The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis : Fact and Fallacy

[Creepy Green Light]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. With tens of thousands or more, it would be easy for a few legit ones to slip through the cracks. So unless they've actually all been viewed and analyzed, there's no way to make that claim with any level of certainty.

The mainstream news needs something relatively incontrovertible. Just because they don't have it doesn't mean there aren't legit videos out there someplace. But I totally agree with you on the whole anonymous submission thing. We know the vast majority are fake. The thing we don't know for certain is whether or not they're all fake. I doubt they all are fake. Someplace on an earlier thread I posted a video somebody made of some lights off in the distance, one of which behaved very out of the ordinary. It wasn't spectacular but it seemed legit to me. So I think it does happen.

Now if you want to start moving the goalposts from legit photos or footage to crystal clear HD scientifically obtained and verified images, that's another story. It is claimed that such footage exists. But that's about all we know. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out that it does exist. Perhaps the reason they don't show it to us is because it's so good nobody would believe it and the military doesn't want to give the impression that they've gone over the edge with UFO nonsense because the nation will lose faith in them. On the other hand if people do believe them then they've got a whole other problem. So it's better not to say anything.

I would respectfully have to disagree with your assessment of eye witness evidence. Hoaxes are situations deliberately setup with the express intent of fooling people. We can setup any number of similar experiments to fool machines as well, and visually, human recognition still surpasses all but the most sophisticated machines. Machines also break down, have artifacts, and produce plenty of errors, so it's not like they can be held as objects of perfection, or for that matter even any better than humans except in certain specific ways. In an overall general sense humans are still the most intelligent thing on the planet. When there's a detection of an anomalous object what do we do? We send humans to check it out. Why? Because human confirmation is still the most reliable form of evidence we've got going for us.

So let's forget the idea that humans are such incompetent nincompoops that they haven't got any clue about what they experience. While it's true that error is involved, there is a margin of error in everything. But that doesn't mean everything is so much in error all the time that nobody can say with reasonable certainty that what they experienced was something extraordinary and real, even if they got the exact time or the number of windows on it, or the precise shade of orange, or other minor but inconsequential details not quite right.

Lastly, let's not forget that there are levels of interpretation too. It's not as if everyone buys into every UFO story out there. They don't. But skeptics will leverage examples like yours in a way that suggests anyone who believes in UFOs is a gullible uninformed dimwit ( like most Trump voters ). Wait a minute, Trump did get elected so maybe there's a point there after all ( sorry but I couldn't resist ) .

It's funny, back in 1979 I figured the UFO mystery would be solved "in the next few years". Little did I know that in 2018 we'd basically be where we were in 1979. I think the one good thing that has come of all this is that the frauds have been exposed. And most, quasi intelligent people can discern a model train wheel from Heflin's flying saucer & other similar cases.

Good thing Ted Phillips got the bulk of his trace evidence cases when he did. Seems like those have quit happening altogether now as well as abductions.

 

[Randall]

It's funny, back in 1979 I figured the UFO mystery would be solved "in the next few years". Little did I know that in 2018 we'd basically be where we were in 1979. I think the one good thing that has come of all this is that the frauds have been exposed. And most, quasi intelligent people can discern a model train wheel from Heflin's flying saucer & other similar cases. Good thing Ted Phillips got the bulk of his trace evidence cases when he did. Seems like those have quit happening altogether now as well as abductions.

I guess that all depends on what we mean by "solved". I think Vallée has just added a lot of noise to the field by invoking every myth, legend, and fairy tale possible, then saying the ETH just doesn't fit it all. Of course it doesn't, That's because most of what he's including is just what he says it is, myths, legends, and fairy tails. So there can be no answer that fits it all, and even if there was, logically it couldn't be the right answer. It seems that what most people still equate "solved" with is accepting the objective reality of UFOs ( alien craft ).

A lot of people are already in the believers camp ( yours truly included ). Others still will want proof. But you know what I always say about proof. It's subjective. So in the end the whole issue of what we mean by "solved" is whether or not someone accepts that there's enough evidence to prove UFOs are real ( to them ). After that it gets into origins and motivations for the aliens. If we tack that onto the question, then solving the UFO enigma is as complex as solving the enigma of our own world. We have a pretty good idea how it all came about. But there still isn't 100% agreement, so it will probably never be fully "solved" either.

