The Events of July, 1952

While reviewing what you had to say about "The Roswell Incident" at

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_052.html

I felt motivated to ask you the same question I asked of a respondent to the "S.E.T.H." thread several days ago -- what do you think explains the nationwide UFO 'flap' of July, 1952? Please review your sources for reports that were made of sightings that came in all during that month.

[tomndebb]

How about: One widely published report begat numerous widely published reports? Same thing happened in the late 1960's with Jesus hitchhiking on the Pennsylvania Tollroad: there was a silly story published; suddenly five more people came forward to say that they had the same experience; this led to a whole slew of stories on the same six "incidents"; next, there were stories all over the country of the same thing happening on different highways.

The examples I have seen show an exponential growth phenomenon: day 1--a report; day 3--a couple of reports; day 5--a few reports; days 6, 7, 8, . . .--lots and lots of reports.

------------------
Tom~

[David B]

Yup, there are lots of these mass hysteria-type things that go on. For a couple examples, there was the "Mad Gasser" of Mattoon, IL: http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v07/n04/mad-gasser.html
And the Illinois UFO mania of 1897: http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n03/illinois-ufo-mania-of-1897.html

[moriah]

Mass hysteria??

I was hoping that a sentient species which has mastered the technology of interstellar flight were just a buch of idiots who couldn't conceal their ships from a bunch of techno-ignorant backwoodsfolks. And that when they made one mistake over Roswell, they kept making the same mistake over and over again for the next month. Surely that sounds more plausible than mass hysteria, no?

Peace.

[David B]

Moriah, one day a while ago, a UFO True Believer came to town to give a presentation (for 10 bucks a head). I went. At the end I asked him how these aliens had such great technology that they could fly across the galaxy, but then they kept crashing into farmhouses once they got here. He "answered" me by saying we can't know what goes on inside an alien's brain. They obviously have a different way of thinking.

Huh?

[C K Dexter Haven]

I don't find that too much of a contradiction, David. Frinstance, human beans on earth have "mastered" flight technology, but all sorts of people have crashes. Just because the species has a high level technology doesn't mean that all members of that species have intelligence (or even piloting skills.)

Not that I believe any of that hooey, just that I think this particular debunking logic is flawed.

Tomndebb: How about, you obviously haven't done any research sufficient to know what you're responding to, and it's not about Jesus appearing anywhere. Try a pass through your local newspaper's archives.
===========================================
David: Once again, you attempt to divert the issue onto something you think you can explain and away from what you can't (except, of course, to indulge in the simple denialism you've displayed on similar threads). CkDexthaven pointed out the obvious flaw in your logic regarding alien technology; your typically cheap shot about the 'UFO expert' who charged $10 admission to his lecture only begs the question -- what are you doing but grubbing for advertising moneys when every link you provide only leads the reader back to your own webpage?
===========================================
Moriah -- can you read a calendar? 'Roswell' took place in July, 1947. My thread concerns the nationwide flap of UFO sightings (not, as some would like to believe, reports of reports) which occurred in July, 1952, and included several 'buzzings' of the airspace above the White House, including radar tracks and numerous visual sightings by quite credible witnesses. Please -- any of you -- I actually posted this OP at the end of the day, mistakenly thinking for the moment that Cecil Adams would be seeing it. Please refrain from any more 'commentary' of your own until and unless you take the time to truly investigate what's being discussed.

[tracer]

You know, DIF, you could just post a link to a news archival source for July 1952 -- instead of telling everybody that you know something and that we should all shut up until we've spent huge amounts of our time researching your topic for you.

------------------
I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low.

[tomndebb]

It IS about Jesus appearing. It's True. It's TRUE.

Every report I've seen on the July, 1952 sightings (heh, heh) has described exactly what I described: a report followed in a day or two by several reports followed in another day or two by multiple reports folowed by a blizzard of reports. If you have actual evidence that I read the reports incorrectly, I'll be willing to reconsider. Until that time, it is exactly equivalent to Jesus on the Turnpike and alien abduction. (I've watch "aa" grow in exactly the same way.)

------------------
Tom~

[moriah]

Hmmm, dumb interstellar travellers is not a valid debunking? Are you an L. Ron Hubbard fan? Watching too much SciFi channel?

I suppose that an advanced species can have their own version of good ol' boys in their souped up ftl pick-ups buzzing us third system backwaters for thrills outrunnin' the intergalactic prime directive smokeys. Yee-hah!

Of course, demanding a rigorous debunking begs the question of whether there is a rigrous proof that needs debunking. Clusters of 'elusive sightings' do not scream 'bungling aliens.'

Peace.

Tracer: Yeah, I could do that. But I happen to believe people are more convinced as a result of their own efforts than someone's else. However, if you happen to know of any 'archival sources' that have uploaded their files back to 1952, let me know.
============================================
tomndebb: Like I said, if you can't stay on the subject, at least have the sense to be quiet.
===========================================
moriah: My question was directed toward your ability to read a calendar. And I noticed you didn't address it.

'Dumb interstellar travellers' -- well, that's your characterization of your 'debunking', and no, as a matter of fact, it's not a really 'valid' one, if by 'valid' you mean sufficiently invulnerable to an alternative that it can be cited as a trumping 'proof'. It appears to you didn't read all of the initial responses to my OP, since you apparently didn't catch CKD's alternate explanation. Your 'debunking' assumes several things unjustifiably -- 1) that these things are interstellar; 2) assuming for the sake of discussion that they are interstellar, that interstellar travel is, for them, the difficult proposition that it would be for us at this point; 3) that 'advanced' technology requires advanced mentality to operate -- e.g., today's POSTs are figurative light-years beyond the original cash register -- ever been to a McDonald's and waited while the 'counterdroid' screwed up your order and had to wait for the shift manager to unscrew it?

As for L. Ron Hubbard -- I have not the slightest freakin' idea what that has to do with your 'debunking' hypothesis, but JFTR, the only thing I've ever read by the guy was the first 26 pages of 'Dianetics', at which point I reached the conclusion that I'd just read 26 pages of the most mindnumbing gibberish I think I've ever encountered, and I've read a lot. So what? Don't change the subject.
===========================================
What's clear from most of your responses is that most of you are not sincerely interested in a real discussion of this subject; you just want to convince yourselves how 'intellectual' and 'witty' you are by indulging in the usual scornfest. But even the shiniest mirror can only reflect darkness, if it's kept in a closed room . . .

[DrFidelius]

For my personal clarification, DIF, just what is "the subject" which everyone is trying to change on you? You asked for explanations for the "events" of July 1952, and the overwhelming responce so far has been to question whether there were any "events" which need special explanation. A string or "flap" of UFO sightings may be better explained by examining why so many were reported, not by hypothesizing why so manny occurred. Media attention and the general USAn cold-war paranoia is a more parsimonious explanation than an increase in visual anomalies. When folks hear of interest in "flying saucers" they are more likely to interpret something they don't understand as a "flying saucer" than otherwise. And I don't see a connection between the 1952 flap and the alleged Roswell Incident other than as a manifestation of Twentieth-Century mythology.
How many people are seeing Elvis lately? There were quite a number of sightings of him in the 80s. Do we need to "explain" them?



------------------
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
Homo vult decipi; decipiatur

[AuraSeer]

But even the shiniest mirror can only reflect darkness, if it's kept in a closed room . . .
...unless you turn the light on. Did you have a point, or were you just planning to jabber randomly for a while longer?

[David B]

Dex said:I don't find that too much of a contradiction, David. Frinstance, human beans on earth have "mastered" flight technology, but all sorts of people have crashes.I think there is a slight difference between being able to fly around in a plane and being able to fly interstellar distances. Well, I hope there is, anyway. :)Not that I believe any of that hooey, just that I think this particular debunking logic is flawed.It's not like it's the end-all, be-all of questions, certainly. But one point that I may have been a bit too subtle about (you know me, always subtle) is that the UFO guy didn't answer this way. He could have; it's the easiest (and best) answer. But no, he alluded to us not understanding the mysterious aliens (cue Twilight Zone music).

