Forum:UFOs- true or false?

< Index | General discussion

I have always been fascinated by aliens. Or, more accurately the woo surrounding them. I don't believe in this crap, but it's nice to laugh about. Please tell me when you find a new wellspring of alien bullshit so we can all bust a gut. Also it would be nice to talk about the plausibility of them. : )

--At (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

As a former ufologist, I'd like to contribute to this discussion by saying: you are annoying. Cool your jets. The saloon bar is open. Read it and a get a feel for the place. Sophie^Wilder 00:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

sorry if I offended you, but some of the stuff surrounding UFOs is quite funny. I just put the thread here because I am new to rationalwiki and I didn't know where to put it. I will try to Be less annoying. Also, for the record. I believe in aliens. Just not aliens visiting earth.

--At (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No personal offence taken, and I agree with you about aliens. To be honest I walked away from ufology twenty years ago when it stopped hoping to become a field of science and got taken over by conspiracy theorists. I could bore you with my pet theory if you like. Sophie^Wilder 11:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I am relieved to hear you are not offended. Y'know, UFOlogy could mean just the study of unidentified flying objects, with or without aliens, rather like anomalistics. I would like to hear your theory very much. --At (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It could be, and it once was. OK, pet theory, feel free to tear holes as I haven't thought it through terribly well: there's tiny number of UFO cases that are "real": i.e. not hoaxes mistaken identity etc. I believe these are some kind of unknown natural phenomenon, possibly of a (partly) electrical nature, and capable of leaving ring-shaped marks on the ground, stopping cars and making people "see" aliens (descriptions of which often suggest a psychological origin). Fire away with counter arguments or better ideas. Sophie^Wilder 18:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It is possible that electromagnetic radiation in the atmosphere (think northern lights) is possible for a finite amount of UFO sightings. Perhaps a small catalyst causes a chain reaction that makes UFO type lights. I could test this theory by comparing UFO sighting to what we know about EMR in the atmosphere to look like and see if the two match, then finding out if it could happen where the UFO was sighted, and what could cause it. As for the rings in the ground, I don't see how electricity could cause them without leaving burn marks. I think That when people 'see' aliens, the underlying cause is either a) they are high b)they are drunk or c) it is an escape mechanism for some problem they are having, like too much stress. I think that is why abdutions follow dream-logic. Because they are basically dreams. It is also possible that UFOs are misidentified weather ballons or helicopters or the like. --At (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

c) is most likely, ufologists tend to dismiss witnesses who were drunk or high, for obvious reasons. c) is more interesting; one survey I read of found that UFO witnesses tended to have a higher than usual rate of job dissatisfaction - their job was too easy or too difficult. However it'd be a bad move to place too much weight on a single survey of people who rarely come forward about their experiences. You're right about the dream-logic of abduction reports. there's a well-known case of a woman who claimed a UFO sucked her out of her car in front of her passengers. abductionologists make much of this ("an abduction with witnesees!"), conveniently ignoring what her fellow passengers saw - an unknown object hovering in front of the car while the woman went into a trance. Sophie^Wilder 19:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The electrical theory of some UFO sightings (plasma balls etc) was discussed in the books of the skeptic Philip J. Klass. This book Electric Ufos is also very good, he discovered that many sightings of UFOs occured around areas with high electricity or around phones, pylons, radar, etc. Also a rare book linking UFOs to ball lightning found here which has been on my reading list for a long time. Forests (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ball lightning is a very rare phenomenon, so it could only account for a small amount of UFO sightings, but other atmospheric events that are better documented and more frequent like Saint Elmo's fire or perhaps a meteor could be responsible for sightings. It is an interesting idea that some sightings are cause by ball lightning or mislabeled atmospheric phenomena. --At (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly a nice idea, but I'm wary of "explaining" one unknown by invoking another. Sophie^Wilder 23:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Although We could compare known characteristics of ball lightning and UFO sightings and see if they match. But correlation does not equal causation, so the test may be a tiny bit pointless. --At (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Space is big. It's really really big. It's ridiculously big, in fact. So while yes, because of the bigness of space it's pretty likely that there is at least some other life out there, due to the law of large numbers. But the thing is, many ufologists make assumptions about the nature of that life that really aren't always true.

