UFO evidence

[JMJones0424]

Is there a scenario that makes sense and allows UFOs to be alien space craft?

 

I think it is important to stress the unidentified part of the acronym UFO. There are many things that remain yet unidentified. If you wish to propose that an unidentified phenomenon is actually an alien spacecraft, I think the burden of proof is rather steep, and should involve more than just questionable photos. (Questionable as to what they represent, if not questionable as to their veracity.)

[stereologist]

I have to agree, taken out of context i had the same thought, again the eye witness who took the photo has to be the deciding factor and since he is no doubt many decades dead it is impossible to establish his veracity.

What I thought at first was that the photo had evidence of trees near the summit of Mt Washington. Today there are no trees close to the summit. Maybe the trees were destroyed by people who went there. I really think it looks like rime ice. The other photos were much more interesting to me.

[Moontanman]

What I thought at first was that the photo had evidence of trees near the summit of Mt Washington. Today there are no trees close to the summit. Maybe the trees were destroyed by people who went there. I really think it looks like rime ice. The other photos were much more interesting to me.

 

The older photos and accounts fascinate me far more than more modern sightings for the most part (but Minot Air force base seems especially charmed) I know it's still possible those old photos were faked I don't think people then had the same desire to see aliens that people do now or the drive to be famous for seeing them.

 

Rime ice makes sense to me, I am unfamiliar with rime ice but it didn't look like clouds to me either.

 

J Allen Hynek is pretty much my hero when it comes to UFOs.

 

J. Allen Hynek - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

he was my fav go to man when skeptics would say if there are alien space ships why don't astronomers see them, lol

[Moontanman]

I think it is important to stress the unidentified part of the acronym UFO. There are many things that remain yet unidentified. If you wish to propose that an unidentified phenomenon is actually an alien spacecraft, I think the burden of proof is rather steep, and should involve more than just questionable photos. (Questionable as to what they represent, if not questionable as to their veracity.)

 

I'm not sure what you mean by questionable. I would never suggest a questionable photo was an alien space ship, UFO by the way in modern usage does indeed mean alien spaceship. it did not mean just any unknown object even when it was first coined.

 

Unidentified flying object - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The United States Air Force, which coined the term in 1952, initially defined UFOs as those objects that remain unidentified after scrutiny by expert investigators,[1] though today the term UFO is colloquially used to refer to any unidentifiable sighting regardless of whether it has been investigated.

 

The term UFO is popularly taken as a synonym for alien spacecraft and generally most discussions of UFOs revolve around this presumption.[2]

[Jay-qu]

 

The pics themselves stand alone, they offer an untainted look into the past...

 

Come-on Moon man, you dont really believe that do you?

 

Lets do a test:

 

Some of the attached photos are real and the rest are fakes - well not fake, but artificially aged. Lets see if you can pick out which ones are real and which are fake. Number them 1-5 in the order they appear. Anyyone else feel free to join in (no cheating with google) :rolleyes: .

[Moontanman]

 

Come-on Moon man, you dont really believe that do you?

 

Lets do a test:

 

Some of the attached photos are real and the rest are fakes - well not fake, but artificially aged. Lets see if you can pick out which ones are real and which are fake. Number them 1-5 in the order they appear. Anyyone else feel free to join in (no cheating with google) :rolleyes: .

 

Jay-qu, seriously, the photos i offered really do date from the time indicated, they are originals and their history is documented from the time indicated they were taken. They are not photos that just turned up out of nowhere.

[Moontanman]

Modern , old, modern , old, modern in that order.

[stereologist]

Rime ice is formed on surfaced in cold weather when the droplets from clouds directly deposit on surfaces. They form in the direction of the incoming clouds. So they look weird when the weather clears because they point into the wind. The material is the consistency of styrofoam. It breaks easily and in the winds they are quickly blown away. My guess from the photos was that the pieces were pointing towards the photographer and therefore the photographer took the photo with the wind to their back. You get the photo and also save yourself from facing into the bitter cold winds on Mt Washington.

This is a side view. The wind was coming from the right in this photo. This is also listed as the Mt Washington areas, but is clearly well below the summit.

[Jay-qu]

 

Jay-qu, seriously, the photos i offered really do date from the time indicated, they are originals and their history is documented from the time indicated they were taken. They are not photos that just turned up out of nowhere.

Ok, I am happy to accept that but how can you prove it?

 

As for your answers for the pictures, highlight the line below for spoilers:

Modern, Modern, Modern, Modern, Old

 

2 out of 5 is just random chance - ie you had no idea which was which.

[Moontanman]

Ok, I am happy to accept that but how can you prove it?

 

As for your answers for the pictures, highlight the line below for spoilers:

Modern, Modern, Modern, Modern, Old

 

2 out of 5 is just random chance - ie you had no idea which was which.