At some point we as individuals have to make up our own minds about the reality of alien visitation. For me I have no doubts, so that part is "solved" ( for me ). The rest I'm not sure about. Obviously some of it I'm very skeptical about, like Reptilians running world governments. But the basic issue of whether or not UFOs ( alien craft ) have visited our civilization isn't even a question for me anymore. It hasn't been since I was a small child. In the 50 plus years since then I've never been given a good enough reason to dismiss every single report or my own personal experience.

 

[Trajanus]

It's funny, back in 1979 I figured the UFO mystery would be solved "in the next few years". Little did I know that in 2018 we'd basically be where we were in 1979.

Yes in an important sense that's true. As far back as 1971, I was already bothered and a bit turned off by the fact that, fascinating though UFology was, a definitive resolution seemed so elusive. No doubt, IMO, ET wants it that way.

I think the one good thing that has come of all this is that the frauds have been exposed. And most, quasi intelligent people can discern a model train wheel from Heflin's flying saucer & other similar cases.

There have been frauds but again, had Coyne photographed what he saw, on the basis of even a superficial resemblance to any prosaic object, you'd put his case in the same dumpster as others.

Good thing Ted Phillips got the bulk of his trace evidence cases when he did. Seems like those have quit happening altogether now as well as abductions.

Abductions still happen.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

There have been frauds but again, had Coyne photographed what he saw, on the basis of even a superficial resemblance to any prosaic object, you'd put his case in the same dumpster as others.

First of all, you have no idea what I would say or do if it were photographed. And now that you mention it, I'd do the exact opposite of what your prediction is. Why you would assume I'd do that is a headscratcher - but whatever. Most of your "thoughts" are...

 

[Trajanus]

First of all, you have no idea what I would say or do if it were photographed.

Lol...

And now that you mention it, I'd do the exact opposite of what your prediction is.

Yeah right...

Why you would assume I'd do that is a headscratcher

Why I assume it is obvious--experience has shown that you reject any UFO photo bearing even a superficial resemblance to a prosaic object. You are certain the Trent photographs show a truck mirror even though you don't have an exact match. You are certain the Heflin object is a train wheel just because it may look like one. Had Coyne's UFO (if photographed) as much as resembled something prosaic, it's predictable you would've similarly rejected it.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

posting 1,300 messages to a paranormal forum about UFO's isnt just fruitful. Its Awesome...........

Haha =D

Everyone else has replied to the data points posted, not attacked the person posting.

To be fair though - I do get snarky/personal when someone ignores all of my factual/logical arguments and instead implies that my position is somehow akin to religious zealotry just because they can't mount a compelling rebuttal to my points - which I find to be a revolting and despicably dishonest debate tactic, and which has happened way too many times here. When somebody employs phrases like "true believer" instead of making a valid point, I see it as a bitter admission of defeat accompanied by a banal last-ditch attempt at character assassination, which is exactly what it is.

But you make an excellent point: nearly all good internet forums thrive when we earnestly strive to battle in the arena of ideas, and ignore all personal issues including sex/race/nationality/religion/beliefs/etc. Like that old saying goes "great minds talk about ideas, mediocre minds talk about people, and small minds talk about things/possessions."

We had a good run for the first dozen or more pages of this thread, jousting with our best ideas. But somewhere along the line it got derailed and devolved into chaos. That seems to invite personal quarreling/bickering.

I think it's telling that in recent weeks, especially ever since the AATIP story broke and we've seen some powerful interviews with the two fighter pilots who witnessed an anomalous aerial device (AAV) executing dramatic/unearthly maneuvers in the USS Nimitz case, the ETH debate has all but vanished because the anti-ETH camp has grown silent and/or noticeably bitter. Because this new raft of compelling evidence about yet another major radar-visual case, and talk of a materials storage and analysis facility for recovered physical evidence, clearly asserts the ETH as the explanatory victor in this debate.

