Eyewitness accounts and U.F.O.'s

Originally posted by neoholographic
Ask a lawyer who he would rather have as a witness in a murder case. A drug dealer or a Police Officer? The reason is because we weigh the credibility of the witness.

You could make your point more clearly if at least one of the professions you mentioned had a reputation for integrity. You're 0 for 3 in that example.

Originally posted by greatfriendbadfoe

Originally posted by BlueMule
As an eyewitness and contactee I thank you for making this thread. I've seen more than my fair share and I do get pretty sick of 'skeptic' bull# about it.

edit on 9-4-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

so here's your chance. since the topic is about eye witness reports. Let's hear your account. Please don't take my request lightly. If someone has a true account, then I for one would love to hear about it. The more that people come forward, the more credible the topic will become imo. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are many nutters out there who claim to have been contacted, but eventually society should be able to seperate the wheat from the chaff. so go for it blue, I'm all attention on you

Respectfully,

gfbf

I and my friend were sober when it silently flew low, right over our heads, on a clear night. We watched it unobstructed for several seconds before it abruptly flew straight up and, spiraling, gradually disappeared into the blackness of space.

The End

reply to post by BlueMule


Thanks for your contribution blue. I have never seen anything like that, so imo, you are very fortunate. But I guess it has got you wanting for more. It sure would get my curiosity juices flowing

Originally posted by greatfriendbadfoe
reply to post by BlueMule

 

Thanks for your contribution blue. I have never seen anything like that, so imo, you are very fortunate. But I guess it has got you wanting for more. It sure would get my curiosity juices flowing

Natch. It was burned into my memory forever. I pursued an understanding of it for 20 years.

reply to post by Blue Shift


Again, this shows a lack of understanding of science. A hypothesis doesn't mean there isn't any evidence. To say we're at the same place as 1947 is just silly.

There's 3 main questions that needs to be answered for the ET Hypothesis. All 3 questions have accumulated more evidence over the years,

1. Do Extraterrestrials exist?

There's more and more growing consensus that Extraterrestrials exist. Microbial life in diverse places, building blocks of life found on meteorites, water found on planets outside of earth, exoplanats, billions of planets and stars and scientist like Kaku, Mitchell and Hawking saying they exist. This wasn't the case in 1947.

2. Have Extraterrestrials visited earth?

We have had better photos, video and more eyewitness accounts since 1947. Trace evidence cases that were not present in 1947. Implant cases and abduction cases since 1947. Archeological finds and ancient texts that have been discovered after 1947. Advances in synthetic biology. Have an advanced civilization left a marker in our DNA the same way we would if we were to fill the galaxy with our DNA through synthetic biology.

Here's an article from scientist Paul Davies about looking for sign of Alien Visitation on the moon.

Scientists Suggest Moon Photos May Reveal Extraterrestrial Visitation

Scientists from Arizona State University are proposing that closely examining high resolution photographs of the moon, retrieved by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), may reveal "incontrovertible signatures of non-human technology." They argue that such a project is worthwhile and could be accomplished with a small budget.

ASU's Dr. Paul Davies and undergraduate student, Robert Wagner, submitted their paper, "Searching for alien artifacts on the moon", to Acta Astronautica, the official journal of the International Academy of Astronautics. In the abstract they state that the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) has a low probability of success, and should broaden their search from simply listening for extraterrestrial radio signals. They say, "Alien civilizations may have sent probes to our region of the galaxy."

To hunt for these tell-tale signs of alien visitation, they suggest that a project be set up to carefully scrutinize the high resolution pictures being captured by the LRO. In order to save money, they suggest the job could be outsourced to the general public, similar to the SETI@home and Galaxy Zoo projects. In other words, once the pictures are released to the public, citizens could report anomalies to scientists for examination. According to the Guardian, the LRO has already taken over 340,000 images and is expected to have taken one million by the time it is finished.

Another reason the scientists believe the moon is a good place to look for signs of alien technology is that "the lunar environment could preserve artifacts for millions of years." So if aliens stopped off at the moon and left behind debris or footprints, because of the environment on the moon, the remnants would still be visible even if that visit was hundreds of thousands of years ago.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Here's a list of trace evidence cases including ones that happened after 1947.

www.ufoevidence.org...

