It could have been a helicopter and the red and green light simply the helicopters running lights. It could have been a mass hallucination enabled by fatigue and prompted my father erratically stopping the car and screaming.

Anyways, point of mentioning that story is to say that I do understand how common and strongly believed UFO sightings are. I understand that smart and honest people with no ulterior motives believe to have seen UFO's. Jimmy Carter, in my opinion one of our greatest Presidents, claims to have seen a UFO. I do not hold bias again those who believe in UFOs. That said I do not feel there is enough evidence to conclude Aliens have definitely visited Earth. 

[Moontanman]

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Change probable to possible and I agree 100%

I said "probable enough" to justify investigating not enough to draw conclusions. Lots of time and money are being spent right now on passive detection of aliens who would have to be broadcasting a signal intentionally to show they are here. A great many people still think that we could detect "leakage" from a civilization but it's simply not true. Leakage from our own civilization could not be detected by our own current technology at the distance to the nearest star... 

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

This isn't true. Come on, pieces of metal from an anonymous sources isn't clear evidence of anything. 

Obviously, I wouldn't expect them to be yet so many people seem to think that somehow a sample of metal should be able to show evidence of its origin being non terrestrial, highly unlikely... 

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Why rush to conclusions you can't confirm? There are any number of things which might be true but until they are proven so the correct answer is that we do not know. There have been many credible witnesses and circumstantial evidence that Tasmanian Tigers (Thylacine) may not be extinct. Until one is located they remain in the extinct category. 

I am not rushing to any conclusion but I'm betting that there is an ongoing effort to physically find a tasmanian tiger, sitting around waiting for one to shit in your hand seems a bit less than effective... 

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I was actually in the car (VW Van) as a kid when my whole family claims to have seen a UFO. We were driving through New Mexico from California in route to Texas. We were somewhere in or just west of the El Malpais National Park. It was around 11pm. On a long dark rural stretch of Interstate 40 my father came to a full stop and started yelling "what is that". My mother kept repeating my fathers name. My two bothers, 4 and 6 years older than me, pushed up against the windows in the back and yelled various expletives. I look around but saw nothing. This went on for a over a minute. As narrated in real time by my family an object a few times larger than our van had come down from the sky and hoovered about 20 feet above the road a quarter mile in front of us. Then when my father stopped the object quickly flew directly over us and hovered for over a minute before quickly elevating away. It was described as orb shaped and made of red and green light. Again, I saw nothing. In the decades since my parents have spoken about the experience a lot. They insist I saw it and as time has gone on their description of what happened has grown more detailed. My siblings and I speak on a very limit basis but I am aware that they too continue to insist seeing something that night. I do not think they are all crazy but I also do not think what happened is conclusive of anything. It could have been a helicopter and the red and green light simply the helicopters running lights. It could have been a mass hallucination enabled by fatigue and prompted my father erratically stopping the car and screaming.

Do you think this proves nothing was there or just that you didn't see anything? 

12 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Anyways, point of mentioning that story is to say that I do understand how common and strongly believed UFO sightings are. I understand that smart and honest people with no ulterior motives believe to have seen UFO's. Jimmy Carter, in my opinion one of our greatest Presidents, claims to have seen a UFO. I do not hold bias again those who believe in UFOs. That said I do not feel there is enough evidence to conclude Aliens have definitely visited Earth. 

Obviously not, I am not asking anyone to do so, what I am asking is should we be actively looking? Is the current evidence we have justification for actively searching for nearby aliens? I think it is, at the very least it's as valid as scanning the sky looking for a signal from someone screaming "here we are" across the universe... 

To me the really sad part is the attitude that until a flying saucer lands on the white house lawn we can't know so why try... This is a particularly grievous mistake from my perspective. 

It's like finding a rotting T-Rex corpse washed up on the beach, the tide takes it back out and no one even cares to get in a airplane and scan the coastal waters for the corpse,  it can't be real and it stinks to high heaven so why bother.. 

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

To me the really sad part is the attitude that until a flying saucer lands on the white house lawn we can't know so why try... This is a particularly grievous mistake from my perspective. 

1

This is remarkably similar to religion, we can't really know, so all we have is, belief.

13 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

so why bother..

 

15 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

It's like finding a rotting T-Rex corpse washed up on the beach, the tide takes it back out and no one even cares to get in a airplane and scan the coastal waters for the corpse,  it can't be real and it stinks to high heaven

Why indeed, what difference does it make?

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Lots of time and money are being spent right now on passive detection of aliens who would have to be broadcasting a signal intentionally to show they are here. A great many people still think that we could detect "leakage" from a civilization but it's simply not true. Leakage from our own civilization could not be detected by our own current technology at the distance to the nearest star... 

Alien life could use vastly different forms of technology than we do. So much so that we could be inundated by alien tech and not even realize it. 

11 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

I am not rushing to any conclusion but I'm betting that there is an ongoing effort to physically find a tasmanian tiger, sitting around waiting for one to shit in your hand seems a bit less than effective... 

 I have no implied people shouldn't investigate. 

12 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Do you think this proves nothing was there or just that you didn't see anything? 

I think it proves neither. There could have been something there like a helicopter, alien ship, hot air balloon, etc. Nothing could have been there and the whole thing was a hallucination. It was late at night. Everyone could have been asleep or on the verge of it and were responding to my father who himself may have been having some sort of waking dream. All possibilities are on the table. I didn't see anything and I was sitting directly next to and looking out the same windows of those claiming to see something. I was also a young kid (9 or 10 years ) so my memory of events isn't reliable either. 

23 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Obviously not, I am not asking anyone to do so, what I am asking is should we be actively looking? Is the current evidence we have justification for actively searching for nearby aliens? I think it is, at the very least it's as valid as scanning the sky looking for a signal from someone screaming "here we are" across the universe..

People are actively looking. There are many scientists and amateur scientists investigating  UFOs around the clock. There are radio shows, TV shows, books, documentaries, youtube channels, and etc, etc devoted to this issue. Are you familiar with the saying "if it makes dollars it make sense"? There is real money in UFOs which drives real research (and fallacious research).    

[dimreepr]

Have the magic man or have the magic people, what does it change?

[Moontanman]

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

This is remarkably similar to religion, we can't really know, so all we have is, belief.

I am proposing that we can know, there are ways of falsifying this hypothesis, as far as I know there is no way to falsify religion... 

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Why indeed, what difference does it make?

You don't think finding a T-Rex corpse washed up would make a difference? Finding such a thing would have world shattering consequences! The implications are enormous. 

Finding that just one alien habitat is real would be the most important find in our history.. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 You don't think finding a T-Rex corpse washed up would make a difference? Finding such a thing would have world shattering consequences! The implications are enormous. 

 

What if the corpse turned out to be Jesus shaped?

5 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Finding that just one alien habitat is real would be the most important find in our history..

Why?