Who is Behind the Mysterious Flying Triangles?

[Mazulu]

No. There's something wrong with a pilot who doesn't realize forward thrust is coming from the prop and not the tires.

Do you have the link to this episode of Mythbusters?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Do you have the link to this episode of Mythbusters?

Yup:

 

[Mazulu]

Yup:

The plane flies because air is flowing around the wings. What was this video suppose to demonstrate?

 

[Mazulu]

No. There's something wrong with a pilot who doesn't realize forward thrust is coming from the prop and not the tires.

So the video demonstrates that dumb people can fly planes too? Therefore it follows logically that if a pilot observed a UFO, he must be dumb? That doesn't seem like a very strong argument. I think that the individual pilot who saw the UFO would have to be tested for "dumbness".

 

[Mazulu]

I just thought of a sure fire way a pilot can get evidence that the UFO he/she is observing is real. If the UFO gets too close to the plane, the pilot should deliberately crash into it. If it's just a weather pattern, the plane will fly right through it. If it's not, then an FAA investigation will reveal that the plane collided with something.

 

[Drakkith]

I just thought of a sure fire way a pilot can get evidence that the UFO he/she is observing is real. If the UFO gets too close to the plane, the pilot should deliberately crash into it. If it's just a weather pattern, the plane will fly right through it. If it's not, then an FAA investigation will reveal that the plane collided with something.

A great plan except for cases when it's actually something real, such as as another plane.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What was this video suppose to demonstrate?

It demonstrates that thrust comes from the propeller and not the wheels. The surface on which that plane is sitting is being pulled in the reverse direction of take-off by a guy in a truck. Sone people think that would render the plane unable to take off. There were endless internet debates about this.

So the video demonstrates that dumb people can fly planes too? Therefore it follows logically that if a pilot observed a UFO, he must be dumb? That doesn't seem like a very strong argument. I think that the individual pilot who saw the UFO would have to be tested for "dumbness".

What follows logically is that you can't necessarily ascribe all kinds of expertise to people just because they're doing "what they do".

I just thought of a sure fire way a pilot can get evidence that the UFO he/she is observing is real. If the UFO gets too close to the plane, the pilot should deliberately crash into it. If it's just a weather pattern, the plane will fly right through it. If it's not, then an FAA investigation will reveal that the plane collided with something.

That pilot would deserve a Darwin Award for trying, anyway.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But the Belgian airforce locked onto triangles that they found in their air space. Within 5 seconds, the triangles were observed to break lock by accelerating rapidly. You can't get gliders to do that. The argument could be made that these triangles are secret (under research) US military planes. Military planes can detect radar lock and respond accordingly.

The Belgian event is interesting because it involved the military and went public almost immediately. One explanation that seems possible is that we [the US] were toying with our allies and projecting false RADAR images from a nearby Stealth Fighter [or by some other means]. The photos and reports of crafts seen in the area fit the profile for a Stealth, right down to the red light on the bottom. Also, the object seen on RADAR and chased was never observed visually. And it appeared to dive below ground level for a short time.

We now know that we transmitted false RADAR data in the first Gulf war, so the technology has been around for quite some time. As a matter of fact, I once proposed this technology in a physics class as a way avoid speeding tickets.

 

[Mazulu]

The Belgian event is interesting because it involved the military and went public almost immediately. One explanation that seems possible is that we [the US] were toying with our allies and projecting false RADAR images from a nearby Stealth Fighter [or by some other means]. The photos and reports of crafts seen in the area fit the profile for a Stealth, right down to the red light on the bottom. Also, the object seen on RADAR and chased was never observed visually. And it appeared to dive below ground level for a short time.

We now know that we transmitted false RADAR data in the first Gulf war, so the technology has been around for quite some time. As a matter of fact, I once proposed this technology in a physics class as a way avoid speeding tickets.

