U.F.O. poll

[trainedobserver]

"A mysterious object seen in the sky for which, it is claimed, no orthodox scientific explanation can be found." pretty much sums up the notion of seeing something in the sky and not being able to identify it, i.e. an unidentified flying object.

 

[Han]

"often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials."*


I suppose "often supposed" could mean a lot of things.


((source))UFO: definition of UFO in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

 

[stonehart]

"often supposed to be a vehicle carrying extraterrestrials."*


I suppose "often supposed" could mean a lot of things.


((source))UFO: definition of UFO in Oxford dictionary (British & World English)

Basically its 'Supposition': an idea or theory that you believe is true even though you do not have proof

 

[Burnt State]

Randall,
I have to say, you are the only person I have run across who insists that something must be identified before it can be categorized as unidentified. Your stand on this has always perplexed me.

When I first saw the poll results with 22 in favour of being 'unidentified' my first thought was, "Oh sh*t, Randall's going to peeved!"

I think the best we can say is that there appears to be evidence of another unique technology at work in our atmosphere. Its point of origin could be alien, but that's also very uncertain.

Somewhere on a thread once upon a time you posted a disenchanted, bulleted list of possibilities of what they could be, but I can not find that thread anymore. Do you still have that list?

 

[Muadib]

When I first saw the poll results with 22 in favour of being 'unidentified' my first thought was, "Oh sh*t, Randall's going to peeved!"

Lol! That was my first thought when I saw the poll results as well. I chose the first option for many of the same reasons that have already been stated in this thread. I've never agreed with Ufology's take on the word UFO, but to each their own. In my opinion, stating anything beyond the unknown nature of these phenomena is rank speculation at best and extremely prejudicial at worst. That doesn't change the fact that in strict probability terms, I believe the ETH is the most likely of the possible explanations that are typically bandied about in regards to UFO's. Still, I don't think that gives us license to go about pretending like it's already a well established fact that these things are off world technology when we don't have much beyond our own speculation to prove that's the case.

 

[stonehart]

Lol! That was my first thought when I saw the poll results as well. I chose the first option for many of the same reasons that have already been stated in this thread. I've never agreed with Ufology's take on the word UFO, but to each their own. In my opinion, stating anything beyond the unknown nature of these phenomena is rank speculation at best and extremely prejudicial at worst. That doesn't change the fact that in strict probability terms, I believe the ETH is the most likely of the possible explanations that are typically bandied about in regards to UFO's. Still, I don't think that gives us license to go about pretending like it's already a well established fact that these things are off world technology when we don't have much beyond our own speculation to prove that's the case.

Well put.
I also lean to the ETH as a high probability, but in saying that I also agree strongly with Chris when he points out that we need to exhaust all closed system explanations as well.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Well put.
I also lean to the ETH as a high probability, but in saying that I also agree strongly with Chris when he points out that we need to exhaust all closed system explanations as well.

The reason I have a serious problem with the ETH is the fact that it does fit the culturally relevant pattern of transient historic paranormal influence in an exceptionally fit manner.

Still in yet, this does not seem to in any way negate the ETH, as much as it reeks of a singular intelligence, rather than many, that ultimately consists of an informational non-materially bound volition.

So, ultimately, if such an intelligence requires no physicality to transition from one point in our HDST (hyper dimensional space time) to another, a "planet" may not equate to the accurate origin of such a non-human sentient volition.

I could be WAY wrong. I don't have any real certainty whatsoever. I just intuitively have a very hard time with the whole "Disneyland of The Gods" notion from a humanoid encounter stand point. I think there is tremendous value in these reports and cannot thank the diligent efforts of those like Albert S. Rosales enough.

Humanoid Sighting Reports : Lifetime of encounters : A recollection of anomalous events by Albert S. Rosales

IMO, these reports bear out a tremendous value with respect to possible evidence for an alternate perspective of responsible causation.

 

[stonehart]

The reason I have a serious problem with the ETH is the fact that it does fit the culturally relevant pattern of transient historic paranormal influence in an exceptionally fit manner.

Still in yet, this does not seem to in any way negate the ETH, as much as it reeks of a singular intelligence, rather than many, that ultimately consists of an informational non-materially bound volition.

So, ultimately, if such an intelligence requires no physicality to transition from one point in our HDST (hyper dimensional space time) to another, a "planet" may not equate to the accurate origin of such a non-human sentient volition.

I could be WAY wrong. I don't have any real certainty whatsoever. I just intuitively have a very hard time with the whole "Disneyland of The Gods" notion from a humanoid encounter stand point. I think there is tremendous value in these reports and cannot thank the diligent efforts of those like Albert S. Rosales enough.

Humanoid Sighting Reports : Lifetime of encounters : A recollection of anomalous events by Albert S. Rosales

IMO, these reports bear out a tremendous value with respect to possible evidence for an alternate perspective of responsible causation.

