The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis : Fact and Fallacy

[Creepy Green Light]

And if that same video were released today, you'd have breitbart idiots calling it a hoax.

Or CNN reporting on how many Diet Coke's the president consumes a day

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Right. On the one hand, skeptics complain about a supposed lack of good photographic evidence, but when such evidence is presented, it's dismissed as a hoax. If even a superficial resemblance to any prosaic object is sufficient to "prove" a hoax, nothing will ever convince them.

I'm not interested in what Britebart or other valid news sources say about the speculative video. I'd be interested in what I think and also what, say a panel like with people like Curt Collins, etc. had to say. Like they did with the ridiculous alien/mummy debacle.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Okay. Maybe you missed my question again back here: What's your reasoning? Surely you must have some thoughts that might offer some explanation. We don't really need more examples. You've made that point already. BTW the playback on that video doesn't work for me.

The point of the examples is to reiterate how ridiculous the idea is that no valid video's exist. And to also reiterate how ridiculous the notion of "no cameras are pointing up" is. If there were only 3 UFO sightings reported worldwide on an annual basis - I could buy into the fact that there are no videos. But when we live in an era of video cameras are everywhere - you start to wonder.

It's almost like a scenario where you've swam in this one lake that is rumored to be infested with piranhas. You've swam in the lake every day of your life for 10 years and you've never been bit or attacked. And nobody has a valid photo or video of a piranha in/coming out of that lake. It'd be fare to deduce from that that perhaps, there are no piranhas in that lake. It still could be possible - but at that point, is probably unlikely.

I still believe something is out there - but I think up until now, all the George Adamski, Betty & Barney Hill, Rex Heflin, Trent, Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze, Silly Meier, Trindade, Roswell, JAL, Guaradian, Rendlesham etc. etc. etc. are all hoaxes, misidentification or a comedy of errors (Rendlesham). Then to see "experts" & "trained observers" get burned by known hoaxes doesn't help matters. There's something out there more than likely - but I haven't seen any worthy videos/photos that would prove that. I still think one of the best cases is the Coyne case. Too bad that one didn't receive the attention that other cases have gotten.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

What would be the odds of filming a Concorde jet flying? Before the era of iPhone's? What about filming one as it was on fire? What would the odds be? But someone did. Again the theme here is with the massive quantities of UFO sightings/reports/close encounters/abductions - we should have AT LEAST ONE video that actually shows something that is not prosaic.

You keep posting images of the most intensely luminous and large events in the sky (meteors, and in this case the Concord burning and spewing a gigantic column of smoke as it takes off from the airport), as if that's a valid point of comparison. It's not. The closest analogy is a fighter jet - most of the relevant sightings we're talking about (of what appear to be unearthly aerial devices) are roughly that size and metallic. The kind of footage you're likely to get of such a device using your smartphone or dashcam or security camera, would look more like this - a smudge in the sky - and this was footage taken at an air show as the jet falls to the ground and crashes near the crowd:

Now when you consider that the sky is vast, most sightings involve craft at substantial altitudes, the resolution of such cameras is woefully insufficient for picking up any detail at a distance of even just a mile, and it's essentially impossible to focus on a small point in the sky without a telephoto lens on a professional camera (and if the object were zigzagging your chance of tracking it that way drops to zero), it just isn't surprising that we don't have the kind of footage that you want to see.

Look at the poor quality of footage that we just got via Luis Elizondo from the most advanced ATFLIR camera system on the planet, attached to a modern fighter jet. Even then we only see a blurry spot. Chris has worked with a professional engineer to create a fairly sophisticated tracking system to aim his cameras and instrumentation at the objects being reported in the San Luis Valley, and as impressive as that system is, I really wonder if it's going to be possible to get any clear optical footage (I'm more excited about the other forms of scientific data that he'll be able to collect, honestly).

