'Logic explains most UFO sightings'

Have a read of the following article released today. In my opinion if this academic is savvy to say the fact that the majority of sightings can be explained........ that 2 percent that can't be explained is all i'm interested in, that minority of cases is all we need to see if there is anything.

But how do we get the truth of these unexplained sightings without others hiding it, (If indeed there is anything to hide). I really want to know what everybody thinks............

Dr Stephen Hughes


[edit on 8-2-2006 by sanctum]

Wheres the article? I would like to see it.

Frankly I belive that ALL of them are explanable, it's just that the 2% are the ones that the Government will not explain for fear of exposing Black projects.

Take the TR3B the "supposed" antigrav triangle. I believe it's not Anti-grav but an Exotic Aerostat(blimp) that uses advanced Composites and a Vacuum lift system to achieve lift.

It is probably a lot higher than 2% ,the problem is ,those in authority wish to keep all of the 100% of info in secret. Suppose you saw a sighting of an object in a field near you, you call the police, they make aware the situation to the airforce, the police turn up and get everyone out of the way then the officials turn up and get the police out of the way, expensive equipment is brought in to remove what has been found, all the public that were aware of the event are interviewed and confiscate cameras ,mobile phones,recording devices, a put down story appears in the press then that is the end of the matter, until another sighting occurs then it all starts over again. There are a lot of cranks around but also a lot of genuine people that have witnessed and experienced ufo,s.If they could explain that 2% away they would, they say ,we don,t want the public alarmed, what they really mean is this new technology is for OUR use only, and so the official secrets acts fall into place (national security), and that is the system.

Here is the article.

www.theadvertiser.news.com.au...

Queensland University of Technology academic Stephen Hughes said today most UFO phenomena could be explained with logic after a string of sightings across Queensland in the past week.

Where has this " academic " been for the last 65 years when we needed him?

Dr Hughes, from the university's School of Physical and Chemical Sciences, said one sighting near Mackay was actually Venus burning brightly while another in Brisbane was simply aircraft vapour trails.

Thanks Doc, UFO problem solved!



[edit on 8-2-2006 by lost_shaman]

Sorry i forgot to paste the URL

Thanks Shaman

Dr Hughes, from the university's School of Physical and Chemical Sciences, said one sighting near Mackay was actually Venus burning brightly while another in Brisbane was simply aircraft vapour trails.

From The X-Files Episode "Jose Chung's From Outer Space":

Man in Black: Even the former leader of your United States of America, James Earl Carter Jr., thought he saw a UFO once, but it's been proven he only saw the planet Venus. Venus was at its peak brilliance last night. You probably thought you saw something up in the sky other than Venus, but I assure you, it was Venus. Your scientists have yet to discover how neural networks create self-consciousness, let alone how the human brain processes two-dimensional retinal images into the three-dimensional phenomenon known as perception. Yet you somehow brazenly declare seeing is believing? Mr. Crikenson, your scientific illiteracy makes me shudder, and I wouldn't flaunt your ignorance by telling anyone that you saw anything last night other than the planet Venus, because if you do, you're a dead man.

No problem October.

Welcome to ATS.

So what do you think about this "academic" ?

I think this is just a feel good article. The thing that bothered me most about it were the "Psychological" aspects Dr. Hughes alluded to.

"But there's always going to be in some cases a psychological component similar to when people see ghosts, where the human brain can actually generate things and people do see things that aren't there."

This is something I haven't heard anything about.

Its my understanding that the majority of the population do not hallucinate and that UFOs can not be adequately explained in this manner.

The article also erk's me when it paints the entire Idea of UFOs as being ludicrous by associating the UFO phenomena to some of the more hard to swallow abduction phenomena.

Abduction phenomena that gained Susan Clancy so much Fame last year when her work was conducted based on the assumption that all abduction stories are false memories or Sleep Paralysis.

Yeah Shaman these articles do bother me a fair bit. The thing i find really strange from having a great interest in Ufology for some time is that I haven't found one highly resourceful website out there. If it wasn't for the Abovetopsecret guys I think we would all be lost wandering about on our own in cyberspace banging into brick walls and blind alleys to try and find quality information that is out there but we don't know how to get it. Of course some websites provide case studies for "Famous" sightings like Roswell but wouldn't it be fanastic to distill all the information that gets posted on this website and filter out the crap and concentrate on what we can really get our teeth into. I recently wanted to found out what happened to the Mexican Air Force footage incident and had to investigate a number of sites to find the latest news (The objects are oil rigs??) The incredible popularity if the site is testiment to how much people are looking for something out there and long may it last, lets just make it clearer.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by October]

I also stumbled upon ATS looking up alien/UFO info on the net. There is wayyyyy to much garbage on the net. ATS if full of really smart people who truely want to educate, rather than misinform.

October, have you read any of Gazrok's compilations on Roswell, or any of the others? Its the best collection of information I have found to date.

Gazrok Roks

It is most regrettable that a supposedly 'space expert', a highly paid professional with resources such as Queensland University of Technology, would make such a claim by mouth "today most UFO phenomena could be explained with logic", and not back up his statements with presentations, even photos or videos if a full presentation is not possible, to back up his claims. He had even used the dubious word 'most', which unfortunately lead others to ASSUME all, and not even referring to any specific ones.