I want to assume that those who witnessed the event were sincere about what they observed or thought they observed. In other words, let's assume it's not a conspiracy. For the Belgium event, there were:
1. hovering triangles: explained as handgliders with spotlights;
2. scrambled jets and ground radar mistaking weather patters for triangles but not visually observing them. or,
3. scrambled jets observing a secret US made triangular shaped stealth fighter plane with three spot lights and high maneuverability.

I think #3 makes a little bit more sense without being "out of this world". Handgliders and incompetent pilots and radar technicians just seems a bit of a stretch.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I want to assume that those who witnessed the event were sincere about what they observed or thought they observed. In other words, let's assume it's not a conspiracy. For the Belgium event, there were:
1. hovering triangles: explained as handgliders with spotlights;
2. scrambled jets and ground radar mistaking weather patters for triangles but not visually observing them. or,
3. scrambled jets observing a secret US made triangular shaped stealth fighter plane with three spot lights and high maneuverability.

I think #3 makes a little bit more sense without being "out of this world". Handgliders and incompetent pilots and radar technicians just seems a bit of a stretch.

Why you would think that "secret military project" is a more reasonable explanation than mistaken pilot, radar technician or media hyperbole is beyond me.

 

[Ms Music]

We now know that we transmitted false RADAR data in the first Gulf war, so the technology has been around for quite some time.

Many years ago I worked on the B2 program, and I was often the first person in the "white world" to hear when a plane landed from a test flight. One time I had a conversation with the caller about how the UFO sightings would go through the roof during flights. If false radar is involved, I am 100% certain that this would explain the sightings and Belgian air force event. But then again, I am one of those boring people that believes all UFOs are of terrestrial origin.

As a matter of fact, I once proposed this technology in a physics class as a way avoid speeding tickets.

Love it!

 

[zoobyshoe]

But then again, I am one of those boring people that believes all UFOs are of terrestrial origin.

They are, but their propulsion system is derived from the plans for Tesla's Death Ray, which was stolen from his apartment on the day he died by agents of the Government and which technology is now a CIA black ops concern. They also have silent black helicopters that kidnap and mutilate cattle.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

3. scrambled jets observing a secret US made triangular shaped stealth fighter plane with three spot lights and high maneuverability.

I think #3 makes a little bit more sense without being "out of this world". Handgliders and incompetent pilots and radar technicians just seems a bit of a stretch.

The military pilots never directly observed the target. The photos and reports of observed crafts were public, not military.

As for mistaken RADAR hits, RADAR mirages and the like, these explanation do not seem to be consistent with a plane in pursuit and changing direction. Any weather phenomenon or mirage would be good for one or a few hits. At the least it would have to be a failure of the RADAR system.

 

[AlephZero]

No. There's something wrong with a pilot who doesn't realize forward thrust is coming from the prop and not the tires.

Thrust doesn't make a plane take off. Lift does.

OK, so the pilot may have made an order-of-magnitude error estimating the ground effect of the conveyor belt on lift. But I would be a lot more worried flying with a pilot who didn't know that ground effect was important, than somebody who made that mistake.

 

[DaveC426913]

Thrust doesn't make a plane take off. Lift does.

This does not change what zooby said.

The thrust (which will move the plane, which will provide lift) comes from the prop. What the wheels are doing under the plane does not affect thrust or lift. It is troubling that a pilot would make such a mistake.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thrust doesn't make a plane take off. Lift does.

OK, so the pilot may have made an order-of-magnitude error estimating the ground effect of the conveyor belt on lift. But I would be a lot more worried flying with a pilot who didn't know that ground effect was important, than somebody who made that mistake.

Oh come on. Ground effects are helpful but incidental. Thrust gets the plane moving forward, which gets air flowing around the wings which creates lift. If ground effects were required, jets couldn't take off, and prop planes couldn't fly above a very low altitude, nor could you launch a model glider with your hand.

 

[Mazulu]

Why you would think that "secret military project" is a more reasonable explanation than mistaken pilot, radar technician or media hyperbole is beyond me.

