Discussing Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs)

[sir-pinski]

I usually find that Hume's Maxim is most useful in these cases where extraordinary claimsare being made (i.e. not what I had for breakfast this morning):

That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.

When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But I think you miss the point.

If someone claims to have experienced something, whether it be UFOS or toast, there may be nothing that they can do to satisfy your requirement. This does not make the experience any less real...if there was anything real about. Science cannot mandate what is and is not truth. This is not the job of science, but many seek to make it so. Madness lies not here but in the empty soul.

How many scientists have made a serious effort to investigate the UFO evidence. An unwritten assumption of silliness prevails that impedes honest inquiry. Most scientists will admit that life must exist out there. And, most scientists will admit that civilizations could easily exist that are millions of years more advanced than us. Our own theories inspire real designs for time machines and warp drive. We seek non-spaghettificating [sic] black hole solutions. We surmise the existence of 12 dimensional hyper-surfaces, quantum foam, and superpositions of existence that completely defy conceptualization, much less understanding. We look for tachyons, and we ignore the spooky part of entanglement. But UFOS? Silliness!

I should also add that according the the Quantum Cosmologists, as soon as you took measure of my position, YOU leapt into a superposition of eigenstates...so I guess you now agree and disagree: Exactly how do we define where the "silly line" is drawn anyway? I don't mean to insult science or scientists in any way here as I love the stuff. I am one of physic's biggest fans. I even bothered to get a degree. I only mean to compare and contrast the explanations that we accept [consider] and that we don't accept [are not willing to consider], without having direct evidence in either case.

 

[sir-pinski]

The problem comes when people start making extraordinary claims that fly in the face of currently accepted ideas. If someone makes an extraordinary claim which is contrary to currently accepted ideas then that person better have some damn good evidence to back it up. It shouldn't be enough for someone to come along and say hey guess what I saw last night and then expect the entire scientific community to listen. It needs to be difficult to get controversial ideas accepted. If not then as scientists we would end up spending most of our time following up crack-pots and car headlights. I accept that every now and then a correct claim comes along but without good solid evidence it means nothing to consensus opinion which is what science is all about.

Now as far as U.F.O.'s go ... scientists do agree in the possiblity of alien life but to infer from that that we have been visited is an unfounded step. I might also point out that at least we have good evidence for entanglement and quantum superpositions and we have some good mathematics behind ideas like quantum foam do we have anything nearly as solid for U.F.O.'s?

This is not about silliness (quantum mechanics is fairly silly as it is). This is about evidence and the requirement of it for acceptance by other people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

---“The problem comes when people start making extraordinary claims that fly in the face of currently accepted ideas. If someone makes an extraordinary claim which is contrary to currently accepted ideas then that person better have some damn good evidence to back it up.”

I don’t agree. The observer may have no control over the evidence. The truth could exist even without the evidence. Is the position of science to be: Even if ET is here, it is only significant if we have proof? If I can’t measure ET he doesn’t exist, or, his potential existence is meaningless? I don’t think we need to collapse ET’s wave function.

--- “It shouldn't be enough for someone to come along and say hey guess what I saw last night and then expect the entire scientific community to listen. It needs to be difficult to get controversial ideas accepted. If not then as scientists we would end up spending most of our time following up crack-pots and car headlights.”

I agree. This is a problem.

-- I accept that every now and then a correct claim comes along but without good solid evidence it means nothing to consensus opinion which is what science is all about.

But we can’t derive or predict ET like we can black holes or quantum foam. In fact, the only thing science really has to say about ET of late is that he/she/it/they are likely out there.

---Now as far as U.F.O.'s go ... scientists do agree in the possiblity of alien life but to infer from that that we have been visited is an unfounded step.

Based on the science, I agree. Based on history and human testimony, I’m not sure. To assume that we have not been visited is equally unfounded.

--I might also point out that at least we have good evidence for entanglement and quantum superpositions and we have some good mathematics behind ideas like quantum foam do we have anything nearly as solid for U.F.O.'s?

Has anyone ever seen, measured, or even indirectly detected quantum foam? I can point to ten million people [or whatever the number is] who claim to have seen a UFO. Now, from a purely statistical point of view, [no preconceived notions of reality allowed] what would you normally think the odds are that at least one “witness” could give an accurate account?

--This is not about silliness (quantum mechanics is fairly silly as it is). This is about evidence and the requirement of it for acceptance by other people.

