The most convincing case of an Identified Alien Craft (IAC) is?

[Derek Wood]

The most convincing case of an Identified Alien Craft (IAC) is? [Note I am not referring to UFOs here]

So lets have it. What data forms the most convincing evidence for an IAC? Eg Radar evidence from confirmed sources, multiple and independent video sources?

What are peoples thoughts in this issue? Seems to much of the debate centers on ambiguous, disputed or anecdotal evidence.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

 

[dyingsun]

Hm, good question. I'm personally fairly certain that the Mcminnville ufo pictures weren't hoaxed or tempered with.These days it becomes increasingly hard to tell fraud from being the real thing. By now, it would literally take a Ufo landing on my front lawn to fully persuade me we (as humans) don't just conjure these 'things' up in/with our minds.It is still, well, even more so, interesting to me.

 

[Burnt State]

Here's a different take on the McMinnville photos: The Bragalia Files: MAKE-BELIEVE IN MCMINNVILLE: FAMOUS 1950 UFO PHOTOS FAKED?

I don't think there are any photo based cases that hold much by way of certainty, or that have not been eviscerated by modern critics and cynics - look at how the Belgian triangle photo was the bees knees until the hoaxer came out of the closet.

I'd also like to know what in fact are the "hard core cases" as Jerome Clark calls them. Aside from the classic RB-47 I'm not sure what other cases are no longer 'tainted.'

 

[manxman]

the most convincing one ive seen debated, was into the teeth of the jref sewer rats, ramjet put up such precise data, and destroyed their finest gobshytes, i think it was white sands missile tests, and all the equipment and experts were on-site recording all data, not only could the size of the craft be established to within inches, speed, height, everything could be accurately assessed thru triangulation, radar and film, everything recorded was by the airforce's finest.

 

[Derek Wood]

Manxman can you go into more detail? We need to move away from video based evidence and into date driven "peer corroborated" situations. I think radar technology is far and away the best chance of illustrating the point. Video evidence is now simply too unreliable owing to the ease in which false positives can be authentically created.

 

[Derek Wood]

Burnt State. Good point. One thing I've noticed is that UFO photos are nearly always consistent with that generations expectation of advanced technology. A generation later he pictures look cliched and primitive. That's precisely the impression I get from the McMinnville photos. They looked the part in the 50s but from our standpoint they have all the design eloquence of a world war 1 submarine.

 

[manxman]

It was a bluebook case i think m8, i just dip my toes every now and then into this subject to be honest, but its been 30 yrs of toe dipping, the discussions ive read that were not overly tainted by bias are as rare as hens teeth, that said i read rammies stuff everyday for 18 months, i have never seen anyone present an arguement aswell as him, ever.

i will take a look for the case now, keywords in my search will be theodolite radar film ufo.

 

[nameless]

Burnt State. Good point. One thing I've noticed is that UFO photos are nearly always consistent with that generations expectation of advanced technology. A generation later he pictures look cliched and primitive. That's precisely the impression I get from the McMinnville photos. They looked the part in the 50s but from our standpoint they have all the design eloquence of a world war 1 submarine.

exactly. Its the same with eye witness cases or abductee experiences, its always within the realms of their imagination, pretty pedestrian and often cliché. Thats not to say that an event didn't actually happen though.

I think thats why the billy meier photos are so laughable. They are so 70s.

 

[Soupie]

I was actually going to suggest this as a paracast show topic. What are the most convincing top 10 cases?

However, you're not going to find any "IAC" because there aren't any that are "public" knowledge. (And there may not be any that are non-public knowledge, but of course we can't know either way.)

Leslie Keans well-written book provides, IMO, a good overview of what may indeed be the best cases. The evidence? Unfortunately the best evidence is "simply" testimony from aviation professionals, military personnel, multiple witness accounts, and radar data.

There is no slam dunk evidence.