DIF, in a voice sounding very much like C3, whined:Once again, you attempt to divert the issue onto something you think you can explain and away from what you can'tI wasn't diverting anything. I was pointing out that there are all sorts of incidents of this type. While I understand that you may not be able to comprehend these similarities, others do.what are you doing but grubbing for advertising moneys when every link you provide only leads the reader back to your own webpage?Does the web page charge entry? No. Do I ask anybody to join? No. Did I provide links that give information relevant to the topic? Yes (which is, incidentally, more than you've done, as Tracer pointed out). Since I am the chairman of that organization (a fact I certainly don't hide), I am aware of the articles on the web page and can more easily and quickly refer to them. When I know of other sources with relevant information, I post them. I probably should've checked the Skeptic's Dictionary in this case, for example ( www.skepdic.com (http://www.skepdic.com) ), but didn't think of it at the time.

Face it, you're just using C3-like tactics to attack somebody who has made a counter point to your rantings, rather than responding to what they have actually said. Nice try, but the majority of folks around here aren't stupid enough to fall for such tactics. (Not that I expect you'll change 'em.)

[David B]

Ya know, in rereading Cecil's column referred to by DIF, I have on more question: DIF, why did you even post this here? Your 1952 "flap" has nothing at all to do with his column. So why post it here, other than that you could start another UFO thread and not have to deal with the whipping you and your pal C3 took in Great Debates on this subject?

[pldennison]

I find it funny that DIF thinks tom is trying to "divert attention" or "change the subject," when he is offering an analogous event for comparison. Apparently DIF is incapable of understanding analogy.

The same thing happened over in one of the UFO threads in Great Debates. DIF wants to learn all sorts of things about "rods" before discovering if they actually even exist or not.

[Capt. Spaulding]

By "the events of July, 1952" I hope you're not referring to the birth of my Uncle Jules.

He's very weird, but my family has never considered him an alien.

A pervert, yes but an alien, no.

[JillGat]

The original poster has asked me to move this thread to Great Debates forum, so I am going to do that and close this one.
Jill

[Contestant #3]

This following information has been previously provided to the SDMB by DIF:

On July 1, 1952, an Air Force captain saw two silvery cigar-shaped UFOs over
Boston, MA.

Also on July 1, there were UFOs observed on radar and visually at Ft.
Monmouth, N.J.

On July 2, Warrant Officer Newhouse filmed 12-14 UFOs near Tremonton, Utah.

On July 5, airline pilots saw a disc-shaped object hover, accelerate and
speed away near Redlands, WA.

On July 8, a CAA equipment man reported a domed UFO near Wilkes-Barre, PA.

On July 10, a Canadian destroyer crew watched two discs and tracked them on
radar near Korea.

On July 10, a National Airlines crew at 2,000 feet encountered a slow moving
UFO near Quantico, VA.

On July 12, a USAF Captain (weather officer) and hundreds of others watched
a UFO make a 180 degree turn overhead at Chicago, IL.

On July 12/13, an airline pilot near Washington, D.C. watched a UFO hover,
and take off upward.

On July 14, airline pilots at Newport News, VA watched six discs maneuver
below their airliner, turn sharply, move away and were joined by two other
discs.

On July 16, a U.S.Coast Guard photographer filmed four brilliant round
lights near Salem, MA.

On July 16, a high-ranking government scientist observed four UFOs
maneuvering near Hampton Roads, VA.

On July 17/18, WRC Radio Chief Engineer saw 6 discs speeding along in single
file before veering upward and away at Washington, D.C.

On July 17/18, airline pilots near Denver, CO watched several UFOs speeding
back and forth, reversing their flight paths.

On July 18, USAF officers, weathermen, and others at Patrick AFB, Florida,
watched 4 UFOs maneuver near the base.

July 18/19, an Associated Press staff writer at River Edge, NJ, saw a red
ball going toward Washington, D.C.
---------------
The big Washington, D.C. event was on July 19/20, but followed by other
later in the month.

July 19/20, National Airport CAA radar began picking up unidentified targets
at 11:40 p.m. over Washington, D.C.

At 1:00 a.m. outbound airline pilot checked the radar targets for the CAA
and saw maneuvering objects coinciding with the radar.

In the early morning, Andrews AFB, MD, USAF personnel saw a UFO.
At 3:00 a.m. an inbound airline pilot watched a light follow a plane until
it was just 7 miles from the airport. It was confirmed by radar.
At 5:40 a.m. the radar sightings ended.
-----------------
On the evening of July 20, USAF radar operaters at Andrews AFB, MD tracked
10 UFOs for 15-20 minutes. The UFOs approached runways, scattered, made
sharp turns and reversals.

On July 21, at 10:30 a.m., a Colonel commanding Dobbins AFB announced
detection of a UFO by radar, passing over the area at 50,000 ft, going 1,200
mph.

On July 22, a private pilot and his wife encounter a maneuvering UFO near
New Smyrna Beach, FL. It was disc-shaped and climbed rapidly after
hovering.

On July 22/23, lots of sightings were reported. A Ground Observer Corps
reported 3 discs at Westfield, ME. Coast Guardsmen saw two discs circle the
station at Nahant, MA before heading out to sea.

On July 23, at Culver City, CA, aircraft workers watched as an elliptical craft
launched two smaller discs before climbing straight upward out of sight.

On July 23, at Braintree, MA, UFO was tracked on radar, seen by ground
observers, a F-94 saw and chased the UFO. When the F-94 got radar lock-on,
the UFO pulled away.

On July 23, at South Bend, IN., USAF Captain Harold Kloth, watched two UFOs
over the city.

On July 24, near Carson Sink, NV., two USAF command pilots saw three
triangular objects in tight V formation approach their B-25. The objects
banked past their plane less than 1,000 yards away and were going over 1,000
mph.

July 26./27, at 8 p.m. CAA radar at Washington, D.C. tracked UFOs which were
chased by jet interceptors and seen visually.

On July 26/27, at 8:15 p.m., civilian pilots at Washington, D.C. saw high
speed UFOs on 4 occasions in a 1 1/2 hour period.

On July 26/27, National Airlines pilots saw UFOs near Andrews AFB, MD. A
United Airlines pilot saw a UFO near Herndon, VA. A CAA inspection pilot
saw a UFO near Beltsville, MD. A CAA inspection aircraft pilot saw a UFO
near Andrews AFB, MD.

On July 26/26, USAF fighters were vectored by CAA radar to intercept UFOs
near Newcastle, DE. Pilots visually saw the lighted craft but could not
catch them.

I could go on and on. During this same period, there were sightings in
California, Ann Arbor, MI, Riverdale, MD, and more. The witnesses were
highly qualified USAF officers.
More sightings over Washington, D.C. were reported by CAA radar and military
pilots, and airline pilots on July 28, 29, and 30.
Added to this wealth of sightings by official personnel, there were hundreds
of civilian sightings as well.

------------------
Contestant #3

[tomndebb]

Thanks, Phil. And, as I pointed out in my second post, I am referring specifically to the imagined sightings of July, 1952. I read up on that stuff around 1969 or 1970 and, again, in the late 1970's and in each instance the list of reports grew through the days that they appeared in the newspapers. If DIF doesn't have a citation showing that there were several widely spaced sightings on a single night and that subsequent sightings stayed at approximately the same number, daily, then he is the one who is posting without knowing what he is talking about.

I'd be interested in seeing what he has to offer, but posting unsupported assertions and snarling at people who respond is not going to take this discussion very far.

