Can all UFO's be explained away?

reply to post by Jonas86


I've been an avid ufo enthuisiast since 1992.

I think there would be alot of explaining to do, if we were to explain them away without all the evidence.

i'd have to ignore alot of things to support the notion that there is no truth behind any of supportive evidence to the contrary.

But, this is my opinion, i suppose,

reply to post by FireMoon


FireMoon.....

It's always nice to catch up with you

It sounds like we have some Googling to do!

If I can get some time later on today I'll have a look around.

I also note there was a recent thread in this forum about a Dr who researches this area.

Perhaps that's a good place to start.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

reply to post by Jonas86


I don't think all of them can be explained away, though certainly a good 90% can probably be. For instance I once saw a bright yellow orb beneath the cloud cover on a snowy day in December, I watched it fly across the sky for a few seconds before it disappeared, its the only time I've ever seen a UFO but I don't rule out the possibility of it being a meteor falling to Earth or something more terrestrial. My dad saw it with me and he doesn't believe in aliens but he was left scratching his head.

You see that's the thing about UFOs, they're just unidentified and not everyone pretends to know for certain that they are alien craft (just the pseudoscientists and BSers).

I also once saw, on a crystal clear night fishing by a lake, what appeared to be a very slow moving star UFO, it SEEMED to be going really slow but then it turned and got closer and I heard the sound of the engine and saw the second blinking light, it was a plane. So our minds can play tricks on us.

When you're dealing with something like human perception there is always room for error, so yes most UFOs can be explained away. I think, however, that there is enough mystery and enough events which cannot be explained away that the phenomenon warrants further study. Bad part is with all the nuttiness in the UFO community (new age stuff, Atlantis, reptilians, Nibiru, Billy Meier, etc) legit scientists are never going to take a second look at the phenomenon. And if legit science won't investigate it we're never going to get good hard evidence and figure out what the hell is in our skies.

As for Disclosure, I don't think the government knows much more than we do about UFOs (except for whichever UFOs are actually govt craft). That being said we won't know for certain what they know unless the documents are released which is why I support disclosure even if that disclosure shows us they are just as in the dark as we are.

It's easy to explain away 100% of all UFO reports if you make a few assumptions.

For one, you could assume that some earthly group or military has access to technology that is hundreds of years ahead of the rest of humanity. If we put no limit on what secret human technology is capable of, then there is no reason to think that we don't have disc-shaped and spherical craft that can travel several thousand miles per hour and stop on a dime, or even that we have had such technology since World War II, or that we have silent airships that are several football fields wide which we fly slowly and at low altitudes over populated areas for some reason. Even the seemingly intelligent balls of light could be dismissed as military technology if you're so inclined.

Another assumption you can make is that eyewitness testimony is 100% unreliable. This one is very simple and negates the need to invoke secret technology. If someone claims to have seen a hovering, maneuvering metallic object the apparent diameter of a dinner plate held at arm's length, this assertion can be dismissed immediately and with no further ado by simply saying, "No, this person didn't see that, and he couldn't have seen that. Things like that do not exist; therefore, things like that are not seen." The person may be lying, or he may honestly believe he saw what he said he saw but is mistaken. As no one person is any more reliable than any other under this assumption, it matters not whether the "witness" is a veteran pilot, a prominent businessman with a lot to lose, or a drunken frat boy. After all, human perception is fallible, and we're all human.

Photographs and videos can be easily dismissed by assuming that they are all faked. Even if multiple independent photographic experts agree that there is no evidence of fakery connected to a particular photograph, that does not mean that the photograph was not faked. It just means that photographic experts can't tell that it was faked.

Any kind of physical or ground trace evidence, no matter how compelling and anomalous, can also be dismissed as resulting from some secret human technology. Take the supposedly anomalous crop formations for example. There is apparently evidence that the crop is heated with some sort of radiation and bent over at the softened nodes a couple inches off the ground and swirled/braided into these elaborate patterns. Changes to soil chemistry are also reportely found. If we again assume that there is really no limit to the capabilities of secret human/military technology, there is no reason to think we don't have the technology to do this.

Radar evidence can also be considered meaningless for a couple reasons. The technology itself is imperfect and can give false returns. Also, it is operated and interpreted by human beings whose perceptions and judgements are flawed. All radar cases, including radar-visual cases, can be thrown out by assuming a (sometimes unique and coincidental) combination of technological glitches and human error.

reply to post by Jonas86


When a craft covered with a huge red light that is orbing in and out, moves low over a clump of trees and hovers there for 5 minutes, while it oscillates back and forth quickly so your entire family sees it, then slowly raises up to a much higher elevation to fly over the town, you know what you're looking at.

When a black triangle flies over the roof soundlessly, making a vibrational resonance, with no light covering it, you also know what you're looking at.

The trouble isn't that many people don't know what they're looking at. Its proving it to to others with or without pictures.

All I can say is skywatch and do some meditations and try to make some connections yourself. If you seek, you're probably going to have your own proof.

The only thing is, please meditate, look within your heart and connect to your Higher Self first and foremost and work at raising your frequency and sending love to the world, with desires for peace and an end to staration and inequality. Because there are negatives here, and we're only protected as we are striving to turn to our Higher Selves and seek to discover why we're here and wanting to make a difference.

Anything can be explained away. Doesn't mean that it's the truth or not. When you see one up fairly close for yourself, close enough that you can rule out conventional explanations, then you're faced with a conundrum. Good luck trying to prove that experience to others .