And I think you're wildly overestimating the frequency and the proximity of these things. About 5.5% of Project Blue Book cases couldn't be satisfactorily explained, and maybe 5-10% of those involve genuine unexplained devices in the sky, so less than .5% of all reports pertain to our discussion. And the typical duration of a sighting is also quite brief (probably too brief to mess around with a smartphone video camera to get it in focus before it's gone). Another factor is also commonly overlooked: in those incidents (like mine) where these babies zigzag rapidly as they cross the sky, several atypical factors come into play. For one thing, you're immediately stunned, because seeing something defy inertia with your own eyes is astonishing - you immediately know that you've just seen something violate the conventional laws of physics and a giant "wtf!" freezes you to the spot as that sinks in. And it's like trying to follow the flight of a gnat - you have to really pay attention and look hard so you don't lose track of it. And you have no idea how long it's going to be visible so you're far more interested in observing as closely as possible while you can, because at the rate these things move you know it won't be visible for more than a matter of seconds.

So I honestly think that you're underestimating all of these kinds of factors and more, and stuff like meteors and burning jets taking off from crowded airports only proves it - that's like comparing a roman candle a mile away, to a nuclear bomb test: they're not even remotely similar events.

Show us some smartphone or dashcam or security camera footage of a fighter jet passing by a mile or two up in the sky, where we can actually make out what we're seeing, and then I'll concede that you have a point.

 

[Randall]

The point of the examples is to reiterate how ridiculous the idea is that no valid video's exist. And to also reiterate how ridiculous the notion of "no cameras are pointing up" is. If there were only 3 UFO sightings reported worldwide on an annual basis - I could buy into the fact that there are no videos. But when we live in an era of video cameras are everywhere - you start to wonder.

It's almost like a scenario where you've swam in this one lake that is rumored to be infested with piranhas. You've swam in the lake every day of your life for 10 years and you've never been bit or attacked. And nobody has a valid photo or video of a piranha in/coming out of that lake. It'd be fare to deduce from that that perhaps, there are no piranhas in that lake. It still could be possible - but at that point, is probably unlikely.

I still believe something is out there - but I think up until now, all the George Adamski, Betty & Barney Hill, Rex Heflin, Trent, Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze, Silly Meier, Trindade, Roswell, JAL, Guaradian, Rendlesham etc. etc. etc. are all hoaxes, misidentification or a comedy of errors (Rendlesham). Then to see "experts" & "trained observers" get burned by known hoaxes doesn't help matters. There's something out there more than likely - but I haven't seen any worthy videos/photos that would prove that. I still think one of the best cases is the Coyne case. Too bad that one didn't receive the attention that other cases have gotten.

I appreciate the clarification, but that wasn't what I was asking. I was wondering if you have any ideas of your own that might explain this curious situation, or any opinions on the reasonableness of other people's ideas. Like have you heard explanations that are in your opinion ridiculous ( example ) and others that seem more reasonable ( example )?

 

[Trajanus]

And nobody has a valid photo or video of a piranha in/coming out of that lake.

Again, if even a superficial resemblance to any prosaic object is sufficient to "prove" a hoax, all photos, valid or not, will inevitably be rejected as hoaxes.

I still think one of the best cases is the Coyne case. Too bad that one didn't receive the attention that other cases have gotten.

Coyne is pretty lucky he did not photograph the object, or you'd put that case in the same dumpster as nearly all others.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Again, if even a superficial resemblance to any prosaic object is sufficient to "prove" a hoax, all photos, valid or not, will inevitably be rejected as hoaxes.



Coyne is pretty lucky he did not photograph the object, or you'd put that case in the same dumpster as nearly all others.

I'm going to use your flawed logic; I want to know the exact brand of pie, the flavor & the size that this pie tin is from and the brand of toothpick. If you can't find the EXACT match - then it must really be a flying saucer from another world....

 

[marduk]

I'm going to use your flawed logic; I want to know the exact brand of pie, the flavor & the size that this pie tin is from and the brand of toothpick. If you can't find the EXACT match - then it must really be a flying saucer from another world....

You guys both know there’s a rational middle ground here, right?

It’s most likely prosaic and a mirror is a good enough likelihood to doubt it’s a UFO.

But neither of you know for sure. Because reality is rarely absolutes.