Here's an article from Space.com

Now a team of American scientists note that recent astrophysical discoveries suggest that we should find ourselves in the midst of one or more extraterrestrial civilizations. Moreover, they argue it is a mistake to reject all UFO reports since some evidence for the theoretically-predicted extraterrestrial visitors might just be found there. The researchers make their proposal in the January/February 2005 issue of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (JBIS).

"We are in the curious situation today that our best modern physics and astrophysics theories predict that we should be experiencing extraterrestrial visitation, yet any possible evidence of such lurking in the UFO phenomenon is scoffed at within our scientific community," contends astrophysicist Bernard Haisch.

Haisch along with physicists James Deardorff, Bruce Maccabee and Harold Puthoff make their case in the JBIS article: "Inflation-Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation".

The scientists point to two key discoveries made by Australian astronomers and reported last year that there is a "galactic habitable zone" in our Milky Way Galaxy. And more importantly that Earth's own star, the Sun, is relatively young in comparison to the average star in this zone -- by as much as a billion years.

Therefore, the researchers explain in their JBIS article that an average alien civilization would be far more advanced and have long since discovered Earth.

Cont.

reply to post by Blue Shift


Cont.

Additionally, other research work on the supposition underlying the Big Bang -- known as the theory of inflation -- shores up the prospect, they advise, that our world is immersed in a much larger extraterrestrial civilization.

Deardorff, the lead author of the JBIS article, points out in a press statement: "It would take some humility for the scientific community to suspend its judgment and take at least some of the high quality reports seriously enough to investigate...but I hope we can bring ourselves to do that."

According to Haisch, there is a motivation not just for scientific tolerance of the UFO issue, but a strong scientific prediction that there ought to be some genuine ET signature in the data.

Of course this wasn't around in 1947. I can fill up about 100 pages but I will stop here.

3. How can they get here?

For years this question was asked but now work on Warp Drive and other means of space travel is quickly turning this into a silly question.

Here goes a couple of videos about NASA and warp drive that were not around in 1947.



This one is called:

NASA Working On Faster-Than-Light Warp Drive 2013



Again, this wasn't around in 1947.

It's just ignorant and silly to say things in these areas haven't changed since 1947.

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by ZetaRediculian

 

Of course it's the case. Pilots, Police officers and more are in high pressure situations that most people will never experience and if they panic and don't revert to their training people die.

Pressure situations does not equal misidentification. I live in a small town and grew up with a lot of the police officers here. I can tell you they are no better at identifying something unknown than anyone else. They are probably better at pulling someone over for speeding then I am.

Where did I suggest ALL skeptics think the same way? Throughout my posts I have been saying things like most, some and pseudoskeptics. Where did I say ALL SKEPTICS?

in this post. I will point it out when I get to it.

Where did I ever say you don't look at cases individually? Again, if accounts are similar we connect them because this is common sense, reason and logic. This is common sense 101. How do you think they catch serial killers? It's because the crimes have a recognizable pattern.

Where did I say that you said I don't look at cases individually? I think I just asked you a question. Why so defensive? I don't think there is a pattern to UFO cases. They all seem unique in their own way. I think that's one of the problems.

So again, common sense and reason connects the cases. Again, the pseudoskeptic would have us throw reason and logic out of the window and just blindly ignore similarities. That's just silly.

Who is "The Pseudoskeptic"? That's not a generalization? I'm not a bigot, but the typical (insert ethnic group here) is just silly and stupid.

Finally, it's very DISHONEST. This is because these we do these things in all walks of life.

I have to agree. I think this a profound statement. However, all walks of life do do things.

When it comes to a U.F.O. discussion the pseudoskeptic throws out all logic and reason.

Damn the pseudoskeptic. What an idiot.

So we don't weigh the available evidence, we don't take eyewitness accounts seriously, we don't weigh the credibility of the witness and we ignore similarities between different accounts.

No. That's not true. It's just not. You are being dishonest. What evidence? Which eyewitness accounts? What similarities of which cases? Which pseudoskeptic?