I completely agree that we cannot elevate human testimony to a level of proof. But, what scientific value does human testimony carry? Well, none. Here is the core of my objection. Things of great significance may exist which science has no way to address. This limitation is artificial. The purpose of science is to help humankind understand its place in the universe, and the universe itself. The desire for knowledge is not limited to what can be formalized in a theorem. Science is about what is and what is not; not just what can be measured! This is an artificial construct needed to satisfy a formalism. Ok. We use it in the lab. It works for subatomic particles. And, at the deepest levels these things are probably true. But sometimes we have to use other rules for the macroscopic world if we are to address some potentially real issues. I don’t have a model or a framework for what I argue. I only mean to suggest that the real purpose of science nearly lost in the details. In principle and in practice, I think we can do better.

By the way, I have never seen a UFO...at least not one likely piloted by ET. But I have spoken with otherwise credible people who claim they have.

 

[megashawn]

. I can never prove to you that I ate toast this morning...but I did. Unfortunately I can never satisfy science of this fact.

Well, if it's only been since this morning, then science probably could satisfy that fact:)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No...I lied. I never had toast. But I do know someone who claims they really did have toast.

 

[sir-pinski]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If I can’t measure ET he doesn’t exist, or, his potential existence is meaningless? I don’t think we need to collapse ET’s wave function.

To science he wouldn't exist. Science relies on measurement (not necessarily in a lab) and observation. If someone says hey I saw an alien last night of course science and the world demands some good evidence for that claim. I agree that it doesn't mean that the individual did or didn't see an alien but to the rest of the world that claim means nothing without hard evidence.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
But we can’t derive or predict ET like we can black holes or quantum foam. In fact, the only thing science really has to say about ET of late is that he/she/it/they are likely out there.

Yes ... but we can observe and look for evidence.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Has anyone ever seen, measured, or even indirectly detected quantum foam? I can point to ten million people [or whatever the number is] who claim to have seen a UFO. Now, from a purely statistical point of view, [no preconceived notions of reality allowed] what would you normally think the odds are that at least one “witness” could give an accurate account?

But I never claimed that quantum foam was a "fact" I just said that there was some theoretical justification for it. Human testimony is not the most reliable evidence. It can be coloured very easily by pre-conceived ideas and popular culture.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The desire for knowledge is not limited to what can be formalized in a theorem. Science is about what is and what is not; not just what can be measured! This is an artificial construct needed to satisfy a formalism. Ok. We use it in the lab. It works for subatomic particles.

It also works for other subjects which don't operate in the lab e.g. geology, meteorology, astronomy etc. Science has to work based upon observation because without it we are not aware of a particular phenomena. Observation in this context extends from somebody observing something with their naked eye to a scientist sitting in front of an oscilloscope. With these observations an explanation is sought i.e. we create a theory to explain the observations. This is not necessarily mathematical in nature. This definition means that any phenomena that can be observed can also be formalised into a theory, including your breakfast activities.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I only mean to suggest that the real purpose of science nearly lost in the details. In principle and in practice, I think we can do better.

I don't think it is lost in the details. I also think it has done a fabulous job so far, more so than any other system of investigation. It's success speaks for itself.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was going to make a point by point rebuttal, but instead I will sum up my position this way. On a few occasions science has taken an honest look at the UFO question. One symposium was held in the seventies and was privately funded by Rockefellers I believe. There was even a recent symposium on Alien Abduction held at MIT. [That one would have even been difficult for me to attend]. Whenever science has made an official INFORMED statement on the subject, the results are the same - a core of about 5% of the ten million “sightings” or so are seemingly inexplicable and “worthy of further investigation”. What kind of examples are these 5%? They sometimes involve multiple witnesses, multiple radar contacts, and objects that demonstrate incredible behavior such as 25g accelerations. but, the “further investigation” never seems to happen, and anyone who does address this issue is immediately considered fringe. Heck, even the SETI crowd takes some hits.

Science does give absolutely silly responses to some UFO reports. Usually the kind of response that insults the intelligence and questions the sanity of all involved. I remember the story that really first got my attention. I ran across this as a result of an English assignment in college. A Japan cargo flight was traveling a polar route…I forget the destination and such. There were six crewmen onboard and the plane had on-board radar. The pilot and crew reported that a craft followed them for two hours. It was seen at times behind them, and at other times directly alongside the plane. It was described as about the size of an aircraft carrier. The on-board radar and I think not one but two ground stations recorded the second craft.

At the time I subscribed to an astronomy magazine and in it I happened to find a response [from a respected scientist] to this particular UFO report. It was argued that Venus was unusually bright that night and it was likely the cause of the sighting. Now really! This response is just plain stupid! I have seen many other examples of this kind of closed minded garbage. Were the claims of the crew in anyway directly addressed and then some argument made about how they could have been so wrong, that might be reasonable. But the explanation clearly flies in the face of the evidence. It should be noted that the pilot was fired as a result of this event. He took Japan Airlines to court and won. He is now retired on full benefits. This is one particularly good example of hundreds I have found in my own informal investigations.