[edit on 24-4-2010 by Flux8]

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Maybe...maybe not

 

Re abductions. There was one case i read of I would love dearly to find it again. I was travelling around the USA when i came across it and haven;t been able to find anything about since.

it was some doctor who uses regression talking about one his patients. The basic story went the patient was convinced they were being abducted, but that some of their abductors looked very human and were working on cahoots with the *aliens*. The Doctor thought it was just total fantasy, until one day, the patient arrives and announces they have seen one of their human abductors from the experience. The Doc thinks, yeah right, but the patient is insistent and eventually the Doc agrees to accompany the patient to look for this person.

The person points this person out and says, that is them that's the person who is part of the group that abduct me. The doctor, checks out who the person is and it turns out to be a medical doctor, who works on some research project.

I'd love to know whether this tale was just moonshine or has some veracity to it. Most fascinating if it does have a basis in truth.

Of course it is always adviced to be suspicious about the validity of all this information, but what if the medical doctor was someone the abductee had seen and mixed him into this hallucination?

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I have one problem with alien abductions. Why did the aliens let them go?

I don't know what is the purpose of the abductions (I'm quite convinced they don't actually happen tho) but I guess it's the same kind of behaviour as humans fishing; you catch a fish and when it's too small you rip it off the hook and let it go back in the water.

Also there's talk about the aliens inserting implants, microchips and whatever... We do that to fish also by the way. Maybe we're just a zoo for aliens.

Why is it the abductions are always linked to something evil just because of these painful experiments. Maybe the occupant had a cancer that would kill him and the aliens used their methods to heal him.

Can all UFO's be explained away?

Sure they can. I'll post you THE official view.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b1a21d6507b5.jpg[/atsimg]

The official word on UFOs that are ships must be explained by agents.
There are no ETs only Tesla's use of the ether which is another side of
the coin to be withheld.

However, even when you rule out those possibilities it is still not proof that UFOs are ET in origin. There are numerous other theories that fit the evidence just as well as the ET hypothesis.

There's that word again...."proof".. It's often tossed around without a care in the world, with few realizing just how little "proof" we have of ANYTHING, let alone Aliens.

"evidence" is a much better word. Many of today's most popular THEORIES, such as E=MC squared, etc. are still a "theory" and have "evidence" not "proof". If it had "proof", it'd be Einstein's LAW of Relativity...

What do you define as "proof"? Something authority or peers agree on? Something you've seen yourself? For example, the Earth is round, right? You have the evidence. You can see the curve of the horizon, you've seen what are said to be pics from space. Must be, right? Have you seen it for yourself though, looking out of a spaceship window? No. So, is it "proof" the Earth is round, or do you just make that conclusion based on the "evidence" you've been given? Now, most regard this as "proven" (the Earth being round), but I think it still illustrates the point.

The thing is, you cannot completely rule out an ET answer to such cases, so no, these cases cannot be "explained away"... And why rule it out? Statistically, most scientists feel we are not alone in the Universe. There are older stars than ours, so potentially older civilizations out there. In just about 100 years we've gone from horses to putting a man on the moon... Is it really so far out there to assume that others are capable of visiting us? No, it's perfectly logical they would do so.

As Firemoon suggests, I'm sure due to the ridicule factor a great many people don't submit UFO reports but it's worth pointing out that, even in the various 'government sponsered' UFO investigations, about 20 - 30 percent of incidents could not be explained....and that's not even counting the cases where they've just 'made the explanations up' (link).

"The opposite conclusion could have been drawn from The Condon Report's content, namely, that a phenomenon with such a high ratio of unexplained cases (about 30 percent) should arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue its study."
"From a scientific and engineering standpoint, it is unacceptable to simply ignore substantial numbers of unexplained observations... the only promising approach is a continuing moderate-level effort with emphasis on improved data collection by objective means... involving available remote sensing capabilities and certain software changes."
Ronald D Story - American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics UFO Subcommittee -New York: Doubleday, 1980




"There are unidentified flying objects. That is, there are a hard core of cases - perhaps 20 to 30 percent in different studies - for which there is no explanation... We can only imagine what purpose lies behind the activities of these quiet, harmlessly cruising objects that time and again approach the earth. The most likely explanation, it seems to me, is that they are simply watching what we are up to." (Redbook, vol. 143)
Dr. Margaret Mead, world-renowned Anthropologist.

NICAP list - Project Bluebook 'actual unknowns'

Full List - 1,600 incidents (pdf)

If one wished to get uber-philosophical one could declare all things equally unprovable, and therefore equally probable, eliminating the need for evidence and the possibility of rational discussion.


All things are not, however, equally probable, and the inability to prove a negative is not evidence of a positive.

reply to post by draknoir2


True, but you can't rule it out either, especially when you've ruled out other, more likely explanations. That's the trick. If you can't positively identify what the phenomena is, then all you can do is speculate to see what fits the evidence you do have.....

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by draknoir2

 

True, but you can't rule it out either, especially when you've ruled out other, more likely explanations. That's the trick. If you can't positively identify what the phenomena is, then all you can do is speculate to see what fits the evidence you do have.....

Agreed.

Short response... sorry.

I think the Government / Military love the extra terrestrial explanations for unidentified sightings because they're a convenient way to take our attention away from what they're up to.

As far as hypnotic regression goes as a method of collecting information about an event, I believe it's far too easy for the "doctor" to lead the patient with subtle suggestion. For me this evidence would be as permissable as bringing a note from your mom to your court trial.