------------------
Tom~

[tomndebb]

OK. I went back and looked at DIF's post in the S.E.T.H. thread to find the source, went to MUFON's home page, where I didn't find a direct link (understandable, since he was quoting a letter), and wandered over to one of the sites that addresses Project Blue Book. (www.evansville.net/~slk/) It did not look particularly flaky, so I checked it out. One of its pages lists 700 (+/-) unresolved sightings from Blue Book and its predecessors. Looking up 1952, I found July, then worked back to the point where each month had only a few sightings.

There was a small cluster at the end of March and beginning of April. There was another small cluster at the end of April and beginning of May. Another cluster began at the end of May, then ran through early June, ramping up toward the end of the month and spilling into July, with another mid-month lull (never going to zero) and ramping up at the end of July to spill slightly into August before tapering off again. June had 40 sightings and July had 45 (according to a Mr. Hall's evaluation of unresolved sightings).

This hardly establishes my original observation, but it does nothing disprove it. There are a few sightings followed by many sightings. It dies down and repeats. At no point (in this list) are there multiple sightings that are not potentially triggered by earlier reports.

I used Mr. Hall's information for the period because I had no MUFON data earlier than July. I understand that my "methodology" is not rigorous, but it was late and I wasn't looking to prove any great truths. I simply
wondered whether my speculations could be easily disproved.

I was interested to see that while there are a few overlapping sightings between the two lists, there are many sightings that are not shared (sometimes for the same day). Mr. Hall is a UFO investigation proponent. I cannot think of a reason that he would have excluded the MUFON sightings if they had not been resolved (especially since the MUFON sightings are much more heavily weighted toward military and pilot observers).

Note, that according the the history at this site, the summer of 1952 was a period when those in charge of collecting the data were proponents of discovery, not denial, so it would seem unlikely that they would be recklessly throwing out good pilot observations: so where did MUFON get their list? (The team in place in 1952 was understaffed and underfunded, but they had not begun any activities that could be characterized as cover-ups at that time.)

My personal views toward UFOs are that I think the Air Force should have kept Blue Book open (it costs less than any base's officer's golf course) and simply used it to record events without trying to explain everything. Explanations lead to either pro- or anti- activists and don't produce much in the way of information.

The bulk of the Summer, 1952 sightings don't look very promising to me: silver objects, lights, guys flying at 200 m.p.h. accurately identifying object speeds in excess of 1,000 m.p.h. visually. I dunno, it hardly makes a strong impression. (Yes, I saw the radar "sightings" on MUFON, but they did not make it onto Mr. Hall's list of unresolved sightings.)

OTOH, there are enough sightings of "something", overall, that I have no problem with the idea of tracking the sightings in case something turns up.
:::shrug:::

------------------
Tom~

Tomndebb, you saidThis hardly establishes my original observation, but it does nothing disprove it.

Well -- since it was clearly not established, why should anyone bother to 'disprove' your point? You then go on to say There are a few sightings followed by many sightings. It dies down and repeats. At no point (in this list) are there multiple sightings that are not potentially triggered by earlier reports.[/i]

Can you really expect such sophistry to be taken seriously? "A few sightings followed by many sightings" happens to be the definition of a UFO 'flap'. You try to make it sound as though that's a deficiency.

May I suggest that to say [quote]At no point (in this list) are there multiple sightings that are not potentially triggered by earlier reports.

essentially says nothing? By comparison, someone could say,"On Monday, someone in Valley A saw a rain cloud. From Tuesday through Friday, people (hundreds of picnickers is some cases) in Valley B, C, and D also saw cumulus clouds in the sky. It follows that all sightings of clouds after Monday must have been mass delusion."

Now, clouds are fleeting, evanescent phenomena of the sky. Shall we disbelieve in clouds, by the rationale you seem to espouse?

[pldennison]

Say, DIF, maybe you oughta read up on the Massachusetts witch trials, and all the eyewitness reports by reliable persons. Why, they were the very definition of a witch flap!

[tomndebb]

C#3 had posted your list from the S.E.T.H. thread which I had not seen. (I stopped reading that after day two when it turned into a typical pissing contest.) The list, as presented, is typical of a truncated graph: "look at all these sightings, right here." Based on your/C#3's information I tried to examine the evidence to see whether my speculative response was without merit. Instead, I found continuing evidence of the phenomenon that I had used in my initial analogy: a surprising/unusual event is reported, shortly after the report, a number of similar events are reported. (Fewer than 150 people out of 147 million reported them in the U.S. That qualifies as unusual.)

I have specifically not claimed that this disproves the existence of UFOs. I have indicated that I wish that Project Blue Book had remained active.

On the other hand, I would be willing to bet that in the summer of 1952, I could have found around 147 million people in the U.S. who saw clouds every single day. (The inhabitants of the Mojave Desert would not have reduced the overall population very much.) Seeing clouds does not qualify as a rare, unusual, or surprising event.

My point has never been to "disprove" UFOs. You asked (Cecil) [quote]what do you think explains the nationwide UFO 'flap' of July, 1952?[/i]
I provided one speculative answer in the form of an analogy. When you told me to go away because I didn't know what I was talking about, I went back and reviewed the information. My speculative response currently has as much validity as any other proposal. There was not simply a single, continuous series of sightings throughout the month of July. There were a series of reported sightings, coming in clumps, in which a single reported sighting was followed by multiple reported sightings and these events began in late March and proceded through August.

It might have been news-generated hysteria. It might have been Air Force testing. It might have been extra-terrestial visitors. I dunno. You presented a question. I provided a possible answer. If you find the answer is unsatisfactory, dismiss it and move on.

------------------
Tom~

[David B]

Don't bother, Phil. I already posted information about other "flaps" and he just said they weren't about the July 1952 UFO flap and therefore didn't have anything to do with the topic. So we're apparently not allowed to try to explain these things unless we explain them as alien spacecraft.

[WallyM7]

I see UFOs quite often. I'm not very knowledgeable about airplanes, weather balloons, meteors or any of that stuff, so they are, to me, UFOs. Unidentified Flying Objects.

But I don't know how to make the leap from UFOs to Interstellar Space Vehicles. Never saw one of those. Probably wouldn't know it if I did.

But it's okay, because they got pictures of these space vehicles.

My son once threw a hubcap in the air and took a picture. Damned if it didn't look like a spaceship!

At least it looked more like a spaceship than the blinking little lights I see from time to time. And not nearly as grainy and out of focus as I've seen in the media.

But what do I know?

------------------
You are unique - Just like everyone else.

[tracer]

A couple of years ago, while riding my motorcycle home on a long, narrow stretch of freeway between cities, I saw a bright yellow-white streak of light, very narrow but tall (almost as tall as the moon appears to the unaided eye), slowly rising into the sky. After about a minute, the rising yellow-white streak vanished, and a small, bright point of blue-white light continued to rise up from the spot where the streak had just been for another couple of minutes, until it either went out or got lost in the sky.

Had I witnessed an alien spaceship? NO. I had witnessed a human spaceship.

This was the launch of an unmanned satellite. Since I live in Northern California and was facing south when I saw it, it was probably a polar-orbiting satellite launched from Edwards Air Force Base. The column of yellow-white light was the very bright orangish exhaust of solid-fuel rocket boosters, like the ones they use on the Space Shuttle. The little point of light rising up after the boosters shut off was the upper stage burning liquid hydrogen with liquid oxygen.

It is the only launch I have ever seen, and it looked spectacular even from my vantage point hundreds of miles to the north. But I could easily imagine someone -- maybe someone who felt a little too ordinary, and wanted to convince himself that he was seeing something extra special -- think that he was seeing an alien spaceship. (Heaven knows, when I was feeling really disempowered in my high school years, I saw a bright light in the daytime sky and really, really, desperately wanted it to be something spectacular, like a supernova. It was a mylar kite.)

------------------
I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low.