This is a sad case and evidence once again of professionals who misused their professional credentials to lay claim on a subject of which they do not admit that they had not study in depth, thus can be view as a deliberate attempt to mislead the general population on the aerial phenomena millions had witnessed over the years known as UFOs which cannot be easily explained away by passerby 'academica'.

[edit on 8-2-2006 by SeekerofTruth101]

LOL.

Wel, personally, I think this guy is an idiot...and since I'm Aussie, I'm allowed to say that

I have seen three "logical explanations", the first one also being seen by someone else at a different location and the second one being seen by another person standing by me.

Let him logically explain these:

1) Way way in the sky (no idea of distance, however they would have been the size of a bright star), a number of objects (4 or 5 - can't remember the number) coming from different directions all meet up at a single point. Approximately 5 seconds later they all go off in different directions. This was corroborated by another person living in the same town, some thirty years later when he explained an "event" he saw while looking up at the sky.

2) A bright orange glowing thing zoomed across the sky in about 10 seconds (prob less time) - very very high it was too. No vapour trail, no smoke or anything like that (as meteors do). Not blinking. WAY TOO FAST for a jet. Not a satellite as I used to watch these all the time laying on the roof of our house when I was a lad. This was corroborated by a person standing next to me.

3) Out of nowhere a orange "orb" appeared, moved side to side three of four times (small movements) then took off at a very extreme velocity away from me. Was about 200m from the ground and prob. 800m away from me (these distances are very approx. too).

I'd like to see these logically explaind!

Cheers

JS

it is obvious that the UFO sightings are genitically improved embyos of the zygamorphic bytrolemew frodgimist and therfore we cannot explain such a mystery as it contains metatrollamic motodromes of your nerdy brains muahahahahahahaha

I love that evil laugh!

There are some freakin nerds on here huh?

Remember, nerds run the world...or at least the internet.

The 2% unexplained is probably being generous. < 1% is more like it.

However -- unexplained does not mean it automatically is a spacecraft. It may still have a perfectly mundane and ordinary cause, we just do not know what it is.

When you sift through all the whacky conspiracy theories, opportunists looking for a quick buck, or publicity hounds, there really is only a small handful of events in history that truly are not explainable and all known ordinary causes have been eliminated.

dave_54,

How do you figure that less than 1% of UFO reports are unexplained?

Blue Book left 21% of the total cases collected listed as "Unknown".

The Condon Report that effectively ended the Blue Book investigation left 30% of its cases listed as " Unknown".

Although project Blue Book and the Condon Report had cases listed as Unknown - remember that it is possible that they're unknown because there's crucial information missing.

If all politicians are crooks, does that mean all crooks are politicians?

So less than 1% may be unexplainable, because we have all the information we can possibly have, and it still doesn't add up. Another 20% may be unexplainable, but without more information to prove it as unexplainable, we can not say it's unexplainable, and have to list it as unknown - or it may be explainable, but we still can't prove it, and so it also goes into "unknown".

So yeah, I agree, MOST Ufo cases can be explained through logic and decuction and reasoning and research - but yes, there ARE cases which are truely unexplainable. These cases are what I search for, but unfortunately I haven't found any yet. Lots of explainables, and lots of unknowns (not enough information to "prove" that it's unexplainable - the purple cloud UFO case is my favourite on that... since it's so close to all the information we could possibly get... but just out of reach between UFO, government project, and celestial phenomena), but not one unexplainable.

Originally posted by Yarium
Although project Blue Book and the Condon Report had cases listed as Unknown - remember that it is possible that they're unknown because there's crucial information missing.

Actually this is not true.

All Blue Book cases listed as "unknown" are separate from those with insuficeint information.

Its also note worthy that Half the people working on the Condon Report resigned when it became obvious to them that the conclusion of the Study had been predetermined.

Here is a memo from Dr. Robert low written 3 months before the Condon Committee began its investigation.

Memo to University officials from Dr. Low August 9, 1966

Our study would be conducted almost exclusively by nonbelievers who, although they couldn't possibly prove a negative result could, and probably would, add an impressive body of evidence that there is no reality to the observations. The trick would be, I think, to describe the project so that, to the public, it would appear a totally objective study but to the scientific community would present the image of a group of nonbelievers trying their best to be objective, but having almost zero expectation of finding a saucer. One way to do this would be to stress investigation, not of physical phenomena, but rather of the people who do the observing - the psychology and sociology of persons and groups who report seeing UFOs. If the emphasis were put here, rather than on examination of the old question of the physical reality of the saucer, I think the scientific community would quickly get the message... I'm inclined to feel at this early stage that, if we set up the thing right and take pains to get proper people involved and have success in presenting the image we want to present to the scientific community, we could carry the job off to our benefit.

www.cufon.org...

[edit on 8-2-2006 by lost_shaman]

Interesting, I was not aware of that.

You might also want to figure the 1969 Colorado University study into the mix because that was the least biased of the reports. Bruce Maccabee participated in that one. He was the first person to state that the Trent photos could not have been models.

The Condon Report , Condon Committee and 1969 Colorado University study are all one and the same.

Just thought I'd clarify that.