But did it echo?
Make your mind up! Either there is respectable research being done or there isn’t. What do you mean by “official research program”? What makes research official or not in your mind?
Actually, I believe the video records an echo from the shore. Might be worth getting a capture card just for that.
north writes:
> . . . so I read many books and papers . . .
So name these books and papers. We really would like to see what the things that you’ve read are. We really would like to know what sorts of works you’ve find convincing.
Why do you lean in that direction when there are more mundane and more probable explanations for every single phenomenon you listed than aliens from other worlds visiting us in secret?
Please add “recent” between any and “official”. My mistake. I realized that I had made it after I had posted. I was waiting for someone to jump on that one.
Official as in full-time properly funded (or even part-time properly funded).
North
I’ve read a lot of books over the years, and I’m sure I have forgotton some but here goes:
Books:
Dolan, Vallee: UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Coverup, 1941-1973
Davies, Paul: Are We Alone?: Philosophical Implications of the Discovery of Extraterrestrial Life
Hains, Richard F. Project Delta
Lorenzen, Coral and Jim Lorenzen. Flying Saucer Occupants. New York: New American Library (Signet), 1967
Haines, Richard F., ed. UFO Phenomena and the Behavioral Scientist. Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1979.
Haines, Richard F: Observing Ufos: An Investigative Handbook
Hynek, J. Allen, Philip J. Imbrogno, and Bob Pratt. Night Siege: The Hudson Valley UFO Sightings.
Alien Discussions: Proceedings of the Abduction Study Conference Held at M.I.T. Cambridge, Ma. by Abduction Study Conference, David Pritchard, Andrea Pritchard
Long, Greg: Examining the Earthlight Theory: The Yakima Ufo Microcosm
Condon, Edward U. and Daniel S. Gillmor (ed.). Final Report of the Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (Conducted by the University of Colorado Under Contract to the United States Air Force). New York: Bantam Books, 1968
Hynek, J. Allen. The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry. New York: Ballantine Books, 1972.
Randle, Kevin D. and Donald R. Schmitt. UFO Crash at Roswell. New York: Avon, 1991.
Clark Jerome: The Ufo Book: Encyclopedia of the Extraterrestrial
Randles, Jenny. UFO Reality: A Critical Look at the Physical Evidence. London: Robert Hale, 1983.
Emenegger, Robert. UFO’s: Past, Present and Future. New York: Ballantine Books, 1974.
Fawcett, Lawrence and Barry J. Greenwood. Clear Intent: The Government Cover-up of the UFO Experience. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1984
Good, Timothy. Above Top Secret: The Worldwide UFO Cover-Up. New York: William Morrow, 1988.
Jung, Hull: Flying Saucers : A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies
Marrs, Jim: Alien Agenda
Hendry, Allan. The UFO Handbook: A Guide to Investigating, Evaluating, and Reporting UFO Sightings.
Sagan, Carl and Thorton Page, eds. UFO’s – A Scientific Debate. New York: Norton, 1972.
Keyhoe, Donald E: FLYING SAUCERS ARE REAL
Saunders, David R. and R. Roger Harkins. UFOs? Yes! Where the Condon Committee Went Wrong. New York: World Publishing, 1968.
Thompson, Keith. Angels and Aliens: UFOs and the Mythic Imagination. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1991
Vallee, Jacques. Confrontations: A Scientist’s Search for Alien Contact. New York: Ballantine Books, 1990.
Friedman, Berliner: Crash at Corona: The U.S. Military Retrieval and Cover-Up of a Ufo
Ruppelt, Edward J: The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects
Friedman, Stanton T: TOP SECRET/MAJIC
Paul R. Hill, Richard M. Wood: Unconventional Flying Objects: A Scientific Analysis
Stieger Brad: Project Blue Book
Klass, Philip. UFOs: The Public Deceived.
Randle, Kevin D: The Randle Report: Ufos in the '90s
LEDGER, TYLES, STRIEBER: Dark Object : The World’s Only Government-Documented UFO Crash
Papers (here are a few that I remember):
Science and The UFO Problem
Joachim P. Kuettner
Presentation at the House Committee on Science and Astronautics Symposium on Unidentified Flying Objects, by Dr. James McDonald, 1968.
The Condon Report: SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS
Conducted by the University of Colorado
Under contract No. 44620-67-C-0035 With the United States Air Force
Dr. Edward U. Condon, Scientific Director
Everything on UFOevidence.org
North.
Dear North,
Thanks for listing all those sources.
I hope you feel you’ve had a fair reception here. We have all sorts of beliefs (covering religion, politics and the paranormal), but we do insist on looking at the evidence.