 

You are correct i had no idea about your photos, but the fact that i was familiar with two of the photos of UFOs 40 years ago (not the one in england or the one from 1870 or the WW2 one) might have some influence, the one in WW2 San Francisco is authenticated by the military, the 1870 one is well known from the time if it being taken by many sources the one in england was unknown to me but the source is reasonably reliable.

 

 

I think stereologist is on top of the 1870 one for sure.

 

I know that the idea of UFOs is automatically ridiculed by many people but the fact remains there are many totally inexplicable photos backed up by testimony of people whose testimony could condemn you to long prison terms if not the death penalty to back them up. These photos have been shown by science to be real photos of something inexplicable, not fakes or hoaxes.

 

While i am not a true believer i agree with the words of J Allen Hynek, "I am deeply puzzled" by the strength of the sightings.

 

Most of the rabid skeptics get the best press and they concentrate on sightings that are easily debunked and ignore completly or assume to be fakes any sightings that are really puzzling.

 

I like to concentrate of sightings from before things like photo shop and other digital renderings simply because it was much harder to hoax the pics them and not have science point it out.

 

Sadly even then the thrust of investigations was to use any means to ridicule the people and claim the pics were hoaxes with no real effort to understand what the sightings represented. Now days it's a circus and anything goes quite literally but back in the day it was possible to see past the circus and see at least the puzzling nature of something odd happening.

 

This is a good one.

 

 

 

1965-Santa Ana, California. August 3. Taken by highway traffic engineer Rex Heflin, while driving near the Santa Ana freeway. Heflin did not report his sighting, but the photographs were published by the Santa Ana Register on 09-20-65. This turned into a very controversial case with photos confiscated, and disagreements between different Ufologists about the photograph's authenticity. One of the most famous UFO photos ever taken.

 

There is a tremendous back story to this photo, notice on the ground under it there is a disturbance following the UFO. The original photos were Polaroids and were shown to be real IE not fakes. there are four of them this one was taken through a windshield of a truck, another was taken from outside. The originals were taken by someone claiming to be from SAC but as it turned out no one knows who actually took them. the guy who had them turned them over to someone claiming to be an official from SAC, later copies of the photos showed up but the copies had been manipulated and were worthless. this is an API copy of the original before they were taken by who ever did it.

 

Now i have no proof that this was an alien space craft but it was obviously not an aircraft of anyone on the earth at that time and it was not a fake. Deeply puzzling does seem to fit.

[Jay-qu]

There are more ways to fake a photo than photoshop moonman:

HowStuffWorks "UFO Reports"

[Moontanman]

There are more ways to fake a photo than photoshop moonman:

HowStuffWorks "UFO Reports"

 

I am curious jay-qu did you bother to read past the part that confirmed your initial bias? Did you notice that the pic the link describes as faked was thought to be fake from the very beginning? Even back then fake pics were easier to pic out than to do. Now days this is not true, with digital rendering you can pretty much show anything.

 

The rest of your link does not appear to support the fake nature you assert of some sightings.

 

HowStuffWorks "Foo Fighters"

 

 

then there is this one

 

HowStuffWorks "The RB-47 UFO Encounter"

 

this one

 

HowStuffWorks "The 1986 Alaska UFO"

 

(actually i always thought the northern lights might have been involved)

 

this one

 

HowStuffWorks "Senator Russell Sees a UFO"

 

this one has radiation poisoning

 

HowStuffWorks "The Cash-Landrum UFO Incident"

 

A very odd account

 

HowStuffWorks "The 1808 Sweden UFO Encounter"

 

The list of very puzzling sightings goes on and on and there was no photo shop in early 19th century Sweden or even photos.

 

One more for the road or police...

 

HowStuffWorks "The 1964 Socorro UFO Encounter"

[Jay-qu]

I was simply referring to the first pic on the page that talks of kids being able to easily fool half the world into thinking they had photographed a ufo - not the rest of the links from the link I provided.

 

I cant remember which show I was watching (probably bullshit or mythbusters) when they simply threw a circular object (baking pan or dish) and took a photo - they then managed to convince people this was a genuine UFO..

 

While I dont think that all UFO shots are faked I do think a considerable number are. The problem is that even if you can convince me you have an un-faked photo, all you have is a UFO. This is simply because it is unidentifiable (by definition), normally because the photo is of such low quality. So why is it then logical to state that the most plausible solution to this problem is the craziest theory, namely aliens?

[coldcreation]

One more for the road or police...