I realize that stories don’t make science, but we have more than just stories. We have photographs, videos and film, radar contacts, multiple witness sightings, residual radiation and other residual effects on the local flora associated with reported UFO landing sights. We have reports from highly credible witnesses. We have reports that contain information that yields insight only now after fifty years…that is, a report from 1950 for example that only makes sense now. A very sweet German lady reported with great anxiety what she thought was a Russian craft, a saucer that had landed in her pasture. She wanted to be sure the military knew about this new Russian technology. We can now be sure that no-one had the craft that she reported. There were the Foo Fighters from WWII. How many people have even heard of these? Plenty of WWII pilots have I can assure you. I’ll bet most scientists haven’t.

But above all else, this is the single most important reason for science to take this subject more seriously and to find better ways to investigate these experiences: If aliens really are visiting, the rest of science pales by comparison! If true, this is the biggest story in the history of science, and possibly for all of humanity. If not true, there are still some interesting mysteries out there to be solved. Unfortunately, I know that most people who are in a position to help provide answers here have really closed their minds to the possibilities...and that’s just bad science!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"I know that neither Russia nor this country has anything even approaching such high speeds and maneuvers. Behind the scenes high ranking officers are soberly concerned about the UFOs, but through official secrecy and ridicule many citizens are led to believe that the unknown flying objects are nonsense."

Admiral Roscoe Hillenkoeter, First director of the CIA.
1960 NICAP press conference.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"The UFO was bouncing around the 747. [It] was a huge ball with lights running around it….Well, I’ve been involved in a lot of cover-ups with the FAA. When we gave the presentation to the Reagan staff, they had all those people swear that this never happened. But they never had me swear it never happened. I can tell you what I’ve seen with my own eyes. I’ve got a videotape. I’ve got the voice tape. I’ve got the reports that were filed that will confirm what I’ve been telling you."

FAA Division Chief of Accidents and Investigations, John Callahan

 

[Ivan Seeking]

" I have no doubt that something landed at this U.S. Air Force base [Bentwaters] and I have no doubt that it has got the people concerned into a considerable state. The Ministry of Defense has doggedly stuck to it's normal line, that nothing of defense interest took place. Either large numbers of people , including the commanding general at Bentwaters,were hallucinating, and for an American Air Force nuclear base , this is extremely dangerous - or what they say did happen.
In either of these circumstances, there can be only one answer - that it was of extreme defense interest to the U.K.".

Admiral Lord Hill-Norton , former chief of the British Defense Staff

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"A saucer flew right over [us], put down three landing gears, and landed out on the dry lakebed. [The cameramen] went out there with their cameras towards the UFO….I had a chance to hold [the film] up to the window. Good close-up shots. There was no doubt in my mind that it was made someplace other than on this earth."

Mercury & Gemini Astronaut, Colonel Gordon Cooper

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"There is a [military] publication called JANAP 146E that has a section that says you will not reveal any information regarding the UFO phenomenon under penalty of $10,000 fine and ten years in jail. So the secret has been kept."

-----US Navy Pilot, Lieutenant Frederick Fox

Edit:http://rr0.free.fr/janp146e.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"I have frequently been asked why a person of my background—a former Chief of the Defense Staff, a former Chairman of the NATO Military Committee—why I think there is a cover-up [of] the facts about UFOs. I believe governments fear that if they did disclose those facts, people would panic. I don’t believe that at all. There is a serious possibility that we are being visited by people from outer space. It behooves us to find out who they are, where they come from, and what they want."

-Admiral Lord Hill-Norton , former chief of the British Defense Staff

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am sure that many of you have heard of Roswell, and all of those nuts who thought that a balloon was a crashed flying saucer...in 1947. These were the same guys in charge of the most classified weapon in history. Roswell was the base of the worlds only nuclear strike force. The Enola Gay flew out of Roswell. What a bunch of knuckle heads!

 

[username]

Why do ufo's always have to come from outer space. Surely it makes much more sense that they are classified military projects considering that a lot of the sightings happen at military bases.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by username
Why do ufo's always have to come from outer space. Surely it makes much more sense that they are classified military projects considering that a lot of the sightings happen at military bases.