Quoting from this article: http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc473.htm

It had started on the crazy night of November 29, 1989, during which 30 groups of witnesses, among them three police patrols, scattered over 800 square kilometers of territory between Liege and the German/Netherlands border, reported UFOs. All of the wit- nesses observed for hours a strange triangular object nearly silent, maneuver- ing at low speed and very low altitude, without creating the least amount of turbulence.

-30 groups of witnesses including police patrols
-observed for hours a strange triangular object nearly silent, maneuver- ing at low speed and very low altitude, without creating the least amount of turbulence.

At least 30 witnesses of slow moving and very quiet triangles (gliders?).

The range of the two radars is 300 KM, which is more than e nough to cover the area where the reports took place. In this region the land is fairly flat, rolling country without any prominent hills. The radar has a perfect view of all flying objects with an altitude above 200 meters over the ground. Nevertheless, Headquarters determined to do some very precise studies during the next 55 minutes to eliminate the possibility of prosaic explanations for the radar images. Excellent atmospheric conditions prevailed, and there was no possibility of false echoes due to temperature inversions.

Two radar stations scanning a country side without prominent hills. Good weather. Investigators were aware of the possibility of false images.[/QUOTE]

Pilots are looking at radar images. Witnesses on the ground are looking at triangles. What ties radar images to the triangles? This...

"In three cases the pilots managed to get their radar locked on the object, with the immediate result that the object's behavior drastically changed. The object literally played hide and seek with the fighters. It dived toward the ground to evade the airborne and ground radars. Then it climbed back into radar range in a liesurely manner, thus initiating a new chase. This fantastic game of hide and seek was observed from the ground by a great number of witnesses, among them 20 national policemen who saw both the object and the F-16s.

The Belguim policemen observed both the F-16's and the Triangle. The question then becomes: are the Beguim police lying or conspiring? If so, then what were the pilots chasing?

I believe that the Belguin police are telling the truth. If so, then the Triangle and the radar images are linked.

If you want a terrestrial answer, then it has to be a very high tech air craft, probably an American fighter.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Oh come on. Ground effects are helpful but incidental. Thrust gets the plane moving forward, which gets air flowing around the wings which creates lift. If ground effects were required, jets couldn't take off, and prop planes couldn't fly above a very low altitude, nor could you launch a model glider with your hand.

Hehe. This is half jabbering.

Let me put it this way: no thrust, no ground effects, no lift. Thrust comes from the prop, not the wheels.

 

[Drakkith]

Quoting from this article: http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc473.htm

To play devils advocate, there's no real way of knowing how accurate this is. Not in that the person who wrote it is incorrect or lying (which is still a possibility. I can't get to that site from here at work so I haven't had a chance to read it.), but in the accuracy of the eyewitnesses. It is extremely common for people to misunderstand something they see in the sky. And trying to explain something you don't even understand to someone else only compounds the issue.

Two radar stations scanning a country side without prominent hills. Good weather. Investigators were aware of the possibility of false images.

Pilots are looking at radar images. Witnesses on the ground are looking at triangles. What ties radar images to the triangles? This...

Assuming that the pilots never had visual contact, that puts the object at least several miles if not more beyond the aircraft. I find it hard to believe that eyewitnesses saw both the F-16's and the object playing "hide and seek" at somewhere between 200-1000 mph and varying altitudes with any real accuracy. People can easily give incorrect times where something that took 10-15 seconds can be reported as "In just seconds". There are plenty of other things that can make the eyewitnesses information inaccurate.

 

[Mazulu]

To play devils advocate, there's no real way of knowing how accurate this is. Not in that the person who wrote it is incorrect or lying (which is still a possibility. I can't get to that site from here at work so I haven't had a chance to read it.), but in the accuracy of the eyewitnesses. It is extremely common for people to misunderstand something they see in the sky. And trying to explain something you don't even understand to someone else only compounds the issue.