True enough that the ETH is problematic and also symptomatic of cultural front loading.
The craft if they are indeed nuts and bolts may not even travel through space to get here at all, they may simple hop from world to world in some other manner ... pure speculation I know but it is no less valid than any other given the limited to non existent knowledge we have.

 

[Wade]

The reason I have a serious problem with the ETH is the fact that it does fit the culturally relevant pattern of transient historic paranormal influence in an exceptionally fit manner.

Still in yet, this does not seem to in any way negate the ETH, as much as it reeks of a singular intelligence, rather than many, that ultimately consists of an informational non-materially bound volition.

So, ultimately, if such an intelligence requires no physicality to transition from one point in our HDST (hyper dimensional space time) to another, a "planet" may not equate to the accurate origin of such a non-human sentient volition.

I could be WAY wrong. I don't have any real certainty whatsoever. I just intuitively have a very hard time with the whole "Disneyland of The Gods" notion from a humanoid encounter stand point. I think there is tremendous value in these reports and cannot thank the diligent efforts of those like Albert S. Rosales enough.

Humanoid Sighting Reports : Lifetime of encounters : A recollection of anomalous events by Albert S. Rosales

IMO, these reports bear out a tremendous value with respect to possible evidence for an alternate perspective of responsible causation.

The reason I have a serious problem with the ETH is the fact that it does fit the culturally relevant pattern of transient historic paranormal influence in an exceptionally fit manner.

Still in yet, this does not seem to in any way negate the ETH, as much as it reeks of a singular intelligence, rather than many, that ultimately consists of an informational non-materially bound volition.

So, ultimately, if such an intelligence requires no physicality to transition from one point in our HDST (hyper dimensional space time) to another, a "planet" may not equate to the accurate origin of such a non-human sentient volition.

I could be WAY wrong. I don't have any real certainty whatsoever. I just intuitively have a very hard time with the whole "Disneyland of The Gods" notion from a humanoid encounter stand point. I think there is tremendous value in these reports and cannot thank the diligent efforts of those like Albert S. Rosales enough.

Humanoid Sighting Reports : Lifetime of encounters : A recollection of anomalous events by Albert S. Rosales

IMO, these reports bear out a tremendous value with respect to possible evidence for an alternate perspective of responsible causation.

albert was on last weeks radio misterioso. the podcast has been put up on the website Albert Rosales: I ♥ Humanoids | Radio Misterioso

 

[Goggs Mackay]

I like Stanton's way of talking about flying saucers. He doesn't necessarily mean disk-shaped craft, many configurations are included, but we know he is talking about manufactured objects that are intelligently controlled and not made by us.

 

[Jeff Davis]

True enough that the ETH is problematic and also symptomatic of cultural front loading.
The craft if they are indeed nuts and bolts may not even travel through space to get here at all, they may simple hop from world to world in some other manner ... pure speculation I know but it is no less valid than any other given the limited to non existent knowledge we have.

Agreed. Completely. This relativity that you refer to is why my root motive in the UFO subculture's collective interest for the last several years has been to forward the notion of consciousness studies that may provide an alternative route to an accurate understanding of this phenomenon. The phenomenon itself, after having remained an illusive image based transient historic current of a familiar modus operandi throughout, gives indication that our historic considerations of as much may point to humankind's expanding awareness of it's barely understood composite physical/informational environment. Such an environment may play host to as many overlapping universal dimensional orientations as there are differing sentient species. We possibly may then gain a much greater and precise understanding that results from a simple vantage point change in terms of our phenomena based investigations. Improved sentient perspective directly relating to this deeply mysterious aspect of our reality, that seems otherwise trapped in phenomenal abject gridlock, might very well reveal itself to us in adjacent scientific studies.

You have really inspired me today stonehart. Thank you.

 

[Jeff Davis]

albert was on last weeks radio misterioso. the podcast has been put up on the website Albert Rosales: I ♥ Humanoids | Radio Misterioso

Oh man , THANK YOU!!

 

[Tyger]

UFO has always meant Unidentified Flying Object. That's what the initials signify to me: an object that is flying and unidentified. In a dictionary that would be definition #1.

Definition #2 would likely be UFO = Alien Spacecraft. Under synonyms for this definition might be 'Flying Saucers'.

EDIT: Sorry, didn't read the thread when I voted and posted my bit. Still holds. I think in these sorts of things the general initial meaning holds before anything supposedly 'rigorous' - especially in a 'field' that is far from 'scientific'.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Wonder if USO were spotted prior to any of these missing folks?
Why have 165 people gone missing from cruise ships in recent years? | Mail Online

 

[trainedobserver]

Question: What is the number of U.F.O. reports that have been confirmed as being reports of "craft" that are non-human or of "alien" origin?

 

[stonehart]

Question: What is the number of U.F.O. reports that have been confirmed as being reports of "craft" that are non-human or of "alien" origin?

hahahaha trick question

 

[manxman]

there can only be 2 acronyms

Unidentified Flying Object

or

Unidentified Ariel Phenomena


cannot be anything else, either it's an object or not, and is either identifiable or not.

always has been and always will be


hth

 

[Jeff Davis]

UFO = Alien Craft. It may or may not be flying. It might be landed, or even on the water or submerged. Submerged UFOs are a subclass of UFO called USOs ( Unidentified Submersible Objects ). I made no selection in the poll due to no compatible choice.