There are no viable paranormal/psychological/whatever explanations for a solid object that appears on radar, quickly drops from the maximum detection height of over 80,000ft, down to sea level, and then easily outmaneuvers our top aircraft with hairpin accelerations while exhibiting no detectable emissions, and while disabling the on-board weapon's lock systems of the interceptors. This entire class of sighting reports involving solid objects with unearthly performance characteristics is obviously some kind of advanced alien technology that's far beyond the capabilities of any human military inventory. It's an objectively real, scientific phenomenon.

Here's a real, physical, hard object flying way up in the atmosphere during the day and this guy captured it with a camera. Again, because it was real - someone somewhere managed to get it on film.

Look at the size of that guy's telescopic lens - it's a marvel that he can even hold that thing up. And it's just a photo camera, not video. So that demonstrates the point that I've been making - nobody's iPhone has that kind of capability, not even close. Now, if people went around with a 14" telescopic lens and a tripod attached to their iPhones, then we might get some decent footage of these anomalous devices.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Is that anything like using a moniker like Creepy Green Light and posting 1,300 messages to a paranormal forum all about UFOs, UFO videos and UFOlogy? Just wandering, er, wondering. Are your posts, then, any more fruitful?

When I film something that looks as good as Silly Meier's "Beamships" and I bring it to NBC, CNN, FOX and the rest of the stations, they'll interview me and supply my name. But since I don't have any legit photo's or video's to show - I'll just have to stick with CGL, "Lee Ann" - if that's even your name

 

[mike]

Its not her name or photograph. Its been dealt with.

 

[mike]

Look at the size of that guy's telescopic lens - it's a marvel that he can even hold that thing up.

Lol that brings back memory's.
I once described to Police and later in court a paparazzi photographer who was hassling me as having a telephoto lens like a Saturn V rocket.
Very big very white.

 

[mike]

There are no viable paranormal/psychological/whatever explanations for a solid object that appears on radar, quickly drops from the maximum detection height of over 80,000ft, down to sea level, and then easily outmaneuvers our top aircraft with hairpin accelerations while exhibiting no detectable emissions, and while disabling the on-board weapon's lock systems of the interceptors. This entire class of sighting reports involving solid objects with unearthly performance characteristics is obviously some kind of advanced alien technology that's far beyond the capabilities of any human military inventory. It's an objectively real, scientific phenomenon.

Preachin to the choir here mate

But funny stuff aside, i agree its one of the best cases Ive seen in all my years of interest.
There has been some excellent work in trying to deconstruct it, and its stood up thus far in my opinion at least.

 

[marduk]

First of all, you have no idea what I would say or do if it were photographed. And now that you mention it, I'd do the exact opposite of what your prediction is. Why you would assume I'd do that is a headscratcher - but whatever. Most of your "thoughts" are...

OK, what's your perfect scenario with regards to video/photographic evidence?

 

[mike]

OK, what's your perfect scenario with regards to video/photographic evidence?

Excellent question.

 

[Realm]

But funny stuff aside, i agree its one of the best cases Ive seen in all my years of interest.
There has been some excellent work in trying to deconstruct it, and its stood up thus far in my opinion at least.

I second that. I believe I now have quite a good grasp of the available information, including those parts that have some discrepancies, and so far I haven't seen anything worth mentioning that would be detrimental to the credibility of that case. In fact, considering it happened more than a decade ago, the accounts we have can be regarded even surprisingly consistent. And I'm not speaking as someone in the "believers camp" but as someone who still doesn't know what to believe.

As for the conversation about camera capabilities, if we consider that the Nimitz case would be representative of how those objects behave, the behavior seems to be consistent with something that keeps certain safe distance. Fravor described how the object "mirrored" his moves, which sounded like they were circling each other so that the distance stayed about the same. Then when he made the move to get closer, it took off.

I don't think we can read much about that behavior otherwise, something like that (control-wise, performance is a different matter) could be done with some pretty simple AI for example, but if it was something like 46 feet long as Fravor estimated, and kept a distance of at least a few thousand feet, it doesn't sound like a target for which some iPhone would be of much use. And we have all seen what that big and expensive long zoom FLIR system got out of it, which is not much, although I'm still hoping there's a better quality version of it somewhere.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Lol that brings back memory's.
I once described to Police and later in court a paparazzi photographer who was hassling me as having a telephoto lens like a Saturn V rocket.
Very big very white.