 

HowStuffWorks "The 1964 Socorro UFO Encounter"

 

What I'm wondering is why some UFOs leave a charred mess, kinda like the aftermath of a neanderthal barbeque wingding fail, and others leave bewitching fractal imprints that looks like something a computer geek dreamed up after having eaten too many poppies. (See here: Andromedans are making the crop circles)

 

 

CC

[Moontanman]

I was simply referring to the first pic on the page that talks of kids being able to easily fool half the world into thinking they had photographed a ufo - not the rest of the links from the link I provided.

 

There weren't any kids mentioned in that article. And the hoax was suspected the pic was judged fake and eventually admitted to. UFO pics, even back then were investigated and hoaxes were found out. It was much easier to pic out hoaxes then, the original photos and negatives were used to show fraud in many cases but it also showed fraud was not involved in many pics as well.

 

I cant remember which show I was watching (probably bullshit or mythbusters) when they simply threw a circular object (baking pan or dish) and took a photo - they then managed to convince people this was a genuine UFO..

 

Did they convince people on the street or real scientists in a lab setting dedicated to researching photos? Big difference.

 

While I dont think that all UFO shots are faked I do think a considerable number are. The problem is that even if you can convince me you have an un-faked photo, all you have is a UFO. This is simply because it is unidentifiable (by definition), normally because the photo is of such low quality. So why is it then logical to state that the most plausible solution to this problem is the craziest theory, namely aliens?

 

First of all, i am not talking about fuzzy pics of lights in the sky, I am talking about and providing photos and links to sightings that are not just unidentified but defy any possible natural or conventional explanation. The fuzzy stuff will have to just remain unexplained due to lack of data but lack of data is not the reason for the unexplainability of many sightings.

 

Of course I'm not asking anyone to convert to a true believer and cut off a body part to show you believe either.

[Moontanman]

What I'm wondering is why some UFOs leave a charred mess, kinda like the aftermath of a neanderthal barbeque wingding fail, and others leave bewitching fractal imprints that looks like something a computer geek dreamed up after having eaten too many poppies. (See here: Andromedans are making the crop circles) :shrug:CC

 

First of all the site you provided a link to represents all that is wrong with UFO investigation and why it's so hard to get any respect for the subject.

 

Crop circles are hoaxes, all of them, even the complex fractal ones have been shown to be fakes, the people who did them admitted they were fake.

 

This site reports anything, and ignores any evidence to he contrary, reporting crap circles as made by Andromedans is self serving to the circus of people whose life's work seems to be trying to out do each other by making better fake UFO reports.

 

A very few unexplained UFOs have left traces on the ground, one actually irradiated three people and left them scarred for life and in very poor health.

 

HowStuffWorks "The Cash-Landrum UFO Incident"

[CraigD]

Reading various accounts of the incidents described in Moontanman’s links from this thread reveals that there are several puzzling ones – ones that stand out in my memory are the Battle of Los Angeles (1942), the Socorro incident (1964), and the Portage County UFO Chase (1966) – among a much larger number of clear hoaxes, unreliable witness accounts, and good-faith reports of well-known optical illusions.

 

Though I don’t personally find any of these three puzzling (that is, inadequately explained) incidents enough to convince me that a physically real UFO from any source was present at any of them, I’m very impressed at what appears to me to be a failure of credible scientific authorities and spokespeople to not only offer speculative explanations of them, but to effectively take into account the human emotions and motivations of the witnesses involved. In the Soccorro and Portage County incidents, clearly good-faith witnesses were ultimately antagonized, in some cases ruthlessly, by those they initially trusted to help explain their bizarre and in some cases troubling experiences. To quote J. Allen Hynek, an established astronomer employed by the USAF to investigate UFO reports:

"Ridicule is not part of the scientific method, and people should not be taught that it is. The steady flow of reports, often made in concert by reliable observers, raises questions of scientific obligation and responsibility. Is there ... any residue that is worthy of scientific attention? Or, if there isn't, does not an obligation exist to say so to the public—not in words of open ridicule but seriously, to keep faith with the trust the public places in science and scientists?"

Because many people irrationally believe in various incredible explanation of UFO sightings, and will not be swayed by scientifically well-made explanations of them as optical illusions or mundane objects such as ordinary aircraft, I think that the small cadre of people who make an effort to fulfill the “scientific obligation” Hynek spoke of fall into the fallacy of assuming that anybody who disagrees with the assumption that all sightings are in principle explained but for the effort of scientifically capable people carefully investigating them falls into this “true believer” category, ignoring people who can be swayed by sound scientific explanations and evidence.

 

In defense of these skeptical investigators, such finding such explanations and evidence can be long, hard, expensive, and thankless. Here, I think, is where a better sense of human psychology and social interaction, in the form of not alienating good-faith witnesses and honestly curious, open-minded people, can be very valuable, because honest people you make your friends, rather than your enemy, can learn and help in your investigation.

 

An important, and I think, too often ignored “scientific obligation and responsibility”, is outreach.