Where to begin, where to begin. Well, first, of course, by ignoring pldimwit, who as usual contributes nothing but personal vituperation as mascot for DavidB . . .
===========================================
Tom: Okay, then let's agree to disagree. You provided three possible explanations for the phenomena in your last paragraph. My position is just this: whatever explanation you come up with explain the phenomenon, it should make sense, and more sense than the proposition that these things, whatever they are, wherever they 'come from' (if anywhere), and whoever 'makes' them (assuming they are manufactured) -- that whatever they are, they are not explainable by conventional science, DavidB's blithe dismissals notwithstanding.
There are simply far too many instances where all conventional explanations can be eliminated from consideration, and the 'flap' of 1952 is one of them.

I read the link about the 'Mattoon Gasser'. If you go there and read it yourself, and take the time to 'read between the lines', all it amounts to is a story about how a group of psychologists (and need I point how 'soft' a science psychology is?) descended on the place well after the fact, with the obvious intent to study the affair as an example of 'mass delusion', only to reach the conclusion (surprise) that it was 'mass delusion' -- and a 'classic' case to boot, which no doubt meant accolades for all involved. But this thread isn't about 'mad gassings' or anything like it, DaveB's contentions to the contrary.

As he went on to say,So we're apparently not allowed to try to explain these things unless we explain them as alien spacecraft.

You're allowed to explain them as anything rational, but in most of the instances cited, the 'rational' explanations you put forward ultimately are ludicrous. In case after case, literally hundreds of times, sightings (hehheh, Tom) of these things have been made under conditions that preclude any and all conventional explanation, including so-called 'psychological' ones.

[Pickman's Model]

Well, what basically happened is this:

In 1947, a courier ship got lost and ended up smashing into the New Mexico desert. Their buddies came looking for them and discovered this planet that appeared to have a semi-advanced technology (or at least enough to blow themselves to smithereens) and radioed back to the Home Planet for direction.

The Home Planet ordered instense investigation and observation, and over the next 25 years or so, the little buggers were everywhere, being seen hovering over ships at night, darting around airplanes, descending out of clouds, and snapping Kodaks of military bases from coast to coast.

All of this information they collected about us was sent back to the Home Planet, and the leaders there analyzed it carefully and said to each other, "Holy Zarkon! We're not going to get tangled up with that species! They're so screwed up that it would take us 900,000 light-years to re-educate them enough to bring them up to speed with the rest of the Quadrant. O'Callahan, recall those ships immediately!!!"

At this point, they decided what they'd do with us is use us for an amusement attraction; so every so often, they send a saucerful of tourists by so they can look at our antics and laugh their tentacles off at our primitive, aggressive tendencies (sort of the same way we laugh at the geek in the circus freak show). This is why we're not seeing mass sightings anymore, but we do see a ship or two every now and then.

Their ultimate plan is to wait until either: A) the Third World countries develop nuclear weapons powerful enough to annihilate us all and eventually end up vaporizing the world, or B) we overpopulate ourselves right out of existance after we use up every resource on the planet and starve to death. Then, they'll move in and use the world as a depot for raw materials, which they will salvage off the wreckage of our civilization, and send back to the Home Planet---all except for Detroit, Calcutta, and east Philadelphia, which they will use as toxic-waste dumps for the spent fuel rods out of their warp-drive ships. In the meantime, they see no harm in having their fun with us.

Hell, I thought everybody knew this. Where have you guys been???

[pldennison]

Yeah, OK, DIF. That's why I'm running seti@home on my home PC. Because I don't believe there might be intelligent life elsewhere. Do you ever get tired of being wrong, or is it just so common it's like an old friend for you?

[Polycarp]

Having espoused another Cause held by True Believers ;), I think I may have some worthwhile comments:

A fair amount of Unidentified Flying Objects are explainable (by Occam's Razor) as natural phenomena. As a wise man once commented, "I saw a bright light where there had not been one previously in the west just after sunset. This led me to the obvious conclusion that a giant alien spaceship was occulting the planet Venus."

This is accompanied by the "me-too" phenomenon that Tom noted, that one sighting is often followed by a rash of sightings, many of which turn out to be somebody doing it for the publicity/notoriety.

When all is said and done, however, there remains a substantial residue of observations that were not marsh gas, weather balloons, satellites of terrestrial origin, hoaxes, etc. Because hoaxers can fool the credulous, and some people have a need to believe in (ET) UFOs, does not mean that there cannot be actual events. As numerous posters have responded to Contestant #3 on other threads, it would be nice to have some concrete examples that cannot be explained away. However, having spent interminable time debating the putative historicity of the Resurrection, it occurs to me that there is nothing that cannot be explained away by someone with a desire to do so, and the most meager of evidence will convince someone with a need to believe.

Where one mines truth from this complexus is a very difficult question. It might be well worth exploring, however. What evidence might be convincing?

[tracer]

Pickman's Model wrote:

"Holy Zarkon! We're not going to get tangled up with that species! They're so screwed up that it would take us 900,000 light-years to re-educate them enough to bring them up to speed with the rest of the Quadrant.

A personal nitpick:

A light-year is a unit of distance, not a unit of time.

------------------
I'm not flying fast, just orbiting low.

[Polycarp]

:::leaping to Pickman's defense:::

You would quarrel with an allusion to Han Solo, sir?? ;)

[Pickman's Model]

A personal nitpick:
A light-year is a unit of distance, not a unit of time.

Sure it is. But saying like I did sounds cool, don't you think? :) Anyways, my post was science fiction, and very few of us famous science fiction writers actually use hard science---that's why it's fiction. Oh, Isaac Asimov did, but he was in the minority. Look at H.P.L., though: he actually brought people back to life by dumping chemical compounds into a pile of grave dust and reciting the magickal formula. Pretty nifty, I think.

Polycarp: I thank you profoundly, Sir, for your defense of me! You are indeed a Gentleman and a Scholar, among other things. We should join forces, you and me.....with our combined power, we could rule the galaxy.

[Mojo]

....how a group of psychologists (and need I point how 'soft' a science psychology is?)

As opposed to the rigorous science of UFO investigation?

...descended on the place well after the fact...

Isn't this post about UFO sightings in 1952 "well after the fact"?

Maybe I'm not reading between the lines properly- why do you think that all these people saw objects they could not identify in July of 1952?

[pldennison]

Huh. Attempting to illuminate or comment on one of Tom's posts makes me "David B.'s mascot." I wonder what commenting on David's posts gets me?

Keep in mind, folks, DIF has already made up his mind that these were alien spacecraft, and no potential explanation, mundane or complex, is going to disabuse him of that nation.

I wonder what commenting on David's posts gets me?

Nowhere. As usual.

Keep in mind, folks, DIF has already made up his mind that these were alien spacecraft, and no potential explanation, mundane or complex, is going to disabuse him of that nation{sic}.

Also keep in mind, folks, that nowhere on this thread have I said definitely in any way what I think these things are and where they may be from, except within the context of 'possibility', and to state that the 'conventional explanations' in many instances fall far short of really explaining what was seen; and also that pld's mind is closed to considering the possibility of anything that might threaten the parameters of his carefully circumscribed world.

Yeah, OK, DIF. That's why I'm running seti@home on my home PC. Because I don't believe there might be intelligent life elsewhere.

Like I said, PLD -- "your carefully circumscribed world". Sure, you're hooked up with SETI -- 'Cuz Stone-Cold Carl Sagan sez so! It's not too much of a threat to your purblind worldview to accept the possibility that ETIs could exist way, way away from your little microcosmic backyard; but the thought that someone might actually possess technology that would seem like magic (ala Clarke) to us bursts that constricted sphincter you use in place of a real mind and leaves you gibbering.
Do you ever get tired of being wrong, or is it just so common it's like an old friend for you?

No, I never tire of being wrong, for it is only in finding one's errors that one can experience the enlightenment of truth. I have never learned as much from being right as I have learned from being wrong; nor have I ever met as interesting a succession of people as those who truly have something to offer in correcting me. An old friend? Nay, more like a beloved nemesis. Grow tired? Never!