This could mean: 1) it's all in our heads, 2) the UFOs purposefully avoid leaving evidence, or 3) the military or private orgs have evidence they have been able to hide.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Think for hidden technology cases ; Bentwaters, Roswell and the Japanese airline pilot sighting over Alaska (which the pyramids case might have a connection) ?For strange awareness no 1 is Warickshire , UK which Mr Nick Redfern has covered in his first book and high amount of eye witness.

 

[Randall]

The most convincing case of an Identified Alien Craft (IAC) is? [Note I am not referring to UFOs here]

So lets have it. What data forms the most convincing evidence for an IAC? Eg Radar evidence from confirmed sources, multiple and independent video sources?

What are peoples thoughts in this issue? Seems to much of the debate centers on ambiguous, disputed or anecdotal evidence.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

The word UFO is used to convey the idea of an alien craft ( a craft originating from beyond the boundaries and constructs of our civilization, but not necessarily ET ), so from a ufology perspective, you seem to be talking about UFOs, but using another acronym ( IAC ). Although maybe you mean something else by the word "alien". You'll have to forgive me, but I have to get a proper grip on what you mean by "IAC" before I can provide a suitable answer for your question.

 

[Derek Wood]

The word UFO is used to convey the idea of an alien craft ( a craft originating from beyond the boundaries and constructs of our civilization, but not necessarily ET ), so from a ufology perspective, you seem to be talking about UFOs, but using another acronym ( IAC ). Although maybe you mean something else by the word "alien". You'll have to forgive me, but I have to get a proper grip on what you mean by "IAC" before I can provide a suitable answer for your question.

Hi ufology, as you say, UFO could mean quite anything. Meteorological, biological. Extraordinary or mundane. A UFO could be a balloon or bird in the sky, or something not from earth.

My use of IAC is something where we can reliably discount the regular and mundane, and look at a case or case that has a attributes which separate it from the norm and which we can proceed to depart from UFO nomenclature to different tier of description.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

 

[Randall]

Hi ufology, as you say, UFO could mean quite anything. Meteorological, biological. Extraordinary or mundane. A UFO could be a balloon or bird in the sky, or something not from earth.

My use of IAC is something where we can reliably discount the regular and mundane, and look at a case or case that has a attributes which separate it from the norm and which we can proceed to depart from UFO nomenclature to different tier of description.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

Actually, I don't actually say that a UFO could mean, "quite anything". That is a common ( and unfortunate ) misperception, and the truth is quite the opposite. The official definitions for the word UFO by the USAF, particularly AFR 200-2, February 05, 1958, was designed to filter out virtually everything mundane from the flow of incoming reports. Additionally, most dictionaries define the meaning of the word UFO ( not to be confused with its word origin as simply a literal interpretation of the words that make up the acronym ) as some sort of an alien craft, usually a flying saucer, often assumed to be of extraterrestrial origin.

Additionally the vast amount of common usage in popular culture also describes or depicts some kind of alien craft. These facts form overwhelming independent evidence ( not merely my opinion ) that the word UFO is meant to convey the idea of a craft of alien origin. This seems to be similar to or along the lines of your use of IAC. I respect the efforts of those who have wrestled with the frustrating misperceptions around the word UFO, and I've even posed some alternatives myself, but like every other attempt out there that I've seen, they never caught on, and ultimately refining the existing definition turned out to make the most sense.

For a complete explanation, I urge you to review the two articles on the USI website in my signature line below. In them you will find the word history and usage traced back to the actual USAF personal responsible for creating the term, and key points in the evolution of the official USAF definition, along with the definition we endorse at USI. By adopting it yourself, you will find that it will serve you extremely well, particularly in debates with skeptics who try to capitalize on people's lack of familiarity with this aspect of ufology history ( it's amazing what a few well placed historical facts can do ) .

There has been a lot of discussion on this in the forum, but ultimately, only those too invested in maintaining the myth that the word UFO is should be interpreted literally as the words that form the acronym ( unidentified flying object ) refuse to recognize the historical evidence. Please feel free to discuss this further if you have any questions or comments. Oh yes, BTW, I think the best evidence we have on public record is the 1952 Washington DC flap, followed by some other multiple witness accounts. However I'm sure that there is other evidence that the military has that is much better than anything in the public domain.