WE DO ALL OF THESE THINGS IN THE REAL WORLD BUT IN THE BIZARRO WORLD OF MANY SKEPTICS THESE SIMPLE THINGS DON'T APPLY.

Have you ever actually been to the real world? So your argument is with many skeptics but not with anyone here? By the way "many" IS a generalization.

reply to post by neoholographic

We have had better photos, video and more eyewitness accounts since 1947. Trace evidence cases that were not present in 1947. Implant cases and abduction cases since 1947. Archeological finds and ancient texts that have been discovered after 1947. Advances in synthetic biology. Have an advanced civilization left a marker in our DNA the same way we would if we were to fill the galaxy with our DNA through synthetic biology.

Sorry, I have to disagree with everything you state here.
I have not seen one convincing photo. Obviously you have. Can you share?
I have not seen one convincing video.
Trace evidence of what?
Implant cases? Is there an actual convincing implant case or abduction case?
Archeological finds? Of what?

Just being honest here. You keep repeating this list of unrelated things as if they are facts. So how do you relate an ambiguous photo with someone claiming to have been abducted? One is a photo and has to do with photography. The other is someone's psychological experience. How exactly are they related?

reply to post by neoholographic

We have had better photos, video and more eyewitness accounts since 1947. Trace evidence cases that were not present in 1947. Implant cases and abduction cases since 1947. Archeological finds and ancient texts that have been discovered after 1947. Advances in synthetic biology. Have an advanced civilization left a marker in our DNA the same way we would if we were to fill the galaxy with our DNA through synthetic biology.

Sorry, I have to disagree with everything you state here.
I have not seen one convincing photo. Obviously you have. Can you share?
I have not seen one convincing video.
Trace evidence of what?
Implant cases? Is there an actual convincing implant case or abduction case?
Archeological finds? Of what?

Just being honest here. You keep repeating this list of unrelated things as if they are facts. So how do you relate an ambiguous photo with someone claiming to have been abducted? One is a photo and has to do with photography. The other is someone's psychological experience. How exactly are they related?

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

I don't think there is a pattern to UFO cases. They all seem unique in their own way. I think that's one of the problems.

There's plenty of consistency among a lot of (though not all) UFO reports regarding the appearance and behavior of the reported phenomena. Characteristics such as physical symmetry, metallic or reflective surface, silent flight or hovering, highly angular turns and sudden and/or extreme acceleration have been reported for decades. Particular changes in luminosity have also repeatedly been reported to occur during changes in motion, such as an increase in apparent speed. Pretty interesting stuff if you take the time to look into it without preconceptions.

reply to post by neoholographic


"Eyewitness accounts are very important. Especially when it comes from Pilots, Police Officers, the Military, High Ranking Govt. Officials and more.

The skeptic will have you believe that eyewitness accounts are meaningless and these people become just unreliable idiots when they see U.F.O.'s.

THIS IS JUST PURE NONSENSE!"
yeah i mean when does good natured "here lemme show you some figures, equasions, here iit is" skeptisism become just dissing people. i mean even with the paranormal i like to see things like ghosts, shadow people, and even orbs with my own eyes as opposed with a camera. case in point, i was hanging out with my friends who were into the paranormal, decided to take pictures around the house and bam! green orbs, we go, find references to show what green orbs mean, we try to replicate, the curcumstances, and green orb, same place when they found it was a camera reflection thingy. now with ufos, i have only seen them but could not take pictures, on account of just going down the street to a friends house, bbq on the porch, that type of thing, but i do like to keep notation of it in comparison to the usual aircraft i see at night.

Originally posted by Xenoglossy

Originally posted by MysteriousHusky
You are so right. There is a taboo when it comes to discussing U.F.O.s and related paranormal phenomenon because "science" has become selective in screening what counts as legitimate and illegitimate areas warranting more study.

In a way you are absolutely right. On the other hand: there is no tangible evidence for scientists to work at. How would a physicist investigate UFOs if he doesn't get any artifacts?

The only scientists who could investigate UFOs at this point are sociologists. And the only thing sociologists can do, is to find out what impact all those UFO-stories have on society.