I thought I was the one playing devil's advocate?

There might be some witness testimonial (translated) somewhere on the internet. I'm looking at some pictures, desperately trying to read the handwriting.


http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case1167.htm

In any population of observers, there is a chance that you might get some UFO enthusiasts. In a larger sample, you'll get testimonial from people who don't believe in such things. You just have to sift through the reports (if you can find them). If 90% of the observer population sees the same feature (like a triangle) then that particular feature is probably reliable.

If all a triangle does is hover, then it acts like a balloon. If it moves slowly, then it might be a balloon or glider. If it moves fast, it might be a plane. If it follows the observer (pilot) it might be an optical illusion. If it glows, it might be lightning. But what if it has behavior that crosses multiple categories?

Assuming that the pilots never had visual contact, that puts the object at least several miles if not more beyond the aircraft. I find it hard to believe that eyewitnesses saw both the F-16's and the object playing "hide and seek" at somewhere between 200-1000 mph and varying altitudes with any real accuracy. People can easily give incorrect times where something that took 10-15 seconds can be reported as "In just seconds". There are plenty of other things that can make the eyewitnesses information inaccurate.

I'm hard pressed to agree with the assumption that the pilot isn't going to look (with his eyes) at what he's chasing, at least once; just to make sure they're not chasing a software bug, a weather front or a bogey (Russian fighter jet for example).

What constitutes the observation of an aerial chase? First the triangle goes by really fast (silently); and then two fighter jets go by really noisily in the same direction. Even if the "chase" is happening at 1000mph, an observer on the ground can still see them go by.

I thought this testimonial was very detailed and thoughtful.

After having seen this dramatic sequence, I posed a number of questions to Col. DeBrouwer. First, could the object have been a radiosonde balloon? "No, the object acted as if it was totally independent of the winds, and we have done, among other things, a complete review of meteorlogical conditions. This is why we did not publish the report until now. We wanted to do a complete study to verify all aspects of the case. Our military defense system is not prepared for this sort of thing. We had to analyze and interpret the data from the recording inside the fighters."

Is it a natural phenomenon, or perhaps the debris from rockets or satellites or space junk? "No, a meteorite or a fragment of a rocket does not enter the atmosphere in a zig zag fashion. The analysis of the radar traces showed numer ous changes in direction, and the atmosphereic conditions that prevailed pre cluded any electromagnetic phenomenon as the cause."

But I asked how about the famous F-117 the American Stealth airplane, which many people think may be responsible? "This airplane is absolutely designed for penetration at low altitude. On the other hand it has a minimum speed of 278 KPH and the UFOs speed went down to 40 KPH. The F-117 does not have engines that can be tilted down for very slow speed flight. Also no airplane is capable of flying at 1,800 KPH or so low to the ground without creating a sonic boom." Then he gave me a telex sent by the Military Attache of the U.S. Ambassador to the Commander of the Belgian Air Force confirming that the Stealth airplane was never stationed on European territory nor did it ever fly over that territory.

So maybe the US military has an unmanned plane that can hover, and also reach velocities of 1800km/hr (without creating a sonic boom).
http://osdir.com/patents/Aeronautics/Passive-aerodynamic-sonic-boom-suppression-supersonic-aircraft-06959896.html

 

[Mazulu]

That might not quite be the best debunk. Either way, you don't need to attribute all UFO sightings to something for it to be true of a few.

A very old post for you to review (notice that the quoted version has bad URLs, but if you follow the link provided just below, you can still visit each website).

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2871349&postcount=11

I've been looking at the links that you provided. A lot of the material looks like junk. I found other articles that I liked. But what captivates my attention is your comment.

I'm sure people who see UFOs honestly believe whatever they say. ("Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.")

On the one hand there are people who see UFO's and are filled with wonder and joy about life; they are filled with awe that there is something out there. In the other hand, the scholarly community routinely ridicules these people and calls them stupid. I don't know how to reconcile this. If you're happy then you're stupid?