It’s reasonable to think it’s probably bunk.

 

[Trajanus]

If you can't find the EXACT match - then it must really be a flying saucer from another world....

That isn't my position. I said that if you can't find an exact match, you can't prove a hoax. marduk said it best.

 

[Sand]

The point of the examples is to reiterate how ridiculous the idea is that no valid video's exist.

The lack of photos and videos is a curiosity, but it has no bearing on whether people saw something truly strange and otherworldly. Unless you are saying that everyone who has said they saw a UFO is lying, the lack of photos has no connection to the nature of what was actually seen. Regardless of what it was, people didn’t take pictures of it.

Take for example the O’Hare Airport sightings. There are recordings of the airport employees discussing the object as the sighting is going on. The FAA has acknowledged the witnesses saw something. Those pilots and airport employees believed they were seeing something strange. Whether it was a cloud aberration, a spaceship or a mass delusion, they didn’t take pictures of it (other than possibly one rumored pilot). Saying the lack of photos shows it wasn’t something otherworldly is no more valid than saying the lack of photos shows it wasn’t a cloud.

The Phoenix Lights is another example. When the V-shaped Phoenix Lights moved over Phoenix, 911 was flooded with calls. Those hundreds of people believed they were seeing something strange. The lack of photos says nothing about what it actually was. And it doesn’t say those people didn’t see something. A good friend of mine and his wife, who have no interest in UFOs, watched it silently move overhead. You can say that, because of the lack of photos, you know that my friends didn’t really see anything. But I think you’ll understand if I put little weight in what you're saying.

Here’s another from Gosford, Australia. On a night in 1994 the police were flooded with calls from people from all over the area who were watching an illuminated metallic sphere which had moved over the bay, cast bands of light down into the water, and was causing the water to froth and rise up out of the bay. Police then went out and saw and followed the object themselves.

That no one took a picture is a curiosity. But it says nothing about what those people actually saw.

 

[mike]

You make an excellent point with the Gosford incident, it made front page news here at the time. Multiple witnesses, including Police officers and an air traffic controller. No variance in what multiple unconnected people say they saw. Animals went crazy. Police could hear the fear in the voices of the callers.

Something happened. Not a single photo.

 

[Constance]

Here’s another from Gosford, Australia. On a night in 1994 the police were flooded with calls from people from all over the area who were watching an illuminated metallic sphere which had moved over the bay, cast bands of light down into the water, and was causing the water to froth and rise up out of the bay. Police then went out and saw and followed the object themselves.

That no one took a picture is a curiosity. But it says nothing about what those people actually saw.

An excellent case, @Sand. The question that arises for me is why so many people who follow the ufo subject in our time do not seem to know how many similar sightings over water -- reservoirs, lakes, and oceans -- were reported over the last six or seven decades, cases in which multiple witnesses described an anomalous flying, hovering, and brightly lighted object that cast beams downward into the water, disturbed the water's surface or cracked the ice at the surface of the water, and appeared to be drawing water upward into itself.

Granted that there's a lot to read from the written history of ufo sightings and events, accumulated in official governmental and military records and in research reported by private ufo researchers. But I think it's obvious that anyone who hasn't spent the time required to read and absorb all of this historical material has no grounds for claiming that all of the past accumulation of information concerning ufos should be ignored at this point and that the 'debate' should be "reframed" -- as if the last seventy years of ufo experience never happened. That currently popular position is in my view absurd. That would be bad enough if it were not also the case that this 'reframing' of the subject enables many contemporary internet followers of the subject to fail to do the work necessary to understand the detailed history of the modern ufo phenomena.

 

[Realm]

The lack of photos and videos is a curiosity

I have one of the best smartphone cameras available and the longest zooming super-zoom camera there is. If I actually saw an UFO somewhere sometime, I would say the probability of getting a meaningful picture of it would still be extremely low. Why? Because the smartphone that I always have in my pocket can't zoom, so it would probably just show a smudge of few pixels against the sky. And since that super-zoom is too big and heavy for my pockets, I rarely have it with me anywhere.