 

[trainedobserver]

The most convincing case of an Identified Alien Craft (IAC) is?

That is a tough question. As far as I know, no one has positively identified anything as being of alien manufacture. There are only unidentified objects of unknown origin.

I am most convinced by personal testimony of people I know. These accounts of bizarre Unidentifiable (to us at least) Flying Objects told to me personally, are the ones that make me take the subject seriously. What they are, who flies them, and what they want are all undetermined as far as I can tell. I heard another account last night that made me ask in a dumbfounded refrain, "What could that possibly be?" The answer that keeps popping up in my brain was, "It's not us. Just couldn't be." Is that the right answer? I really don't know.

One of the more convincing cases to me is the sighting of the large cigar shaped object by David Biedny, which was corroborated by a newspaper article from the time. Is there any way in hell that could be manufactured on the Earth without someone knowing it? Seems impossible.

 

[PCarr]

The most convincing case of an Identified Alien Craft (IAC) is? [Note I am not referring to UFOs here]

So lets have it. What data forms the most convincing evidence for an IAC? Eg Radar evidence from confirmed sources, multiple and independent video sources?

What are peoples thoughts in this issue? Seems to much of the debate centers on ambiguous, disputed or anecdotal evidence.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure it's even possible to have this discussion, since know one has any idea what an alien spacecraft would be, what it would look like, or how we monkeys would perceive it. Please, convince me that's wrong...

Dream of the Open Channel: The so-called Extraterrestrial Hypothesis

 

[Derek Wood]

It's rather doable. Many claims vent forcibly the notion that these phenomena can perform for example, behaviour that defies current technological and biologic capability. Which of these cases is based on evidence. Meaningful evidence from which to test and discount a range of more mundane possibilities.

 

[Randall]

I'm not sure it's even possible to have this discussion, since know one has any idea what an alien spacecraft would be, what it would look like, or how we monkeys would perceive it. Please, convince me that's wrong...
Dream of the Open Channel: The so-called Extraterrestrial Hypothesis

It's certainly possible to have this discussion. I'll respond by saying that the assumptions made in the linked article are self serving. Specifically, the claim that, "aliens are very likely queerer than we can imagine", is an opinion based on a narrow and preferred set of hypothetical circumstances that support a predetermined conclusion. The reality however, is that given the vastness of the cosmos, there is also a probability ( some would say a very high probability )that there are other planets nearly identical to Earth with creatures nearly identical to us. Personally, I have no problem with that, and we ourselves are at least living proof that such life is possible.

Then extrapolating from the starting point of the reality of human life, it's a very long descent toward something "queerer than we can imagine". Consequently, claiming that that, "an alien spacecraft could be anything, and we would very likely not be able to perceive or describe it completely or accurately" is therefore equally self serving logic. Just the claim itself is faulty logic. An alien spacecraft cannot "be anything" but an alien spacecraft. For example it cannot be a tin of soup or a bag of marshmallows.

It's also faulty logic to assume that ( to paraphrase ), "no one has any idea what an alien spacecraft would be or what it would look like." There are many thousands of reports that describe UFOs in a range of shapes and sizes. How we know with reasonable certainty that some of the objects are UFOs ( alien craft ) and not something else is by the process of deductive reasoning, a perfectly rational method of analysis based on observation and comparison.

Despite our weaknesses, humans are actually very good at recognizing patterns, not only in shapes and sizes, but in movements and behavior. It's not difficult for normal, intelligent, reasonably well informed people to observe something and quickly narrow down the possibilities for what it might be to a particular class of things, and then do a little more research to determine how reasonable it is to assume that it belongs to some sub-class of such things.

When we apply the above method to UFO reports, we inevitably find observations of objects that fit the class of objects we call "craft" and do not correspond to anything natural or any construct that is part of our civilization. Consequently what we're left with is something that by definition is alien to us ( originating from outside our native environment ). So when we recognize that something is alien, it's not recognized by what it is, but by what it's not.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I'm not sure it's even possible to have this discussion, since know one has any idea what an alien spacecraft would be, what it would look like, or how we monkeys would perceive it. Please, convince me that's wrong...