You, on the other hand, li'l whelpling, have never been anything but tiresome; in post after post on thread after thread, you've had nothing to offer but vitriol and poppycock, poured forth from a head that not even a warm mug of Budweiser would want, nestled smugly in the lap of your kennelmaster, confident that he'll be there to pick up the paper and tell you what a good little boy you are while you track dung all over the place with a happy smile, confident that he will be there to close the gate behind you when the big dogs get too close.

Or, perhaps I overdraw my analogy -- perhaps you are more like a little parrot. Yes, that's it -- a parrot, gamely echoing a benighted viewpoint with virtually the same voice as your master, there to quickly shut the cage door behind you before the cats get to you. There you sit, day after day on his shoulder, leaving your droppings to dry and turn to dust, spreading the germs of your ignorance all about, waiting -- always waiting for the change to play the vulture, you little verbozoraptor, you!

[pldennison]

No, what's intellectually dishonest is to constantly use the words "UFO" and "extraterrestrial spacecraft" interchangeably.

No, pld, at most that's intellectually careless, or sloppy. But it's easy to see how desperate you're getting for insults to sling . . .

Actually, it's not even careless or sloppy, since it has been made clear that the context in which the terms are used is restricted to those cases where, all other rational, conventional explanations having been eliminated, it is simply the next most rational conjecture to make.

[Mojo]

So DIF, what is your take on the events of July 1952? I'm assuming that its original and not the "trite poppycock" that others are regurgitating.

My 'take', Mojo, is that -- whatever the objects were that were sighted during this period, and eliminating from consideration those sightings which, in retrospect, could be clearly or reasonably ascribed to misidentification of conventional objects or visual effects (which still left a considerable number) -- they were not from any country on this planet.

[pldennison]

Nope, sorry, DIF, but you're wrong again; C3 regularly uses the words completely interchangeably. Anytime he says "UFO," he means "alien spaceship."

As to the other point, I hardly think you have dispensed with all other possible rational explanations. In fact, you haven't dispensed with any at all; you've merely chided Tom for pointing out to you that this type of cyclical "sighting" phenomenon happens all the time, and not just with things in the sky. That does not eliminate the possibility that one sighting was genuine, but it does call attention to how a single report can color observations which occur after that report, a point you have conveniently dismissed all along. Simply asserting that all other explanations are precluded doesn't make it so.

Oh, and I was obviously correct that you had made up your mind that they were ET's, although you attempted to worm your way out from under it. Wouldn't expect anything less from you.

It's certainly fun to think about all the amazing technology other beings might
have. Hell, they might have technology that enables them to completely imitate human beings down to the point that a DNA test would not reveal anything unusual. We can speculate endlessly on imaginary technology and make it do whatever we want. But until you produce a genuine artifact of undoubtedly extraterrestrial origin, speculation is all it is.

[Contestant #3]

You want to back that C#3 assertion up with some proof? You know how to use cut and paste don't you Phil? When I talk about UFOs, I'm assuming the ones that aren't stars, hoaxes, airplanes, etc... In other words, the ones that are truly unidentified. Do I think that some truly unidentified flying objects are alien craft? Absolutely.

My post nailed you and others for the lazy skeptics that you are.

------------------
Contestant #3

[Contestant #3]

I'm out there looking for new evidence and accounts, keeping an open mind.

Others, who shall go nameless, have long ago made their decision and closed their minds. These people would not be found making an effort to read or research the subject. They don't want to examine new claims or recent happenings.

I've yet to find a SDMB "skeptic" that keeps up on UFO events and that actively and precisely debunks...the folks we have out here just wave their mighty hands and declare everything non-important.

How intellectually dishonest.

------------------
Contestant #3

[Big Iron]

[[I read the link about the 'Mattoon Gasser'. ]] DIF


C3's from Illinois? "I heard he's on the loooooose ... "

[Polycarp]

Pickman's Model said:

We should join forces, you and me.....with our combined power, we could rule the galaxy.

No, save the world first, then we deal with the galaxy. You have to keep a sense of proportion about these things! ;)

[Mojo]

Why couldn't they be naturally occuring phenomena that have not been documented yet? Or (IMO more likely) military craft that have not been divulged to the general public or most personnel at the military bases near which they were sighted?

I'm not saying that they could not be alien craft- I just haven't seen any proof that makes that more likely than the scenarios above.

[E1skeptic]

Contestant #3 said,"Others, who shall go nameless, have long ago made their decision and closed their minds. These people would not be found making an effort to read or research the subject. They don't want to examine new claims or recent happenings.

I've yet to find a SDMB "skeptic" that keeps up on UFO events and that actively and precisely debunks..."

and later,

"My post nailed you and others for the lazy skeptics that you are."What post?

Which skeptics?

------------------
Men will cease to commit atrocities only when they cease to believe absurdities.
-Voltaire

[pldennison]

I amend my previous comment to read, "C3 frequently uses the words 'UFO' and 'extraterrestrial spacecraft' interchangeably, even in cases where it has not been established to anybody's satisfaction that the objects in question are not mundane aircraft or natural phenomena." You can't object to that, because it's true.

[Contestant #3]

Of course I can and I will. The qualifier "to anybody's satisfaction" is what kills your assertion Phil. Think about it.

------------------
Contestant #3

[tracer]

C#3 is right, pldennison.

You should revise it so that it reads "to any reasonable person's satisfaction."

Mojo: [quote]Why couldn't they be naturally occuring phenomena that have not been documented yet? Or (IMO more likely) military craft that have not been divulged to the general public or most personnel at the military bases near which they were sighted?[/i]

Some of them might very well be; you might say that, after "1a)alien craft", those are 1c) and 1b) on my list of possibles. I tend to consider them less likely than even 'alien visitors' for a number of reasons.

One -- we (to use the collective, social 'we', not the 'royal') have been studying weather phenomena for thousands of years. (Admittedly, some people would argue that UFOs have been spotted for just as long, but it's a pointless pursuit, IMO, to worry about things that happened in the distant past, like worrying about the precise spot Columbus came ashore at, or whether what Ezekiel saw was a spaceship.) I believe that if most UFOs were simply weather phenomena, that fact would have become very apparent to science by now. In fact, if they were weather phenomena, it seems to me that they would be far more common than they are.

Earlier in this thread, I used an analogy to clouds to argue against the common demurral that most sighting 'flaps' are just 'mass delusion/hysteria'. I was afraid when I used the analogy that someone would immediately overdraw it, and they did, but what the hell. However, the point made in rebuttal was that clouds are spotted every day of week by just about everyone, everywhere. So, if UFOs are (eliminating misidentifications of other sorts) only weather phenomena, I think it reasonable to expect them to exhibit (along with whatever other weird behavior they may have) at least the same recurrence/periodicity of other phenomena, like hurricanes, tornadoes, rain, hail, snow, etc. But UFOs appear in a vast variety of places and times under the most disparate of conditions, weatherwise.

Also, I've never heard of a weather phenomenon that exhibits apparently willful control, pacing along with airliners, playing chicken with them, etc.

Now, certainly, if someone describes a UFO as 'a glowing ball of light, two feet across, that snapped, and crackled, and popped', and there's been a thunderstorm recently, I'd be the first (well, maybe after Phil) to agree it was probably ball lightning, a fairly well-documented phenomena (or else one hell of a mutant Rice Krispie!). But that's not what I'm talking about.

As for being experimental/secret military craft -- I got no problem with that, as long as we keep in mind that you're speaking of sightings near military airfields that are under top secret restrictions, like the infamous Area 51. Otherwise, you'd have to account reasonably for the fact that people see them in the sky, yet no one reports seeing them take off or land in related incidents. Easy to do if you can rope off the entire surrounding valley and all the nearest mountaintops; not so easy if it's just outside of Baltimore. In fact, I have no problem with attributing many of the sightings over Belgium a while back to the much-rumored 'Aurora' plane that the DOD or whoever is supposedly developing/testing.