• We have no reason to believe that the life near us would be at a technological level that is able to receive our signals, or that their technology would understand our signals.As we get father and father away from earth, it is less likely we will encounter alien species, because of the inverse square law regarding our signals and our means of looking (telescopes, probes)

• We have no reason to believe that the life near us has figured out space travel, such that they would be able to travel to earth at all.

• We have no reason to believe that even if they did, their vessel would survive the trip or that they would survive the trip, whether it would be because our planet would harm them or because they can make attempts and fail just like we can.

• We have no reason to believe that, within the laws of physics, they are in a form that would be able to communicate with us; evolution on another planet could favor a totally different configuration.

• We have no reason to believe that they even want to talk to us at all.

So yeah, while I personally believe that life probably does exist out there, I don't feel comfortable even beginning to get into 'ball lightning' or mysterious levitating cars until we can knock off these critical assumptions. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 14:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

it'd be a major step just to stop the main debate being "which Air Force base are they keeping the bodies in?" Sophie^Wilder 16:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

why would the army keep a live alien a secret? And would a government give a UFO to the army instead of scientists or engineers or somebody who could figure out how it works?--At (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

There are UFOs. They are not aliens, space Nazis, aliens working with Hitler, or anything else the History channel says. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 16:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

sarcasm at it's finest. I hope. --At (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Pulled from the talk page for this thread

Not a single commenter in.. UFOs true of false, believes in et, or UFOs. This is not surprising considering that hey have not been presented with clear evidence. However, if you open the Billy Meier website you will note that Billy has had open contact with et for over 70years. Before you scream fraud, note that Billy has published planetary data given him by et sometimes years ahead of nasa's discoveries; had dozens of investigators over decades trying to debunk him; has over 1000 close-up color-film photos, 100 of them have been analysed by JPL in CA; had metal fragments analysed by top many of us, has 12,500 years advance in tech and medicine, live to age 900, live 500 light years distant on Planet Erra, Sun Taygeta, and get here in either 7 hours or milli-seconds depending on the ship used. ^{— Unsigned, by: ‎ThomasT / talk / contribs}

Moving this into the actual thread, not the talk for the thread. You expect us to believe that a government who can't even decide on a budget is somehow going to keep a discovery of this magnitude a secret? And that NASA and JPL somehow could keep this a secret when they can't even be trusted to use the right measurement standard for a Mars mission? I'd like to see some of this proof, and I'd like to see some peer review vetting it. Lots of people can talk shit, but science is pretty good about determining fakes, over time. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 12:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes they do exist and some of you have seen them

I once horrified a sceptics' meeting by pointing out that most people there genuinely had seen UFOs. They are by their nature unidentified... as soon as you say something is definitely a spaceship, with aliens on board then you've identified it, and it is no longer a UFO.

The definition of UFO is subjective and not really scientific, yet people see them all the time, including people on RationalWiki. Do pilots and astronauts see them regularly? You betcha.

I once saw a bizarre light in the sky, and as soon as I mentioned it someone said I'd seen a flying saucer. I hadn't and never said I had. I just saw a light behaving very strangely. No idea what the hell it was.

So most people have seen UFOs (excluding liars). Most are common phenomena, balloons, birds or aircraft misindentified. Some are less common phenomena eg plasma/ball lightning, secret aircraft, meteors etc. And some are genuinely weird. Amongst Ufologists themselves the ETH is going out of fashion. A UFO and a supposed alien spacecraft are NOT one and the same despite attempts by both sides to conflate the two. Let's not forget U stands for unidentified.-Albannach (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2013 (UT

Here's my take on the matter.

1. By common usage, the term "UFO" has connotations that the term "unidentified flying object" (of which it was originally an initialism) doesn't.
2. I have seen unidentified flying objects (i.e. things in the sky that I don't know what they are), but not UFOs as the term is commonly used.