To avoid be accused of diverging from the topic, I contribute this debunky article. http://gmh.chez-alice.fr/RLT/BUW-RLT-10-2008.pdf
It's evidence that military crafts are being misidentified as UFO's. Enjoy.

 

[Mazulu]

Now here is a nice organized table that describes lots of weird things seen by pilots. No fluff or flaky observers, just the facts.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/WeinsteinPilotCatalog.pdf
The table has light, balls, glowing cylinders, airfoils, foo fighters, pink spheres, even a green parallelogram. Maybe this is the mother-lode. By my count, there are about a thousand reports from pilots of UFO encounters. In a nutshell, they're lights, cylinders, spheres, glowing geometric shapes.

How long will it take you to debunk 1000 pilot reports?

 

[Dotini]

Yes, there is incontrovertibly a phenomenon of unidentified aerial objects.

With our best efforts over a period of decades, some 80-90% eventually can have prosaic explanations. There is a residuum of extremely well investigated but still puzzling unsolved cases.

From the late 1940's on, there have been some high profile US government investigations involving top physicists, astronomers and military folk. They have come to the conclusions that although the phenomenon is real, it poses no threat to national security. It is a nuisance so they don't bother investigating it anymore.

Institutions such as science and government having abandoned the problem leaves the field wide open for media and public speculation. Due to the many thousands of reports occurring daily for many decades, some even going back thousands of years, it makes more sense to think of it as terrestrial in origin rather extraterrestrial. It is absurd to think that nut-and-bolt objects from another planet can burn enough energy to come to Earth so often, cavort around doing essentially nothing, and remain resistant to our best efforts to confine even one, examine and understand it. It is a fool's errand to explain the UAP as a solid object.

Accordingly, the phenomenon must be almost purely energetic (lacking mass) so that after it manifests it vanishes leaving no traces, and can never be captured and confined in a laboratory any more than could a bolt of lightning be captured and examined.

We are dealing with electromagnetic fields organized into cellular structures by DLs.

According to the evidence, they can change speed, altitude, direction, shape, size and color without a problem.

Yet they don't attack and do usually run away when probed with radar.

There are baby-sized versions of UAP which occur regularly in particular places on Earth, such as Hessdalen, Norway and the Yakama Indian Reservation, Washington State, USA.

Professional scientists have studied these junior-grade versions of the phenomena for decades now. Some of their reports are posted in the "Electrical Eccentricity?" thread. It's pretty clear they have the idea they are studying an electromagnetic plasma phenomenon.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[DaveC426913]

Accordingly, the phenomenon must be almost purely energetic (lacking mass)

How did you get to this conclusion? We've got unexplained phenomena, what leads you to conclude that - categorically - they all come from the same phenom and that they cannot have mass?

I can see massless objects being one plausible explanation for many of the incidents, but I don't see how it's categorically true of all unexplained aerial phenomena.

There is a line between what we know and what we surmise.

 

[Dotini]

How did you get to this conclusion? We've got unexplained phenomena, what leads you to conclude that - categorically - they all come from the same phenom and that they cannot have mass?

I can see massless objects being one plausible explanation for many of the incidents, but I don't see how it's categorically true of all unexplained aerial phenomena.

There is a line between what we know and what we surmise.

Dave, thanks for a very good post and question.

Yes, of course you are right and I have no basis for categorical statements of any kind. I do believe there is some small amount of mass involved in some cases, even if it is only dusty metallic particles.

Although there are a great variety of UAP phenomena manifested, I am looking for the common thread - in our favorite subject of physics - which unifies the problem and makes it more comprehensible. I want to drive out the mystery and BS which infects this UFO/UAP topic.

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[zoobyshoe]

How long will it take you to debunk 1000 pilot reports?

A couple/three seconds:

People see a huge variety of unexplained things. Any automatic assumption they are extra-terrestrial is bunk.