But, don't you think if they really wanted to keep such things secret, they'd test them over the South Pacific or somewhere where people are a lot less likely to see them? In any event, until and unless the government reveals such a craft, with at least some of the performance attributes of UFOs, I don't think it necessarily any more reasonable to write them all off as government experiments than it is to suspect they're extraterrestrial in origin.

Here's a link to the MUFON website.

http://www.mufon.com/

Bear in mind, if you go there and 'go inside', that many of the reports you'll read have not been investigated as yet by MUFON. However, I think you may be surprised just by the number and variety of reports.

I hope you'll also note from 'Weirdness on the Web' that MUFON hasn't much use for the sort of credulous viewpoints that pld would probably attribute to everyone who thinks UFOs are a valid area of study and concern.

[Polycarp]

Tracer said
"to any reasonable person's satisfaction.

C'mon, do you really want to exclude half of us who post here? :)

[Mojo]

In fact, if they were weather phenomena, it seems to me that they would be far more common than they are.

Actually, I was thinking about something similar to St. Elmo's Fire (which isn't all that common- I've never seen it) and NOT the cloud analogy you proposed earlier. Why couldn't it be a terrestrial phenomena that we know little/nothing about rather than extraterrestrial?

[Jeff Alberts]

C#3, you can THINK that anything "unidentified" flying through the air or space is an alien spacecraft. That's your prerogative. However, for the purpose of a scientific debate on the issue you need to be able to prove it. It's up to the person(s) making the outstanding claim to have outstanding evidence, not vice versa. Don't you know that eyewitness accounts of ANYTHING are notoriously unreliable? I would be extremely suspect if a group of people previously unacquainted with each other reported exactly the same events. Seems more likely that they read it somewhere and wanted to get in on the notoriety. That's all the proof a debunker is really required to provide, it's up to you to prove these objects are alien craft, more proof than by merely saying they did things no craft was capable of doing at the time. Again, if you're relying on eyewitness testimony, you'll go wrong every time.

Jeff Alberts

First of all, to clarify things, from now on on this thread, I will refer to the specific class of UFOs which are unexplainable by any
apparent conventional means as NFOs, for Nonidentifiable Flying Objects. All NFOs are UFOs; not all UFOs are NFOs.
=========================================
Mojo: St. Elmo's Fire may not be that common, but it's no mystery. (I personally haven't ever seen ball lightning, but I'm willing to believe it exists, from films/video, etc.) Given a good laboratory, you can create St. Elmo's Fire and there's a well-understood sequence of chemical and electrical 'events' down to the quantum level that explains what it is and how it behaves.

Some NFOs may indeed turn out to be previously unknown/unrecognized meteorological phenomena. This might explain some NFOs that are described simply as balls of light that appear without warning in a calm sky, hang around for a while, then literally vanish before the eyes of witnesses. But if you're going to propose that, you should have at least some theory of meteorology (even if most professional meteorologists think its totally off-the-wall) to explain why, in most instances, the NFOs manifest as objects which appear to be machined, polished metal and behave in non-random ways suggestive of intelligent control.
==========================================
Jeff: I will respond to your post tomorrow, unless C#3 does so first.

[Mojo]

I wasn't very clear- I was not implying that St. Elmo's Fire was a mystery, just that its a infrequent natural occurence. If you weren't familiar with it and came across an instance of it, you might attribute it to extraterrestrials.

[Polycarp]

I thought St. Elmo's Fire was caused by giggling green elflike creatures, thought by some to be extraterrestrial in origin. ;)

[Mojo]

And I thought it was when a bunch of 80's rat pack actors bore you to tears for two hours. Live and learn :)

[Contestant #3]

Mr. Jeff Roberts,

Hello, I have not have the pleasure of electronically meeting you before. If you are new, then welcome!

Yes, I do chose to "think" that SOME of the Unidentified Flying Objects are alien craft. You seem to allow me room to hold this point of view without insulting me, and I appreciate your demeanor.

You then tell me something that I keep hearing over and over in this forum, spoken by those on the opposite side of this "debate" and coined I believe, by Mr. James Randi...something about extraordinary claims needing extraordinary evidence.

That's a nice, trite little saying, but it is useless for the purpose of a debate, especially a "scientific" one because of the vagueness and lack of definition that it raises. The precise meaning of the phrases "extraordinary claim" and "extraordinary evidence" are defined purely subjectively. Secondly, the statement itself is patently false. ANY claim requires only the same level of evidence to prove it that any other claim does...PERIOD.

You then ask me if I'm aware about the accuracy of an eyewitness account. Actually, yes I am, but I'd remind you that a scientist conducting a controlled experiment must rely upon his (or her) own "witnessing" of the results and/or data of the experiment in order to record and share the outcome with others. According to those you, how can I trust that scientist's results? He witnessed the experiment right? Could he have been seeing things? Is his account unreliable? But you say that hey C#3, others have conducted the same experiment and observed the same results...OK, just in the same way that one might witness a UFO and others, maybe hundreds of others may witness it too. Why are you being selective about your belief in eyewitness accounts? Are they ALWAYS unreliable or are they only unreliable when the accounts are witness to things that you yourself have not witnessed or maybe don't even beleive in?

Maybe your retort will address the qualifications or stabilty of the eyewitness. C#3 you might say, that scientist in the lab conducting an experiement can be trusted! He's educated, an expert in his field, a solid family man, and not known to lie or exaggerate! Well, Jeff, the same can be said of many UFO eyewitnesses as well. They include, educated people...experts in their field, solid, respectable people that would have no apparent reason to lie or make things up. They include doctors, pilots, astronauts, politicians, religious leaders, scientists, etc...

The study of UFOs and the possiblity of some of them being alien craft doesn't consist solely of the Roswell incident, and doesn't end with the Phoenix lights. These sightings and incidents continue to occur almost daily all over the planet. I make an effort to try to keep up with as many of them as I can. I read the reports, I look at the pictures, I listen to the investigators, and I try to make sense of it all.

There is no real way that I can convince someone that does not want to be convinced that something is going on that defies explanation as a hoax, natural phenonemon, or top-secret terrestrial craft. I'm not sure that I'm trying really. My posts on the UFO topic on these boards are more to share information with the more open-minded, and to seek out intelligent discussion of the events as they continue to occur and data continues to surface. I'm pleased that I have in fact been able to meet a few people out here that I can discuss these things with without being flamed or having James Randi quotes shoved into my face. Most of the time when I attempt to share data, it goes untouched by the posse of flamers that follow me around disguised as skeptics. You are new here...have you decided?...which will you be?


------------------
Contestant #3

C#3: High-five, guy! Well spoken!

Jeff, with the single proviso that I think the quote regarding extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence was from Carl Sagan, he's done a yeoman-like job of summing up the arguments I could have made. 'Nuff said.

[pldennison]

All I would add to anything either of you said is that "unexplained" is not a synonym for "unexplainable"; figuring out what something is not does not always mean you have figured out what it is; and there is a difference between controlled laboratory conditions and uncontrolled conditions. Do you have any argument with those further addenda?

[Contestant #3]

True, true, and true, although with #3, it still doesn't change the meaning of what I wrote.

------------------
Contestant #3

[Contestant #3]

E1,

I just now noticed your post. I wasn't ignoring it, it's just that it ended up being the last post on page 1 and I overlooked it.

Your post quotes my strong, but accurate statments concerning the SDMB UFO skeptics and their level of effort in debunking. You ask: "which post?" and "what skeptics?"

I'll say this much, I won't go to the time and trouble to search for, and cut and paste my written proof about the skeptics...it's obvious enough, and I shouldn't have to.

