Search results

Actually, you cannot say that any alien abduction or UFO experiences are “delusion”... It is all merely a generalised hypothetical. This is the UFO debunker argument: Under certain conditions the human mind can fall victim to hallucinations, therefore alien abduction and UFO experiences...

This is of course the age old argument – when people see UFOs (or experience alien abduction), they are merely hallucinating. What is never mentioned in the “induced alien hallucination” research is whether or not the participants knew that they were hallucinating – and it seems from the two...

Let’s take your "covert satellite" satellite hypothesis then and match it against observation: It was reflecting red light …That had nothing to do with the refraction of the sun’s light because the astronauts mentioned that it was well above the horizon …so does that mean that whose-ever...

Here are some of references to “cloaking” technology: (http://ufo.whipnet.org/xdocs/cloaking.device/index.html) (http://www.universetoday.com/60452/new-cloaking-device-hides-objects-in-three-dimensions/) Not sure that we are up to hiding whole buildings yet… and Gregg Bishop doesn’t really...

Such a study as mentioned in the OP does nothing to “explain” UFO or abduction encounters at all. It is merely an hypothesis that requires rigorous scientific testing according to the accepted rules of science before it can be claimed to be either true or false. In fact it is merely the latter...

Video Comment Well put bbridges. This thread is all about research and evidence. As soon as we start talking about the “transcendent” and the “metaphysical” we will lose ourselves down a rabbit hole from which there is no escape. To some native civilisations an aeroplane was a transcendent...

I have not “confronted” anything with “secrecy” (or conspiracies or anything of the like). I merely noted that official secrecy exists. Let me ask you - What is it in the following statement from NORAD that allows you to conclude that secrecy is not a real factor? "But at the end of the day...

It seems to me that humans are in agreement that only “physical” evidence will constitute proof of ET visitation. As far as I know, no such physical proof exists. Failing access to physical evidence, we are left with circumstantial evidence. Then the question becomes – as you indicate – are...

Continuing on the theme of UFOs: the Research the Evidence, here then is an interesting peer-reviewed and published research paper: Deardorff, J., Haisch, B., Maccabee, B., & Puthoff, H. E. (2005) Inflation-Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation. Journal of the British...

What I find interesting about that report is not the implied conspiracy surrounding the removal of reference to UFOs in the personnel manual, but the following statement from NORAD: ”When I talk about UFOs, it is literally an unidentified flying object, not an extraterrestrial," said John...

hiflier - if I could misquote Shakespeare: 'Though this be madness yet there is method in it' (Hamlet) - I would state 'Though this be method (of a sort), yet there is madness in it'.

I wonder what it looks like from below - from which perspective most of the observations that could potentially mistake it for a UFO would occur. It is fine for the skeptics to point out technology that may look like a "classic" UFO from a certain angle, but the angle of the photo above is one...

Yes, that may be fine in principle for the STS-75 “tether” video, but there are some videos which do not show the tell-tale out-of-focus “disc-like notched objects”. They show actual objects that move in seemingly inexplicable ways. For example I have already indicated the STS-74 video and...

Yes that’s exactly right. For example: Also, manxman indicated the following article by Byron Green (The Particulate Environment Surrounding the Space Station: Estimates From the PACS Data - http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880016014_1988016014.pdf) as very...

That’s all fine except for one minor detail: For STS-75: “No tile damage from micrometeorites or on-orbit debris have been identified to date.” (p.35 http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19960022783_1996048891.pdf) For STS-80: “No tile damage from micrometeorites or...

Okay manxman, I understand the concept and it is certainly a logical one that fits with much of the evidence. However, I may be missing some of the details of its application in sections of the STS 75 film, so I have a couple of questions for you: If it is all debris propelled off the shuttle...

Pixelsmith, There is no doubt, as the section of above video you indicated (27-33 sec) once again proves, small out of focus objects can appear as “notched doughnuts” – that is fuzzy circles with holes in the centre and a wedge shaped notch (or notches) in their perimeter. So whatever the...

Manxman and ufology - thank you for the very interesting discussion so far. I know manxman you claim you are not interested in other videos, but I have one that might be interesting for you - from STS-74 (Atlantis; launch 12 Nov 1995). There are lots of “UFOs” in this one, but the one...

It seems to me that you have not explained your position – all you have done is reiterate that UFOs = ET. If I have summarised your reasoning for that belief incorrectly then I apologise - but it is only because I cannot see how you have provided a clear rationale (aside from claiming popular...

Don’t get me wrong, a discussion about the definition of UFO is useful, but we were bogged down in one particular aspect of that: That is, is it legitimate to allow an individual belief to define a category to the exclusion of all other individual beliefs? I contend it is not, you contend it is...