 

[Drakkith]

Now here is a nice organized table that describes lots of weird things seen by pilots. No fluff or flaky observers, just the facts.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/WeinsteinPilotCatalog.pdf
The table has light, balls, glowing cylinders, airfoils, foo fighters, pink spheres, even a green parallelogram. Maybe this is the mother-lode. By my count, there are about a thousand reports from pilots of UFO encounters. In a nutshell, they're lights, cylinders, spheres, glowing geometric shapes.

How long will it take you to debunk 1000 pilot reports?

There's nothing to debunk unless someone claims those UFO's are alien spacecraft or something similar.

 

[Drakkith]

On the one hand there are people who see UFO's and are filled with wonder and joy about life; they are filled with awe that there is something out there. In the other hand, the scholarly community routinely ridicules these people and calls them stupid. I don't know how to reconcile this. If you're happy then you're stupid?

The issue isn't that people see UFO's, it's that they see them and then believe that the most likely explanation is aliens. They are most likely incorrect, and in many people's eyes they are indeed "stupid". Most likely incorrect means that if you look at just the number of explainable phenomena compared to unexplained there is an overwhelming majority for the former.

 

[FlexGunship]

On the one hand there are people who see UFO's and are filled with wonder and joy about life; they are filled with awe that there is something out there. In the other hand, the scholarly community routinely ridicules these people and calls them stupid. I don't know how to reconcile this. If you're happy then you're stupid?

This is a fundamental misconception about knowledge. Just because an idea is appealing doesn't make it true... or even reasonable. It's amazingly common that people will defend most strongly, the falsehoods they find most appealing (or the truths that are most shaky).

If you're going to objectively review UFO reports, you must remove the awe and wonder of it. Otherwise the topic might as well be considered myth instead of a scientific conjecture.

On the plus side, it should be a huge consolation that the things we are currently learning about our universe are amazingly interesting and mind-boggling! Some of them clearly overshadow the idea of aliens mucking about in our airspace. If nothing else, the reports of faster-than-light neutrinos should be mind blowing! It might not be true (just like the UFOs=aliens idea), but the research is real and happening RIGHT NOW!

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

 

[Mazulu]

The issue isn't that people see UFO's, it's that they see them and then believe that the most likely explanation is aliens. They are most likely incorrect, and in many people's eyes they are indeed "stupid". Most likely incorrect means that if you look at just the number of explainable phenomena compared to unexplained there is an overwhelming majority for the former.

I really can't call anyone "stupid" for believing that these are aliens or (insert popular cultural/religious icon). The phenomena is literally messing with people's heads. Just read down the table from any page of
http://www.ufoevidence.org/newsite/files/WeinsteinPilotCatalog.pdf
I picked page 8 at random: fast moving yellow-white basketball (approximate size estimate, not an actual basketball); red-hot metal spheres follow plane, orange spheres, pink spheres maneuvering around plane, fireballs follow plane... Aluminum disk object, lights making sharp turns. I have a bachelors degree in physics. I know what plasma is (a stream of charged particles). Plasma gives off light. But none of my physics professors ever said that plasma could make sharp turns and maneuver around without the aid of an electric field.

• three luminous spots followed the plane, the engine of which faltered
• a bright "shooting star" streaked downward without exploding then came back
• a white ball flying at 3,000 ft high
• one bright light split in two, moved towards the plane then disappeared
• a blue circular flame passed the plane, turned, then blinked

St. Elmos fire comes to mind, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Elmos_Fire
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&h...bnw=159&start=24&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:17,s:24

Does plasma in the atmosphere explain all of the observations? What about,

• one light seemed to take off and moved at 300 mph, made a turn. No specific shape.
• one blimp-shaped object outdistanced the planes at high speed.
• two orange lights rotating about a common center which Maneuvered.
• one silver object moved off immediately when pilot made a bank turn to approach it.
• one object with several lights moving very slowly followed the plane for 20 miles and turned back.
• a red-orange light, hovered one hour, then crossed the sky rapidly

If there was a light (St.Elmos fire?) flashing prime numbers at the pilot, I must have missed it. Are there balls of plasma in the sky that are curious about planes and want to take a better look? Or is the plane sharing an electric field with the atmosphere? In either case, the atmospheric plasma phenomena must be truly dazzling and beautiful. That is, until the plasma gets sucked into the engines and causes the electrical systems to go haywire. I wonder if the flying disks, cylinders and saucers have this problem.