However, I will take this opportunity to recognize you, E1skeptic, in that you have shown less of a propensity for flaming, and more inclination to read and research than have many of the others. For those qualities, you gain my respect. Still, you stop well short of precise debunking...


------------------
Contestant #3

[Polycarp]

Unidentified flying objects exist. There is no argument about that. There are phenomena which have not yet been identified which are observed to fly/float/hover/hang on the horizon/do circle 8's around airplanes in flight/whatever.

Are they extraterrestrial spacecraft? That is one possible explanation. We do not know the likelihood of it. Based on current knowledge of possible propulsion, and applying Occam's Razor, it seems most unlikely. But we don't know.

If this is not to degenerate to a "Contestant #3 posts his latest evidence and others debunk it" sterile thread, then we need to establish some standards of evidence.

Cartesian doubt is a very valid proposition. You do not know, right now, that the object in front of you is not a fire-breathing dragon with the ability to hypnotize you into believing it is a computer presenting you with information from the Straight Dope Message Board, and just biding its time before consuming you. It is unlikely to the point of total implausibility, true, but it is still an outside hypothesis.

It occurs to me that the debunking contingent have an affirmative duty, if they choose to continue posting to this thread, to define what standards of evidence they are willing to accept. And Contestant #3 has the affirmative duty not to flame them for questioning evidence that does not meet those standards, provided that they do it fairly.

Certainly eyewitness testimony is suspect, and that from apparent flakes more so than that from respected scholars. But, by definition, the only people who claim to see flying saucers are "weirdos who claim to see flying saucers." Everyone else will either not have seen them or have seen them but avoid making the claim in order to save themselves from being considered weirdos.

Anything can be debunked, given enough time and creativity. And the Lorenz equations show us that "common sense" is not a sufficient guide; "common sense" disallows relativistic effects in fast-moving objects that are predicted by theory and observed in practice.

One final point: On a religious strand, another poster raised the question if the subjective evidence convincing me of the reality of God and Jesus' resurrection was not due to my "will to believe." He had a point. I think it is not out of line to ask, Contestant #3, why is it important to you to "prove" the extraterrestrial nature of some UFOs? What are your motivations?

I do not ask this to put you down, but to understand precisely where you are coming from as this thread continues. I had to answer a similar question in that religious thread, and to examine my own motives.

[pldennison]

DIF, I think you still beg some questions, though.

It wasn't me who brought up the point about crossing interstellar space yet not being able to avoid being seen, but when you say:why would they be concerned about being seen when the most common human reaction of those who haven't seen is scorn, ridicule, and disbelief?

,that presumes that they could have predicted those reactions, which is a big presumption.

Even assuming that they "oopsed" the first time, and noted the reaction, so decided not to take further precautions, that implies they can remain close enough to monitor and understand our radio traffic.

So why can't we monitor theirs? Are they communicating using some portion of the spectrum that is absolutely undetectable to us?

The list of 1952 events C3 posted included all sorts of craft of varying shapes, sizes, colors and descriptions, some in large quantities. Where are these things staging from, and why can't we otherwise detect them? Are you positing that they are regularly engaging in FTL travel in and out of our solar system? And if so, how do they avoid relativistic effects as far as how much time has passed on Earth? If they leave our system at FTL speeds, and return at FTL speeds, how do they know that we haven't developed an automatic spaceship-detecting-and-destroying space-deployed weapon in that time?

And, regardless of what methods you want to suppose they are using for intersystem travel, they are somehow defying Newtonian physics within our own atmosphere, if the descriptions are correct. They have dispensed with all laws of motion and inertia. How?

Why do descriptions of these craft match so closely the things that pulp writers and Hollywood sfx guys developed? Coincidence? I would find it really hard to believe that aliens who mastered the ability to travel between planets in reasonable times, who would have a biology and a conciousness completely foreign to us, would show up in, surprise of surprises, flying discs and cigar-shaped rockets.

I don't think these are just minutae; I think they're fundamentally important to the idea being discussed.

For myself, I will accept as proof for alien intelligence no less than what I would for proof of a deity: absolute, incontrovertible, physical evidence that cannot have been faked.

Polycarp, I agree with just about everything you've said, and I even said most of them at one point or another either here or in the "S.E.T.H. II" thread a couple of weeks ago (in between the insults and rants). I have to disagree with your use of 'definition' in your statement. I would have probably said "by imputation" instead.

As you say, it mostly comes down to the standards of evidence you use. I think pldennison, DaveB, Auraseer, et al., would probably agree to having their standard called "the strictly scientific standard" (or they can suggest something else, of course). I prefer more of what I would call a "forensic standard", in that there may ultimately be nothing more than eyewitness testimony (in sworn affidavits) and verified film, photo, or video evidence. By 'verified' I would mean the chain of possession is such that there is no chance for tampering, CGIs, or other hoaxing.

As far as I can tell from what 'the other side' has said, the only evidence they will ultimately accept as 'proof' would be an extraterrestrial being (preferably alive and with sufficiently different DNA structure to ensure that it wasn't a human mutation), and/or a piece of working alien technology that did something no earthly invention ever did before, and did it better. And I would submit that this is about as likely to happen as the dragon is to attack me as I type. It is, IOW, a practical impossibility to meet such a standard.

For one thing, it assumes that the phenomena we examine aren't actively trying to avoid being proved, which I think NFOs are. I think it's reasonable to think that because if they didn't want to avoid being proved, they'd just land and get it over with. Someone (I think pldennison or moriah) countered that it seemed strange these things could cross interstellar space and not have a way to keep from being seen, but that merely begged the question, why would they be concerned about being seen when the most common human reaction of those who haven't seen is scorn, ridicule, and disbelief?

As to the 'will to believe' -- I don't know about C#3's motivations, but in my case I'm not going to say it's important to me to prove the extraterrestrial nature of UFOs -- what's important to me is simply to discover just exactly what their nature is, and hang the point of origin. It just seems at this point, to me, that Occam's razor splits this particular hair on the side of extraterrestrials. I say that because, as far as we are from exceeding the speed of light in a spacecraft, I think we're even farther from 'crossing dimensional boundaries' or whatever. Or finding out something so new about the atmosphere and weather that it totally shifts 'the current paradigm'. Admittedly, 'jets' and 'sprites' have only been discovered in the last few years, but even they open appear over thunderstorms, very high up, and only where lightning has flashed. (See my reply to Mojo above.)

Hell, I'll even entertain the possibility that they're from the subterranean remains of the "Lost Continent of Atlantis" (boogaboogabooga!) if someone shows me a seismic map or profile that indicates a big enough void in the earth's crust to hide a whole freakin' civilization. Otherwise, for now, extraterrestrials seem the best bet.

The reason I think it's important to discover their true nature is that I consider just four or five things pose a serious threat to humanity that, were they to come to pass, we'd go extinct. There's nuclear war, biochemical war, a hit from a planet-killer asteroid, or (everybody ready to laugh?) invasion and conquest by an alien civilization.

[David B]

Polycarp said:Anything can be debunked, given enough time and creativity.Actually, that isn't true. By definition, the only thing that can be debunked is, well, bunk.

[Polycarp]

I said "anything" and I meant "anything." All it requires is the intellectual dishonesty to pick your evidence carefully and wear blinders to the rest of it. ARG's early posts (and some of his later ones) are good examples of that.

You know where I'm coming from on this issue. I believe in intellectual honesty. It has let me to religious conclusions at odds with yours. That's fine; we can dispute them at length and with mutual respect. But it is quite possible to reason accurately, and wrongly, because you have insufficient evidence. Lord Kelvin's estimate of the age of the earth is the classic example. He was not wearing mental blinders; he simply reasoned brilliantly from geophysics that the earth could not be more than IIRC 50,000 years old. (Somebody correct that fact to show the right number, please.) Reason: he did not have radioactive decay to provide the heat source needed for an older planet.