Here is one of the aerial camera's I used to use in the Navy. It's an Agiflite. Ours had the 150mm lens and the 350mm lens in the kit.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

OK, what's your perfect scenario with regards to video/photographic evidence?

Perfect? I don't know about that. But I know the Coyne case could have possibly been as close to perfect as you could get provided photo's and/or video was taken with military grade cameras like I had while flying in the Navy (Agiflite 70mm). So now you have a four man helicopter crew with visual contact - contact close enough that one could see detailed structure on the craft and where a green light was projected into the flight station of the helo. It would be pretty hard to argue that the developed film was showing a bird, another helicopter, etc. when the detail is fine & sharp. So the fact that you have two Army officers and two other crewman that had this experience happen to them - and then also had said object take over physical control of their helo - is something extraordinary. Their story is even extraordinary with no photographs. It's not like we have an Ed Walters type of goober in his backyard that is producing ridiculous looking photos. Coyne's case is another one of those "it either happened exactly as described or the entire crew is lying" type of cases.

I'm picturing all the times we were flying and we had another plane come right up to us. I never got tired of seeing that because it is so unusual and not normal. There's no doubt what you are looking at. It'd be the same if you were in a shopping center parking lot (parked) and if someone said - "Hey, do you see that blue thing at your 3 o'clock about 40 feet away?" And you're like "Yeah, that's a pickup truck." There's no confusion in that or doubt. You clearly see what it is and can probably make out the brand/model. Same with another aircraft - there's no getting a device with no wings, no means of propulsion, with a shape like described - getting that confused with another airplane, blimp, helicopter, satellite, etc.

I wish they would have put half the effort that was put into Roswell into the Coyne case. I always hear that there was a family pulled over on the side of the road watching the entire thing unfold. How does anybody know this? If somebody knows that they must know who the family is? It'd be nice to see/hear interviews with those who witnessed it to see how closely it matches with what Coyne saw.

And I know there are other cases where instrumentation of an aircraft was compromised during a UFO encounter - but I think this is the only case on record where a UFO took over complete & total control of a man made aircraft. The other thing that is mind blowing - is the science behind that. Without getting into a technical borefest on the controls that make a helicopter climb, descend, how the pitch of the main rotor blades tilt and work - this would be a good analogy;

It would be amazing enough if a UFO was spotted by a running car - and the UFO made the car engine shut off. But now take it to another level. Say you are driving in a car (in an empty mall parking lot) and the UFO approaches - you turn the wheel as far as you can to make a right turn (and the wheels are turned right) - but your car makes a left turn instead and stays in a left turn until you end up making several 360's turning left - all while your steering wheel and wheels themselves are turned to the right. That's basically what happened with Coyne's helicopter - provided the helicopter gained altitude as he had the controls in a dive.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Granted there are probably a ton of different makes/models onboard military aircraft, but this is what it looks like when a P-3C Orion films another aircraft that is close by with it's FLIR

 

[marduk]

Perfect? I don't know about that. But I know the Coyne case could have possibly been as close to perfect as you could get provided photo's and/or video was taken with military grade cameras like I had while flying in the Navy (Agiflite 70mm). So now you have a four man helicopter crew with visual contact - contact close enough that one could see detailed structure on the craft and where a green light was projected into the flight station of the helo. It would be pretty hard to argue that the developed film was showing a bird, another helicopter, etc. when the detail is fine & sharp. So the fact that you have two Army officers and two other crewman that had this experience happen to them - and then also had said object take over physical control of their helo - is something extraordinary. Their story is even extraordinary with no photographs. It's not like we have an Ed Walters type of goober in his backyard that is producing ridiculous looking photos. Coyne's case is another one of those "it either happened exactly as described or the entire crew is lying" type of cases.

Right.

And even with that evidence, most scientific academia still does think it has been demonstrated that this whole phenomena is even a thing to go look at.

And DeLonge and all that stuff hasn't added to that one bit in terms of actual evidence.

Why?

Because they are still single-metric uncontrolled unrepeatable sets of data. I can see an academic hand-waiving all of this away, or just saying "shit happens."

Seeking "shit happens" kind of data as evidence isn't going to get us anywhere at this point. And all cellphone photos, videos, etc are all just in that "shit happens" bucket. It's akin to the "single event upset" phenomena that happens in computer science: Single event upset - Wikipedia

We need controlled, repeatable, testable, multivariable triangulated data. When something trips that, you might get people to sit up and pay attention.