 

[Mazulu]

The issue isn't that people see UFO's, it's that they see them and then believe that the most likely explanation is aliens. They are most likely incorrect, and in many people's eyes they are indeed "stupid". Most likely incorrect means that if you look at just the number of explainable phenomena compared to unexplained there is an overwhelming majority for the former.

Most likely ... is another way of saying in my humble opinion. We still have silvery saucers, disks and cylinders to explain.

• one flying saucer at about 16,000 ft
• near-collision with a flying disc
• a red saucer flying very fast, dived, then made a 45° turn
• a shiny disc
• a saucer-shaped object (diameter: 30 meters)
• a luminous metallic-looking disc
• a disc (diameter: 30 meters) with 9-12 portholes and a light on the top
• an "aluminium"disc (diameter 40 ft) flew under the plane at 4,000 ft high.

Instead of making people feel stupid for telling you what they think they saw, why not ask them: how do you know it's an alien spaceship? Maybe something broke off the plane. Maybe it's St.Elmos fire on a sunny day.

 

[FlexGunship]

Most likely ... is another way of saying in my humble opinion.

Wrong. "Most likely" is an expression of approximated probability.

It is a fact that, given our present understanding of the universe, alien visitation is probably the least likely hypothesis to explain UFO sightings of any flavor.

When you have two puncture wounds on your neck you should probably think of the vampire-hypothesis last. The prevalence of movies and books about vampires does not lend credence to the hypothesis itself. Likewise, the prevalence of movies and books about aliens visiting Earth does not lend credence to that particular hypothesis.

 

[Mazulu]

• a huge turtle-shaped object at 7,000 ft high.

I got this one! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamera

 

[Mazulu]

Wrong. "Most likely" is an expression of approximated probability.

When you have two puncture wounds on your neck you should probably think of the vampire-hypothesis last. The prevalence of movies and books about vampires does not lend credence to the hypothesis itself. Likewise, the prevalence of movies and books about aliens visiting Earth does not lend credence to that particular hypothesis.

If you buy a lottery ticket, most likely you won't win; yet several people around the country win every week. Anyway, how do you explain all these silvery aluminum looking saucers in the sky? If something that big came off the plane, it would crash.

• one silver cigar-shaped object flying slowly and vertically.
• one saucer-shaped object leaving a vapor-like trail, disappeared from sight in 3 mn.
• one cream-colored disc-shaped object, flying at 1,500 ft (diameter : 20 ft).
• a saucer-shaped object followed by the pilot for about 20 miles
• a domed-disc
• four groups of round metallic silver objects
• two large flying discs, with a silver mirror surface, 600-700 ft diameter
• a silvery elongated object motionless

It is a fact that, given our present understanding of the universe, alien visitation is probably the least likely hypothesis to explain UFO sightings of any flavor.

How do you know?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If you buy a lottery ticket, most likely you won't win; yet several people around the country win every week

This is a fallacious comparison. There has never been any evidence that extraterrestrial life exists nor any evidence that extraterrestrial life has ever visited this planet and flown around in our atmosphere. Winning the lottery by comparison can have it's probability easily determined.

When something is has no evidence for it's existence then it cannot be suggested as a hypothesis. People who try to look for alien evidence in UFOs are being illogical; rather you should examine the cases and if you can't attribute it to any current known phenomenon you have to conclude that the cause and nature of the phenomenon remain unknown.