I have no doubt that most sightings claimed near military bases by civilians are easily explained. I have a little more difficulty with this idea when the base security forces are involved, or when F14s respond, or when the base commander goes public. Check out the names above - the previous quotes. Most of these people were or are involved in the military. Many of the most compelling testimonials come from the military. For a time, I was nearly convinced that the only conspiracy in effect is one by the military to perpetuate the UFO myth - to hide actual technology behind the smoke screen of aliens from Alpha Centauri – thus discrediting actual sightings of real planes. To some extent they may take advantage of this, but ultimately it seems that too many events and testimonials contradict this notion. Also, I never said they were from another planet. I don’t know what I think. I do know that highly credible witnesses come with supporting evidence, and claims to have made direct observations of incredible technologies that simply could not be ours or due to confusion. It’s not the 95% that can be easily dismissed that interests me; it’s the other 5%...or in the case of military bases perhaps 0.5%, but surely more than zero.

I know this means little to any of you, but for me it was significant. After years of balking I finally got up the nerve to bring this subject up with an uncle who had been a lifer in the Marines. At one time he was a base commander. He is a Semper Fi, Leatherneck loyal, feet on the ground no BS type of guy. When I finally asked the big quesion - what do you think about this UFO stuff? [didn't want to sound too serious you know] - he looked me dead in the eyes and said "There's something out there". As it turned out, in Vietnam he had listened to a couple of UFO fighter jet intercepts on the radio. It seems there was no doubt in his mind.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"On August fifth [1926] - something remarkable! We were in our camp in the Kukunor district not far from the Humboldt Chain. In the morning about half-past nine some of our caravaneers noticed a remarkably big black eagle flying over us. Seven of us began to watch this unusual bird. At this same moment another of our caravaneers remarked, 'There is something far above the bird'. And he shouted in his astonishment. We all saw, in a direction from north to south, something big and shiny reflecting the sun, like a huge oval moving at great speed. Crossing our camp the thing changed in its direction from south to southwest. And we saw how it disappeared in the intense blue sky. We even had time to take our field glasses and saw quite distinctly an oval form with shiny surface, one side of which was brilliant from the sun."
- Nicholas Roerich, Altai-Himalaya

I contacted the Roerich Musuem in New York and confirmed this quote. The curator's assistant was very familiar with this excerpt. He then added that Roerich's wife was also on this expedition. In her diary she comments that this must have been a craft with people from somewhere else; and then suggests the existence of life on other planets.

EDIT: Minor changes to format

 

[username]

I have come up with a new theory that ufos are piloted by rods and the so called abductions are cases of indescriminate roding, ok so that's not true but what if the human species discovered a way to manipulate time in the distant future could some of the ufos be from planet Earth in the future ?
Probably not but I think its better than the idea of ET's.

 

[username]

As for the Bentwater's ufo case, I thought the base was conducting high energy beam experiments at the time, if this is true it's not hard to imagine that some sort of airborne apparatus was involved (maybe this could account for the radioactivity as well).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by username
As for the Bentwater's ufo case, I thought the base was conducting high energy beam experiments at the time, if this is true it's not hard to imagine that some sort of airborne apparatus was involved (maybe this could account for the radioactivity as well).

Don't you think the base commander and the security forces would have known about this? Also, the security detail reported direct observation of a craft.

EDIT: It is cases like this one that nearly convinced me that the military wants us to falsely believe in UFOs. In end however, in spite of the entirely unacceptable implications, this hypothesis seems to fail.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by username
...what if the human species discovered a way to manipulate time in the distant future could some of the ufos be from planet Earth in the future ?
Probably not but I think its better than the idea of ET's.

There is an old challenge: If time travel will ever be possible then where are the time travelers [from the future]?

If we saw some would we know it? Dunno.

 

[FZ+]

Oh... easy solutions:

(1) They are busy watching the 3rd world war Dubya started
(2) They are all dead.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by FZ+
Oh... easy solutions:

(1) They are busy watching the 3rd world war Dubya started
(2) They are all dead.

If I can just get my time machine working I will have known this.

 

[username]

I read somewhere that the myth 'carrots help you see at night' was deliberate disinformation by the military to hide the fact RAF pilots had just developed radar in ww2. I know people who still believe this myth.
I think this is a bit like how the UFO thing started funny how it really took off just after the ww2. The military probably just hijacked a myth like fairies or elves and helped perpetuate it. I think by the end of ww2 the axis had developed saucer shaped aircraft and this technology fell into allied hands.
--
As for all these high ranking officials so called testimonies these military authority figures would be the last people on Earth I would trust with telling the truth.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by username
I read somewhere that the myth 'carrots help you see at night' was deliberate disinformation by the military to hide the fact RAF pilots had just developed radar in ww2. I know people who still believe this myth.
I think this is a bit like how the UFO thing started funny how it really took off just after the ww2. The military probably just hijacked a myth like fairies or elves and helped perpetuate it. I think by the end of ww2 the axis had developed saucer shaped aircraft and this technology fell into allied hands.
--
As for all these high ranking officials so called testimonies these military authority figures would be the last people on Earth I would trust with telling the truth.