Then they might get involved, and of course the whole thing would have to happen again on their watch.

Maybe then some attention would be given from the scientific community.

 

[Creepy Green Light]

Right.

And even with that evidence, most scientific academia still does think it has been demonstrated that this whole phenomena is even a thing to go look at.

And DeLonge and all that stuff hasn't added to that one bit in terms of actual evidence.

Why?

Because they are still single-metric uncontrolled unrepeatable sets of data. I can see an academic hand-waiving all of this away, or just saying "shit happens."

Seeking "shit happens" kind of data as evidence isn't going to get us anywhere at this point. And all cellphone photos, videos, etc are all just in that "shit happens" bucket. It's akin to the "single event upset" phenomena that happens in computer science: Single event upset - Wikipedia

We need controlled, repeatable, testable, multivariable triangulated data. When something trips that, you might get people to sit up and pay attention.

Then they might get involved, and of course the whole thing would have to happen again on their watch.

Maybe then some attention would be given from the scientific community.

Agreed. But like I said - at this phase of the game - I'm willing to accept a lot less. Instead of crossing my fingers for the Holy Grail of videos (like an abduction in progress, piece of the spaceship, Billy Meier like sharpness of video's but have it be real, etc.), I would be thrilled with that point of light stopping, making a 180 degree turn or a right angle turn. Just that in and of itself will not provide proof of aliens piloting ships from other planets - but at least in my book, it'll satisfy me to know that these objects exist that can make those kind of movements. Baby steps.

 

[marduk]

Agreed. But like I said - at this phase of the game - I'm willing to accept a lot less. Instead of crossing my fingers for the Holy Grail of videos (like an abduction in progress, piece of the spaceship, Billy Meier like sharpness of video's but have it be real, etc.), I would be thrilled with that point of light stopping, making a 180 degree turn or a right angle turn. Just that in and of itself will not provide proof of aliens piloting ships from other planets - but at least in my book, it'll satisfy me to know that these objects exist that can make those kind of movements. Baby steps.

There's like a billion of those kinds of videos on youtube. So I guess I'm confused by what you're looking for?

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Agreed. But like I said - at this phase of the game - I'm willing to accept a lot less. Instead of crossing my fingers for the Holy Grail of videos (like an abduction in progress, piece of the spaceship, Billy Meier like sharpness of video's but have it be real, etc.), I would be thrilled with that point of light stopping, making a 180 degree turn or a right angle turn. Just that in and of itself will not provide proof of aliens piloting ships from other planets - but at least in my book, it'll satisfy me to know that these objects exist that can make those kind of movements. Baby steps.

I have no idea if this is legit, but it can be illustrative of the problems associated with catching this kind of thing on video (and actually it kinda reminds me of the objects that I saw as a kid):

Note how the natural inclination to zoom in for more detail, completely obliterates the viewer's ability to discern accelerations from camera jiggle and how little you can make out of the shape using a typical video camera (or more likely, a smartphone camera). And also note how easy it would be to fake - this video could easily be faked, because all you can make out is a small blur anyway.

It's pretty amazing how much better our eyes work than a modern smartphone camera - our field of view and ability to focus on a tiny point located even miles away, is pretty amazing. Our sighting of a pair of bright objects zigzagging through the sky in complete defiance of inertia, was only impressive because our field of view kept the objects on the horizon within our peripheral view, as we clearly witnessed the objects move in perfect formation at high speed. So to record that kind of sighting, you'd need to record a huge field of view without the typical handheld camera jiggle (I wonder how many megapixels it would take to replicate human vision - a whole lot more than any consumer technology, that's for sure), plus some kind of AI that could identify the anomalous dot in the sky and keep it in focus.

It's a daunting problem, technologically - we're not even close to that level of video capability yet. But I'm sure we'll get there, eventually - maybe once we have gigapixel cameras with rock solid image stabilization and AI that's smart enough to identify an anomaly of interest and stay focused on it as it moves with seemingly impossible agility through the sky, like the Tic-Tac ufo that Cmdrs. Fravor and Slaight witnessed.