posted on Feb, 10 2014 @ 11:06 PM
I can understand why someone could think something was real based on the eyewitness testimony alone. Once there are so many reports, it becomes more
and more difficult to say that ALL such reports are false. I especially like this train of thought for the sasquatch phenomenon, since many try to
discount witnesses, which becomes harder when more and more people are filing reports.
And sticking with the same example, it is true that out of the thousands of bigfoot repots, there are going to be a certain percentage that are
hoaxes, and a certain percentage that are misidentifications. However, I wouldn't expect this percentage to be all that large. And for the phenomenon
to be false, the total of those two numbers would have to 100%, and I don't find that plausible.
It is possible for a witness to misidentify a known animal, and bear with me as I am getting to the connection to UFO's, but it does occur.
Especially if there are obstructions such as trees between the eyewitness and the subject being viewed. However, there are a large percentage of cases
where the sightitng was in the open, at a relatively close range. This makes misidentification much less likely, especially across a wide number of
reports. This is because the differences in alleged sasquatch and other animals are quite striking, and are not that easy to misconstrue. And I know,
because I saw one once myself.
So let's apply this same type of analysis to the phenomenon of UFO's. We know that Unidentified objects exist, although we cannot say if they are
alien in origin, like you said. But unlike with the bigfoot phenomenon, when an eyewitness is seeing lights in the sky, there are many more potential
objects that could be seen than for a sasquatch. A bear is the only thing that sort of approaches what a bigfoot looks like, but even they don't look
very similar. But with lights in the sky, when that is all that can be seen, which happens in the majority of UFO cases, you have a whole host of
other phenomena that could potentially explain the sighting.
And for that exact reason, a larger percentage of reports must be discounted as misidentifications. I used to watch jets and sometimes prop planes
land on the air force bases I was stationed inside, and I can say that at night a conventional airplane can occasionally appear quite unconventional.
Especially if it is doing specific maneuvers.
Most people are accustomed to looking at things on the ground, and can fairly accurately judge distances and sizes and whatnot. But in the air this is
not true. Most people couldn't tell 500 feet from 2000, or a mile from 10, as they are not accustomed to making such judgements. And our brains, when
looking at lights in the sky, has a tendency to try to make a shape from it. So if a person saw a configuration of lights, they might assume that a
craft had these lights along the various edges or corners of the craft, just as an example. This is highly inaccurate.
I distinctly remember thinking I saw a UFO one night, as I was watching this ball of light in the sky, just sitting there. Then it started getting
bigger as I watched it. I was thinking, this couldn't be a plane, for obvious reasons. Finally I didn't want to sit there anymore, as the light
wasn't doing anything. Sometime later I went back outside and looked in the same area, and what do I see...I see a freaking cargo plane, which looked
kind of like a C-130 to me flying quite low and heading over my head. Sine the plane was coming towards me, and because I could see it from so far
away, it just looked strange. There might have been other factors that made it look strange that I don't even know about, but it turned out that is
And I am probably more used to seeing planes than many other people are, people who have seen strange lights in the sky. And I can still be easily
fooled apparently, so that means many others can too. I've seen jets dropping flares on multiple occasions, and if they are travelling directly away
from you, as an example, the configuration is going to look different than if they are flying perpendicular to the direction you are facing. And even
flares can look strange sometimes, although generally once you've seen what they look like it is pretty easy to spot them.
But one of the trickiest things involving aircraft, especially high flying jets, is the way they can maneuver while flying. They can be at angle to an
observer such that the lights, say on the wings, look to be appearing and disappearing, or rapidly changing positions. Or a light seems to suddenly
change size or color, simply because a new face is presented to the observer.
I am not saying this is an explanation for all cases, but for some. Then there is the fact that we don't even yet understand certain phenomena. Ball
lighting for instance, or the possibility that static electricity in the clouds, or other forces, can produce lights that we don't know about. I have
long believed that seismic activity causes visual aerial phenomena, and I believe that scienists are starting to understand this fact. So even weird
lights in the sky could have a mundane explanation. Aliens need not be the explanation, even if the eyewitness cannot pinpoint exactly what is causing
So my point is that one can easily misidentify lights in the sky, and will do so much more often than they will misidentify something on the ground.
But within the UFO casebook there are other sightings besides lights in the sky. And such reports would be better suited for proving the validity of
aliens in my opinion. So I will agree that there are aerial phenomena that stump people, I cannot say that aliens are the cause of these. And there
are probably other causes that I have failed to even address in this post.
So this type of eyewitness evidence is not concrete, unless the witness actually saw a solid craft, and not just the lights, with their brain filling
in where the craft should be. I am not opposed to the idea of aliens out there in the universe, and am not opposed to the idea of aliens visiting
earth. I think that out of the volumes of eyewitness accounts, at least one of them has to authentic when it discusses having had contact with an
alien ship or alien being. So only a fraction of a percentage of reports need to be accurate for the claim to be true. That is not a tall order.