Dream of the Open Channel: The so-called Extraterrestrial Hypothesis

I agree with you because I understand where you are coming from. Human beings have this stuff called "The Imagination". We have been labeling UFOs, just as Ufology is doing in the post above, throughout recorded history according to this virtually unlimited capacity that we possess. Our imaginations are constantly attuned to a contextual relevancy which affords our interpretations their meaning.

UFOs are a trillion times more fascinating than any science fiction rerun. I apologize, as I simply cannot in good conscience place UFOs is such a ridiculously tiny undeserving basket. The size of which might hold a thimble's worth of our imagination's capacity.

We can do better than that, and we will, in time.

 

[Soupie]

It's rather doable. Many claims vent forcibly the notion that these phenomena can perform for example, behaviour that defies current technological and biologic capability. Which of these cases is based on evidence. Meaningful evidence from which to test and discount a range of more mundane possibilities.

But how do we know what the "current technological and biologic" capabilities of mankind are? The answer is "we don't."

If you define "alien" as "any object originating from non-human technology so far as is public knowledge," then sure, we can point to some cases with multiple witnesses and radar traces that indicate just such an object.

The problem is, we - who only have access to public knowledge - can't say whether these objects are evidence of current human technology so far unknown to the public. They could also be craft from an unknown terrestrial intelligence/race. They could be human time travelers come back to look at the Earth when it still had trees and wildlife on it. They could be humans from another dimension coming to visit on holiday.

The point is, just because an object exhibits tech capabilities beyond what is publicly known to be within human limits, we - the non-elite - still can't say what it is. We can only say: "That's not any human tech we are aware of."

 

[PCarr]

It's certainly possible to have this discussion. I'll respond by saying that the assumptions made in the linked article are self serving. Specifically, the claim that, "aliens are very likely queerer than we can imagine", is an opinion based on a narrow and preferred set of hypothetical circumstances that support a predetermined conclusion. The reality however, is that given the vastness of the cosmos, there is also a probability ( some would say a very high probability )that there are other planets nearly identical to Earth with creatures nearly identical to us. Personally, I have no problem with that, and we ourselves are at least living proof that such life is possible.

Then extrapolating from the starting point of the reality of human life, it's a very long descent toward something "queerer than we can imagine". Consequently, claiming that that, "an alien spacecraft could be anything, and we would very likely not be able to perceive or describe it completely or accurately" is therefore equally self serving logic. Just the claim itself is faulty logic. An alien spacecraft cannot "be anything" but an alien spacecraft. For example it cannot be a tin of soup or a bag of marshmallows.

It's also faulty logic to assume that ( to paraphrase ), "no one has any idea what an alien spacecraft would be or what it would look like." There are many thousands of reports that describe UFOs in a range of shapes and sizes. How we know with reasonable certainty that some of the objects are UFOs ( alien craft ) and not something else is by the process of deductive reasoning, a perfectly rational method of analysis based on observation and comparison.

Despite our weaknesses, humans are actually very good at recognizing patterns, not only in shapes and sizes, but in movements and behavior. It's not difficult for normal, intelligent, reasonably well informed people to observe something and quickly narrow down the possibilities for what it might be to a particular class of things, and then do a little more research to determine how reasonable it is to assume that it belongs to some sub-class of such things.

When we apply the above method to UFO reports, we inevitably find observations of objects that fit the class of objects we call "craft" and do not correspond to anything natural or any construct that is part of our civilization. Consequently what we're left with is something that by definition is alien to us ( originating from outside our native environment ). So when we recognize that something is alien, it's not recognized by what it is, but by what it's not.

Humans are also very good at misperceiving patterns, and then remembering them wrong. This is extremely well documented. We make really lousy scientific instruments.

You accuse me of fallacy, but have not identified one. However, you argue that we can identify alien spacecraft because we have identified alien spacecraft!