I concur with the majority of posters that it is highly improbable that the observed UFO phenomena are compatible with spacecraft piloted by extraterrestrial intelligent beings with any humanly comprehensible reason for doing what they are doing. But that does not disprove them; it simply sets some strong arguments against them. Until every UFO becomes an IFO, on the one hand, or an alien lands and has a press conference, on the other, the question is not resolved. Much the same is true for the resurrection thread. I proposed the phenomenon, stripped of the religious interpretation, as potentially some concrete evidence for my worldview. You asserted some potential alternative explanations for the reported phenomena. Both were subject to no clear value ranking in the absence of a worldview that implies value rankings. (I.e., if there is a God who sends a Messiah who predicts his own rising from the dead and then is reported to have done it, the likelihood of this being the correct interpretation rises radically; if there is no God, then the probability of an urban legend, delusional interpretation of events by followers of the alleged Messiah, or other "rational" explanation becomes the vastly more likely one.)

PLDennison said:

For myself, I will accept as proof for alien intelligence no less than what I would for proof of a deity: absolute, incontrovertible, physical evidence that cannot have been faked.

I take it from this you require CE3K-type evidence. An observation, no matter by whom reported and with whatever degree of credibility, would be inadequate.

How would you identify the physical evidence as clearly extraterrestrial in nature? It would seem to me that almost anything could be faked. I suspect that question is a bit unfair, so I'd ask for a by-way-of-example answer (or answers) rather than a definitive response to all possible physical evidence.

On this issue, I have no axe to grind, so I want to play devil's advocate on both sides. (Satan, please remit retainer. :))

[David B]

Polycarp said:I said "anything" and I meant "anything." All it requires is the intellectual dishonesty to pick your evidence carefully and wear blinders to the rest of it.And my point still stands -- that really isn't debunking, by definition.

Webster's New World dictionary says debunk means: "to expose the false or exaggerated claims, pretensions, glamour, etc. of"

So if there are no false or exaggerated claims involved, debunking cannot, by definition occur.

[Polycarp]

I do understand your point, David. However:

Contestant #3 would, quite sincerely, argue that he makes no false or exaggerated claims.

So, on a different subject, would ARG220.

Granted, what is debunked is, ipso facto, bunk. But I maintain that one can erroneously, or even accurately, debunk what is not in fact bunk.

Continental drift: Wegener was, and quite properly, shot down by virtually all Northern Hemisphere geologists. While he proposed an interesting theory, he had no mechanism to back it up. Was he wrong? Most geologists today would say no, that plate tectonics proves him right.

The fact that neither you nor I tends to accept a whole lot of the evidence Contestant #3 puts forth does not prove him wrong. It merely suggests that his credulousness is higher than ours as regards this subject. You would say that mine is much higher than yours as regards the claims of Christianity. And I would respectfully suggest that there are data which we reject as anomalous which in fact may prove something.

George Adamski was a fraud. Various abductees' stories have been demonstrated to be bids for attention, or honestly held but erroneous memory constructs. This does not disprove C#3's claim.

The unlikelihood of regular interstellar travel by means known to humanity casts some negativity on C#3's claim but does not disprove it. It assumes that we know all possible means of interstellar travel. It assumes that there is no way to break the "light barrier" and travel FTL. My own hunch is that the first assumption is wrong and the second is probably right but debatable.

A line must be drawn. But where? C#3's evidence is suspect by anyone's standards but his own.

But there is a limit to how far we can debunk. I would assume that, if there were aliens, they would not build everything out of element #126, and that an aluminum or steel alloy would be a reasonable structural material for many components of their spacecraft. How do we distinguish actual evidence from fraud?

On the other hand, C#3, the fact that Dr. Mack claims that item X is an alien artifact is not necessarily grounds for believing so. Dr. Mack's theories on transdimensional alien visitations (my wife did a rather thorough study of his with an open but not sievelike mind) are rather outre. This is not to say they are wrong, but it would take the kind of proof Phil and David have asked me for re religion to get me to accept them. Would you evaluate your data with a bit more skepticism, please?

I am not saying to reject it, rather to evaluate it. I personally could not make heads or tails of the photomicrographs you linked to; three were formless blobs that looked to me like foraminiferan tests, and one seemed to be two pieces of normal wire. Maybe they were in fact alien artifacts. But you couldn't prove it by me.

[David B]

Polycarp said:Contestant #3 would, quite sincerely, argue that he makes no false or exaggerated claims. So, on a different subject, would ARG220.They could argue that, but objective reality is not decided by vote. Either something is bunk or it is not. If it is bunk, it can be debunked. If it is not, it cannot -- by definition.I maintain that one can erroneously, or even accurately, debunk what is not in fact bunk.Not according to the very definition of the word, Poly. Whatever it is somebody is doing in those cases, it is not debunking. It may be arguing against; it may be attacking; but it is not debunking.Wegener was, and quite properly, shot down by virtually all Northern Hemisphere geologists. While he proposed an interesting theory, he had no mechanism to back it up. Was he wrong? Most geologists today would say no, that plate tectonics proves him right.So what? He was not debunked -- he was shot down. Even you used a different term. Do you see what I'm saying here?The fact that neither you nor I tends to accept a whole lot of the evidence Contestant #3 puts forth does not prove him wrong. It merely suggests that his credulousness is higher than ours as regards this subject.Some of his claims have been proven wrong, some have just been shown to be silly, or to not be supported by evidence.You would say that mine is much higher than yours as regards the claims of Christianity.Maybe, maybe not. As I've indicated countless times, I recognize that religious belief is just that -- belief. While there are some who take belief in UFOs (for example) to virtually religious proportions, there is, in theory, supposed to be some evidence we are all looking at.George Adamski was a fraud. Various abductees' stories have been demonstrated to be bids for attention, or honestly held but erroneous memory constructs. This does not disprove C#3's claim.I'm pretty sure I've never said it did. Which leads me to wonder why you're even bothering to post this...The unlikelihood of regular interstellar travel by means known to humanity casts some negativity on C#3's claim but does not disprove it.Again, I've never said otherwise...A line must be drawn. But where?Where? With good scientific evidence, that's where.

[Polycarp]

Right. If I sounded like I was attacking you in that post, I apologize. I started out to disagree with you and found (from your last post) that we were having another semantic contretemps. Okay, only bunk can be debunked, and what is debunked is ipso facto bunk. I'll give you that tautology.

Some posters appeared to be totally discounting every post C#3 made, with no reference to the possible validity. Underlying assumption: "There is no such thing as a valid report of a flying saucer."

Well, I would maintain that any such report should be taken with extreme skepticism. But it should not be totally rejected until proved to be (a) a hoax, (b) a misinterpretation of a natural phenomenon, or (c) a case of overcredulousness. You may have other categories to add to this.

[David B]

Polycarp said:Some posters appeared to be totally discounting every post C#3 made, with no reference to the possible validity.I think that's more a case of a time-saving device than a proper scientific study. I mean, if somebody repeatedly says ridiculous things, at some point the BS detector tells you to ignore him. It's the boy who cried "Aliens!"I would maintain that any such report should be taken with extreme skepticism. But it should not be totally rejected until proved to be (a) a hoax, (b) a misinterpretation of a natural phenomenon, or (c) a case of overcredulousness. You may have other categories to add to this.How can you prove something to be a case of overcredulousness? If I say I saw a UFO the other night, but I don't remember exactly which night or in which directly, but I'm sure it was a light that was doing things that can't be explained, what do you do? I haven't given enough details to be proven wrong. But you, as a skeptic, can't afford to devote much energy to it because it's essentially meaningless.

Should these things be "totally rejected"? Perhaps not. But it's not up to the skeptics to go around rejecting things -- it's up to the people pushing these claims to prove that there is some basis in reality for them.