Otherwise: THERE IS NOTHING TO WORK WITH!

edit on 9-4-2013 by Xenoglossy because: (no reason given)

I know the debate has moved on from here but the above highlights a point many seem to get stuck on.

I mean just think about it a bit - that whole scientific process and how it normally works - think about CERN and how it was built to create the "artefacts".

A catch-22 issue exists with UFO's by there very nature, that of identical repeatable observations. The trick is in creating the circumstances for scientific measurement of UFO detection. The tech is there but not the willing.

Originally posted by bigfootgurl

Originally posted by ZetaRediculian

I don't think there is a pattern to UFO cases. They all seem unique in their own way. I think that's one of the problems.

There's plenty of consistency among a lot of (though not all) UFO reports regarding the appearance and behavior of the reported phenomena. Characteristics such as physical symmetry, metallic or reflective surface, silent flight or hovering, highly angular turns and sudden and/or extreme acceleration have been reported for decades. Particular changes in luminosity have also repeatedly been reported to occur during changes in motion, such as an increase in apparent speed. Pretty interesting stuff if you take the time to look into it without preconceptions.

There is just as much if not more inconsistency if you are truly without preconceptions.

Cigar shapes... small luminous orbs... giant saucer... flying building... pulsating light... boomerang shaped... silent... buzzing... triangular... top-shaped... metallic... humanoid... flying trash can... crescent... morphing... jellyfish... rods... vortex... serpent... metallic spheres... slow moving... fast moving... hovering...

I witnessed a UFO of some kind a week ago. I saw it at just after 10:05 PM and was lucky enough to have it fly right through my field of vision before it suddenly vanished. Was it an alien craft, a military jet or a meteor, I don't know. It had two distinct lights, one in front of the other, one slightly larger in front. That would most likely preclude a meteor. And it moved extremely fast, I could say it very conservatively moved at 5 times the speed of a normal jet, but I'd be more comfortable saying it moved 10 to 20 times as fast considering how quickly it moved and how fast it disappeared. So it was faster than a normal jet and slower than a meteor. There were no flashes of light, no streaks, no sound. It at first appeared to be at commercial jet height but as it moved north to south it seemed to be gaining altitude and then just vanished.It was a clear night sky .
I reported my sighting to some websites on UFOs and then after several days of thinking about it, I reported what I saw to my local airport. So I was sure I saw something and thought that if they noticed anything unusual at the time they'd have some verification. They didn't contact me back, yet.
I'd have been more skeptical of seeing a slow moving pattern of lights since they can be faked as being strings of balloons, chinese lanterns, whatever. Speed like that can't be faked.

reply to post by neoholographic


theres one of my sightings in my signature if you wont a read
of what my family and i saw

for the thread anyway

sorrywrong one ill tell you the title of thread

ufo over a55 chester to rhyl on the 28th april
in my old user name philware


link

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is an interesting thread. How do we deal with something that leaves practically no physical evidence , at least so far?

An interesting corollary (ATSers reaching for their dictionary) was the story of the discovery of sprites in the upper atmosphere. There had been reports of sprite sightings for decades by pilots and ground observers but it was only when sprites and related events were observed from the space shuttle and satellites that scientists took notice and proved their existence. Prior to that few would have accepted that people were really seeing what they were seeing. The thing about sprites though is they are fairly easy to detect and one can predict they will occur around thunderstorms.

As for the 'throw it all together grabbag of UFOlogy' you've got multiple issues but mainly it's the problem of stuff throw randomly together that is not related. Any type of unidentified aerial object can be thrown into the pot, it can be unidentified because it is truly an unexplained phenomena like sprites above or it is unknown simply because the observer doesn't know what it is.

The first issue may be to separate out certain types of sightings, and try to deal with them on their own merits, for instance black triangles, or disc shaped craft of 30feet in dimension or so, or large glowing cigar shaped craft. At the moment there seems to be little or no obvious patterns that we could use to be able to predict and detect their presence in a certain time or place.

Okay, so "Eye-witnesses testimony is the lowest form of evidence," and "Seeing is believing."

Humans!