In O'Hare for example, it was a gray object in the distance against gray clouds, as far as I understand it. So could we expect useful pics from a smartphone camera in situations like that?

 

[Creepy Green Light]

The point is; anything that is a real, physical object (plane, meteor, balloon, spider web attached to the roof of a house, flares hanging from a balloon etc.) seems to always make it on some type of camera (security camera, cell phone, etc.). But as soon as the object is identified as something non prosaic - there is never any footage of it. Phoenix Flares? Caught on multiple cameras. Why? Because it was a real, physical event. But the mile wide chevron shaped Phoenix UFO? Nowhere to be found on camera. If there were truly a massively sized UFO drifting down the entire state of AZ - there should be hundreds of security/traffic/dashcam cameras & personal cameras that would have caught it. But NOT ONE camera ANYWHERE caught the mile wide UFO? I mean, throw us a bone and show me a crappy video that at least shows the sorta-kinda v-shape of lights drifting over the rooftop of hundreds of houses.

Again, I think flying vehicles from another planet exist. But I think the ratio of sightings is something ridiculous like for every 10,000 reports - one of those might be valid. The other 9,999 are your Meiers, Adamskis, Trent's, Heflin's, Walter's, Guardian's, spider webs, flares on balloons etc. of the world.

 

[DaveM]

Try to remember, the mobile phone of 1997 was a crude affair by today's standards. No multi megapixel cameras were around. There were plenty of eyewitness sightings however. Even the actor Kurt Russell saw the lights as he was flying his plane.

What I always thought was somewhat bogus was that witnesses said that the flying vehicle was following the interstate leaving Phoenix. I wonder how many extraterrestrials need to keep to the highway in order to get their bearings.

I have always put that sighting into the 'secret government vehicle' basket.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Here's a real, physical, hard object flying way up in the atmosphere during the day and this guy captured it with a camera. Again, because it was real - someone somewhere managed to get it on film.

 

[Randall]

Here's a real, physical, hard object flying way up in the atmosphere during the day and this guy captured it with a camera. Again, because it was real - someone somewhere managed to get it on film ...

It was determined that the objects on this film were real too and did not conform to know natural or manmade objects. Let's also not forget that there are now so many videos out there claiming to be UFOs, that it's entirely possible that some are genuine, but have gotten lost in the noise. Have you actually looked at them all? I haven't because there are just too many; tens or hundreds of thousands by now. So in a few cases the objects could be real. In fact some are IMO probably real. So it's not just a matter of getting a video. It's getting a video that's believable backed-up by credible sources and investigation.

Early UFO Films

​

 

[Trajanus]

Again, I think flying vehicles from another planet exist. But I think the ratio of sightings is something ridiculous like for every 10,000 reports - one of those might be valid. The other 9,999 are your Meiers, Adamskis, Trent's, Heflin's, Walter's, Guardian's, spider webs, flares on balloons etc. of the world.

Again, if even a superficial resemblance to a prosaic object suffices to "prove" a hoax, of course there won't be any valid photos. Also, if the phenomenon is advanced and generally wants to be secretive, a paucity of photographic evidence--relative to total reports-- shouldn't be surprising.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

It was determined that the objects on this film were real too and did not conform to know natural or manmade objects. Let's also not forget that there are now so many videos out there claiming to be UFOs, that it's entirely possible that some are genuine, but have gotten lost in the noise. Have you actually looked at them all? I haven't because there are just too many; tens or hundreds of thousands by now. So in a few cases the objects could be real. In fact some are IMO probably real. So it's not just a matter of getting a video. It's getting a video that's believable backed-up by credible sources and investigation.

Early UFO Films

​

I haven't seen every last single UFO video - but any video that looks even quasi legit - I have probably seen. The other point to remember is; if something is truly in the sky (whether a hoax or real craft) and it is filmed - the news will be all over it (like the Phoenix Flares and The Great Morristown UFO Hoax). I can't think of a scenario where something truly extraordinary happened in the sky - but somehow the only place it was ever shown is on a bogus YouTube channel like thirdphaseofmoon. It's like "Ok, so you have this amazing, structured craft, UFO video shot during the daytime. But only YOU have it? Not one news channel has picked this up? And on top of that - you want to remain anonymous?" Give me a break.