Perhaps. But this hypothesis requires that we ignore a slew historical evidence. What about Roewich and similar reports that predate WWII by many years, decades, and sometimes even centuries?

By the way, although keratin is needed for night vision, unless you have a deficiency, eating carrots makes no difference. I find that my night vision improves most with a flashlight.

 

[username]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Perhaps. But this hypothesis requires that we ignore a slew historical evidence. What about Roewich and similar reports that predate WWII by many years, decades, and sometimes even centuries?

Ghosts goblins and fairy tales and maybe some natural phenomenon thrown in.
--
I do however believe in the possiblity of life as we know it elsewhere in the universe.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by username
Ghosts goblins and fairy tales and maybe some natural phenomenon thrown in.
--
I do however believe in the possiblity of life as we know it elsewhere in the universe.

Explain Roewich using known natural phenomenon.

Edit: Are we going to take every reputable account in history and assume that these people are all liars or nuts? Based on what justification? It seems the only one is the assumption that they are all wrong. Then of course we must assume the existence of, not a highly confined conspiracy imited to an elite few in high positions, but rather a general conspriracy by thousands of miltary persons to lie and claim that UFOs DO exist. This conspiracy includes my uncle, and nearly every other military person I have spoken with or who ever gone public with claims of UFOs. Now that's a consiracy! Does this really seem possible?

 

[username]

I think these people realize (especially scientists) that there is a not a god as such but still feel the need for somehting else that is out there that is greater than them (maybe its hardwired into the human brain).

It would make an interesting study to see what percentage of alien abductee's are religious.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by username
I think these people realize (especially scientists) that there is a not a god as such but still feel the need for somehting else that is out there that is greater than them (maybe its hardwired into the human brain).

It would make an interesting study to see what percentage of alien abductee's are religious.

Sorry username I edited after your post. Please see the edit above. Also, I don't do abducties...too much psycho-babble to contend with. I listen but I make no judgements. I agree that psychology surely plays a role here.

 

[username]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
... Then of course we must assume the existence of, not a highly confined conspiracy imited to an elite few in high positions, but rather a general conspriracy by thousands of miltary persons to lie and claim that UFOs DO exist ... Does this really seem possible?

Possibly the military is compartmentalised (componentised?) so that indeed it can be perpertrated by a limited few without the rest knowing. Maybe the thousands of military personnel are victims of disinformation a bit like the carrot thing. But Maybe this is just grabbing at straws :/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by username
Possibly the military is compartmentalised (componentised?) so that indeed it can be perpertrated by a limited few without the rest knowing. Maybe the thousands of military personnel are victims of disinformation a bit like the carrot thing. But Maybe this is just grabbing at straws :/

Yes, I suppose such a conspiracy could be scaled down. I will think about this... For now at least, I maintain that if one considers the bulk of the evidence, and if one gives serious consideration to the person involved, the context the events, the motive to lie, the motive to not lie which is often greater, and the wealth of historical clues and evidence that strongly support modern claims, to dismiss everything as trivial requires a greater leap of faith than accepting that something very strange is afoot indeed. But, I don't leap into the realm of a believer either. Perhaps I will need put a UFO into transdimensional warp drive myself before I become a true believer.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Does this mean that we agree: A conspiracy must exist to either perpetuate or to discount UFO claims, but a conspiracy nonetheless?

Edit: One more possibility; that an effort is made to perpetuate and to discount UFO claims.

Here I do mean an effort by some entity within the government, the military and or the intelligence community.

 

[username]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
One more possibility; that an effort is made to perpetuate and to discount UFO claims.

I find this idea quite plausible. For example take the sinister nut job steven greer (who is very well connected with lawrence rockafeller etc) seems to fit the bill perfectly. Of course anything to do with this loon/scam artist will be eventually discredited.

Edit: I admit I don't know much about the rockafellers involvment in the government if at all.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by username
I find this idea quite plausible. For example take the sinister nut job steven greer (who is very well connected with lawrence rockafeller etc) seems to fit the bill perfectly. Of course anything to do with this loon/scam artist will be eventually discredited.

Edit: I admit I don't know much about the rockafellers involvment in the government if at all.

What do you know about Greer? My take on him is that of a true believer attempting to create a legitimate forum. I don't know much about him personally, but many of his witnesses seem highly credible.