“On a board.” Specifically this message board.
Not “on board.” Please do take your time and read for comprehension.
- What specifically qualifies them to be a trained observer for U.F.O.s?
- What is an authentic “UFOlogist”?
-
The Disclosure Project - I saw their press conference four or five years ago. A bunch of credulous people with no actual good evidence. I was not at all impressed - quite the opposite.
-
Rendlesham Forest incident - I have studied this some, it’s clearly just a case of people misinterpreting what they saw. What they saw, at least what they reported at the time, was most plausibly the light from a distant lighthouse and from a few radio towers.
-
Malmstrom AFB incident - I can’t recall this one off the top of my head.
-
The Kelly Johnson sighting - I recognize the name but I can’t recall any details.
-
Hillsdale Michigan sighting of 1966 - Again, I recognize the name but can’t come up with details.
-
Phoenix Lights of 1977 - you’d have to be delusional to think that this was an alien spaceship. It’s well-documented that it was two separate things: light aircraft over Phoenix, and military flares dropped in the desert outside Phoenix.
Anyway, I know I’ve seen all of these before and they are very unimpressive as evidence for alien visitation. Czarcasm had a good point - pick one (or two) that to you represent the best evidence, and explain why you think so.
Let’s say I am a trained zoologist and wildlife biologist. I claim I just saw a unicorn. How much credit should you give to this report? Is this sighting enough to refute all evidence up to now that unicorns don’t exist and never did?
Are you serious? How does the designer of the U2 spy plane and the SR71 Blackbird make him a better observer of things flying through the air? Watch and listen to his interview and then tell me you think the guy can’t tell a cloud from a flying aircraft. It’s also worth noting that neither Kelly Johnson nor I have claimed that he saw an alien space craft. He saw an unidentified craft off the coast of California that performed better than our aircraft of today can. This was over 60 years ago. I’d say we could use the answer to that if we can get it.
Oh, and the government kept employing Kelly Johnson for decades after he reported what he saw. So, they considered him an authority on aircraft too. That’s not my opinion.
I am not going through all of them, but re-read on Rendlesham. The “lighthouse” theory is bogus. Four guys didn’t mistake a lighthouse for an aircraft.
On the Phoenix lights, there is no way that light aircraft in Arizona was seen in two other states, including Nevada. And for the last freak’n time, I never said ANY OF THEM were alien. I said they were unidentified and that I’d like to know what they are and why people report what they report.
No. It is not enough. And if ANYTHING I said were based on an account by a single person no matter their qualification, your analogy would be a good one. None of the cases I am talking about are of a single account nor are any of them claiming to have proven the existence of alien life. Those conclusions come from elsewhere as do the conversations regarding the paranormal- again making my point. Thanks for the input.
When thousands of different people say thousands of different things, what makes some good witnesses and some bad? Wouldn’t one of the major qualifications be that there is consensus on what was seen? Where are the matching accounts that would lend credence?
I think you’re going to have to define gain or profit very carefully, because to me, getting attention for making a spectacular claim or proving something sure sounds like “gains” to me.
Already dealt with…
Only if we’re talking about aircraft.
Not really. Four people can be just as uninformed as one.
OK, so how many simultaneous, identical sightings of unicorns would be enough for you to throw out all biology up to now? Two? Fifty? A thousand?
If you list a hundred sightings of unknown objects, I’m pretty sure you can find something in common with many of them. Does that mean they all have a common source, or that your brain is making unwarranted connections due to wishful (and possibly ignorant) thinking?
Well said. And who is doing the matching, and how?
Let’s go in a slightly new direction shall we?
Let’s say for the sake of argument that NONE of the sightings were even in the sky. Let’s say that military pilots, missle silo personnel, and armed servicemen are hallucinating and yet they’re left to stand a post in our military with loaded weapons. Don’t you think that deserves a little scrutiny and perhaps on a different channel than one about ghosts and spirits? Especially since none of these people is reporting seeing a ghost or spirit?
Once again, my question wasn’t an attempt to convince anyone of anything regarding UFOs except that we should probably be finding answers and that discussion of the paranormal won’t likely accomplish that. Agree or disagree. As always, the choice is yours, but please don’t expect me to answer for that which I have not said. It’s no fun for any of us.
For me? I am a pretty skeptical individual. So, I’d probably have to see one for myself. What I might believe if you had 50 people saying something odd like that though is that it’d be worth looking into. Again given the sheer volume of material I am talking about, your analogy isn’t as solid as you might think it is. Nonetheless, I would say that adding your unicorn investigation into a discussion of ghosts and the spirit world probably wouldn’t get you answers either.
Also, I never connected any of the sightings to one another. Each case has to be judged on its own.
If NONE of the sightings were in the sky, what are we talking about? Unidentified Crawling Objects?
No. They’re both claims of something that’s more or less impossible substantiated by little or nothing, and similar to many other claims that fell apart once subjected to scrutiny. Why should it be treated differently from ghosts or spirits?
As I look off into the distance there are things that I just cannot identify. If I start gathering up accounts from others that also saw things on the ground they couldn’t identify I bet I could come up with millions of accounts of people that saw something in the distance but weren’t sure what it might be.
Is “UGOlogy” something that should be taken seriously?
Yes, they did. Their own testimony proves this.
Some of them certainly did chase the lighthouse for at least part of the time, and they admitted this afterwards - although it doesn’t explain the whole sighting (that was spread over two nights).
You are many years late and many dollars short-It’s been looked into extensively by many, many people and nothing has ever come of it. That many sightings that disagree with each other and not one single, solitary artifact points us in one general direction: Human have vivid imaginations.
Somebody who LOSES credibility, is scorned, and who risks not only their security clearance, but their reputation is not gaining anything. The people I am talking about, by and large, appear to regret that they have anything to report. Some of that is provable and more is probably provable if I had the time to do so.
And yes, four people are no more qualified to call a UFO an alien spacecraft than one is. But four witnesses make it less likely that it was a hallucination, imagined, or made up.
Take the Phoenix lights incident from our earlier conversation. People claimed later that it was light aircraft and flares. Which of those can be seen from Nevada? None. This only proves that theory to be invalid, but so ask another question or continue to investigate. Stopping at one answer that is easily proven to be wrong is just dumb. Literally hundreds to thousands of people reported that sighting. Nobody got famous from it and nobody made any money (among the reporters). So, unless the Governor of Arizona and a boat load of other people were lying or mistaken I’d say they saw an object that was both flying and unidentified.
You are incorrect. Again. Why is it okay for you to leap to conclusions and assume, but I cannot state a simple fact and have it taken at face value?
Can you prove these people are lying, mistaken, or imagining things?
What’s wrong with having the discussion in an intelligent and scientific format?
And as I said before nobody that I’ve talked to asked for money or man power. They simply investigate as any scientist would in search of the truth. Sure there are profiteers in any field, including mainstream science, but that’s not really the point now is it?
Read the rest of their testimony. Three of the guards approached a landed craft. One touched it while the other drew pictures of the symbols on it. Not one of them agrees that the lighthouse claim is true.
Once again - I am not saying I believe everything. I am skeptical by nature, but I can’t just call these men liars because I don’t want to believe.