I encourage anyone that has not watched the mini documentary about the Morristown UFO Hoax to watch it. It details the social experiment step by step to the point of Bill Birnes and his crack squad of UFO hunters getting involved. It also shows how pilots can get burned by seeing what they want to see. But because Morristown was a solid object(s) in the sky - it got filmed and made the news. But the doc just proves what we already know - people see what they want to see and that eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of testimony to be believed.

 

[Randall]

I haven't seen every last single UFO video - but any video that looks even quasi legit - I have probably seen.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. With tens of thousands or more, it would be easy for a few legit ones to slip through the cracks. So unless they've actually all been viewed and analyzed, there's no way to make that claim with any level of certainty.

The other point to remember is; if something is truly in the sky (whether a hoax or real craft) and it is filmed - the news will be all over it (like the Phoenix Flares and The Great Morristown UFO Hoax). I can't think of a scenario where something truly extraordinary happened in the sky - but somehow the only place it was ever shown is on a bogus YouTube channel like thirdphaseofmoon. It's like "Ok, so you have this amazing, structured craft, UFO video shot during the daytime. But only YOU have it? Not one news channel has picked this up? And on top of that - you want to remain anonymous?" Give me a break.

The mainstream news needs something relatively incontrovertible. Just because they don't have it doesn't mean there aren't legit videos out there someplace. But I totally agree with you on the whole anonymous submission thing. We know the vast majority are fake. The thing we don't know for certain is whether or not they're all fake. I doubt they all are fake. Someplace on an earlier thread I posted a video somebody made of some lights off in the distance, one of which behaved very out of the ordinary. It wasn't spectacular but it seemed legit to me. So I think it does happen.

Now if you want to start moving the goalposts from legit photos or footage to crystal clear HD scientifically obtained and verified images, that's another story. It is claimed that such footage exists. But that's about all we know. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that it does exist. Perhaps the reason they don't show it to us is because it's so good nobody would believe it and the military doesn't want to give the impression that they've gone over the edge with UFO nonsense because the nation will lose faith in them. On the other hand if people do believe them then they've got a whole other problem. So it's better not to say anything.

I encourage anyone that has not watched the mini documentary about the Morristown UFO Hoax to watch it. It details the social experiment step by step to the point of Bill Birnes and his crack squad of UFO hunters getting involved. It also shows how pilots can get burned by seeing what they want to see. But because Morristown was a solid object(s) in the sky - it got filmed and made the news. But the doc just proves what we already know - people see what they want to see and that eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of testimony to be believed.

I would respectfully have to disagree with your assessment of eye witness evidence. Hoaxes are situations deliberately setup with the express intent of fooling people. We can setup any number of similar experiments to fool machines as well, and visually, human recognition still surpasses all but the most sophisticated machines. Machines also break down, have artifacts, and produce plenty of errors, so it's not like they can be held as objects of perfection, or for that matter even any better than humans except in certain specific ways. In an overall general sense humans are still the most intelligent thing on the planet. When there's a detection of an anomalous object what do we do? We send humans to check it out. Why? Because human confirmation is still the most reliable form of evidence we've got going for us.

So let's forget the idea that humans are such incompetent nincompoops that they haven't got any clue about what they experience. While it's true that error is involved, there is a margin of error in everything. But that doesn't mean everything is so much in error all the time that nobody can say with reasonable certainty that what they experienced was something extraordinary and real, even if they got the exact time or the number of windows on it, or the precise shade of orange, or other minor but inconsequential details not quite right.

Lastly, let's not forget that there are levels of interpretation too. It's not as if everyone buys into every UFO story out there. They don't. But skeptics will leverage examples like yours in a way that suggests anyone who believes in UFOs is a gullible uninformed dimwit ( like most Trump voters ). Wait a minute, Trump did get elected so maybe there's a point there after all ( sorry but I couldn't resist ) .