Hydrogen and Time (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with both your points, but no 1 is an irritating trend. What should we use? UAP? Some former UAP are worth investigation, eg ball lightning, sprite lightning etc. Both of these were reported regularly before scientists recognised them as genuine things. Ball lightning is not a concept most laypeople know or understand. Some of Sophie Wilder's comments above are interesting too.-Albannach (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, most people have seen unidentified objects in their lifetime, it's true. I'm not sure how this adds to the credibility of Ufology (i.e. looking for evidence of alien spacecraft.) - Leuders (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily Leuders, the extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) is falling out of fashion on Ufology right now, but the mass media loves it. Even within the wilder end of Ufology, one finds figures like John Keel (him of mothman fame), who didn't think "aliens" or UFOs were extraterrestrial. And of course, some consider them demonic or psychic projections.

Having said that, it wouldn't be a massive shock to me if convincing evidence was found of past visits in the remote past. If a ship landed in the pre-Cambrian period, it wouldn't leave much trace geological or otherwise though.-Albannach (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've seen unidentified objects myself. I saw a vague shape in a tree the other night. It was too much effort to build a case for it being a time traveler, a demonic entity, a psychic projection, a space alien, or one of a race descended from pre-Cambrian midgets. So I just figured it was an owl. I guess that means I'm biased toward reality. - Leuders (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, Leuders it doesn't mean you're biased towards reality, you just used past experience to identify it (and it wasn't flying, and you did identify it so it's not a UFO in any way)... but then again it could have been a buzzard or an exotic bird escaped from the zoo, some kind of toy or balloon, a plastic bag, an odd branch, a hallucination or alternatively you made it all up! That owl could be a new species or some kind of mutant...

Saucer nuts and sceptics have the same essential problem, they think they know what they see without looking at it properly. One lot immediately assumes it's something bizarre, the other lot wouldn't notice anything was unusual unless it came within three inches of their noses. Neither lot's completely right... There are odd things out there which are scientifically recognized but you could miss them.... maybe even that owl. Conversely, the idea of seeing paranormal everywhere is a mistake.

My own "sighting" still puzzles me... the best fit would be an aeroplane, but it didn't appear to move like one, I saw no wing lights and heard no sound off it... so not necessarily so. I saw nothing to suggest it was a space ship or an angel either. I recorded the details at the time too. All I can be certain of was that it was not an animal and appeared to move Very strangely, which drew my attention to it. I suspect that it was artificial, hence the plane explanation, but then again the area was marshy so that's not definite. If I get back to that area, I might get to the bottom of it.-Albannach (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry but I can' resist a sarcastic reference to "Scooby Doo". Is it possible you saw a helicopter? --At (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Unlikely, but possible. Currently I'm leaning towards an aeroplane, but with something else causing a strange optical bobbing effect. Definitely not a Chinese lantern or meteor - seen plenty of them. And definitely not a flying saucer!!!-Albannach (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You know Albannach, it's true! The dark shape I saw in the tree could have been a buzzard, or an exotic bird escaped from the zoo, some kind of toy or balloon, a plastic bag, an odd branch, a hallucination, or a new species of owl. But I still don't understand how that adds to the credibility of Ufology (i.e. looking for evidence of alien spacecraft.) - Leuders (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah, some Ufologists spend most of their career debunking incidents. Some UFO incident are obvious bunkum, but those from trained pilots are of much more interest. I find it particularly interesting some cause electrical and compass problems - it suggests something to do with the Earth's field to me. But I even find the BS ones interesting from a cultural angle.-Albannach (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Ghost Hunters debunk stuff, too, but that doesn't make them credible. Entertaining, yes. I recommend Shockingly Close To The Truth! by James Mosely. Fun reading. (PS: I was once swayed by the UFO reports of "trained pilots/observers" too, until I found out that aviation professionals are extremely capable of making dumb mistakes. Lots of them. Ditto for the military. And police.) - Leuders (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb for conspiracy theorists is to never attribute something to malice (or aliens) when stupidity can easily explain it. I forget what that rule is called.--At (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hanlon's razor. [1].--Krej^talk 03:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Then again, what if the aliens are cleverly disguising their space ships as conventional aircraft? That private jet you see streaking across the night sky could be grey aliens off on a mission to abduct Whitley Streiber. - Leuders (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I am feeling Poe's law in full effect right now.

--At (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)