Seeing may be believing, but belief is not proof. The eye and mind are easily fooled and we often see what we think we see... or want to see.

Originally posted by draknoir2
Seeing may be believing, but belief is not proof. The eye and mind are easily fooled and we often see what we think we see... or want to see.

Fooling ourselves with the corner of our eye and a fleeting glance is one thing. Up close and personal for an extended period of time is another.

reply to post by ZetaRediculian


This truly shows the difference between skeptics and pseudoskeptics.

Pseudoskeptics have to act like there's no compelling pictures, videos or eyewitness accounts. With all the accounts that have accumulated over the years, the pseudoskeptic says none is compelling. This is because it's mostly about belief.

So the pseudoskeptic acts like people just wake up one morning and said I think I will believe in extraterrestrials today and that people have no evidence to base the ET Hypothesis on or their acceptance that extraterrestrials exist. This is just intellectually dishonest.

The skeptic will admit that some pictures, videos and eyewitness accounts are compelling and some make them think but it's not enough for them to reach the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist. This is an honest assessment and even though we have reached different conclusions, I respect their point of view. I have seen skeptics on ATS and debated skeptics who say this but there's also the pseudoskeptic who is just about belief. So again, people are reaching the conclusion that extraterrestrials exist out of thin air.

Here's some of the evidence. This is just a tiny portion of the volumes of evidence that has accumulated over the years.

Here's photos from 1870 to 2013. These are just some photos. Are you saying there's not one compelling photo in the bunch? Are you saying not 1 photo fit's any description from an eyewitness account?

www.ufocasebook.com...

Here's videos. Again, not 1 compelling in the bunch? Not 1 that matches any eyewitness accounts?

www.ufocasebook.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.sightingsreport.com...

Again, this is just SOME of the pictures and video yet people who support the ET Hypothesis or accept that extraterrestrials exist are doing so absent any evidence to build a hypothesis and not 1 video, photo or eyewitness account is compelling.

Trace evidence.

Physical trace reports were labeled Close Encounters of the Second Kind (CE-II) by J.Allen Hynek and involve instances where there was a physical interaction between the UFO and its environment. Usually these involve a landing trace, such as depressed grass or soil, but also burned or broken vegetation, residues, and more exotic traces. There are at least somewhere between 3,500 and 5,000 UFO physical trace cases.

Here's some of those cases:

www.ufoevidence.org...

Center for Physical Trace Research

www.angelfire.com...

Here's a sight dedicated to on and off duty police sitings in the UK.

21/12/1901. 0045 hours. Location: Haworth, West Yorkshire. As two uniformed police officers, PS JOHN JOHNSON and PC CLARK were walking along a snow covered beat in Haworth when suddenly a green light illuminated the surrounding area. The officers looked up to the sky to see a luminous UFO shaped like a cigar pointed at both ends. The object emitted occasional flashes and sparks. They watched the object for 15 minutes as it slowly and silently moved across the night sky before disappearing into the distance. PS JOHNSON stated that the object was seen at an altitude of 100-150 feet before gradually gaining height. Two members of the public reported seeing similar objects in Keighley and Shipley respectively. UFO CLASSIFICATION – CE1 (CLOSE ENCOUNTER 1ST KIND). On duty sighting. 2 Officers. Source – Mr Midgley via Keighley News 02/12/94.

2115 Hours. Location - Leek, Staffordshire. A police officer on plain clothes observations and two passing civilians saw a UFO literally above their heads at the recreation ground, Burton Street, Leek, Staffordshire. The object was seen for approx 2-3 minutes at an alt of 500 feet. They described it as orange in colour prior to the object changing shape from sphere to cigar by which time it was blue. Eventually the object accelerated away at a fantastic speed in a northerly direction. Throughout duration of the sighting the UFO made no noise whatsoever. It was a clear cold night, no wind and the stars were visible. The sighting was reported by the officer but he was told by his Superintendent to ‘keep his mouth shut’. The sighting was released to the press.
UFO CLASSIFICATION – CE1 (CLOSE ENCOUNTER 1ST KIND).
On Duty sighting. 1 Officer. Source: Irene Bott archive.

cont