You have been polite and helpful throughout and I hope you will have a look at other areas of the message board.
I would like to add that I think there is a fundamental contradiction to your wish that the UFO evidence be examined closely.
For example, all the above source books do just that - they looked at the evidence. But nobody can produce any physical evidence, or give us anything further to go on. Instead there are claims of a massive 50 year old conspiracy that is so perfect that nothing has leaked from it. To me, that’s unbelievable!
Certainly loads of people have seen UFO’s. But most have been explained. We don’t have one single verifiable case of alien contact. And scientists are looking! See the SETI program…
So when I hear of yet another UFO, I do indeed think it’s a case of mistaken identity. (But once that first alien actually appears, I shall be intensely interested!)
Have you seen the UK TV program ‘A Very British UFO’?
‘Earlier this year, residents of a remote Wiltshire village were stunned to see what appeared to be a UFO rising over their local pub.
Now, for the first time, Channel 4 has officially confirmed that the whole incident was in fact an elaborate hoax — and will reveal all in a documentary to be shown on October 7.
Executive producer Mark Raphael said: “We just wanted to see if we could make something which looked and flew like a UFO, and if people would be taken in.”’
‘And he said the event caused quite a stir. “It just took on a life of its own. Sky News, ITV, even a station in Australia — they all did pieces on it.”
Eventually The Mirror rumbled what was going on — but Mark has kept tight-lipped until now. People are still going on the internet now saying how it wasn’t a hoax, and that there’s a cover-up."’
http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/030926/128/e9hig.html
Note how even though we know it was a hoax, people still think there’s a cover-up…
Because nothing else that I’ve found (least of all science) has offered me a official, reasonable or rational explanation for my own personal experience (never mind a” mundane" or “probable” one) or the experiences of many more people when it comes to the UFO phenomena. The fact that I’m “leaning” towards the Alien theory is just a personal feeling I have at this time based on my experiences and research. I don’t expect you to “lean” the same way, but I’d expect any intelligent person to review the data available with an open mind before they reach any definite conclusions on the subject.
Anyway check these out:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/PilotSightings.htm
This recent one is very compelling:
http://www.ufoevidence.org/feature/MexicanAirForce.htm
I realize none of these sightings are hard proof that we are being visited by an extra terrestrial intelligence, but I ask you: don’t you think that publicly funded mainstream science should study the UFO phenomenon further? If they did, maybe they could put the issue to rest once and for all.
North.
Folly to be convinced they don’t exist at all. I agree. But only, once again, because the likehood of them existing is totally unknown. Not because there are so much stars that they must exist somewhere.
It seems to me that you’re arguing that if my bag of beads is large enough, there must be some blue beads in it, despite having no clue about what I put in the bag at the first place.
If you’re convinced there are alien intelligences somewhere, then tell me how you reached this conclusion. What is the likehood of life appearing on a given planet? Of sentient life evolving? How do you know that the overall likehood times the number of stars in the universe is 100 billions rather than 0.00000081 ? Where did your datas come from?
Well there’s at least one blue bead in your bag. It’s called Earth; and it’s teeming with life if not always the “intelligent” kind. It’s highly likely that we are the aliens to some other “probable” life form out there in the universe. If they have any real intelligence however, they’ll probably be thinking hard about ours.
North.
north writes:
> I’ve read a lot of books over the years, and I’m sure I have forgotton some but
> here goes:
Thank you. We’ve all forgotten some of the books we’ve read. For me, this is the first really interesting post you’ve done.
Glee,
Thank you very much for the kind words, they are much appreciated. It’s a tough crowd for sure, but I am certainly enjoying the discourse. Having your beliefs challenged can often be a very healthy thing, and I always do try to respect other people’s point of view even if it opposes mine.
Speaking of that, 
…
I don’t think there’s any fundamental contradiction in my belief that existing, future, and indeed continuing UFO evidence be examined closely by an official public study made up of the main-stream scientific community with the fact that it is now being examined by other outside researchers. I believe that an open, publicly funded study of the UFO phenomenon would be a welcome and needed addition to existing research. This would lend a much needed air of credibility to UFO investigations (and investigators) and ensure that the public interest is upheld rather than that of private or government institutions. Public funding would hopefully ensure public accountability and also open up any research on the UFO phenomenon to the scrutiny it deserves. Right now “officially” this very real phenomenon, whatever it may be, is being virtually ignored in the hallowed halls of learning.
As for your hoaxed British UFO, the fact that many people were taken in does not surprise me at all. After all, we are dealing with human nature, and human beings are complex creatures as we well know. The fact that UFO’s can be, and indeed sometimes are, hoaxes, is not a good reason to believe that all of them are however. All of them are not. The fact is there still remain a significant number of unexplained sightings of aerial phenomena that continue unabated to this day from many credible sources. It seems to me we have a choice; to study these phenomena or to ignore them. In my opinion, ignoring them is irresponsible, and what is more, relegating them all to the school of “loonydom” is utterly and completely so.