You're amazing bud, don't ever forget that. I have told you before, and I will tell you again now, I don't get your stance on the acronym, but I sure admire you for sticking to your guns, and here's the rub: WTF? I mean you are most likely one of the most prolific, well written, and intelligent posters I have ever encountered. It's like a river, there's just no end in sight. So there "has" to be something there/here. I just don't know what though.

I agree with you that there has been a great deal of misdirection when it comes to UFOs, but this is the "inside", not "out there". The collective here on this forum, and just about anywhere else I have discussed the matter amongst the enthused, readily understand that UFOs imply flying saucers and that those imply aliens within craft. The mind naturally at this point, due in largest part to the same social conditioning (read: Ray Palmer/Hollywood) that I believe honestly served to fill in our perceptual assimilation pool that's required to segue through the temporal cultural relevance blanks when we encounter absolute environmental uncertainty. For all those that would witness such exotic phenomenal aerial events over the course of roughly the last 70 years, this has become very evident. It gave them (UFOs) context in the collective subconscious. Since this time our minds have been deluged with science fiction entertainment that has fed our collective understanding in not what is in any way a factual manner. Remember: The sub conscious mind does not differentiate between truth/lie. It can't. All it can do is draw from an informational pool. It is impressioned continuously with everything we informationally encounter. That which we place a high degree of our cognitive emotionally laced expressive significance upon, are the informational articles more so likely to be drawn in an assimilation effort to fill in those cultural relevance blanks and restore cognitive certainty to our perceptions of reality. This is survival 101 for the conscious mind. It instinctually needs to know what it's being confronted with in an effort to preserve it's footing on the survival platform. As continuously and vigorously as the performance of the sub conscious mind via the continual sponging of as much information as it can ravenously devour. IMO, this is how UFOs attain their temporal fixation within the mind of those observing the areal phenomena. It's a relative transitory thing. What's fascinating to me, is where and what that relevance will show up as, say, 500 years from now. Future studies, a super real science that I believe you know about, may be able to indicate as much if directed in a constructive manner.

 

[Burnt State]

Question: What is the number of U.F.O. reports that have been confirmed as being reports of "craft" that are non-human or of "alien" origin?

This is a kind of paranormal koan that ufologists meditate on deep in the night scrawling through their texts like religious scholars, looking for Talmudic clues to find the code of confirmation.

Personally I give full marks to witnesses like Earley Preston who saw catfish like creatures with humanoid legs stand 5-6 feet tall outside their craft on the highway. The ship behind them covered both sides of the highway. I'm betting that they were not from around these parts, but, of course we don't have confirmation just lots of supposition.

 

[Randall]

Question: What is the number of U.F.O. reports that have been confirmed as being reports of "craft" that are non-human or of "alien" origin?

It seems like we've finally got this cleared up in another thread, but I like you question so I'll answer it anyway. To be clear, from a terminology standpoint the question is asking, how many reports of unidentified objects ( in the literal sense ) have been confirmed as UFOs ( alien craft ), sometimes called "real UFOs" or "flying saucers" ? The answer to this question hinges on what we mean by "confirmed"? If a radar picks up a U.F.O. and an Air Force jet is scrambled to intercept it, and the pilot has a visual confirmation of a craft that appears to be alien, for example, a flying saucer or some other exotic configuration, is that visual confirmation sufficient "confirmation" ? If so, then I can think of at least two cases off the top of my head.

Then what about when a witness sees something they would class as an alien craft, and they call another person's attention to it, and the second person confirms what the first witness saw? Is that sufficient confirmation? If so, there are many more cases. Then what about the lone seemingly honest and reliable witness who observes a UFO and is asked by someone else if they can personally confirm the existence of alien craft? Would that be sufficient confirmation? If so, there are thousands more of them. Among all these types of examples, I submit that at least some of them represent sufficient confirmation to say that it's reasonable to believe alien visitation is a reality.

However, all that being said, so far as the public is aware, there is no verifiable and sufficient scientifically valid material evidence that confirms the existence of UFOs, and I think that ufologists need to be prepared to admit that up-front rather than trying to pretend it doesn't matter or stuff it under the rug. Trying to claim that we have such evidence when in fact we don't only invites allegations of pseudoscience and fraud. That's why I think MUFON's motto, ( The scientific Study of UFOs For The Benefit of Humanity ) is disingenuous. Similarly, ufology is too broad a field to be classed as a science and those who ignore that ( and the lack of scientifically valid evidence ) and advocate the idea that ufology should be considered a science unto itself are misguided. Perhaps someday we'll obtain sufficient information to confirm the reality of UFOs to the most hardened of skeptics and scientists, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that bet. In the meantime, whatever it is that makes it reasonable to believe UFOs are a reality depends at least in part on how one defines "reasonable".