North
Yes well, ahhhh, your welcome (I think).
North.
Ps: very sorry to hear that this is the first interesting post I’ve done. I’m not sure if that’s more of a reflection of me, or more of a reflection of you. You’ll have to forgive me if I hope it’s the latter.
Yes, this is the only internet site I have ever paid for. I demand quality!
You must remember that we have had this particular discussion here before, so please excuse any sense of ennui you get.
Do have a look at the other categories - there is a lot of humour and information around here.
Well I’m a taxpayer (admittedly in the UK) but I don’t see why my taxes should be spent on a dry hole.
For over 50 years, people have been seeing UFO’s. Never a single one turned into an alien.
Project Blue Book officially investigated for years and found nothing.
The reason that there is a ‘credibility issue’ is that many people (not calm ones like yourself!) who believe in aliens also believe in crop circles, ley lines, psychics, astrology and life on Mars.
You say that UFOs deserve scrutiny. Why?
If a scientist notices an apple dropping on his head, he will investigate.
WHUMP! 
- and we define gravity.
If a scientist notices a strange growth in a single petrie dish, he will investigate.
BANG! :eek: - and we have penicillin.
If a scientist notices a frog’s leg twitching…
Trust me, the difficulty is stopping these guys.
But we have nothing for them in the UFO line.
Just another report of a light in the sky.
Not totally unknown. One argument for life being probable is, I believe, due to Carl Sagan. He points out that on Earth, the one case we can study, not only did life arise, but it arose within a few hundred million years (comparatively a very short time) after the crust of the planet solidified. We can’t deduce very much, it’s true, from the fact that Earth has life, thanks to the anthropic principle. But we can deduce something from the fact that life arose so quickly. Perhaps it only arises quickly on planets which are particularly suitable; it’s been speculated, for instance, that our Moon (which appears to be freakishly large) played some role. But even there, we can run our solar system models on computers and find the odds of the Moon forming.
The other argument is the possibility (supported by the current evidence) that the Universe is not merely very large, but in fact infinite. And the existance of life on Earth may not tell us how likely life is, but it does at least tell us that the probability is greater than zero. And any nonzero number, no matter how small, times infinity is still infinity.
Meanwhile, north, what you’ve told us thus far about your personal experience argues against it being a sighting of aliens, not for. You say that the object you saw moved in ways that defy physics. But physics is physics, and aliens are no less bound to obey the laws of physics than are we. If what you saw (whatever it was) defied physics, then we must conclude that you were mistaken, either in what you saw or (more likely) in how you interpreted it. Please don’t take this as an insult, by the way: I’m not saying that you’re prone to misinterpreting things you see, but rather that the thing you saw was something that is prone to be misinterpreted. Everyone’s fooled some time.
Such as in the Bad Astronomer’s flock-of-birds I mentioned a ways above. He’s an expert, and he couldn’t tell what he was looking at. How is a layman supposed to do better?
north, to follow a bit on what glee said earlier today, you keep talking about “public funding.” Over and over you’ve banged that drum–public research, public research, public research.
Why?
Seriously, what’s the problem with private funding? If this is a purely empirical question, there should be plenty of opportunity for private funding. It’s not like we’re talking about pure research here (for which private money is in notoriously short supply).
No problem Chronos I’m not insulted in the least. I’d probably be second guessing what I saw myself if I had been alone. What the hell…here’s what we saw:
We saw a metallic, disk shaped object, it was stationary but seemed to be spinning, hovering over a lake without any noticeable sound. We observed it for about 5 or 6 minutes until it moved laterally for a short distance and then shot upwards at a 90 degree angle at an incredible rate of speed. Now if that defies the laws of physics then this object was guilty of it. I can’t say for sure that it was alien, or controlled by aliens because I didn’t see any aliens. It just felt alien. I know that doesn’t make any sense and is not scientific in the least, but that’s how it felt watching it. It felt totally out of place. It could have been man-made I suppose, but if it was, somebody is holding out on us big-time. It wasn’t a flock of ducks either I can tell you that. Yeah, I guess it’s within the realm of possibility that we misinterpreted the misinterpretable, and if someone thinks we did, that’s fine with me. I have nothing to lose or gain by that judgment.
North.
Andros,
Nothing wrong with private research as long as it’s accepted by the scientific community. Maybe I’m wrong in the thinking that public research would be more accepted, I’m not an expert after all. You’re probably right.
North